The Assembling of the Church (via Mowser)

Friday, July 25, 2008

But I have perfect attendance

Just over a year ago, I wrote a post called "But I have perfect attendance". It remains one of my favorite posts, and it demonstrates why I am planning to write my PhD dissertation on the topic of the purpose of the church meeting.

I believe there are many people who feel that they are worshiping God because they are attending a church meeting ("worship service"), they are singing songs, they are giving money, and they are listening to a sermon. I believe these activities can be beneficial, but the activities themselves have a purpose behind them. Do we know why we do these things? In many cases, from talking to people and reading books, I would say, "No, for the most part, we don't know why we do these things."

Anyway, here is my post called "But I have perfect attendance".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've read several blog posts lately that have stated that believers are commanded to assemble with one another. Usually, these posts reference Hebrews 10:25 as proof that Scripture commands believers to assemble with one another:

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)

I've discussed this passage in detail previously (see the post "Not forsaking, but encouraging..."); however, I thought it would be beneficial to look into this again. Specifically, what are believers required to do according to this verse?

The command in this passage (actually, an imperatival use of the subjunctive) is "let us consider". The purpose of "considering one another" is to stir up love and good works. Thus, the author of Hebrews expects believers who have the freedom to enter the presence of God (Heb 10:19) and who have Jesus as their high priest (Heb 10:21) to demonstrate that by thinking of ways to exhort others toward love and good works in their lives. This is the command, not "assembling".

So, what part does "assembling" play in this passage. It plays a secondary role. The author of Hebrews recognizes that we cannot exhort one another towards love and good works if we never meet with one another. Similarly, we cannot stir up one another towards love and good works if we do not encourage one another. The two participles ("not forsaking" and "encouraging") play an important, but secondary, role in the requirement of considering one another in order to provoke love and good works in each other's lives.

So what? We're still supposed to assemble together, right? Yes, in fact, according to Scripture, believers will want to meet together with other believers. Assembling together is not required in Scripture, but it is expected. However, attendance alone does not meet any scriptural requirements. It is possible to meet together with other believers and never fulfill the purpose of thinking about how to spur one another on towards love and good works, and then exhorting them towards that goal. A "perfect attendance" award means nothing to a believer.

If we meet together in a way that precludes us from encouraging one another toward love and good works, then we are not meeting in a way that Scripture prescribes or describes. Similarly, if we require attendance, but do not allow believers opportunities to exhort one another toward maturity, then we are not helping people to follow the teachings of Scripture.

Instead of someone saying, "I don't think I've seen you around here in the last few weeks", what if they said, "I noticed that you haven't encouraged anyone around here in the last few weeks".

Yes, I know. It is much easier to count noses. It makes us feel better to have a "full house". But, attendance means nothing if people are not exhorting one another toward maturity in Christ.

Yes, I know. In our mega-gatherings we cannot possibly know whether or not people are encouraging or being encouraged. But, is the answer to the situation to change the scriptural responsibilities of believers?

Yes, I know. Some will suggest that we have "small groups" in order to encourage one another. The only problem with this answer is that Scripture only gives one reason for believers to gather together, whether there are a large number of people or a small number of people: edification.

So let's continue meeting together - whether in large or small scheduled weekly meetings or in large or small spontaneous meetings. But, let's come together for the right reason: not to count noses and record attendance, but to consider one another in order to stir up one another towards love and good works.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Some observations about structure

Here are some thoughts about structure:

Healthy organisms have structure. Unhealthy organisms have structure. Dead organisms have structure. Things that are not organisms at all have structure. Structure is not a sign of life. Structure can aid organisms. Structure can hinder organisms. Structure can kill organisms. The type of structure can be an important issue. When an organism is living, the structure adapts to the needs of the organism. When an organism dies, the structure remains fixed. Structure is not the most important thing. Structure can be a very important thing.

While the above observations do not only apply to the church, I think they do apply to the church.

Learning from the Joker

Last weekend, I went to see Dark Knight with my son, Jeremy, and some friends. (There are no spoilers in this blog post.) I enjoyed the movie. Believe it or not, I enjoyed the character of the Joker most of all.

I realize that this has been said before, but I believe the Joker in Dark Knight is one of the best representations of a "satanic" character ever portrayed in the movies. First, the Joker enjoys evil for the sake of evil. Death, violence, and chaos are his reward - he does not desire anything more. However, beyond this, the Joker lives to corrupt others. He desires to do evil and to entice others to do evil. He lives to corrupt.

And... I learned from watching the Joker in Dark Knight. What's even more interesting is that I did not primary learn about Satan or evil from watching the Joker. Instead, I saw the exact opposite of how followers of Jesus Christ are supposed to live.

Those of us who follow Jesus Christ should love and desire good - not just anything called "good", but the good that only comes from God. We desire to see life and healing and reconciliation and hope and promise.

Beyond seeing God's good in our own lives, we also desire to see others impacted by God. We desire to see the un-corruption of people and society. We love to see people reconciled to God, relationships mended, and families strengthened. In fact, the more our hearts are turned toward God, the more our actions and motives are turned away from ourselves and toward the benefit of other people.

Unfortunately, this is not the way we always live. You see, watching the Joker also taught me something about the corruption in my own heart. There are times when I turn my heart away from God and others and toward myself. During those times, I can demonstrate as much evil and animosity towards people as I saw in the Joker. I thank God that someone greater than Batman exists to cleanse my wayward heart and point me back to God and others.

When you look at your life, and your influence on the lives of other people, what do you see? Are you impacting people for your own gains and for evil? Or are you impacting people for God and for their own benefit?

