Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Hmmm--nothing new to post
Unfortunately I have no new thoughts or inspirations. This is partly because I'm very busy working my "day job" right now, which brings up one brief point: if we are going to be on fire for Christ we must stop making ourselves too busy to really hear from God and meditate on his Word. We must start getting connected to Christ so He can live inside of us and change us in a way that leaves an impact: an impact that is displayed through our lives of the miracle of God's transforming power. I have not been doing as good at this as I wish I would so rather than rambling away writing on my blog I am going to go and get connected with my Father. Maybe instead of reading this you should do the same.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Rob Bell Exposed
Sorry to throw so many videos out in one shot but if you get a chance look through these. If you watch the documentary and then the videos about Rob Bell I think it helps to show the tough task we have today in dividing truth and error. Rob Bell is a good example of someone who says some things that are so true but others that are wrong when held against scripture. I really like what Rob Bell says about pulling church movements together. I have a problem with our one friend below who makes it his calling to tear Rob Bell apart. However, how can we bring church movements together so we can be a united army while still being faithful to the truth? Is it safe to partner with people who are teaching error? Many conservative Mennonite groups have made it a point to only associate with people who believe almost exactly like themselves. Is this right? What is our role in partnering with Christians right around us (the local Christians from other denominations) while still being obedient to our walk with God?
The Emergent Church Movement Documentary on PBS
Here is a pretty good overview of what the emergent church is about and what some of their key ideas are. In many ways this is a trickle down movement where many churches may be slightly emergent or only have minor emergent tendencies but I believe it is important to be aware of what contemporary Christianity is saying so we can evaluate what ideas are currently influencing us. Many times these influences are in subtle ways which we never pick up on unless we are astutely aware of what is happening. I do not condemn the emergent church movement but I do feel they are misguided in some areas. In summary I believe the emergent church is putting their finger on a real live issue in many churches across America. However, the some of the diagnosis for the symptoms that they are exposing are a bit misguided.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
A word picture: The harmony of church life.
Instead of trying to articulate ideas consider the following example--I'm still stuck on the idea of disunity in the church.
Consider a full orchestra:
In an orchestra there are many different instruments. When played independently these instruments sound very different. Consider the Timpani (drum) versus a violin. Consider the oboe and the vocalists: two entirely different sounds. Very few people would say the sound of an orchestra is ugly (I know I guess there are those who haven't had a chance to have their musical tastes developed but the same analogy could apply to almost any genre of music). For music to reach its epitome it must have different components. However all these components must be unified in a central song in order for their to be beauty. If half of the orchestra starts off in a different key on a different song the sound is horrible. But there are times when many of the different members are playing a different note. There are even minor chords which may briefly sound discordant but if taken as a part of the whole song sound awesome. Some songs may even be sung as rounds where different groups are different places in the song at the same time.
How does this apply to church life? God calls us to different places of service, ways of service, and terms of service. These different callings are supposed to come together into a beautiful symphony. Sometimes we get confused with other people's callings and we begin to think that when someone else is playing a different note than ourselves they are actually playing a different song. We think that when someone else is serving differently than we are that they are working against us. When everyone plays music in unison all the time it doesn't sound nearly as great as when there is harmony. However, I believe there are churches where two different songs are being played. Some people are playing God's song (following God's plan) and other people are following their own song (their own plan).
Big question: How does one know when another church member is singing a round, playing a minor, or singing an entirely different song?
I would say to be help flesh out my metaphor that if a church is singing two different songs they should split (actually they should start singing the same song, but in the real world it doesn't always work out this way). My call to the church is that it is time that we stopped splitting our churches just because God wants us to play a minor chord or sing a round (diversity of calling is okay as long as it is all within God's truth). My call to the church is also that we start splitting our churches when we are singing different songs. We cannot compromise on sin. We just can't. And so the question remains......(Please see the large lettering above.)
Consider a full orchestra:
In an orchestra there are many different instruments. When played independently these instruments sound very different. Consider the Timpani (drum) versus a violin. Consider the oboe and the vocalists: two entirely different sounds. Very few people would say the sound of an orchestra is ugly (I know I guess there are those who haven't had a chance to have their musical tastes developed but the same analogy could apply to almost any genre of music). For music to reach its epitome it must have different components. However all these components must be unified in a central song in order for their to be beauty. If half of the orchestra starts off in a different key on a different song the sound is horrible. But there are times when many of the different members are playing a different note. There are even minor chords which may briefly sound discordant but if taken as a part of the whole song sound awesome. Some songs may even be sung as rounds where different groups are different places in the song at the same time.
How does this apply to church life? God calls us to different places of service, ways of service, and terms of service. These different callings are supposed to come together into a beautiful symphony. Sometimes we get confused with other people's callings and we begin to think that when someone else is playing a different note than ourselves they are actually playing a different song. We think that when someone else is serving differently than we are that they are working against us. When everyone plays music in unison all the time it doesn't sound nearly as great as when there is harmony. However, I believe there are churches where two different songs are being played. Some people are playing God's song (following God's plan) and other people are following their own song (their own plan).
Big question: How does one know when another church member is singing a round, playing a minor, or singing an entirely different song?
I would say to be help flesh out my metaphor that if a church is singing two different songs they should split (actually they should start singing the same song, but in the real world it doesn't always work out this way). My call to the church is that it is time that we stopped splitting our churches just because God wants us to play a minor chord or sing a round (diversity of calling is okay as long as it is all within God's truth). My call to the church is also that we start splitting our churches when we are singing different songs. We cannot compromise on sin. We just can't. And so the question remains......(Please see the large lettering above.)
More thoughts about Disunity....
A conversation I've had many times over the past couple of years will go something like this.
Me: "I have a difficulty with how that person because of this......
Other person: "You should not be critical of this person. God has called this person to something different than he has called you and therefore the way you minister is different."
Me: "But I don't think God would call someone this because of what the Bible says...."
So the question: What are the negotiables on belief and what are the nonnegotiables? Consider the following two no-brainer scenarios.
Scenario 1: Someone from my church says that they want the church to endorse unmarried people starting families together. If this happened I would say that I cannot participate because of what God has told me to do.
Scenario 2: Someone from my church says that they want to start a ministry to single mothers living in the local area. If this happened I would say that I cannot participate because of what God has told me to do.
In both Scenario 1 and 2 a person in my church is endorsing something that I cannot be a part of. So what is the difference between these two scenarios? I believe fornication is wrong for Christians in China, for Christians in Barbados, and for Christians in Manhattan. If a church would say that fornication is okay for church members in a particular church I could no longer be a committed member of that church because I believe I would be endorsing sin. Jesus was a friend of sinners but he did not endorse the sin of sinners. I would have no problem being a committed church member with the person who is starting the single mothers ministry. I believe it could possibly be right for a Christian in any given region to start a single mothers ministry if God calls them to this.
Consider Scenario 3: Someone from my church says that they want to start a rap/dance ministry to attract the gangster crowd in our area. As a part of this ministry they are solid preaching and present the gospel. In the other towns where this has been done people have been saved. In fact one of the people my fellow church member wants to team up with was saved through a similar ministry. (Wow this is a really pathetic example, but I struggle with hypothetical scenarios and I'm not sure I should put any real live situations on the table just now.) If this happened I would say hmmmm. "On the one hand, on the other hand....... On the other hand...... There are no more hands" --Tevye the milkman. Some of you may think that the answer here is clear, but forget the exact example and try to get my point.
