Lately my community has been discussing the form and function of "church". We come from various backgrounds with numerous experiences and all of that leads to preferences and those aren't a bad thing. However, when people confuse their preference or even their traditional experiences with God's will or God's intent...in effect "Christianizing" their preferences or opinions it becomes rather divisive and dysfunctional. Such an event happened this week when a guest to the group became overly assertive over an issue. Listing my preferences here wouldn't help this move ahead so I will simply list some observations compiled by Frank Viola regarding what the churches in the Bible did.
They met regularly in homes. Acts 20:20, Romans 16:3, I Cor 16:19
They took communion as a full meal. I Cor 11:21-34
Their church gatherings were open and participatory. I Cor 14:26, Hebrews 10:24-25
Spiritual Gifts were employed by each member. I Cor 12-14
They genuinely saw themselves as family and acted accordingly. Galatians 6:10, I Timothy 5:1-2, Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:15, Romans 12:13, 2 Cor 8:12-15
They had a plurality of elders to oversee the community. Acts 20:17, I Timothy 1:5-7
They were established and aided by itinerant apostolic workers. Acts 13-21 and all of the Apostolic Letters
They were united and did not denominate themselves into separate organizations within the city. Acts 8:1, Acts 13:1, Acts 18:22, Romans 16:1, Thess 1:1
They did not use honorific titles. Matthew 23:8-12
They did not organize themselves hierarchically. Matthew 20:25-28, Luke 22:25-26
My PREFERENCE would be that the idea of church return to these rather organic roots and completely abandon the more institutional model...I guess the real question for any community of believers is how God may be moving them in their gatherings.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Egalitarianism or Complementarianism
The following is my reply to my community regarding a discussion we had last night regarding women being submissive to men and exactly what we are to do with the whole issue of "women's roles".
We lost the intimacy shared between the male and female. Prior to the fall they were “naked and unashamed”. That was destroyed in the fall and more specifically with the curse of God listed above. That is important because we know that we are cursed from the fall but we also know that we are called, by our lives being firmly rooted in the new reality of the Messiah, to a new life and a new standard. In the kingdom of God, that Jesus proclaimed more often than he discussed love, grace or prayer, the relationship between a man and woman is to exist in a way representative of how things should have always been and will exist again at some point. This lends great weight to the scripture found in Galatians 3:
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
For those of us who belong to Christ, I believe that we are expected to seek transformation to the point that we no longer see nationalities, races or gender. Not just because it is right to do so, but because we are called to appropriately represent the Kingdom of God. For those who are in the Kingdom of God there is no longer male or female. According to this school of though, the qualifications within the Kingdom of God become not if one a male or female, if one belongs to a particular tribe or if they are a member of the proper religious sect. The lone qualification becomes God’s gifting of individuals and God’s calling on those people.
So what of the verses that would argue a more traditional, complementarian view?
Ephesians 5 does say:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Additionally I Timothy 2 says:
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
These verses are the core of the Complementarian debate. They seem to place the woman beneath the man and they tend to create a spiritual hierarchy within the Kingdom of God. When considering the curse for the original sin, this seems inconsistent with God. However, just because we think something is inconsistent or doesn’t make sense, we can’t discard it and maintain any kind of integrity.
I do think it is important to consider the context in which we find these verses. I think it is interesting that we prefer the specific verses above at times to prove our position or further substantiate our comfort but we rarely like the verses around them.
The Ephesians 5 passage gets very interesting near the end of the chapter. Paul is notorious for discussing a topic and seemingly going off on a tangent only to draw it back together. He does that in the famous chapter on “love” in I Corinthians 13. Paul is rocking along for 3 chapters (12-14) discussing the “gifts of the Spirit” and seemingly inserts “love” along the way. In reality Paul is actually using the discussion of love in relation to his discussion of gifts. A very similar pattern exists in Ephesians 5 as well. Paul concludes this passage in an interesting, though somewhat predictable way for him, when he says:
He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
The structure of that passage doesn’t exactly make sense considering the way we read more contemporary text. However, it is important to remember that the original manuscripts are void of punctuation and what we would consider usual sentence structure.
I think the verse from I Timothy is even more revealing. For the Complementarian Argument to stand up the passage in I Timothy must not in any way be a statement rooted in cultural relevancy. That is to say that it must be immutable and not negotiable based on contemporary values. The verses directly preceding the passage about women learning in quiet submission read like this:
I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
I have yet to find the same level of zeal from the more fundamentalist followers of Jesus regarding the aspects of men lifting their hands as they pray, women braiding their hair, women wearing gold/pearls or expensive clothing. Yet if one wants to claim that they are a “Biblical literalist”, each issue can’t be interpreted on what one thinks is appropriate. Obviously, braided hair and certain jewelry were cultural issues during the 1st Century. It seems unreasonable to divorce that cultural relevancy of braided hair and that of women only learning in quiet submission and never teaching a man.
At the end of the day I think it is important to mention, as I attempted to last night, that this is a very applicable discussion and one that has divided churches and families. The fact that remains that those who wish to find substantiation of their positions, be it egalitarian or complementarian, in scripture can do so. I personally think that one way of dealing with this debate seems to more accurately reflect the heart of the God I find elsewhere in scripture than the other way does, but as Melea appropriately references in her email, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”.
I think the debate and questions we were discussing last night is difficult at best. I don’t think it is difficult from a standpoint of “Biblical Authority”. I think we all believe the Bible is profitable for teaching, training and edification...among other things (2 Tim 3). I also think that we are unified in the understanding that the Bible can’t be taken literally in every instance since the Bible is a collection of poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.), private letters (Timothy, Philemon, etc), public letters (Galatians, Ephesians, etc.), books of history (Pentateuch, etc.), etc. For example, the very fact that any female speaks inside the church building and no man openly rebukes her for it is proof that that we don’t take I Corinthians 14 literally when Paul writes:
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
I think this issue becomes difficult because of the ways in which the primary operational definitions have been molested for the purposes of control, domination and other forms of evil. Therefore I think it would be helpful if we establish, through Biblical example and texts what is likely meant by the teaching of the “husband being the head of the wife” and the “wife being required to submit to the husband”.
