Is it just me or is there a lot less blogging going on?
Anyway, my favorite blogging this last week was from Keith Giles with a four part series on the Prince of Peace
JESUS: THE PRINCE OF PEACE (Part 1 of 4)
JESUS: THE PRINCE OF PEACE (Part 2 of 4)
JESUS: THE PRINCE OF PEACE (Part 3 of 4)
JESUS: THE PRINCE OF PEACE (Part 4 of 4)
He threw an addendum out there to kind of give a flavor of what some early church leaders taught on the issue of non-resistance and non-violence: CHURCH HISTORY 101 - QUOTES OF PEACE. All good stuff, we really desperately need to reclaim the witness of peace and non-violence in the church in America.
Guy Muse had a post that was pretty funny until you think about it a while and then it became very unfunny because it points out a glaring blindspot, Sure-fire ways to avoid becoming a missionary. I certainly don't think that every Christian is called to foreign missions but I do think that every single Christian, without exception for "gifts" or training or calling, is called to the mission field.
Daryl Wingerd writing for Christian Communicators Worldwide had a great post How To Find A Wife. It is good advice that goes both ways. Young Christian men and women should be focused on serving God and preparing to be a husband or wife rather than worrying about who they will marry. We need to teach our children to look forward to marriage but to also prepare for it. Young men should be preparing to raise a family, love and lead their wife and be a provider as well as spiritual leader. Good stuff.
From across the pond Christopher Dryden posts on Prayer, Schools, The State and The Kingdom Agenda. Christopher asks some penetrating questions about the relationship between the state and the Kingdom, worthy questions indeed and at the same time reminds us that the vestiges of Christendom are hanging on for dear life in many places around the world.
This morning Bobby Auner is asking some familiar questions that some of us who are simple/organic church advocates run into a lot. How do we maintain unity with the rest of the church that is institutionalized? His post, Love covers a multitude of disagreements, hit home for me. When I go spend a Sunday morning at a traditional church I sometimes feel like I am doing something wrong! It is a narrow path indeed to seek restoration in the church while maintaining unity with our brothers and sisters, even when they are doing things "the wrong way".
Showing posts with label best blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label best blogging. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Friday, August 05, 2011
Some other good reads
The first one comes from Al Mohler and is an outstanding look at the war being waged on crisis pregnancy centers by the "pro-choice" lobby that really wants women to receive only that information that leads to abortion: The Culture of Death Grows Desperate: War Declared on Crisis Pregnancy Centers. From his essay...
The next comes from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and looks at the fact that women are not in church like they used to be: Less Women in the Pews. The numbers are quite stunning. It turns out that men are not the only ones abandoning the church. Diane Montgomery lists some puzzling statistics and then ask the obvious question:
The oft repeated contention was that in the bad old days women were repressed and controlled in the church. In an effort to be more “fair” and “equitable” many denominations and faith traditions have ditched any semblance of gender distinctions. This is the same path we have seen over and over again, people trying to smooth over the culturally unpopular parts of the Bible to make it more palatable, only to find that people are not really interested in a watered down religion. Mainline Protestantism is littered with the results: church schisms, mostly empty churches populated by a few rapidly aging congregations, plummeting attendance. Perhaps the egalitarian solutions have had the opposite impact intended?
Another interesting article is on Fox News, Missouri Teachers Protest Social Media Crackdown. I heard this on the radio the other day, perhaps NPR. Missouri is strongly restricting teachers from private social media interaction with students or minor former students. Why would Missouri do that in this day and age?! This is why….
With email, texting, social media, etc. minors can be in contact with adults far more easily and privately than ever before. It is probably a good idea for teachers and student to have at best very limited and very public contact outside of school. Back when I was in school in the stone age it would have seemed very odd for an adult male teacher to call a 15 year old female student at home on a regular basis. Now that level of contact is quite easy to achieve very discretely. The news is littered with stories of teachers being involved in inappropriate relationships with students. Common sense would dictate that teachers keep a very high barrier between themselves and their students. Unfortunately common sense is an uncommon virtue. That is why we have laws like this.
Finally a post from Felicity Dale on a great example of house church networking: An outstanding example of the impact of a network of house churches. She looks at the impact of a network of house churches started by Jim Mellon.
These centers are staffed by brave workers and an army of volunteers who are committed to counsel women against killing their unborn babies. The ultrasound images have been massively important in this counseling process. Once the woman sees the unborn life within her, the chances of that baby surviving to live birth are tremendously enhanced.The abortion lobby is terrified of pregnancy resource centers because women who come in and find out they are pregnant overwhelmingly choose to carry to term. Even worse, the staff and volunteers in these centers love and care for women and men who choose to carry to term, exposing the lie of those who say that pro-life people only care about children until they are born. If you are a Christian and care about the unborn, find a way to help these centers. I volunteer in one locally and they always need help. If you can't volunteer, you can donate money or material assistance. Every single day spiritual warfare is going on and these crisis pregnancy centers are on the front line.
As one abortion rights activist famously declared, “The fetus beat us.” When the fetus is seen for what is really is, the mother has a much harder time deciding to abort it. Crisis pregnancy centers generally offer a variety of services, ranging from counseling and adoption services to medical care and support for new mothers. All this is too much for the abortion industry, which rightly sees crisis pregnancy centers as their increasingly powerful opposition.
The next comes from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and looks at the fact that women are not in church like they used to be: Less Women in the Pews. The numbers are quite stunning. It turns out that men are not the only ones abandoning the church. Diane Montgomery lists some puzzling statistics and then ask the obvious question:
In a day and age where women have more leadership opportunities within the Church, more opportunities for theological education, and are more liberated than ever within religious circles, why are there now less women in those churches? Why are they reading their Bibles less, volunteering less frequently, and believing less in the accuracy of Scripture?She leaves the question unanswered but the answer certainly seems obvious.
The oft repeated contention was that in the bad old days women were repressed and controlled in the church. In an effort to be more “fair” and “equitable” many denominations and faith traditions have ditched any semblance of gender distinctions. This is the same path we have seen over and over again, people trying to smooth over the culturally unpopular parts of the Bible to make it more palatable, only to find that people are not really interested in a watered down religion. Mainline Protestantism is littered with the results: church schisms, mostly empty churches populated by a few rapidly aging congregations, plummeting attendance. Perhaps the egalitarian solutions have had the opposite impact intended?
Another interesting article is on Fox News, Missouri Teachers Protest Social Media Crackdown. I heard this on the radio the other day, perhaps NPR. Missouri is strongly restricting teachers from private social media interaction with students or minor former students. Why would Missouri do that in this day and age?! This is why….