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

This seems like a good test to me

Bob at "the planter" has come up with what I think is a good test in his post called "BETTER YET! Let's prove it."

Better yet, let's put this to the test.

Is your Church controlling you when it comes to the ministries you can create or serve in? Will they allow you to serve where the Holy Spirit is leading you to serve.

Can you decide what ministries your church is involved in?
Would your church leadership bless you to take 20+ quality leaders and start a new disciple-making church?

Better yet - Let's prove it.

Tell your pastor that God's Holy Spirit is leading you to leave the church to start a Disciple-making Church and tell him that 20-30 "very important" (name them) leaders are joining with you. Then ask Him if you have His blessing. Try to keep a straight face here. (Mike and John) You should try this. You are both ornery enough to pull this off.

If your pastor will bless you and release you & the people to do this you are in a God honoring -God releasing ministry. If your pastor does not give you his blessing than you are in a system of control. Jesus and His plan to reach the world is one of releasing to walk in Holy Spirit obedience.

God owns the people -the Church does not. The problem is that most churches do not know this.

I don't know who "Mike and John" are, but I can tell you that I would be very excited if someone who was part of our church would try this. Of course, I would be very disappointed to find out it was "just a test".

What about you? What about your pastor?

Wait for one another

To me, one of the most interesting passages of Scripture is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. In that passage, Paul deals with issues surrounding the "Lord's Supper" at Corinth. In fact, the problems are so great that Paul says that the believers are coming together for the worse, not for the better.

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home- so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34 ESV)

Most of the time, when people teach from this passage, they grab the verses out of the middle which deal with Jesus' words during his last supper with his disciples. Usually, the teachers will also talk about "examining himself" and also the possibility of becoming sick or dying because of improper eating and drinking. Thus, we are encouraged to search our hearts for sin and to ensure that we have asked God for forgiveness before we partake of the Lord's Supper.

That would be a nice and tidy sermon if it wasn't for the surrounding context. You see, Paul was not writing to the Corinthians because of personal, spiritual sin issues. He was writing to them because of corporate, social sin issues.

There are a few items in particular that we should notice. First, the Corinthians were eating and drinking. Paul does not attempt to correct their meal activities. However, Paul tells them that the act of eating and drinking does not constitute the "Lord's Supper". The believers in Corinth were not partaking of the Lord's Supper because of their attitudes toward one another. They could eat bread and drink wine all they wanted, but it would not be the Lord's Supper as long as they were not relating properly to their brothers and sisters - even those who could not afford to provide their own food.

(This is somewhat off the subject, but I believe that Christians today should consider this passage very carefully. Even if we are participating in certain activities - singing, reading Scripture, praying, baptizing, taking the Lord's Supper, etc. - our activities in and of themselves does not indicate that we are obeying God and meeting together in the way that he wants us to meet.)

For Paul, the bread and the cup represented the new covenant in Christ - a covenant that included all of the believers in Corinth. As fellow partakers in the new covenant, the believers in Corinth should relate to one another differently - not in the social, cultural, political, racial, ethnic, and class structures of their day - but as equal fellow citizens of the kingdom of God. This new covenant relationship affects every part of a believer's life - including, but not limited to, eating and drinking. Because of this new covenant relationship, the people no longer simply looked out for themselves and their own interest, they cared for one another, even to the point of sharing their food with those who did not have food.

Paul's call for examination and judgment in this context deals primarily with our relationships with other believers - not simply our own personal sin struggles - which we all have. But, if our sin is manifesting itself in our relationships with other believers, then we need to take steps to reconcile those relationships. And, as fellow family members, we need to "judge" others in a way that helps them reconcile broken relationships as well.

When we come together as new covenant family members - under what James calls the royal law - we will love one another. And, that love will demonstrate itself in the way that we act toward one another. Specifically, we will "wait" for one another. "Wait" in 1 Cor 11:34 is not simply biding our time, but a sense of expectation. We will look forward to our time eating together, recognizing that God is working through our relationships to mature us in Christ.

We can eat a piece of bread and drink from a cup all we want. But, if our eating and drinking is not tied to a new covenant relationship with other brothers and sisters in Christ, then we are not eating the Lord's Supper. If our thoughts are not on our family - how to help each other mature in Christ and in our relationships with one another - then we are not partaking of the Lord's Supper. If our meditation on God does not lead us toward caring for our brothers and sisters in Christ, then we are not taking the Lord's Supper. If we are sitting with a group of people that we don't know - that we don't care about - that we don't want to spend more time with - then we are not eating the Lord's Supper.

Jesus invites us to gather around his table with his family, and he serves us a common loaf and a common cup. He does not serve us alone. If we attempt to dine alone - even in a crowd - then we can be certain that the host of our dinner is not Jesus Christ.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Gigachurch?

Have you seen this article yet - "What makes a gigachurch go?" (HT: Bill) I'd like to comment on a couple of excerpts from this article.

At Eagle Brook, the drill is plan, plan, plan, then rehearse, rehearse, rehearse -- with the ultimate goal of making it all look spontaneous.

If you have to plan and rehearse to make something "look spontaneous", then it is not spontaneous. Why not just let things be spontaneous?

"We do all this so we can get out of the way and let people focus on connecting with God," Anderson said.

If the people in the article actually got "out of the way", then everything would fall apart. By the way, this group may be taking it to the extreme, but this is the result of a desire for "excellence" in the church meeting.

What would happen if we actually got "out of the way" and were "spontaneous"?

Is God red, blue, or purple?

This post is part of a monthly synchroblog. The topic for this month's synchroblog is "The Politics of God".

