A Pilgrim's Progress: I've Resigned from Professional Pastoring
Talk is cheap but what do you do when you are faced with a difficult conclusion that is Scriptural but very, very hard? Check out what Eric Carpenter decided to do and please join me in praying for him and his family.
Maybe I can convince them to leave the sweltering south and move to Michigan?!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
One Size Does Not Fit All In Education
I read an interesting story on community homeschooling this morning at CNN of all places, Communal homeschooling on the rise. While the story is supposed to be about community homeschooling, it oddly doesn’t spend much time talking about that but I really appreciated this commentary…
Just ask the Sobrals, who are homeschooling their five children. For them, “one size fits all” education just doesn’t cut it anymore. “What we've learned now is that it's unnatural fitting 20 children in a room and learning from one teacher, on the same schedule, on the exact same material in the same way,” says Courtney Sobral.
The Sobral kids each have their own interests and learn in different ways. Sobral says since she’s the teacher, she can experiment with teaching techniques to see what works best.
Her husband, Alex, says that’s not always possible in public schools. “You’re taught that you have to go to A, B, and C…and if you’re not excelling here and there, there must be something wrong with you.”
That is a great perspective. It is completely unnatural to cram twenty, thirty or more kids into a room based on little other than their birthday and expect them to learn and absorb information at the same rate and in the same way. Public schooling says “this is the age you read” and “this is the age for pre-algebra” on an arbitrary basis. I get why because the schools get a whole pile of kids every year and all they know about them is that they live in a certain area and are a particular age. I was a pretty proficient reader before I even started kindergarten and remember sitting in the stairwell with an older student reading from Readers Digest while the other kids learned to read because I didn’t fit into the age expectation and there was nothing else for the school to do with me.
For me, the most compelling reason for homeschool is that I firmly believe it is what is expected of us as Christian parents. But there are additional solid reasons for homeschooling. As I said above, I agree with the Sobral’s in that I don’t see it as natural to expect dozens of different children with different abilities, backgrounds, learning styles and maturity levels to all learn the exact same material the exact same way. In the work world, you aren’t assigned a job based on your birthday and street address. Not everyone who is 30-35 in a given zip code is assigned the same job because not everyone has the same ability or background.
I am always glad to read something positive or at least not negative about homeschooling in the “mainstream” press.
Just ask the Sobrals, who are homeschooling their five children. For them, “one size fits all” education just doesn’t cut it anymore. “What we've learned now is that it's unnatural fitting 20 children in a room and learning from one teacher, on the same schedule, on the exact same material in the same way,” says Courtney Sobral.
The Sobral kids each have their own interests and learn in different ways. Sobral says since she’s the teacher, she can experiment with teaching techniques to see what works best.
Her husband, Alex, says that’s not always possible in public schools. “You’re taught that you have to go to A, B, and C…and if you’re not excelling here and there, there must be something wrong with you.”
That is a great perspective. It is completely unnatural to cram twenty, thirty or more kids into a room based on little other than their birthday and expect them to learn and absorb information at the same rate and in the same way. Public schooling says “this is the age you read” and “this is the age for pre-algebra” on an arbitrary basis. I get why because the schools get a whole pile of kids every year and all they know about them is that they live in a certain area and are a particular age. I was a pretty proficient reader before I even started kindergarten and remember sitting in the stairwell with an older student reading from Readers Digest while the other kids learned to read because I didn’t fit into the age expectation and there was nothing else for the school to do with me.
For me, the most compelling reason for homeschool is that I firmly believe it is what is expected of us as Christian parents. But there are additional solid reasons for homeschooling. As I said above, I agree with the Sobral’s in that I don’t see it as natural to expect dozens of different children with different abilities, backgrounds, learning styles and maturity levels to all learn the exact same material the exact same way. In the work world, you aren’t assigned a job based on your birthday and street address. Not everyone who is 30-35 in a given zip code is assigned the same job because not everyone has the same ability or background.
I am always glad to read something positive or at least not negative about homeschooling in the “mainstream” press.
Monday, September 20, 2010
This is tragic and foolish all in one
While it used to be standard fare on my blog I haven’t done a post like this in a while but I read this and was so struck by how tragically erroneous it was. Maybe I am just in a bad mood. At the same time I think this sort of teaching is becoming more and more prevalent as the Gospel is watered down to make “church” as palatable as possible to as many people as possible. This sort of teaching is becoming more commonplace in traditional churches and is so muddled as to be unrecognizable as even a poor representation of the Gospel, instead turning into some sort of “other gospel” that is powerless to save. So anyway, I am about to let loose with both barrels so if that bothers you, please stop reading now.
This morning Albert Mohler pointed to a response to something he twittered. It had to do with an interfaith service at a Baptist church that was a celebration called “Honoring All Sacred Texts” at Highland Baptist Church in Louisville. In response to this event honoring the "sacred texts" of Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism Dr. Mohler tweeted: Here is where ‘interfaith’ means ‘denying the faith’ at a former SBC church. Joe Phelps, pastor of Highland Baptist, responding in a blog post titled “Denying or Defending Christ?" gives his response to Al Mohler and in doing so demonstrates a troubling misunderstanding of the very foundations of the Gospel. From his response to Dr. Mohler:
The intent of Honoring All Sacred Texts was not to deny or dilute the role of Jesus, who is central to our message and mission at Highland.
But which Jesus? The Jesus of inclusion or exclusion?
