Encouraging or Preventing Worship of God

With my new responsibilities of overseeing the worship along with the youth at Gracepointe I was thinking of my own role in God's worship and directing the people. I want to point the people to God and not be a distraction. With last's week's blog and the poor signage pointing the wrong way I thought this one would be a nice compliment to it. It reminded me of some thoughts I had from John's gospel last year.

Last Year I was hosting a Bible study at my house and we were going through the Gospel of John. John chapter 2 has the famous story of Jesus clearing the temple. We usually focus on the problem that was the traders and money changers making huge profits in the house of the Lord. Jesus gets upset rightfully so and says "That they are turning his father's house into a market or a house of robbers!" So we in turn nod in agreement and say you greedy jerks.

But going through this book again I was stuck at how another reason that Jesus had such zeal for his Father's house. His Father's house was about meeting with the people, but in this situation was that zeal also about the prevention of Gentile worship?

The only area that the nations had to approach God at this point in history was in the court of Gentiles. What the Jews were effectively doing was preventing Gentiles from approaching God in any meaningful way. Imagine trying to worship in a church with men walking up and down the aisles yelling "Peanuts? Popcorn?!" This would be disturbing to say the least. This would have been a complete misunderstanding of their mission to the world. Israel was always supposed to be about presenting God to the world, instead they withdrew and made it about themselves and stunted evangelism.

Hmm...This made me think about where we are as a church. Do we actively promote non-Christian participation? Is this the same thing? This was about gentiles wanting to worship God. Do non-Christians want to worship God? Should the church have a non-believers section? Is the function of the church to cater to the desires of the people? We could go this direction but the seeker sensitives have already tried this. It really amounts to watering down the Gospel to reduce all the uncomfortable squirming in the seats.

In fact I have been involved in these kinds of discussions many times. I think it is a good question to ask, but I think it is misdirected to ask this of Sunday morning worship rather than of the  people themselves. You can never water down the message or else the question "Will somebody want to come hear?" has answered it self. You want to change the look of the building? Go right ahead, that doesn't really matter so much.

Later in John 4 Jesus told the woman at the well that with his advent the place of worship was no longer the issue. It was now about how they worshiped. Why? Because the place of worship at the temple was replaced in his own body and thus the place of worship is replicated in our own bodies. We are the temples now (1 Peter 2:5). So do we invite non-Christians to worship of the true God or do we repel it? Do our lives promote interest in God? Do our lives point to his?

A much better question.

The way the church has a court of the gentiles is in outreach. The Gospel. This means just as the gentiles had to enter through the gates of the temple and come to the house of the Lord on his terms. They now have roaming temples that approach them, but they still have to enter by the Lord's terms, his Son.

So the question is as a roaming temple does my witness present the Gospel or prevent it? Now let's not confuse this question with their response to it. A lot of people have been doing this lately. If someone is offended that Jesus is the only way out of their slavery to sin, then that is not the temple's fault. See the challenge should be at the moment of this question "Who do you say that Jesus is?" When we try to put other things before this question we are in danger of getting them offended/interested because of the wrong message. We make it about the temple grounds rather than who the temple is supposed to be pointing them to.

This was the money changers problem. In their effort to make people use the right currency and the right offering they sidelined the actual worship of God. This is not to say that using the right currency and the right offering wasn't important. It actually was important. But where they were doing it, and how they were doing it took focus away from the people meeting with God.

This is why it is dangerous for us to try and come up with new ways to present the Gospel or ways to soften the blow of the message or to try and avoid unnecessary offense in presenting it. It has to be raw because it will always be a rock of offense, a stumbling block, or the first building block in their own temples. This is what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:6-10.

When we tell people that Jesus loves them unconditionally before they come to terms with the Gospel, apart from the Gospel, well the Gospel itself seems a bit unnecessary. If Jesus already loves me why do I need to repent and believe? If Jesus is all about loving me then why do we need all that theology and those doctrines? This can get confusing to say the least. We don't want to cause confusions and cause them to ask "Am I unconditionally loved? Then what is all this denying myself temptation and self-control about?"

See, if we mess up the message we accidentally present universalism and then we wonder why people get offended when they actually come into church. And they hear some of that theology. This is how people get upset with institutions. This is why they say they like spirituality but they dislike the church or religion. They like all the he loves me talk but they don't like all the what loving him looks like talk.

That is not to say "let's have the gospel without this love business" no, not saying that, but love has to be properly couched in the gospel to the get the message right.

We should say "You are loved by God and that looks like him giving his Son for your sins to break down the wall, the chasm, between you both." We have to enter into his love through his Son. This is the point of John 3:16, "Yes he loves you, but it looks like something, it looks like this." If we do not present it this way we let the world bring their own definitions of what love means into their belief and that can get sticky.

Just like gentiles couldn't bring their own currency into the temple, or use a blemished lamb as a sacrifice.

Was there any way for Morpheus to have softened the blow for Neo when he explained to him what the Matrix was?  No, Neo had to see it for himself so he could come to understand his place in it. Once you understand what the Matrix is there is no going back, that is why they had to choose the red or blue pill first.

Someone is either going to continue their journey towards God or continue their journey away from him. These are the only two options, so we need to make sure our presentation of the Gospel is not unnecessarily sending people on their way away from him. Or worse yet, letting people think they are travelling with God when they haven't been born again.

