I found something interesting in Psalm 49 yesterday, something I am sure I have read before but that really resonated with me yesterday…
Why should I fear in times of trouble,
when the iniquity of those who cheat me surrounds me,
those who trust in their wealth
and boast of the abundance of their riches?
Truly no man can ransom another,
or give to God the price of his life,
for the ransom of their life is costly
and can never suffice,
that he should live on forever
and never see the pit. (Psalm 49: 5-9)
Money can’t buy you love and it also can’t get you out of the pit. Trusting in your wealth is fine for this life but it will be utterly worthless when the time to deal with your sin is before you. That leaves us in a pickle. If we can’t trust ourselves and certainly not the one thing that we are conditioned to think will bring us security, i.e. money, then where can we hope?
A few verses later we see hope for the believer.
This is the path of those who have foolish confidence;
yet after them people approve of their boasts.
Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol;
death shall be their shepherd,
and the upright shall rule over them in the morning.
Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.
But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,
for he will receive me. (Psalm 49: 13-15)
Ah, so God Himself will ransom his soul from Sheol. Lest we think that this only applies to the Psalmist, we see this idea of ransoming souls in the words of Christ:
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
The King of Kings. He came not, as was His due, to be served but instead to be a servant. He came not to rule but to give His life to ransom many from hell.
This idea is repeated later by Paul:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Tim 2: 5-6)
Also later in the song sung by the four living creatures and the twenty four elders around the throne of the Lamb:
And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5: 9-10)
The idea of ransom is a fascinating one. I know I am hampered because I am relying on a particular English translation here but I would imagine that this concept of ransoming captives is consistent in the original. There is such a rich variety of ways that the Bible describes what has been done on our behalf and ransom is an especially interesting phrase. When someone is held hostage or captive and a ransom is demanded, the one being held is helpless and dependent on some outside entity for their rescue. The payment must come from someone else. In the case of sinners what makes it worse is that there is no other person who can pay the ransom for us but what makes grace so amazing is that Jesus paid it all.
Of course, taking this theme a step further, there is the idea of too many people held captive by sin developing Stockholm Syndrome and starting to love the one who holds us captive, i.e. our own sins. The only cure for this universal Stockholm Syndrome toward sin is the new heart that comes when the Holy Spirit regenerates the stony heart of a sinner and makes those who are dead in sin alive in Christ.
The more I look at the Bible, the more I realize just how precarious and hopeless my situation was before God intervened to save me. I was dead and thought I was alive. I was lost but didn’t know it. I thought I was a good person but I was skipping merrily on my way to hell. It gives me chills now to think of where I was and what He has done. How can we remain silent about that, how can we leave the proclamation of the Good News to other people? We must, all of us who have been redeemed must, tell the world how Jesus is and what He did.
Jesus paid the ransom and He sets the captives free!
Monday, October 18, 2010
Christians and the Sabbath
There is a very interesting article I wanted to point you to on a very interesting topic: the Sabbath observation and Christians. It appears on the webpage of the Gospel Coalition and has already inspired over 200 comments which is a lot even for a widely read blog like TGC. People get very agitated over this topic, especially those who argue that Christians are required to observe the Sabbath on Sunday. The post, Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians? , shows up on Justin Taylor’s space but is actually an excerpt from Tom Schreiner’s book 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law. I found it quite fascinating because this is something that I have been bouncing around in my head for some time now.
Shockingly, I have an opinion on this topic. Please pick your jaw up from the floor before continuing. I think there is solid evidence that Christians routinely gathered as the church on the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) but I don’t buy into the notion that Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath” or that Christians are bound by Sabbath observation at all. Jesus is the Christian Sabbath, He is where we find our rest! Outside of a couple of passing references to the church gathering on the first day of the week we notice an utter lack of evidence to indicate that the early Christian church under the direct leadership of the apostles observed any sort of Sabbath-esque observations that would in any way correlate to the cultural observance of Sunday as a special day. The Sabbath was a big deal in the Old Testament and not following it was a capital offense. If it had a similar meaning to the New Covenant church (made up in large part of gentiles who were never Jewish in the first place), it would certainly bear some sort of mention for the church.
I think Schreiner strikes the proper tone with this:
Now it does not follow from this that the Sabbath has no significance for believers. It is a shadow, as Paul said, of the substance that is now ours in Christ. The Sabbath’s role as a shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even if Hebrews does not use the word for “shadow” in terms of the Sabbath. The author of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing the eschatological rest of the people of God (Heb. 4:1–10). A “Sabbath rest” still awaits God’s people (v. 9), and it will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then, points to the final rest of the people of God. But since there is an already-but-not-yet character to what Hebrews says about rest, should believers continue to practice the Sabbath as long as they are in the not-yet? I would answer in the negative, for the evidence we have in the New Testament points in the contrary direction. We remember that the Sabbath is placed together with food laws and new moons and Passover in Colossians 2:16, but there is no reason to think that we should observe food laws, Passover, and new moons before the consummation. Paul’s argument is that believers now belong to the age to come and the requirements of the old covenant are no longer binding.
I look at this in sort of the same way as the Passover. Should Christians celebrate the Passover with a special Passover observation? I don’t see any reason to do so. The Passover, both the actual event in Egypt and the subsequent observation of it by the Jews, was a shadow of the cross where Jesus became the Passover lamb for His people with a once-for-all sacrifice. We break bread and share the cup with one another now as a remembrance of what He did and a declaration of our future hope. I don’t celebrate the Passover because I was not saved out of the land of Egypt, I observe the Lord’s Supper because I was redeemed by the broken body and shed blood of Christ on the cross. The Passover and the Sabbath and all of the other observations that set the Jews apart from all of the other people are vitally important for Christians to understand but only because they give us a fuller picture of the person and work of Christ. To my eyes a Jewish family observing the Passover is a sad picture because the Lamb of God who was slain has already come and fulfilled all righteousness. We should absolutely be intimately familiar with the Old Testament but we must be so in light of the New Covenant in Christ, viewing the Old in light of the New.
