Read the Book; Be the Book

According to George Barna, one of the roles mothers have is that of spiritual energizer. Paul in 2Timothy highlights how both Eunice, Timothy's mother and Lois, his grandmother played such a critical role in his spiritual formation. They were the spiritual energizers of his home. They taught him the scriptures as an infant but they also lived their faith before him. To be a good spiritual energizer for children, you have to read the book, and be the book. That applies not just for mothers and grandmothers. Timothy's mother and grandmother shaped Timothy's faith in part because his father was an unbeliever. Had his father been a follower of Jesus, he would have played a greater role in Timothy's faith formation. Regardless, Timothy's story is a great reminder that the faith of children is best shaped in the home. If Eunice and Lois had not laid such a strong foundation, then Timothy might have left the ministry and the faith altogether. Having said all that, reading the book and being the book, does not guarantee anyone success as a spiritual energizer,as one mom said to her old college roommate, "I remember before I was married that I had three theories about raising children, now I have three children and no theories." We all know of children who do not have the sincere faith of their moms, or grandmothers living in them, even though their parents and grandparents did their best to read the book and be the book. All we do know is that children stand a better chance of becoming and staying followers of Jesus as adult if their moms- grand moms and other people of faith do read the book and are the book. Parents should never underestimate the role they play in shaping the faith of their children.

The Power of a Smile

I am big. Six feet one inch isn't that tall. My son is six feet five. Standing next to him makes me feel small. I have to reach up to hug him. Yes I am over two hundred pounds, but that isn't that heavy now a day s either, and yes I have to lose a few pounds. On average I am not that big, but put me in a room with two year olds and I am huge. I am a Goliath to their David. And for some just as intimidating particularly when I am wielding a guitar. Friday mornings I sing to the two year olds at Trinity Treasures, our Trinity's wonderful day care. Some of the twos are used to Pastor Joe invading their space, but not all. The look of terror shows up on their faces and some start crying before I even sing a song. She did not quite cry this morning, but her lips quivered and fear filled her eyes. She backed away slowly as I sat down in the chair putting the guitar across my lap. I am big remember. So I did the only thing I could do, smile. I smiled at her from ear to ear while looking into her eyes. Then it happened. A crease appeared across her lips, her eyes lit up, and her body relaxed. Her world was safe again. This giant sitting in front of her was rendered harmless by a smile.

Descriptive vs Prescriptive

I recently returned from the Emergence Christianity Conference or EC13 subtitled a salute to Phyllis Tickle. Phyllis could be described as a ball of energy. She opened her mouth and facts, figures, names, dates, and places poured out of her nonstop for an hour without notes. Most of us preacher types who labor for hours over a manuscript listened with amazement. According to Phyllis, Brian Mclaren is the theologian of Emergence Christianity, which would make Phyllis its historian. At the conference Phyllis, was more descriptive than prescriptive of Emergence Christianity. She does see Emergence Christianity historically as a part of the Great Emergence that is occurring globally. She also sees it as a movement. Then there are the subsets or labels of the groups within Emergence Christianity-such as Emergent, Emerging, Neo-monastics, House churches, Missionals, and the Hyphenated; such as Presby-mergent. Nothing like swimming in a bunch of labels with many folks who resist labeling period. In her recent book and in the lectures Phyllis sees the necessity to label because these group are not all birds of the same feather. Some of the distinctions between Emerging and Emergent have the look and feel of the Berlin Wall. Most of those present for the conference were of the Emergent, Neo-Monastic, Hyphenated, Missional type. The fact that Brian Mclaren was present was probably enough to keep some Emerging folks away. According to Phyllis' labels I find myself a sort of Hyphenated, Emergent, Missional, type in sympathy with Emerging folks. How about that for being ambiguous. What I do find is that over the past 10 years or so, my paradigm of the Christian faith and the church has shifted, and once the shift hits the fan, there is no going back. Sadly some folks do not acknowledge any shift or fan. In hanging around with other like minded folks I felt encouraged to keep finding fresh expressions of the faith and practices of Christianity. What exactly those will be, I do not know, only time will tell.