How do we deal with situations where someone feels called to something that some people feel the principles in the Bible support and others feel the principles in the Bible do not support? This is where division happens. Situations similar to Scenario 3 is one big reason major church divisions happen. Minor church divisions are often because of people getting hurt (not dealing with offenses correctly), people aren't fed (people haven't learned to feed themselves), the church is dead (people fail to see that they are supposed to bring life to the church and then the church would be alive) etc.... I think minor church divisions can be dealt with as people learn to be committed to a church and learn not to walk out when the going gets tough, but I still have very little idea how to deal with the major church divisions. How do we work through situations like scenario 3? Of course being committed to the other people in the church is one of the first steps but there does come a time when, if truth is being compromised to too great an extent a Christian has a responsibility to his own conscience to pack his bags and leave. When should a Christian do this?
Me: "I have a difficulty with how that person because of this......
Other person: "You should not be critical of this person. God has called this person to something different than he has called you and therefore the way you minister is different."
Me: "But I don't think God would call someone this because of what the Bible says...."
So the question: What are the negotiables on belief and what are the nonnegotiables? Consider the following two no-brainer scenarios.
Scenario 1: Someone from my church says that they want the church to endorse unmarried people starting families together. If this happened I would say that I cannot participate because of what God has told me to do.
Scenario 2: Someone from my church says that they want to start a ministry to single mothers living in the local area. If this happened I would say that I cannot participate because of what God has told me to do.
In both Scenario 1 and 2 a person in my church is endorsing something that I cannot be a part of. So what is the difference between these two scenarios? I believe fornication is wrong for Christians in China, for Christians in Barbados, and for Christians in Manhattan. If a church would say that fornication is okay for church members in a particular church I could no longer be a committed member of that church because I believe I would be endorsing sin. Jesus was a friend of sinners but he did not endorse the sin of sinners. I would have no problem being a committed church member with the person who is starting the single mothers ministry. I believe it could possibly be right for a Christian in any given region to start a single mothers ministry if God calls them to this.
Consider Scenario 3: Someone from my church says that they want to start a rap/dance ministry to attract the gangster crowd in our area. As a part of this ministry they are solid preaching and present the gospel. In the other towns where this has been done people have been saved. In fact one of the people my fellow church member wants to team up with was saved through a similar ministry. (Wow this is a really pathetic example, but I struggle with hypothetical scenarios and I'm not sure I should put any real live situations on the table just now.) If this happened I would say hmmmm. "On the one hand, on the other hand....... On the other hand...... There are no more hands" --Tevye the milkman. Some of you may think that the answer here is clear, but forget the exact example and try to get my point.
How do we deal with situations where someone feels called to something that some people feel the principles in the Bible support and others feel the principles in the Bible do not support? This is where division happens. Situations similar to Scenario 3 is one big reason major church divisions happen. Minor church divisions are often because of people getting hurt (not dealing with offenses correctly), people aren't fed (people haven't learned to feed themselves), the church is dead (people fail to see that they are supposed to bring life to the church and then the church would be alive) etc.... I think minor church divisions can be dealt with as people learn to be committed to a church and learn not to walk out when the going gets tough, but I still have very little idea how to deal with the major church divisions. How do we work through situations like scenario 3? Of course being committed to the other people in the church is one of the first steps but there does come a time when, if truth is being compromised to too great an extent a Christian has a responsibility to his own conscience to pack his bags and leave. When should a Christian do this?
Dissecting Disunity in the Church
If there is one thing about "normal" church life that I would eradicate if I could it would be to make so Christians in the church don't walk out on each other and split their churches apart. Maybe I shouldn't call this a part of normal church life but I have a very hard time thinking of even one church where people haven't split their community of fellowship due to differing beliefs. In many of these churches the splits haven't been church wide, maybe only a family here or there, but in other situations whole churches have been split apart into major factions where each group polarizes and starts a new community of fellowship.
Many if not most of the people in today's true church would agree that the breakup of the family unit in America has had disastrous consequences on our modern culture. However, many of the same Christians who feel it is so important that families not be broken up also feel it is an accepted part of church life for Christians to occasionally part ways and no longer fellowship together simply because they disagree about some issue. I'm not saying that people shouldn't part ways when one person walks away from a relationship with God. If a person is openly rejecting God and influencing others to do the same we have a responsibility to take a stand for truth in these situations. Many times when our church members break fellowship with each other neither party would say the other group is no longer following Christ. The two groups split because they cannot come together to a common belief about some issue: worship style, interpretation of a Biblical principle, ministry focus, or some other topic.
I believe that these divisions are nearly as disastrous as the breakup of the family unit all across America. The local church unit (here I'm not speaking of the universal church of Christ) is supposed to be placed for us as Christians to be accepted when we don't have life together, be corrected when we need to get life together, and be energized to help others get their lives together through the power of Jesus Christ (Please don't criticize my use of getting life together--I don't believe we are supposed to be self built.) When God deals with sin in the heart of an individual it is a painful process and we as fragile people need others to walk alongside us and encourage us to continue following God even when things get hard. So often it is during personal struggles that people respond incorrectly to situations. Because of our low levels of commitment in our churches we often split apart when someone is struggling with an issue or not seeing something our way. This plethora has been with us since early church life: Paul and Barnabas split ways because Paul could not put up with John Mark's struggles.
Maybe at this point you feel I'm advocating not taking a strong stand on sin and other severe issues. What I am advocating is that we be 100% committed to our churches and never leave due to personal conflicts with someone else. This will actually allow us to take a stronger stand against sin. I feel that so many pastors have to tip toe inordinately around major issues because if they state one thing slightly wrong they risk losing half of their church. If pastors new that the members in the church were not going to leave they could speak their minds about sin. If Christians who were struggling new that people in the church were not going to walk out on them if they mess up they could be real with their struggles. If true conflict resolution is going to happen people must first be committed to each other that way people are free to share their deepest opinons, beliefs, and convictions. Imagine how long a marriage would work if either spouse was free to walk out as soon as one of the partners didn't feel like they were being emotionally or spiritually fed. Maybe a part of joining a local church should be a recitation of vows like we do in a marriage. "Are you committed to walking alongside this family of believers in good times and bad,....." So what should we do about disunity in the church? If we are not supposed to split apart and it is really hard going to church with a bunch of people who hold totally different values how are we supposed to survive?
Many if not most of the people in today's true church would agree that the breakup of the family unit in America has had disastrous consequences on our modern culture. However, many of the same Christians who feel it is so important that families not be broken up also feel it is an accepted part of church life for Christians to occasionally part ways and no longer fellowship together simply because they disagree about some issue. I'm not saying that people shouldn't part ways when one person walks away from a relationship with God. If a person is openly rejecting God and influencing others to do the same we have a responsibility to take a stand for truth in these situations. Many times when our church members break fellowship with each other neither party would say the other group is no longer following Christ. The two groups split because they cannot come together to a common belief about some issue: worship style, interpretation of a Biblical principle, ministry focus, or some other topic.
I believe that these divisions are nearly as disastrous as the breakup of the family unit all across America. The local church unit (here I'm not speaking of the universal church of Christ) is supposed to be placed for us as Christians to be accepted when we don't have life together, be corrected when we need to get life together, and be energized to help others get their lives together through the power of Jesus Christ (Please don't criticize my use of getting life together--I don't believe we are supposed to be self built.) When God deals with sin in the heart of an individual it is a painful process and we as fragile people need others to walk alongside us and encourage us to continue following God even when things get hard. So often it is during personal struggles that people respond incorrectly to situations. Because of our low levels of commitment in our churches we often split apart when someone is struggling with an issue or not seeing something our way. This plethora has been with us since early church life: Paul and Barnabas split ways because Paul could not put up with John Mark's struggles.
