Great-Great Grandpa Alfred

I never met the fellow. (Actually, I never met his grandson - my grandfather - who perished before I was born.) I love and respect him, and especially the fact that great-great-grandfather Alfred Ellmore felt a keen calling to preach from a young age.

But I would not agree with all of his beliefs.

For someone known as a great Restoration preacher - someone who was pierced by the older preacher Ben Franklin's personal advice to him to "do all the good you can and no harm" - I think he did harm.

His position on Sunday schools: "It is another society and one of which the New Testament knows nothing. ... transfer the Sunday school into the worship and give to every child who is able to read a New Testament ... have the bishops and others who are safe teachers to spend fifty minutes, more or less, upon the lesson: continue the worship without intermission to the close."

His position on mission organizations: "The Lord made the church for this work."

His position on those baptized, at any age, in any other church: "[they should] be reimmersed for the remission of their sins."

His position on churches which worship with instruments of music: "If there were but one congregation in the United States which worshiped as did the primitive church, I would hold my membership in that church. And were I so remote from it that I could but seldom, or never meet with it, I would send [it] my fellowship, and my Christian greeting, and do my praying at home. And if there were no such church, and I were a preacher, I would go immediately to work and create such a body."

His newspaper's mission (The Gospel Echo, merged with the Gospel Advocate in 1901): "... there are, we believe, two things which have been sadly neglected, viz.: the supporting of true ministers, and the cleansing of the sanctuary."

The title of his first book, 1877: "Which Is the True Church?."

I have no doubt in mind or heart that Alfred Ellmore's mind and heart were zealous for the furtherance of God's truth. I disagree with many of his perceptions of it.

I believe he was, in many ways, typical of the gospel preachers of his day. I'm afraid that is why I read so much rancor in the writings of their various publications.

If you're of an eastern philosophy, you might be thinking "Whew! That's a lot of negative family karma to bear toward the next life," and I would agree with you.

At the same time, I am certain that Alfred brought many people to know Jesus Christ, and His is the eastern philosophy to which I have given my life.

Whatever else he believed or taught or wrote or did, Alfred Ellmore could also write: "A majority rule is not the rule of Christ. Christ and no man rules in all things in His church."

His poetry was soulful and heartfelt:

Pray, earnest soul, what hast thou done
In the battle and the strife,
This short expanse from sun to sun,
To scatter seeds of life?
The poor have trod the stony road,
The rich for wealth have striven,
But who has sought to ease their load,
By pointing such to heaven?
- the last stanza of "Sunset" from his Maple Valley Poems

And one of his "Wheat and Chaff" columns from the journal Word and Work wistfully observes: "I suppose every matured Christian in looking back over his life sees somethings he did, which if presented now he would not do."

Not long ago I observed on salguod's blog that

"We're probably always (in this life) going to have ... people with vision, charisma, energy and genuine dedication who will try to make good ideas into doctrine instead of just letting them be good ideas.

Maybe they are part of God's plan for encouraging us to study, think, meditate and pray for ourselves about what's best; to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling."

I seem to remember that Paul was grateful even for those who preached from selfish motives because Christ was preached.

I'm going to have to think about that again for a while!"

I have chewed on it a little since then.

I'm grateful for Alfred Ellmore.

He also did a lot of good.

Taking Things Too Literally ....

Who would read Paul saying that "I beat my body" and conclude that beating one's own body must be the one and only way acceptable before God to keep from "disqualifying for the prize"?

Who would read Jesus saying "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out" and conclude that blinding one's self in one eye would be the one and only way acceptable before God to "enter the kingdom of God"?

Who would read Paul saying that "... women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" and conclude that this is the one and only way that any woman can be saved?

Who would read Jesus saying that "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" and conclude that asceticism and carrying (or just wearing) a wooden cross is the one and only acceptable way to follow Him?

Who would read Peter saying that "... this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also ...." (1 Peter 3:21) and ignore the word "also" and - apart from any other scripture about belief, confession, repentance, grace, His sacrifice - conclude that baptism alone is the one and only acceptable way to be saved?

We can take things too literally. We can take them out of context. We can skip what we don't like, don't comprehend, and/or don't want to deal with.

We can even take the absence of any mention of furniture in New Testament churches and conclude that the one and only acceptable piece of furniture in the Lord's house is a table - and that must be all right because the gospels mention it at the Last Supper.

However, we do so at our own peril. And that peril is not from physically beating ourselves, physically half-blinding ourselves, or physically failing to reproduce ...

... but spiritually.

Dee on Katrina in the Chronicle

Dee Andrews tops my list of fellow bloggers for more reasons than her last name beginning with "A."