The pseudo-Sabbath observation of Christians strikes me as being similar to the myriad of ways we try to apply Old Covenant/Old Testament symbolism to the New Testament church. We seek to duplicate the Levitcal priesthood with a clerical class. Many Christians refer to church buildings as “the House of the Lord”. There is lots of talk about tithing. Christians are not Israelites in the sense of the Old Covenant nation-state of Israel. We can eat pork and we are not required to circumcise our sons. While there absolutely is continuity between the Old and the New, there is also a radical discontinuity that seems to be lost when Christians read the Old Testament as if the cross never happened.
The crux of it is this: we are called to a much higher standard than the Sabbath observation. We are not to live as the world during the week and then set aside one day (Sunday) as holy. We are to live every day as redeemed aliens in a lost world. I guess if you want to treat Sunday as special, that is your business but if it starts to become “I am more pious than you because I treat Sunday as some sort of Sabbath day” malarkey or you start to see that as a mark of faithfulness, it becomes problematic.
Anyone care to make the case that the Sabbath day observation is still binding on Christians?
Shockingly, I have an opinion on this topic. Please pick your jaw up from the floor before continuing. I think there is solid evidence that Christians routinely gathered as the church on the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) but I don’t buy into the notion that Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath” or that Christians are bound by Sabbath observation at all. Jesus is the Christian Sabbath, He is where we find our rest! Outside of a couple of passing references to the church gathering on the first day of the week we notice an utter lack of evidence to indicate that the early Christian church under the direct leadership of the apostles observed any sort of Sabbath-esque observations that would in any way correlate to the cultural observance of Sunday as a special day. The Sabbath was a big deal in the Old Testament and not following it was a capital offense. If it had a similar meaning to the New Covenant church (made up in large part of gentiles who were never Jewish in the first place), it would certainly bear some sort of mention for the church.
I think Schreiner strikes the proper tone with this:
Now it does not follow from this that the Sabbath has no significance for believers. It is a shadow, as Paul said, of the substance that is now ours in Christ. The Sabbath’s role as a shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even if Hebrews does not use the word for “shadow” in terms of the Sabbath. The author of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing the eschatological rest of the people of God (Heb. 4:1–10). A “Sabbath rest” still awaits God’s people (v. 9), and it will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then, points to the final rest of the people of God. But since there is an already-but-not-yet character to what Hebrews says about rest, should believers continue to practice the Sabbath as long as they are in the not-yet? I would answer in the negative, for the evidence we have in the New Testament points in the contrary direction. We remember that the Sabbath is placed together with food laws and new moons and Passover in Colossians 2:16, but there is no reason to think that we should observe food laws, Passover, and new moons before the consummation. Paul’s argument is that believers now belong to the age to come and the requirements of the old covenant are no longer binding.
I look at this in sort of the same way as the Passover. Should Christians celebrate the Passover with a special Passover observation? I don’t see any reason to do so. The Passover, both the actual event in Egypt and the subsequent observation of it by the Jews, was a shadow of the cross where Jesus became the Passover lamb for His people with a once-for-all sacrifice. We break bread and share the cup with one another now as a remembrance of what He did and a declaration of our future hope. I don’t celebrate the Passover because I was not saved out of the land of Egypt, I observe the Lord’s Supper because I was redeemed by the broken body and shed blood of Christ on the cross. The Passover and the Sabbath and all of the other observations that set the Jews apart from all of the other people are vitally important for Christians to understand but only because they give us a fuller picture of the person and work of Christ. To my eyes a Jewish family observing the Passover is a sad picture because the Lamb of God who was slain has already come and fulfilled all righteousness. We should absolutely be intimately familiar with the Old Testament but we must be so in light of the New Covenant in Christ, viewing the Old in light of the New.
The pseudo-Sabbath observation of Christians strikes me as being similar to the myriad of ways we try to apply Old Covenant/Old Testament symbolism to the New Testament church. We seek to duplicate the Levitcal priesthood with a clerical class. Many Christians refer to church buildings as “the House of the Lord”. There is lots of talk about tithing. Christians are not Israelites in the sense of the Old Covenant nation-state of Israel. We can eat pork and we are not required to circumcise our sons. While there absolutely is continuity between the Old and the New, there is also a radical discontinuity that seems to be lost when Christians read the Old Testament as if the cross never happened.
The crux of it is this: we are called to a much higher standard than the Sabbath observation. We are not to live as the world during the week and then set aside one day (Sunday) as holy. We are to live every day as redeemed aliens in a lost world. I guess if you want to treat Sunday as special, that is your business but if it starts to become “I am more pious than you because I treat Sunday as some sort of Sabbath day” malarkey or you start to see that as a mark of faithfulness, it becomes problematic.
Anyone care to make the case that the Sabbath day observation is still binding on Christians?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
More Michiganders Heading to Haiti
Amidst all of the election news and hand-wringing about the Wolverines latest loss was a wonderful story in the Detroit News on a medical missionary team from Michigan heading to Haiti, Michigan group returning to aid Haiti quake victims :
A week after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, Dr. Karl Bandlien traveled there from Michigan to treat the countless sick and injured. Roughly nine months later, Bandlien is again answering the call to help.