Is God red, blue, or purple? Is he a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or a Constitutionalist? Is God for big government or small government? More spending or less spending? More social programs or less social programs? Big military or small military? Federal control or states rights? Conservative, liberal, or moderate?

These terms seem strange and somehow out of place when used to describe God. Why? Because God is none of these things. These terms are used to describe human efforts to govern themselves, and assigning them to God immediately begins to recreate a god in our own image.

I grew up in the deep south of the United States where most people voted Democrat in local and state elections and Republican in the national elections. Why? Four main reasons: carpet baggers, abortion, military, and taxes - not necessarily in that order. Abortion was the only issue that could be considered a moral issue, and I'm not sure how people would have voted if "pro-choice" had been pushed by the "pro-tax" party. In other words, I think that "fiscal" concerns would have easily outweighed "moral" concerns.

What does this have to do with God? What does politics in general have to do with God? Besides throwing around God's name to garner a few votes, is God's agenda even considered among the various political agendas? (Can you tell that I'm cynical? Yes, I know that there are good, honest, authentic Christians in politics - at least, I've been told they are there.)

From what I've seen, when Christians get involved in politics, they rarely do so in a Christ-like manner. Oh, they may pick a few moral issues on which to base their campaign, but the methods, techniques, and goals of their campaigns are rarely different from nonChristians politicians. The problem, of course, is that Jesus did not call his followers into politics. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that being a politician is mutually exclusive with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Instead, I'm saying that a follower of Jesus Christ recognizes that human politics will not solve the world's problems.

God's politics works differently than human politics. God reveals needs and opportunities to his people. God gives his people the means to meet those needs. God gives them his Spirit to empower them and lead them as they meet those needs. Then, God expects his people to obediently follow where the Spirit leads - in meeting the needs of the people around them - as God as revealed those needs.

God's politics works if our government is conservative or liberal, democratic or totalitarian, pro-Christianity or against Christianity. God doesn't change the land through protests, but through a demonstration of his love. God doesn't change people through voting, but through the service of his people. God doesn't honor patriotism, but obedience.

Is God red, blue, or purple? That's the wrong question. The correct question is this: Are God's people demonstrating God's love by serving others in obedience to the work of God's Spirit in their lives. That's the kind of "political agenda" that I can support 100%!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a list of other bloggers who are tackling this month's synchroblog topic of "The Politics of God". Enjoy as you read!

Phil Wyman rants about The Talking Points of Presumption
Lainie Petersen considers Questioning the Citizen Diety
Jonathan Brink enters The Political Fray
Adam Gonnerman explains The Living Christ's Present Reign
Sonja Andrews Won't Get Fooled Again
Mike Bursell at Mike's Musings
Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
Steve Hayes on God's Politics
Matthew Stone at Matt Stone Journeys in Between
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
KW Leslie tells us about God's Politics
Julie Clawson at One Hand Clapping
Dan Stone at The Tense Before
Alan Knox asks Is God Red, Blue, or Purple?
Beth Patterson writes about Learners inheriting the earth: the politics of God
Erin Word discusses Hanging Chad Theology

Monday, July 21, 2008

My sister spoke during the church meeting

Each Sunday, for our church meeting, someone is scheduled to teach from a certain passage of Scripture. Last Sunday was no exception, as I taught from Matthew 8:1-17. After the scheduled teaching, we encourage others to teach from what they had studied during the week, or to share what God has been doing in their lives. Why? Because we want to give all present the opportunity to build up one another toward maturity in Christ as a way of glorifying God.

Last Sunday, after I taught, my sister in Christ spoke during the church meeting. She had made comments before, but I think this is the first time she has spoken in this manner. She told us about her neighbor. She has been building a relationship with this neighbor. She told us that she is concerned because her neighbor is not a follower of Jesus.

My sister has been demonstrating the life changing message of the Good News of Jesus Christ to her neighbor, both in word and in deed. She said that she is concerned about her neighbor because we never know when the end will come, and her neighbor doesn't know Christ.

This sister in Christ challenged us with her testimony of evangelism and care for someone who is not a believer. This sister encouraged us with her request for prayer for her neighbor, trusting God to transform her neighbor and to reconcile her to himself.

My sister in Christ - the one who spoke in the church meeting Sunday morning - the one who is so concerned about her neighbor - the one who wanted to share this with us in order to build us up toward maturity in Christ - the one who asked for prayer that God would save her neighbor - my sister in Christ is ten years old.

Some would say she's not qualified or trained enough to speak during the meeting of the church. I thank God that we gave her the opportunity to speak, and that He chose to teach us so much through her obedience.

Beyond Charity - Our Gospel

As I mentioned in my posts called "Beyond Charity - Introduction" and "Beyond Charity - Our Vision", I'm reading John Perkins' book Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development. Part Two of the book is called "Our Gospel", and it is divided into eight chapters: "The Living Gospel", "The Burden of Proof", "Filling the Leadership Vacuum", "Evangelism", "Wholesome Care", "Providing Services", "Economic Development", and "Pursuing Justice". I cannot discuss all of these chapters, so I'm going to focus on Chapter 4 (The Living Gospel), then hit some of the high points in the remaining chapters which flow from Perkins' understanding of the gospel.

Chapter 4 - The Living Gospel - is probably my favorite chapter in Perkins' book. The gospel, as Perkins describes it, is not a gospel of mental ascent, nor is it a gospel of works. The gospel flows from God's love and transforms us into agents of God's love.

As I understood more of God's love for me, and the extremity of the sacrifice he made for me, I began to be transformed, little by little. I was overpowered by God's love that morning, and I wanted to share it with those whom I was coming in contact with. As as the love of God worked in my life, it was changing me so that God could use my life to demonstrate his love for others - and he is still at work in me today... So God calls us to be transformed by his love in order to make us instruments of his love to the whole world.