Maybe at this point you feel I'm advocating not taking a strong stand on sin and other severe issues. What I am advocating is that we be 100% committed to our churches and never leave due to personal conflicts with someone else. This will actually allow us to take a stronger stand against sin. I feel that so many pastors have to tip toe inordinately around major issues because if they state one thing slightly wrong they risk losing half of their church. If pastors new that the members in the church were not going to leave they could speak their minds about sin. If Christians who were struggling new that people in the church were not going to walk out on them if they mess up they could be real with their struggles. If true conflict resolution is going to happen people must first be committed to each other that way people are free to share their deepest opinons, beliefs, and convictions. Imagine how long a marriage would work if either spouse was free to walk out as soon as one of the partners didn't feel like they were being emotionally or spiritually fed. Maybe a part of joining a local church should be a recitation of vows like we do in a marriage. "Are you committed to walking alongside this family of believers in good times and bad,....." So what should we do about disunity in the church? If we are not supposed to split apart and it is really hard going to church with a bunch of people who hold totally different values how are we supposed to survive?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Bringing modern church movements together.... Part 2
Note: Please read Part 1 first.
Also, please feel free to comment on my representation of a number of theories if I have in any way misrepresented what these movements promote.
So what are the main ideas being presented by modern church movements?
In order to keep this discussion simple and and focused I am going to summarize two of the messages that I am hearing and grappling with.
Shane Claiborne and gang:
If you haven't read Irresistible Revolution please put this book on your reading list today. A couple of the main ideas presented by Shane are the following:
--Being the hands and feet of Jesus in real world problems (defending the homeless in our cities, standing up against slavery in undeveloped nations, etc...)
--Living as simply as possible (living on day to day resources, promotion of voluntary poverty)
--Community based living (emphasis on freely sharing our possessions)
--Strong proponents of world peace
--Advocates for energy conservation and other aspects of the "Green" movement
--Little energy put into patriotism and nationalism and protection of personal rights
--As a movement I feel that they put a lot of energy into solving the social problems of our times but put could probably put more emphasis on making sure they and they people they minister with have the correct theology. Most direct examples for how to live are based on the life of Jesus. Interesting note: Shaine Claiborne grew up, I believe, in a fundamental evangelical home but would at first glance be more closely associated with someone from the hippie movement today although I am not trying to say that Shane is a hippie.
Fundamental evangelical movement:
I feel this movement is summarized well by the Harris family (Gregg, Josh, Brett, and Alex). If you haven't read their books please add these to your reading list as well. Next up for me is Dug Down Deep by Josh. Some of the main ideas of this movement are are as follows:
--Becoming leaders in our country in the different spheres of influence (family, church, government, and business)
--Following Biblical principles of wisdom and character and managing resources wisely
--Doing everything with excellence for the glory of God
--Little energy put into the "Green" movement
--Strong advocates for American patriotism and national defense as well as protection of personal rights
--Wisdom and the pursuit of wisdom being one of man's highest callings
--Emphasis on living life according to a particular pattern. "If you follow the correct curriculum for your life, you will succeed."
--As a movement I feel this group puts a large amount of emphasis on closely following the directives of the Bible, solving the problems of the world through leadership in the major spheres of influence, and living correctly so one can receive God's blessings. Most direct examples for how to live are based on stories and advice from the book of Proverbs. Interesting note: Gregg was a hippie, "Jesus Freak" during his youth but has since converted to a more fundamental evangelical Christian position.
How do these ideas fit together?
Let me insert one more concept that I've been thinking a lot about over the past week and was also discussed during my holiday (see Part 1 of this blog). Last fall I attended W.I.L.D. (Wilderness Institute for Leadership Development) and part of their curriculum is an analysis of four ways that people respond when trying to undertake a new task or solve a problem. If I can, let me summarize here my rendition of the concepts taught at WILD. In the chart below people who are type 1 typically are visionary and are looking for new ideas for the future. People who are type 2 are most concerned with gathering information that has already been validated. People who are type 3 are most interested in finding immediate real world solutions, and people who are type 4 are most concerned with immediate solutions but their focus is often on improving the method more than the actual task.
In our churches and Christian circles we often have the tendency to throw out one movement in order to keep the ideas of another movement when sometimes these two movements may just be presenting two aspects of the same thing. I don't mean to be the next advocate for the ecumenical church movement, but I do think that far too often in our churches we spend too much of our time finding where we are different from another person, organization, or group, rather than realizing that maybe God laid slightly different burdens on different people's hearts because he has a slightly different message that he wants to each person to share.
Caution!! However, I do not believe that any of what God's lays on one man's heart will contradict what he lays on another man's heart. When there are differences between individuals and movements I believe these differences can often be attributed to our poor human representation of the message God has given us. We should constantly try to represent Christ more clearly but at the same time I feel we need to be careful not to unnecessarily shoot down other people's ideas and passions when, if we look closely enough, it may be a different aspect of the same greater issue that we are passionate about. I really wonder if when we get to heaven we will wish we had made a bigger deal out of small issues or if we will wish that we had just been more concerned about joining forces to allow as many people as possible to hear and feel the gospel.
My facetious proposal: What we need is a conference where the Harris family, Shane Claiborne, Mark Driscoll, and Francis Chan would all share on the issues of where their passions lie. Maybe we should get an Anabaptist voice in on the main topics: enter Val Yoder, Tod Neuschwander.... And oh we need some music: I wonder if Tenth Avenue North could sing along with Garments of Praise. Maybe add some Lecrae for flavor (I digress).
Bringing modern church movements together.... Part 1
Today's thoughts definitely call for a bit of a back drop in order for you to be able to follow my line of thinking. I found the need to take a holiday this past week (as Bilbo Baggins did in his day). And although I didn't disappear at my birthday party I took some time off work and attended a Tenth Avenue North concert (one of my favorite CCM singing groups) with a group of my friends. One thing that the concert emphasized was stopping modern day slavery and helping children around the world through Compassion International. On a personal level the concert emphasized the fact that Jesus meets us in our sin and brings healing as we bring, even our darkest secrets, to the open through confession.
The next two days after the concert I attended parts of Gregg Harris's "Raising Kids to Do Hard Things" conference. Some of the main things this conference emphasized were becoming a leader in the field you are called, understanding the seasons of life, and realizing that the God we serve is good and wise and so we are called to be wise and follow God's good plans.
The real meat of the weekend and the thing that that has inspired this blog is the hours of discussion time with a group of my friends....in the restaurants, when we walked down the street, in the car, in the living room and kitchen of our hosts, and everywhere we went from when we first go up in the morning until we went to bed early the next morning. Enter a weekend of discussion and a weekend of raising questions I'm still trying to answer. I don't have the answer but I have some thoughts thanks to the group of philosophers and theologians I had a chance to spend my weekend with.
Over the course of the weekend I was able to hear from two different regions of thought being proclaimed in the modern church. The message delivered by Mike from Tenth Avenue North was, I believe, scriptural but distinctly different from the message brought by Gregg Harris. Currently I have been processing a lot of ideas brought to the table by men like Francis Chan and Shaine Claiborne (one of my heroes) as well as listening to the concerns of men who have been whistle blowing on the ideas of the Emergent church (which I guess technically is a movement that has just recently died). Whatever the status of the Emergent church movement we are being confronted with a several distinctly different messages from current church leaders. Many of these men I highly admire and in listening to their messages I am trying to determine how these different messages fit together. Are these different messages exclusive or are they simply different aspects of the same movement? Should we be rejecting the messages of certain current leaders or are each of these messages different aspects of the same larger message.
Before we can go too much further we must first clarify that in order to have any discussion our total purpose in our quest for truth must be to "gaze on the face of God" by finding His truth in the Bible (concept from the Truth Project). However, in the current church movements there are a host of ideas being presented by articulate communicators and I as I read and listen to these ideas I feel the need to determine whether or not these ideas or true. So it is not so important what one man says but what the Bible says, however, as men extrapolate the principles found in the Bible and apply these principles to daily life different movements are clearly ending up at different places. It is the quest of my current journey to discern how these different ideas fit together and which ideas we should be accepting and applying to our churches and which ideas we should be rejecting.
