How Would We Respond to Them?

This article at www.haartz.com tells a wonderful story of respect. Each year there are letters from all over the world, including Muslim nations, which are addressed to a variety of deities that have their religious basis in Israel. Most notably for most of the readers of this blog, obviously, are the letters to Jesus.

Rather than dumping these letters to Jesus in the undeliverable mail, the Israel Postal Service takes the letters to the Western Wall and, in line with Jewish tradition, deposits the letters there. The wonder of this, of course, is that non-believing Jews do not recognize Jesus as God. So, why would they do this?

Perhaps there is a respect here that we as Christians could learn from. What would we do to letters sent to our churches addressed to JHWH? Would we have the respect to lift up the prayers contained therein or would we throw them out? When some Christians think it is impossible or unorthodox to even talk to Jewish people, one can’t help but wonder how much respect we would have for their misappropriated mail.

I would challenge those believers that disagree with me that there is something bigger here for us to learn from the Israel Postal Service. They could easily throw these letters out and be justified. It would cost them less in both time and money. The God (or god, as the case may be) that these letters are addressed to are not the JHWH that they worship. Instead, they allow God to be the judge of which prayers He will listen to and which He will not. They recognize that God is bigger than their own understanding of Him and that if He desires to ignore a prayer brought to the Western Wall, then He can do that – but, of course, the emphasis is on HE can decide that.

Do we allow God to be that big? Do we allow Him to be the judge? Do we allow Him to decide whom He will listen to and whom He will not? Before an assault of comments come saying that I am watering down the Gospel, please understand that I think it is our responsibility to proclaim what we in faith believe. But can God work in mysterious ways or in the most unusual of circumstances through the most unusual of means? I think He can.

This story challenges us to bring before God not only the prayers of non-believers…I’m sure that many believers already do that. Instead, it challenges us to bring people before God, in whatever state they may be, and allow God to deal with them. We are not in the reconciliation, redemption, or remaking business – that’s God’s job. Our job is to faithfully introduce Him to others. We get our jobs mixed up sometimes…

Categories: Living

The Answer to Your Year-End Church Financial Problems

In an age where the Christian’s responsibility to financially support the local body of believers is becoming less and less acted upon, it’s evident that churches need to seek other avenues of reaching their budget. Some might suggest a discussion of the difference between wants or needs or, to put it more spiritually, worldly pursuits and kingdom pursuits. Others might suggest a Scriptural exhortation to the congregation on the Biblical commands to give generously as an act of worship. These are all good as far as they go, but there is a better way!

Say it with me – Corporate Sponsorship!!

As I considered the conundrum that a vast majority of congregations have with raising funds to support the activity of the church and the resulting shortfall, my mind wandered back to my early youth. How did those churches stay running? There didn’t seem to be this great dearth of finances then? What did they do?

And then I remembered – the fans. You remember them. They invariably had a picture of our Savior praying at the rock in the Garden of Gethsemane looking upward to His heavenly Father who shone a light down on Him. He was often dressed in red robes (though apparently he also had a blue pair) that looked like they had six layers under them (presumably, for warmth in the chilly Israel nights). But it was the back of those fans that put me on to this epiphany. The fans were ALWAYS sponsored by the nearest funeral home. If enough people were dying in your community to support several funeral homes there were competing fans. The traditional of course couldn’t be beat – the simple light cardboard fans worked as they always had. Of course, someone had to improve and as soon as the technology was available, popsicle handles were added to these fans giving them added leverage (though, unavoidably, bringing up questions of the spirituality of people who tried to fan more than God had originally provided and intended...). Of course, the richest funeral home had to show off and provide some churches (whose parishioners had given exceptional business) with the fans that had the plastics clips that would keep an origami folded fan closed.

But all the fans were corporate sponsored. So why don’t we do this today? It would cover the costs of the ministry and remove that annoyingly embarrassing moment that every parishioner has to go through when the plate is being passed in front of them. Think about it from our parishioner’s perspective - do they nonchalantly place the money in as a sacred act of worship, do they throw it in as they separate themselves from wordliness, do they put the envelope facing up in the plate so that they don’t seem to have false humility or do they place it face down so that others can’t see what they’ve given. It’s a rather ulcer-inducing moment.