I like that Melea began in Genesis (which is never a bad place to start). Part of the curse of the fall was indeed that Eve and every woman to follow her would be ruled by their husband. That is found in Genesis 3:
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
The Hebrew word that we translate into “rule over” is “mashal”. The meaning of that word is not just to reign over, have dominion over and govern over, but this word is one spoken with emphasis. I think it is safe to say that we all have seen evidence on micro and macro levels where this curse has come to pass and in many cases continues on today.
I think this is important because of what Jesus is in relation to the fall of man. More importantly we should ask who Jesus is in relation to the fall. Jesus came to restore everything lost in the fall. The primary thing we typically consider is that we can again be restored to God and His presence for all eternity but the presence of God wasn’t the only thing humanity lost in the fall of man.
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
I think this issue becomes difficult because of the ways in which the primary operational definitions have been molested for the purposes of control, domination and other forms of evil. Therefore I think it would be helpful if we establish, through Biblical example and texts what is likely meant by the teaching of the “husband being the head of the wife” and the “wife being required to submit to the husband”.
I like that Melea began in Genesis (which is never a bad place to start). Part of the curse of the fall was indeed that Eve and every woman to follow her would be ruled by their husband. That is found in Genesis 3:
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
The Hebrew word that we translate into “rule over” is “mashal”. The meaning of that word is not just to reign over, have dominion over and govern over, but this word is one spoken with emphasis. I think it is safe to say that we all have seen evidence on micro and macro levels where this curse has come to pass and in many cases continues on today.
I think this is important because of what Jesus is in relation to the fall of man. More importantly we should ask who Jesus is in relation to the fall. Jesus came to restore everything lost in the fall. The primary thing we typically consider is that we can again be restored to God and His presence for all eternity but the presence of God wasn’t the only thing humanity lost in the fall of man.
We lost the intimacy shared between the male and female. Prior to the fall they were “naked and unashamed”. That was destroyed in the fall and more specifically with the curse of God listed above. That is important because we know that we are cursed from the fall but we also know that we are called, by our lives being firmly rooted in the new reality of the Messiah, to a new life and a new standard. In the kingdom of God, that Jesus proclaimed more often than he discussed love, grace or prayer, the relationship between a man and woman is to exist in a way representative of how things should have always been and will exist again at some point. This lends great weight to the scripture found in Galatians 3:
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
For those of us who belong to Christ, I believe that we are expected to seek transformation to the point that we no longer see nationalities, races or gender. Not just because it is right to do so, but because we are called to appropriately represent the Kingdom of God. For those who are in the Kingdom of God there is no longer male or female. According to this school of though, the qualifications within the Kingdom of God become not if one a male or female, if one belongs to a particular tribe or if they are a member of the proper religious sect. The lone qualification becomes God’s gifting of individuals and God’s calling on those people.
So what of the verses that would argue a more traditional, complementarian view?
Ephesians 5 does say:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Additionally I Timothy 2 says:
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
These verses are the core of the Complementarian debate. They seem to place the woman beneath the man and they tend to create a spiritual hierarchy within the Kingdom of God. When considering the curse for the original sin, this seems inconsistent with God. However, just because we think something is inconsistent or doesn’t make sense, we can’t discard it and maintain any kind of integrity.
I do think it is important to consider the context in which we find these verses. I think it is interesting that we prefer the specific verses above at times to prove our position or further substantiate our comfort but we rarely like the verses around them.
The Ephesians 5 passage gets very interesting near the end of the chapter. Paul is notorious for discussing a topic and seemingly going off on a tangent only to draw it back together. He does that in the famous chapter on “love” in I Corinthians 13. Paul is rocking along for 3 chapters (12-14) discussing the “gifts of the Spirit” and seemingly inserts “love” along the way. In reality Paul is actually using the discussion of love in relation to his discussion of gifts. A very similar pattern exists in Ephesians 5 as well. Paul concludes this passage in an interesting, though somewhat predictable way for him, when he says:
He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
The structure of that passage doesn’t exactly make sense considering the way we read more contemporary text. However, it is important to remember that the original manuscripts are void of punctuation and what we would consider usual sentence structure.
I think the verse from I Timothy is even more revealing. For the Complementarian Argument to stand up the passage in I Timothy must not in any way be a statement rooted in cultural relevancy. That is to say that it must be immutable and not negotiable based on contemporary values. The verses directly preceding the passage about women learning in quiet submission read like this:
I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
I have yet to find the same level of zeal from the more fundamentalist followers of Jesus regarding the aspects of men lifting their hands as they pray, women braiding their hair, women wearing gold/pearls or expensive clothing. Yet if one wants to claim that they are a “Biblical literalist”, each issue can’t be interpreted on what one thinks is appropriate. Obviously, braided hair and certain jewelry were cultural issues during the 1st Century. It seems unreasonable to divorce that cultural relevancy of braided hair and that of women only learning in quiet submission and never teaching a man.
At the end of the day I think it is important to mention, as I attempted to last night, that this is a very applicable discussion and one that has divided churches and families. The fact that remains that those who wish to find substantiation of their positions, be it egalitarian or complementarian, in scripture can do so. I personally think that one way of dealing with this debate seems to more accurately reflect the heart of the God I find elsewhere in scripture than the other way does, but as Melea appropriately references in her email, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Lifespan of Democracy
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Props to Mr. Culpepper
Life has changed in so many ways over the past three years. Alabama is no longer in the SEC cellar and Auburn is no longer enjoying the view from the top of the SEC. Three years ago Nick Saban was in his first year with the Miami Dolphins and the thought that he would be the next great coach in the storied Alabama tradition would have been laughable. Three years ago it seemed unlikely that Tommy Tubberville would be on the hot seat at Auburn…well, some things do stay the same.
