Still working on upgrading and re-arranging content… ‘pardon the mess’ during the revamping process. At this time most links are broken. This will be resolved over the next day or two.

No tags

“If you love me, you will love the church.”

These words come from a 2003 song by Derek Webb and were intended to be a clear reminder that it is impossible to profess to be a Christian and yet have disdain for the Church, the worldwide fellowship of those who have been justified and who have been sanctified, as well as the saints who have gone before.

Yet we live in a time where it is becoming more and more fashionable to disrespect the Church and instead take on the attitude that we can best worship God individually, potentially even forsaking the Body of Christ altogether. In the culture in general, the Church is not seen in the same positive light as it once was; and even among professing Christians, views on the church often tend to be negative. It’s true that some of the disdain is warranted, as in this day and age there are plenty of “churches” out there that are really little more than feel-good social clubs, motivational seminars, or safe-houses for the “perfect”. These places which teach a false gospel or no gospel at all do certainly leave a black stain on the reputation of the true Church of which they only pretend to be a part.

As a reaction to this, many end up distancing themselves from the historical tenets of the faith, instead seeking to go their own way and formulate a new brand from the ground up. The assumption seems to be that “the establishment” gave way to these errors, so it needs to be replaced with something new, pure, and “authentic”. These days, in some churches we don’t hear the words “church”, “sermon”, “sacraments”, etc. but instead hear of things such as “the conversation” instead.  To some extent using new terminology isn’t really a problem, but I have a concern that these groups are going to tread dangerously close to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and forsaking Biblical truth for the sake of “giving Jesus new PR”. It seems that rather than doing what the Reformers did – holding to the truth while weeding out error – it has become popular instead to “reinvent the wheel”, so to speak.

Yet before it reaches a point where it seems like I’m trying to knock the emergents, please note that isn’t really the case. I think we have some things we could stand to learn from them; and even in some of the other areas, to some extent I find it hard to blame them. There are some people who have never encountered a seriously dangerous “church” environment and have instead had the blessing of knowing only solid, sound, healthy Biblical teaching and fellowship from the youngest age they can remember. But many of us have at one time or another been in a position of being fed unsound doctrine, or worse, being subject to spiritual abuse in the name of Christ – which happens more often than I think anyone wants to admit (perhaps especially in fundamentalist and Pentecostal circles).

When we realize this is happening, our instincts may be to cut and flee (and in all likelihood, rightly so). But then as the healing process begins, we often want to isolate ourselves from anything resembling what we were once part of. And my fear is that many who reach this point will reject truth altogether. I’ve seen it happen multiple times, so I know it is a very real danger.

Others, however, while not rejecting core truths such as the deity of Christ, still end up developing a deep bitterness toward anything that resembles organized Christianity.  All organized branches of Christianity, apparently regardless of position and behavior, get lumped together as “bad” and then chastised for alleged faults. In this situation, it becomes exceedingly popular to denigrate the Church as a whole, and then coin new terms in order to still be identified as a “Christ-worshiper” but not a member of “the Church” or a “Christian”.  (Here is one article that digs a little deeper into this tendency.)

So finally… this is probably the core of my concern about the emergents; that while they correctly identify many problems, they overreact in their responses to those problems.

But at this point I haven’t really addressed what a healthy response might be. If you’re in a spiritually-abusive church situation, where the Gospel is being distorted – or if you are in a place where the Gospel isn’t even ever preached at all – then you would do well to move on and find healing, while being careful to identify, and then not forsake, the core tenets of the faith.  But what if you are still struggling while being in a grace-filled fellowship that is faithfully preaching the Word and presenting the sacraments? What if, at least to you, something still seems to be lacking?

I have to choose my words carefully going into this next section due to my role as a church employee. Please note that these are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of the church. That said, if you read this next paragraph and it doesn’t sound right to you, I’d encourage you to give me a call or talk to me Sunday! Anyway, what I have to say is this:  from time to time, I come in contact with individuals who are either dissatisfied with what various groups in the church are doing (or more accurately, “not doing”). Often the case ends up being that said individuals or families finally make the decision to move on and fellowship in another church body that does provide the activity or service they are looking for. But I’m not convinced that approach is right, and here’s why.

