What if each one of us challenged our ministers and teachers to preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified for an entire year?
What might happen if our churches heard nothing but the pure, unadulterated gospel of Jesus the Savior for twelve months straight?
How many might come into a relationship - either for the first time, or an even closer one - with the God of grace through His only begotten Son and inspired by His Holy Spirit if their time of worship and learning revolved around the One whom the law and prophets anticipate, the gospels celebrate, the epistles inaugurate, and holy revelation consummates?
Suppose every message shared; every sermon delivered; every class taught came back to the life and death and resurrection of the Messiah who makes it possible for us to live again, too?
Would His presence in our assemblies become more tangible, more real, more perceptible?
Would His influence in our lives become more welcome, more obvious, more of a blessing?
I can't make a challenge like this without being willing to take it up myself.
In 2009, I am resolved to blog nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified in this place. If what I write about here does not point to Him - directly or indirectly - it is not worth writing about here and I will not do it.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sweet Little Baby Jesus Boy
Oh, how much easier life would seem if He had just remained sweet little baby Jesus boy ... had never grown up in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man ... had never made life-shattering challenges to our selfishness ... had never lived them out perfectly and died to capstone them and lived again to conquer sin and death for all time.
But there He is, big as Life, standing in our Way, speaking the Truth and keeping us from the self we want to be and achieve and accumulate and perish as.
Called upon as Son of God and Man to cause the rising and falling of many, and piercing our souls with His singular sword also.
If we could just get over Him, get under Him, get around Him, get through Him somehow ... we could live the way we wanted to and die stuffed full of ourselves.
And we can't.
All that's left for us is to "get" Him; try to comprehend Him; wrap our heads and hearts and souls and arms around Him ... beg for mercy from His terrible, irresistible perfection and find perfect love there.
Sweet little baby Jesus boy.
Won't stay in the box of a manger. Won't stay in the box of a tomb. Won't stay in the box of Christmas decorations that we'd like to keep Him in for the other 364 days of each year.
Won't stay out of our lives, because He loves us too much to let us live only for ourselves and die miserably for nothing at all.
The associate minister at my church is right:
This Child is Dangerous.
But there He is, big as Life, standing in our Way, speaking the Truth and keeping us from the self we want to be and achieve and accumulate and perish as.
Called upon as Son of God and Man to cause the rising and falling of many, and piercing our souls with His singular sword also.
If we could just get over Him, get under Him, get around Him, get through Him somehow ... we could live the way we wanted to and die stuffed full of ourselves.
And we can't.
All that's left for us is to "get" Him; try to comprehend Him; wrap our heads and hearts and souls and arms around Him ... beg for mercy from His terrible, irresistible perfection and find perfect love there.
Sweet little baby Jesus boy.
Won't stay in the box of a manger. Won't stay in the box of a tomb. Won't stay in the box of Christmas decorations that we'd like to keep Him in for the other 364 days of each year.
Won't stay out of our lives, because He loves us too much to let us live only for ourselves and die miserably for nothing at all.
The associate minister at my church is right:
This Child is Dangerous.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Incarnation
I've had a truly crummy day, and don't feel like blogging.
I've had to talk to both my children - separately - about academic integrity today while keeping in my anger that the new phone/Internet/cable was down when I needed to be doing urgent things online; that the dog had seen fit to wolf down an entire box of doughnuts AND a bag of frosted pretzels; that the garage door opener has gone on the fritz and will require an expensive repair call; that our planned family trip to Ireland next summer has been seriously jeopardized. It's also my son's 16th birthday today, and has been possibly the suckiest one ever for him, since we've had damp or dangerous weather three days in a row now and the State Police will not conduct the driving portion of the license exam. In addition, Angi put together his favorite red velvet birthday cake mix and left it in the oven to help preside at UALR's winter graduation ... and I followed my nose to its singed remains about an hour ago. If she said anything to me about it when she left, I didn't hear her two rooms away.
