Just What Are We Doing?

Most churches do a lot. A quick glance at the “events calendar” of many churches shows something on nearly every day of the week. Something for kids, something for teens, something for ‘tweens, something for the elderly, something for men, something for women, something for newly marrieds, something for yet-to-be-marrieds, something for the divorced, something, something, something. Not that something is bad, I just wonder if it’s the thing we’re really called to be doing.

Most churches I've known get occasional calls from people needing help. They try to help as many of these people as they can. They try to be discerning about it, have policies and procedures, but the bottom line is that they want to show Jesus’ love to as many people as possible in as many different ways as possible.

I recently spoke with a man who had a need. He thought that “church” was the obvious place to turn to in a time of need. But then he was either bluntly told “no” or “sorry, we only help our own church members.” As I sat listening I was thinking that when Jesus commands us to love our neighbors (Mathew 22:39, etc.), I’m pretty sure that doesn’t translate as “sorry we only help our own church members.” That’s what clubs do, not the Body of Christ.

How is it that, when so many churches are doing so many things, people seem genuinely surprised when they encounter the love of Christ? What are we doing? Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:12 tell us to live in such a way that there’s no other explanation than for people to give glory to God. Jesus commands us to be “salt and light” (Matthew 5:13-14). I worry that many of us live lives condemned by James 2:14-16. We recognize that people around us need help, we might even say something about it, but we do nothing.

Are we so busy doing things that we don’t do the things God expects of us?  Personally, I like a church to be missional in approach, but that has its traps too.  Perhaps soon I will post a series on my thoughts of these (although i don't seem to do well with series of posts on this blog). But suffice it to say for now that the church needs balance... Q.E.D.

Who's the Minister?

This past Sunday I had the pleasure of attending a meeting of a church I have been visiting lately (my friends can probably guess the name!).  In the meeting they discussed some of the ideas that the congregation had for the future - a kind of wish list if you will.  As is normal (not sure about normal, usual maybe) it got me to thinking.

This church is not a new church.  As I understand it they've been around for some fifty years but they've really been through some difficult times.  I've heard some stories, and they are sad ones, yet at this meeting on Sunday I heard voices of hope!  My friends out there know my philosophy on churches, and know that I firmly believe that some churches simply need to fold up shop and bury their dead.  I wonder how close this church was to having "Ichabod" scrawled across its door.  But I don't wonder too much.  You see, this church has come out of the proverbial wilderness!  On many levels, and in many ways, this seems like a new church.  A church on the brink of a new journey.  But once again, I digress...

So I get to reflecting on what this old/new church wants to do, and as my convoluted mind usually does I began to think of what it means to minister.  You see, more than anything I heard these kind people's desire to minister to one another and to their community.  Part of the challenge of a new beginning in a church is to realize that baggage of “tradition” (in both the good and bad sense) we bring into the church.  In a sense, this particular church has a clean slate, but that doesn’t mean we’re (yes, at this point I inject myself) free to “do church” any way we want. Instead, we feel the joyful but weighty responsibility to be sure to filter much of church through the Scriptures. One passage has been rocking my world. Consider Ephesians 4:11-16:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Consider in particular, verses 11 and 12. Paul says that certain people have been given to the church, but notice who it is that is to do the work of ministry: the saints. The “apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers” are given to equip the saints, not to do the work of ministry for them. While this may not initially seem like a big deal, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if our modern approach to church and “ministry” is entirely in keeping with passages like this and the many “one another” passages.

Here’s what I mean (and please feel free to push back if you think it’s necessary): in many (most?) churches, when a need arises, the members voice their need to the leaders, expecting the leaders to meet that need. The leaders, of course are paid to do exactly such a thing, and the easiest approach to meeting needs within the body is to create a program or a class. So, for example, if there are many young families, the easiest solution is a parenting “class.” If people are struggling with how to read their Bibles, the easiest solution is a class, taught by a paid staff member, because, after all, we pay them to “do ministry,” right?!

But of course, this should prompt the question of whether or not this approach actually equips the saints for the work of ministry. My inclination is that, no, it doesn’t. Instead, it makes us dependent on others (whom we pay) to answer our questions and meet our needs. But what if Paul, in keeping with the spirit of the “one another” passages had something else in mind?