The law was proposed after an Associated Press investigation found 87 Missouri teachers had lost their licenses between 2001 and 2005 because of sexual misconduct, some of which involved exchanging explicit online messages with students.Only 87?
With email, texting, social media, etc. minors can be in contact with adults far more easily and privately than ever before. It is probably a good idea for teachers and student to have at best very limited and very public contact outside of school. Back when I was in school in the stone age it would have seemed very odd for an adult male teacher to call a 15 year old female student at home on a regular basis. Now that level of contact is quite easy to achieve very discretely. The news is littered with stories of teachers being involved in inappropriate relationships with students. Common sense would dictate that teachers keep a very high barrier between themselves and their students. Unfortunately common sense is an uncommon virtue. That is why we have laws like this.
Finally a post from Felicity Dale on a great example of house church networking: An outstanding example of the impact of a network of house churches. She looks at the impact of a network of house churches started by Jim Mellon.
Back in the early 90's, Jim Mellon was on the eldership team of a megachurch with a $1 million a year budget. One Christmas, their church didn't have the funds to help a member's family where both husband and wife had lost their jobs. As he and his wife, Cathy, discussed it, they realized that church shouldn't be this way, that there should be resources available to help any members of the body in need (Acts 2:45, Acts 4:34-35).As they moved their finances more toward benevolence and ministry, they have given away more than $1.2 million. That is a wonderful example for anyone to follow!
As they searched the Scriptures, looking to see what the Bible had to say about church and finance, they came across the concept of church meeting in homes, and because of the financial implications, began a network of house churches.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Best of the week entry 4
This one is my favorite, one of the best ideas in a long time. Eric Carpenter wonders about the impact of sending an open letter to all of the churches in Savannah, Georgia. In his post, An Open Letter to the Church in Savannah, Eric considers sending a letter to all of the local churches calling on them to abandon the current name of their local church in favor of one name that all would share:
Jesus Christ, our Head, desires, expects, and commands that we be united. This unity is not some sort of theoretical unity (often referred to as 'united in Spirit'). This is real unity. This is allowing nothing to come between us because Christ has united us.
In light of this, let's do something tangible that will show our unity in Christ to our community. Let's change our name to The Church in Savannah. Every local body of believers would get rid of its current name (such as Providence Baptist, Grace Presbyterian, Zion Lutheran, The Church on the Hill, Tapestry Fellowship, The Community at the Coast, etc.) in favor of The Church in Savannah.
Think about that, a name that all Christians in this city would share that speaks to our common faith in Jesus Christ instead of declaring how we are different and separate from one another. Embracing our unity instead of our division. We share a common faith and worship the same Christ, why shouldn't we be unified in name and not just in theory? Eric hasn't sent this letter but I wish he would. I am afraid that his idea wouldn't be very well received. I think it is a great idea but I sometimes think we are more concerned about advertising for "our church" and less about our united witness to the lost in our community.
Jesus Christ, our Head, desires, expects, and commands that we be united. This unity is not some sort of theoretical unity (often referred to as 'united in Spirit'). This is real unity. This is allowing nothing to come between us because Christ has united us.
In light of this, let's do something tangible that will show our unity in Christ to our community. Let's change our name to The Church in Savannah. Every local body of believers would get rid of its current name (such as Providence Baptist, Grace Presbyterian, Zion Lutheran, The Church on the Hill, Tapestry Fellowship, The Community at the Coast, etc.) in favor of The Church in Savannah.
Think about that, a name that all Christians in this city would share that speaks to our common faith in Jesus Christ instead of declaring how we are different and separate from one another. Embracing our unity instead of our division. We share a common faith and worship the same Christ, why shouldn't we be unified in name and not just in theory? Eric hasn't sent this letter but I wish he would. I am afraid that his idea wouldn't be very well received. I think it is a great idea but I sometimes think we are more concerned about advertising for "our church" and less about our united witness to the lost in our community.
Best of the week entry 3
Comes from Alan Knox as part of a synchroblog on those who are marginalized. His post, Naming the Marginalized, explores how we look differently at those in the margins of society when they have names and faces and are not just a concept:
You see, it’s one thing to care for “the sick,” but it’s something completely different to care for Tina. It’s one thing to care for “the homeless,” but it’s something completely different to care for Charvin. It’s one thing to care for “the widows,” but it’s something completely different to care for Peggy. It’s one thing to care for “single mothers,” but it’s something completely different to care for Shonna.
We can say that we care for “the marginalized,” but never get to the point where we actually no someone who is marginalized. We can even give money to help “the marginalized,” but in fact, we’re actually paying someone else to care for individuals for us. And, unfortunately, from experience, I know that often that money does not actually help individuals, because they are often treated as a group. (Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we should give money to help groups. I’m saying that we shouldn’t stop there.)
It is only when we get to know the person, to hear their story, to learn about their struggles and pain and hopes and fears… it is only at that point that we will know who to love them and serve them. We love and serve people when we are no longer caring for “the marginalized,” but we are caring for Benny, Belle, May, Creston, Cathy, and Jimmy.
If you want to begin to see through the eyes of the marginalized – to truly understand their life and their plight – then begin by getting to know their individual names, and listening to their individual stories.
Ignoring "the poor" is easier when they are just some amorphous concept. When the poor have names and faces and real stories, it is much harder to forget them.
You see, it’s one thing to care for “the sick,” but it’s something completely different to care for Tina. It’s one thing to care for “the homeless,” but it’s something completely different to care for Charvin. It’s one thing to care for “the widows,” but it’s something completely different to care for Peggy. It’s one thing to care for “single mothers,” but it’s something completely different to care for Shonna.
We can say that we care for “the marginalized,” but never get to the point where we actually no someone who is marginalized. We can even give money to help “the marginalized,” but in fact, we’re actually paying someone else to care for individuals for us. And, unfortunately, from experience, I know that often that money does not actually help individuals, because they are often treated as a group. (Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we should give money to help groups. I’m saying that we shouldn’t stop there.)
It is only when we get to know the person, to hear their story, to learn about their struggles and pain and hopes and fears… it is only at that point that we will know who to love them and serve them. We love and serve people when we are no longer caring for “the marginalized,” but we are caring for Benny, Belle, May, Creston, Cathy, and Jimmy.
If you want to begin to see through the eyes of the marginalized – to truly understand their life and their plight – then begin by getting to know their individual names, and listening to their individual stories.
Ignoring "the poor" is easier when they are just some amorphous concept. When the poor have names and faces and real stories, it is much harder to forget them.
Best of the week entry 2
Over at the Pyromaniacs Dan Phillips writes about John Gardner III, the animal who raped and murdered two teenage girls and dumped their bodies like garbage. Here is a man who is the poster child for the death penalty but he is also someone who should recieve something more than scorn and hatred from Christians. As Dan says, he is a man we should pray for because "let us remember that we need that same grace not one atom less than John Gardner III." What?! This most vicious of men needs grace but so do I and in the same way? Yes. From Reflections on the Gospel, repentance, and two wrecked souls.