What is my proposition? Please see Part 2
The next two days after the concert I attended parts of Gregg Harris's "Raising Kids to Do Hard Things" conference. Some of the main things this conference emphasized were becoming a leader in the field you are called, understanding the seasons of life, and realizing that the God we serve is good and wise and so we are called to be wise and follow God's good plans.
The real meat of the weekend and the thing that that has inspired this blog is the hours of discussion time with a group of my friends....in the restaurants, when we walked down the street, in the car, in the living room and kitchen of our hosts, and everywhere we went from when we first go up in the morning until we went to bed early the next morning. Enter a weekend of discussion and a weekend of raising questions I'm still trying to answer. I don't have the answer but I have some thoughts thanks to the group of philosophers and theologians I had a chance to spend my weekend with.
Over the course of the weekend I was able to hear from two different regions of thought being proclaimed in the modern church. The message delivered by Mike from Tenth Avenue North was, I believe, scriptural but distinctly different from the message brought by Gregg Harris. Currently I have been processing a lot of ideas brought to the table by men like Francis Chan and Shaine Claiborne (one of my heroes) as well as listening to the concerns of men who have been whistle blowing on the ideas of the Emergent church (which I guess technically is a movement that has just recently died). Whatever the status of the Emergent church movement we are being confronted with a several distinctly different messages from current church leaders. Many of these men I highly admire and in listening to their messages I am trying to determine how these different messages fit together. Are these different messages exclusive or are they simply different aspects of the same movement? Should we be rejecting the messages of certain current leaders or are each of these messages different aspects of the same larger message.
Before we can go too much further we must first clarify that in order to have any discussion our total purpose in our quest for truth must be to "gaze on the face of God" by finding His truth in the Bible (concept from the Truth Project). However, in the current church movements there are a host of ideas being presented by articulate communicators and I as I read and listen to these ideas I feel the need to determine whether or not these ideas or true. So it is not so important what one man says but what the Bible says, however, as men extrapolate the principles found in the Bible and apply these principles to daily life different movements are clearly ending up at different places. It is the quest of my current journey to discern how these different ideas fit together and which ideas we should be accepting and applying to our churches and which ideas we should be rejecting.
What is my proposition? Please see Part 2
Friday, November 5, 2010
Surviving Pain
People, (other people) are one of our primary sources of pain in the journey of life. God has created man to live in community with other people but because of the pain that other people bring to us, we often find that the communities we were created for our families, churches, and communities end up being our primary source of pain. Our natural man does everything it can to shield itself from pain. Because we are created for community and long for community but find that the communities we are given cause us so much pain we often develop means to cope. We build walls around our lives, we wear masks, we are very careful which people we associate with, and we make sure that people can’t see into our lives too deeply: all these things in order to minimize pain.
Because of sin people hurt people. The natural man tries his best to make himself king of his world. Man naturally tries to promote himself above everyone else. In order to promote himself natural man takes from the people around him to promote his own ambitions. This stealing from others for our own benefit it ultimately what causes pain in other people.
How can we as people survive the pain of other people? This will only happen as we see God’s hand behind the pain caused by other people. Although interactions with people is what causes us to experience so much of our pain, God uses this pain to do his work in our hearts. God will never allow us to experience anything that is not for our benefit if our heart is to follow him. God help us to see His hand behind the pain we feel from others as we live in churches and families.
Because of sin people hurt people. The natural man tries his best to make himself king of his world. Man naturally tries to promote himself above everyone else. In order to promote himself natural man takes from the people around him to promote his own ambitions. This stealing from others for our own benefit it ultimately what causes pain in other people.
How can we as people survive the pain of other people? This will only happen as we see God’s hand behind the pain caused by other people. Although interactions with people is what causes us to experience so much of our pain, God uses this pain to do his work in our hearts. God will never allow us to experience anything that is not for our benefit if our heart is to follow him. God help us to see His hand behind the pain we feel from others as we live in churches and families.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Protecting ourselves from Pain
"One of the things that is wired into our sinful nature is a desire to run towards pleasure and to run away from pain." --Floyd Yutzy. Contrary to what our sinful nature desires the way of Christ is requires us to "choose to suffer affliction...rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" (Hebrews 11:25), like Moses did when he gave up the good life as a prince of Egypt and chose to live way of the wilderness with God's people. In Matthew 5 Jesus defines what kind of people receive God's blessing: Poor in Spirit, those who mourn, meek, hungry, thirsty, etc..... and finally the persecuted, the reviled, those who have the opportunity to experience others speaking false hoods and other evil things about them. When I read this, my first response is that I don't really want God's blessing that bad if that is what it looks like.
And so I ask: what is the great blessing of pain? Most of the things mentioned in the first part of Matthew 5 are the result of pain. Could it be that by our quest to protect ourselves from pain in relationships by not making ourselves vulnerable and our quest to protect ourselves from pain in the church by not sticking it out when others hurt us, we are missing some of God's greatest blessings?
To be continued....My lunch break is over....
And so I ask: what is the great blessing of pain? Most of the things mentioned in the first part of Matthew 5 are the result of pain. Could it be that by our quest to protect ourselves from pain in relationships by not making ourselves vulnerable and our quest to protect ourselves from pain in the church by not sticking it out when others hurt us, we are missing some of God's greatest blessings?
To be continued....My lunch break is over....
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Driscoll on the Emerging Church
Mark Driscoll puts his finger on some questions I had about the emerging "Emergent" church and how we should think of church as we enter the next decade.
Paul Tripp: Speaking the Truth in Love
Clear communication: This has been one of the biggest challenges on the teams that I have been a part of. It seems as we get into the middle of a battle, Satan can use our communication as one of his most effective weapons. Paul Tripp has some great thoughts....
Did Jesus promote "clicks?" Enter the idea of an OPEN CLICK.
One of the besetting problems in many churches is the formation of clicks. These problems are especially pronounced most times in youth groups but I believe they pervade the older echelons of the church as well but perhaps the evidences are a bit more masked. Why do we so naturally long to be a part of a click? Why does it feel so good to be on the inside? Why does it hurt to be on the outside? How has God designed us and how is God calling us to live in the area of friend groups and clicks?
First: Why do clicks form? I feel that one of the primary reason for the formation of clicks is that people want to be part of a group. For some reason, hard wired in our DNA is a longing for commoonity (I mean community). I believe that part of us being made in the image of God is the design for community. We are not designed to be islands. The degree to which people desire to be with others varies a great deal, but very few normal people have no desire for community. The real problem with clicks, however, is not so much that we have a longing to be with others, but more that we don't want to be with certain others. (i.e. If the party could always get bigger clicks wouldn't be a problem.) Most times in a group there comes a time when some or all of the people inside the group do not want more people to be inside the group. Most times this is where the problems start.
Is the desire to have a certain group stay at a particular size wrong? I feel this depends on why the group is wanting to stay small? Many times in our longing for community we are looking for people to meet certain needs that we have rather than finding these needs met in God. We may look to a group of people to give us affirmation or security. Inviting other people to be a part of "our" group could threaten security or other things that we look for in a group. When James (in the Bible) spoke out against being a respecter of persons this was one of the primary things he was talking about.
I feel the desire for a group to stay a particular size can be an okay feeling if the desire is to keep the group more personal and focused. I think one of the downfalls of many churches is that they allow anyone and everyone to come to their church without making sure the person is called to be at the new church. Sometimes these churches can grow very rapidly, but then suddenly crash because everyone was just seeking what the group could give them rather than finding their place because they were called to be there.