She's written a fine recap of the Hurricane Katrina story as it affected Slidell, LA and Picayune, MS in the Christian Chronicle, found online at:

http://www.christianity.com/partner/
Article_Display_Page/
0,,PTID25485% 7CCHID127205% 7CCIID2096228,00.html

Sound Doctrine ... or Just A Good Idea?

Does anyone have a really good goof-proof method for determining the difference between what is sound doctrine and what is just a good idea?

And what may not be a very good idea?

I'm really asking. I really want to know.

Just saying "If it's in the Bible, it's sound doctrine" won't cut it. We all know that. Satan wasn't shy about using scripture to tempt Jesus.

How can we know what is the desire of God's heart for us, apart from all of the ditherings about language and meaning and definition and law and command and example and necessary inference?

How much can we rely upon His grace to cover our lack of understanding?

Is it possible to know God's will in every conceivable circumstance?

Or is it arrogance to think that we can? That we do?

Is it possible God intentionally built a level of mystery, seeming contradiction, translucence - rather than opaqueness or transparence - into His word so that we would constantly struggle, study, pray, attempt, fail, repent, learn, experience the light that we seek in perfect clarity?

To keep us humble?

To keep us seeking?

To draw us closer?

Filmmaking Fanatics

As a lapsed Star Trek fan, I've only recently become aware of a fan activity that goes beyond wearing costumes and wielding props at science fiction conventions: the fan film.

Paramount, the studio which owns the franchise, used to come down hard on folks who attempted anything without their express permission (and without paying their franchising fee) but apparently looks the other way at these efforts nowadays.

I'm talking about sites which stream these home-made classics, like Hidden Frontier, the New Voyages, and Starship Exeter. These brave souls have sunk a ton of money, effort and pixels into "filming" their visions within the Star Trek cosmos, and they're getting better at it all the time.

Hidden Frontier goes where no Trek has gone before in chronicling the voyages of gay crewmembers - with appropriate restraint and 24th-century sensibility.

It made me wonder what might happen if followers of Christ became film fanatics. I'm not necessarily talking about worthy results like The Jesus Film Project or even The Passion of the Christ. I mean ... well, more like ....

What if filmmakers armed with the latest, relatively inexpensive digital tools set out to chronicle what a Christ-like life would look like today or tomorrow?

What if they put their emerging genius into telling something that could be called The Ongoing Story of Christ?

Would helpful fellow-fans donate their time to build CGI models if needed, or stitch together costumes, or build props, or write scripts?

Is that an exciting thought, or what?

Humble Pi

Today has been humble pi. "Humble" because it has been an humbling experience ... first, in Bible class this morning, being humbled by the confession of a brother who has been giving in to his addiction to pain medication following a back injury a couple of years ago. The thirty or so of us in class just gathered around him, put our hands on his shoulders, hugged his neck, and prayed as two elders led us.

Then, this evening, being humbled by the courage of a close friend sharing the lamentations he and his wife shared ten years ago this week at the loss of their infant son.

I will never forget the words the minister shared at that funeral that the two of them had shared with him:

"We don't know why God took our son home. But we also don't know why He blessed us with a beautiful older daughter, and family and friends to love and support us."

Such wisdom; such eternal perspective.

Why "Pi"?

I guess that eternal perspective. God's unending love glimpsed so clearly for those moments in all its length and breadth and heighth and depth that nothing could separate us from it.

That, and the inexpressible nature of the feeling of humility it gives you, and the perception of His greatness. Like the exact value of pi, you can just go on and on adding expression after expression to describe it, but you would never reach the end.

Never ever ever.

Amen.

One Sweet Diagnosis

Fred Peatross is posting notes from Len Sweet at the NexChurch Conference at Kentucky Christian University, and if you're having trouble fitting into the "modern" paradigm - or even if you're not - they are well worth your perusal/evaluation/meditation.

See Notes from NexChurch Conference; Len Sweet.

I have concerns about modernism. I have concerns about post-modernism. Modernism seems to favor the notion that rationality is God; post-modernism seems to prefer the idea that God is passion. Both, of course, are true.

Not just one or the other.

Those of us who grew up tiring of the church radio format of "all-rational; all-the-time" find fresh hope in examining the other side of the coin.

One coin. Two sides.

(Okay, I'll stop beating you about the head - and heart - with my disdain of "only one way to view things" thinking now.)

I'm Encouraged Today

Read Doug's post The Storm Is Passing Over about the calm that seems to be descending on the ICOC fellowship after some clouds were recently growing dark.

If you prayed for this calm along with me, others and our siblings in the International Churches of Christ, thank you.

Don't mis-read me as implying that there are no differences between churches of Christ and ICOC - there are plenty!

