Family love
I’m very proud of Margaret (my wife) and my children. They have given of themselves in order to love others this week so many times that it has been very challenging and very encouraging to me.
On Monday morning, they joined some friends at a nursing home to love on some of the residents. Besides reading and singing with them, they also spent time talking individually with many of the men and women.
On Monday evening, they rode with me and some friends two hours south of our house to love on a young couple because the husband’s grandmother had passed away. This couple is very special to us, and we are so thankful to God for this new relationship.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, they kept the three year old son of a friend while she was having tests run. On Wednesday, while they were keeping this precious boy, they also kept the daughter of some of our friends so the wife could visit a friend in the hospital.
On Saturday (the day this is scheduled to be published), my family is planning to spend time serving in a friend’s neighborhood, then they are planning to keep the children of some friends so that they can work on their house.
I’ve told Margaret how much their service has encouraged me. She acted like their service was “no big deal”. I don’t think she sees it as service, since she was caring for family. But, I think that’s awesome! That is what it means to see the church as a family.
I’m not suggesting that Margaret, Jeremy, and Miranda are the only believers that I know who are serving. In fact, that would be far from the truth. God has placed us with a group of brothers and sisters who spend time with one another and care for one another. Again… we recognize that we are family, and we actually treat one another as family. “Family” is more than a title for us… it is a call to love and action.
Challenging excerpts
Please note that the title of this post is “Challenging excerpts”, not “Challenging experts”. I read it wrong myself at first. I realize that this post will be longer than usual for my midday posts, but I wanted to include all of these quotes from other blogs. Thursday evening – when I wrote this – I read these quotes again, and continue to be challenged by them.
The first excerpt is from Ray Ortlund from “Christ is Deeper Still” from a post called “Truly Reformed“. You may have seen this already, because it is winding its way around the internet. Perhaps you are not reformed. Fine. Replace the word “reformed” below with whatever label you use to identify yourself:
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.
The next excerpt is from Dave Black. He wrote this as he was contemplating the book that he was writing on the topic of discipleship. You’ll find it posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm:
Who am I? That’s a silly question to be asking! But I’m writing the preface to my book on discipleship so the topic has come up, at least in my own mind. Am I a conservative or a liberal, right-wing or left? Though my theology is conservative, I’ve learned much from my brothers and sisters on both ends of the evangelical spectrum. Some of my friends think only about Israel, others only about Palestine. Some complain about the 3,000 unborn who are killed every day in America, while others focus almost exclusively on the 30,000 children who die of starvation every day in the world. I see no need reason to establish boundaries of love. If we mourn the loss of 4,000 U.S. service personnel in Iraq (as we should), we must also mourn with the same outrage and passion the life of every innocent Iraqi civilian who was lost. Some evangelicals believe that right-wing politics hangs the moon; others support the liberal left. I pledge my allegiance to neither. Folks, I just want to be a Christian — a simple, radical, marginal, downwardly-mobile follower of Jesus. There’s nothing unique or spectacular about being a Jesus-follower. You just remember that God’s love is borderless. You just declare the Good News to the poor, as He taught us to do. And it all happens through relationships, not programs or organizations. And here’s something strange: I am learning to fall in love with people and not just ideas. And I love ideas! Crazy people like Jim Elliott are finally beginning to make sense to me. I’m learning how to reprioritize my values and resources. Just think — the average American consumes as much as 520 Ethiopians do. Can we do anything about it? You bet! Because of our website Becky and I receive gifts for reading glasses and protein bars and pre-natal vitamins Bibles and meeting houses and evangelists’ salaries and equipment to show the Jesus Film with and food to feed hungry prisoners and on and on the list goes. No fancy organization, no 501 c(3), no overhead, no bureaucracy, no HQ. Just Jesus-people connecting with Jesus-people.
Man, am I becoming a Jesus Freak again like I was in the 60s?!!