If you are a part of a click that you really enjoy and you are wondering about whether it is okay for you to be exclusive consider one of my favorite quotes by Shane Claiborne, "The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away." How can we give a click away? Consider a small church where everything is going great: revival is happening, worship is real, and community within the church is caring and committed. It's hard to imagine a small church like this because these types of churches never stay small. Most times the only small churches are the ones with problems. But consider that if as this church grows the people would decide that every time the church reaches a certain size it starts a new church. This new body would be formed by people called to leave (assuming there are some). I'm not sure what happens if nobody ever feels called to start the new group, but please stick with my theory. When the new body forms it could again grow until it becomes a certain size and then split apart. Splitting this way is much better rather than after the church has become large in number and nobody knows each other that well so as soon as something comes up everyone starts judging each other's motives and the whole things falls apart. (Okay that might be a little extreme, but these types of things can happen in small ways.)
I know small churches and groups of friends can have problems too but I think if people can know each other in a really deep personal ways there is a lot less chance that there will be misunderstandings and judging of motives. If there are problems it is often much easier to work through them if there are fewer people.
The big difference between a bad click and a good click is that a bad click is all about what I can get out of this group of friends. A good click is formed because it is what is best for the group and the rest of the people in the group, and even the people outside the group. How do we decide whether we are part of a bad click or a good click? (I don't know. I'm the one that asked the question?) No, more seriously, it is hard to make sweeping statements that allow us always to know whether a click is good or bad but here are some thoughts.
I think there is inside every person a longing for a tight group of friends who know us very well and who we know very well: people with whom we can be ourselves and not have to impress but still hold the deepest respect for us. I think it is important for a Christian to be surrounded by a group of people who can support them through the battle of life and correct them when they go astray.
While Jesus lived on the earth he surrounded himself with a tight group of friends. Within this group Jesus had an especially tight group of three men: Peter, James, and John. The special relationship that Jesus had with these three men even led to disagreements on several occasions with the other disciples. Jesus even seemed exclusive at times to people he met along the way. When Jesus was confronted by the Syro-Phoenician woman he only helped her after she persistently begged for his help. But, the real interesting thing to note is who Jesus allowed to be a part of his "click." Jesus inner core included down to earth men. I don't believe Jesus picked people that would make him look good or were necessarily the most fun to hang out with. Note that he picked a man who he knew would betray him someday. Imagine that for a click partner.
In summary, I think clicks are great. However, my struggle lies in choosing the people I am going to click with. I find it so easy to do exactly what we are commanded not to do in James. I am extra nice to the people that make me feel good and can get me where I want to go, but I ignore the people who really need me. I believe God is asking us to form clicks with the people around us who are down and out, the ones who need a friend and just aren't that cool at first glance, and build small communities (churches) that can support the individuals in the click through the battles of life.
God, please help us build God honoring clicks. God, please turn our clicks into God honoring churches.
First: Why do clicks form? I feel that one of the primary reason for the formation of clicks is that people want to be part of a group. For some reason, hard wired in our DNA is a longing for commoonity (I mean community). I believe that part of us being made in the image of God is the design for community. We are not designed to be islands. The degree to which people desire to be with others varies a great deal, but very few normal people have no desire for community. The real problem with clicks, however, is not so much that we have a longing to be with others, but more that we don't want to be with certain others. (i.e. If the party could always get bigger clicks wouldn't be a problem.) Most times in a group there comes a time when some or all of the people inside the group do not want more people to be inside the group. Most times this is where the problems start.
Is the desire to have a certain group stay at a particular size wrong? I feel this depends on why the group is wanting to stay small? Many times in our longing for community we are looking for people to meet certain needs that we have rather than finding these needs met in God. We may look to a group of people to give us affirmation or security. Inviting other people to be a part of "our" group could threaten security or other things that we look for in a group. When James (in the Bible) spoke out against being a respecter of persons this was one of the primary things he was talking about.
I feel the desire for a group to stay a particular size can be an okay feeling if the desire is to keep the group more personal and focused. I think one of the downfalls of many churches is that they allow anyone and everyone to come to their church without making sure the person is called to be at the new church. Sometimes these churches can grow very rapidly, but then suddenly crash because everyone was just seeking what the group could give them rather than finding their place because they were called to be there.
If you are a part of a click that you really enjoy and you are wondering about whether it is okay for you to be exclusive consider one of my favorite quotes by Shane Claiborne, "The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away." How can we give a click away? Consider a small church where everything is going great: revival is happening, worship is real, and community within the church is caring and committed. It's hard to imagine a small church like this because these types of churches never stay small. Most times the only small churches are the ones with problems. But consider that if as this church grows the people would decide that every time the church reaches a certain size it starts a new church. This new body would be formed by people called to leave (assuming there are some). I'm not sure what happens if nobody ever feels called to start the new group, but please stick with my theory. When the new body forms it could again grow until it becomes a certain size and then split apart. Splitting this way is much better rather than after the church has become large in number and nobody knows each other that well so as soon as something comes up everyone starts judging each other's motives and the whole things falls apart. (Okay that might be a little extreme, but these types of things can happen in small ways.)
I know small churches and groups of friends can have problems too but I think if people can know each other in a really deep personal ways there is a lot less chance that there will be misunderstandings and judging of motives. If there are problems it is often much easier to work through them if there are fewer people.
The big difference between a bad click and a good click is that a bad click is all about what I can get out of this group of friends. A good click is formed because it is what is best for the group and the rest of the people in the group, and even the people outside the group. How do we decide whether we are part of a bad click or a good click? (I don't know. I'm the one that asked the question?) No, more seriously, it is hard to make sweeping statements that allow us always to know whether a click is good or bad but here are some thoughts.
I think there is inside every person a longing for a tight group of friends who know us very well and who we know very well: people with whom we can be ourselves and not have to impress but still hold the deepest respect for us. I think it is important for a Christian to be surrounded by a group of people who can support them through the battle of life and correct them when they go astray.
While Jesus lived on the earth he surrounded himself with a tight group of friends. Within this group Jesus had an especially tight group of three men: Peter, James, and John. The special relationship that Jesus had with these three men even led to disagreements on several occasions with the other disciples. Jesus even seemed exclusive at times to people he met along the way. When Jesus was confronted by the Syro-Phoenician woman he only helped her after she persistently begged for his help. But, the real interesting thing to note is who Jesus allowed to be a part of his "click." Jesus inner core included down to earth men. I don't believe Jesus picked people that would make him look good or were necessarily the most fun to hang out with. Note that he picked a man who he knew would betray him someday. Imagine that for a click partner.
In summary, I think clicks are great. However, my struggle lies in choosing the people I am going to click with. I find it so easy to do exactly what we are commanded not to do in James. I am extra nice to the people that make me feel good and can get me where I want to go, but I ignore the people who really need me. I believe God is asking us to form clicks with the people around us who are down and out, the ones who need a friend and just aren't that cool at first glance, and build small communities (churches) that can support the individuals in the click through the battles of life.
God, please help us build God honoring clicks. God, please turn our clicks into God honoring churches.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
John Piper - Are You a Church or a Club?
Here John Piper reminds us that the church is about caring for the needs of the people around us. The church is not about a program but about caring for people. If programs help us care for people they are great. If programs bog us down they are evil. Questions: How can I serve the people around me today? How am I going to build the church today?
New Monastic Shane Claiborne Questions The American Dream (and Christopher Beiler adds his two sense).
I think one of our greatest adversaries in the American church is the American dream. The kingdom of God is what we are fighting for, not America. I am thankful for America, but God has given the freedoms we have as a tool to advance his kingdom, not a blessing to hoard for ourselves.
