Slow cooker or Microwave?
I love the latest article by Wayne Jacobsen from “Lifestream” called “Slow Cookin‘“, and not just because Wayne admits that his favorite restaurant serves Barbecue. In this article, Wayne reminds us that God’s work in us is not usually accomplished overnight, but is a long, slow process.
We don’t like that in our microwave, fast-food society, but that is the way God has always worked. He reminds us that God told Abraham that he would have a son 25 years before Isaac was born. Of course, Abraham was not patient either. He also decided to help God along with his plan.
But, listen carefully to what Wayne says:
See, we know that now. We didn’t know it years ago, but living now in the beauty of God’s unfolding work in our lives (and being in our 50s here probably doesn’t hurt) we know the best things in our life were produced in a slow-cooking process of God transforming us at a deeper level so that we could enjoy the fruit of what he wanted to produce in us. Whether it was setting us free in a broken area, drawing us closer to his presence, or connecting us to other brothers and sisters for rich rich fellowship and doing things in God together, none of those things happened quickly. But they did happen deeply and we’re now experiencing the riches of those things…
If you’re going to enjoy this life in him, that’s something you’re going to want him to teach you. Otherwise you’ll be counting days and fighting off frustration at every turn. Father knows everything about you and where you are today. He knows what he is doing in you to open the real doors into that life in him you’ve been praying about for years. He is doing his work in you to bring that to fruition. Unfortunately, it’s just probably going to take a whole lot longer than you’re thinking it will. But if your eyes are on him, rather than on the outcome, the delay won’t matter. In fact it will only make the final result so much more tasty and succulent.
Perhaps you’re happy with the kind of relationship that is built overnight. If not, trust God to develop you in his own way and in his own timing. It may take longer than you expect. But, the outcome is depth of relationship with God and with others – that is, Christ-likeness.
Advent Newbie
Brother Maynard at “Subversive Influence” is “Advent Blogging” this year. Scot McKnight at “Jesus Creed” is also blogging through Advent season. Also, the topic of this month’s synchroblog is “Redeeming the Season” – not necessarily the “Christmas” season, but something to do with December.
I’ve been thinking about Christmas, Advent, and the Incarnation over the last few days. To be honest, I don’t know much about Advent, so I guess I’m an Advent newbie (But, I’m not an “Advent virgin” like grace… sorry, grace, but your secret is out now.) When Margaret and I were first married, we did one of the Advent readings on Sunday morning. I honestly don’t remember anything about it. We read something from a slip of paper and lit a candle – it was obviously a very moving experience for us.
I know that Advent has to do with waiting… anticipating… expecting… hoping. I would love to examine these expectancy themes, and I’m thinking about examining them in four time frames: the time of the prophets, the time of Jesus, current time, and eschatologically – end times. It seems that hope and expectancy – could we say, “faith” – plays a huge role in all of those time frames. Perhaps studying Advent from those different perspectives could help us understand the incarnation and its implications today. Advent begins Sunday, so I will probably post Advent posts each of the four Advent Sundays: 12/2, 12/9, 12/16, and 12/23. The synchroblog “Redeeming the Season” will be 12/12. Then, I plan to publish a final post about the incarnation on Christmas Day.
Anyway, this is a different kind of post. I mainly wanted to begin thinking (out loud – to match my silent thinking) through some of these Advent and Incarnation issues. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Advent and my possible study.
Gospel and Monoepiscopacy in Ignatius
I am writing a paper on the gospel and monoepiscopacy in the seven letters of Ignatius. This is a synopsis of the paper which I presented a few days ago.
[UPDATE: “Monoepiscopacy” is the doctrine that there should be one bishop per city (church). This is usually combined in a hiearchical fashion with elders (presbyters) under the bishop, and deacons under the elders. (Thanks, Jonathan.)]
