Every August I’ve repeated the practice of ‘unplugging’ from television and electronic media. This year I indulged in a little bit of the Olympic games coverage, but other than that, no TV, very ,very little personal email and absolutely no Facebook.
I’ve enjoyed my time not doing those things and spending some extra time doing other things. Below are what I’ve gleaned from it.
1600 emails still in my inbox are too many.
My kids still want me to jump on the trampoline with them sometimes.
There is an epidemic of people in the Church that suffer from what one called “Jesus Deficit Disorder”
In Genesis there was a river with a tree by it that marked the beginning of the downfall.
In Revelation there was a river with a tree by it that marked the end of the downfall.
In the book of Genesis there is a couple that, when they ate, they knew they sinned.
In the book of Luke there is a couple that when they ate, they knew the sin issue was taken care of.
Life throws you curve balls but home runs are still hit off curve balls.
Reading the letters of Paul in the order they were written changes everything.
Smart phones really do alienate people when not used at appropriate times. Really.
The real drought in the Church today is not leaders but rather, followers.
In Genesis at the first creation, the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the earth looking for a place to dwell. Later in Genesis at the re-creation, Noah released a dove and it hovered over the earth looking for a place to dwell. In John, when Jesus was baptized and made a new creation, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon Christ in the form of a dove. Bottom line, God is looking for a place to dwell. It’s in us!
Singed hair on a forearm eventually grows back.
Even after a couple of decades, there is still water to draw in the well of a friendship.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Slow, Yield, Merge
Have you ever driven in a city and found yourself going through a construction zone? I can hear the collective 'yes'. There have been times when navigating these roads in such conditions that I've found myself forced to slow down, change lanes and drive on a completely different road for a period of time. On some occasions I've experienced a bit of stress thinking that the road I was on was going to take me somewhere I didn't intend to go. But then something assuring happens. The road I was on, by carefully planned detours by the engineers, takes me back on to the 'right path' that I intended to embark on. After a little slowing, a little yielding and a merge, I'm back on track and I reach my destination.
I have to say that this is the place where I'm at in my walk on the Way right now. For 26 years I've been a disciple of Christ, trying to grow in the Way, a pastor and teacher, trying to show others the Way but for the last six of those years I've been in the market place. What I thought could have been a wrong turn has been one of those roads that the Engineer has re-routed me through. I looked over the barricade (figuratively speaking) and saw the road I used to be on, the road I thought I had to be on, and got a bit stressed that I wasn't on it. I questioned why I had to make the turn in the first place but, by the Grand Design, I followed the detour and continued my journey. This has caused me to slow down, yield and I'm seeing a merging, a connection happening. It's the right path.
You see, the safest route to take in a construction zone is the detour. Every detour has lots of signs. If you ignore the signs, you take the wrong turn. If you don't obey the signs, you make a mess.
Every detour has lots of signs.
Signs are the messages that we absolutely have to understand on the road we're on. We don't put the signs there, the engineer does that. We don't dictate the path they direct us to. The engineer does that as well. Our only requirement is to simply obey the signs.
You see, Christ is the Way. As we walk with him, it is inevitable that we will be presented with changes of direction, detours and roads to go down that we never thought we'd ever have to go down. Whatever 'detour' you are going through or, at some point may go through, listen to the messages that the Engineer is telling you and, most importantly, don't forget to slow, yield and merge. Remember, ultimately the detour isn't there to stop you from getting to where you're supposed to go. The detour is there to get you safely back on the right path.
Peace.
I have to say that this is the place where I'm at in my walk on the Way right now. For 26 years I've been a disciple of Christ, trying to grow in the Way, a pastor and teacher, trying to show others the Way but for the last six of those years I've been in the market place. What I thought could have been a wrong turn has been one of those roads that the Engineer has re-routed me through. I looked over the barricade (figuratively speaking) and saw the road I used to be on, the road I thought I had to be on, and got a bit stressed that I wasn't on it. I questioned why I had to make the turn in the first place but, by the Grand Design, I followed the detour and continued my journey. This has caused me to slow down, yield and I'm seeing a merging, a connection happening. It's the right path.
You see, the safest route to take in a construction zone is the detour. Every detour has lots of signs. If you ignore the signs, you take the wrong turn. If you don't obey the signs, you make a mess.
Every detour has lots of signs.
Signs are the messages that we absolutely have to understand on the road we're on. We don't put the signs there, the engineer does that. We don't dictate the path they direct us to. The engineer does that as well. Our only requirement is to simply obey the signs.
