If you can’t spend the night don’t bother going
Strider, at “Tales from Middle Earth,” is one of the best storytellers that I read. And, as a bonus, his stories are true. In his latest post called “When the Road is too Long,” he tells the story of traveling to a wedding – or, rather, attempting to travel to a wedding.
When he realized that he was not going to get to the wedding in time, he and his family stay with some friends in a nearby village. It was only after all of the other visitors left, and his family remained past normal “visiting” hours that the host opened up and was interested in hearing the gospel.
This is what Strider concludes:
We have a saying on our team that says that if you can’t spend the night don’t bother going. I don’t always live by this but this story reminds me of the truth of it. When we spend the night with people we stay past the polite guest phase and hang around for the deep conversation phase of the day.
It is important to hang around for the deep conversation phase of they day. I’ve found that this can happen earlier, but only after spending time and getting to know the person.
Yes, I know that many people are open to the gospel at any time, and we should be ready and willing to share anytime. However, for those who are not immediately ready, it often takes time, patience, and love in order to earn a right to be heard.
Are we willing to take the time?
Facebook Stati Ecclesiae
When I update my Facebook statuses (stati?), they usually fall under one of four categories:
1. Links to my blog posts.
2. Something humorous.
3. Things that I’m doing or have done.
4. Something about the church.
Sometimes, my status updates about the church lead to good discussions. Here are some Facebook statuses that I’ve written recently about the church:
—————————————————————————————————
1. “Members expected. Visitors welcome.” (from a sign in front of a church building) huh? If you’re getting together with us only because you think its expected of you, then you may as well stay home.
—————————————————————————————————
2. (From a discussion about discipleship…) “The church is full of Ethiopian eunuchs.” What do you think that statement means? Do you agree or disagree?
—————————————————————————————————
3. Quote from SYTYCD (“So You Think You Can Dance”) that every believer should be able to say about the church: “Everyone in my family has affected who I am in one way or another.”
—————————————————————————————————
4. “Exhort one another daily”… but today is Tuesday… What if I only see them on Sunday?
—————————————————————————————————
5. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” hmmmm… which one will I demonstrate today?
—————————————————————————————————
6. Both the priest and the Levite thought they loved the injured man, but only the Samaritan truly loved him.
—————————————————————————————————
7. Wednesday night worship service and church activities = milking goats for our friends while they are out of town.
—————————————————————————————————
8. Are you a child of God? Then also consider yourself an ordained minister and missionary. Now, live accordingly.
—————————————————————————————————
9. If you can’t replace the word “ministry” with the word “service”, then you’re not using the word “ministry” in the same sense as Scripture.
—————————————————————————————————
10. Get out of “the ministry” and start ministering.
—————————————————————————————————
11. Today, the church agreed that there will be coffee shops in the new heavens and new earth. However, we quickly divided concerning the style / brand / roast of coffee that would be served.
—————————————————————————————————
12. The Lord’s Supper (intended to demonstrate our unity around a common table, among other things) is too often used to divide.
—————————————————————————————————
13. If the church in my house meets the church in your house while we’re all in the park, do we become the church in the park, or two churches in the park?
—————————————————————————————————
14. Discipleship requires sharing life. If you are preaching/teaching but not sharing your life, then you are not making disciples.
—————————————————————————————————
15. Spiritual maturity occurs primarily in community… and community can’t happen one or two days a week.
—————————————————————————————————
Well, there you have it… fifteen Facebook status updates… numbered for your convenience. Feel free to comment on any or all and to add your own thoughts.
“To be relevant and beneficial, the text must be understood – and then applied”
The title of this post is a quote from Dave Black’s blog (Friday, November 13 at 8:02 a.m.). Here is the quote in context:
In the course of teaching Greek (both classical and Koine) the past 34 years I’ve found that translating Greek into English is a very different enterprise from understanding what the text means. A translation may at times sound very erudite, but to be relevant and beneficial the text must be understood — and then applied. One of my greatest challenges as a teacher has been to get my students to see the need to give up theological jargon when translating from Greek into English. If we can use simpler and clearer words to express the truths of Scripture, then by all means let’s do so. Why, for example, should we render Rom. 12:11 “distribute to the needs of the saints” when “share what you have with God’s people who are in need” will do the job and is much clearer? Or why should we insist that the purpose of pastor-teachers is “to equip the saints for the work of the ministry” when we can say “to prepare God’s people for works of service”? If all we do is parrot the standard English versions while translating from English to Greek, I’m afraid we’ll end up with nothing but another secret religious society. If insisting on the use of theological jargon actually helped people to become more obedient to the Word of God, I’d say do it at all costs. But is there any evidence that it does?