So you see, this is yet another precise place where our inborn skewed priorities show themselves. We all choose our points of comparison very carefully and very wrongly, and end up not seeing just how desperately, how badly, we ourselves need the Gospel of pure grace through Christ alone, received by faith alone.
Is your Gospel that big? Does it reach that low?
You and I had better hope so.
Exactly. This man who committed a heinous act that is unthinkable by most suburban, middle-class churchgoing Americans is no more in need of the Gospel than the nicest soccer mom sitting in the pew in front of you. If the Gospel isn't big enough for John Gardner, it isn't big enough for me and it isn't big enough for you. If God can save murderous Saul, if God can save me, if God can save you, He can save John Gardner. I don't know if He will but I do know that if I can't pray for men like John Gardner, I have no business praying for the nice people I go to church with.
So you see, this is yet another precise place where our inborn skewed priorities show themselves. We all choose our points of comparison very carefully and very wrongly, and end up not seeing just how desperately, how badly, we ourselves need the Gospel of pure grace through Christ alone, received by faith alone.
Is your Gospel that big? Does it reach that low?
You and I had better hope so.
Exactly. This man who committed a heinous act that is unthinkable by most suburban, middle-class churchgoing Americans is no more in need of the Gospel than the nicest soccer mom sitting in the pew in front of you. If the Gospel isn't big enough for John Gardner, it isn't big enough for me and it isn't big enough for you. If God can save murderous Saul, if God can save me, if God can save you, He can save John Gardner. I don't know if He will but I do know that if I can't pray for men like John Gardner, I have no business praying for the nice people I go to church with.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Best of the week entry 2
Comes from Tim Challies and is pretty hard hitting and perhaps controversial: The Burden of Perverse Assumptions. Tim asks if the widespread acceptance and embrace of deviancy, specifically male homosexuality, has led to the decline of close male friendships among normal men.
My mother has often remarked that men, and Christian men in particular, go through life lonely—forsaken by other men who should be their friends. And I think she is right. I wonder if we, too, bear the burden of perverse assumptions. Maybe we, too, from our early days feel the need to prove that we are not homosexual. And we do this by fleeing emotional or spiritual intimacy with other men, assuming that such relationships are unworthy of men—real men.
The societal prevalence of homosexuality is not going to lessen anytime soon. While Christians must continue to insist that homosexuality cannot be reconciled with Scripture (and you may like to read Dr. Mohler’s book to learn more about why this is the case) we must also not allow it to usurp friendship and to reframe the way we, as Christians, and Christian men, view and understand friendship. We have far too much to lose.
I think this is an interesting question and a valid one. Give it a read and let me know what you think....
My mother has often remarked that men, and Christian men in particular, go through life lonely—forsaken by other men who should be their friends. And I think she is right. I wonder if we, too, bear the burden of perverse assumptions. Maybe we, too, from our early days feel the need to prove that we are not homosexual. And we do this by fleeing emotional or spiritual intimacy with other men, assuming that such relationships are unworthy of men—real men.
The societal prevalence of homosexuality is not going to lessen anytime soon. While Christians must continue to insist that homosexuality cannot be reconciled with Scripture (and you may like to read Dr. Mohler’s book to learn more about why this is the case) we must also not allow it to usurp friendship and to reframe the way we, as Christians, and Christian men, view and understand friendship. We have far too much to lose.
I think this is an interesting question and a valid one. Give it a read and let me know what you think....
Best of the week entry 1
An excellent repost from Alan Knox is my first best of the week. Alan's post Community in name only? looks at a hypothetical community church and wonders how a group that is a true community and not one in name alone would interact with others from outside of the group as well as with one another:
As he drives away, and as you return to your unpacking, you wonder to yourself, “If Community Church is a true community instead of a community in name only, what would I expect of them? How would I expect them to act towards me and my family, as outsiders? How would I expect them to act towards one another? What would I expect to happen on Sundays? What would I expect to happen other days of the week?”
How would you answer these questions? [By the way, I'm not saying that this fictitious group of believers known as "Community Church" is a community in name only. Instead, I'm asking what would you expect from a group of people that was a true community and not a community in name only.]
I like the exercise here. Sometimes it is better to think about things hypothetically because we get so emotionally attached to "my church" that we can miss areas to improve. What does a real community of believers look like? Give Alan's post a read and then jump in with your comments!
As he drives away, and as you return to your unpacking, you wonder to yourself, “If Community Church is a true community instead of a community in name only, what would I expect of them? How would I expect them to act towards me and my family, as outsiders? How would I expect them to act towards one another? What would I expect to happen on Sundays? What would I expect to happen other days of the week?”
How would you answer these questions? [By the way, I'm not saying that this fictitious group of believers known as "Community Church" is a community in name only. Instead, I'm asking what would you expect from a group of people that was a true community and not a community in name only.]
I like the exercise here. Sometimes it is better to think about things hypothetically because we get so emotionally attached to "my church" that we can miss areas to improve. What does a real community of believers look like? Give Alan's post a read and then jump in with your comments!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Best of the week entry 5
This one comes from Felicity Dale (thanks for the link Alan!) and talks briefly about meals preventing religious rituals: This helps to prevent religious rituals in a simple/organic church
The third of the four things that the early disciples devoted themselves to was "breaking bread." The second half of 1 Corinthians 11, which discusses the problems caused when some people ate all the food without waiting for others to arrive or even got drunk (!), makes it plain that this was in the context of a full meal (verse 21). It isn't referring to a fragment of cracker or bread and a thimbleful of wine or grape juice taken solemnly and silently together! We know too from Acts 2:46 that the new believers shared their meals together.
Most simple/organic churches meet in the context of a meal. There is something about eating together that enables fellowship, and it's harder to be "religious" where food is involved. Eating together usually involves laughter and sharing, good-natured banter and deep heart-to-heart discussions. As one of our friends likes to say, "How do you spell fellowship? It's four letters:
F-O-O-D!
I agree that it is clear from Scripture that sharing meals together was fundamental to the early church. The church clearly shared lots of meals together and I believe that rather than crackers and plastic shot glasses of grape juice, when the people of God got together, even for the Lord's Supper, it was most likely a full meal and not a religious ritual. It is hard to be religious and put on a show when you are chewing food, talking openly (which is forbidden during the traditional "Lord's Supper" observation) and enjoying actual fellowship.
