A brief summary of a section of today's sermon.
Anti-spiritual formation rhetoric is alive and kicking again among some Adventists. Which is crazy given the fact that "spiritual formation" is synonymous with character development something very prominent in the writings of Ellen White.
We form ourselves spiritually by our habits. One of the most positive habits we can embrace is meditation. Of course, meditation can also be one of the most negative habits as well depending on the focus of our meditation.
Listening to others speak is a form of meditation. Listening to Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk on the left and right fuels our anger, frustration, suspicion and discontent. In other words listening to Rush is a choice to expose ourselves to spiritual erosion at best. Rush is toxic. So don't listen. In the words of Psalm One, "Don't sit in the seat of mockers."
Rather meditate on God's law--i.e. God's beautiful words, the totality of divine revelation. This will form your soul in a positive way. It will lead to a sweeter, richer life and witness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I enjoy listening to RUSH for info of current events. I find him informative and intelligent. The problem would be the nasty ones like Maher, and the clowns like Colbert & Stewert as well as obnoxious people like Olberman.
But then why would someone, who identifies hiself as a pastor of the SDA Church-be posting about worldly politics while identifying himself as such?
Shouldn't he be trying to reach the world for God? What if a non-SDA stumbled across this-who happens to enjoy RUSH's program-and assumed all SDA's must be flaming leftists? They may turn off listening in the future to anything the Church has to say..
Just for the record-in case anyone stumbles across this site-you do NOT have to be a democrat or obama supporter to be in the SDA Church.(And yes-thats what you meant becasue you singled out RUSH on purpose and did not single out by name anyone from the left).
DC, first, your point would be much more credible if you posted your full name.
Second, I singled out Rush because he is the most famous. And he is someone I have heard myself. After I wrote my original post friends told me about a left-leaning TV commentator, they thought might be appropriately named as the "left's" equivalent of Rush, but I have not heard her myself. I have heard a radio personality on the left who mirrors Rush(that is, copies Rush's scornful attitude and style). I listened to him a couple of times on Sunday afternoons on the local public radio station. I refused to listen after that because he violated the same principles I hear Rush violating. He was sarcastic, obsessed with extreme examples of social and governmental dysfunction, disrespectful of all who disagreed with him. He offered no encouragement for generosity, respect for opponents, love for enemies, the pursuit of holiness, self-control and healthy practices. Instead he fueled outrage, anger, disgust. And the targets of all this negativity were not false principles, evil practices, self-centeredness, but all Republicans and centrist Democrats. Unfortunately I don't recall his name because I only listened a couple of times.
I stand by what I said, to spend much time listening to such mockers--whether they are on the right or on the left--is spirituality deleterious.
And yes, you are right, a person does not have to be a Democrat or a supporter of President Obama to be an Adventist. The majority of White American Adventists are Republican or Libertarian in orientation.
One more point: You seem to imply that criticizing Rush and other talk radio hosts of the right and the left is equivalent to endorsing the Democratic Party or President Obama. Perhaps I misunderstand your point. But if that is what you meant, it is simply false. Criticism of a person's behavior does not imply endorsement of everything that person is against.
First, what does posting ones full name online have to do with credibility? That is, with all due respect, a silly thing to say. On the internet, for privacy reasons, this is what I CHOOSE to go by. One has to be careful how much they reveal online these days.
Second, you singled out RUSH because of your leftist politics-which is fine...but you clearly dodged the point made about identifying yourself as a so-called Adventist pastor while spouting out political views which could offend people of a different persuasion. We are warned by Mrs. white about that in the Testimonies
about turning off people with politics who may never listen to an Adventist again if they are offended.
In a free society, and a planet where GOD gave us free will, you are entitled to your political views, even if offensive (as I find yours to be based on your falty view of RUSH). But would it not be better to vent your political opinons somewhere that you don't need to identify your affiliation with the Church so as not to turn off those who disagree with you?
Which is more important, your political world view of getting digs in at RUSH, or presenting the Gospel as a minister?
John, Thank you for the boldness to approach an issue that is increasingly taking over my church. And by "my church" I mean my denomination...the one I have given my heart and soul to.
A quick aside--I too was confused initially by your use of Rush until I realized the brilliance of contrasting the difference between actively engaging (mentally) with fear, anger, hatred, etc stirred up by magnetic personalities with sitting in God's presence.
Ever since that famous Wilson speech where he condemned Spiritual Formation without reason, context or description, I've seen a great divide in our church beginning to form.
Wish I had more time to go into this, but thanks for the blog.
Post a Comment