The way to greatness is through selfless service and scandalous love
Yes, I know that I just quoted my friend Adam at darnellia a couple of days ago. But, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to link to his post “The Up-side Down Kingdom.” This is how he concludes:
The overwhelming evidence in the Synoptic Gospels for the ordering of the kingdom of God is that the way to greatness is through selfless service and scandalous love, and the way to victory as a disciple is through self-surrender. Ruling over others is absent in the up-side down kingdom; all are equals under the one Master. Honorific titles are worse than worthless, and the citizens of the up-side down kingdom are to love to the extent that it shocks those outside of the kingdom. In the end, “that which is exalted among men is detestable before God†(Lk 16:15).
Adam says this is the first of a new series of essays. If this essay is any indication, then his new series is going to be awesome!
People are vulnerable to love
The following excellent post comes from Dave Black’s blog (Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 9:04 pm):
People are vulnerable to love. That’s one of the points Becky emphasized with the middle schoolers today. She told the story of a Muslim man in a small village in southern Ethiopia whom she had outfitted with a pair of non-prescription reading glasses. When he left the church compound he told the leaders, “Never have I seen such love as in this place.”
As I’ve reflected over that experience, I’ve become more convinced than ever that the confrontational approach to evangelism is lacking. No, I’m not against passing out a Gospel tract or placing bumper stickers on your car. I’m not against going door to door. In confrontational evangelism, the encounter is unique. It’s usually brief, often intense, and frequently scary. Then it’s over. Many have used that approach successfully. Thank God for them! But nothing is more powerful, in my opinion, than a Spirit-filled individual targeting his or her gifts to meet the needs of others. In southern Ethiopia you couldn’t buy a pair of reading glasses if you had a million dollars. They are not to be had. But when Becky gave that man a free pair of glasses, and when she told them where they had come from — not from the U.S. government, not from the Ethiopian government, but from people in America who love Jesus — and when she told him, “Every time you wear these glasses you will be reminded that Jesus knows you and loves you,” she threw a redemptive switch in that man’s mind.
I can’t overemphasize this point. Evangelism is essentially a lifestyle — a lifestyle of sharing what we have with others with a view to them realizing that there is a Savior, a Lord, a Redeemer named Jesus who loves them. I encourage all of us to develop this capacity to draw others to Christ. Do it however the Spirit leads you. But do it with a gentle, loving spirit. After all, as Becky emphasized in her talk, people of all stripes need to see and feel love. If we don’t have a genuine love for other people, we have probably forfeited our right to evangelize them!
Meditate on that last line for a few minutes: “If we don’t have a genuine love for other people, we have probably forfeited our right to evangelize them.
I think this is especially true for those times when we use a more “confrontational approach.” What do you think?
What if we met to edify one another?
A couple of years ago, I wrote a post called “What if we met to edify one another?” In that post, I said that the way churches meet would change if our purpose was to allow each believer the opportunity to exercise their spiritual gifts in order to build up the church toward maturity in Christ. I still think this is true, so I thought I would share that post again. I also hope that you will think about the questions that I ask at the end of the post and share your thoughts with us.
————————————————————————
What if we met to edify one another?
Occasionally, I’m asked if I think churches today should meet in the same way that churches met in the first century, as described in the New Testament. This questions is usually followed by a statement such as, “Should we also wear robes and sandals when we meet together?”
Certainly there are major differences between the twenty-first century and the first century. While I do not believe that we should do everything exactly like the church did in the New Testament, I do believe that we who live in the twenty-first century can learn something from those who lived in the first century – even when it comes to the church meeting.
First of all, consider the standard church meeting of today. These meetings usually center on locations, leaders, music, preaching, and money. Are these bad things? No. People need a place to meet. It is good to recognize leaders. Singing praise to God is a good thing. Preaching and teaching are important. Money is necessary for some of the things that we do. But, do we find these things the focus of the church meeting in the New Testament.