Three years ago, while attending the Alabama-Auburn game at Jordan-Hare stadium in Auburn, my perspective changed and I haven’t viewed the Iron Bowl the same since. While sitting in seats that seem to have fallen into my lap by divine providence after my wife’s prayer for the tickets, the gloom of Auburn’s 3 touchdowns in the first quarter was shattered by the cries of Mrs. Culpepper. Mr. Herman Culpepper was having a heart attack and I found him unconscious and quickly fading. It seemed like an eternity before the EMS services responded, but a nurse and I did CPR on Mr. Culpepper as long as we needed to do so. After several unsuccessful attempts with the defibrillator Mr. Culpepper was taken down the steps and through the tunnel to the waiting ambulance. I prayed in my heart that he would live though my mind didn’t hold out much hope. By halftime of that game I received word that Mr. Culpepper had indeed survived and would be fine after stints were placed. The elation I felt at that moment completely placed that game and sports in general into proper perspective. Life isn’t about events, it is about people.
I spoke to the Culpeppers several times after that day and the story we share even made headlines in several newspapers and one national publication. I had the honor of speaking with Mr. Culpepper again today and I am pleased to report that he is doing just fine. In fact, the man that Mr. Culpepper is today continues to serve as an inspiration to me and so many others. Mr. Culpepper wasn’t exactly wasting his life prior to three years ago. The devoted husband, father and grandfather was most pleased after his last heart attack that he would be able to spend more time with his family. For him, life wasn’t about finances, schedules or politics. Life is only lived to the fullest when it is spent in devotion to impacting the lives of others.
Mr. Culpepper told me today about what is going on in his life. Not surprisingly, he spoke about his family first. He said, “I have been able to spend time with my grandchildren and discuss the Lord with them”. He went on to mention that he is a Sunday School teacher and continues to be very active in his church. He also serves disabled veterans that return from Iraq and Afghanistan and helps them find purpose and direction in their lives. As Mr. Culpepper talked I couldn’t help but smile. Few things are more encouraging and uplifting than people loving and serving others. Mr. Culpepper and I discussed on so many occasions before, and again today, that God has a reason for him to still be here. In fact God has a reason for us all to be here. Mr. Culpepper is a shining example of living out that purpose to the fullest. His example becomes more inspiring as I realize he does it all with a sense of gratitude and appreciation for life itself.
Mr. Culpepper thanked me today, as he has each time we have talked, but I couldn’t let it go at that. I thanked him too. For serving others, for putting his family first and for living each day with great purpose. He said, “You and God have given me three more years on this earth”. In fairness I think he is being way too kind. The life that was given by God alone is sustained by God alone and Mr. Culpepper seems content to celebrate that fact daily.
The Iron Bowl this year has changed as Alabama is expected to win for the first time in years. With Auburn’s success the past six years that is certainly a welcomed change for Bama Fans. If I can find some reasonably priced tickets for the Iron Bowl, I will be watching the game this year from the stands for the first time since the day Mr. Culpepper was given a new lease on life. While I will be pulling for Alabama as hard as ever, I will be doing so with Mr. Culpepper in mind. The Iron Bowl is discussed all year in this state and athletic success of coaches and programs are often determined by the results of this game. Mr. Culpepper serves as an example to us all that real success in life is determined what happens off the field, out of our offices and in so many ways, what happens outside of our own lives. Life is about the people we love and those who extend that love in return. Here’s to Mr. Culpepper for showing us all how that looks.
Three years ago, while attending the Alabama-Auburn game at Jordan-Hare stadium in Auburn, my perspective changed and I haven’t viewed the Iron Bowl the same since. While sitting in seats that seem to have fallen into my lap by divine providence after my wife’s prayer for the tickets, the gloom of Auburn’s 3 touchdowns in the first quarter was shattered by the cries of Mrs. Culpepper. Mr. Herman Culpepper was having a heart attack and I found him unconscious and quickly fading. It seemed like an eternity before the EMS services responded, but a nurse and I did CPR on Mr. Culpepper as long as we needed to do so. After several unsuccessful attempts with the defibrillator Mr. Culpepper was taken down the steps and through the tunnel to the waiting ambulance. I prayed in my heart that he would live though my mind didn’t hold out much hope. By halftime of that game I received word that Mr. Culpepper had indeed survived and would be fine after stints were placed. The elation I felt at that moment completely placed that game and sports in general into proper perspective. Life isn’t about events, it is about people.
I spoke to the Culpeppers several times after that day and the story we share even made headlines in several newspapers and one national publication. I had the honor of speaking with Mr. Culpepper again today and I am pleased to report that he is doing just fine. In fact, the man that Mr. Culpepper is today continues to serve as an inspiration to me and so many others. Mr. Culpepper wasn’t exactly wasting his life prior to three years ago. The devoted husband, father and grandfather was most pleased after his last heart attack that he would be able to spend more time with his family. For him, life wasn’t about finances, schedules or politics. Life is only lived to the fullest when it is spent in devotion to impacting the lives of others.
Mr. Culpepper told me today about what is going on in his life. Not surprisingly, he spoke about his family first. He said, “I have been able to spend time with my grandchildren and discuss the Lord with them”. He went on to mention that he is a Sunday School teacher and continues to be very active in his church. He also serves disabled veterans that return from Iraq and Afghanistan and helps them find purpose and direction in their lives. As Mr. Culpepper talked I couldn’t help but smile. Few things are more encouraging and uplifting than people loving and serving others. Mr. Culpepper and I discussed on so many occasions before, and again today, that God has a reason for him to still be here. In fact God has a reason for us all to be here. Mr. Culpepper is a shining example of living out that purpose to the fullest. His example becomes more inspiring as I realize he does it all with a sense of gratitude and appreciation for life itself.