This does not mean that it is all dependent on us. God draws those who he will. All we can ever do is water and plant because it is God who gives growth. But as we saw with the money changers in the temple, God still has something to say to way we treat his worship and direct the worshipers.

Hopefully we encourage the worship of God and not prevent it. I want to encourage God's worship in all aspects of my ministry, with both the youth and with the actual worship service, so help me God.

thanks

A contextual Sigh-nn

After travelling across the country (thank God we have arrived!) and seeing sign after sign directing me where to turn, where to merge, where to exit, and even what speed to drive, I was reminded of this little episode that played out in my life last year.

Signs are supposed to instruct, to help, to inform, to guide. Signs are a good thing, but...

While I was driving to work one day I saw man on the way, he was standing out on the corner of a fairly major intersection. He was holding a sign. It was one of those signs that teaches biblical truth. At least I assumed that was the sentiment.

It was one of those signs that had two truths, one on the front and one on the back, both from first John. The first side I saw said "a child of God does not go on sinning" at first I was like, OK, an apt truth. But then he spun the sign to reveal the other side. It said "anyone who sins is of the devil".

The first by itself may have been an exhortation to brothers to step-up their faith, to stir up the good works inside of them, to continue on the narrow path, to even check to see whether or not we are in the faith as the apostles remind us. A little bit of exhortation from a fellow believer? I like that, however, that wasn't the truth at all, when the two messages are coupled together it rang like a scathing contrast: Christian are good and everyone everyone else is bad. With the messages together it was no longer an encouragement, it was people retreating to their respective camps with knives out. It was us versus them and clearly we have the upper hand. We have the leg up and not only that but you are horrible people. It was not an invitation to life change or a welcoming to the gospel.

Signs that condemn do nothing but anger and create walls, or make us swerve off the road.

Now these verses in this vacuum of context are not true. They are half truths. It does not contain the next crucial verses, it doesn't contain the context in which it says, but when we sin God is faithful and just to forgive us of all unrighteousness.  Without these thoughts, this message is pretty hopeless.  The Bible can say a lot of things when we print individual verses on signs, boards, and cards. The Bible can be made to say many things it is not intending when it is not allowed to speak for itself.

So this sign did not speak truth. Christians do not sin. So wait, what if at some point I did and sometimes do, am i now not one? Oh dear...

He who sins are sons of the devil? So what there is no hope for me, then why say anything? What is that supposed to do except make me angry? Oh dear...

No! The Bible in untrained hands or presented thoughtlessly as this only kills. As Paul says the letter kills but the spirit brings life. The Spirit illuminates the scriptures, but his job is made difficult if we only choose bits and pieces and ignore the rest. People, do not talk about sin without a remedy! Do not talk the judgement without the invitation to repentance and the welcoming arms of God!

Our sin does separate but this is not the complete story. He loves us so he sent his Son to die! This is like when the news quotes presidential candidates out of context to undermine their platform but much much worse. 

If we aren't communicating hope then we don't understand the gospel. We have to understand the hope is in the message not the hearing. If people don't hear the hope then that is on them but we have to present it! Otherwise we just continue the pendulous nature of us against them, sinners versus saints. Guns drawn armor on. 

The word gospel means good news. It is not good to simply know that God is angry with me. People have to also know what to do with that information. The good part comes in that God has done a work to repair that wounded relationship. Not only has he done the work but he offers to us the results of that work himself.

This is like those people who say "I am not mean I am just being honest". They parade it like a virtue, when everybody else is silently noting how much of a jerk they are. See if we only tell people the truth of their situation without any remedy we will simply close doors. This is why we are taught to speak the truth in love. It had to be complete to be true and the delivery is also important. 

I remember thinking that if I saw that guy the next day that I would have to stop and talk with him. I can only assume he meant well but it would be more helpful if his sign had said "The End is Nigh". That would at least elicit a response of some kind, but the one he had, stated the way it was, simply laid down a barricade between who is in and who is out. This differences between who is in and who is out is not a helpful conversation apart from the Gospel. That kind of truth is only revealed after people have an encounter with Jesus through the gospel. We understand this truth afterward and it prompts us to go and tell it on the mountain. We understand both sides of the truth and it fills us with awe and love and it is supposed to fill us with compassion for those who need it as well.

Telling half truths may as well be lying. God offers forgiveness to all, if we would only come. This is similar to the Calvinist and Arminian debate. If we only are interested in God's part, and God's part has nothing to do with us then why bother talking about it? If we are only interested in our part and our responsibility then why bother bringing God into it at all? This is what happens when we press a particular point without its context within the fuller picture of revelation. 

We are not operating in vacuums here.

God did not without context tell us we are sinners, nor does he tells us without context we are loved. There is background information that these truths communicate upon. Doctor's offer help within the context of sickness. Mechanics repair within the context of malfunction. Gardener's sow and tend within the context of wild overgrowth. Trainers train within the context of misbehaving puppies. 

Finally the Savior saves within the context of the people of the earth being eternally lost. He offers life where there was only death. So start telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

That way the sign will lead people to God rather than away. 

thanks

A Lack of Clarity (all those versions part two)

The reason I wrote the first blog about this subject was because of a tendency I have seen to write off the Bible because "You know the Bible has changed and been re-written over the years by many different people right? You do realize this right?" In other words you are foolish to put too much stock in its pages.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen someone post this on comment sections about anything that has to do with Christianity. I know, why read the comments, it is the bane of our existence?! 

