I opened up the proverbial can of worms this evening at Crunchy Con. I commented on the Anne Lamott thing, and they let me have it. I was asked the question:
Do *you* know [Jesus]?
Following is my answer in the context of the Anne Lamott euthanasia controversy.
A little more than two years ago, my greatly beloved maternal grandmother died of complications resulting from CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia). We watched her waste away for weeks, the last of which she was under the care of Hospice, so morphine was available for the pain. It was excruciating to watch her suffer. However, it never occurred to any of us to take matters into our own hands and to end her life.
Why not? Because we know Jesus. As Christians, we know that God loves us more than we could possibly love ourselves and that He has a plan and a purpose for our lives. Sometimes His purposes are accomplished through suffering. I don’t understand it, and when I am enduring it, I certainly don’t like it, but because I KNOW Him, I can trust Him. No matter what. Because I trust Him, I can submit to His authority when He says, “Thou shalt not kill.” It’s that simple.
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us.
Romans 8:16-18
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Can Ann Lamott Be Regenerate?
You will know them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:16
...the first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a Divine taste or sense; to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the Divine nature.
— Jonathan Edwards
I read Dr. Albert Mohler’s post about Ann Lamott last night before I went to bed, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. You should read it in order to have the proper context for my comments here.
I read several of Lamott’s nonfiction works years ago, and while I was always uncomfortable with her pro-choice position, her lack of concern for sexual purity, and her frequent use of unwholesome language, I took her testimony of being a Christian at face value. When faced with her own unplanned pregnancy by an unsupportive partner, she opted NOT to have an abortion, and her writing offers much evidence of a changed life. In addition, it takes time to be conformed to the image of Christ, and if we were all as open as she is about her life and wrote about it for a living as she does, our particular sin struggles would be more glaringly evident. On top of all this, she lives in Marin County, California, the Mecca of American liberalism. I mean, what can you expect?
However, after reading Dr. Mohler’s post, I have to ask the question, how can someone indwelt by the Spirit of Christ blatantly disregard the Biblical directive, “Thou shalt not kill” and participate in the euthanasia of a friend? Not only did she obtain the necessary drugs and administer the lethal dose, but her recounting of the process reveals no second thoughts and no subsequent remorse. The fact that she chose to write about it as she did displays a degree of hubris that is mind boggling.
My former thinking about Lamott in light of the current evidence has taught me something about myself. I wanted Lamott’s Christian testimony to be true for my own sake. I wanted someone who is a smart, hip, articulate, literary celebrity who claims to be a Christian to be the real thing because it makes the rest of us not look so bad. No one can possibly say Lamott is a right-wing fundamentalist. If Lamott loves Jesus and reads the Bible and goes to church, then perhaps the rest of us have been misunderstood.
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
I John 3:13
No more delusions.
Matthew 7:16
...the first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a Divine taste or sense; to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the Divine nature.
— Jonathan Edwards
I read Dr. Albert Mohler’s post about Ann Lamott last night before I went to bed, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. You should read it in order to have the proper context for my comments here.
I read several of Lamott’s nonfiction works years ago, and while I was always uncomfortable with her pro-choice position, her lack of concern for sexual purity, and her frequent use of unwholesome language, I took her testimony of being a Christian at face value. When faced with her own unplanned pregnancy by an unsupportive partner, she opted NOT to have an abortion, and her writing offers much evidence of a changed life. In addition, it takes time to be conformed to the image of Christ, and if we were all as open as she is about her life and wrote about it for a living as she does, our particular sin struggles would be more glaringly evident. On top of all this, she lives in Marin County, California, the Mecca of American liberalism. I mean, what can you expect?
However, after reading Dr. Mohler’s post, I have to ask the question, how can someone indwelt by the Spirit of Christ blatantly disregard the Biblical directive, “Thou shalt not kill” and participate in the euthanasia of a friend? Not only did she obtain the necessary drugs and administer the lethal dose, but her recounting of the process reveals no second thoughts and no subsequent remorse. The fact that she chose to write about it as she did displays a degree of hubris that is mind boggling.
My former thinking about Lamott in light of the current evidence has taught me something about myself. I wanted Lamott’s Christian testimony to be true for my own sake. I wanted someone who is a smart, hip, articulate, literary celebrity who claims to be a Christian to be the real thing because it makes the rest of us not look so bad. No one can possibly say Lamott is a right-wing fundamentalist. If Lamott loves Jesus and reads the Bible and goes to church, then perhaps the rest of us have been misunderstood.
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
I John 3:13
No more delusions.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
A Heartbreaking Need for Jesus
Don’t misunderstand my title. Everyone needs Jesus to the same degree—absolutely. However, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the need so painfully manifested in a human being before as I saw it in Lucy Grealy as recounted in Ann Patchett’s Truth and Beauty.
Truth and Beauty is the story of the friendship between novelist, Ann Patchett, and poet/writer Lucy Grealy. They were nominal acquaintances at Sarah Lawerence and later became best friends when they roomed together while in graduate school at the Iowa Writer’s Workshop. Grealy was disfigured from childhood cancer, and during her life she underwent thirty-eight operations in an attempt to reconstruct her face. Despite her disfigurement, Grealy was extremely charismatic and popular, and she was incredibly intelligent. She had a considerable number of friends who loved her and put up with behavior that would have prompted many people to give up on her early in a friendship. She published a book, Autobiography of a Face, to tremendous acclaim and subsequent financial success.
However, despite all that she had going for her, she was obsessed with wanting to be pretty and for others to love her. She would ask her friends continually if they loved her, and she constantly talked of being lonely and wanting to be loved by a man. She was promiscuous to a degree that caused me to marvel that she didn’t end up with STDs and AIDS. At the end of her life, she was addicted to heroin. She died penniless and estranged from many of her friends who no longer knew how to help her. Following is a passage describing her sense of loneliness:
Lucy’s loneliness was breathtaking in its enormity. If she emptied out Grand Central Station and filled it with the people she knew well, the people who loved her, there would be more than a hundred people there. But a hundred people in such a huge space just rattle around. You could squeeze us all into a single bar. With some effort you could push us into a magazine shop. If you added to that number all of the people that loved her because of her book, all the people who admired her, all the people who had heard her speak or had seem her on television or listened to her on the radio and loved the sound of her odd little voice, you could pack in thousands and thousands more people, and still it wouldn’t feel full, not full enough to take up every square inch of her loneliness. Lucy thought that all she needed was one person, the right person, and all the empty space would be taken away from her. But there was no one in the world who was big enough for that. (Emphasis mine.)