If you want to read something profound and seasonal and spirit-lifting, read John Mark Hicks's blog entry, Christmas: The Incarnation of God and/or Royce Ogle's Merry Christmas.
I wish I could put two cogent thoughts together right now, but I can't. I wish I could weave a great tapestry of meaning on how I wish Advent could be about shouldering the responsibility for being God-in-the-flesh as Jesus was rather than about indolently anticipating His return as if we had nothing better to do. But Paul already wrote the second letter to Thessalonica and I know I couldn't do better than that.
Nor could I do any better than the two brothers I linked to above, who understand what Incarnation means and the sufficiency of it - and write about it powerfully and persuasively.
This evening I learned that incarnational living sometimes means dashing out in the <1/4-mile visibility fog to go to Kroger's and pick up a couple more red velvet cake mixes and a small bottle of cooking oil, recruiting my daughter to help me clean up the cake pan and mix the new one and pop it in the oven before Mom gets home and brother comes out of his room.
She helped a lot. As we were cleaning up again a moment ago, she said, "That was fun! I know you were having a bad day today. It's better now, isn't it? You were lucky I really didn't have homework tonight."
And she was, of course, perfectly right.
I've had to talk to both my children - separately - about academic integrity today while keeping in my anger that the new phone/Internet/cable was down when I needed to be doing urgent things online; that the dog had seen fit to wolf down an entire box of doughnuts AND a bag of frosted pretzels; that the garage door opener has gone on the fritz and will require an expensive repair call; that our planned family trip to Ireland next summer has been seriously jeopardized. It's also my son's 16th birthday today, and has been possibly the suckiest one ever for him, since we've had damp or dangerous weather three days in a row now and the State Police will not conduct the driving portion of the license exam. In addition, Angi put together his favorite red velvet birthday cake mix and left it in the oven to help preside at UALR's winter graduation ... and I followed my nose to its singed remains about an hour ago. If she said anything to me about it when she left, I didn't hear her two rooms away.
If you want to read something profound and seasonal and spirit-lifting, read John Mark Hicks's blog entry, Christmas: The Incarnation of God and/or Royce Ogle's Merry Christmas.
I wish I could put two cogent thoughts together right now, but I can't. I wish I could weave a great tapestry of meaning on how I wish Advent could be about shouldering the responsibility for being God-in-the-flesh as Jesus was rather than about indolently anticipating His return as if we had nothing better to do. But Paul already wrote the second letter to Thessalonica and I know I couldn't do better than that.
Nor could I do any better than the two brothers I linked to above, who understand what Incarnation means and the sufficiency of it - and write about it powerfully and persuasively.
This evening I learned that incarnational living sometimes means dashing out in the <1/4-mile visibility fog to go to Kroger's and pick up a couple more red velvet cake mixes and a small bottle of cooking oil, recruiting my daughter to help me clean up the cake pan and mix the new one and pop it in the oven before Mom gets home and brother comes out of his room.
She helped a lot. As we were cleaning up again a moment ago, she said, "That was fun! I know you were having a bad day today. It's better now, isn't it? You were lucky I really didn't have homework tonight."
And she was, of course, perfectly right.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Instruments of His Peace, Part II
Wow. That Part I sure was a long time ago. Wonder why I didn't mark it "Part I"?
Maybe because, as I confessed last year, I am a world-class conflict avoider, and I said only as much as I could stand to say.
And because I continue to encounter people of good faith and firm conviction within the fellowship of Churches of Christ who simply believe with all of their hearts that the Bible (or at least most of the New Testament) inarguably forbids worshiping God through Christ today with instruments of music other than the voice ... well, because of that, I can't just let the subject drop.
A dwindling few of them have gone beyond the pale in making personal attack, judgment and condemnation on the question (which, for them, is no question at all). Yet many more have not. They simply teach that it is sin, that it displeases God and - some would say - will eventually lead to eternity in hell.