What is a church? I think all too often we see it as a corporate body, much like a business, directed by a few and basically reflecting the views and values of a few. Though that’s not entirely inaccurate – and for good reason – all too often we forget that a ‘church’ isn’t the building nor the entity, but rather is the fellowship of Christians coming together as one body with one thing in common – worship of God. But as a group (the whole) comprised of individuals and families (the parts), it means that we’re all in it together. When it comes to the body of Christ being the hands and feet of Christ and going out into the community, for example, it doesn’t have to be an organized event. You want to do outreach in the surrounding neighborhoods? Go do outreach in the surrounding neighborhoods. You want more of an emphasis on sharing the Gospel? When was the last time you shared the Gospel with someone? You want more friendliness when you walk in the door? How many people did you go out of your way to be friendly to when they walked in? You want others to accept you into their circles? When was the last time you reached out to other people outside your circle? To put it succinctly… if you want change in your world, be the change in your world. What I mean by this is it’s not always appropriate to expect things such as these to be top-down goals of leadership. The corporate body in general may not all at once share your same passion, but in many cases all it takes is one. You can be that one. There are many elements such as these that will only become thriving ministries if someone steps in and fills the role; and by filling that role, all of a sudden – as part of the church – you have suddenly added to the ministries of the church.

To borrow (and twist) a quote from the late President John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your church can do for you; ask what you can do for your church.” (And then go from there… ask what you can do for your neighbors, for your coworkers, for your city, for the kingdom!) Another angle on it is this: when everyone in a group waits for another person to take the first step forward, all stand still.

Now, don’t read into this what I am not saying. This is not by any means to be interpreted as being something negative against strong, session-led, Presbyterian governance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am convinced in my position that the Presbyterian form of church government is key to a healthy church, as it safeguards against both personality-based cultishness as well as direction-less democracy. If you are seeking to head up an organized ministry within the church, I in no uncertain terms strongly encourage you to contact your shepherding TE. But similarly, when it comes to things like caring for the unchurched, being friendly to one another, avoiding cliquishness, being a witness to those you come in contact with… don’t wait for someone else to take the first step and then fault the church when no one else does. Maybe it is you who are in the right place at the right time, “for such a time as this.”

I’ll close by asking this simple question. Think about it, ponder its meaning, and evaluate your response to it:  ”Do you love the bride of Christ?” Christ loves it, whore though it all too often is – but nonetheless, He loves it and gave Himself up for it. “Do you love the bride of Christ?”

church · culture · evangelical · postmodernism · reformed

It’s been a while since my last post. Between a lot of offline activity (homebuying process, which remains in progress), quite a few projects, and a case of writer’s block, I haven’t had much to say in this space.

I still don’t.

But I might as well pass along a new original recipe. I realize it’s not at all what people expect to find on this blog, but nonetheless, here it is.

By the way, the recipe isn’t officially named. When making it for a chili cookoff, I went with the makeshift title “Deep South Chili” due to the prevalence of “Southern” ingredients. However, a few people commented that it wasn’t exactly chili due to not having red beans or red meat or red sauce. If it’s not chili, it’s at least based on the concept. Here it is:

food

Will national reformation take place when the right men are in office? Find out in this sermon from January 10, 2010, on 2 Kings 9-10 (focusing on King Jehu of Israel).

link: How (Not) To Reform A Nation (2 Kings 9-10)

culture · politics · sermon

church · covenant · culture · grace · personal

This may not make a lot of sense unless you’ve read “True Spirituality” by Francis Schaeffer — but the general idea of each question should still resonate… here are some discussion questions I put together recently for a small group discussion which I moderated last night. We looked at the last half of the book and I intended to focus primarily on the last chapter, which handles the topic of substantial healing in the church. One of the goals in the discussion was to look at a more holistic understanding of personhood, first beginning at the core (thoughts) and progressing outward to body, family, church, etc. It’s an area I’d like to explore more in the future as even in a healthy church I think some of this is missing. Feel free to chime in the discussion.