The final excerpt is from Cindy at “run with it” from a post called “various disjointed observations from my week“. Since Cindy is a fellow Alabamian, I knew I would like what she wrote. In this excerpt, she begins by talking about taking her daughter to tennis camp:
I was struck today by a remarkable experience in polarities. The tennis camp is held at an exclusive private school. It’s the kind of place that makes me wonder if my t-shirt is on backwards or if my socks match. Where the moms wear designer shorts and high heeled sandals (making me curious as to why they require such fashion to cart kids around on a 95 degree day in the middle of July). I have worried a lot this week that my daughter would feel out of place or be ostracized by elitist little kids in coordinated tennis outfits. (she has done great, btw- she has an inherent ability to find the genuine kids in a crowd of strangers. I should and will give her more credit!)
Today, immediately after leaving her at the school (and taking a deep breath of relief), i took some items to goodwill. The man who opened the door to receive my donation was the epitome of quiet humility. He spoke softly, was so appreciative of our cast off things that I felt ashamed, and sent me off with a blessing. As I drove away I couldn’t help but consider how much more at ease I felt at Goodwill- a place of need- than at the school- a place of wealth. Peace was to be found in the place of need rather than the place of wealth. Given a choice of which place I’d rather spend a day- there would be no question.
I hope these excerpts (experts?) challenged and encouraged you as much as they did me. Now, the question remains, will it make a difference in how we live our lives?
The church meets here…
I recently had a coversation with a brother that was very thought-provoking. Many churches have “Wednesday night services”. What would happen if those churches actually served their communities on Wednesday nights? Our conversation reminded me of a blog post that I wrote just over a year ago called “The church meets here“. I’m copying it here to remind myself and my readers of what the church meeting could look like, if it actually involved service and wasn’t just called a “service”.
————————————————————————–
I live six miles from my work place. As I drive to work, I pass at least seven church buildings. Each building has a sign out front announcing the name of the church that meets in the building. (To be literal, the signs actually name the building, but I’m assuming that the people who erected the signs actually meant to name the group of believers that meet in the buildings.) On Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, temporary signs pop up around the downtown area announcing several other churches that meet in downtown businesses. Each of these signs is intended to announce the meeting place for a church.
I’ve been wondering lately what would happen if we started finding signs saying “The church meets here” in more diverse locations. For example, we know from the New Testament that many times the church met in homes. What would happen if someone put a sign in their front yard that said, “The church meets here”? Or, even better, Acts 2 says the church met from house to house. What if that sign followed the believers from one house to another as they met together in different locations?
Taking it one step further, we know that God intends for his children to love and serve others. What if the church met in the most dilapidated house in the community? No, not the most dilapidated house owned by a member of the church, but the most dilapidated house in the community. What would happen if the church met in that run-down house and renovated it as they met together? After remodelling that house, the church could begin meeting in another house in need of repairs.
Some of you may be thinking, how would anyone know where the church was meeting? Isn’t it interesting that the church in the first century was able to meet from house to house, but, in the the twenty-first century – with twenty-first century communication – we don’t think we could meet in different locations. (I have a theory… I wonder if the desire to have one meeting location has less to do with whether or not other believers know where the church is meeting. Instead, we want others to know where the church is meeting so that they will come to the meeting, and we can call ourselves evangelistic, without ever communicating the gospel to anyone. It’s just a theory.)
Similarly, some may be wondering how the church can meet without a stage, sound system, microphone, instruments, pulpit, etc. Well, I think it might just work anyway. While it is good to use modern innovations (such as communication), it is not good to be dependent on those innovations. Which of these are necessary for the church to meet?
Also, some may wonder about teaching and preaching. I think that if the church meets together in a run-down house, and over the course of several weeks the church renovates that house, there will be plenty of teaching and preaching. In fact, I think there will be plenty of friends and neighbors who come to see who these fools are who would give up their time and money to help someone that cannot pay them back. Oh, it might not happen after the first or second meeting. But, what about going into the second year, after the church has renovated fifteen or twenty homes around the community. I wonder if the church wouldn’t find a much more receptive and interested audience for their preaching and teaching.
But, let’s not stop at dilapidated houses. What if the church met in prisons or hospitals? What if the church met in an area frequented by the homeless or prostitutes? What if the church met in a nursing home or retirement center? What if the church met in an orphanage? Now, I’m not talking about going to visit once per year. I’m talking about the church continually meeting in these locations. Wouldn’t it be easier to take care of those whom God wants the church to care for?
I wonder, if the church began to meet in places like this, would a sign even be necessary? Can you think of other interesting locations where the church could meet and serve people at the same time?
One of us
I’ve been in conversations (both here and on other blogs) concerning pastors/elders and whether or not they are “one of us”. That is, often leaders feel separated from other believers, and believers feel separated from leaders.
This separation and the lack of real relationships between leaders and other believers has been listed as one of the causes of fatigue and “burn-out” for pastors/elders. Most leaders that I talk with today do not subscribe to the “wisdom” that pastors should not have friends among the church – although that has been taught and still is taught in some circles. Instead, most believers now recognize the need to have real, authentic relationships with other believers – including leaders.
So, why does the church in general often find it difficult to form relationships with pastors/elders? Why do pastors/elders feel isolated from other believers?
I believe there are many reasons for this separation. The first reason that leaders feel separated from other believers is that there is an ongoing practice and belief of clergy/laity division. Yes, most would deny that there is a ontological difference between leaders and other believers, but in our words and practices we often veto our denial. Usually, when the church meets, leaders have a special place to sit, a special place to stand, and speak at special times when others are not allowed to speak. Leaders decide who does what, when, and how. Leaders baptize and serve the Lord’s Supper. Leaders pray at special times and officiate special ceremonies. By our actions we demonstrate that we really thing that leaders are different than other believers.
However, some leaders refuse to separate themselves from other believers by these actions. In other words, leaders sit and stand with everyone else. Other believers speak and make decisions and baptize and serve the Lord’s Supper and pray and officiate special ceremonies. Many times, this does not completely overcome the separation between leaders and other believers.
Sometimes this separation persists because of special titles. Sometimes this separation continues because the leaders are considered “short-timers” – they came from another location and will probably move again. Sometimes leaders and other believers cannot form relationships because the people see them as “hirelings” – paid to do religious work for them. Similarly, leaders sometimes project or are perceived to project the image that they are perfect – or near perfect, since no one will claim to be perfect – which hinders other believers from forming relationships with them. This will probably be a very controversial point – it usually is – but it is my opinion that being a paid religious professional (pastor/elder as a job) also separates leaders from other believers.
Any time leaders see themselves as “special” or any time other believers see leaders as “special”, then they will find it difficult to form relationships with one another. Whenever the interaction moves away from leaders being “among” the body to the leaders being “over” the body, then leaders will be separated from other believers.
In reality, leaders are more mature believers – more consistent in their walk with Christ (supposedly) – but they are not “special”. They are not holy men doing holy work in holy places. All of God’s children are holy – set apart by God for service – and all of God’s children are ministers (servants). When we understand this – and when we live and act accordingly – we will find that our leaders are actually “one of us”.
Do you know of other beliefs or practices that would hinder pastors/elders from forming relationships with other believers?
More on Church Discipline
Matthew McDill has been blogging about “church discipline”. I’m glad to see that he doesn’t think that phrase is appropriate for what Scripture describes as a desire to reconcile brothers and sisters.
In his first post, Matthew refers to the book Walking Together: A Congregational Reflection on Biblical Church Discipline by Wyman Richardson. He contrasts the tenets of “cultural ecclesiology” to those of “biblical ecclesiology”.
In his second post, Matthew quotes R.T. France from his commentary on Matthew 18:15-17:
In a formally constituted church with an appointed leadership it is easy for the ‘ordinary’ disciple to hide behind that authority structure and to leave it all to the official leaders, appealing to Cain’s question ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ with the comfortable assumption that the answer must be No. But this passage asserts that the answer is Yes. In a community of ‘little ones,’ each must be concerned about and take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the other.
Matthew (and France) are correct. Properly understanding the need to reconcile broken relationships begins with understanding that we (all of us) are our brother’s and sister’s keeper. Of course, “Church discipline” – that is, reconciling broken relationships – does not make any sense where there is no relationship to begin with.
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
This is the third installment in a series concerning Tertullian’s descriptions of the meeting of the church sometime around 200 AD (see “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1” and “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2“). This passage also occurs in Chapter 39 of Tertullian’s Apology. Between the previous passage and the current passage, Tertullian denies that the Christians share their wives, although he says that they share everything else. He also denies that their feasts are “extravagant” or “wicked” as some critiques have claimed.
Then, Tertullian ends his discussion of the church meeting with this passage:
Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e., affection [love]. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,-but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,-a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet.
Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia-[i.e., the court of God.]
Apparently, in Tertullian’s day, the meeting of the church included a feast – eating enough food to be satisfied, and drinking but not so much as to be unchaste. From this passage it is impossible to tell whether or not this feast occurred at the same time and place as the exhortation described earlier. (For example, when Pliny interrogated some Christians, he found out that they met twice on the same day – see “Meeting with the Early Church – Pliny’s Letter“.) However, it is clear that this “feast” was not limited to a piece of bread and a drink of wine. At the same time, however, it was also not a time of gluttony and drunkenness.
This is the second time that Tertullian remarks that the Christians act a certain way because of their belief that God is with them. Here, though, he continues by recognizing that their manner of living is consistent both during the meeting and after the meeting – both when they are with other believers, and when they are away from other believers. Apparently, the belief that God is with them carried over outside the meeting of the church, and greatly affected they way that they lived their lives.
Besides eating and drinking, the feast also included prayer – both before and after the meal – as well as singing, as each one is requested to sing either from Scripture or a self-composed song. There is also interesting reference to “bringing in the lights”. I do not know what this points to. Perhaps a reader can help me out with this one.
At the beginning of this passage, there is another reference to benefiting the needy, this time in reference to the feast. Tertullian does not give us details of this benefit – whether Tertullian is referring to needy believers who are provided with food for the feast, whether the needy are invited to dine with the believers, whether the believers again receive contributions during the feast to benefit the needy, or whether that benefit comes in some other manner. However, even during this feast, the thoughts of the believers are turned to “the least”. Why do they desire to benefit the needy through their feast? Because they see it as the way of God himself. For this reason, “a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly”.
What do you think about Tertullian’s description of the “love feasts” in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of Agape meals compare to those of today (“Lord’s Supper” or “Eucharist”?)? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
This blog posts continues my short series on a passage in Tertullian’s Apology that deals with church meetings around 200 AD. The first entry in this series was called “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1“. The following passage from chapter 39 follows from the passage in the previous post:
Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.
This passage obviously deals with money. The church that Tertullian met took up an offering. But, notice what this offering was used for: caring for the poor, orphans, older people confined to their homes, victims of shipwrecks, and those who were being punished in various ways because they were Christians.
It is interesting that this collection was taken monthly, not weekly. Also, it does not appear that believers were required or even asked to give a certain percentage of their income to this collection.
Tertullian was very clear in pointing out that this collection was not used to fund lavish feasts or parties. Some of his pagan opponents were probably suggesting that the Christian’s “Agape” feasts (which are discussed later) were simply drunken orgies. Tertullian is countering this claim by pointing out that the people gave money to support those who were in need – even those who were not part of their specific group of Christians.
What do you think about Tertullian’s description of church collections in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of collections compare to collections (“tithes and offerings”?) today? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
More on the Anabaptists
My PhD mentor, Dave Black, has told us why he loves the Anabaptists in an essay called appropriately “Why I Love the Anabaptists“. I’ve noticed some of the items on his list as I’ve been reading some Anabaptist writings as well. I think the most important aspect of their writings to me is that they do not separate life into the secular realm and the spiritual realm. “Holiness” and “worship” are not just for church meetings for the Anabaptists. Similarly, “grace” is not just for salvation, but it represents a way of life – living in God’s grace and offering his grace to others.
Yes, I disagree with some of the Anabaptists at certain points. But, I’m encouraged by their desire to live out their faith day by day – both with other believers and among the world.
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
A few months ago, I wrote a series on “Meeting with the Early Church“. While I included the writings of several early Christians, and even some nonChristians, who included a description of the meeting of the early church, I did not include the writings of Tertullian.
Tertullian (155 – 222 AD) is an interesting character in early Christianity. To some, he was a hero who defended the true faith against heresy. To others, Tertullian was a heretic himself who left the orthodox church for Montanism. Whatever our view of Tertullian, his writings seemed to be well respected by other early Christians.
Among his writings, his Apology (Apologeticus) was one of the most polemical. He addressed this book to the Roman civic magistrates of his day in order to defend Christians and Christianity against pagans and paganism. It has been called “one of the most magnificent legacies of the ancient Church, full of enthusiasm, courage, and vigor”.
In chapter 39 (XXXIX) of his Apology, Tertullian discussed several aspects of church meetings. In this series, I’m going to use Tertullian’s words to help us understand how the church met around 200 AD, at least the church meetings with which Tertullian was familiar. Part of this chapter is very polemical, blasting the practice of pagans. I will focus on the parts that describe the Christian assemblies and leave out the parts that describe the pagan meetings and responses.
Here is the first section:
I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God.
What does Tertullian tell us about the early church meetings in this passage? The meetings included prayer, reading, exhortation, rebuke, and even judging. Did you notice what binds believers together according to Tertullian: a common profession, a common discipline, and a common hope.
Tertullian talks about praying for emperors and other civic officials, as well as for their own “supplications”. These do not appear to be the nice prayers that we normally hear, but a type of “violence” where the believers “wrestle” with God. I’ve heard believers wrestle with God in prayers, but rarely in a public assembly like this.
Tertullian does not automatically assume that the “sacred writings” have something to say to him and the other believers with whom he gathers. Instead, they read the writings (perhaps the Scriptures?) and consider them to determine if the writings may have something to say about their times and situations. Regardless, Tertullian expects the words of the text themselves to nourish their faith, hope, and confidence.
Apparently, separate from the reading of the “sacred writings”, there were also instances of exhortations, rebukes, and censures. Given the seriousness with which “judgment” is described by Tertullian, these exhortations, rebukes, and censures would seem to go beyond the modern day sermon. These would seem to be personal and direct, dealing with the lives and concerns and problems with individuals and groups within the assembling.
Finally, Tertuallian mentions their leaders. These leaders “preside over” the believers due to their being “tried men” with “established character”. Again, this seems to be different from the modern assembly where the leaders are chosen because of their education and talents. In fact, when most “leaders” begin with a church today, most would not know them well enough to vouch for their character much less to call them “tried men”.
Within the context of these leaders, Tertullian says that they become elders “not by purchase” because “[t]here is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God”. This seems to be too early in church history for Tertullian to be talking about people buying their way into “church offices” (this happened later in the middle ages). Perhaps Tertullian is talking about elders who serve only when they are paid.
What do you think about Tertullians description of church meetings in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of church assemblies compare to church meetings (“worship services”) today? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
My people love to have it so
This week I was reading Jeremiah. In Chapter 5, the Lord speaks against his own people because 1) they do not relate correctly to him and 2) they do not take care of the poor and needy. Who is responsible for this rebellion in the sight of God?
An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes? (Jeremiah 5:30-31 ESV)
It appears that God holds the prophets, the priests, and the people themselves responsible for their rebellion.
Some may say that the church today rightly relates to God – although they would probably only say that about those who agree with them. But few would suggest that the church is taking caring of the poor and needy. Who will God hold responsible for this rebellion?