Mr. Culpepper thanked me today, as he has each time we have talked, but I couldn’t let it go at that. I thanked him too. For serving others, for putting his family first and for living each day with great purpose. He said, “You and God have given me three more years on this earth”. In fairness I think he is being way too kind. The life that was given by God alone is sustained by God alone and Mr. Culpepper seems content to celebrate that fact daily.
The Iron Bowl this year has changed as Alabama is expected to win for the first time in years. With Auburn’s success the past six years that is certainly a welcomed change for Bama Fans. If I can find some reasonably priced tickets for the Iron Bowl, I will be watching the game this year from the stands for the first time since the day Mr. Culpepper was given a new lease on life. While I will be pulling for Alabama as hard as ever, I will be doing so with Mr. Culpepper in mind. The Iron Bowl is discussed all year in this state and athletic success of coaches and programs are often determined by the results of this game. Mr. Culpepper serves as an example to us all that real success in life is determined what happens off the field, out of our offices and in so many ways, what happens outside of our own lives. Life is about the people we love and those who extend that love in return. Here’s to Mr. Culpepper for showing us all how that looks.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tongues and History
This past Sunday night in our small group (Church, for those of you not in the know) we began discussing charismatic gifts and their modern day existence. In a follow up email a buddy of mine asked why these gifts seem to disappear shortly after the death of Christ and not really show up in any written account until the 19th century. Below you can find my reply. Let me preface the reply by saying that I am shooting from the hip on this one...hoping my memory of previous study serves me well. Enjoy:
I would say that many reasons exist for why things such as speaking in tongues were not written. Christians were increasingly persecuted beginning even in Acts when the followers of Jesus fled to various cities and areas. Once being a christian or gathering as christians became crimes punished typically by death, I can't imagine many people would be willing to write about manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, once Constantine beat Maxentius on the Mulvian Bridge under the sign of Chi Rho (a cool story for another day), the persecution of christians ended...in the traditional form anyway. However, for the first time in the brief history of christendom, the church was "official"...in Blake's world I would call it "institutionalized". Constantine gave churches land grants and for the first time in history, a second class of humans were established within churches...leaving us, almost 1700 years later with pastors (or pick your choice label for paid leadership within a church) and lay people. Of interest, Constantine also gave the clergy Roman Senatorial Robes which became our modern day choir robes...and some denominations still have the paid leader person preach or perform communion in robes. Anyway, all of that is important because of the ecclesiastical subjugation to government. Once the elite, popular and wealthy of Rome began to flock to the new fad of christianity the more spiritual practices of the faith would understandably decrease...in percentages anyway. Those who kept a more pure form of faith would have not been published nor would they likely have been willing to write of their experiences for fear of ridicule, demotion or some other form of embarrassment. With things like the Nicene Creed and the Edict of Milan being written by those in power, testimonies of tongues, healings and prophesy would be limited or grossly overlooked.
If we fast forward through the Middle Ages we pass through over 1000 years of Catholic controlled ecclesiology that extends well into the period of Protestant Reformation. For example, people like Jeanne-Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon were imprisoned even in the late 17th century by the Catholic Church for "Mysticism". Her form of mysticism was simply teaching people that the Spirit of God could live in them, guide them and even communicate with them supernaturally without the help or blessing of the "church". Strangely enough I still proclaim the same thing today and am sometimes met with similar skepticism...but I digress. That isn't really an environment to be too vocal or public with something like speaking in tongues.
Now with all of that said, it is important to note that even Plato mentioned what many consider to be "speaking in tongues" with the mention in some of his writings of "ecstatic speech". So obviously, charismatic gifts showing up in written form are not the gold standard of their existence or of their foundation being always rooted in God.
However, it is important to note that writings do exist indicating the practice of charismatic gifts. Origen, Tertullian, Athenogoras and Eusidius all mention these out-pourings of the Holy Spirit. The Schleitheim Groups founded in the mid 16th century were known for "waiting on the spirit of the Lord" and wait they would. If needed, they would wait in silence for days until the "Spirit" would show up in the form of charismatic gifts.
I say ALL of that to say that we can't really speak accurately about charismatic gifts being something that were and then took a break and now may be back again. I think that kind of reasoning, in addition to being historically inaccurate, is designed to cast immediate skepticism on the existence and practice of these gifts of the Holy Spirit. If we can effectively remove this argument based on their historicity, perhaps we can more clearly seek to understand what God intends for us in our present walk with Him. That is the goal after all...at least I think it is.
Of course, once Constantine beat Maxentius on the Mulvian Bridge under the sign of Chi Rho (a cool story for another day), the persecution of christians ended...in the traditional form anyway. However, for the first time in the brief history of christendom, the church was "official"...in Blake's world I would call it "institutionalized". Constantine gave churches land grants and for the first time in history, a second class of humans were established within churches...leaving us, almost 1700 years later with pastors (or pick your choice label for paid leadership within a church) and lay people. Of interest, Constantine also gave the clergy Roman Senatorial Robes which became our modern day choir robes...and some denominations still have the paid leader person preach or perform communion in robes. Anyway, all of that is important because of the ecclesiastical subjugation to government. Once the elite, popular and wealthy of Rome began to flock to the new fad of christianity the more spiritual practices of the faith would understandably decrease...in percentages anyway. Those who kept a more pure form of faith would have not been published nor would they likely have been willing to write of their experiences for fear of ridicule, demotion or some other form of embarrassment. With things like the Nicene Creed and the Edict of Milan being written by those in power, testimonies of tongues, healings and prophesy would be limited or grossly overlooked.
If we fast forward through the Middle Ages we pass through over 1000 years of Catholic controlled ecclesiology that extends well into the period of Protestant Reformation. For example, people like Jeanne-Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon were imprisoned even in the late 17th century by the Catholic Church for "Mysticism". Her form of mysticism was simply teaching people that the Spirit of God could live in them, guide them and even communicate with them supernaturally without the help or blessing of the "church". Strangely enough I still proclaim the same thing today and am sometimes met with similar skepticism...but I digress. That isn't really an environment to be too vocal or public with something like speaking in tongues.
