Studying “The Word of God”
Have you thought much about the phrase “the Word of God?” Jon at “Jon’s Journey” is starting just such a study in his post “Word Study on Word of God.”
Although in this post Jon is simply listing passages with the phrase “word of God,” he is suggesting that “Word of God” does not equate with “Scripture” or “Bible,” especially not as we may think of “Scripture” and “Bible” today.
It’s an interesting study, and one that many people would not tackle. But I’m glad that Jon has decided to study “the Word of God.”
What do you think? Does “Word of God” equal “Scripture” or “Bible” or something else?
Moving Away from Performance Mentality
Steve Burchett writes a very thought-provoking article called “From First Baptist Church to a House Church.” Steve is one of the elders of a church of house churches in Kansas City called Christ Fellowship. In the section below, he is describing the difference between meeting together for mutual edification and what is typically seen in church meetings:
[In their house church meetings] People are usually not hesitant to participate because no one is expected to “wow†the group with a great performance. A spirit of grace pervades our gatherings as we seek to be led by the Spirit.
The main weekly meeting of a building-based church is usually significantly choreographed. Whether it is a liturgical service or more contemporary, the order of the meeting is not only known in advance, but the hope is that each element will come off looking excellent—even professional. The expectations for a “great†service are often so high that the leadership feels defeated if the music didn’t noticeably move people, or the praying wasn’t eloquent, or the technology miscued, or the transitions between the various parts of the service were awkward. And, above all else, some pastors sit in their studies on Monday and contemplate quitting if their sermon the previous day seemed flat. Success is dependent on a select few who too often fail to live up to the desires of those who sit and spectate.
I am not adverse to just listening when appropriate. In First Corinthians 14, Paul is primarily pleading with the church to meet together “in an orderly manner†(v. 40). Part of orderliness is letting people take their turn (vv. 27-33) and learning from them (v.31), but participation by more than just a few is expected. The result is that a “performance mentality†is removed as the various members of the body come ready to serve and receive from the others.
I’ve been part of traditional church “worship services” and I’ve been part of participatory meetings for mutual edification. His descriptions parallel my experiences with both. What do you think?
Carpentry and Discipleship
My friend Danny from “learning…” has written about “Teaching/Discipling Jesus’ Way.” His thoughts are similar to my thoughts in my post this morning… probably because we talk about this very often. In fact, I’ve learned alot about discipleship by listening to Danny talk about learning carpentry from his father.
In his post, Danny talks a little about carpentry:
Why is it that this concept of teaching is so clear in some categories like carpentry or music but becomes a blur in categories like raising children or disciplining younger believers? For instance, a carpenter will tell his apprentice what a hammer is and what its use is. He will also use it in front of his apprentice. Eventually the apprentice will have an opportunity to use the hammer for himself. The carpenter will affirm his abilities and correct any improper use. Over time with practice the apprentice will become very proficient at the art of hammer swinging. He must then begin to teach another would be carpenter. This is quite common in the carpentry industry. The boss tells “joe carpenter†to train the new guy.
Read Danny’s post, and think about discipleship… How do we apprentice people to Jesus Christ?
God as Potter and Father
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written a very good article called “The Potter and His right over the clay.” The entire article is good, but I especially liked the end of the post where he begins talking about God as Father, and the view of modern fathers:
Perhaps we misunderstand the idea of God as Father and ourselves as adopted children. Perhaps we see the parent-child relationship more like modern Western culture and less like the relationship that the original Biblical audience would have understood. We see our parents as something we strive to outgrow. We turn 18 and become “independent†of our parents, striking out on our own to make a name for ourselves. I don’t think of myself as the son of Robert, I am a man in my own right. While I am not an expert on ancient culture by any means, I do understand that the relationship between fathers and sons (and husbands and wives) in ancient times was vastly different from how it is today. Family was far more important and honoring your father and mother didn’t mean a card on their birthday. The leveling of the parent-child relationship in Western civilization makes fathers into peers as we grow into adulthood and that is perhaps why when we speak of God as Father we see Him as far less than He is or conversely we see ourselves as far more than we are. We diminish God and elevate ourselves and that has been the problem with mankind since way back to a certain dispute over fruit from one particular tree.