Would it look any different if leaders in the church saw their “job” as equipping others to do ministry rather than doing ministry for them? I think it would mean more of an emphasis on relationship, accountability, community and discipleship. An environment in which we are truly encouraged to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:1-2). I wonder if much of the way we have come to view ministry is more about the transmission of information than it is actually about equipping “the saints for the work of ministry.”

These thoughts are by no means an indictment on this church of which I speak.  They are merely thoughts based on observations I have made over a number of years and in many, many churches.  This old/new church has an opportunity before it, an opportunity that few that have sunk to the depths that apparently this one had nearly reached - an opportunity to start anew!

Opening Lines

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" – Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen" - George Orwell, 1984

"In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since" - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

"Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show" - Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

Every great story has a great beginning. Whether it's a classic work of fiction or a true-life account of someone's life, each story has to begin somewhere. So I find myself at a new beginning, and I wonder what will be the opening lines. “It was a dark and stormy night…”? In years past I recall working with those new to Christianity and we would always start by studying the Gospel of John. I guess it’s because it’s so simply and beautifully written, or maybe because of the intimate portrait of the Christ that it paints – I don’t know.

Anyway, I have started reading it again. This time I try to set aside all the “theological” viewpoints, arguments and criticisms and just try to read it. Of course it’s hard to do. It’s that whole pink elephant thing. But I have decided to try. To get back to those things I learned as a child – pray a bit, nothing intense, just a conversation (hoping like hell there is a God who is listening, otherwise, if overheard the men in the Good Humor coats will be coming for me), see! It’s just not that easy! But I digress. I will pray a bit, read a bit, and take a few minutes to ruminate. I vow not to analyze, criticize or any other -ize. I will be as the newborn babe desiring the milk of the word.

Creature or Creator: Who's the Monster?

I recently finished reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and I have to say I was awestruck. Previous to the reading, likely because of a lifetime of movie-watching, I was a torch-carrying, pitchfork-yeilding villager. All I ever knew of Frankenstein's monster was his savage, murdering ways; which could only be arrested by burning. I suppose this is the trap we fall into when we watch rather than read.

Shelley's novel does indeed show a violent, murdering monster but as the story develops I found myself tearful over the tenderness and lonliness of this involuntary being. I would even go so far as to say that by the end of the story I felt more compassion for the "monster" than for Dr. Frankenstein. I put quotation marks around monster for this reason: as I read this story I began to wonder who the real monster was - creature or creator.

Dr. Frankenstein created this living being, and having done so abandons it. What happened in Mary Shelley's life that drew her pen to such a thought? Knowing little or nothing of Shelley's life I am left to wonder if this is a personal work for her or a metaphor for what happens in real life. I don't know the statistics, and maybe someday when I have the time I will research it a bit, but I know that fahters abandoning their families has become an epidemic, especially in certain segments of our society; and I have to ask the obvious question - why is God so silent?  Has he too abandoned his creation?  Dr. Frankenstein, in having created this living, breathing creature, had a responsibility to care for and nurture this offspring. Instead, at the very moment of creation, the doctor fled his responsibilities, leaving this creature to the vagaries of a cold and uncaring world.

As the creature learns and grows, experiences the world and the cruelty of the people in it, he becomes bitter and rage takes control of his life. Frankenstein the creature comes into contact with several people with and from whom he begins to learn of love and community. Each time he begins to feel in some way connected with these people, he is discovered and violently driven away. Eventually, after many years of this and especially after a particularly emotional rejection, the creature becomes a monster. The monster finds the creator and explains:

"How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favourable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion? Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing? They spurn and hate me. The desert mountains and dreary glaciers are my refuge. [...] These bleak skies I hail, for they are kinder to me than your fellow beings. If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves to for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share my wretchedness."

It is too late. The harshness and cruelness of the world around the creature, and the utter lonliness drive him to murder and revenge. Doesn't this sound so much like what we read about in the newspapers and hear on the news every single day? A child, raised by his minimum-wage-earning single mother of six, having no real connections involving love and kindness, raised on the streets, turns to a gang and ends up a violent criminal. And that's just one example, for the fact is we see this kind of thing all the time, probably even know people who have been the victim of abandonment.