Lucy did need only one Person, and there is only one Person in the world who is big enough to have met Lucy’s need.
The title of the book is based on a passage early in the story wherein Patchett allude's to Keats's “Ode to a Grecian Urn”:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
How different Grealy’s life would have been, had she come to know the Truth (John 14:6).
Truth and Beauty is the story of the friendship between novelist, Ann Patchett, and poet/writer Lucy Grealy. They were nominal acquaintances at Sarah Lawerence and later became best friends when they roomed together while in graduate school at the Iowa Writer’s Workshop. Grealy was disfigured from childhood cancer, and during her life she underwent thirty-eight operations in an attempt to reconstruct her face. Despite her disfigurement, Grealy was extremely charismatic and popular, and she was incredibly intelligent. She had a considerable number of friends who loved her and put up with behavior that would have prompted many people to give up on her early in a friendship. She published a book, Autobiography of a Face, to tremendous acclaim and subsequent financial success.
However, despite all that she had going for her, she was obsessed with wanting to be pretty and for others to love her. She would ask her friends continually if they loved her, and she constantly talked of being lonely and wanting to be loved by a man. She was promiscuous to a degree that caused me to marvel that she didn’t end up with STDs and AIDS. At the end of her life, she was addicted to heroin. She died penniless and estranged from many of her friends who no longer knew how to help her. Following is a passage describing her sense of loneliness:
Lucy’s loneliness was breathtaking in its enormity. If she emptied out Grand Central Station and filled it with the people she knew well, the people who loved her, there would be more than a hundred people there. But a hundred people in such a huge space just rattle around. You could squeeze us all into a single bar. With some effort you could push us into a magazine shop. If you added to that number all of the people that loved her because of her book, all the people who admired her, all the people who had heard her speak or had seem her on television or listened to her on the radio and loved the sound of her odd little voice, you could pack in thousands and thousands more people, and still it wouldn’t feel full, not full enough to take up every square inch of her loneliness. Lucy thought that all she needed was one person, the right person, and all the empty space would be taken away from her. But there was no one in the world who was big enough for that. (Emphasis mine.)
Lucy did need only one Person, and there is only one Person in the world who is big enough to have met Lucy’s need.
The title of the book is based on a passage early in the story wherein Patchett allude's to Keats's “Ode to a Grecian Urn”:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
How different Grealy’s life would have been, had she come to know the Truth (John 14:6).
Monday, June 26, 2006
Book Review: At the Corner of East and Now
Several months ago, I read a wonderful column in Christianity Today by Frederica Matthewes-Green (FMG) that led me to purchase her book, At the Corner of East and Now. I’ve been reading this book off and on for some weeks, and I finally completed it on Sunday.
The subtitle of Facing East is “A Modern Life in Ancient Christian Orthodoxy.” FMG’s husband is an Orthodox priest, and the book is a collection of essays organized around the author’s recounting of an Orthodox worship service.
I enjoyed the book for several reasons. First of all, I love spiritual memoirs. If you like Kathleen Norris, Lauren Winner, and Anne Lamott, you will like FMG. Second, the only thing I knew about the Eastern Orthodox Church before reading this book was a vague memory from tenth grade world history about there being a schism with the Roman Catholic Church. I had never given the Orthodox Church much additional thought, but I suppose I assumed that it just another version of the Catholic Church. The book corrected my misconceptions. Finally, FMG has a way with words that enable her to articulate spiritual truth in an interesting way. I will share some examples in a moment.
The substantive differences I was able to ascertain between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant Evangelicalism are as follows.
- Worship is high-church liturgical with incense, icons, and chanting.
- The icons are paintings of saints and Biblical characters, and they are a significant part of worship.
- Orthodox venerate the virgin Mary, the Theotokos or “God-bearer” in a way similar to the Roman Catholic Church.
- Orthodox believe in transubstantiation.
Otherwise, the doctrine and theology seem quite sound. There is no Orthodox equivalent of an infallible Pope, no confessing to priests, no works-based righteousness. I was recently told that Orthodox do not believe in the Trinity, but that is clearly not the case here. In FMG’s cburch, they recite the Nicene Creed, and Facing East includes several Biblical references to the Trinity.
The basic position of Orthodoxy is that it is the direct descendant of the first century church. FMG writes:
While the initial schism between East and West led to further divisions in the West, as new Protestant denominations continue to emerge, the Orthodox Church remained intact. The Church is kept from significant change by its characteristic governing principle: conciliarity. Unlike religious bodies where a single powerful leader dispenses the faith, in Orthodoxy it is believed that the Holy Spirit guides the whole community of believers into the truth (as Jesus promised in John 16:13). Faith is a treasure jointly possessed by all believers, not one guarded by a powerful few; it accumulates over the centuries, never contradicting what has been previously held…What diverges from this shared faith would automatically disprove itself, even if it was urged by high ecclesiastical authority. No authority is greater than the common faith.
Since there is no locus of power where the faith may be tailored to fit current fashion, it doesn’t change in any significant way—not over long centuries or across great geographical distances. The faith of the first century is the faith of Orthodox today. When we meet in this little stone church outside Baltimore, we celebrate a Liturgy that is for the most part over fifteen hundred years old. We join in prayers that are being said in dozens of languages by Orthodox all over the world, prayers unchanged for dozens of generations.
Before he became an Orthodox priest, FMG’s husband was a mainline Protestant pastor. The following passage provides some insight into her conversion to Orthodoxy:
Orthodoxy initially struck me as strange and off-putting: beautiful but rigorous, and focused much more on God than on me. Western Christianity of many stripes has tended in recent decades to become somewhat soft and emotional—in a sense, consumer-focused. Orthodoxy has missed that bandwagon and still stubbornly addresses its energy toward worshipping God; every believer’s primary need, Orthodox would say, is to come further into this union with God, and the whole work of the faith is to enable this. It didn’t take long for me to be won over, as I found this God-focus was what I’d hungered for all along.
In this passage, she explains icons:
…the icon is a manifestation of the Word of God. In an illiterate culture, these scenes from Scripture and the lives of saints were the only Bible many could read….In painting icons, we affirm the Incarnation and God’s will to be visibly revealed to human eyes. Destroying icons indicates a desire to overspiritualize the faith and reject the body.