But I wrote that last one to point out that actually we have extremely accurate Bibles that highly reflect authorial intent which Christians believe were God breathed.

2 Timothy 3:16 
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

But I didn't address the other line of argumentation fully which is also used just as often: that the Bible is just not that "clear". Well I have mentioned this in passing a few times and after having read yet another article about how we all need to chill because the Bible is not that clear. I felt the need to stand up once again and defend Gotham. Not that Gotham needs my defending, nor am I Batman but the church has a history of good theology and I don't want that to go away with a flood of misinformation. Louder voices on the internet are not always good ones.

So in my response I wish the Christians would admit about the Bible though difficult can be understood with study and practice. Maybe not to full complete understanding or liking but that is why humility is important in knowing God. I may not understand everything fully but let's stop tossing babies around in bathwater.

Relevant Magazine had an article about things people need to admit about the Bible and they are right ; to undermine the scriptures is a great way to undermine the Christians faith which is very relevant to enemies of God. So I will respond to their five points.

Point 1 The Bible is not magic but a collection of Books with different Genres. Good, true point.

Point 2 The Bible isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. Um sometimes it isn't but I think that this is more of a passing blip than a point. It is awfully clear on many things. It is awfully clear on many things that people do not like. Just because we do not like something doesn't mean it becomes unclear. Let's not let the little ambiguous ones undermine its authority. It's little foxes that spoil the vineyard afterall. Well we are at it let's talk about the one you think are so ambiguous that you think we should create a principle that actually undermines its authority. See I have seen this point but people don't want to discuss it.

The example used the point of violence as God commands against it but at other times uses it as judgment. Why is God so inconsistent? It must be unclear. Well to understand this point apply your first one. In one way God is commanding obedience for his people to act as judgment on the nations, and in another he is commanding no personal vendettas. God says vengeance is mine. It is not inconsistent for him to carry out such vengeance with the hands of his people who he actively governs over. See distinctions which come about through study shouldn't make us conclude that the Bible is too difficult to make assertions, but that is always what this line of argumentation wants to argue.

Jesus often spent a lot of time quoting from the Old Testament saying it is written for his line of reasoning. It as is if he put a lot of stock in what was recorded in ink. Jesus even combated his own temptations with the words of scripture, but Satan tried to do the same. Jesus didn't throw up his hands and say "You are right Satan we are both using the same scriptures, it is just so unclear!" No, he seemed to believe that the words long written down had meaning when properly understood and applied. 

This point should be the Bible doesn't always ask easy things of us; but a lack of understanding does not mean a lack of clarity. 

Point 3 The Bible was inspired by God not dictated by God. True so what are you getting at? It seems since this was not fleshed out into any real reason, that this is simply to undermine the authority because  "You know God didn't directly say it? This is that same argument that "You know it's not in red letters so Jesus doesn't believe that!" The Bible does give testimony on what its' readers should believe about it. 

The Bible acknowledges that many people will rise up and misuse the word and that false teachers will abound. The answer is not to throw up our hands in hopelessness. No, the answer is to study to show yourself approved.

2 Tim 2:15
14Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Point 4  We all pick and choose the Bible we Believe, Preach and Defend. Well, some may I guess, but largely as a whole no we don't. But as you have displayed, the weak Bibliology that is being build on this premise will conclude from the flimsy foundation you are building with points 2 and 3.

People will do this if we continue to uphold a view of the Bible that is so grounded in man's own ability to comprehend God. But when we ground our view in the Bible's own testimony, that it does come from God then there will always be someone to point out that the Bible does in fact say something worth listening to. If this is really the truth about Christianity then we are a stupid people indeed. In fact if my Bible is simply the version that I like then who is to say who is right, or if anyone is? And for that matter why not go find one that is a little better, perhaps the book of Mormon or the Koran? See, if we have this little regard for the Bible than we really have no right to use it to make lists of 5 reasons that others should pay attention to.

Point 5 God is bigger than the Bible. Again true, to the point of obvious. But this is usually meant to mean that being spiritual is as and if not more important that understanding God's revelation. But then if you are not willing to submit to his own revelation about himself, if you are not willing to acknowledge that his delivery system was also for a reason, than who is now even bigger than God? Well, you are. All world religions believe this. They believe God is bigger than the pages of scripture so they inevitable leave them to find him elsewhere, and we get another religion. So which one will you let define your God? I will rely on the revelation that he gave from his disciples inspired by God himself. You can rely on your world experiences if you want to.

We live in the internet age where everyone is welcomed a comment. Ok sure, even I am using that privilege. But just because somebody writes something doesn't make it true, just as my own words are subject to scrutiny. I used to tell my students in ministry no speaker, no writer, no pastor, no blog, nobody is better than the word. Every speaker, writer, blogger, pod-caster whatever on matters of Christianity, God , Theology, everyone is this area is only as good as they are submitted to the word. Even Paul didn't just say "Well because I say so!" he commended the Bereans who went out studied what he said. Don't let someone convince you of something just because they are eloquent or they have a platform. Search it out, submit to God and he will lead you into truth. Solomon said it this way

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

If the truth sets you free, it shouldn't lead into a bondage of ambiguity. Because the author is right about this thing; everyone does have their version of the truth. The question is does it reflect God's or not? Is it submitted to God? People waver, people change, people fight, people argue, people disagree, but that is people not God's testimony. James gives a warning on this matter in his third chapter.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
 
The clarity questions is really about accurately reflecting God's word or not. So take the time to make sure you are.

thanks

All those versions

So I met a guy the other day while working.  After he heard  I went to bible college got a degree in theology and had a master's from seminary he informed me that while he wasn't spiritual he did take some philosophy from different religions such as Buddhism and from Christianity and even some from satanism. He had told me that he came from a very strict southern baptist church that wanted to control everything.   He was an interesting guy.  Later I don't if he was trying to poke me a bit or what but we asked me what my specialization was and i told him New Testament and he proceeded to ask of which version of the bible.