While I cannot condone the crimes Shelley's "monster" commits, it becomes more understandable when we learn that his life's journey was such as it was. Which leaves me to wonder - who was the monster? The creature, abandoned at birth and treated horribly his while life? Or the good, intelligent, well-to-do doctor who so capriciously created and abandoned? We walk amongst monsters every day - but I think they're often not the ones I think they are.

There's a sermon here.  There's also a philosophical/theological metaphor here.  How many times have I turned my face to God and said, "How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favourable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion? ... but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me..."  Yet, I find myself seeking the companionship of my creator nonetheless.

Stripped in Heaven

Not too long ago I went to a friend's church for their Wednesday night meeting where they talked about what heaven would be like.  There were many views, some obviously shaped from Sunday School teachings, others hopeful aspirations.  But there was one answer that I found intriguing. Luke, one of the pastors of the church (who also wears several other hats) made the statement that he wondered what it would be like in heaven when all those parts of him that didn't fit, or belong in heaven were stripped away. THEN - what would heaven be like?

This past Saturday night, Luke and I found ourselves on the computer at the same time, and through the divine miracle that is Google, we got into an IM chat. For a little while we chatted about some innocuous stuff - my new Ipod, computer stuff and so on. After a while we began chatting about his Wednesday night statement. It was a pretty interesting conversation, so we thought we'd share it here. I cut out the irrelevant, and too personal stuff, and corrected some of the typos, and I left in some bits of the natural conversation, but in essence - here's the conversation as it went. As with all posts on this site, I encourage you to write your comments, ask questions, argue, agree - whatever you'd like to do!

11:59 PM me: one more question, when you were speaking of the "stripping away" the other night - I've read a thought like that before, Merton or McLaren? I find that thought rather provocative!

11:59 PM Luke: yes. I've been thinking recently about it after listening to Rob Bell's series called "The Flames of Heaven"

12:00 AM CS Lewis and Dallas Willard allude to it. Almost a purgatory of sorts, but it is a change that must take place.

12:01 AM 1 Cor 3 also hints at it - 11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

12:02 AM me: bell's series podcasted? I've been thinking about that a lot since you said it, and I'm not so sure I like it.

12:03 AM me: It's a pretty scary thought. Like maybe it might be a bit more comfortable if there would be less stripped away.

12:05 AM Luke: I am struggling with the idea. What if all I am living for is temporal, and suddenly (or slow burn) all the temporal is gone. What am I left with other than my redeemed soul? How comfortable will I be in my own skin?

12:06 AM Luke: You have to download directlyhttp://www.mhbcmi.org/listen/

12:08 AM Luke: Do you think I’m being heretical or is it just disturbing?

12:10 AM me: Disturbing! I've read that somewhere before, and I remember being very uncomfortable with it. Simply because if I take a long hard look (and really not that long OR hard), ugh! Leaves me in a kind of dead wall reverie.

12:13 AM Luke: Why change now it will be instantaneous later? We will be changed, but painless has not been promised.

12:15 AM I am doing some drum practice in between posts, so be patient if I lag. I napped so I'll be up till 1 or so.

12:17 AM me: Yeah, but I keep thinking about what it would be like to be more like Jesus. What kind of life would that be? Wed. night Dan asked what quality of Jesus... and all I kept thinking was that I'd need them all. Most of the time I feel like I have NONE! So where would that leave me in a heaven where all the dross is stripped away? So while seeking to be more like Christ may seem selfish, the alternative under this way of thinking would leave me on the outside looking in.

12:20 AM So, rather than throwing my arms up and saying what's the use, I find myself thinking the last few days that all of this is my choice. I make my life what I choose it to be. I am struggling these past couple of days thinking that this is a much more compelling reason to really live the 2 great commandments than merely avoiding hell and gaining heaven.

12:21 AM Luke: Christ gives freely to all.. but only if accepted by their will. If we fail to accept his gifts now, will it immediately be easier later? Each day we have opportunity to receive or reject Christ- that's all we need concern ourselves with. I think John 15 is a much more potent summary of salvation than Romans 3

12:22 AM Luke: To affirm your proposition.

12:24 AM Luke: If I am not changed in the process, what benefit is heaven? Most of my angst is internal.