If you miss this very important point when reading this book, you may think that Perkins is pushing a "social gospel" without a spiritual foundation. Perkins' gospel is social, but it begins with the spiritual - the love of God that transforms individuals. When God transforms a person - that is, God CHANGES a person - that person begins to demonstrate their new character - a character that starts with love.

Social action is not a means to earn salvation, nor is it a means to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. Instead, social action is the (super)natural outcropping of a life that has been transformed by God's love. Just has James could not imagine a life of faith without works - that faith is dead, James says - Perkins cannot imagine a gospel that does not result in active care and concern for other people - demonstrated in social action.

It seems that for Perkins there are two motivations for social action: 1) a desire to see others reconciled to God, and 2) a desire to demonstrate the love of God. Therefore, social action is valid and necessary even toward those who reject the gospel. God's love is unconditional; Jesus even loved the rich, young ruler who turned away from him. In the same manner, our active love for others should not stop if they reject the gospel.

The next seven chapters in Perkins' book flow from his understanding of the gospel. For example, he says that the "burden of proof" lies with followers of Jesus to demonstrate that our love - the love that flows from God through us - is authentic by connecting our words and deeds. Furthermore, as we love others, we trust them with leadership, not thinking of ourselves as better. Similarly, our evangelism will "take place inside the community of faith" and "is most effective when it calls people into a relationship with a holy God and into a fellowship of believers". In case some may misunderstand his purpose, Perkins clearly states, "Christian community development cannot happen without the work of evangelism". Furthermore, Perkins gives practical suggestions and examples for creating an environment of hope through dignity, power, education, employment, health, security, recreation and beauty. Finally, Perkins exhorts Christians to use their energy and resources to pursue justice for the poor, the needy, the fatherless, the widows, and the foreigners.

I think that Perkins has described a very biblical gospel - the Good News that Jesus Christ reconciles people to God and then gives them the ministry of reconciliation. This gospel expects a faith that works.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Scripture... As We Live It #11

And now for the eleventh passage in "Scripture... As We Live It":

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has ~~not~~ revealed this to you, ~~but~~ through your preachers and teachers who told you about my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build ~~my church~~ XYZ Community Church into a great organization with many buildings and an abundance of programs with staff to run them, and the gates of hell shall ~~not prevail against it~~ remain far from it." (Matthew 16:15-18 re-mix)

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Are you a New Testament Scholar?

Thanks to Dave Black (Friday, July 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm) for this description of a "New Testament Scholar". I don't know about you, but this is the type of "scholar" that I want to be:

Good afternoon, bloggers and bloggerettes. Today I want you to meet a really great New Testament scholar. You've probably never heard of him before. But trust me, he's an outstanding expert in the New Testament. His name? Nathan Black. You say, "Wait a minute! How can you consider Nathan a New Testament scholar? He doesn't even have a post high school education!" Now hold on there. Nathan is VERY well educated, and I'm not talking only about the certificate in carpentry he received from our local community college. You see, it all depends on your definition of "educated" and "scholar." (In Anabaptism, by the way, appeal was made to the plain man’s judgment, unspoiled by the university. Those who toiled with their hands [craftsmen] or who worked in the soil [peasants] were presumed to be more receptive and teachable than those who had been corrupted by the folly of worldly wisdom.) My translation of "New Testament scholar" is one who knows the New Testament backwards and forwards AND who follows radically the Jesus it talks about AND who lives according to its hard teachings. So just by having a doctorate in New Testament, just by holding a chair in New Testament, just because everyone reads your famous books about the New Testament, doesn't automatically make you a "New Testament scholar." Not in my book. Just go to some New Testament blogs. Do they ever talk about sharing their faith in Jesus with others? Do they ever talk about pledging allegiance to Jesus and His Church -- the ONLY Christian nation that has ever existed? Do they ever talk about getting their hands dirty in the name of Jesus? Why are you staring blankly at me? Truth be told, you can be a full professor of New Testament in a prestigious university and still not walk or talk with Jesus! I recall being at a scholarly meeting a couple of years and listening to a newly-minted Ph.D. in New Testament refer to himself in his paper as "a New Testament scholar." "As a New Testament scholar, it is my opinion that...." He did this consistently and quite un-self-consciously. I'm sorry, but I actually chuckled OUT LOUD.

Now let's contrast Nathan. He and Jessie started attending a small church called Hebron after their wedding. Hebron was founded in 1880. (If you ever want to visit Hebron, here are the directions: just drive to Podunk and turn right.) The first Sunday there the people asked Nate to teach. He said, "Why not?" and he's been teaching ever since. The meeting starts at 10:00 and goes to 11:00, or else to 11:30, or else to 12:00 -- well, you get the picture. (Ain't nobody in no hurry.) They don't really have "church" or a "worship service." Just Bible study, prayer, maybe a hymn or two (Nate also plays the piano for them), and lots of talking. They wanted to pay Nathan but he just said, "Keep it." He teaches only from the Bible -- no notes, and no published curriculum. Deep stuff, yet simple. Right now he's teaching through Hebrews. Or should I say leading the flock (all 13 or 14 of them, mostly farmer-types) in a discussion from the Bible about our Great High Priest, how we're all priests in the kingdom of Jesus, how salvation is FREE (seems some folk think you need to get wet to get saved), how the Spirit lives in us so that we do not have to depend on the experts to explain what the Bible means, how the Church is more important than the church, how "believers" are a dime a dozen but "lovers" are few, and how people and not a building are the "temple" of God. They love it! Speaking of a building, the church meets in an old clapboard meeting hall off of a long gravel road. No restroom facilities, but there is a cemetery. I believe our world is in desperate need of such churches. And of such New Testament scholars. What an example that 25 year-old is to me!

