Like many Americans, I am voting today. It is one of those civic duties we all do and I think that, in this life anyway, how we vote makes some difference. I am voting, no shock to anyway, for Republican candidates across the board because I feel that the principles that the GOP allegedly stands on (but often doesn’t govern on) are the best for the largest number of people: smaller government, lower taxes. There is a great deal of excitement among evangelical Christians who are politically conservative because we are expecting a big win for “our side” today.
In voting, I have no illusions that a GOP majority is going to lead to America “turning back to God” (or gods if you are Glenn Beck). I also don’t think that is the point. Yesterday America was a nation of people who by and large are lost and don’t even know it. A nation of people who need to hear the Gospel just like people in France or Tanzania or Thailand. No matter what happens today , that basic truth will still hold true. We will have a different crop of people who need Jesus in office and their policies will be different but their state before God will be the same.
There is a growing and dangerous reliance in the Church on the political process. If we can just overturn Roe v. Wade, if we can just stop gay marriage, if we can just get Nancy Pelosi out as speaker and Barack Obama out as President, then we will have a victory for Christianity. This blurring of the lines between our secular civic duty and our sacred eternal calling is dangerous and counter-productive to the Gospel.
We are not called to transform America, we called to proclaim the transforming message of Jesus Christ.
So I hope you vote today because it makes a difference, however minor, in our day to day lives but no matter the outcome, the greatest need of all people, in America and elsewhere is Jesus Christ and His Gospel is not a political movement. If you put your trust in politicians they will let you down. Put your faith in Jesus Christ and you will never be disappointed.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Monday, November 01, 2010
Tough questions
Dave Black echoes some of the very feelings I have and along the way he asks some tough questions, questions that I think we all know are out there but are too afraid/apathetic to answer.
The fellowship we enjoyed went far beyond the gastronomic. As we talked my mind wandered to a famous book published in 1967 by Hans Hillerbrand called The Fellowship of Discontent. Each of us feels a holy discontent with the status quo in our churches. (I hope it is a holy discontent.) Like the radical reformers of the sixteenth century and earlier, we desire to cut to the root of the church. We feel a holy dissatisfaction with the "affluenza" (Kevin's term) that characterizes Western Christendom. We desire with all our hearts the establishment of a church that Luther once described as "Christians in earnest who profess the gospel with hand and mouth." (This is my only nod to Luther on Reformation Sunday!) We see the church today mired with its own success and apathy. We long for a community of believers that is characterized by simplicity, democracy of organization, theological purity, humility of spirit, strong fraternal feelings -- in sum, a church composed of those who, in the words of Waldo (the founder of the Waldensian church in 12th century France), "follow nakedly a naked Christ." We want to be believers who live in such a way that proves that the church's task is to give itself in love and service to the world. I doubt that any of us -- I know I don't -- think that we live up to our aspirations. Sometimes I feel like the perfect hypocrite. Here I am, preaching about sacrifice, and but have I sold everything to follow Jesus? No. Am I just another Zwingli, a Greek scholar who had become (in the eyes of the Anabaptists) a mere "halfway man," afraid to face the consequences of his own teaching? The Anabaptists made the Great Commission the responsibility of every Christian. We Baptists have outsourced missions to professionals. The early Quakers went into all the world with a carelessness about geography. We ask ourselves, "But is it safe?" The Methodist leader Thomas Coke died in 1814 on his way to Ceylon. James, a 24-year old Burji, willingly exposed himself to grave danger when he translated for me while I preached to the Gujis, not knowing that a few weeks later it would cost him his life. Am I really seeking in my own life what the Hutterites called Gelassenheit -- a German word that connotes a complete yielding to God's will by the radical elimination of self-will? It is a high and holy privilege to serve Jesus. It is our assignment to reveal Him before a watching world. And you and I are added to the list of participants. Will we carry our weight?
Boy does that hit me like a ton of bricks. I am quick to ask those questions of others but less eager to ask them of myself and I fear that I often am more hypocrite than prophet.
The big question we all are faced with is: am I willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of Christ? Comfort, affluence, safety, life? I know what the answer should be but I don’t think the answer is yes for very many people and especially not for people who live in the affluent West.
This is not a question of justification by works or of seeking after our own righteousness. It is a question of what sort of faith we have. Is our faith a comfortable, Sunday morning, God-talk kind of faith that is an addendum to our lives as Americans or is our faith the ancient faith of the disciples, the faith of the Anabaptists and others who suffered persecution with joy and gladness. When I look at myself, and to be blunt almost all of the other Christians I know, I don’t see a life that is reflective of the life we have been called to. Christianity is part of who we are, it impacts what we do and the choices we make but it is not the sum total of who we are. It becomes an identifier: I am a Christian, I am an America, I am a Republican. In my case and in many others it is by far the most important distinction about me but it is still one of the distinctives among others.
Perhaps I am simply being morose today, a peevishness brought on by the shorter days, impatience with some impending big decision and the cesspool of politics that I keep diving into. I just can’t shake this feeling that I am like so many others, sleepwalking through our Christianity. I taught an overview of Jeremiah yesterday and when I think about how he lived for God in spite of the cost of being hated and reviled, being beaten and put in the stocks, seeing virtually no fruit for his efforts except faithfulness, I feel pretty unfaithful. I wonder what I would do if God called me to abandon everything and then I realize He has called me to do just that, to see what the world values as worthless. This goes way beyond the various, vague external pieties that we use to try to convince ourselves that we are true blue disciples.
I don’t want to be a religious American, I need to be a Christian who happens to currently live in America.
