Jesus cares more about people than rituals
I was tagged by Bryan at “Charis Shalom” to post five things I dig about Jesus. I “dug” this meme so much that I decided to blog through my five things. Number four on my list is that Jesus cares more about people than rituals.
God commanded the Israelites to carry out certain rituals. The most important of these rituals were the sacrifices and offerings. In fact, the children of Israel were required to sacrifice certain animals, food, or drink. But, the prophets tell us something interesting.
According to Isaiah, God did not delight in the sacrifices and burnt offerings. Instead, God wanted his people to “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause”. (Isaiah 1:17 ESV)
Similarly, the prophet Micah rhetorically asks what delights God:
“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:6-8 ESV)
Micah recognized that God required justice and kindness toward others before sacrifice.
In Malachi, God accepts the sacrifices of Israel when they do not lie to each other, when they do not oppress the hired worker, the fatherless, and the widow, and when they do not misuse the immigrant. (Malachi 3:3-6)
God cares about people more than sacrifices and offerings. God cares about people more than rituals. The children of Israel could carry out all of the sacrifices and offerings and all of the rituals required by the law, but those rituals were worthless if they were not treating people properly.
What about Jesus? What did Jesus think about ritual? Remember that many of Jesus’ healings occurred on the Sabbath. Why? Because Jesus cared more about the people than following the rules of the Sabbath. Certainly, these rules were man-made, but they were rituals that the religious people kept. Jesus did not keep rituals in order to be religious. He healed people and cared for people.
But, these were man-made Sabbath rules. What about God ordained rituals? Did Jesus put people before God ordained rituals? Jesus told the man about to offer his sacrfice to first reconcile with his brother. To Jesus, relationships came before ritual. In fact, this parallels with what the prophets taught. Sacrifices and offerings are meaningless if people are not treated with justice and kindness. (Matthew 5:23-24)
Remember also that Jesus used the priest and the Levite – those responsible for carrying out the rituals – as negative examples in the story of the good Samaritan. Many believe that the priest and Levite refused to stop because they would become “unclean” and would not be allowed to carry out their ritual duties. (Luke 10:30-33)
Let’s be honest… there are alot of rituals associated with the organized church. Attend on Sunday and Wednesday… sit down, stand up, kneel… Bow your heads and close your eyes… Read this passage, sing this song, pray this prayer… Put your money here… Rituals.
Are there good reasons for these rituals? Certainly, just as there were good reasons for the sacrifices and offerings. But, people must come before rituals.
Jesus puts us before rituals. His compassion for us does not depend on standing the right way, or sitting just so, or bowing our heads and closing our eyes, or singing well. His love for us does not rise and fall with the frequency of our attendance at certain meetings. Jesus cares more about people than rituals.
Brother killing brother…
Wednesday, my family had the opportunity to tour Gettysburg, PA and many of the sites connected to the Civil War battle that happened there almost 150 year ago. If you have never been to Gettysburg, then you should know that there are thousands of monuments scattered around this city. Each monument – set up by various states – commemorates the soldiers that fought during this three day long battle. During those three days – the bloodiest days in U.S. history (?) – 50,000 Americans lost their life, with friends fighting friends, brothers killing brothers.
I grew up in the southern part of the United States – in fact, I have always lived in the South. But, regardless, I recognize that the Southern States (the Confederate States) were wrong in their reaction against the United States government. That said, I also believe the Federal government was wrong in its reaction against the secession of the Confederate States.
Interestingly, there were godly men on both sides of this conflict. Both Southerners and Northerners prayed to God, asking Him to aid them in this dispute. Both groups stated that God was on their side. In reality, I do not think God was on either side. Why? Because I do not think God called brother to kill brother because of political differences.
Not much has changed… especially when it comes to the church. Oh, certainly, we do not fight with rifles, bayonets, and canons. But, how many brothers attack brothers with words? How many sisters destroy sisters through innuendo and gossip? And why? Because we disagree on certain things – not the most important things – not gospel things – but, we definitely disagree about “church” things.