Now with all of that said, it is important to note that even Plato mentioned what many consider to be "speaking in tongues" with the mention in some of his writings of "ecstatic speech". So obviously, charismatic gifts showing up in written form are not the gold standard of their existence or of their foundation being always rooted in God.
However, it is important to note that writings do exist indicating the practice of charismatic gifts. Origen, Tertullian, Athenogoras and Eusidius all mention these out-pourings of the Holy Spirit. The Schleitheim Groups founded in the mid 16th century were known for "waiting on the spirit of the Lord" and wait they would. If needed, they would wait in silence for days until the "Spirit" would show up in the form of charismatic gifts.
I say ALL of that to say that we can't really speak accurately about charismatic gifts being something that were and then took a break and now may be back again. I think that kind of reasoning, in addition to being historically inaccurate, is designed to cast immediate skepticism on the existence and practice of these gifts of the Holy Spirit. If we can effectively remove this argument based on their historicity, perhaps we can more clearly seek to understand what God intends for us in our present walk with Him. That is the goal after all...at least I think it is.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monk Brawl 2008
So yesterday was Sunday. Sunday is seen by many Christians to be a "Holy Day". So in Israel yesterday two opposing religious groups did what any self-respecting groups would do on the "Holy Day"....fight like hell!!!
The clash between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks broke out in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, revered as the site of Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection.The brawling began during a procession of Armenian clergymen commemorating the 4th-century discovery of the cross believed to have been used to crucify Jesus.The Greeks objected to the march without one of their monks present, fearing that otherwise, the procession would subvert their own claim to the Edicule — the ancient structure built on what is believed to be the tomb of Jesus — and give the Armenians a claim to the site.
I think there is a hidden gem in that last paragraph...the Greek Monks FEARED...THE PROCESSION WOULD SUBVERT THEIR OWN CLAIM. It seems that these two rather ancient groups have passed on a few things to our modern religious groups...how sad.
Kind of like a grown man peeing his pants, the video of "Monk Brawl 2008" is as equally funny and strange. To see otherwise religious people, wearing religious clothes fighting like a bunch of drunk rednecks reminds me of Jesus' labeling of the Pharisees. He said they were like a white-washed tomb...pretty to look at but dead inside. What happens in Israel, between two groups barely even recognized in the Bible Belt of America seems irrelevant and far removed...but are we really any different?
I mean, how often do we or have we gotten dressed up, called ourselves doing something religious only to have horrible attitudes, rotten behavior and ungodly actions? It is easy to spot Monks fighting in a "Holy Place" but it is much more difficult to spot the rotten and often hidden, dark corners in our own world. I pray that you will join me in using the events of the Monk Brawl as a mirror to make sure we aren't all being equally absurd.
And if I may add one last thing...based on the video, Monks fight like wounded girl scouts...pretty angry and vicious but very few wild swings actually make contact and they don't seem to hurt very badly when they do. If you are going to pick a fight with your cross-town rival Monk Gang, you better be able to back it up...otherwise you end up on Youtube.com looking like a sissy.
The clash between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks broke out in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, revered as the site of Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection.The brawling began during a procession of Armenian clergymen commemorating the 4th-century discovery of the cross believed to have been used to crucify Jesus.The Greeks objected to the march without one of their monks present, fearing that otherwise, the procession would subvert their own claim to the Edicule — the ancient structure built on what is believed to be the tomb of Jesus — and give the Armenians a claim to the site.
I think there is a hidden gem in that last paragraph...the Greek Monks FEARED...THE PROCESSION WOULD SUBVERT THEIR OWN CLAIM. It seems that these two rather ancient groups have passed on a few things to our modern religious groups...how sad.
Kind of like a grown man peeing his pants, the video of "Monk Brawl 2008" is as equally funny and strange. To see otherwise religious people, wearing religious clothes fighting like a bunch of drunk rednecks reminds me of Jesus' labeling of the Pharisees. He said they were like a white-washed tomb...pretty to look at but dead inside. What happens in Israel, between two groups barely even recognized in the Bible Belt of America seems irrelevant and far removed...but are we really any different?
I mean, how often do we or have we gotten dressed up, called ourselves doing something religious only to have horrible attitudes, rotten behavior and ungodly actions? It is easy to spot Monks fighting in a "Holy Place" but it is much more difficult to spot the rotten and often hidden, dark corners in our own world. I pray that you will join me in using the events of the Monk Brawl as a mirror to make sure we aren't all being equally absurd.
And if I may add one last thing...based on the video, Monks fight like wounded girl scouts...pretty angry and vicious but very few wild swings actually make contact and they don't seem to hurt very badly when they do. If you are going to pick a fight with your cross-town rival Monk Gang, you better be able to back it up...otherwise you end up on Youtube.com looking like a sissy.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Revolutions Winning
Now that we as a country have a new leader waiting in the wings I wonder if the new regime will deliver on the promises they were so eager to offer in the previous year. Regardless of your political ideas, most people agree that the movement behind Obama has been almost in line with something religious. With that said, I wonder more than ever what happens when the movement or revolution for change enjoys a seat of power? The following quote is from Erwin McManus and I think he asks some appropriate questions about revolutionaries becoming "winners" and churches in general. Enjoy.
"Nothing is more dangerous to a revolution than winning. When a revolution wins, it must face the prospect of becoming an institution. No better example of this exists than when Constantine began mandating national baptisms. Christianity changed from a movement to an institution, from a global revolution to a world religion. You could now become a Christian without ever having met Jesus Christ personally. This was a bad thing-like keeping the shell and tossing the egg.