The Inexplicable

"I've been crying all weekend," was one of the phrases I heard from one of our church's older members this past Sunday. What took place on Friday in Newton, Connecticut was a tragedy of epic proportions. Talk about the death of innocents; children mowed down by bullets fired by some stranger armed to the teeth; a young man who had no personal connection to any of the victims other than his mother taught at the school. But like most events of this nature the media feels obligated to invade sensitive private space and wring some kind of statement from the survivors and the families who have suffered the loss of their children, as if we really need to know what they are thinking and feeling. That they choose to say anything is a feat in and of itself. Such a loss as this renders even the most verbal among us, speechless. As if to make matters worse, others are using this incident to promote some other agenda, and I don't mean gun control. Some are seeing this as one more example of how far our country has fallen in its moral values. One politician went to far as to blame this tragedy as the result of the efforts to get God out of our schools, as if reading from the Bible that morning and saying prayers might have stopped a mentally ill person from entering the school intent to do his worst. This thinking is so theologically wrong on so many points it is not worth elaboration. Statements like these continue to give non-Christians a good excuse not to consider following Jesus. NO doubt over the next month or so a few brave souls may try to honestly make sense out of this incident. Someone will earnestly try to explain it or give some reason for it. Perhaps adequate treatment for the mentally ill will finds its way back into the public discourse. Perhaps the discussion of gun control particularly automatic weapons will be reopened. Years from now perhaps we will be able to look back and see that something good has come from this. However, we have no guarantees. We can't automatically assume that something good will come from something done for evil. So what is a good person of faith to say or do in the face of this tragedy? Nothing. Now is not the time to say something, our silence is the best compassion we can give. If we are called to do anything is is simply to join with God and weep with those who weep.

Is Hallmark Ruining Christmas?

Is Hallmark Ruining Christmas? "When you care enough to send the very best." Is the slogan for Hallmark Greeting Cards. The very best it wants us to send is a message that somehow tells us what to do, what to feel, how to act , what to say, and what to think about Christmas. At the center of it all is the home. Say it with me: There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays! The cards promote the expectations we should have for the holidays. Clark Griswald is a possible victim of the Hallmark Christmas mentality. We have the expectation that Christmas will be shared with loved ones, especially close loved ones--mom, dad, son, daughter, spouse, sisters and brothers. But for many of us, especially those who have lost loved ones this year, the reality will be painfully different. Christmas will not bring additional memories to cherish, only the renewed sense of loss. Seeing those Hallmark images only serve as sharp reminders of the loved ones who are not here any longer. Then there are those picture perfect Hallmark families, which say that our families too should that perfect. So like Clark,we have the expectation Christmas will be shared what that perfect family, a mom and a dad, 2.5 children, uncles and aunts, grandpas and grandmas. The reality is that divorce and strained relationships, long distances and cultural divides shatter the "perfect" family. The group with whom many gather will be smaller than the "ideal" and composed differently than expected. And when ours isn't the "perfect" family, we wondered whether we will have Christmas at all. Whether our family looks the part of a "perfect" family or not, we expect we will at least get along for one day. But as Clark painfully discovered, Eddie shows up. We all too often we do not act the idealized parts. We bring the pain of strained relationships home; we renew old conflicts; we play out old fights. Years ago all of my brothers of which there are three, got together for Christmas gathered around my mother who had been diagnosed which pancreatic cancer. After three days I began to realize why we all live in different parts of the country. Both unrealized and unrealistic expectations during this season can rob us of the joy that is available. Our families may not be the perfect size, or composition. Relationship may be strained, and old conflicts unresolved. But that does not have to spoil our Christmas. We can be grateful for the family we have left. We can take steps towards reconciliation, we can seek and we can offer forgiveness where ever and when ever possible. After all, Jesus was God's gift of love to the world we might want to gift a gift like that for Christmas.

Where Do Good Stories Start?

Good Stories Start Here. Those were the words spread across a billboard that got my attention the other day. I am always up for a good story, and I long for my story to be one of those good ones. So I was intrigued by that phrase Good Stories Start Here...perhaps if I know the beginning of a good story, where it starts, then I might have a clue as to the how and where it will end. Good stories are not always predictable. What makes them entertaining is the uncertainty of knowing what will happen next. If the main character's actions become too predictable, then the story is boring. If too unpredictable, the story becomes unbelievable. And of course a good story is about the development of the character of its characters. Sort of an action adventure motif of movement towards maturity, at least that's what you would like to see and hear in a good story. Where do good stories start? According to the billboard ad, good stories start in a bottle of liquor, the brand not necessary name. Personally I don't know too many good stories that start with a bottle of liquor. Usually tragic stories begin here. With movies such as The Hangover, a liquor start to a story can be entertaining, but laughing at the misfortune of others isn't necessarily commendable. There is a secret wish throughout the movie that things will turn out well in the end in spite of this comedy of errors. Realistically, we know things usually go from bad to worse with no guarantee of improvement. Where do good stories really start? In the Gospel of Luke a "young man comes up to Jesus and asks, Good Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life." And Jesus answered, Why do you call me Good, there is none good but God." It seems to me that good stories start with God and the tale God is trying to tell. That story begins well and ends well, but it is not too predictable nor always enjoyable in the middle. Our story connected with God's story, can be disappointing and painful. It can also be fruitful and positive. The one thing it doesn't have to be is boring. Hear any good stories lately?