The Jesus I find in scripture blazes a singular path of self-giving love rather than a path of domination over others, be that others within his band of followers, or the religious leaders, the Roman authorities, or other religions. His way is one of reconciling Love rather than polarizing division. The only ones Jesus excluded were those driven by a spirit of exclusion. And while there are passages that say He is the only way to God-- and He is the way we follow at Highland-- other Bible passages are clear that God's bigness and love extend to all the earth, to all peoples, to all nations who come in reverence before God.
Our intent on 9/11 was to mark the day our country was wounded by the violence of extremists. Honoring All Sacred Texts invited people of all faiths to come together to speak a word of witness against this kind of divisive, hate-filled ideology, found in every nation and religion, by reading what we believe is fundamental and common from our various sacred texts: love, humility, peace, reverence before the Creator.
We invited each to read what they believe best represents their faith's understanding of God, rather than us scouring their texts looking for lines we find threatening or violent. Every sacred text--including the Bible--has passages that extol violence, which can be misunderstood and misapplied by outsiders (and by insiders!). We can no more understand the context of a verse by a cursory reading of another's sacred text than I can understand clearly the dynamics of someone else's family system by simply looking at their front door. While their text is not ours, we can honor the fact that it is their sacred text, their attempt, as is our Bible, to use language to speak of experiences of Holy Mystery being revealed to humanity.
Egad. So you gather people under the pretense of being a Christian church and then invite and welcome unbelievers to stand up and present their views of who God is? When Peter was asked at Pentecost in response to his proclamation of the Gospel “What shall we do?”, his response was not to tell these men to go to their faith traditions to see what it has to say about “God”. He boldly called them to repent.
The Gospel is not about “belief in God” although that amorphous definition is popular in our religious culture. It is about belief and faith in Christ, in His sinless life, substitutionary death and victorious resurrection. One cannot have varying understandings of who God is and be in “good standing” with Him if you deny the Son, which is what sets apart Christianity from all of the other false world faiths. Jesus said this clearly in many places (assuming you actually read and believe the Bible), like in this passage from Luke:
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
If you reject Christ as who He declares Himself to be; i.e. uniquely God, eternal, uncreated, the only begotten of the Father, then you explicitly are rejecting God the Father ("him who sent me"). Any view of God that denies Christ as God is blasphemy. I know that word is jarring to our ears in 2010 and perhaps considered impolite but there are times when being blunt is necessary. Inviting people to your church to stand up and blaspheme is not being a good Christian, it welcoming something that the Bible calls anathema. As if that was not bad enough, he followed with this doozie:
I can hear the rebuttals that excuse our Bible from this kind of level playing field--that the Bible is the only real sacred text because it is more inspired, infallible, without human influence, having been dictated from the mouth of God, who is a Christian God alone. But how is this different than Joseph Smith’s insistence that his golden tablets appeared from heaven to him alone?
Don’t get me wrong: I love the Bible and believe it inspired by God. I read it devotionally every morning and hear God’s Spirit speak to my heart through it. I study it and preach from it four times a weekend (I suspect Highland reads more Bible in worship than many churches which claim they revere it more than we do). But can we not acknowledge that our faith’s text is a disparate collection of inspirations and understandings which must be allowed to interact and thus inform each other? And that its meaning must be continually explored, in concert with the Spirit, to discern its intent?
So declaring that the claims of inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible is hardly different from Joseph Smith’s claims regarding the Book of Mormon qualifies as “loving” the Bible? Saying I love the Bible on the one hand but then dismissing it on the other is hardly a rational statement.
Jesus is not competing in the marketplace of ideas, He is not one of many more or less equally valid versions of the truth. He IS truth and anything that denies Him is by definition false. Christianity stands apart from all of the false belief systems in the world, whether false religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. or the similarly misguided and false denials of God in atheism and agnosticism. There is nothing to honor in the “sacred texts” of Buddhism or Islam. They fundamentally present a view of God that is contrary to who God reveals Himself to be in the Bible and are not acceptable alternative views.
God through the Scriptures calls all people everywhere to repent (note, He does not beg, plead, request, cajole, etc. He commands) but also demands that all other religions be cast aside as idolatry and blasphemy. There is room in Christianity for anyone, any sinner no matter how serious the sin, who repents and calls upon the name of Christ but there is no mercy for those who deny Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form. Lumping Jesus in with all of the world religions as merely one understanding of God is blasphemy, pure and simple. Standing before the throne and declaring Jesus as the alternative that you preferred because of your cultural preferences is a one way ticket to hell. Period.
Mr. Phelps asks a simple question in the title of his blog post: Denying or Defending Christ? It seems pretty clear from what he wrote that the answer, tragically, is denying. Any view of Christ that denies His exclusivity denies who He is and if He is not who He claims to be then there is no Good News, no Gospel, no redemption and we all are still condemned in our sins. There are many things you can be wrong about and still be a Christian but denying who Christ is doesn’t make that list.
This morning Albert Mohler pointed to a response to something he twittered. It had to do with an interfaith service at a Baptist church that was a celebration called “Honoring All Sacred Texts” at Highland Baptist Church in Louisville. In response to this event honoring the "sacred texts" of Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism Dr. Mohler tweeted: Here is where ‘interfaith’ means ‘denying the faith’ at a former SBC church. Joe Phelps, pastor of Highland Baptist, responding in a blog post titled “Denying or Defending Christ?" gives his response to Al Mohler and in doing so demonstrates a troubling misunderstanding of the very foundations of the Gospel. From his response to Dr. Mohler:
The intent of Honoring All Sacred Texts was not to deny or dilute the role of Jesus, who is central to our message and mission at Highland.