I suggest that if we study the meeting of the church in the New Testament, we will not find a focus on location, leaders, music, preaching, or money. Are they important. Yes, but they are not most important. I suggest that instead of changing the way the church meets today, we would learn more by changing our focus during the meeting to the focus of the gathered church in the New Testament.
What was the focus of the gathered church in the New Testament? The purpose of the church meeting was to allow each believer an opportunity to exercise his or her spiritual gifts in a manner that built up other believers, that is, that encouraged them toward maturity in Jesus Christ. If the church changed its focus today, would it change the way that we meet? I think that it would. However, if we start with changing the way that we meet, then we are starting with the wrong thing. Let’s start with our purpose. If we start with the purpose of building up one another in Christ, then the format of the meeting will fall into place.
If we start by recognizing that we should meet together so that we can build up one another, then the reason for locations, leaders, music, preaching, and money also falls into place. Similarly, we can make decisions based on the reason that we meet together as a church.
Think about the way your church meets. Does the meeting of your church reflect the purpose of allowing each believer to exercise his or her spiritual gifts in order to build up others toward maturity in Christ?
Who is my neighbor?
We still like to ask that question, don’t we? We don’t want “that guy” to be our neighbor, do we?
One weekend, my friend Adam at darnellia taught from Matthew 22:34-40 about loving God and loving neighbor. When he returned home, he found out that “that guy” was his neighbor physically. (You know what I mean by “that guy”… the person who really rubs you the wrong way.) You can read about it in his post “A stunning (though elementary, really) revelation.”
Lately, I’m beginning to understand that anyone who God brings into my life is my neighbor. Even “that guy” or “that girl”… yes, even them… perhaps especially them.
I knew that you wouldn’t let me help you
“I knew that you wouldn’t let me help you.” When a friend of mine said that to me recently, her words stopped me in my tracks. Let me explain.
I like helping people. I’m not saying that to boast. Instead, I recognize how God has changed me from a very selfish and self-centered person to someone who at least occasionally notices the needs of others and enjoys meeting those needs. God has done so much for me and has given so much to and for me that I enjoy giving back by helping and serving others.
A few days ago, our family returned from a vacation to Florida. The day after we returned, Margaret started getting sick. A couple of days later, I started getting sick. One afternoon, when we were both sick, the phone rang. A friend of ours had called to see how we were feeling. I told her that we were both feeling bad, but that Margaret was worse than me.
She said, “Can I make you a pot of soup? I always like soup when I’m sick.”
I turned down her offer of help, and told her that we could manage to make something for dinner.
Then, she replied, “Well, I knew that you wouldn’t let me help you, but I wanted to offer.” She didn’t say it in a condemning way, but I was certainly convicted by her words.
In that instant, God revealed to me more about my own pride. I loved helping people when they needed it, but when I was in need, I was not willing to admit that need and allow someone else to help me. That’s pride, and it’s sin.
Looking back on my life, I can see this pattern. I even written about it before on this blog. Of course, recognize a failure to submit to God in a certain area of my life is not that same as actually submitting to God in that area of my life. I recognize that I often let my pride get in the way of allowing others to serve. As you can see, my pride is not simply a sin that affects my relationship with Christ, it affects my relationship with others – it affects the community.
Sin is like that. We think sin is private and personal, but it never is. Sin affects our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even a sin that appears to only affect us as individuals also affects the community since we are part of the community.
So, when my friend said, “I knew that you wouldn’t let me help you,” I knew that she was right, and I recognized my sin. I apologized to her and told her that I would love for her to bring us a pot of soup.
While her soup was very delicious, I think her words were more beneficial and needed.
SECSOR 2010 Presentation: A Theology of Mutuality
At the beginning of October, I submitted a proposal to SECSOR 2010. SECSOR is the Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion. Here is their Call for Papers for their meeting in Atlanta on March 5-7, 2010.
Last week, I learned that my submission had been accepted. So, in a few months, I’ll be presenting “A Theology of Mutuality” at the SECSOR 2010 meeting.
