|
"Anyone wishing to save humanity
must first of all save the Word."
Jacques Ellul |
|
|
 |
|
|
Restoring the weightiness of preaching - Raising
Christian discourse above our fading culture |
|
|
|
December 5, 2006
Where should the church focus?
I have oft complained
about the contemporary church’s
building-centered church life. Not only
does this make the non-churched to seek
out the church (the opposite of “go into
all the world”!), it creates
habits—structural and social—that make
the church inwardly focused. In Rusaw
and Swanson’s
The Externally Focused Church,
they open their book with a brief
discussion on the two groups that the
church ought be externally focused upon:
The first, those who live on the margins
of society, especially the poor.
Referring to the founder of the Circle
Urban Ministries in Chicago, Glen
Kehrein, the authors point out that when
a church evaluates whether it is a
“Healthy Church,” what is normally
looked at? Does the church have dynamic
worship [whatever that means]? Are
small groups a vital part of the
church? Does the church demonstrate
evangelistic vitality? Kehrein wondered
why there is rarely any mention of
caring about those on the margins of
society as a part of evaluating a
church’s health? I think he is right
on! He asked, “How can you have a
healthy church that has no concern for
the poor?” James, the New Testament
writer, would have concurred, for he
mentions that the health of the church
is affected by how the poor are
treated. In fact, he had to remind the
church what pure religion must have,
namely a concern for the poor (James
1:27). In fact, we know that even the
apostle Paul, deep in the midst of
church planting and discipling mentions
that he was eager to minister to the
poor (Galatians 2:10). The second group
is the city in general, i.e., the church
is to have the welfare of the city in
mind. I appreciate that the authors
point out how the church’s rhetoric (and
I might add, often its very actions and
non-actions as well) “reinforces the
idea of being at war with the city”
rather than showing the church’s concern
for its welfare. This book is off to a
great start; very thought provoking, and
thus far, building a good base of
scripture to support the concept that
the church is to be externally focused.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
December 3, 2006
The
whole thing stinks
Early this year I read
through Ron Sider’s small book,
The
Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience:
Why are Christians Living Just Like the
Rest of the World?
Nothing about it surprised me, really.
The church, especially the evangelical
church has similar demographics as does
the non-Christian world around when it
comes to materialism, sexuality, divorce,
and racism. Actually, on the race card,
evangelicals scored worse, much worse.
Actually, what crossed my mind was that
we’d hear more about how bad we
evangelicals are with divorce (the most
quoted!) and then how bad we are
sexually. I figure we’d hear the parts
about how materialistic we are and how
we are as much so as our unchurched
neighbors—I have. But it is interesting
that I never hear—have never heard—that
our materialism subtracts from our
ability to minister and serve the
poor—which is the context Sider gives
this issue in his book. The implied
comments about evangelical materialism
is a reproach, not against our
wastefulness in terms of money that
could be spend on helping the poor, but
on giving to the Church or Christian
ministries. Lastly, I have not heard on
peep about Sider’s evaluation on how
evangelicals are doing with racism. By
the way, we don’t do well, in fact “the
whole thing sinks.”
Sider points out that the
results of a published survey in 1989
(Gallup) determined which groups of
people were more or least likely to
“object to having black neighbors.” The
survey said, “Catholics and
nonevangelical Christians ranked least
likely to object to black neighbors” and
that “Baptists and evangelicals were
among the most likely groups to object
to black neighbors.” Sider points out
that white evangelicals are far more
likely to perpetuate racism in society
than to do things to reduce it. Further
more “White conservative Protestants are
more than twice as likely as other
whites to blame lack of equality (e.g.,
income) between blacks and whites on a
lack of black motivation rather than
discrimination.” Sider goes on to
write:
“Evangelicals may
have some good biblical theology
[perhaps not!, my note] about the
body of Christ, where there is
neither Jew nor Greek, black or
white. But if they do not work out
this theology in practice, such that
white evangelicals welcome black
neighbors and work to end racist
structures, then, as was made
clear…the whole thing stinks.”
Read
Sider's book>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
December 1, 2006
The externally focused church
I
rarely take chances on books with
cliché-like titles (but wait I have a
book with a title like that—Destroying
Our Private Cities).
But I couldn’t help it, the title itself
is a good summary of what I have been
thinking for some time now, and after my
ETS paper,
“Widows
in Our Courts,”
I was very much intrigued. So, I ordered
The Externally Focused Church by
Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson. I have not
been disappointed. At the start, the
summarize they marks of an outward,
externally focused church:
-
They are inwardly
strong but outwardly focused.
-
They integrate good
deeds and good news into the life of
the church.
-
They value impact and
influence in the community more than
attendance.
-
They seek to be salt,
light, and leaven in the community.
-
They see themselves
as the “soul” of the community.
-
They would be greatly
missed by the community if they
left. (p 12).
Nearby they write:
“These churches look
for ways to be useful to their
communities, to be a part of their
hopes and dreams. They build
bridges to their communities instead
of walls around themselves. They
don’t shout at the dirty stream;
they get in the water and begin
cleaning it up. They determine
their effectiveness not only by
internal measures—such as
attendance, worship, teaching, and
small groups—but also by external
measures: the spiritual and societal
effects they are having on the
communities around them. Externally
focused churches measure not only
what can be counted but also what
matters most—the impact they are
having outside the four walls of the
church” (p 17).
This book seems to be
heading in the right direction.
Intriguing. This book seems to be one
that will help churches form that
alternative community that seeks justice
and mercy. I will keep you informed.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
November 25,
2006
Some thoughts on fighting the cultural
war
After
working on and writing my paper, “Widows
in our Courts,” an exegesis of
Mark 12:38-44
and its implications regarding the local
church’s responsibility toward the poor,
I have been rethinking the role of the
church in society, that is our task,
mission, and activities. At one of the
sessions (i.e., papers) I attended by my
former colleague and hopefully still
good friend, Kenneth Shoemaker’s (the
Psalms and God’s mission among the
nations) I was struck by something he
concluded: The Psalms as it talks of
God’s and Israel’s mission to the
nations (i.e., the gentiles), there is a
strong sense that “out there” the
nations practice unrighteousness and
injustice, and that the nations were to
see in Israel a people who did
righteousness and justice. Sort of,
“hey look here, our God does
righteousness and justice; look at us!”
This made me start thing (along with my
paper) that perhaps the church’s mission
isn’t to change the culture or even
fight the culture wars, but to offer
through its activities, attitudes, and
worldview a righteous alternative and a
community of people does justice.
George Coon, in his ETS paper on Paul B.
Henry (Carl Henry’s son and former US
Congressman), referred to Henry’s book,
Politics for Evangelicals, offers
a quote:
“So
long as evangelicals engage, then,
in prescribing only moral clichés to
difficult social and political
problems, they are in fact avoiding
any direct interrelating of their
faith with the sociopolitical world
around them (p 51).”
Coon felt that Henry was not denying the
important role of evangelism, but that
the use of “platitudes” by Christians to
deal with social and political ills of
society was more of an excuse to not get
our hands dirty and do the work of
justice and righteousness. We fight the
cultural wars by lobbing catch phrases
and platitudes into the public square,
whereas the Scriptures actually say (or
seem to anyway) that God’s people are to
“preserve justice and do righteousness”
(Isa 56:1). Maybe we should think less
about fighting the cultural wars and
should do more to be that alternative
community of justice and righteousness.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
November 22,
2006
In honor of
JFK, C.S. Lewis (okay, I'll include
Aldous Huxley, too)
On November 22nd
each year, most commentators and
event-watchers recall the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy.
Peter Kreeft wrote a book describing an
imaginary dialog on the edges of heaven
and hell where JFK and two other famous
philosophers who had died within hours
of each other made a startling
discovery--we live in two worlds at a
time...in honor of these three, two
thinkers and one a playboy with the
privileges of the presidency, here's a
link to an essay I wrote on one of the
scenes in Kreeft's book, Between
Heaven and Hell..."Two
Worlds at a Time">>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
November 21,
2006
Widows in Our
Courts: My ETS paper, done and presented
Finally, the paper is done, and I had a
great experience presenting it to my
peers at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the
Evangelical Theological Society in
Washington DC.
With gratitude and appreciation I
acknowledge the hard work and the
example of dedication of my friends and
colleagues in the network of Community
Action Agencies in the state of
Connecticut, and especially those who I
have had the privilege of serving with
at TEAM, Inc. in Derby, CT and NEON,
Inc. in Norwalk, CT. Their commitment
and dedication in the fight against
poverty and helping people toward
self-sufficiency have been a part of my
own spiritual journey. If any passion
is detected in these pages (i.e., the
paper), it is the result of listening,
watching, and learning from my
colleagues in Community Action.
For the full
paper>>
Widows in Our
Courts (Mark 12:38-44):
The Public
Advocacy Role of the Local
Congregation as Christian
Discipleship
A devolution
in how society cares for its poor
and vulnerable populations is
shifting the roles and
responsibilities back toward
religious communities. Whether this
tack is for practical reasons such
as the lack of government resources,
or the shallowness of social capital
in the public square (both of which
are true), or because the postmodern
climate promotes a dislocation with
secularized culture that results in
an openness to spirituality,
Americans overwhelmingly support the
role of religion in addressing the
issues of poverty and care for the
poor.
The acceptance
of religion’s advocacy and social
action in the public square is not
necessarily for spiritual or truth
reasons, but is very much
practical. The church is looked
upon favorably as partners because
of the social capital, resources,
and concepts of reciprocity inherent
within the church’s cultural
location that both benefits the poor
and relieves the burden on
government and “the public” to
provide for the poor.
The devolution
taking place also involves a
tension, namely a deep-seated
American cultural resistance to
promoting religious change in
others. This acceptance of religion
as partners in social action has
limitations, namely it is acceptable
to benefit the public square with
its inherent social capital (and
some of its religious moral
dimensions and principles of
reciprocity), but not to shop for
members or promote conversion.
The Church’s experience, because it
is a spiritual entity with earthly
social dimensions, is formed by and
a result of the tension between its
social and cultural location and its
actualization of biblical patterns
of discipleship. Within today’s
political and social location, the
local congregation is presented with
a timely opportunity to fulfill its
responsibility toward the poor. The
Mark 12:38-44 story calls us to
incorporate an advocacy role into
our patterns of discipleship that
move the church into the public
square as purveyors of and partners
in social action.
The scene in
Mark 12:38-44 is a powerful slice of
life that is now part of redemptive
history and, as well, the written
word of God to be responded to by
those who have ears to hear.
In His teaching He was saying:
“Beware of the scribes who like
to walk around in long robes,
and like respectful greetings in
the market places, and chief
seats in the synagogues and
places of honor at banquets, who
devour widows' houses, and for
appearance's sake offer long
prayers; these will receive
greater condemnation.” And He
sat down opposite the treasury,
and began observing how the
people were putting money into
the treasury; and many rich
people were putting in large
sums.