But which Jesus? The Jesus of inclusion or exclusion?
The Jesus I find in scripture blazes a singular path of self-giving love rather than a path of domination over others, be that others within his band of followers, or the religious leaders, the Roman authorities, or other religions. His way is one of reconciling Love rather than polarizing division. The only ones Jesus excluded were those driven by a spirit of exclusion. And while there are passages that say He is the only way to God-- and He is the way we follow at Highland-- other Bible passages are clear that God's bigness and love extend to all the earth, to all peoples, to all nations who come in reverence before God.
Our intent on 9/11 was to mark the day our country was wounded by the violence of extremists. Honoring All Sacred Texts invited people of all faiths to come together to speak a word of witness against this kind of divisive, hate-filled ideology, found in every nation and religion, by reading what we believe is fundamental and common from our various sacred texts: love, humility, peace, reverence before the Creator.
We invited each to read what they believe best represents their faith's understanding of God, rather than us scouring their texts looking for lines we find threatening or violent. Every sacred text--including the Bible--has passages that extol violence, which can be misunderstood and misapplied by outsiders (and by insiders!). We can no more understand the context of a verse by a cursory reading of another's sacred text than I can understand clearly the dynamics of someone else's family system by simply looking at their front door. While their text is not ours, we can honor the fact that it is their sacred text, their attempt, as is our Bible, to use language to speak of experiences of Holy Mystery being revealed to humanity.
Egad. So you gather people under the pretense of being a Christian church and then invite and welcome unbelievers to stand up and present their views of who God is? When Peter was asked at Pentecost in response to his proclamation of the Gospel “What shall we do?”, his response was not to tell these men to go to their faith traditions to see what it has to say about “God”. He boldly called them to repent.
The Gospel is not about “belief in God” although that amorphous definition is popular in our religious culture. It is about belief and faith in Christ, in His sinless life, substitutionary death and victorious resurrection. One cannot have varying understandings of who God is and be in “good standing” with Him if you deny the Son, which is what sets apart Christianity from all of the other false world faiths. Jesus said this clearly in many places (assuming you actually read and believe the Bible), like in this passage from Luke:
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
If you reject Christ as who He declares Himself to be; i.e. uniquely God, eternal, uncreated, the only begotten of the Father, then you explicitly are rejecting God the Father ("him who sent me"). Any view of God that denies Christ as God is blasphemy. I know that word is jarring to our ears in 2010 and perhaps considered impolite but there are times when being blunt is necessary. Inviting people to your church to stand up and blaspheme is not being a good Christian, it welcoming something that the Bible calls anathema. As if that was not bad enough, he followed with this doozie:
I can hear the rebuttals that excuse our Bible from this kind of level playing field--that the Bible is the only real sacred text because it is more inspired, infallible, without human influence, having been dictated from the mouth of God, who is a Christian God alone. But how is this different than Joseph Smith’s insistence that his golden tablets appeared from heaven to him alone?
Don’t get me wrong: I love the Bible and believe it inspired by God. I read it devotionally every morning and hear God’s Spirit speak to my heart through it. I study it and preach from it four times a weekend (I suspect Highland reads more Bible in worship than many churches which claim they revere it more than we do). But can we not acknowledge that our faith’s text is a disparate collection of inspirations and understandings which must be allowed to interact and thus inform each other? And that its meaning must be continually explored, in concert with the Spirit, to discern its intent?
So declaring that the claims of inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible is hardly different from Joseph Smith’s claims regarding the Book of Mormon qualifies as “loving” the Bible? Saying I love the Bible on the one hand but then dismissing it on the other is hardly a rational statement.
Jesus is not competing in the marketplace of ideas, He is not one of many more or less equally valid versions of the truth. He IS truth and anything that denies Him is by definition false. Christianity stands apart from all of the false belief systems in the world, whether false religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. or the similarly misguided and false denials of God in atheism and agnosticism. There is nothing to honor in the “sacred texts” of Buddhism or Islam. They fundamentally present a view of God that is contrary to who God reveals Himself to be in the Bible and are not acceptable alternative views.
God through the Scriptures calls all people everywhere to repent (note, He does not beg, plead, request, cajole, etc. He commands) but also demands that all other religions be cast aside as idolatry and blasphemy. There is room in Christianity for anyone, any sinner no matter how serious the sin, who repents and calls upon the name of Christ but there is no mercy for those who deny Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form. Lumping Jesus in with all of the world religions as merely one understanding of God is blasphemy, pure and simple. Standing before the throne and declaring Jesus as the alternative that you preferred because of your cultural preferences is a one way ticket to hell. Period.
Mr. Phelps asks a simple question in the title of his blog post: Denying or Defending Christ? It seems pretty clear from what he wrote that the answer, tragically, is denying. Any view of Christ that denies His exclusivity denies who He is and if He is not who He claims to be then there is no Good News, no Gospel, no redemption and we all are still condemned in our sins. There are many things you can be wrong about and still be a Christian but denying who Christ is doesn’t make that list.
A tale of two sins
From Radical:
So what is the difference between someone who willfully indulges in sexual pleasures while ignoring the Bible on moral purity and someone who willfully indulges in the selfish pursuit of more and more material possessions while ignoring the Bible on caring for the poor? The difference is that one involves a social taboo in the church and the other involves the social norm in the church. (David Platt, Radical, pg. 111)
Ouch. We are quick to condemn sexual immorality, whether extra-marital sex or homosexuality but boy when it comes to something that hits a little closer to our affluent middle-class values, we seem to clam up. The Bible is every bit as harsh and unequivocal in its condemnation of ignoring the poor as it is on sexual immorality but we accept one and not the other. The church makes it easy on us, drop a check in the plate and feel like you are doing your part. Then go out to lunch in your nice car and go home to your nice house without a thought to those who are starving all around us and all around the world.