But I seem to remember my childhood hero Mr. Spock concluding in one of those dime-store Star Trek novelizations:

"A difference which makes no difference is no difference ...."

Thank you, God. Make us one in the fellowship of your Son's table.

What Kind of a God ...?

... plants a poisonwood tree in the middle of the garden He designed for His children, right close to a tree that would give life forever?

... lets the Adversary persecute and torture a just man like Job?

... permits His very own, innocent Son to be stripped, whipped, beaten, spat upon, mocked, and hung by nails until dead?

I struggle with that. I struggle with all the hurricane and tsunami and terrorism questions: What kind of a God allows all that?

Tony Campolo says that the Hebrew Bible never calls God omnipotent; just "mighty." Maybe not, but the Greek part of the Bible prays: "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine ..." That's pretty powerful. As Han Solo says, "I can imagine a lot."

I don't know all the big words that cover the big concepts regarding God.

But I believe He's a God who is Love. He sees life and death and suffering and temporality very differently than we do. He doesn't see them as un-real; very much the opposite. (Else why would He spend His time in eternity wiping away tears, as He is pictured doing near the close of the Revelation?)

He sees death as part of His plan for life, and suffering as a reminder that sin and its consequences make giving up our lives in exchange for eternity with Him an attractive prospect.

He planned for choice as the opportunity to un-do everything done wrong since He shared that garden.

He understands that choice has no value if there are no real, oppositional alternatives to choose between.

He's doing everything within the limitation of our free will - which is His will for us to have, and His idea in the first place - to persuade us to see every"thing" around us as temporary. Grass of the field. A flower that blooms but a day. A vapor that vanishes.

Yet eternally important. Because now is the time we choose. Now we choose the future; not just for ourselves and our children and their children on this little world. We choose forever in the next world.

We choose.

Choice is a great, great good. We take it for granted in our nation, where blood bought political freedom to choose. We take it for granted in our churches, where blood purchased freedom to choose between life with God or death without Him. We think of it too cheaply.

We think too little of what choice costs.

We think too little of the God who bought it for us.

We think we know better; that we can create a God in our own image and box Him in with our philosophical cleverness. We think we can answer the questions He thrusts at Job, in our enlightened scientific brilliance. We think we'll be able to cheat Death somehow by our own craft.

With apologies to the Broadway musical of the 1970s - we think His arms are too short to box with us.

With apologies to J.B. Phillips - we accuse God of thinking that we are too small.

God forgive us.

Please keep on being so great that You let us ask the questions in our frustration and ignorance, even when we can't understand all the answers; even if You gave them all to us.

God forgive us.

Please go on being patient with us until we can get over ourselves and into Your heart.

God forgive us.

Please always be the kind of God You are.

A Point Beyond Which ...

I'm troubled by a sudden insight into my own character ....

I've long known that there is a point beyond which I will not go on any given temptation or issue of doctrine or question of faith. A point where I say to myself, "All right, I'll do this ... but I won't do that." I'm not real happy about where some of them are, but those defining points of wrongness and sin have to be somewhere, don't they?

What bothers me more is not the floor formed by those points that I stand on, uneven and spiky though it may be.

It's the fact that I've erected a ceiling of points beyond which I will not go in serving, in worshiping, in believing.

And they're between me and my God.

They're defined exactly the same way: "Okay, I'll do this ... but I won't do that. I'll go this far, but not a step closer. I'll give this much, but not a moment / dollar / foot-pound of effort more."

Limits. Ceilings. Points beyond which I will not go.

It's pointless - pardon the pun - to have them, because if God truly works in me through His Spirit, there can't be any limits in that direction.

There just can't be any.

What Are You Building, Son?

That's what my dad would ask little Keith, age single-digits, when he came upon me with my cardboard can of TinkerToys or Lincoln Logs or American Bricks emptied on the floor. Later, in the early double-digit years, he'd ask when I was assembling a grey-and-blue plastic Design-A-Jet or fitting the stud-wall sections inside Design-A-Home or snapping the red cross-braces on Build-A-Bridge. And in the teen years, when I was assembling model railroad buildings or chemical-engine rockets. (Are you surprised that my dad was an engineer?)

"What are you building, son?"

I have those moments with my Matthew. I used to ask him when he played with his Duplo's and Lego's. Now I come up behind him when he's putting together a custom hot rod with his Monster Garage computer game, or a subway with Transit Tycoon, or a railroad with Microsoft Train Simulator.

And I relive those wonderful memories of excitedly telling my dad what I had created when my son Matt tells me all about the bright designs he's treasured up.

You knew I had to be going somewhere spiritual with this, didn't you?