So, here are some ideas for corporate and identity sponsorship:

• Pews – This has already, in a limited manner, been going on for quite some time in the Episcopalian and Catholic circles, but Protestants simply have not plumbed the depths of opportunity here. Naming rights for individual pews could be a huge boon for identity sponsorship. Having your own pew would not necessitate that no one else can sit in it, though, for a small additional contribution, a locked gate could be put on both ends. No more trying to see around people or not hearing the sound system. Pick the best seat in the house. And don’t write off the corporate sponsorship here either! By purchasing blocks of pews in prime locations, businesses could gain some high product visibility for those who are allowed to use their commodity.

• Ministry naming and product rights – The possibilities here are as limitless as your imagination. Picture if you will the Nike Youth Gathering being mentioned during the church services inviting young people to both pray AND play hard. And for those who do pray hard, Nike will provide at a discounted price knee pads that can be used during both prayer vigils and volleyball tournaments. Two functions for the price of one!! And don’t forget the choir! Their sponsorship could come from Amazon.com’s music site . Run an additional LED banner above the choir so that people can write down the discount code when their total CD purchase is valued at $35 or more!! Additionally, this program can be extended to more mundane parts of the ministry like the parking lot. Help your parishioners remember where they parked by creating sections tied into corporate brand awareness.

• Building name rights – Again, this has been used to some extent but there is so much more possibility here. For growing organizations with limited building resources, it is crucial to get the most out of this (a great possibility would be the AG Edwards ‘Take Control of Your Future’ - slogan in the front of your sanctuary)! But for those organizations with multiple facilities, this can be a goldmine of opportunity. Make sure you go for the conglomerate corporations who can use several different subsidiaries to name different buildings while keeping the entire campus within the corporate family.

• Changing billboard signs at baptisms – Think sports billboards here. Every 90 seconds or so, a different sponsor’s corporate information is shown. The same can be done during baptisms for each baptized person. You will find that fans of the baptized (primarily family members and friends) will have a greatly increased retention of the product if viewed while their family member/friend is being presented to the congregation.

• Points in the sermon – Not everyone will be able to afford these larger sponsorships. That’s why, in the vein of traffic and weather reports, points of the sermon will have a 30-second plug opportunity. These segue in seamlessly with what the pastor is preaching. “Do you want to know what God’s will is from this passage? Well, that information is brought to you by [insert corporate name here] who [explain list of services here]. Thanks to them, we find out in this passage that God’s will is…” Not only will this encourage smaller company involvement with your organization, but it will lead to more expositional preaching as every pastor seeks as many practical points from a passage as is humanly possible.

• Funerals – Of course, this will depend on the expected number of people coming during the viewing, service and internment. But for those drawing larger crowds, there’s a lot of financial support to be gained here. But as we’ve already noted, the funeral homes have been doing this for decades already and would probably be willing participants.

Well, there you have it. No need to worry any longer whether your people lack either money and/or faith. Let the corporations take away your anxiety in this area and in the mean time support the ministry of God. It’s like stealing from the devil to give to God! And an added side benefit is that rather than having committees that focus on monotonous material, an exciting bidding atmosphere can give life back to these meetings. Its just a win-win all around.

Categories: Fun

Book Review – Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

On the front of this book , in large, friendly letters, should be the words, ‘Don’t Panic.’ Anytime someone sees scholarly words like ‘socio’ and ‘rhetorical’ - especially when they are combined with a hyphen - I’ve found that they will normally go into a catatonic state that can only be broken by a beer or two.

All kidding and titles aside, this is a great book about Romans. I appreciate Ben Witherington’s writing style and so, for me, this was an easy book to slide into. Unlike many commentaries, Witherington presents his material in the same blocks of thought as the original writer rather than dissecting every single verse into individual components. That’s not to say that he doesn’t give information critical to individual verses. But, refreshingly, he does this in a manner which maintains the overall thought structure of the material.