A poor widow came
and put in two small copper
coins, which amount to a cent.
Calling His disciples to Him, He
said to them, “Truly I say to
you, this poor widow put in more
than all the contributors to the
treasury; for they all put in
out of their surplus, but she,
out of her poverty, put in all
she owned, all she had to live
on.”
The woman in this text is not just a
widow; she is a poor widow,
which strengthens her identification
with a group of people that were to
have special protection and
provision by those who rule, serve
as priests, and own property as
prescribed in the Torah and
reinforced through prophetic voice.
“In the OT, widows, along with the
fatherless and aliens, were the most
vulnerable and dependent class of
people in the land.”
The
social and cultural location of
today’s social and political
realities present the church with
great opportunities in the public
square to fulfill its role as
advocates of the poor. We, however,
should be mindful of the reprimand
Os Guinness puts forth in his
Gravedigger Files:
It may be
true that there are more
Christians in America than ever
before and that they have never
had so much money at their
disposal, such powerful
technologies to use, such
positions of influence to fill,
or such a global opportunity in
which to respond. But the signs
are that the opportunity will be
squandered and that much of
American Christendom is more
modern and more American than it
is decisively Christian.
It is
lamentable to see the widows in our
courts amid such wealth and
resources (i.e., church-based social
capital, human and financial). We,
too, fail to notice there is tragedy
happening today right before our own
eyes. Church discipleship, shaped
by the poor widow vs. duplicitous
scribes story, should reflect
the kingly proverb:
Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all
the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge
righteously,
And defend the rights
of the afflicted and needy
(Proverbs
31:8-9).
|
|
October 5, 2006
Three excuses for poor postings on this
site
I
have not been a good poster...but I have
two excuses, three really: First I have
a family of four children, three of
which need a vast amount of attention as
they begin their new school
year--between homework and science fair
projects and running them around...you
think I have time on my hands?
Not! Second, a job job--well,
really a new position at the same job.
Over the summer they moved the fiscal
department under my supervision. I
am now the Director of Finance and
Planning Services. Needless to
say, I am stretched at work--which goes
to 6 and 7 pm in the evening on a
regular basis. And, finally, I am
researching and beginning to write my
paper that I will be presenting in
Washington DC at the 2006 annual meeting
of the Evangelical Theological Society.
I have mentioned this before: "Widows in
our courts" (Mark 12:38ff): The Local
Church's Advocacy Role in the Public
Square." Here is my draft of a
thesis and what the paper will be,
hopefully, demonstrating:
The story of the
widow vs. the Scribes (really
the vulnerable vs. the religious,
temple system) offers a paradigm
for molding the local church's
attitude toward the poor and its
role of advocacy in the public
square.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September 17, 2006
Following up on my tithing comments:
redirecting the Good Samaritan question
Paying attention to
context and where Jesus directs our
attention at the end of the Good
Samaritan parable is important for
forming the Christian community. The
context begins with Jesus sending the
seventy out to address the lack of
harvest laborers:
Now after this the
Lord appointed seventy others, and
sent them in pairs ahead of Him to
every city and place where He
Himself was going to come. And He
was saying to them, “The harvest is
plentiful, but the laborers are few;
therefore beseech the Lord of the
harvest to send out laborers into
His harvest” (Luke 10:1-2).
Interestingly, these 70
laborers are to include healing those
who are sick (forward looking to the
wounded Samaritan in the following
story) and proclaiming to them “The
kingdom of God has come near to you” (v
9).
But a warning also comes:
the 70 are to add to their message that
anyone who does not receive them (which
most certainly includes receives their
message and the actions that parallels,
accompanies their message):
“The one who listens
to you listens to Me, and the one
who rejects you rejects Me; and he
who rejects Me rejects the One who
sent Me”" (v 16).
Upon return, they are
excited about the work they did and the
responses they had, in particular the
demons that were subject to their
message “in Jesus’ name. To which Jesus
immediately addresses their pride,
pointing out that it is not the
subjection of demons to their work of
proclaiming the kingdom and
demonstrating it with works of charity
that is ultimately the important thing,
it is, in fact, that in such the defeat
of Satan is accomplished (vv 18ff). The
seventy have learned that in their
message and actions there is a clash of
authorities, a conflict of kingdoms. As
Jesus was explaining this important
truth regarding the nature of His
appearance, the arrival of the kingdom,
and its accompanying actions (modeled by
the 70), "a lawyer stood up and put Him
to the test, saying, "Teacher, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (v
25). There is no indication that Jesus
was speaking to the crowd in Luke’s
account here, so I am assuming that this
lawyer was from among the 70 which was
sent. After experiencing the
in-breaking of the kingdom and hearing
that it is the conflict between the
coming of God’s kingdom and the
presiding kingdom of Satan over this
earth in which he was participating,
this lawyer turns the subject to what he
gets out of it, “where is my eternal
life?” Sounds both reasonable and even
spiritual. But it is self-centered. It
is at this point Jesus explains the
parallel between loving God with all you
have and loving your neighbor as
yourself. The lawyer hears Jesus’ reply
and begs the question, “Then who is my
neighbor?” (Another seemingly
spiritual-minded question, but is
actually self-centered.) If you read
carefully the ensuing parable of the
“Good Samaritan” you will find that
Jesus does not answer this lawyer’s
question; the Messiah redirects it,
through the parable, and leaves with the
correct question: “Who was a neighbor to
this poor, innocent, helpless and
hurting, outsider?”
We start with the sending of the 70 to
initiate the public ministry of the
arrival of the kingdom, where hands and
feet get dirty, and resulting question
is “what about my own salvation, my
eternal life, how do I gain it?” As
important as that is, Jesus redirects
the man to consider the in-breaking of
the Kingdom: although it is an eternal
matter of one’s salvation, the presence
of the Kingdom has much to do about
recognizing the eternal conflict between
God and Satan. Jesus, nonetheless,
directs the questioner to the kingdom’s
concrete express of loving one’s
neighbor (which is parallel and second
only to loving God). “Okay,” says the
lawyer, “then who is my neighbor.” The
question that seems to follow in hearing
that we are to love our neighbor—seems
reasonable, then who is my neighbor?
But that is not the only question that
can naturally follow. Jesus uses the
parable of the Good Samaritan to
redirect the question to a more
self-less center: “To whom am I a
neighbor?” It is not “who is my
neighbor?” for Jesus asks, “Who is the
neighbor?” Which one “proved,” as the
NASB puts it, to be the neighbor? Jesus
said, “The one who showed mercy toward
him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, and
do the same.” We like the first
question, for then we can have a good
definition of neighbor so we know whom
to love (and don’t have to love). But
Jesus is more concerned with identifying
the neighbors who show mercy. We then
should be asking, “To whom am I a
neighbor?” To whom am I showing mercy?
This final question cannot be avoided or
dismissed, for then we risk Jesus'
rejection as He said in v 16. This
is no small matter for reconsideration.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September 12, 2006
Ask for a
reference
My
good friend, John Payne, shared a great
word from an old prophet, A.W. Tozer, in
a recent email. It is worth
posting for you as well:
"Any of it that is good is in the
Word of God, and any that is not in
the Word of God is not good. I am a
Bible Christian and if an archangel
with a wingspread as broad as a
constellation shining like the sun
were to come and offer me some new
truth, I'd ask him for a reference.
If he could not show me where it is
found in the Bible, I would bow him
out and say, 'I'm awfully sorry, you
don't bring any references with
you'" [A.W. Tozer].
As
I read this I was reminded of why I
write my
Rough Cuts (exegetical essays)
and wrote
my
book on Paul's Letter to the
Philippians: namely, to model sticking
to the text--the fight, the debate, the
question is (or questions are) over the
text, and showing others how one gets
one's interpretation from the text.
As another Christian writer spoke of
great interpretations of old, "If you
cut me, may I bleed Bible."
Our opinions are based on a thousand
points of input--some good, some poor.
So our opinions on a text need to be
from the text...can you hear it and see
it in the text?
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September
8, 2006
Our best apologetic is our commitment to
the vulnerable
Recently I read in the
9/11/06 issue of US News & World
Report a blurb (in ‘Washington
Whispers’) that the republicans,
according to Ed Gillespie, the GOP Party
chair, expect to increase
their black vote. Gillespie indicated
that they will see double or triple
their usual share by courting “black
veterans, entrepreneurs, and
churchgoers.” This doesn’t come as a
surprise to me. But it was his comment
that followed that struck my interest:
“We will not get the votes of the …
upper-middle-class African-American
voters in the suburbs … until we
demonstrate our commitment to poor
African-Americans in the inner cities.”
First thing that came to mind was: I
wish I could help Chairman Gillespie see
how this can happen and what measures of
support would both increase such
commitment and actual—really help—to
have good, positive, and sustaining
outcomes for the urban vulnerable so
that the commitment would not just be a
show. And then I thought, isn’t
this also so true as a basic principle
for the church? Not that I am
speaking—or thinking—here of just
wanting to increase adherents among
Africa-Americans (which would in and of
itself be a good thing), but in
general. We (evangelicals) want people
do believe our message of the Gospel and
we will not see an increase in that
among the population until we
demonstrate our commitment to the poor
and vulnerable in the inner cities
(and of course elsewhere). My study of
the Mark 12 “Widow vs. Scribes” passage
and the eschewing of the evangelical
voice in public affairs by the general
public have made me more acutely aware
that it is our deeds and
attitudes concerning the less
fortunate and vulnerable that is are
weak-link in our apologetic and public
voice. My paper isn’t about
institutional advocacy, it is actually a
thesis that such commitment to the
vulnerable needs to be
congregation-by-congregation—actual
church people believing and acting in
roles of doers and advocates for the
poor who will, as Jesus said, will
always be among us. (Bytheway--Chairman
Gillespie, give me a call, anytime.)
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September 6, 2006
An obligatory tithe?: Questioning the
Malachi 3 proof-text—Who is Robbing
whom?
Funny. On the
one hand those who posit an obligatory
10% of your income say the tithe is
still active because it was an
established principle before the law and
the temple; meanwhile, on the other
hand, they seem to also appeal to
Malachi 3:8-10:
"Will a man rob God? Yet you are
robbing Me! But you say, 'How have
we robbed You?' In tithes and
offerings.”
The appeal and
argument is made that if we, too,
withhold the tithe from our church (or TV
show or parachurch-ministry) are also
robbing God. And who wants to be
robbing God? The withholders of the
church-tithe then hears:
"You are cursed with a curse, for
you are robbing Me, the whole nation
of you!"
Then the withholders are given a
challenge—right from the Malachi text;
they are called upon to test God:
"Bring
the whole tithe into the storehouse,
so that there may be food in My
house, and test Me now in this,"
says the LORD of hosts, "if I will
not open for you the windows of
heaven and pour out for you a
blessing until it overflows."
