That's the motto of AMSCOT, a local predatory lending chain. It's also the starting point of many a lost young person's descent into drugs. And it's the call of the highest minded voices in our land. Black, white, muslim, buddhist, male, female, gay, straight, rich, poor, brilliant, challenged, native, foreigner, poet, worker, blue collar, white collar, red state, blue state.
America means, "You're OK with us."
Should that motto work for the church, too?
Showing posts with label Familyhood Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Familyhood Church. Show all posts
04 October, 2009
20 September, 2009
Skilled Builders
Exd 31:1-6 The LORD also said to Moses,"Look, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God, giving him great wisdom, intelligence, and skill in all kinds of crafts. He is able to create beautiful objects from gold, silver, and bronze. He is skilled in cutting and setting gemstones and in carving wood. Yes, he is a master at every craft! "And I have appointed Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, to be his assistant. Moreover, I have given special skill to all the naturally talented craftsmen so they can make all the things I have instructed you to make:
1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
Moses tells us Bezalel and Oholiab were gifted builders working on the tabernacle in the wilderness. Paul tells us there were other builders of the church in Corinth. There's a very strong analogy between these two groups of builders. The tabernacle and the church are both the dwellings of God, one temporary and the other permanent. The tabernacle was an image of the way God dwells in His kingdom and the church is a foretaste of the kingdom itself. Both come, "some assembly required."
Spurgeon pointed out in Morning and Evening the other day that even the most wonderful bare foundation provides very little comfort during a storm. You need the building as well! The building needs a foundation, but you need the building as badly as a foundation.
Bezalel was a builder. A literal one. Earlier in Exodus Moses appointed judges over 1000's, 100's, 50's and 10's. Bezalel probably was not one of those. He was probably one of those guys who who took his gripes to Joe who was in charge of 10. And Joe might say his gripe was a tough call and tell him to bounce it up to Frank who was in charge of 50's. Bezalel was just a guy in the tribe of Judah. He happened to have a knack for hammering gold, and the Lord called him to service in the tabernacle.
And the Lord filled Bezalel with the Spirit of God.
To make a lampstand?
Yes. To make a lampstand.
And to carve a pomegranate.
The judges over 1000's, 100's, 50's and 10's weren't filled with the Holy Spirit, but Bezalel was. That's dramatic. The Lord ignores the men given power, and fills those skilled in crafts. The Lord pours out His Spirit on Bezalel as truly and as purposefully as He does on Moses, and not just Bezalel: Moreover, I have given special skill to all the naturally talented craftsmen so they can make all the things I have instructed you to make
Can you begin to imagine all the things there are to be made in the house of God that you attend every Sunday? I'll start, but I'm sure together we could come up with many more.
First, did you note from the Corinthians passage the church was not founded by Christ? Paul laid the foundation of Christ, not Christ Himself. Jesus is the Stone and the Cornerstone, but He deputizes stonemasons for the work. Even the most fundamental work in the church is done by men with the filling of the Holy Spirit.
Others built upon that foundation. Floorplans were designed, walls blocked out, doorways, roof-lines, windows all needed to be built for strength and function. Provision had to be made for cooking, cleaning, and disposal of all the kinds of waste life creates. But then the stuff actually needed to be built. Mistakes needed to be corrected. The walls needed plastering and painting. Trim needed to be fitted. Doorknobs and shelves and countertops needed installation. Pictures needed to be picked out for the walls, and flowers for the entrance.
The church is like that.
Money needs to be safely gathered and handled. People need to know how to reach each other during the week. The sick need to be remembered and supported. The lazy need to be chided. The young need to be kept happy and the young in the Lord need milk. The old need to be visited and the mature in the Lord need to be employed in His service. The observant need to heard and the unpleasable need to be singled out. Almost every small gathering needs food and drink, and everyone needs a chance to tell someone how their week is going. Everyone needs a little advice and everyone needs a little coaching in how to receive it graciously (especially when it's poor.) The young singles need to feel included. The parents of young children need to feel included. The older couples need to feel included. The older singles need to feel included. The new people need to feel included. The steady dependables need to feel included.
And you are skilled at one or more of these things. Bezalel was skilled in all of them. Oholiab was skilled in one or two. Both were filled with the same Spirit toward the same end - building the tabernacle of God.
The tabernacle was wild with incredible variety, and every bit of it was executed by skilled craftsmen filled with the Spirit. Did you know there were a dozen or more pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet embroidered around the hem of Aaron's vestments? Or the lampstand with its almond blossom lamps was entirely beaten from a single piece of gold? Or that the Lord specified this because it mattered to Him? The construction of the tabernacle was spelled out in painstaking detail, and showed just how many jobs the Lord's builders performed.
These littlest things matter to Him, and He's naturally gifted you to add some little thing to His church - to your church. He's ready to fill you with the Spirit. Are you ready to build? Your church will profit greatly when your gifts are employed in His service.
06 September, 2009
Engage!
How many people have you had over to eat in the last two weeks? Or, if you're an introvert, the last four weeks?
Yeah. If you haven't, you're not alone.
Have you given any thought to why?
The human brain is wired to need social connection, but getting people together is a tough job. We're wired with lots of needs and connection is one of them. We need social connection just like we need food and sleep. Food and sleep both require their own share of work, but they are very loud needs and motivate us directly. Shopping and cooking are mildly painful experiences for most of us, so we pay good money to have other people do it. Many of us wish we loved cooking, but most of us simply tolerate it because being hungry is worse.
Eating is easier! We didn't become the most overweight nation ever by hating the eating part of the equation. No, eating is the pleasure while cooking is the pain, and hunger is the bridge between the two. The pleasure of eating might convince some of us to cook, and the desire for energy and health might persuade others, but hunger is the first alarm system and almost all of us find hunger persuasive.
Imagine your life without hunger. Imagine you still needed food, but you would never feel hungry again. I'd probably still cook the occasional special meal or maybe enjoy my favorite food once in a while, but there's no chance I'd eat enough of the boring foods that keep me going. I'd find myself losing weight. And soon I'd be losing too much weight. And eventually I'd lose so much weight my body would begin to fail. It would not take long before I'd wish I could be hungry again!
Ditto for sleep. We only stop the fun and lay our bodies down because tiredness is so intolerable. If we found ever a cure for feeling tired, we'd quit sleeping entirely. Soon we'd be suffering from inexplicable pains, poor judgment, and long term memory failure, but we wouldn't feel tired so at midnight we'd still be rearing to go. Midnight works great for curling up with those systematic theologies! Within a year or two we'd all be educated theologians. Or just maybe dead. We need sleep, and tiredness is the first alarm that tells us we're not getting enough sleep.
The feeling of hunger is different from our need to eat, and the feeling of tiredness is different from our need to sleep. If we were to cure the feeling without curing the need, we'd be in an awful fix.
I have the thought that the church is in such an awful fix because we've cured the feeling that once drove us to connect with each other.
It's hard to nail down exactly what that painful feeling might be, but we're not feeling it any more. I think of it as a mysterious mix of purposelessness, isolation, disconnection, and/or loneliness that once drove us to seek out relationship. Maybe we've lost the ability to clearly distinguish between all those feelings, but come 9:00 PM we sit down and "see what's on."
We're bored.
But we don't stay bored long.
At the first twinge of boredom, we surf our TV, Facebook, and the blogosphere. We've got DVD's, iPods, and XBoxes. We're IM chatting about youtube videos and Tweeting and Retweeting everything. Maybe the boomers shy away from Twitter and the teens hardly know what Network Television used to be, but together we unwind in front of channels, sites, videos and email before the pain of boredom has a chance to settle in.
We'd never try popping a No-doze every time we were tired or a Red Bull every time we were hungry, but we'll kick on the tube without a second thought. Give us 5 seconds without an entertaining idea, and the lure of easy entertainment ropes us in. We don't even have to be seduced any more. We'll set up auto-payment to our cable provider to make sure we have our fix. The scary thing is that advertisers pay entertainers very well to help us quit feeling our pain, so our entertainment is pretty cheap in the end.
But boredom is a blessing! We need more boredeom! Boredom is as important to our lives as hunger and tiredness, but entertainment painlessly melts boredom away. Oh sure, TV's not perfect. "There're 400 channels and nothing on," but maybe that's a sign of our problem. Perhaps we are so deprived of [something] that normal antidotes for boredom don't work any more. After a week or two without sleep, No-doze is worthless. What if normal entertainment loses its effectiveness when we're freakishly over-bored? Maybe we're so deeply bored we have to be twittering while watching a movie and planning the review we'll give it on Facebook to just feel normal?
To what might God have designed our boredom to drive us?
Hunger and tiredness drive us to nutrition and sleep. Red Bull can cure hunger and No-doze can cure tiredness, but neither can provide the things nutrition and sleep give us. We ought not to cure hunger or tiredness flippantly ... nor boredom. The objective of hunger is to drive us to prepare food and the objective of tiredness is to drive us to stop the fun and call it a night. What's the objective of boredom?
Engagement.
Our God created us to engage with life, to grab hold of its highs and lows, and to grapple with its possibilities. We were created to create. We are loved that we might love. We're steady so others might rely upon us through thick and thin. But the boredom that once drove us to engage life is systematically being anaesthetized. Entertainment is a huge industrial complex, and the most brilliant American minds are thinking and experimenting and sweating to make sure we're entertained as often and as deeply as possible. The promise of American advertising is that we need no longer suffer the painful labor of engaging with life, with each other, and with our own demons. We can check out a fun youtube video any time we need a break.
My problem is not with social media. I blog (obviously enough) and some day I'm going to Facebook (I see it coming, like a thunderstorm on the horizon.) A mature, spiritual, and complete person can engage with life and others using Twitter. My problem is I'm not mature, spiritual and complete. I'm human and easily drawn aside. Given a way to eat without the drag of cooking, which of us doesn't eat out too often? Given a chance to relax in front of the computer instead of shutting it down and going to bed, which of us doesn't blog a little bit longer? Given a chance to watch a movie a friend recommended instead of visiting them and listening to what's been happening in their life, which of us doesn't stretch out on the sofa?
The body of Christ is out there. You can reach out and touch your brothers and sisters - they need it. You can see their eyes light up or darken. You can hear the rhythms and intonations of their speech. You can smell their griefs in a hug. You can share a meal.
We are creations of this Earth, wired to engage with all 5 senses, not images alone. We were made to make and keep covenant with each other, to promise to be there for each other through thick and thin, and to seal that promise over roast beef and mashed potatoes.
Our brothers and sisters need meat and potatoes love from us. They need to see our eyes and feel the warmth of our skin when we say we'll be there for them. Promises on a screen vanish with a keystroke, and deep down those brothers and sisters know it. We know it, too. We need the same gift back from them, but getting and giving solid, earthy love is going to require the work of engagement from us. We're going to need to let ourselves be bored, and then let that boredom drive us to the work of connecting to the body of Christ.
If we're not careful, the church in America won't end with a bang, but with a punch line. We're long on jokes, but short on the ties that bind. Those ties require work, and eating together is a great place to start.
Yeah. If you haven't, you're not alone.
Have you given any thought to why?
The human brain is wired to need social connection, but getting people together is a tough job. We're wired with lots of needs and connection is one of them. We need social connection just like we need food and sleep. Food and sleep both require their own share of work, but they are very loud needs and motivate us directly. Shopping and cooking are mildly painful experiences for most of us, so we pay good money to have other people do it. Many of us wish we loved cooking, but most of us simply tolerate it because being hungry is worse.
Eating is easier! We didn't become the most overweight nation ever by hating the eating part of the equation. No, eating is the pleasure while cooking is the pain, and hunger is the bridge between the two. The pleasure of eating might convince some of us to cook, and the desire for energy and health might persuade others, but hunger is the first alarm system and almost all of us find hunger persuasive.
Imagine your life without hunger. Imagine you still needed food, but you would never feel hungry again. I'd probably still cook the occasional special meal or maybe enjoy my favorite food once in a while, but there's no chance I'd eat enough of the boring foods that keep me going. I'd find myself losing weight. And soon I'd be losing too much weight. And eventually I'd lose so much weight my body would begin to fail. It would not take long before I'd wish I could be hungry again!
Ditto for sleep. We only stop the fun and lay our bodies down because tiredness is so intolerable. If we found ever a cure for feeling tired, we'd quit sleeping entirely. Soon we'd be suffering from inexplicable pains, poor judgment, and long term memory failure, but we wouldn't feel tired so at midnight we'd still be rearing to go. Midnight works great for curling up with those systematic theologies! Within a year or two we'd all be educated theologians. Or just maybe dead. We need sleep, and tiredness is the first alarm that tells us we're not getting enough sleep.
The feeling of hunger is different from our need to eat, and the feeling of tiredness is different from our need to sleep. If we were to cure the feeling without curing the need, we'd be in an awful fix.
I have the thought that the church is in such an awful fix because we've cured the feeling that once drove us to connect with each other.
It's hard to nail down exactly what that painful feeling might be, but we're not feeling it any more. I think of it as a mysterious mix of purposelessness, isolation, disconnection, and/or loneliness that once drove us to seek out relationship. Maybe we've lost the ability to clearly distinguish between all those feelings, but come 9:00 PM we sit down and "see what's on."
We're bored.
But we don't stay bored long.
At the first twinge of boredom, we surf our TV, Facebook, and the blogosphere. We've got DVD's, iPods, and XBoxes. We're IM chatting about youtube videos and Tweeting and Retweeting everything. Maybe the boomers shy away from Twitter and the teens hardly know what Network Television used to be, but together we unwind in front of channels, sites, videos and email before the pain of boredom has a chance to settle in.
We'd never try popping a No-doze every time we were tired or a Red Bull every time we were hungry, but we'll kick on the tube without a second thought. Give us 5 seconds without an entertaining idea, and the lure of easy entertainment ropes us in. We don't even have to be seduced any more. We'll set up auto-payment to our cable provider to make sure we have our fix. The scary thing is that advertisers pay entertainers very well to help us quit feeling our pain, so our entertainment is pretty cheap in the end.
But boredom is a blessing! We need more boredeom! Boredom is as important to our lives as hunger and tiredness, but entertainment painlessly melts boredom away. Oh sure, TV's not perfect. "There're 400 channels and nothing on," but maybe that's a sign of our problem. Perhaps we are so deprived of [something] that normal antidotes for boredom don't work any more. After a week or two without sleep, No-doze is worthless. What if normal entertainment loses its effectiveness when we're freakishly over-bored? Maybe we're so deeply bored we have to be twittering while watching a movie and planning the review we'll give it on Facebook to just feel normal?
To what might God have designed our boredom to drive us?
Hunger and tiredness drive us to nutrition and sleep. Red Bull can cure hunger and No-doze can cure tiredness, but neither can provide the things nutrition and sleep give us. We ought not to cure hunger or tiredness flippantly ... nor boredom. The objective of hunger is to drive us to prepare food and the objective of tiredness is to drive us to stop the fun and call it a night. What's the objective of boredom?
Engagement.
Our God created us to engage with life, to grab hold of its highs and lows, and to grapple with its possibilities. We were created to create. We are loved that we might love. We're steady so others might rely upon us through thick and thin. But the boredom that once drove us to engage life is systematically being anaesthetized. Entertainment is a huge industrial complex, and the most brilliant American minds are thinking and experimenting and sweating to make sure we're entertained as often and as deeply as possible. The promise of American advertising is that we need no longer suffer the painful labor of engaging with life, with each other, and with our own demons. We can check out a fun youtube video any time we need a break.
My problem is not with social media. I blog (obviously enough) and some day I'm going to Facebook (I see it coming, like a thunderstorm on the horizon.) A mature, spiritual, and complete person can engage with life and others using Twitter. My problem is I'm not mature, spiritual and complete. I'm human and easily drawn aside. Given a way to eat without the drag of cooking, which of us doesn't eat out too often? Given a chance to relax in front of the computer instead of shutting it down and going to bed, which of us doesn't blog a little bit longer? Given a chance to watch a movie a friend recommended instead of visiting them and listening to what's been happening in their life, which of us doesn't stretch out on the sofa?
The body of Christ is out there. You can reach out and touch your brothers and sisters - they need it. You can see their eyes light up or darken. You can hear the rhythms and intonations of their speech. You can smell their griefs in a hug. You can share a meal.
We are creations of this Earth, wired to engage with all 5 senses, not images alone. We were made to make and keep covenant with each other, to promise to be there for each other through thick and thin, and to seal that promise over roast beef and mashed potatoes.
Our brothers and sisters need meat and potatoes love from us. They need to see our eyes and feel the warmth of our skin when we say we'll be there for them. Promises on a screen vanish with a keystroke, and deep down those brothers and sisters know it. We know it, too. We need the same gift back from them, but getting and giving solid, earthy love is going to require the work of engagement from us. We're going to need to let ourselves be bored, and then let that boredom drive us to the work of connecting to the body of Christ.
If we're not careful, the church in America won't end with a bang, but with a punch line. We're long on jokes, but short on the ties that bind. Those ties require work, and eating together is a great place to start.
23 August, 2009
Drill and Ceremony
A little lad asked me the other day why the British soldiers all stood in a line to be shot during the American Revolution.
It's a much better question than he knew.
The answer is rooted in that least coveted of human emotions, fear, and that dodgiest of human studies, history.
Some several hundred years before Christ was born, some Macedonians conquered the world behind the phalanx. The phalanx was an amazing military invention (invented several centuries before Alexander, but certainly employed brilliantly by The Great). It was a juggernaut made of people. Each man carried an 8 foot spear and a shield large enough to protect his entire body. He stood elbow-to-elbow with the man on his either side and several rows deep. They advanced on the enemy relentlessly.