Case in point was something I read about a "megachurch" in my hometown of Toledo celebrating a milestone and making plans to raise additional funds:
...the goal is to raise $4.5 million by 2013 - $1.5 million for each of the two new sites, $500,000 to pay down debt on the West Toledo property, and $1 million to give to local, regional, and Third World ministries.
Give them credit for raising money for unnamed ministries but the real goal is building a bigger empire.
It seems incomprehensible that a reading of the Scriptures would lend itself to multi-million dollar building projects but the sad truth is that much of what we understand as Christianity in America is a social construct more than a Biblical reflection. We turn to the traditions of our culture and fit the Bible in where we can (and sometimes cram it in where we cannot).
I think David Platt raises a troubling and unanswerable question in this paragraph. The sin of ignoring the poor is a very real one and one that is as unacceptable among the followers of Christ as sexual immorality because it is associated with many of the same core sinful attitudes: selfishness, hard heartedness, pride, idolatry. Granted, Christians by and large are very generous when it comes to giving compared to unbelievers but when you look at where those dollars go and how relatively little most Christians give away, it is more than a little shameful. Being a little better than unbelievers is hardly something we should hang our collective hats on. Why then is it so easy to stand behind a pulpit and rail against sexual promiscuity and sexual deviancy but seemingly so difficult to address poverty and Christian responsibility to the poor? Perhaps, as David suggests, because one is a comfortable topic among our middle-class churches and the other hits a little too close to home and makes people uncomfortable.
The implications for what David is saying, if true and I think they are, raises some very troubling questions for the church.
So what is the difference between someone who willfully indulges in sexual pleasures while ignoring the Bible on moral purity and someone who willfully indulges in the selfish pursuit of more and more material possessions while ignoring the Bible on caring for the poor? The difference is that one involves a social taboo in the church and the other involves the social norm in the church. (David Platt, Radical, pg. 111)
Ouch. We are quick to condemn sexual immorality, whether extra-marital sex or homosexuality but boy when it comes to something that hits a little closer to our affluent middle-class values, we seem to clam up. The Bible is every bit as harsh and unequivocal in its condemnation of ignoring the poor as it is on sexual immorality but we accept one and not the other. The church makes it easy on us, drop a check in the plate and feel like you are doing your part. Then go out to lunch in your nice car and go home to your nice house without a thought to those who are starving all around us and all around the world.
Case in point was something I read about a "megachurch" in my hometown of Toledo celebrating a milestone and making plans to raise additional funds:
...the goal is to raise $4.5 million by 2013 - $1.5 million for each of the two new sites, $500,000 to pay down debt on the West Toledo property, and $1 million to give to local, regional, and Third World ministries.
Give them credit for raising money for unnamed ministries but the real goal is building a bigger empire.
It seems incomprehensible that a reading of the Scriptures would lend itself to multi-million dollar building projects but the sad truth is that much of what we understand as Christianity in America is a social construct more than a Biblical reflection. We turn to the traditions of our culture and fit the Bible in where we can (and sometimes cram it in where we cannot).
I think David Platt raises a troubling and unanswerable question in this paragraph. The sin of ignoring the poor is a very real one and one that is as unacceptable among the followers of Christ as sexual immorality because it is associated with many of the same core sinful attitudes: selfishness, hard heartedness, pride, idolatry. Granted, Christians by and large are very generous when it comes to giving compared to unbelievers but when you look at where those dollars go and how relatively little most Christians give away, it is more than a little shameful. Being a little better than unbelievers is hardly something we should hang our collective hats on. Why then is it so easy to stand behind a pulpit and rail against sexual promiscuity and sexual deviancy but seemingly so difficult to address poverty and Christian responsibility to the poor? Perhaps, as David suggests, because one is a comfortable topic among our middle-class churches and the other hits a little too close to home and makes people uncomfortable.
The implications for what David is saying, if true and I think they are, raises some very troubling questions for the church.
The Gospel is not a political platform
Interesting essay from USA Today written by Carrie Sheffield, Why the GOP needs non-believers. Ms. Sheffield argues that the GOP risks alienating non-religious political conservatives.
I think she has a point in that clearly the proportion of “church going” Americans is shrinking. America clearly has a more secular future. Church attendance or the lack thereof is no longer a requirement for entrance into polite society. So you can see as a political strategy that the GOP becoming the party of Christians and the Democrats becoming the party of minorities that will someday soon be majorities is a winning one long term for the Democrats.
It is an interesting question that she answers, Why the GOP needs non-believers. I think a more pertinent one is: why do believers need the GOP? There is nothing especially Christian about lower taxes, about border security, about how the secular government defines secular marriage, about national defense and winning the war on terror. Of course there is nothing especially Christian about income redistribution policies, or environmental regulations, or promoting homosexual “marriage”, or whatever other drivel the left is promoting these days. Christianity is apolitical although Christians individually might be quite politically inclined. Christianity is not a political movement, although you would be hard pressed to recognize that in America.