Witherington’s main proposition is that Romans was written to Gentile Christians who were having a hard time recognizing the value of their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters and thus causing disunity within the church in Rome. Witherington maintains that the book is written in a rhetorical format that was designed to prove a point – namely that the wonder of the new covenant is that it equally includes both Jew and Gentile.

Using rhetorical guidelines from Greek writers, he shows how Paul was not only well-schooled in Greek thought (which may explain why we in Western Christianity have such an affinity to him), but communicated with the Gentile believers in formats that they would have easily understood. I think Witherington does a brilliant job of showing that Romans was never intended to be ‘The Systematic Theology of Paul’ but instead was both a letter of preparation for his visit and an exhortation as the apostle of the Gentiles to Gentiles. Paul isn’t introducing his theology to a church that doesn’t know him as much as he is trying to begin dealing with a problem in a church that Paul sees as critical to the future of his own ministry.

I especially appreciated two aspects of Witherington’s commentary. First, because of the manner in which Witherington interprets the material, Romans 9-11 becomes not an addendum or footnote to Chapters 1-8, but instead becomes the centerpiece of the book. This, to me, makes far more sense than the traditional explanation of these chapters. I also deeply valued his insight into the use of personification and how it relates to the material in Romans 7. Through this, Witherington shows that Paul isn’t saying that it’s OK or normal to struggle with sin. Instead, Paul is pointing to both Adam and those in Adam prior to describing the wonder of those in Christ in chapter 8. Romans 7, then, is not the norm for believers but for non-believers.

Like most of Witherington’s other material, I still have not been convinced by him that a person is able to lose their salvation, which is a topic that comes up periodically in this commentary. However, it is not so imbued into the material that one cannot still attain great insights and gems of truth.

I would highly recommend this commentary to any student of Romans.

Categories: Reading

To A Thousand Generations...

I have always respected my grandfather. Growing up, he just seemed like a really neat guy. He was always ready to play with us - always ready to smile - more often than not getting yelled at by my grandmother because he was getting us too riled up. I can remember going to church every Sunday growing up, going up to my grandfather who was sitting and talking with the other older guys of the church, getting on his lap and getting a piece of candy. I can remember driving home with him from church when he and my grandmother came over for lunch. I can remember his work area in his basement. I can remember the crossword puzzles and the thunderous snoring. They are good memories.

He was a man who was greatly respected by people in the church I grew up in. To this day, ten years after his death, I still have people tell me what a wonderful person he was. He was a leader of the church, serving as an elder pretty much every time he was able to. He reached out to those in need in the church and was not adverse to self-sacrifice for others. He was esteemed as a teacher and for the few classes that I got to sit in on his teaching, he certainly had a way of holding an audience.

He is the person who I most credit my faith in Jesus to (though, sadly, he never got to see the fruition of that faith). He was one of those early models of what it meant to be a believer and live out a real faith to the service of others and the glory of God.

My father never held such a position in my life. There were occasions that my father was present when someone would ask who most impacted my walk with Jesus. I would almost sheepishly respond knowing that I was passing over my own father in order to talk about the impact my grandfather had. It never felt quite right but nor could I honestly say that my father had impacted me in the same way.

My father and I didn’t get along very well growing up. We have different personalities in some respects and very similar ones in others. Unfortunately, the differences tended to drive us apart and the similarities tended to make us compete for mutual desires. As can be imagined, this didn’t facilitate what would be considered a very healthy relationship.

As I began to mature, and most certainly when I started having children, I began to see my father in a different light. He had not changed as much as I began to understand why he was the person he was. A particularly poignant mutual forgiveness helped to heal old wounds and deepened our relationship. I have been grateful of God’s grace in both our lives that have helped us to have a nourishing father/son relationship.

But even though the relationship is a good one, I still never saw my father as a spiritual leader, either in my life or the lives of others – certainly not in the same way as my grandfather was. But then over the Christmas holiday, I heard my father pray. I had heard him pray before, so it’s not like this was some earth shattering event. I had even heard him pray heartfelt prayers.