You see, Christ is the Way. As we walk with him, it is inevitable that we will be presented with changes of direction, detours and roads to go down that we never thought we'd ever have to go down. Whatever 'detour' you are going through or, at some point may go through, listen to the messages that the Engineer is telling you and, most importantly, don't forget to slow, yield and merge. Remember, ultimately the detour isn't there to stop you from getting to where you're supposed to go. The detour is there to get you safely back on the right path.
Peace.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Love Wins...Everyone Take a Deep Breath
After having read Rob Bell's "Love Wins", I have come to some conclusions. One of those conclusions is that there are probably many people that owe Rob Bell an apology for their scathing, derogatory and unecessary comments. Being critical is one thing, and it can be good. But some have simply gone overboard. Some have read the book and wrongly dismissed it as a benign distraction, while others have railed against it with venomous tirades. We should pause, chew on it in our generation, seek to understand and then opine if we desire, regardless of our denomination biases (yes, I use the word 'bias' on purpose).
It's crucial to understand some of the elements of the book in light of orthodox Christianity as well as, and most importantly, the Bible itself. Concerning orthodoxy, we HAVE to look at reality and know that this debate is not new. One of the early church fathers named Origen is a favorite of pastors and authors to quote. Origen was a believer and teacher of the concpet that all would be saved. His contemporary Clement of Alexandria was as well. Really, they were. Not only that but none of his contemporaries ever labeled them as heretics or sought to excommunicate them. They were not alone in their persuasion either. On top of that, there were several church councils that were held to uphold and establish for the Church right doctrine, truthful teachings and eliminate heresy. While Origen and others were quite outspoken of their beliefs in this matter, not one church council ever condemned their beliefs. I find that absolutely fascinating.
On the orthodox note, I bring up Martin Luther. He's the 'father of the Protestant Reformation'. If anyone's orthodox, it's Martin. But do we all understand what he really believed and accept it? Did you know that Martin Luther was very elitist in his approach to ecclisiastical authority? Did you know that he continued to believe in transubstantiation (the belief that communion bread and wine literally turned into the actual body and blood of Christ)? Martin Luther, in a letter to Hans Von Rechenberg in 1522 wrote concerning the possibility that people could turn to God after death, "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?" Origen, Luther, both men lived in times where they came to conclusions that, to them, what they were taught to believe was not necessarily entirely rooted in truth. Both men read the same Bible and came to understandings that shaped them and, consequently others. Both men are held by many to be heroes of the faith.
Orthodox preachers the world over hold to a 'literal interpretation' of the Bible and yet when Rob Bell disects the literal meaning of words in the Bible and comes to a conclusion that is not necessarily 'mainstream' he's verbally crucified. Here's one of America's younger and very educated contemporary pastors who has paid his dues with his nose in the books to find understanding being, what I think, totally mischaracterized. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he is misinformed, hasn't done his homework, not prayed or sought God and has not been led by the Spirit on this one.
Case in point, the Holy Spirit saw fit to use the Greek word 'Hades' in Luke 2:27,31 (the first time it's used in the New Testament). This first time it's used is THE time to clarify what it means in context and how the Holy Spirit wanted us to understand it. It is used in quoting Psalm 16:10. It reads "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your holy One see corruption." The word used in Psalm 16:10 is 'Sheol'. Both 'Sheol' and 'Hades' literally mean "grave". By that I mean, hole in the ground, covered in dirt - grave.
I, like millions of others were taught that it means 'hell' and by that referring to fiery torment. Rob Bell is simply initially asking, 'does it really mean that?' By the study of the words used, we have to conclude that it does not in this context (Don't get upset with me yet I'm establishing things based on the meaning of words and not jumping to my own conclusions). Then in the other times the word occurs, it seems to be, time and time again a similar meaning. Could it be that we're not entirely right in how we think about things? Is it no coincidence that none of the apostles ever preached to unbelievers the notion of fiery torture? I'm just asking because Rob Bell is asking. Instead of brushing things off as illegitimate, I think it wise for us to examine, re-examine and refine what we believe in light of new information.
So now, the book. As there are several things that seem to upset many, there are also some very crucial things that I think give it merit and these things should be examined.
First of all, when speaking of believing in a fiery, tormenting hell, Rob Bell writes on page 110, "Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives."
Concerning Christ and his work on the cross on page 129 "the point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He's where the life is."
Concerning the nervous assumptions that he is telling us that Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, he says on page 155, "Not true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unilaterally not true. What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody."
At the end of chapter seven, Bell reiterates the the only thing that saves us is the atoning work of Christ on the cross, not because of anything we've done, but because of his mercy. It's the gospel.