The teaching is based on presumption of the authority of the Bible as an end-to-end book of law, its complete sufficiency in all matters and questions of right and wrong, and therefore, righteousness and damnation.
That's the first problem I have with this teaching. Where does the Bible claim to be - or even imply that it is - only law and wholly sufficient in every possible question or practice?
The answer might go, Well, 2 Timothy 3:16, for one.
Is that what it says, though? Does it say "all-sufficient"? Or just "useful"?
How about 2 Peter 1:3?
Where does that say "scripture" or "God's Word"? Doesn't it say "divine power" and "knowledge through him who called us"? And if that somehow necessarily implies scripture and only scripture (and somehow I doubt that the revelation of God's divine power and the one who called us is limited to scripture, since I see Him living through His Spirit in other Christians all the time) let's just go there. Let's go to scripture. What does scripture say about worship with music?
Let's start with the examples: Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 and Acts 16:25.
Great example. If Jesus could sing with His followers on the way out to the garden and His imminent arrest, I should be able to do the same, even weighed down with my own sorrows. Same for Paul and Silas in jail. I don't see any instruments there. I'll grant that they probably didn't lug any out to the garden or into the jail. (Though neither of those examples is in a church/synagogue setting.)
But Matthew 18:20!
It's a great comfort to know that Jesus is with us when two or three of us are gathered to pray and ask God for something ... but does He say that makes it a church in musical worship together?
The commands, then: Ephesians 5:18-20.
I'm not sure I'd call them "commands," since Jesus only gave us one that enveloped the two most important ones in the law. Why not call them "principles"? I completely agree with the principle that we should be filled with the Spirit, rather that with alcoholic spirits - and that thanksgiving for everthing through Christ should characterize our songs to each other. The setting seems to be, not so much gathered worship, as it is everyday living.
Colossians 3:16: more thanksgiving.
Absolutely. Plus the opportunity to teach and admonish each other through song. Same surround: daily living, rather than just gathered worship.
And James 5:13.
Okay, I'm not convinced that this is talking exclusively about worship in a gathered setting, since the subject and verb are singular - but it's a wonderful principle for any of us to sing songs of praise when happy. Just as Jesus did and Paul could when suffering - Jesus before leaving for the garden; Paul while in prison after being beaten.
All right then! Finally, the rest of the commands: Romans 15:9, 1 Corinthians 14:15.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Neither of those is a command. Both say "I shall," or "I will." They're expressing more of that gratitude from the heart. Are they examples? Maybe. Let's take 'em one at a time. Romans 15:9 is quoting Psalm 69:9, perhaps as prophecy that the Lord's name will be sung to the nations. It was a prophecy that included Gentiles - an important point in Paul's letter to Rome.
1 Corinthians 14:15 is attempting to set straight some problems with some people speaking - even praying - in tongues during gathered worship, but without anyone translating, interpreting.
The point is that none of these passages has, as its primary tenor, the question of worship with or without musical instruments in an assembly.
Other issues are at hand, and are significantly more important. They are issues of the heart: being sober but joyful, teaching and admonishing, communicating clearly.
The question of the presence or absence of instruments just isn't there.
If they must be authorized specifically, must not also a song leader, song books or sheet music, pitch pipes, amplification devices, slide or graphic projections also be authorized specifically in order to be scripturally acceptable to God? Does that not take these scriptures and make them say what they do not say?
Who gets to decide which of those supplements are expedient - a term not used with regard to worship in scripture - and which are not?
Does that not make the argument for authorization either man's teaching binding on no one or God's teaching binding in every instance in which a question of authorization might arise?
And if, as many from Eusebius until this day have argued, instruments cannot and do not praise God ... do the instruments play themselves? Or are they played as the expression of human beings - plucked, stroked, even breathed into by human beings into whom God has breathed the breath of life? Can anyone watch and hear a virtuoso like Yo Yo Ma and still say that only the cello played; that the music did not come from the artist's very heart and soul as well?
Can you do that with a pitch pipe?