In every decisive ancient battle you see a radically lopsided casualty report. Alexander's forces lost 500-1,000 men at Gaugamela, for example, while Darius's forces lost 50,000-90,000 of the 100,000 on the field. The reason for this discrepancy is fear. During the height of the battle each side might be losing hundreds of casualties equally, then comes the breakthrough (yes, that's where that word comes from.) Alexander employed some daring tricks to create a weakness right in the center of the enemy lines, attacked it in force, and broke through to the soft underbelly of the Persian army.
As soon as the Persians knew the Greeks were behind them, they panicked and lost military discipline. Fear started making their decisions for them. Up until that moment, the Greeks had probably lost 500 men and the Persians 1,000. Given that the Greeks were outnumbered 2 to 1, that was survivable. But from the moment of panic the Persians were helpless babes in the woods.
Ancient armies won battles by overcoming the urge to panic and lost battles when it overcame them.
Every human's heart is gripped by icy fear. No one has so much courage as to be immune to panic. Alexanders soldiers the bravest men in the world and he didn't teach them some secret courage meditation. Winners and the losers both go to war with the men they have, not with the superheroes you read about in the books. No, the Greeks overcame fear with discipline and trust. They taught their men to stand in a straight line, to fight in very close proximity to their support, and to trust both their leaders and the men standing at either elbow. The Greeks were better trained and better led, so they were rewarded with the breakthrough. They overcame panic by relying on each other and obeying the commands of trustworthy leaders.
All ancient war was fought by men standing just as close together as possible. Roman soldiers were trained to use their swords as stabbing weapons, not hacking weapons, because then they could stand twice as closely to each other without sharp objects flailing around wildly. This made them four times as effective because they had more "firepower" concentrated on a smaller part of the enemy lines and because standing more closely to their comrades gave them courage.
The British stood in close lines, not because they wanted to prove they were brave, but to make themselves brave. They wanted to concentrate their firepower and courage most effectively. Against similarly trained European armies, the British forces were terrifyingly courageous. Their reputation for steely determination under fire was legendary, and terrifying. You now know it was courage born of discipline and trust.
What you may not know is that the American army could not have won the Revolutionary War by shooting from behind trees. We eventually needed to field conventional armies and fight conventional European battles to win our freedom. The rifles of the time fired too slowly and too inaccurately to panic a trained army. Decisive military actions were won by the bayonette, by achieving a breakthrough, and by causing panic in the enemy. We beat the British because we learned just enough discipline to defeat the small army they could spare to put down our rebellion. They were fighting on too many worldwide fronts and could not send enough soldiers to do the job they were given. The smallness of the British army arrayed against us and the arrival of Baron von Steuben in America to teach us Prussian "Drill and Ceremony," are what ended our tenure as loyal British subjects. (The US Army still refers to von Steuben's "Blue Book" of drill and ceremony to this day.)
The good Baron taught our troops to march in disciplined lines so we could maneuver enough to beat the British. He taught us to mass our firepower while still remaining mobile. And in so doing, he taught our soldiers courage. He taught them how to stand closely enough to each other while maneuvering under fire to give each other the bravery to survive against professional British armies.
It wasn't until the machine gun and WWI this equation changed, but even then it only changed in appearance. American soldiers "stand" closely to each other on radios, and we mass our firepower in other ways. We still survive and thrive on the modern battlefield by overcoming panic through discipline and trust.
Anyway, all that was fun to talk about. The little lad enjoyed hearing how battle worked, and I enjoyed reinforcing to him over and over that courage is something we gain from discipline and trust, by standing side-by-side with other men, not from some internal miracle of will. Hopefully, it will help a little bit some day.
But surely you sense the parallels for the church flying through my mind now?
The church reminds me of a bunch of Virginia farmboys wondering why the Brits don't run back to England after they've sniped a few Redcoats from the woods. I suspect we're looking for "a few brave men," when really we need to learn to work more closely with each other and trust our leaders. Courage doesn't come from "want to." Courage is a measurable, reproducible fruit of discipline and trust.
I suspect the church needs Drill and Ceremony.
It's a much better question than he knew.
The answer is rooted in that least coveted of human emotions, fear, and that dodgiest of human studies, history.
Some several hundred years before Christ was born, some Macedonians conquered the world behind the phalanx. The phalanx was an amazing military invention (invented several centuries before Alexander, but certainly employed brilliantly by The Great). It was a juggernaut made of people. Each man carried an 8 foot spear and a shield large enough to protect his entire body. He stood elbow-to-elbow with the man on his either side and several rows deep. They advanced on the enemy relentlessly.
In every decisive ancient battle you see a radically lopsided casualty report. Alexander's forces lost 500-1,000 men at Gaugamela, for example, while Darius's forces lost 50,000-90,000 of the 100,000 on the field. The reason for this discrepancy is fear. During the height of the battle each side might be losing hundreds of casualties equally, then comes the breakthrough (yes, that's where that word comes from.) Alexander employed some daring tricks to create a weakness right in the center of the enemy lines, attacked it in force, and broke through to the soft underbelly of the Persian army.
As soon as the Persians knew the Greeks were behind them, they panicked and lost military discipline. Fear started making their decisions for them. Up until that moment, the Greeks had probably lost 500 men and the Persians 1,000. Given that the Greeks were outnumbered 2 to 1, that was survivable. But from the moment of panic the Persians were helpless babes in the woods.
Ancient armies won battles by overcoming the urge to panic and lost battles when it overcame them.
Every human's heart is gripped by icy fear. No one has so much courage as to be immune to panic. Alexanders soldiers the bravest men in the world and he didn't teach them some secret courage meditation. Winners and the losers both go to war with the men they have, not with the superheroes you read about in the books. No, the Greeks overcame fear with discipline and trust. They taught their men to stand in a straight line, to fight in very close proximity to their support, and to trust both their leaders and the men standing at either elbow. The Greeks were better trained and better led, so they were rewarded with the breakthrough. They overcame panic by relying on each other and obeying the commands of trustworthy leaders.
All ancient war was fought by men standing just as close together as possible. Roman soldiers were trained to use their swords as stabbing weapons, not hacking weapons, because then they could stand twice as closely to each other without sharp objects flailing around wildly. This made them four times as effective because they had more "firepower" concentrated on a smaller part of the enemy lines and because standing more closely to their comrades gave them courage.
The British stood in close lines, not because they wanted to prove they were brave, but to make themselves brave. They wanted to concentrate their firepower and courage most effectively. Against similarly trained European armies, the British forces were terrifyingly courageous. Their reputation for steely determination under fire was legendary, and terrifying. You now know it was courage born of discipline and trust.
What you may not know is that the American army could not have won the Revolutionary War by shooting from behind trees. We eventually needed to field conventional armies and fight conventional European battles to win our freedom. The rifles of the time fired too slowly and too inaccurately to panic a trained army. Decisive military actions were won by the bayonette, by achieving a breakthrough, and by causing panic in the enemy. We beat the British because we learned just enough discipline to defeat the small army they could spare to put down our rebellion. They were fighting on too many worldwide fronts and could not send enough soldiers to do the job they were given. The smallness of the British army arrayed against us and the arrival of Baron von Steuben in America to teach us Prussian "Drill and Ceremony," are what ended our tenure as loyal British subjects. (The US Army still refers to von Steuben's "Blue Book" of drill and ceremony to this day.)
The good Baron taught our troops to march in disciplined lines so we could maneuver enough to beat the British. He taught us to mass our firepower while still remaining mobile. And in so doing, he taught our soldiers courage. He taught them how to stand closely enough to each other while maneuvering under fire to give each other the bravery to survive against professional British armies.
It wasn't until the machine gun and WWI this equation changed, but even then it only changed in appearance. American soldiers "stand" closely to each other on radios, and we mass our firepower in other ways. We still survive and thrive on the modern battlefield by overcoming panic through discipline and trust.
Anyway, all that was fun to talk about. The little lad enjoyed hearing how battle worked, and I enjoyed reinforcing to him over and over that courage is something we gain from discipline and trust, by standing side-by-side with other men, not from some internal miracle of will. Hopefully, it will help a little bit some day.
But surely you sense the parallels for the church flying through my mind now?
The church reminds me of a bunch of Virginia farmboys wondering why the Brits don't run back to England after they've sniped a few Redcoats from the woods. I suspect we're looking for "a few brave men," when really we need to learn to work more closely with each other and trust our leaders. Courage doesn't come from "want to." Courage is a measurable, reproducible fruit of discipline and trust.
I suspect the church needs Drill and Ceremony.
22 December, 2008
Honest Abe
There are those who insult Lincoln as America's Julius Caesar, who overthrew the Republic of Rome to make himself emperor, and accuse him of railroading America for his own fiendish purposes. They powerfully inveigh against his deconstruction of the Constitution, and the bloody war fought to satisfy his need to dominate the honorable men of the South. And those people are not defined by the fact they were raised Southern. They're dedicated Christians from all over the country.
You can find some of them here: http://www.theamericanview.com/
Just search for "Lincoln."
The argument is essentially this. America was formed as a union of sovereign states held together by a Constitution. In fact, the essential sovereign unit of American government was the state until Lincoln's power grab. When the South looked up and saw that their right to sovereignly rule themselves was being imposed upon by a self-important North, they resisted. They would not see the union, as orginally conceived, torn apart by Northern self-righteousness and arrogance. And Lincoln merely used those Northern vices in imposing his own power lust on the nation, and in sending many thousands of good American boys to their deaths.
The argument is disingenuous.
It ignores a handful of key points in building its airtight case. Actually, most arguments truly are airtight when seen from one perspective. The question, of course, is what one's perspective is, but that's the actual subject of this post and we'll get to it a little later. The history on this topic is of interest to me, so I'm going to carry on with it a little longer.
I was raised to believe that at times the American government was my enemy. I married a woman who sometimes believed the American government was our enemy. I buy food from a guy who believes the American government is sometimes our enemy. And I had immediate sympathy to this Lincoln as Caesar argument from the very first time I heard it back in the late '80's.
It was interesting to read an impassioned defense of this argument against Lincoln.
Then read 14 of Lincoln's speeches.
His arguments against secession went like this:
OK. Secede if you must. Just do it the right way. Don't do it by force of arms, but by force of election. The ballot formed the country, and only the ballot can splinter it.
Furthermore, it is right to give the entire country a vote on the secession of any part of the country, and that for several very good reasons. First, is there any contract which once formed can be broken by any one party at any time? The states have severally entered into contract together, and have profitably enriched one another in many ways. For the seceding states to take the wealth gained from the other states without compensation is theft. For the seceding states to close off the possible benefits of the contract from the remaining states is painful. They must honor their contract, even as they seek to end it.
Furthermore, there is no way to divide the nation that doesn't result in the overall impoverishment of each part. No matter how the country might be split, the states will have to deal with each other and the fallout of any separation. The final, resulting nations will be poorer for the division. So why divide with blood? If there must be division, why not equitable, legal, ballot-driven division.
Lastly, it is unthinkable that all of the states should decide to evict just one, and yet what is the difference between every state seceding from the one and every state agreeing to kick that one state out? The mean, selfish kind of a freedom demanded by the Southern states was an unjust freedom. The selfish acts of one member of a family have a depressing effect on every member. Sovereignty is not the same as freedom from obligation. When one member secedes from a marriage, it is not a simple and detached act of personal freedom; divorce is a devastating blow dealt to every member of even the extended families involved. The states are obligated to deal with the honest effects of their attempted secession.
These are reasonable arguments. To compare Caesar, who made himself Rome's destroying savior by marching his army into Rome and conquering the capital, against Lincoln who worked with the Congress and left the power of legislation in Congress' hands throughout the rebellion, is too much.
Lincoln made mistakes, and did things that caused questions in his time and ours. His suspension of Habeus Corpus is still talked about among people who talk about such things, but even at that it was only for a time and then Congress was given the reins. Lincoln was a man and not a god, and it showed in his mistakes. He was given a hard road to walk, and he walked it as honestly as I believe any man could. He took brave steps over and over and he saw the job through to its final stages.
But there are those who are not content for him to be a man. They need him to be an American Satan.
Why?
I believe it's because of their own desires. They desire their states to be free today in way they never will be again. Fair enough, but if they get their way in this will they be done? Or will they then want sovereign counties, and cities, and homes? (I'll tell you one thing. They'll love quoting that question within their own contexts.)
These are big questions. Where to place the dividing line between personal sovereignty and community good is contentious.
What I find interesting is that in 1861 this line was drawn by men who wanted to hold other men as slaves. The cry is loud and long that slavery was never the issue, and I hear that cry, but I cannot respect it.
In the end, Lincoln did not fire the first shot of the Civil War. The secessionists fired first on Fort Sumter. Lincoln had promised that he would not march on the South, and he never broke that promise. He proposed compromise after compromise, but the South would have none of it. They wanted the right to do what they wanted to do, and it cannot escape me that what they wanted to do was inarguably evil.
The first intended use of the lofty freedom for which those men of the South died was the continuance of a great evil.
And I believe I find a pattern in that. We are most usually willing to "fire the first shot" when we are protecting our right to do some evil after which we lust.
Having read Lincoln and his detractors, I am more impressed with Lincoln's character, courage and ideals than ever before.
My point of view has moved a lot in the last several years.
=========
I'm about to take a bit of leap, so be sure to come with me.
I believe this was my mistake in trying promote the home church. It was not enough for me to want to see the church done differently. I needed the steeple-churches to suffer demolition. Following Luther's example, I wanted to secede from all Christian organizations and I wanted their hierarchies blown to smithereens.
My point of view has moved a lot on the church, too.
I find myself wondering how many of the men manning pulpits under gaudy steeples are men for whom I'd have the utmost respect, if I only knew their story. Instead, I only know them by a single doctrinal stand they've taken somewhere along the line, and that as framed by their enemies.
May the Lord forgive my ignorance. And may He bless the men who stand for Him as well as they know how.
You can find some of them here: http://www.theamericanview.com/
Just search for "Lincoln."
The argument is essentially this. America was formed as a union of sovereign states held together by a Constitution. In fact, the essential sovereign unit of American government was the state until Lincoln's power grab. When the South looked up and saw that their right to sovereignly rule themselves was being imposed upon by a self-important North, they resisted. They would not see the union, as orginally conceived, torn apart by Northern self-righteousness and arrogance. And Lincoln merely used those Northern vices in imposing his own power lust on the nation, and in sending many thousands of good American boys to their deaths.
The argument is disingenuous.
It ignores a handful of key points in building its airtight case. Actually, most arguments truly are airtight when seen from one perspective. The question, of course, is what one's perspective is, but that's the actual subject of this post and we'll get to it a little later. The history on this topic is of interest to me, so I'm going to carry on with it a little longer.
I was raised to believe that at times the American government was my enemy. I married a woman who sometimes believed the American government was our enemy. I buy food from a guy who believes the American government is sometimes our enemy. And I had immediate sympathy to this Lincoln as Caesar argument from the very first time I heard it back in the late '80's.
It was interesting to read an impassioned defense of this argument against Lincoln.
Then read 14 of Lincoln's speeches.
His arguments against secession went like this:
OK. Secede if you must. Just do it the right way. Don't do it by force of arms, but by force of election. The ballot formed the country, and only the ballot can splinter it.
Furthermore, it is right to give the entire country a vote on the secession of any part of the country, and that for several very good reasons. First, is there any contract which once formed can be broken by any one party at any time? The states have severally entered into contract together, and have profitably enriched one another in many ways. For the seceding states to take the wealth gained from the other states without compensation is theft. For the seceding states to close off the possible benefits of the contract from the remaining states is painful. They must honor their contract, even as they seek to end it.
Furthermore, there is no way to divide the nation that doesn't result in the overall impoverishment of each part. No matter how the country might be split, the states will have to deal with each other and the fallout of any separation. The final, resulting nations will be poorer for the division. So why divide with blood? If there must be division, why not equitable, legal, ballot-driven division.
Lastly, it is unthinkable that all of the states should decide to evict just one, and yet what is the difference between every state seceding from the one and every state agreeing to kick that one state out? The mean, selfish kind of a freedom demanded by the Southern states was an unjust freedom. The selfish acts of one member of a family have a depressing effect on every member. Sovereignty is not the same as freedom from obligation. When one member secedes from a marriage, it is not a simple and detached act of personal freedom; divorce is a devastating blow dealt to every member of even the extended families involved. The states are obligated to deal with the honest effects of their attempted secession.
These are reasonable arguments. To compare Caesar, who made himself Rome's destroying savior by marching his army into Rome and conquering the capital, against Lincoln who worked with the Congress and left the power of legislation in Congress' hands throughout the rebellion, is too much.
Lincoln made mistakes, and did things that caused questions in his time and ours. His suspension of Habeus Corpus is still talked about among people who talk about such things, but even at that it was only for a time and then Congress was given the reins. Lincoln was a man and not a god, and it showed in his mistakes. He was given a hard road to walk, and he walked it as honestly as I believe any man could. He took brave steps over and over and he saw the job through to its final stages.
But there are those who are not content for him to be a man. They need him to be an American Satan.
Why?
I believe it's because of their own desires. They desire their states to be free today in way they never will be again. Fair enough, but if they get their way in this will they be done? Or will they then want sovereign counties, and cities, and homes? (I'll tell you one thing. They'll love quoting that question within their own contexts.)
These are big questions. Where to place the dividing line between personal sovereignty and community good is contentious.
What I find interesting is that in 1861 this line was drawn by men who wanted to hold other men as slaves. The cry is loud and long that slavery was never the issue, and I hear that cry, but I cannot respect it.