= = = = = =

Page 145. Does our role as Christ’s means of communication to the external world change anything in how we act, especially in the order of thoughts -> actions through our bodies -> effect on the world?

Page 148. What is lost if the church functions on less than the personal level?

Page 149. In our respective roles within the church, and as a church, how are we doing on consciously encouraging freedom in the present life from the bonds of sin, and freedom in the present life from the results of the bonds of sin?

Page 149. How are we teaching faith, both as a church and in individual actions? What does teaching faith look like? How do we consciously do this moment by moment?

Page 150. Schaeffer says we must teach in words the duty to exhibit that God exists and that he is personal? How do we do this, and how does the corporate body practice this truth?
As individuals, families, and as a corporate body, how do we show we take holiness and love, and love and communication, seriously? What would it look like?

Page 151. What difference, specifically, would it make to us in practice if the passages on prayer and the Holy Spirit were really not in the Bible?

Page 153. Organization is necessary for a healthy church, and the Presbyterian system of government provides solid organization, but might there be areas where organization nonetheless can risk stepping in the way of following the Holy Spirit’s leading?

Page 154. On the topic of loyalty, when under fire, how easy or hard is it to remain focused on the larger picture (the role of the Church as a whole) when focusing on your immediate organization (i.e. local church or component of the local church). How does it change when focusing on Christ as the head of the Church?

Page 155. On the topic of “many a Christian’s child” seeing real love and communication… We’re in an era where there are many youth who have grown up in the church and end up leaving that particular local fellowship, with the reason often described as wanting to be elsewhere so as to be around people who are “real”. “Authenticity” is another prized buzzword today. Is there a lack of love and communication that could be bringing this about? In an era where people are trying to find their humanity, are we helping or are we perpetuating the world’s result of loss of humanity?

Page 156. How can we make love and communication (especially in diversity, 2nd paragraph) a reality on a local level?

Page 156. Do we struggle to see fellow church attenders as real people, individually, names, faces, souls, etc. (cf.pg.154) and not just as members, attenders, givers, etc.? If so why might this be?

Page 157. In our spheres of influence in the church, how are we making it conducive for a growth in what Schaeffer terms “true spirituality”.

Page 157. Though it’s valuable to be aware of one’s natural giftings, is there a risk that we could focus too much on the natural abilities rather than the supernatural (what God is doing)? How might this appear (either way)?

Page 157. (final paragraph) Are there ways where we, either in thought or action, “smash” something for not being perfect instead of realizing what is possible and cultivating that seed?

Page 157-8. How are we helping one another on to “increasingly substantial healing on the basis of the finished work of Christ”? Especially within the context of the local fellowship, in what ways are we helping one another in this area?

= = = = = =

(Here are my notes from the remainder of the 2nd part of the book…)

Page 91. Schaeffer states that “restoration must be first upon the understanding of what Christ has done…and then beginning to practice this moment by moment.” How does this relate to L. Crabb, The Silence of Adam, on remembering? How does remembering help in a specific instance?

Page 107. What are the sobering implications of being a death-producing machine despite being a Christian? (i.e. David, Uriah)

Page 115. Why does Schaeffer say that evangelical Christians are often very harsh in the area of psychological guilt?

Page 121. Have you believed, or at least used an excuse, conditioning (i.e. Pavlov’s dog) and reactive responses? How would you respond to someone speaking in this manner?

Page 122. Though we say what we believe, how often do we put it in practice and actually fully believe that God is there, especially in tough moments when unable to feel anything else? If we were honest with ourselves would we say we “hope” God’s there but not really act as though we truly believe it?

Page 124. How do we help one another to think in the light of the truth of the total unified, holistic Christian system in counseling?

Page 132. Why does Schaeffer say the sin of the church has been to forget that relationships are not primarily legal?

Page 135. How do we demonstrate to the world the reality of personal relationship?

Page 136. Do we tend to view all humans as equals? Why is this so hard (esp. if legally subordinate)? (see p. 138, regarding offices)

Page 142. Have there been times when you have tried to place too much on a human relationship? What has happened?

Page 144. Why does Schaeffer say at the bottom of page 144 that, though he hesitates to add it, personal and real love and communication between Christians is fun?

No tags