Bandlien of Highland Township is one of about a dozen church members from Michigan departing today on a Christian relief mission to Haiti.
Despite the record amount of international aid following the disaster, scores of families are still living in encampments or on the streets. Living in unsanitary conditions, many are in poor health, Bandlien said. Those with untreated injuries will now need care for what have become chronic wounds, he said.
"That's the sad reality," said Bandlien, a 61-year-old surgeon at Oakwood Annapolis Hospital in Wayne. "We feel that this is a situation that is crying for a resolution, and we are going to do what we can."
Bandlien will join a medical team of clinicians from around the United States. Together, they will operate for one week a motorized clinic in Carrefour, a hillside town of about 400,000 that was the quake's epicenter. It is located 10 miles south of the capital city of Port-au-Prince. Nine months after the quake, only 2 percent of rubble has been cleared and 13,000 temporary shelters have been built — less than 10 percent of the number planned, according to the Associated Press. In January, a 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti — the poorest country in the western hemisphere — damaging the National Palace, U.N. headquarters and orphanages. The quake killed at least 230,000 people and left millions homeless. Also, a storm last month ripped through Port-au-Prince and destroyed thousands of tents, serving as a reminder of how vulnerable the displaced still are.
I am not too sure about the sponsoring group these folks are involved with but I am glad to see believers going to those in need.
A week after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, Dr. Karl Bandlien traveled there from Michigan to treat the countless sick and injured. Roughly nine months later, Bandlien is again answering the call to help.
Bandlien of Highland Township is one of about a dozen church members from Michigan departing today on a Christian relief mission to Haiti.
Despite the record amount of international aid following the disaster, scores of families are still living in encampments or on the streets. Living in unsanitary conditions, many are in poor health, Bandlien said. Those with untreated injuries will now need care for what have become chronic wounds, he said.
"That's the sad reality," said Bandlien, a 61-year-old surgeon at Oakwood Annapolis Hospital in Wayne. "We feel that this is a situation that is crying for a resolution, and we are going to do what we can."
Bandlien will join a medical team of clinicians from around the United States. Together, they will operate for one week a motorized clinic in Carrefour, a hillside town of about 400,000 that was the quake's epicenter. It is located 10 miles south of the capital city of Port-au-Prince. Nine months after the quake, only 2 percent of rubble has been cleared and 13,000 temporary shelters have been built — less than 10 percent of the number planned, according to the Associated Press. In January, a 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti — the poorest country in the western hemisphere — damaging the National Palace, U.N. headquarters and orphanages. The quake killed at least 230,000 people and left millions homeless. Also, a storm last month ripped through Port-au-Prince and destroyed thousands of tents, serving as a reminder of how vulnerable the displaced still are.
I am not too sure about the sponsoring group these folks are involved with but I am glad to see believers going to those in need.
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.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Changing from Come and Hear to Go and Tell
Alan Knox pointed to a great post by David Fitch on the kind of leaders the church will need in North America in the future. (Here’s a hint: The answer is not more of the same). David focuses on the type of pastors we will need but I think we should focus more generally on the kinds of leaders we will require because if we try to rely on pastoral leaders in the future, it is not going to be adequate.
These are his ideas for what these leaders will look like.
1.)BE RESOURCEFUL – OFTEN ABLE TO EARN THEIR OWN LIVING
2.) COMMUNAL SHEPHERDS – CULTIVATORS OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY IN MISSION
3.) INTERPRETIVE LEADERS - FUNDERS OF IMAGINATION THRU SCRIPTURE FOR WHAT GOD IS DOING AMONG US AND AROUND US
4.) DIRECTORS OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION – SHAPERS OF PLACES THAT SHAPE OUR LIVES INTO CHRIST AND HIS MISSION
5.) LEADERS WHO GIVE AWAY POWER – DISPERSERS OF AUTHORITY AND LEADERSHIP INTO THE NIEGHBORHOODS
Powerful stuff, visionary stuff. Whether or not you agree with his assessment and his recommendations, you have to appreciate that he is looking outside of the blinkered culture of the church that looks at the future and sees everything the same as it is today. The world is changing and the cultural Christianity we grew up with is unraveling. The next generation of church leaders needs to be able to function outside of the comfortable confines of seminary and traditional churches. The next generation of leaders are not going to have a lot of the support structures that we have come to take for granted and are going to need to be, as David says, more self-sufficient, more creative and more willing to let others take part in leading the church.
Like a lot of people, including myself, David sees the church moving into a few camps, an ever increasing megachurch presence, a rapidly declining and dying traditional church and a burgeoning but hard to wrap your arms around organic/missional church movement. I think that is dead on and that the evangelical church of the future in North America is going to be dumbbell shaped, with a large number of Christians involved in giant churches on one end and a similar number of Christians involved in diffuse communities on the other end. I especially liked this comment regarding the ever larger “megachurches”:
Whatever you might think of these forms of church life, the reality is that these large mega centers are good at making Christianity work for already existing Christians. They lack the flexibility however (and the cultural dynamic) to engage the many less affluent unreached contexts of the West.
I think that is somewhat accurate. A co-worker mentioned to me yesterday that there was someone she knew professionally that went to her church but she never realized it because they went to different services. If you don’t even know that a person attends the same church as you, how are you really a functioning faith community? Churches of that size fulfill, however poorly, a need for busy suburbanites to get their church booster shot at the beginning of each week, provide a place for them to take their kids in between all of the other stuff going on in their lives and giving these busy Christians an identity (I am a member of “Insert Church Name Here”). For reaching the lost outside of those comfortable with the church culture? Not so much. We absolutely need to change our mindset from “Come and Hear” to “Go and Tell”. It seems that lost people are less likely and less comfortable with “going to church”. That makes not going to them….not an option.