In the end, Lincoln did not fire the first shot of the Civil War. The secessionists fired first on Fort Sumter. Lincoln had promised that he would not march on the South, and he never broke that promise. He proposed compromise after compromise, but the South would have none of it. They wanted the right to do what they wanted to do, and it cannot escape me that what they wanted to do was inarguably evil.
The first intended use of the lofty freedom for which those men of the South died was the continuance of a great evil.
And I believe I find a pattern in that. We are most usually willing to "fire the first shot" when we are protecting our right to do some evil after which we lust.
Having read Lincoln and his detractors, I am more impressed with Lincoln's character, courage and ideals than ever before.
My point of view has moved a lot in the last several years.
=========
I'm about to take a bit of leap, so be sure to come with me.
I believe this was my mistake in trying promote the home church. It was not enough for me to want to see the church done differently. I needed the steeple-churches to suffer demolition. Following Luther's example, I wanted to secede from all Christian organizations and I wanted their hierarchies blown to smithereens.
My point of view has moved a lot on the church, too.
I find myself wondering how many of the men manning pulpits under gaudy steeples are men for whom I'd have the utmost respect, if I only knew their story. Instead, I only know them by a single doctrinal stand they've taken somewhere along the line, and that as framed by their enemies.
May the Lord forgive my ignorance. And may He bless the men who stand for Him as well as they know how.
30 November, 2008
The Body of Christ
I was reading in Scientific American today about HSPs - Heat Shock Proteins.
The Wikipedia article is pretty technical, and the SciAm article is only slightly less so. I'll save you the trouble of reading them and then jump to how it amazed me again at what the body of Christ truly is.
An HSP is charged with helping other proteins do their jobs. There are proteins specific to every cancer cell. The HSP cannot fight cancer, that's the job of our T-cells, but it can snag a little signature of that protein and take it to a T-cell, for example. Another protein might need to be folded up like a pretzel to work, and be having a hard time growing into its mature shape. HSPs make that folding happen. They can't do what the protein needs to do, but they can help that protein get itself folded into the right shape.
(And, BTW, to enhance the benefits of HSPs in your mortal body, exercise. Their rate of production is increased under sufficient stress, and heating up your core temp with exercise does the trick, according to a SciAm side-blurb. I'd love to think of how that applies to Christ's body, but not today.)
Everything the body does, every single little thing from digesting food to fighting disease to kissing a baby on the forehead, requires the interaction of millions of entire subsystems. Even something as simple as a bone cannot do its job without systems on top of systems and within systems. And what's more, almost everything in the body does more than one thing. It does its thing, but it makes sure other things can do their thing, too.
The finite but immeasurable complexity of our Creator's work astounds.
The connection between our bodies and the body of Christ is almost unavoidable, so I'm not going to belabor it. The least, most hidden member of the body, when functioning correctly, could be that perfectly tailored HSP for someone. Without ever being able to fight off a cancer, the quietest soul in a congregation might touch someone in a special way that makes him confident enough to resist evil. We need each other in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
And that's what I want to belabor.
We just found out about HSPs in fruit flies in 1962. It was 1977 before anyone realized that what happens in a fruit fly happens in mice, too. It was another pair of decades before they began to see just how remarkably versatile the lowly HSP really is. I could rattle off story after story of science's amazing discoveries that things they considered completely unimportant are actually keys to our very existence.
It turns out HSPs have one other little function. It's of some moderate importance, I imagine.
HSPs keep us from being mutated genetic freaks.
Seriously.
Micro-evolution happens every day of our lives, in every living being, and every living species. Most mutations are highly negative, but somehow we don't die. That somehow is tied to these HSPs. No has figured out just how yet, but somehow HSPs buffer and suppress poor genetic guesses in our bodies. It's these lowly, unknown, functionless HSPs that keep us from spinning out of control.
Again, the parallel to the body of Christ is amazing. Think of it the next time that bunch of old ladies in the corner is keeping the church from doing something that would otherwise be really exciting. They may just be keeping your church from mutating beyond repair. :-)
Here's the thing that floored me. Scientists are only just now beginning to see how very complex the human body really is, but I think they might be light-years ahead of Christians who think they have an idea how the body of Christ works.
I've done home church. I've done pentacostal revival. I've done presbyterian accuracy. I've done random gathering. And EVERY ONE OF THEM has profited me. I've been blessed by the body of Christ every time I've joined myself to her, in every form.
I've argued with passion that every church building should be burnt to the ground and that every pastor should be made to get a real job. I've argued for the freeing of every member of the body to serve their function, without mediation by some hierarchy. And I've argued for one hierarchy over another. And I've argued against the anarchy of home church. (No, these are not in chronological order.)
I've arrived, through all this mess, to the place I'm almost unwilling to argue against anything. (I'll still argue for lots of stuff, though. :-) )
The body of Christ is too complex and wonderful for me.
She responds very well to leadership. She responds very well to freedom. She responds very well to anything around which her members can unite, which is to say anything that does not inherently create confusion. And somehow, when placed in swirling confusion, she can create some amazing and beautiful order.
She can also be crushed by leadership. She can also be starved in freedom. She can also fail in the middle of the most unity-centric, ordered care imaginable.
Whatever else she may be, the body of Christ is far, far beyond mortal understanding. I suspect the bio-spiritual dance of the children of the Living God demotes the mystery of HSPs to elementary school levels. And I used to think I had it all on a string in my 20's.
Wow.
The best I can do is prepare myself to behave properly within her, give my best to her, nourish myself on the purest milk and meat I can find, and then love her wherever I may find her.
Anything else is certainly beyond me.
The Wikipedia article is pretty technical, and the SciAm article is only slightly less so. I'll save you the trouble of reading them and then jump to how it amazed me again at what the body of Christ truly is.
An HSP is charged with helping other proteins do their jobs. There are proteins specific to every cancer cell. The HSP cannot fight cancer, that's the job of our T-cells, but it can snag a little signature of that protein and take it to a T-cell, for example. Another protein might need to be folded up like a pretzel to work, and be having a hard time growing into its mature shape. HSPs make that folding happen. They can't do what the protein needs to do, but they can help that protein get itself folded into the right shape.
(And, BTW, to enhance the benefits of HSPs in your mortal body, exercise. Their rate of production is increased under sufficient stress, and heating up your core temp with exercise does the trick, according to a SciAm side-blurb. I'd love to think of how that applies to Christ's body, but not today.)
Everything the body does, every single little thing from digesting food to fighting disease to kissing a baby on the forehead, requires the interaction of millions of entire subsystems. Even something as simple as a bone cannot do its job without systems on top of systems and within systems. And what's more, almost everything in the body does more than one thing. It does its thing, but it makes sure other things can do their thing, too.
The finite but immeasurable complexity of our Creator's work astounds.
The connection between our bodies and the body of Christ is almost unavoidable, so I'm not going to belabor it. The least, most hidden member of the body, when functioning correctly, could be that perfectly tailored HSP for someone. Without ever being able to fight off a cancer, the quietest soul in a congregation might touch someone in a special way that makes him confident enough to resist evil. We need each other in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
And that's what I want to belabor.
We just found out about HSPs in fruit flies in 1962. It was 1977 before anyone realized that what happens in a fruit fly happens in mice, too. It was another pair of decades before they began to see just how remarkably versatile the lowly HSP really is. I could rattle off story after story of science's amazing discoveries that things they considered completely unimportant are actually keys to our very existence.
It turns out HSPs have one other little function. It's of some moderate importance, I imagine.
HSPs keep us from being mutated genetic freaks.
Seriously.
Micro-evolution happens every day of our lives, in every living being, and every living species. Most mutations are highly negative, but somehow we don't die. That somehow is tied to these HSPs. No has figured out just how yet, but somehow HSPs buffer and suppress poor genetic guesses in our bodies. It's these lowly, unknown, functionless HSPs that keep us from spinning out of control.
Again, the parallel to the body of Christ is amazing. Think of it the next time that bunch of old ladies in the corner is keeping the church from doing something that would otherwise be really exciting. They may just be keeping your church from mutating beyond repair. :-)
Here's the thing that floored me. Scientists are only just now beginning to see how very complex the human body really is, but I think they might be light-years ahead of Christians who think they have an idea how the body of Christ works.
I've done home church. I've done pentacostal revival. I've done presbyterian accuracy. I've done random gathering. And EVERY ONE OF THEM has profited me. I've been blessed by the body of Christ every time I've joined myself to her, in every form.
I've argued with passion that every church building should be burnt to the ground and that every pastor should be made to get a real job. I've argued for the freeing of every member of the body to serve their function, without mediation by some hierarchy. And I've argued for one hierarchy over another. And I've argued against the anarchy of home church. (No, these are not in chronological order.)
I've arrived, through all this mess, to the place I'm almost unwilling to argue against anything. (I'll still argue for lots of stuff, though. :-) )
The body of Christ is too complex and wonderful for me.
She responds very well to leadership. She responds very well to freedom. She responds very well to anything around which her members can unite, which is to say anything that does not inherently create confusion. And somehow, when placed in swirling confusion, she can create some amazing and beautiful order.
She can also be crushed by leadership. She can also be starved in freedom. She can also fail in the middle of the most unity-centric, ordered care imaginable.
Whatever else she may be, the body of Christ is far, far beyond mortal understanding. I suspect the bio-spiritual dance of the children of the Living God demotes the mystery of HSPs to elementary school levels. And I used to think I had it all on a string in my 20's.
Wow.
The best I can do is prepare myself to behave properly within her, give my best to her, nourish myself on the purest milk and meat I can find, and then love her wherever I may find her.
Anything else is certainly beyond me.
10 August, 2008
The Church's Biggest Problem
KB put together a great post on the evolution of the church, tracking it from the fellowship it was in the 1st century to the enterprise it is now. His take is fascinating, and as usual I cannot comment on it due to technical bugaboos. I cannot even go back and reread it before I pen this knock-on post. Ah the joy of technological limitations.
Way back when I was able to read KB's post that once through bloglines, I agreed and disagreed with it. I agreed that an ideal 21st century church would look different from an ideal 1st century church, and that the differences would be gains for the church overall. I disagreed that the paradigm of an enterprise could ever be a profitable one for any church, ever. I was tongue-tied, though, because I am not sure exactly what KB meant by "enterprise." I know what enterprise means to me, and I don't support that. I just don't know what it means to KB, and I'm sure if I did I would support whatever he means.
I think maybe the biggest problem facing the church today is our obsession with finding and fixing the biggest problem in the church today.
Along those lines, KB's post brought to mind an email I wrote a month or so ago (while I was busy not blogging.) It was about a book review I'm currently not writing while I'm not blogging. In the book, the author relates a life-changing experience he had doing a particular spiritual discipline, and proceeds to sell that discipline as the "one thing" missing in the lives of all Christians and the one thing that, if it were present, would change everything.
Here's what I wrote in that email:
The answer to fixing Christianity has to lie somewhere else than finding 99% of it's best and brightest certifiably insane.
The author tells persuasively of his experience learning how to do this method on a 6 week retreat. He gives ample evidence of changed lives in everyone learning it and of the lasting, beneficial effect the experience had on people from very different walks of life.
But is that proof of the method? I doubt it.
As I was reading his story, it occurred to me that the Navigators, the Promise Keepers, the Holiness Movements, the Charismatics, the Legalists, the Missionaries, and Everyone Else can produce equally stirring anecdotal evidence.
Maybe that's proof that all anecdotal evidence should be rejected? It probably should, but I doubt that's the lesson here too.
Instead, I think this is proof of overly narrow root cause analysis.
Each of these groups was doing a different thing, but they were all doing it "together" with other believers. The common factor in each of these widely varied stories is that a group of Christians was wholly committed to really connecting with each other to do something profitable.
Given any silly excuse, if Christians get together with love in our hearts, we will touch each other and the Lord in life-changing ways. It takes a little excitement, a little leadership, a little hope, and a little focus to start that flow of love between brothers and sisters that bonds us together.
It's those bonds that change our lives.
It's like being in a family. Which is most important? Financial security? Emotional security? Passion? Purpose?
Just try living without any one of those things.
The church needs doctrine. She needs connection. She needs worship. She needs purpose.
I think I still believe a little bit in the house church movement. It's hard to say, though, because there are other needs that are more important. When a man is out of oxygen, he doesn't care so much that he's sleep-deprived. I wish I might see the church organized differently, but before I spend energy there it seems there are other things that might be more important.
The need to find and fix the most important crisis facing the church today seems universal, and it seems to be driving us further and further apart. I'm tempted to name this tendency to obsess over the church's biggest fault, "The tree-trunk of division springing from the taproot of Laodicean Pride." We proclaim that we see when really we're blinded by the lumber in our own eyes. I know I blew 10 years of my life chasing that wild goose.
I think I know what to do about the tree-trunk.
Quit trying to fix the church.
Our worst problem is trying to fix every problem. Maybe it's because we imagine we're wise enough to know every problem. Or maybe it's that we like fixing big things instead of doing little things. Or maybe everything's pretty much OK and we need to get on with the business of doing that which God's been preparing us to do for all these centuries.
Whatever it is, we need to put 80% of our energies into loving the Christians to whom we are closest. Maybe with whatever's left over we can tinker with trying to revolutionize the church in our generation. I don't know, but I know I really need to pour my life out for brothers and sisters whom I can touch. I need to form bonds with my brothers and sisters that can survive the fires of disagreement, repentance, and boredom. I need to commit to people with all their messy needs, rather than ideas or disciplines or quests with all their manageable sterility.
And if that means learning to bond with emergent Christians, then show me the way to Starbucks. I can always buy a lemonade smoothie. :-)
Way back when I was able to read KB's post that once through bloglines, I agreed and disagreed with it. I agreed that an ideal 21st century church would look different from an ideal 1st century church, and that the differences would be gains for the church overall. I disagreed that the paradigm of an enterprise could ever be a profitable one for any church, ever. I was tongue-tied, though, because I am not sure exactly what KB meant by "enterprise." I know what enterprise means to me, and I don't support that. I just don't know what it means to KB, and I'm sure if I did I would support whatever he means.
I think maybe the biggest problem facing the church today is our obsession with finding and fixing the biggest problem in the church today.
Along those lines, KB's post brought to mind an email I wrote a month or so ago (while I was busy not blogging.) It was about a book review I'm currently not writing while I'm not blogging. In the book, the author relates a life-changing experience he had doing a particular spiritual discipline, and proceeds to sell that discipline as the "one thing" missing in the lives of all Christians and the one thing that, if it were present, would change everything.
Here's what I wrote in that email:
The answer to fixing Christianity has to lie somewhere else than finding 99% of it's best and brightest certifiably insane.
The author tells persuasively of his experience learning how to do this method on a 6 week retreat. He gives ample evidence of changed lives in everyone learning it and of the lasting, beneficial effect the experience had on people from very different walks of life.
But is that proof of the method? I doubt it.
As I was reading his story, it occurred to me that the Navigators, the Promise Keepers, the Holiness Movements, the Charismatics, the Legalists, the Missionaries, and Everyone Else can produce equally stirring anecdotal evidence.
Maybe that's proof that all anecdotal evidence should be rejected? It probably should, but I doubt that's the lesson here too.
Instead, I think this is proof of overly narrow root cause analysis.
Each of these groups was doing a different thing, but they were all doing it "together" with other believers. The common factor in each of these widely varied stories is that a group of Christians was wholly committed to really connecting with each other to do something profitable.
Given any silly excuse, if Christians get together with love in our hearts, we will touch each other and the Lord in life-changing ways. It takes a little excitement, a little leadership, a little hope, and a little focus to start that flow of love between brothers and sisters that bonds us together.
It's those bonds that change our lives.
It's like being in a family. Which is most important? Financial security? Emotional security? Passion? Purpose?
Just try living without any one of those things.
The church needs doctrine. She needs connection. She needs worship. She needs purpose.
I think I still believe a little bit in the house church movement. It's hard to say, though, because there are other needs that are more important. When a man is out of oxygen, he doesn't care so much that he's sleep-deprived. I wish I might see the church organized differently, but before I spend energy there it seems there are other things that might be more important.
The need to find and fix the most important crisis facing the church today seems universal, and it seems to be driving us further and further apart. I'm tempted to name this tendency to obsess over the church's biggest fault, "The tree-trunk of division springing from the taproot of Laodicean Pride." We proclaim that we see when really we're blinded by the lumber in our own eyes. I know I blew 10 years of my life chasing that wild goose.
I think I know what to do about the tree-trunk.
Quit trying to fix the church.
Our worst problem is trying to fix every problem. Maybe it's because we imagine we're wise enough to know every problem. Or maybe it's that we like fixing big things instead of doing little things. Or maybe everything's pretty much OK and we need to get on with the business of doing that which God's been preparing us to do for all these centuries.
Whatever it is, we need to put 80% of our energies into loving the Christians to whom we are closest. Maybe with whatever's left over we can tinker with trying to revolutionize the church in our generation. I don't know, but I know I really need to pour my life out for brothers and sisters whom I can touch. I need to form bonds with my brothers and sisters that can survive the fires of disagreement, repentance, and boredom. I need to commit to people with all their messy needs, rather than ideas or disciplines or quests with all their manageable sterility.
And if that means learning to bond with emergent Christians, then show me the way to Starbucks. I can always buy a lemonade smoothie. :-)
21 March, 2008
The Miracle of Kindness
You know the story. John and Peter are a little short on silver and gold, so they heal the lame man at the beautiful gate of the temple. They give credit to the Messiah, which aggravates the local Jews, spend a little time in prison, and come out
swinging. The church's ranks swell as a direct result of this miracle, and of the decision to keep doing miracles like this far and wide to publicize the gospel.