Sat plene biberunt. That's Latin for "shut up and sit down." So I'll keep my peroration short. Say you're a New Testament "scholar" and you're reading this right now and you are just furious. You've been taught to think, "Scholars don't talk about their private lives. We need to keep Jesus out of the academic guild!" Honest to goodness, I once thought that way myself. But listen, it all comes down to the cross. As a much greater New Testament scholar than you or I will ever be once said, "We go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless.... We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world" (1 Cor. 4:11-13). If that isn't clear, then maybe some of us have been educated beyond our intelligence. The great French theologian Jacque Ellul put it this way: "Christians should be troublemakers,...agents of a dimension incompatible with society." A DIMENSION INCOMPATIBLE WITH SOCIETY. Man, I like that. So, my dear scholar friends, keep on earning your doctorates (I have one myself), keep on writing your books (many of which I own), keep on lecturing at your conferences (I may attend one myself). But for Christ's sake (I am NOT swearing), get radical for the Jesus of the New Testament or quit the moniker "New Testament scholar"!

How about you? What kind of "scholar" are you?

Family love

I'm very proud of Margaret (my wife) and my children. They have given of themselves in order to love others this week so many times that it has been very challenging and very encouraging to me.

On Monday morning, they joined some friends at a nursing home to love on some of the residents. Besides reading and singing with them, they also spent time talking individually with many of the men and women.

On Monday evening, they rode with me and some friends two hours south of our house to love on a young couple because the husband's grandmother had passed away. This couple is very special to us, and we are so thankful to God for this new relationship.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, they kept the three year old son of a friend while she was having tests run. On Wednesday, while they were keeping this precious boy, they also kept the daughter of some of our friends so the wife could visit a friend in the hospital.

On Saturday (the day this is scheduled to be published), my family is planning to spend time serving in a friend's neighborhood, then they are planning to keep the children of some friends so that they can work on their house.

I've told Margaret how much their service has encouraged me. She acted like their service was "no big deal". I don't think she sees it as service, since she was caring for family. But, I think that's awesome! That is what it means to see the church as a family.

I'm not suggesting that Margaret, Jeremy, and Miranda are the only believers that I know who are serving. In fact, that would be far from the truth. God has placed us with a group of brothers and sisters who spend time with one another and care for one another. Again... we recognize that we are family, and we actually treat one another as family. "Family" is more than a title for us... it is a call to love and action.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Challenging excerpts

Please note that the title of this post is "Challenging excerpts", not "Challenging experts". I read it wrong myself at first. I realize that this post will be longer than usual for my midday posts, but I wanted to include all of these quotes from other blogs. Thursday evening - when I wrote this - I read these quotes again, and continue to be challenged by them.

The first excerpt is from Ray Ortlund from "Christ is Deeper Still" from a post called "Truly Reformed". You may have seen this already, because it is winding its way around the internet. Perhaps you are not reformed. Fine. Replace the word "reformed" below with whatever label you use to identify yourself:

My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.

The next excerpt is from Dave Black. He wrote this as he was contemplating the book that he was writing on the topic of discipleship. You'll find it posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm:

Who am I? That's a silly question to be asking! But I'm writing the preface to my book on discipleship so the topic has come up, at least in my own mind. Am I a conservative or a liberal, right-wing or left? Though my theology is conservative, I've learned much from my brothers and sisters on both ends of the evangelical spectrum. Some of my friends think only about Israel, others only about Palestine. Some complain about the 3,000 unborn who are killed every day in America, while others focus almost exclusively on the 30,000 children who die of starvation every day in the world. I see no need reason to establish boundaries of love. If we mourn the loss of 4,000 U.S. service personnel in Iraq (as we should), we must also mourn with the same outrage and passion the life of every innocent Iraqi civilian who was lost. Some evangelicals believe that right-wing politics hangs the moon; others support the liberal left. I pledge my allegiance to neither. Folks, I just want to be a Christian -- a simple, radical, marginal, downwardly-mobile follower of Jesus. There's nothing unique or spectacular about being a Jesus-follower. You just remember that God's love is borderless. You just declare the Good News to the poor, as He taught us to do. And it all happens through relationships, not programs or organizations. And here's something strange: I am learning to fall in love with people and not just ideas. And I love ideas! Crazy people like Jim Elliott are finally beginning to make sense to me. I'm learning how to reprioritize my values and resources. Just think -- the average American consumes as much as 520 Ethiopians do. Can we do anything about it? You bet! Because of our website Becky and I receive gifts for reading glasses and protein bars and pre-natal vitamins Bibles and meeting houses and evangelists' salaries and equipment to show the Jesus Film with and food to feed hungry prisoners and on and on the list goes. No fancy organization, no 501 c(3), no overhead, no bureaucracy, no HQ. Just Jesus-people connecting with Jesus-people.

Man, am I becoming a Jesus Freak again like I was in the 60s?!!

The final excerpt is from Cindy at "run with it" from a post called "various disjointed observations from my week". Since Cindy is a fellow Alabamian, I knew I would like what she wrote. In this excerpt, she begins by talking about taking her daughter to tennis camp:

I was struck today by a remarkable experience in polarities. The tennis camp is held at an exclusive private school. It's the kind of place that makes me wonder if my t-shirt is on backwards or if my socks match. Where the moms wear designer shorts and high heeled sandals (making me curious as to why they require such fashion to cart kids around on a 95 degree day in the middle of July). I have worried a lot this week that my daughter would feel out of place or be ostracized by elitist little kids in coordinated tennis outfits. (she has done great, btw- she has an inherent ability to find the genuine kids in a crowd of strangers. I should and will give her more credit!)