Here are a few other especially good passages:
Anyone who has attempted to live the spiritual life, in fact, knows this; we don’t dwell in a theoretical world where it is either all grace or all laborious will, but in a middle-in-between where vigilant effort repeatedly discovers that enabling grace has already gone before…The child works hard to learn to walk so he can learn to walk. He wants to move toward his mother’s arms; that is reward enough…When I follow the practices the community has found, through trial and error over long centuries, are helpful in drawing closer to God, I get the only reward I want” I get closer to God.
People newly coming to church should have an unfamiliar experience. It should be apparent to them that they are encountering something very different from the mundane. It should be discontinuous with their everyday experience, because God is discontinuous. God is holy, other, incomprehensible, strange, and if we go expecting an affable market-tested nice guy, we won’t be getting the whole picture. We’ll be getting the short God in a straw hat, not the big one beyond all thought….The well-intentioned idea of presenting the appealing, useful side of faith fails, I think, because it doesn’t question deeply enough the basic consumer ethos. The transaction that takes place between a shopper-seeker and the goods acquired (groceries, furniture, the key to the meaning of life) is one that leaves the seeker in control, in a position of judging, evaluating, and rejecting the parts he doesn’t like. But entering the faith is more like making a promise or beginning a marriage. It involves being grafted into a community and requires a willingness to grow and change. If it didn’t, if it merely confirmed us in our comfortable places, how could it free us to be more than we are?
It’s only when those emotions fade and you get down to the business of doing the work, following the way, saying the prayers even when you don’t feel like it, that your stony heart begins to budge. It’s only the offerings done from deliberate will that end the will and shape it to fit the will of God, Giddy emotions feel good, and all of might need a bowl of ice cream from time to time, but they don’t produce spiritual growth.
Somehow our willingness to receive was preceded by the grace to be willing, and the faith which results is brought to fruition by means beyond our own powers—sometimes, as in my case, mostly against our will. One inside the faith, many have a dawning realization that they were being sought all along, an experience poet Francis Thompson describes as being pursued by the “Hound of Heaven.” It’s been said that on the outside of the house of faith the sign over the door reads “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15) and on the inside the sign reads “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). All I know is, I came home, and I don’t ever want to be anywhere else.
It’s good for well-grounded, thinking Christians to read books like this because it broadens our understanding of who God is and how He works. Because of my particular history, it’s been especially helpful to me to expose myself to Christian thinking from other traditions.
This is actually FMG’s second memoir. Her first, Facing East, recounts her conversion to Christianity and her family’s switch to Orthodoxy. It’s in the ever-growing stack on my bedside table.
"What It Means to Be Reformed"
As you may have noted in the "100 Things About Me", I describe myself as a Reformed Southern Baptist. Following is a link to an excellent post at Challies.com on "What It Means to Be Reformed"—for those of you who are not familiar with the term.
http://www.challies.com/archives/001926.php
http://www.challies.com/archives/001926.php
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"Give to Everyone Who Asks of You"
He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor
Will also cry himself and not be answered.
Proverbs 21:13
Give to everyone who asks of you…
Luke 6:30
In November of 2004, I was blessed beyond measure to travel to San Juan, Puerto Rico to attend the annual RZIM Founders’ Conference with a friend who supports that ministry. On our free morning, we decided to take a taxi downtown to the historic district for breakfast and some shopping. We wanted to find a local café rather than McDonald’s or the like, so we walked for a little while before we found a busy hangout. We chose pastries from the window display and ordered café con leche to go intending to find a park bench so we could people watch while we ate.
We had barely stepped out of the door of the café when we were approached by a young man who asked us to buy him something to eat. He pointed to the pastries in the window and looked at me expectantly. I can’t remember what I said to him, but I refused him, walked quickly down the street, and dashed into a drug store because I needed to buy a toothbrush.
I immediately turned to my friend and expressed dismay at what I had done. She said that she thought he looked genuinely hungry, so we decided to go back out onto the street and look for him, give him our breakfasts, and then go back and buy something else for ourselves. Unfortunately, we didn’t find him. However, we did stop and pray for him—that someone else would be used by God to meet his needs.
I was haunted throughout the day with the image of that hungry young man. In fact, when I couldn’t even put the thoughts from my mind during a wonderful presentation by Beth Moore, I knew I was being hounded by the enemy. Since I couldn’t speak out loud, I wrote on my note pad: THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS (Romans 8:1).
I cannot adequately describe the way I felt. I don’t think it would be going too far to say that I was sick at my stomach for what I had done, and I determined never to let it happen again. Jesus makes the standard very clear in Luke 6:30 when he says, “Give to everyone who asks you…” There are no qualifiers here. He doesn’t say that we have to be sure the person’s not a swindler or that they won’t use the money to buy alcohol or drugs. The burden to act is placed upon us, and God will be the judge.
It was almost a year before God gave me the opportunity to make up for that day. Our family was on a trip and we stopped for coffee. My husband went in and left the children and me in the car. An elderly black man approached the driver’s side window, which I appreciated because I didn’t feel threatened. He told me he was a Hurricane Katrina victim from New Orleans and that he needed a dollar for bus fare to get back downtown to the Salvation Army. I joke all the time about being a banker’s wife and never having any cash, but that day, as always, God was in control. I handed the man a five dollar bill and watched as he went into Mc Donald’s before catching his bus. Thanks be to the God of second chances.
Will also cry himself and not be answered.
Proverbs 21:13
Give to everyone who asks of you…
Luke 6:30
In November of 2004, I was blessed beyond measure to travel to San Juan, Puerto Rico to attend the annual RZIM Founders’ Conference with a friend who supports that ministry. On our free morning, we decided to take a taxi downtown to the historic district for breakfast and some shopping. We wanted to find a local café rather than McDonald’s or the like, so we walked for a little while before we found a busy hangout. We chose pastries from the window display and ordered café con leche to go intending to find a park bench so we could people watch while we ate.
We had barely stepped out of the door of the café when we were approached by a young man who asked us to buy him something to eat. He pointed to the pastries in the window and looked at me expectantly. I can’t remember what I said to him, but I refused him, walked quickly down the street, and dashed into a drug store because I needed to buy a toothbrush.
I immediately turned to my friend and expressed dismay at what I had done. She said that she thought he looked genuinely hungry, so we decided to go back out onto the street and look for him, give him our breakfasts, and then go back and buy something else for ourselves. Unfortunately, we didn’t find him. However, we did stop and pray for him—that someone else would be used by God to meet his needs.