That is why I segregated my blogs and carved out my political thoughts and also why I so rarely write on these topics. They just aren’t as important to me. Not one sinner is going to be saved because the southern border of the United States is secure. Nor are sinners going to be saved by taking money away from one person and giving it to another. There are no political solutions to the one and only problem that faces mankind, i.e. sin. You can try to make people act more morally but their sin will simply go “underground”. What America needs is irrelevant to Christians, what Americans need is the Gospel and that is completely relevant.
Frankly, secular conservatives need religious ones far more than religious political conservatives need them. Secular conservatives flat out cannot win most elections without the backing of religious conservatives. The GOP has invested a lot in wooing religious conservatives and that is where they have hung their hat, like it or not. The GOP has placed all of its hopes in the religious right. Conversely, the mission of Christians has nothing to do with the outcome of elections. Somewhere along the line this message has been lost among Christians living in America and we have hung all of our hopes on the next election cycle.
Whether the next President is a reelected Barack Obama or someone like Sarah Palin will be largely dependent on the votes of Christians but as Christians we need to realize that there is nothing in the party platform of either party that has much to do with the Gospel.
I think she has a point in that clearly the proportion of “church going” Americans is shrinking. America clearly has a more secular future. Church attendance or the lack thereof is no longer a requirement for entrance into polite society. So you can see as a political strategy that the GOP becoming the party of Christians and the Democrats becoming the party of minorities that will someday soon be majorities is a winning one long term for the Democrats.
It is an interesting question that she answers, Why the GOP needs non-believers. I think a more pertinent one is: why do believers need the GOP? There is nothing especially Christian about lower taxes, about border security, about how the secular government defines secular marriage, about national defense and winning the war on terror. Of course there is nothing especially Christian about income redistribution policies, or environmental regulations, or promoting homosexual “marriage”, or whatever other drivel the left is promoting these days. Christianity is apolitical although Christians individually might be quite politically inclined. Christianity is not a political movement, although you would be hard pressed to recognize that in America.
That is why I segregated my blogs and carved out my political thoughts and also why I so rarely write on these topics. They just aren’t as important to me. Not one sinner is going to be saved because the southern border of the United States is secure. Nor are sinners going to be saved by taking money away from one person and giving it to another. There are no political solutions to the one and only problem that faces mankind, i.e. sin. You can try to make people act more morally but their sin will simply go “underground”. What America needs is irrelevant to Christians, what Americans need is the Gospel and that is completely relevant.
Frankly, secular conservatives need religious ones far more than religious political conservatives need them. Secular conservatives flat out cannot win most elections without the backing of religious conservatives. The GOP has invested a lot in wooing religious conservatives and that is where they have hung their hat, like it or not. The GOP has placed all of its hopes in the religious right. Conversely, the mission of Christians has nothing to do with the outcome of elections. Somewhere along the line this message has been lost among Christians living in America and we have hung all of our hopes on the next election cycle.
Whether the next President is a reelected Barack Obama or someone like Sarah Palin will be largely dependent on the votes of Christians but as Christians we need to realize that there is nothing in the party platform of either party that has much to do with the Gospel.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Best of the week entry 3
This entry comes from Lionel Woods and is a doozy! I like a lot of what Lionel says and even when I disagree with him he boldy but not arrogantly stands right up and challenges you to show him where he is wrong. In this case, Lionel asks a vital question and one that is just assumed in much of the church: What is the purpose of going to church?
I really liked Lionel's list of reason you should not "go to church" because it sounds so culturally jarring but is absolutely Biblical.
You shouldn’t go to church to hear good sermons, listen to good singing or network. If you are going to church for any of those reasons you should stop going today. You shouldn’t go to church because the youth ministry is good, the couples ministry is fun, the church has nice programs or because the “pastor” is popular (Potter’s House, John Piper….). If you are going for those reasons, save your money and reduce your carbon footprint. You shouldn’t go to church because that is the church your family has gone to or goes to, you shouldn’t go because they have a nice building and most of all you shouldn’t go because you think it is the right thing to do. Even more importantly and what may get me in a little trouble is that if you are going to church to WORSHIP God then you also going for the wrong reason (look it up if you don’t believe me). If you are going for any of the reasons above stop and spend quality time with your friends and family, it will serve you and others better. Also please note that if someone tells you, to come to church because Jesus needs you there they are gravely mistaken and you should let them know this isn’t true.
The church gathers together for edification, to be equipped to do the work of ministry not to "worship" or be ministered to and certainly not to listen to sermon. The church should be about the going, not about the gathering.
I really liked Lionel's list of reason you should not "go to church" because it sounds so culturally jarring but is absolutely Biblical.
You shouldn’t go to church to hear good sermons, listen to good singing or network. If you are going to church for any of those reasons you should stop going today. You shouldn’t go to church because the youth ministry is good, the couples ministry is fun, the church has nice programs or because the “pastor” is popular (Potter’s House, John Piper….). If you are going for those reasons, save your money and reduce your carbon footprint. You shouldn’t go to church because that is the church your family has gone to or goes to, you shouldn’t go because they have a nice building and most of all you shouldn’t go because you think it is the right thing to do. Even more importantly and what may get me in a little trouble is that if you are going to church to WORSHIP God then you also going for the wrong reason (look it up if you don’t believe me). If you are going for any of the reasons above stop and spend quality time with your friends and family, it will serve you and others better. Also please note that if someone tells you, to come to church because Jesus needs you there they are gravely mistaken and you should let them know this isn’t true.
The church gathers together for edification, to be equipped to do the work of ministry not to "worship" or be ministered to and certainly not to listen to sermon. The church should be about the going, not about the gathering.