The third of the four things that the early disciples devoted themselves to was "breaking bread." The second half of 1 Corinthians 11, which discusses the problems caused when some people ate all the food without waiting for others to arrive or even got drunk (!), makes it plain that this was in the context of a full meal (verse 21). It isn't referring to a fragment of cracker or bread and a thimbleful of wine or grape juice taken solemnly and silently together! We know too from Acts 2:46 that the new believers shared their meals together.
Most simple/organic churches meet in the context of a meal. There is something about eating together that enables fellowship, and it's harder to be "religious" where food is involved. Eating together usually involves laughter and sharing, good-natured banter and deep heart-to-heart discussions. As one of our friends likes to say, "How do you spell fellowship? It's four letters:
F-O-O-D!
I agree that it is clear from Scripture that sharing meals together was fundamental to the early church. The church clearly shared lots of meals together and I believe that rather than crackers and plastic shot glasses of grape juice, when the people of God got together, even for the Lord's Supper, it was most likely a full meal and not a religious ritual. It is hard to be religious and put on a show when you are chewing food, talking openly (which is forbidden during the traditional "Lord's Supper" observation) and enjoying actual fellowship.
Best of the week entry 4
Comes from Eric Carpenter on Becoming A Statistic:
When I was in seminary, the professors repeatedly lamented the fact that the average stay of a Southern Baptist pastor at a particular church was somewhere between two and four years. I heard various statistics, but they all seemed to fall in that range.
I've served as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church for about 2.5 years. This coming Sunday is my final day as pastor. God, in His grace, is allowing me to finish preaching through the book of Matthew on Sunday (I started about two years ago). What a great way to go out: preaching about our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We will miss our friends there and look forward to visiting.
So I'm becoming a statistic. Instead of staying for years and years, I'm leaving like so many others.
Many pastors leave "the ministry" because of frustration and burnout, something I have written about before. I think it is inevitable that this happens when the weight of ministry falls on the shoulders of one or a few men, something that was never intended. Eric is not "leaving the ministry", he is ministering in a different way and I applaud him for making this huge leap of faith.
I think it is great that Eric is making this enormous move on October 31st, Reformation Sunday. I am praying that like a certain German monk in 1517, Eric will be followed by many others who are seeking to return to a rich Biblical fellowship among believers!
When I was in seminary, the professors repeatedly lamented the fact that the average stay of a Southern Baptist pastor at a particular church was somewhere between two and four years. I heard various statistics, but they all seemed to fall in that range.
I've served as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church for about 2.5 years. This coming Sunday is my final day as pastor. God, in His grace, is allowing me to finish preaching through the book of Matthew on Sunday (I started about two years ago). What a great way to go out: preaching about our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We will miss our friends there and look forward to visiting.
So I'm becoming a statistic. Instead of staying for years and years, I'm leaving like so many others.
Many pastors leave "the ministry" because of frustration and burnout, something I have written about before. I think it is inevitable that this happens when the weight of ministry falls on the shoulders of one or a few men, something that was never intended. Eric is not "leaving the ministry", he is ministering in a different way and I applaud him for making this huge leap of faith.
I think it is great that Eric is making this enormous move on October 31st, Reformation Sunday. I am praying that like a certain German monk in 1517, Eric will be followed by many others who are seeking to return to a rich Biblical fellowship among believers!
Best of the week entry 3
The next entry is a provocative piece from Stanley Hauerwas, writing for the unapologetic left wing London paper, the Guardian. Hauerwas argues that the U.S. is actually more secular than our neighbor across the pond, Great Britain, in spite of our overt religiosity. His essay, How real is America's faith?, argues that Americans simply have a generalized belief in belief. Here is a sampling:
The British, I have discovered, assume that Americans are more religious than they are. That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism. As yet no one running for high political office in the US has been willing so to identify themselves. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement of political office in America that you believe in God. Americans seem to think those who rule us must believe in God because, if they do not, they cannot be "moral"– which means they will cheat on their spouses, thus destroying the family, which will bring civilisation to an end.
Yet I remain unconvinced that the difference between Britain and the US, when it comes to religion, can be determined by the faith or lack of it of those in public office. In fact, I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.
Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US. The god most Americans say they believe in is not interesting enough to deny, because it is only the god that has given them a country that ensures that they have the right to choose to believe in the god of their choosing, Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.
America is the exemplification of what I call the project of modernity. That project is the attempt to produce a people that believes it should have no story except the story it chose when it had no story. That is what Americans mean by freedom.
The whole article is very interesting and makes a point I would agree with. Americans by and large are a very religious people but our religion is based more on ourselves and our national identity than any faith in God.
(I first saw this linked from Al Mohler who has his own take on what Hauerwas wrote here)
The British, I have discovered, assume that Americans are more religious than they are. That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism. As yet no one running for high political office in the US has been willing so to identify themselves. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement of political office in America that you believe in God. Americans seem to think those who rule us must believe in God because, if they do not, they cannot be "moral"– which means they will cheat on their spouses, thus destroying the family, which will bring civilisation to an end.
Yet I remain unconvinced that the difference between Britain and the US, when it comes to religion, can be determined by the faith or lack of it of those in public office. In fact, I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.
Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US. The god most Americans say they believe in is not interesting enough to deny, because it is only the god that has given them a country that ensures that they have the right to choose to believe in the god of their choosing, Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.
America is the exemplification of what I call the project of modernity. That project is the attempt to produce a people that believes it should have no story except the story it chose when it had no story. That is what Americans mean by freedom.
The whole article is very interesting and makes a point I would agree with. Americans by and large are a very religious people but our religion is based more on ourselves and our national identity than any faith in God.
(I first saw this linked from Al Mohler who has his own take on what Hauerwas wrote here)
Best of the week entry 2
Comes from Ed Stetzer and looks at how meeting in a non-traditional setting impacts attracting new people:
First, you have to ask the question, "Will the unchurched visit a church that meets in a non-traditional venue?" Survey results indicate that they will.
To a majority of the population -- and particularly the unchurched -- it doesn't matter. While I was at the Center for Missional Research at the North American Mission Board, we asked 1,200 people if knowing a church meets in a traditional church building would negatively affect their decision to visit or join a church. Nearly three quarters of those surveyed expressed that whether or not the church met in a traditional church building made no difference. (This blog is an adaptation of an article I wrote on the subject while working there.)
More precisely, we asked, "If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?"
The responses told an important story:
* It would not make any difference - 73%
* It would negatively impact my decision - 19%
* It would positively impact my decision - 6%
* Not sure - 2%
One can hope that this helps to defuse the notion that you have to have a churchy looking building to be a real church. Many church planters have the goal of getting out of non-traditional (and far cheaper) settings and become a real church by buying a building. If we are really about the business of making disciples, it seems that the presence of a traditional building is not only not helping, more than three times as many people (19% vs 6%) say it hinders them than encourages them! Traditional church buildings are comfy places for people comfortably cocooned in American cultural Christianity but they are uninviting places for many people who don;t have that background, the very people I thought we were trying to reach (by insisting they come to us?!)