In the end, Bell champions the work of Christ on the cross as the source of our salvation and nothing else. We cannot ignore God's statement of judgement upon those that reject his ways. But, as I think all would agree and Rob Bell concludes, God's judgements are redemptive in nature. The Old Testament is replete with examples of this. He subscribes to the train of thought that the Bible says that all will be saved (eventually) based upon people's eventual response to the immeasurable mercy and love of God which he bases upon numerous scriptures. It's a conclusion that he and other learned believers in the faith before him have come to.
If people are going to take a stand against Rob Bell for his beliefs, then in the same breath they should denounce Origen, Clement and Martin Luther for the very same reasons. We have to be fair afer all.
You or I may have not come to the same conclusions as Rob Bell. Does that make one right and him wrong? Does it make one more right? Does it allow one to be just right enough because people happen to agree?
'Love Wins' at the very least should remind us of just how merciful and gracious our God is through Christ and urge us on to hope for that very thing that Rob Bell seems to be hoping for with everything that is in him that "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy chapter 2). It seems he's really hoping God gets his way. If that's what God's love does in the end, well, that would be a win for everybody now wouldn't it?
Peace.
It's crucial to understand some of the elements of the book in light of orthodox Christianity as well as, and most importantly, the Bible itself. Concerning orthodoxy, we HAVE to look at reality and know that this debate is not new. One of the early church fathers named Origen is a favorite of pastors and authors to quote. Origen was a believer and teacher of the concpet that all would be saved. His contemporary Clement of Alexandria was as well. Really, they were. Not only that but none of his contemporaries ever labeled them as heretics or sought to excommunicate them. They were not alone in their persuasion either. On top of that, there were several church councils that were held to uphold and establish for the Church right doctrine, truthful teachings and eliminate heresy. While Origen and others were quite outspoken of their beliefs in this matter, not one church council ever condemned their beliefs. I find that absolutely fascinating.
On the orthodox note, I bring up Martin Luther. He's the 'father of the Protestant Reformation'. If anyone's orthodox, it's Martin. But do we all understand what he really believed and accept it? Did you know that Martin Luther was very elitist in his approach to ecclisiastical authority? Did you know that he continued to believe in transubstantiation (the belief that communion bread and wine literally turned into the actual body and blood of Christ)? Martin Luther, in a letter to Hans Von Rechenberg in 1522 wrote concerning the possibility that people could turn to God after death, "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?" Origen, Luther, both men lived in times where they came to conclusions that, to them, what they were taught to believe was not necessarily entirely rooted in truth. Both men read the same Bible and came to understandings that shaped them and, consequently others. Both men are held by many to be heroes of the faith.
Orthodox preachers the world over hold to a 'literal interpretation' of the Bible and yet when Rob Bell disects the literal meaning of words in the Bible and comes to a conclusion that is not necessarily 'mainstream' he's verbally crucified. Here's one of America's younger and very educated contemporary pastors who has paid his dues with his nose in the books to find understanding being, what I think, totally mischaracterized. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he is misinformed, hasn't done his homework, not prayed or sought God and has not been led by the Spirit on this one.
Case in point, the Holy Spirit saw fit to use the Greek word 'Hades' in Luke 2:27,31 (the first time it's used in the New Testament). This first time it's used is THE time to clarify what it means in context and how the Holy Spirit wanted us to understand it. It is used in quoting Psalm 16:10. It reads "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your holy One see corruption." The word used in Psalm 16:10 is 'Sheol'. Both 'Sheol' and 'Hades' literally mean "grave". By that I mean, hole in the ground, covered in dirt - grave.
I, like millions of others were taught that it means 'hell' and by that referring to fiery torment. Rob Bell is simply initially asking, 'does it really mean that?' By the study of the words used, we have to conclude that it does not in this context (Don't get upset with me yet I'm establishing things based on the meaning of words and not jumping to my own conclusions). Then in the other times the word occurs, it seems to be, time and time again a similar meaning. Could it be that we're not entirely right in how we think about things? Is it no coincidence that none of the apostles ever preached to unbelievers the notion of fiery torture? I'm just asking because Rob Bell is asking. Instead of brushing things off as illegitimate, I think it wise for us to examine, re-examine and refine what we believe in light of new information.
So now, the book. As there are several things that seem to upset many, there are also some very crucial things that I think give it merit and these things should be examined.
First of all, when speaking of believing in a fiery, tormenting hell, Rob Bell writes on page 110, "Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives."
Concerning Christ and his work on the cross on page 129 "the point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He's where the life is."
Concerning the nervous assumptions that he is telling us that Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, he says on page 155, "Not true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unilaterally not true. What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody."
At the end of chapter seven, Bell reiterates the the only thing that saves us is the atoning work of Christ on the cross, not because of anything we've done, but because of his mercy. It's the gospel.
