Are you flexible?
Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” has written (yet another) excellent post. This one is called “House Church – Flexibility.”
The post is a continuation of Eric’s series on house churches (generally), although people who are part of any type of church should think seriously about these topics.
Consider flexibility, for example. Eric writes:
Simply put, the house church can do whatever needs to be done to both edify the body and reach out to the lost. There are no institutional or tradition-based restraints upon this flexibility. The church can and should do whatever needs to be done. If the members see in scripture that they need to believe and/or live differently about a specific issue, change can occur immediately.
We never know what needs are opportunities God will present us with. I’ve been part of churches that were so rigid and bogged down with bureaucracy, that by the time anyone could make a decision, the need or opportunity had passed.
However, when the decision making process is pushed down to each believer, then everyone (and each one) can choose to act on needs or opportunities in whichever way God allows them (or provides resources and gifts, etc).
Are you flexible? Can you change when people or needs or opportunities change? Can you change in time?
Quick to hear; slow to speak
As I’ve mentioned several times on this blog, I talk too much. I probably write too much here, and I know that I speak too much when I’m with other people.
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying that I should write (here) or talk (when I’m with other people). Instead, I recognize in myself a tendency to speak too much. That is, I tend to speak when I should listen.
Last weekend, God helped me with this problem. With all the weather changes recently (temperatures dropping and rising), my sinuses began to complain. By Sunday morning, when we were meeting with the church, I could barely talk.
So, while the church was reading Scripture about prayer and discussing prayer, I primarily had to shut up and listen. This was a good thing for me, and I hope that I can learn how to listen more even when I can (physically) talk.
I did talk Sunday. But, I had to be very careful and strategic about what I said. While it was a struggle for me to be silent (because of my tendency to talk), I enjoyed listening very much.
Empathizing together
According to one definition, “empathy” means “understanding and entering into another’s feelings.”
When trying to empathize with hundreds of needy and hurting people in the same place at the same time, it can become overwhelming. I’ve felt that sense of being overwhelmed many times, especially when working with the food pantry where 300-400 families come every other week for help. As I talk to the different people and hear their stories, it can become very overwhelming.
But, I’ve learned that empathy (even empathizing with many people at once) can be less overwhelming when there are others there empathizing with them as well. Last week at the food pantry, several friends joined together to talk with the people who needed the extra groceries. We all talked to people, heard their stories, prayed with them. Sometimes I talked to people alone; sometimes others were with me. But, either way, it was a great encouragement knowing that we were serving people together.
The stories we heard were difficult – heart-breaking. But, we were able to help one another bear these burdens.
Yes, sometimes empathizing with others can be overwhelming. But, when serving with a group, you can encourage one another even when you are overwhelmed.
Praying… beginning with the gospel
Yesterday morning, we talked about prayer. Actually, this is the third of five church meetings that have been dedicated to teaching /discussing about prayer.
Interestingly, in all the Scripture that was read, we didn’t find anything that said, “Close your eyes and bow your head.”
Anyway, there were alot of questions raised about prayer, and there were not alot of answers. But, it was still a great time discussing and helping one another with prayer.
The best part, to me, is when two or three people tied prayer back to the gospel. But, they didn’t just tie it back to the “death, burial, and resurrection” part of the gospel – and that is a very important part of the gospel. Instead, they tied it back to living the new life as a result of the gospel – walking in light, abiding in Christ, etc. This is all part of the gospel. We now have the Holy Spirit – as a result and part of the gospel – and the presence of the Holy Spirit completely changes what it means to pray.
We talked about praying continuously (without ceasing) and how specific times of prayer must be tied to that continuous life of prayer. We talked about how to pray for people who are going through specific life situations, with brothers and sisters bringing up people in their lives that they don’t know how to pray for.
It was a great time learning about, being challenged about, and practicing prayer.
(I think the coolest thing of all was when an 80-something year old lady said she learned more about prayer in the last three weeks than in all the sermons she’s ever heard.)
Embracing an idea
Ed Stetzer recently published a post called “You Can’t Love a City if You Don’t Know a City, Pt 1.”
While the post is primarily about the importance of research (you know, he does research), that’s not really what I want to talk about.
Instead, I want to talk about something he brings up in his first paragraph:
“The city” is an emerging phrase that seems to be embraced by a growing number of Christians. I intentionally say they are embracing the phrase, because I do not think that all are actually embracing the city, but rather they are embracing the idea of embracing the city.
I’ve seen people “embracing the idea” in several aspects of our walk with Christ. Some areas include loving people, caring for those in need, sharing the gospel, making disciples… the list could go on and on.
There are many, many Christians who love the “idea” of these things, but I’m not sure they have actually embraced loving, caring, sharing, or discipling.