We certainly need more big picture, visionary discussions of the church and when questions are raised, we likewise certainly don’t need a bunch of knee-jerk responses, we instead need more conversations and Scripture studying. Defending the traditional model, calling for more preaching, ever more intellectual pastors, etc. might be good for selling books and being invited to speak at conferences but I am not sure at all that it is effective in spreading the Gospel.
These are his ideas for what these leaders will look like.
1.)BE RESOURCEFUL – OFTEN ABLE TO EARN THEIR OWN LIVING
2.) COMMUNAL SHEPHERDS – CULTIVATORS OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY IN MISSION
3.) INTERPRETIVE LEADERS - FUNDERS OF IMAGINATION THRU SCRIPTURE FOR WHAT GOD IS DOING AMONG US AND AROUND US
4.) DIRECTORS OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION – SHAPERS OF PLACES THAT SHAPE OUR LIVES INTO CHRIST AND HIS MISSION
5.) LEADERS WHO GIVE AWAY POWER – DISPERSERS OF AUTHORITY AND LEADERSHIP INTO THE NIEGHBORHOODS
Powerful stuff, visionary stuff. Whether or not you agree with his assessment and his recommendations, you have to appreciate that he is looking outside of the blinkered culture of the church that looks at the future and sees everything the same as it is today. The world is changing and the cultural Christianity we grew up with is unraveling. The next generation of church leaders needs to be able to function outside of the comfortable confines of seminary and traditional churches. The next generation of leaders are not going to have a lot of the support structures that we have come to take for granted and are going to need to be, as David says, more self-sufficient, more creative and more willing to let others take part in leading the church.
Like a lot of people, including myself, David sees the church moving into a few camps, an ever increasing megachurch presence, a rapidly declining and dying traditional church and a burgeoning but hard to wrap your arms around organic/missional church movement. I think that is dead on and that the evangelical church of the future in North America is going to be dumbbell shaped, with a large number of Christians involved in giant churches on one end and a similar number of Christians involved in diffuse communities on the other end. I especially liked this comment regarding the ever larger “megachurches”:
Whatever you might think of these forms of church life, the reality is that these large mega centers are good at making Christianity work for already existing Christians. They lack the flexibility however (and the cultural dynamic) to engage the many less affluent unreached contexts of the West.
I think that is somewhat accurate. A co-worker mentioned to me yesterday that there was someone she knew professionally that went to her church but she never realized it because they went to different services. If you don’t even know that a person attends the same church as you, how are you really a functioning faith community? Churches of that size fulfill, however poorly, a need for busy suburbanites to get their church booster shot at the beginning of each week, provide a place for them to take their kids in between all of the other stuff going on in their lives and giving these busy Christians an identity (I am a member of “Insert Church Name Here”). For reaching the lost outside of those comfortable with the church culture? Not so much. We absolutely need to change our mindset from “Come and Hear” to “Go and Tell”. It seems that lost people are less likely and less comfortable with “going to church”. That makes not going to them….not an option.
We certainly need more big picture, visionary discussions of the church and when questions are raised, we likewise certainly don’t need a bunch of knee-jerk responses, we instead need more conversations and Scripture studying. Defending the traditional model, calling for more preaching, ever more intellectual pastors, etc. might be good for selling books and being invited to speak at conferences but I am not sure at all that it is effective in spreading the Gospel.
As You Were
In a comment in my recent post about elders, Mark said:
I believe the Spirit weaves the tapestry, and, as in Acts, when the apostles came through and appointed elders, they simply recognized those that were already functioning in that capacity.
I would agree with that. Someone shouldn’t act or function differently based on being recognized as an elder. This is something that seems so common-sense, so eminently supportable from Scripture and yet it doesn’t seem to be as commonly held as perhaps it should be.
Being an elder is a recognition of what you are already doing, rather than you starting to do something new because you become an elder. In other words, you don’t function as an elder because you have been recognized as an elder, you are recognized as an elder because that is how you are already functioning. Someone doesn’t start to teach because they are an elder, they are already recognized as being able to teach. You don’t serve the church because you are an elder, you are an elder because you are serving already. You don’t become a better husband because you are an elder, that is who you already are. The qualities to be desired in an elder are qualities all Christians should be seeking to exhibit and elders exemplify those qualities and therefore are leaders because we should be emulating their model and example of how to live.
I believe the Spirit weaves the tapestry, and, as in Acts, when the apostles came through and appointed elders, they simply recognized those that were already functioning in that capacity.
I would agree with that. Someone shouldn’t act or function differently based on being recognized as an elder. This is something that seems so common-sense, so eminently supportable from Scripture and yet it doesn’t seem to be as commonly held as perhaps it should be.
Being an elder is a recognition of what you are already doing, rather than you starting to do something new because you become an elder. In other words, you don’t function as an elder because you have been recognized as an elder, you are recognized as an elder because that is how you are already functioning. Someone doesn’t start to teach because they are an elder, they are already recognized as being able to teach. You don’t serve the church because you are an elder, you are an elder because you are serving already. You don’t become a better husband because you are an elder, that is who you already are. The qualities to be desired in an elder are qualities all Christians should be seeking to exhibit and elders exemplify those qualities and therefore are leaders because we should be emulating their model and example of how to live.