And, because we sing different songs, or meet on different days, or disagree over leadership, or interpret some parts of Scripture differently we kill each other’s reputations – we destroy each other’s witness – we blast each other’s good deeds – we knife each other in the back. Perhaps, it would be better if we would be armed with rifles and bayonets, instead of arming ourselves with sickles as if we can choose who are wheat and who are weeds. Perhaps, it would be better if we would aim canons at one another, instead of aiming words of hate and distrust. At least, if we used rifles or canons, we would be honest about our hate and distrust of one another. At least, then, we would have to admit that we are not united.
I think the American Civil Was was a travesty. I do not think either side was right in going to war against other states. I do not think either side won.
However, the way that Christians attack each other is an even greater travesty and tragedy. The next time you level an attack on another brother or sister in Christ, remember: God is not on your side, regardless of how right you think you are.
The blessings of community…
Tonight, some friends of ours hosted a going away party for some other friends who are moving out of state tomorrow. The friends that are moving are part of the community of believers that God has placed around us. There are some within this community that we know better; there are some within the community that we do not know as well. But, God has placed us all together.
Within this group of believers, there are some who hold strongly to reformed theology, and there are some who do not. Among this community there are believers that hold to almost every form of eschatology. Some prefer more organization in the church, while others prefer less organization. We also hold to different beliefs about leadership and different philosophies of service. God has gifted some primarily to teach, others primarily to serve, others primarily to evangelize, other primarily to show hospitality.
We are a diverse group. And, when we discuss certain topics – especially those that we hold dear – we discuss them with passion and zeal. We are not so timid that we will not tell someone when we disagree with them. Some enjoy these types of discussions, and some do not.
However, tonight, as I looked around this diverse group, God reminded me of something. I saw a few people tossing a football in the backyard, while others played wiffleball. Several people stood on the back deck and talked about their week. Many sat around the living room and talked in small groups. Children ran around and in and out and up and down. Different people made their way to the grill to prepare their dinner.
But, as I looked around at this diverse group, I realized that this is a very special group of people. This is the community that God has placed me and my family in. I believe that I could pick up the phone, call any of these people about a problem that I’m having, and they would do whatever they could to help. I also believe that many would help without my asking. I don’t think they would do this for just me, but they would do whatever they could for each other. I know this is true, because I have seen it, and I have experienced it.
This group is special because we love one another. Is our love perfect? No. But, we talk about that and encourage each other in loving better as well. Sometimes, we get angry with one another. Occasionally, we fail to help one another like we should. We don’t always take care of one another. We’re not perfect. But, we love one another, and we always return to that love – a love that stems from God’s love which he is creating in us by his Spirit. We don’t love each other because we are so great. We love each other because God is so great, and because he is changing us and teaching us how to love him and one another more.
So, why did I write this blog? I didn’t write it to pat myself on the back, because I had nothing to do with creating this community. This is entirely a work of God. I did not write this to exalt this group of believers. We are all ordinary people who belong to an extraordinary God.
Why did I write this blog? I wrote this blog for two reasons. One, I wanted to praise God for what he is teaching me through this community. And, two, I want to encourage others who have not found this kind of community. Wait for God. Allow him to build something that neither you nor others can build on your own.
Finally, I pray for this community often. Not just for those who gathered at this going away party tonight. But, for others that God has placed around me. This also includes many that read and interact with me on this blog. This is my prayer for all of you:
I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ. For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you. (Philemon 4-7 ESV)
Every time your name comes up in my prayers, I say, “Oh, thank you, God!” I keep hearing of the love and faith you have for the Master Jesus, which brims over to other believers. And I keep praying that this faith we hold in common keeps showing up in the good things we do, and that people recognize Christ in all of it. Friend, you have no idea how good your love makes me feel, doubly so when I see your hospitality to fellow believers. (Philemon 4-7 The Message)
I pray especially for those of you who are desperately seeking to live as community with other believers, but have not found that yet. May God grant your desire and strengthen you through it. And, may he grant you peace until that time.
Autonomous churches…
In my last post, “Autonomous individuals…“, I began discussing a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977), specifically his chapter called “House Churches and Their Problems”. In my last post I discussed how the early Christians saw themselves as part of an extended household – a family. But, how did these early Christian “households” relate to other Christian “households”?