The fellowship we enjoyed went far beyond the gastronomic. As we talked my mind wandered to a famous book published in 1967 by Hans Hillerbrand called The Fellowship of Discontent. Each of us feels a holy discontent with the status quo in our churches. (I hope it is a holy discontent.) Like the radical reformers of the sixteenth century and earlier, we desire to cut to the root of the church. We feel a holy dissatisfaction with the "affluenza" (Kevin's term) that characterizes Western Christendom. We desire with all our hearts the establishment of a church that Luther once described as "Christians in earnest who profess the gospel with hand and mouth." (This is my only nod to Luther on Reformation Sunday!) We see the church today mired with its own success and apathy. We long for a community of believers that is characterized by simplicity, democracy of organization, theological purity, humility of spirit, strong fraternal feelings -- in sum, a church composed of those who, in the words of Waldo (the founder of the Waldensian church in 12th century France), "follow nakedly a naked Christ." We want to be believers who live in such a way that proves that the church's task is to give itself in love and service to the world. I doubt that any of us -- I know I don't -- think that we live up to our aspirations. Sometimes I feel like the perfect hypocrite. Here I am, preaching about sacrifice, and but have I sold everything to follow Jesus? No. Am I just another Zwingli, a Greek scholar who had become (in the eyes of the Anabaptists) a mere "halfway man," afraid to face the consequences of his own teaching? The Anabaptists made the Great Commission the responsibility of every Christian. We Baptists have outsourced missions to professionals. The early Quakers went into all the world with a carelessness about geography. We ask ourselves, "But is it safe?" The Methodist leader Thomas Coke died in 1814 on his way to Ceylon. James, a 24-year old Burji, willingly exposed himself to grave danger when he translated for me while I preached to the Gujis, not knowing that a few weeks later it would cost him his life. Am I really seeking in my own life what the Hutterites called Gelassenheit -- a German word that connotes a complete yielding to God's will by the radical elimination of self-will? It is a high and holy privilege to serve Jesus. It is our assignment to reveal Him before a watching world. And you and I are added to the list of participants. Will we carry our weight?
Boy does that hit me like a ton of bricks. I am quick to ask those questions of others but less eager to ask them of myself and I fear that I often am more hypocrite than prophet.
The big question we all are faced with is: am I willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of Christ? Comfort, affluence, safety, life? I know what the answer should be but I don’t think the answer is yes for very many people and especially not for people who live in the affluent West.
This is not a question of justification by works or of seeking after our own righteousness. It is a question of what sort of faith we have. Is our faith a comfortable, Sunday morning, God-talk kind of faith that is an addendum to our lives as Americans or is our faith the ancient faith of the disciples, the faith of the Anabaptists and others who suffered persecution with joy and gladness. When I look at myself, and to be blunt almost all of the other Christians I know, I don’t see a life that is reflective of the life we have been called to. Christianity is part of who we are, it impacts what we do and the choices we make but it is not the sum total of who we are. It becomes an identifier: I am a Christian, I am an America, I am a Republican. In my case and in many others it is by far the most important distinction about me but it is still one of the distinctives among others.
Perhaps I am simply being morose today, a peevishness brought on by the shorter days, impatience with some impending big decision and the cesspool of politics that I keep diving into. I just can’t shake this feeling that I am like so many others, sleepwalking through our Christianity. I taught an overview of Jeremiah yesterday and when I think about how he lived for God in spite of the cost of being hated and reviled, being beaten and put in the stocks, seeing virtually no fruit for his efforts except faithfulness, I feel pretty unfaithful. I wonder what I would do if God called me to abandon everything and then I realize He has called me to do just that, to see what the world values as worthless. This goes way beyond the various, vague external pieties that we use to try to convince ourselves that we are true blue disciples.
I don’t want to be a religious American, I need to be a Christian who happens to currently live in America.
A quick thought on the sword
If it was not acceptable for followers of Christ to take up the sword to defend Jesus Christ, why would anyone think that it is acceptable for followers of Christ to take up the sword to defend a secular nation?
Serving by observing?
I was thinking more about my recent post, Not the center of attention, and how different a gathering of the church is when the sermon is not the focal point of the meeting. In thinking about this, I returned back to that old staple, 1 Corinthians 14. Why that chapter? In spite of all of the talk about being Bible-believing churches and the Regulative Principle of Worship, the Bible doesn’t provide a ton of “does” and “don’ts” for the church meeting but 1 Corinthians 14 is perhaps the most extensive and clear passage in Scripture regarding both how the early church met and how the church should meet.
The clear implication of 1 Corinthians 14 is that when the church comes together, all of the brothers are expected and welcome to participate. They certainly should do so in an orderly manner, not in a chaotic way, but Paul is not writing to silence the brothers. In other words when Paul says “all things should be done decently and in order”, that doesn’t mean sit down, shut up and listen to the preacher. He certainly seems to be saying that all of the brothers can and should participate in the meeting and he is not only OK with that but he is affirming of it in places like verse 26:
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (1 Cor 14:26)
Compare this to a recent post from 9 Marks regarding the ways that “ordinary church members” can contribute to the Sunday morning meeting, How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning. Here is the list:
Before the Service
•Read the passage in advance
•Pray for the gathering
•Greet newcomers (act like you are the host)
•Think strategically about who you should sit with
•Arrive Early
During the Service
•Sing with gusto (even if you can’t sing)
•Help with logistics (if there’s a problem, help fix it)
•Don’t be distracted
•Listen carefully
•Be aware of your facial expressions (you may affect others and discourage preachers)
After the Service
•Connect newcomers with others
•Get newcomers information
•Start a conversation about the sermon
•Ask someone how they became a Christian
•Stay late
I think it is interesting that the post is titled: How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning. How exactly are “ordinary” members serving? Serving by observing? Look at the whole list but the sum total is that “ordinary” Christians should plan on showing up early to the appointed meeting, being friendly and smiley, singing loudly (but only when given permission and told which song to sing by the “worship leader”), being prepared to listen to the sermon and paying rapt attention during said sermon and then sticking around to socialize for a few minutes after the service, perhaps getting contact information from a visitor so one of the leaders can visit them and chatting about the sermon you just listened to.