12:26 AM me: Exactly! I think we're thinking exactly the same thing! John 15 is infinitely better! I have thought that for quite some time, but I always fear the old heretic moniker. Putting on the new life in Christ becomes so much more meaningful. Brings a whole new meaning to working out our own salvation

12:26 AM Luke: Rather than "I make my life what I choose it to be." I would rather think of it as "I receive the life that I choose it to be."

12:27 AM me: receive in what sense?

12:28 AM me: receive from whom?

12:28 AM Luke: Hey, pop the chat out of the window and you can full-screen it.
cool

12:29 AM Luke: It is great have these conversations archived. Kind of like live interactive journaling.
Just a couple clicks away from publishing my struggles.

12:30 AM me: full screen is cool!!! See, I'm not so sure how much we actually receive. You familiar with open theism?

12:31 AM Luke: like - future to be determined by my actions - God gave and stepped back?

12:33 AM me: That's part of it. I'm really not an open theist, but I do subscribe to some of their ideas.

12:39 AM me: see, I think too much has been made of "receiving” the gift of god. Everywhere I look in the Bibel, God presents man with choices, not so much giving gifts. So we choose how we will live from moment to moment.

12:40 AM Luke: And our choices are not "works" but really the actual state of our souls.

12:41 AM Where'd you get your copy of the "Bibel"

12:41 AM me: of course he has given us incredible gifts, life itself, a shot at eternal life, gifts of the spirit, etc. Exactly! We cannot earn salvation itself, but we "Work out our salvation!
me: if you must know, Bibel is German for Bible! LOL

12:42 AM Luke: I agree totally.

12:43 AM Luke: salvation is totally integrated with life.
we cannot compartmentalize it.

12:44 AM Luke: Where did we go wrong in Christianity?
me: so an integrated salvation becomes a series of localized choices

12:45 AM Luke: not salvation itself

12:46 AM Luke: not even localized choices, it cannot even be isolated like that. It is life itself. Every leaning of the heart is a detour or a more direct path - all enabled and guided by God as much as we will it.

12:47 AM Luke: That is how some people may have chosen Christ without consciously choosing.
It gives a chance to everyone.

12:52 AM me: When you were learning how to play the piano, did your fingers automatically go to the right keys? Probably not. You had to make choices on where to place your fingers, what order to press the keys, how hard, etc, etc. Only after time and practice did it become more "natural". When we are new to the "Christ-thing" I believe we really do learn how to be Christ-like. As far as people may have chosen Christ without consciously choosing, that's something I still haven't worked out altogether. Fascinating about your uncle-something. I'd like to hear more about that!

12:53 AM Luke: Exactly... the art of following Christ.

Angst That Surpasses All Understanding

There is this thing that gnaws at me. It's like a little voice in my head (and no... it's not audible thank you very much) and every time I start doing something, every time I read the Bible, or pray, or try to do something good (okay not every time) - I get that gnawing sensation. You know what I'm talking about - right? I'm talking about that part of me that always asks - Is this really me, am I being genuine or is this just me trying to be Joe Christian?

This kind of thought has eaten at me ever since I was a teenager. Sometimes I look at some of my friends, the ones I think are these spiritual giants and wonder if they ever think the same things. I mean it all seems so natural and genuine with them. I want to be genuine, and I wonder if I'll ever get to the point that it's as natural to me as it is to them. 

Now, I realize that it's not a competition. I know all the old sayings about comparing yourself with others, but it's not really like that at all. It's more that I recognize within myself this restlessness, this angst about my own Christianity. Sometimes I wish I could just relax about it. It's not all the time - sometimes I do experience that peace, but... But often I feel like Sartre's Roquentin when he said, "It would be better if I could only stop thinking. Thoughts are the dullest things. Duller than flesh. " or Dostoyevsky, "...to be acutely conscious is a disease, a real, honest-to-goodnes disease." Really - sometimes I wish I could just stop thinking about it all!

Paul said that when we are crucified with Christ and are resurrected into a new life, we are set free from the bonds of sin, that we have a new nature. I guess that's part of my journey - learning to let Jesus be Jesus in my life.

Judas and Jesus - BFF?

I just finished reading a translation of the Gospel of Judas and the accompanying commentaries and articles by Meyer, Ehrman and others (Washington: National Georaphic, 2006). The Gospel of Judas appears within a 66 page long book called the Codex Tchacos. In the last several years, The Codex was brought to the attention of scholars after being acquired by the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art in 2000.