Acts 4 tells us this was part of a conscious strategy. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit all agreed and did His part with the apostles for the purpose of conquering the world for the kingdom. They did miracles to extend the message of the kingdom.
Peter and John did not give the lame man the greater, spiritual treasure of the gospel. No, instead they settled for the pedestrian application of a little healing. They left his spirit withered and useless while they restored his dying legs to fleeting life.
We are much wiser than this. We give people the true riches of the gospel. We give them words, 4 spiritual laws, the law and sin, redemption, the bridge analogy, the Romans Road. Is it our fault if they are all too hard-hearted to know a good thing when they receive it? Besides, God doesn't seem to pass out free healings with every trip to the temple like He used to.
But what if we're dead wrong?
What if we are supposed to be doing greater works than healing lame beggars? What if we are supposed to be doing great works of love instead of just healing for the beggars in our neighborhoods? What if love, given freely to the normal people who mow their lawns right next door to us, is as great a miracle as healing the lame, and able to bring the power of an invisible kingdom to Earth? What if giving money, time and attention to the people all around us is the work of evangelism in our time?
Acts 4:29 & 30
Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.
swinging. The church's ranks swell as a direct result of this miracle, and of the decision to keep doing miracles like this far and wide to publicize the gospel.
Acts 4 tells us this was part of a conscious strategy. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit all agreed and did His part with the apostles for the purpose of conquering the world for the kingdom. They did miracles to extend the message of the kingdom.
Peter and John did not give the lame man the greater, spiritual treasure of the gospel. No, instead they settled for the pedestrian application of a little healing. They left his spirit withered and useless while they restored his dying legs to fleeting life.
We are much wiser than this. We give people the true riches of the gospel. We give them words, 4 spiritual laws, the law and sin, redemption, the bridge analogy, the Romans Road. Is it our fault if they are all too hard-hearted to know a good thing when they receive it? Besides, God doesn't seem to pass out free healings with every trip to the temple like He used to.
But what if we're dead wrong?
What if we are supposed to be doing greater works than healing lame beggars? What if we are supposed to be doing great works of love instead of just healing for the beggars in our neighborhoods? What if love, given freely to the normal people who mow their lawns right next door to us, is as great a miracle as healing the lame, and able to bring the power of an invisible kingdom to Earth? What if giving money, time and attention to the people all around us is the work of evangelism in our time?
Acts 4:29 & 30
Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.
08 January, 2008
Thy Will Be Done
Sure, yeah, we all want God's will to be done, but what is it?
The question has often been reduced to, "Should I break up with Sally and go steady with Jane," but that ain't what was on God's only Son's mind when He taught us to pray. Once I even read a post on a popular site insisting the will of God was:
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
With answers like that, who needs questions? The attitude that allows an answer like that reminds me of another verse:
Pro 25:20 [As] he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, [and as] vinegar upon nitre, so [is] he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
Saying "cheer up" to the weeping is always, always, always cruel.
But I'm way off topic now. When we talk about the will of God, that tends to happen because we just don't know what it is. God wills our sanctification, our deliverance, our steadfastness, our transformation, our thankfulness, and that Paul should be an apostle. But none of that is "God's will."
The Romans had a name for "the father" of every household. He was the "pater familias," Father of the Family. The Jewish family was set up in a reasonably similar way, though the Jewish father lacked the power of life and death a pater familias had.
Since Jesus started His teaching prayer with the words, "Our Father..." it seems appropriate to focus on the pater familias.
The family of that day was the primary economic unit. There were not companies. There were families. And the pater familias was in charge of that economic operation. He brought into the family new sons in law, faithful servants, his own sons, and hirelings as needed toward the goal of building the business. He had the power to decide what and when to buy and sell to ensure the family for whom he was responsible lived in comfort.
Review the parables Jesus told, and you will recognize this pattern over and over. Jesus likens His Father to a pater familias repeatedly.
The pater familias was responsible to keep his family disciplined, profitable, and healthy. Therefore, it was his greatest honor to find evidence in the world around him that his family, his business, was run with excellence. To that end, he required of his family that they be honest, diligent, responsible, forward thinking, and thankful for what he provided.
That list, if you didn't notice, looks a lot like the list of things you'll find required of us by scripture.
The will of our Father in heaven is nothing less than that the world would look on His family and see honesty, diligence, responsibility, forward thinking, and thankfulness. He wants to see His church honoring His legacy on Earth by defining it.
The purpose of Christians is not to make more Christians. Yes, that must happen, but it is not "the" will of God. The purpose of Christians is to profit the business of our Father in heaven, and that happens because ALL the gifts are exercised in the church. Not just evangelism, but helps and care and the greatest of these is love.
And if it's not just evangelism, then it's not just evangelists and pastors and elders who are needed. It's every member of the body. Someone has to pluck weeds, and someone has to grind wheat, and someone has to carry loaves to market. Someone has to cook casseroles, and someone has to comfort the grieving, and someone has to notice when people are feeling down.
The will of God is that His church be the most wholly, actively loving family on Earth, and that requires you. When you are choosing a church, make sure you are choosing the place where you can contribute the most to your Father's goals. In the end, you'll both be happier.
Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
Sources:
Kruse Kronicles' Household of God Series
NT Wright's New Testament and the People of God
The question has often been reduced to, "Should I break up with Sally and go steady with Jane," but that ain't what was on God's only Son's mind when He taught us to pray. Once I even read a post on a popular site insisting the will of God was:
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
With answers like that, who needs questions? The attitude that allows an answer like that reminds me of another verse:
Pro 25:20 [As] he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, [and as] vinegar upon nitre, so [is] he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
Saying "cheer up" to the weeping is always, always, always cruel.
But I'm way off topic now. When we talk about the will of God, that tends to happen because we just don't know what it is. God wills our sanctification, our deliverance, our steadfastness, our transformation, our thankfulness, and that Paul should be an apostle. But none of that is "God's will."
The Romans had a name for "the father" of every household. He was the "pater familias," Father of the Family. The Jewish family was set up in a reasonably similar way, though the Jewish father lacked the power of life and death a pater familias had.
Since Jesus started His teaching prayer with the words, "Our Father..." it seems appropriate to focus on the pater familias.
The family of that day was the primary economic unit. There were not companies. There were families. And the pater familias was in charge of that economic operation. He brought into the family new sons in law, faithful servants, his own sons, and hirelings as needed toward the goal of building the business. He had the power to decide what and when to buy and sell to ensure the family for whom he was responsible lived in comfort.
Review the parables Jesus told, and you will recognize this pattern over and over. Jesus likens His Father to a pater familias repeatedly.
The pater familias was responsible to keep his family disciplined, profitable, and healthy. Therefore, it was his greatest honor to find evidence in the world around him that his family, his business, was run with excellence. To that end, he required of his family that they be honest, diligent, responsible, forward thinking, and thankful for what he provided.
That list, if you didn't notice, looks a lot like the list of things you'll find required of us by scripture.
The will of our Father in heaven is nothing less than that the world would look on His family and see honesty, diligence, responsibility, forward thinking, and thankfulness. He wants to see His church honoring His legacy on Earth by defining it.
The purpose of Christians is not to make more Christians. Yes, that must happen, but it is not "the" will of God. The purpose of Christians is to profit the business of our Father in heaven, and that happens because ALL the gifts are exercised in the church. Not just evangelism, but helps and care and the greatest of these is love.
And if it's not just evangelism, then it's not just evangelists and pastors and elders who are needed. It's every member of the body. Someone has to pluck weeds, and someone has to grind wheat, and someone has to carry loaves to market. Someone has to cook casseroles, and someone has to comfort the grieving, and someone has to notice when people are feeling down.
The will of God is that His church be the most wholly, actively loving family on Earth, and that requires you. When you are choosing a church, make sure you are choosing the place where you can contribute the most to your Father's goals. In the end, you'll both be happier.
Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
Sources:
Kruse Kronicles' Household of God Series
NT Wright's New Testament and the People of God
05 January, 2008
Joining My Church
I eat my own dog food.
That's a programming phrase. Programmers who don't use their own programs are roundly riduculed. If, for example, Microsoft were running all their servers on IBM software, they'd be in for a pounding. Programmers call using your own software, "eating your own dogfood."
I attend the church closest to me. There are benefits to practicing what I preach beyond the moral high ground. I know what it feels like to look in a place so close to home for Christian fellowship. I also know the strange feeling that if I mess up, I don't have 500 other churches to choose from. This is the closest church to my home. Messing up here would be a lot like speeding in your own neighborhood. It's just not smart.
In August of 2005 I joined the LifeBridge. I wanted something very different for myself, but 7 years had just been too long without believers in my life. I'd moved my ex's bed in the spring of 2004, and my daughter had moved in with her in June of 2005, so it was just me and my boy.
More to the point, I'd been without a Christian in my life since '98.
I'd been hanging out at the Thinklings for a long time, but I was beginning to notice that commenting on a wildly popular blog was a long way from fulfilling. First off, I had too much skin in the game to not get hurt when I got no response. Second, they were people, but they were people a long way off. Eventually, I had to leave my screen each night, and when I did they were gone and there was no one. And really, when I eventually quit commenting over there in early 2006 no one even noticed (except Milly :-).
The closest church to me is named, "Neighborhood Family of Jesus" or something equally appealing.
I held my breath and walked in.
The people could not have been friendlier. They took me in like a long-lost cousin and made me feel as welcome as I could possibly hope. I shook hands, pointed in the direction of my house, and let them know there wasn't a wife any more. They smiled and understood and casually made sure I knew everyone, including the other single. They were good people.
Then I wandered over to the literature rack. They didn't believe Jesus was as truly God as His Father was God. I didn't bolt, but there was no chance I'd be sticking around. I enjoyed their sermon, especially because it was delivered by a woman. It was all true enough, and I was delighted to see a woman preach, but they don't hold Christ as Christ, and that's the end of that.
Going to the church nearest does not mean taking on responsibility to rehab an anti-Christian organization. If anyone ever reads this who's thinking about giving themselves to a nearby church, make sure it's a living church that loves Christ at least as much as Ephesus did in Revelation 2. Join a church, not a missionary project.
The next week I suited up again, and visited the next nearest church. This one had international flags up in their front yard, and was a part of the Christian Missionary Alliance. I found it hard to be against that, so I stepped into Lifebridge Church.
The church was almost entirely made up of seniors. I'd been in a Free-Will Baptist Church like that back before I was married, and I'll always remember it with a grin. I heard more stories in 30 minutes about attractive granddaughters than I ever knew existed. I was a fool and I never went back, but what's done is done.
The literature rack at LifeBridge was stocked with the preachers of my youth. There was nothing there to blow me away, but nothing to scare me away either. A seeker could do worse than to read their stuff. (I'm a very harsh customer, in case you didn't already know.) I was greeted by four or five kind people, and everyone seemed normal. Nobody offered me a possible bride, but other than that they seemed friendly enough. My hopes were pretty low, but they seemed to be well above them.
I found a seat pretty much exactly in the middle of the auditorium and waited. The hundred or so seats were about half-filled when they started. I'd been going through one of my phases of listening to Christian music, so I actually knew most of the songs they sung that day. That meant I had to decide right-away how to sing. Left to my own, I sing about twice as loudly as most people can. And since most people don't sing anywhere near as loudly as they can, I can make quite a spectacle of myself. I decided I was there to sing, and I sang.
It wasn't long before I was crying. It had been too many long, long years since I had joined my voice to others in praising our Lord, and it was beyond moving to do so again. I'll never forget those first three weeks when I wept every time we sung. I hear there's a move to minimize the singing in many churches because us guys don't like it. I assume that's the truth, but I'd follow the singing wherever it went. I can replace a sermon with a book, but singing alone is completely different from singing with brothers and sisters.
I'm an intensely harsh customer when it comes to preaching, but the sermon was solid. There was no doubt this church and its pastor loved Christ as the Lord.
As long as I was teeing off on things, I figured I'd swing for the bleachers after the sermon was over. I walked up to the pastor and explained exactly what was going on. I was divorced, and I believed a lot of things they'd call heresy. I had chosen the church because I believed in home church, but I was not going to have a home church any time soon, so I was at going to go to the church closest to my home. If he could live with that, I'd be back.
We talked for a minute or two about home church, predestination and amillenialism and he was completely open to me being me. He understood a lot, and what he did not understand he was willing to live with.
I could not have been more relieved. There were another 6 churches almost as close to me, but I am not much of a shopper. I'm a harsh customer, but when I've found what I want and a price I can afford, I quit looking.
I instantly felt warm with these people, and that was what I needed.
---
Looking back over my 2 1/2 years with LifeBridge, it's been a wonderful choice. The people have been a cool drink of water for me more times than I can count, and they assure me that I've been a blessing to them too.
I've found that to be true every time I've given myself to Christians.
That's why I stepped back into a church even when I thought it was wrong to do so. Christians prove themselves worth the risk over and over.
I did not go back because it's some kind of are you. though. If you want to make me angry, quote Hebrews 10:25 to me.
Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
I spent 6 years alone as a Christian before starting at LifeBridge. I spent 10 years before that in a home church that many people felt was a forsaking of the assembling. In the 8 years or so before that I was fellowshipping in ways hardly anyone would recognize as Christian. I've had that verse quoted to me too many times, and to too little purpose to take it cheerfully any more. Take your Hebrews 10:25 and interpret it in a room with no windows. (presumably, that's somewhere that the sun don't shine, right?)
Hebrews 10 is about Christians approaching God with boldness, and provoking one another to do so. I'm "for" that. I quit church a quarter century ago precisely because no one was obeying it so's I could tell. The problem was partly mine, and I'll own that even now, but provoking me to assemble with someone was ALWAYS counter-productive. Provoke me to approach God, and show me how your assembly will help me do that, and I'll be there. Provoke me to show up, tithe, and sing on cue and I'll go off on one of these rants of mine.
When I stepped into LifeBridge, I didn't just assemble myself with believers, I approached God with them. Two+ years on, I still am. I'm glad I finally matured enough to handle that, and I'm glad my doctrine of the church is coming in line with something that gives me so much joy.
I don't know. That was pretty rambly, but I wanted to look at that history again.
May the Lord bless your search.
That's a programming phrase. Programmers who don't use their own programs are roundly riduculed. If, for example, Microsoft were running all their servers on IBM software, they'd be in for a pounding. Programmers call using your own software, "eating your own dogfood."
I attend the church closest to me. There are benefits to practicing what I preach beyond the moral high ground. I know what it feels like to look in a place so close to home for Christian fellowship. I also know the strange feeling that if I mess up, I don't have 500 other churches to choose from. This is the closest church to my home. Messing up here would be a lot like speeding in your own neighborhood. It's just not smart.
In August of 2005 I joined the LifeBridge. I wanted something very different for myself, but 7 years had just been too long without believers in my life. I'd moved my ex's bed in the spring of 2004, and my daughter had moved in with her in June of 2005, so it was just me and my boy.
More to the point, I'd been without a Christian in my life since '98.
I'd been hanging out at the Thinklings for a long time, but I was beginning to notice that commenting on a wildly popular blog was a long way from fulfilling. First off, I had too much skin in the game to not get hurt when I got no response. Second, they were people, but they were people a long way off. Eventually, I had to leave my screen each night, and when I did they were gone and there was no one. And really, when I eventually quit commenting over there in early 2006 no one even noticed (except Milly :-).
The closest church to me is named, "Neighborhood Family of Jesus" or something equally appealing.
I held my breath and walked in.
The people could not have been friendlier. They took me in like a long-lost cousin and made me feel as welcome as I could possibly hope. I shook hands, pointed in the direction of my house, and let them know there wasn't a wife any more. They smiled and understood and casually made sure I knew everyone, including the other single. They were good people.
Then I wandered over to the literature rack. They didn't believe Jesus was as truly God as His Father was God. I didn't bolt, but there was no chance I'd be sticking around. I enjoyed their sermon, especially because it was delivered by a woman. It was all true enough, and I was delighted to see a woman preach, but they don't hold Christ as Christ, and that's the end of that.
Going to the church nearest does not mean taking on responsibility to rehab an anti-Christian organization. If anyone ever reads this who's thinking about giving themselves to a nearby church, make sure it's a living church that loves Christ at least as much as Ephesus did in Revelation 2. Join a church, not a missionary project.
The next week I suited up again, and visited the next nearest church. This one had international flags up in their front yard, and was a part of the Christian Missionary Alliance. I found it hard to be against that, so I stepped into Lifebridge Church.
The church was almost entirely made up of seniors. I'd been in a Free-Will Baptist Church like that back before I was married, and I'll always remember it with a grin. I heard more stories in 30 minutes about attractive granddaughters than I ever knew existed. I was a fool and I never went back, but what's done is done.
The literature rack at LifeBridge was stocked with the preachers of my youth. There was nothing there to blow me away, but nothing to scare me away either. A seeker could do worse than to read their stuff. (I'm a very harsh customer, in case you didn't already know.) I was greeted by four or five kind people, and everyone seemed normal. Nobody offered me a possible bride, but other than that they seemed friendly enough. My hopes were pretty low, but they seemed to be well above them.
I found a seat pretty much exactly in the middle of the auditorium and waited. The hundred or so seats were about half-filled when they started. I'd been going through one of my phases of listening to Christian music, so I actually knew most of the songs they sung that day. That meant I had to decide right-away how to sing. Left to my own, I sing about twice as loudly as most people can. And since most people don't sing anywhere near as loudly as they can, I can make quite a spectacle of myself. I decided I was there to sing, and I sang.
