A Panic Attack Leads to Sharing the Gospel… by the one having the panic attack
A friend of ours had to to go to the dentist. While in the chair, she started having a panic attack. One of the things that she did in response was to send a text to her husband.
Her husband sent a text to several people telling them what was going on.
One of the woman’s friends got the text and went to the dentist’s office. She told the receptionist what happened, and eventually was led into the room with the woman had been having a panic attack.
By the time the friend arrive, God had calmed the woman down, and she was no longer having a panic attack. However, the friend stayed with her a few minutes to comfort her and encourage her.
When the friend left, the dental hygienist asked about the visit. This gave the woman an opportunity to explain about her relationship with her friend which led to a proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Because of a panic attack… It’s so awesome to see God work through (and in spite of) the brokenness in our lives when we submit it to him.
From the Anabaptists: Simons on love and community
Last week, I enjoyed reading an article about Anabaptists and writing about that article in my post “Which Distinctive Practices and Beliefs of Anabaptists are Important for the Church Today?” Reading that article, writing the post, and following the discussion in the comments reminded me of a great book that I read online last year called “The Secret of the Strength.” One of the things that I love about that book is that the author (Peter Hoover) includes many, many quotations from the Anabaptists themselves.
For the next few days, I’m going to post a few of those quotations. You may not agree with everything they wrote, but hopefully they will help us thinking about our new life in Jesus Christ.
This quotation was written by Menno Simons in 1551:
We teach that all Christians are one body (1 Cor. 12:13). All partake of one bread (1 Cor. 10:18). All have one God (Eph. 4:5- 6). It is only reasonable that Christians care one for another. The entire Scriptures speak of mercy and love, the sign by which true Christians are known. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:15).
It is not normal for a person to care for one part of his body and leave the rest uncared for and naked. No. The intelligent person cares for all his members. It is this way in the Lord’s church as well. All who are born of God and called into one body are prepared to serve their neighbours, not only with money and goods, but like Christ did, with life and blood. They show mercy as much as they can. No one among them is allowed to beg. They take strangers into their homes. They comfort the afflicted, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and do not turn their faces from the poor.
For the Anabaptists, everyone who was in Christ was also part of the kingdom of God and the community (Gemeinschaft) of believers, i.e. they were part of the church. And, the church cared for one another just as a human takes care of his entire body.
The important part of Simon’s quote is who he considered to be part of this “body” with him. Notice he begins with this: “all Christians are one body.” He does not distinguish. If he considers someone a Christian, then he also considers that person to be part of the church along with him. He is willing to lay down money, possessions, life, and blood for that person.
Not only is this service offered to all who are in Christ, it is also the work of all who are in Christ. He wrote, “All who are born of God and called into one body are prepared to serve their neighbours.” All. This is mutual service (ministry). Everyone is ready to serve whoever is in need of service. There is no sectarianism or divisions.
Today, if Christians care for and serve one another, they tend to do so within the boundaries of local church organizations. I do not think this is the kind of service that we see in the New Testament, and it’s not the kind of service that the Anabaptists displayed either.
From the Anabaptists: Spittelmayr on love and property
Last week, I enjoyed reading an article about Anabaptists and writing about that article in my post “Which Distinctive Practices and Beliefs of Anabaptists are Important for the Church Today?” Reading that article, writing the post, and following the discussion in the comments reminded me of a great book that I read online last year called “The Secret of the Strength.” One of the things that I love about that book is that the author (Peter Hoover) includes many, many quotations from the Anabaptists themselves.
For the next few days, I’m going to post a few of those quotations. You may not agree with everything they wrote, but hopefully they will help us thinking about our new life in Jesus Christ.
This quotation was written by Ambrutz (Ambrosius) Spittelmayr just before he was beheaded in 1527:
Nobody can inherit the kingdom unless he is poor with Christ, for a Christian has nothing of his own, no place where he can lay his head. A real Christian should not even have enough property on the face of the earth to stand on with one foot. This does not mean that he should lie down in the woods and not have a job, or that he should not have fields and pasture lands, or that he should not work. It simply means that he should not think that these things are for his own use and be tempted to say, “This house is mine. This field is mine. This dollar is mine.” Rather he should say, “It is ours,” even as we pray “Our Father.”