I was haunted throughout the day with the image of that hungry young man. In fact, when I couldn’t even put the thoughts from my mind during a wonderful presentation by Beth Moore, I knew I was being hounded by the enemy. Since I couldn’t speak out loud, I wrote on my note pad: THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS (Romans 8:1).
I cannot adequately describe the way I felt. I don’t think it would be going too far to say that I was sick at my stomach for what I had done, and I determined never to let it happen again. Jesus makes the standard very clear in Luke 6:30 when he says, “Give to everyone who asks you…” There are no qualifiers here. He doesn’t say that we have to be sure the person’s not a swindler or that they won’t use the money to buy alcohol or drugs. The burden to act is placed upon us, and God will be the judge.
It was almost a year before God gave me the opportunity to make up for that day. Our family was on a trip and we stopped for coffee. My husband went in and left the children and me in the car. An elderly black man approached the driver’s side window, which I appreciated because I didn’t feel threatened. He told me he was a Hurricane Katrina victim from New Orleans and that he needed a dollar for bus fare to get back downtown to the Salvation Army. I joke all the time about being a banker’s wife and never having any cash, but that day, as always, God was in control. I handed the man a five dollar bill and watched as he went into Mc Donald’s before catching his bus. Thanks be to the God of second chances.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Favorite Passage from Acts
One more thing from Acts, and then it's on to Romans.
My favorite passage is in chapter 26. Paul is presenting his case to and sharing the gospel with King Agrippa and the Roman governor, Festus.
While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth."
Acts 26:24-25
No deep thoughts here. I just get a kick out of it.
My favorite passage is in chapter 26. Paul is presenting his case to and sharing the gospel with King Agrippa and the Roman governor, Festus.
While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth."
Acts 26:24-25
No deep thoughts here. I just get a kick out of it.
Reflections on Acts, Part 3—BELIEVE
My final thoughts on our Acts study are about belief. During the weeks of the study “believe” was on my mind a lot because the word is used by Luke so frequently. Here are some examples:
Acts 4:1
But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
Acts 4:32a
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul;
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized men and women alike.
Acts 10:43
Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.
Acts 14:1
In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and Greeks.
Acts 16:30-31
And after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 28:24
Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe,
If I am not mistaken (Someone please let me know if I am.), all forms of the word “believe” used in Acts are derived from the Greek root word “pistis,” which Strong’s defines as follows:
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
a) relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
b) relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
c) the religious beliefs of Christians
d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
a) the character of one who can be relied on
Those of you whom I know are reading this are probably thinking, “Yeah, so what?” The emphasis in Acts upon belief and believers and those who had believed made me think often about the jargon we use in our postmodern Christian culture. We ask people if they are saved, if they have asked Jesus to come into their heart, when did they dedicate their life to Christ, and so on. Acts is about BELIEF. Why have we gotten away from using the word “believe”?
I think it’s because the common use of “believe” in our culture doesn’t mean very much any more. People go from religion to religion saying they believe each one as they experience it, but that can’t be true because if they really believed they would never walk away from a faith they claim to believe. Also, postmodern culture accepts that what each individual chooses to believe is okay and that there is no objective truth. Therefore, to believe in something is of much less consequence today than it would have been in the early church when believing on Christ could result in death or imprisonment.
“Believe” no longer has any weight, but “pistis” is weighty indeed because those who believed in the first century church were very different from the people around them. Their lives changed as a result of their believing the gospel, and the gospel spread because of their dedication to Christ and their example in the way they interacted with each other (See Acts 2.).
In Believing God, in her discussion of “pistis,” Beth Moore says, “…faith is not something that you have. It’s something you do.” True belief results in action, and anyone who claims to believe but doesn’t live like a believer cannot be a believer according to the picture of belief painted for us in Acts.
All this talk of belief makes me want to veer off into the direction of Christians not really knowing WHAT they believe, but I will save those musings for another day.
Acts 4:1
But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
Acts 4:32a
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul;
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized men and women alike.
Acts 10:43
Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.
Acts 14:1
In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and Greeks.
Acts 16:30-31
And after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 28:24
Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe,
If I am not mistaken (Someone please let me know if I am.), all forms of the word “believe” used in Acts are derived from the Greek root word “pistis,” which Strong’s defines as follows:
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
a) relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
b) relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
c) the religious beliefs of Christians
d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
a) the character of one who can be relied on
Those of you whom I know are reading this are probably thinking, “Yeah, so what?” The emphasis in Acts upon belief and believers and those who had believed made me think often about the jargon we use in our postmodern Christian culture. We ask people if they are saved, if they have asked Jesus to come into their heart, when did they dedicate their life to Christ, and so on. Acts is about BELIEF. Why have we gotten away from using the word “believe”?
I think it’s because the common use of “believe” in our culture doesn’t mean very much any more. People go from religion to religion saying they believe each one as they experience it, but that can’t be true because if they really believed they would never walk away from a faith they claim to believe. Also, postmodern culture accepts that what each individual chooses to believe is okay and that there is no objective truth. Therefore, to believe in something is of much less consequence today than it would have been in the early church when believing on Christ could result in death or imprisonment.
“Believe” no longer has any weight, but “pistis” is weighty indeed because those who believed in the first century church were very different from the people around them. Their lives changed as a result of their believing the gospel, and the gospel spread because of their dedication to Christ and their example in the way they interacted with each other (See Acts 2.).
In Believing God, in her discussion of “pistis,” Beth Moore says, “…faith is not something that you have. It’s something you do.” True belief results in action, and anyone who claims to believe but doesn’t live like a believer cannot be a believer according to the picture of belief painted for us in Acts.
All this talk of belief makes me want to veer off into the direction of Christians not really knowing WHAT they believe, but I will save those musings for another day.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
I am INDEED a Crunchy Con
I bought Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher with some of my birthday money, and I finished reading it Thursday night. I did not jump the gun in describing myself as a crunchy con after reading the review in Books and Culture. Following are some excerpts. (Of course, for me, the “Permanent Things” pertain to God, and “ancient wisdom” to the Bible.)
A Crunchy Con Manifesto
- We are conservatives who stand outside the contemporary conservative mainstream. We like it here; the view is better, for we can see things that matter more clearly.
- We believe that modern conservatism has become too focused on material conditions, and insufficiently concerned about the character of society. The point of life if not to become a more satisfied shopper.