God is God and we are not. That seems so simple and yet so hard to live with. It may be hard but it is so vital because the more we submit to God as the Creator, as the sovereign Potter and likewise recognize ourselves as merely clay in His hands, the closer we will walk with Him.
Yes, God is God and we are not. God is Father, and not like us or our fathers. He will always be our father. We will always be his children. We will never outgrow him.
Removing Stones
You won’t find many story-tellers better than “Strider” at “Tales from Middle Earth.” His latest story is called “Picking Up Stones.”
In this true story (with names changed), Strider tells of gospel proclamation through showing the “Jesus” film as well as personal interaction, and gospel demonstration through digging wells.
I love the way he weaves the theme of “picking up stones” through the story. There are the stones they must be removed in order to dig the well deep enough, but there are also spiritual stones that would keep people from believing the good news of Jesus Christ.
Could it be that removing the physical stones is helping to remove the spiritual stones? Read his story, and see what you think.
Does Jesus still send us out “Luke 10” style?
I recently wrote about getting together with some of my brothers in Christ… no, not last Sunday (“Gathering with the Church“), but last Friday (“Missionary Me and Missionary You“). I didn’t give many details about our discussion, but I was hoping that a couple of guys who were there would write about it.
And, now, Danny (who was there) who blogs at “learning…” wrote about our get together Friday night in a post called “Guy Day #2 (Missions/Church Planting).”
It was a very encouraging time, mainly because it was interesting to see several people talking about the same issue from their own perspective. It was obvious that many of us have been thinking about this.
So, read Danny’s post, and let him know what you think.
Content vs. Container
My previous post about “Caffeine Free Diet Coke” reminded me of a post that I wrote about 3 years ago called “Content vs. Container.” The point is a little different. In this post, I ask if we may be more in love with the container than with the content.
——————————————————————-
Brother Maynard at “Subversive Influence” has written an interesting post called “The Coca-Cola Packaging Problem“. In this short post, he explains how Coca-Cola changed from glass bottles, to aluminum cans, and finally to plastic bottles. Many prefer the taste of Coca-Cola in glass bottles as opposed to the taste from cans or plastic bottles. Bro. Maynard says:
The sad truth? The taste isn’t any different. I’m sure I could taste the difference, and maybe you could as well… but there genuinely isn’t one. Pour them both in a glass so that the experience of the drink becomes the same, and it will quickly be evident that there is, really and truly, no difference.
You see, the difference was not in the content, but in the container. Whether contained in glass bottles, aluminum cans, or plastic bottles, the content remained Coca-Cola. But people swear by, argue about, complain against, and fume about the difference in taste from one container to another container. Many would suggest that drinking Coca-Cola from a glass is not the same as drinking Coca-Cola from a glass bottle, because they prefer the experience of drinking from the bottle more than they prefer the Coca-Cola itself.
Let’s apply this to the church. Many of us prefer certain “containers” over other “containers”. In fact, we swear by, argue about, complain against, and fume about the difference between the existence of the church from one container or another container. On this blog, I’ve tried to remove any aspect of “containers” from my definition of the church. Because of this, many do not recognize the church as I describe it, because I do not include aspects of their favorite containers.
Could it be that we are enjoying the experience of our “containers” more than we are enjoying the benefits of being part of the church? Can we recognize the difference between the “container” and the “content” of the church? If the church was removed, but the “container” remained, would we notice the difference?
For the most part, these are rhetorical questions. They are helping me think about what it means to be part of God’s church – part of Christ’s body – part of the family gathered together by the Spirit. I hope to learn to love the content more than the container.