When God breathes His Spirit into us, we become the instruments of His peace. He plays us as His instruments to make His music in this world. It is no longer we who live, but Christ living in us.
Finally, if the argument is made from Romans 14 (which irretrievably puts the question of instrumental/a cappella worship into the category of disputable matters and items of conscience - rather than God's clear command), neither side can presume to say, "Then why don't you just see it and do it my way in order to have my fellowship!"
Bottom line, then. Fellowship cannot be extended or denied based upon man's teaching or preference or interpretation of that which is not specifically and clearly spelled out in scripture. Turning such matters into issues of salvation is arrogant judgmentalism in the extreme. If someone worships differently in such matters; in a way that offends your conscience or mine, we don't have to worship in that way. But in order to be instruments of His peace, we absolutely must
Good folks - whether we like instrumental worship or not; whether we agree with a cappella-only worship or not as a practice - if we have any heart at all for maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, we must stop preaching Christian brothers and sisters into hell over an issue that our fellowship has raised as some sort of misguided mark of holy distinction from God.
Being "right" about a cappella worship is not one of what we have called five acts of salvation (or any of the other opportunities we have to accept, proclaim and be like Jesus Christ). Nor is instrumental worship "sin" - or it would it not have been in the Old Testament and would be in Revelation 5's kingdom-to-come, too?
No one is compelled by scripture to observe the practice they don't like. No one has to give up the one they prefer.
But we must give up hatefulness and judgment and divisiveness and promoting man's teachings as if they were God's.
Maybe because, as I confessed last year, I am a world-class conflict avoider, and I said only as much as I could stand to say.
And because I continue to encounter people of good faith and firm conviction within the fellowship of Churches of Christ who simply believe with all of their hearts that the Bible (or at least most of the New Testament) inarguably forbids worshiping God through Christ today with instruments of music other than the voice ... well, because of that, I can't just let the subject drop.
A dwindling few of them have gone beyond the pale in making personal attack, judgment and condemnation on the question (which, for them, is no question at all). Yet many more have not. They simply teach that it is sin, that it displeases God and - some would say - will eventually lead to eternity in hell.
The teaching is based on presumption of the authority of the Bible as an end-to-end book of law, its complete sufficiency in all matters and questions of right and wrong, and therefore, righteousness and damnation.
That's the first problem I have with this teaching. Where does the Bible claim to be - or even imply that it is - only law and wholly sufficient in every possible question or practice?
The answer might go, Well, 2 Timothy 3:16, for one.
Is that what it says, though? Does it say "all-sufficient"? Or just "useful"?
How about 2 Peter 1:3?
Where does that say "scripture" or "God's Word"? Doesn't it say "divine power" and "knowledge through him who called us"? And if that somehow necessarily implies scripture and only scripture (and somehow I doubt that the revelation of God's divine power and the one who called us is limited to scripture, since I see Him living through His Spirit in other Christians all the time) let's just go there. Let's go to scripture. What does scripture say about worship with music?
Let's start with the examples: Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 and Acts 16:25.
Great example. If Jesus could sing with His followers on the way out to the garden and His imminent arrest, I should be able to do the same, even weighed down with my own sorrows. Same for Paul and Silas in jail. I don't see any instruments there. I'll grant that they probably didn't lug any out to the garden or into the jail. (Though neither of those examples is in a church/synagogue setting.)
But Matthew 18:20!
It's a great comfort to know that Jesus is with us when two or three of us are gathered to pray and ask God for something ... but does He say that makes it a church in musical worship together?
The commands, then: Ephesians 5:18-20.
I'm not sure I'd call them "commands," since Jesus only gave us one that enveloped the two most important ones in the law. Why not call them "principles"? I completely agree with the principle that we should be filled with the Spirit, rather that with alcoholic spirits - and that thanksgiving for everthing through Christ should characterize our songs to each other. The setting seems to be, not so much gathered worship, as it is everyday living.
Colossians 3:16: more thanksgiving.