Here is a short summary of my presentation:
Twenty years ago, David Peterson began a “limited” study of the concept of encouragement by briefly examining the use of the παÏακαλÎω / παÏάκλησις word group in Paul’s letters and in the Book of Hebrews. [David G. Peterson, “The Ministry of Encouragement,” in God Who is Rich in Mercy (Eds. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986), 235] However, in his short article, Peterson suggested that “there is need of a comprehensive study” of encouragement. This presentation begins a further investigation into one aspect of Peterson’s study: mutuality. A theology of mutuality recognizes the importance that New Testament authors placed on the work of Christians in the lives of other Christians. The research in this presentation suggests that mutuality in the New Testament (especially as a subset of a more general theology of encouragement) does not apply necessarily to individuals separately, but to the group as a whole. Thus, mutual encouragement (as used by Peterson and others) does not point to the spiritual growth of individuals, but to the spiritual growth of the group.
The research into this presentation will also be beneficial for my dissertation.
Church Life #8 – Vacation
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Last week, our family went to Florida on vacation. But, we didn’t go alone. We went with another family from the church. We spent 9 days together. We traveled together in one vehicle. We spend a night with some friends of both families on the road. We stayed in rooms that were next door to one another.
While on vacation, we did almost everything together. We traveled on shuttle buses together. We went to amusement parks together. We ate together. We were together from early in the morning until late at night.
Why? Well, for one thing, we enjoy being with one another. We enjoy doing things together. We’re family. But, there’s another reason as well. We got to know one another even better by spending so much time with one another.
This last reason is also the reason that our church often spends Sundays at the beach together, or at the park together. This is the reason that we often spend weekend camping together. This is the reason that we spend time in one another’s homes.
The “fellowship” that we read about in Scripture cannot be lived in one or two hours on Sunday. It can’t be lived on through planned or scripted meetings. In fact, we define “fellowship” as “sharing life together” – and we try, as much as possible, to share all of life together. And, that includes vacations.
This is not the only time that we’ve vacationed with other people from the church. And, we’re not the only families from the church to vacation together. These occasions of sharing life – from everyday events to big events – is very important to the life of the church. These are discipling opportunities, service opportunities, teaching opportunities, caring opportunities, comforting opportunities. These are opportunities to learn more about one another (i.e. “consider one another”) so that we can then help one another grow in our individual and mutual relationships with Christ (i.e. “to stir up love and good works”).
So, our two families had a good time together in Florida. We visited Walt Disney World. But, this time together was much more important than riding roller coasters and watching shows. This time together was another opportunity to share life… the abundant life that Jesus Christ has given each of us… church life.
Everyday meal or Lord’s Supper?
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” asks a great question in his post “Which one is the Lord’s Supper?” He says:
We were running really late this morning and arrived just in time for the passing of the loaf and the little cups of grape juice. I was kind of relieved that we made it for the Lord’s Supper. Then after the morning gathering, we hung around as the church and had lunch, breaking bread together and being in joyous fellowship.
Which one was the Lord’s Supper as we see it in the Bible?
His short post and question reminded me of something that I had read recently in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson) in David Peterson’s chapter called “The Worship of the New Community.” He writes:
It might be argued that the reference to the meeting of the Christians in Troas ‘on the first day of the week’ in order to break bread is a pointer to a formal Sunday gathering for the purposes of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). But Paul’s discussion with them occupied their attention until after midnight and again after the meal, suggesting that it was a very unstructured and informal meeting. When Luke mentions that Paul finally broke bread (perhaps on behalf of everyone present), he adds ‘and when he had eaten, he engaged in much further conversation until dawn’ (v. 11). It is really quite artificial to suggest that the meal by which Paul satisfied himself after such a long time was somehow distinct from ‘the breaking of bread’. Since Christian meetings were largely held in the context of private homes, it is natural that they expressed their fellowship in terms of eating together.