To admit this inadequacy honestly can be very intimidating to the teacher. It means, in fact, that we can no longer be content to offer courses in Greek exegesis that fail to include serious self-examination. Somehow we need to move our students from a mere grammatical approach to the text to one that involves them deeply in the Christian pilgrimage. What is the purpose of exegeting Paul’s Christ-hymn in Phil. 2:5-11 if we, the translators, are not willing to model the upside-down kingdom of God in our own lives? Strangely, I am discovering that more and more of my students are asking the “so what” question of everything they are learning. And I am more and more convinced that the joy of living the Gospel in our lives is what should drive the exegetical process in the first place. I may be wrong, but when we talk about “seminary education,” I think we are talking about training students for the adventure of living the Christian life in the real world by doing what is important in God’s eyes. I have found, to my horror, that it is far easier to simply talk about the text than to seek to live it out. Look at the New Testament writers like Paul or John who wrote and taught in the crucible of actual missionary experience. They were willing to follow the Lord Jesus even at the risk of death. They didn’t just talk about the truth, they lived it.
If Paul says I am to share what I have with God’s people who are in need, I’d better be doing just that. This pedagogical insight may belong in a fortune cookie, but it’s the best I can do.
I thought this post went along well with my series from this week: “Listening to the Experts,” “Listening to Theological Experts,” and “Listening to One Another.”
The work of disciple-making must move beyond education and telling what Scripture means in order to include the more necessary part: showing what it means… living the Scriptures. We can be highly educated and just as highly disobedient.
What did they think about Jesus?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “What did they think about Jesus?” Have you ever stopped to think about what people thought about Jesus? Or, have you asked yourself what people today would say about him if Jesus walked among us physically today? Should they be thinking and saying the same things about us?
——————————————-
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?
Listening to One Another
In my previous posts “Listening to Experts” and “Listening to Theological Experts,” I suggested that listening only to those who have been educated in theology creates a invalid distinction between those “in the know” and regular people. Instead of relying on “interpretation by experts,” the church should be involved in a community hermeneutic – that is, the whole church should be involved in interpreting Scripture.
Now, some may be concerned that when I talk about a “community hermeneutic” I mean that anything goes, any view is valid, or any interpretation is considered true or beneficial. This is not a community hermeneutic at all.
Instead, a “community hermeneutic” recognizes a few aspects of life as a church that is often missing when the church relies on an “expert hermeneutic.”
A “community hermeneutic” recognizes that knowledge is not the goal of studying Scripture. Even if a person or group of people know exactly what a passage means, that does not indicate that the Scripture is also correctly interpreted. Why? Because we were not given Scripture to tell us what to know, but to tell us what to live.
Now, some may suggest that we cannot live without first knowing. Fine. However, we cannot stop with knowing either. Our goal must be to live in accordance to what reveals to us, including what he reveals to us through Scripture.
Thus, an expert – in Greek or Hebrew, or Old Testament or New Testament, or theology or philosophy, or history or hermeneutics – can help us understand what Scripture says. But, this type of knowledge is not enough. We also need exhortation and examples in how to live. This type of teaching is just as important as other types of teaching.
Even the type of “knowledge” that we need as followers of Jesus Christ is not always the type of “knowledge” that occurs through education. Parsing verbs and interpreting texts and explaining philosophies and categories doctrines may be very important. But there are many other types of “knowledge” that are just as important – if not more important – for the believer.
For example, understanding the meaning of the Greek term for “patience” may not be as helpful as the life lived and the testimony given by the person who is struggling with a chronic disease.
Understanding “church history” can help us interpret the Scripture, but the example and exhortation of a person following Jesus Christ through 80 years of life can be even more beneficial.
The theologian can tell us about the dangers of “sin” in their particular theological system. But, words and actions of the teenager words who recently left a life of drug abuse or sexual abuse may be more of an encouragement to stay away from sin.
Again, I’m not arguing against education. Education is good, and someone with a theological education can be a benefit to the church. However, we must recognize that every believer indwelled by the Holy Spirit is given to the church by God in order to benefit the church.