The irony in this is that the force of Christianity first changed the Roman world and then relinquished its power in the name of accommodation. It’s easy to see the difference between Christianity as a religion and Christianity as a revolution when we look back to the days of Constantine and the Dark Ages that followed. It’s more difficult to see that difference in our contemporary environment because we are standing in the middle of it. Our great awakenings were born through men and women who could see that the church had lost her way. They led the church back to the third day: from death to resurrection. They called God’s people out of the apathetic to the passionate.
Real, sustainable change occurs when actions are in response to values. For too long we have focused on making sure people believe the right things and have left their concerns alone. I know it may sound like heresy, but it is more important to change what people care about than to change what they believe! You can believe without caring, but you can’t care without believing. We cannot afford to fill our churches with members who have biblical beliefs and worldly concerns. When we awaken the apostolic ethos, the heart of God begins to pulsate throughout the church of Jesus Christ. The Christian faith is to be a moving experience!"
"Nothing is more dangerous to a revolution than winning. When a revolution wins, it must face the prospect of becoming an institution. No better example of this exists than when Constantine began mandating national baptisms. Christianity changed from a movement to an institution, from a global revolution to a world religion. You could now become a Christian without ever having met Jesus Christ personally. This was a bad thing-like keeping the shell and tossing the egg.
The irony in this is that the force of Christianity first changed the Roman world and then relinquished its power in the name of accommodation. It’s easy to see the difference between Christianity as a religion and Christianity as a revolution when we look back to the days of Constantine and the Dark Ages that followed. It’s more difficult to see that difference in our contemporary environment because we are standing in the middle of it. Our great awakenings were born through men and women who could see that the church had lost her way. They led the church back to the third day: from death to resurrection. They called God’s people out of the apathetic to the passionate.
Real, sustainable change occurs when actions are in response to values. For too long we have focused on making sure people believe the right things and have left their concerns alone. I know it may sound like heresy, but it is more important to change what people care about than to change what they believe! You can believe without caring, but you can’t care without believing. We cannot afford to fill our churches with members who have biblical beliefs and worldly concerns. When we awaken the apostolic ethos, the heart of God begins to pulsate throughout the church of Jesus Christ. The Christian faith is to be a moving experience!"
Monday, November 3, 2008
Bass Ackwards
If ever I got things backwards or out of order, my dad would say, "that's bass ackwards"...the implication obviously being that my actions or plans went against a normal or expected sequence of events. This past Sunday I think my wife and I were bass ackwards but in a good way.
Don't gasp or faint but I actually went and sat through an entire institutionalized church service. We didn't go to just any "church" either...we went to the largest church in the state of Alabama. Just this one worship time has cars backed up on the interstate and parking reminded me more of a sporting event than a place where believers of God were gathering to enrich their walks with God. We entered near the kids wing of the monstrous building and checked them in to the computerized security system and eventually found their class rooms and handed their teachers the digital printout explaining their names, DOB, potty training status...I think I saw blood type, previous medical information and mother's maiden name listed somewhere on the form. From there we walked past the in-house Starbucks...I kid you not, into the stadium-I mean auditorium. A band that looked more like a Pearl Jam setup than David with his harp was entertaining everyone and fortunately one of our friends found us and lead us to our seats in section J, row 43, seats 11 and 12.
Finally the super-pastor emerged under the sparkles of the spotlight...his incredibly white teeth momentarily blinded me when the spotlight bounced off of them and maybe burned my retina. And then the whole reason we were there happened. A family in our small-group had invited us to the dedication of their one year old.
The night before I was left with a dilemma...attend the antithesis of almost everything I hold dear within the kingdom of God and honor our brother and sister in the Lord or take a stand, not attend this mega-church and possibly offend our friends. As much as I didn't want to go I knew from the beginning that we were required to model what Jesus taught. Relationships always trump personal preference...people always win out over comfort.
So what is so bass ackwards about that whole scenario? I hear so many people say that they attend church to find a community. I think so many think that church is where faith happens and you foster relationships there that hopefully carry over into our everyday lives. Well, for us it is the other way around. We have "community" and we simply attended this church to deepen our relationships...not to find them. We went to this place not to get closer to God but to get closer to people who walk with us in our journey toward God. To many that may seem bass ackwards from the norm...to me, I just call it a new direction within the Kingdom of God as I experience it.
So was it worth it? Would I ever go back to that place again under similar circumstances? When it comes to honoring our fellow travelers on this spiritual journey and when it comes to fostering deeper relationships within what I consider our church...absolutely, I will go every time I am asked to do that.
Don't gasp or faint but I actually went and sat through an entire institutionalized church service. We didn't go to just any "church" either...we went to the largest church in the state of Alabama. Just this one worship time has cars backed up on the interstate and parking reminded me more of a sporting event than a place where believers of God were gathering to enrich their walks with God. We entered near the kids wing of the monstrous building and checked them in to the computerized security system and eventually found their class rooms and handed their teachers the digital printout explaining their names, DOB, potty training status...I think I saw blood type, previous medical information and mother's maiden name listed somewhere on the form. From there we walked past the in-house Starbucks...I kid you not, into the stadium-I mean auditorium. A band that looked more like a Pearl Jam setup than David with his harp was entertaining everyone and fortunately one of our friends found us and lead us to our seats in section J, row 43, seats 11 and 12.
Finally the super-pastor emerged under the sparkles of the spotlight...his incredibly white teeth momentarily blinded me when the spotlight bounced off of them and maybe burned my retina. And then the whole reason we were there happened. A family in our small-group had invited us to the dedication of their one year old.
The night before I was left with a dilemma...attend the antithesis of almost everything I hold dear within the kingdom of God and honor our brother and sister in the Lord or take a stand, not attend this mega-church and possibly offend our friends. As much as I didn't want to go I knew from the beginning that we were required to model what Jesus taught. Relationships always trump personal preference...people always win out over comfort.