This is where
we get the “God can do more with the 90%
left than you can with 100%.” But who
is robbing whom here? The hearers
so readily accept that this somehow
applies to us (just the way the preacher
is telling us), then feeling the pangs
of guilt for
robbing God, we respond without
listen—actually listening—to the text.
I
have heard at least two dozen sermons
and countless references to this text
over the last 28 years of being a
Christian. Never once did I hear any
mention of context or historical
occasion that would help explain this
text and its application to us today.
Of course not. Because the context and
historical occasion would put the onus
and burden on the religious, so-called
(current temple-structure-system)
leadership to stop stealing from
God—yes, that’s what this text is
about. It is not about you and me in
the pew withholding our 10% or anything
such thing. Just look at the context:
"Then I
will draw near to you for judgment;
and I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers and against
the adulterers and against those who
swear falsely, and against those who
oppress the wage earner in his
wages, the widow and the orphan, and
those who turn aside the alien and
do not fear Me," says the LORD of
hosts. "For I, the LORD, do not
change; therefore you, O sons of
Jacob, are not consumed. From the
days of your fathers you have turned
aside from My statutes and have not
kept them Return to Me, and I will
return to you," says the LORD of
hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we
return?' [Malachi 3:5-7].
First, from the beginning of Malachi’s
message, the prophet is addressing the
priests and God’s case against Judah,
which actually is more so a case against
the temple (i.e., religious system and
establishment). In essence he is
addressing those who design, facilitate,
and operate the temple system. It is
they who are robbing God. The
historical setting is gained from Ezra
and Nehemiah. These three
books—Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah—all
shared a common historical setting. The
“robbery” was most likely what was
described in Neh 13:4-13 where the
Israelites were not necessarily
withholding their tithe, but that
Eliaship the priest who opened the
temple store rooms to a foreigner,
Tobiah the Ammonite. Tobiah, a
worshiper of the pagan-god Molech (Ezra
2:60; Neh 2:10) had taken, with the
permission of the temple leadership, the
provisions set aside for the Levites
(and the poor, the widow, the orphan,
and foreigner —Deut 14:22-29; 26:12,
see
previous post>>).
Interestingly, Nehemiah writes (of the
same era as Malachi prophecies) that “All
Judah then brought the tithe of the
grain, wine and oil into the
storehouses” (Neh 13:12). So it would
be strange to understand Malachi talking
about the tithing habits of the people
of Judah in total opposition to
Nehemiah. It seems more likely that
God’s displeasure is against how the
tithes were being used. Not only does
this fit the text of Nehemiah, who tells
us that the Levites, who were to benefit
from the storehouse of food and
offerings, had to abandon their
positions and go work in the field. We
read Nehemiah’s account:
I also discovered that the portions
of the Levites had not been given
them, so that the Levites and the
singers who performed the service
had gone away, each to his own
field. So I reprimanded the
officials and said, "Why is the
house of God forsaken?" Then I
gathered them together and restored
them to their posts.
All Judah
then brought the tithe of the grain,
wine and oil into the storehouses
[Nehemiah 13:10-12].
And the immediate context of Malachi 3,
as mentioned above, needs to be
considered as well:
"Then I
will draw near to you for judgment;
and I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers and against
the adulterers and against those who
swear falsely, and against those who
oppress the wage earner in his
wages, the widow and the orphan, and
those who turn aside the alien and
do not fear Me," says the LORD of
hosts.
The storehouse of the people’s tithes
and offering were being abused and
misused. This is what brings the
judgment of God. It was the temple
leadership who was stealing from God,
not the people. The religious
leadership, those in the place of God,
was defrauding the people, and in
particular,
the distribution of the tithe (its
appropriate use) to the Levites who had
no portion in the land and to the most
vulnerable among the Israelites.
The Malachi 3 proof-text
is normally turned on its head to get us
to give up our 10%. Those who proposed
a 10% on our income must look elsewhere
for a proof-text, for Malachi 3 is not
supportive of this so-called
obligation. In fact, curious thing, the
judgment in the original text and with a
reasonable reference to the original
historical occasion is actually against
those who improperly used the offering
brought by the people. Today we hear
this text used to justify the
distribution of the tithe to support and
maintain once again a “temple made with
hands,” whereas such application of the
Malachi 3 text would, at least, consider
how we utilize “the tithe” in support of
those who “do not own a piece of the
land” and who are the most vulnerable
among us. Really, then, who is robbing
whom?
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September 5, 2006
An obligatory tithe: Making a leap of
faith in one’s interpretation
Making an interpretation should follow
the original intention of the writer.
And, the interpretative process should
come first and yield such an
interpretation of a text that leads to
reasonable, corresponding application of
the text. Squeezing a tithe application
out of the Genesis 14 and Hebrews 5 text
is unfaithful to these texts.
Then after his return from the
defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings
who were with him, the king of Sodom
went out to meet him at the valley
of Shaveh (that is, the King's
Valley). And Melchizedek king of
Salem brought out bread and wine;
now he was a priest of God Most
High. He
blessed him and said, "Blessed be
Abram of God Most High, Possessor of
heaven and earth; and blessed be God
Most High, who has delivered your
enemies into your hand." He gave
him a tenth of all. The king of
Sodom said to Abram, "Give the
people to me and take the goods for
yourself." Abram said to the king
of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD
God Most High, possessor of heaven
and earth, that I will not take a
thread or a sandal thong or anything
that is yours, for fear you would
say, 'I have made Abram rich.' I
will take nothing except what the
young men have eaten, and the share
of the men who went with me, Aner,
Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take
their share" [Genesis
14:17-24].
I hardly call this a
pattern for tithing. Come on! Read
this. Just because the Genesis writer
and the Hebrew writer quoting this text
in Hebrews 5 use the word “tithe”
doesn’t necessarily indicate that either
writer is communicating eternal truths
about a believer’s obligation to tithe
10% of their before tax income. That is
reading into the text pure and
simple (or should I say, impure and
manipulative?). The historical setting
has nothing to do with our current
ecclesiastical foundation outside that
Abraham, God’s instrument of promise,
gave a tithe of his war spoils to the
Melchizedek, priest of the Most High.
Even the Hebrew writer’s correspondence
is only the typology between this
mysterious priest and Christ. Abraham
had teamed up—or joined with,
probably is a better view—with other
regional tribes to war against other
surrounding tribes. Abraham understood
that his “possessions” and promise of
land stemmed not from war and spoils,
but from God granting the promises. So,
he felt free to give Melchizedek 10% of
his captured spoil and refuse the
community share (except for that which
provided food for his tribe). We,
actually, are actually not sure why
Abraham knew to give this priest a
tithe; we make the assumptions but we
don’t know. The writer of Hebrews uses
this occasion and Psalm 110, the only
reference to this priest outside of
Genesis, to make a correspondence to
Jesus’ better priesthood and eternal
kingdom (rule and reign) so that the
congregation, the community of believers
would understand the supremacy of Jesus
and thus remain faithful to Him despite
persecution and the appearance that
their faith was in vain. There is no
“therefore” give tithes of your before
tax income to the religious structure
replacing the temple that was a shadow
of things to come. This application is
inferred on the Genesis/Hebrews text,
not a direct correspondence between the
intentions of the writers of Genesis and
Hebrews. I guess this text would
support my giving a tithe if I go to
war, win, and have spoils.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
September 3, 2006
An obligatory tithe?: Look who benefits
from the tithe of the Old Testament
It is so surprising how selective we are
in proof-texting. Well, not really. We
say the Bible is inspired and every word
inerrant, but we are the ones who
decides which words and which texts are
meaningful to us today. For those
reading recent posts, you know I do not
find that the Bible teachers a New
Testament obligation to tithe, that is
to turn over 10% of one’s before tax
income to a local church or parachurch
organization. (What I do believe,
however, will be born out in due time.)
Here I am interested in noting that the
OT associates the tithe, not only with
the priests, but widows, orphans, and
even aliens (non-Israelites). It is how
the tithe is used that most interests
me: The tithe, one’s offering to the
central place of worship (Jerusalem or
the Tabernacle), was to support
celebration (which includes feasting!).
The third year tithe—a special tithe—was
to pay for a grand celebration, and for
those who could not afford it, they were
to benefit from those who could.
"You shall surely tithe all the
produce from what you sow, which
comes out of the field every year.
You shall eat in the presence of the
LORD your God, at the place where He
chooses to establish His name, the
tithe of your grain, your new wine,
your oil, and the firstborn of your
herd and your flock, so that you may
learn to fear the LORD your God
always. If the distance is so great
for you that you are not able to
bring the tithe, since the place
where the LORD your God chooses to
set His name is too far away from
you when the LORD your God blesses
you, then you shall exchange it for
money, and bind the money in your
hand and go to the place which the
LORD your God chooses. You may
spend the money for whatever your
heart desires: for oxen, or sheep,
or wine, or strong drink, or
whatever your heart desires; and
there you shall eat in the presence
of the LORD your God and rejoice,
you and your household. Also you
shall not neglect the Levite who is
in your town, for he has no portion
or inheritance among you. At the
end of every third year you shall
bring out all the tithe of your
produce in that year, and shall
deposit it in your town. The
Levite, because he has no portion or
inheritance among you, and the
alien, the orphan and the widow who
are in your town, shall come and eat
and be satisfied, in order that the
LORD your God may bless you in all
the work of your hand which you do
[Deut 14:22-29].
"When you have finished paying all
the tithe of your increase in the
third year, the year of tithing,
then you shall give it to the
Levite, to the stranger, to the
orphan and to the widow, that they
may eat in your towns and be
satisfied" [Deut 26:12].
Now, I understand that those positing an
obligatory tithe promote for their
primary principle that tithing is
pre-temple and pre-law, so this is
perhaps a moot point from Deuteronomy.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting point
that the OT writers (inspired I might
add) understood how to use the tithe in
a way that we should learn from—and if
you don’t think so, read my next post on
Malachi 3 (another proof-text) and find
out who was robbing God of His tithes
and offerings.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August
31, 2006
The obligatory tithe: is it biblical?
As I delve further into
study on the scribes/rich people vs. the
poor widow of Mark 12 (June
9,
August 7,
and
July 26
posts), I have been re-thinking,
or perhaps more appropriately so,
reinforcing some long held convictions
about money, the obligatory tithe,
giving in general, church bureaucracy
systems, and the presence of the Kingdom
of God. Please note I am hardly against
giving to local churches or a regular
system of offering as part of the
worship life of a local church. What I
have always held, and now more so, is
that the New Testament does not enforce
or make as part of obedience to Christ
the obligation of tithing to support a
new religious system form. It is not a
New Testament principle—no manner of
proof-texting from Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Paul, Peter, or James can force,
legitimately so, a command to fork over
10 percent of one’s before taxes income
to support the financial system of a
local church. Don’t get me wrong—it is
a matter of faith if one wants to, out
of freewill, to contribute to a vision
and plan to promote the Gospel in and
through a local congregation. This is
not what my issue is. But as for a
command—not found in the New Testament.