Now I have seen this question and seen this statement to mean there are many bibles out there and they keep changing over time because it is just a man made book. I was happy to explain to him that I studied the original Greek and that our translations were actually quite accurate, but it reminded me of this common objection to the bible itself.

It is actually a good objection in the sense that if you can undermine the Word than you can dismiss the content and the religion tied to it. If that were the case.  So let's look at this objection, let's do some apologetics.

Aren't all the different versions a testimony that the Bible is unreliable?

Well a similar questions could be don't all those different denominations mean the Bible isn't clear or maybe even they are all serving a different God?  The denominations questions first because it is really quite simple. This has to do with flavor. Some like their bodies to be traditional with hymns and deeply exegetical preaching and some like the worship to be more contemporary and the message to contain smaller words easier to digest. Some like to baptize after conversion with immersion and some prefer simply sprinkling or baby baptism. But these are all preferences that allow us to worship together without always breaking off to have a debate. Some like Calvin a lot and some like Arminius. We can agree to disagree on certain things and thus continue in unity in Christ. This is why Christianity can have many denominations.

So is that how the Bible versions work? Well yes and no. Yes in that they do meet people where they are and no because they do not give different doctrine. The different versions are actually about readability not content. When a Bible does change core doctrine it absolutely does become just another book written by man. This is why the Jehovah's Witness for example are not considered Christian.  They tamper with key passages and make them out to say something completely different, they specifically undermine the deity of Christ.

Other religions such as Islam and Mormonism borrow a lot of ideas from the Bible but in the end their message contradicts, which is why they have they own books. By the way, both of these religions pay lip-service to the Bible while undermining it, they both were delivered to them by "angels".  This is specifically pointed out by Paul in Galatians 1 as something that would still not validate the message as it undermines Christ.

⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Paul again reminds that Satan deceives in 2 Corinthians 11.

¹² And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. ¹³ For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴ And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ¹⁵ So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

So Yes there are some bad books out there but the various versions of the Bible are different. They are written in such a way as to grant access to the reader's understanding. The NIV for example is what is called a dynamic equivalent to the original Greek. In other words it gives the thought for thought account of the Greek and Hebrew and communicates in a more understandable fashion to our post modern world. An ASV in a more direct translation a formal equivalence it focuses on word for word translations, it keeps all the difficult phrasing and abruptness in the language and is this more of a challenge to read but highly accurate. But these are examples of communicating mostly for accessibility not content. They will not be at odds in reflection to the original Greek. 

This is the point: we have so many of the original Greek papyrus that we can simply go back and check if our translations are reliable or not.  This is why I studied Greek in seminary to be able to work out the original text and see for myself. And our translations are quite good. I personally use the ESV as it combines the most current Greek manuscripts with an nice sounding verbiage similar to the NKJV.  So Thees and Thous aside, this is not something that the church needs to divide over and certainly no reason to decide that one version is the only one to read.  The Message and the New Living are more of a paraphrase than a true version for the purpose of putting it into the modern day vernacular. I feel that because of this we may miss out on the nuance of the 1st century message because of language barrier and cultural differences. I have a preference but I would want anyone to read what actually gets you into the Word. 

I would also add the more accurate translation the better simply to be as close to the original intent as possible, but that may be something that one needs to work up to.  If an ASV is too difficult then start with an NIV if that is too difficult start with the Living. I would hope we would work towards the ones that have the closest to the original as possible so as to not have the challenge be in our wording but in the actual commands of God. 

Here are some useful testimonies:
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.

So to answer this line of attack one simple says "I have all the reasons I need to believe the reliability of the scriptures, but good sir, have you exhausted all the reasons to simply not engage? It seems to me that you run the bigger risk at being wrong among the two options. To accidentally attempt to live a life of virtue is better than to accidentally live a life that ends in hell."

thanks 

Changing Dirty Filters

I recently was working a job where I did maintenance. A common problem was with our air movers. Air returns have filters. Our houses have filters. Filters grab the particles of dirt and dust out of the air so we do not breathe them.  But when our filters get dirty and need change they can shut down the clean air.

In the same way we have filters in the way we hear a messages. I hinted at this a little while back when talking about the church.  Different people have different backgrounds. We see, we hear, we feel differently.  If we have a background of works and pain then we are sensitive when a message has this sound to it so we shut down. Or perhaps we have a background of license and then we are sensitive to a message that has a lot of grace talk. Or perhaps we have a background with the Word being misrepresenting and so we are sensitive to when this happens etc. 