Burning Bibles

Nothing incites masses more than burning sacred books. Burn some Bibles or even worse burn some copies of the Quran and you are likely to have a riot on your hands. As true believers we try to be mature and not make the Bible, God, or the Quran, God. Though the printed page reveals God to us we do not worship the book, but the one whom the book is about. To use the telescope analogy, the telescope helps us to see the stars, it is not a star. It is a means to an end. John Scotus Eriugena taught that God speaks to us through two books, one is the little book, the book of scripture, physically little. The other is the big book, the book of creation, vast as the universe. If God speaks to us through both texts, the words of scripture and the elements of creation, and we get upset when scripture is burned, then why do we not get upset when creation is destroyed? Think of the words of God that are lost when hazardous chemicals are poured into a river, or pollutants pumped into the sky? How many opportunities to hear God's voice are missed when a species disappears? I know Reformed Theology tends to dismiss general revelation in favor of special revelation. However, it is general revelation that is quoted first to prove the existence of God. Creation is the something that exists rather than nothing, and God we say, is the reason why. It is through creation that we get our first glimpse of wonder, and sense of awe and Majesty. What would happened if we venerated the book of creation as much as the the book of scripture?

Theology Matters?

I get a publication almost every month called Theology Matters. It is a well thought out and well written publication. But does Theology matter? Having two advanced degrees my knee jerk response is OF COURSE THEOLOGY MATTERS. How and what we think about God shapes our lives, or at least that's the dominant thinking. What often troubles me is the disconnect between right thinking about God and right living, coupled with the tendency to twist and turn what we think about God to justify what we are already doing. Then there's the whole disconnect between what we think about God and reality. Theodicy is just one of those issues. How many times have we writhed under the Good God, good people, bad stuff question? How many times have we thrown out words like permitted, allowed, but not first cause. We even had a book called The Shack that creatively wrestled with the question. I know it is a real question, because I have a person in a study group I lead that asks the question regarding God's goodness, and sovereignty in the accidental death of his daughter. Theology might matter if it were able to answer that question adequately, but alas it hasn't, at least adequately. Some of the answers it gives, reduces God into some uncaring cruel person, or a powerless deity. Neither one of those is a viable option to me or to most people. Would I deal better with those kinds of losses if I had a better answer- theologically speaking? The sad part is probably not. The pain would be just as real and deep. The why question if answered in those type of situations rarely gets heard. There is always an accusing finger pointed God's way regardless- either as the direct cause- "it must have been God's will," or indirectly by inaction- the old could have done something to stop it it, but didn't response. No matter how you roll it, it keeps coming up - at least emotionally as God's fault. This is a God sins by commission and omission argument... On a more positive note, it seems theology does not matter that much to God. We think right theology is necessary for a person to enter into a relationship with God, and for God to enter into a relationship with them. The truth is that a whole lot of people have entered into and enjoy a relationship with God regardless of how right or wrong their theology is. God seems to love people and God allows himself to be loved by people regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of their theology. If this is indeed true of God, it should if nothing else, get us to turn down the volume in theology discussions and enable us to live better together. Theology does matter, but not nearly as much as we may think it does.

In Favor of Big Tents

I heard someone say the other day that the Presbyterian Church, USA, the denomination in which I have hung my hat for close to thirty four years, has been a big tent for a long time. The statement was made in reference to a number of pastors and congregations who are leaving the denomination and finding another tent to be under. They are leaving because they are unhappy with some of the people and positions of those in the big tent. In their view, the tent is too big. It contains too many different views and perspectives and priorities. So they want a smaller tent with less belief options and a stronger gate to keep some uninvited and unwelcome guests away. Tucked underneath the departure to smaller tents is the subtext of church growth and success. Everyone wants to talk about how many members the denomination has lost over the years, and they point to the big tent as the reason, or at least some of the folks under the big tent as spurring the departure. The thinking is that if the big tent were smaller, congregations stand a better chance of growth as well a the denomination as a whole.I find it interesting that folks will point to diversity as the reason for the denomination's decline, but when asked if it is the denominations differing positions that have caused their congregation's decline, they remain silent. Perhaps changing theological positions within the denomination have caused some sheep to go to a different fold, but it does not account for the membership losses in most congregations. There are a lot of reasons people either move on or out of the church. The key to church growth is not found in becoming the bastion of conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical brand of Christianity. Not every nonchurched, unchurched or dechurched person is looking for a conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical congregation. They are however looking for an authentic one. It may have one label or another, but the key to growth is the authentic acceptance and expressed love of those not yet under the tent. This authentic love and acceptance allows for multiple entry points, from worship services to small groups to mission efforts. In the end, this authentic love and acceptance by its nature, creates bigger and bigger tents, not smaller ones. That's why I firmly believe the bigger the tent, the better.