But something about this prayer was different. I was finally struck during this prayer of the very quiet way that my father has been a spiritual presence in my life. Perhaps he was not the larger-than-life person that compelled you to walk in his steps like my grandfather was. Perhaps he was not the motivator or discipler that other important men and women in my life have been. But he has always been there. He has always been faithfully providing an environment that would be most conducive to spiritual growth. He hasn’t been the sun or the water or the dirt or the nutrients that have helped me to spiritually grow. But he has been the quiet gardener that has tilled the soil, cut branches when necessary, even transplanted if that would help me to grow. He has been a quietly faithful man without whom I would not be who I am today.

And whispered through this thought I hear God’s wonderful promise – ‘to a thousand generations.’ My grandfather loved God. He obeyed Him. And God was faithful to His promise to bless the next generation. My father loved God. He obeyed Him. And God was faithful to His promise to bless the next generation. And now I stand in that line with my children. It is with certain assurance that as I love God and obey Him, that He will continue the blessing on to the next generation.

Categories: Living

The Cacophony that is The Blogosphere

I haven’t written for over two weeks. It’s the longest that I’ve been silent since the summer. Some of you who receive this will appreciate the silence. It’s been eating away at me.

Not that things have been silent for me. The past two weeks have been a hectic time as it is for most of us in North America. So, to some extent, my silence on the blog has been about doing other things that are just more important. But I haven’t stopped reading other blogs and keeping up with what’s going on – and that’s where things have gotten noisy.

And there’s a lot of noise. I have been overwhelmed over the past several weeks in reading blogs. I knew this already – but it has really hit home now. Much of what passes for blogdom are a bunch of people talking past each other.

Take for instance the church closing ruckus. As I listen to both sides, I can understand both positions. Most people have become accustomed to going to Christmas Eve services (since most churches have moved what used to be Christmas morning services to Christmas Eve) and it’s unlikely that the CE (Christmas/Easter) attendees are going to change their habits. They’ll come on Christmas Eve (as they’ve become accustomed to) and probably not on Christmas morning. But it is not insignificant that this year God gives us an opportunity to worship Him and His taking on humanity on the same day that we worship His resurrection and the redemption of our humanity. I don’t think that closing church on Christmas this year should be taken lightly…but nor am I going to relegate those who have chosen to do so to some lower form of Christian maturity. There is just too much noise on this issue…

Or take the release of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. It seems that with the release of this movie (which I haven’t seen yet) has let lose a whole volley of abuse on poor Dr. Lewis. Steve Camp hit the lowest that I saw, insinuating that Lewis may not have been saved. Of course, no where on any of Mr. Camp’s site do I see a thumbnail of Augustine’s troubling theology (baptismal regeneration, veneration of saints, church hierarchal structure) and asking whether Augustine was orthodox or heterodox. Perhaps if we were willing to question our own sacred cows first, it would help us to be a bit more balanced in our view of what others believe. Again, a lot of noise.

I often follow Challies.com to keep up with what the Fundamentalist Reformed (his description, not mine) people think. I’m certain I’ve become addicted to going to any of Ron Gleason’s writings on emergent. I go partly because every now and then Gleason makes an extremely, valuable, Biblical critique of emergent. But far more often than not, Ron so mischaracterizes what the emergents (at least the ones I know and read) are supportive of that its like looking at a freak of nature – its hard to pull your eyes away. And so I keep going back. But the back and forth banter of much that goes on there is once more, a lot of noise.

I am a person who thinks in pictures (great for remembering people I’ve met, bad for remembering any type of personal information including names – I can’t tell you how often I go up to people with a bold and heart-felt ‘Hi John’ only to remember afterwards that I was talking to Zach – for what its worth, I usually get the name genders right…). The picture that has been assaulting my mind as I’ve been reading the blogs is something like the floor of futures traders on Wall Street. A whole mass of people just screaming at each other – but of course on the futures floor transactions actually occur. Reading the comments of some blog posting, I’m not so confident that any meaningful transactions occur.