What do you think? Is it possible to embrace the idea of something without embracing that thing itself? If so, how do we tell if we (or others) are actually embracing life with Christ, and not just the idea of life with Christ? What do we do if we’re only embracing the idea?
Isn’t life ministry?
The title of this post comes from an email that Wayne from “Lifestream Blog” posted in his article “The Myth of Full-Time Ministry.”
In the post, Wayne publishes an email that he received from a man who is planning to leave his position as a full-time missionary to Russia in which he was supported by a mission board. Why? To be a full-time missionary.
Doesn’t make sense? Well, maybe this snippet will help:
My wife and I will continue to visit Russia, but as business people, not missionaries. We are now setting up a business there, as an extension of our U.S. coaching business. This group of life and business coaches I work with want to help believers in very corrupt societies, like Russia, become coaches to help develop the character and even spiritual lives of business people there, but doing it through legitimate businesses, not fronts for ministry. After all, isn’t life ministry?
You see, the man is beginning to work as an executive coach, “helping people with their goals, character, relationships and balance in life.” He’s beginning to see how his “business” can be used by God. Thus, he plans to continue working as a full-time missionary in his business.
Yes, life is ministry, if we choose to live it for others instead of for ourselves. And, I believe, most Christians would find that God can and will use your “secular” business to build his kingdom… if you allow him to.
You see, “full-time ministry” is not a myth. The myth is that God only calls some of his children to full-time ministry.
Paul worked hard for those he had never met
When I meet people, and when God brings our lives together such that we spend alot of time together, it is easy for me to work hard on their behalf. It is easy for me to think about praying for them, encouraging them to trust God and live for him, or even serving them through needs that I learn about in their life.
But, what about people that I don’t know that well? What about people that I’ve never met but only heard about through other friends?
Do I work hard for them? Paul did:
For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you [the Colossians] and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:1-3 ESV)
Certainly, part of this “hard work” or “concern” (translated “struggle” above) included prayer. Paul tells us that he prayed for the Colossians even though he had never met them. (Colossians 1:3-8 and Colossians 1:9-12)
But, this particular passage (Colossians 2:1-3) is in the middle of a section in which Paul is talking about his own service for God on behalf of the gospel and the church. In fact, in the sentence just before this passage, Paul wrote, “For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” (Colossians 1:29 ESV)
I’m not there yet. I’m still learning to work hard for, toil for, be concerned about those who are in my life day in and day out. But, I want a heart that cares deeply even for those I have never met. I want to understand how the way I live my life affects even those people who I have never met.
How about you? Have you learned to care deeply for and to work hard for those whom you have never met?
Arthur and Bob
Arthur at “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” has a problem. You see, in his latest post “Be Like Bob,” Arthur describes a church leader named Bob who helps a church begin serve God and serve others for themselves.
According to Arthur, the church begins to take part in living the gospel (that’s what it is, by the way), that soon Bob doesn’t do everything anymore, and he can work and support his family and others without needing monetary support from the church.
So, what is Arthur’s problem? He wants to follow a guy like Bob, but he doesn’t find many “Bob’s” in the church today. (By the way, I like following people like Bob.)
Here is how Arthur describes Bob and his work among the church:
After a year or two [of Bob equipping and training others to serve], perhaps 4 or 5 of the men of the church have advanced in maturity and are regularly ministering to the needs of the believers in this local church. The church recognizes these men as elders and they begin to shoulder an increasing load of the ministry in the church, again both to “members†and to the community in addition to their secular jobs. As the newly recognized elders help to minister and equip in the local congregation, Bob has more time freed up and is able to work his regular job on a full-time basis. Bob no longer accepts a regular salary from the church. The $400 the church had been paying Bob while he was laboring in ministering and equipping is now freed up so the local church decides to donate all of this to local and global ministries engaged in spreading the Gospel and works of mercy. Bob spends more time at his “regular†job and thus more time among unbelievers than in his office at the church.
Read Arthur’s post… compare it to what you find in Scripture. (I can find Bob in Scripture.) Compare it to what you find in the church today.
Where are all the Bob’s?
Those pesky Bereans
Have you given much thought to the Bereans?
Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that this is going to be another one of those posts that encourages everyone to study Scripture for themselves in order to determine if something that a teacher or book or whatever says is true. That’s fine and good. But, that’s not the point of this post.
Have you given much thought to the Bereans, really… in their context?
What do I mean?
Well, here is the relevant passage:
The brothers [from Thessalonica] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12 ESV)
Now, remembering that these Bereans probably (almost definitely) did not have individual copies of the Scriptures (the Old Testament), when and where did they “examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things [the things that Paul and Silas taught] were so”?