- We affirm the superiority of the free market as an economic organizing principle, but believe the economy must be made to serve humanity’s best interests, not the other way around. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.
- We believe that culture is more important than politics, and that neither American’s wealth no our liberties will long survive a culture that no longser lives by what Russell Kirk identified as “the Permanent Things”—those eternal moral norms necessary to civilized life, and which are taught by all the world’s great wisdom traditions.
- A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor, ultimately, conservative. This is particularly true with respect to the natural world.
- A good rule of thumb: Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract.
- Appreciation of aesthetic quality—that it, beauty—is not a luxury, but a key to the good life.
- The cacophony of contemporary popular culture makes it hard to discern the call of truth and wisdom. There is no area in which practicing asceticism is more important.
- We share Kirk’s conviction that “the best way to rear up a new generation of friends of the Permanent Things is to beget children, and read to them o’evenings, and teach them what is worthy of praise: the wise parent is the conservator of ancient truths…The institution most essential to conserve is the family.”
- Politics and economics will not save us. If we are to be saved at all, it will be through living faithfully by the Permanent Things, preserving these ancient truths in the choices we make in everyday life. In this sense, to conserve is to create anew.
A Crunch Con political agenda might look like this:
- Abolish or greatly restrict abortion and the death penalty.
- Ban cloning, strictly limit human genetic research, and closely regulate the biotech industry.
- Pass laws making it easier to home school, create alternative schools, or otherwise opt out of public education.
- Make commonsense environmental protection a legislative priority.
- Reform the agricultural, health, and commercial regulations to permit and encourage the flourishing of small farms and producers of local foodstuffs, and in turn repopulate rural America.
- Shape zoning restrictions to favor the preservation of old buildings of historic value, require new development to conform to high aesthetic standards, and provide more public spaces for human interaction.
- Adopt an attitude toward business laws that favors small business over large corporations.
- Strengthen local prohibitions against pornography, and appoint judges who believe in the rights of communities to set their own standards.
- Use government, within limits, to look after the poor and the weak without creating a culture of dependency.
- Reform the tax code to offer extra support to married couples who choose to have larger families.
- Orient government toward encouraging an expansion of the role of civil-society institutions—religious, fraternal, and service organizations—particularly at the local level.
- Discourage “one-size-fits-all” national standards in education and other areas. Devolve control from Washington to states and localities.
- Impose an energy policy designed to sharply reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to develop alternative sources of energy.
As I anticipated, Dreher referred to and quoted Wendell Berry extensively. I will save a discussion of his works for a future post. Here are a few of my favorite passages:
The truth is, liberalism—if liberalism is understood as the setting free of people from all limits—has triumphed. Most of us do not believe in restraining our appetites; our politics merely concern which appetites ought to be restrained. Most conservatives believe that sexual appetites should be held in check, but on evidence, they don’t really believe it, and our side is virtually silent on the matter of our desires to get rich (except for a certain strain of religious conservative, for whom prosperity is next to godliness). Liberals believe that consumer desire and the ardor for wealth should be reined in, but it’s hard to see that they take their own rhetoric seriously. And they are silent about the social and personal destruction wrought by the institutionalization of the sexual revolution.
If crunchy conservatism stands for anything, it’s the questioning of Progress and thoughtful but radical dissent from an ideology that believes that the material universe is ours to manipulate to suit our ends.
The most important thing we can do is toss out the television of commit ourselves to drastically curtailing its use. Putting ourselves and our families on a strict mass-media diet is vital; how can we ever hope to think on the Permanent Things if we fill our minds with nothing but ephemerality?
I really could go on and on. There are some areas wherein my personal convictions are not as strong as Dreher’s, but there was nothing that I thought he was actually WRONG about. If you think you may have some crunchy con leanings, you definitely should read this book. However, I recommend that you wait until it comes out in paperback. I read on Dreher's blog this week that the paperback edition will be revised and updated.
(In the event that some of you are concerned that I may be turning into a “tree hugger,” you will note in the photo of my Birkenstocked feet that my toenails are painted. Also, I might add, that I still wear make up as well as all necessary undergarments.)
Abomination
(See post below, “What It’s Really All About,” for context.)
I’ve been thinking about the word “abomination” ever since I used it to describe God’s feelings towards homosexual acts, as described in scripture. I was prompted to use this particular word because it was used during the program. However, brief research reveals that abomination is used more frequently in the King James Version than it is in modern translations. The New American Standard uses “detestable acts” rather than “abomination” in the Leviticus passages I noted.
Anyway, to the main point of this post. Last night, God brought to my mind another passage that uses the word "abomination" in the New American Standard translation:
There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Proverbs 6:16-19
Hmm… Hard for us to feel so self-righteous now, isn’t it?
I’ve been thinking about the word “abomination” ever since I used it to describe God’s feelings towards homosexual acts, as described in scripture. I was prompted to use this particular word because it was used during the program. However, brief research reveals that abomination is used more frequently in the King James Version than it is in modern translations. The New American Standard uses “detestable acts” rather than “abomination” in the Leviticus passages I noted.
Anyway, to the main point of this post. Last night, God brought to my mind another passage that uses the word "abomination" in the New American Standard translation:
There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Proverbs 6:16-19
Hmm… Hard for us to feel so self-righteous now, isn’t it?
Friday, June 16, 2006
What It's Really All About
Last night, against my better judgment, I watched Larry King Live to see Dr. Albert Mohler, along with a panel of leaders from other denominations, discuss the ordination of gay priests/pastors/ministers. I usually avoid watching these types of debates because I get extremely frustrated with the inability of those that represent the conservative evangelical Christian side to effectively present our side’s case. By the end of the program I am ranting and raving and my blood pressure is up considerably. Last night was no different.
Not to say that Dr. Mohler didn’t do a good job. He did fine until his last opportunity to speak when what he said made it SOUND like he was saying, “All you people need to do is get saved. Then you’ll be fine.” Yikes! Whether or not they are saved is NOT the issue in a debate like this because regardless of their actual spiritual condition, not only do they think they are saved, but several of the panel members were leaders in their respective churches, and they consider themselves to be much more enlightened than our side.
First, their position. The side supporting the ordination of homosexual church leaders’ position is as follows:
*They recognize that the Bible teaches homosexuality as sin.
*Their position is that they didn’t choose to be homosexual. God made them this way, and God loves them anyway.