So prepare for the sermon, sing in preparation of the sermon, listen closely to the sermon and talk about the sermon afterward. When Paul described the early church meeting, none of what is being described here is present. Just the opposite. If Paul were making this list he would include things like: come prepared to edify as well as be edified, be prepared to share some spiritual gift, make sure to take your turn but be sure to take your turn, expect to be an active part of the gathering. Not to worry about where you are sitting and if it is "strategic"!
If all you are expected to do to be an active member of the local church is what you see above, how are you growing in maturity and being equipped for the work of ministry? I think the issue is three-fold.
First, the church is clearly sermon centered and that is unhealthy. Having a time of teaching is great but if it occurs in the way we normally see it, we have one guy (typically the same guy) teaching week after week, people are not being edified and most Christians are not serving. I spoke last weekend and I won’t be the speaker again this year. I will still be permitted and expected to share each meeting and I will be leading some Sunday school discussions but someone else will do the final teaching of the morning. That prevents the Sunday morning gathering from turning into American Idol with the most “talented” speaker doing all of the speaking. Some of the men who teach each week are less polished than others but that isn’t really the point, is it? It is the difference between a performance based ministry and an edification based ministry and the difference is enormous.
Second, there are just too many people packed into church buildings on Sunday morning for the church to really serve one another. If you have 100, 200 or more people all sitting together in a “sanctuary” in rows of pews facing the front, how are they going to participate and be involved? 1 Coronthians 14 doesn’t really work in a church gathering of 150 adults. That doesn’t mean we should discard 1 Corinthians 14 as impractical! It does mean that we should revisit how we gather as the church and ask the hard questions about the “bigger is better” mentality that infects the church and leads to megachurches and remote/satellite “campuses” that quash any semblance of participation and make a mockery of Biblical fellowship. When our practices clash with the Bible, it is our practices that need to change, not the Word of God.
Third, “ordinary” church members are not expected or permitted to speak on an average Sunday morning. Maybe during Sunday school to ask questions of the teacher but the main meeting time is restricted to a very limited few. It would not be unusual for an adult male to come to church every Sunday for a year (or years!) and never be involved in the main “worship service” outside of singing on cue, bowing his head when told and listening to the sermon without checking email on his smart phone. That is the expected norm and because of that no one is prepared, willing or expecting to do much more than attend and observe. We bemoan the theological ignorance of the church but we keep trying to do more of the same and expect different results. Instead of preparing to meet with the church by thinking about what God has been teaching you the prior week, we prepare for church by getting on a suit and making plans for lunch.
Paul describes the church gathering in 1 Corinthians 14 as a meeting where all the brothers are participating, where each has something tangible to bring, where we edify one another and not through the “one and all the others” tradition. The participatory model from Scripture is not how the church typically meets now and it hasn’t done so for over 1000 years except in rare divergences, divergences that often were met with persecution.
When the church gathers, it should be for the edification and building up of the entire Body and that means that the entire Body has to be involved in more than just being on time, smiling and paying attention. Observing is not serving.
The clear implication of 1 Corinthians 14 is that when the church comes together, all of the brothers are expected and welcome to participate. They certainly should do so in an orderly manner, not in a chaotic way, but Paul is not writing to silence the brothers. In other words when Paul says “all things should be done decently and in order”, that doesn’t mean sit down, shut up and listen to the preacher. He certainly seems to be saying that all of the brothers can and should participate in the meeting and he is not only OK with that but he is affirming of it in places like verse 26:
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (1 Cor 14:26)
Compare this to a recent post from 9 Marks regarding the ways that “ordinary church members” can contribute to the Sunday morning meeting, How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning. Here is the list:
Before the Service
•Read the passage in advance
•Pray for the gathering
•Greet newcomers (act like you are the host)
•Think strategically about who you should sit with
•Arrive Early
During the Service
•Sing with gusto (even if you can’t sing)
•Help with logistics (if there’s a problem, help fix it)
•Don’t be distracted
•Listen carefully
•Be aware of your facial expressions (you may affect others and discourage preachers)
After the Service
•Connect newcomers with others
•Get newcomers information
•Start a conversation about the sermon
•Ask someone how they became a Christian
•Stay late
I think it is interesting that the post is titled: How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning. How exactly are “ordinary” members serving? Serving by observing? Look at the whole list but the sum total is that “ordinary” Christians should plan on showing up early to the appointed meeting, being friendly and smiley, singing loudly (but only when given permission and told which song to sing by the “worship leader”), being prepared to listen to the sermon and paying rapt attention during said sermon and then sticking around to socialize for a few minutes after the service, perhaps getting contact information from a visitor so one of the leaders can visit them and chatting about the sermon you just listened to.
So prepare for the sermon, sing in preparation of the sermon, listen closely to the sermon and talk about the sermon afterward. When Paul described the early church meeting, none of what is being described here is present. Just the opposite. If Paul were making this list he would include things like: come prepared to edify as well as be edified, be prepared to share some spiritual gift, make sure to take your turn but be sure to take your turn, expect to be an active part of the gathering. Not to worry about where you are sitting and if it is "strategic"!
If all you are expected to do to be an active member of the local church is what you see above, how are you growing in maturity and being equipped for the work of ministry? I think the issue is three-fold.