—————————————————————————
Leadership in early Christian writings
(107-117 AD) Ignatius to the Magnesians 6.1 – “Make every effort to do all things in the harmony of God, while the bishop presides over you in the place of God and the elders [preside over you] in the place of the assembly of the apostles and the deacons, who are dear, [preside over you]…”
(80-120 AD) Didache 15:1 – “Therefore, choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of God, men who are gentle, not lovers of money, dependable, and proven, for they also serve you with the service of prophets and teachers.” (The Didache does not mention elders, and bishops are only mentioned in the plural.)
(110-140 AD) Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3 – “Therefore, it is necessary to keep away from all these things, subjecting yourselves to the elders and to the deacons as to God and to Christ.” (Polycarp does not mention bishops, much less a single bishop. He does not call himself a bishop although Ignatius does call him by the title “bishop.”)
For Ignatius, it is important that believers stay in harmony with the single bishop of their area. From reading the Didache and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, Ignatius’ view is not the only view of leadership at the beginning of the second century. Why would Ignatius put so much emphasis on the monoepiscopacy?
Theological Sources in Ignatius’ Letters
Sometime between 107 and 117 AD, Ignatius, the Bishop of Smyrna, was arrested and taken to Rome for execution. On the way to Rome, he wrote seven letters: one each to the churches in Tralles, Magnesia, Ephesus, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and Rome, and one to Polycarp, the bishop of the church in Smyrna.
From the text of these seven letters, it is clear that Ignatius knows of the Old Testament Scriptures. He quotes the Old Testament three times: he quotes Proverbs 3:34 in Ign. Eph. 5.3, he quotes Proverbs 18:17 in Ign. Magn. 12, and he quotes Isaiah 52:5 in Ign. Trall. 8.2. He introduces the first two citations with the scriptural formulation, “It is written†(ge,graptai). These three citations are minimal compared to Old Testament citations in the writings of other apostolic fathers. Ignatius recognizes the Old Testament as an early, but incomplete witness to Jesus Christ.
Ignatius’ recognition of and use of the New Testament writings are even more difficult to determine. From a statement in Ign. Eph. 12.2, it is clear that Ignatius knows of more than one of Paul’s letters. Most scholars agree that there are allusions to some of these letters, especially 1 Corinthians. Similarly, there may be allusions to Matthew’s Gospel in Ignatius’ letters. However, he does not quote from the New Testament writings with the formula, “It is written.â€
For the most part, Ignatius seems to downplay written records and holds “the Gospel†as authoritative. For example, he says:
Moreover, I urge you to do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the gospel.†And when I said to them, “It is written,†they answered me, “That is precisely the question.†But for me, the “archives†are Jesus Christ, the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith which comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified. (in Ign. Phil. 8.2)
What does Ignatius mean by “the gospelâ€? For the most part, he identifies the gospel with the tradition handed down to him concerning the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He does not use the standard term for “traditionâ€, nor does he use the phrase “rule of faith.†However, his teaching concerning “the gospel†is similar to later references to the “rule of faith.†He uses the term “gospel†six times and the term “passion†fifteen times within his letters. At times, Ignatius uses “passion†to refer to “the gospel†as a whole and, at other times, “passion†only refers to Christ’s suffering or death. To a lesser extent, he refers to this tradition as “the teaching of Christ†and “stewardshipâ€.
Ignatius’ statements about “the gospel†are very similar to later creeds. He exhorts his readers to believe in various aspects of the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, unlike the creeds, his statements do not appear to be standardized, memorized, or verbatim. For example, consider these two statements (along with the above citation from Ign. Phil. 8.2):
But the Gospel possesses something transcendent: the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. (Ign. Phil. 9:2a)
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first able to suffer and then not able to suffer, even Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ign. Eph. 7.2)
Throughout the seven letters, there are ten instances of these “gospel†sayings; however, none of the ten are identical. If all of the elements of the ten gospel sayings are combined, none of the ten instances include all of the elements. From this data, it seems that even though the tradition of “the gospel†was very important to Ignatius, this was not a creedal-type tradition (yet). Instead of focusing on specific words to express the gospel, Ignatius was more interested in the content of the gospel. Thus, whether someone calls it suffering, passion, or crucifixion did not concern Ignatius. Instead, he was concerned that Christians believed in this gospel.
