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.)

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?  

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?

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 bringing together the ideas that I'm hearing from men like the Harris family and the ideas from Shane Claiborne, I feel that what we really may be seeing is a Type 3 and 4 movement (Shane) (see chart above) versus a Type 1 and 2 movement (the Harris's).

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

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.

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....