Style vs. Substance

When I first started using a screen and power point in worship, I was criticized for more about style than substance. Since I am more inclined towards both and vs. either or, I do not like pitting one against the other especially as it relates to worship. I would like to think that in a worship service, style and substance would work hand in hand in order to empower worshipers to encounter the fullness of God. However, after being in the ministry for over 33 years, the word pipe dream is more of a reality. It seems to me that worship is more about style than substance. We categorize worship services according to style or styles. There are the traditional vs. contemporary, the complex liturgy vs. simple liturgy, the choir and organ driven style vs. the band driven style, not to mention those who attempt to combine various styles into at least a style for a particular service. Add all of this to different time slots and the market now drives service attendance, according to of course the style being offered in a particular time slot. It all sounds more like efforts to increase network TV ratings rather than doing or being church.

Style trumps substance. If you do not believe me, change or mix various styles in a worship service and see what happens. If the word appreciation comes to mind, think again. People with long histories of service and sacrifice in a congregation will walk out the door if the so called style changes. Suddenly they feel out of place, or ignored, or even abused as one person told me. I can think of a lot more significant, painful, and life altering ways abuse can happen at church. Perhaps the church needs to have support groups for members who have been abused by hymn singing and organ playing or those who have been abused by praise and worship songs and guitars and drums.

I would like to think that worship is about more than notes on a page, and what instrument is used to accompany those notes. Once more I am mistaken. Worship is all about personal style or preferences. Do not attempt to bring what God may want or where scripture speaks into the discussion. Ultimately it all comes down to what I like, or what I do not like to hear or say or do, what makes me comfortable, and reinforces my preconceptions of God and the church. It is a shame that 1Corinthians still falls on so many deaf ears. The segmentation of the church into stylistic categories or camps complete with subcategories seems so normative that no one questions it. All of this of course is done in the exalted name of targeting population segments, and style preferences for evangelistic or missional or church growth efforts.

Jesus once promised that where ever two or more are gathered in his name that he would be there. If all who are gathered together prefer the same style of worship,(usually musically based upon age considerations) doesn't that mean that only one aspect of Jesus shows up, the one that fits in our preferences, our age group, and our musical taste? I would like to think that encountering Jesus in the diversity of people and styles would be the healthiest for me, but I hear they have a really great worship band at the church down the street. I think I'll go there and check'em out.

Enough

Enough, what an interesting word. An online dictionary defines enough as sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; as well as adequate. So when we attach a noun in front like old as in old enough, I guess we are saying that there is a sufficient or adequate amount of time or age passed or experience gained so that something else might take place; such as driving a car, or getting married, or vote, or consume alcohol. The fundamental flaw in this thinking is equating age and experience with maturity. We hope that we mature with age, and with age we get wiser and make better and smarter decisions. We also hope that we do grow wiser as we grow older, but I am not convinced that is the case. Psychologists will tell us that from a developmental standpoint, we do have the capacity to grow wiser with age. However I believe maturity is not automatic. The Bible does not talk about spiritual maturity being automatic-Paul talks about in all things growing up into him who is the head..Ephesians 4:15 and Peter talks about "growing up in your salvation." 1Peter 2:2

We often speak of life events particularly those which are dramatic or critical as real growth experiences. The death of a significant other can be such an event. The loss of a job, may be another. The birth of children still another. The collapse of a long marriage, still another. Any major event in our life can be a life changing growth moment. I was painfully reminded of the Israelites in the desert. They had gone through some very significant life changing events and yet they remained fundamentally flawed, unchanged, and continued making some very poor choices when they, "should have known better by now."

It seems old habits, old lifestyles, and old values are hard to break. A move towards maturity is a decision. It is a refusal to put our life on autopilot during those critical moments, and choosing to take a different path, and head in a new direction. This entails at least knowing there is an alternative, and that the alternative is a better path than the current road. Fortunately for us as followers of Jesus we aren't left without some resources. Here is where the scripture is helpful. Jesus casts a vision of the Kingdom of God and the ways of the kingdom for his followers. The Apostle Paul in Galatians list the fruit of the spirit- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. The good news is that at any life point we can choose how we will respond that will either foster the growth of a particular fruit of the Spirit, or exhibit some way of the kingdom, or not.

The good news is that God will help us grow up into Him who is the head and God will help us grow up into our salvation. If we decide to...

