The ONE church that Jesus is building
I love Aussie John (from “caesura“). Love him! I wish I could afford to fly to Australia and spend a few days, or weeks, or months talking with him and learning from him. Since he started commenting on this blog a few years ago, he has made it a richer experience for myself and my readers.
Last weekend, he published a post called “Is it possible?” He begins by asking if what we call “Christianity” today is actually the greatest enemy of Christ. Strong words, yes, but perhaps strong words like this are necessary at times.
Towards the end of the post, he touches on a subject that is very dear to my heart: the church. He writes:
The Scriptures do reveal the characteristics of the churches of New Testament times, and the principles by which they functioned, yet we certainly do not have a clear, indelible blueprint according to which churches are to be set up or formed!
With all our sincere desires and efforts to have a “New Testament church”, is it possible that all we are actually achieving is the development of a myriad of other systems, or sects, with differing sets of legalistic rules, traditions, and regulations, sectarian bigotry, and remaining as spiritually lifeless as those we have left behind in the trash-can of our experience of searching for the church that suits our imaginings or tastes.
There is only ONE Church, the one Jesus is building, which is a dynamic living organism, from which rivers of living water flow. Its source is ONLY in the person of Jesus Christ. And built upon the cornerstone of His practice and completed work.
His church is totally dependent on Him through the working of His Holy Spirit in its members.
I’m often asked, “Why do you remain associated with a denomination (and I am) if you believe that denominations tend to divide the church (and I do believe that)?” Why? Because the people who are part of this denomination are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are, therefore, part of the church that Jesus is building.
I’m often asked, “Why do you continue to carry out some of the traditional rituals/practices if you believe that these are not necessary and may hinder spiritual growth?” Why? Because the people who have chosen to continue using these practices are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are, therefore, part of the church that Jesus is building.
I’m often asked, “Wouldn’t it be better to move away from this organization and/or denomination and start with a clean slate and meet in a manner that you think is more like the characteristics of the church that we see in the New Testament?” No, it is better to remain in fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ who are part of the church that Jesus is building.
No, the buildings and systems and hierarchies and programs and activities and rules and confessions and denominations are not the church. But, those people are your brothers and sisters in Christ, and they ARE the church.
There is one church. Separating from our brothers and sisters in Christ – even because we don’t agree with how they understand the church – is not the answer. The answer is living together in the fellowship of the Spirit and in the church that Jesus is building, in spite of our differences.
Thank you, Aussie John, for reminding us of this great truth in Jesus Christ!
Replay: Are you willing to be impacted by others?
In honor of my sixth blogiversary – which I celebrated a few days ago – I’m “replaying” the post “Willing to be impacted by others” which I first published six years ago during the first week of this blog. It’s a short post… I didn’t write as much back then. But, I think the point is very important. Yes, it’s important for us to be willing to get involved in the lives of other people. But, it’s just as important for us to allow other people to be involved in our lives.
—————————
Willing to be impacted by others
A commenter made the following statement at The Interrelational Church:
I think that the problem we encounter is that most people are readily willing to impact others lives, but are not as willing to be impacted by the lives of others.
Can true relationship exist between two people if one or the other refuses to be impacted – changed – by the other person? This is a question that the church must answer. Biblical fellowship is not “shake hands with three people around you.” Instead, biblical fellowship is sharing in each other’s lives… something that cannot happen in two hours on Sunday morning.
Vulnerability… that seems to be key here. Are we willing to allow other people to see us at our worst? Are we willing to allow the Spirit of God to work through other people to affect change in our lives? These two questions are related… Can we have fellowship with one another if we are not willing to impact the other person’s life, and to be impacted by the other person?
Wheat and Tares in Real Life
I love object lessons. I mean, I learn so much more when I see something real and tangible. I think most of us are like that. Perhaps that’s why Jesus seems to have pointing out things along his path and used them to teach his followers. Perhaps that’s why he would do something and tell others to follow his example.
Josh at “Called to Rebuild” talks about just this sort of object lesson in his post “What my job teaches me about the wheat and the tares.”
First, Josh tells us that he’s a landscaper, so he’s very familiar with both “wheat” and “tares.” In his story, flowers are the “wheat,” and weeds are the “tares.”
Josh has a some things to say about Jesus’ parable. For example, “the field” is not the church regardless of how many people use this parable in that way. Also, he reminds us that removing the “tares” was to be left up to the Lord, not to overzealous gardeners. (This reminds of Jude’s letter, and what he told his readers to do about all of those false teachers that he warned them about – see Jude 1:20-23.)
But, I really wanted to point out this part of Josh’s post:
Today while cleaning out that customer’s bed I accidentally pulled up a lily along with the weed I was trying to rid her landscape of. This is a very real possibility when pastors, teachers, and otherwise well-intentioned leaders try to do the Lord’s work of dividing the tares from the wheat. We’re just not very good at it. I’ve yet to meet the minister who constantly harps upon false teaching, watching out for wolves, etc., who doesn’t invariably pull up a few good plants along with the tares he may succeed in rooting out.