In the end, Bell champions the work of Christ on the cross as the source of our salvation and nothing else. We cannot ignore God's statement of judgement upon those that reject his ways. But, as I think all would agree and Rob Bell concludes, God's judgements are redemptive in nature. The Old Testament is replete with examples of this. He subscribes to the train of thought that the Bible says that all will be saved (eventually) based upon people's eventual response to the immeasurable mercy and love of God which he bases upon numerous scriptures. It's a conclusion that he and other learned believers in the faith before him have come to.
If people are going to take a stand against Rob Bell for his beliefs, then in the same breath they should denounce Origen, Clement and Martin Luther for the very same reasons. We have to be fair afer all.
You or I may have not come to the same conclusions as Rob Bell. Does that make one right and him wrong? Does it make one more right? Does it allow one to be just right enough because people happen to agree?
'Love Wins' at the very least should remind us of just how merciful and gracious our God is through Christ and urge us on to hope for that very thing that Rob Bell seems to be hoping for with everything that is in him that "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy chapter 2). It seems he's really hoping God gets his way. If that's what God's love does in the end, well, that would be a win for everybody now wouldn't it?
Peace.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Debate Over Love Wins
I have heard much of the fuss over the book "Love Wins", most of it coming out against the content of the book. What is surprising to me is that in almost every case, the book has not been read by its detractors. That is a sad commentary in itself.
Now that the book is out, there is opportunity to actually buy it, read it, understand it and come to grips with the message that it is presenting. I plan on doing that very thing. I had the book in my hand, paroused it a bit today and placed it back on the shelf. The reason being is that I'm reading some more Bible and doing more research on some of the questions that have been raised before I ingest its contents.
I plan on reading the book and giving my own 'two cents worth' for a variety of reasons.
First of all, I believe that many, perhaps thousands of clergy members HAVE to come against the contents of the book based solely on the fact they would lose their ordinations and perhaps their jobs if they didn't.
Second, a very respected, and one of my favorite authors/bloggers failed (in my opinion) after I suggested, to deal with the topic in a manner worthy of scripturally addressing it at all. He continues to be a favorite of mine, however if there are serious questions raised, why not tackle them and deal with them?
Third, and finally, we have a responsibility to read, know and understand the Bible and its teachings, and are not free to interpret for ourselves. If "Love Wins" is a catalyst for people to open up the pages of holy writ for themselves instead of being spoon-fed a Sunday morning sermon, then I'm in! That's where I'm at.
So, I'm engaged in this. I'll get back to you on this one.
Peace.
Now that the book is out, there is opportunity to actually buy it, read it, understand it and come to grips with the message that it is presenting. I plan on doing that very thing. I had the book in my hand, paroused it a bit today and placed it back on the shelf. The reason being is that I'm reading some more Bible and doing more research on some of the questions that have been raised before I ingest its contents.
I plan on reading the book and giving my own 'two cents worth' for a variety of reasons.
First of all, I believe that many, perhaps thousands of clergy members HAVE to come against the contents of the book based solely on the fact they would lose their ordinations and perhaps their jobs if they didn't.
Second, a very respected, and one of my favorite authors/bloggers failed (in my opinion) after I suggested, to deal with the topic in a manner worthy of scripturally addressing it at all. He continues to be a favorite of mine, however if there are serious questions raised, why not tackle them and deal with them?
Third, and finally, we have a responsibility to read, know and understand the Bible and its teachings, and are not free to interpret for ourselves. If "Love Wins" is a catalyst for people to open up the pages of holy writ for themselves instead of being spoon-fed a Sunday morning sermon, then I'm in! That's where I'm at.
So, I'm engaged in this. I'll get back to you on this one.
Peace.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Touch Not My Anointed Ones and Do My Prophets No Harm
When reading this section of a verse from Psalm 105 (verse 15) it seems to stand out. It has an authoritative ring to it. That is because it really is authoratative. The tragedy is that the real authority of this section of a verse is often misunderstood and applied in abusive manners.
Several times I have heard of pastors and/or leaders being questioned or opposed in something and what has become a default answer to disagreement or opposition from someone in the body is "touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." If you have heard of this response, or have had it used to you, it's high time we look into the Word and understand it and expose this for what it really is...a scramble to hold power or authority in an unduly manner over members of the Body of Christ.
To misuse the section of Ps. 105:15 in this manner does several things. Allow me to outline them.
1. It takes the Bible out of context.
The verse is in the middle of Psalm 105. When studying it for what it is, it is a declaration of God's greatness and goodness to Isreal. It outlines God's protective plan to raise up a nation from the promise of Abraham, preserve it through the life of Isaac, plant it in Egypt through Joseph and liberate it to it's full promise by Moses. God's protective declaration to those nations around Israel when she was young, small and vulnerable was, "touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." The anointed ones and prophets were Israel and the individuals God used along the plan to nationhood.