A Christian should not have anything of his own but should have all things in common with his brother, not letting him suffer need. In other words, I will not work that my house be filled, that my pantry be supplied with meat, but rather I will see that my brother has enough, for a Christian looks more to his neighbour than to himself.
This teaching directly contradicts the “American Way.” (I can’t speak as much about the culture of greed in other countries.) Saving, building, hoarding, storing… this is the way of life in America, but it was not the way of life among the Anabaptists or among the early believers as recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts.
So, which way of life are we going to follow? Are we willing to admit that we have been so influenced by the greed of the American dream that we have missed the call of the Spirit to give to others? Or, do we continue to make excuses, blaming others for their lack or need, finding reasons not to help those who need it?
When you hold a dollar in your hand (or a hundred dollars, or a thousand dollars, or a million dollars), do you assume that God gave it to you for your own benefit? Could it be that God gave that to you so that you could use it to benefit others? It would be just like him, wouldn’t it? He is, after all, the God who gave and gave and gave… even giving his own son.
Interestingly, I’ve spent a short time in two cultures (outside of the United States) that are known to be among the poorest in the world. And, I found the Christians in those two cultures to be more giving and sharing than many in the USA.
Do you find it easier to share when you have much or when you have little? Why do you think the voluntary sharing of property was so important to the early church or to the Anabaptists in the 16th century?
Moving imperceptibly into the flow of pretense
The title of this post was penned by John (Aussie John) from “Caesura” in his post “Gnats and Camels.” (except I changed to the American spelling of “pretense”) It is a great read, and I would encourage you to take the time to read the whole article.
John looks back on his on “training” and experience and recognizes that he was often trained in “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” He says that he was taught how to separate from others over the minute details of various “ologies” while ignoring the grace and love of God for all his children.
Consider how he concludes this very insightful post:
Under our tutors we become very careful that what we really are is masked by the outward show, little realising that by unthinkingly, and uncritically, receiving their teaching and lead we have been thrown into the stream, in the still waters near the shore, and, imperceptibly at first, we move into the current, and move more easily into the flow of pretence, even deceiving ourselves that the deception we are in is not sinful.
Paul, in Romans I 24-25, wrote “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”
We have no trouble applying that to the pagans of Paul’s day and agreeing that God is just to give them over to their hearts’ desires, and their insistence in gratifying those desires, but great difficulty in applying any question regarding ourselves.
Causes me to think deeply about what we are seeing today in much of what is professed to be Christianity.
I have noticed this tendency also – both in myself and others. We assume that what we think and do and plan and believe is correct, while those who disagree with us must necessarily be wrong – and obviously wrong. “Why can’t they just accept their own failing and follow my wisdom – which is obviously from God while there’s is not. If they refuse, then I want nothing to do with them…”
oh my…
Of course we all believe that we are hearing God correctly and obeying him, but then so do I brothers and sisters in Christ. Guess what? You know how you trust God to lead you and change your mind and heart by his grace? We can trust him to do the same with others… and we can continue to fellowship with them in spite of our disagreements.
Otherwise, as John says, God may simply turn us over to the desires of our heart and surround us with people who think and act and believe exactly like we do.
hmmm… perhaps he’s done that already in some cases.
From the Anabaptists: Brandhuber on love and obedience
Last week, I enjoyed reading an article about Anabaptists and writing about that article in my post “Which Distinctive Practices and Beliefs of Anabaptists are Important for the Church Today?” Then, it seems that you (my readers) enjoyed the post and the distinctives as well – even in the points that you disagreed.
Reading that article, writing the posts, and following the discussion in the comments reminded me of a great book that I read online last year called “The Secret of the Strength.” One of the things that I love about that book is that the author (Peter Hoover) includes many, many quotations from the Anabaptists themselves.
For the next few days, I’m going to post a few of those quotations. You may not agree with everything they wrote, but hopefully they will help us thinking about our new life in Jesus Christ.