Ignatius did not turn to either Old Testament or New Testament Scriptures for his authority, although he did recognize the writings as being very important witnesses to the gospel. Similarly, he did not find authority in specific creedal statements that may have been handed down (as some suggest are found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Instead, for Ignatius, authority is found in the gospel: the events surrounded the life of Jesus Christ and the correct interpretation of those events.
The Unity of the Gospel
Importantly, even though “the gospel†was not a formulaic creed, there was still only one gospel for Ignatius. He states that there is one God, one faith, and one Eucharist. Based on this unity, Ignatius, encourages his readers to maintain harmony with God and with one another, and the proper way of maintaining harmony is found in the bishop. Since there is one God, and one gospel, there should be one bishop. He says:
Therefore, make every effort to take advantage of the one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for the unity of his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop along with the elders and the deacons, my fellow servants, in order that whatever you might do, you might do according to God. (Ign. Phil. 4:1)
For Ignatius, the monoepiscopacy was necessary to maintain the unity of the gospel. Since Ignatius found his authority in the gospel, he took this unity very seriously. Anyone who found himself outside of the teachings or the practices of the bishop also found himself outside of the gospel, because the one bishop maintained the unity of the one gospel. Living according to the bishop was the same as living according to the gospel and Jesus Christ.
However, Ignatius does not seem to envision a “ruling†bishop. While he instructed the believers in each city to submit themselves to the gospel as well as to the bishop, he did not instruct the bishops to take an authoritarian position over the Christians. In fact, this would be contrary to Ignatius’ understanding, since he finds the gospel to be the authority. Instead, Ignatius commends the bishops that he meets along the way for being humble and gentle.
Conclusion
For Ignatius, there is one gospel because there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. Within this one gospel he finds his authority. The gospel is not primarily written or recited verbatim. Instead, the gospel is the events and interpretation of the events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. From his concerns of protecting the one gospel, he derives a need for a single human leader (the one bishop) as well as the one Eucharist, the one altar, and the one meeting. Other writers from the same time period did not derive a monoepiscopacy from the one gospel.
During the first thousand years of the history of the church, Ignatius’ letters were arguably the most cited and most influential writings of any of the apostolic fathers. However, later church figures latched onto Ignatius’ derivatives (one bishop, one Eucharist, one altar, etc.) while losing his primary emphasis on the one gospel. For Ignatius, the monoepiscopacy should exist only as an extension of the one gospel in order to protect that gospel.
Ignatius, the church, and others
One of the seminars that I’m taking this semester is called Theological Foundations. As I mentioned in a post called “Theological Foundations“, I honestly did not expect to enjoy this seminar. But, I have enjoyed it immensely, and I’ve learned tremendously from the readings, from Dr. David Nelson, and from the other students.
As part of the requirements for this seminar, I’m writing a paper about Ignatius of Antioch. I had planned to write this paper about the monoepiscopacy in Ignatius’ letters – that is, the teaching that one bishop should rule each church, with presbyters/elders under him, and deacons under them. However, as I studied Ignatius, I decided to write about something different. I may share more about this later.
Since I have read Ignatius’ letters several times over the last few months, I thought I would share one of my favorite passages. This comes from his letter to the church in Ephesus:
Therefore, you are also all fellow travellers, God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, holiness-bearers (or saint-bearers), made beautiful according to all things by the commands of Jesus Christ… Pray without ceasing for other men. For there is hope of repentance in them that they may find God. Therefore, allow them to be taught even by your works. In response to their anger, you be gentle. In response to their boasting, you be humble. In response to their slanders, you offer prayers. In response to their error, you stand firm in the faith. In response to their wildness, you be docile, making every effort not to imitate them. Let us be found to be their brothers in graciousness. Then let us make every effort to imitate the Lord, to be the one who is the more wronged, who is the more cheated, who is the more rejected. (Ign. Eph. 9:2-10:3a)
While Ignatius spoke against false teaching among believers, he also encouraged followers of Jesus – as seen in this passage – to treat others with gentleness and humility, dealing with them prayerfully and with a steadfast faith. The idea of imitating the Lord by trying the be the one more wronged, cheated, and rejected is certainly different from what we normally hear today.