The Tour d’Haiti
Les from the Haiti Orphan Project was on a local TV show talking about the needs of orphans in Haiti and the upcoming Tour d’Haiti. Check it out!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Who leads in the church?
My friend Josh posted not once but twice yesterday, a virtual blogsplosion! His second posting caught my eye and I would like to direct you to an interesting topic. Josh addresses the question of whether the local church should be elder-led or congregation-led. His answer was “yes”, i.e. both are true. Here is his summary from Q&A: Should the Church be led by Elders or by the Congregation? …
Absolute elder rule and absolute congregational government are not found in the New Testament. What we do find is the clear command to "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21). I fear that those advocating an 'absolute' form of church government do so (at the expense of clear biblical teaching) out of a refusal to submit. Sadly, we have congregations who refuse to submit to their biblical leaders and we have biblical leaders refusing to submit to their congregations. All of it is sin.
Scripture doesn't give us details. It does not provide of list of things the elders can decide on and a list of things on which the congregation must decide. It does give us (1) clear examples that the congregation made real decisions, (2) clear examples of the congregation being involved with the decisions of the elders/apostles, and (3) clear commands to submit to spiritual leaders. Some have termed this Elder-led Congregationalism.
What do you think?
I think the majority report in conservative evangelical churches is that the elders rule and often the functioning of those local churches is a de facto single elder rule.
There clearly is something in Scripture that distinguishes men who are recognized by the church as elders. Perhaps it is their age (hence the term “elder”) or their maturity in the faith. Whatever it is, it is clear that certain men are elders and by implication other men are not. As Josh also points out, while the qualities to be desired in an elder are quite clearly spelled out in Scripture, the functioning of elders in the church is not nearly as clear.
I would also say that there are men that I respect and would submit to their counsel who are not officially recognized as elders or deacons in a local church and likewise I have met plenty of men who are elders and deacons in a local church that I wouldn’t follow to Dunkin Donuts. As I have written before, Josh is one of those men who I respect for his counsel and also is an elder in a local church. It is important to note again that I am not now nor have I ever been a formal member in a church where Josh is an elder but that doesn't negate the value he has to me as a leader. We are currently gathering with the church in a local group with three elders who I respect deeply and have no issue submitting to, but they also serve without pay and involve the entire local body in decision making and leading and teaching.
This is an interesting topic, run over and check it out and leave a comment or three…
Absolute elder rule and absolute congregational government are not found in the New Testament. What we do find is the clear command to "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21). I fear that those advocating an 'absolute' form of church government do so (at the expense of clear biblical teaching) out of a refusal to submit. Sadly, we have congregations who refuse to submit to their biblical leaders and we have biblical leaders refusing to submit to their congregations. All of it is sin.
Scripture doesn't give us details. It does not provide of list of things the elders can decide on and a list of things on which the congregation must decide. It does give us (1) clear examples that the congregation made real decisions, (2) clear examples of the congregation being involved with the decisions of the elders/apostles, and (3) clear commands to submit to spiritual leaders. Some have termed this Elder-led Congregationalism.
What do you think?
I think the majority report in conservative evangelical churches is that the elders rule and often the functioning of those local churches is a de facto single elder rule.
There clearly is something in Scripture that distinguishes men who are recognized by the church as elders. Perhaps it is their age (hence the term “elder”) or their maturity in the faith. Whatever it is, it is clear that certain men are elders and by implication other men are not. As Josh also points out, while the qualities to be desired in an elder are quite clearly spelled out in Scripture, the functioning of elders in the church is not nearly as clear.
I would also say that there are men that I respect and would submit to their counsel who are not officially recognized as elders or deacons in a local church and likewise I have met plenty of men who are elders and deacons in a local church that I wouldn’t follow to Dunkin Donuts. As I have written before, Josh is one of those men who I respect for his counsel and also is an elder in a local church. It is important to note again that I am not now nor have I ever been a formal member in a church where Josh is an elder but that doesn't negate the value he has to me as a leader. We are currently gathering with the church in a local group with three elders who I respect deeply and have no issue submitting to, but they also serve without pay and involve the entire local body in decision making and leading and teaching.
This is an interesting topic, run over and check it out and leave a comment or three…
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Why do we give?
The other day, Eric Carpenter had a blog post about something R.C. Sproul wrote on tithing. I read the same thing from Sproul and had a similar reaction and as I said in response I have a hard time taking Sproul seriously when the topic turns to giving when I get daily pleas for money from Ligonier.
What I found interesting was a comment from Alan Knox:
First, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as supporting the church. In the same way, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as failing to support the church. In fact, if you see the organizational structure as detrimental to the church, then perhaps it is better NOT to support that organization.
That is right on. If you view, as I do, most of the organized, tradition bound church as an impediment to the making of disciples and equipping believers, why in the world would you support that system financially? It is irresponsible to keep pouring money into a system without asking the hard questions just because tradition and the loudest voices say so. Unfortunately, a reasonable and eminently Biblical question like that rises to the level of wicked rebelliousness in some eyes. I have been accused in the past of failing to support "The Church" financially. In fact, one guy on Facebook described refusing to put money in the plate to support clerical staff at a local church as "evil". He was dead serious and outraged that anyone would even question the whole system.
Of course the opposite is just as dangerous and un-Biblical. Cynically refusing to give to others is simply unacceptable for a Christian. Giving of our resources in support of one another and the needy is a fundamental feature of the life of a believer and reflective of a changed life. So we ought to be giving deeply of our resources which includes not just money but our time, our love, our compassion, our talents. We need to think through why we give and how we give because just putting some money in the plate and letting others worry about where it goes is and giving little thought to how it is being spent is not healthy or helpful either.