*They do not take the position that the Bible is not God’s word, but that His truth is continuing to be revealed through the Holy Spirit, and the ordination of homosexual church leaders as well as gay marriage are areas where new truth is being revealed.
Of course, the position of our side, is:
*The Bible is God’s unchanging authoritative word, and it teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 (KJV); See also Romans 1:26-28.)
*Natural law demonstrates that sexual union was made for male and female, and that it ultimately results in reproduction.
*Any sexual practice outside of marriage disqualifies a person to be a church leader.
*Marriage is defined by God as the union for life between and man and a woman.
*Believers are equipped through the power and the presence of the Holy Spirit in them NOT to sin. (This point was never brought up last night by our side.)
My frustration with these types of debates stems not from what is being said but from what is NOT being said. When the lesbian pastor from the United Church of Christ responded to the Catholic priest’s natural law argument that her relationship was completely natural for her, I wanted to shout: "It’s completely natural for me to want to sit around with my head in a book all day and to ignore my house and my children, but that would be sinful for me to do!"
Just because something comes naturally doesn’t make it right. In fact, when something comes naturally to us, it should be highly suspect. The reason God gave us His word for a guide is that our feelings are not reliable. Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick.
Homosexuality itself is not the problem, but is a symptom of the problem. The problem in a debate such as this is that the participants on their side are trying to justify their sin rather than to mortify it. Our side must present our case not from the standpoint of the sin, but from the standpoint of the provision God has made for us NOT to sin.
The other side knows the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, but they have allowed Satan to delude them into thinking that they can’t do anything about it. He has convinced them that God has made them this way, and that God loves them anyway, and that it’s okay. God does love them. Whether or not He made them this way is a moot issue (Please don’t keep arguing about this, people!). Sin is not okay.
This type of thinking is used by Christians all the time to make excuses for their sin whether it be homosexuality, fornication, alcoholism, stealing, whatever. But the TRUTH is that those who are truly saved, do not have to sin. I must include a lengthy passage from Romans (6:1-14) to make my point:
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
This is what it is really all about. Most Christians, including practicing homosexuals (Yes, I do believe a homosexual can be saved.), do not understand what has happened to them. Believers have died to sin, and they must constantly make the choice to not present their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but to present themselves as someone alive from the dead. We must continually make the choice to present our bodies as instruments of righteousness. It is simple, but it is not easy. However, another thing that we must understand and believe in order to be successful is the extent of the power which is available to us in our efforts not to sin. Ephesians 1:18-20 says:
18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
The power that resurrected Christ from the dead is available to us in our quest to mortify sin in our lives, but we must believe it in order for it to be effective. It is possible according to I Corinthians 6:9-11:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Such were some of you. Fellow conservative evangelical Christians, let’s steer the conversation away from the particular sin and toward the transforming power of Jesus Christ. Let’s adequately teach the Word of God so that people truly understand what has happened to them in Christ and what they are capable of becoming through His power in their lives.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Something to Add...
... regarding meeting physical needs. At our old church, the Lord's Supper was held on the first Sunday in the month, and the offering collected that day was set aside for ministries of mercy. The rationale was that as we reflected upon the mercy Christ had extended to us, we should desire to extend mercy to others.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Reflections on Acts, Part 2
This is my second attempt at Part 2. The first attempt, begun more than a week ago, sounded harsh and judgmental, and while there is a place for righteous anger towards today’s church, I doubt that expressing it here is ultimately very beneficial. I also thought some of my comments may have been construed as criticisms against my own congregation, and I have no desire to go there. So I’ve decided to approach this from the standpoint of how God has convicted me personally in recent years regarding certain practices in the church as presented in Acts 2:42-47.
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
I’m going to avoid the urge to discuss Biblical illiteracy, church disunity, Christians living just like the rest of the world, and virtually nonexistent personal evangelism. I will concentrate on fellowship/hospitality and meeting physical needs.
Fellowship and Hospitality
I saw Biblical fellowship and hospitality in action in the church my husband I were members of when we first married. Most Sundays, the pastor, elders, and deacons would open their homes after morning worship and invite visitors and other church members for lunch. In my first weeks at the church (my husband-to-be was already a member), there was an invitation to a different home every Sunday. In this way, I got to really know a large number of people in a short period of time.
This practice emanated from two areas of conviction among the church leadership. First, a Biblical observance of the Sabbath that included avoiding eating out in restaurants; and second, a priority placed upon Biblical hospitality and fellowship that was demonstrated from the top down as well as taught from the pulpit. The church leaders lead by example and the example was followed among many members of the congregation.
All of this was a revelation to me. I was taught that observing the Sabbath was something that only Jews did; and fellowship meals were quarterly or monthly pot luck affairs at the church building. Despite my past experience, or perhaps because of it, I bought into the Sabbath observance/hospitality concept hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately, before the practice could take hold within our own home we moved away.
Our transition to our new home was difficult, and had we not already had friends in the town to which we moved and family nearby, I don’t know that we would have stayed. It was impossible not to compare our new church to our old one, and one area in which the new church compared extremely unfavorably to the old one was in the area of fellowship. The only invitations we received to dine in other church members’ homes were from our Sunday school teachers and people with whom we were already friends. We decided there were a number of reasons for this. First, many people went to church with their extended families and ate Sunday lunches with them. Second, many people ate out after church. And finally, there was an altogether different definition of fellowship.
In his book, Simplify Your Spiritual Life, Donald S. Whitney explains the problem. Here is an excerpt from the chapter, “Seek True Fellowship, Not Mere Socializing.”
…socializing is not the same as fellowship. Unbelievers can socialize, only Christians can truly fellowship. But far too often we think we’ve enjoyed the rich feast of fellowship when we’ve only snacked on sometimes tasty but spiritually empty socializing.
At its simple best, fellowship involves two or more Holy Spirit indwelled people talking about God and the things of God…
A significant part of the Lords’ ministry to us comes through others in whom He lives. And He intends for us to experience much of this comforting, encouraging, instructing, reproving, guiding, and sustaining ministry through fellowship. But if we talk with our brothers and sisters almost exclusively about things even worldlings can discuss and understand, we deprive ourselves of many touches from Heaven.
True fellowship seldom occurs unintentionally, especially from those who do not yet see the difference between fellowship and socializing. Enjoy socializing with other Christians, but discipline yourself to talk more about things that matter, and talk about them as though they do matter.
Based on Whitney’s definition, greeting people at the start of worship is not fellowship but socializing. The weekly breakfast with the guys wherein nothing but football is discussed is not fellowship but socializing. Hanging around after church talking could be fellowship, but it is more likely that it is socializing. Even having people in your home can simply be socializing if you are not intentional in your efforts to provide true fellowship.
Those Sunday lunches in the early years of our marriage still inspire me. I have especially fond memories of having lunch in the pastor’s home. The food was always delicious, but never complicated, and the conversation was stimulating. My husband and I decided that instead of just pining for the past, we would do what we could do to follow that model in our new home and church. When it came time for us to purchase dining room furniture, we bought a table that would seat ten. I have been collecting recipes for dishes that can be assembled the evening before and that feed a number of guests. The homes we have built have large living areas conducive to entertaining modest crowds.
At this time, the reality of our practice has not matched our vision, but now that our children are getting a little older, our vision should become more of a reality. (Tired children don’t make for good dinner companions.) My prayer is that we would bless others as we have been blessed and that true fellowship would exist within the church.
Meeting Physical Needs
In recent years, God has made me sensitive to the lack of emphasis in the church upon meeting physical needs. Evangelical churches do not do nearly enough to meet physical needs and do not teach their members the importance of meeting physical needs. It is at best an afterthought. In Acts, Luke makes it clear that in the early church, things were much different: And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
In his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, Ron Sider writes of the early church:
The picture of the first Christians in Jerusalem presented in the early chapters of Acts is one of astonishing love and joyous fellowship. Dramatic economic sharing was the norm… From later sections of Acts, it becomes clear that families retained private property. Membership in the fellowship did not mean one must place all property in a common purse. But the economic sharing was so extensive that observers were compelled to say that “there were no needy persons among them” (4:34). This astonishing economic sharing produced powerful evangelistic results!
Anyone with a heart for meeting physical needs cannot but refer to Christ’s own emphasis on the subject in His description of the judgment in Matthew 25:35-36:
For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; I was naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick , and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.
It is interesting to note that in this description of the judgment, God doesn’t judge based on effectiveness in sharing the gospel but on efforts at meeting physical needs. I think this is because the two cannot be separated. A concern for physical needs is inherent in the gospel message. In His “mission statement” in Luke 4:18-19, Jesus, quoting Isaiah, says of himself:
The spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
Ad recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.
Meeting physical needs is another area in my life wherein the reality doesn’t match the vision, but at this time, we are doing what we can. We are supporting a Romanian family monthly through World Vision, and we are responding to other needs as God directs us. Also, in serving as president of my WMU group for the past two years, I have been able to lead in making meeting physical needs a priority for our group.
I will close with something to ponder from Ron Sider:
The World Bank reports that 1.2 billion of the world’s poorest people try to survive on just one dollar a day. At least one billion people have never heard the gospel. …if American Christians just tithed, they would have another $143 billion available to empower the poor and spread the gospel.
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
I’m going to avoid the urge to discuss Biblical illiteracy, church disunity, Christians living just like the rest of the world, and virtually nonexistent personal evangelism. I will concentrate on fellowship/hospitality and meeting physical needs.
Fellowship and Hospitality
I saw Biblical fellowship and hospitality in action in the church my husband I were members of when we first married. Most Sundays, the pastor, elders, and deacons would open their homes after morning worship and invite visitors and other church members for lunch. In my first weeks at the church (my husband-to-be was already a member), there was an invitation to a different home every Sunday. In this way, I got to really know a large number of people in a short period of time.
This practice emanated from two areas of conviction among the church leadership. First, a Biblical observance of the Sabbath that included avoiding eating out in restaurants; and second, a priority placed upon Biblical hospitality and fellowship that was demonstrated from the top down as well as taught from the pulpit. The church leaders lead by example and the example was followed among many members of the congregation.
All of this was a revelation to me. I was taught that observing the Sabbath was something that only Jews did; and fellowship meals were quarterly or monthly pot luck affairs at the church building. Despite my past experience, or perhaps because of it, I bought into the Sabbath observance/hospitality concept hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately, before the practice could take hold within our own home we moved away.
Our transition to our new home was difficult, and had we not already had friends in the town to which we moved and family nearby, I don’t know that we would have stayed. It was impossible not to compare our new church to our old one, and one area in which the new church compared extremely unfavorably to the old one was in the area of fellowship. The only invitations we received to dine in other church members’ homes were from our Sunday school teachers and people with whom we were already friends. We decided there were a number of reasons for this. First, many people went to church with their extended families and ate Sunday lunches with them. Second, many people ate out after church. And finally, there was an altogether different definition of fellowship.
In his book, Simplify Your Spiritual Life, Donald S. Whitney explains the problem. Here is an excerpt from the chapter, “Seek True Fellowship, Not Mere Socializing.”
…socializing is not the same as fellowship. Unbelievers can socialize, only Christians can truly fellowship. But far too often we think we’ve enjoyed the rich feast of fellowship when we’ve only snacked on sometimes tasty but spiritually empty socializing.
At its simple best, fellowship involves two or more Holy Spirit indwelled people talking about God and the things of God…
A significant part of the Lords’ ministry to us comes through others in whom He lives. And He intends for us to experience much of this comforting, encouraging, instructing, reproving, guiding, and sustaining ministry through fellowship. But if we talk with our brothers and sisters almost exclusively about things even worldlings can discuss and understand, we deprive ourselves of many touches from Heaven.
True fellowship seldom occurs unintentionally, especially from those who do not yet see the difference between fellowship and socializing. Enjoy socializing with other Christians, but discipline yourself to talk more about things that matter, and talk about them as though they do matter.
Based on Whitney’s definition, greeting people at the start of worship is not fellowship but socializing. The weekly breakfast with the guys wherein nothing but football is discussed is not fellowship but socializing. Hanging around after church talking could be fellowship, but it is more likely that it is socializing. Even having people in your home can simply be socializing if you are not intentional in your efforts to provide true fellowship.
Those Sunday lunches in the early years of our marriage still inspire me. I have especially fond memories of having lunch in the pastor’s home. The food was always delicious, but never complicated, and the conversation was stimulating. My husband and I decided that instead of just pining for the past, we would do what we could do to follow that model in our new home and church. When it came time for us to purchase dining room furniture, we bought a table that would seat ten. I have been collecting recipes for dishes that can be assembled the evening before and that feed a number of guests. The homes we have built have large living areas conducive to entertaining modest crowds.
