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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
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?
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?
Monday, March 28, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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
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
Monday, March 14, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, February 28, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)