Ah, yes. I’ve probably been guilty of pulling up a few lilies myself. How much better it would have been if I had left things in the Lord’s hands. Of course, that would require love, patience, forgiveness, grace, etc. on my part…
Sometimes I can’t stand that guy Jesus
Josh at “Called to Rebuild” has written an excellent post called “The thing we evangelicals can’t stand about Jesus.”
Oh, I know what you’re thinking: “Evangelicals love Jesus!” Yes, of course. All of Jesus’ followers love him.
But, sometimes, when you’re reading through Scripture, don’t you wish he did something or said something a little differently… a little more plainly… a little more obvious… a little more “Jesus-like”?
Josh writes:
But He is unboxable at the same time. His self-presentation does not come in one pre-packaged form, and that is just what we evangelical Christians can’t stand about the Lord. We like it all cut-and-dry, methodical, systematic. We prefer a neatly defined approach to God and a bullet-pointed salvation: Follow these steps and you’re in. Then check these boxes everyday to make sure you stay in, or (for those with more Calvinistic tastes) to constantly re-verify that you were actually in to begin with. 😉 We may not care to admit it, but that is how we often view things.
What I love about the Lord Jesus is that He does not fit into the molds of men, even the Christian molds which we’ve been told Christ Himself invented. He is untameable by any of our standards. One moment He’s telling me that the person who is not with us is against us, but then just as I’m about to rise up and denounce my brother’s heresy, he comes back at me with “but he that is not against us is for us.”
Yes. Good stuff, Josh. And, of course, there’s a difference between following Jesus and following our tamed, boxed, predictable version of “Jesus.”
Or, as C.S. Lewis wrote (about Aslan), “He’s not a tame lion, but he’s good.”
No, Jesus is not a tame Savior or Lord, but he’s good. He may not do what we expect (and often he doesn’t), but we can trust him.
But, that “Jesus” who is predictable and tame… don’t trust that guy.
Jesus Meets with his Ministry Staff
I love a good story. Make it a story with a bit of sarcasm, and it becomes even better. Use the sarcasm/story to compare and contrast Jesus with modern church practices… and I’m hooked.
That’s what a guest author did recently over at “Internet Monk.” The story is called “Jesus Holds a Business Meeting.”
The author begins with a few “one liners”:
*Did Jesus always pray before his staff meetings?
*I’m guessing Jesus’ administrative assistant was tough to get past. I’ll bet she protected him well.
*And then Jesus said, “Go into the world and cast my vision.”
*Then Jesus sat down with his exec team & said “What are your measurable goals for this year?”
*Then Phillip said to the Ethiopian, “When you get back, find some big dog power brokers in your church & get them on board with your vision.”
*And then Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, because if you get the kids, their parents will follow.”
*Then Jesus said, “Do not worry about tomorrow, but stockpile canned goods because the world will end soon.”
*When they gathered in the upper room for supper Jesus said, “This is my brand, created for you. Share it where ever you may go.”
Following these, the author “recreates” a “staff meeting” between Jesus and some of his followers. It is interesting, entertaining, and perhaps eye-opening to put Jesus in this kind of meeting – the kind of meeting that happens week in and week out among many vocational ministers.
I encourage you to read the entire post.
Could you imagine Jesus holding this kind of staff meeting? Why does it seem so normal for church organizations today?
So, what would a “staff meeting” with Jesus actually look like?
Through whom do we expect God to work?
Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” has written an excellent post called “Where I Differ From Albert Mohler.” In the post, Eric is responding to this statement made by Mohler: “When asked about my hope for the future of the church, I point immediately to the corps of young ministers now entering and preparing for ministry.”
As Eric correctly points out, both he and Mohler are actually placing their hope in God. The question is, “Through whom do we expect God to work?”
After comparing and contrasting his views with Mohler’s, Eric concludes:
Peter makes it clear in his first epistle that God desires and expects his church to be a fully functioning priesthood. We are a body that needs all members functioning in order to be healthy. Our hope for the future of the church is a reformation of the entire body. All parts must embrace this.
This is one of the major disagreements within the church itself. Will the future depend mainly upon the few (the clergy) or everyone (the laity)? How the church in this country answers this question will have a huge impact upon its future.
Now, I’m guessing that Mohler would agree that God works through the entire church, not just certain leaders (i.e., clergy).
However, we must consistently and continuously make sure that we are listening to and paying attention to all of God’s children that he places in our lives, from the youngest to the oldest, from the newest follower to the most mature, from the ones with the least formal education to the ones with the most formal education, etc.
Are we giving different people opportunities to speak and to server, or are we expecting people to always listen to the same person (or group of leaders)? Do we defer to certain people because of office or position? Do we wait for leaders to initiate service opportunities or do we require (or expect) others to serve only within those programs set up by our church organization or leadership?