Reading the second or third century writings, often labeled “Gnostic” by scholars, such as the Nag Hammadi writings discovered in the 1940s, can be very bewildering. This document claims to be Jesus’ own secret discussion (a dialogue gospel) with a disciple, and the content of Jesus’ teaching is very philosophically dualistic and quite different than what is encountered in the gospels of the New Testament.

In comparison to some of the other “Gnostic” writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Codex Tchacos is “run of the mill” in many respects. The dualism of the Gospel of Judas, in which there is a bad material realm and a perfect spiritual realm with sparks of the perfect realm trapped in inferior human bodies, is characteristic of most of the Nag Hammadi writings. Likewise common in these Christian intellectual circles is the notion that the God who sent the Christ to bring knowledge of these circumstances is not the same god (or angel) that created the material realm (our visible world). Many of Jesus’ teachings to Judas in this book reflect this worldview that was common to at least a minority of early Christian intellectuals in the second and third centuries.

Even with some familiarity with other Gnostic writings, there is something very odd about this writing. We have many examples of “Gnostic” authors presenting the secret teachings of Jesus in the form of a dialogue between the Christ and one of the disciples, with different authors choosing different apostles as their subject. Still what is absolutely astounding, in some ways, is the choice of Judas Iscariot as the favorite of Jesus! There seems to be no precedent for choosing Judas Iscariot, who “betrayed” Jesus, as the favorite disciple who received the secret revelation of the Savior.

In fact, this gospel presents Jesus as commending Judas for an action that was usually interpreted by other Christian authors as out-right betrayal (even though it could also be seen as “within God’s plan” that it took place in the view of many early Christians — Jesus death was necessary, in other words). The passage in question, which needs some training in gnosticism to interpret, goes as follows:

“Judas said to Jesus, ‘Look, what will those who have been baptized in your name do?’ Jesus said, ‘Truly I say [to you], this baptism [. . . ] my name [– about nine lines missing –] to me. Truly [I] say to you, Judas, [those who] offer sacrifices to Saklas [. . .] God [– three lines missing –] everything that is evil. But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me’” (trans by Kasser, Meyer and Wurst, pp.42-43).

It doesn’t help that large portions of this section are missing, but what is clear is that Jesus speaks positively of Judas’ future act of betraying Jesus, of “sacrific[ing] the man that clothes [Jesus]”. How sacrificing Jesus human body (”the man”) through betrayal can be a positive thing is only understandable once one realizes that this author’s worldview is the thoroughly dualistic one of spirit vs. matter mentioned above, in which the material realm, especially our bodies, are a prison from which one wants to escape. In fact, the material world around us is created by an inferior being or angel or demiurge, here called “Saklas”, not by the God who sent the Christ, in the view of this and other “Gnostic” authors. (In some “Gnostic” writings, this creator god plays a role similar to the role that the rebel angel Satan plays in the worldview of other early Christians). In other words, Judas helps Jesus by assisting in the elimination of this material body or prison and, therefore, the spirit’s return to the perfect spiritual realm of the God who sent Christ. This act of returning to one’s proper place as part of the perfect spiritual realm is, in itself, the salvation that Jesus achieves and that other spiritual sparks trapped within human bodies, other perfect Adams, will likewise achieve by receiving the secret “knowledge” (gnosis, hence gnosticism) that Jesus brings concerning the nature of reality in the view of this particular author.

Some of the Gnostic Gospels can be interesting reads, although it doesn’t take long to realize why they were never included in the canon. The Gospel of Judas seems to be one of the weakest in the whole lot.

Faith? - or: Being a Good Dog

A break in my opinion on the Soul of the Church.

I started this blog as a way of "working out my faith."  I would love to say that I have done it.  Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say that all my doubts are gone and I have faith.  But I can't say that.

But does that really matter?  I mean really, do I have the makeup to come to a point in my life that I will unequivocally know that there is a God?   As is keeping with my personality - I doubt it.  But I have come to a decision.  I have had an epiphany - of sorts.