We need to listen to one another. The teenager needs to listen to the theologian, but the theologian needs to listen to the teenager too. The person on death’s bed can learn from the linguist, but the linguist can learn from the dying person too. The octogenarian should expect to be taught by the historian, but the historian should expect to be taught by this older saint as well.
We need to listen to one another. All of us can help each other understand Scripture and live a life in obedience to God. The includes the auto mechanic and the philosopher, the stay-at-home mom and the theologian, the elementary school teacher and the seminary professor.
In today’s church, many people look to those of us who are theological trained for scriptural interpretation. While those of us who are educated should help the church interpret Scripture, we should also encourage the church to interpret Scripture themselves. Sometimes, a “community hermeneutic” means that those of us who are trained should speak up and teach others. Sometimes, a “community hermeneutic” requires that those of us who are theologically trained should keep our mouths shut and learn from others.
God placed us together in the church because we need one another. Because we need one another, we should listen to one another.
Church Life #10 – Not Just Me
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Reading through this series and my blog, it may appear that “church life” depends on me. But, that’s not true at all. So, in this post, I want to highlight a few ways that many of our brothers and sisters share life together that my family may not be directly involved with.
When we first starting meeting together as a church, we started a few Bible studies, because that’s what churches do. While the formats and times and locations and people involved have changed from time to time, two of those Bible studies continue today. The people involved with the Bible studies decide what they are going to study and how they are going to study. One Bible study is now hosted by a family who is not a part of our church apart from the study.
One family has four young boys. A few years ago, while they were studying Scripture together, the boys were convicted about caring for widows. So, the family started spending time in a local nursing home. They invite others from the church to join them and begin forming relationships with the residents.
Three of our brothers recently started playing soccer in an adult league. While they’re playing, two of the wives get together. Recently, one of the single guys (thanks Jon!) volunteered to keep their children so they could watch the soccer match.
I couldn’t begin to count the number of times that someone has made dinner for someone else due to sickness. This is not something that’s planned or announced, although someone will occasionally send out a notice to let people know that they are organizing meals for someone who is going to need them for a long time (like for a new mother).
People who are part of the church are constantly having dinner together, and inviting others who are not part of the church together. Just in the last year, at least three families have hosted missionaries and have then invited others to their house to hear from and encourage those missionaries.
These may sound like small things, and they are, in one sense. These are simply examples of how our brothers and sisters have chosen to share life together. Church life happens in the small things, the everyday, ordinary things.
Listening to Theological Experts
In my post, “Listening to the Experts,” I suggested that the early Reformers, while trying to distance themselves from the clergy-laity divisions within the Catholic Church, ended up creating their own clergy-laity divisions because of their insistence on a particular type of teaching for the church.
This problem persists today, even among people who understand that the church should work together to understand Scripture (that is, community hermeneutics). For example, in his book The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005) Kevin Vanhoozer argues for a type of community interpretation of Scripture. He says:
There is safety, although not surety, in numbers. Truth is not defined by consensus; but consensus, especially the kind formed by the Spirit is often a good indication of where and what the truth is. Orthodoxy does not describe a single, authorized version of Christian theology, however, but only delimits the parameters—the space, as it were—within which discussions about particular shapes and translations may take place. (pg 324)
But, how does Vanhoozer understand the church to come this consensus within Orthodoxy?
He describes theology as drama with Scripture as the script, the Holy Spirit as the director, the scholar as the dramaturge, the pastor as assistant director, and the church as the audience/actors. What is the theologian/scholar’s responsibility as “dramaturge”?
The dramaturge is the person responsible for helping the director to make sense of the script for both the players and the audience… The theologian is an advocate both of the script and of the performing company, with a dual responsibility to understand the play and to make it intelligible to a contemporary audience. (pg 244-47)
Thus, in Vanhoozer metaphor, both the theologian and the pastor stand apart from “the players and the audience” (closer to the Holy Spirit) in order to help them understand the Script. But, in the church, both the theologian and the pastor cannot stand apart from “the players and the actors” because they are also part of the church.
By the way, I appreciate much of what Vanhoozer has written. In fact, I have scheduled this post to be published on the same day that he is speaking in our seminary chapel, and I plan to listen to his lecture. However, I think his metaphor demonstrates the continued divisions between the experts (in theology) and the rest of the church.