Malherbe continues:
As the church grew in a particular locality, more than one house church would be formed. The scarcity of information on the house churches in the first century precludes our having a clear understanding of their interrelationship. Paul seems to have known of at least three such churches in Rome (Rom. 16:5, 14, 15), and there may have been more than one group in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:17) and also in Laodicea (Col. 4:15). Although they may have formed separate communities, such groups were not viewed as being separate churches. Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem is not clear on this point, but it does convey the impression that he thought of it as one church despite the smaller groups that composed it. This is supported by his (and the Pastoral Epistles) relating presbyters, or bishops, to cities rather than to individual groups (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). By that time, however, more than one house church would presumably have existed in most localities with which the literature is concerned. More significant is that Paul and his followers, although they knew of separate groups in an area, wrote one letter to the church in that immediate area, apparently on the assumption that it would suffice for all the groups (e.g., Romans). On this understanding, the individual house churches would together have represented the church in any one area. [70]
Malherbe recognizes, as Scripture indicates, that there were different groups of Christians in a particular area (city). But, these groups did not consider themselves separate or distinct from other groups in the area. Instead, they considered themselves to be part of the same church. Also, Paul and others outside a particular city recognized all of the believers – and all of the groups of believers – in that city to be part of the same church.
As God formed the believers into households, He did not form them into exclusive households. Just as individuals now recognized that they were part of something bigger than themselves, the individual groups of believers also recognized that they were part of something bigger than that group. Thus, it seems from Scripture, that the distinct groups in a location – while recognized by themselves and others as a church – did not see themselves as truly distinct from other groups of believers in that same location. In fact, they also recognized a connection – though perhaps a looser connection – with other groups of believers in more distant locations. For this reason, Paul could label each group of believers meeting in a home as a church, but he could at the same time label all of the believers in a city as a church.
An autonomous church did not exist in the early days of Christianity. In fact, Paul reminds the believers in Corinth of this several times in his first letter to them. In 1 Cor. 1:2, he reminds his readers that they are not alone, but “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ESV) Similarly, Paul reminds them that all the churches share common beliefs, activities, and teachings (4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:34; 16:1). The church in Corinth – even the church at the city level – was not an autonomous church, but was to recognize itself as being in relationship with the wider church throughout the world.
Similarly, in Romans 16, Paul expects and encourages the various “home churches” in that area to greet one another, recognizing some level of association between the different groups since the “greeting” was certainly more than a wave or a handshake. Thus, as the believers from different groups encountered one another – either in an intentional or unintentional meeting – they recognized themselves as part of the same church, not as members of distinct churches with little to no relationship between the two groups.
Invariably, when this idea of multiple groups (churches) recognizing themselves as one church is suggested, the question of leadership and control arises. If the different groups are a single church, then who is the leader? Who is in control? Who is responsible for the “meeting”? To me, these questions indicate a lack of understanding of biblical leadership. Biblical leadership is not about control, but about service. The leader is the one who serves. Thus, the true leaders are not concerned with being in control, but with serving others.
Similarly, this idea does not mandate a city-wide hierarchy of leadership. Instead, it mandates humility, gentleness, patience, love – in fact, the whole fruit of the Spirit – in accepting others and treating others as members of the same body – which we are, whether we accept it or not.
The people that meet in the building down the street – those people that we like to make fun of – they are our brothers and sisters. The people that meet across town – those people with the strange practices – they are part of the body of Christ with us. The people that rent the school auditorium – those people who are a little louder/quieter than we like – they are part of our church. We do not do service to the body of Christ by separating ourselves from other brothers and sisters who may be different from us. Instead, we demonstrate our love for one another by reaching out to one another, serving one another, accepting one another, learning from one another, especially when those “one anothers” look or act differently than us.
The autonomous church is not found in Scripture. Instead, the church in the New Testament recognized its mutual relationship with other believers in their area and their mutual need of one another (interdependence), despite their differences. And, where the believers did not think they needed each other, the biblical authors wrote against those practices and teachings.