So what is so bass ackwards about that whole scenario? I hear so many people say that they attend church to find a community. I think so many think that church is where faith happens and you foster relationships there that hopefully carry over into our everyday lives. Well, for us it is the other way around. We have "community" and we simply attended this church to deepen our relationships...not to find them. We went to this place not to get closer to God but to get closer to people who walk with us in our journey toward God. To many that may seem bass ackwards from the norm...to me, I just call it a new direction within the Kingdom of God as I experience it.
So was it worth it? Would I ever go back to that place again under similar circumstances? When it comes to honoring our fellow travelers on this spiritual journey and when it comes to fostering deeper relationships within what I consider our church...absolutely, I will go every time I am asked to do that.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Beati Pauperes Spiritu or Beati Possidentes
In the Latin Vulgate translation of the New Testament text, Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:3, “beati pauperes spiritu” or “Blessed in spirit are the poor”. The modern church doesn’t typically reflect those sentiments, in effect, creating even more separation between Jesus and “His Bride”.
More often than not, the modern church has forgotten “beati pauperes spiritu” and in its place adopted, “beati possidentes”, or “blessed are those who possess”. The widow with a mite is no longer the standard of giving for the followers of Jesus. Read carefully the verses regarding the widow in Mark 12. This time, in what will probably be a new context for many of you:
38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
It is interesting that Jesus doesn’t begin with a warning about demons or possessed people. However, Jesus does indeed issue a warning, “Watch out for the teachers of the law”. Jesus then describes what these dangerous teachers of law will do. According to the Messiah, the teachers will enjoy walking around as people of status, they will enjoy the popularity and honor others bestow on them, they will make their religion very “showy”-for the benefit of others seeing them and therefore propping up their status and credibility from a social perspective. But for our specific purpose today another description of the dangerous teachers of the law is “they devour widows’ houses”.
The idea of devouring a widow is not to literally consume them but rather to rob them, take all they have, strip them of what little remains in the midst of their loneliness. One Bible translation reads, “But they cheat widows out of their homes” (CEV). I think that is very accurate and even further sets up what is about to happen in this scene. Imagine this pompous man of religion that is wealthy, probably through less than ethical means, respected and morally bankrupt. Instead of “look(ing) after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27) and in so doing practice what the Bible labels “pure and undefiled religion” these men will look at women in need and use their vulnerability against them. Obviously, anyone that would take someone who is weak and exploit them is beyond immoral. As such, Mark 12 says these people will be sentenced to a very harsh punishment.
After describing what the dangerous teachers of the law would do, Jesus sits down and simply watches as people place their offerings in the treasury. It is as though mankind has become so predictably evil and parasitic, especially in religious circles, that Jesus turns around to those he was teaching and with a wink and a smile said, “watch this”. Not too long after explaining what happens in religious settings, particularly when it involves money, Jesus has the opportunity to elbow a disciple in the ribs as he smiles and says, “I told you”. What did he tell them and more importantly for us, what is he still saying to us?
“Many rich people threw in large amounts” is a statement that says a few things without actually saying them. For example, if people were giving in the fashion they should, no one would be able to say who gave more. The fact that the text quantifies the number of people and the amount they gave indicates that maybe there was a bit of the religious positioning going on. Maybe a relatively rich person makes sure others are aware that he put in a large sum and he feels good about it, until someone with more wealth trumps him with an even larger amount. This routine could go on for a while and many of the people involved in the financial wrangling in the house of God probably did notice the poor widow that made sure her gift went unnoticed. The last thing people want to do is draw attention to the issues in their life that are lacking or insignificant. The only person present that matter noticed the widow, and that is all that mattered.
Jesus had just spoken about dangerous teachers of the law robbing from widows and now both the religious status seekers and the widow have proven his point. While the religious are jockeying for position, the widow quietly “gives out of her poverty”. These men, thinking they have done something spectacular, have been upstaged in the eyes of God by a widow. The widows were usually just prey for these kinds of people, but not in this case, not in the eyes of God. This woman understood that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with what one brings to the table, it has nothing to do with show and it has nothing to do with contributions. God doesn’t need money, after all, He owns the cattle on a thousand hilltops (Psalm 50). What God desires is exactly what this widow gives…everything. She obviously knew that she didn’t have enough to compete with the “religious”, but it wasn’t about competition, it was about complete surrender. The widow wasn’t able to fund a ministry, but it wasn’t about funding a ministry, it was about a sincere spirit. The widow couldn’t buy status or credibility with her offering, but it wasn’t about status or credibility, it was about obedience in the face of arrogance. In stark contrast to the religious, stands the righteous and Jesus reveals the heart of the Father by saying who gave more and who’s sacrifice was more pleasing to Him. It wasn’t about the amount, it was about the heart.
Unfortunately, this story and this lesson are largely forgotten in your average church today. Want proof? Show me a church with a finance committee, accounting committee or something similar and I will show you people that handle money well, enjoy an above average lifestyle, an above average income and are likely to be wealthy
relative to the other members of the church. I personally have never been to a church, nor has anyone I know, that had a bankrupt individual on the finances committee. Though exceptions always exist, you are not likely to see someone serve on a finance committee that also needs help from the benevolence fund from time to time.
The typical excuse given for why people are given charge of finances at any given church is because they have proven in life to be a “good steward”. While I have often heard that we are called to be “good stewards” in the midst of sermons and classes regarding finances, I can’t find the same amount of attention paid to financial stewardship in scripture. Make no mistake, we are call to be good stewards. Let’s look at the ways in which the Bible calls us to good stewardship:
I Peter 4: as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (Grace)
Titus 1: as the steward of God (Leadership)
I Corinthians 4: stewards of the mysteries of God. (Representing God)
Luke 12: Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household (Leadership)
The other Biblical references to being a steward or stewardship in general is simply as a title or an administrative role one may fulfill. While I think we can certainly say that financial responsibility is a good thing and even a God thing, I don’t think we can omit the poor widow that served as an example for Jesus to teach his followers some 2000 years ago. Maybe Jesus still wants to use her example to teach his followers today.