While Vanhoozer recognizes the importance of community interpretation of Scripture, his view of the roles of the theologian scholar and pastor as separate from the church and closer to the role of the Holy Spirit works against community interpretation.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the problem is not with experts or expertise. It is good and natural for some people to have expertise in certain subjects. However, the problem here is that obtaining expertise through education in a certain area seems to automatically give that person a right to interpret Scripture for others (that is, those who do not have the same expertise).
Of course, if our desire is for the church to gain knowledge of ancient texts and cultures, of theological systems, or of linguistics and grammar, then experts in these fields would be necessary. However, as important as these fields are for the church – and they are important – this type of knowledge is not what the church needs.
Expertise is important… but not just expertise in areas of theology, biblical studies, ancient history, linguistics, and grammar. In my next post, I will try to give a more balanced approach to experts and expertise, and demonstrate how this balanced approach better lends itself to community interpretation of Scripture.
What do you think?
Listening to the Experts
A few weeks ago, my friend Rodney was teaching the church from Matthew 23:1-12 where Jesus begins to warn the people about following the example of the scribes and Pharisees. At one point, Matthew writes:
They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. (Matthew 23:5-7 ESV)
While discussing the Jewish leaders’ desire to have the “place of honor at feasts,” Rodney read a similar statement from Luke’s Gospel:
When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 14:8-11 ESV)
Since I’ve been studying “religious feasts” in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, I shared a few things about what might be the “place of honor” and the “lowest place” at such a feast.
Rodney thanked me for sharing, and reminded everyone that they could share something to help in the teaching. He said (something like), “If you have expertise in any certain area, feel free to share about that.” Now, I agree with what Rodney said, but as I’ve been thinking about this, I also realize that the idea of “expertise” and “experts” can be a problem for the church. (By the way, I talked to Rodney about this, and, as I suspected, we both agreed on this subject.)
You see, the problem is not that some people have expertise in a certain area. This is certain. For example, I know a little about Greek and a little less about Hebrew. Thus, when we’re studying Scripture together as the church, there will be some things that I may be able to offer to the discussion because of that knowledge.
But, like I said, this is not the problem. Expertise becomes a problem when the church begins to believe that only certain areas of expertise or knowledge gives someone the right or even the responsible of interpreting Scripture. I think this is one of the problems that we still have today from a decision that was made by the Reformers. (I’ve written about this in more detail in my post “Reformation period church meetings.”)
During the Reformation, I think the early Reformers correctly wanted to turn the church’s attention back to Scripture. However, their understanding of “teaching” came primarily from their University background. Since the majority of people did not have a university education, they could not teach Scripture in the way that it “should” be taught. Thus, while the Reformers attempted to do away with the clergy-laity divide, they actually perpetuated it between those who could (were allowed) to teach Scripture, and those who were not.
Today, that same mentality persists. In fact, when I talk with many Christians about interactive church meetings and community hermeneutics, I’m usually asked one of these questions at some point: 1) But I’ve studied Scripture more than they have, and I’ve been taught how to interpret Scripture… or 2) But what if someone teaches heresy (meaning, what if someone teaches something that I – or my denomination – disagrees with).
I think it is good to have a theological education – obviously, since I’m in a PhD program at a theological seminary. I think that people can gain certain types of expertise (knowledge) from this type of education, and this knowledge can help the church in understanding Scripture.
The question that we should ask ourselves, though, is this: Is theological education the only type of expertise that can benefit the church in interpreting Scripture?
I think for many Christians, the answer to this question (whether expressed or not) is, “Yes.” We can see this answer in the way that churches meet.
However, I think that the answer to this question is “No.” I think there are other types of knowledge that can help the church interpret Scripture. I’ll discuss this more in my next few posts.
For now, what do you think?
Has it really only been 24 hours?
Yes, 24 hours ago my phone rang. I had come home from work a few hours before. Margaret and I drove our foster dog to a small town between Wake Forest and Henderson to meet his new family. The family loved him, and they decided to adopt him. Margaret and I drove back home and had a quick dinner.
I was tired. Very tired. Then the phone rang.
It was Mrs. Peggy. She lives in “The Neighborhood” where my family has spent time during the last 18 months getting to know the residents and serving them in different ways. When my friend Cathy first introduced me to her just over a year ago, Mrs. Peggy was getting ready to have surgery on her ear because she had cancer. She was a “member” of a local church, but she said she rarely heard from them. As a church and as her friends, we were able to pray for her, take her to doctor’s appointments, get her a special pillow that would be less painful, rake her leaves, and sing Christmas carols to her.