2. It mistakenly elevates 'leaders/pastors' as God's anointed ones.
God's anointed ones in Psalm 105 is Israel, not New Testament pastors and/or leaders. It is incorrect to assume otherwise based on the text. We cannot allow ourselves to put our own meaning into the biblical text. Where does it stop? The text is clear and understandable. The anointed ones and the prophets were Israel. Nowhere in the New Testament writings or the gospels do we see the elevation of church leaders to a class of special anointed ones. It just isn't there. The apostles lived and worked among their brothers/sisters in planting churches. They labored hard to teach them, love them, all the while being one of them. While establishing deacons and elders, not once were they encouraged to rule over anyone. Conversely, there is a whole lot of 'one another' in Paul's writings. The 'one another's' are all of God's anointed ones.
3. It mistakenly belittles the members of the Body of Christ.
For a leader/pastor to actually utter the words 'touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm' as a defense mechanism from a member of the Body of Christ is to assume that they (leader/pastor) are the real anointed ones and the other they (follower/church member) are not. This separation of clergy/laity (and I hate the use of the word 'laity') is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and not the model of Paul, any of the apostles or Jesus himself (Matthew 23:8-12).
I John 2 tells us that all believers have been anointed by the Holy One and because of that we all have knowledge. There is no separation or classes or echelons of Christians. What this means is that the person that is involved in leadership among a group of believers as well as the one that is being led are all on the same level...that of the cross. It means that when there is disagreement, love is displayed and unity is to be sought. It means when there is opposition, humility is displayed.
"Leaders" can forget that the same word of God they read can be used to rebuke, reprove and correct them as well. That correction will ultimately come from the Word of God through someone else in the Body of Christ. The end result? A better believer more equipped for every good work. Now how can that be a bad thing?
Peace
Several times I have heard of pastors and/or leaders being questioned or opposed in something and what has become a default answer to disagreement or opposition from someone in the body is "touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." If you have heard of this response, or have had it used to you, it's high time we look into the Word and understand it and expose this for what it really is...a scramble to hold power or authority in an unduly manner over members of the Body of Christ.
To misuse the section of Ps. 105:15 in this manner does several things. Allow me to outline them.
1. It takes the Bible out of context.
The verse is in the middle of Psalm 105. When studying it for what it is, it is a declaration of God's greatness and goodness to Isreal. It outlines God's protective plan to raise up a nation from the promise of Abraham, preserve it through the life of Isaac, plant it in Egypt through Joseph and liberate it to it's full promise by Moses. God's protective declaration to those nations around Israel when she was young, small and vulnerable was, "touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm." The anointed ones and prophets were Israel and the individuals God used along the plan to nationhood.
2. It mistakenly elevates 'leaders/pastors' as God's anointed ones.
God's anointed ones in Psalm 105 is Israel, not New Testament pastors and/or leaders. It is incorrect to assume otherwise based on the text. We cannot allow ourselves to put our own meaning into the biblical text. Where does it stop? The text is clear and understandable. The anointed ones and the prophets were Israel. Nowhere in the New Testament writings or the gospels do we see the elevation of church leaders to a class of special anointed ones. It just isn't there. The apostles lived and worked among their brothers/sisters in planting churches. They labored hard to teach them, love them, all the while being one of them. While establishing deacons and elders, not once were they encouraged to rule over anyone. Conversely, there is a whole lot of 'one another' in Paul's writings. The 'one another's' are all of God's anointed ones.
3. It mistakenly belittles the members of the Body of Christ.
For a leader/pastor to actually utter the words 'touch not my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm' as a defense mechanism from a member of the Body of Christ is to assume that they (leader/pastor) are the real anointed ones and the other they (follower/church member) are not. This separation of clergy/laity (and I hate the use of the word 'laity') is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and not the model of Paul, any of the apostles or Jesus himself (Matthew 23:8-12).
I John 2 tells us that all believers have been anointed by the Holy One and because of that we all have knowledge. There is no separation or classes or echelons of Christians. What this means is that the person that is involved in leadership among a group of believers as well as the one that is being led are all on the same level...that of the cross. It means that when there is disagreement, love is displayed and unity is to be sought. It means when there is opposition, humility is displayed.
"Leaders" can forget that the same word of God they read can be used to rebuke, reprove and correct them as well. That correction will ultimately come from the Word of God through someone else in the Body of Christ. The end result? A better believer more equipped for every good work. Now how can that be a bad thing?