Have you ever thought about that? If so, what do you think? If you haven’t thought about it before, think about it… then tell us what you think…
Is this relevant for us today as the church?
Monologue and Dialogue – examining Scripture
Two years ago, I wrote a two part series on the use of monologue (one person speaking) and dialogue (multiple people speaking) when the church meets. The first post was called “Monologue and Dialogue – defining the question.” I re-published that post yesterday. This is the second post, called “Monologue and Dialogue – examining Scripture.”
———————————————————————-
Monologue and Dialogue – examining Scripture
In this post, I hope to answer the following question: Do the authors of Scripture command or model either monologue, dialogue, a combination, or something else as a manner of speaking when believers meet together? The context is very important, because I am primarily interested in the meeting of the church.
In my previous post, “Monologue and Dialogue – defining the question“, I offered the following definitions:
Monologue: a long utterance by one person (especially one that prevents others from participating in the conversation)
Dialogue: a reciprocal conversation between two or more entities
(Please see my previous post for a fuller explanation of this discussion.)
Let’s begin by looking at a few passages of Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is speaking specifically about the church meeting. His entire argument centers on what is appropriate when the church comes together. In verse 29, he begins to give some instructions for prophecy:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (1 Corinthians 14:29-30 ESV)
So, while one person is prophesying (speaking a revelation from God), that person should stop speaking if another person desires to speak. Notice that Paul does not consider whether one person is more mature than another, or whether one person is a better speaker than the other, or whether one person is an elder/pastor while the other is not. In this case, at least, Paul does not limit the number of people speaking to only one person.
Similarly, notice that others weigh what is said by the prophets. So, besides the prophets, there are other people taking part in the meeting of the church.
I do not equate “prophecy” with teaching or preaching. However, in this passage, the instructions for “prophecy” appear to cover any type of speaking that is edifying to the church without interpretation, while the instructions for “tongues” appears to cover any type of speaking that is edifying to the church only with interpretation. Thus, it seems valid to apply these same instructions to teaching, exhortation, and other types of speaking when the church meets.
Second, notice this passage from Acts:
And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:8-9 ESV)
Luke says that Paul “reasoned” with the Jews in the synagogue, and he also “reasoned” with “the disciples” in the hall of Tyrannus. The word translated “reasoned” is also regularly translated “discussed” or “disputed”. For example, the same verb is translated “argued” in the following passage:
But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. (Mark 9:34 ESV)
Similarly, this same verb describes what Paul was doing until late at night in Troas:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked [reasoned, discussed] with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7 ESV)
This same verb is found later in verse 9. It seems that Paul’s “speech” or “message” may have included more than a monologue from Paul. The verb used at least opens up the possibility that others took part in Paul’s message.
So, at least in Ephesus (Acts 19) and Troas (Acts 20), Paul spoke to believers in such a way as to allow others to have input into what he was saying. This does not necessarily mean that Paul conducted a full-blown discussion, or that there was a question-and-answer session. However, it does seem to indicate that neither Paul, nor Luke, nor the others involved expected only Paul to speak.
Finally, in the book of Hebrews, the author instructs his readers:
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)
We shouldn’t miss the fact that the opposite of “neglect to meet together” is “encouraging one another”. There is an implied reciprocal (i.e. “one another”) aspect to our exhortations. In fact, the author had already told his readers to “encourage one another daily” (Hebrews 3:13). Just as all are responsible for “drawing near” (Hebrews 10:21) and “holding fast” (Hebrews 10:22), it would seem that all are responsible for “considering one another” by not neglecting to meet together, but by encouraging one another. Again, more than one person was involved in this “encouraging”.
There are other instances of believers meeting together and more than one person speaking (i.e., Acts 15:6-29, 15:30-33). There is also at least one instance of believers meeting together when only one person spoke (Acts 20:17-38). In this passage, Luke records that Paul “spoke” to the elders from Ephesus, using the standard work for “speak”, not the word discussed above, nor the word for “teach” or “preach”. Thus, in this passage at least, we may have an example of believers meeting together when only one person speaks.
So, there certainly may have been instances where only one person spoke during the meeting of the church. But, Scripture does not give us many of these examples. Instead, we primarily have examples of several people either speaking or having the option to speak when the church meets. Similarly, when teaching specifically about the church meeting, we are not instructed that only one person should speak, but that all should have that option. It seems that in general, even when one person primarily spoke during a meeting, and even when that person was an apostle like Paul, there was the possibility and probability that others would take part.
Thus, I would lean toward Scripture instructing us to use a combination of both monologue and dialogue when the church meets, with dialogue being default or primary.