Some of our struggle with living the American dream comes from the concept that America is a Christian nation. So many people seem to think that America is God's nation of Israel in today's world. These people think that Americans are God's special chosen ones..... The church in America has no rights to freedoms in America beyond using them to build God's kingdom.
To those struggling with Christian patriotism let me ask how you justify the American Revolution based on Christ's teaching in the New Testament. How can you "submit yourselves to every authority," and rebel against the king. So often we have taken for granted that American Revolution was performed by great men of God, but I feel this is mistaken. The church's call is to build the kingdom of God by serving the people around us and meeting the physical and spiritual needs of the people God calls us to walk alongside each day. We are not called to build a physical nation but a spiritual one.
As Shane says, "The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away."
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Chapter 5: Dysfunctions of a Team
Overview of chapters 2-4: (Chapters 2-4 deal with how the individual should be in the church. I have included an excerpt from the first few lines of chapter two).
Individual: A church can never be stronger or more on fire than the people that make up the church. So what are a couple of the most important things that need to be present in an individual's life in order for them to be a pillar in the church.
1) Unadulterated love for God: If the people in the churches in America were 1/4 as excited about God as they are about sports, work, and just plain stuff our churches would be entirely changed. Somehow it seems like we've decided that God is okay with having just the corners of our lives when he really wants everything.....
I would much rather discuss the church than the individual and so I am jumping all the way to chapter 5.
Chapter 5: (Summary of key concepts from chapter 5)
Below is a summary of some ideas presented by the author of a book entitled, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team." I recommend this book to anyone wrestling with how to make their church be more effective. Although the author is not a Christian, the viewpoints in this book hold very true to human nature and the applications are endless in our churches. For more information about the book see http://www.tablegroup.com/books/dysfunctions/, hich is where I found the excerpt I am using below.
Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust
This occurs when team members are reluctant to be vulnerable with one another and are unwilling to
admit their mistakes, weaknesses or needs for help. Without a certain comfort level among team
members, a foundation of trust is impossible.
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict
Teams that are lacking on trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about key
issues, causing situations where team conflict can easily turn into veiled discussions and back
channel comments.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment
Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, creating an environment
where ambiguity prevails. Chris's comment....Let me also say that I think the commitment to a team may actually be the most important aspect of a functional team, because in order for most people to be vulnerable in trusting others and be willing to engage in conflict they must have the assurance that the rest of the team will not walk out on them when things get messy or just plain hard. I think many Pastors are afraid to open hard issues in their church because they know that the lack of commitment in their church means that at any given time half of the congregation could walk out if things don't go right.
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability
When teams don't commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals
hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviors that may seem counterproductive to the overall
good of the team.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results
Team members naturally tend to put their own needs (ego, career development, recognition, etc.)
ahead of the collective goals of the team when individuals aren't held accountable. Chris's comment....A team has to know where it is going in order to be effective. If the only reason a church exists is to exist the church will go nowhere and will soon become lifeless and boring. A church needs to know why it exists and what the specific call is for that group of believers.
The five dysfunctions build upon each other like a pyramid. Until the first dysfunction is addressed and removed it is very difficult to remove the next dysfunction.
Individual: A church can never be stronger or more on fire than the people that make up the church. So what are a couple of the most important things that need to be present in an individual's life in order for them to be a pillar in the church.
1) Unadulterated love for God: If the people in the churches in America were 1/4 as excited about God as they are about sports, work, and just plain stuff our churches would be entirely changed. Somehow it seems like we've decided that God is okay with having just the corners of our lives when he really wants everything.....
I would much rather discuss the church than the individual and so I am jumping all the way to chapter 5.
Chapter 5: (Summary of key concepts from chapter 5)
Below is a summary of some ideas presented by the author of a book entitled, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team." I recommend this book to anyone wrestling with how to make their church be more effective. Although the author is not a Christian, the viewpoints in this book hold very true to human nature and the applications are endless in our churches. For more information about the book see http://www.tablegroup.com/books/dysfunctions/, hich is where I found the excerpt I am using below.
Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust
This occurs when team members are reluctant to be vulnerable with one another and are unwilling to
admit their mistakes, weaknesses or needs for help. Without a certain comfort level among team
members, a foundation of trust is impossible.
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict
Teams that are lacking on trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate about key
issues, causing situations where team conflict can easily turn into veiled discussions and back
channel comments.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment
Without conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, creating an environment
where ambiguity prevails. Chris's comment....Let me also say that I think the commitment to a team may actually be the most important aspect of a functional team, because in order for most people to be vulnerable in trusting others and be willing to engage in conflict they must have the assurance that the rest of the team will not walk out on them when things get messy or just plain hard. I think many Pastors are afraid to open hard issues in their church because they know that the lack of commitment in their church means that at any given time half of the congregation could walk out if things don't go right.
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability
When teams don't commit to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven individuals
hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviors that may seem counterproductive to the overall
good of the team.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results
Team members naturally tend to put their own needs (ego, career development, recognition, etc.)
ahead of the collective goals of the team when individuals aren't held accountable. Chris's comment....A team has to know where it is going in order to be effective. If the only reason a church exists is to exist the church will go nowhere and will soon become lifeless and boring. A church needs to know why it exists and what the specific call is for that group of believers.
The five dysfunctions build upon each other like a pyramid. Until the first dysfunction is addressed and removed it is very difficult to remove the next dysfunction.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Chapter 1: The three phases of Christian focus
I believe that every Christian needs to have a balance of his focus in three areas: Personal Relationship with God, Community within the Church Body, and Intentional Testimony to those without the Church Body. Whether an individual Christian or a church we need to fight becoming overly focused in one of these areas and allow this to cut down on the effectiveness of the church team or our personal life.
1) Personal Relationship with God: No Christian can be truly saved unless they have a relationship with God. Jesus said that in the last days people will come to him and say I never knew you even though these people thought they were Christians. We need to constantly be pushing ourselves do a deeper walk with God. Begging God to place his desires in our hearts and asking God to woo us back to himself when we feel ourselves fall into apostacy. As God becomes real in our lives we are able to live the Christian life as God intended in holiness, purity, integrity and so much more all while bearing the fruit of the spirit.
2) Community within the Church Body: Although at times I think most of us our envious of the monks who get to spend their whole lives in solitude without the continual stress that other people invariably bring into our lives, God has not designed humans to live in solitude but in community. We can often get the idea that most of the problems around us are a result of the people around us. We forget that God has designed that most of his work on earth gets done through people. Many times rather than changing us directly, God uses the people around us to change us. When we react to the people around (i.e. walk out on church because of people we can't get along with) we are really running from the tools that God wants to use to bring change into our lives. As Christians I believe we are called to live in intimate relationship with God but in a community where God not only speaks directly too us but also through the lives of the people around us.
God has designed that the spiritual force of humanity here on earth in the current age be the church. In ages past it was the nation of Israel, but this was changed as a part of the new covenant and with this change many of the rules of following God changed as well. Under the Old Covenant people's sinful natures were held in check by government which used force and even death to cause people to follow God's plan for their lives. In the New Covenant God has offered to give us a new heart so we can live above the sinful nature without needing external physical punishments go keep our evil hearts in check. However, just because the role of the community around us may have changed since the Old Covenant we are still in desperate need of a community around us to "keep us in check," not through external punishments but by motivating each other through love and good works, confessing our faults to each other and praying for each other, etc... It is this body that keeps us strong through spiritual battles and calls us back when we wonder astray. This is the team that builds us up when we are discouraged and gives us a place to serve with our spiritual gifts and thus feel fulfilled.