Jesus and Handguns

The other day I went to record some Bible verse readings at a local Christian Radio station. After I had read several passage from the psalms I had a good lunch with some other local pastors. One of the pastors who is now preaching on the radio, shared that he now Packs Heat. He also shared about other people in his congregation; former military personnel and even some older women who pack heat as well.

I asked a simple question, Why? To which he responded, that since he has been preaching on the radio he has received some threatening emails and phone calls. Another pastor chimed in that he must be preaching the Word because when you preach the Word it stirs up people.

Since I am not receiving death threats I began to wonder whether I was preaching the Word. On the other had I began to wonder what Word he was preaching since theologically he was nowhere near center and left is not the direction I had in mind. Coupled with the fact that this is a conservative radio station and I live in Idaho, I wondered who he could be offending enough to get death threats?

Well enough of that aside. I sat silently after hearing that, knowing I really did not have the time to get into this with him, and I was surrounded by like minded pastors, which was equally disturbing.

But it did cause me to reflect. Had I said something, I would have followed up with a question; "Being a Bible believing card carrying conservative Christian, what Scriptural evidence do you have to justify carrying Heat-(code word for handgun)? I know some Bible commandos who might name the sword or slingshot carrying heroes in the Old Testament. But I not sure we are to imitate all of the cultural aspects of Old Testament characters.

Being a follower of Jesus, I do think the pastor would be hard pressed to find any New Testament proof for packing heat. Jesus did say that those who live by the sword die by the sword, which was not an endorsement to carry and use a weapon, but just the opposite. In other words, put the weapons away. I don't think that his society then was any less violent than ours today.

I know a handgun salesman would say two things, first it is his right to carry a handgun, particularly if he has filled out all the paperwork, and second he needs it for protection. My first response is just because he has the right doesn't make it right as a follower of Jesus. As far as protection goes, if the man is truly preaching the Word and being Prophetic, then you suffer the consequences. Martin Luther King was shot on a balcony. The Book of Hebrews has a whole list of people who were martyred. I don't see Stephen whipping his handgun when confronted about his preaching.

But on another note, if I were sitting in his congregation listening to his sermon, knowing that under his sport coat he had a handgun, how would I feel? What if I didn't agree with what he was saying and dared to say so, or heaven forbid started to fall asleep? I think I would be equally terrified knowing others out in the pews were packing heat. What if they really didn't like the sermon. Shoot Out at First Christian Heat Packing Church, would make an interesting headline.

A Christian packing heat is in an untenable ethical dilemma. At what point do you do you un-holster the gun? How threatening is threatening? Do I shoot first and ask questions later? Do I aim to kill or aim to maim? How do I make that decision in a split second? Unlike policemen and women who are drilled over and over again on making those types of decisions under those circumstances, most people packing heat haven't been through that kind of intensive training. I know if I am reactive enough to carry a gun, I am probably reactive enough to use it almost without thinking. Like the man with the sword that Jesus spoke against.

Which brings me back to the Jesus and handgun issue. The best way through an ethical dilemma is not to put yourself in one if you can help it.

When was in Seminary, I took 15 months off between my second and third year to serve an internship at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, Texas. Highland Park was a big church- over 7,000 members at the time. Sanctuary was as large enough to hold several thousand people. As an intern they thought it would be helpful for me to attend their leadership team’s meeting- their session. Their session had about 60 members. They met in a room where they sat in rows- airline style. That night the chairman of the worship committee brought a motion to the session to help people meet and greet each other either during or after the service. They recommended a pad where people would sign it,pass it down the aisle, and when it reached the end; pass it back so that people could read the names of the people who were sitting next to them and perhaps speak to them after the service is over.

After hearing the worship chairman’s presentation, I thought this was a slam dunk- but one of the elders raised his hand to speak against it. First he said that when he came to church on Sunday morning and sat down in his pew, he did not want not be interrupted by some pad being passed, and he certainly didn’t want anyone to know his name before, after, or during the worship service, because " when I come to church all I want to do is to sit in my pew and worship God all by myself."

And then to really make his point with what he thought would sink the motion all together—He said,” It sounds too Baptist for me…”

I know I was there as an observer, and I wasn’t supposed to speak, but I raised my hand to speak in favor of the pad idea, and I said, that this isn’t too baptist because my home church- First Presbyterian in Florence S.C. had adopted the fellowship pad idea a few years earlier.

But what was that Elder really saying when he said, “All I want to do is sit in My Pew, and worship God all by myself?”

Basically he was saying that he didn’t need anyone, in any way, in order to worship God. He really believed that it is possible to give God all the honor and glory that God deserves without anyone else’s assistance… It is possible to serve God all by himself and it is possible to be a Christian all by himself and that he didn't need help from anybody.

I am not sure where he got this view of the church and the Christian life. Even the Lone Ranger had Tonto.

The Apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 12 said, "14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. …. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"

For the Apostle Paul the human body is a great metaphor for the church. In the human body, no one part can exist all by itself. Every part is dependent upon every other part for its health and well being. So it is with the church as the Body of Christ. That makes everyone important in the life of the church. All people matter, because everyone brings something the church needs to the table; some gift, some talent, some perspective, or some passion. If a church is grow deep and wide,less is not more.

The C- Word

I attended a wedding once… The church was packed, lots of Christian music was played, People sang praise songs, scripture was read, parents got up gave words of advice, and prayed for the couple, the Pastor preached a sermon… It was a little long but then who am to say anything. Vows were exchanged with tons of Bible verses quoted, same with the rings. The Wedding service was dripping with Christianity. When the service was just about over, the couple slowly walked to a little tent parked up on the stage. In that tent was a table, and on the table were a pitcher, a chalice, and loaf of bread. The groom took the bread and broke it, said a few words, which I couldn’t hear, and gave a piece to his bride, then she took the loaf and broke a piece off and give it to her husband- they did the same with the cup. And then they went back to the Pastor who said a benediction and pronounced them husband and wife. They kissed and they left rapidly down the aisle. I was stunned. “Wasn’t this supposed to a Christian wedding? Then I thought, if this Christian couple isn’t going to take the Bible seriously, so that the Lord’s supper is the Lord’s supper, then maybe I should give them a copy of Emily Post. Emily would never have prepared and eaten a meal in front of everyone, without offering something to all her guests.

My son Chris when he was about 4 or 5 used to call Communion Sunday,"Left Out Sunday," because as diligent parents we would not let Chris eat the sacrament until we determined he knew enough so that he could eat it in a worthy manner- as the Apostle Paul recommends in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

We as parents fenced the table from Chris... but how much do you need to know before you can eat, and who draws that line? Clearly what is enough for one set of parents or one congregation or denomination, isn't enough for another. But it isn't just knowledge that fences the table, water may do it- in the form of Baptism, and how much water is needed? A sense of sin and confession may be the fence. There are all kinds of fences we construct around the table to make sure those who eat it, do so in a worthy manner and not be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of Christ. It seems to me that Chris and Emily Post got it right. Whenever we fence the table so that someone is left out, we are guilty of celebrating the Lord's Table in a manner unworthy of Jesus, who are supposed to be remembering when we celebrate the table. Wasn't the whole ministry of Jesus built on destroying the fences between people? I wonder what Jesus thinks when we start erecting them in his honor?

The G Word

Depending where you sit, gender and dealing with gender issues regarding church leadership and even membership expectations can be a touchy issue. When a potential new member of a congregation inquired about the role of women in leadership in that particular church, the pastor responded with a statement about how the Bible is being attacked by radical feminists. Needless to say his loss was Trinity's gain. I am always amazed that the Apostle Paul is regularly called a male chauvinist pig, when it is the Apostle Paul who gets quoted by those so called radical feminists. In Galatians 3:28 Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If anything this is the great leveling passage and highlights the egalitarian nature of the church. A position Paul fights to maintain throughout all of his letters as he tries to express the faith in a variety of cultures.

At times it seems he elevates men and places them in the positions of authority, at other times he takes it away by either redefining authority or headship as servanthood. In Corinthians 11:2-17, Paul spends a great deal of time on who came from whom, who was created for whom and then at the end reminds everyone that even though woman was made from man and for man- man now originates from a a woman. Paul giveth and Paul taketh away.

What I do think is important is that Paul does not want to see gender distinctiveness disappear. He is not looking at Pat the androgynous character from Saturday Night Live, as the goal or role model for Christians. Ultimately Paul sees gender as a gift, and the perspectives gender brings to the church as necessary for the church to be the church.

The best thing a man and a woman can be is a man and a woman- however way they want to understand their gender.In a nut shell the best thing any of us can be to help the church grow deep and wide, is ourselves.

The T Word

I know it looks like I am working my way through the alphabet, but no. I am simply lacking the creativity to come up with exciting titles. The T word- is Temptation. Paul says in 1Corinthians 10:13 "No Temptation has seized you except what is common to man." NIV I guess it is healthy to know that everyone pagan and Christian, is tempted and none of the temptations I have are that strange or unique to me.

However, this passage also confirms that not only are we all tempted, but we have one temptation in common: Idolatry. And at least from the examples Paul gives in Corinthians, regardless of how spiritual we are- or how many miraculous signs and wonders we have confirming the presence of God around us,(think Israel in the desert, and the Charismatic nature of the Corinthian Church)we are still tempted to make a god, and to worship the god we make. Not a comforting thought.