I think I can learn alot from Ignatius, especially when it comes to dealing with “others”, that is, people who are different from me. If I’m talking with or serving with people from other cultures, or with other theological stances, or either with unbelievers, I need to learn to respond in gentleness, humility, and prayer, imitating our Lord instead of imitating the ways of this world.
In the arms of your mercy I find rest
This morning, Margaret and I went to the wedding of two of my students. On the way to the wedding, our normal radio station (a classic rock station) was playing old pop instead of classic rock. I changed to another channel, a Christian music station.
The first song that we heard on the Christian music station was “East to West” by Casting Crowns. We like Casting Crowns, and Margaret had heard this song, but I had not. Several times in the song, they sing, “In the arms of your mercy I find rest”. I started thinking about this. And Margaret and I talked about it for a few minutes.
Isn’t it wonderful that we can rest in God’s mercy? To me, this means that nothing will separate me from his love, and I do not have to do anything to earn his love. I do not have to worry about disappointing God. When I sin, he loves me. When I fail, he loves me.
Because of his mercy, I can rest. I do not have to worry about doing enough, or working enough, or believing enough, or going enough, or talking enough. I can rest because I know that God loves me and has done everything necessary.
However, even though I rest in God’s mercy in reality, I don’t always live as if I can rest in God’s mercy. Many days I find myself doing things to earn God’s love and mercy. Many times I convince myself that I need to do more so that God will be proud of me and so that I won’t make him ashamed of me. I end up working to earn God’s mercy, instead of resting in God’s mercy. Thankfully, God shows himself faithful, and reminds me that I can rest in him.
What does it mean to you to rest in God’s mercy? Do you ever find yourself trying to work to earn God’s mercy instead of resting in God’s mercy?
But I gave at church
This post is part of a synchroblog concerning “Money and the Church”. I recently wrote a blog series on paying a salary to elders/pastors ,which would also go along with this synchroblog (see my post “Summary – Should elders/pastors be paid a salary?” for a summary of my argument and links to the argument details). However, for this synchroblog, I decided to go in a different direction. For this post I want to think about this question: How does a church – that is a group of believers – balance the corporate and individual responsibility of being good stewards of money? Also, I want to share an idea that some in the church came up with as a way to balance corporate and individual responsibilities of stewardship.
First, stewardship is a recognition that we – as God’s people – do not actually own anything that we possess. Instead, God is the owner, and we are stewards. Thus, we are responsible for using everything that we have in a manner worthy of and pleasing to God.
Second, stewardship is primarily a personal responsibility, as are other aspects of obedience. I cannot obey God for someone else, and someone else cannot obey God on my behalf. In the same way, I cannot be a steward of something that God has given to someone else, and other people are not responsible for stewarding those things that God has given to me. Of course, if someone gives me something – money, property, time, etc. – it is then my responsibility to be a good steward of those things that have been given to me.
Finally, if a group of people agree together to certain financial commitments, then they are corporately responsible – that is, responsible together – to meet those commitments. This is where most churches find themselves. They have corporate responsibilities to pay for buildings and other capital expenses, literature, salaries, benefits, etc. These types of expenses are rarely questioned and are usually considered to be necessary for a church – that is, a group of believers. In fact, many believers are taught that giving toward these corporate commitments is the way or at least the primary way of fulfilling financial stewardship.