A problem occurs over time when the filter is spent. In other words I have put up filters and rightfully so in order to filter the garbage. But, over time if we do not clean out the filter or simply change it, it starts to malfunction and starts to prevent clear passage. This is a problem in HVAC and it is a problem in communication. If we always bring our hurts and pasts to the table and never clean out the filters then we will always hear what we fear. What happens if we loose the ability to hear outside of our experience?

We can see how our own culture has changed into the kind of people who cannot hear beyond its filters/pain/experience. We do this and we refrain from entering into any kind of useful dialog because our offense siren will not turn off.  In other words we assume.

I don't need to tell you what happens when we do that. The bigger problem is however overtime we do not simply not hear, we can't hear. The actual message is gone and instead what we see is enemies and offenses all around and we do not engage. We do not hear the encouragement that was there. We do not hear the life that was there. We most certainly do not hear the exhortation that was there. Our filter is clogged and over time we begin to think that the it's air that is dirty.

I am sure at some point something I have written has pricked someone the wrong way. Perhaps I wasn't clear or I was insensitive. This is something for me to work on for sure. But what all of us can work on is how we filter information. This is a problem of our culture for sure, but again this is not a blog for the world to fix itself with, this is for the church. If as Christians we do this then we risk missing out on something God may have for us.

I think we get a picture of this from the story Joseph and his brothers.

Joseph has these awesome dreams about what God was going to do his life. Joseph perhaps naively thought that his brother would rejoice with him over the revelation from God.  His brothers misunderstood his excitement for pride and wanting to rule over them. Their filters of jealousy and competition for their father's love ended up with them selling him into slavery. A misunderstanding perhaps?

Another example is David and Saul.

David only ever wanted to serve the King and God but his deeds continually out paced the King's. Unfortunately all Saul could feel was jealousy over loosing his throne and kingdom.  He could not see the ally that God had brought him because of his filter of fear of loosing what he had and jealousy of a more popular man among the people. He was blinded to the relationship that God put in his life and would not heed what God was doing. A misunderstanding perhaps?

Another example is our course Jesus and his disciples with even the pharisees.

On many occasions Jesus was simply misunderstood from the people he was speaking to. Jesus had to stop and clarify many times to the disciples because they were not tracking with him. They had their natural filters out and could not see the spiritual things he was communicating. Perhaps rightly so, in this case, but then even Jesus had to take the time to make his message known. Even Jesus with all his communication gifts had to take the time to clarify himself with the people he wanted relationship with.

I understand that Jesus is perhaps in a different category from the rest, but he still gives us the example of needing to clarify. This is especially true when communicating with the world. They may hear certain things we are not saying. We may however also be saying things we are not meaning. So clarify, understand, listen, we may yet be able to communicate the gospel to a dying world, but we will never do it we can't first communicate to one another well.  Misunderstandings are going to happen, from a writer's/speaker's perspective we need to take the time to clarify the message. From a reader/listener perspective we need to take the time to clean or change our filters.

Talking past each other is a real shame, in the church and outside. This inability to communicate well has led our country collectively to become the "walking wounded". If we do not work through our pain filled filters or tear down our sharpened tongues we will no longer communicate anything other than hurt. When everyone is a victim, nobody has a problem to work on. When we foster a society of blame, nobody grows. As Christians we should want to change this.

Why? Because we want to hear God when he speaks, Don't we?

thanks

It was Inevitible

Before I begin let me say that enough ire has been exchanged and if possible I want to avoid that and be as cordial as possible. But some things need to be said when others have been already. This conversation has been clouded for so long that nothing of substance gets through our passions much anymore. But in an effort to bring something new to the table I will say that I harbor no resentment for the opposition. But a Christian must take a stand because we will all give account. 

Now having said that I don't usually like to comment on trends and politics specifically, but this one is so inherently Christian that I knew eventually I would write about it at some point and that time is now.  I am not trying to be melodramatic but once again Rob Bell has stepped into the light and shared what he knows will be popular with society and rub the Christian community the wrong way.  Thankfully I wasn't blogging back when Love Wins came out so I was then spared a comment, but that and this share a common theme.  Now I don't want to judge the guy's heart because I do not know him, but his technique seems to consistently be based around gathering a following rather than presenting the true Christian way of thinking.

And that is the problem for me anyway, not him, but the way that Christianity is affected. The Gospel's primary message is that because of Adam's sin mankind is infected and needs a redeemer. Part of the way that God draws people to repentance is his goodness to us in the offering of his Son. This was for the payment of our sins if we will only turn to him. Christianity, you know John 3:16?

So Rob Bell says "We're moments away, [from accepting gay marriage]" "I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."

Hmm...If the church's primary concern was cultural relevance than he is right. If the church's primary goal was mass appeal then he is right. If the church's primary goal is making friends and networking then he is right. But if the church's primary concern is the promulgation of the Gospel then he is wrong. And while we are at it, the Gospel's best defense is also from letters 2000 year ago, should we abandon this cultural irrelevance as well?

See part of the problem is that this should be an in-house discussion. Sin in the world is always going to be there, it is not the church's job to run around cleaning everyone's nose. And if we are prepared to alter the Bible based on what an on-looking and free-commenting world says then our Bible will end up being much smaller. Thomas Jefferson already did this with the miraculous, the Jesus seminar did this with beads, now do we really want to do this with social justice issues? So because this is an in-house discussion it shouldn't matter what the world, or society, or fallen man thinks about it. But the church needs to understand it's own doctrine. When God  is clear on something then his people need to fall in line. That is if they want to be a part of the kingdom. If not then that is your choice, but stop standing up under the banner of Christendom and muddying the waters.