I find it striking that those who offer
proof texts must reach back and be
selective from Old Testament passages to
“prove” that there is an obligation of
obedience to tithing. What I find even
more revealing is that every time
“giving” or making an offering within
the context of the Church or local body
of believers is mentioned or alluded to
in the New Testament it is in regards to
helping the poor, reliving those
affected by famine, or sharing with each
other to meet people’s needs, not the
support of a sanctioned religious
bureaucracy. (I know, this will not
help me if I want to go back into church
ministry.)
When “proofs” are given
for a New Testament tithe, two are given
to support such Christian activity and
obligation: 1) A tithe was given to
Melchizedek by Abraham before the law,
and 2) giving to support the religious
leadership has always been part of the
biblical patterns of faith. The
principle for tithing, as argued by most
modern pastors is, the tithe was given
prior to the temple, and when the temple
was destroyed, tithing was not, so
tithing is still expected, obligatory.
Those holding this “proof” argue from
the Genesis story and the Book of
Hebrews’ reference to Melchizedek who
received a tithe of Abraham’s spoils and
the writer of Hebrews says is a type of
Christ. Along with this, proponents of
the obligatory tithe also point out Old
Testament offerings in general and the
Malachi 3 “test Me with your tithe” text
as further proof. Over the next few
days (maybe weeks), I’d like to interact
with these “proofs” and see if they do
put the burden of tithing on Christians
as it is understood within the context
of maintaining a church-building
centered budget, bureaucracy, and form
of religious activity. This exercise is
not to say Christians ought not to give,
but to what should we be giving and what
is actually obligatory as a matter of
faith.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August 28, 2006
Using the text of Scripture to squeeze
out bananas
“You can squeeze bananas out of any text
you want.” That’s what Mike Cronk, the
man who led me to Christ, said to me
almost 28 years ago. What he meant was,
if the words and context and how the
author used them doesn’t matter, then
you can make any text of Scripture say
whatever you want it to say—heck, you
can even squeeze bananas out of a text
if you want. In a land and cultural
time that is so readily being identified
as one that Christians are accommodating
the message of the Gospel and the world
is squeezing the church to conform and
be tolerant, I find it striking and sad that the
same ones making this observation never
even consider what the hell they are
doing to the or with the text of Sacred
Scripture! When the Bible is just words
to be used, we are no different than our
culture in doing whatever we want for
whatever ends we seek—even if they seem
pious and are clothed with religious and
evangelical catchwords, jargon, and ideas. We
are getting bananas; not God’s voice.
The problem of not explaining a text (or
explaining how one gets the meaning of
the text of Scripture) and instead uses
a text to speak on their own words and topic
and agenda is damaging to the place and
purpose of God’s church in this
society. Such utilization (really a
utilitarian approach to Bible
exposition)...
-
produces a preacher and a church
with no authority (from God)
-
promotes sentimental and emotional
responses from the congregation
(short lived when the feelings
change or die away)
-
elicit common-man responses (this
is like a tarot-card or astrology approach to
bible interpretation)
-
and, don’t forget, the hearers learn
from this approach that they too can
do whatever they want with whatever
the preacher says as well—and they
do, too
Time to return to the
text. Listen to it. Exegesis.
Exegesis. Exegesis. And listen to it
again. Stick to the text from whence
you can hear the voice of God. Whoever
stands in God’s place on a Sunday
morning or in a pulpit and declares,
“Thus says the Lord” had better be
explaining how they got that message
from the text of Scripture—or they are
no prophets of the Lord, frankly.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August 27, 2006
Still Kicking—Doing something
compassionate for the Kingdom
Marvin Olasky in his magazine,
WORLD,
has posted an essay called “Still
kicking: Pundits who say
compassionate conservatism is dead
should get out more often.” Although
poking fun at the
death-of-compassionate-conservativism
advocates, I post the essay here because
of the list of 15 ministries doing the
work of the Kingdom, some with little or
no funds from the government.
This year, as Washington's spending
spree has continued, several
conservative pundits have sat in
air-conditioned offices and written
about the death of compassionate
conservatism, which they say has
become a euphemism for big
government spending.
If that's true, that's a shame,
because the concept originally
captured the excitement of thousands
of small groups, often Christian,
dedicated to fighting material and
spiritual poverty. Their faith-based
initiatives began without
governmental help and are likely to
continue regardless of what happens
inside the Beltway.
Included in this essay are links to 15
organizations or agencies worth looking
at, emulating, getting involved with,
and praying for [WORLD
Magazine September 02, 2006,
Vol. 21, No. 34]…Still
Kicking>>
Bay Area Rescue Mission —
Richmond, Calif.
Jobs for Life — Raleigh, N.C.
Rachel's House — Columbus, Ohio
CityTeam Ministries — Chester,
Pa.
Manoomin Project — Marquette,
Mich.
Earth Keeper Project —
Marquette, Mich.
Christian Women's Job Corps —
Nashville, Tenn.
A Hand Up for Women — Knoxville,
Tenn.
Guiding Light Mission — Grand
Rapids, Mich.
Habitat for Humanity — Flint,
Mich.
Mission Solano — Fairfield,
Calif.
Urban Promise — Camden, N.J.
Truth Seekers — Memphis, Tenn.
A Way Out — Memphis, Tenn.
Crossroads Center Rescue Mission —
Hastings, Neb.
For full essay and links>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August 16, 2006
Getting a little dirty for God and His
Church this summer
My daughter, Amanda (see
her pictures with Senators>>), who
is now thirteen and heading into the
eighth grade, spent a week in West
Virginia on a Church missions trip. In
her own words, “It wasn’t a good time…it
was an awesomely fantastic time!” She,
along with a dozen or so other middle
schoolers, spent time in a very rural
town (one of the poorest in the
Country), doing construction, learning
to pray for hours at a time (in groups),
working Vacation Bible School (actually
leading and preparing the classes), and
doing lots of visiting. One day she,
during her “Listen to God and find out
what He wants you do to” times, she
concluded that God would have her do
construction for the day. This is so
out of character for my daughter, it had
to be God at work. Proud of her is such
a small, inadequate thought to describe
how I feel about Amanda as my
daughter—but I am so proud. This was
not an easy trip: early mornings, late
nights, long days, constant working, and
moving about…getting a little dirty
too. (She is thankful to all those who
contributed to her for this trip—you
will get thank you notes soon!) At the
debriefing held at Church Sunday night,
the Youth Pastor, who accompanied them
on the trip, said, “In order for the
church to be built, someone has to get
dirty—and that someone is the Church.”
I will make further comments on this in
my next post, but for now suffice to
say, it is not just church-buildings
that are being built on these trips, but
the Church. And he is right, someone
has to get dirty for it to be built. My
daughter, along with her other church
friends—all middle schoolers and some
older leaders—learned that they are the
ones that have to get dirty if the
church is to be build (up). Not bad for
a summer vacation. One for her memory
book. She can’t wait until next year’s…
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August 8, 2006
Using pious language to maintain what
will be destroyed (Widow story)
It seems the more the
Church becomes accommodating to the
secular and worldly culture it
supposedly “seeks to reach,” almost
without thinking, it becomes
institutions of civic-religion with the
appearance of piety, using the language
of faith, biblical words and imagery, in
order to maintain its place and the
status of its leadership. Mark’s Gospel
is written to a church that is in
slumber—not awake (to this). The Rome
church was seeking refuge from outside
pressure (religious and political)
through abandoning the first things of
faith. When we get to the Widow story
in Mark 12, we see the contrast between
the manipulating scribes, the pompous
wealthy and this one poor, homeless
widow, but we privatize it, mis-use it
to our advantage. Preachers and church
leaders point out the widow’s
sacrificial giving and ignore that
Jesus’ comment is actually not about her
giving but that she is made to
give this; she is under the burden to
give her last two cents. We never seek
to ask, why does she have only two coins
left? Why must she give them? Nor, do
we ask if might be we doing the same to those
under our care? She should have been
going to that temple that day “under the
protection of the leadership,” not under
the burden to maintain their status. We
get away with seeing the “faithfulness
of the widow” and her sacrificial
freewill offering (both of which we
imply on the text—these observations are
ours, not Jesus’, not Mark’s—they are
NOT in the text), all the while we feel
free from the accusations Jesus made
concerning those who put this widow in
this vulnerable position in the first
place. We hear from those “preaching
this text” the same sham pious language
(e.g., “God can do more with the 90%
than you can with the 100%,” “It is not
the size of the gift that matters, but
the sacrifice and faith in giving beyond
your means, believing God will supply
your needs after you give,” etc.) We
have just exchanged one burdensome
religious system with another—budgets
must be met, you know! We are in a
dangerous place, putting so much
emphasis on building church budgets and
buildings and positions—then we must
sustain and maintain and forever expand
the structures and systems. For this we
need the widow’s last two coins. The
widow had to give these coins—they just
happen to be all she had left—for the
temple tax, just to get in to the Court
of the Women. Pious platitudes is
often
used to show the appearance of piety
(and the appearance that “we are doing
God’s work here”), all calculated to get
the masses to give. I have yet, after
twenty-eight years of being a Christian
and spending most of them in
concentrated study of Scripture, to find
that our system of giving and so-called
tithing is a New Testament teaching. It ain’t there, folks! I find it
interesting that the only hint of in the
New Testament of weekly offerings given
freely by congregates is related, not to
maintaining the system of religion, but
to feed and take care of the poor. The
significance of the Widow story might
very well be an indictment on how we are
handling the “building of Christ’s
Church.” We, like the first disciples,
soon forget the poor widow and turn to
see how beautiful the stones of our
religious system are (Mark 13:1ff). We
should be mindful of Jesus’ words in
Mark 13 that this will soon all be
destroyed. And then note, ironically, in the
very next chapter, Mark 14, He reminds
us that despite the fact that the temple
will be destroyed, the “poor will always
be with you” in order for you to help
them. No wonder we have lost our
voice in the public square.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
August 7, 2006
Deaf to the judgments on the temple
(Widow story)
Despite some very
irregular postings these days, some of
you still drop by to check out what this
crazy, exegetical zealot and
ecclesiastical commentator is
saying—thanks by the way (and some of
you browse into Wordsntone accidentally,
thanks to you, too). As some of you
know I am working on a paper which I
will be presenting to this November’s
annual meeting of the Evangelical
Theological Society in Washington DC.
My topic is how the text of Scripture is
to mold the local congregation to be a
Christian voice in the public square. I
am utilizing the Mark 12’s Widow story
(actually The Scribes vs. a Widow) to
model my point. I have been busy
working, researching, studying, and just
plain thinking and reflecting on this
text and topic. I am at the point where
I will be posting some of my (very)
rough cuts (rough notes and draft of
ideas) here
In the
Margins. I have posted some
thoughts already, such as
“It
is not about the money, stupid.”