Having said that, Kingdom giving is not the same thing as writing a check to sustain a local church organization and the confusion between the two is a problem. I want to take a lengthy look at giving in the NT church because I think we assume a lot of things about giving, where we should give, how we should give and what the purpose of giving is.
When we see the church giving in the New Testament, there are a couple of important things going on. First, the early church didn't "tithe" in the sense of paying a fixed percentage out of obligation, but gave completely and sacrificially and joyfully. Second, they gave to help others and by helping others I mean meeting the physical needs of believers and others. Let's look at some examples of giving in the New Testament (keeping in mind that the model under the Old Covenant is no longer applicable under the New Covenant in the church so we cannot appeal there for direction). Lets start with Acts 2: 44-45 and Acts 4: 32-35:
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2: 44-45)
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
The first thing that jumps out at me here is that this is a sacrificial giving, not a miserly tithe. I don’t think that this mandates that all Christians have all things in common but I certainly do see the advantages of that among believers and I likewise think that any believer who withholds from another when the other believer is in need has a troubling understanding of money and possessions. You certainly have a hard time reconciling the idea of giving a percentage of what is left over after taking care of all of your expenses and savings for retirement to the church and feeling that you are satisfying the call to support others.
The second thing, and this will be a recurring theme, is that the funds are being given as any had need. Not to fund a program or an institution but going to Christians who were in need. It sounds to me like it was “see a need, fill a need” situation. As someone has a need, it was fulfilled so that none were without. That would mean that some would have far less materially than they might have otherwise (i.e. Barnabas who sold his real estate and gave it to the church to be distributed to others in Acts 4: 36-37) but that was OK and expected.
Next we move to Acts 11: 27-30
Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11: 27-30)
Here we see a specific need that was prophesied as besetting the church in Judea that the rest of the church took up offerings for and delivered by hand for the relief of those saints. The church around the region was made aware of a need that wold impact a church in a completely different region and they gave to see to it that the needs of those brothers was met. This is a recurring theme....
Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor 16: 1-3)
We see here a special collection being taken at the church but not to stay in the coffers of the church in Corinth (and previously Galatia) but rather to be gathered and taken to Jerusalem for the severe need there, spoken of in a number of places throughout the New Testament.
Let’s look at the praise heaped upon the church in Macedonia for their generosity that was so extraordinary that Paul took the time to mention it in his letter to the church in Corinth. Paul devotes virtually all of two chapters to giving (2 Corinthians 8-9) but we often only hear about the "God loves a cheerful giver" portion (2 Cor 9: 6-8) from pulpits as a plea for greater giving to the local church when the offering is down, even though that has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.
We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8: 1-5)
In a time of severe trial, the Christians in Macedonia gave generously, “beyond their means” for….the relief of the saints. What a far cry from the situation in America where tens of thousands of churches across the land each have their own bank account, jealously guarded, where untold millions (billions?) are hoarded away for the needs of that local church. Going on further…
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” (2 Corinthians 8: 13-15)
The expectation again is that as some saints prosper, they help those who are less prosperous wherever they may be and not just in that particular local church. Given what Paul said about the saints in Maecdonia giving generously even in their poverty, I think that "prospering" means something very different to Paul than it does to us. So that means that we should feel a burden for the care of the saints beyond the “members” of out local church and include other believers in our area and indeed around the world. Can you imagine a traditional evangelical church in Nebraska where they decided that the offering for the next month would be bundled up, 100%, and sent to a community of Christian in Detroit who were suffering? It is hard to imagine because it would seem so out of place and out of character and because almost every local church has monthly bills that need to be paid. Nevertheless, that is precisely what was going on in the early church. Paul continues this conversation in the next chapter where he urges the Corinthians to be ready for the promised offering so as not to be embarrassed by a shortfall (2 Corinthians 9: 1-5). Then we get into the “cheerful giver” passages (2 Corinthians 9: 6-8). That is where the discussion often stops, but Paul goes on….
For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. (2 Corinthians 9: 12-14)
How are they glorifying God? By buying new carpet or adding a new wing on their “church” or hiring a youth minister? By saving money up in their bank account? No, they were glorifying God by supplying the needs of the saints, taking up a contribution for others who are not even part of their local church and who they probably never had and never would meet this side of eternity.
In a more general sense, under the marks of a true Christian in Romans 12, we see this admonition in verse 13:
Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Romans 12:13)
"Contribute to the needs of the saints". Notice that the mark of a true Christian is not sustaining the local church organization, it is again caring for the needs of the saints.
An interesting passage shows up in 2 Corinthians 11: 7-9, where Paul talks about receiving financial support from the church:
Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. (2 Cor 11: 7-9)
What is interesting here is that Paul is receiving support from other churches in order to serve the Corinthian church rather than burdening the Corinthian church and impeding his right to boast in the Gospel (this is consistent with 1 Corinthians 9: 1-23 where Paul talks about rejecting payment for preaching the Gospel so that his getting paid would not be an obstacle to the Gospel proclamation [see 1 Cor 9:12] ). In fact Paul sees the support he was receiving from these other churches as robbing those churches. I think it is fair to say that Paul saw the support he was receiving from these other churches as taking away from caring for the poor and needy among the saints in those areas. Given the lengths to which Paul reminded the church that he worked to provide for himself with his own hands, we can see a picture where caring for the needs of people is seen as the primary reason for giving in the church. Certainly there are occasions when money is diverted to support missionaries and church planters to use the traditional terminology but I tend to see that as the exception rather than the norm.
