I imagine I've riled some folks this week with my stubborn insistence that there is more than one "right" way to "do church."
I've left my electronic autograph attached to many comments on many blogs to that effect where I encountered folks who are just convinced that - for instance - because church buildings are not the most cost-effective means of drawing people closer to Christ that they can think of, it must be wrong to do so.
And while I agree that we Christians could do better at being open to innovation; to new ways of lifting up Christ so that He may draw all men to Himself ... I must continue to insist that while some people are drawn to Him by one kind of outreach, others are drawn to Him by completely different kinds of outreach. What works for me, or for my church, or for my neighborhood, city or culture, may only work for attracting a handful of others who are outside of the body of Christ - but He still loves them dearly and holds them precious.
Will I finally be judged by adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles when He returns?
Or will He remember that it cost Him everything to win the ones who would follow Him?
So forgive me if I continue to work with a clear conscience at a large metro church with a Family Life Center and gym and cafe ... one which is open to the community and hosts all kinds of non-profit and community organizations ... one which supports thirteen missionary families/teams ... one which hosts the campus of a Christian elementary school and baby/toddler Day School ... one which supports a thriving inner-city ministry downtown and an inner-city church across the river ... one which employs three youth ministers and one children's minister ... one which has outgrown its teen room on Sunday and Wednesday nights because of so many visitors ... one which has run out of Sunday School classroom space for adults and children even after expanding the building four times over the past twenty years ... one in which elective offerings on Sunday morning and Wednesday nights have included "Eschatology (Second Coming)," "Revelation," and "The Holy Spirit" ... one whose preaching minister hosts an "ask-the-minister-anything" Seekers Class on Sunday mornings ... one which has three ladies' classes on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, and a Seniors class on Wednesday mornings ... one which operates a Substance Abuse Recovery program on Monday nights ... one which is tracking with its elders' prayed-for goal ten years ago of 10 percent growth per annum.
I know numbers and statistics are not the measure of a church.
But I am a stubborn old cuss, and I believe there is more than one way to lead people closer to Christ - and that where I am at this point in time, there's nothing wrong with the way we're trying to do so at my home congregation in good ol' Little Rock, Arkansas because He's at the center of everything that happens there.
And if I am wrong, I beg Your forgiveness.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
To Where in a Handbasket?
What does the Bible actually say about hell?
Not a lot.
And Jesus says more than anybody else.
In Matthew 5:22-31, Jesus is quoted several times as warning against it. He says nothing about being torched alive there forever in an indestructible body.
He warns against it again in Matthew 18:9 in what can only be described as a hyperbolic commentary on blaming parts of your body for your sins. He doesn't say anything about being tortured in hell forever.
He instructs us about whom we should fear in Matthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." I tend to take the word "destroy" literally. I picture it as meaning "obliteration" of "both soul and body." I do not see it in this context as literal for one and figurative for the other. I take this instruction to mean that we should have a healthy fear of God's power to judge, since He has the power to offer eternal life as His gift. But I see nothing here about being roasted alive for aeons.
Jesus decries the Pharisees' efforts to create converts to their legalism in Matthew 23:15 by saying the new converts become just as much sons of hell as their mentors. Not a politically correct observation. Also not a teaching about endless physical torment in flame. Nor does such a teaching surface a few verses later in 33 where He calls them the offspring of vipers and asks how they plan to escape hell.
The parallel passages to Matthew 5 in Mark 9:45-48 does apply a quote from Isaiah to describe hell: "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The original does indeed describe a prophetic vision of the consequences of God's judgment by Isaiah (66:24. But it only says that the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. It says nothing about the "bodies" in that scene being still filled with life. In fact, the impression is quite the opposite. Maybe the worm and the fire do not die out because they are being continually fueled with more bodies to consume.
Then, in that expansive picture of judgment Jesus paints in Matthew 25, Jesus clearly warns in verse 41:
Eternal fire. Prepared for the devil and his angels. But He does not say that those humans thrown there will endure it eternally.
Luke 12:5 echoes the instruction about whom to fear - given at the sending out of the twelve in Matthew 10 - as a polemic against the Pharisees, also given later after the twelve and 72 have returned and thousands are following Him. Still no elaboration about unending agony.
However, Luke 16:23 is part of the enigmatic story Jesus tells about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man finds himself in hell (literally, the Greek word for "Hades," the place of the dead) and begs for Lazarus to bring just a dripping finger of water because he is "in agony in this flame." It's not a pretty picture. But no one says anything about it being eternal. Is the rich man's plea for his brothers motivated by the realization that he doesn't have much time left to beg (a terrible irony, since Lazarus lived and died a beggar at his gate) for their fate? Is the point of the story to relate actuality; to teach us something we needed to know about hell? Or to use the existing, probably Zoroastrian-Greek-originated beliefs about life and life after death to make a point:
James, generally regarded as the Lord's brother, warns of the tongue's fiery destructive inspiration and capability (in what strikes me as a curious comparison to the Holy Spirit's fiery church-constructing activity in Acts 2) in his general epistle (3:6). Still nothing there about timeless excruciation.
Now, II Peter 2:4 does tell us something about hell: that it is a place of gloomy dungeons where God sent rebellious angels to be held for judgment. Angels. Not people. And not for eternity; just until judgment. Then Revelation 20:14-15 takes up the tale of what happens next:
Revelation 21:8 gives us the final glimpse at the sinful and their fate: "their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
I can't tell you how literally to take the Revelation to John. I don't believe anyone can. It is a highly symbolic book of apocalyptic vision. But I can tell you that nothing in those words says that anyone would survive being thrown into that lake of fire. Nothing. Not a hint. Not a reflection back to law or prophecy or Christ's words or His followers' teachings.
It is final. It is the "second death."
I am not a fan of stringing together tenuously-related scriptures to build a point. I do not have the clear and complete teachings of Biblical times on the question. I can tell you that "sheol" is the Hebrew word that comes closest to the concept of "hell" in the Old Testament, and it is sometimes translated "grave" or "pit." It is the final resting place of the body. I can tell you that, similarly, "hades" is the Greek word which simply describes the abode of the dead in literature as well as scripture. Sometimes its inhabitants are dead bodies; sometimes spirits.
I can tell you that when Paul is talking about "all" of us being changed in the twinkling of an eye into incorruptible flesh in I Corinthians 15:51-52, he is writing to Christians. To conclude that "we ... all" includes anyone other than those who put their hope in Christ is making an unwarranted and unsupported assumption. In fact, he distinguishes between the perishable and the imperishable - only one of which can inherit the kingdom of God. (Guess which one.)
So, in spite of disliking the occupation of building my point on all these somewhat-related scriptures, I don't have a lot more to go on and neither do you, unless God has been whispering to you on the sly. And the conclusion I come to is this:
We live. We die. We are all judged. (Whether we are raised at this point as spirits or in bodies as mortal as the ones we have now, I can't tell from scripture.)
Those whom God judges worthy are changed into incorruptible forms to live with Him forever on the new earth among the new heavens. Those whom God judges as unworthy just die. They perish. Whatever is left of them does not seem to be vivified, recycled, or tortured - but annihilated. Burned up in the lake of fire, the second death. Finally. Permanently. Irrevocably.
Fallen angels and demons, including Satan? I have no clearer picture of that. Perhaps, as beings created to be immortal, they do suffer immortally for the sin of having seen God and known His goodness yet opposing it forever. Perhaps, as beings created to be immortal yet becoming God's enemies, they are not worthy even of the immortality they might have enjoyed - and they too are extinguished.
And perhaps that lake of fire burns eternally, not because fuel is continuously added to it, but because God wills it as a reminder of the consequences of evil. But even that I would have to wonder about as a necessity for eternal survivors of an world turned evil, living endlessly in the companionship of God through His Son.
Nothing in scripture inarguably confirms or denies my view of eternity as a gift only for those given it by God.
Neither does it unquestionably paint a picture of human souls being physically tortured forever in a hell of fire as the expression of God's justice.