Here’s another:
* * * * * * * * *
I find it interesting
that there are theological frameworks
and popular interpretive methodologies
that eschew and shun the very evident
reality that the New Testament Church is
a fulfillment (really an extended
fulfillment through Christ being the
actual fulfillment) of Old Testament
temple typology. This makes it
convenient to own and find comfort in
the blessings and positive promises
associated with the temple, but to
ignore the condemnation, indictments,
curses, and host of accusations made
against the temple and its system—tuning
a deaf ear to how our own views and
experience of church-life,
ecclesiastical systems, might be
imitating the negative things that
brought about the promises of judgment
toward and eventual destruction of the
temple in Jerusalem. We like to imply,
transfer, and apply the positive
promises, benefits, and future
predictions of the temple to us
personally and to the church
universal—to the systems (and the
bureaucracies that sustains these
systems) that we have created to
reinforce church-life as we like it.
Yet not the negative nor the curses—and
certainly not the judgments. The elite,
powerful, and ones with a vested
interest in sustaining our church-life
and ecclesiastical systems, whether
local or denominational, or even civic,
are apt to protect the system and
utilize biblical language the appearance
of piety, and manipulative exposition of
Scripture to maintain the systems that
promote their status, livelihood, and
power (really, power over others). The
story of the Widow is not an account to
promote lay "sacrificial giving" in
order to sustain the church-life and
ecclesiastical systems we have in
place. (Don’t you find it interesting
that it is those who need our income to
support their status and systems of
church are the ones who tell us that’s
what this story in Mark 12 is all
about?) This story is a lament that a
system with the appearance of piety was
actually robbing people of their money
to support that system. This story is
the final indictment for bringing the
promised curses and destruction on the
temple. This story, falling just before
the predictions of the destruction of
the temple (in both Mark 12 and Luke
21), is a warning to the local church,
not license to collect.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
July 28, 2006
First Bush Veto: First principles first
To the praise of some,
Bush’s first ever veto-pen stopped
legislation that would have allowed
scientists to play—I mean experiment,
come now Chip be fair—with developed
(seeded, mature) embryos in the name of
“miraculous cures for everyone.” But
also to the chagrin to about as many,
Bush’s veto-pen was anathema, horrible,
a
death-to-Republican-potential-majorities
in ’04, ’08, and especially ’10.
Although I agree that many people
believe, although falsely so, that
somehow stem-cell research and
especially research on living embryos,
will bring miraculous cures to all
devastating diseases, it is the first
principles that I have a problem with.
(I take it that eventually, Congress
will pass a veto-proof piece of
legislation that will allow your tax
dollars to promote such research.)
There is horrible philosophy being used
as foundational to the argument
concerning why it is right to use
embryos for such stem-cell research.
Why, of course it is reasonable. Even
the stately Jonathan Alter in the recent
Newsweek writes, “This is
contrary to the principle of science,
which is that you move ahead with all
reasonable approaches because there's no
telling what will work” (July 31, 2006,
p 40). (Who invented this principle? I
didn’t learn this principle in school.)
Of course those who do not see life
beginning at conception—no matter where
the conception happens (e.g., womb or
petri-dish or lab); to them this is a no
brainer. Do research on the embryos.
Who cares? It is dead, non-living—in a
human sense. And it might save the
world. I agree, from that standpoint,
who would be against that? If that were
the only thing in this argument that
made sense, I’d agree, the President’s
veto would have been silly. But here’s
the rub: Reasonable to one is
unreasonable to another. Hitler felt it
reasonable to utilize adult human
subjects for experiments. Cannibals
think it reasonable to eat other
humans. We know that terrorist find it
reasonable that human life is worth
killing, even innocent life, if the ends
justify the means or justifies the
method of revenge. Plus, this argument
does rest on first principles, and not
just the principle that (some believe
that) embryos and fetuses are not humans
so such research is valid and
reasonable. First principle: Is
anything wrong with anything? If life
begins in that embryo no matter how that
embryo came to be, then doing research
that destroys it is simply wrong. I’d
ask Alter and the Senators who voted for
this legislation and the proponents of
this kind of stem-cell research, is
anything wrong with anything? Would it
be okay to grind up deformed babies or
the infirmed elderly to do research on
the possibility that such research could
produce a cure to AIDS, Cancer, broken
spinal cords, diabetes, etc.? And, just
saying that these embryos would be
destroyed anyway isn’t really a good
argument—these embryos shouldn’t have
been there in the first place. In our
long history of humanity we have a
number of real cases where someone
thought it reasonable to take human life
and do experiments. Not “all reasonable
approaches” should be taken, especially
if the only result is “there’s no
telling what will work.” This sounds
more like a Twilight Zone story than I’d
want to believe—one in which the
“reasonable” measures come back to hit
those positing them in the first place.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
July 18, 2006
The problem with majorities on morality
I
don't have time for much these days, as
anyone checking in on my site knows.
Haven't posted anything since June
27--and even those were repeats.
But I stumbled over this from previous
notes (author is unknown):
Further, statistics
do not establish moral values. Is
something right because it happens
frequently or because many people
believe it? A primitive tribe may
have a 100 percent majority
consensus that cannibalism is right!
Does that make it right? A majority
can be wrong. If a society sets the
standards, those standards are
subject to change with the whim and
will of the majority. In one
generation slavery may be right and
abortion wrong, as in early
nineteenth-century America; but in
another generation, abortion is in
and slavery is out, as today.
Should it surprise us
that we have to multiply laws, building
higher and stronger fences, spend so
much on prevention of crime, build
bigger prisons, spend more on crisis
intervention, pick up devastated
families and mend more broken and hurt
children, and buy more sophisticated
locks? As long as morality, right
and wrong is put to a vote or determined
by market analysis, we will always be
paying more for our worldview than we
did in the past.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June 27, 2006
Two lost Margin
thoughts (on abortion and on morality)
OK timing. When is a fetus a person?
This is our best approach. For the one
approving of abortion, pleading
ignorance should not be acceptable as an
argument in the debate. Why would we,
as a civil society, err on the side of
something that might possibly be “not
murder” when we just don't know?
(Because, we equally are saying, “We
don’t know, it could be
murder.”) We don't know when it becomes
a person so we shouldn't stop someone
from having an abortion...sounds like a
great place to start or even end the
argument. If you are driving at evening
time and a truck dumps what looks like a
body out on to the road, you nor I would
think, “Hey I don't know if that's
really a person or not, so it doesn't
matter if I avoid it or hit it--its more
convenient to just role over it...and
since I don't know...no problem.” How
foolish. We'd stop or do what we could
to avoid hitting that object that even
remotely looked like a body. I think
this realm might be more effective in
forming a debate for a pro-life
position, that opposes the pro-I-don’t-know-if-it-is-murder-or-not-but-go-ahead-and-abort-it-anyway position. Abortion
advocates avoid this side of the debate
because it is a loser for those that
must take the “I am in
ignorance on this matter” position.
Also: Originally posted
something similar on Worldmagblog…thought
I’d just repeat it…Alright,
then let's remove the barriers and
restraints stemming from a morally
supposed universe (i.e.,
the Cheshire Cat smile of Christian
values), morals and values that are (and
were) contributed by those with a
religious ("supernatural") worldview
from the world of work and let's see if
a truly, god-less, immoral world can
sustain itself. “Everyone just be
honest--because it is practical to be
honest, or expedient to be honest.” Of
course, until it is not practical or
expedient for me, or
you. And of course, if evolution
is true than survival of the fittest
will eventually prevail, which means the
rise of despots and tyrants who have the
biggest guns and largest armies (and the
most money). In a god-less universe,
there is absolutely no reason (NO REASON
at all) for the primary directive to be
“Love thy neighbor as yourself.”
Without the first command, “Love the
Lord God with all your heart, mind,
soul, and spirit,” you
cannot have--or at least there is no
reason to have--the second. And since
we know that honesty of late in short
supply, the power-grab or top-dog goes
to the one with the most power or place
or status. We want the vestiges of
Christianity (or religion), but not the
obligations. Foolishness
I
tell
you,
foolishness.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June
22, 2006
Church planting, a greater spiritual
return on investment
I am reading a very good
and helpful book on church planting,
Planting Missional
Churches: Planting a Church That’s
Biblically Sound and Reaching People in
Culture by
Ed Stetzer. The author asks, “How did
Christianity change from a faith spread
primarily through church planting to a
faith in which church planting is rare,
sometimes even controversial?” (p. 6).
For me, the “larger church” and
especially the mall-church (I mean,
megachurch) is a culturally molded
approach to church-growth and church
life, not a biblically induced one.
(The presence of large churches and
megachurches in our culture hasn’t (1)
brought about any measure of revival or
(2) made a impact on the slippery slope
of our culturally induced societal
demise, in fact, in my opinion, some (at
least some) has joined or contributed.)
Stetzer writes: “Despite this
bigger-is-better mentality, statistics
do not support the assumption that size
is necessarily the best way to reach
people. Though large churches are often
more cost effective than small churches,
new churches are more effective than
large churches, particularly in
evangelism. On a per-capita basis, new
churches win more people to Christ than
established churches.” He notes:
-
Churches under three
years of age win an average of 10
people to Christ per year for every
hundred church members
-
Churches three to
fifteen years of age win an average
of 5 people per year for every
hundred church members
-
Churches over fifteen
years of age win an average of 3
people per year for every hundred
church members
Perhaps more cost
effective in terms of finances and
production of church-life activities,
but the spiritual return on investment
is still greater through the smaller and
newer (church planted) church.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June
15, 2006
Outcomes, planned or unplanned,
determine who is recruited
Caveat: This is not a
comment about social services.
Yesterday, a colleague and I joined a
number of youth providers for a
conference on a particular Federal
employment Act, called the Workforce
Investment Act. The particular aspect
of the Act that was being discussed was
the current and probable future of
In-School and Out-of-School Youth
funding and requirements, or measures.
The focus was on what are called the
“Common Measures,” those specific
outcomes that need to be obtained in
order to fulfill funding requirements.
(A side note—way too complicated first
off, but that’s not the point here.) At
one point the speaker, a specialist and
expert in the Workforce Investment Act,
said something that was so very accurate
regarding this particular funding, but
my mind also thought about how it
applies within a Church-ministry
context. (I do that—can help myself.)
She said, “The outcomes determine who
really is recruited, despite what the
purpose of the legislation actually
states.” Quickly, the Act wants youth
to be served from their freshman year,
in other words, 14 and 15 year olds.