The first quotation was written by Wolfgang Brandhuber just before he was executed (Sendbrief an die Gemeinde Gottes, 1529):
If we want to be one with God, we need to be one with his will (Christ Jesus). That happens when we tell him about our great needs and when we tell him that we love him. If we love him we keep his commandments because love—if it is love—comes from the heart. How could true love be anything but from the heart? And love continually seeks love, like the bride in Solomon’s song who can sing and speak of nothing else.
True Christianity works on nothing but love. It needs no law because it fulfills the commands of God out of pure love and exercises itself in this day and night. It leaves everything earthly behind. It despises everything earthly to the pit, and asks: “Why bother with that?” It seeks because it loves. The more it loves the more it seeks to be loved—engaging itself to the Beloved One and peering out through the lattice work to watch him come from afar.
For so many, love does not seem to be enough. So, rules and procedures are put in place to make certain that everything happens as it should and everyone acts as they should. But, in reality, people cannot obey God apart from love. You would think that we would have learned from the examples we read about in the Old Testament that we cannot make ourselves obey God, even when we really want to.
Love is enough. In fact, love is all we have – love produced by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit as we submit to him. Through that love, we can now obey. And, if we are not obeying, the problem is not with our lack of action or even with wrong action. The problem is with love. We do not try harder or give God more or be excellent. We confess, submit, and trust in his love.
We can do many things without love. But, we cannot obey God without love. And, if we find that we are not obeying God – not following Jesus Christ – then we have stopped responding to and responding in the love of God.
Is love enough? Do you agree with Brandhuber that “true Christianity works on nothing but love”? How can we tell the difference between obeying out of love and obeying out of other motives or intentions? If God’s love is all we need, why are there so many commands in Scripture?
An unhealthy emphasis on certain church gatherings?
As I’ve said several times, I believe that the church is God’s people gathered together. In the New Testament, the term translated “church” is never used to refer to a building, or an organization, or even a certain event/meeting.
But, since I think the term refers to God’s people gathered together (and not to us individually), then the term necessitates some type of “meeting” in the sense of two or more being together in the same place at the same time. However, and unfortunately, Christians often focus on one type of meeting or one specific meeting when they think about the church. This meeting is even given a special name, such as “the worship service.”
Over the last few days, I’ve had a short discussion on this topic on an older post with a reader named Greg. I thought that Greg’s points were too good to leave in the comments of that old post, so I’m going to copy them (and my responses) here:
Greg: I find it interesting and puzzling why there is so much emphasis on meetings today. I am much more interested in how we live our daily lives in our homes, at work recreationally and in community. Our daily regimen and lives together outside of meetings flow along without self conscious behavior and adherence to scripts then when it comes time to have a meeting we turn into wooden soldiers.
They have taken on an incredible amount of importance with serious discussion about how they should go and how often we should meet and who should be in charge and what we should do. But they reveal very let little about the real us, and even less about God. The disconnect between meetings and the lives of the believers is a serious concern to me. I suspect that’s why the scriptures don’t spill very much ink about meetings but are filled with the stuff of everyday life. if the church would like to see where they’re spirituality is let them fast from meetings for a year for all but the most important reasons to meet. I’m generalizing grossly here and covering all meetings with the same blanket and of course I don’t mean every meeting all the time everywhere. I am challenging the notion that meeting should be held simply because it’s time to have a meeting. if even a small percentage of the time that we collectively spend in meetings were redistributed and spent with one anothering.
Alan: I’m not puzzled at the emphasis on brothers and sisters meeting together. I am puzzled at the emphasis on certain types of meetings. I think it should be normal and natural for us to get together with other people who are following Jesus Christ. But, I don’t think it’s normal and natural for us to get together the way many church organizations dictate.
Greg: I guess I dont really know much about different kinds of meetings as I have only ever been with one group of people, though we went thru quite a metamorphosis from what might be called organic to self conscious.
Our meetings were not structured, and could morph into any one of several topics, go short or long and not happen again for days or weeks followed by one every day if the need arose.