I have my reasons for holding the view I have; you have yours for your view. It is difficult for me to believe that God would mete infinite torture as punishment for finite sin; it is difficult for me to believe that He would even permit such a place to eternally exist. If Christ conquered sin and death, then He conquered it. Obliterated its power. If He did so on our behalf, then it makes no sense to me that its place should continue eternally. Perhaps "eternal" is meant literally. Perhaps it is meant figuratively. Still, I have to concede, it is described by Him as "eternal fire." And it surely has a purpose.
I believe in scripture. I believe in judgment. I believe that God is perfect in judgment. I believe in the kindness and severity of God. I believe in His mercy and His righteousness. I believe in what hymnist Elizabeth Clephane spoke of as the "trysting place where Heaven’s love and Heaven’s justice meet!":
I believe in the cross.
Not a lot.
And Jesus says more than anybody else.
In Matthew 5:22-31, Jesus is quoted several times as warning against it. He says nothing about being torched alive there forever in an indestructible body.
He warns against it again in Matthew 18:9 in what can only be described as a hyperbolic commentary on blaming parts of your body for your sins. He doesn't say anything about being tortured in hell forever.
He instructs us about whom we should fear in Matthew 10:28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." I tend to take the word "destroy" literally. I picture it as meaning "obliteration" of "both soul and body." I do not see it in this context as literal for one and figurative for the other. I take this instruction to mean that we should have a healthy fear of God's power to judge, since He has the power to offer eternal life as His gift. But I see nothing here about being roasted alive for aeons.
Jesus decries the Pharisees' efforts to create converts to their legalism in Matthew 23:15 by saying the new converts become just as much sons of hell as their mentors. Not a politically correct observation. Also not a teaching about endless physical torment in flame. Nor does such a teaching surface a few verses later in 33 where He calls them the offspring of vipers and asks how they plan to escape hell.
The parallel passages to Matthew 5 in Mark 9:45-48 does apply a quote from Isaiah to describe hell: "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The original does indeed describe a prophetic vision of the consequences of God's judgment by Isaiah (66:24. But it only says that the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. It says nothing about the "bodies" in that scene being still filled with life. In fact, the impression is quite the opposite. Maybe the worm and the fire do not die out because they are being continually fueled with more bodies to consume.
Then, in that expansive picture of judgment Jesus paints in Matthew 25, Jesus clearly warns in verse 41:
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Eternal fire. Prepared for the devil and his angels. But He does not say that those humans thrown there will endure it eternally.
Luke 12:5 echoes the instruction about whom to fear - given at the sending out of the twelve in Matthew 10 - as a polemic against the Pharisees, also given later after the twelve and 72 have returned and thousands are following Him. Still no elaboration about unending agony.
However, Luke 16:23 is part of the enigmatic story Jesus tells about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man finds himself in hell (literally, the Greek word for "Hades," the place of the dead) and begs for Lazarus to bring just a dripping finger of water because he is "in agony in this flame." It's not a pretty picture. But no one says anything about it being eternal. Is the rich man's plea for his brothers motivated by the realization that he doesn't have much time left to beg (a terrible irony, since Lazarus lived and died a beggar at his gate) for their fate? Is the point of the story to relate actuality; to teach us something we needed to know about hell? Or to use the existing, probably Zoroastrian-Greek-originated beliefs about life and life after death to make a point:
"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
James, generally regarded as the Lord's brother, warns of the tongue's fiery destructive inspiration and capability (in what strikes me as a curious comparison to the Holy Spirit's fiery church-constructing activity in Acts 2) in his general epistle (3:6). Still nothing there about timeless excruciation.
Now, II Peter 2:4 does tell us something about hell: that it is a place of gloomy dungeons where God sent rebellious angels to be held for judgment. Angels. Not people. And not for eternity; just until judgment. Then Revelation 20:14-15 takes up the tale of what happens next:
Then death and Hades (the place of the dead) are thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 gives us the final glimpse at the sinful and their fate: "their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
I can't tell you how literally to take the Revelation to John. I don't believe anyone can. It is a highly symbolic book of apocalyptic vision. But I can tell you that nothing in those words says that anyone would survive being thrown into that lake of fire. Nothing. Not a hint. Not a reflection back to law or prophecy or Christ's words or His followers' teachings.
It is final. It is the "second death."
I am not a fan of stringing together tenuously-related scriptures to build a point. I do not have the clear and complete teachings of Biblical times on the question. I can tell you that "sheol" is the Hebrew word that comes closest to the concept of "hell" in the Old Testament, and it is sometimes translated "grave" or "pit." It is the final resting place of the body. I can tell you that, similarly, "hades" is the Greek word which simply describes the abode of the dead in literature as well as scripture. Sometimes its inhabitants are dead bodies; sometimes spirits.
I can tell you that when Paul is talking about "all" of us being changed in the twinkling of an eye into incorruptible flesh in I Corinthians 15:51-52, he is writing to Christians. To conclude that "we ... all" includes anyone other than those who put their hope in Christ is making an unwarranted and unsupported assumption. In fact, he distinguishes between the perishable and the imperishable - only one of which can inherit the kingdom of God. (Guess which one.)
So, in spite of disliking the occupation of building my point on all these somewhat-related scriptures, I don't have a lot more to go on and neither do you, unless God has been whispering to you on the sly. And the conclusion I come to is this:
We live. We die. We are all judged. (Whether we are raised at this point as spirits or in bodies as mortal as the ones we have now, I can't tell from scripture.)
Those whom God judges worthy are changed into incorruptible forms to live with Him forever on the new earth among the new heavens. Those whom God judges as unworthy just die. They perish. Whatever is left of them does not seem to be vivified, recycled, or tortured - but annihilated. Burned up in the lake of fire, the second death. Finally. Permanently. Irrevocably.
Fallen angels and demons, including Satan? I have no clearer picture of that. Perhaps, as beings created to be immortal, they do suffer immortally for the sin of having seen God and known His goodness yet opposing it forever. Perhaps, as beings created to be immortal yet becoming God's enemies, they are not worthy even of the immortality they might have enjoyed - and they too are extinguished.
And perhaps that lake of fire burns eternally, not because fuel is continuously added to it, but because God wills it as a reminder of the consequences of evil. But even that I would have to wonder about as a necessity for eternal survivors of an world turned evil, living endlessly in the companionship of God through His Son.
Nothing in scripture inarguably confirms or denies my view of eternity as a gift only for those given it by God.
Neither does it unquestionably paint a picture of human souls being physically tortured forever in a hell of fire as the expression of God's justice.
I have my reasons for holding the view I have; you have yours for your view. It is difficult for me to believe that God would mete infinite torture as punishment for finite sin; it is difficult for me to believe that He would even permit such a place to eternally exist. If Christ conquered sin and death, then He conquered it. Obliterated its power. If He did so on our behalf, then it makes no sense to me that its place should continue eternally. Perhaps "eternal" is meant literally. Perhaps it is meant figuratively. Still, I have to concede, it is described by Him as "eternal fire." And it surely has a purpose.
I believe in scripture. I believe in judgment. I believe that God is perfect in judgment. I believe in the kindness and severity of God. I believe in His mercy and His righteousness. I believe in what hymnist Elizabeth Clephane spoke of as the "trysting place where Heaven’s love and Heaven’s justice meet!":
I believe in the cross.
Stepping Outside in Faith
I think I've confessed on my blog before that Angi and I watch way too much HGTV.
But I don't think I've explained that a lot of my fascination with its shows is faith.
That'll take a little more explanation.
On a lot of HGTV shows - just as on the granddaddy of them, ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition - a family, couple or individual steps out in faith. Out of their own home. Having faith in their designer/design team. Having often never seen much more than a sketch; on some shows, not even that.
Then they return after a day or two, or a week.
And a truly lost room or suite of rooms or house has been redeemed.
(Well, most of the time.)
David Bromstad's ColorSplash is the newest entry into the field. The homeowners always have total faith in what he will do for their room(s). They hug him - without exception, so far.
Last night, the wife of the couple expressed the redesign as "life-changing."
Okay, that would be an exaggeration for me. It would certainly be "house-changing" or at least "room-changing."
Still, I admire her faith.
Would I have such faith, to turn over my house to strangers and let them imprint it with their design sense and preferences?
I like the way my house is decorated.