But, when she called me last night, I wasn’t thinking about any of that. I was thinking that I was tired. She wasn’t thinking about any of that either. She was thinking exactly what she said to me: “Jerry left home, and we don’t know where he is. I’m afraid that he wants to hurt himself.” Jerry is Mrs. Peggy’s 39 year old nephew and neighbor. We first heard about Jerry when Mrs. Peggy asked us to pray for him and a legal situation with his family. Later, she asked if I would drop in and introduce myself to Jerry because he was lonely.
I’ve talked with Jerry several times. He struggled with depression; he knew it, and he would talk to me and Mrs. Peggy about it. When she called me, she told me that he had tried to overdose on anti-depressant medication a few weeks ago. Some family members found him, and they were able to get him to the hospital. But, now, Jerry had left home, and they were afraid that he was going to try to hurt himself again.
I wish I could say that I rushed over to spend time with Mrs. Peggy. I didn’t. All I could think about was how tired I was. I told her that I would come by and see her the next day.
A couple of hours later, I left the house to pick up my son Jeremy at the local ice rink where he went skating with some friends. On the way to pick him up, I passed close to Mrs. Peggy’s house. I thought about her waiting there alone, hoping and praying that Jerry would return safe. When I picked up Jeremy, I was supposed to take him to a friend’s house to spend the night. I told him about the phone call from Mrs. Peggy and asked if we could stop by her house first (if she was still awake). He said, “Yes.” (I’m glad my son is more caring than I was.)
When we drove by her house, I could see her sitting in her recliner through the front window, so we stopped. While we were there, she told us about Jerry and about her childhood and about how worried she was. Jeremy and I both hugged her and prayed with her before we left.
The next morning (this morning), I went to Mrs. Peggy’s house again. Her daughter was with her this time. They had still not heard from Jerry. The police and other family members were looking for him. They were hoping and praying that they would find him in a homeless shelter and that he would come back home soon. I helped her get something to eat, and washed her dishes. Before I left, I asked them to call me if they heard anything from Jerry, and I told Mrs. Peggy that I would check on her soon.
I left Mrs. Peggy’s and went to the nursing home to visit Mrs. Jenny. We had not seen her in a long time because of sickness and travel. While I was talking with Mrs. Jenny, my phone rang, but I let it go to voice mail.
When I left the nursing home, I checked my voice mail. It was Mrs. Peggy’s daughter. They had found Jerry’s body. I could hear Mrs. Peggy crying loudly in the background.
When I got back to Mrs. Peggy’s house, there were alot of people there: relatives, police, firemen… I knelt in front of her and hugged her, and she just cried into my shoulder for a long time. I told her I loved her, and that God loved her. I wanted to do so much more… to say so much more… but there was nothing else that I could do, and it wasn’t the time to say anything else.
This is the second time within a year that someone I met in that neighborhood had decided to take their own life. On the one hand, it makes me want to stop spending time in the neighborhood. Dealing with things like this is heartbreaking, oppressive, discouraging…
But, on the other hand, I think the most important thing that I’ve done in the last year… perhaps longer… is to kneel down in front of Mrs. Peggy, let her cry in my shoulder, and tell her that I loved her and that God loved her. In that sorrowful, painful, heartbroken moment… God was present.
Dave Black gives a “faculty lecture”
At Southeastern Seminary, one faculty member is invited to give a “faculty lecture” each semester. This semester, it was Dave Black‘s turn.
Usually, the “faculty lecture” involves reading (or presenting) a paper that the faculty member has recently written, perhaps specifically for this lecture. Dave didn’t read a paper. Instead, he used this opportunity to exhort the students and others in attendance to consider themselves full-time missionaries.
His “lecture” was called “Jesus the Model Missionary” (based in Matthew 9:35-38). Dave encouraged the students to use Jesus’ model in Matthew for their own model. They should go to the cities and the villages. They should teach, preach the gospel, and care for people’s needs.
Dave used his family’s experiences in Ethiopia (and other parts of the world) as examples. For those who have heard Dave and BeckyLynn Black speak about their service in Ethiopia, this lecture was nothing new. However, for those who still think of missionaries as a special class of Christians, perhaps Dave’s “lecture” encouraged them to see themselves as sent by God into the harvest fields.