Maybe it will help to explain my puzzlement by saying that I suspect that if we all had closer daily interaction, like family, meetings would not be such a big deal.
Alan: Those “closer daily interaction” meetings are exactly what we need.
When you think about gathering (meeting) with the church, do you think of a specific meeting or type of meeting, or do you think about any time you are with other brothers and sisters in Christ?
Guest Blogger: Man-made aspects of religion were coming back to haunt me
I’ve invited several people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Surit Dasgupta. I think Surit is the first person from India to write a guest post for me. You can connect with Surit via his blog “Christ Our Lord.”
——————————————-
When I was twelve years old my dad brought me a very special gift on my birthday. It was a book called “Stories from the Bible – The New Testament”. I was fond of heroes, heroes who would triumph over evil against all odds, heroes who would protect the weak and the oppressed. I saw so many of these mythological characters in Hindu scriptures, there were warriors, lovers, and damsels in distresses. But when I finished reading about Jesus Christ I knew I had found the greatest Hero among all. I wanted to become a follower of Christ and there was nothing that was going to stop me from doing it.
As a Hindu, I was accustomed to rituals and clergy. The priest, better known as ‘pundit’ in Hinduism, would never allow a common man like me to touch the ‘deity’. I laughed at the pundit in my mind. I had a special secret – Jesus Christ. He was my guru and no one else. The rest were all man-made. Little did I know that these man-made aspects of religion were coming back to haunt me in my Christian life. I tried to find out what they were but I realized that they were all around me.
On Sunday meetings, the system in our local church was mechanized and very institutional. There was a ‘presider’ and he alone would determine who participate in the ‘service’. There was a preacher who would bring the ‘sermon’ which usually lasted 40-50 minutes. There was a strict almost classroom-like discipline which bounded the entire congregation. But there was something lacking and I knew it. The freedom to express Christ at will was non-existent. There were a couple of elderly members who were virtually sitting through the entire service (except that they had to ‘stand-up’ for the communion). These members had no-one to speak for them. There were disguised threats thrown by pulpit-armed preacher (I was a part of it) at members he didn’t like. No one dared say anything when the sermon was being delivered. And the most horrifying thing was that Christ was choke-holded into being a Spectator as well. It was Hinduism all over again!
It was at this point that someone gave me Frank Viola’s “Pagan Christianity?” to read. You can probably guess what happened afterward. I and a couple of other Christians protested against this mechanical institutionalism practiced by the local church leaders. We were ordered to ‘hush up’ and refrain from teaching our ‘false doctrine’. All we wanted was that everyone have the freedom to speak at will in the assembly.
One congregation considered our plea. There was an American missionary in that congregation and he wanted to hear us out. We moved to that congregation and were allowed to have an open-participatory meeting on Sunday. Everyone, except the missionary, was puzzled at what we were trying to achieve. Once that meeting began it all looked so very similar except that all of a sudden everyone had the freedom to choose their songs. There were people who said nothing in the usual Sunday ‘services’. These people were suddenly starting to ‘open’ their lips and say words of encouragement. People started to pray at random for one another. There was laughter… laughter at a Sunday meeting! It was surreal! It was so unlike an institutional church. It was like… like a family.
My mind now traces back to those first traces of Jesus in my childhood memory. He was the ultimate Hero – One who is the Protector of the weak and oppressed. Now He has a family – the church.
Scripture… As We Live It #206
This is the 206th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
But some of you have been anointed by the Holy One, and some of you all have knowledge. (1 John 2:20 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Continued Proclamation about the Kingdom of God in Acts
Two years ago, I wrote the post “Continued Proclamation about the Kingdom of God in Acts.” If I remember correctly, we were studying the Book of Acts together at the time. When I study books, I tend to study the book as a whole as much as possible before studying individual pieces, paragraphs, sentences, words, etc. In this way, the author’s purpose and intent is easier to distinguish. So, was Luke exhorting his readers (of Acts) to see themselves as “missionaries” sent by God to continue proclaiming the kingdom of God? I think so.