When I first got Linus (see above) he was really still just a puppy.  For a few weeks we trained him - and I mean dilligently; but somehow he still exhibited some less-than-ideal behaviors.  Then we started taking him to the dog park.  It was amazing to watch him grow and mature in short order!  In no time, by hanging out with other, well-trained dogs, Linus began to come when called, sit on command (even with other dogs bugging him), and some other lesser good-dog behaviors!  I don't know how it happens, I am certainly no Dog Whisperer, but I know this - Linus emulated the actions of those "good dogs," and in-turn improved himself!

Ok, have I confused dog with god?  No.  It's like this:  I do not like not believing in God.  I don't know if I will ever believe 100%, but I have made the decision to proceed as if there is a God.  If I were to get into a debate with myself, or you for that matter, I could argue either side.  But I have no more proof that there is no God, than I do that there is.  I choose to agree that there just might be a God after all.

How did I come to this?  I dunno.

Probably this greatest influence over the past several weeks has been the sermons, emails and a couple conversations with Abby Norton-Levering.  The best part was that she didn't try to convince me, or "sell" me on God.  She spoke what was already planned in church, gave a few short answers to some (non)rhetorical questions, and during our conversations, essentially listened to me ramble on.  Right person at the right place at the right time?

The one thing that Abby said that kind of stuck in my craw and left me thinking (a lot) was that even though Abraham and Sarah doubted that God would give them a child at their advanced ages, they must have believed just enough at least once (think about it, wait for it, ah, there it is).  Sometimes the simplest things...

I always thought that the "faith of a child" was a simple faith, an unquestioning, blind faith.  But then I thought about my two children and even my own childhood.  What's the primary thing a child does (careful now)?  They ask, "why?"  To everything.  A child's faith is not a simple, blind faith at all.  But it is a faith that asks questions, then they try to understand, then they emulate those around them.

I will most likely always ask why.  I may never be completely sold.  But I choose to emulate those whom I respect.  I choose to take a step and believe, at least once.  Like Linus I will copy the other dogs and see if I end up with some "good dog" behaviors.  Maybe that's what faith is after all?

Thanks Abby!

Wuddaya Wanna Be?

When I was a kid playing Little League Baseball I dreamed of playing for the Mets (pre-changeover to the Yankees in '74).  I knew what I wanted to be:  the catcher for the Mets, and batting clean-up.  It never dawned on me that that dream might not come true.  I never had a doubt that one day...  Guess what; I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a catcher for the Mets (which after this season sure isn't a disappointment).  I'm okay with that.  A long time ago, so long ago in fact that I have no idea when, why or how, my dream dissolved and disappeared.

No, this post isn't about broken childhood dreams.  Quite the contrary actually!  I was thinking today (like I occasionally do) about who I am.  It's kind of a fun exercise from time-to-time.  I am a son, a husband, a father, a friend and so on.  It's interesting all the things we are - have you ever tried it?  Anyway, as I was thinking about that I got to remembering my childhood dream and thought - okay, what do you want to be when you grow up?

So I thought about the different aspects of my life:  personal, family, career, etc, and got to thinking yet again - "how would you describe the kind of Christian you would be if you could be one?"  Sounds weird at this point in my journey I know, but hey - I know the concepts and lingo... so I have the "head" knowledge of what it's all about.

Drum roll please!  Here it is, the kind of Christian I would want to be:

I would want to be Christian first.  Whether one believes in God or not, you'd have to agree that the Christ was a pretty impressive and good guy.  I would want to be like him.  But I have another meaning here.  I would want to be Christian first in the sense that denominations, theologies and so on would never get in the way of the fact that other people too, love the Christ.

Next I think I would have to consider myself Evangelical.  You know, that middle road between the harsh, over-reactionary line of the Fundamentalists, and the ultra-theologically liberal. As in most things in life:  moderation!

Then, I should desire to be Missional.  Now, I don't know if "works" is a part of salvation or a result of it, I'll leave that to the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debaters, but this I feel is right:  if the Church doesn't take care of our neighbors, then what's it all for anyway?

That's all I can think of right now.  There's probably a bunch of other labels I could attach to myself, but I'll cross that bridge when and if it ever becomes necessary!

Exploring Faith (and how to get some?) Part the First

So here's the deal.  NOBODY can prove there is a God.  By the same token, NOBODY can prove there is no God.  It's a real dilemma.  I have studied theology for the better part of my life.  I have studied philosophy for the better part of my life.  I know the arguements for a God, and can explain each and every one of them away through philosophical logic and scientific theories.  But they're just that - theories.  It's a dilemma.