Today, immediately after leaving her at the school (and taking a deep breath of relief), i took some items to goodwill. The man who opened the door to receive my donation was the epitome of quiet humility. He spoke softly, was so appreciative of our cast off things that I felt ashamed, and sent me off with a blessing. As I drove away I couldn't help but consider how much more at ease I felt at Goodwill- a place of need- than at the school- a place of wealth. Peace was to be found in the place of need rather than the place of wealth. Given a choice of which place I'd rather spend a day- there would be no question.

I hope these excerpts (experts?) challenged and encouraged you as much as they did me. Now, the question remains, will it make a difference in how we live our lives?

The church meets here...

I recently had a coversation with a brother that was very thought-provoking. Many churches have "Wednesday night services". What would happen if those churches actually served their communities on Wednesday nights? Our conversation reminded me of a blog post that I wrote just over a year ago called "The church meets here". I'm copying it here to remind myself and my readers of what the church meeting could look like, if it actually involved service and wasn't just called a "service".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I live six miles from my work place. As I drive to work, I pass at least seven church buildings. Each building has a sign out front announcing the name of the church that meets in the building. (To be literal, the signs actually name the building, but I'm assuming that the people who erected the signs actually meant to name the group of believers that meet in the buildings.) On Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, temporary signs pop up around the downtown area announcing several other churches that meet in downtown businesses. Each of these signs is intended to announce the meeting place for a church.

I've been wondering lately what would happen if we started finding signs saying "The church meets here" in more diverse locations. For example, we know from the New Testament that many times the church met in homes. What would happen if someone put a sign in their front yard that said, "The church meets here"? Or, even better, Acts 2 says the church met from house to house. What if that sign followed the believers from one house to another as they met together in different locations?

Taking it one step further, we know that God intends for his children to love and serve others. What if the church met in the most dilapidated house in the community? No, not the most dilapidated house owned by a member of the church, but the most dilapidated house in the community. What would happen if the church met in that run-down house and renovated it as they met together? After remodelling that house, the church could begin meeting in another house in need of repairs.

Some of you may be thinking, how would anyone know where the church was meeting? Isn't it interesting that the church in the first century was able to meet from house to house, but, in the the twenty-first century - with twenty-first century communication - we don't think we could meet in different locations. (I have a theory... I wonder if the desire to have one meeting location has less to do with whether or not other believers know where the church is meeting. Instead, we want others to know where the church is meeting so that they will come to the meeting, and we can call ourselves evangelistic, without ever communicating the gospel to anyone. It's just a theory.)

Similarly, some may be wondering how the church can meet without a stage, sound system, microphone, instruments, pulpit, etc. Well, I think it might just work anyway. While it is good to use modern innovations (such as communication), it is not good to be dependent on those innovations. Which of these are necessary for the church to meet?

Also, some may wonder about teaching and preaching. I think that if the church meets together in a run-down house, and over the course of several weeks the church renovates that house, there will be plenty of teaching and preaching. In fact, I think there will be plenty of friends and neighbors who come to see who these fools are who would give up their time and money to help someone that cannot pay them back. Oh, it might not happen after the first or second meeting. But, what about going into the second year, after the church has renovated fifteen or twenty homes around the community. I wonder if the church wouldn't find a much more receptive and interested audience for their preaching and teaching.

But, let's not stop at dilapidated houses. What if the church met in prisons or hospitals? What if the church met in an area frequented by the homeless or prostitutes? What if the church met in a nursing home or retirement center? What if the church met in an orphanage? Now, I'm not talking about going to visit once per year. I'm talking about the church continually meeting in these locations. Wouldn't it be easier to take care of those whom God wants the church to care for?

I wonder, if the church began to meet in places like this, would a sign even be necessary? Can you think of other interesting locations where the church could meet and serve people at the same time?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

One of us

I've been in conversations (both here and on other blogs) concerning pastors/elders and whether or not they are "one of us". That is, often leaders feel separated from other believers, and believers feel separated from leaders.

This separation and the lack of real relationships between leaders and other believers has been listed as one of the causes of fatigue and "burn-out" for pastors/elders. Most leaders that I talk with today do not subscribe to the "wisdom" that pastors should not have friends among the church - although that has been taught and still is taught in some circles. Instead, most believers now recognize the need to have real, authentic relationships with other believers - including leaders.

So, why does the church in general often find it difficult to form relationships with pastors/elders? Why do pastors/elders feel isolated from other believers?

I believe there are many reasons for this separation. The first reason that leaders feel separated from other believers is that there is an ongoing practice and belief of clergy/laity division. Yes, most would deny that there is a ontological difference between leaders and other believers, but in our words and practices we often veto our denial. Usually, when the church meets, leaders have a special place to sit, a special place to stand, and speak at special times when others are not allowed to speak. Leaders decide who does what, when, and how. Leaders baptize and serve the Lord's Supper. Leaders pray at special times and officiate special ceremonies. By our actions we demonstrate that we really thing that leaders are different than other believers.

However, some leaders refuse to separate themselves from other believers by these actions. In other words, leaders sit and stand with everyone else. Other believers speak and make decisions and baptize and serve the Lord's Supper and pray and officiate special ceremonies. Many times, this does not completely overcome the separation between leaders and other believers.