Bob Goudzwaard in his book, Idols of our Time, says there are three new idols we all face, Scientism, Economism, and Technicism. He calls them the unholy trinity because they seem to work in concert with one another. It is easy to see how we are tempted to have one or all of these become our savior- to define our life, give us identity and purpose as well as direction.

He says something else- Bob says that "ideology is the conduit of idolatry." Which is an interesting twist. The thought that our ideology works to reinforce our idolatry in very confrontational. How many of us evalutate how our ideology promotes idolatry, for example, the ideology say of the American Dream. How does the idology of the American dream promote the Idol of Economism? Where or how is technology and science used to reinforce the American Dream? How are science, technology or economics used to deal with threats to the American dream. (Think high tech weaponry at the expense of say health care)Without sounding too political here, I do think Goudzwaard is on to something.

It might be helpful to realize that our ideology- what ever it is, is humanly constructed. Ideologies did not fall from heaven, nor were they particularly derived from the Bible, though I am sure there will be those who try to make them so.
I seems to me that our Ideology(whatever it is) might not only be a conduit for Idolatry, it might become an idol itself. If Paul is right-if our ideology isn't an idol yet, we are all tempted to make it one.

To which I concur with Paul,"Therefore , my dear friends, flee from idolatry." 1Corinthians 10:14

The E Word

When it comes to evangelism I have that distinct feeling that I have been there, done that, bought the T shirt. From The Four Spiritual Laws, Evangelism Explosion, Lifestyle Evangelism, Servant Evangelism, Evangelism that Works(as opposed to Evangelism that doesn't), to now the latest, Nudge Evangelism from one of my favorite people, Len Sweet I think I've read and implemented all or parts of the latest evangelism materials into my life and ministry.

Why?

Because someone Good Newsed me, and it turned my life around or more importantly turned it towards the right direction. I am doing what I am doing because of someone's love and concern that I needed to follow Jesus. To which I say, "Amen," everyday.

So in an effort to Good News someone else, I've read books, gone to seminars, and actually confronted people, accosted people, sweated in service, said way too much or way too little in an attempt to invite people to turn their life around and follow Jesus. Sometimes those loving invitations to follow Jesus came laced with hidden threats of what would happen if he or she said",No."

Then I re-read about Jesus good newsing people. Not a lot of hidden threats here. unfortunately, flames and hell are mentioned in conjunction with Jesus criticizing religious people and the religious professionals, who are not my primary evangelism mission field.

His good news had to do with the advent of the Kingdom of God, which embraced God's current redeeming and reconciling activity in this world, and of a way of life that goes with it.

When reading Paul, it is easy to read back into him the evangelistic message of an individualize, personalized faith in Jesus as being the goal of goodnewsing. However, Jesus' invitation to come and follow was an invitation to come and be a part of the New Nation of Israel, a reconstituted people of God, whose lifestyle embraced the a way of life vastly different from around at the time (think turn the other cheek). When Paul adopts a strategy to become all things to all men so that he might save some...He is not talking about rescuing some souls from the flames of hell, but actually redirecting someone's life into a new community- to be part of a new family that does live life together differently.

One of my favorite evangelistic verses is 2Corinthian 5:17 "if anyone is in Christ he is new creature, the old is gone and the new has come." I always tagged this with the born again statement of Jesus in John 3. However in reading Paul I the phrase In Christ, usually means in the community of faith. And yes it is God's intention that the community of faith be a New Creature, a new expression of humanity, that lives its life according to the new rules Jesus lays down as defined by the kingdom of God.

The old is gone and the new has come. What does this have to do with evangelism.

What turned my life around was the offer to live for a new purpose, and to live that way in a community that loved me for me before I decided to follow Jesus, and continued to love me for me after I decided. In reading more and more about evangelism and evangelistic techniques, I realize that it was being loved by a community and the promise of a living in a loving community that was good news, and the reason I said yes when invited to follow Jesus. Hell by the way was not a threat to me, since I was living in my own self constructed hell at the time. Following Jesus was a very welcomed and challenging alternative, and still is.

Thinking and Doing

When reading materials about the unchurched, dechurched, never been churched, one of the things they all seem to have in common is the word hypocrisy, not theirs, but the hypocrisy they see in the church. I don't know how many times since I've been a follower of Jesus that I have heard the phrase,"The church is full of hypocrites," as a reason for someone to quit attending a church or or never even going. To be honest hypocrisy does run deep in the church. We don't always practice what we preach. Our words and our actions are often out of sync.