So it comes down to that "F" word - faith.

As in everything else when it comes to man's constructs of God and religion, there are many divergent opinions on what faith is and how to "get" it.  Chief among them in Christian circles are the Calvinist and Arminian camps. Without walking too far down that treacherous path, I have to briefly glance at these schools of thought on the subject of faith.

Even a brief look at these divergent views would be too long for a single post, so I will start with a more Arminian view:

Looking at "Faith" from an Arminian viewpoint leads one to see that faith is not a gift given in a monergistic fashion, but is developed synergistically in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Calvinists may object with Ephesians 2:8,9  "forby grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." But consider this analysis:

"By grace you have been saved" had already been mentioned in Ephesians 2:5 "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-- it is by grace you have been saved." (NIV) But I think that both of these have been imprecisely translated using the dative of means, whereas it is more likely the author meant for the dative of manner to be used "with grace" or "graciously" rather than "by grace". For graciously describes the manner in which he saves us, as he has an attitude of graciousness. "by faith" is using the preposition "dia" in the genitive exlusively indicating instrument or mechanism of salvation. God grabs hold of our faith and pulls us to safety. But those without faith are not saved. Or as Robertson puts it in Robertson's NT Word Pictures, "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" ours.


Now there are those who interpret the phrase "And this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God," to be referring to faith being a gift. But such an idea cannot be supported by this passage. For "this" is neuter, while "faith" is feminine, and therefore "it is" is not referring to faith. Rather "that" refers to "gift" which is neuter. What it means is "that gift is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God". But this alone does not resolve the issue, for now we must consider what "that gift" refers to. Is he saying "that gift (faith)..." or "that gift (salvation)..."?

First of all the specific Greek word for "gift" being used does not support the idea of "faith" being the gift, but does support the idea of "salvation" being the gift. For the word "gift", there are two words most commonly used for "gift" in the New Testament. "dorea" emphasizes the freeness of a gift, while "doron" is used for sacrificial offerings. You would think he would have used "dorea" in this context, but instead he uses "doron" speaking of the sacrificial offering He made through Christ's atoning work on the cross. Salvation is the sacrificial offering of God, as opposed to being obtained by one's own works.  He speaks extensively of this in Romans and Galatians, contrasting the righteousness obtained through faith in Christ as opposed to the righteousness of the law which is obtained through one's works, being a performance-based salvation concept.

Romans 3:20-24 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.  But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

Thus we have "for graciously you have been saved through faith, and that sacrificial offering is not from yourselves, but from God, not of works, that no one would boast."


Thus if "faith" is the gift, then it is faith and not the atoning work of Christ on the cross which is the sacrificial offering made up to God. Furthermore is the issue of boasting. Is it true that if God does not give us faith as a gift that there would be reason to boast? Not according to the Bible. "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God.  For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'" Rom 4:2,3 Here the contrast is between works and faith. It is not between faith being a gift versus faith not being a gift. And the same contrast is drawn in the Ephesian's passage as well. Yet Paul mentions nothing here in Romans about the necessity of "faith" being a gift. He simply states that since it is by faith and not by works therefore there's nothing to boast about.

And they may also bring up Hebrews 12:2 "looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith", and demand that "author" means that we have no part in developing our faith. But again the Greek reveals otherwise. For the word for "author" simply refers to Jesus being our chief leader or Prince, as the word is translated in a number of places. But a leader is not a leader unless he has followers. He leads, we follow. This is the synergistic relationship of which Arminians speak.


This Blog is new.  I doubt anyone is really reading it at this point, so this post is most likely me "thinking out loud" so-to-speak.  However, if there is anyone out there in the ether, and you have read this and are wondering what in the world I'm talking about, please feel free to comment or email, and I will translate this into less of a "Theological" language!  Next up:  a simplistic look at the Calvinist view of faith.

What's the Point?

 I think one of the things that always discouraged me about church was how seemingly useless it was.  I know that might sound a bit blasphemous, but really now - how many sermons about hell and the Second Coming of Christ can one really find useful?  Then there's the totally polar opposite - that style of church that seems like an around the clock, week-after-week therapy session.  You know the ones I'm talking about- the sermons are all flowery and all the teaching is about how to overcome childhood fears, manage your money better, and so on.  Not much about God, or the Christ for that matter.  Understand this - it was never the people of the church that bothered me...it was the doing of the church that I found so anemic.