I thought this was especially interesting:
As you might expect, lily-and-poinsettia church attendees (those who come just on the holidays) reacted more negatively to the idea of coming to a non-traditional church building. (Often the reason they attend church on the holidays is to make some connection with traditions of their past.) Six times as many holiday church goers preferred traditional locations to non-traditional ones.
So traditional churches are super appealing to those who want to show up occasionally somewhere and feel religious. They are not part of the church universal in any sense but they have a place to go where they can reconnect with their traditions and then move on. Church buildings are designed for people to receive anonymous religion instead of being part of a community of believers. This is a great study but one that I am afraid will have little impact on the traditional church and its stubborn and prideful insistence on how "church" should look.
We should seek to attract people to Jesus, not to buildings.
First, you have to ask the question, "Will the unchurched visit a church that meets in a non-traditional venue?" Survey results indicate that they will.
To a majority of the population -- and particularly the unchurched -- it doesn't matter. While I was at the Center for Missional Research at the North American Mission Board, we asked 1,200 people if knowing a church meets in a traditional church building would negatively affect their decision to visit or join a church. Nearly three quarters of those surveyed expressed that whether or not the church met in a traditional church building made no difference. (This blog is an adaptation of an article I wrote on the subject while working there.)
More precisely, we asked, "If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?"
The responses told an important story:
* It would not make any difference - 73%
* It would negatively impact my decision - 19%
* It would positively impact my decision - 6%
* Not sure - 2%
One can hope that this helps to defuse the notion that you have to have a churchy looking building to be a real church. Many church planters have the goal of getting out of non-traditional (and far cheaper) settings and become a real church by buying a building. If we are really about the business of making disciples, it seems that the presence of a traditional building is not only not helping, more than three times as many people (19% vs 6%) say it hinders them than encourages them! Traditional church buildings are comfy places for people comfortably cocooned in American cultural Christianity but they are uninviting places for many people who don;t have that background, the very people I thought we were trying to reach (by insisting they come to us?!)
I thought this was especially interesting:
As you might expect, lily-and-poinsettia church attendees (those who come just on the holidays) reacted more negatively to the idea of coming to a non-traditional church building. (Often the reason they attend church on the holidays is to make some connection with traditions of their past.) Six times as many holiday church goers preferred traditional locations to non-traditional ones.
So traditional churches are super appealing to those who want to show up occasionally somewhere and feel religious. They are not part of the church universal in any sense but they have a place to go where they can reconnect with their traditions and then move on. Church buildings are designed for people to receive anonymous religion instead of being part of a community of believers. This is a great study but one that I am afraid will have little impact on the traditional church and its stubborn and prideful insistence on how "church" should look.
We should seek to attract people to Jesus, not to buildings.
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Dave Black last Thursday (10:10 AM) and has to do with the New Covenant...
After class I jotted down 5 marks of the New Covenant:
1) It preaches Christ alone. He is the only mediator between God and us. This is strong language. We can't tone it down or try to explain it away. There is only one saving Gospel.
2) It liberates from legalism. Our Lord did not come to make life narrow and rigid but rich and full. Abundant life does not consist of things. We may have many material possessions and not have it, and we may have nothing and possess it fully. The abundant life consists of God's grace, pure and simple. And God delights to give us treasures from heaven. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are a plutocrat, not a pauper.
3) It eschews all human mediation. In the New Covenant each of us can know God personally. He invites us to learn of Him and promises to give us rest. This is far better than getting information second hand from our professors and pastors. It would be wonderful to overhear everyday Christians who are excited about exploring the riches of God's Word for themselves.
4) It minimizes the mechanics. We are no longer preoccupied with the externals of Christianity. God is not impressed with all of our ornate temples and sanctuaries. Vestments, gold, altars matter not. The simpler our faith, the better.
5) It leads to love of neighbor. We understand the New Covenant properly when we see ourselves as God sees us, as members of a new community that becomes the proving ground of our religion.
I don't want to forget these lessons, I told myself after class was over. "They will all know Me, from the least to the greatest." This is a revolutionary truth. That doesn't surprise me, because the Bible is a revolutionary book. Jesus has created a new community of people that come from all classes, and distinctions between rich and poor or between least and greatest are lessened by holy, loving fellowship and unity.
The New Covenant in Christ that is not like the Old is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Bible and yet it is one of the most vital. I am teaching tomorrow on Jeremiah and the New Covenant promise in chapter 31 will be quite prominent!
After class I jotted down 5 marks of the New Covenant:
1) It preaches Christ alone. He is the only mediator between God and us. This is strong language. We can't tone it down or try to explain it away. There is only one saving Gospel.
2) It liberates from legalism. Our Lord did not come to make life narrow and rigid but rich and full. Abundant life does not consist of things. We may have many material possessions and not have it, and we may have nothing and possess it fully. The abundant life consists of God's grace, pure and simple. And God delights to give us treasures from heaven. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are a plutocrat, not a pauper.
3) It eschews all human mediation. In the New Covenant each of us can know God personally. He invites us to learn of Him and promises to give us rest. This is far better than getting information second hand from our professors and pastors. It would be wonderful to overhear everyday Christians who are excited about exploring the riches of God's Word for themselves.
4) It minimizes the mechanics. We are no longer preoccupied with the externals of Christianity. God is not impressed with all of our ornate temples and sanctuaries. Vestments, gold, altars matter not. The simpler our faith, the better.
5) It leads to love of neighbor. We understand the New Covenant properly when we see ourselves as God sees us, as members of a new community that becomes the proving ground of our religion.
I don't want to forget these lessons, I told myself after class was over. "They will all know Me, from the least to the greatest." This is a revolutionary truth. That doesn't surprise me, because the Bible is a revolutionary book. Jesus has created a new community of people that come from all classes, and distinctions between rich and poor or between least and greatest are lessened by holy, loving fellowship and unity.
The New Covenant in Christ that is not like the Old is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Bible and yet it is one of the most vital. I am teaching tomorrow on Jeremiah and the New Covenant promise in chapter 31 will be quite prominent!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Best of the week entry 3
Comes from Alan Knox and is actually a series of posts on church polity. This is a topic lots of Christians like to argue about but the series (which starts here) has been strictly informational so far. If you are interested in the church, this is a nice primer for the various systems of traditional church government.
Best of the week entry 2
Next entry comes from Dan and is a troubling post about Christians Failing the Sniff Test
The last few days, I’ve been unable to shake this thought: In what ways do American Christians appear different from their non-Christian neighbors?