Of course. It brings to mind the pictures and video we've all seen of the destruction in the Gulf Coast areas, and back beyond that, to the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami and the terrorist acts of 9/11. All those designs, treasured up by hundreds and thousands of minds over years and decades and even centuries ... wiped out. Gone. Obliterated in a moment. No more than a memory - like all my plastic bricks and tree-hung rockets.

And it brings to mind the scenes of people building in the aftermath. No, not huge skyscrapers or luxury oceanside resorts or architectural fantasies. I'm thinking of those who rebuild lives. The ones who sacrifice time, money and muscle to help and provide and host and heal.

Those who rescue. Those who save.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. - I Corinthians 3:10-17

I have nothing against great buildings, great architecture, even great churches or cathedrals. I have no qualms with living in comfort and having nice toys - whether plastic bricks or computer pixels. They have a use and fulfill a human need. I just need - we all just need - to remember that they're only temporary.

They may outlast us, but they can't outlive us.

If my late dad could ask me now, I'd want to answer excitedly: "I'm building a family to carry on your name! I'm building a relationship with God and His Son and His family! I'm trying to build a legacy on a foundation that others can build on! I'm trying to find a way to help - myself; my kids; my church family - build our lives up smart and strong and spiritual and sweet ... just the way Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man!"

I need to remember it all the time, when I'm absorbed in playing with the provisional; when I'm flying after the fleeting; when I'm transfixed by the transitory. I need to remember my heavenly Father is asking me:

"What are you building, son?"

A New Skin for New Wineskins

I haven't blogged very faithfully lately, and you deserve to know why.

In addition to job-searching, I've been putting a fair amount of time and effort into the redesign of the New Wineskins site and transferring a lot of archival material from the current site to the new one. Right now I only need to move the "Living Jesus" and "Gospel of Mark" issues to be caught up.

And I've gone a little deeper into the archives in the other direction, too. On the current site, you can read articles as far back as the November-December, 2001 issue (themed "Postmodernism: Finding God in the Chaos"). On the new site, archived articles go back to the November-December, 1999 issue (themed "Resurrection Hope") - another two years of back issues to catch up on!

It has been such a blessing to re-read these rich articles while keying them in for the archives. (I have a scanner/OCR program, but it's more error-prone than I am - and I don't always get to really read the articles when I use it; I end up proofreading the scanned text for errors instead of content!)

Quite a lot of those materials were transferred by Greg Taylor and Todd Austin before I started with the project, and just need a little "tidying up" in their source code. (Microsoft FrontPage adds a ton of unnecessary gobbledy-gook to HTML pages that just slows down the page build on your computer.)

On the new site - and this may not all be in place by the time the site launches this fall - I'm hoping to have all archived articles available by author and topic as well as by the issue / edition in which they originally appeared.

The topics section will be categorized under the main headings "Christ," "Community," "Culture" and "You" - sound familiar? I'm still designing the rollover graphics for the top banner of the site that will take you to them.

Also still to be done:

• A special template for the home page.


• Scanning and inserting graphics for many of the back issues in the archive


• There's still a little tweaking to be done to the navigation, incorporating a handy feature of the new site's content management system; it lets you add major links to the navigation area without having to adjust the templates. Okay, that's pretty esoteric stuff for those of you who don't dig into HTML source code, but it means that it will be easier for Greg or Todd or me to help you navigate the site.

I'm really looking forward to the September-October issue. I'm pretty sure that a blog post by David U is queued up for publication. If I've counted correctly, it will be issue number 60.

I have lots of other ideas for the site that I haven't even had a chance to talk with Greg about - so I won't go into them here and now.

I could tell you the temporary URL of the new site and theme of the issue - and it's not that I'd have to kill you later; it's just that it'd spoil the surprise for you!

Clones of God

I think there are some folks in many church fellowships who want their brothers and sisters to be clones of God ... or perhaps more accurately, clones of themselves. Thinking, believing, acting the way they do.

Like the Nazi-ish stormtroopers of Star Wars or the goofy-looking Oompa-Loompas of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: everyone looking, speaking, behaving the same.

How boring.

God didn't make us clones. He made us different from each other. He expected us to generate different points of view, interact with each other about them, appreciate the differences. It's part of what enriches His creation. Peter didn't preach like Paul. John the Baptist wore itchy camel's hair.

If He had wanted every detail of His will to be perfectly clear and universally known, couldn't He have done that? (Even if it took a MUCH bigger book than the Bible?)Or is it more likely that He wants us to meditate on what He has revealed ... discuss it; share it; learn from each other - struggle? disagree? love and accept each other anyway?

Rather than marching in lock-step on the "only correct" side of every single issue we can think of?