It's the same way with my life.
Is it any wonder that it's difficult persuading people to turn over their entire lives to a Jesus whom they hardly know?
Is it any wonder that it's difficult persuading ourselves to turn over our entire lives to a Jesus who wants us to step outside our homes, outside our comfort zones, outside ourselves to reach them?
But I don't think I've explained that a lot of my fascination with its shows is faith.
That'll take a little more explanation.
On a lot of HGTV shows - just as on the granddaddy of them, ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition - a family, couple or individual steps out in faith. Out of their own home. Having faith in their designer/design team. Having often never seen much more than a sketch; on some shows, not even that.
Then they return after a day or two, or a week.
And a truly lost room or suite of rooms or house has been redeemed.
(Well, most of the time.)
David Bromstad's ColorSplash is the newest entry into the field. The homeowners always have total faith in what he will do for their room(s). They hug him - without exception, so far.
Last night, the wife of the couple expressed the redesign as "life-changing."
Okay, that would be an exaggeration for me. It would certainly be "house-changing" or at least "room-changing."
Still, I admire her faith.
Would I have such faith, to turn over my house to strangers and let them imprint it with their design sense and preferences?
I like the way my house is decorated.
It's the same way with my life.
Is it any wonder that it's difficult persuading people to turn over their entire lives to a Jesus whom they hardly know?
Is it any wonder that it's difficult persuading ourselves to turn over our entire lives to a Jesus who wants us to step outside our homes, outside our comfort zones, outside ourselves to reach them?
Monday, March 26, 2007
Unhinged Thought for the Day
Somewhere in a Hollywood prop room, the Quaker Oats Guy is engaged in a staring-down contest with the Burger King.
(Just thinking about this will creep me out enough that I will have difficulty getting to sleep.)
(Just thinking about this will creep me out enough that I will have difficulty getting to sleep.)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
One and Two at the Table
With earnest economy of words, my older brother in Christ Don Capps led our hearts at the table this morning.
In his inimitable way, he put to scripture something that I’ve long felt in my heart but couldn’t express why: that our time at the table is meant for remembering Jesus’ death, yes; but also His resurrection. Don put it this way:
“Paul’s instruction in I Corinthians 11 was - (1) to proclaim His death ... (2) until He comes – in other words, like we just sang, ‘He Lives.’”
Thank you, God, for bringing me closer to Your Son through your servant Don today.
In his inimitable way, he put to scripture something that I’ve long felt in my heart but couldn’t express why: that our time at the table is meant for remembering Jesus’ death, yes; but also His resurrection. Don put it this way:
“Paul’s instruction in I Corinthians 11 was - (1) to proclaim His death ... (2) until He comes – in other words, like we just sang, ‘He Lives.’”
Thank you, God, for bringing me closer to Your Son through your servant Don today.
HeartWorship: Praying for the Impossible
We spend a fair amount of time praying during our worship together. Hopefully, we spend a fair amount of time praying during our times alone and with our families.
We often pray for things that are out of our hands: a decision that others will make; a healing we want to take place; the success of something attempted; a particular thing that is wanted or needed.
But how often do we pray for things that may seem impossible?
How frequently do we pray for God to be glorified?
How many times a week do we pray for His will to be done – through us?
For His good news and good will to flood the world? For hearts to turn back to Him? For the growth of His kingdom?
How often do we pray for what God wants?
We often pray for things that are out of our hands: a decision that others will make; a healing we want to take place; the success of something attempted; a particular thing that is wanted or needed.
But how often do we pray for things that may seem impossible?
How frequently do we pray for God to be glorified?
How many times a week do we pray for His will to be done – through us?
For His good news and good will to flood the world? For hearts to turn back to Him? For the growth of His kingdom?
How often do we pray for what God wants?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Dawn at the Lux Aeterna Café
... illuminated the well-robed forms of Michelangelo Buonarroti and Leonardo da Vinci backing into each other at the napkin bar. Growling apologies at each other, they nodded in recognition and agreement to share a table. They were not morning people - but they were gentlemanly enough to tip the lute player as they passed.
Finally, after coming to terms with half a mug of java each - Leonardo's was his own uncredited invention, cappuccino - they began to mumble greetings at each other.
"Lenny."
"Mike."
"How'd the monastery fresco come out?" Michelangelo queried.
"What, that 'Last Supper' thing? Finished it ages ago. Turned out nicely, I thought. Maybe not my best work, but okay. How about your ceiling gig at the Sistine?"
Michelangelo snorted. "It took forever and wasn't worth the paint. Now, give me a couple of tons of stone, a hammer and chisel, and I will discover the soul of the subject!"
"Perhaps," Leonardo shrugged. "But it is more accurately portrayed with the colors God created ..."
"Color is overrated! And God created in three dimensions, not two. You of all people ..."
Their discussion was interrupted by a quarrel that had turned ugly at a table nearby. Martin Luther leapt to his feet, brandishing a wide butter knife dripping with the melted stuff, shouting: "Hymns, I tell you! They are all that God hears! The Creator needs nothing of your next-century innovation!"
George Frideric Handel rolled his robust form out of his chair to face his breakfast companion: "Oratorios, Marty, are within His aural range!"
The lute-playing ceased.
Whereupon Luther slapped Handel across the cheek with the buttery flat of the knife. The café's bouncer - the lute-player, who looked remarkably like the Apostle Paul - intervened immediately, telling them both to take it outside.
"What, outside the café?" they chorused.
"No," replied the bouncer firmly. "Outside the Gates of Heaven entirely."
They quieted, and grudgingly sank back into their seats. The lute-player began strumming again, and conversations slowly resumed.
"What a couple of horses' patooties," Michaelangelo sniffed.
"Agreed," Leonardo nodded. "As if God could be worshiped by something as mundane and secular as music."
Finally, after coming to terms with half a mug of java each - Leonardo's was his own uncredited invention, cappuccino - they began to mumble greetings at each other.
"Lenny."
"Mike."
"How'd the monastery fresco come out?" Michelangelo queried.
"What, that 'Last Supper' thing? Finished it ages ago. Turned out nicely, I thought. Maybe not my best work, but okay. How about your ceiling gig at the Sistine?"
Michelangelo snorted. "It took forever and wasn't worth the paint. Now, give me a couple of tons of stone, a hammer and chisel, and I will discover the soul of the subject!"
"Perhaps," Leonardo shrugged. "But it is more accurately portrayed with the colors God created ..."
"Color is overrated! And God created in three dimensions, not two. You of all people ..."
Their discussion was interrupted by a quarrel that had turned ugly at a table nearby. Martin Luther leapt to his feet, brandishing a wide butter knife dripping with the melted stuff, shouting: "Hymns, I tell you! They are all that God hears! The Creator needs nothing of your next-century innovation!"
George Frideric Handel rolled his robust form out of his chair to face his breakfast companion: "Oratorios, Marty, are within His aural range!"
The lute-playing ceased.
Whereupon Luther slapped Handel across the cheek with the buttery flat of the knife. The café's bouncer - the lute-player, who looked remarkably like the Apostle Paul - intervened immediately, telling them both to take it outside.
"What, outside the café?" they chorused.
"No," replied the bouncer firmly. "Outside the Gates of Heaven entirely."
They quieted, and grudgingly sank back into their seats. The lute-player began strumming again, and conversations slowly resumed.
"What a couple of horses' patooties," Michaelangelo sniffed.
"Agreed," Leonardo nodded. "As if God could be worshiped by something as mundane and secular as music."
Friday, March 23, 2007
Yup, It's True: ZOE Group on MP3s
If you've been blessed as I have with music from The ZOE Group, you'll understand why I'm excited to tell you that their most recent albums are now available as MP3 downloads from the new MP3 Downloads aisle of The ZOE Group Store.
They're only $1 per song, a competitive price in a world of 99c iTunes and 88c Wal-Mart Music offerings. But you can't get them there.
On each song's page, there's a little control panel you can use to listen to a short (about one minute) sample of the song. That'll help you figure out whether you want to buy "All the Heavens" from Closer or "All the Heavens" from Ancient Future ... or "Holy is the Lord" from Closer or "Holy is the Lord" from Look to the Hills. (Four different songs, there ... see, wasn't it fun listening to the excerpts?)