3) Intentional Testimony to those outside the Church: This team has a much greater purpose than to simply make each other feel good though. The fault that some Christians have fallen in to is that the church is all about making a group of people feel great and upbeat and to enable them to live life to the fullest (i.e. living the American Dream). I strongly believe that any person and any team without a purpose bigger than itself will eventually fall apart. We need an external focus in our personal lives and we need and external focus in our churches.
Any Christian who is going to live a Biblically balanced life must be looking for ways to serve those who have not yet developed a relationship with God. Although man's primary purpose is to be in relationship with God, part of this relationship means sharing God's heart for the rest of humanity. God has designed life on this earth that his primary way of reaching lost people is through people. He could have chosen other ways but he chose to use people. God placed structure to equip people to fight the spiritual battle for people's souls but in the end the purpose of the church is to expand the kingdom of God.
Conclusion: Many churches along the way have fallen into one of three ruts because the Christians in the church put too much focus on one of these areas. In some churches Christians find it easy to be very individualistic where everything is done on an individual level (i.e. I live what God has called me too and you live what God has called you too. Not that we shouldn't each live out our own calls, but I believe the things God calls us too will not be offensive to the other believers serving beside us if we are also respecting community the way God intended.) In some churches there is too much focus put on the body. These are the party churches. "The church that plays together stays together." It's a real tragedy that these teams that get along so well totally forget that there are people heading into an eternity in hell every day. In some churches there is too much focus put on the task of reaching out to lost people around us. These churches develop programs and put people in places of serving who do not have the call or the personal relationship with God to fight the battle at this level. The Christians in these churches can live lives of duty rather than joy and eventually become burned out.
God help us as we individually try to balance the Christian life as God intended us too and as we encourage our churches to become balanced in their focus as well.
Note: These thoughts are not my own but were stimulated by hours of LiMiT training at Beaver Lake Camp.
1) Personal Relationship with God: No Christian can be truly saved unless they have a relationship with God. Jesus said that in the last days people will come to him and say I never knew you even though these people thought they were Christians. We need to constantly be pushing ourselves do a deeper walk with God. Begging God to place his desires in our hearts and asking God to woo us back to himself when we feel ourselves fall into apostacy. As God becomes real in our lives we are able to live the Christian life as God intended in holiness, purity, integrity and so much more all while bearing the fruit of the spirit.
2) Community within the Church Body: Although at times I think most of us our envious of the monks who get to spend their whole lives in solitude without the continual stress that other people invariably bring into our lives, God has not designed humans to live in solitude but in community. We can often get the idea that most of the problems around us are a result of the people around us. We forget that God has designed that most of his work on earth gets done through people. Many times rather than changing us directly, God uses the people around us to change us. When we react to the people around (i.e. walk out on church because of people we can't get along with) we are really running from the tools that God wants to use to bring change into our lives. As Christians I believe we are called to live in intimate relationship with God but in a community where God not only speaks directly too us but also through the lives of the people around us.
God has designed that the spiritual force of humanity here on earth in the current age be the church. In ages past it was the nation of Israel, but this was changed as a part of the new covenant and with this change many of the rules of following God changed as well. Under the Old Covenant people's sinful natures were held in check by government which used force and even death to cause people to follow God's plan for their lives. In the New Covenant God has offered to give us a new heart so we can live above the sinful nature without needing external physical punishments go keep our evil hearts in check. However, just because the role of the community around us may have changed since the Old Covenant we are still in desperate need of a community around us to "keep us in check," not through external punishments but by motivating each other through love and good works, confessing our faults to each other and praying for each other, etc... It is this body that keeps us strong through spiritual battles and calls us back when we wonder astray. This is the team that builds us up when we are discouraged and gives us a place to serve with our spiritual gifts and thus feel fulfilled.
3) Intentional Testimony to those outside the Church: This team has a much greater purpose than to simply make each other feel good though. The fault that some Christians have fallen in to is that the church is all about making a group of people feel great and upbeat and to enable them to live life to the fullest (i.e. living the American Dream). I strongly believe that any person and any team without a purpose bigger than itself will eventually fall apart. We need an external focus in our personal lives and we need and external focus in our churches.
Any Christian who is going to live a Biblically balanced life must be looking for ways to serve those who have not yet developed a relationship with God. Although man's primary purpose is to be in relationship with God, part of this relationship means sharing God's heart for the rest of humanity. God has designed life on this earth that his primary way of reaching lost people is through people. He could have chosen other ways but he chose to use people. God placed structure to equip people to fight the spiritual battle for people's souls but in the end the purpose of the church is to expand the kingdom of God.
Conclusion: Many churches along the way have fallen into one of three ruts because the Christians in the church put too much focus on one of these areas. In some churches Christians find it easy to be very individualistic where everything is done on an individual level (i.e. I live what God has called me too and you live what God has called you too. Not that we shouldn't each live out our own calls, but I believe the things God calls us too will not be offensive to the other believers serving beside us if we are also respecting community the way God intended.) In some churches there is too much focus put on the body. These are the party churches. "The church that plays together stays together." It's a real tragedy that these teams that get along so well totally forget that there are people heading into an eternity in hell every day. In some churches there is too much focus put on the task of reaching out to lost people around us. These churches develop programs and put people in places of serving who do not have the call or the personal relationship with God to fight the battle at this level. The Christians in these churches can live lives of duty rather than joy and eventually become burned out.
God help us as we individually try to balance the Christian life as God intended us too and as we encourage our churches to become balanced in their focus as well.
Note: These thoughts are not my own but were stimulated by hours of LiMiT training at Beaver Lake Camp.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Wanting persecution....
Thanks for the link to the video Ervina. If you get a change watch the last five minutes of this interview where the discussion comes up about the place of suffering in the Christians life. A lot of people say that they wish for persecution in order to see the church come alive. 2 Tim. 3:12, "...All who are Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." If we are living in the battle persecution will come in its time. However, as Mr. Chan says, hard times are not something we should seek for its own sake, but as we give of our time and resources we will face persecution and suffering which will draw us to God. I guess it's pretty hard to give to point of suffering like Jesus did. As humans we rarely face persecution when we have a means of escape.
Jesus gave up his life to persecution at a time when he wouldn't have had to. He could have generally followed God (maybe not specifically following God's plan for his life) and lived a Godly life without dying, but he chose to give to the point of death. For people who desire persecution there is plenty of places on earth today that we can go and experience suffering. The question is, are we willing to give of ourselves voluntarily like Jesus did or only suffer persecution when we have no other option?
The real question is whether we are following God's call for our life. It was God's plan to have the Apostle John die on the island of Patmos rather than suffer a brutal death like Peter. If God has placed you in a situation where you are not persecuted for your faith, thank God for these blessings. Beg God to light your heart on fire in a passionate relationship with him rather than thinking that you will inherently miss out on some of God's blessings because you are not being persecuted. I believe that more than likely God has the blessing of persecution planned for you sometime in your journey (see vs. 2 Tim. 3:12), but if God isn't calling you to be persecuted right now, thank God for this.
Although God may not be calling you specifically to a life of persecution, I believe he is calling each of us to a sacrificial life of giving--giving till it hurts. One of my favorite songs says, "Let me burn out for thee O God." Are we willing to give ourselves for the kingdom to the extent that at the end of our lives we cross the finished line totally exhausted, having given all we have.
Jesus gave up his life to persecution at a time when he wouldn't have had to. He could have generally followed God (maybe not specifically following God's plan for his life) and lived a Godly life without dying, but he chose to give to the point of death. For people who desire persecution there is plenty of places on earth today that we can go and experience suffering. The question is, are we willing to give of ourselves voluntarily like Jesus did or only suffer persecution when we have no other option?