Absolutely. Plus the opportunity to teach and admonish each other through song. Same surround: daily living, rather than just gathered worship.
And James 5:13.
Okay, I'm not convinced that this is talking exclusively about worship in a gathered setting, since the subject and verb are singular - but it's a wonderful principle for any of us to sing songs of praise when happy. Just as Jesus did and Paul could when suffering - Jesus before leaving for the garden; Paul while in prison after being beaten.
All right then! Finally, the rest of the commands: Romans 15:9, 1 Corinthians 14:15.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Neither of those is a command. Both say "I shall," or "I will." They're expressing more of that gratitude from the heart. Are they examples? Maybe. Let's take 'em one at a time. Romans 15:9 is quoting Psalm 69:9, perhaps as prophecy that the Lord's name will be sung to the nations. It was a prophecy that included Gentiles - an important point in Paul's letter to Rome.
1 Corinthians 14:15 is attempting to set straight some problems with some people speaking - even praying - in tongues during gathered worship, but without anyone translating, interpreting.
The point is that none of these passages has, as its primary tenor, the question of worship with or without musical instruments in an assembly.
Other issues are at hand, and are significantly more important. They are issues of the heart: being sober but joyful, teaching and admonishing, communicating clearly.
The question of the presence or absence of instruments just isn't there.
If they must be authorized specifically, must not also a song leader, song books or sheet music, pitch pipes, amplification devices, slide or graphic projections also be authorized specifically in order to be scripturally acceptable to God? Does that not take these scriptures and make them say what they do not say?
Who gets to decide which of those supplements are expedient - a term not used with regard to worship in scripture - and which are not?
Does that not make the argument for authorization either man's teaching binding on no one or God's teaching binding in every instance in which a question of authorization might arise?
And if, as many from Eusebius until this day have argued, instruments cannot and do not praise God ... do the instruments play themselves? Or are they played as the expression of human beings - plucked, stroked, even breathed into by human beings into whom God has breathed the breath of life? Can anyone watch and hear a virtuoso like Yo Yo Ma and still say that only the cello played; that the music did not come from the artist's very heart and soul as well?
Can you do that with a pitch pipe?
When God breathes His Spirit into us, we become the instruments of His peace. He plays us as His instruments to make His music in this world. It is no longer we who live, but Christ living in us.
Finally, if the argument is made from Romans 14 (which irretrievably puts the question of instrumental/a cappella worship into the category of disputable matters and items of conscience - rather than God's clear command), neither side can presume to say, "Then why don't you just see it and do it my way in order to have my fellowship!"
Bottom line, then. Fellowship cannot be extended or denied based upon man's teaching or preference or interpretation of that which is not specifically and clearly spelled out in scripture. Turning such matters into issues of salvation is arrogant judgmentalism in the extreme. If someone worships differently in such matters; in a way that offends your conscience or mine, we don't have to worship in that way. But in order to be instruments of His peace, we absolutely must
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. ~ Romans 15:7
Good folks - whether we like instrumental worship or not; whether we agree with a cappella-only worship or not as a practice - if we have any heart at all for maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, we must stop preaching Christian brothers and sisters into hell over an issue that our fellowship has raised as some sort of misguided mark of holy distinction from God.
Being "right" about a cappella worship is not one of what we have called five acts of salvation (or any of the other opportunities we have to accept, proclaim and be like Jesus Christ). Nor is instrumental worship "sin" - or it would it not have been in the Old Testament and would be in Revelation 5's kingdom-to-come, too?
No one is compelled by scripture to observe the practice they don't like. No one has to give up the one they prefer.
But we must give up hatefulness and judgment and divisiveness and promoting man's teachings as if they were God's.
Monday, December 15, 2008
A Horn of Salvation
Take a moment and read the song of Zechariah upon regaining the power of speech after the birth of his son, John, in Luke 1:67-79.
The song of Mary which precedes his (46-55) gets far more of our attention at this season when we remember the birth of Jesus.
They are similar in many ways.