First, the church is clearly sermon centered and that is unhealthy. Having a time of teaching is great but if it occurs in the way we normally see it, we have one guy (typically the same guy) teaching week after week, people are not being edified and most Christians are not serving. I spoke last weekend and I won’t be the speaker again this year. I will still be permitted and expected to share each meeting and I will be leading some Sunday school discussions but someone else will do the final teaching of the morning. That prevents the Sunday morning gathering from turning into American Idol with the most “talented” speaker doing all of the speaking. Some of the men who teach each week are less polished than others but that isn’t really the point, is it? It is the difference between a performance based ministry and an edification based ministry and the difference is enormous.
Second, there are just too many people packed into church buildings on Sunday morning for the church to really serve one another. If you have 100, 200 or more people all sitting together in a “sanctuary” in rows of pews facing the front, how are they going to participate and be involved? 1 Coronthians 14 doesn’t really work in a church gathering of 150 adults. That doesn’t mean we should discard 1 Corinthians 14 as impractical! It does mean that we should revisit how we gather as the church and ask the hard questions about the “bigger is better” mentality that infects the church and leads to megachurches and remote/satellite “campuses” that quash any semblance of participation and make a mockery of Biblical fellowship. When our practices clash with the Bible, it is our practices that need to change, not the Word of God.
Third, “ordinary” church members are not expected or permitted to speak on an average Sunday morning. Maybe during Sunday school to ask questions of the teacher but the main meeting time is restricted to a very limited few. It would not be unusual for an adult male to come to church every Sunday for a year (or years!) and never be involved in the main “worship service” outside of singing on cue, bowing his head when told and listening to the sermon without checking email on his smart phone. That is the expected norm and because of that no one is prepared, willing or expecting to do much more than attend and observe. We bemoan the theological ignorance of the church but we keep trying to do more of the same and expect different results. Instead of preparing to meet with the church by thinking about what God has been teaching you the prior week, we prepare for church by getting on a suit and making plans for lunch.
Paul describes the church gathering in 1 Corinthians 14 as a meeting where all the brothers are participating, where each has something tangible to bring, where we edify one another and not through the “one and all the others” tradition. The participatory model from Scripture is not how the church typically meets now and it hasn’t done so for over 1000 years except in rare divergences, divergences that often were met with persecution.
When the church gathers, it should be for the edification and building up of the entire Body and that means that the entire Body has to be involved in more than just being on time, smiling and paying attention. Observing is not serving.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
On the other hand
It is important to temper our celebration of Reformation Day by remembering that the Reformers were just men, and flawed men at that. They were instrumental in recovering the Gospel that had been anathematized by Rome and in bringing the Word of God to the masses in their own language. Of course they left much "un-Reformed". The church was left with many of the same forms that Rome had created and are still with us today. Many practices live on that have no basis in Scripture. The Reformers themselves often persecuted those who challenged them as viciously as Rome, as the repost below indicates. So let's remember the men that God used but remember that Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were imperfect, flawed men and that our source of truth is not the Reformation, it is the Scriptures. Now back to watching Luther with my family.
Soli Deo Gloria!
-----
Soli Deo Gloria!
-----
Today, January 5th, marks the 483rd anniversary of the first martyr of the “Radical Reformation” on 1/5/1527. Felix Manz was executed by drowning in Lake Zurich, the first of a tragically large number of dissenters to be martyred by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. We often think of the martyrs of the reformation era as men and women murdered by Roman Catholic authorities (i.e. Foxes Book of Martyrs) but the ugly truth is that often it was professing Christians murdering fellow believers over issues of doctrine.
Episodes like the martyring of Felix Manz are disquieting because we place such a reverence on the Reformation era and the Reformers. Men like Calvin, Luther and Zwingli are some of the heroes of the faith because of their deep and voluminous writings. Their writings are unmatched for depth and being simply exhaustive. Nevertheless, men like Zwingli and Calvin are redeemed sinners the same as any of Christian and are as flawed as any man. Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8), writing a great treatise on theology doesn’t. Zwingli reportendly wrote this regarding Manz two days before his death: "The Anabaptist, who should already have been sent to the devil , disturbs the peace of the pious people. But I believe, the ax will settle it." . My point here is not to burn the Reformers in effigy but instead to remember the courageous death of a fellow believer who paid for his conviction with his own life in a manner that is worthy of any of the great martyrs of faith.
We can dance around this all we like. Technically, Manz was executed by drowning because he broke the law (i.e. was baptizing people) but make no mistake. This was a theological issue being settled by the sword far more than a civil legal issue. He was murdered for questioning the doctrine of infant bapstism as a holdover from Rome. These were the charges brought against him:
"because contrary to Christian order and custom he had become involved in Anabaptism, had accepted it, taught others, and become a leader and beginner of these things because he confessed having said that he wanted to gather those who wanted to accept Christ and follow Him, and unite himself with them through baptism, and let the rest live according to their faith, so that he and his followers separated themselves from the Christian Church and were about to raise up and prepare a sect of their own under the guise of a Christian meeting and church; because he had condemned capital punishment, and in order to increase his following had boasted of certain revelations from the Pauline Epistles. But since such doctrine is harmful to the unified usage of all Christendom, and leads to offense, insurrection, and sedition against the government, to the shattering of the common peace, brotherly love, and civil cooperation and to all evil, Manz shall be delivered to the executioner, who shall tie his hands, put him into a boat, take him to the lower hut, there strip his bound hands down over his knees, place a stick between his knees and arms, and thus push him into the water and let him perish in the water; thereby he shall have atoned to the law and justice. . . . His property shall also be confiscated by my lords."