I know that this discussion, if I can call it that, is so polarizing that it hurts and distances people. I know that the church has had a big part in that. We have taken the healing balm of the Gospel and sometimes fashioned it into a hammer. We have failed to allow the Holy Spirit to do his job and convict the world of sin. Instead we have sometimes taken up the banner of the sin police and tried to force our worldview onto people who were not asking. Hearing that your sin distances you from God when you are not looking for God is angering to say the least. The problem is now that the discussion is so out in the open that we cannot communicate it in such a way that it doesn't sound like an imposition or an attack.

I know that this is will not be popular for me to say. My intention is not to harm but I have a responsibility to clarify when the Bible is misrepresented on issues the world would rather not be said. But this is especially true when the problem is so linked to what distances people from God.  Paul speaks in Romans of homosexuality as the capstone of fallen man in his journey away from God. This is not to say that homosexuality is the worst possible sin and there is no hope. That is not the message!  But the sin of homosexuality is a hallmark of a society that has turned its back on God. Our society is in trouble and that is why the Gospel is so important.

The church's current problem in America is that the country is responding to the Gospel as it was always going to, as Jesus promised the world would, with hate. Now unfortunately though, there is a bigger problem, it has been unmasked and revealed in our hearts. It is that we as Christians do not like that fact that Christianity is now historically on the unpopular side of culture. That's it. We loved being Christians when it was cool and popular and our politics felt so God honoring and uplifting and our wars felt like God's hand was behind them all.  But what has happened is we are no longer honored in the public eye. We are pariah. We do not like it. But then we are in danger of Galatians 1:10

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Rather than recognize the inevitability that the Gospel was always going to be at odds with the world, we have instead decided we have a PR problem. Why? because we want mass appeal again. But the Gospel is only going to reach those who the Spirit draws. In doing so it may just leave many of us without friends as Jesus has already said to his followers. Mathew 10:16-25

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

The solution is not to soften the Gospel and hire a PR agent, but to realize the stakes of what we signed up for.  The answer is not to capitulate like Rob Bell is predicting the church will do. Unfortunately though he is right in that some have already and some will continue to do so. But that is not the Biblical response. Paul does not pull punches when he presents the condition of the world and it's need for Christ. This is the problem, Rob Bell isn't telling the world what the Bible says, he is telling people what they want to hear. He is trying to be a church PR representative and he is succeeding, at least for his own cause. But it is not a Christian position to ignore sin. Sin is what points people to God's goodness which leads them to repentance and them being born again. God's goodness is in his receiving sinners.

This is the point. I wish we could all be honest and say "This is Christian truth and you don't have to believe it". Instead we want to have our Christian cake and eat it too. We somehow think that disciples are supposed to be liked by the world, but Christ himself told us that we would not. We make the false dichotomy that because Jesus was liked by his followers that therefore everyone should like us. But the truth of the matter is that those who were following Jesus liked him, and those who were not following him did not.  He was put to death remember? In the end more hated him than followed him. We should not be overly concerned with being liked, because Jesus wasn't liked.  

But, when we are it should be for the right reasons. Because people are hearing the same message, the one that they didn't agree with when Jesus spoke it. Part of being a Christian is being at odds with the world, because we are jerks? No. But because our testimony is as Jesus' was; that all people need a savior from their futures apart from Christ. Jesus calls us to take up a cross remember?

In the same vein I wish homosexuals would be honest and say "This is the life we want to live and it doesn't matter what you believe." But instead they also want to be accepted and, rightfully so, doesn't everybody?  But they shouldn't expect us to fault on our Biblical truth any more than we should expect them to want to fault on their lifestyle. We should not expect non-Christians to live as Christians. Nor should they expect Christians to agree with non-Christians especially about sin.

Where we are in society is where the church was inevitably going to be in relationship with the culture, on opposing sides.

Might we actually achieve a more peaceful tolerance if we were more honest with our positions?  But the demand that the other side agree or accept the other side will only continue the fighting, or worse as Rob Bell predicted make hypocrites of those who capitulate to societal whims. When does the church ever give into societal pressure on issues of sin? I know the common argument is what about slavery? Well the obvious answers is those using the Bible to defend slavery were wrong. The Biblical system of slavery was to handle debt and included a time of jubilee (freedom) It was different. It included rules for treating the slaves (humanely). It was different. Paul encourages Philemon to grant freedom to Onesimus. It was different. Owner's were encouraged to treat slaves well and slaves were encouraged to get their freedom if legally possible. The New Testament furthers these treatments. Slavery was a reality in the world but the Biblical way to handle slaves was very different. Remember, those wanting to end slavery were using the Bible as well, just better.

We have been fighting a cultural war and loosing, as we were always going to. The battlefront for the Christian is not in public relations but in presentation of the gospel.  All we can do is hold to it whether society likes it or not.

Now this is turning out to be longer than I had hoped but let me take a moment to talk about rightfully placed ire in regards to Christians. This is not an excuse for what has also happened; where Christians forget that their truth is supposed to be seasoned with salt. That is love. Christians do not get a free ticket to bulldoze those who don't agree. If we cannot communicate in Christian love than we deserve all the ire we get. If we treat people poorly then expect opposition. Also if we desire to be loved and accepted when we bring a message that Jesus tells us is offensive, we will be frustrated. But, if we get anger as the result of an honest and humble presentation of the Gospel, all we can do is thank God for the opportunity to share.