How did we arrive at the point where we transformed Biblical support for giving to meet the needs of the saints into giving to prop up the machinery of the institution? We give to sustain the church instead of giving to support the need of the Church. Here is what I mean...
You can give generously to The Church, i.e. other Christians as they have need, without giving to the church, i.e. the local organization where you meet with other believers. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to your local church but it does mean that you should be very cautious in doing so. Giving is not the price of admission nor is funding the operations of a local religious organization an especially pious act and certainly giving to the local church organization should not replace giving to care for the needs of the saints, the poor, widows and orphans. I have often heard it said that you should give to your local church first and then after fulfilling that obligation give to others. I think the opposite is more Biblical. We should give generously, sacrificially and joyfully to the needs of others as our first priority. The local church can and should be a part of that giving and distributing but it should not the primary beneficiary of that giving.
If we are people who take the Bible seriously, and most people who read and comment here fall into that category, ought we not see what the Bible has to say about the issue of giving, generosity and money? There are few things more contentious in the church than how we deal with giving and spending. Little wonder when we view these issues as we do, through the lens of tradition, instead of asking what the Bible has to say about it. Before I even started to look at this topic I had an idea of what I thought I would find but I was a little surprised by how overwhelmingly the Bible depicts the act of giving as being something that is primarily designed to meet the needs of others.
What do you think? Am I missing something or overstating my case? How do you think Christians would view giving if it were something that was mostly aimed at meeting the needs (I would argue primarily physical needs like hunger) of others instead of perpetuating the local church?
What I found interesting was a comment from Alan Knox:
First, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as supporting the church. In the same way, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as failing to support the church. In fact, if you see the organizational structure as detrimental to the church, then perhaps it is better NOT to support that organization.
That is right on. If you view, as I do, most of the organized, tradition bound church as an impediment to the making of disciples and equipping believers, why in the world would you support that system financially? It is irresponsible to keep pouring money into a system without asking the hard questions just because tradition and the loudest voices say so. Unfortunately, a reasonable and eminently Biblical question like that rises to the level of wicked rebelliousness in some eyes. I have been accused in the past of failing to support "The Church" financially. In fact, one guy on Facebook described refusing to put money in the plate to support clerical staff at a local church as "evil". He was dead serious and outraged that anyone would even question the whole system.
Of course the opposite is just as dangerous and un-Biblical. Cynically refusing to give to others is simply unacceptable for a Christian. Giving of our resources in support of one another and the needy is a fundamental feature of the life of a believer and reflective of a changed life. So we ought to be giving deeply of our resources which includes not just money but our time, our love, our compassion, our talents. We need to think through why we give and how we give because just putting some money in the plate and letting others worry about where it goes is and giving little thought to how it is being spent is not healthy or helpful either.
Having said that, Kingdom giving is not the same thing as writing a check to sustain a local church organization and the confusion between the two is a problem. I want to take a lengthy look at giving in the NT church because I think we assume a lot of things about giving, where we should give, how we should give and what the purpose of giving is.
When we see the church giving in the New Testament, there are a couple of important things going on. First, the early church didn't "tithe" in the sense of paying a fixed percentage out of obligation, but gave completely and sacrificially and joyfully. Second, they gave to help others and by helping others I mean meeting the physical needs of believers and others. Let's look at some examples of giving in the New Testament (keeping in mind that the model under the Old Covenant is no longer applicable under the New Covenant in the church so we cannot appeal there for direction). Lets start with Acts 2: 44-45 and Acts 4: 32-35:
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2: 44-45)
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
The first thing that jumps out at me here is that this is a sacrificial giving, not a miserly tithe. I don’t think that this mandates that all Christians have all things in common but I certainly do see the advantages of that among believers and I likewise think that any believer who withholds from another when the other believer is in need has a troubling understanding of money and possessions. You certainly have a hard time reconciling the idea of giving a percentage of what is left over after taking care of all of your expenses and savings for retirement to the church and feeling that you are satisfying the call to support others.
The second thing, and this will be a recurring theme, is that the funds are being given as any had need. Not to fund a program or an institution but going to Christians who were in need. It sounds to me like it was “see a need, fill a need” situation. As someone has a need, it was fulfilled so that none were without. That would mean that some would have far less materially than they might have otherwise (i.e. Barnabas who sold his real estate and gave it to the church to be distributed to others in Acts 4: 36-37) but that was OK and expected.
Next we move to Acts 11: 27-30
Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11: 27-30)
Here we see a specific need that was prophesied as besetting the church in Judea that the rest of the church took up offerings for and delivered by hand for the relief of those saints. The church around the region was made aware of a need that wold impact a church in a completely different region and they gave to see to it that the needs of those brothers was met. This is a recurring theme....
Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor 16: 1-3)
We see here a special collection being taken at the church but not to stay in the coffers of the church in Corinth (and previously Galatia) but rather to be gathered and taken to Jerusalem for the severe need there, spoken of in a number of places throughout the New Testament.
Let’s look at the praise heaped upon the church in Macedonia for their generosity that was so extraordinary that Paul took the time to mention it in his letter to the church in Corinth. Paul devotes virtually all of two chapters to giving (2 Corinthians 8-9) but we often only hear about the "God loves a cheerful giver" portion (2 Cor 9: 6-8) from pulpits as a plea for greater giving to the local church when the offering is down, even though that has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.