But the “Common measures” cannot
actually be applied to freshman,
sophomores, and even really to juniors,
but to Seniors and Youth who have
dropped out of school. So, there is a
mismatch between purpose of funding and
what the Act measures to determine
success and future funding. Here’s
where my mind went: We can boast all we
want at church that we want all and
everyone to find Christ from the
surrounding area, that we desire to
reach out to all, and everyone is
welcome at our church, but our goals and
measures (the outcomes), both planned
and unplanned, determine whether we mean
that—in other words, the outcomes we
want determine who we recruit—who we
reach out to and who we make feel
welcome. Examples to follow.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June
13, 2006
Romans, a Baker Exegetical Commentary by
Thomas R. Schreiner
I can't
help myself. When I spot new
commentaries on Philippians, Revelation,
Ephesians, and Romans, I can't help but
check out the bibliographies--to see if
they, but any stretch of the imagination
list any of my written and published
work. Ego? perhaps.
But I do feel I have written some things
worth noting. And to my great
surprise, in checking out
Dr.
Schreiner's new commentary on Romans, I
discovered that two of my written works
made it into his volume.
I have
spotted some of my other essays and
articles in various journal works, but
this was the first time I found my work
in a major commentary. Even though
this strokes the ego for sure, please
understand that this also humbled me
greatly. I bought Dr. Schreiner's
commentary. Not too bad.
Sorta agrees with me--but that's not the
point. I am humbled to think my
material is worth considering in the
debate and furthering of knowledge of
God's Word. Since my wife was with
me at the conference, of course I
bragged it to her and showed her my name
in the book. Not sure if I
impressed her or not. But as soon
as I could I bought the book and showed
my mother--see your son's name in a
major commentary! Of course she
was--is--proud; but more to my point,
she deserves the credit anyway, since
she paid for my graduate education.
I'll get around to reviewing for the
site, but for now, when I feel like I
have nothing to contribute, I turn to
the bibliography in this commentary...
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June
11, 2006
There will always be poor in the land
When Jesus said, “The
poor you will always have among you”
(Mark 14:17) or when Moses penned,
“There will always be poor in the land”
(Deut 15:11), we should not take these
statements as our goal, nor understand
them as implicative of what we should
expect as a future matter of fact. Nor,
are these statements excuses for the
Christian community of faith to eschew
our responsibility to invest in the poor
among us and seek to alleviate the
causes of poverty. These are not matter
of facts statements of fact, but
descriptions of the proximity of the
poor to God’s community. The OT law and
practices provided for how the community
was to treat and care for the poor. The
New Testament does not rescind such
arrangements or principles of conduct.
In fact, these statements ought to be
taken, “The poor will be in your midst;
they will be a sociological group
associated with My community.” In other
words, Jesus and Moses were indicating
that the poor are identified with His
community of people. Being poor is not
a mark or “automatic” entry into the
invisible community of God—that comes
through faith in God’s means of
salvation, namely faith in His Word,
faith in Jesus Christ. That being said,
one cannot read through the Old and New
Testaments without feeling the sense
that God chooses the poor to be close
by, to be close to His people. As
someone has pointed out, these texts
ought to remind the community of faith
of its “share shared accountability and
social responsibility” regarding the
issue of helping the poor. As we
benefit from God’s redemption (Old or
New), we ought not ignore the poor among
us or even seek to, as the same author
says, “eradicate them.” As a part of
our social structure, we have a sacred
responsibility to them—a reason why
Moses continued, “Therefore I command
you to be openhanded toward your
brothers and toward the poor and needy
in your land.” And Jesus enjoins, after
indicating the poor’s presence among His
people, “whenever
you wish you can do good to them.” The
problem: Do we wish? God’s people are
defined as those who wish to do so. One
cannot escape the continuous indictments
throughout Scripture against God’s
people, and the eventual judgments, for
ignoring our responsibility toward the
“poor among us.”
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June 9, 2006
Widows in our Temple Courts
Well, I am going to give it a go once
again. Back in the early nineties
I set a goal to present a paper each
year at the annual meeting of the
Evangelical Theological Society.
I took a rather long ten year detour,
but last year, since the site of the ETS
annual meeting was so close, my wife and
I drove down to Valley Forge (PA)...to
enjoy the fellowship and taste the
learning once again. I walked away
(okay, I guess drove away) wanting to
give it a try once again. I
submitted a proposal when I received "a
call for papers" for the 2006 conference
in Washington DC. The topic for
this coming year is, "Christians in the
Public Square." Not only was this
to be in DC, but a topic I have great
interest in. Two books that have
been pivotal in my own spiritual journey
deal with Christianity in the public
square
(The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America
by Richard John Neuhaus
and
AMERICAN HOUR:
A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future
Role of Faith
by Os Guinness--see
my top ten). So,
I decided a paper combining my, now, two
life callings, church ministry and
community action, would be appropriate.
I have been intrigued with a little
story in Mark and Luke, the poor widow
and her two coins (Mark 12 and Luke 21).
I have always suspected this was not a
story about money or sacrificial giving.
I had always thought this story was
grossly used as a guilt-story to get
people to give more money to their
church or Christian cause. Plus,
why was this little story poised right
before Jesus' teaching on the
destruction of the temple and the second
coming of the Messiah. This story
is used to get people to do the very
thing Jesus is actually condemning the
scribes for in the first place.
So, I crafted an idea that a more
faithful interpretation of the poor
widow story in Mark 12should be a text
that molds the local church to be
"Christianity in the public square.)
My proposal abstract for this paper is:
Widows in our Temple Courts (Mk
12:41-44):
Molding the local
congregation for the public square--At
a time when there is a (supposed)
“Wall of Separation” on the one
hand, and on the other an
anti-Christian bias and fear against
evangelicals who are perceived as
those who want to legislate the
Bible into the law, how does the
evangelical church, and in
particular a local congregation,
have a voice and influence in the
public square? The paper seeks to
offer a model in how a text can be a
molding factor in helping a local
congregation to accept its
responsibility and role as an
advocate of righteousness in the
public square. As an exegetical
text case, the paper explores how
the exegesis of the Mark 12 Widow’s
mite text (Mark 12:41-44)
demonstrates that the text is, not
about giving money to the church,
but a narrative that ought to mold
the congregation, as participants of
the end of days and inauguration of
the Kingdom, into a community that
advocates on behalf of the
vulnerable populations that live in
its midst.
The paper was approved, and I will be
submitting it in mid-November 2006 in
Washington DC at the annual meeting of
the Evangelical Theological Society.
As I prepare, hints and ideas just might
find their way into the
Margins,
CommonPlace
Thoughts, and
Gemara.
For my previous ETS papers refer to the
bottom of the right hand gray column.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
June 6, 2006
The Insomniac blog
Sleeping is obviously not a requirement
for displaying wit and insight. Browsed
into a blog site that is both enjoyable
and smart, and not afraid to take on the
silly and faulty assumptions by our
unbelieving world. I found the site
while browsing for
Jill
Carattini, a writer for
Ravi Zacharias.
In an email
she wrote me:
Thanks Chip. Jill Carattini is
someone I've really come to
appreciate. I see on your site that
you were a professor at Three
Hills. I graduated farther north at
Peace River Bible Institute in
Sexsmith back in the day. My first
purpose for the Insomniac has been
to try to reach college &
university students in hopes of
counteracting the faith schmeebling
that so often happens in academia.
I don't know how well I'm reaching
that group, but I really do
appreciate your encouraging words.
I appreciated that she browsed around my
own site, but of course the thing that
impressed her most was my Margin on
“Dung.” She even posted it on her
site…check it out. Her comment
raised my own silly thoughts to a higher
level…
The Manure Pile
Steams No Longer.
I recommend the site--go enjoy:
The Insomniac.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 27, 2006
It is reasonable to believe the biblical
account
For those who read
the previous few
Margins on why the Da
Vinci Code premises ultimately fail and
reply, "But your own premises are built
on 'what the bible says'." By all
means, this would be a good observation
and, almost wholly true--okay, really
all true. Although there are both
logical (reason-able) premises and
conclusions (i.e. sound arguments) that
can be made regarding the person and
resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, as
well as a plethora of historical
evidence to support reasonable
affirmations of to conclude that Jesus
was raised from the dead, it is true
that my ultimate premise for the
truthfulness of affirming the divinity
of Jesus and His resurrection is indeed
what the biblical testifies to. It
has been a faulty assumption to say only
ignorant, uneducated, simple-minded
people trust (or have faith) in the
Bible. As the CS Lewis quote below
and the fact that many intellectuals
found faith in Christ reasonable, you
can see Christianity is a blind-faith
for the superstitious or simple-minded.
If anything, those who reject faith in
Christ or eschew trust in the Biblical
assertions, should at least admit the
problem is not necessarily an
intellection one. Nonetheless, it
true that there needs to be some
reasonable proof that the biblical is a
trustworthy, at least a reasonably sound
argument to be made for it
trustworthiness as a word of antiquity.
And indeed there are... Check out
my message,
What if God had
not spoken?
I delievred this message for the first
time in a church at a shopping mall in
Calgary, Alberta (Bow Valley Alliance
Church), and then just recently at a
apologetic conference at my home church
in Fairfield, Connecticut (Trinity
Baptist Church). Faith is the only
thing (that is, faith in what the God of
the Bible, the Creator of the known
world has said) that can save one from
their sins and qualify them for
acceptance into heaven--the only thing
necessary--however, this faith--the
apostolic and biblical faith--is a
reasonable one and can be thought about,
examined, and mulled through
investigation--and debate. Go
ahead, listen to my message on the
faithfulness of the biblical texts...What
if God had not spoken?
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 26, 2006
The Da Vinci premise, Part 2:
Lord, liar, or lunatic
No
one said it would be easy, reconciling
the person of Jesus to His claims and
the claims of His followers to the
claims of others. I grant it that we
are to either except or reject or even
modify the Biblical and apostolic
accounts of who Jesus is. To reject or
modify, however, is to believe in a
Jesus who is less than what the
apostolic testimony indicates and
teaches. In the midst of The Da Vinci
premise posited in the book and acted
out on film, I am reminded of what C.S.
Lewis once wrote:
I am trying here to prevent anyone
saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: “I’m
ready to accept Jesus as a great
moral teacher, but I don’t accept
His claim to be God.” That is the
one thing we must not say. A man who
said the sort of things Jesus said
would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic — on a
level with the man who says he is a
poached egg — or else he would be
the Devil of Hell. You must make
your choice. Either this man was,
and is, the Son of God: or else a
madman or something worse. You can
shut Him up for a fool, you can spit
at Him and kill Him as a demon; or
you can fall at His feet and call
Him Lord and God. But let us not
come with any patronizing nonsense
about His being a great human
teacher. He has not left that open
to us. He did not intend to.