Peace
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Centrality of the Sermon Equals Safety in the Seats
The book of Acts is a great read. In its pages are the beginnings of God's greatest thing on planet Earth since Jesus Christ...his Church! As I read the book of Acts, a few things are strikingly clear, however, they seem not to be so clear today.
In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is given to believers, apostles are imprisoned, miracles happened, Stephen is stoned to death, Saul ravages the Church with persecution, Saul confesses Christ and is now called `Paul` and many local `churches`are established in cities everywhere. How this was accomplished is of vital importance because it was due to one thing and one thing only. It's this one thing that I believe we fail to grasp. I think Acts 6:7 puts it well,
'And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.'
The word of God increasing is what brought people to the point of believing in Christ. As the believers were persecuted in Acts 8, the word says `now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.' When Philip came into contact with Simon the sorcerer, Philip preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, he believed. When Philip met the Ethiopian Eunuch, he told him the good news about Jesus. In A cts 9 after Saul was converted, he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues and confounded the Jews in Damascus. In Acts 10 Peter told Cornelius and company 'And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he (Christ) is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.` In Acts 11 those who were persecuted fled preaching the Lord Jesus. In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas were going to Cyprus where on the way they proclaimed the word of God. In Acts 14 in Iconium, Paul and Barnabas were 'speaking boldly for the Lord'and 'there continued to preach the gospel.'
I give all these examples so as to be thorough in my explanation I am about to give. In all of the instances of 'preaching' taking place in the book of Acts, it is always done to an audience of unbelievers.
Biblical preaching is always done to an audience of unbelievers.
I am persuaded that we have quite possibly confused biblical preaching with a religious monologue. Ouch! But let's look at reality here.
1. Preaching was done to unbelievers, always.
2. Preaching was done by believers everywhere that were part of the Church.
3. Preaching was done in the public market place where hearers of every stripe could hear.
4. Preaching was done by simply proclaiming the good news of what Christ had done.
5. Preaching was done in a dialogue, a two-way conversation of questions, refutations and proclamations.
Contrast the biblical example of preaching the gospel with today's preaching.
1. Preaching is mainly done to believers.
2. Preaching is done by one appointed person, usually the same one each week.
3. Preaching is done in the privacy of church buildings to the same audience.
4. Preaching is done by crafting monologues based on proof texts (although there are some instances where pastors study, prepare and deliver godly teaching).
5. Preaching is done in a monologue, a one-way conversation that would be considered out of order or rude to interrupt.
Remember, I'm talking about preaching, not teaching here and there is a difference. Preaching proclaims the gospel of the good news of Christ to the lost while teaching instructs us how to live according to God`s word. There is a difference. There has to be for both have differing and unique purposes.
The centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats.
Today's preaching is in the form of the sermon and it`s the centrality of the sermon and the confusion of what its for that is quite possibly one of the reasons why Western Christianity seems impotent to convert unbelievers. If the fields are white and the harvest is great, why aren't the proverbial barns full? I would contend that the centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats. Should believers preach in a book of Acts-like fashion (see list above), and not simply leave it to paid pastors, we just may see some of the promises in God`s word come to pass. What are those promises? Suffering persecution is one of those promises. Getting rebuffed and resisted is a promise. Seeing people believe and be baptized is a promise.
So I write this not to cause problems, but rather to have people join in the questioning process. Is what we do now how it was done in the Bible? If we are doing it different, why are we doing it different? Is our answer to why we are doing it different found in the pages of the Bible? If those answers are not based on a biblical foundation, how do we justify them?
I urge all believers who may have a chance to grace this page by reading it to determine to do what all believers in the book of Acts did...take the risk, lay it on the line, tell the world around you the good news and preach the gospel!
Peace.
In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is given to believers, apostles are imprisoned, miracles happened, Stephen is stoned to death, Saul ravages the Church with persecution, Saul confesses Christ and is now called `Paul` and many local `churches`are established in cities everywhere. How this was accomplished is of vital importance because it was due to one thing and one thing only. It's this one thing that I believe we fail to grasp. I think Acts 6:7 puts it well,
'And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.'
The word of God increasing is what brought people to the point of believing in Christ. As the believers were persecuted in Acts 8, the word says `now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.' When Philip came into contact with Simon the sorcerer, Philip preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, he believed. When Philip met the Ethiopian Eunuch, he told him the good news about Jesus. In A cts 9 after Saul was converted, he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues and confounded the Jews in Damascus. In Acts 10 Peter told Cornelius and company 'And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he (Christ) is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.` In Acts 11 those who were persecuted fled preaching the Lord Jesus. In Acts 13 Paul and Barnabas were going to Cyprus where on the way they proclaimed the word of God. In Acts 14 in Iconium, Paul and Barnabas were 'speaking boldly for the Lord'and 'there continued to preach the gospel.'