Best of the week entry 2
Comes from Alan Knox and is a repost of an interesting discussion of the idea of Qualifications and Examples regarding elders.
So, according to Hammett, elders are not perfect. I agree with this. In fact, I would suggest that no one can live up to the list of “qualifications” given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Perhaps that is why Paul does not call the lists “qualifications”.
What are the purpose of the lists then? Well, I think the lists are not given for the benefit of the elders, but for the benefit of all the people. If leaders are to be examples as Hammett says – and I agree with this – then which examples do we follow? I mean, everyone is an example of something. Which examples are we supposed to follow? Who should we look to as examples?
We should look to people who most closely live according to the lists given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (among other lists). We do not look for perfect people to follow – there are none, other than Jesus Christ. We look for people who would be godly examples, people who are mature followers of Jesus Christ. They will fail to meet some of the “qualifications” – all of them will – but they will also be known for repenting and confessing when they do fail, to paraphrase Hammett’s description.
But, these people are not living a certain way in order to be leaders. They are living an exemplary life in response to God’s work in their own life – in obedience to the presence, conviction, and leading of the Holy Spirit. These people do not become elders and then begin living an exemplary life; they are recognized as elders because of the life they are already living.
I like it. The idea that the lists we are giving are some sort of job description is untenable and leads to people making up all sorts of extra qualifications that have no basis in Scripture (able to teach means likes to read the rights sorts of books). People become leaders based on the life they are leading, not based on titles or offices. In other words, they are leaders because people follow them instead of expecting people to follow them because they are designated leaders.
So, according to Hammett, elders are not perfect. I agree with this. In fact, I would suggest that no one can live up to the list of “qualifications” given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Perhaps that is why Paul does not call the lists “qualifications”.
What are the purpose of the lists then? Well, I think the lists are not given for the benefit of the elders, but for the benefit of all the people. If leaders are to be examples as Hammett says – and I agree with this – then which examples do we follow? I mean, everyone is an example of something. Which examples are we supposed to follow? Who should we look to as examples?
We should look to people who most closely live according to the lists given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (among other lists). We do not look for perfect people to follow – there are none, other than Jesus Christ. We look for people who would be godly examples, people who are mature followers of Jesus Christ. They will fail to meet some of the “qualifications” – all of them will – but they will also be known for repenting and confessing when they do fail, to paraphrase Hammett’s description.
But, these people are not living a certain way in order to be leaders. They are living an exemplary life in response to God’s work in their own life – in obedience to the presence, conviction, and leading of the Holy Spirit. These people do not become elders and then begin living an exemplary life; they are recognized as elders because of the life they are already living.
I like it. The idea that the lists we are giving are some sort of job description is untenable and leads to people making up all sorts of extra qualifications that have no basis in Scripture (able to teach means likes to read the rights sorts of books). People become leaders based on the life they are leading, not based on titles or offices. In other words, they are leaders because people follow them instead of expecting people to follow them because they are designated leaders.
Best of the week entry 1
Carl Trueman is spot on with his critique of the mixed message from the religious right regarding Glenn Beck: No, Mr Beck is Part of the Problem. Here is a hint, it is not just his mormonism that is a problem. It is also his over the top rhetoric that turns discussions over very important issues into emotional exchanges of one-upmanship to see who can throw out the best zinger.
Yes, his lectures are entertaining; I would go further -- they are actually entertainment. And the tragedy of much American politics these days is that those on both sides of the substantial issues -- and I stress both sides here, for the left is no better than the right -- mistake such entertainment for intelligent argument and cast their votes accordingly.
If democracy ever dies, it is unlikely that it will be by act of Congress; more likely it will be because of the failure of the electorate to engage in an intelligent, civil manner with the democratic process. Sadly, Christians seems all too often to be in the vanguard of such uncritical incivility.
People like Beck on the right and Keith Olbermann on the left are poster children for the childish tantrums that have replaced rational conversations. Beck and his ilk are crass opportunists and demagogues who are cashing in on pseudo-political discourse. We face an enormous crisis of culture, politics and economics in the very near future but we cannot even begin to address these questions as a nation with men who have illusions of messianic grandeur forming the conversation.
Yes, his lectures are entertaining; I would go further -- they are actually entertainment. And the tragedy of much American politics these days is that those on both sides of the substantial issues -- and I stress both sides here, for the left is no better than the right -- mistake such entertainment for intelligent argument and cast their votes accordingly.
If democracy ever dies, it is unlikely that it will be by act of Congress; more likely it will be because of the failure of the electorate to engage in an intelligent, civil manner with the democratic process. Sadly, Christians seems all too often to be in the vanguard of such uncritical incivility.
People like Beck on the right and Keith Olbermann on the left are poster children for the childish tantrums that have replaced rational conversations. Beck and his ilk are crass opportunists and demagogues who are cashing in on pseudo-political discourse. We face an enormous crisis of culture, politics and economics in the very near future but we cannot even begin to address these questions as a nation with men who have illusions of messianic grandeur forming the conversation.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Florida fool
I have avoided saying anything about that fool with matches in Florida but now that the day has come and gone, I thought I would pass on some observations.
In the aftermath of the “will he/will he not” Quran burning fiasco that elevated a crackpot to the level of a prophet we rarely see outside of Punxsutawney Phil, many people are providing all manner of post-mortems on what happened (or didn’t as the case may be). A lot of these center on the idea that we (i.e. America, Christians, etc.) were afraid of offending Islam and that we were collectively bullied into calling for “pastor” Jones to cancel the Quran burning.