The real question is whether we are following God's call for our life. It was God's plan to have the Apostle John die on the island of Patmos rather than suffer a brutal death like Peter. If God has placed you in a situation where you are not persecuted for your faith, thank God for these blessings. Beg God to light your heart on fire in a passionate relationship with him rather than thinking that you will inherently miss out on some of God's blessings because you are not being persecuted. I believe that more than likely God has the blessing of persecution planned for you sometime in your journey (see vs. 2 Tim. 3:12), but if God isn't calling you to be persecuted right now, thank God for this.
Although God may not be calling you specifically to a life of persecution, I believe he is calling each of us to a sacrificial life of giving--giving till it hurts. One of my favorite songs says, "Let me burn out for thee O God." Are we willing to give ourselves for the kingdom to the extent that at the end of our lives we cross the finished line totally exhausted, having given all we have.
Francis Chan interviewed by Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris
- Note: If you fast forward to the last 5 minutes of this talk you will get the real meat of the discussion.
Monday, October 4, 2010
How do I get hungry?
Quit filling yourself with junk food. As long as we muffle out the voice of our deepest longing for God with superficial short term plastic happiness we will never really experience God. Why does the church grow during persecution? Because the superficial things that make people "happy" are stripped away and all that is left is a raw hunger for God. A hunger for God is one of the first steps towards setting a church on fire.
Hunger...How important is it?
Why are so many people discontented with their churches? I've been thinking a lot about this and I believe the number one reason has more to do with the spiritual condition of the people attending the churches than it does the church itself. I believe the number one reason people don't feel happy at their church is because they are not hungry enough for God. Many times people say that one main reason they don't like their church is because aren't getting fed. I have two comments to this:
1) If you were a little more spiritually hungry you wouldn't be as picky about what kind of spiritual food is being served. Jesus said, "Blessed are the people who hunger and thirst after righteousness because they will be filled." This is a promise that will not be denied.
2) A mature Christian should be able to feed himself. There is time for other people to be feeding you but there also comes a time when a person has to be able to get his inspiration from God alone. We won't always have people around us to feed us when we are hungry, and so we must be ready to do this on our own.
Picking the right church...
We recently had a Bible study on I Peter 3. One of the things that Peter commands the believers is to "be of one mind." What does this mean? First let me make a couple of observations.
1) Peter's letter is addressed to churches all across Asia minor, so it seems like he is asking believers to be of one mind.
2) People often like to say that as long as we are one in the Spirit, exactly what we believe doesn't matter. Peter is talking about something beyond being just one in the Spirit (it has to start with this), but being of one mind in its most basic form is talking about thinking the same about things.
3) It's almost laughable that we would be asked to be of one mind when one looks at the church today. Has their ever been a more diverse group of people who claim to go under the same title. I think many people have looked at this commandment and seen it as being so far from reality they kept right on reading and never really thought of ways to apply this scripture to our lives today.
My thoughts: God would not ask us to do something that is impossible to achieve through his grace. When God penned the words "be of one mind," He had something in mind--a blessing that our churches are missing out on if we don't follow.
I believe the number one reason the church is so diverse today is that people throughout the ages have congregated and split apart based on their beliefs rather than enduring the stress of discussing ideas and coming to a common belief. Discussing beliefs and even more, changing beliefs can be one of the most delicate things.
Notice in I Peter 3 that Peter mentions about 8 things that we need to keep in mind after he commands us to be of one mind: Love each other, be tenderhearted, work towards peace, be humble, and on and on....
If we are going to become of one mind with the believers around us we need to stop picking our churches based on whether we believe the same things but perhaps based on a number of different reasons. Observe the following:
1) Does it make sense that every Sunday Christians pass each other on the road (going in different directions) so we can all go to churches of our pleasing rather than going to a church that is in our own geographical area where God has placed us.
2) Most people have slightly polarized beliefs and most movements do too. Why then does it make any sense to polarize ourselves even further by going through a church split of some kind.
So why can't we just get along and come together on things? The biggest reason is that we don't have true commitment. Imagine how long a marriage would work if any time a conflict came up the option of changing partners was a viable option. If our churches will ever start find oneness of mind we need believers who are willing to commit to staying at a church in good times and bad, through sickness and health...
But now I'm getting into another topic. And so I ask first of all, "How should one pick a church?"
1) Peter's letter is addressed to churches all across Asia minor, so it seems like he is asking believers to be of one mind.
2) People often like to say that as long as we are one in the Spirit, exactly what we believe doesn't matter. Peter is talking about something beyond being just one in the Spirit (it has to start with this), but being of one mind in its most basic form is talking about thinking the same about things.
3) It's almost laughable that we would be asked to be of one mind when one looks at the church today. Has their ever been a more diverse group of people who claim to go under the same title. I think many people have looked at this commandment and seen it as being so far from reality they kept right on reading and never really thought of ways to apply this scripture to our lives today.
My thoughts: God would not ask us to do something that is impossible to achieve through his grace. When God penned the words "be of one mind," He had something in mind--a blessing that our churches are missing out on if we don't follow.
I believe the number one reason the church is so diverse today is that people throughout the ages have congregated and split apart based on their beliefs rather than enduring the stress of discussing ideas and coming to a common belief. Discussing beliefs and even more, changing beliefs can be one of the most delicate things.
Notice in I Peter 3 that Peter mentions about 8 things that we need to keep in mind after he commands us to be of one mind: Love each other, be tenderhearted, work towards peace, be humble, and on and on....
If we are going to become of one mind with the believers around us we need to stop picking our churches based on whether we believe the same things but perhaps based on a number of different reasons. Observe the following:
1) Does it make sense that every Sunday Christians pass each other on the road (going in different directions) so we can all go to churches of our pleasing rather than going to a church that is in our own geographical area where God has placed us.
2) Most people have slightly polarized beliefs and most movements do too. Why then does it make any sense to polarize ourselves even further by going through a church split of some kind.
So why can't we just get along and come together on things? The biggest reason is that we don't have true commitment. Imagine how long a marriage would work if any time a conflict came up the option of changing partners was a viable option. If our churches will ever start find oneness of mind we need believers who are willing to commit to staying at a church in good times and bad, through sickness and health...
But now I'm getting into another topic. And so I ask first of all, "How should one pick a church?"
Comments on church size....
So I was at this party last night.... There were tons of kids there milling around. It didn't take long, however, for most of the people to kind of sort themselves out into smaller groups. Even in the middle of large groups its seems people can be totally lonely unless they have smaller groups of people to be connected to. I believe God established the church at large but he establishes smaller groups of believers to give people this intimate connection with other people.
Often people in large churches can get missed unless there is an effort to give people smaller groups to interact with. My church recently set up small groups within the church to help people feel this small group connection. I feel that a lot of what the Bible has to say about church life is talking about interacting with this team. The people with whom you actually rub shoulders and have the greatest interaction.If the smallest group is really what the Bible is referring to when it talks about church (on the smaller level) what is stopping us from not just meeting at this level all the time? Sure, large churches may be less work--at least for some people, but I think overall most of us have way over shot the ideal church size. How's this: I think the ideal church size is no more than 50 and probably closer to 30 people. If we are ever to be going to experience church like God intended I think we have to be sure we are experiencing a connection with a small group of believers. If everything we do is as a large group (large group Sunday morning, large group youth activities, etc...) I think we will struggle to experience what God has designed. I'm thankful to my small group for letting me experience this.
Why I'm starting this blog....
Well, I was at the Harris twins' Rebelution conference yesterday and was listening to their story. Two guys who saw a need in their world and were willing to speak out about what they saw. I came home and I've been thinking...You see I'm passionate about the church in America. I believe God wants to use the church in America to reach the world. He has given us freedom, technology, and resources in order to take the message of the gospel to the remote and difficult places and yet the job is not being accomplished. I feel the number one reason we as a church are not being more effective is that we do not understand the concept of church as God has designed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)