———————-
Continued Proclamation about the Kingdom of God in Acts
Have you ever noticed how the Book of Acts starts:
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3 ESV)
There are two things I want to point out: 1) Luke’s first book (the Gospel of Luke) dealt with “all the Jesus began to do and teach” which indicates that this book (Acts) deals with what Jesus continued to do and teach. 2) After Jesus’ resurrection, he talked to many people about the kingdom of God.
And the end of Acts, we read this passage:
He [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. (Acts 28:30-31 ESV)
Again, there are two things that I’d like to bring up: 1) Paul taught about Jesus with boldness and without hindrance even though he was under house arrest. 2) Paul, as with Jesus earlier, was proclaiming the kingdom of God.
Thus, at the beginning of Acts and the end of Acts (as well as several other places in the book – Acts 1:6, 8:12, 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23) we see the importance of speaking about and proclaiming the kingdom of God. Furthermore, we see that this type of proclamation is a continuation of what Jesus was doing and that the proclamation was unhindered even when the one proclaiming was imprisoned.
It seems, then, that Luke intended his second volume to be a treatise on the expansion of the kingdom of God. However, Luke did not intend Acts to be a treatise on the beginning of the kingdom. His Gospel explained that Jesus was the beginning of the kingdom of God. Similarly, Luke did not intend Acts to be a treatise on the end of the expansion of the kingdom. Instead, the kingdom continues to be proclaimed at the end of the book.
From just after Luke finished writing Acts until today, a reader would get the idea that the kingdom of God continues to expand and therefore must continue to be proclaimed. The reader would close the book seeing himself or herself as the one to proclaim the kingdom.
There are obviously other themes in the book of Acts (i.e. dependence on the Spirit, the kingdom community created by the Spirit, the gospel’s defeat of worldly systems), but we should never overlook the emphasis on the proclamation and expansion of the kingdom of God. This, along with many other aspects of the book of Acts, makes the book a missionary book, in the sense that those reading the book recognize that they are “sent” (apostello, missio).
So… you are sent to proclaim the kingdom of God and to see the kingdom of God expand.
(By the way, did you notice that we’ll only see this theme if we read the entire book, not just memorize one verse or passage?)
Which Distinctive Practices and Beliefs of Anabaptists are Important for the Church Today?
Thanks to Dave Black, I read an article summarizing the history, practices, and beliefs of the Anabaptists in sixteenth century Europe. Interestingly, I was talking with my son recently about the Anabaptists. He’s taking a World Civilizations class at a local community college, and they recently started talking about sixteenth century Europe, the Reformation, and even Anabaptists. It’s amazing how much people are now learning about the Anabaptists by reading what THEY wrote instead of reading what others wrote about them.
The article that I’m referring to is called “Anabaptism: Re-monking the Church After Christendom.” The article is two years old, and primarily studies the connection between Anabaptism and monasticism. However, it begins with a great list of general practices and beliefs that were distinctive to Anabaptists:
- The need for conversion – challenging the notion of a Christian culture
- Baptism is for believers and implies accountability to the community
- Multi-voiced church life – challenging the dependence on the clergy
- Economic sharing – simple living and responsibility for others
- Non-violence and an active commitment to peaceful living
- Truth-telling and a rejection of oath-swearing
- The centrality of Jesus and his call to serious discipleship
- Acceptance that suffering and persecution were normal for Christians
- The freedom of churches from state control or interference
- A wholehearted rejection of the Christendom system
By the way, it seems it was primarily that last distinctive (“a wholehearted rejection of the Christendom system”) that earned Anabaptists the ire and condemnation of others who sought to continue Christendom and the church-state connection. (In the eyes of those who held to the church-state connection, many of the other “distinctives” indicated a rejection of Christendom.)
Interestingly, while “Anabaptism” seems to have “failed,” many of these distinctives (especially the rejection of the church-state connection) are now accepted broadly among Jesus’ followers.
Just wondering, among my readers, which of the distinctive practices and beliefs of Anabaptists mentioned above do you think are important for the church today? Which ones are not important? Feel free to give your reasoning if you’d like. (You can use the numbers if you don’t want to type it all out.)
(HT: Dave Black)