More unity…
I often discuss unity on this blog. I believe that our lack of unity demonstrates our lack of love for one another, which in turn demonstrates our lack of following Christ as his true disciples. Here are two recent blog posts that also discuss unity in Christ:
Matt at “Kingdom Living” explores “The Secret to Christian Unity“. Matt discusses Philippians 2 in relation to unity. He concludes:
What is the secret to Christian unity? Living out the example of Christ (humility, servanthood, and death to self) and removing all obstacles to making that happen (selfish ambition and vain conceit). Only then will our tenderness, compassion, and unity with God translate into tenderness, compassion, and unity with each other. One last bit of motivation.
Could it be that our failure to live in unity with one another is merely a symptom of the deeper problem of failing to live in unity with God? I think so.
Johnny at “Pure Christianity” learned something about unity at a “Prophetic Conference“. Though he did not agree with some of the teachings, he found that God could speak to him in spite of his disagreements. He says:
The Holy Spirit began to speak to me about unity. Unity is not about doctrinal agreement, style similarities, or even personalities. Instead, it is about the heart. We can be knit together in our spirits and work towards building the Kingdom of God together. I still do not believe that I need to fight devils, but I do believe that I need to be able to stand with fellow believers no matter what doctrines we practice or believe.
Could it be that we have lost our desire to unite over the main things because we are majoring on minors? Could it be that God could actually teach us through “those people” who believe or act a little differently than us? We’ll never know, unless we live in our unity in Christ.
Autonomous individuals…
A few days ago, a good friend of mine acquired a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977). The title of one chapter caught my attention: “House Churches and Their Problems”. This post and the next post will be based on some of the excepts from this chapter.
Malherbe begins by discussing some of the circumstances concerning the first century Roman civilization that contributed to the expansion of the church: road systems, hospitality, and household communities. In particular, he suggests that understanding households in early Christianity is important to understanding both how the gospel spread, and how the early Christians viewed themselves in relation to other Christians.
He begins by explaining that in the first century Roman world, the household included immediate family as well as slaves, freedmen, servants, laborers, and sometimes business associates and tenants. He explains how early Christians viewed themselves as a household:
Converts would join themselves to a household church during its earliest period of growth in a particular locality. The household character of a church would be retained as it became a community with a broader constituency than it originally had. The converts also had demands placed upon them, which heightened the exclusiveness of the group. When they spoke of “outsiders,” early Christians revealed their minority group mind-set. They believed that they had been called to a higher quality of life than could be expected of their society, and they took measures to safeguard it through their communities. The implications of the preaching that called the communities into existence had to be worked out by those communities, which were private, voluntary organizations. This means that early Christians did not see themselves as isolated individuals; and the nature of those communities becomes clearer to us when we see them as household communities. It is striking how often the New Testament deals with issues in relation to the Christian community. [69-70]
In this regard, it is “striking” how few instructions are given to individuals (you [singular], he, or she), and how many instructions are given to groups (we, you [plural], or they). Malherbe suggests that this is one indication that the early Christians saw themselves as part of a family – not simply as individuals – and that they related to one another as members of a household.
While many theologians prefer to study the church using the metaphors of people of God, body of Christ, and temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe that the family metaphor is much more prominent in Scripture. Malherbe’s connection of early Christian communities with the Greco-Roman household reinforces my view. These believers did not see themselves as individuals who all happened to experience the same thing (i.e. salvation). Instead, through God’s work, they recognized that their existence was now defined in a new way: they were brothers and sisters with God as their father. (Note: This family metaphor – if it is a metaphor – is also demonstrated in the language of adoption and in the various family ethical codes which Paul and Peter included in their letters, as well as the titles of “brother”, “sister”, and “children” found throughout Scripture.)
Perhaps we have lost some of the understanding of what it means to be a family because we define “family” in more narrow terms. In modern (western) society, the family is composed of parents and children. Occasionally, an extended family member is added to the nuclear family in a close relationship. However, for the most part, we do not consider other people as part of our family, even if these other people spend large amounts of time with us and even if these other people depend on us for their livelihood. Thus, there may be people who would be included in our family – household – in the first century, but today we exclude these people from our household.
