It came to pass that a group existed who called themselves fishermen, and lo, there were many fish in the waters all around them. In fact the whole area was surrounded with by streams and lakes filled with fish that were hungry

Week after week and month after month these who called themselves fisherman met in meetings and discussed about their ‘call’ to fish, the abundance of fish and how they may go about fishing. Year after year they carefully defined what fishing means, defended fishing as an occupation and declared that fishing should always be the mission-vision statement and primary task of fisherman.

Continually they searched for new and better methods of fishing and for innovative definition for fishing. Further they said “The fishing industry exists for fishing as fire exists for burning”. They loved slogans such as
“Every fisherman is a fisher” and “A fisherman’s outpost for every fisherman’s club”. Hey sponsored special meetings called fisherman’s campaigns” and “the month for fisherman to fish”. They subsidized global congresses where there were key note addresses on the rationale and best practices in fishing. They promoted new fishing equipment and called for papers to be presented innovation and new baits discovered for fishing.

These fishermen built large, beautiful buildings called “fisherman’s headquarters”. The plea was that everyone should be a fisherman an every fisherman should fish. One thing they didn’t do however, they didn’t fish!

In addition to meeting regularly they formed a board to organize and send out fisherman to other places also where they were many fish. All the fisherman agreed that what was really needed was a supportive board that would challenge fisherman to be faithful. The board was formed of those who with great courage and motivation could do vision-casting for fishing. They spoke of the need to fish in faraway streams and lakes where many fish of different colors lived. Furthermore the board hired staff and appointed committee and sub-committees to defend fishing and look into current trends and issues in fishing, but the staff and committee member did not fish.

Large elaborate and expensive training centers were built who origin and primary purpose was to teach fishermen how to fish. However, over the years specialized courses were offered on the existential needs and intricate nature of fish, the psychological reactions of fish, where to find fish and how to approach and feed fish. Those who taught had PhDs (doctorates) in fishology and became professors and heads of the fishology in universities. But the teachers did not fish; they only taught fishing. Year after year after tedious training, many were graduated and given fishing licenses. They were sent to do full time fishing, some to distant and exotic waters that were filled with fishes.

Some spent much time, money and travel to do research on the history of fishing and see the far away places where the founding fathers did great fishing in centuries past. They lauded the faithful fishermen of by gone years who handed down the idea of fishing.

Further, the fisherman established large printing houses to publish fishing guides. Presses were kept busy day and night to produce material solely devoted to fishing methods, equipment and programs to arrange and to encourage meetings to talk about fishing. A speaker’s bureau was also provided to schedule special speakers on the subject of fishing.

Many who felt the call be fisherman responded. They were commissioned and sent to fish. But like the fisherman back home they engaged in all kinds of other occupations. They build power plants to pump water for fish and tractor to plow new waterways. Hey made all kinds of equipment to travel here and there to look at fish hatcheries. Some also said that they wanted to be a part of a fishing party, but their felt called to furnish fishing equipment. Others felt their job was to relate to the fish in a good way so that the fish would know the difference between good and bad fishermen. Still others felt that letting the fish know that they were nice land-loving neighbors and how loving and kind they were was enough.

After one stirring meeting on “The Necessity of Fishing”, one young fellow left the meeting and went fishing. The next day he reported that he had caught two outstanding fish. He was immediately honored for his excellent catch and scheduled to visit all the big meetings possible to tell how he did it. So he quit his fishing in order to have time to tell about the experience to the other fisherman. He was also placed on the Fisherman’s General Board of Directors as a person having considerable practical experience.
 
Now it is true that the fisherman sacrificed and put up with all kinds of difficulties. Some lived near the water and bore the smell of dead fish everyday. They received the ridicule of some who made fun of their fisherman’s club and the fact that they claimed to be fisherman and yet never fished. They wondered about those who felt it was of little use to attend the weekly meetings to talk about fishing. After all, were they not following the master who said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”?

Imagine how hurt some were when one day one person suggested that those who don’t catch fish were really not fishermen, no matter how much they claimed to be. Yet it did sound correct. Is a person a fisherman if year after year he never catches a fish? Is one following if he is not fishing?

A version of this story credited to J. Drescher, Pulpit Digest, July-Aug, 1978    

My two favorite parts:

1.  The concisely expressed 4 historical facts that need explanation (19:15-19:45 minutes), see 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.  [an old Christian formula dating within 5 years of Jesus' death  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8477 ] 

Secondly, the probability of the resurrection argument (42:00-47:00 minutes)

Daniel Wallace- Dallas Theological Seminary

Even if there are discrepancies/inconsistencies among the 4 gospels, they are in the secondary details.

Watch William Lane Craig articulate the historical core, 4 historical facts. (starting 1:13)

The recent viral youtube video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” has sparked much discussion.

I am glad this video went viral. I am a big fan of it. I think it was extremely well done in most every aspect. I appreciate the creative energy, talent, and time that went into producing it. Therefore, this increases my saddness to see so much misunderstanding surrounding the video. Due to misunderstanding, I fear items worthy of all of our consideration and reflection are missed while Christians argue about the proper use of the term religion. The purpose of this post is to state how (I think) the poet is intending the word “religion” to be understood in his message. My aim is to bring clarity to the way in which the author/poet uses the word “religion,” so that the focus can properly be put back on the heart of the matter.

We should define the poet’s use of the word “religion” in the context the poet himself provides. We must define words as how the author/poet intends to mean them. If we do not do this important interpretative step, misunderstanding ensues. Therefore we must be aware of the specific technical way in which an author uses and means a word. This is an important foundation for how language/meaning/communication works.

If some dislike or are uncomfortable in moving away from the listed dictionary definition of religion or how it has been used throughout church history, that is a different discussion altogether. I am not here to debate the legitimate semantic range of a word. I won’t debate it, because if I did, then, I too, would be missing the larger point of the video. I am here to simply shed light on how he is using the word “religion” in this piece of poetry.

Tentative definition of religion used in this video (as defined by me, and hopefully faithfully close to the intention of the poet)
Religion: A term that has evolved in contemporary evangelicalism to speak against a misunderstanding of biblical Christianity. It is used by some today in a broad sense as a grab bag term (junk drawer idea) to encompass all negative things wrongfully associated (i.e. legalism, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, works based salvation, etc) with Jesus and the Christian message both now and throughout centuries past.

IF PRIORITYJESUS IS HELPFUL PLEASE TELL OTHERS
PLEASE COMMENT
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE