Scripture… As We Live It #10
Here is the tenth installment of “Scripture… As We Live It“:
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned – unless, of course, you are the divisive person or you agree with the divisive person, in which case, make sure that you and those who agree with you separate yourselves from other brothers and sisters who disagree with you – oh, and talk about them from time to time to remind yourselves that you are right and they are wrong. (Titus 3:10-11 re-mix)
Living in the change
In my previous post – “What is God doing?” – I said that God was teaching me to love people who are different than me. It is interesting that in the comments Mark mentioned actions and Mary mentioned listening. Both of these are part of what God is doing in my life – and I’m living in the change now.
For example, today I took the opportunity to be around people who are different than me – that required action. Primarily, I listened to what they had to say about what was going on in their lives.
I listened to one lady wonder if it was okay that she asked God why her two sons died while they were in their twenties. I listened to a young man ask if God was mad at him because of his tattoos. I listened to another lady wonder if God was going to heal her of cancer since she claimed his healing.
Acting and listening are a big part of how God is teaching me to love people who are different than me.
What is God doing?
One of the questions that I like to ask people is this one: “What is God doing in your life?” Usually, people have to think about it awhile, but most eventually recognize that God is working in their life.
What is God doing in my life? He is teaching me how to love and serve people who are different than me. This is a very uncomfortable lesson for me, and much less “theoretical” than other lessons.
What is God doing in your life?
A weak church or a strong church?
I have read recently that those who hold to a more structured and organized understanding of the church have a “strong ecclesiology”, while those who hold to a less structured and organized understanding of the church have a “weak ecclesiology”. I am one of those who believe that the church is not defined by either structure or organization. I believe that less organization and structure is better. I also believe that organization and structure often hamper the church. Is this a “weak ecclesiology”?
In my ecclesiology, all believers are “ministers” – servants. All believers respond to God by serving others – both other believers and nonbelievers. Leaders (pastors/elders or deacons) are not more responsible that others. All believers teach, care for, and watch out for other believers. Leaders are not more responsible for teaching, shepherding, or overseeing. Believers do not serve because they hold a certain position, but because they are all gifted to serve.
In my ecclesiology, all believers are “missionaries” – sent out into the world. All believers respond to God by proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ in word and in deed. All believers live in a way that demonstrates the love of God to “the least” of society. All believers speak in a way that proclaims the truth of God, including his grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Leaders (missionaries or evangelists) are not more responsible for proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. Since all believers have been reconciled to God, all believers are ambassadors, representing God in his ministry of reconciliation.
In my ecclesiology, all believers speak and serve one another during the meeting of the church. All believers are gifted by the Holy Spirit; and, when the church comes together, he alone decides who speaks and who serves in a way that best edifies all believers present. Even those who aren’t prophets can prophesy when enabled by the Spirit. Even those who aren’t teachers can teach when enabled by the Spirit. Leaders (teachers or preachers) are not more responsible for speaking during the meeting of the church. Since all believers are gifted by the Spirit, and since love and edification – not training or education – are the requirements for speaking during the meeting of the church, all believers share that responsibility.
In my ecclesiology, all believers make disciples. All believers work to see one another grow in maturity in both the knowledge and unity of Jesus Christ, with him being our only measure and goal. All believers consider how best to stir up one another toward love and good deeds. Leaders are not more responsible for discipleship than other believers. All believers help one another bear their burdens, correct one another in gentleness, and exhort one another daily to grow in character and obedience toward Jesus Christ.
In the traditional “strong” ecclesiology, a few leaders in the church are responsible for serving, evangelizing, speaking, and discipling. In my “weak” ecclesiology, the entire church – every believer – responds to God’s amazing work in their lives by serving, evangelizing, speaking, and discipling.
What’s the difference? In the traditional “strong” ecclesiology, leaders are given and take responsibility for things for which they (alone) are not responsible. Other believers, in turn, allow or expect leaders to carry these added responsibilities. Then, when things are not “accomplished”, the leaders are found to be at fault. This may be a “strong” ecclesiology, but I believe it creates a weak church.
Are you being hindered?
Rob at “Rob Horton: Journey Notes” has re-published an excellent story called “hannah wind“. In this fictional story, a young runner discovers that she can run better without an attachment that everyone has told her is necessary. Instead, this attachment was actually a hindrance. Could it be that we are living with hindrances today, but we don’t even question them because that’s what we’ve been taught? Perhaps the key to “running” is in removing those hindrances, not coming up with more efficient versions of those hindrances. Read Rob’s story. I think you’ll find many applications to church practices today.
Responsibilities and Expectations of Elders
I recently came across this generic “job description” for pastors (elders). I think it is a good representation of what is expected of “pastors” in the modern church:
- Plan and conduct the worship services; prepare and deliver sermons; lead in observance of ordinances.
- Lead the church in an effective program of witnessing and in a caring ministry for persons in the church and community.
- Visit members and prospects.
- Conduct counseling sessions; perform wedding ceremonies; conduct funerals.
- Serve as chairman of the Church Council to lead in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and evaluating the total church program.
- Work with deacons, church officers, and committees as they perform their assigned responsibilities; train and lead the deacons in a program of family ministries.
- Act as moderator of church business meetings.
- Cooperate with associational, state, and denominational leaders in matters of mutual interest and concern; keep the church informed of denominational development; represent the church in civic matters.
- Serve as chief administrator of the paid church staff; supervise the work of assigned paid staff workers.
As you read through that list, which items are scriptural responsibilities of elders alone – meaning that the items are not required of other believers? What do you expect of elders that you don’t expect of other believers? Why?
What kind of fruit?
In my previous post “Missing the message in the details?“, I mentioned that there is a common theme running through the end of the Sermon on the Mount. That theme is the importance of “fruit” or doing good deeds. In fact, that theme actually begins at the start of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus tells his listeners – and us – to let your light shine before men.
But, when Jesus is talking about good deeds, shining our light, and bearing fruit, what kind of fruit is he talking about? Can we do anything and call it “fruit”? Do we get to decide what is a good deed? Can we define “letting our light shine”?
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus points toward his own actions of healing diseases, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, etc. as examples of good deeds. When he sends the twelve out in chapter 10, he tells them to do the same things. Is this what Jesus desires from us? Do we love others only when we are healing diseases and casting out demons?
I think, as we continue to read through Matthew’s Gospel, we’ll find something much simpler involved in doing “good deeds”. Remember the very popular passage in Matthew 25:
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25:34-40 ESV)
The actions that the King (God) desires to see in the “righteous” are simple acts that demonstrate the love of God to those who most need it: some food and drink, a place to live, clothing, and relationships.
Instead of taking this passage at face value, we usually change it to one of two extremes. While the remainder of this post probably belongs to my “Scripture… As We Live It” series, I wanted to discuss this in more detail. Consider the following “re-mix” of Matthew 25:35-36:
For I was hungry and you sent in a tax deductible donation, I was thirsty and you started a Bible study, I was a stranger and you built a new building, I was naked and you gave some clothing to the Salvation Army, I was sick and you attended a prayer meeting, I was in prison and you sent a letter to your congressman complaining about the prison system.’ (Matthew 25:35-36 re-mix)
We often spiritualize or depersonalize this Scripture. By starting or supporting “ministries” we make ourselves feel better. But, when we separate ourselves from the people who actually need the help – when we keep from showing the love of God personally – then we are not living as God would have us live. Yes, it is fine to support “ministries” – my family does this – and yes, it is fine to start Bible studies and prayer meetings – we do this as well. But, we cannot do this in place of personally giving drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and visiting the sick and imprisoned.
Another way of depersonalizing the love of God is by dealing with “social causes” instead of hurting individuals. For example, instead of giving drink to a thirsty woman, we join a cause to provide clean drinking water. Instead of giving food to a man who is hungry, we give to a relief effort to end world hunger. Instead of giving clothes to a young child who has nothing to wear, we support a local “clothes closet”. Yes, we can and we should support these “social causes”. But, we cannot support “causes” at the expense of neglecting thirsty, hungry, naked, sick, and imprisoned individuals.
What kind of fruit does God expect? I think he expects the kind of fruit that demonstrates his love on a person by person basis… the kind of fruit that touches and hugs and listens and watches and learns and helps… the kind of fruit that grows through sweat and tears and dirty hands.
God loves people. And, he wants his children to look into the eyes of other people and love them.
Frank Viola is blogging
Love him or hate him – and, if you’re a child of God, you have to love him 🙂 – Frank Viola is now blogging at “Reimagining Church“. If his books are any indication, Frank will raise some great questions on his blog. I’m looking forward to reading his posts. So far, Frank doesn’t allow comments. I hope that changes, even though I can understand the reasons for not allowing comments, especially for someone like Frank Viola.
(btw… I love him and his books.)
Missing the message in the details?
As we’re continuing to study through the Gospel of Matthew, we’ve almost reached the end of the Sermon on the Mount. The first time we studied Matthew 5-7, it was as a complete unit – apparently as Jesus presented it, or at least as Matthew presented it. Since then, we’ve divide the Sermon on the Mount into smaller sections. Although we’ve tried to keep the “big picture” in mind, I can’t help but wonder if we’re missing something by focusing on such small sections of Scripture.
For instance, last Sunday a brother taught from Matthew 7:15-20. Next Sunday, another brother will teach from Matthew 7:21-23. Then, finally, another week from that, someone will complete our study through the Sermon on the Mount by teaching Matthew 7:24-29.
But, notice the continuity in these passages:
Matthew 7:15-20 – False prophets are identified by their fruit (actions).
Matthew 7:21-23 – Actions alone do not make anyone acceptable to God.
Matthew 7:24-29 – The difference between the foolish and wise is that the wise actually DOES what Jesus says, while the foolish just hears (and studies?) what Jesus says.
Fruit… Actions… Deeds… this is a common theme running through the end of the Sermon on the Mount. But, don’t we see this at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, too?
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16 ESV)
But, if we only study this passage in little chunks, we may never see the importance of good deeds in the Sermon on the Mount. But, what about the entire Gospel? Is there a point to the entire Gospel that we miss when we read one or two verses, one or two paragraphs, or even one or two chapters at a time? I think so.
Because of this, I’ve been reading entire books at a time – if possible. Or, if I can’t read an entire book in one sitting, then I read as much as I can, and I try to finish the book as soon as possible. It is amazing how much the tone and message of a book changes when you read it as a unit – as it was written and meant to be read. Try it sometime. Or better yet, if you want to see how important this is, the next time you read a newspaper or magazine, just read one paragraph per day… or watch a movie 15 minutes at a time. Do you think you might miss the message?
Beyond Charity – Our Vision
As I mentioned in my post called “Beyond Charity – Introduction“, I’m reading John Perkins’ book Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development. Part One of the book is called “Our Vision”, and it is divided into three chapters: “Beyond Charity”, “From Quick Fixes to Felt Needs”, and “The Marks of an Authentic Church”.
Beyond Charity
In chapter 1, Perkins exhorts Christians to move beyond a charity mentality. He says:
America’s best intentions, most sincere thoughts, noblest efforts – all of these are useless to the urban poor if they do not connect with our personally defined, deepest felt needs. In fact, acts of charity can be dangerous because givers feel good about actions that actually accomplish very little, or even create dependency. The result is that their sense of satisfaction takes away any motivation to seek more creative long-range development strategies. Overcoming an attitude of charity is a difficult task because it requires givers to demand more of themselves than good will.
“Charity” is an interesting word. Once, the word “charity” was used by Bible translators to translate the Greek word for God’s sacrificing love. The word “charity” meant demonstrating a love that was consistent and selfless; a love that originated with God, worked by the Spirit of God, and demonstrated to the glory of God.
Today, a common definition of “charity” is “a kindly and lenient attitude toward people”. Thus, today “charity” may cause you to give a few dollars, but it rarely causes you to give your life. The poor, the sick, the needy, the widows, the orphans, the foreigners don’t need a few dollars in the long run. They need someone willing to love them with the love of God.
Perkins lists several obstacles for going beyond charity to offering lasting help for “the least” among us: a charity mentality, racial polarization, a victim mentality and self-doubt, and government programs. Notice that some of these obstacles are carried out by those attempting to help, while other obstacles are caused by “the least” themselves.
Perkins concludes this chapter with his answer to overcoming these obstacles:
I believe there is only one group of people in society who can overcome these obstacles. God’s people have solutions that are qualitatively different from any other approach to the poor. The best that God’s people have to offer is relationships with the poor that reflect the kind of carefully, quality attention we have in our own families. This is the high quality relationships offered by a people seeking to “love their neighbors as they love themselves”.
I agree with Perkins. The church of God has quality relationships to offer the poor. However, I haven’t seen this very often. Instead, I see the church offering as many, if not more, quick fixes as anyone else.
From Quick Fixes to Felt Needs
Perkins argues that in order for the church to offer lasting and quality relationships with the poor, we must begin with their felt needs. These are actual needs that are pressing and oppressing the people. He offers an old Chinese poem to illustrate the felt-need concept:
Go to the people
Live among them
Learn from them
Love them
Start with what you know
Build on what they have;
But of the best leaders
When their task is done
The people will remark
“We have done it ourselves.”
You can see that Perkins continues to warn about the danger of building dependence on others. The poor do not need to become more dependent – unless it is becoming more dependent upon God.
While everyone’s needs are specific to the individual, Perkins says that felt-needs can be grouped into three categories: 1) the need to belong, 2) the need to be significant and important, and 3) the need for a reasonable amount of security.
He also exhorts Christians to practice “the three R’s of community development”:
- relocation – moving into a needy community so that its needs become our own needs
- reconciliation – The love and forgiveness of the gospel reconcile us to God and to each other across racial, social, and economic barriers.
- redistribution – Christ calls us to share with those in need.
The Marks of an Authentic Church
Perkins’ “marks” are quite different from marks of the church as taught by other people. I think that “the least” would most appreciate Perkins’ marks, and I think they would care less how we structure ourselves.
Perkins suggests that the church in America today is broadly divided along three different theological ideals:
- European theology – European theology was a theology of liberation for Europeans… America was to be the place where European Christians could be liberated from the oppressive European governments that suppressed their religious expression and conscience. In America, they could serve God as they pleased. But the liberation Europeans took for granted for themselves was not extended to the native Americans who were already here and whose land was taken by force, nor was it extended to Africans, who were brought here by force to work the land.
- Black theology – Africans took on our oppressor’s religion. Upon close examination, our black forefathers found that a proper reading and living of “the Book” did indeed mean liberation for everyone, including them. Because the European theology would not accommodate our liberation, we created our own form of the gospel… Like all theologies should be, it is a theology of liberation from oppression. But liberation to what? Back to Africa? To integration? Black theology has never adequately answered this questions.
- Latin American theology – As Latin American Christian leaders living among the poor looked at their world, they saw oppression in the form of colonization through military governments and dictators who dominated the countries’ resources and sold their countries’ natural wealth to the industrialized countries for their own profits. Latin American Christians who loved the poor began to see the gospel, not communism or capitalism, as the best way to liberate people from oppression… often stop[ping] short of a strong message of spiritual liberation.
What is the answer for the church today? According to Perkins, the answer is found in the gospel – not the European, Black, or Latin American gospel, but the whole gospel:
The alternative to these incomplete theologies is a theology based on God’s character of reconciliation… To reconcile people to God and then to each other is the purpose of the gospel. This is the theology that is the true work of the church… Living out the gospel means bringing good news of God’s love to people who are in need, demonstrating to them the love of Jesus and introducing them to the eternal life found only in him. When I refer to eternal life I don’t only mean the hereafter, but eternal life that beings here on earth and continues after… In short, living the gospel means desiring for your neighbor and your neighbor’s family that which you desire for yourself and your family.
According to Perkins, these are seven attributes that the Body of Christ should constantly be striving to incorporate into their existence:
The authentic church absorbs pain.
The authentic community of believers is also called to proclaim hope in a despairing world.
An authentic church should point to God’s authority.
The authentic church brings people together.
The authentic church spends lavishly on the needy.
The authentic church reflects God’s character.
The authentic community of faith protects the vulnerable.
I can see all of these descriptions of the church in the New Testament. I don’t see them very often today. In fact, I don’t see these descriptions much in my life… but that’s changing.