I’m sure each of us knows of people who volunteer their time to help the less fortunate, take opportunities to seek out deeper meaning in life, are kind and considerate, who engage in common rituals, pay their taxes, love their kids, help their neighbors, work hard to better their community, shun the obvious sins, and are generally nice, fine people.Yet those same folks make no pretenses of being born-again believers in Jesus.
----
Christians have their own sniff test to pass, though the aroma is far more pleasing than a simple lack of BO. At least it should be. The sniff test. What really bugged me as I thought about this passage is that I’m no longer certain if the Church in America today smells any different than the world.
In a lot of ways, too many Christians in America ARE little more than peddlers of God’s word. In fact, we’ve somehow made being a peddler of God’s word a good thing, as if it shows commitment to a spiritual life! Even worse, too many of us aren’t even devoted enough to be a peddler of God’s word. We just kind of exist. Just like that nice, fine non-Christian who pays his taxes and volunteers to read to elderly people a few times a week.
Seriously, I think that too many of us have substituted rituals for genuine knowledge of Christ. And for those who claim genuine knowledge of Christ, what of their lives makes them smell different from the rest of humanity? What does genuine Christianity look like in America 2010?
You should read the whole thing. This is something I have written about as well and is very disconcerting. Does the Church, especially in America, look even marginally different from the world? More often that not, the answer is no.
The last few days, I’ve been unable to shake this thought: In what ways do American Christians appear different from their non-Christian neighbors?
I’m sure each of us knows of people who volunteer their time to help the less fortunate, take opportunities to seek out deeper meaning in life, are kind and considerate, who engage in common rituals, pay their taxes, love their kids, help their neighbors, work hard to better their community, shun the obvious sins, and are generally nice, fine people.Yet those same folks make no pretenses of being born-again believers in Jesus.
----
Christians have their own sniff test to pass, though the aroma is far more pleasing than a simple lack of BO. At least it should be. The sniff test. What really bugged me as I thought about this passage is that I’m no longer certain if the Church in America today smells any different than the world.
In a lot of ways, too many Christians in America ARE little more than peddlers of God’s word. In fact, we’ve somehow made being a peddler of God’s word a good thing, as if it shows commitment to a spiritual life! Even worse, too many of us aren’t even devoted enough to be a peddler of God’s word. We just kind of exist. Just like that nice, fine non-Christian who pays his taxes and volunteers to read to elderly people a few times a week.
Seriously, I think that too many of us have substituted rituals for genuine knowledge of Christ. And for those who claim genuine knowledge of Christ, what of their lives makes them smell different from the rest of humanity? What does genuine Christianity look like in America 2010?
You should read the whole thing. This is something I have written about as well and is very disconcerting. Does the Church, especially in America, look even marginally different from the world? More often that not, the answer is no.
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Jorge Claudio, writing as a guest blogger for Ed Stetzer. Jorge makes an interesting comparison between Pharaoh's dream that was interpreted by Joseph of the fat years followed by lean year and how Joseph lead the preparations for the lean years:
Similarly, God has put today's church in charge; God has given the church the responsibility of executing His plans in both: 'fat cows' and 'lean cows' times. But, does the church have the same attitude? Has the church performed like Joseph in preparation for times like these?
I respectfully believe that the church is not facing circumstances but rather, consequences. For generations the church has failed to be ready for times of limitations and scarcity. Somehow we have "conformed to this world" by acting like the world.
This is the United States of America. For many this is "a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey" (we praise the Lord for that). But, this is a land where society and culture has taught generations of people (including us and our children) about abundance, about the importance of having more, of having bigger, of just having. This is a land where leaders are elected based on economy, taxes, and jobs - translation: based on the impact in our pockets. This is a land where people have learned to live in the border of financial collapse and to be 'happy' with it. This is a land where churches (or church members) had somehow supported that lifestyle with the assumption that 'fat cows' will always be among us. Now the church lives the consequences of not being able to do more when needed, because the church was not prepared.
You see, in times when people (of all ages) are vulnerable, weak, confused and desperate, these would be GREAT times to expand ministries, but the church was not prepared for times like these. Instead of cutting, the church should be increasing counseling services, creating community support groups, providing emergency assistance, expanding Bible studies, planting new churches, etc., but the church was not prepared for times like these.
Personally, I believe that 'fat cows' will be back. But I wonder... Will the church be ready for the next cycle or will it miss yet another God-given opportunity?
This is a great analogy and a very sobering question. Not perfect by any means but I like what it has to say about the lack of vision in the church and the myopia that our cult of “my church” has created. When times are good and people are prosperous, the church responds by building more buildings, hiring more staff, investing in new audio visual equipment. When times are rough and people are hurting, the primary focus of the church is not on how to minister to those who are hurting but how to maintain the machinery of the church. What is tragic is not that church staff are losing their jobs, although that it is an individual hardship. What is truly tragic is that when times are bad, the church is not in a position to step up because it saw the fat years as an excuse to get fatter, not to be positioned for the lean years.
Similarly, God has put today's church in charge; God has given the church the responsibility of executing His plans in both: 'fat cows' and 'lean cows' times. But, does the church have the same attitude? Has the church performed like Joseph in preparation for times like these?
I respectfully believe that the church is not facing circumstances but rather, consequences. For generations the church has failed to be ready for times of limitations and scarcity. Somehow we have "conformed to this world" by acting like the world.
This is the United States of America. For many this is "a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey" (we praise the Lord for that). But, this is a land where society and culture has taught generations of people (including us and our children) about abundance, about the importance of having more, of having bigger, of just having. This is a land where leaders are elected based on economy, taxes, and jobs - translation: based on the impact in our pockets. This is a land where people have learned to live in the border of financial collapse and to be 'happy' with it. This is a land where churches (or church members) had somehow supported that lifestyle with the assumption that 'fat cows' will always be among us. Now the church lives the consequences of not being able to do more when needed, because the church was not prepared.
You see, in times when people (of all ages) are vulnerable, weak, confused and desperate, these would be GREAT times to expand ministries, but the church was not prepared for times like these. Instead of cutting, the church should be increasing counseling services, creating community support groups, providing emergency assistance, expanding Bible studies, planting new churches, etc., but the church was not prepared for times like these.
Personally, I believe that 'fat cows' will be back. But I wonder... Will the church be ready for the next cycle or will it miss yet another God-given opportunity?