The most recent three albums are already available: Closer, In Christ Alone and Desperate. I'm adding more as quickly (and carefully) as I can to the site.
And, as nearly as I can tell, The ZOE Group is the only a cappella Christian worship team making their songs available by MP3 download on the Web (though you can find Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company songs on iTunes. Still, it's hard to convince an AAC-format iTunes song to play on your MP3 player, isn't it?)
So, what are you waiting for? Go listen! Go buy some!
They're only $1 per song, a competitive price in a world of 99c iTunes and 88c Wal-Mart Music offerings. But you can't get them there.
On each song's page, there's a little control panel you can use to listen to a short (about one minute) sample of the song. That'll help you figure out whether you want to buy "All the Heavens" from Closer or "All the Heavens" from Ancient Future ... or "Holy is the Lord" from Closer or "Holy is the Lord" from Look to the Hills. (Four different songs, there ... see, wasn't it fun listening to the excerpts?)
The most recent three albums are already available: Closer, In Christ Alone and Desperate. I'm adding more as quickly (and carefully) as I can to the site.
And, as nearly as I can tell, The ZOE Group is the only a cappella Christian worship team making their songs available by MP3 download on the Web (though you can find Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company songs on iTunes. Still, it's hard to convince an AAC-format iTunes song to play on your MP3 player, isn't it?)
So, what are you waiting for? Go listen! Go buy some!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Call Me Contrary
The quotes emboxed below are from an article in the January edition of a printed publication which has wide readership among members of the fellowship (the "brotherhood") in which I worship - though many of them would no more fellowship me than they would Osama Bin Laden. I republish them without permission or attribution. And I intersperse among the selected quotes my own commentary. I do this because there are folks who are blessedly unaware of the rhetoric that I have protested in a previous post or two. I think I owe them an explanation.
In 1994, 1,490 children died from abuse and/or neglect in the United States among 3,503,000 cases investigated by child protection agencies.
In the county where I live, 797 child abuse cases were filed last year.
In the church where I attend, three foster families have looked after four children of a race different from their own in the past six months, bringing them into their homes and families as their own. Two more families are gearing up to meet that challenge.
Each of us is called upon to do what we can to heal this world and to preach good news to the poor. That is the doctrine of Jesus. It was His mission in Luke 4, Luke 6, Luke 9, Luke 10 ... you get the picture. He shouldered that ministry because God so loved the world. We should too. We should love each other. We should be forgiving toward each other. We should not be spoiling for a fight over what we may see as doctrine, but what Jesus calls the precepts of men.
People are poor and hungry and sick and dying all over the world.
And lost.
If our legacy to our survivors is only that we fought for pure doctrine concocted by our own inarguable logic and infallible research at the cost of pursuing the doctrine of Christ - to seek and to save that which is lost - men shall not rise up and call our generation blessed.
The real fight will be lost, and we will be lost in it.
Headlines on some of the papers throughout the brotherhood give the shameful details: “Nations largest church of Christ adding instrumental service and serving the Lord’s Supper on Saturday night.” “Leaders say there was little opposition to the announcement.” Brethren, where’s the fight which we entered when we took that “oath of office” to serve the Lord, and became a member of His army?
In 1994, 1,490 children died from abuse and/or neglect in the United States among 3,503,000 cases investigated by child protection agencies.
At one time not too many years back, the church of Christ was known as a “fighter.” Members were known as “people of the Book” — “walking Bibles.” The church was growing faster then than at any other time in recent history, but, we have changed and the “fight” is not in us now. We wonder what has happened and where is that fight. It does not take too long to find the answers. The Book has been replaced with words which were not so harsh and the desire to please ourselves and be entertained and to be at peace with the world, being thought of as a “group which fits in with the world” has nearly done away with that fighting spirit which Jesus Christ and the apostles wanted the Christian to have.
In the county where I live, 797 child abuse cases were filed last year.
How does that fit with the scriptures and its teaching? Let that “inspired word” from God speak to mine and your hearts. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15). “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:34,36,37). “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2). “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5,8). “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things)” (Phil. 3:17-19).
In the church where I attend, three foster families have looked after four children of a race different from their own in the past six months, bringing them into their homes and families as their own. Two more families are gearing up to meet that challenge.
Those words from Almighty God have been perverted, twisted, smoothed down, forgotten willingly and otherwise neglected to the loss of our fighting spirit which each Christian should have. We have “loved this world and its pleasures more than God.” We have not humbled ourselves as servants of Christ — but to our own bellies. We have traded God’s word for “smooth sayings” and loved to have it so. We have become “friends” with this world and an enemy to God. We sit idly by and let the “chaste virgin” become a spotted and blemished “social club” which fits in with this sin-sick world. We refuse to fight the good fight of faith. We will pay the price except we repent.
Each of us is called upon to do what we can to heal this world and to preach good news to the poor. That is the doctrine of Jesus. It was His mission in Luke 4, Luke 6, Luke 9, Luke 10 ... you get the picture. He shouldered that ministry because God so loved the world. We should too. We should love each other. We should be forgiving toward each other. We should not be spoiling for a fight over what we may see as doctrine, but what Jesus calls the precepts of men.
People are poor and hungry and sick and dying all over the world.
And lost.
If our legacy to our survivors is only that we fought for pure doctrine concocted by our own inarguable logic and infallible research at the cost of pursuing the doctrine of Christ - to seek and to save that which is lost - men shall not rise up and call our generation blessed.
The real fight will be lost, and we will be lost in it.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Jesus We Want to Believe In
Last year at about this time, it was The DaVinci Code – Ron Howard’s slick film from the Dan Brown novel about the quest for a Jesus who married, had a child, then an earthly dynasty.
This year it was The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the not-so-slick James Cameron documentary about the discovery of a tomb with ossuaries (small stone coffins for bones) marked “Jesus Son of Joseph,” “Mary,” “Mariamne” which was catapulted into a theory remarkably similar to the DaVinci Code fiction.
There was a time when television networks and movie studios would show or release movies during the Easter season like King of Kings or The Greatest Story Ever Told or even the comparatively anemic Jesus of Nazareth. Then they backed off of those and just showed an occasional The Bible in the Beginning or The Ten Commandments. I don’t think we can blame them, though. They’re just giving the viewing public what they’ll watch and what will sell commercial time. And viewers will watch something about a Jesus who’s easy to believe in.
This “Jesus” isn’t both human and divine – he’s just human. He lives. He teaches. He has a normal life. He dies. It’s a sad and tragic death, but that’s all. End of story.
It isn’t a life that draws one emulate. So the teachings aren’t anything that one feels compelled to obey, or follow, or even listen to. This “Jesus” is a good Jesus, but not a perfect Jesus. He’s acceptable to Jew, Muslim, agnostic, atheist. He doesn’t make demands of selflessness or sacrifice or spirituality on people.
Perhaps, more than ever before, that is why it is so crucial for those of us who follow Christ become more dedicated to telling His Story.
There have been studios in recent years which have dared to tell its beginning (The Nativity Story) and its second beginning (The Passion of the Christ) but very little or nothing in-between ... or after. We can’t – and shouldn’t – count on Hollywood to do our job for us. It’s our privilege and our gift to share that truth.
And the time is now.
This year it was The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the not-so-slick James Cameron documentary about the discovery of a tomb with ossuaries (small stone coffins for bones) marked “Jesus Son of Joseph,” “Mary,” “Mariamne” which was catapulted into a theory remarkably similar to the DaVinci Code fiction.
There was a time when television networks and movie studios would show or release movies during the Easter season like King of Kings or The Greatest Story Ever Told or even the comparatively anemic Jesus of Nazareth. Then they backed off of those and just showed an occasional The Bible in the Beginning or The Ten Commandments. I don’t think we can blame them, though. They’re just giving the viewing public what they’ll watch and what will sell commercial time. And viewers will watch something about a Jesus who’s easy to believe in.
This “Jesus” isn’t both human and divine – he’s just human. He lives. He teaches. He has a normal life. He dies. It’s a sad and tragic death, but that’s all. End of story.