The traditions of the church are fine.  Lighting candles, singing, preaching, corporate prayer, the Liturgy - all fine.  Each of these things have meaning to us on a number of levels, from the cohesion of generations, to the security they can provide (and many, many more), but in my estimation they have little practical value.  By the same token, a church that focuses only on activist causes leaves the soul longing for more.  It seems a conundrum.  Really, I suppose what's ideal in a church is just like life - balance.


Here's the thing that keeps sticking in my mind:

Luke chapter 10 reads -

25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

Anne Jackson over at FlowerDust.net recently posted this on her blog:

A couple of weeks ago, Atlanta was hit by serious flooding. As in, houses were submerged…completely devastated. In an area called Austell,thousands of families are displaced because of the damage.

People. Have. Lost. Their. Lives.

Last week, I met Pastor Shaun King for the first time, face to face. He shared with me a movement his church has started to help flood victims called Hope ATL.

Hope ATL is pulling together resources, financial and practical and human, to help these victims. Victims who have lost, literally, everything.

The thing that amazed me during my conversation with Shaun was that their church doesn’t have a lot of money. Or people. A couple hundred, at most. Instead of having meetings about how to help, or who to point people to in case they needed help, they simply stopped what they were doing…and helped.

Now, the thing that disturbed me during my conversation with Shaun was that he had made many calls to many churches in the area, and so many churches said…

No.

They couldn’t help.

I was shocked. Where is the Church when a city needs it the most?

That didn’t stop Shaun. He kept rallying the people he could and went into the most dangerous and most flooded places and they went to work. They even decided to NOT meet in their building on Sunday or in their offices during the week and instead they met at the largest Red Cross Shelter for flood victims in Marietta (near Austell), where the flooding was worst, so they could provide care and hope and a place for people to see Jesus. They didn’t take up an offering that Sunday either, as most of the people who came had nothing. 50% of Austell is now homeless. So they gave back to them instead.

And they’re still working.

For the rest of this story click here.  

So this seems useful.  That church saw neighbors in need - and DID something about it.  My question about those other churches that couldn't (or wouldn't) help is this:

WHY WOULDN'T THEY HELP??

Was it because they were already helping the community in a different fashion? (I really hope this is the answer)

Was it because their membership was dispersed because of the floods?

And let me say this here - I hope like hell it wasn't because Shaun King's church WASN'T FROM THE SAME DENOMINATION!!!!  Sounds silly, but I've seen that happen.  Sad.

Beginning - again

Some call it Deja Vu, some Second Sight, still others may say "Doing it all over again." But it's a beginning. A friend of mine spent years trying to quit smoking. At the start of each attempt he'd say that that particular day was "day one", when in fact it might have been the 30th time he had tried... it was a new beginning.

And so here I am again - at a beginning. In the last, well let's say decade, I have made several attempts to begin (again) my spiritual journey. Of course I don't know that this particular journey ever really comes to an end, but I feel like this one might have the potential to be for real.

Here's my problem, or problems if you like:

1. I don't think I believe in God.

2. I think I might believe in God.

3. I want to believe in God.

4. I don't know how to believe in God.

Get the picture? I've been told that I just need to have faith. Okay! Great! Where do I get some? I truly envy the faithful - those who just know deep down inside that God exists. I am not one of those people.

So last week I visited a church. It was nice, the pastor's cool, and the people seemed genuine. I met with the pastor one day and she seemed genuine, and the best part was - she didn't try to sell me on the simplicity of faith!

Okay, now I have to say this: I'm not a particularly vain person, and I'm certainly not vain enough to think that a pastor would craft a sermon with me in mind, but today's sermon was pretty interesting. It was the beginning of a series on Abraham and Sarah, and the number one thing that I remember being said was something along the line of, "Abraham and Sarah doubted God's promise that they would have a child, but they must have trusted God enough to at least try once!" Interesting. Seems to fit in nicely in my situation. Maybe I don't believe in God, maybe I do - but at least I'm going to take the step, have taken the step of going to church.

We'll see...