Sometimes this separation persists because of special titles. Sometimes this separation continues because the leaders are considered "short-timers" - they came from another location and will probably move again. Sometimes leaders and other believers cannot form relationships because the people see them as "hirelings" - paid to do religious work for them. Similarly, leaders sometimes project or are perceived to project the image that they are perfect - or near perfect, since no one will claim to be perfect - which hinders other believers from forming relationships with them. This will probably be a very controversial point - it usually is - but it is my opinion that being a paid religious professional (pastor/elder as a job) also separates leaders from other believers.

Any time leaders see themselves as "special" or any time other believers see leaders as "special", then they will find it difficult to form relationships with one another. Whenever the interaction moves away from leaders being "among" the body to the leaders being "over" the body, then leaders will be separated from other believers.

In reality, leaders are more mature believers - more consistent in their walk with Christ (supposedly) - but they are not "special". They are not holy men doing holy work in holy places. All of God's children are holy - set apart by God for service - and all of God's children are ministers (servants). When we understand this - and when we live and act accordingly - we will find that our leaders are actually "one of us".

Do you know of other beliefs or practices that would hinder pastors/elders from forming relationships with other believers?

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

More on Church Discipline

Matthew McDill has been blogging about "church discipline". I'm glad to see that he doesn't think that phrase is appropriate for what Scripture describes as a desire to reconcile brothers and sisters.

In his first post, Matthew refers to the book Walking Together: A Congregational Reflection on Biblical Church Discipline by Wyman Richardson. He contrasts the tenets of "cultural ecclesiology" to those of "biblical ecclesiology".

In his second post, Matthew quotes R.T. France from his commentary on Matthew 18:15-17:

In a formally constituted church with an appointed leadership it is easy for the 'ordinary' disciple to hide behind that authority structure and to leave it all to the official leaders, appealing to Cain’s question 'Am I my brother’s keeper?' with the comfortable assumption that the answer must be No. But this passage asserts that the answer is Yes. In a community of 'little ones,' each must be concerned about and take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the other.

Matthew (and France) are correct. Properly understanding the need to reconcile broken relationships begins with understanding that we (all of us) are our brother's and sister's keeper. Of course, "Church discipline" - that is, reconciling broken relationships - does not make any sense where there is no relationship to begin with.

Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 3

This is the third installment in a series concerning Tertullian's descriptions of the meeting of the church sometime around 200 AD (see "Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1" and "Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 2"). This passage also occurs in Chapter 39 of Tertullian's Apology. Between the previous passage and the current passage, Tertullian denies that the Christians share their wives, although he says that they share everything else. He also denies that their feasts are "extravagant" or "wicked" as some critiques have claimed.

Then, Tertullian ends his discussion of the church meeting with this passage:

Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e., affection [love]. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,-but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,-a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet.

Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia-[i.e., the court of God.]

Apparently, in Tertullian's day, the meeting of the church included a feast - eating enough food to be satisfied, and drinking but not so much as to be unchaste. From this passage it is impossible to tell whether or not this feast occurred at the same time and place as the exhortation described earlier. (For example, when Pliny interrogated some Christians, he found out that they met twice on the same day - see "Meeting with the Early Church - Pliny's Letter".) However, it is clear that this "feast" was not limited to a piece of bread and a drink of wine. At the same time, however, it was also not a time of gluttony and drunkenness.

This is the second time that Tertullian remarks that the Christians act a certain way because of their belief that God is with them. Here, though, he continues by recognizing that their manner of living is consistent both during the meeting and after the meeting - both when they are with other believers, and when they are away from other believers. Apparently, the belief that God is with them carried over outside the meeting of the church, and greatly affected they way that they lived their lives.

Besides eating and drinking, the feast also included prayer - both before and after the meal - as well as singing, as each one is requested to sing either from Scripture or a self-composed song. There is also interesting reference to "bringing in the lights". I do not know what this points to. Perhaps a reader can help me out with this one.

At the beginning of this passage, there is another reference to benefiting the needy, this time in reference to the feast. Tertullian does not give us details of this benefit - whether Tertullian is referring to needy believers who are provided with food for the feast, whether the needy are invited to dine with the believers, whether the believers again receive contributions during the feast to benefit the needy, or whether that benefit comes in some other manner. However, even during this feast, the thoughts of the believers are turned to "the least". Why do they desire to benefit the needy through their feast? Because they see it as the way of God himself. For this reason, "a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly".

What do you think about Tertullian's description of the "love feasts" in 200 AD? How does Tertullian's description of Agape meals compare to those of today ("Lord's Supper" or "Eucharist"?)? How does Tertullian's description compare to Scripture?

-----------------------------------------------------

Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 3

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 2

This blog posts continues my short series on a passage in Tertullian's Apology that deals with church meetings around 200 AD. The first entry in this series was called "Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1". The following passage from chapter 39 follows from the passage in the previous post:

Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.

This passage obviously deals with money. The church that Tertullian met took up an offering. But, notice what this offering was used for: caring for the poor, orphans, older people confined to their homes, victims of shipwrecks, and those who were being punished in various ways because they were Christians.

It is interesting that this collection was taken monthly, not weekly. Also, it does not appear that believers were required or even asked to give a certain percentage of their income to this collection.

Tertullian was very clear in pointing out that this collection was not used to fund lavish feasts or parties. Some of his pagan opponents were probably suggesting that the Christian's "Agape" feasts (which are discussed later) were simply drunken orgies. Tertullian is countering this claim by pointing out that the people gave money to support those who were in need - even those who were not part of their specific group of Christians.

What do you think about Tertullian's description of church collections in 200 AD? How does Tertullian's description of collections compare to collections ("tithes and offerings"?) today? How does Tertullian's description compare to Scripture?