Similarly, since we have narrowly defined family and household as those who are the closest related to us by birth and/or marriage, we miss the implications of other believers being our brothers and sisters, and view it as nothing more than a nice way of saying that we are acquainted with them. Instead, as members of the same household, with God as our father, we are to live with one another just as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves relied upon, cared for, trained, submitted to, and honored one another in the first century. Just as others could be accepted into the household in the first century without regard to a physical (blood) relationship, we are to accept others into our household of faith, offering them the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities as other family members.
Then, in this mutual relationship between brothers and sisters in mutual relation to the Father, the good of the individual and the desire of the individual and the hopes of the inidividual become intertwined with the benefit of the family. This is why Paul tells us to consider others as better than ourselves and to look out for the interest of others instead of our own interests – with Jesus Christ, our elder brother, as the supreme example of how to give up ourselves for the sake of others.
In God’s household, there is no place for the autonomous individual who seeks his own desires and wants his own way without regard for the desires and needs of the family – unless, of course, he is a new member of the family. In that case, the autonomous individual needs more mature brothers and sisters to help him mature as well.
Building community…
A few months ago, I posted a blog called “Community of what?” In this post I suggested that the kind of community that people need is only found through a common relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. I concluded that post by saying:
I believe that Christian community must be built upon our shared existence in Jesus Christ through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Anything else may be community, but is it the community that we need?
As I have been thinking about this, I’ve realized how easy it is to attempt to build community on anything other than our shared existence – shared life – in Jesus Christ. For example, consider the following definitions of “community” from Princeton’s wordnet:
- A group of people living in a particular local area.
- Common ownership.
- A group of nations having common interests.
- Agreement as to goals.
- A district where people live; occupied primarily by private residences.
- A group of interdependent organisms inhabiting the same region and interacting with each other.
In each of these definitions, those who are living in community share something in common, whether it is a location, or a possession, or an interest, or a goal. These last two (sharing interests or goals) can encompass many different concepts: such as personalities, ideologies, religious affiliations, hobbies, political parties, profession, etc.
Thus, community can be created around any of these concepts. And, as long as people are creating community, then they must agree upon the focus of that community – in other words, they must agree (either intentionally or unintentionally) upon the commonality shared by the group.
Many groups of believers claim (and believe) that their community is built upon their common relationship through God – that is, they are a community because they are family in Christ. They state that what they share in common is God himself. However, circumstances sometimes demonstrate that this is not reality.
For example, a popular (or unpopular) leader leaves, and the community falls apart. For some, this indicates that the community was based on a personality – an individual. Or, perhaps the community falls apart when a certain activity is stopped or started. This indicates that the community was based on a common activity. Other things have caused communities to fail: music styles, preaching/teaching styles, building concerns, finances, new (different) people. There are many ways that communities fall apart, and in each case, whatever causes the community to fall apart is the very thing on which the community was based – the thing which the people shared in common and in which they found their being – whether this is acknowledged or not.
Unfortunately, when people build community, they have no choice other than building the community around something that they share in common. When that thing is lost, the community fails. People become responsible for building the community, maintaining the community, and protecting the community.
When God builds community, he builds it around himself. The community may participate in a common activity (teaching, prayer, singing, etc.), but the activity does not define the community. If the activity ceases or changes, the community continues. The community may have a common goal (discipleship, missions, evangelism, etc.), but the goal does not define the community. If the goal changes, the community continues. The community may have popular and/or unpopular leaders, but the leaders do not define the community. When the leadership changes, the community continues.
When God builds community, he builds it around himself. If everything is removed except God himself, the community continues. Why? Because God is responsible for building, maintaining, and protecting the community through the work of the Holy Spirit.
How can we tell if we are living in a community built by God, or a community built by people? If removing or changing anything (other than God) would cause the community to collapse, then the community is not built by and upon God, the community is not being maintained by God, or the community is not protected by God.