These kinds of attitudes and practices show whether or not we expect God to work through all of his children or only through certain ones (clergy, for example) – regardless of what we say we believe.
(See my posts “I did NOT expect God to do THAT” and “Why should we let THAT PERSON speak to the church?“)
(FYI, Arthur at “A Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” has also written about Eric’s post in “Where is our hope?“)
God composes the church so we can give greater honor to those who lack honor
Steve at “From the Pew” is writing about one of my favorite passages of Scripture in his post “Does Your Church Honor the Less Honorable?”
Of course, the passage in question is 1 Corinthians 12:20-26, especially verse 26 which I paraphrase in the title of this post: “God composes the church so we can give greater honor to those who lack honor.”
Here is part of Steve’s post:
Our natural tendency is to honor the strong, the acceptable, the ones with the bible degrees, the rich, the good looking, the refined, the ones who have the best jobs. And we tend to neglect, ignore or marginalize the weaker. But note what Paul says about the result of bestowing more honor upon the weaker: “…our less presentable members become much more presentable.” Much more presentable? If this is so, why not make it a point? When one is weaker and not presentable, being neglected sure is felt and a pattern of neglect can make weakness permanent. Who wouldn’t want a more presentable body?
The fact is, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:26, God has already given greater honor to those who lack honor. The only question that remains is this: are we going to follow God’s plan and ALSO give greater honor to those who lack honor.
If the church stopped honoring those who appear to be more “presentable” and started honoring those who appear to be less “presentable,” I think the church would be turned upside down… in a good way. And, in return, the world would be turned upside down… also in a good way.
The WD40 Church?
Everyone knows that if something is moving when it should not move, you use duct tape. And, if something does not move but it should, you use WD40.
A post by Ross at “Viral Jesus” called “Sand In the Gears” reminded me of this universal fact. In his post, Ross suggests that the way we meet together as the church, the way we view leadership among the church, the way we serve one another and others, etc. should be “frictionless.”
What does he mean by “frictionless”? He explains:
I was watching a Ted Talk the other day and was struck by Jennifer Pahlka’s use of the word “frictionless.” I thought, that’s it, we need an ecclesiology that is frictionless; one that doesn’t get in the way of Jesus’ agenda, which is the spread of His Kingdom. The way the church functioned and the way they did ministry in the New Testament was frictionless; it did not interfere with Jesus’ agenda, it was built exactly for that purpose. The old saying form follows function holds true in ecclesiology as well as building automobiles.
(There is much more to his post, so I would recommend that you read it.)
This is a good point. When we gather together, when we serve, as we lead one another, there will be a form or structure or organization to what we do. The question that we must ask ourselves is this: Is our form, structure, or organization fixed and rigid, or is it flexible (changeable) enough to allow Jesus to work as he chooses to build his church and expand his kingdom?
The problems are not with form, structure, or organization per se. The problems come about when form, structure, organization, etc. dictate how believers gather, serve, lead, etc. Form, structure, and organization can become rigid and thus a hindrance to the work of Jesus in and through us, much like rust on gears… (even with the best of intentions and motives).
New Interview Published on my Running Blog
One or two of you have expressed interest in the past in my running experiences and my running blog. Yesterday, I published an interview with ultra (> marathon) trail runner Christopher Freet (“Interview with an ultra trail runner“). If his name sounds familiar, it’s because I’ve mentioned Chris several times on this blog, and I’ve often linked to his site “The Amplified Life.”
In the interview, Chris talks about several running issues that relate directly to his life in Christ, including how he keeps running from consuming him and how running often builds bridges and relationships with others.
So, if you are the one or two interested in running, then jump over to my post “Interview with an ultra trail runner.” If you are not interested in running, then stay tuned here for my next post…
Is this the connection between love and membership?
I’ve written several posts on the topic of church membership as it is typically practiced today. Unfortunately, I think the concept of church membership tends to separate brothers and sisters in Christ from one another, and it tends to give us a false sense of unity when in fact we are quite divided.
Other authors have taken up this topic with much more eloquence (and often brevity) than me.
For example, Arthur at “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” recently published a short post called “A quick thought on ‘church membership’ and titles.” Without getting into the “titles” part of his post (which is good in itself), I simply want to point out two very short – but extremely important – sentences that Arthur uses to begin his post:
If you love one another, “membership” is completely unnecessary.
If you don’t love one another, “membership” won’t make a difference anyway.
Arthur said that he was paraphrasing this from something that he had read previously. Those are strong statements… and completely within the concepts of being “members together with one another” as we read in Scripture.
Yes, there is a strong connection between love and membership in the context of Scripture. And, I think Arthur’s statements (or whoever’s statements) above point out that “church membership” will not make up for a deficiency in love.
What do you think?