-----------------------------------------------------

Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 3

Monday, July 14, 2008

More on the Anabaptists

My PhD mentor, Dave Black, has told us why he loves the Anabaptists in an essay called appropriately "Why I Love the Anabaptists". I've noticed some of the items on his list as I've been reading some Anabaptist writings as well. I think the most important aspect of their writings to me is that they do not separate life into the secular realm and the spiritual realm. "Holiness" and "worship" are not just for church meetings for the Anabaptists. Similarly, "grace" is not just for salvation, but it represents a way of life - living in God's grace and offering his grace to others.

Yes, I disagree with some of the Anabaptists at certain points. But, I'm encouraged by their desire to live out their faith day by day - both with other believers and among the world.

Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1

A few months ago, I wrote a series on "Meeting with the Early Church". While I included the writings of several early Christians, and even some nonChristians, who included a description of the meeting of the early church, I did not include the writings of Tertullian.

Tertullian (155 - 222 AD) is an interesting character in early Christianity. To some, he was a hero who defended the true faith against heresy. To others, Tertullian was a heretic himself who left the orthodox church for Montanism. Whatever our view of Tertullian, his writings seemed to be well respected by other early Christians.

Among his writings, his Apology (Apologeticus) was one of the most polemical. He addressed this book to the Roman civic magistrates of his day in order to defend Christians and Christianity against pagans and paganism. It has been called "one of the most magnificent legacies of the ancient Church, full of enthusiasm, courage, and vigor".

In chapter 39 (XXXIX) of his Apology, Tertullian discussed several aspects of church meetings. In this series, I'm going to use Tertullian's words to help us understand how the church met around 200 AD, at least the church meetings with which Tertullian was familiar. Part of this chapter is very polemical, blasting the practice of pagans. I will focus on the parts that describe the Christian assemblies and leave out the parts that describe the pagan meetings and responses.

Here is the first section:

I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God.

What does Tertullian tell us about the early church meetings in this passage? The meetings included prayer, reading, exhortation, rebuke, and even judging. Did you notice what binds believers together according to Tertullian: a common profession, a common discipline, and a common hope.

Tertullian talks about praying for emperors and other civic officials, as well as for their own "supplications". These do not appear to be the nice prayers that we normally hear, but a type of "violence" where the believers "wrestle" with God. I've heard believers wrestle with God in prayers, but rarely in a public assembly like this.

Tertullian does not automatically assume that the "sacred writings" have something to say to him and the other believers with whom he gathers. Instead, they read the writings (perhaps the Scriptures?) and consider them to determine if the writings may have something to say about their times and situations. Regardless, Tertullian expects the words of the text themselves to nourish their faith, hope, and confidence.

Apparently, separate from the reading of the "sacred writings", there were also instances of exhortations, rebukes, and censures. Given the seriousness with which "judgment" is described by Tertullian, these exhortations, rebukes, and censures would seem to go beyond the modern day sermon. These would seem to be personal and direct, dealing with the lives and concerns and problems with individuals and groups within the assembling.

Finally, Tertuallian mentions their leaders. These leaders "preside over" the believers due to their being "tried men" with "established character". Again, this seems to be different from the modern assembly where the leaders are chosen because of their education and talents. In fact, when most "leaders" begin with a church today, most would not know them well enough to vouch for their character much less to call them "tried men".

Within the context of these leaders, Tertullian says that they become elders "not by purchase" because "[t]here is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God". This seems to be too early in church history for Tertullian to be talking about people buying their way into "church offices" (this happened later in the middle ages). Perhaps Tertullian is talking about elders who serve only when they are paid.

What do you think about Tertullians description of church meetings in 200 AD? How does Tertullian's description of church assemblies compare to church meetings ("worship services") today? How does Tertullian's description compare to Scripture?

-----------------------------------------------------

Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian - Part 3

Sunday, July 13, 2008

My people love to have it so

This week I was reading Jeremiah. In Chapter 5, the Lord speaks against his own people because 1) they do not relate correctly to him and 2) they do not take care of the poor and needy. Who is responsible for this rebellion in the sight of God?

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes? (Jeremiah 5:30-31 ESV)

It appears that God holds the prophets, the priests, and the people themselves responsible for their rebellion.

Some may say that the church today rightly relates to God - although they would probably only say that about those who agree with them. But few would suggest that the church is taking caring of the poor and needy. Who will God hold responsible for this rebellion?

Scripture... As We Live It #10

Here is the tenth installment of "Scripture... As We Live It":

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned - unless, of course, you are the divisive person or you agree with the divisive person, in which case, make sure that you and those who agree with you separate yourselves from other brothers and sisters who disagree with you - oh, and talk about them from time to time to remind yourselves that you are right and they are wrong. (Titus 3:10-11 re-mix)

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Living in the change

In my previous post - "What is God doing?" - I said that God was teaching me to love people who are different than me. It is interesting that in the comments Mark mentioned actions and Mary mentioned listening. Both of these are part of what God is doing in my life - and I'm living in the change now.

For example, today I took the opportunity to be around people who are different than me - that required action. Primarily, I listened to what they had to say about what was going on in their lives.

I listened to one lady wonder if it was okay that she asked God why her two sons died while they were in their twenties. I listened to a young man ask if God was mad at him because of his tattoos. I listened to another lady wonder if God was going to heal her of cancer since she claimed his healing.

Acting and listening are a big part of how God is teaching me to love people who are different than me.

What is God doing?

One of the questions that I like to ask people is this one: "What is God doing in your life?" Usually, people have to think about it awhile, but most eventually recognize that God is working in their life.

What is God doing in my life? He is teaching me how to love and serve people who are different than me. This is a very uncomfortable lesson for me, and much less "theoretical" than other lessons.

What is God doing in your life?

The Assembling of the Church