Each begins with praise to God. Both are prophetic in nature, foretelling and forth-telling the promises God would fulfill through these two babies.
One would bring God's salvation.
The other would prepare His path.
One would increase.
The other would decrease.
(You can even tell which is which, by the few number of lines in Zechariah's song which are specifically about his son, and how many are about Mary's.)
In fact, John's death would even bring home the inescapable reality of what was ahead for Jesus. Still, the Savior would set His face resolutely toward Jerusalem until He was nailed down and then lifted up there.
Zechariah's Spirit-filled song worships God "... because he has come and has redeemed his people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David ...." And the term is pretty much lost on us, even if we have seen it in dozens of Old Testament prophecies.
If you have an NIV Bible, you may have a footnote at the end of the word "horn" that says: "Horn here symbolizes strength."
Sure, in the broad sense. But think about how many different ways the word is used in the Old Testament. A horn could be a ram's horn, blown to sound the "all-clear" to go up the mountain of God (Exodus 19:3) or to topple Jericho's walls (Joshua 6:4) ... the redemption of Isaac (Genesis 22:13) ... a part of the altar where atoning sacrificial blood was painted (Exodus 29:12; 30:10, et al) ... a container for king-anointing oil (1 Samuel 16:13) ... a last grasp from which to beg mercy (1 Kings 1:50; 2:28) ... a deadly weapon against the Lord's enemies (22:11) ... instruments of worship to God (don't shoot me, now! 1 Chronicles 15:28 and other citations) ... a prophetic symbol of royalty and power (Daniel 7:24) ... and more that I don't really need to go into, in order for you to get my point!
And, to my eye, virtually all of them have a meaning that Jesus in one way or another completes, fulfills, embodies in the salvation He brings. Strength ... sure.
But so very much more.
I've blogged before that I believe certain terms are used in scripture because of their richness of heritage and meaning; not so that we can argue about which meaning is "right" but because of the depth and wealth of the total etymology.
The reason I tend to think that this is one of them is that line in Zechariah's song in the very next verse, "(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago)".
Terms like "horn of salvation," used frequently by the prophets, are not mere puns or double-entendres but gold-mines of deep wisdom.
To someone who loves words like I do, they are the Divine Artist's signature hidden in the details of His masterwork.
And I think we skip over them because we don't understand them; they're mysterious and peculiar and perplexing - like John the Baptist himself.
Yet if we're not paying attention to them, we're missing out on part of the path that was prepared for the Christ.
The song of Mary which precedes his (46-55) gets far more of our attention at this season when we remember the birth of Jesus.
They are similar in many ways.
Each begins with praise to God. Both are prophetic in nature, foretelling and forth-telling the promises God would fulfill through these two babies.
One would bring God's salvation.
The other would prepare His path.
One would increase.
The other would decrease.
(You can even tell which is which, by the few number of lines in Zechariah's song which are specifically about his son, and how many are about Mary's.)
In fact, John's death would even bring home the inescapable reality of what was ahead for Jesus. Still, the Savior would set His face resolutely toward Jerusalem until He was nailed down and then lifted up there.
Zechariah's Spirit-filled song worships God "... because he has come and has redeemed his people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David ...." And the term is pretty much lost on us, even if we have seen it in dozens of Old Testament prophecies.
If you have an NIV Bible, you may have a footnote at the end of the word "horn" that says: "Horn here symbolizes strength."
Sure, in the broad sense. But think about how many different ways the word is used in the Old Testament. A horn could be a ram's horn, blown to sound the "all-clear" to go up the mountain of God (Exodus 19:3) or to topple Jericho's walls (Joshua 6:4) ... the redemption of Isaac (Genesis 22:13) ... a part of the altar where atoning sacrificial blood was painted (Exodus 29:12; 30:10, et al) ... a container for king-anointing oil (1 Samuel 16:13) ... a last grasp from which to beg mercy (1 Kings 1:50; 2:28) ... a deadly weapon against the Lord's enemies (22:11) ... instruments of worship to God (don't shoot me, now! 1 Chronicles 15:28 and other citations) ... a prophetic symbol of royalty and power (Daniel 7:24) ... and more that I don't really need to go into, in order for you to get my point!