It wasn't long before I was crying. It had been too many long, long years since I had joined my voice to others in praising our Lord, and it was beyond moving to do so again. I'll never forget those first three weeks when I wept every time we sung. I hear there's a move to minimize the singing in many churches because us guys don't like it. I assume that's the truth, but I'd follow the singing wherever it went. I can replace a sermon with a book, but singing alone is completely different from singing with brothers and sisters.
I'm an intensely harsh customer when it comes to preaching, but the sermon was solid. There was no doubt this church and its pastor loved Christ as the Lord.
As long as I was teeing off on things, I figured I'd swing for the bleachers after the sermon was over. I walked up to the pastor and explained exactly what was going on. I was divorced, and I believed a lot of things they'd call heresy. I had chosen the church because I believed in home church, but I was not going to have a home church any time soon, so I was at going to go to the church closest to my home. If he could live with that, I'd be back.
We talked for a minute or two about home church, predestination and amillenialism and he was completely open to me being me. He understood a lot, and what he did not understand he was willing to live with.
I could not have been more relieved. There were another 6 churches almost as close to me, but I am not much of a shopper. I'm a harsh customer, but when I've found what I want and a price I can afford, I quit looking.
I instantly felt warm with these people, and that was what I needed.
---
Looking back over my 2 1/2 years with LifeBridge, it's been a wonderful choice. The people have been a cool drink of water for me more times than I can count, and they assure me that I've been a blessing to them too.
I've found that to be true every time I've given myself to Christians.
That's why I stepped back into a church even when I thought it was wrong to do so. Christians prove themselves worth the risk over and over.
I did not go back because it's some kind of are you. though. If you want to make me angry, quote Hebrews 10:25 to me.
Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
I spent 6 years alone as a Christian before starting at LifeBridge. I spent 10 years before that in a home church that many people felt was a forsaking of the assembling. In the 8 years or so before that I was fellowshipping in ways hardly anyone would recognize as Christian. I've had that verse quoted to me too many times, and to too little purpose to take it cheerfully any more. Take your Hebrews 10:25 and interpret it in a room with no windows. (presumably, that's somewhere that the sun don't shine, right?)
Hebrews 10 is about Christians approaching God with boldness, and provoking one another to do so. I'm "for" that. I quit church a quarter century ago precisely because no one was obeying it so's I could tell. The problem was partly mine, and I'll own that even now, but provoking me to assemble with someone was ALWAYS counter-productive. Provoke me to approach God, and show me how your assembly will help me do that, and I'll be there. Provoke me to show up, tithe, and sing on cue and I'll go off on one of these rants of mine.
When I stepped into LifeBridge, I didn't just assemble myself with believers, I approached God with them. Two+ years on, I still am. I'm glad I finally matured enough to handle that, and I'm glad my doctrine of the church is coming in line with something that gives me so much joy.
I don't know. That was pretty rambly, but I wanted to look at that history again.
May the Lord bless your search.
02 January, 2008
Random Thoughts on Blooming Where You're Planted
(Every night I have to ask, "How can it be so incredibly late so very early?!" I hate clocks and how they just keep running. Oh well.)
First, I don't know how many times this has happened to me. I reject folk wisdom over and over only to find after a careful, years long inquiry into the issue, that the folk were right. They usually are.
The recommendation that a man should bloom where he's planted is as old as the hills. I realize it is somewhat dense for me only now to be catching up to it's wisdom. Still, I am beginning to see why it's so right. And this part has happened to me countless times too. I can usually profit a little beyond the folk wisdom because I forced myself to find out why it was wise. We'll hope I have not just wasted twenty good years figuring this stuff out.
Second, I think I see why doctrine creates such division amongst Christians.
We need doctrine. We ALL need doctrine, and there is only one true doctrine, but none of us has it. We just have our view of the facts, and our best guess of what God is like. That alone makes it obvious why doctrine must create divisions. But there's more.
I'm going through the exercise of writing a book on the basics of being a Christian. I'm targeting something in the 70 page range and describing what one does to become a Christian and to "do" being a Christian the right way. It was inspired by the way my tennis game improved when (after 30 years) I was taught the right way to hit each shot. Learning the right way to strike the ball made everything else to work, so I'm trying to teach the right way to strike the iron in life.
As I approached the end of the first draft, it dawned on me that nowhere in the book is it obvious what my doctrines are. I could not tell from my own book what I believe about anything outside of the rawest salvation, and I think I know why. All of us, every true Christian, basically believes the same things about what we can do for God. We only argue about what God can do for us, and what we have to do to free Him to do those things for us. Since I'm writing about what we do, I've never needed to open a single controversy.
We only fight about what God can do for us.
Predestination versus Free Will?
- Can God save us apart from our decision?
Eschatology?
- Will God pull us out of the fire at the end of everything, or will He help us endure it?
Sacraments?
- Does God infuse us with grace through physical actions, or by invisible spiritual acts?
The Trinity?
- Is it important for God to have 3 personalities to reach out and save us?
Home church?
- Can God work in the world when the church is so buried in fithly lucre?
Caring for the poor?
- We all agree we should do this.
In fact, we all agree about almost everything we should do as Christians. We should pray. We should care for the saints. We should avoid the evil that's in the world. We should reach out to the people oppressed by that very evil and give them the Truth of Jesus' work.
And that's why going to the closest church is so important. We agree with those people about what we should be doing. We only struggle with them over what God is doing for us. Why let our confusions separate us? We should open our hearts and lives to them as freely as to someone who agrees with us.
Bringing me to the third thing, we are a geographical species.
My son noted something the other day. He was in the break room with six other people, and they were all talking ... but not one of them was talking to anyone in the room.
Wow.
We live a cellular life these days. We are completely separating ourselves from our geographical "place." But we are a geographical species. We naturally connect with where we are, and with the people we expect to see in our places. To do most of our connecting with a TV screen, a cell phone, and a computer monitor is neither natural nor healthy, and yet we are almost there. How many people are fighting for the privilege of telecommuting these days? When work contact is gone, what's left? And when we add the windshields of our cars to the church equation and drive there 3 times a week, we are only shooting ourselves in our God-given, natural, geographical feet.
We were built to connect with the living people around us. Life is connection, and connection happens best across a table or a fence, not a down modem line or up a cellular tower.
The church has the fantastic opportunity to be the last thing in America that NEEDS eyeball to eyeball, handshake to handshake, living connection. We can become the single American place people go when they want to remember what it's like to touch someone and be loved - well that and singles bars, I guess. But we cannot give this to ourselves, much less to anyone else, when we all drive 20 minutes for the chance.
Fourth, I thought about the phrase, "boots on the ground."
That's such a pregnant sentence. God has chosen to fight His war against this Earthly insurgency with precious few boots on the ground. Each of us needs to love to maximum efficiency. We need to give ourselves every opportunity to strike a hug for the cause. And where can we have more effect than in a church where we're a little different? Where can we have more effect than amongst our own neighbors? Where can we have more effect than face to face with people whose hearts are silently calling out for real connection with people who'll really care?
---
I know none of this makes much sense, and I've hardly made a cogent case here. I just cannot seem to find the time to post, so it's either spray out these random thoughts or burst from keeping them inside for weeks. I cannot think of a time I've been more excited about the real possibilities standing open before the church. I cannot think of a time I've felt more like an idea might really be possible, doable, and even going to happen in some degree.
I've spent years wrestling with myself over how to fight the church and build it at the same time. Even as I started this series it was with fighting the church in mind. I wanted to fight the evil paper that was choking the church, but somehow that's just not right. It's like when us soldiers would talk about the Geneva convention. You were not allowed to shoot a 50 caliber machine gun at people, it was too big for the rules, but you could shoot it at the equipment they happened to be carrying. Shooting at the paperwork in the church might meet the letter of the law, but it's still not right, and I've known it all along.
As my mind is gnawing on this whole concept, an odd thing is happening. I am coming to consider the paperwork in the church to be an exact manifestation of the sin of the Nicolaitans in the Revelation. Therefore, it is a manifestation of a common sin within the church, and therefore it should be pitied and healed rather than assaulted. Rather than waging war against paper, I need to do exactly what I'd do in any other case of sin: exhort, encourage, rebuke, and most of all, love and forgive.
I'm not sure I'm ready for all this growth.
Ain't life grand. :-)
First, I don't know how many times this has happened to me. I reject folk wisdom over and over only to find after a careful, years long inquiry into the issue, that the folk were right. They usually are.
The recommendation that a man should bloom where he's planted is as old as the hills. I realize it is somewhat dense for me only now to be catching up to it's wisdom. Still, I am beginning to see why it's so right. And this part has happened to me countless times too. I can usually profit a little beyond the folk wisdom because I forced myself to find out why it was wise. We'll hope I have not just wasted twenty good years figuring this stuff out.
Second, I think I see why doctrine creates such division amongst Christians.
We need doctrine. We ALL need doctrine, and there is only one true doctrine, but none of us has it. We just have our view of the facts, and our best guess of what God is like. That alone makes it obvious why doctrine must create divisions. But there's more.
I'm going through the exercise of writing a book on the basics of being a Christian. I'm targeting something in the 70 page range and describing what one does to become a Christian and to "do" being a Christian the right way. It was inspired by the way my tennis game improved when (after 30 years) I was taught the right way to hit each shot. Learning the right way to strike the ball made everything else to work, so I'm trying to teach the right way to strike the iron in life.
As I approached the end of the first draft, it dawned on me that nowhere in the book is it obvious what my doctrines are. I could not tell from my own book what I believe about anything outside of the rawest salvation, and I think I know why. All of us, every true Christian, basically believes the same things about what we can do for God. We only argue about what God can do for us, and what we have to do to free Him to do those things for us. Since I'm writing about what we do, I've never needed to open a single controversy.
We only fight about what God can do for us.
Predestination versus Free Will?
- Can God save us apart from our decision?
Eschatology?
- Will God pull us out of the fire at the end of everything, or will He help us endure it?
Sacraments?
- Does God infuse us with grace through physical actions, or by invisible spiritual acts?
The Trinity?
- Is it important for God to have 3 personalities to reach out and save us?
Home church?
- Can God work in the world when the church is so buried in fithly lucre?
Caring for the poor?
- We all agree we should do this.
In fact, we all agree about almost everything we should do as Christians. We should pray. We should care for the saints. We should avoid the evil that's in the world. We should reach out to the people oppressed by that very evil and give them the Truth of Jesus' work.
And that's why going to the closest church is so important. We agree with those people about what we should be doing. We only struggle with them over what God is doing for us. Why let our confusions separate us? We should open our hearts and lives to them as freely as to someone who agrees with us.
Bringing me to the third thing, we are a geographical species.
My son noted something the other day. He was in the break room with six other people, and they were all talking ... but not one of them was talking to anyone in the room.
Wow.
We live a cellular life these days. We are completely separating ourselves from our geographical "place." But we are a geographical species. We naturally connect with where we are, and with the people we expect to see in our places. To do most of our connecting with a TV screen, a cell phone, and a computer monitor is neither natural nor healthy, and yet we are almost there. How many people are fighting for the privilege of telecommuting these days? When work contact is gone, what's left? And when we add the windshields of our cars to the church equation and drive there 3 times a week, we are only shooting ourselves in our God-given, natural, geographical feet.
We were built to connect with the living people around us. Life is connection, and connection happens best across a table or a fence, not a down modem line or up a cellular tower.
The church has the fantastic opportunity to be the last thing in America that NEEDS eyeball to eyeball, handshake to handshake, living connection. We can become the single American place people go when they want to remember what it's like to touch someone and be loved - well that and singles bars, I guess. But we cannot give this to ourselves, much less to anyone else, when we all drive 20 minutes for the chance.
Fourth, I thought about the phrase, "boots on the ground."
That's such a pregnant sentence. God has chosen to fight His war against this Earthly insurgency with precious few boots on the ground. Each of us needs to love to maximum efficiency. We need to give ourselves every opportunity to strike a hug for the cause. And where can we have more effect than in a church where we're a little different? Where can we have more effect than amongst our own neighbors? Where can we have more effect than face to face with people whose hearts are silently calling out for real connection with people who'll really care?
---
I know none of this makes much sense, and I've hardly made a cogent case here. I just cannot seem to find the time to post, so it's either spray out these random thoughts or burst from keeping them inside for weeks. I cannot think of a time I've been more excited about the real possibilities standing open before the church. I cannot think of a time I've felt more like an idea might really be possible, doable, and even going to happen in some degree.
I've spent years wrestling with myself over how to fight the church and build it at the same time. Even as I started this series it was with fighting the church in mind. I wanted to fight the evil paper that was choking the church, but somehow that's just not right. It's like when us soldiers would talk about the Geneva convention. You were not allowed to shoot a 50 caliber machine gun at people, it was too big for the rules, but you could shoot it at the equipment they happened to be carrying. Shooting at the paperwork in the church might meet the letter of the law, but it's still not right, and I've known it all along.
As my mind is gnawing on this whole concept, an odd thing is happening. I am coming to consider the paperwork in the church to be an exact manifestation of the sin of the Nicolaitans in the Revelation. Therefore, it is a manifestation of a common sin within the church, and therefore it should be pitied and healed rather than assaulted. Rather than waging war against paper, I need to do exactly what I'd do in any other case of sin: exhort, encourage, rebuke, and most of all, love and forgive.
I'm not sure I'm ready for all this growth.
Ain't life grand. :-)
28 December, 2007
Choosing a Church in which to Bloom
I have already said each of us should attend the church nearest our home, and given incontrovertible reasons. There is, however, one reason not to attend the church closest to your home.
You should only attend a church that's alive.
How can you tell whether the church nearest your home is dead, and that you should attend a little further away?
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapters 2 and 3 give us a pretty look at 7 churches. Let's see what Jesus has to say about each of them. If you'll forgive me, for the sake of brevity I'm only going to focus on the negative.
Ephesus left their first love. They quit loving Christ Himself. That's MASSIVE. But it was not too late for them to repent, do the first works again, and stay in the presence of the Lord. That surely means they are alive. I would not pass on a church because they had grown a little cold in love. If you join them and let the fire of your love burn, who knows what might happen?
Smyrna was faultless, but poor and about to enter a fearful time of persecution. It might take courage to join a Smyrna, to join a church in a difficult neighborhood perhaps, but there's a crown of life in it for those who dare.
Pergamos holds false doctrines, commits idolatry and fornication, and has a serious clergy problem. Join or run? This one is truly a tough call for me. I think I'd go in with about the same attitude Jesus seems to show. I'd join and let my specific concerns be known to people with power to promote repentance. There's still a spark of life there, so I'd have a hard time passing them by. There's one thing I'd watch for ... but more about that later.
Thyatira suffered a fornicating prophetess to teach false doctrines and develop a following. I'd join that church in a heartbeat, though, because Jesus says He only has anything against those who follow her. That church is definitely alive. Entertaining such seduction is not a sign of death.
Sardis teaches more about attending the nearest church than any other. Sardis is all but dead. There's almost no reason whatsoever to even give wretched Sardis a chance. But Jesus doesn't see them as dead; He sees them as alive and dead. There are just a few with clean garments, and He sees that as long as those few are there, the whole body might still return from their long winter. You see, the only way those few could leave their church would be to pack up and move to Philadelphia or Smyrna. They were stuck. But Jesus holds out a hope of life to them. Even a church alive and dead might still be vibrant one day.
Philadelphia is tiny and weak, but she's earned the commendation of the Lord. Maybe those couple Sardisians really SHOULD move! Personally, I'll take a tiny church any day, but that's a personal thing. I don't like crowds. I like to know everyone, and feel connected to everyone, and even at 90 people that's a stretch for me. So, I'm all over the tiny churches.
Laodicea receives not one word of praise. They are lying to themselves about their riches, about their vision, and about their beauty. They could hardly be more messed up. Really. Think about Laodicea being the church nearest to you. Laodicea would talk about their mission to the community while they shooed beggars out of their shadow. They would look at their beautiful stained glass and confuse it with spiritual wealth. They would beam proudly in all the city celebrations while everyone around them depised their hypocrisy. Could you join this church? Should you join this church? I don't know, but Jesus had this to say to them, "As many as I love, I rebuke...."
5 of these 7 churches had real problems, dirty problems. They had the kinds of problems that cause people to say, "You know, I still haven't found a church where I feel at home." But the Lord was still dealing with all seven of them. The Lord had not walked out.
On this basis, I would honestly consider attending a church that suffered the evils of lovelessness, false doctrine, idolatry, fornication, bad clergy, renegade prophets, death, poverty, tininess, or hypocrisy. (Probably not all 10, though.)
There's one thing, though, that I'd watch for in any church. If I saw it deeply entrenched I'd probably move on - peace.
If I see a church at peace, I'm out of there.
Peace is what the dead rest in. Even in the best church, peace means no one is thinking any more. Whenever you have three people thinking about anything, you're bound have an argument, so if there's no struggle, I'm probably getting nervous.
Pergamos and Laodicea were the worst of the lot. If I had to choose between the First Church of Pergamos on my block and the Laodicean Church of Jesus right next door, I would visit both and the one that was still fighting is the one I'd join. Fighting is awful, stressful and bad, but fighting means there's life and passion nestled somewhere in that body. There's still a fire to blow into a flame.
When there's sin but no fire, the sin has won and it's time to move on. Up until that point, it's fair to hope the Lord might blow on that spark. And if the Lord might blow on the spark, don't you want to be there to help?
If:
1 Cor 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
How much more might a church be sanctified by each of the people who give themselves to her?
You should only attend a church that's alive.
How can you tell whether the church nearest your home is dead, and that you should attend a little further away?
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, chapters 2 and 3 give us a pretty look at 7 churches. Let's see what Jesus has to say about each of them. If you'll forgive me, for the sake of brevity I'm only going to focus on the negative.