I give all these examples so as to be thorough in my explanation I am about to give. In all of the instances of 'preaching' taking place in the book of Acts, it is always done to an audience of unbelievers.
Biblical preaching is always done to an audience of unbelievers.
I am persuaded that we have quite possibly confused biblical preaching with a religious monologue. Ouch! But let's look at reality here.
1. Preaching was done to unbelievers, always.
2. Preaching was done by believers everywhere that were part of the Church.
3. Preaching was done in the public market place where hearers of every stripe could hear.
4. Preaching was done by simply proclaiming the good news of what Christ had done.
5. Preaching was done in a dialogue, a two-way conversation of questions, refutations and proclamations.
Contrast the biblical example of preaching the gospel with today's preaching.
1. Preaching is mainly done to believers.
2. Preaching is done by one appointed person, usually the same one each week.
3. Preaching is done in the privacy of church buildings to the same audience.
4. Preaching is done by crafting monologues based on proof texts (although there are some instances where pastors study, prepare and deliver godly teaching).
5. Preaching is done in a monologue, a one-way conversation that would be considered out of order or rude to interrupt.
Remember, I'm talking about preaching, not teaching here and there is a difference. Preaching proclaims the gospel of the good news of Christ to the lost while teaching instructs us how to live according to God`s word. There is a difference. There has to be for both have differing and unique purposes.
The centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats.
Today's preaching is in the form of the sermon and it`s the centrality of the sermon and the confusion of what its for that is quite possibly one of the reasons why Western Christianity seems impotent to convert unbelievers. If the fields are white and the harvest is great, why aren't the proverbial barns full? I would contend that the centrality of the sermon keeps us safe in our seats. Should believers preach in a book of Acts-like fashion (see list above), and not simply leave it to paid pastors, we just may see some of the promises in God`s word come to pass. What are those promises? Suffering persecution is one of those promises. Getting rebuffed and resisted is a promise. Seeing people believe and be baptized is a promise.
So I write this not to cause problems, but rather to have people join in the questioning process. Is what we do now how it was done in the Bible? If we are doing it different, why are we doing it different? Is our answer to why we are doing it different found in the pages of the Bible? If those answers are not based on a biblical foundation, how do we justify them?
I urge all believers who may have a chance to grace this page by reading it to determine to do what all believers in the book of Acts did...take the risk, lay it on the line, tell the world around you the good news and preach the gospel!
Peace.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sincere Subjectivity
Lately I have been privy to conversations with people, discussions about God and what the Bible means. Some of these discussions have been with people who are believers. Some of these conversations have been with non-believers. It has been astounding to me how both believers and non-believers begin their statements of what they believe bout God.
"I believe...I think...in my opinion...what it means to me is..."
These have been commony used phrases to introduce people's opinions as to what the Word of God means in their given situations. What they were talking about is irrelevant. For me, you or anyone else to hinge the will of God upon the subjectivity of our own opinion is simply unwise. For this reason Western Christianity is run amok with false doctrines and errant teachings. Why? Because all of these false doctrines and teachings are substantiated with what "I believe...I think and what it means to me is..." Think about it, no matter how sincere one may be, to relegate the meaning of God's word based upon how one feels, thinks or on their opinion is asking for disaster. It poses the danger of not simply ignoring God's word, but rebelling against it.
In Genesis Chapter 3 mankind's very first act of rebellion against the word of God is written. When the serpent tempted Eve, he brought up what God said and twisted it. While God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden, he said they could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he brought it up to Eve, she added her opinion, what she thought, what she believed. She said, "you shall not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it lest you die." She was passionate and sincere in making her case but she was sincerely wrong for God simply didn't say that.
There are many things that people are experiencing in Christianity today that, although are believed to be right, simply should not be accepted without scrutiny and judgement. Be it a manifestation of some sort, someone's experience in a 'move of God', someone's spoken word of prophecy or their behavior, it is all, I repeat, all subject to the boundaries of the word of God. There is no room for personal subjectivity on what Jesus commanded. There is no place for blatant disregard for the teaching of Paul on church order. There should be no tolerance for blatant rebellion of the Ten Commandments even.
Why is it that we accept the sincere even when it deviates from Scripture? I like to say what Phil McCutchen shared once as he quoted someone when he said, 'people have raised emotion to a level of irresistable force.' We give permission for disobedience when we embrace emotion over obedience. We tolerate error because we desire personal satisfaction over personal sacrifice. This mentality produces a spiritual kind of 'do what feels good' lifestyle.