I’m as much at fault. I’ve had my 200+ posts on Calvinism where I’ve tried to defend my position – teaching (lecturing, really) rather than listening - posts where no transaction or learning has occurred. And that’s sad. One of the strengths of the blogs is that it creates a worldwide environment where interaction and growth is supposed to be stimulated. And with many posts, I am stimulated – till I get to the comments. Then too often it devolves into name calling, insinuations, and character assassinations. I’d love to talk about how we are supposed to be united as believers, but based on many comment sections, we can’t really seem to agree on what unity is or what we are supposed to be united about. I think it would be helpful to talk about how we are supposed to love each other in spite of differences, but based on comment sections, we can’t really seem to agree on what love is or how it is best illustrated to others. And so, sadly, over the past several weeks, the blogs have been more of a disappointment to me than an encouragement (I must say, that Internet Monk is a respite from all this noise – though sometimes the noisy comments come, he handles them very well…).

I wonder what God thinks of the time I’ve spent in those comments sections…

Or its possible that all this noise are just the voices in my head, in which case, you should graciously smile at me the next time you see me and ignore everything I’ve said…

Categories: Living

The Final Authority

In a previous post it was noted how the idea of Scripture as the final authority in faith and life carried with it some problems. Included in these problems was:

• It is impossible for people to objectively interpret Scripture, which this premise rests on. This is not to state that there are not objective truths revealed in Scripture and that we cannot know the message of Scripture. Actually, the message is clear and is centered on Jesus and His death and resurrection. However, all people come to Scripture with subjective presuppositions that they base their theologies on. Thus, although the hermenuetical rules are almost the same regardless of theology, the outcomes vary diversely. There is no way of substantiating which theology is the closest to the final authority.
• Such a statement takes all the other authorities recognized throughout orthodoxy – namely the church and the Holy Spirit – and places them under Scripture. Though I’ve only gotten one friend to admit this, such a premise must hold that the Holy Spirit is then under the authority of Scripture. Thus, if I received two non-sinful commands from both the Holy Spirit and Scripture, one would have to follow Scripture rather than the Holy Spirit if they held to Sola Scriptura.

In this post, I would like to expand on this thought and present a possible option to this which does not completely discard the advantages of a Sola Scriptura teaching but also does not place the other authorities in roles that they should not be in either (i.e. the church over Scripture – sorry my Catholic friends :).

Sola Scriptura goes too far in its teaching. We have overstated Sola Scriptura neither because Scripture does not have authority nor even because it is not the final authority. We have overstated Sola Scriptura because we misunderstand the role of Scripture, the church, and the Holy Spirit.

I would like to suggest that Scripture is the final authority in establishing teaching (or doctrine), the church is the final authority in discipleship, and the Holy Spirit is the final authority in empowerment.

There are more than enough verses throughout Scripture declaring itself to be the authority over teaching. In addition, the apostles clearly used both Old and New Testament Scripture to define and reveal teaching and doctrine within the New Testament. This, so far, doesn’t sound too much different than what Sola Scriptura currently suggests.

However, it deviates from Sola Scriptura in two important ways. When one states Scripture is our final authority in life and faith, one expects that the answers to everything that we would need to know (I realize this is different than what we want to know) about life and faith are to be found in Scripture. Sadly, this almost guarantees that a person will approach Scripture with the wrong mindset and find something there that simply isn’t. Let me give an example. I was in a couples group once where we had one of the pastors of the church coming to give us insight into marriage. I quipped at one point how it would be nice if marriage came with an operator’s manual. The pastor held up his Bible and stated, ‘It has.’ Now, maybe I haven’t been married long enough, but I haven’t found the answer to every question in Scripture. Two questions to make my point will suffice. Is medicinal birth control moral? Is it OK to have an operation to prevent child birth? Simply put, Scripture does not answer these questions. Nor, actually, does it even give guidance because it would not be too hard to think of common scenarios where either of these questions could be seen in light of something morally acceptable and morally unacceptable. Scripture simply does not answer these questions or a myriad of other questions that come into our lives. He expects us to use other authoritative resources.

The second way that this position deviates from Sola Scriptura is best understood with another analogy. In today’s schools, kids are being taught math in a completely different way than when I grew up. That was when we had to memorize all sorts of tables and theorems and equations. This was technical math and it was absolutely necessary because without all these skills of memorization, a child could not go on to higher education to begin applying those things they had memorized to a whole variety of sciences. Nowadays it’s different. Instead, students are taught applied math from early ages. And it is a VERY different way of understanding math. The emphasis is much less on getting the exact right answer through working through problems. How can that be? Primarily because the memorization is not so critical – computers do all the work for us. Thus, it is more important today for a child to understand the application than it is the rote memorization.