Thank God for the opportunity to share

A Sermon: Underwater Signage

This won't be long again as the meat is in the audio, but i gave this sermon on May 3rd. God has deemed it necessary to teach his people to remember.  Sometimes when knowing who he is is not enough to lift our heads, sometimes he points to the good things he has done. Joshua 4 shows us just how to remind ourselves of how our God is greater. And sometimes he gives us our own testimony, very personal and very real.  This is especially true and needed when we pray. So press the link and give it a listen.

https://archive.org/details/UnderwaterSignage

thanks

Raging Against the Machine much? (numbers and disciples) 3 of 4

I wrote the previous blogs about different church experiences to point out that we are all different and have different filters from different experiences and backgrounds.  This was in hope for us to be better at gathering together. Gee, Gabe why it that? Well I frequently see open letters to churches about why they are doing a poor job and why people are leaving. These along with how to find a "better" church seem to be on the rise. This is really not surprising as the church is made up with people and people are not going to agree on a lot of things as I said.

Now it is one thing to want to find another church because of gross theological concerns, but often these are usually about preferences and offense. So after reading yet another article on how the church or leadership needs to change or else, I thought I would add a thought to the discussion.

It is true the church has been poor in some areas. Sometimes we are poor at love, sometimes we are poor at evangelizing, sometimes we are poor at charity, sometimes we are poor at outreach, and sometimes we are poor at worship (this is coming), and sometimes we are poor on the Bible.  

As much as I agree with some of this I think it is important to note that these types of articles seem to share a common denominator. They include that they at one point felt judged, or encountered something they didn't like, and then they proceed to finger pointing and departing. I am starting to get the feeling that these writers would rather that doctrine and sin not be talked about at all; and to empathize, I suppose I can sometimes understand that to a degree, but it really misses the point.  

We are obsessed with love in our culture. Which is not really a bad thing. But how some of the church seems to have adopted this mindset is that love is looking the other way and being as inclusive as possible. But for Jesus love was meeting people where they were at, for sure, (which we like) but he never failed to tell them the truth. (which we don't seem to like anymore). Jesus' exclusive message of the Father and himself divided people, further the doctrines from the Bible will contain some exclusive truths and theology as well.

When we treat Jesus like a one dimensional character like Cupid who is only concerned about "spreading love" we miss the point.  Jesus admits that what he is most concerned about is doing the will of his father. Fulfilling that will meant bringing a message and going to the cross. Both of those points were and are hugely divisive. That message was repentance and the kingdom. Repenting and joining the kingdom meant leaving things behind. Mathew left behind the tax collector life, the cheating and stealing and swindling his fellow Jews for money. The love is the sacrifice for sin, the calling is fellowship with him, and the relationship is following after him away from our selves. Romans 6 makes this clear.

So let's not confuse what love is. This confusion has led to the very issue of church's tailor making their services after felt needs. So then we get other articles that are pointing out that the church is shallow busy creating a big production and missing people. But could it be that church has fallen into being producers because the people have fallen into being consumers looking for their needs to be met?  

I am not saying this is right, but demanding that felt needs be met is another reason why the church is doing exactly that. For the church to be a body we need to pay attention to what the head who is Christ is saying. If God is bringing issues of sin up in his church then our response should be to repent, not whine about our toes getting stepped on and then leave and find another church that is more lax with that sort of thing.

It is sad, but if we are prepared to leave church because of an offense then some churches unfortunately will continue to change tactics to be as unoffensive as possible. And the ones that don't? Well they get articles written about them. But when did the church becomes about getting as many seats filled as possible?  The Gospel is an offense and a stumbling block. Pointing to sin and the need for a savior is offensive and has been driving people away since the time the Pharisees first heard it. But that message is also the same one that has been bringing people in. 

If you are a disciple then you will allow correction into your life. When challenges come you will meet them, when hard encounters happen you will work through them. When offense happens you will use compassion and grace to attempt reconciliation. When sin is addressed you will seek forgiveness. In short, you will grow. But if you are a merely number in a church, then you will leave when uncomfortable and find another church to add to their count.  

My point is not that we shouldn't encourage our leaders to do better, as I have already added my own critique, but church will probably always offend in some way.  We need to work on this internally.  Not leave and then hurl criticism from the outside. As Christian leaders we should be working for more than increases in numbers and people should be desiring to become disciples closer to Christ. Are we going to be a family and stick it out, or are we going to take our spiritual toys and go home?

It is so easy to blame institutions for personal problems but institutions are made up of other people. The church specifically is not an institution but when articles are written this way it makes them out to be. It seems to often follow the rebellion of rock n' roll against "the man". The church gets equated with being "the man" so of course we should rally against it!  But the church is not "the man" but it is about a man, Jesus. So when we are quick to pick up stones against it we should really consider what Jesus said about it.

Jesus tells us that his church is the group that he if for on the earth. The church is the ones who will not be triumphed over by evil. The church is the one that Jesus left behind to carry out his will. The church is the bride of Christ. So before we rally against her let's remember what we are doing. We are actively raging against the body of Christ. We are actively warring against his bride to be. Christ does not want his body abusing itself. Christ wants his body at harmony with the head which is himself. Christ is not angry with his body and disappointed with his body. Let's stop threatening to take away the golden lamp-stands before their time.