Two things stand out to
me—first, here we have a rather smart,
hardly ignorant intellectual person
positing a very logical reason one
cannot simply make Jesus less than what
is apostolically claimed. Second, I
think Lewis points out well that it is
silly (and I use that word with all its
intellectual potency) to posit or
believe that Jesus can be a good moral
teacher when he plainly taught he was
not a mere man. Just because we cannot
fathom or totally explain the fully
God-fully man thing, does not give room
for rejecting his claims of divinity
while accepting he fibbed a
little—really a lot! This does not a
good moral man make. Can’t reasonably
have it both ways. Lewis is right:
Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord
Himself. This is another reason
Christians can have confidence that the
Da Vinci premise—that Jesus was a mere
man—ultimately fails.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May
24, 2006
The Da Vinci premise, Part 1: It ultimately fails—always has
“Theories” have abounded
that Jesus was really only a mere man,
just like us, perhaps a good moral
teacher, and certainly not resurrected
from the dead. There are hosts of
problems with this premise—any attempt
to explain away the biblical testimony
runs into walls of illogic and falsehood
at every turn. I was googling around
when I browsed into a
beliefnet
interview
with Elizabeth Vargas regarding her May
20 (2005) 20/20 special,
Resurrection.
The special centered on the question:
What really
happened after Jesus' crucifixion?
Vargas was quoted saying:
I didn’t know that
for centuries historians could
actually verify that there was this
really dramatic change in the
disciples’ behavior and nobody can
really explain that. And that nobody
did argue that really the tomb was
full, they all agreed the tomb was
empty, even nonbelievers.
No kidding. History and
how history is recorded seems to be on
the side of the apostle’s testimony that
on the third day, Jesus rose from the
dead. It is of historical fact that
something indeed happened that changed
the disciples’ behavior—hard to argue
with the testimony of numerous
individuals willing to suffer jail and
persecution and death. Vargas
continues:
The Jesus Seminar
people go even further and say these
were visions and dreams: the
disciples, in their terrible grief
for a leader that they felt so
strongly about, felt they needed to
bring him back to life somehow.
Where else on this planet
at any other time has a small group of
people, who are in grief because their
leader had been killed that decided to
develop a worldview based on what they
knew to be false? What they knew
to be false!
I am unafraid of The
Da Vinci Code—I read the book and I
will see the movie. I didn’t find it
offensive when I watched National
Treasure, an adventure film which
posited a secret code on the back of the
US Constitution—a totally false premise,
not reflecting reality. But, I truly
enjoyed the story and the fun of finding
the treasure. I’ll do the same with
The Da Vinci Code—just enjoy the
ride. I, on the other hand, am enjoying
that questions of Jesus and His Divinity
and His Resurrection are front and
center in every media outlet, table-talk
every where, and among scholars, too,
all because of this book and movie. As
Christians, without protest and boycott
and a disgruntled attitude, we should be
able to stand and take it and debate it
with love and kindness… Vargas, at the
conclusion of her interview was asked, “Why
does this subject interest you?” She
replied:
We’re talking about
matters that go to the very heart of
humanity. There are a lot of people
who think the resurrection of Jesus
is one of the single most important
events in the history of humankind.
It’s endlessly fascinating to delve
into what people believe and what we
can independently study and verify
outside of our faith.
I am reminded of what an
unknown writer paused long enough to say
in the face of the evidence for the
behavioral change among Jesus’ closet
followers:
There [in the New
Testament is] a community was
formed, and here we have it today
and we have something pretty
empirical here... ...which is more
likely: that these disciples got
together when Jesus died and said,
"Isn't this horrible; let's pretend
he rose from the dead," and started
a movement that has endured
persecution for a lie or that he
arose? ...The apostles saw and heard
these things happen in time and
space, and I have no reason to
disbelieve the soundness of their
testimony. Rather I have more
reason to trust their powers of
observation because they signed
their testimony in blood.
Hard to beat the
testimony signed in blood. And
yet, there is still more logical and
historical evidence that the Apostle's
were right in saying, "On the third, he
rose from the dead."
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 19, 2006
Anti-Christian storylines (like The
Da Vinci Code) will always flop
Referring to the spade of books that
have hit the market—pro and con—that
refer to Christianity and Jesus,
Steven
Waldman of Newsweek
reports, “What's curious is how
many of the Jesus books reject or revise
Bible teachings and pose radically
different versions of Jesus' story.” I,
too, find it curious that best sellers
seem to be divided between those
promoting a positive spin on the
Christian faith (e.g., The
Purpose-Driven Life) and an opposing
take on Christianity (e.g., The Da
Vinci Code). Many of these books
even make it on the New York Times
best-seller list. Waldman posts a
number of those that “preach a different
gospel”:
Jesus survived his crucifixion ("The
Jesus Papers"); Judas' betrayal was
a collaboration with Jesus ("Gospel
of Judas," "The Lost Gospel"); John
the Baptist was a twin Messiah ("The
Jesus Dynasty"), and Jesus' words
have been grossly misinterpreted
("Misquoting Jesus"). This doesn't
include the Holy Mother of all Jesus
Revisionism books, "The Da Vinci
Code," which (spoiler alert!) says
Jesus married Mary Magdalene and
sired a baby.
Waldman reminds us, of
which it is true, “Alternative visions
of Jesus are not new.” In fact, “[t]he
earliest Christian movements were riven
with competing understandings of what
Jesus meant, and the generally accepted
Gospel story has always contended with
rival interpretations.” The spade of
books and debates over who Jesus was and
what He did has only joined the
centuries old anti-Christian chorus.
Even the earliest of Christian writers
knew the importance of getting this one
right; they knew the consequences if
they were wrong and if Christ had not
been raised from the dead. The Apostle
Paul writes:
Now
I make known to you, brethren, the
gospel which I preached to you,
which also you received, in which
also you stand, by which also you
are saved, if you hold fast the word
which I preached to you, unless you
believed in vain.
For I
delivered to you as of first
importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, and
that He was buried, and that He was
raised on the third day according to
the Scriptures, and that He appeared
to Cephas, then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than
five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom remain until now, but
some have fallen asleep; then He
appeared to James, then to all the
apostles; and last of all, as to one
untimely born, He appeared to me
also (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
I find it interesting that Paul’s
defense of the gospel of the risen Jesus
Christ wasn’t to convince church
outsiders (although he did in Acts 17).
Here in Corinthians it is to the church
he argues:
if
Christ has not been raised, then our
preaching is vain, your faith also
is vain. Moreover we are even found
to be false witnesses of God,
because we testified against God
that He raised Christ, whom He did
not raise, if in fact the dead are
not raised…if
Christ has not been raised, your
faith is worthless; you are still in
your sins. Then those also who have
fallen asleep in Christ have
perished. If we have hoped in
Christ in this life only, we are of
all men most to be pitied (1
Corinthians 15:14-15, 17-19).
Storylines like the Da Vinci Code
will ultimately not be fatal to
Christianity—hardly. Unbelieving
stories promoted by best seller lists
will only make those who disbelieve
already feel better about their unbelief
and will cause true believers to renew
their commitment to the real Gospel
story. As with the Cannes first peak
suggests stories media portrays of
false, anti-Christian gospels will
(eventually all) flop. Christians, as
Paul writes, you need to make sure you
understand that without the
resurrection, we are indeed to be of all
people most pitied. I say keep the
debate going!
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 13, 2006
Working MacDonald’s as Outreach
Imagine the youth pastor
announcing at a Thursday morning church
staff meeting, “I believe that I can
reach out to the youth who frequent our
local MacDonald’s on Friday and Saturday
nights by getting a job at MacDonald’s
and volunteering to work those hours. I
begin next week.” Would it fit our
paradigm of Church ministry? Would this
be allowed? In a book on building a missional church I read of examples of
outreach and community involvement that
are the total opposite of what we are
used to: we staff ideas and programs and
events that are designed to bring
outsiders (i.e., the unchurched) to
our church, rather than getting the
people within the church
congregation to go into the
community. I read examples of missional
decisions being made to spend time in
the neighborhood (it was a urban
setting) picking up sidewalk
litter—everyday, all year round.
Joining town committees. Library
groups. Car washes (and not at the
church building). I have listened to
over 28 annual church meeting “messages”
since becoming a Christian in 1978. The
only one’s that remotely discussed
vision, plans, ideas to get the members
of the congregation out into the
community were the one’s I delivered in
my last church (but not in my first church of
which I repent and admit being misguided
in not doing so). We should not be in
the business of building islands in the
world to which outsiders need to find
their way to them. We need to change our focus—from
church-building, congregational
protecting to community-centered, risk
taking. This ain’t hard. Just
different, and perhaps a little
threatening to our established,
traditional patterns of church life.
Maybe the senior pastor would reach more
people (any people at all) in the
community if the pastor had that job at
MacDonald’s.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 13, 2006
Rough Cut
exegetical essay downloads
In mid-November I moved my
Rough Cut
exegetical essays in pdf downloadable
format. Since that time there have
been over 1300 downloads of my
exegetical essays. The top two to
be downloaded are the
Rough Cuts
on the
Parable of the Sower who sows
(Mark 4) and the
Cut
on
I Peter 5:7.
I posted my most recent
Rough Cut March
25, 2006,
Fishers of men
reconsidered (Mark
1:17). Since that time there have
been 498
Rough Cut
downloads, the
Fishers of men
essay topping out at number one with the
Parable of the
Sower at number two.
I am grateful to those who have taken
the time to my
Rough Cuts,
and hopefully utilize them in personal
study and for sermons and other
expository settings. If you
download all seven exegetical essays,
that's at least seven weeks of
curriculum for bible study or Sunday
school. Feel free--they are!
I have had few comments (I don't expect
everyone to agree with me), but I'd sure
like more from those taking the time to
read them. The goal of
Rough Cut
exegetical essays is two-fold: First,
actually to model how one can, with the
minimum of outside tools, exegete a
passage of Scripture, and second, to
offer interpretations of popular, but
very misinterpreted passages where the
original author's intentions have most
likely been missed. Each
Cut
is reasonable and an interpretation that
you can see as you read. I hope
the essays will continue to be
downloaded--and used! I am working
on my next two Rough Cuts: Philippians
2:12-13 and Galatians 2:20. Thanks
again for taking the time to read my
Rough Cuts.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
May 8, 2006
"Has Christianity
failed you......and so what does this
say about Jesus?"
Ravi Zacharias and Michael Ramsden will
be speaking at an evangelistic event
with musical guest Mac Powell from music
group Third Day on the topic "Has
Christianity failed you ... and so what
does this say about Jesus?" To
learn more about this ticketed event
visit RZIM's
Fox Theatre event
page. Tickets are
now on sale for this event!
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries website>>
More Margins>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
April
28, 2006
Church is
messy
Things are going to get
messy. Half the time, really more than
half the time, things aren’t going to
work out the way you expect or want.
Sometime. Sorry, I mean it will seem
like most of the time things are going
to get nuts, crazy, and will backfire.