It isn’t a life that draws one emulate. So the teachings aren’t anything that one feels compelled to obey, or follow, or even listen to. This “Jesus” is a good Jesus, but not a perfect Jesus. He’s acceptable to Jew, Muslim, agnostic, atheist. He doesn’t make demands of selflessness or sacrifice or spirituality on people.
Perhaps, more than ever before, that is why it is so crucial for those of us who follow Christ become more dedicated to telling His Story.
There have been studios in recent years which have dared to tell its beginning (The Nativity Story) and its second beginning (The Passion of the Christ) but very little or nothing in-between ... or after. We can’t – and shouldn’t – count on Hollywood to do our job for us. It’s our privilege and our gift to share that truth.
And the time is now.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Is Patternism Scriptural?
There's a school of thought which holds that the church today should conform to the pattern of the New Testament church of century one - exactly, precisely, explicitly, with no variations and no questions asked. If the church of century one did it, we must do it. If the church of century one did not do it, we must not do it.
It sounds simple. It sounds scriptural.
But is it?
I'm not a fan of nitpicking phrases or counting words, but I gotta tell you that I only count a little over a dozen times in the Bible that a word translated "pattern" is used. Most of those uses are with reference to the temple, its fixtures, or other edifices. (Exodus 25:9, 40; Numbers 8:4; Joshua 22:8; 2 Kings 16:10; 1 Chronicles 28:11-19; Ezekiel 43:10; Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24.)
The only two times it is used in reference to doctrine are 1 Timothy 1:16:
and Titus 2:7-8:
The latter appears only by virtue of the King James Version, which is usually the favored version of those who hold for the patternism school of thought; other translations render the word differently ("example"). And the sense of its use in Titus is Paul encouraging the young minister to teach sound doctrine (v. 1) and be an example of it - a pattern - to others (the verses quoted).
Similarly, in 1 Timothy, Paul opens this epistle with thanksgiving that through Paul Christ has shown His patience, by sparing him and making him an example of exorbitant grace.
In neither instance is the word used to endorse churches imitating other churches of the day. In fact, a word translated "imitate" is used sparingly in scripture. In the New Testament, Paul will ask others to imitate him, but only insofar as he imitates Christ - or to be imitators of God Himself. And even though Corinth is commended for its generosity, the commendation is seen in the second letter to Corinth - not to other churches, to shame or encourage them to imitate it.
Nowhere in scripture is any church, group of churches or the universal church of Christ held up as a pattern to be imitated. Nowhere in scripture is doctrine elevated as something to be used as the goal for building churches from, as one would build a temple from the instructions God gave to Moses.
Instead, Jesus is the pattern implicit in the teachings of the writers in the New Testament. Ultimately, no one and nothing less than His perfection will do as our pattern.
Can we, as individuals, achieve perfection by our fastidious observation of doctrine?
Oh, come on. Ridiculous question on its face, isn't it?
Then how could anyone hope to build a perfect church by the same method?
And are any of the churches in the New Testament perfect examples of what a church should and must be?
A quick perusal of the epistles to churches and regions - including the seven in the book of Revelation - would have to yield the answer, "no."
So, if you're instructed by someone to "Behold the Pattern!", ask them pointedly where they get that. Ask them to point out to you where in scripture churches are instructed to use other churches as patterns. Ask them to cite book, chapter and verse for a command, an example or a necessary inference that doctrine is to be used to build and perfect churches.
Then show that person verse after verse about the commands Christ gave; the example Christ was; and the necessary inference that we are to be like Him in this world if we would be wondrously like Him in the next.
The Restoration Movement should never be focused on making the church of century one the pattern for the church of century nineteen or twenty or twenty-one. It should be focused on Christ, and restoring the relationship of souls to God through Him by letting Him perfect them - and their churches - through His blood.
That's scriptural.
You can prove it.
It sounds simple. It sounds scriptural.
But is it?
I'm not a fan of nitpicking phrases or counting words, but I gotta tell you that I only count a little over a dozen times in the Bible that a word translated "pattern" is used. Most of those uses are with reference to the temple, its fixtures, or other edifices. (Exodus 25:9, 40; Numbers 8:4; Joshua 22:8; 2 Kings 16:10; 1 Chronicles 28:11-19; Ezekiel 43:10; Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24.)
The only two times it is used in reference to doctrine are 1 Timothy 1:16:
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
and Titus 2:7-8:
In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
The latter appears only by virtue of the King James Version, which is usually the favored version of those who hold for the patternism school of thought; other translations render the word differently ("example"). And the sense of its use in Titus is Paul encouraging the young minister to teach sound doctrine (v. 1) and be an example of it - a pattern - to others (the verses quoted).
Similarly, in 1 Timothy, Paul opens this epistle with thanksgiving that through Paul Christ has shown His patience, by sparing him and making him an example of exorbitant grace.
In neither instance is the word used to endorse churches imitating other churches of the day. In fact, a word translated "imitate" is used sparingly in scripture. In the New Testament, Paul will ask others to imitate him, but only insofar as he imitates Christ - or to be imitators of God Himself. And even though Corinth is commended for its generosity, the commendation is seen in the second letter to Corinth - not to other churches, to shame or encourage them to imitate it.
Nowhere in scripture is any church, group of churches or the universal church of Christ held up as a pattern to be imitated. Nowhere in scripture is doctrine elevated as something to be used as the goal for building churches from, as one would build a temple from the instructions God gave to Moses.
Instead, Jesus is the pattern implicit in the teachings of the writers in the New Testament. Ultimately, no one and nothing less than His perfection will do as our pattern.
Can we, as individuals, achieve perfection by our fastidious observation of doctrine?
Oh, come on. Ridiculous question on its face, isn't it?
Then how could anyone hope to build a perfect church by the same method?
And are any of the churches in the New Testament perfect examples of what a church should and must be?
A quick perusal of the epistles to churches and regions - including the seven in the book of Revelation - would have to yield the answer, "no."
So, if you're instructed by someone to "Behold the Pattern!", ask them pointedly where they get that. Ask them to point out to you where in scripture churches are instructed to use other churches as patterns. Ask them to cite book, chapter and verse for a command, an example or a necessary inference that doctrine is to be used to build and perfect churches.
Then show that person verse after verse about the commands Christ gave; the example Christ was; and the necessary inference that we are to be like Him in this world if we would be wondrously like Him in the next.
The Restoration Movement should never be focused on making the church of century one the pattern for the church of century nineteen or twenty or twenty-one. It should be focused on Christ, and restoring the relationship of souls to God through Him by letting Him perfect them - and their churches - through His blood.
That's scriptural.
You can prove it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Five Billion Dollar Question
We were riding home from school, my two kids and me, when 14-year-old Matthew suddenly deviated from talking about Ferraris and Lamborghinis and asked,
"Dad, what would you do if you had five billion dollars?"
Before I could even stop and think, I heard the words come out of my mouth:
"I'd feed a lot of hungry people. I'd make sure that a lot of poor people got medical care. Africa would look a whole lot different."
"Really?" Matthew said. "I mean ... five billion dollars. Wouldn't you keep some of it for yourself?"
"I have everything I need. I don't have so much money that I think I can do everything for myself and not need God. And I figure, if you have that kind of money and don't do some good with it in the world, what's the point in having it?"
He seemed to consider it.
"You wouldn't even get that sky-blue 2000 Thunderbird?" (He knows I lust after the metal when it comes to that kind of car. Or a pre-1997 British racing-green Miata. Or a really expertly-assembled classic hand-made Lotus Seven.)
"Okay, I might get the T-bird."
Matt seemed relieved. Dad was human after all.
I wasn't relieved.
Why would I have to keep any of it for myself?
Isn't that what Ananias and Sapphira did? (Then lied about it?)
I don't know why that answer came out, to the five-billion-dollar question. Maybe because I've been thinking more and more about kenosis while fasting from soft drinks during Lent. I haven't been doing very much about kenosis in my life, other than drinking water, and as a result, I've been feeling ... empty, rather than full. Parasitical, rather than generous. Greedy, instead of blessed.
The whole idea of five billion dollars is just so huge that all I could think about was having to deal with financial advisers and people begging for money and taxes and nuisance. When the amount is unrealistic, you can be generous.