However, there is a danger when considering corporate commitments. All corporate commitments are not biblical responsibilities. In fact, many church organizations have attempted to take personal responsibilities away from individuals and place them under the umbrella of the organization. Thus, many church organizations now take on benevolence and hospitality and service, such that the organization feels that the individual is obedient to God when the individual gives to the church organization. The church organization becomes a service middleman, obeying God as a representative of the individual. Is this a valid function of a church? If a person gives all of her money to a church organization is she actually obeying God?
As we examine the issues of corporate and personal responsibilities, let’s recognize that Scripture rarely – if ever – deals with the corporate aspect of stewardship. We only see instances in Scripture where people pool their money or possessions together for specific purposes, such as helping those who are in need (Acts 4:34-35; 1 Cor 16:1-3; etc.) or those who are travelling away from home to spread the gospel (Phil 4:14-17). We do not see instances of churches pooling together their money for their own benefit, in order to store the money in a bank account, or in order to provide for future needs.
However, we do see several instances where individuals are given the responsibility to personally provide for the needs of others. Here are a couple of passages in particular:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:14-17 ESV)
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:16-18 ESV)
There are other passages which deal with giving, doing charitable deeds, showing mercy, offering hospitality, providing food and drink – all of these are the personal responsibility of each follower of Jesus Christ. No one can obey for someone else. No group or church can obey on behalf of the individual Christian.
In many churches and in the minds of many Christians, the biblical concept of “use your money to provide for the needs of those around you” has been replaced with the concept of “put all of your money in the offering plate and let us decide how best to use it”. However, we should understand that putting all of our money into an offering plate is not a biblical teaching, and neither does it remove the responsibility from the individual for taking care of the needs of people that God brings into their lives.
I think that James might deal with this concept as follows: “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘I put all of my money in the offering plate. Go talk to the benevolence committee and see if you are worthy of help,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” Perhaps, John would respond to this concept as follow: “But if anyone has the world’s goods and puts it all in an offering plate without considering his brother in need, and so closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?”
Recently, our church struggled with the balance between the corporate responsibilities and individual responsibilities of stewardship. The church had selected a few people to discuss these ideas and suggest a budget to help us meet corporate responsibilities as well as provide individuals with the means of meeting their personal stewardship responsibilities.
The group came up with a budget that was very different from anything that I have seen before – although, perhaps others have done something similar. I don’t think any of the people came into their meetings with this budget in mind. In fact, I know there were some differences of opinion in how to handle the money and the budget. I was not part of this group, but I was excited to see these people work together to come up with this concept.
According to this new budget – which was just approved by the church – we will take care of corporate responsibilities through our corporate offering. They removed everything from the budget that should be considered a personal responsibility. Since we have very little overhead and very few corporate expenses, the budget came to under $40 per person per month. This is the extent of our budget. Everyone knows that this amount is all that they are responsible for giving toward the “corporate budget”.
However, we all also understand that this is not the extent of our stewardship. We are individually responsible for giving to people and ministries as God leads us. Some of us are involved in ministries to children, and it makes sense that God would want them to use their money in those ministries. Others are involved in ministries overseas, and again it would make sense that God would want them to use their money in those endeavors. Some are involved in evangelistic or community service projects, and again it makes sense that God would want these people to use the money that he gives them to support these endeavors.
We also know that there will be times when there are special needs that we will want to contribute to together – much like the offering for the Jerusalem church during the famine, and the offering for Paul during his travels. When we know of these needs, we will take up contributions specifically to meet these needs, much like we see the church doing in Scripture.
I’m not putting this forward as the only possible option for how the church should deal with money. I’m not even saying that this is a good example. However, this is the way that we have decided to deal with these stewardship issues. I am excited that we are recognizing that we have both corporate and individual responsibilities when it comes to stewardship, and that according to Scripture, the individual responsibilities outweigh the corporate. We are moving away from a model where people feel they are being obedient stewards by simply placing a check in an offering plate. Now, we must consider the needs of people that God brings into our lives and how he would want us to meet those needs both individually and corporately.