Ephesus left their first love. They quit loving Christ Himself. That's MASSIVE. But it was not too late for them to repent, do the first works again, and stay in the presence of the Lord. That surely means they are alive. I would not pass on a church because they had grown a little cold in love. If you join them and let the fire of your love burn, who knows what might happen?
Smyrna was faultless, but poor and about to enter a fearful time of persecution. It might take courage to join a Smyrna, to join a church in a difficult neighborhood perhaps, but there's a crown of life in it for those who dare.
Pergamos holds false doctrines, commits idolatry and fornication, and has a serious clergy problem. Join or run? This one is truly a tough call for me. I think I'd go in with about the same attitude Jesus seems to show. I'd join and let my specific concerns be known to people with power to promote repentance. There's still a spark of life there, so I'd have a hard time passing them by. There's one thing I'd watch for ... but more about that later.
Thyatira suffered a fornicating prophetess to teach false doctrines and develop a following. I'd join that church in a heartbeat, though, because Jesus says He only has anything against those who follow her. That church is definitely alive. Entertaining such seduction is not a sign of death.
Sardis teaches more about attending the nearest church than any other. Sardis is all but dead. There's almost no reason whatsoever to even give wretched Sardis a chance. But Jesus doesn't see them as dead; He sees them as alive and dead. There are just a few with clean garments, and He sees that as long as those few are there, the whole body might still return from their long winter. You see, the only way those few could leave their church would be to pack up and move to Philadelphia or Smyrna. They were stuck. But Jesus holds out a hope of life to them. Even a church alive and dead might still be vibrant one day.
Philadelphia is tiny and weak, but she's earned the commendation of the Lord. Maybe those couple Sardisians really SHOULD move! Personally, I'll take a tiny church any day, but that's a personal thing. I don't like crowds. I like to know everyone, and feel connected to everyone, and even at 90 people that's a stretch for me. So, I'm all over the tiny churches.
Laodicea receives not one word of praise. They are lying to themselves about their riches, about their vision, and about their beauty. They could hardly be more messed up. Really. Think about Laodicea being the church nearest to you. Laodicea would talk about their mission to the community while they shooed beggars out of their shadow. They would look at their beautiful stained glass and confuse it with spiritual wealth. They would beam proudly in all the city celebrations while everyone around them depised their hypocrisy. Could you join this church? Should you join this church? I don't know, but Jesus had this to say to them, "As many as I love, I rebuke...."
5 of these 7 churches had real problems, dirty problems. They had the kinds of problems that cause people to say, "You know, I still haven't found a church where I feel at home." But the Lord was still dealing with all seven of them. The Lord had not walked out.
On this basis, I would honestly consider attending a church that suffered the evils of lovelessness, false doctrine, idolatry, fornication, bad clergy, renegade prophets, death, poverty, tininess, or hypocrisy. (Probably not all 10, though.)
There's one thing, though, that I'd watch for in any church. If I saw it deeply entrenched I'd probably move on - peace.
If I see a church at peace, I'm out of there.
Peace is what the dead rest in. Even in the best church, peace means no one is thinking any more. Whenever you have three people thinking about anything, you're bound have an argument, so if there's no struggle, I'm probably getting nervous.
Pergamos and Laodicea were the worst of the lot. If I had to choose between the First Church of Pergamos on my block and the Laodicean Church of Jesus right next door, I would visit both and the one that was still fighting is the one I'd join. Fighting is awful, stressful and bad, but fighting means there's life and passion nestled somewhere in that body. There's still a fire to blow into a flame.
When there's sin but no fire, the sin has won and it's time to move on. Up until that point, it's fair to hope the Lord might blow on that spark. And if the Lord might blow on the spark, don't you want to be there to help?
If:
1 Cor 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
How much more might a church be sanctified by each of the people who give themselves to her?
24 December, 2007
A Blooming Christmas
My pastor surprised me with an opportunity to share for a few minutes with several other saints at tonight's Christmas Eve service on, "What we can give to Jesus?" WooHoo! I'll put my thoughts together here.
---
The song Mary (name changed) shared with us yesterday really moved me. Singing to us how God had a beating, human heart was beautiful. God gambled the fate of the universe on a simple human heart beating against every ploy of Satan, every curse of the fall, and every random chance that can stop it. It's a scary thought, but the human heart must be a pretty amazing thing if God was willing to invest so much in one. And it's still beating today at the right hand of the Father.
Jeff has asked what we can give to God, after He has given so much to us. After Jesus suffered so much for us, and overcame. When all the cattle of a thousand ranches are His, and we can do nothing that He did not do better, what can we give Him?
We can answer His prayer requests.
We know Jesus' prayer requests. We know what He prayed, and we know He wanted us to keep praying for the same things after He left.
Jesus prayed that we would know His Father. He prayed that His name would be treated as a holy thing in all the Earth, and that His kingdom - His church - would come to Earth. He prayed that the will of God would be done here, and that His children would receive daily bread, find forgiveness from sins, and be protected from temptation.
Jesus wanted all these things for the Father's sake, and the first step in seeing the Father get all these things was for one tiny heart to start beating in Bethlehem. Jesus came that all these things be given to His Father.
And now there are fifty beating hearts in this room, brought here for the same reason Jesus was brought to Earth - that God might be made All in All.
We can bring Jesus' prayer requests to life on Earth. We can live as a people with a Father in heaven. We can honor the Name of our Redeemer. We can do the works of healing and love that define His kingdom, and do His will by reaching out to those in need around us right here in North Columbus. We can make sure every one of His children has bread, someone to laugh with, and a shoulder to cry on. We can confess our sins to one another, and find forgiveness in presence of His brothers and sisters. And we can see His children through times of trial and temptation.
I'd like to thank each of you for the way you've done this for me. I commend you to the Father and to Jesus for making so many of His prayers come true for me. As individuals, many of you have blessed me, and as a church you have renewed my hope. May the Lord bless His church, and may we submit to Him to continue returning this perfect gift to Jesus in 2008.
Merry Christmas!
---
The song Mary (name changed) shared with us yesterday really moved me. Singing to us how God had a beating, human heart was beautiful. God gambled the fate of the universe on a simple human heart beating against every ploy of Satan, every curse of the fall, and every random chance that can stop it. It's a scary thought, but the human heart must be a pretty amazing thing if God was willing to invest so much in one. And it's still beating today at the right hand of the Father.
Jeff has asked what we can give to God, after He has given so much to us. After Jesus suffered so much for us, and overcame. When all the cattle of a thousand ranches are His, and we can do nothing that He did not do better, what can we give Him?
We can answer His prayer requests.
We know Jesus' prayer requests. We know what He prayed, and we know He wanted us to keep praying for the same things after He left.
Jesus prayed that we would know His Father. He prayed that His name would be treated as a holy thing in all the Earth, and that His kingdom - His church - would come to Earth. He prayed that the will of God would be done here, and that His children would receive daily bread, find forgiveness from sins, and be protected from temptation.
Jesus wanted all these things for the Father's sake, and the first step in seeing the Father get all these things was for one tiny heart to start beating in Bethlehem. Jesus came that all these things be given to His Father.
And now there are fifty beating hearts in this room, brought here for the same reason Jesus was brought to Earth - that God might be made All in All.
We can bring Jesus' prayer requests to life on Earth. We can live as a people with a Father in heaven. We can honor the Name of our Redeemer. We can do the works of healing and love that define His kingdom, and do His will by reaching out to those in need around us right here in North Columbus. We can make sure every one of His children has bread, someone to laugh with, and a shoulder to cry on. We can confess our sins to one another, and find forgiveness in presence of His brothers and sisters. And we can see His children through times of trial and temptation.
I'd like to thank each of you for the way you've done this for me. I commend you to the Father and to Jesus for making so many of His prayers come true for me. As individuals, many of you have blessed me, and as a church you have renewed my hope. May the Lord bless His church, and may we submit to Him to continue returning this perfect gift to Jesus in 2008.
Merry Christmas!
14 December, 2007
Christian Republican Bloomers - Pt 2
The Irish Republican Army was orginally supposed to "ignore" the British Empire into submission. We all know it didn't turn out that way, but let's imagine for a second that the founding idea was still worth mentioning in polite conversation.
And I have likened the denominational hierarchies of Christianity to the British Empire. For sake of convenience, let me define denominational hierarchy as any Christian relationship defined and documented in a legal contract form. Yes, that includes vice presidents, deacons, orders of worship, statements of faith, and missionary callings. And foremost, it includes church membership rolls.
I realize there will be some argument against my definition of paper as the enemy, but I think it's pretty close. The real enemy of the church is the flesh of each of her members. I attack paper because it's our generation's go-to defense for our flesh. Lurking behind every piece of paper you'll find a sin waiting to happen. Whether it's the church budget allowing greed, the bylaws enabling sloth, the calendar supporting procrastination, or the membership roll feeding pride; red tape is always the first defense of the bureaucrat and the cheapest ammunition to fire at messengers of the Spirit.
Here is my proposal.
Ignore all paper in the church.
Statement of Faith? Burn it. Bylaws? Owe all men nothing but love; against such there is no law. Denominational missives? Chaff. Membership rolls? Printed lies.
For anyone who wants to play along at this, doing it will not be easy. Salguod hit it square on the head in his comment on my first post.
Ignoring the establishment while standing in it is hard to do, and not for the faint of heart. You have to be willing to feel disconnected, outside the mainstream, misunderstood and just a little bit odd. Most folks can't stomach that, and instead go to find somewhere they can belong.
I understand. It's getting hard for me too. In my youth, I carried this feeling with me everywhere I went, and used it as a neurotic defense mechanism. These days, I'm starting to enjoy this thing of being accepted and acceptable. I must be getting older. A couple weeks ago I was cornered into telling my pastor I'd not be signing up as a member. I experienced a new feeling, and a rather unpleasant one. I felt unhappy about being a troublemaker and a strange person. Oddness has always been something of a badge of honor for me, and feeling uncomfortable as the odd man out was decidedly healthy.
And yet, I think this might be worth the trouble.
You see, here's what might happen if we ignore all the paper in the church.
We might remember that people are the only thing in the church that matters. We might start thinking that being found helping each other is more important than convincing each other of anything. We might start respecting each other for maturity of love, instead of maturity of doctrine; holding the hurting instead of holding offices; being bound to brothers instead of being bound to definitions. And we might stop reading about people "shopping" for churches.
I know there's no current example for this. I know there's no church out there that keeps nothing written down on paper. Still, there just might be a little thing arguing in favor of living without bureaucracy - the family.
Can you imagine life if America reinvented the family right now?
Hey guys,
I'm new to the Columbus area, and I'm looking for a new family. Any good suggestions? I'm comfortable with old stuff, so I don't need a lawyer family, or anything like that, but I don't want a "rusted out '72 Vega" family either. But they can be into '70's music, 'cause retro's seriously hip these days. And they can't be into spanking, 'cause I won't let anyone touch my kids. But great holidays are a must. I can't stand those families that downplay Xmas.
How long would it be before we invented a contractual definition of the family? No one wants to commit their lives to anything that might change, right? But God didn't protect us against change, and so we go on fostering unprotected love between genetically related people. God thought it was enough that we shared the same parents for us to be brothers.
So how about copying that plan in the church and see where it gets us?
The bible gives us plenty of ways to know when someone is not in the family. We don't need to invent a statement of faith and membership roll to be sure.
In Pt 3 I'll try to list some ideas about how to bloom where you're planted.
And I have likened the denominational hierarchies of Christianity to the British Empire. For sake of convenience, let me define denominational hierarchy as any Christian relationship defined and documented in a legal contract form. Yes, that includes vice presidents, deacons, orders of worship, statements of faith, and missionary callings. And foremost, it includes church membership rolls.
I realize there will be some argument against my definition of paper as the enemy, but I think it's pretty close. The real enemy of the church is the flesh of each of her members. I attack paper because it's our generation's go-to defense for our flesh. Lurking behind every piece of paper you'll find a sin waiting to happen. Whether it's the church budget allowing greed, the bylaws enabling sloth, the calendar supporting procrastination, or the membership roll feeding pride; red tape is always the first defense of the bureaucrat and the cheapest ammunition to fire at messengers of the Spirit.
Here is my proposal.
Ignore all paper in the church.
Statement of Faith? Burn it. Bylaws? Owe all men nothing but love; against such there is no law. Denominational missives? Chaff. Membership rolls? Printed lies.
For anyone who wants to play along at this, doing it will not be easy. Salguod hit it square on the head in his comment on my first post.
Ignoring the establishment while standing in it is hard to do, and not for the faint of heart. You have to be willing to feel disconnected, outside the mainstream, misunderstood and just a little bit odd. Most folks can't stomach that, and instead go to find somewhere they can belong.
I understand. It's getting hard for me too. In my youth, I carried this feeling with me everywhere I went, and used it as a neurotic defense mechanism. These days, I'm starting to enjoy this thing of being accepted and acceptable. I must be getting older. A couple weeks ago I was cornered into telling my pastor I'd not be signing up as a member. I experienced a new feeling, and a rather unpleasant one. I felt unhappy about being a troublemaker and a strange person. Oddness has always been something of a badge of honor for me, and feeling uncomfortable as the odd man out was decidedly healthy.
And yet, I think this might be worth the trouble.
You see, here's what might happen if we ignore all the paper in the church.
We might remember that people are the only thing in the church that matters. We might start thinking that being found helping each other is more important than convincing each other of anything. We might start respecting each other for maturity of love, instead of maturity of doctrine; holding the hurting instead of holding offices; being bound to brothers instead of being bound to definitions. And we might stop reading about people "shopping" for churches.
I know there's no current example for this. I know there's no church out there that keeps nothing written down on paper. Still, there just might be a little thing arguing in favor of living without bureaucracy - the family.
Can you imagine life if America reinvented the family right now?
Hey guys,
I'm new to the Columbus area, and I'm looking for a new family. Any good suggestions? I'm comfortable with old stuff, so I don't need a lawyer family, or anything like that, but I don't want a "rusted out '72 Vega" family either. But they can be into '70's music, 'cause retro's seriously hip these days. And they can't be into spanking, 'cause I won't let anyone touch my kids. But great holidays are a must. I can't stand those families that downplay Xmas.
How long would it be before we invented a contractual definition of the family? No one wants to commit their lives to anything that might change, right? But God didn't protect us against change, and so we go on fostering unprotected love between genetically related people. God thought it was enough that we shared the same parents for us to be brothers.
So how about copying that plan in the church and see where it gets us?
The bible gives us plenty of ways to know when someone is not in the family. We don't need to invent a statement of faith and membership roll to be sure.
In Pt 3 I'll try to list some ideas about how to bloom where you're planted.
11 December, 2007
You Might Be a Chained Sheep If....
When I talked in my last post about chained sheep, I was picturing something very specific. ~100 sheep all chained around the ankles to at least two other sheep. Some of them I picture with the chains on different forelegs, others on the same foreleg, some on front and rear legs, but all of them rattling every time they move. And I picture this one poor sheep out in front of the rest, with a chain on his back leg pulled as tight as he can stand it, pulling with his other three legs in the direction of the best food he can see, bleating his true little heart out.
And none of the sheep knows about the chains.
I figured it might be important to tell those sheep how to know whether they were actually chained. You know, kind of as a PSA. With that in mind....
You Might Be a Chained Sheep If....
+ Someone keeps selling you on how nice it is to be outside during the driving rain, instead of in that boring, old, warm sheepfold.
+ Everything seems to work exactly the same whether the Shepherd is around or not.
+ The view never changes. It's always that same fuzzy butt.
+ The grass looks greener about 3 feet away, but your foot is headed the other direction and you must follow.
+ The local wolves have thick, shiny coats even though they've completely forgotten how to run.
+ You sing "Trust and Obey" or "That's the Sound of the Lambs Working on the Chain Gang" a lot.
+ The "voice of the Shepherd" bleats remarkably like your own voice.
+ You keep trying to figure out what the Shepherd actually needs with the grass you keep giving as a "love offering."
+ Whenever you pass another flock of sheep, you notice none of them come over to visit. You don't notice that none of your flock goes over to visit them.
+ You find gamboling about excitedly disturbs everyone else you're chained to.
+ Almost everything else in your life is more exciting than trudging out with the flock to be fed again.
And none of the sheep knows about the chains.
I figured it might be important to tell those sheep how to know whether they were actually chained. You know, kind of as a PSA. With that in mind....
You Might Be a Chained Sheep If....
+ Someone keeps selling you on how nice it is to be outside during the driving rain, instead of in that boring, old, warm sheepfold.
+ Everything seems to work exactly the same whether the Shepherd is around or not.
+ The view never changes. It's always that same fuzzy butt.
+ The grass looks greener about 3 feet away, but your foot is headed the other direction and you must follow.
+ The local wolves have thick, shiny coats even though they've completely forgotten how to run.
+ You sing "Trust and Obey" or "That's the Sound of the Lambs Working on the Chain Gang" a lot.
+ The "voice of the Shepherd" bleats remarkably like your own voice.
+ You keep trying to figure out what the Shepherd actually needs with the grass you keep giving as a "love offering."
+ Whenever you pass another flock of sheep, you notice none of them come over to visit. You don't notice that none of your flock goes over to visit them.
+ You find gamboling about excitedly disturbs everyone else you're chained to.
+ Almost everything else in your life is more exciting than trudging out with the flock to be fed again.
10 December, 2007
The Christian Republican Bloomers
Last week I was watching "Michael Collins," which was billed as the Irish, "Braveheart." Produced in 1996, it tells the story of maybe the largest figure in the establishment of the Irish Republican Army in 1916.