But what about when the amount is five hundred bucks? I could scrape that together and do a lot of good with it for someone who wouldn't make that much in a year. That might dig a well in a third-world village that doesn't have one. What about fifty? It might buy medicine for someone who doesn't have it. Or five? Several cups of cold water - and maybe even some food.
Yet I can burn through fifty pretty fast, hardly thinking about it where it's going, what it's buying and whether it's glorifying God ... or me.
Why is that?
"Dad, what would you do if you had five billion dollars?"
Before I could even stop and think, I heard the words come out of my mouth:
"I'd feed a lot of hungry people. I'd make sure that a lot of poor people got medical care. Africa would look a whole lot different."
"Really?" Matthew said. "I mean ... five billion dollars. Wouldn't you keep some of it for yourself?"
"I have everything I need. I don't have so much money that I think I can do everything for myself and not need God. And I figure, if you have that kind of money and don't do some good with it in the world, what's the point in having it?"
He seemed to consider it.
"You wouldn't even get that sky-blue 2000 Thunderbird?" (He knows I lust after the metal when it comes to that kind of car. Or a pre-1997 British racing-green Miata. Or a really expertly-assembled classic hand-made Lotus Seven.)
"Okay, I might get the T-bird."
Matt seemed relieved. Dad was human after all.
I wasn't relieved.
Why would I have to keep any of it for myself?
Isn't that what Ananias and Sapphira did? (Then lied about it?)
I don't know why that answer came out, to the five-billion-dollar question. Maybe because I've been thinking more and more about kenosis while fasting from soft drinks during Lent. I haven't been doing very much about kenosis in my life, other than drinking water, and as a result, I've been feeling ... empty, rather than full. Parasitical, rather than generous. Greedy, instead of blessed.
The whole idea of five billion dollars is just so huge that all I could think about was having to deal with financial advisers and people begging for money and taxes and nuisance. When the amount is unrealistic, you can be generous.
But what about when the amount is five hundred bucks? I could scrape that together and do a lot of good with it for someone who wouldn't make that much in a year. That might dig a well in a third-world village that doesn't have one. What about fifty? It might buy medicine for someone who doesn't have it. Or five? Several cups of cold water - and maybe even some food.
Yet I can burn through fifty pretty fast, hardly thinking about it where it's going, what it's buying and whether it's glorifying God ... or me.
Why is that?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
I Skipped Church Tonight
My family and I, instead, just got back from "Winter Jam" at Little Rock's Barton Coliseum, an exuberant worship experience with New Song, Steven Curtis Chapman, Sanctus Real, Jeremy Camp, Hawk Nelson and about 8,000 of our closest friends.
I still have a bit of tinnitus going, so you'll have to speak up in the comments!
But what a wonderful experience for my kids.
I think they need to see that worship can take place in many, many different contexts.
And for those of you who think we just went to a rock concert where the music was no different than any other and only the lyrics were religious and it was all just entertainment, you'd be partly right. Largely wrong, yet partly right.
I would much rather have my kids at a rock concert with Christian music than with a lot of other rot offered as entertainment. In fact, I'd rather be there with them. It was a performance - just as our corporate worship is intended to be a performance, with God as our audience. I got the sense that most of the headliners tonight understood that completely.
Oh, you might protest, but I'll bet they took up a "love offering," didn't they?
Well, I don't know how they could afford all those folks and that gargantuan sound-and-light setup at only $10 a pop and $5 for kids Laura's age and under. I'm betting that co-sponsors like the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission and Temple University and ZAP! probably don't cover the balance of costs for a concert that also features George W. Bush impersonator John Morgan who encourages audiences to impersonate Christ, a fire-breather called "Andre the Hollywood Cowboy," performer Britt Nicole and evangelist Tony Nolan.
Ah, you might respond, then I'll bet a lot of people were "saved" tonight, huh?
Well, a lot of people made a commitment to follow Christ. They'll get more information about how to continue their walk later. They'll be encouraged to read their Bibles, and "hook up" (their choice of words, not mine) with a church. I hope their walk includes a dip in baptismal waters later on, yes; I wouldn't want them to miss out on that. I wouldn't want them to miss out on a lot of other gifts God makes available to enrich our journey with Jesus - and it has to start somewhere, doesn't it? I'm guessing that a lot of young people who went tonight to hear Hawk Nelson got a lot more than they bargained for and some may have begun an exciting journey in the right direction.
The apostle Paul may have phrased it best: becoming all things to all people so that some might be saved. (I can easily picture him singing rock-worship to win those whose worship language is rock.)
And if you're one of those people who insists that baptism is the be-all and end-all of a saved life, then you've got far too narrow a vision of what "salvation" means. Salvation isn't a single memorable moment in a baptistry and eternity in Disneyland. Salvation starts now; a life that yearns to be like - and grow closer to - Christ. A life of service, of selflessness, of sacrifice. A life of worship. "Getting saved" doesn't mean that now you can relax.
It means that it's time to go to work.
Since I have to do that tomorrow, I'm headed for bed now. With a ringing in my ears.
And my heart.
I still have a bit of tinnitus going, so you'll have to speak up in the comments!
But what a wonderful experience for my kids.
I think they need to see that worship can take place in many, many different contexts.
And for those of you who think we just went to a rock concert where the music was no different than any other and only the lyrics were religious and it was all just entertainment, you'd be partly right. Largely wrong, yet partly right.
I would much rather have my kids at a rock concert with Christian music than with a lot of other rot offered as entertainment. In fact, I'd rather be there with them. It was a performance - just as our corporate worship is intended to be a performance, with God as our audience. I got the sense that most of the headliners tonight understood that completely.
Oh, you might protest, but I'll bet they took up a "love offering," didn't they?
Well, I don't know how they could afford all those folks and that gargantuan sound-and-light setup at only $10 a pop and $5 for kids Laura's age and under. I'm betting that co-sponsors like the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission and Temple University and ZAP! probably don't cover the balance of costs for a concert that also features George W. Bush impersonator John Morgan who encourages audiences to impersonate Christ, a fire-breather called "Andre the Hollywood Cowboy," performer Britt Nicole and evangelist Tony Nolan.
Ah, you might respond, then I'll bet a lot of people were "saved" tonight, huh?
Well, a lot of people made a commitment to follow Christ. They'll get more information about how to continue their walk later. They'll be encouraged to read their Bibles, and "hook up" (their choice of words, not mine) with a church. I hope their walk includes a dip in baptismal waters later on, yes; I wouldn't want them to miss out on that. I wouldn't want them to miss out on a lot of other gifts God makes available to enrich our journey with Jesus - and it has to start somewhere, doesn't it? I'm guessing that a lot of young people who went tonight to hear Hawk Nelson got a lot more than they bargained for and some may have begun an exciting journey in the right direction.
The apostle Paul may have phrased it best: becoming all things to all people so that some might be saved. (I can easily picture him singing rock-worship to win those whose worship language is rock.)
And if you're one of those people who insists that baptism is the be-all and end-all of a saved life, then you've got far too narrow a vision of what "salvation" means. Salvation isn't a single memorable moment in a baptistry and eternity in Disneyland. Salvation starts now; a life that yearns to be like - and grow closer to - Christ. A life of service, of selflessness, of sacrifice. A life of worship. "Getting saved" doesn't mean that now you can relax.
It means that it's time to go to work.
Since I have to do that tomorrow, I'm headed for bed now. With a ringing in my ears.
And my heart.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
HeartWorship: Like Little Children
It’s as much a gentle instruction as it is a chilling warning:
“And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’ ” (Matthew 18:3)
The same Jesus who dandled children upon His knee, who would not let His followers turn them away, who refused to silence them when they shouted “Hosanna!” to Him in the temple courts … wants us to become just like them:
Innocent by His blood. Drawn to Him by His love. Exuberant in our praise to Him.
If that’s a key to entering His kingdom, then it must be important.
“And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’ ” (Matthew 18:3)
The same Jesus who dandled children upon His knee, who would not let His followers turn them away, who refused to silence them when they shouted “Hosanna!” to Him in the temple courts … wants us to become just like them:
Innocent by His blood. Drawn to Him by His love. Exuberant in our praise to Him.