“Harmful to the unified usage of all Christendom”? I don’t think drowning dissenters was what Jesus had in mind when He prayed for unity among His people in John 17: 21 . I especially like the part where they confiscate his property. Felix Manz was not a violent revolutionary like the men at Muenster. All he sought was “to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to leave the rest in their present conviction”. The crime of Felix Manz was shaking up the religious order of things, kind of like another group about 1500 years earlier (see Acts 4: 13-21). By refusing to baptize infants and insisting on baptizing willing adults, Manz was imprisoned several times, threatened with death and ultimately executed by drowning.
What Felix Manz was promoting is the basic belief of thousands of churches and millions of Christians in America, i.e. the baptism of believers and the voluntary association of Christians in the church. Try to imagine if the city council in Louisville decreed it illegal to refuse to baptize infants under penalty of death and further try to imagine if “Christian” ministers in Louisville stood silently while this went on. Manz may have been the first martyr among the Anabaptists but he was hardly the last. We need to remember those who were slaughtered by other “Christians” when we remember the Reformation era.
How I wish we had more Christians today who had the force of conviction of men like Felix Manz, men willing to abandon all for the truth and who had the courage of conviction to stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of real persecution, men who were unsatisfied with the “halfway” measures of the magisterial Reformers and sought a full restitution of the Biblical pattern for the church.
Episodes like the martyring of Felix Manz are disquieting because we place such a reverence on the Reformation era and the Reformers. Men like Calvin, Luther and Zwingli are some of the heroes of the faith because of their deep and voluminous writings. Their writings are unmatched for depth and being simply exhaustive. Nevertheless, men like Zwingli and Calvin are redeemed sinners the same as any of Christian and are as flawed as any man. Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8), writing a great treatise on theology doesn’t. Zwingli reportendly wrote this regarding Manz two days before his death: "The Anabaptist, who should already have been sent to the devil , disturbs the peace of the pious people. But I believe, the ax will settle it." . My point here is not to burn the Reformers in effigy but instead to remember the courageous death of a fellow believer who paid for his conviction with his own life in a manner that is worthy of any of the great martyrs of faith.
We can dance around this all we like. Technically, Manz was executed by drowning because he broke the law (i.e. was baptizing people) but make no mistake. This was a theological issue being settled by the sword far more than a civil legal issue. He was murdered for questioning the doctrine of infant bapstism as a holdover from Rome. These were the charges brought against him:
"because contrary to Christian order and custom he had become involved in Anabaptism, had accepted it, taught others, and become a leader and beginner of these things because he confessed having said that he wanted to gather those who wanted to accept Christ and follow Him, and unite himself with them through baptism, and let the rest live according to their faith, so that he and his followers separated themselves from the Christian Church and were about to raise up and prepare a sect of their own under the guise of a Christian meeting and church; because he had condemned capital punishment, and in order to increase his following had boasted of certain revelations from the Pauline Epistles. But since such doctrine is harmful to the unified usage of all Christendom, and leads to offense, insurrection, and sedition against the government, to the shattering of the common peace, brotherly love, and civil cooperation and to all evil, Manz shall be delivered to the executioner, who shall tie his hands, put him into a boat, take him to the lower hut, there strip his bound hands down over his knees, place a stick between his knees and arms, and thus push him into the water and let him perish in the water; thereby he shall have atoned to the law and justice. . . . His property shall also be confiscated by my lords."
“Harmful to the unified usage of all Christendom”? I don’t think drowning dissenters was what Jesus had in mind when He prayed for unity among His people in John 17: 21 . I especially like the part where they confiscate his property. Felix Manz was not a violent revolutionary like the men at Muenster. All he sought was “to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to leave the rest in their present conviction”. The crime of Felix Manz was shaking up the religious order of things, kind of like another group about 1500 years earlier (see Acts 4: 13-21). By refusing to baptize infants and insisting on baptizing willing adults, Manz was imprisoned several times, threatened with death and ultimately executed by drowning.
What Felix Manz was promoting is the basic belief of thousands of churches and millions of Christians in America, i.e. the baptism of believers and the voluntary association of Christians in the church. Try to imagine if the city council in Louisville decreed it illegal to refuse to baptize infants under penalty of death and further try to imagine if “Christian” ministers in Louisville stood silently while this went on. Manz may have been the first martyr among the Anabaptists but he was hardly the last. We need to remember those who were slaughtered by other “Christians” when we remember the Reformation era.
How I wish we had more Christians today who had the force of conviction of men like Felix Manz, men willing to abandon all for the truth and who had the courage of conviction to stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of real persecution, men who were unsatisfied with the “halfway” measures of the magisterial Reformers and sought a full restitution of the Biblical pattern for the church.
Not the center of attention
About the time this is being posted I will be speaking at our gathering of the church. This is nothing new for me, I have delivered a fair number of sermons in my time as a Christian. The big difference is that the meeting this morning doesn't center around the message I am preparing. Most of the time when I was delivering a sermon, the whole gathering focused around that. We did some praying and sang a few songs but the centerpiece was the sermon. If it was a dud, the whole gathering seemed to be deflated. If it went great, well that made the whole gathering seem to be better. This morning our real focus is on the breaking of bread in an open setting where the brothers all can participate, on an interactive discussion of apologetic during Sunday school and on a shared time of fellowship.
I can't even describe how different it feels. While I certainly have spent a fair amount of time preparing what I am going to share this morning, I don't feel the burden of being the centerpiece of what is for most people the focal point of their week as a Christian. I am just a brother among my peers sharing from the Word of God and next week a different brother will be doing the sharing. It is not a perfect gathering by any stretch and there are some things I would change but I am glad that the focus is not on me and what I have to say because that makes it a lot easier to focus our attention where it should be, i.e. on Jesus Christ!
To God Alone Be The Glory!