It is easy to draw lines in the sand with ambiguous institutions, but the church is you and me. The church is the people and we are all a part.  If you want change then be the first to do it. But do it while you are a part, not after you have written them off.  This is how gossip is minimized and relationships are restored. But when you do, make sure you are wanting change in accordance with the head who is Christ. A church attender always complaining about the church is as out of place as soldiers on a aircraft carrier rocking-out to Rage Against the Machine. 

Now before we say "well if I am the church, then what's the problem?"  The answer is because finger pointing is not self criticism. The Church is a body as we gather together and not as we depart. These open letters and articles pointing out the reasons for leaving, and affirming them, is simply under-girding the emerging philosophy of the church which is "If you offend me I will leave". This is not unity nor is this helpful. Let's work on these problems together not after we have jumped ship.

Christ's prayer before he went to the cross was for our very unity, because he knew that our tendency is to depart, just as the writer of Hebrews also reminds.

So before we encourage more dismemberment, remember: A dismembered body is a corpse. In our critique of the church are we contributing to life or death? If the church is you and me, who exactly are we Killing in The Name of?

thanks

Christian Communication and Comment Sections

I have seen and probably everyone who uses the internet has witnessed the poor communication we all have. Where, when, you ask? Specifically in the comment section of news stories, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc.

I had this unfortunate experience recently and it wasn't even as bad as the examples I have seen. A simple lack of clarification made a normal conversation into a debate. Social media lacks the nuance for heartfelt communication unless we take the time to abundantly clear. Christians should be willing to be abundantly clear when they present themselves, especially when they present a Christian worldview.  But what I have seen is that many Christians aren't even clear on what that is.

Online we have a tendency to like that which agrees with us, which is normal, and seemingly hate that which disagrees with us, which is....a problem.  Now sometimes hate is appropriate, if we are talking about say evil for instance.  But most of the time in internet comment sections this doesn't facilitate wholesome conversation. The problem is our strong emotions blind us from reason and we fail to actually have any meaningful conversation. (This is why it is said to avoid talking about politics and religion)

Now I am not interested in trying to fix the entire internet because the anonymity causes us all to act a bit different. It is like driving. We have a tendency to think "what can I get away with if nobody knows". The problem is that the internet just makes us feel like nobody knows, but everyone does, and God knows all the more.

I however am only interested in this topic as far as when Christians try to debate. I can't teach everyone manners, their mothers should have taught them that. This is part of the problem, we should know this, but even if not, it should be obvious from the pages of scripture. Our message gets muddied when love is nowhere on the field. Go read 1st Corinthians 13 again and see if  loveless language will get you anywhere.

I have seen it time and time again a so-called Christian cussing out his opponent or simply misrepresenting Christianity. I know the easy answer is he is probably not a real Christian or at least not a very good one. Then someone else will say "you don't lose you salvation if you cuss." This is also what I am not saying nor talking about here. But, since you brought it up, if you are going to stand up for a cause you should probably understand something about what you are speaking up for. Ephesians 4:29 clearly prohibits this.
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

The question is not really if he is or isn't a Christian. The problem is on that platform, that medium, this person has claimed to be one. I have seen other instances where a so called Christians claims that they are part of the body and then in the next line proceed to deny major doctrines and theology. They are the cool-laid-back-christian-very-lax-about-all-that-theology-stuff, but there is not much we can do about this other than hope that the individual actually gets saved.

But when you debate you are standing up for something.  If the way you stand up for something undermines the very thing you are standing up for, you lose. If a presidential candidate answers all his questions perfectly but acts like a cotton-headed-ninny-muggins' the whole time, he undermines his message. (thank you Elf) The bigger problem is when this happens for Christianity, because then we all lose. Even if people agree, even if you shouted down the opposition, even if you get more likes, even if you get re-tweeted on twitter, we lose. Because that is not the Christian message. Telling someone off does not convince anyone of your commitment to Christ. Disregarding parts of the Bible you don't like or agree with only communicates your lack of understanding. What happens more often than not is that this language communicates that Christians and perhaps Christ himself are not very nice people nor very bright. That is a lose.

This is not how Christians talk about the faith. If you are a Christian learn this lesson: What we need are more actual Christians communicating as Christians do, bibilically. That is humbly and with love, being in control of our speech and emotions. Accurately reflecting the Bible when speaking for it is also helpful.

But I would even dare say that quoting scripture to the unsaved person isn't always useful to make your point either. Until the issue of the Gospel is addressed, that age old question that Jesus asks "Who do you say that I am?". People outside the Christian faith are not going to see the Bible as a very compelling talking point. For that matter judging someone based on verses from a book that they never agreed to adhere too is another point to address. They may be ultimately accountable, but they don't see it that way.

If the person we are debating does not buy into the Bible as authoritative, then stop using it to make them come around. They need to encounter Christ before the Bible has any appeal whatsoever. This is that whole bad communication part of it. On comment boards people incessantly just talk past each other.  Here is my set of truth, and then there is yours, and never has any conversation happened.

If they aren't interested in John 3:16 they most certainly aren't going to be interested about what that verse says about a particular sin.

As Christians we need to be better at communicating our worldview. Our worldview always begins with a person. That person is Jesus. If we don't start there then all we are is just a few more people wasting bandwidth.

thanks