I can’t speak for others but I am not concerned about “offending Islam” at all. Quite the contrary, I fully expect that the Gospel will be offensive to many people and that in fact it is completely in character with faithful Gospel proclamation to expect that it will lead to offense, persecution and often even death. So it is not the offense of the Gospel I and others were concerned with but instead it was a completely different sort of offense. It was the offense to the teaching of Scripture to engage in this sort of tawdry showmanship and blatant act of ignorant hatred in the name of Christ. It was also a case where the offense of the cross that tells sinners that they stand condemned without Jesus is replaced with offensiveness of the most banal kind. Jesus responded to the hatred of those who were His enemies by dying on a cross for them, reconciling them to the Father by His love and His blood. Jesus didn’t burn Caesar in effigy, He died meekly. Burning a Quran does nothing to thwart Islam or promote the cause of America or the Gospel (two polar opposites that Mr. Jones and far too many others cannot distinguish between).
The only upside to this whole sordid affair was the near universal condemnation of it by the church. We as God’s people have suffered far too many fools for far too long but in this case we finally see the church united to condemn a man who was seeking to exalt himself and bring shame to the cross of Christ.
If Mr. Jones really wants to take a courageous stand for the Gospel against Islam, he should pack up and go where Muslims are and be a witness to them, loving them even when they hate and persecute him in return and perhaps even being willing to lay down his life for the sake of the Gospel instead of pandering to the most base emotions of fear and hatred in the misguided name of religious nationalism.
In the aftermath of the “will he/will he not” Quran burning fiasco that elevated a crackpot to the level of a prophet we rarely see outside of Punxsutawney Phil, many people are providing all manner of post-mortems on what happened (or didn’t as the case may be). A lot of these center on the idea that we (i.e. America, Christians, etc.) were afraid of offending Islam and that we were collectively bullied into calling for “pastor” Jones to cancel the Quran burning.
I can’t speak for others but I am not concerned about “offending Islam” at all. Quite the contrary, I fully expect that the Gospel will be offensive to many people and that in fact it is completely in character with faithful Gospel proclamation to expect that it will lead to offense, persecution and often even death. So it is not the offense of the Gospel I and others were concerned with but instead it was a completely different sort of offense. It was the offense to the teaching of Scripture to engage in this sort of tawdry showmanship and blatant act of ignorant hatred in the name of Christ. It was also a case where the offense of the cross that tells sinners that they stand condemned without Jesus is replaced with offensiveness of the most banal kind. Jesus responded to the hatred of those who were His enemies by dying on a cross for them, reconciling them to the Father by His love and His blood. Jesus didn’t burn Caesar in effigy, He died meekly. Burning a Quran does nothing to thwart Islam or promote the cause of America or the Gospel (two polar opposites that Mr. Jones and far too many others cannot distinguish between).
The only upside to this whole sordid affair was the near universal condemnation of it by the church. We as God’s people have suffered far too many fools for far too long but in this case we finally see the church united to condemn a man who was seeking to exalt himself and bring shame to the cross of Christ.
If Mr. Jones really wants to take a courageous stand for the Gospel against Islam, he should pack up and go where Muslims are and be a witness to them, loving them even when they hate and persecute him in return and perhaps even being willing to lay down his life for the sake of the Gospel instead of pandering to the most base emotions of fear and hatred in the misguided name of religious nationalism.
Haiti still needs help
In contrast to the furor over the perceived slow response to Hurricane Katrina, Haiti gets very little press now that the news has grown old. That doesn't change the terrible tragedy that still unfolds every day. Fox News reports that nine months after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, only around 2% of the rubble has been cleared....
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — From the dusty rock mounds lining the streets to a National Palace that looks like it's spewing concrete from its core, rubble is one of the most visible reminders of Haiti's devastating earthquake.
Rubble is everywhere in this capital city: cracked slabs, busted-up cinder blocks, half-destroyed buildings that still spill bricks and pulverized concrete onto the sidewalks. Some places look as though they have been flipped upside down, or are sinking to the ground, or listing precariously to one side.
By some estimates, the quake left about 33 million cubic yards of debris in Port-au-Prince — more than seven times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam. So far, only about 2 percent has been cleared, which means the city looks pretty much as it did a month after the Jan. 12 quake.
It may not be in the headlines but Haiti (and Pakistan and many other places) is still in desperate need of assistance. We need to be sure that we look up from our relatively comfortable American lifestyle and realize that there are people who are suffering from much more than a poor economy. What can you do to help? Check out the Haiti Orphan Project or other Christian charities. The need is enormous and our calling as followers of Christ is clear.
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — From the dusty rock mounds lining the streets to a National Palace that looks like it's spewing concrete from its core, rubble is one of the most visible reminders of Haiti's devastating earthquake.
Rubble is everywhere in this capital city: cracked slabs, busted-up cinder blocks, half-destroyed buildings that still spill bricks and pulverized concrete onto the sidewalks. Some places look as though they have been flipped upside down, or are sinking to the ground, or listing precariously to one side.
By some estimates, the quake left about 33 million cubic yards of debris in Port-au-Prince — more than seven times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam. So far, only about 2 percent has been cleared, which means the city looks pretty much as it did a month after the Jan. 12 quake.
It may not be in the headlines but Haiti (and Pakistan and many other places) is still in desperate need of assistance. We need to be sure that we look up from our relatively comfortable American lifestyle and realize that there are people who are suffering from much more than a poor economy. What can you do to help? Check out the Haiti Orphan Project or other Christian charities. The need is enormous and our calling as followers of Christ is clear.