If that’s a key to entering His kingdom, then it must be important.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
To Stay or To Go?
I read a lot of blogs frequented by brothers and sisters in Christ. Maybe I'm perceiving a cumulative effect, but it seems that a lot of what I'm reading recently in the comments of those blogs has an undercurrent - if not an outright expression - of yearning to worship elsewhere.
People are asking whether they should stay where they are, and perhaps feel to miserably stifled and unable to worship with all their hearts ... or to go elsewhere; somewhere they can breathe in more freely the Spirit of the Most High God.
Okay, I'm intentionally slanting the question in the direction that most folks asking it have it italicized it.
I gave my less-than-two-mite's-worth recently on David U's blog, Light and Salt, where he's written about perceiving that angst, too.
Then I was asked to expand upon it later on:
I have no less respect for dear brothers and sisters of mine who have left my home church than I do for those who stay, yet are not completely comfortable in its worship environment. I've blogged before that there are ways I would like to express praise for God that would be distracting, annoying and off-putting for others I love there. So I don't. The worship environment is neither old-fashioned nor up-to-the-moment contemporary. It is a blend, and to many who are not satisfied with compromise on both ends of the spectrum, that is frustrating.
As Tim Woodruff and so many others have eloquently expressed, our purpose in worship is not to be satisfied but to praise God and encourage others. We feed the needs of our brothers and sisters in love, speaking in the worship language that resonates best with them. Not all of the time; that's not possible. Hopefully, not grudgingly; that's not fruitful. But we feed each other as generously as we can, while we are all fed by God through Christ. Lovingly. Generously. Patiently. One bite at a time.
Worship language is only a fraction of what causes frustration for many; there are matters of scriptural interpretation and teaching and mission emphasis that comprise a complex tapestry in each church. Personally - and I have no scripture upon which to rest this judgment - I think that those who are young in the faith need to worship where they are most comfortable; where they are fed with the spiritual milk they need to reach maturity. They're not lesser Christians. They're younger. I think that more mature Christians should seriously consider remaining where they are, to encourage others to think and read and weigh for themselves what God says to them through His Word and His Spirit, which are never going to contradict each other. God built diversity into His church from its very inception. He must want it there.
I think it may be to demonstrate to the world that we can believe the same, yet have different opinions - and still love each other almost as dearly as He loves.
I stay at my church because I love being there. I work there for the same reason. I can differ on matters of opinion with brothers and sisters there, and love them and be loved in return. Some I try to persuade; and some try to persuade me. Others I don't pester, and they don't pester me.
It's not a perfect church, because we're all messed up, sinning people. But we have a perfect Savior, and that's more than enough.
So we stay. Most of us stay.
And when sometimes someone goes, we mourn a little bit. We miss them. We wonder if we could have been more for them. We're always glad to see them back, even if it's just for a funeral or a wedding or a community event. Because - for the most part - people don't generally leave there, leaving behind an acid-edged, smoking hole.
But they do leave a hole that no one else can quite fill.
Did the church of Century One offer such an option: more than one Christian assembly to choose from in each city, town or village? Probably not. So is it a good thing today? It can be. Many Christian people find fulfilling church homes by visiting and searching. They find places they can serve in ways that they're gifted that, perhaps, would not have been possible or permissible at their old church home. My point is, we don't really have scripture we can look to for an answer to the question "to stay or to go?"
It's a choice, a very very personal choice.
I think it should be made prayerfully, with fasting, in concert with every member of the immediate family, with a focus on worshiping/glorifying God and serving His children most effectively - according to the gifts He has given and the expectations He has for them.
If you can do that where you are, you should stay.
If you can't do that where you are, you should go.
People are asking whether they should stay where they are, and perhaps feel to miserably stifled and unable to worship with all their hearts ... or to go elsewhere; somewhere they can breathe in more freely the Spirit of the Most High God.
Okay, I'm intentionally slanting the question in the direction that most folks asking it have it italicized it.
I gave my less-than-two-mite's-worth recently on David U's blog, Light and Salt, where he's written about perceiving that angst, too.
Some folks are called to go. Some folks are called to stay.
The ones who have to go should do so ... so their faith can grow and mature in an environment where they can do God's work in the way He has called them to.
The ones who have to stay should do so ... so they can mentor the ones who don't have a clear picture of what God's work should be, and help them grow and mature, and answer God's call.
There's no one right answer to the question of "to stay or to go."
Our loyalty to the Bridegroom must be like Ruth's: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God."
Then I was asked to expand upon it later on:
I don't know if I can explain anything about the way God calls us! But - just as Arthur C. Clarke said that 'any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from magic' - I believe that anyone who feels compelled to serve God in a way that she or he is obviously gifted, and has God's Holy Spirit dwelling within, is indistinguishable from someone who is directly called by God. For me, "called by God" covers a pretty wide range - from Paul being prevented to go where he wanted to go by the Spirit to David being picked out of a queue of brothers to serve as king ... and everything in between.
Whoa, that's a whole blog post in itself.
When you think "called to stay," think about Timothy in Ephesus. There was every kind of nonsense going on there, and somone needed to be there to help straighten things out. There were false teachers worming a living off of young widows instead of trying to help them get by; there were people making outrageous claims about angels and genealogies and apparently praying against each other ... well, you get the picture. It was far worse, in many ways, that what most churches have to deal with today.
But there are still a lot of churches where there is a misguided sense of what God's will is - being right about everything instead of doing good toward everyone, for instance - and need to be mentored by folks who are more mature.
It's a tough calling. It calls for sacrifice. It's not for those who are new to the faith. It'd be easier to go back to the milk diet, but mature Christians need to be chewing on the meat ... and helping others develop the teeth and the taste for it.
I have no less respect for dear brothers and sisters of mine who have left my home church than I do for those who stay, yet are not completely comfortable in its worship environment. I've blogged before that there are ways I would like to express praise for God that would be distracting, annoying and off-putting for others I love there. So I don't. The worship environment is neither old-fashioned nor up-to-the-moment contemporary. It is a blend, and to many who are not satisfied with compromise on both ends of the spectrum, that is frustrating.
As Tim Woodruff and so many others have eloquently expressed, our purpose in worship is not to be satisfied but to praise God and encourage others. We feed the needs of our brothers and sisters in love, speaking in the worship language that resonates best with them. Not all of the time; that's not possible. Hopefully, not grudgingly; that's not fruitful. But we feed each other as generously as we can, while we are all fed by God through Christ. Lovingly. Generously. Patiently. One bite at a time.
Worship language is only a fraction of what causes frustration for many; there are matters of scriptural interpretation and teaching and mission emphasis that comprise a complex tapestry in each church. Personally - and I have no scripture upon which to rest this judgment - I think that those who are young in the faith need to worship where they are most comfortable; where they are fed with the spiritual milk they need to reach maturity. They're not lesser Christians. They're younger. I think that more mature Christians should seriously consider remaining where they are, to encourage others to think and read and weigh for themselves what God says to them through His Word and His Spirit, which are never going to contradict each other. God built diversity into His church from its very inception. He must want it there.
I think it may be to demonstrate to the world that we can believe the same, yet have different opinions - and still love each other almost as dearly as He loves.
I stay at my church because I love being there. I work there for the same reason. I can differ on matters of opinion with brothers and sisters there, and love them and be loved in return. Some I try to persuade; and some try to persuade me. Others I don't pester, and they don't pester me.
It's not a perfect church, because we're all messed up, sinning people. But we have a perfect Savior, and that's more than enough.
So we stay. Most of us stay.
And when sometimes someone goes, we mourn a little bit. We miss them. We wonder if we could have been more for them. We're always glad to see them back, even if it's just for a funeral or a wedding or a community event. Because - for the most part - people don't generally leave there, leaving behind an acid-edged, smoking hole.
But they do leave a hole that no one else can quite fill.
Did the church of Century One offer such an option: more than one Christian assembly to choose from in each city, town or village? Probably not. So is it a good thing today? It can be. Many Christian people find fulfilling church homes by visiting and searching. They find places they can serve in ways that they're gifted that, perhaps, would not have been possible or permissible at their old church home. My point is, we don't really have scripture we can look to for an answer to the question "to stay or to go?"