The movie starts in the middle of a toe-to-toe symmetric battle between Irish freedom fighters and British soldiers. The Irish, not being a nation and all, are hopelessly outgunned and eventually surrender. Mr. Collins is thrown in jail and, after couple years, released to start the battle all over again. There's lots of stuff about how cruel the Brits were and how crafty Mr. Collins was, but I was arrested by one line out of this movie.
You see, I feel a certain affinity for the freedom fighter.
We live in the colonial era of Christianity, under the rule of denominational monarchies. In my deepest heart of hearts, I cannot feel free in the church.
There's an Irish freedom song called, "The Town I Loved So Well." It's about a lad who returns as a man to Derry, the town where he grew up. It spends three verses talking about what the town meant to him as a child, adolescent, and finally a young man. Then it says this:
But when I returned how my eyes have burned
to see how a town could be brought to its knees
By the armoured cars and the bombed out bars
and the gas that hangs on to every tree
Now the army's installed by that old gasyard wall
and the damned barbed wire gets higher and higher
With their tanks and their guns, oh my God, what have they done
to the town I loved so well
When I look at the church, this is precisely how I feel.
My eyes burn as I see how children of God can be brought to their knees by armoured doctrines and bombed out shells of worship. There's a haze in the air because the fresh wind of thought is shielded away. The denominational HQ looks over every teaching and practice, and the damned barbed policies get higher and higher. With their rules and their tools, what must God think of what they've done to the church I loved so well.
The song concludes like this:
Now the music's gone but they carry on
For their spirit's been bruised, never broken
They will not forget but their hearts are set
on tomorrow and peace once again
For what's done is done and what's won is won
and what's lost is lost and gone forever
I can only pray for a bright, brand new day
in the town I loved so well
I cannot tell you what that song does to me. I've sung it for half-hours at a stretch, and never quit crying the whole time. I could not resist singing it again just now. And every time I sing, I see the same thing. I see 20 of us brothers and sisters sharing our lives and love. I see us daring and living and loving in Christ, without a single other care in the world than Him and each other. I see prayers and laughter and sermonettes and Christians blooming on the Earth in Christ's Name.
And I then see faces in a crowd looking up at a pastor.
I see brothers who have to whisper their thoughts and questions in coffee shops and ideas that will never be tried. I see songs conceived in sisters' hearts that will never be written, and never be sung. I see meals that will never be offered, and risks that will never be shared. All because the government of man cannot handle the dynamic confusion of God's sheep unchained.
The Shepherd doesn't bind the sheep. They know His voice, and they follow Him. But no denomination can abide that kind of gamble. Without chains and leashes the sheep could end up anywhere. So they add a rule here, and a principle there, and soon the house of God is ordered. Soon, wherever the lead sheep goes, the flock must follow.
Paul said it was for freedom we were made free.
In the movie, Michael Collins is dealing with the British government. Offscreen I know the Brits are doing many "good" things for the Irish, and they are "helping" in so many fine ways, but a nation's worth of services won't make up for liberty stolen. The government'll do anything but let the Irish be free. Mayhap you can see how I might identify a bit with the situation. If not, it's OK.
One of Mr. Collins' compatriots, the intellectual leader of the bunch and president of free Ireland, writes a letter to him that concludes with this line:
We defeat the British Empire by ignoring it.
Brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
I have been looking for a way to free the church for 25 years. If you think I've shown dedication to tennis or to any other thing about which I write, you've not seen my heart. The children of God deserve to be free. God deserves free children. This thing needs to happen.
But there's nowhere to start. There's nowhere to put a lever, no fulcrum, and no force to apply. What's more, there's no coaches. There's loads of amateurs with wonderful ideas, but none of them with the convincing "ring" of expertise.
I get loads of coaching from amateur tennis players, even players who are better than I am, but they're just getting lucky out there. They can hit the ball because they've got serious talent and received enough coaching, but they don't know how they hit it. They cannot teach anyone else how to do what they do because they don't understand it themselves. And when they get in trouble, their game collapses.
In trying to change the church, the problems are goliath. For starters, the sheep don't want to be free - but then nobody wanted to fly either. And then the establishment got that name by being so well established. They are firmly entrenched. And there's nothing they say that's false. They lead their chained sheep around speaking accurate truths about freedom, and the sheep nod and feel lucky.
I learned the hard way 10 years ago that I cannot fight the establishment.
But what if I ignore them?
What if I don't change them, but just quietly forget they exist, even as I fellowship wh brothers and sisters in their sanctuary?
What if I hang with the other sheep, and kindly refuse to put on their chains? They are all voluntary, you know.
I cannot field a government that can beat theirs. So what? I didn't want to end up with a government anyway.
That's the most I can fit in this post. More another day.
The movie starts in the middle of a toe-to-toe symmetric battle between Irish freedom fighters and British soldiers. The Irish, not being a nation and all, are hopelessly outgunned and eventually surrender. Mr. Collins is thrown in jail and, after couple years, released to start the battle all over again. There's lots of stuff about how cruel the Brits were and how crafty Mr. Collins was, but I was arrested by one line out of this movie.
You see, I feel a certain affinity for the freedom fighter.
We live in the colonial era of Christianity, under the rule of denominational monarchies. In my deepest heart of hearts, I cannot feel free in the church.
There's an Irish freedom song called, "The Town I Loved So Well." It's about a lad who returns as a man to Derry, the town where he grew up. It spends three verses talking about what the town meant to him as a child, adolescent, and finally a young man. Then it says this:
But when I returned how my eyes have burned
to see how a town could be brought to its knees
By the armoured cars and the bombed out bars
and the gas that hangs on to every tree
Now the army's installed by that old gasyard wall
and the damned barbed wire gets higher and higher
With their tanks and their guns, oh my God, what have they done
to the town I loved so well
When I look at the church, this is precisely how I feel.
My eyes burn as I see how children of God can be brought to their knees by armoured doctrines and bombed out shells of worship. There's a haze in the air because the fresh wind of thought is shielded away. The denominational HQ looks over every teaching and practice, and the damned barbed policies get higher and higher. With their rules and their tools, what must God think of what they've done to the church I loved so well.
The song concludes like this:
Now the music's gone but they carry on
For their spirit's been bruised, never broken
They will not forget but their hearts are set
on tomorrow and peace once again
For what's done is done and what's won is won
and what's lost is lost and gone forever
I can only pray for a bright, brand new day
in the town I loved so well
I cannot tell you what that song does to me. I've sung it for half-hours at a stretch, and never quit crying the whole time. I could not resist singing it again just now. And every time I sing, I see the same thing. I see 20 of us brothers and sisters sharing our lives and love. I see us daring and living and loving in Christ, without a single other care in the world than Him and each other. I see prayers and laughter and sermonettes and Christians blooming on the Earth in Christ's Name.
And I then see faces in a crowd looking up at a pastor.
I see brothers who have to whisper their thoughts and questions in coffee shops and ideas that will never be tried. I see songs conceived in sisters' hearts that will never be written, and never be sung. I see meals that will never be offered, and risks that will never be shared. All because the government of man cannot handle the dynamic confusion of God's sheep unchained.
The Shepherd doesn't bind the sheep. They know His voice, and they follow Him. But no denomination can abide that kind of gamble. Without chains and leashes the sheep could end up anywhere. So they add a rule here, and a principle there, and soon the house of God is ordered. Soon, wherever the lead sheep goes, the flock must follow.
Paul said it was for freedom we were made free.
In the movie, Michael Collins is dealing with the British government. Offscreen I know the Brits are doing many "good" things for the Irish, and they are "helping" in so many fine ways, but a nation's worth of services won't make up for liberty stolen. The government'll do anything but let the Irish be free. Mayhap you can see how I might identify a bit with the situation. If not, it's OK.
One of Mr. Collins' compatriots, the intellectual leader of the bunch and president of free Ireland, writes a letter to him that concludes with this line:
We defeat the British Empire by ignoring it.
Brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
I have been looking for a way to free the church for 25 years. If you think I've shown dedication to tennis or to any other thing about which I write, you've not seen my heart. The children of God deserve to be free. God deserves free children. This thing needs to happen.
But there's nowhere to start. There's nowhere to put a lever, no fulcrum, and no force to apply. What's more, there's no coaches. There's loads of amateurs with wonderful ideas, but none of them with the convincing "ring" of expertise.
I get loads of coaching from amateur tennis players, even players who are better than I am, but they're just getting lucky out there. They can hit the ball because they've got serious talent and received enough coaching, but they don't know how they hit it. They cannot teach anyone else how to do what they do because they don't understand it themselves. And when they get in trouble, their game collapses.
In trying to change the church, the problems are goliath. For starters, the sheep don't want to be free - but then nobody wanted to fly either. And then the establishment got that name by being so well established. They are firmly entrenched. And there's nothing they say that's false. They lead their chained sheep around speaking accurate truths about freedom, and the sheep nod and feel lucky.
I learned the hard way 10 years ago that I cannot fight the establishment.
But what if I ignore them?
What if I don't change them, but just quietly forget they exist, even as I fellowship wh brothers and sisters in their sanctuary?
What if I hang with the other sheep, and kindly refuse to put on their chains? They are all voluntary, you know.
I cannot field a government that can beat theirs. So what? I didn't want to end up with a government anyway.
That's the most I can fit in this post. More another day.
02 December, 2007
Contra-Liturgy
I have been reading my absolute favorite theologian some more, NT Wright. I love the way he orders his arguments, and I love his priorities. So far as I'm concerned, he does as good a job of putting important things first as anyone I've read. He's a joy to read.
He's an Anglican.
That's cool. I love Anglicans, and I dearly love the Truth of Christ that he spells out so patiently and lovingly. Still, I have to admit I have trouble with his view of liturgy. He's a practitioner and mild advocate of high liturgy. He does a really good job of presenting a core Christianity that doesn't require him to dwell on liturgy, and when he does he's quite amiable about it. I respect his viewpoint deeply.
Still, after reading his stuff for a while I need to vent about the pain liturgy causes me - Anglican, Episcopal, Baptist, Assemblies of God, PCA, all of it. After all these years, I still assert we will not see all the church should be until we break through the wall of liturgy again.
Oh, I know all Christian services are allegedly "liturgical," and the only difference is whether they are "high" or "low" in their liturgy. Whether you meet in a living room or a cathedral, whatever you do is supposed to be a liturgy of some form.
Balderdash.
Allow me to quote 1 Cor 14:24-33, and you tell me where the liturgy is.
24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
I beg you to come up with one single denomination on Earth today to which Paul might have to write anything remotely similar to this. Each one has a hymn? Each one has a lesson? Let two or three prophets speak? Let others weigh in? Let the first prophet speaking pause to allow another prophet with a "breaking revelation" to interrupt?
And these instructions are Paul's "corrections!" These are not the problem. These are the cure. In our age, we have applied the cure where there was no disease and ended up with a patient who is so "well" she can hardly speak any more.
Analogy:
I bring my car to the mechanic and tell him that it's shaking at 65 mph. A week later I pay him my money on his good word that it doesn't shake at 65 any more. And sure enough, when I get on the road the car won't go over 25 mph.
The car no longer shakes at 65, but I am emphatically not a happy customer.
Even so with liturgy.
Paul had a problem with the church in Corinth. It was not their biggest problem, by any means, but it was one that needed handling. They were so puffed up with knowledge that their meetings were circus shows, three rings rollin' 'round the clock. They had people drunk at love feasts, people interrupting, and people just flat talking in unknown tongues during the whole affair.
That's a heap o' problems.
So Paul cured them. And then he stopped. We didn't stop, though. We kept going until we got to where we are today. Paul did not tell them to restrain all worship to that led by a minister of worship. Paul did not tell them shut up and listen to one man speak - "you can all prophesy one by one." Well, you could in one of Paul's churches, but you certainly cannot in the 21st century.
My problems with the liturgy are these:
+ A man determines when the meeting will end - and makes the call before it even starts. You cannot possibly believe the Spirit always takes exactly 65 minutes to say to the church what needs to be said?
+ A man determines who will speak and what roles each will play. Could this be any more directly against scripture?
+ A man determines the content of the meeting.
Have you ever had a revelation during a church meeting? It hurt didn't it? You saw something beautiful that would have been helpful to everyone, and you had to stifle it. That feeling of pain is called "quenching the Spirit," and it's supposed to hurt. Pain is a natural warning that something is happening to you that is not good for the body.
The correct response to pain is not to ignore it, and yet that is the only option allowed us.
Ever wondered what it must be like to come to church expecting to share something sometimes, instead of receiving everything week after week after week? It feels like responsibility, and responsibility feels good.
I recommend it to anyone.
He's an Anglican.
That's cool. I love Anglicans, and I dearly love the Truth of Christ that he spells out so patiently and lovingly. Still, I have to admit I have trouble with his view of liturgy. He's a practitioner and mild advocate of high liturgy. He does a really good job of presenting a core Christianity that doesn't require him to dwell on liturgy, and when he does he's quite amiable about it. I respect his viewpoint deeply.
Still, after reading his stuff for a while I need to vent about the pain liturgy causes me - Anglican, Episcopal, Baptist, Assemblies of God, PCA, all of it. After all these years, I still assert we will not see all the church should be until we break through the wall of liturgy again.
Oh, I know all Christian services are allegedly "liturgical," and the only difference is whether they are "high" or "low" in their liturgy. Whether you meet in a living room or a cathedral, whatever you do is supposed to be a liturgy of some form.
Balderdash.
Allow me to quote 1 Cor 14:24-33, and you tell me where the liturgy is.
24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
I beg you to come up with one single denomination on Earth today to which Paul might have to write anything remotely similar to this. Each one has a hymn? Each one has a lesson? Let two or three prophets speak? Let others weigh in? Let the first prophet speaking pause to allow another prophet with a "breaking revelation" to interrupt?
And these instructions are Paul's "corrections!" These are not the problem. These are the cure. In our age, we have applied the cure where there was no disease and ended up with a patient who is so "well" she can hardly speak any more.
Analogy:
I bring my car to the mechanic and tell him that it's shaking at 65 mph. A week later I pay him my money on his good word that it doesn't shake at 65 any more. And sure enough, when I get on the road the car won't go over 25 mph.
The car no longer shakes at 65, but I am emphatically not a happy customer.
Even so with liturgy.
Paul had a problem with the church in Corinth. It was not their biggest problem, by any means, but it was one that needed handling. They were so puffed up with knowledge that their meetings were circus shows, three rings rollin' 'round the clock. They had people drunk at love feasts, people interrupting, and people just flat talking in unknown tongues during the whole affair.
That's a heap o' problems.
So Paul cured them. And then he stopped. We didn't stop, though. We kept going until we got to where we are today. Paul did not tell them to restrain all worship to that led by a minister of worship. Paul did not tell them shut up and listen to one man speak - "you can all prophesy one by one." Well, you could in one of Paul's churches, but you certainly cannot in the 21st century.
My problems with the liturgy are these:
+ A man determines when the meeting will end - and makes the call before it even starts. You cannot possibly believe the Spirit always takes exactly 65 minutes to say to the church what needs to be said?
+ A man determines who will speak and what roles each will play. Could this be any more directly against scripture?
+ A man determines the content of the meeting.
Have you ever had a revelation during a church meeting? It hurt didn't it? You saw something beautiful that would have been helpful to everyone, and you had to stifle it. That feeling of pain is called "quenching the Spirit," and it's supposed to hurt. Pain is a natural warning that something is happening to you that is not good for the body.
The correct response to pain is not to ignore it, and yet that is the only option allowed us.
Ever wondered what it must be like to come to church expecting to share something sometimes, instead of receiving everything week after week after week? It feels like responsibility, and responsibility feels good.
I recommend it to anyone.
27 August, 2007
The Spiritual Girdle
Weekend Fisher poses an issue around Psychology or Spiritual Direction. Along the way, she takes some pretty tough shots at therapy.
I've got my own thoughts on counseling, and I have definitely benefited from extended periods of professional counseling. I recommend it, and don't know that WF doesn't.
Still, her criticisms of the therapeutic relationship bring back to mind the biggest opportunity the church has to change the world. If I wanted to develop deep relationships within my church, I would have to do so outside of anything the church fosters. The members of my church live too far apart - geographically, emotionally, daily, and life-objectives wise. About 4 hours a week, we learn things together. The other 164 hours, we are as far apart from each other as I am from my neighbors.
(Larry Crabb wrote a book, "Connecting," which was just brilliant on the subject of how the church can build healing relationships within its own walls. I strongly recommend this book to any church. I'd link my review, but none of my searches says I ever wrote such a thing. Ah well.)
I continue to grow more convinced that the church is the tiny bonds that grow up between saints, and not the organization the saints attend at all. It's our relationships more than our organization. That organization could be doing so much good and facilitating precious bonding. Instead, it facilitates learning. You can get learning from a book. Why waste precious time on something so simple?
It takes time to get really raw with someone, to expose the stuff that scares you the worst and to see whether it's as ugly as you fear. That won't happen when you meet three times a week in a learning environment. It just can't. We need to be eating together more. We need to be playing together and shopping together and doing home repair together. This habit of stuffing the ample body of Christ into a girdle of spirituality is killing us.
I've got my own thoughts on counseling, and I have definitely benefited from extended periods of professional counseling. I recommend it, and don't know that WF doesn't.
Still, her criticisms of the therapeutic relationship bring back to mind the biggest opportunity the church has to change the world. If I wanted to develop deep relationships within my church, I would have to do so outside of anything the church fosters. The members of my church live too far apart - geographically, emotionally, daily, and life-objectives wise. About 4 hours a week, we learn things together. The other 164 hours, we are as far apart from each other as I am from my neighbors.