In 1Corinthians 8, it seems that some people's behavior, was wounding the consciences of the so called weaker brother and sisters, and even destroying the faith of others. However hypocrisy was not the culprit. In fact some people were practicing what they preached. Idols are not real gods so food connected with idol worship doesn't matter. Food is even according to the apostle Paul morally, ethically, and theologically neutral. He writes," food does not brings us near to God-we are not worse if we do not eat, nor better if we do…" So it doesn’t matter theologically, ethically, morally, what we eat, even where that food came from, or even where we eat, food is food is food, and food is made for the body and body for food…

However; Paul also reminds them that though everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial- everything is permissible but not everything is constructive, not everything builds up or strengthens, or encourages growth. Doing some permissible things can wound consciences, destroy faith, and even stunt personal spiritual growth. Eating food offered to idols was right for some of the Christians in Corinth, but evidently not for others.

Knowing that some brothers and sisters in the faith could not handle eating food offered to idols and they still engaged in that activity, even flaunting it as a mark of spiritual maturity, was not hypocrisy. It was thoughtless and selfish.

The faith community is an interdependent community. How we live our lives in front of other Christians can impact their personal spiritual growth. Hypocrisy may still dog the church, but if Christians were a little more thoughtful and less selfish about what they do and how they do it, the faith community may quit shooting some of our own, and we can grow this faith community deeper in terms of interpersonal relationships, and wider in terms including more people under the sphere of influence of the kingdom of God.

The S - word

They say there are two things that Presbyterians never talk about; evangelism and sex. I have discovered that the Apostle Paul must have been Presbyterian because in 1Corinthians 8:1-8 he uses the phrases: "to touch a woman," and "have his own wife and have her own husband" to mean sexual relations. So even though he is talking about sex, he is not using the S-word. Paul is talking about sex within the confines of marriage.He is pro-sex because he is pro-marriage and a healthy sex life is essential for a healthy marriage. In all three of his descriptions - or prescriptions regarding sex in a marriage, Paul is very particular to make sure that what applies to a husband, equally applies to the wife. A healthy marriage and for that matter a healthy sex life according to Paul is both equitable and mutual. In describing marriage and sex within marriage this way, Paul radically redefined marriage as it was known to the Greek and Roman culture at the time. Marriage to both Greek and Roman culture was hierarchical in nature. The husband had the seat of power and authority. However, at its center, a Christian marriage was a microcosm of the church as a web of complimentary relationships working collaboratively together. Whatever power and authority there was in a marriage, according to Paul, it was to be a shared power and a shared authority. What Paul is talking about is marriage as an equal partnership between a husband and a wife.

I don't think Paul invented this radical notion of marriage as an equal partnership. I think he went back to Genesis chapter one where God creates humanity- male and female and charges humanity to rule over the garden and all of creation.It was a shared throne, with men and women to function as king and queen ultimately accountable to God. Of course we remember that God says a husband would rule over his wife in Genesis 3:16b. Unfortunately over the years we have taken this to mean that God established patriarchy as the preferred norm. I think the writer of Genesis was describing patriarchy as a consequence of the fall. What Paul is describing in Corinthians, is equality in marriage as the redeemed reality. For Christians to support patriarchy in any form is to reinforce the curse as opposed to the original blessing restored by the work of Christ.

Glorifying God with our Bodies

Our bodies matter to God.

It is a rather simple statement but one Paul in Corinthians 6 wants to hammer home particularly since a number of people in Corinth were raised with the understanding that our bodies did not matter and what we did with them didn't matter in terms of our spirituality. Paul in typical Jewish fashion saw humanity holistically.You could not with the sharpest knife divide body and soul/spirit. Paul says we are honor God with our bodies or another person said, "Turn your body into a living robust rousing round of doxology."

If the Corinthians did not think enough about their bodies, we other other hand might think too much about our bodies. Diet and exercise programs are touted from every side. I cannot tell you how many infomercials I have watched on late night Television; from a plethora of Ab machines to total gyms. Whether we pay attention to our diet and exercise is a different matter but we all agree we do need to pay attention. Some of us a obsessed with our bodies. We have become gym rats or over exercise buffs. Would anyone in their right mind want to run a double marathon? We eat only organic, high fiber, low carb; foods.

There is a difference between worshiping your body and worshiping God with your body. Our culture sees the body as an end in and of itself. Paul sees God and God's kingdom as the end for the body. It is not our body that is ultimately important to God, but what we do with our body... how we use it for the kingdom's sake, that counts.

We take care of our bodies for a purpose- the whole reason we take vitamins, and try to eat right and get plenty of exercise- the whole reason we try to stay fit and trim, is so that we can physically and mentally do what God wants done- If we do not take care of our bodies we will not have the strength and the stamina to be about the work of God’s kingdom. To build the church deep and wide involves using our bodies for what God designed them for;service to God and to others. When we do that,God is glorified,and doxology breaks out.