Soli Deo Gloria!
I can't even describe how different it feels. While I certainly have spent a fair amount of time preparing what I am going to share this morning, I don't feel the burden of being the centerpiece of what is for most people the focal point of their week as a Christian. I am just a brother among my peers sharing from the Word of God and next week a different brother will be doing the sharing. It is not a perfect gathering by any stretch and there are some things I would change but I am glad that the focus is not on me and what I have to say because that makes it a lot easier to focus our attention where it should be, i.e. on Jesus Christ!
To God Alone Be The Glory!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Happy Reformation Day!
October 31st is the day for an annual reminder of the traditional start of the Protestant Reformation and a reminder of how important these issues are still today.
-----
October 31, 1517
On this day in 1517, a German monk nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany and launched a movement that would change the world. While much of the world celebrates Halloween, we will celebrate Reformation Day with popcorn and a private home viewing of Luther.
The issues with Roman Catholicism are as true and pressing today as they were then. Justification by faith alone, one of the cornerstones of the Gospel, still stands anathematized by Rome. In other words the Gospel is declared anathema by the man who styles himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. The words of the Council of Trent still stand, and until Rome rejects those teachings there can be no reconciliation between Rome and Christianity.
Today is a day we should celebrate our Lord raising up flawed men like Martin Luther who He used mightily in the propagation of His Gospel against those who would reject it. It is also a day of sober reflection on the constant assault against the Gospel and the perpetual need to guard the faith delivered once for all, and entrusted to the church for all time. Pray that God will continue to raise up men like Martin Luther. We certainly could use some today.
Sola Fide! Sola Gratia! Solus Christus!
Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!
-----
October 31, 1517
On this day in 1517, a German monk nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany and launched a movement that would change the world. While much of the world celebrates Halloween, we will celebrate Reformation Day with popcorn and a private home viewing of Luther.
The issues with Roman Catholicism are as true and pressing today as they were then. Justification by faith alone, one of the cornerstones of the Gospel, still stands anathematized by Rome. In other words the Gospel is declared anathema by the man who styles himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. The words of the Council of Trent still stand, and until Rome rejects those teachings there can be no reconciliation between Rome and Christianity.
Today is a day we should celebrate our Lord raising up flawed men like Martin Luther who He used mightily in the propagation of His Gospel against those who would reject it. It is also a day of sober reflection on the constant assault against the Gospel and the perpetual need to guard the faith delivered once for all, and entrusted to the church for all time. Pray that God will continue to raise up men like Martin Luther. We certainly could use some today.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Best of the week entry 5
This one comes from Felicity Dale (thanks for the link Alan!) and talks briefly about meals preventing religious rituals: This helps to prevent religious rituals in a simple/organic church
The third of the four things that the early disciples devoted themselves to was "breaking bread." The second half of 1 Corinthians 11, which discusses the problems caused when some people ate all the food without waiting for others to arrive or even got drunk (!), makes it plain that this was in the context of a full meal (verse 21). It isn't referring to a fragment of cracker or bread and a thimbleful of wine or grape juice taken solemnly and silently together! We know too from Acts 2:46 that the new believers shared their meals together.
Most simple/organic churches meet in the context of a meal. There is something about eating together that enables fellowship, and it's harder to be "religious" where food is involved. Eating together usually involves laughter and sharing, good-natured banter and deep heart-to-heart discussions. As one of our friends likes to say, "How do you spell fellowship? It's four letters:
F-O-O-D!
I agree that it is clear from Scripture that sharing meals together was fundamental to the early church. The church clearly shared lots of meals together and I believe that rather than crackers and plastic shot glasses of grape juice, when the people of God got together, even for the Lord's Supper, it was most likely a full meal and not a religious ritual. It is hard to be religious and put on a show when you are chewing food, talking openly (which is forbidden during the traditional "Lord's Supper" observation) and enjoying actual fellowship.
The third of the four things that the early disciples devoted themselves to was "breaking bread." The second half of 1 Corinthians 11, which discusses the problems caused when some people ate all the food without waiting for others to arrive or even got drunk (!), makes it plain that this was in the context of a full meal (verse 21). It isn't referring to a fragment of cracker or bread and a thimbleful of wine or grape juice taken solemnly and silently together! We know too from Acts 2:46 that the new believers shared their meals together.
Most simple/organic churches meet in the context of a meal. There is something about eating together that enables fellowship, and it's harder to be "religious" where food is involved. Eating together usually involves laughter and sharing, good-natured banter and deep heart-to-heart discussions. As one of our friends likes to say, "How do you spell fellowship? It's four letters:
F-O-O-D!
I agree that it is clear from Scripture that sharing meals together was fundamental to the early church. The church clearly shared lots of meals together and I believe that rather than crackers and plastic shot glasses of grape juice, when the people of God got together, even for the Lord's Supper, it was most likely a full meal and not a religious ritual. It is hard to be religious and put on a show when you are chewing food, talking openly (which is forbidden during the traditional "Lord's Supper" observation) and enjoying actual fellowship.
Best of the week entry 4
Comes from Eric Carpenter on Becoming A Statistic:
When I was in seminary, the professors repeatedly lamented the fact that the average stay of a Southern Baptist pastor at a particular church was somewhere between two and four years. I heard various statistics, but they all seemed to fall in that range.
I've served as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church for about 2.5 years. This coming Sunday is my final day as pastor. God, in His grace, is allowing me to finish preaching through the book of Matthew on Sunday (I started about two years ago). What a great way to go out: preaching about our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We will miss our friends there and look forward to visiting.
So I'm becoming a statistic. Instead of staying for years and years, I'm leaving like so many others.