Accept and Admonish…
A few days ago, I posted a blog called “Accept one another…” I was talking about this subject with some friends last weekend, and we realized that there are two mistakes that believers generally make when it comes to accepting one another. In fact, I think these two mistakes tend to demonstrate either a failure to accept one another, or a failure to admonish one another. Either failure is destructive to relationships, fellowship, and community.
As we meet new brothers and sisters in Christ, we should accept them as they are in their walk with Christ. At the same time, we also should recognize that God may use us to mature them in their walk with Christ. Thus, our relationship should be one of both acceptance and admonishment – one of both love and discipleship – one of both mercy and teaching.
The first type of failure occurs when believers accept one another, but fail to admonish one another. This usually occurs when we view (either intentionally or unintentionally) the other believer’s sins as trivial – that is, these sins are not as serious as other sins. In this case, we allow brothers and sisters to continue in their sins without admonishing them or encouraging them toward maturity in Christ.
The second type of failure occurs when believers fail to accept one another because the other believer struggles with “serious” or “unacceptable” sins (i.e. many times sexual sins are included in this category). Note, I am not talking about unrepentant people in this scenario. Assume that the other believer recognizes the sin and repents of the sin, but continues to struggle with sinful habits and temptations. Based on Jesus’ instructions to Peter, we should also continue to forgive this brother or sister. But, instead of forgiving, we do not even accept them as brothers or sisters. We distance ourselves from those brothers and sisters who do not have “acceptable” sins.
For example, assume a sister is struggling with greed or covetousness. This sister buys the latest electronic gadgets, a new car every year or so, fashionable and trendy clothing, etc. However, besides these quirks, she is great friend. Do we approach her about her sin? Do we help her grow past her need to be satisfied by other things instead of finding satisfaction in God? If we recognize the sin in this sister’s life, but fail to help her mature, then we have erred on the side of acceptance with admonishment. This is disastrous for fellowship and community.
As another example, assume a brother is struggling with lust and adultery. The brother has had several affairs, but consistently repents of his sin. Do we accept this brother in spite of his struggles with sin? Do we welcome him as Christ welcomed us and then help him grow in maturity in Christ? If we do not accept this brother, then we have erred on the side of not accepting someone who Christ has accepted. This is also disastrous for fellowship and community.
Honestly, I think I fail in both ways. At times, and with certain sins, I fail by accepting the brother or sister, but failing to encouraging them toward maturity in Christ. At other times, and with certain other sins, I fail because I never accept the brother or sister in the first place.
Instead of failing in either of these areas, we must learn to walk in the tension between these two mistakes. We accept one another as Christ accepted us – recognizing that we are not perfect yet. We also teach and admonish one another, encouraging one another toward maturity in Christ. It may not always be pretty. It may sometimes get “messy“. But this is necessary for real relationships, fellowship, and community.
This is something that we cannot do on our own. Instead, this type of life can only be lived out in the power and presence of the Spirit. It can only be lived out in the love of God which demonstrates itself in our love for God and our love for others. When we are living this type of life, we will love people enough to accept them just as they are (just as God does), and we will love people enough to desire to see them grow in maturity in Christ (just as God does).
Saturday Night Live…
Last Saturday evening we once again got together in our home with some friends. (See “Sabado, el Cinco de Mayo” for a description of our last get together, and for a list of posts about our previous Saturday get togethers.) Several of our friends who had been to previous Saturday evenings get togethers were able to come again. Also, one young man was able to come for the first time.
Interestingly, I had planned to make ham for dinner. But, we enjoyed the brunswick stew at lunch so much (see the end of the post “It’s just a thing…“), that we decided to get enough stew to share Saturday evening. Another family decided to bring chili, so we had a soup night, along with a few other extras that people brought.
When I write these posts, it is always difficult to decide what to write about. I’m never able to write about everything that happens. And, in fact, what happens and what is said is not the most important aspects of the meeting. The most important aspects of our Saturday evening get togethers are the people and the relationships – the fellowship that God is creating through the Holy Spirit. We shared words, thoughts, suggestions, prayers, praises, laughs, tears, hugs… we shared life together for a few hours.