This is a great analogy and a very sobering question. Not perfect by any means but I like what it has to say about the lack of vision in the church and the myopia that our cult of “my church” has created. When times are good and people are prosperous, the church responds by building more buildings, hiring more staff, investing in new audio visual equipment. When times are rough and people are hurting, the primary focus of the church is not on how to minister to those who are hurting but how to maintain the machinery of the church. What is tragic is not that church staff are losing their jobs, although that it is an individual hardship. What is truly tragic is that when times are bad, the church is not in a position to step up because it saw the fat years as an excuse to get fatter, not to be positioned for the lean years.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Best of the week entry 3
Is another late entry from Eric Carpenter (frankly he has had a lot of great posts this week) and deals with the love affair the church has with our buildings: Buildings, Money, and Passing the Plate. He starts off talking about the odd practice of Roman Catholic churches of donating money so you can light a candle and using those funds to keep "churches" running but then points out that evangelical churches are not much better:
When we pass the offering plate and use most of the money to pay off large mortgages on large buildings that sit empty for the vast majority of the week, what are we saying about our priorities?
I remember one time about seven years ago when a church we were a part of had fallen behind on its $27,000 per month mortgage (yes, that figure is correct). The pastoral staff made a really big deal about a special offering that would be collected in November in order to get back on schedule with the bank. The church family sacrificially gave just enough to cover the payment. The pastors made a huge deal about thanking God. So, what impact did this have? It completely torpedoed the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that year. That church of 700 or so people gave less than $10,000 to the international missions offering. The reason is simple: they had already given a lot to their own sacred building. Our family wasn't at that church long after that debacle.
I agree with Eric and think that we should make do with less when it comes to the various expenses for running a "church" so that we can focus less on building our own little kingdoms we call "churches" and "ministries" and focus on His Kingdom which doesn't need or want our vain attempts to curry favor with God by building Him temples.
When we pass the offering plate and use most of the money to pay off large mortgages on large buildings that sit empty for the vast majority of the week, what are we saying about our priorities?
I remember one time about seven years ago when a church we were a part of had fallen behind on its $27,000 per month mortgage (yes, that figure is correct). The pastoral staff made a really big deal about a special offering that would be collected in November in order to get back on schedule with the bank. The church family sacrificially gave just enough to cover the payment. The pastors made a huge deal about thanking God. So, what impact did this have? It completely torpedoed the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that year. That church of 700 or so people gave less than $10,000 to the international missions offering. The reason is simple: they had already given a lot to their own sacred building. Our family wasn't at that church long after that debacle.
I agree with Eric and think that we should make do with less when it comes to the various expenses for running a "church" so that we can focus less on building our own little kingdoms we call "churches" and "ministries" and focus on His Kingdom which doesn't need or want our vain attempts to curry favor with God by building Him temples.
Best of the week entry 2
The next entry comes from Dave Black:
Wednesday, October 6
Wednesday, October 6
7:33 PM In my study of Paul this week I remembered something Ronald Hock once said in his book The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tent-making and Apostleship (Fortress, 1980). In his treatment of 1 Cor. 9:1-23, Hock notes that in the early church there existed a group of patrons who likely provided material support for the early Christian apostles. According to Hock, it is also probable that those apostles who did accept pay from the rich patrons were beholden to them as clients. Paul's refusal to accept support from the church, then, amounted to a rejection of the claim of these wealthy patrons on him. By refusing their support he undoubtedly would have offended some of them – a risk he apparently was willing to take. Paul thus makes clear to whom he owes his ultimate allegiance – Christ Himself and Christ alone. I suppose this is one reason Becky and I have never begun a "ministry" or become "incorporated" as a 501(c)3 organization. Once one goes that route, the emphasis almost invariably becomes that of supporting and perpetuating the organization rather than the kingdom. The psycho-social forces at work are, I think, almost too complicated and powerful to be overcome. The exclusive content of Paul's message was "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." In reading Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 we get a glimpse, I believe, of how the freedom of the Gospel can find concrete expression in the life of the community. By emphasizing the weakness and foolishness of the cross, which included his own embodiment of that weakness through his complete dependence upon God, he critiques the cultural values that are so often prized by the Eddie Longs of this world. I'll have more to say about this in my book on Paul.
The "ministry" often becomes the main thing, as evidenced by all of the appeals for money to keep a myriad of ministries operating. We need this much to keep our programming on the air or that much to operate our webpage. Keeping the ministry running seems to trump the very purpose of these ministries in the first place. I am looking forward to Dr. Black's upcoming book on Paul.Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Guy at The M Blog where he blogs about the idea of Kingdom giving instead of "storehouse giving" (a perpetuation of the idea of tithing from the Old Testament into the New Covenant church). Gus is a missionary and as he points out the "storehouse" model is what helps to support him in the field. Rather than heart-string appeals to give more to your local church, bring more to "the store house", he has a somewhat different take. Here is a lengthy excerpt from Kingdom Giving trumps Storehouse Tithing:
While storehouse giving can certainly in line with Paul's admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.
But if everyone practiced kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The economic system of financing church-as-we-know-it would collapse. Would this be a bad thing? Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those of us like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and buy our food. But I am convinced that after the dust settles from such a 9.0 magnitude earthquake by this transfer of assets from the storehouse to the kingdom, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life and giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.
Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty! Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.
To me there is little doubt the current storehouse financial system under which Christendom operates is crumbling. It would seem the Lord himself has allowed the current global economic crisis to set the stage for the next major shift in Christianity where storehouse tithing gives way to kingdom giving.
As a missionary, all around me on a daily basis I see need. I see pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the community of Christ followers in just the city where we live, there is ample human and financial resources to make a major impact upon not only this city but the nation of Ecuador. Yet, very little is being done. Why? All the resources are tied up within the budgets of maintaining local church ministries, programs, salaries, buildings, etc. When will we begin to break out of the storehouse giving mold that retains between 90-98% for our own use, and truly start seeking first the kingdom? What would our world look like if we retained between 2-10% for ourselves and gave 90-98% to Kingdom causes?
The prevailing Christian mindset wrongly assumes that if a believer is faithful to tithe to one's local church, the remaining 90% is ours to spend as we deem best upon ourselves. This flawed example has long been modeled by the very churches we give to week by week. The typical church retains 90-98% as it's storehouse "right" to spend how it deems best. The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn't mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.
Great stuff. We need to seek first the Kingdom and not what the local storehouse needs to keep operating.
I recall quite clearly when my friend James questioned a pastor about the applicability of the tithe in the New Covenant church and how hostile the response was. This is one of those doctrines that we are just supposed to accept on face value because that is what our tradition tells us. Unfortunately I don't see that the Bible calls believers to bring their tithe to the local church storehouse to support the operation of that local church.
For an alternate view, check this post out from Evangel that perpetuates the idea of 10% tithing to the local church organization: Is That a Tithe-Deductible Expense?
While storehouse giving can certainly in line with Paul's admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.
But if everyone practiced kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The economic system of financing church-as-we-know-it would collapse. Would this be a bad thing? Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those of us like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and buy our food. But I am convinced that after the dust settles from such a 9.0 magnitude earthquake by this transfer of assets from the storehouse to the kingdom, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life and giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.
Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty! Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.
To me there is little doubt the current storehouse financial system under which Christendom operates is crumbling. It would seem the Lord himself has allowed the current global economic crisis to set the stage for the next major shift in Christianity where storehouse tithing gives way to kingdom giving.
As a missionary, all around me on a daily basis I see need. I see pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the community of Christ followers in just the city where we live, there is ample human and financial resources to make a major impact upon not only this city but the nation of Ecuador. Yet, very little is being done. Why? All the resources are tied up within the budgets of maintaining local church ministries, programs, salaries, buildings, etc. When will we begin to break out of the storehouse giving mold that retains between 90-98% for our own use, and truly start seeking first the kingdom? What would our world look like if we retained between 2-10% for ourselves and gave 90-98% to Kingdom causes?
The prevailing Christian mindset wrongly assumes that if a believer is faithful to tithe to one's local church, the remaining 90% is ours to spend as we deem best upon ourselves. This flawed example has long been modeled by the very churches we give to week by week. The typical church retains 90-98% as it's storehouse "right" to spend how it deems best. The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn't mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.
Great stuff. We need to seek first the Kingdom and not what the local storehouse needs to keep operating.
I recall quite clearly when my friend James questioned a pastor about the applicability of the tithe in the New Covenant church and how hostile the response was. This is one of those doctrines that we are just supposed to accept on face value because that is what our tradition tells us. Unfortunately I don't see that the Bible calls believers to bring their tithe to the local church storehouse to support the operation of that local church.
For an alternate view, check this post out from Evangel that perpetuates the idea of 10% tithing to the local church organization: Is That a Tithe-Deductible Expense?
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from the Haiti Orphan Project. What is undeniable is that there is an enormous tragedy that has and continues to happen in Haiti. But that is not all that is going on. What I liked about the post, Haiti: Our recent trip. What we really saw. is that something else is happening in Haiti. Hope.
Indeed there is so much more than meets the eye. In fact, if you depend only on what you see, you’ll hang your head and fade away in despair. But as we visited with the pastors and leaders and especially the children, hope abounds. Joy is overflowing. It defies human wisdom. As it should. That’s “our” wisdom. But God reminds us in James, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.” That’s what we really see. We see what God is doing each and every day amidst the poverty, destruction and displacement of so many people. Lives are being changed now and for eternity. Especially our lives.
There will be tragic events in a sin saturated world. We have hope as believers that one day God will renew creation as He has renewed us and in that day there will be no tears for His people, no tragedy, only the joy that comes from being in the presence of God. Until that day comes we have the hope of Christ and can take the love and mercy He has shown us to those who need it most. When man is at his end, when the task seems overwhelming, is when God is often at work most powerfully.
Indeed there is so much more than meets the eye. In fact, if you depend only on what you see, you’ll hang your head and fade away in despair. But as we visited with the pastors and leaders and especially the children, hope abounds. Joy is overflowing. It defies human wisdom. As it should. That’s “our” wisdom. But God reminds us in James, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.” That’s what we really see. We see what God is doing each and every day amidst the poverty, destruction and displacement of so many people. Lives are being changed now and for eternity. Especially our lives.
There will be tragic events in a sin saturated world. We have hope as believers that one day God will renew creation as He has renewed us and in that day there will be no tears for His people, no tragedy, only the joy that comes from being in the presence of God. Until that day comes we have the hope of Christ and can take the love and mercy He has shown us to those who need it most. When man is at his end, when the task seems overwhelming, is when God is often at work most powerfully.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Best of the week entry 3
Is a two-fer from Provocations and Pantings and deals with the situation in Haiti. The first post, Can Anything Good Come Out of Haiti? Pt 1 deals with the heartwrenching situation of the ground. Can Anything Good Come Out of Haiti? Pt 2 deals with why there is hope, hope in the form of a young man from Haiti who came to America to help his people, not by looking for a handout but a job:
Joseph didn’t say much. His English was rather broken, his heart even more for his people. Like most Haitians, he was well-dressed, and every time I approached him, he responded with a quiet hello and bowed head. I just thought he was here to visit some family (which he was), but soon I came to realize it was so much more. In the earthquake this past January, Joseph lost nearly everything. His father, hero, and mentor was killed while in the church building where he invested his life pastoring God’s people. Joseph’s house was completely destroyed, his wife trapped inside and now medically impaired. The three-story building in Port-au-Prince where the church and orphanage was located collapsed, killing nine orphan children. In this building was stored all the Bibles, musical instruments, sound equipment, and teaching materials for all nine churches he had started over the past 15 years. On top of this, one of the members in the church in Port-au-Prince, a high-ranking government official who funded a large amount of the food supplies for the orphans, was killed in the earthquake, leaving Joseph will a state of desperate need one can only imagine bearing alone.
So a homeless 33 year-old man who just buried his father and sent his wife to a hospital in the Dominican Republic ended up in my city because, as he later told me, the children in his churches “no longer had food to eat”. He didn’t come to get a handout from our church. He came looking for a job so that he can bring some money back to feed these children who looked to him as their grandfather. What he did not know was there are no jobs here in our city (that’s another story), and so he was left to attending church at Grace while trusting God for a miracle.
Wonderful story and it gives you hope in the midst of despair. Give them a read.
Joseph didn’t say much. His English was rather broken, his heart even more for his people. Like most Haitians, he was well-dressed, and every time I approached him, he responded with a quiet hello and bowed head. I just thought he was here to visit some family (which he was), but soon I came to realize it was so much more. In the earthquake this past January, Joseph lost nearly everything. His father, hero, and mentor was killed while in the church building where he invested his life pastoring God’s people. Joseph’s house was completely destroyed, his wife trapped inside and now medically impaired. The three-story building in Port-au-Prince where the church and orphanage was located collapsed, killing nine orphan children. In this building was stored all the Bibles, musical instruments, sound equipment, and teaching materials for all nine churches he had started over the past 15 years. On top of this, one of the members in the church in Port-au-Prince, a high-ranking government official who funded a large amount of the food supplies for the orphans, was killed in the earthquake, leaving Joseph will a state of desperate need one can only imagine bearing alone.
So a homeless 33 year-old man who just buried his father and sent his wife to a hospital in the Dominican Republic ended up in my city because, as he later told me, the children in his churches “no longer had food to eat”. He didn’t come to get a handout from our church. He came looking for a job so that he can bring some money back to feed these children who looked to him as their grandfather. What he did not know was there are no jobs here in our city (that’s another story), and so he was left to attending church at Grace while trusting God for a miracle.
Wonderful story and it gives you hope in the midst of despair. Give them a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)