First off, you are going to be dealing
with people, sinners really, who have no
reason to obey Me, let along a first
impulse to do the right things by each
other. And those who are in the
congregation—have you read your Old and
New Testaments? There are enough
inspired hints there. The very people
who go by My Name, who gather under the
name church will be a mix of those who
are really Mine and those who are not.
And, what will make matters worse is
that you will not always been able to
tell. And new converts, now they are
really messy—from over zealousness and
old Adam habits and just plain immature
Christian behavior and attitudes. Talk
about messy. You can’t imagine what
they’ll bring into to the mix. No one
said, including me, that Church work and
fulfilling the kingdom would be easy,
neat, clean. Nonetheless, stay to My
Word, pass it on. Make disciples of
these messy people. Go into this entire
messy world and proclaim the Gospel of
the Kingdom and do the works of the
Kingdom in every space, among all
kinds. And stop worrying so much. I
will build my church and the gates of
hell will not prevail. Don’t confuse my
success and ways with your consumeric
world and certainly don’t mix it up with
the corporate work of business and
management. You can’t manage Me. And
you can’t manage my work as neatly and
cleanly as a business. Keep to My word.
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
April
27, 2006
Old ways: ‘build it so they will come’;
older ways: ‘go’
I am cautiously intrigued
and encouraged by the new trend (which
is really the intended, biblical trend
initiated by Jesus and carried out by
the apostles and first disciples.
Cultural and finances, and I hope
re-reading the Scriptures, are all
placing forces on the church and its
leadership to reevaluate how we do
church and what the mission of the
church really is—this is a good trend of
events. There are numerous church
leaders are recognizing that the older
way of doing church (i.e., the ingrained
and traditional structures build on
western, industrial, capitalistic, now
consumeric structures and cultural
values) is vanishing. There is a
acknowledgment that we’ve read Scripture
through the lens of modernity (and
through the lens of American business
and marketing and self-help models) and,
now, have need of making a shift to—not
newer, trendy ways, but—older first
tradition ways taught by Jesus and
employed by the apostolic church. The
old ways (“build it so they will come”)
are being replaced, and in reality
forcefully so, by older ways (“go”) that
are reflected in Scripture. I like this
“trend” because it is the older way and
not just the church mimicking and
reflecting the surrounding culture. In
a webpage entitled
Friend of
Missional, a blogger
called
The
Blind Beggar posts the
description of the Missional Church. No
sense making it up myself—I think this
suffices well and is worth ready. He
begins:
In an article by
David Horrox titled, "The 'Missional
Church': A Model for Canadian
Churches?" he says, "The church
should stop mimicking the
surrounding culture and become an
alternative community, with a
different set of beliefs, values and
behaviors. Ministers would no longer
engage in marketing; churches would
no longer place primary emphasis on
programs to serve members. The
traditional ways of evaluating
'successful churches' – bigger
buildings, more people, bigger
budgets, larger ministerial staff,
new and more programs to serve
members – would be rejected. New
yardsticks would be the norm: To
what extent is our church a 'sent'
community in which each believer is
reaching out to his community? To
what extent is our church impacting
the community with a Christian
message that challenges the values
of our secular society?"
Then the Blind Beggar
offers a
Description a Missional Church:
·
A
missional church is one where people are
exploring and rediscovering what it
means to be Jesus' sent people as their
identity and vocation.
·
A
missional church will be made up of
individuals willing and ready to be
Christ’s people in their own situation
and place.
·
A
missional church knows that they must be
a cross-cultural missionary (contextual)
people in their own community.
·
A
missional church will be engaged with
the culture (in the world) without being
absorbed by the culture (not of the
world).
·
A
missional church will seek to plant all
types of missional communities to expand
the Kingdom of God.
·
A
missional church seeks to put the good
of their neighbor over their own.
·
A
missional church will give integrity,
morality, good character and conduct,
compassion, love and a resurrection life
filled with hope preeminence to give
credence to their reasoned verbal
witness.
·
A
missional church practices hospitality
by welcoming the stranger into the midst
of the community.
·
A
missional church will see themselves as
a community or family on a mission
together. There are no "Lone Ranger"
Christians in a missional church.
·
A
missional church will see themselves as
representatives of Jesus and will do
nothing to dishonor his name.
·
A
missional church will be totally reliant
on God in all it does.
·
A
missional church will be desperately
dependent on prayer.
·
A
missional church gathered will be for
the purpose of worship, encouragement,
supplemental teaching, training, and to
seek God’s presence and to be realigned
with his God’s missionary purpose.
·
A
missional church is orthodox in its view
of the Gospel and Scripture, but
culturally relevant in its methods and
practice so that it can engage the world
view of the hearers.
·
A
missional church will feed deeply on the
scriptures throughout the week so they
are always ready to speak up and tell
anyone who asks why they’re living the
way they are.
·
A
missional church will be a community
where all members are involved in
learning to be disciples of Jesus.
Growth in discipleship is an
expectation.
·
A
missional church will help people
discover and develop their spiritual
gifts and will rely on gifted people for
ministry instead of talented people.
·
A
missional church is a healing community
where people carry each other’s burdens
and help restore gently.
For the entire
Friend
of Missional
page>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
April
25, 2006
Another comment on Missional Leaders
There have been so many
"trends" and "shifts" and "movements" in
church growth, church-life, and for
doing church since I have been a
Christian (almost three decades now).
there seems to be one every year or
two--and to be frank, even when I was
younger, they seemed all built on one
premise: how the church (your church)
can keep up with the Jones. The
"Jones" is either a competing church
down the road or the cultural watering
holes where modern people go to find
fellowship (whether spiritual or
secular). If you want people to
come to your church as opposed to
another church... If you expect
people to come to your church, you must
see yourself in competition with other
modern (now postmodern) reflections of
our current culture... Every
single "new" movement, principle, trend,
wave...whatever...was built on the "come
to us" concept of church. Never
once did I find a well studied
Scriptural basis for such a view of
church growth...but it works in a world
of marketing and consumeric values.
the concept of Missional church life is
different. Perhaps that why I like
it. Missional church life and the
new missional church leaders we need and
are developing build their new
"movement" on the basis of "Let's go."
Not "come to us," but "we go to them."
Seems a lot closer to the "Go into all
the world" that our founding, inspired
spiritual leaders had in mind.
See
CommonPlace Thought,
The
Missional Leader and some first
impressions>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
April
6, 2006
Rough Cuts: exegesis for dummies
I was able to put my
Rough Cut exegetical essays in pdf form
in mid-November, 2005. Since then,
there have been over 1000 downloaded.
Of course the one's I wrote prior to
that time were available as http on the
site, but I could readily track that.
But the data indicates people are
looking at them, and hopefully printing
them out for their own use, edification,
and probably, humor. I was hoping
to produce one every other month or
so--but that has been next to
impossible, giving four kids and a job
that requires much writing itself and a
few hours beyond the typical 40 (really,
that's not a complaint, I love what I
do). But nonetheless, the Rough
Cut project was and still is an
important contribution I want to make to
the church's responsibility to honor
God's Word and the mission to proclaim
it. After talking to a friend
about my Rough Cut exegetical essays, I
mentioned that they have two purposes:
1) to exegete a text, give an
interpretation (especially of texts
which are too often mis-interpreted and
poorly exegeted), and 2) to offer a "how
to" process for interpreting the English
text. I said, my hope is to
provide examples that use the minimal of
academic sources, including knowledge of
the Greek text--a sort of exegesis for
dummies (no offense to anyone, I hope).
I wrote them so my mother can understand
them and understand the processes being
used in the essay. Each essay uses
different aspects of the exegetical
process to exemplify what it takes to
work through a text in order to hear
what the original author meant.
Maybe I'll put them in a book when I
have written enough of them; but for
now, I hope others will utilize them as
a resource, as examples, and of course
for their value in hearing God's voice
from the texts I seek to exegete.
Download them. Pass them along.
Use them. Even critique them.
Enjoy them.
Posted
Rough Cuts
include texts:
1
Peter 5:7
2
Corinthians 2:14
Revelation 1
Colossians 3:16
Mark
13
Mark
4
Mark
1:17
You can find them
at
Rough Cuts>>
I am
working on Galatians 2:20, Philippians
2:12-13, and hopefully soon Revelations
2:4, Revelation 3:20, 1 Corinthians
3:16, Philippians 1:6, and a number of
other text (just to keep the suspense!).
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
March 26, 2006
Fixated on application and practicality
Yesterday I finally—yes,
it took almost a whole year—posted
another
Rough Cut exegetical
essay:
Fishers of men
reconsidered. In the
years I have been a Christian, I’d say,
aside from the reference to John 3:16
and Revelation 3:20 (“Behold I stand at
the door and knock”), Mark 1:17 and
Matthew 4:19 have been some of the most
quoted and referred to verses I have
heard from the lips of Christian
leaders. Ranking right up there with
Galatians 2:20 (“I have been crucified
with Christ”), Jesus’ words about
becoming “fishers of men” are staple
references to refer to the way one is to
be a Christian. I some measure I agree,
but not for the same reasons given by
most (e.g., fishers of men =
witnessing, catching people for
Christ). (In fact all the popular
verses mentioned above will deserve
Rough Cut time on this site!) In
preparing this new Rough Cut I was
struck by the fact that the
interpretation I was positing made it
difficult for this popular verse to be
applied. My interpretation didn’t seem
practical. I have always struggled with
our fixation with application. I wrote
in the fishers of men
Rough Cut:
It can be too easy to
resort to popular interpretations
because they are, however misleading
(away from the text), often easier
to grasp. We shouldn’t exclude
difficult to understand allusions
just because they are harder to
relate to, or are more difficult to
apply personally.
I pause to point out
that we, in the contemporary
American Church, are fixated on
application. There is a tendency to
skip and even to eschew the vital
step of interpretation (by which I
mean exegesis). Somewhere along the
way, we abandoned the discipline of
exegesis and biblical interpretation
in exchange for American
pragmatism. The Bible often
becomes, with each individual part
(i.e., each text, each verse, and
even sometimes just a word here and
there in a verse), a utilitarian
tool to give detail instructions and
application—specific do’s and
don’ts. Every text has to be
practical. This makes it all
the harder to offer interpretations
that—on the surface—do not seem
practical, or easily applied.
The fishers of men Rough Cut>>
This fixation on
application and practicality makes it
especially difficult to offer
interpretations of popular verses that
are hard to understand and difficult to
apply. Such fixation on texts having to
always be practical cam lead us away
from what God is actually saying through
a text (like “I will make you become
fishers of men” or “I have been
crucified with Christ”). As my essay on
fishers of men points out, we should
seek to understand the significance of a
text first, then—and only then—can we
apply what God has said.
The
fishers of men Rough Cut>>
Appreciate the muse,
please pass it
on...
Comments,
good, bad or ugly?
send me a
note...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