Many pastors leave "the ministry" because of frustration and burnout, something I have written about before. I think it is inevitable that this happens when the weight of ministry falls on the shoulders of one or a few men, something that was never intended. Eric is not "leaving the ministry", he is ministering in a different way and I applaud him for making this huge leap of faith.
I think it is great that Eric is making this enormous move on October 31st, Reformation Sunday. I am praying that like a certain German monk in 1517, Eric will be followed by many others who are seeking to return to a rich Biblical fellowship among believers!
When I was in seminary, the professors repeatedly lamented the fact that the average stay of a Southern Baptist pastor at a particular church was somewhere between two and four years. I heard various statistics, but they all seemed to fall in that range.
I've served as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church for about 2.5 years. This coming Sunday is my final day as pastor. God, in His grace, is allowing me to finish preaching through the book of Matthew on Sunday (I started about two years ago). What a great way to go out: preaching about our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We will miss our friends there and look forward to visiting.
So I'm becoming a statistic. Instead of staying for years and years, I'm leaving like so many others.
Many pastors leave "the ministry" because of frustration and burnout, something I have written about before. I think it is inevitable that this happens when the weight of ministry falls on the shoulders of one or a few men, something that was never intended. Eric is not "leaving the ministry", he is ministering in a different way and I applaud him for making this huge leap of faith.
I think it is great that Eric is making this enormous move on October 31st, Reformation Sunday. I am praying that like a certain German monk in 1517, Eric will be followed by many others who are seeking to return to a rich Biblical fellowship among believers!
Best of the week entry 3
The next entry is a provocative piece from Stanley Hauerwas, writing for the unapologetic left wing London paper, the Guardian. Hauerwas argues that the U.S. is actually more secular than our neighbor across the pond, Great Britain, in spite of our overt religiosity. His essay, How real is America's faith?, argues that Americans simply have a generalized belief in belief. Here is a sampling:
The British, I have discovered, assume that Americans are more religious than they are. That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism. As yet no one running for high political office in the US has been willing so to identify themselves. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement of political office in America that you believe in God. Americans seem to think those who rule us must believe in God because, if they do not, they cannot be "moral"– which means they will cheat on their spouses, thus destroying the family, which will bring civilisation to an end.
Yet I remain unconvinced that the difference between Britain and the US, when it comes to religion, can be determined by the faith or lack of it of those in public office. In fact, I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.
Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US. The god most Americans say they believe in is not interesting enough to deny, because it is only the god that has given them a country that ensures that they have the right to choose to believe in the god of their choosing, Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.
America is the exemplification of what I call the project of modernity. That project is the attempt to produce a people that believes it should have no story except the story it chose when it had no story. That is what Americans mean by freedom.
The whole article is very interesting and makes a point I would agree with. Americans by and large are a very religious people but our religion is based more on ourselves and our national identity than any faith in God.
(I first saw this linked from Al Mohler who has his own take on what Hauerwas wrote here)
The British, I have discovered, assume that Americans are more religious than they are. That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism. As yet no one running for high political office in the US has been willing so to identify themselves. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement of political office in America that you believe in God. Americans seem to think those who rule us must believe in God because, if they do not, they cannot be "moral"– which means they will cheat on their spouses, thus destroying the family, which will bring civilisation to an end.
Yet I remain unconvinced that the difference between Britain and the US, when it comes to religion, can be determined by the faith or lack of it of those in public office. In fact, I am not convinced that the US is more religious than Britain. Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.
Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US. The god most Americans say they believe in is not interesting enough to deny, because it is only the god that has given them a country that ensures that they have the right to choose to believe in the god of their choosing, Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.
America is the exemplification of what I call the project of modernity. That project is the attempt to produce a people that believes it should have no story except the story it chose when it had no story. That is what Americans mean by freedom.
The whole article is very interesting and makes a point I would agree with. Americans by and large are a very religious people but our religion is based more on ourselves and our national identity than any faith in God.
(I first saw this linked from Al Mohler who has his own take on what Hauerwas wrote here)
Best of the week entry 2
Comes from Ed Stetzer and looks at how meeting in a non-traditional setting impacts attracting new people:
First, you have to ask the question, "Will the unchurched visit a church that meets in a non-traditional venue?" Survey results indicate that they will.
To a majority of the population -- and particularly the unchurched -- it doesn't matter. While I was at the Center for Missional Research at the North American Mission Board, we asked 1,200 people if knowing a church meets in a traditional church building would negatively affect their decision to visit or join a church. Nearly three quarters of those surveyed expressed that whether or not the church met in a traditional church building made no difference. (This blog is an adaptation of an article I wrote on the subject while working there.)
More precisely, we asked, "If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?"
The responses told an important story:
* It would not make any difference - 73%
* It would negatively impact my decision - 19%
* It would positively impact my decision - 6%
* Not sure - 2%
One can hope that this helps to defuse the notion that you have to have a churchy looking building to be a real church. Many church planters have the goal of getting out of non-traditional (and far cheaper) settings and become a real church by buying a building. If we are really about the business of making disciples, it seems that the presence of a traditional building is not only not helping, more than three times as many people (19% vs 6%) say it hinders them than encourages them! Traditional church buildings are comfy places for people comfortably cocooned in American cultural Christianity but they are uninviting places for many people who don;t have that background, the very people I thought we were trying to reach (by insisting they come to us?!)
I thought this was especially interesting:
As you might expect, lily-and-poinsettia church attendees (those who come just on the holidays) reacted more negatively to the idea of coming to a non-traditional church building. (Often the reason they attend church on the holidays is to make some connection with traditions of their past.) Six times as many holiday church goers preferred traditional locations to non-traditional ones.