(Larry Crabb wrote a book, "Connecting," which was just brilliant on the subject of how the church can build healing relationships within its own walls. I strongly recommend this book to any church. I'd link my review, but none of my searches says I ever wrote such a thing. Ah well.)
I continue to grow more convinced that the church is the tiny bonds that grow up between saints, and not the organization the saints attend at all. It's our relationships more than our organization. That organization could be doing so much good and facilitating precious bonding. Instead, it facilitates learning. You can get learning from a book. Why waste precious time on something so simple?
It takes time to get really raw with someone, to expose the stuff that scares you the worst and to see whether it's as ugly as you fear. That won't happen when you meet three times a week in a learning environment. It just can't. We need to be eating together more. We need to be playing together and shopping together and doing home repair together. This habit of stuffing the ample body of Christ into a girdle of spirituality is killing us.
21 July, 2007
Carbon Copies
Self-organizing systems are cool.
Picture a flock of starlings. If you start with a couple hundred starlings on the ground and startle them, you are quickly going to have a single flock of starlings in the air, moving as one. They naturally organize themselves and as a group they do the right thing for everyone's survival.
The same is true of lots of stuff in creation.
Salt forms beautiful crystals when the water around it dissolves. Ant colonies find food brilliantly, even though not one ant is smart enough to feed itself. There's even clay that causes certain compounds to self-organize into something that could support life.
It occurs to me that the church is a God ordained, self-organizing system for creating the most perfect image of God ever.
When you put two or three Christians together, they connect in a God-revealing way. And when you put enough of them together, they flock into something brilliantly capable of proclaiming the character and nature of God. And as much as He did with the ants and the starlings, God made us that way for His own glory. It is to His praise that we naturally gather together, support each other, and look like God in flesh.
This is not new, if you hang around here, but I was mentally riffing on it, when I noticed something new.
Carbon is self-organizing.
Any individual carbon atom will combine with nearby carbon atoms every chance it gets. But what kind of chance it is really, really matters. If the chance happens under the dark pressure of miles of rock, it gathers itself into diamond. Elsewhere, it is graphite. Or in a laboratory, with every condition controlled, it is buckyballs, or carbon fiber. Carbon can even form something as all together useful as charcoal. To quote from Wikipedia:
+ Diamond is the hardest mineral known to man, while graphite is one of the softest.
+ Diamond is the ultimate abrasive, while graphite is a very good lubricant.
+ Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, while graphite is a conductor of electricity.
+ Diamond is an excellent thermal conductor, while some forms of graphite are used for thermal insulation (i.e. firebreaks and heatshields)
+ Diamond is usually transparent, while graphite is opaque.
+ Diamond crystallizes in the cubic system while graphite crystallizes in the hexagonal system.
Being self-organizing does not mean that we will always organize into the same thing!!!
You probably cannot imagine how unbelievably, gargantuanly, hugely huge that sentence is to me.
I am amazed at how I worship the Lord with His saints in my current traditional church, and equally amazed how I could worship the Lord equally with His saints in my old home church. I am amazed those two churches are oil and water (or maybe oil and matches.) But, if carbon can be both diamond and graphite, then the church can be right both in a building and without one. Even though the traditional church will call the home church cultlike eventually, and the home church will call the traditional church a whitewashed sepulchre.
Of course, I immediately want to figure out how to make the buckyball church, but that's always going to be me. :-)
Eph 3:10 takes on mega-cool new layers for me with this thought in mind:
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
It is not just that God delivers the church, but that He creates a beautiful variety of churches from one element - Christians. And each manifestation of the wisdom of God does something very different from all the others, and does it perfectly.
I have no clue what to do with this. Rom 14 just begs to be looked at again. I have always taken that chapter to mean that we all need to be in a single church per neighborhood, but maybe not?
Flashes of insight are always unsettling and exciting. And sometimes dead wrong. But this one just seems too obvious to be wrong.
So, now what to do with the title of this blog, I wonder.
Hmmmmm.
Picture a flock of starlings. If you start with a couple hundred starlings on the ground and startle them, you are quickly going to have a single flock of starlings in the air, moving as one. They naturally organize themselves and as a group they do the right thing for everyone's survival.
The same is true of lots of stuff in creation.
Salt forms beautiful crystals when the water around it dissolves. Ant colonies find food brilliantly, even though not one ant is smart enough to feed itself. There's even clay that causes certain compounds to self-organize into something that could support life.
It occurs to me that the church is a God ordained, self-organizing system for creating the most perfect image of God ever.
When you put two or three Christians together, they connect in a God-revealing way. And when you put enough of them together, they flock into something brilliantly capable of proclaiming the character and nature of God. And as much as He did with the ants and the starlings, God made us that way for His own glory. It is to His praise that we naturally gather together, support each other, and look like God in flesh.
This is not new, if you hang around here, but I was mentally riffing on it, when I noticed something new.
Carbon is self-organizing.
Any individual carbon atom will combine with nearby carbon atoms every chance it gets. But what kind of chance it is really, really matters. If the chance happens under the dark pressure of miles of rock, it gathers itself into diamond. Elsewhere, it is graphite. Or in a laboratory, with every condition controlled, it is buckyballs, or carbon fiber. Carbon can even form something as all together useful as charcoal. To quote from Wikipedia:
+ Diamond is the hardest mineral known to man, while graphite is one of the softest.
+ Diamond is the ultimate abrasive, while graphite is a very good lubricant.
+ Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, while graphite is a conductor of electricity.
+ Diamond is an excellent thermal conductor, while some forms of graphite are used for thermal insulation (i.e. firebreaks and heatshields)
+ Diamond is usually transparent, while graphite is opaque.
+ Diamond crystallizes in the cubic system while graphite crystallizes in the hexagonal system.
Being self-organizing does not mean that we will always organize into the same thing!!!
You probably cannot imagine how unbelievably, gargantuanly, hugely huge that sentence is to me.
I am amazed at how I worship the Lord with His saints in my current traditional church, and equally amazed how I could worship the Lord equally with His saints in my old home church. I am amazed those two churches are oil and water (or maybe oil and matches.) But, if carbon can be both diamond and graphite, then the church can be right both in a building and without one. Even though the traditional church will call the home church cultlike eventually, and the home church will call the traditional church a whitewashed sepulchre.
Of course, I immediately want to figure out how to make the buckyball church, but that's always going to be me. :-)
Eph 3:10 takes on mega-cool new layers for me with this thought in mind:
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
It is not just that God delivers the church, but that He creates a beautiful variety of churches from one element - Christians. And each manifestation of the wisdom of God does something very different from all the others, and does it perfectly.
I have no clue what to do with this. Rom 14 just begs to be looked at again. I have always taken that chapter to mean that we all need to be in a single church per neighborhood, but maybe not?
Flashes of insight are always unsettling and exciting. And sometimes dead wrong. But this one just seems too obvious to be wrong.
So, now what to do with the title of this blog, I wonder.
Hmmmmm.
17 February, 2007
FHC: The Church of Tomorrow - Wrap Up
I'm glad that some of you enjoyed Jim and Brenda's little trip through the church in 2027. I really enjoyed writing it, especially because of all the surprises you threw at me! Long about episode 5 or so, when Jim first visited Corner Church, and ya'll told me it sounded cultish, I was blown away. But I was also intrigued.
Background
My biggest thought in starting this series was to show how the church might have to change to be meaningful to Gen Y. It would need to be more involved, more challenging, and more involving. But along the way, I threw in every dreamy idea I could come up with. CC was absolutely my current idea of the best compromise church in the world. It seemed to me to take the best of both worlds, the free wheeling home church, and the moneyed church that has survived eighteen centuries.
You saw it differently. :-)
And that's where it all would have stopped, had coincidence not gotten spooky. That same day, another blog identified me as sounding cultish (easily poo-pooed as bleed-over from someone who might have read comments at this site). Then someone told me the same thing IRL (in real life). And when I told my spiritual mother about all the discussion, she says, "Yeah. I've been meaning to tell you for years that the church should not be that involved in each others' lives." 4 hits in 8 hours or so.
Suddenly, your concerns were huge and growing.
Suddenly, I had concerns. :-)
I won't kid you. I'm not yet convinced I'm wrong, but I'm looking at the possibility harder than ever.
I pretty much decided when my mom in the Lord spoke up that I was going to have to explore what it might mean if CC really were a cult. I could not quite bear to say it had been a cult all along, but driving a stake through its heart was an option. So, Derek emerged from the shadows. And Derek came with the agenda of a true cult leader. I did not have to invent Derek, though, because there's a Derek in every church. Whether he's the young, charismatic leader who has a goal, or the old, sincere gentleman who wants to stop the church's tailspin, he's always there and always pressing.
It sounds like we've all known Derek, and the way he captures hearts and minds.
Conflict
Corner Church was susceptible to Derek because they lacked the protection of bureaucracy. Since they didn't have a denomination to whom to answer, and because their structure was soo flexible, Corner Church was able to move with the passion of the moment. It cost them.
I've seen it happen, and it sounds like several of you have as well.
The conflict is that I still love Corner Church, and I would still join it in a heartbeat.
After this whole series, I find I'm pretty confused about the church. Who is she? What should she look like? I watched a loving bunch of Christians get sucked down with a sinking church, so I know the benefits of safe churches. I just cannot love a safe church.
Please bear with me while I go on a bit about what I cannot release.
The church is organically fitted to intrigue the omniscient God.
She is made up of the least predictable building materials in the universe, us. She is alternately described in scripture as an army, a bride, a body, a gathering, and a bunch of baby chicks. She is a throng, and a single city as large as the eastern half of America. Mostly, though, she is reward enough to lure the omni-blessed God to the death of the cross.
Do you ever read about her in the Song of Solomon? That whole book is about the delicate dance between her and the Son of Man. I dare you with all that's in me to read that book, and as you do, picture a drive across town to indulge in three services a week.
Picture in your min the worship leader asking everyone to stand and sit and stand and sit while you read how the Shulamite says, "I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek Him Whom my soul loves. ... I found Him Whom my soul loves. I held Him, and would not let Him go ..."
Picture to yourself pews full of believers while you read how the King describes her as, "... built in rows of stone; on [her neck] hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors."
I can't do it.
I have not read many love poems, but I cannot remember a one that suggested that a policy of boring repetition, week after week after week. Is our Sunday service what has caused the King to say, "You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes, ..."?
God made each of us different, so very different, from each other. And yet every church is the same. We know some people engage in soaring art every chance they get, and others bake cookies or shovel snow. Some get lost in crossword puzzles while others need to be surrounded by the buzzing of life.
But all across America this Sunday morning, everyone will sing 3-5 songs, give a tithe, hear a truth (with three subpoints) and receive a benediction. The artist's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. The baker's and shoveler's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. The crossword puzzler's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. Guess what the people-person does.
And these are not just gifts. These are their gifts to the Lord. They received gifts to construct the body - to edify her. The artist could draw a timeless depiction of some truth for the visual learners, but her services will not be needed, thank you very much. The crossword puzzler could piece through the obscure details of 1 Cor 15's grammar, but the church doesn't encourage such things. The baker and the shoveler could warm dozens of hearts, but a church is not a home and it's hard to connect in a big building like that.
Praise God, the people persons cannot be kept down. They will get everyone together for lunch after the service, or they'll know the reason why. :-) (People who need people are the luckiest people in the world, I hear.)
I cannot think of one verse in the new testament that looks like an American church service. Not one. I cannot think of one thing about human beings that commends the church service to their edification. OUr pastor is doing a great job, but if I were sitting under Charles Haddon Spurgeon every Sunday, I would not be a happy man. Not until the church has a hope of profitting from every member will I be content.
I heard and still appreciate all your concerns. I registered that my mother in the Lord is concerned. And I loved this whole discussion. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and fears with me. I am more confused on this subject than ever before in my life, but that's a good thing.
o
I'm still looking.
There's an old Don Williams song that comes back to me over and again, year after year. It's about a country boy that tried his best to do life right. Here's the last verse and chorus.
Good Ol' Boys Like Me
When I was in school I ran with the kid down the street
But I watched him burn himself up on bourbon and speed
But I was smarter than most and I could choose
Learned to talk like the man on the six o'clock news
When I was eighteen, Lord, I hit the road
But it really dudn't matter how fah I go'd
I can still hear the soft Southern winds in the live oak trees
And those Williams boys they still mean a lot to me
Hank and Tennessee
I guess we're all gonna be what we're gonna be
So what do you do with good ole boys like me?
Background
My biggest thought in starting this series was to show how the church might have to change to be meaningful to Gen Y. It would need to be more involved, more challenging, and more involving. But along the way, I threw in every dreamy idea I could come up with. CC was absolutely my current idea of the best compromise church in the world. It seemed to me to take the best of both worlds, the free wheeling home church, and the moneyed church that has survived eighteen centuries.
You saw it differently. :-)
And that's where it all would have stopped, had coincidence not gotten spooky. That same day, another blog identified me as sounding cultish (easily poo-pooed as bleed-over from someone who might have read comments at this site). Then someone told me the same thing IRL (in real life). And when I told my spiritual mother about all the discussion, she says, "Yeah. I've been meaning to tell you for years that the church should not be that involved in each others' lives." 4 hits in 8 hours or so.
Suddenly, your concerns were huge and growing.
Suddenly, I had concerns. :-)
I won't kid you. I'm not yet convinced I'm wrong, but I'm looking at the possibility harder than ever.
I pretty much decided when my mom in the Lord spoke up that I was going to have to explore what it might mean if CC really were a cult. I could not quite bear to say it had been a cult all along, but driving a stake through its heart was an option. So, Derek emerged from the shadows. And Derek came with the agenda of a true cult leader. I did not have to invent Derek, though, because there's a Derek in every church. Whether he's the young, charismatic leader who has a goal, or the old, sincere gentleman who wants to stop the church's tailspin, he's always there and always pressing.
It sounds like we've all known Derek, and the way he captures hearts and minds.
Conflict
Corner Church was susceptible to Derek because they lacked the protection of bureaucracy. Since they didn't have a denomination to whom to answer, and because their structure was soo flexible, Corner Church was able to move with the passion of the moment. It cost them.
I've seen it happen, and it sounds like several of you have as well.
The conflict is that I still love Corner Church, and I would still join it in a heartbeat.
After this whole series, I find I'm pretty confused about the church. Who is she? What should she look like? I watched a loving bunch of Christians get sucked down with a sinking church, so I know the benefits of safe churches. I just cannot love a safe church.
Please bear with me while I go on a bit about what I cannot release.
The church is organically fitted to intrigue the omniscient God.
She is made up of the least predictable building materials in the universe, us. She is alternately described in scripture as an army, a bride, a body, a gathering, and a bunch of baby chicks. She is a throng, and a single city as large as the eastern half of America. Mostly, though, she is reward enough to lure the omni-blessed God to the death of the cross.
Do you ever read about her in the Song of Solomon? That whole book is about the delicate dance between her and the Son of Man. I dare you with all that's in me to read that book, and as you do, picture a drive across town to indulge in three services a week.
Picture in your min the worship leader asking everyone to stand and sit and stand and sit while you read how the Shulamite says, "I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek Him Whom my soul loves. ... I found Him Whom my soul loves. I held Him, and would not let Him go ..."
Picture to yourself pews full of believers while you read how the King describes her as, "... built in rows of stone; on [her neck] hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors."
I can't do it.
I have not read many love poems, but I cannot remember a one that suggested that a policy of boring repetition, week after week after week. Is our Sunday service what has caused the King to say, "You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride; you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes, ..."?
God made each of us different, so very different, from each other. And yet every church is the same. We know some people engage in soaring art every chance they get, and others bake cookies or shovel snow. Some get lost in crossword puzzles while others need to be surrounded by the buzzing of life.
But all across America this Sunday morning, everyone will sing 3-5 songs, give a tithe, hear a truth (with three subpoints) and receive a benediction. The artist's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. The baker's and shoveler's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. The crossword puzzler's gift will be listening to a sermon and singing. Guess what the people-person does.
And these are not just gifts. These are their gifts to the Lord. They received gifts to construct the body - to edify her. The artist could draw a timeless depiction of some truth for the visual learners, but her services will not be needed, thank you very much. The crossword puzzler could piece through the obscure details of 1 Cor 15's grammar, but the church doesn't encourage such things. The baker and the shoveler could warm dozens of hearts, but a church is not a home and it's hard to connect in a big building like that.
Praise God, the people persons cannot be kept down. They will get everyone together for lunch after the service, or they'll know the reason why. :-) (People who need people are the luckiest people in the world, I hear.)
I cannot think of one verse in the new testament that looks like an American church service. Not one. I cannot think of one thing about human beings that commends the church service to their edification. OUr pastor is doing a great job, but if I were sitting under Charles Haddon Spurgeon every Sunday, I would not be a happy man. Not until the church has a hope of profitting from every member will I be content.
I heard and still appreciate all your concerns. I registered that my mother in the Lord is concerned. And I loved this whole discussion. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and fears with me. I am more confused on this subject than ever before in my life, but that's a good thing.
o
I'm still looking.
There's an old Don Williams song that comes back to me over and again, year after year. It's about a country boy that tried his best to do life right. Here's the last verse and chorus.
Good Ol' Boys Like Me
When I was in school I ran with the kid down the street
But I watched him burn himself up on bourbon and speed
But I was smarter than most and I could choose
Learned to talk like the man on the six o'clock news
When I was eighteen, Lord, I hit the road
But it really dudn't matter how fah I go'd
I can still hear the soft Southern winds in the live oak trees
And those Williams boys they still mean a lot to me
Hank and Tennessee
I guess we're all gonna be what we're gonna be
So what do you do with good ole boys like me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