Now, I am not suggesting that we have any means of bypassing the technical side of theology. My point in this illustration is to show that math can be seen from various perspectives. In the same way there are different components to the Christian life. What we think and know is one of those components and Scripture should be seen as the final authority in those areas. However, simply because it is the final authority in teaching does not mean that it is the final authority in every other area.

It is after this conclusion where we begin seeing that the church plays as important a role in the Christian life as Scripture does. Where Scripture has authority in doctrine, the Church has authority in discipling. Since this is part of the deviation from Sola Scriptura, a Scriptural example of what I am suggesting may be helpful.

In Acts 15 we have the first Church Council at Jerusalem. There was a problem where a requirement was being made of Gentiles that they first fulfill the Mosaic covenant, through circumcision, prior to their being able to being saved. Since this caused such difficulties, Paul and Barnabas decide to bring the issue before the apostles in Jerusalem. There was much debate and finally James, the first leader of the church, summarized the decision that they came to by requesting that the Gentiles abstain from certain practices. This abstaining was primarily to avoid offense to those who came from the Mosaic tradition rather than an adherence in any way to the Law.

What is significant in this whole account of 30 verses is that there is only one portion of Scripture that is quoted – and that in order to support the idea that the Gentiles were to be included in the proclamation of the Gospel. The decision of the Council as recorded in Acts is in no way dependent upon Scripture. I am not arguing that during the debate, Scripture wasn’t spoken about – I’m sure it was. If we are to be disciples, we must understand what Scripture teaches. But it is not insignificant that in the council’s response to the Gentiles, they do not even hint at the idea that they are making their decision based upon the authority of Scripture. They do place emphasis on their own authority in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. Thus, where we see Scripture as the final authority in doctrine, we should see the church as final authority in discipling.

There is distinct interaction between these two authorities of Scripture and Church. We should not expect that every authoritative statement made by the Church must be rooted in specific Scripture verses. It is possible to apply Scripture with wisdom without having to tie everything back into Scripture. We should do better at recognizing the church’s authority to tell the members of its body how to live the life of Jesus in their day and age, as well as the authority to hold them accountable to the life of discipleship. On the other hand, we should not expect that the Church places itself over Scripture. It is not the church or any authority in the church that defines the teaching and doctrine of the church – these are defined solely by Scripture since it is the primary means that God has used to communicate Himself to us.

The importance of seeing Scripture and the Church as equal authorities cannot be overemphasized. There is a significant reason for this - both are fallible. Well, let me rephrase that. I do not believe Scripture to be fallible (at least as originally communicated) because it was communicated by God. But as noted above, the way we interpret it is fallible. At least as fallible, and just as dangerous, as believing that somehow the church or its teachers are the ones to define what doctrine is. Doctrine is derived from Scripture and thus the authority of what we believe in doctrine is based upon Scripture. But, how we live out that doctrine and its practical applications to every day life are within the authority of the Church to declare.

Finally, there is the authority of the Holy Spirit. If there is to be a statement of what is our ‘final authority,’ I believe that it must rest here. But even so, it is interesting that two of the primary means that that Holy Spirit uses to exercise His authority in our lives is through Scripture and the Church. The authority of the Holy Spirit rests in giving the ability to both know God with the mind and to live the life of a disciple. Though this may include Scripture and the church, it can also include special leading (including promptings, dreams, or actual auditory sensory), circumstances, or the Holy Spirit working in our lives through the lives of others. And thus it is the Holy Spirit who is given the authority to empower us in our Christian life.

What we gain from this more balanced view of authority is the recognition that our lives are not just about learning Scripture or living a godly life (though our lives are about those things). Our lives are about being in Christ and thus being empowered by the Holy Spirit to both know the things of God and accordingly live a life that is both holy and pleasing to Him.

Categories: Thinking