So traditional churches are super appealing to those who want to show up occasionally somewhere and feel religious. They are not part of the church universal in any sense but they have a place to go where they can reconnect with their traditions and then move on. Church buildings are designed for people to receive anonymous religion instead of being part of a community of believers. This is a great study but one that I am afraid will have little impact on the traditional church and its stubborn and prideful insistence on how "church" should look.
We should seek to attract people to Jesus, not to buildings.
First, you have to ask the question, "Will the unchurched visit a church that meets in a non-traditional venue?" Survey results indicate that they will.
To a majority of the population -- and particularly the unchurched -- it doesn't matter. While I was at the Center for Missional Research at the North American Mission Board, we asked 1,200 people if knowing a church meets in a traditional church building would negatively affect their decision to visit or join a church. Nearly three quarters of those surveyed expressed that whether or not the church met in a traditional church building made no difference. (This blog is an adaptation of an article I wrote on the subject while working there.)
More precisely, we asked, "If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?"
The responses told an important story:
* It would not make any difference - 73%
* It would negatively impact my decision - 19%
* It would positively impact my decision - 6%
* Not sure - 2%
One can hope that this helps to defuse the notion that you have to have a churchy looking building to be a real church. Many church planters have the goal of getting out of non-traditional (and far cheaper) settings and become a real church by buying a building. If we are really about the business of making disciples, it seems that the presence of a traditional building is not only not helping, more than three times as many people (19% vs 6%) say it hinders them than encourages them! Traditional church buildings are comfy places for people comfortably cocooned in American cultural Christianity but they are uninviting places for many people who don;t have that background, the very people I thought we were trying to reach (by insisting they come to us?!)
I thought this was especially interesting:
As you might expect, lily-and-poinsettia church attendees (those who come just on the holidays) reacted more negatively to the idea of coming to a non-traditional church building. (Often the reason they attend church on the holidays is to make some connection with traditions of their past.) Six times as many holiday church goers preferred traditional locations to non-traditional ones.
So traditional churches are super appealing to those who want to show up occasionally somewhere and feel religious. They are not part of the church universal in any sense but they have a place to go where they can reconnect with their traditions and then move on. Church buildings are designed for people to receive anonymous religion instead of being part of a community of believers. This is a great study but one that I am afraid will have little impact on the traditional church and its stubborn and prideful insistence on how "church" should look.
We should seek to attract people to Jesus, not to buildings.
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Dave Black last Thursday (10:10 AM) and has to do with the New Covenant...
After class I jotted down 5 marks of the New Covenant:
1) It preaches Christ alone. He is the only mediator between God and us. This is strong language. We can't tone it down or try to explain it away. There is only one saving Gospel.
2) It liberates from legalism. Our Lord did not come to make life narrow and rigid but rich and full. Abundant life does not consist of things. We may have many material possessions and not have it, and we may have nothing and possess it fully. The abundant life consists of God's grace, pure and simple. And God delights to give us treasures from heaven. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are a plutocrat, not a pauper.
3) It eschews all human mediation. In the New Covenant each of us can know God personally. He invites us to learn of Him and promises to give us rest. This is far better than getting information second hand from our professors and pastors. It would be wonderful to overhear everyday Christians who are excited about exploring the riches of God's Word for themselves.
4) It minimizes the mechanics. We are no longer preoccupied with the externals of Christianity. God is not impressed with all of our ornate temples and sanctuaries. Vestments, gold, altars matter not. The simpler our faith, the better.
5) It leads to love of neighbor. We understand the New Covenant properly when we see ourselves as God sees us, as members of a new community that becomes the proving ground of our religion.
I don't want to forget these lessons, I told myself after class was over. "They will all know Me, from the least to the greatest." This is a revolutionary truth. That doesn't surprise me, because the Bible is a revolutionary book. Jesus has created a new community of people that come from all classes, and distinctions between rich and poor or between least and greatest are lessened by holy, loving fellowship and unity.
The New Covenant in Christ that is not like the Old is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Bible and yet it is one of the most vital. I am teaching tomorrow on Jeremiah and the New Covenant promise in chapter 31 will be quite prominent!
After class I jotted down 5 marks of the New Covenant:
1) It preaches Christ alone. He is the only mediator between God and us. This is strong language. We can't tone it down or try to explain it away. There is only one saving Gospel.
2) It liberates from legalism. Our Lord did not come to make life narrow and rigid but rich and full. Abundant life does not consist of things. We may have many material possessions and not have it, and we may have nothing and possess it fully. The abundant life consists of God's grace, pure and simple. And God delights to give us treasures from heaven. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are a plutocrat, not a pauper.
3) It eschews all human mediation. In the New Covenant each of us can know God personally. He invites us to learn of Him and promises to give us rest. This is far better than getting information second hand from our professors and pastors. It would be wonderful to overhear everyday Christians who are excited about exploring the riches of God's Word for themselves.
4) It minimizes the mechanics. We are no longer preoccupied with the externals of Christianity. God is not impressed with all of our ornate temples and sanctuaries. Vestments, gold, altars matter not. The simpler our faith, the better.
5) It leads to love of neighbor. We understand the New Covenant properly when we see ourselves as God sees us, as members of a new community that becomes the proving ground of our religion.
I don't want to forget these lessons, I told myself after class was over. "They will all know Me, from the least to the greatest." This is a revolutionary truth. That doesn't surprise me, because the Bible is a revolutionary book. Jesus has created a new community of people that come from all classes, and distinctions between rich and poor or between least and greatest are lessened by holy, loving fellowship and unity.
The New Covenant in Christ that is not like the Old is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Bible and yet it is one of the most vital. I am teaching tomorrow on Jeremiah and the New Covenant promise in chapter 31 will be quite prominent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)