Evangelicalism = Caffeine Free Diet Coke
David Fitch at “Reclaiming the Mission” has written a very thought provoking article called “The Caffeine Free Diet Coke: A Metaphor for Evangelicalism in our Day?” Borrowing a metaphor that author Slavoj Zizek used to describe capitalism, Fitch asks us to think about Caffeine Free Diet Coke:
Zizek narrates how coca-cola was originally concocted as a medicine (originally known as a nerve tonic, stimulant and headache remedy). It was eventually sweetened and its strange taste was made more palatable. Soon it became a popular drink during prohibition that still possessed those medicinal qualities (it was deemed “refreshing†as well as the perfect “temperance drinkâ€). Over time, however, its sugar was replaced with sweetner, its caffeine extracted, and so today we are left with Caffeine-Free Diet Coke: a drink that does not fulfil any of the concrete needs of a drink. The two reasons why anyone would drink anything: it quenches thirst/provides nutrition and it tastes good, have in Zizek’s words “been suspended.â€
Today, Coke has become a drink that does not quench thirst, does not provide any stimulant and whose strange taste is not particularly satisfying. Nonetheless, it is the most consumed beverage in the world. It plays on the mysterious enjoyment we get out of consuming it as something to enjoy in surplus after we have already quenched our thirst. We drink Coke because “Coke is “itâ€â€ not because it satisfies anything material. In essence, all that remains of what was once Coke is a pure semblance, an artificial promise of a substance which never materialized. In Zizek’s words, we ‘drink nothing in the guise of something …†It is “in effect merely an envelope of a void.â€(22-23).
While Zizek compares caffeine free diet coke to capitalism, Fitch suggests that this can also be a metaphor for modern evangelicalism:
Just as our society drinks Coke as an “it,†as something that makes us feel good but has little substantial value as a drink, so we practice these beliefs as something we add on to our lives – not as something we need to live. It is something we do as an extra to our already busy lives that makes us feel better. Evangelical church, as symbolized in many ways by the large consumer mega churches, has become an “add-on,†“a semblance†of something which once meant something real. It is a surplus enjoyment we enjoy after we have secured all of our immediate needs.
Interestingly, a friend and I recently compared the modern church to a meal that consists only of desserts. We skip the meat, vegetables, and bread because we really like the dessert. Sometimes I wonder if we still know what the meat, vegetables, and bread are for the church…
(By the way, Fitch admits – and I agree – that this metaphor is a generalization and does not reflect the lives of all followers of Jesus Christ.)
(HT: Len)
Like a Charging Rhino
Dave Black’s latest essay “Rhino Evangelism” is an admonishment away from “impersonal approaches to the Gospel” and towards “loving” those we wish to hear the good news of Jesus Christ.
Is Dave against spontaneous or confrontational evangelism? Of course not, as long as the one proclaiming the gospel truly loves and cares for the other person/people. While the gospel will be a stumbling block and divisive, that doesn’t mean that the way we interact with people needs to be a stumbling block or divisive.
As Dave says:
The greatest danger of confrontational evangelism is that along with toughening our hides we harden our hearts. I urge all of us who share Jesus’ love with others to let our Christ-like actions speak as loud as our words. You lose nothing by protecting the dignity of non-believers. In fact, you may even gain a friend — and ultimately a brother or sister in Christ.
So, when you approach someone with the gospel, approach with the love of Christ, not like a charging rhino.
Maël’s study on ordination
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël and Cindy” has finished posting his study of ordination. The final post (“Ordination – Conclusion“) contains a summary as well as a link to all of the posts in this series, including two excurses concerning ministry and hierarchy.
I think Maël did a great job studying a non-scriptural topic. What do I mean? Well, the modern concept of ordination is not found in Scripture. But, related concepts are found. So, Maël studies Scriptures and offers a proposal as to how the church could return to a more scriptural form of commissioning.
Read the series. You may not agree with everything that Maël writes, but if it drives you back to Scripture to consider modern practices, isn’t that worth it?