————————————————————————
The November Synchroblog is on the topic “Money and the Church”. Take the time to check out the contributions of the other bloggers who are taking part in this synchroblog:
The Check That Controls at Igneous Quill
Pushing The Camel: Why there might be more rich people in Heaven than in your local Church at Fernando’s desk
Sally Coleman at Eternal Echoes
Lord, Won’t You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz at Hello Said Jenelle
Zaque at Johnny Beloved
Walking with the Camels at Calacirian
Greed and Bitterness: Why Nobody’s Got it Right About Money and The Church at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Wealth Amidst Powers at Theocity
Money and the Church: A Fulltime Story at The Pursuit
But I Gave at Church at The Assembling of the Church
Moving Out of Jesus Neighborhood at Be the Revolution
Money and the Church: why the big fuss? at Mike’s Musings
Coffee Hour Morality at One Hand Clapping
Bling Bling in the Holy of Holies at In Reba’s World
Magazinial Outreach at Decompressing Faith
Money’s too tight to mention at Out of the Cocoon
Bullshit at The Agent B Files
The Bourgeois Elephant in the Missional/Emergent Living Room at Headspace
When the Church Gives at Payneful Memories
Who, or What, Do You Worship at Charis Shalom
Greed at Hollow Again
Silver and Gold Have We – Oops! at Subversive Influence
Tithe Schmithe at Discombobula
Autumn Leaves and the Church
I love autumn. I love it when the weather starts getting cooler, and I can start wearing boots and long sleeve shirts and sweaters and sweatshirts. I love watching college football on Saturday mornings (yes, I know that college football now starts during the summer, but I like it best during the fall). I love having a fire in the fireplace, especially at night when the only light comes from the fire itself.
But, most of all, I love watching the leaves change colors. Here in North Carolina, autumn is especially beautiful. My drive to work each morning and back home each afternoon is very calming and soothing and a joy for the eyes. Yesterday morning, as I was driving to work, I saw a patch of three or four trees, all of which had bright yellow leaves. It seemed as if the sun was shining only on those trees, but in reality, the yellow leaves simply stood out vividly among the browns, reds, and greens of the surrounding trees. From my office window at work, I can look out in the distance and see a large tree with bright orange leaves that stands out clearly against the trees behind it.
As I have been thinking about these leaves, I realize that it is not simply the vividness of the individual colors that makes the scene so beautifully. I mean, yes, the yellow leaves beside the road, or the orange leaves out the window, or the bright red leaves – another favorite – of some trees stand out. But, these colors only stand out because they are surrounded by other colors – colors that may not be as bright, but are important nonetheless. In fact, I think these other leaves actually make the vivid leaves more beautiful.
Consider, for instance, seeing a patch of trees all of which have the same color leaves, with no other colors around them. Perhaps all the leaves are yellow, all the leaves are red, all the leaves are orange. Would this be beautiful? Yes, but there would be something missing. There is beauty in the vivid colors themselves, but that beauty is enhanced by the contrast of the leaves of other colors, much as the sound of one instrument is enhanced when it is part of an orchestra.
As I was thinking about autumn colors, I was reminded how this resembles the church. The church is made of a myriad of people with different perspectives, different emphases, different voices, different gifts, but all from God. In fact, God places the people together in the manner that pleases him. If God has placed us together, then we should take the time to observe and listen to each other.
There are certain voices that I like to hear. There are certain types of service that I like to participate in. There are certain emphases and preferences that I share. But, if I only listen to and respond to those who share my concerns and preferences and likes, then I am missing the beauty of the church – much like I would miss the beauty of the autumn colors if all of the trees of the forest had yellow leaves.
There are some within the church who prefer to focus on evangelism – I need to hear from these people. There are others within the church who would rather emphasize the sovereignty of God – I need to hear their voices also. Some other people in the church usually discuss serving others – I need to hear what they have to say. Still others within the church consistently speak of community – I need to hear them.