And, to my eye, virtually all of them have a meaning that Jesus in one way or another completes, fulfills, embodies in the salvation He brings. Strength ... sure.
But so very much more.
I've blogged before that I believe certain terms are used in scripture because of their richness of heritage and meaning; not so that we can argue about which meaning is "right" but because of the depth and wealth of the total etymology.
The reason I tend to think that this is one of them is that line in Zechariah's song in the very next verse, "(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago)".
Terms like "horn of salvation," used frequently by the prophets, are not mere puns or double-entendres but gold-mines of deep wisdom.
To someone who loves words like I do, they are the Divine Artist's signature hidden in the details of His masterwork.
And I think we skip over them because we don't understand them; they're mysterious and peculiar and perplexing - like John the Baptist himself.
Yet if we're not paying attention to them, we're missing out on part of the path that was prepared for the Christ.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
What I Miss Most About Being A Sinner
Suppose I actually wrote a post on that topic.
Suppose I actually asked you to write comments about it.
Suppose we were all completely honest and candid and shameless in the way we expressed our thoughts regarding it.
Suppose we confessed our lust. Our lust for stuff. Our lust for power and influence. Our lust for flesh. Our lust for self-satisfaction. Our lust for being right all the time. Our lust for acclaim and attention. Our lust for uniqueness, distinctiveness, better-than-ness.
Would we be able to say what Paul did?
I don't know about you, but I can't write anything that I miss most about being a sinner.
Because I still am.
Suppose I actually asked you to write comments about it.
Suppose we were all completely honest and candid and shameless in the way we expressed our thoughts regarding it.
Suppose we confessed our lust. Our lust for stuff. Our lust for power and influence. Our lust for flesh. Our lust for self-satisfaction. Our lust for being right all the time. Our lust for acclaim and attention. Our lust for uniqueness, distinctiveness, better-than-ness.
Would we be able to say what Paul did?
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.
I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. ~ Philippians 3:7-11
I don't know about you, but I can't write anything that I miss most about being a sinner.
Because I still am.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Pattern for the Church
Last night I finished reading The Jesus Proposal
by Rubel Shelly and John York.
Yes, I know; most folks in my tribe of Christianity started and finished reading it years ago when it was first published. (Those who are of a mind to seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, anyway.) But I am behind on my reading list by several years, and if it hadn't been for the fact that my LIFE Group at church is studying this tome, I might not have made time for it for a few more years.
You see, I've been trying to spend more time in scripture itself and less time with books telling me what the authors think it says.
The Jesus Proposal states many of the same conclusions that I have reached in my study of scripture and have blogged about here - and states them far more eloquently than I could.
(David U, it's quite possible that the book you are always nudging me to write has already been written!)
So I would encourage you to purchase or borrow it, read it, and weigh it carefully.
But first, read an article from the archives of New Wineskins that predates my tenure as its WebServant or Managing Editor: On Second Look, Maybe There Is a Pattern by Mark Black (January-August 2001 edition).
Meditate on the implications of the author's premise: that the companion works of Luke and Acts form a pattern for living and community set by Christ and imitated by His followers ... that the early church did virtually everything they did; taught everything they taught; helped in every way they helped because Jesus did so first.
Then, when you have a copy of The Jesus Proposal in your hands, think about the implications of living as part of that Christ-centered, Christ-fascinated church - and how much broader your definition of that church might become; how much more inclusive and how much more characterized by the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Now excuse me; I need to go back to the Leafwood Publishers site right now and order Shelly and York's followup work, The Jesus Community.
by Rubel Shelly and John York.Yes, I know; most folks in my tribe of Christianity started and finished reading it years ago when it was first published. (Those who are of a mind to seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, anyway.) But I am behind on my reading list by several years, and if it hadn't been for the fact that my LIFE Group at church is studying this tome, I might not have made time for it for a few more years.