We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8: 1-5)
In a time of severe trial, the Christians in Macedonia gave generously, “beyond their means” for….the relief of the saints. What a far cry from the situation in America where tens of thousands of churches across the land each have their own bank account, jealously guarded, where untold millions (billions?) are hoarded away for the needs of that local church. Going on further…
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” (2 Corinthians 8: 13-15)
The expectation again is that as some saints prosper, they help those who are less prosperous wherever they may be and not just in that particular local church. Given what Paul said about the saints in Maecdonia giving generously even in their poverty, I think that "prospering" means something very different to Paul than it does to us. So that means that we should feel a burden for the care of the saints beyond the “members” of out local church and include other believers in our area and indeed around the world. Can you imagine a traditional evangelical church in Nebraska where they decided that the offering for the next month would be bundled up, 100%, and sent to a community of Christian in Detroit who were suffering? It is hard to imagine because it would seem so out of place and out of character and because almost every local church has monthly bills that need to be paid. Nevertheless, that is precisely what was going on in the early church. Paul continues this conversation in the next chapter where he urges the Corinthians to be ready for the promised offering so as not to be embarrassed by a shortfall (2 Corinthians 9: 1-5). Then we get into the “cheerful giver” passages (2 Corinthians 9: 6-8). That is where the discussion often stops, but Paul goes on….
For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. (2 Corinthians 9: 12-14)
How are they glorifying God? By buying new carpet or adding a new wing on their “church” or hiring a youth minister? By saving money up in their bank account? No, they were glorifying God by supplying the needs of the saints, taking up a contribution for others who are not even part of their local church and who they probably never had and never would meet this side of eternity.
In a more general sense, under the marks of a true Christian in Romans 12, we see this admonition in verse 13:
Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Romans 12:13)
"Contribute to the needs of the saints". Notice that the mark of a true Christian is not sustaining the local church organization, it is again caring for the needs of the saints.
An interesting passage shows up in 2 Corinthians 11: 7-9, where Paul talks about receiving financial support from the church:
Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. (2 Cor 11: 7-9)
What is interesting here is that Paul is receiving support from other churches in order to serve the Corinthian church rather than burdening the Corinthian church and impeding his right to boast in the Gospel (this is consistent with 1 Corinthians 9: 1-23 where Paul talks about rejecting payment for preaching the Gospel so that his getting paid would not be an obstacle to the Gospel proclamation [see 1 Cor 9:12] ). In fact Paul sees the support he was receiving from these other churches as robbing those churches. I think it is fair to say that Paul saw the support he was receiving from these other churches as taking away from caring for the poor and needy among the saints in those areas. Given the lengths to which Paul reminded the church that he worked to provide for himself with his own hands, we can see a picture where caring for the needs of people is seen as the primary reason for giving in the church. Certainly there are occasions when money is diverted to support missionaries and church planters to use the traditional terminology but I tend to see that as the exception rather than the norm.
How did we arrive at the point where we transformed Biblical support for giving to meet the needs of the saints into giving to prop up the machinery of the institution? We give to sustain the church instead of giving to support the need of the Church. Here is what I mean...
You can give generously to The Church, i.e. other Christians as they have need, without giving to the church, i.e. the local organization where you meet with other believers. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to your local church but it does mean that you should be very cautious in doing so. Giving is not the price of admission nor is funding the operations of a local religious organization an especially pious act and certainly giving to the local church organization should not replace giving to care for the needs of the saints, the poor, widows and orphans. I have often heard it said that you should give to your local church first and then after fulfilling that obligation give to others. I think the opposite is more Biblical. We should give generously, sacrificially and joyfully to the needs of others as our first priority. The local church can and should be a part of that giving and distributing but it should not the primary beneficiary of that giving.
If we are people who take the Bible seriously, and most people who read and comment here fall into that category, ought we not see what the Bible has to say about the issue of giving, generosity and money? There are few things more contentious in the church than how we deal with giving and spending. Little wonder when we view these issues as we do, through the lens of tradition, instead of asking what the Bible has to say about it. Before I even started to look at this topic I had an idea of what I thought I would find but I was a little surprised by how overwhelmingly the Bible depicts the act of giving as being something that is primarily designed to meet the needs of others.
What do you think? Am I missing something or overstating my case? How do you think Christians would view giving if it were something that was mostly aimed at meeting the needs (I would argue primarily physical needs like hunger) of others instead of perpetuating the local church?
Time to get off the bench
Talk is cheap. Blogging is even cheaper.After talking with my wife and the folks at the Haiti Orphan Project, I have decided to accompany their team to Haiti in January right around the anniversary of the devastating earthquake that left an already troubled nation utterly devastated. Time to get off the bench and get into Kingdom work.
I can't really explain why Haiti of all places really calls to me. There is plenty of need around the world and right here where we live. There is just something that draws me about Haiti and has been doing so for some time. I hesitate using the word "called" because I think that word is so misused but I am not sure I can describe it any other way. In speaking with my family, I see this as something that we as a family are looking at being involved in. Dave Black has said before that he regrets waiting so long to get into Kingdom work and I am taking his admonition to heart for me and for my family.
My hope is that along with ministering to these children in I can bring back the needs of Haiti to the states and get in front of local (Michigan and Ohio) church groups to try to help raise awareness and support for the work going on down there. My mind is awash with things I need to figure out. I have never travelled outside of the country before (other than Canada which isn't a real country), so I have no idea what to expect. Luckily I can rely on Les and the people from the Haiti Orphan Project to help guide me. So I would appreciate prayer for this endeavour as well as for those working in Haiti and elsewhere, right around the corner or around the world, to spread the Gospel of Christ and show mercy to those in need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)