In my judgement, therefore, ‘the breaking of bread’ in Acts cannot be taken to refer to a liturgical celebration distinct from the everyday meals that believers shared together. Such meals were doubtless ‘full of religious content because of the recollection of the table fellowship which Jesus had with his followers during his earthly ministry.’ (Behm, TDNT, III:730) The reality of Christian fellowship was expressed from the earliest times in the ordinary activity of eating together…
Eating together was a way of expressing the special relationship which believers had with one another in Christ and the special responsibility to one another involved in that relationship. These meals may well have been informal expressions of what was later more structured and organized. (pg 392-393)
So, to answer Arthur’s question (Which one was the Lord’s Supper as we see it in the Bible?), I would have to say, “I don’t know.”
In fact, I was talking with a brother about this last Sunday. He asked about celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly – and I’m definitely in favor of this. But, I then asked him a follow-up question, “Why not celebrate the Lord’s Supper daily? Or at every meal?” This seems to be what Peterson is alluding to. Every meal was considered the “Lord’s Supper” because of their fellowship and their focus on Jesus, his earthly ministry, and his continued ministry among them.
Spurgeon recognized something similar. In a sermon on Acts 2:42-47, he said, “[T]heir own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord’s Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord.”
I’ll be honest, my “common meals” are not at that point yet. But, I think that is the direction we should be heading. Wouldn’t it be great (perhaps even reminiscent of what we find in Scripture) if we ate every meal as the Lord’s Meal? Why don’t we?
Reminder: 21st Century Church Blogging/Essay Contest
If you haven’t started writing your entry for Energion Publication’s Blogging/Essay Contest, why not start today? The topic of the essay/blog post should be “What should a congregation following Jesus Christ in ministry look like?.” The deadline is November 2.
I’m one of the judges, and each entry will be judged in these 5 areas:
- Biblically rooted
- Historically aware
- Complete
- Clear and Concise
- Overall impression, including appearance, discussion generated, and anything one of the judges wants to include
Winners will receive free books and gift cards.
So, again, if you haven’t started writing your essay/post yet, why not start today? And, hop over to the publisher’s book site to let them know that you’ll be taking part.
Living the Christ Hymn of Philippians 2
I’m certain that my readers are familiar with the “Christ Hymn” of Philippians 2:
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11 ESV)
There have been volumes written about the Christological implications of this passage. Although Christ was God in his nature, he chose to become a man… not just a man, but a servant. He obeyed to the point of death. Because Jesus Christ gave himself, God the Father exalted him.
But, have you thought about the context of this great Christological passage? Let’s take it backwards. This is the sentence that introduces the hymn:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God… (Philippians 2:5-6a ESV)
Thus, Paul wrote this “Christ Hymn” to show his readers how they should think about themselves. Regardless of their position or importance, they were to consider themselves as servants. Jesus, then, among other things, serves as an example of the way the Philippians should think about themselves in relation to others.
Why was this important to Paul? Again, read the sentences before this:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves… (Philippians 2:1-5a… ESV)
Paul reminds his readers of Jesus’ example not just so they can meditate on the nature of Christ, nor just so they can think rightly about themselves, but so that they have an example and an impetus for treating others as more important than themselves… so that they can live in unity and harmony with one another… so that there is no rivalry or conceit between them.
In other words, the “Christ Hymn” gives us a model for living. We are to live among one another as servants. If even the greatest among us (Jesus Christ) could become a servant and become obedient to God unto death, surely we can also serve others, thinking of them as more significant than ourselves.
Just as God exalted Christ, we should be willing to humble ourselves and trust God to lift us up. As James wrote, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God… Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.” (James 4:6-11 ESV) Thus, one of the ways that we humble ourselves before the Lord is in the way we humble ourselves before other people.
For leaders – for those who are attempting to live their lives as an example for others in following Jesus – this should be doubly true. Leaders should be known more for humbly allowing others to have their way than for demanding to have their own way. Leaders should be known more for serving than for being served. I think Jesus said something about that also, and again offered himself as an example specifically for leaders. (Matthew 20:28)
Obviously, we are not Jesus Christ. Our service and our obedience does not carry the same meaning that his carried. However, his service and his obedience serve as an example to us in how to live with our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Christ Hymn of Philippians 2 is just one example of how a New Testament author used the life of Jesus as an example for us to follow, not just contemplate.