You see, I've been trying to spend more time in scripture itself and less time with books telling me what the authors think it says.
The Jesus Proposal states many of the same conclusions that I have reached in my study of scripture and have blogged about here - and states them far more eloquently than I could.
(David U, it's quite possible that the book you are always nudging me to write has already been written!)
So I would encourage you to purchase or borrow it, read it, and weigh it carefully.
But first, read an article from the archives of New Wineskins that predates my tenure as its WebServant or Managing Editor: On Second Look, Maybe There Is a Pattern by Mark Black (January-August 2001 edition).
Meditate on the implications of the author's premise: that the companion works of Luke and Acts form a pattern for living and community set by Christ and imitated by His followers ... that the early church did virtually everything they did; taught everything they taught; helped in every way they helped because Jesus did so first.
Then, when you have a copy of The Jesus Proposal in your hands, think about the implications of living as part of that Christ-centered, Christ-fascinated church - and how much broader your definition of that church might become; how much more inclusive and how much more characterized by the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Now excuse me; I need to go back to the Leafwood Publishers site right now and order Shelly and York's followup work, The Jesus Community.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
4-Dimensional Jesus
"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." ~ Luke 2:52
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." ~ Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27
That's right. He grew four ways: in wisdom (mentally, intellectually; in mind), in stature (or strength; physically; in the ability to do things to His glory), in favor with God (spiritually; in His soul), and in favor with men (socially; in His heart for others).
Because we are all created differently, each of us is going to have strengths and weaknesses in each of those four areas of life and perception. (Jeff Childers of ACU has quite a wonderful way of graphing those differences, in fact.) So, as a community of believers, we have an opportunity to grow and fill out each other's deficits and have our deficits enriched by their gifts.
But, don't you think God wants us to grow in all four dimensions, just as Jesus did?
(Remember Ephesians 3:14-20 from the previous post?)
Monday, December 01, 2008
Heart | Soul | Mind | Strength
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." ~ Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27
That's Jesus, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 ... and adding a few words. You won't find "and with all your mind" in Moses' revelation of God's law for Israel.
But I do not believe He intended to add it to the exclusion of the other three.
That's where much of Christianity has majored - with all our minds - to the exaltation of reason and logic above the love of the heart which is at the core of the instruction's meaning and intent.
At the other end of the extreme, much of Christianity has majored in the love of the heart, to the exclusion of reason and logic altogether. So these two emphases conflict, without even enough common ground to stand upon while bickering about which is more God-like.
Far too little of Christianity has even minored in loving the Lord our God with all our strength ... doing with our might what our hands find to do, as an old gospel song phrases it.
And that leaves the world to judge by our inaction how little of Christianity, and to what pathetic degree, has sold its "self" to love the Lord our God with all our souls.
Jesus didn't seem to be stating this as a multiple-choice question: "Heart | Soul | Mind | Strength - Choose One!"
None of them is optional. All four dimensions are needed.
But - as I have maintained elsewhere in some thoughts about a comprehensive hermeneutic - our preoccupation as Christians with either heart or mind has been shortsighted at the very least: "If we exclude emotional approaches, we become heartless. If we exclude logical approaches, we become brainless."
I would now like to add what I didn't perceive before: "If we exclude action, we become purposeless. If we exclude selflessness, we become soulless."
One-dimensional Christianity has left us conflicted, unfulfilled and largely impotent.
God created us to be four-dimensional creatures: to aspire to the height of intelligence and the full breadth of affection to the depth of our souls and then to carry out that love world-wide in time-consuming, self-consuming activity.
That was the prayer of Paul for the saints at Ephesus:
For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how WIDE and LONG and HIGH and DEEP is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. ~ Ephesians 3:14-20
The four ways all those dimensions point is outward from the Center of the universe.
To see them, we need look no farther than the cross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