What’s in a name?
There seems to be as many names and descriptions of churches as there are Christians:
Organic church, reformed church, simple church, urban church, missional church, rural church, house church, fundamentalist church, emergent church, community church. Baptist church, Lutheran church, Presbyterian church, Methodist church.
What do all of these titles have in common? At first blush, very little. There is little that a confessionally Reformed church would agree with a house church about. An old line Northeastern Methodist church in Connecticut and a funky emergent church with a name like “Lifestream Community” in Oregon are seemingly night and day.
Here is the common ground: all of these titles are at the core about “me”. These titles are declarations to the world of what I believe in and where I stand by my attendance at this particular local church and conversely what I don’t believe. I am a Baptist. I am a house church guy. I am Reformed. I am a Lutheran. One of the first questions Christians ask one another when they meet for the first time is “Where do you go to church?” because that question establishes some boundaries right away. If someone says “I am a member of Limited Atonement Reformed Baptist Church of Topeka”, you get a pretty good feel for where they stand doctrinally. It is especially cool if you are a member at a church with a recognizable name and a famous pastor: “I am a member of Saddleback” or “I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist”. You get some instant street cred if John Piper is your pastor.
There is a real problem with identifying our allegiance based on the name of a group we gather with or finding our identity in that description. As I have mentioned before, because we spend so little time with one another, these names and descriptions help us to eliminate unacceptable fellowships right away. No need to waste precious Sunday mornings with people you disagree with, you can eliminate lots of “churches” right off the bat just by their name. How convenient is that?! What is really happening is not so much declaring our affinity with one group as it is declaring our disagreement with everyone else. I f I liked you and we agreed on doctrine, I would "go to church" with you. Since we don't and in spite of all of our feel-good platitudes to the contrary, I don't "go to church" with you because it is inconvenient or I disagree with you or flat out don't like you. How is that for Christian unity?
The other problem is that it is so easy to answer with the traditional response because trying to answer the question “Where do you go to church” with “First Presbyterian in Akron” is easier than “We gather together with other Christians on Sundays at a place off of 14th street”. That answer is going to lead to puzzled looks and either more questions or more likely the person saying “Oh….” followed by an uncomfortable silence. So we typically revert back to the old stanby answer because it is just too exhausting to try to explain it any other way. Dividing ourselves by our names may be wrong but it is easy.
There is only one name that should matter to us and that is Jesus Christ. He bought us, He redeemed us, He called us and He made us His own. Anything we do to sunder what Christ has brought together should concern us greatly.
Organic church, reformed church, simple church, urban church, missional church, rural church, house church, fundamentalist church, emergent church, community church. Baptist church, Lutheran church, Presbyterian church, Methodist church.
What do all of these titles have in common? At first blush, very little. There is little that a confessionally Reformed church would agree with a house church about. An old line Northeastern Methodist church in Connecticut and a funky emergent church with a name like “Lifestream Community” in Oregon are seemingly night and day.
Here is the common ground: all of these titles are at the core about “me”. These titles are declarations to the world of what I believe in and where I stand by my attendance at this particular local church and conversely what I don’t believe. I am a Baptist. I am a house church guy. I am Reformed. I am a Lutheran. One of the first questions Christians ask one another when they meet for the first time is “Where do you go to church?” because that question establishes some boundaries right away. If someone says “I am a member of Limited Atonement Reformed Baptist Church of Topeka”, you get a pretty good feel for where they stand doctrinally. It is especially cool if you are a member at a church with a recognizable name and a famous pastor: “I am a member of Saddleback” or “I am a member of Capitol Hill Baptist”. You get some instant street cred if John Piper is your pastor.
There is a real problem with identifying our allegiance based on the name of a group we gather with or finding our identity in that description. As I have mentioned before, because we spend so little time with one another, these names and descriptions help us to eliminate unacceptable fellowships right away. No need to waste precious Sunday mornings with people you disagree with, you can eliminate lots of “churches” right off the bat just by their name. How convenient is that?! What is really happening is not so much declaring our affinity with one group as it is declaring our disagreement with everyone else. I f I liked you and we agreed on doctrine, I would "go to church" with you. Since we don't and in spite of all of our feel-good platitudes to the contrary, I don't "go to church" with you because it is inconvenient or I disagree with you or flat out don't like you. How is that for Christian unity?
The other problem is that it is so easy to answer with the traditional response because trying to answer the question “Where do you go to church” with “First Presbyterian in Akron” is easier than “We gather together with other Christians on Sundays at a place off of 14th street”. That answer is going to lead to puzzled looks and either more questions or more likely the person saying “Oh….” followed by an uncomfortable silence. So we typically revert back to the old stanby answer because it is just too exhausting to try to explain it any other way. Dividing ourselves by our names may be wrong but it is easy.
There is only one name that should matter to us and that is Jesus Christ. He bought us, He redeemed us, He called us and He made us His own. Anything we do to sunder what Christ has brought together should concern us greatly.
An important but unfortunate event
Very interesting statement and retraction at WORLD Mag
Check out the unfortunate events that transpired at WORLD Magazine regarding Glenn Beck. As I and many others have warned, too many people who profess Christ seem unable to distinguish between Christianity and traditional morality/patriotism/conservatism.
Check out the unfortunate events that transpired at WORLD Magazine regarding Glenn Beck. As I and many others have warned, too many people who profess Christ seem unable to distinguish between Christianity and traditional morality/patriotism/conservatism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)