In the book of James, chapter 1, James is writing to the Church. He is encouraging steadfastness during times of trial. He encourages them to put away filthiness and wickedness and receive the implanted word. In verse 22 he goes on to say, 'be doers of the word, and not hearers only....' It was the word of God that was to dictate the believer's interaction with the world he lived in.
In II Timothy chapter 3, Paul was explaining that eventually there would come a time when people would be corrupt. As a matter of fact, he described them as 'lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power...' Paul went on to urgently tell Timothy to continue with what he had learned form the sacred writings (word of God). Then he wrote this in verse 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
We have forgotten what the Word of God is actually for.
God's word isn't given to us to be subjetively interpreted so we can live out experiences to make us feel good. It was given to us to tell us how to live. Perhaps that's why people have a problem with it. When something seems whacky, it's OK to judge it based upon the Word. When people openly err from the truth a rebuke is in order. When people are wrong, as we all sometimes can be, correction is acceptable. While people are sincere in their beliefs they can be sincerley wrong.
God's word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths. It is there to guide us and is THE standard to which we conform to so to be fashioned into the image of Christ. It teaches how to live and tells us how to love. It absolutely has our best interests in mind. So I encourage everyone to let obedience to the Word of God be your source of joy, fulfillment and satisfaction instead of a sense of clinging to a right to a subjective, experience-based faith. Read it, know it, speak it and live it!
You, and those on your journey with you, will be better for it.
"I believe...I think...in my opinion...what it means to me is..."
These have been commony used phrases to introduce people's opinions as to what the Word of God means in their given situations. What they were talking about is irrelevant. For me, you or anyone else to hinge the will of God upon the subjectivity of our own opinion is simply unwise. For this reason Western Christianity is run amok with false doctrines and errant teachings. Why? Because all of these false doctrines and teachings are substantiated with what "I believe...I think and what it means to me is..." Think about it, no matter how sincere one may be, to relegate the meaning of God's word based upon how one feels, thinks or on their opinion is asking for disaster. It poses the danger of not simply ignoring God's word, but rebelling against it.
In Genesis Chapter 3 mankind's very first act of rebellion against the word of God is written. When the serpent tempted Eve, he brought up what God said and twisted it. While God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden, he said they could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he brought it up to Eve, she added her opinion, what she thought, what she believed. She said, "you shall not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it lest you die." She was passionate and sincere in making her case but she was sincerely wrong for God simply didn't say that.
There are many things that people are experiencing in Christianity today that, although are believed to be right, simply should not be accepted without scrutiny and judgement. Be it a manifestation of some sort, someone's experience in a 'move of God', someone's spoken word of prophecy or their behavior, it is all, I repeat, all subject to the boundaries of the word of God. There is no room for personal subjectivity on what Jesus commanded. There is no place for blatant disregard for the teaching of Paul on church order. There should be no tolerance for blatant rebellion of the Ten Commandments even.
Why is it that we accept the sincere even when it deviates from Scripture? I like to say what Phil McCutchen shared once as he quoted someone when he said, 'people have raised emotion to a level of irresistable force.' We give permission for disobedience when we embrace emotion over obedience. We tolerate error because we desire personal satisfaction over personal sacrifice. This mentality produces a spiritual kind of 'do what feels good' lifestyle.
In the book of James, chapter 1, James is writing to the Church. He is encouraging steadfastness during times of trial. He encourages them to put away filthiness and wickedness and receive the implanted word. In verse 22 he goes on to say, 'be doers of the word, and not hearers only....' It was the word of God that was to dictate the believer's interaction with the world he lived in.
In II Timothy chapter 3, Paul was explaining that eventually there would come a time when people would be corrupt. As a matter of fact, he described them as 'lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power...' Paul went on to urgently tell Timothy to continue with what he had learned form the sacred writings (word of God). Then he wrote this in verse 16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
We have forgotten what the Word of God is actually for.
God's word isn't given to us to be subjetively interpreted so we can live out experiences to make us feel good. It was given to us to tell us how to live. Perhaps that's why people have a problem with it. When something seems whacky, it's OK to judge it based upon the Word. When people openly err from the truth a rebuke is in order. When people are wrong, as we all sometimes can be, correction is acceptable. While people are sincere in their beliefs they can be sincerley wrong.
God's word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths. It is there to guide us and is THE standard to which we conform to so to be fashioned into the image of Christ. It teaches how to live and tells us how to love. It absolutely has our best interests in mind. So I encourage everyone to let obedience to the Word of God be your source of joy, fulfillment and satisfaction instead of a sense of clinging to a right to a subjective, experience-based faith. Read it, know it, speak it and live it!
You, and those on your journey with you, will be better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)