It's a choice, a very very personal choice.
I think it should be made prayerfully, with fasting, in concert with every member of the immediate family, with a focus on worshiping/glorifying God and serving His children most effectively - according to the gifts He has given and the expectations He has for them.
If you can do that where you are, you should stay.
If you can't do that where you are, you should go.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Well, it was a documentary worthy of Erik Von Daniken himself.
I have to express my respect for the attempt of the producers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus to exercise my credulity. It must be really hard to have a crystalline-clear, Technicolor mental image of an entire alternate reality and then be forced to attempt -in the course of two hours of cable television time and for lack of adequate visual evidence - to connect the dots.
Especially when the dots aren't numbered. And you can't be sure whether some of them are dots, or dust motes, or patina on an ossuary.
But the attempt was as noble as any such attempt can be. Using classic von Daniken-esque logic and research method, the hypotheses presented in the opening minutes were meticulously explored with whatever science could be conveniently applied, and by the middle of the program were expressed as established facts upon which further hypotheses were so explored that they might be treated as concrete facts by the closing moments of the program. Even when some of the hypotheses were labeled speculative and even likely, their promotion continued throughout the documentary.
No attempt was made to address some obvious problems with the mega-theory.
Such as, why friends of the family of Jesus who loved them and respected their beliefs would refer to Him on the marking of an ossuary as the "son of Joseph" without the phrase "as was supposed" added parenthetically afterward.
Or why the family would be buried in Jerusalem in the first place, since they all lived in Nazareth of Galilee.
Or why a 16th Century, complete version of the apocryphal Acts of Phillip (a non-canonical work) would be a preferable reference to the earlier-but-incomplete 4th Century versions - other than the fact that it is the one which conveniently refers to Mary Magdalene by the name on one of the ossuaries: Mariamne. Generally, older works are viewed as more authoritative. And apocryphal works are generally not viewed as authoritative at all.
Or what might be the possible motivations for someone - either now, when poking at Christendom is politically correct; or then, when outright persecution was the rage - to stage a fraudulent tomb setting, including all these names on ossuaries and what they could be construed to imply.
But you have to admire the documentary's suspense-filled, ongoing backstory of the rediscovery of the lost tomb - from the disappointing exploration of the wrong tomb via extra-long laparoscope to the culmination: the exploration of the right tomb cut short by a minor Israeli bureaucrat in a scene reminiscent of the U2 video Where the Streets Have No Name.
Part of the reason that we have documentaries like this - and I hope you'll forgive my soapbox moment here - is that modern education contains no required courses in logic or analytical thinking, apart from mathematical applications. The transfer skills to non-mathematical subjects are not easy to acquire because we are opinionated creatures about matters where we do not immediately perceive absolute truth. Math is an absolute science. If you add two and two, you will always get four. (Generally speaking. Don't introduce chaos theory or some other exception just to be argumentative here, please.)
In the rest of the world, adding two political theories to two religious philosophies will yield thousands of results.
We have not been trained to think analytically about non-mathematical matters.
We do not know a syllogism from a sorites, deductive logic from inductive logic, an assumption from a fact, truth from fiction. We don't know science from pseudo-science. We cannot identify which logical fallacy is at play when we do recognize them. We often do not know logical fallacies when we see them, and we do not know about them in order to be able see them.
So we have half-baked mockumentaries passing for documentaries that should leave the thinking mind hooting and rolling on the floor. The Tomb of Jesus is just the latest in a long line of such so-called efforts that had their heydey when von Daniken was releasing The Chariots of the Gods? - and at least had the molecule of integrity to add a question mark to the end of the title.
Now I stand down from the soapbox. The floor is open.
I have to express my respect for the attempt of the producers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus to exercise my credulity. It must be really hard to have a crystalline-clear, Technicolor mental image of an entire alternate reality and then be forced to attempt -in the course of two hours of cable television time and for lack of adequate visual evidence - to connect the dots.
Especially when the dots aren't numbered. And you can't be sure whether some of them are dots, or dust motes, or patina on an ossuary.
But the attempt was as noble as any such attempt can be. Using classic von Daniken-esque logic and research method, the hypotheses presented in the opening minutes were meticulously explored with whatever science could be conveniently applied, and by the middle of the program were expressed as established facts upon which further hypotheses were so explored that they might be treated as concrete facts by the closing moments of the program. Even when some of the hypotheses were labeled speculative and even likely, their promotion continued throughout the documentary.
No attempt was made to address some obvious problems with the mega-theory.
Such as, why friends of the family of Jesus who loved them and respected their beliefs would refer to Him on the marking of an ossuary as the "son of Joseph" without the phrase "as was supposed" added parenthetically afterward.
Or why the family would be buried in Jerusalem in the first place, since they all lived in Nazareth of Galilee.
Or why a 16th Century, complete version of the apocryphal Acts of Phillip (a non-canonical work) would be a preferable reference to the earlier-but-incomplete 4th Century versions - other than the fact that it is the one which conveniently refers to Mary Magdalene by the name on one of the ossuaries: Mariamne. Generally, older works are viewed as more authoritative. And apocryphal works are generally not viewed as authoritative at all.
Or what might be the possible motivations for someone - either now, when poking at Christendom is politically correct; or then, when outright persecution was the rage - to stage a fraudulent tomb setting, including all these names on ossuaries and what they could be construed to imply.
But you have to admire the documentary's suspense-filled, ongoing backstory of the rediscovery of the lost tomb - from the disappointing exploration of the wrong tomb via extra-long laparoscope to the culmination: the exploration of the right tomb cut short by a minor Israeli bureaucrat in a scene reminiscent of the U2 video Where the Streets Have No Name.
Part of the reason that we have documentaries like this - and I hope you'll forgive my soapbox moment here - is that modern education contains no required courses in logic or analytical thinking, apart from mathematical applications. The transfer skills to non-mathematical subjects are not easy to acquire because we are opinionated creatures about matters where we do not immediately perceive absolute truth. Math is an absolute science. If you add two and two, you will always get four. (Generally speaking. Don't introduce chaos theory or some other exception just to be argumentative here, please.)
In the rest of the world, adding two political theories to two religious philosophies will yield thousands of results.
We have not been trained to think analytically about non-mathematical matters.
We do not know a syllogism from a sorites, deductive logic from inductive logic, an assumption from a fact, truth from fiction. We don't know science from pseudo-science. We cannot identify which logical fallacy is at play when we do recognize them. We often do not know logical fallacies when we see them, and we do not know about them in order to be able see them.
So we have half-baked mockumentaries passing for documentaries that should leave the thinking mind hooting and rolling on the floor. The Tomb of Jesus is just the latest in a long line of such so-called efforts that had their heydey when von Daniken was releasing The Chariots of the Gods? - and at least had the molecule of integrity to add a question mark to the end of the title.
Now I stand down from the soapbox. The floor is open.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Priorities
Does your church emphasize being right about everything
above
doing good toward everyone?
Does your church seek the old paths
as a priority over
going into all the world?
Does your church rebuke, reprove and reproach
more often than it
bears, believes and hopes?
Does your church wear the name of Christ
without
bearing His Spirit within?
Does your church prefer to worship by authorized pattern
over
worshiping the Author of diversity and creativity?
Does your church defend the doctrine
at the expense of
doctoring the defenseless?
Does your church look down on unholiness
to the exclusion of
lifting holy hands?
Does your church really fit into God's kingdom?
Do you really fit in at your church?
above
doing good toward everyone?
Does your church seek the old paths
as a priority over
going into all the world?
Does your church rebuke, reprove and reproach
more often than it
bears, believes and hopes?
Does your church wear the name of Christ
without
bearing His Spirit within?
Does your church prefer to worship by authorized pattern
over
worshiping the Author of diversity and creativity?
Does your church defend the doctrine
at the expense of
doctoring the defenseless?
Does your church look down on unholiness
to the exclusion of
lifting holy hands?
Does your church really fit into God's kingdom?
Do you really fit in at your church?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