Like a forest in autumn with a myriad of colors, or an orchestra with many different instruments all playing together, God has placed people in my life and in your life because we need to hear them and they need to hear us. We need one another. Take the time today to notice the many different colors in the trees around you. Then ask yourself, “Am I listening to the different voices, or am I only listening to the voices who are saying the same things that I say?”
What did they think about Jesus?
A friend at “amateur” published a post called “Looking Back“. She says:
It’s hard for those of us with many years of hindsight [believing that Jesus is God the Son] to see what a truly hard-to-take-in thing Jesus’ appearance was. Surely He stood out, being the only sinless person around; people would know there was something different about Him, but with a human’s inability to recognize Truth — even those of us after His death who have the Holy Spirit to nudge us with it have problems sometimes seeing it — it still would have taken faith to believe He was God.
I’m not sure that this was her intention, but this statement made me wonder what the people of his day would have thought about Jesus.
We know they thought he was a drunkard and a glutton because he hung out at the homes of “sinners”. We know they thought he was a blasphemer because he considered himself to be the son of God. We know they thought he would be an earthly king because he talked about the kingdom. What else would the people of his day have thought about Jesus?
Would they have thought he was a push-over because of the way that he loved people unconditionally?
Would they have thought he was a little “touched in the head” (crazy?) because he was homeless and wandered around from place to place?
Would they have thought he was brash because he did not try to hide what he was feeling from people and actually said what he thought?
Would they have thought he was an adulterer because so many women stayed around him?
Would they have thought he was insolent or cynical because he questioned the accepted religious traditions?
Would they have thought he was not serious enough because he spent time with children?
Would they have thought he was simple minded because he told easy-to-understand stories and did not pontificate on deep theological truths?
Would they have thought he was a terrible leader because of the followers that he chose?
Would they have thought he was wrong because he died?
Servantesses
This post is about four young ladies who greatly encouraged me last night with their servant leadership.
The first young lady is my ten year old daughter, Miranda. Miranda loves to take care of children – yes, I know that she is only ten years old. She can’t wait until she is a little older so that she can baby sit. A few weeks ago, we were talking to Miranda about ways that she could serve people. She said that she would love to baby sit for some parents so that the parents could have a night out. But, she said that she knew that she was not old enough yet to baby sit on her own. She said that maybe one of the single ladies that we knew would be interested in helping her keep the children so the parents could have a date night.
The second young lady is my wife Margaret. When Miranda said that she wanted to baby sit several children, Margaret volunteered our home and agreed to host whatever Miranda and others could come up with. She knew that it would mean more work for her – cleaning the house, buying and preparing snacks, coordinating everything with the parents – but she wanted to help Miranda serve, so she gave of herself and her time. This is the kind of example that Miranda needs as she grows into a young lady. Margaret is one of the most giving and caring people that I know, and I’m so grateful to God that she is my wife.
Another young lady is a new friend of ours named Katie. We spoke to Katie just a few days after we talked to Miranda about serving others. Katie told us that she wanted to serve others by keeping some children so that their parents could have a break – a “Parents Night Out”, if you will. Yes, our jaws dropped to the floor, since this was exactly what Miranda had wanted to do. We mentioned this to Katie, and she said she would love to work with Miranda. This was very exciting for us, because Katie would not only be helping Miranda serve others, she would also be discipling Miranda in the process. We agreed to host the children at our house, Katie picked a date, and we emailed the church to let them know.
The final young lady is a friend that we have known for a few years named Patti. While parents were contacting us to let us know that they would bring their children for Parents Night Out, and that they were appreciative of this opportunity, Patti called to volunteer to help take care of the children. Again, our jaws dropped to the floor! We love spending time with Patti, and here was another chance to spend time with her, and for Miranda and the other children to see her servant’s heart as she volunteered to help. (By the way, we had not asked for volunteers, so we were so grateful to God for giving Patti this idea, and for her willingness to act on it.)
So, here are four young ladies – all servants – volunteering to give up their time to help parents and children at the same time. These are the kind of examples that I need in my life, and I thank God for all four of them. (If you would like to see these servantesses in action, we’ve posted some pictures on our family blog is a post called “Parents Night Out“.)