So, what did we talk about? We talked about how God had answered prayers in some areas of life and how he is continuing to convict us in other areas of life. We talked about living in the tension of accepting people as they are and yet wanting to see them mature in Christ. We talked about how our get togethers might be more about serving others instead of always only about talking. I have blogged about some of these topics, and I’m looking forward to writing about others soon. When I get together with other believers (not just on Saturday evenings), I usually come away with many things to think, pray, and study about. This was no exception.
I am very excited about many of the things that we talked about. I’m excited about how God is working through my brothers and sisters. There are two things that I am particularly excited about.
First, we decided to think of a way that we could meet one Saturday to serve others instead of just to talk and encourage one another. I think the church has emphasized speaking gifts to the detriment of serving gifts, and we’re hoping to begin having a more level emphasis on both speaking and serving.
Second, the young man who came to our house for the first time told us that he and one of his friends are hoping to spend time with our son – and other young people – this Summer. We are excited about the way these young men can disciple our children.
So, these are a few things we talked about and a few things we did last Saturday evening. These words do not begin to describe what God is doing. We’re beginning to know one another and ourselves better. We’re beginning to trust one another to share our struggles with God and with other people more openly. We’re also learning that others will accept us, even when we admit we are not perfect.
The church meets here…
I live six miles from my work place. As I drive to work, I pass at least seven church buildings. Each building has a sign out front announcing the name of the church that meets in the building. (To be literal, the signs actually name the building, but I’m assuming that the people who erected the signs actually meant to name the group of believers that meet in the buildings.) On Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, temporary signs pop up around the downtown area announcing several other churches that meet in downtown businesses. Each of these signs is intended to announce the meeting place for a church.
I’ve been wondering lately what would happen if we started finding signs saying “The church meets here” in more diverse locations. For example, we know from the New Testament that many times the church met in homes. What would happen if someone put a sign in their front yard that said, “The church meets here”? Or, even better, Acts 2 says the church met from house to house. What if that sign followed the believers from one house to another as they met together in different locations?
Taking it one step further, we know that God intends for his children to love and serve others. What if the church met in the most dilapidated house in the community? No, not the most dilapidated house owned by a member of the church, but the most dilapidated house in the community. What would happen if the church met in that run-down house and renovated it as they met together? After remodelling that house, the church could begin meeting in another house in need of repairs.
Some of you may be thinking, how would anyone know where the church was meeting? Isn’t it interesting that the church in the first century was able to meet from house to house, but, in the the twenty-first century – with twenty-first century communication – we don’t think we could meet in different locations. (I have a theory… I wonder if the desire to have one meeting location has less to do with whether or not other believers know where the church is meeting. Instead, we want others to know where the church is meeting so that they will come to the meeting, and we can call ourselves evangelistic, without ever communicating the gospel to anyone. It’s just a theory.)
Similarly, some may be wondering how the church can meet without a stage, sound system, microphone, instruments, pulpit, etc. Well, I think it might just work anyway. While it is good to use modern innovations (such as communication), it is not good to be dependent on those innovations. Which of these are necessary for the church to meet?
Also, some may wonder about teaching and preaching. I think that if the church meets together in a run-down house, and over the course of several weeks the church renovates that house, there will be plenty of teaching and preaching. In fact, I think there will be plenty of friends and neighbors who come to see who these fools are who would give up their time and money to help someone that cannot pay them back. Oh, it might not happen after the first or second meeting. But, what about going into the second year, after the church has renovated fifteen or twenty homes around the community. I wonder if the church wouldn’t find a much more receptive and interested audience for their preaching and teaching.
But, let’s not stop at dilapidated houses. What if the church met in prisons or hospitals? What if the church met in an area frequented by the homeless or prostitutes? What if the church met in a nursing home or retirement center? What if the church met in an orphanage? Now, I’m not talking about going to visit once per year. I’m talking about the church continually meeting in these locations. Wouldn’t it be easier to take care of those whom God wants the church to care for?
I wonder, if the church began to meet in places like this, would a sign even be necessary? Can you think of other interesting locations where the church could meet and serve people at the same time?