At this time, the reality of our practice has not matched our vision, but now that our children are getting a little older, our vision should become more of a reality. (Tired children don’t make for good dinner companions.) My prayer is that we would bless others as we have been blessed and that true fellowship would exist within the church.
Meeting Physical Needs
In recent years, God has made me sensitive to the lack of emphasis in the church upon meeting physical needs. Evangelical churches do not do nearly enough to meet physical needs and do not teach their members the importance of meeting physical needs. It is at best an afterthought. In Acts, Luke makes it clear that in the early church, things were much different: And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
In his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, Ron Sider writes of the early church:
The picture of the first Christians in Jerusalem presented in the early chapters of Acts is one of astonishing love and joyous fellowship. Dramatic economic sharing was the norm… From later sections of Acts, it becomes clear that families retained private property. Membership in the fellowship did not mean one must place all property in a common purse. But the economic sharing was so extensive that observers were compelled to say that “there were no needy persons among them” (4:34). This astonishing economic sharing produced powerful evangelistic results!
Anyone with a heart for meeting physical needs cannot but refer to Christ’s own emphasis on the subject in His description of the judgment in Matthew 25:35-36:
For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; I was naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick , and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.
It is interesting to note that in this description of the judgment, God doesn’t judge based on effectiveness in sharing the gospel but on efforts at meeting physical needs. I think this is because the two cannot be separated. A concern for physical needs is inherent in the gospel message. In His “mission statement” in Luke 4:18-19, Jesus, quoting Isaiah, says of himself:
The spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
Ad recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.
Meeting physical needs is another area in my life wherein the reality doesn’t match the vision, but at this time, we are doing what we can. We are supporting a Romanian family monthly through World Vision, and we are responding to other needs as God directs us. Also, in serving as president of my WMU group for the past two years, I have been able to lead in making meeting physical needs a priority for our group.
I will close with something to ponder from Ron Sider:
The World Bank reports that 1.2 billion of the world’s poorest people try to survive on just one dollar a day. At least one billion people have never heard the gospel. …if American Christians just tithed, they would have another $143 billion available to empower the poor and spread the gospel.
God is Not Subtle…
…and there are no coincidences in the Christian life. When God wants to communicate something to me, I will encounter it in my personal study time, we will talk about it in Sunday school, my pastor will preach on it, and I’ll hear Charles Stanley talk about it on the radio. To top it all off, I’ll encounter it again in My Utmost for His Highest (MUFHH). All of this will transpire over the course of a few days.
Do you read MUFHH? If not, you need to. I never cease to be amazed by Oswald Chambers’s wisdom and spiritual insight. He has a way of saying things you have heard countless times before in a whole new way. I don’t read it every day, but it is uncanny how when I do read it, it speaks directly to something I am dealing with. Here is an excerpt from today’s (June 13) reading:
There is actually only one thing you can dedicate to God, and that is your right to yourself (see Romans 12:1). If you will give God your right to yourself, He will make a holy experiment out of you—and His experiments always succeed. The one true mark of a saint of God is the inner creativity that flows from being totally surrendered to Jesus Christ. … A saint realizes that it is God who engineers his circumstances; consequently there are no complaints, only unrestrained surrender to Jesus. Never try to make your experience a principle for others, but allow God to be as creative and original with others as He is with you.
I know that an aspect of my struggles is an unrealistic expectation that my FEELINGS will go away, but surrender is doing what you do and thinking what you think regardless of your feelings. I want to be in the place where my will is always conformed to that of Christ’s and my feelings are always in subordination to my will.
Here’s something I wrote on November 19, 2004 that articulates how I feel about this process:
Last night,
As I lay in bed
Contemplating my life,
I concluded
That my SELF
Is dying a
Long,
Slow,
Painful
Death.
I realize that I’m doing this to myself because He says, My yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matthew 11:30). Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief (Mark 9:24 KJV).
Do you read MUFHH? If not, you need to. I never cease to be amazed by Oswald Chambers’s wisdom and spiritual insight. He has a way of saying things you have heard countless times before in a whole new way. I don’t read it every day, but it is uncanny how when I do read it, it speaks directly to something I am dealing with. Here is an excerpt from today’s (June 13) reading:
There is actually only one thing you can dedicate to God, and that is your right to yourself (see Romans 12:1). If you will give God your right to yourself, He will make a holy experiment out of you—and His experiments always succeed. The one true mark of a saint of God is the inner creativity that flows from being totally surrendered to Jesus Christ. … A saint realizes that it is God who engineers his circumstances; consequently there are no complaints, only unrestrained surrender to Jesus. Never try to make your experience a principle for others, but allow God to be as creative and original with others as He is with you.
I know that an aspect of my struggles is an unrealistic expectation that my FEELINGS will go away, but surrender is doing what you do and thinking what you think regardless of your feelings. I want to be in the place where my will is always conformed to that of Christ’s and my feelings are always in subordination to my will.
Here’s something I wrote on November 19, 2004 that articulates how I feel about this process:
Last night,
As I lay in bed
Contemplating my life,
I concluded
That my SELF
Is dying a
Long,
Slow,
Painful
Death.
I realize that I’m doing this to myself because He says, My yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matthew 11:30). Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief (Mark 9:24 KJV).
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
All Fundamentalists are NOT the Same
I keep reading here and there that there is no difference between differnt forms of fundamentalism whether it be Muslim, Christian, Buddist, whatever. Even Kirby Godsey, outgoing president of Mercer Univeristy, said it in a May 28, 2006 article in the Macon Telegraph. (The article is no longer available for free. It's a shame because the article leaves no doubt that he is indeed a heretic.)
I haven't taken personal offense at this because I consider myself to be orthodox rather than fundamentalist, but it hasn't set well with me. This post by Cruchy Con illuminates the problem with this thinking. Read it. But in the meantime, this is the point he closes with:
Funny, but whenever liberals I know say there is no difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, I ask them if they had to choose, would they prefer to ride on an airplane piloted by graduates of Bob Jones University, or graduates of a Pakistani madrassa?
I haven't taken personal offense at this because I consider myself to be orthodox rather than fundamentalist, but it hasn't set well with me. This post by Cruchy Con illuminates the problem with this thinking. Read it. But in the meantime, this is the point he closes with:
Funny, but whenever liberals I know say there is no difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, I ask them if they had to choose, would they prefer to ride on an airplane piloted by graduates of Bob Jones University, or graduates of a Pakistani madrassa?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)