Listening to friends…
I’ve really enjoyed some of the conversations that I’ve had recently. God has taught me alot through a few friends. Some of these conversation have spilled over into the blogosphere, others have been inspired by blog posts, and others have had nothing at all to do with blogging, believe it or not. I can’t mention everyone by name here, since some of the converstaions were private, but I’d like to point out a few public conversations.
I’ve linked to Dan at “hollowagain” before, especially his comics. I’m excited about some of the interaction that Dan has had with unbelievers due to his comics. This week, Dan published several blog posts that are worthy of mention. In his post “if there is no fruit does the tree exist?” Dan discusses the dangers of a hypocritical lifestyle in relationship to evangelism. He says:
but then i thought some more about it. what is the christian message? basically just that through the death of jesus peoples hearts can be changed. dead hearts can become alive hearts. if this is the message then i think that the argument that christians are hypocrites is extremely relevant to the discussion. christians are supposed to be the ones with the living hearts, the good hearts that god changed and god is working inside of. if people claim to have one of those kinds of hearts and then act like jerks one might wonder if that persons heart is really any different. if the majority of people you run into who call themselves christians are the same way (jerks) then you might start wondering if this whole changing peoples hearts thing is even real at all.
i guess this all might mean that sharing the gospel is more than just telling people some story. if a hypocritical lifestyle shows that jesus might not be real than an honest lifestyle might show that jesus is real. maybe i shouldnt get mad at lost people anymore and i should start trying to be less of a jerk and a hypocrite.
Dan follows this post with another one called “a perfect failure” where he concludes that the opposite of hypocrisy is not perfection but honesty and authenticity:
it seems like the gospel is all about how we arent perfect and jesus is and how his perfection and love makes it so we can have a relationship with him. maybe it would be better if i started just being more honest with people about who i am and stopped trying to hide my screwed up self by judging and condemning other people for being gay or liberal or prochoice or whatever else makes me feel like im better than them.
Another friend, Drew, from “a beautiful collision“, has been discussing the meeting of the church and disagreeing with the church. In his post “When we disagree” he honestly struggles with questions about staying with a group of believers with whom he disagrees. He says:
I’ve wondered for some time if these disagreements are things that should send me looking for a different group to meet with. Right now, I don’t think so. It seems to me that what Christ desires most from His Church is mutual edification, Kingdom activity, and unity. I can’t see myself leaving and then saying that I have unity with those believers. Yet, I feel as though many of that group would look at me as dishonest/deceptive for staying when we don’t agree about so many things (This applies at the denominational level as well).
I agree with Drew. Unity among believers is extremely important, and it must be built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, not our own particular beliefs about Jesus.
While these conversations may seem separate, they are actually similar. When the church gathers together, and when we strive to build up one another toward maturity, we will not be perfect – none of us. Therefore, we will make mistakes, and we will disagree. If we expect other people to be perfect, then we will be disappointed. If we pretend that we are perfect, then we are hypocrites. If we come together expecting God to work through other believers, even when we disagree with them on certain points, then we will be amazed at what God does. We will find that God can use those with whom we disagree and those who are not perfect to mature us in Christ Jesus.
Perhaps the meeting will not go exactly as we planned, but since we’re not perfect, why do we think our plan is right? Perhaps the people will not say exactly what we would have said, but since we’re not perfect, why do we think that what we would say would be right? We may find that God is present and active in the midst of our imperfection and while maintaining our unity in spire of differences. We may find that God truly is able to use jars of clay.
This kind of meeting takes faith. It takes the faith to trust God to work in spite of us. I’ve been encouraged this week by listening to friends who are not perfect, who do not always say things the way that I would say them, and with whom I do not always agree. But, then, I hope that they have learned from me as well, in spite of the fact that I am not perfect, I do not always say things the way they would say them, and they do not always agree with me.