Are power structures in the typical church dictated by finances? I would argue that generally speaking, churches do exactly what Jesus says the dangerous teachers of the law did and exactly what we are warned not to do again in James 2 by showing favoritism.
James 2: “1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose someone comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor person in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the one wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the one who is poor, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? 8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”
Lest we forget brilliant and emancipating aspects of the Kingdom of God is that the last is first, the broken made whole, the lacking is made sufficient, the blind see and the lame walk (Luke 7). Sadly the Kingdom is often portrayed to the world by church attendees in the areas of finances and power as being no different than the world. All too often, the attractive, wealthy, talented and gifted fill the roles within the leadership hierarchy and the major decisions are made, directly or indirectly by those who wield the funds. Can it be that the Golden Rule of Jesus has been traded for the Golden Rule of the world…”those who have the gold make the rules”?
So what about wealth? Often the Bible is misquoted when people declare with the best intentions, “money is the root of all evil”. Actually it is the “love of money” which is that root. Many rationalize wealth by pointing out all the “blessings” Solomon had or all the possessions Abraham or David enjoyed. While certainly God bestowed some people in the Bible with abundance in those areas, this in no way negates the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 18.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
What if Jesus is serious about that?
More often than not, the modern church has forgotten “beati pauperes spiritu” and in its place adopted, “beati possidentes”, or “blessed are those who possess”. The widow with a mite is no longer the standard of giving for the followers of Jesus. Read carefully the verses regarding the widow in Mark 12. This time, in what will probably be a new context for many of you:
38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
It is interesting that Jesus doesn’t begin with a warning about demons or possessed people. However, Jesus does indeed issue a warning, “Watch out for the teachers of the law”. Jesus then describes what these dangerous teachers of law will do. According to the Messiah, the teachers will enjoy walking around as people of status, they will enjoy the popularity and honor others bestow on them, they will make their religion very “showy”-for the benefit of others seeing them and therefore propping up their status and credibility from a social perspective. But for our specific purpose today another description of the dangerous teachers of the law is “they devour widows’ houses”.
The idea of devouring a widow is not to literally consume them but rather to rob them, take all they have, strip them of what little remains in the midst of their loneliness. One Bible translation reads, “But they cheat widows out of their homes” (CEV). I think that is very accurate and even further sets up what is about to happen in this scene. Imagine this pompous man of religion that is wealthy, probably through less than ethical means, respected and morally bankrupt. Instead of “look(ing) after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27) and in so doing practice what the Bible labels “pure and undefiled religion” these men will look at women in need and use their vulnerability against them. Obviously, anyone that would take someone who is weak and exploit them is beyond immoral. As such, Mark 12 says these people will be sentenced to a very harsh punishment.
After describing what the dangerous teachers of the law would do, Jesus sits down and simply watches as people place their offerings in the treasury. It is as though mankind has become so predictably evil and parasitic, especially in religious circles, that Jesus turns around to those he was teaching and with a wink and a smile said, “watch this”. Not too long after explaining what happens in religious settings, particularly when it involves money, Jesus has the opportunity to elbow a disciple in the ribs as he smiles and says, “I told you”. What did he tell them and more importantly for us, what is he still saying to us?
“Many rich people threw in large amounts” is a statement that says a few things without actually saying them. For example, if people were giving in the fashion they should, no one would be able to say who gave more. The fact that the text quantifies the number of people and the amount they gave indicates that maybe there was a bit of the religious positioning going on. Maybe a relatively rich person makes sure others are aware that he put in a large sum and he feels good about it, until someone with more wealth trumps him with an even larger amount. This routine could go on for a while and many of the people involved in the financial wrangling in the house of God probably did notice the poor widow that made sure her gift went unnoticed. The last thing people want to do is draw attention to the issues in their life that are lacking or insignificant. The only person present that matter noticed the widow, and that is all that mattered.
Jesus had just spoken about dangerous teachers of the law robbing from widows and now both the religious status seekers and the widow have proven his point. While the religious are jockeying for position, the widow quietly “gives out of her poverty”. These men, thinking they have done something spectacular, have been upstaged in the eyes of God by a widow. The widows were usually just prey for these kinds of people, but not in this case, not in the eyes of God. This woman understood that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with what one brings to the table, it has nothing to do with show and it has nothing to do with contributions. God doesn’t need money, after all, He owns the cattle on a thousand hilltops (Psalm 50). What God desires is exactly what this widow gives…everything. She obviously knew that she didn’t have enough to compete with the “religious”, but it wasn’t about competition, it was about complete surrender. The widow wasn’t able to fund a ministry, but it wasn’t about funding a ministry, it was about a sincere spirit. The widow couldn’t buy status or credibility with her offering, but it wasn’t about status or credibility, it was about obedience in the face of arrogance. In stark contrast to the religious, stands the righteous and Jesus reveals the heart of the Father by saying who gave more and who’s sacrifice was more pleasing to Him. It wasn’t about the amount, it was about the heart.
Unfortunately, this story and this lesson are largely forgotten in your average church today. Want proof? Show me a church with a finance committee, accounting committee or something similar and I will show you people that handle money well, enjoy an above average lifestyle, an above average income and are likely to be wealthy
relative to the other members of the church. I personally have never been to a church, nor has anyone I know, that had a bankrupt individual on the finances committee. Though exceptions always exist, you are not likely to see someone serve on a finance committee that also needs help from the benevolence fund from time to time.
The typical excuse given for why people are given charge of finances at any given church is because they have proven in life to be a “good steward”. While I have often heard that we are called to be “good stewards” in the midst of sermons and classes regarding finances, I can’t find the same amount of attention paid to financial stewardship in scripture. Make no mistake, we are call to be good stewards. Let’s look at the ways in which the Bible calls us to good stewardship:
I Peter 4: as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (Grace)
Titus 1: as the steward of God (Leadership)
I Corinthians 4: stewards of the mysteries of God. (Representing God)
Luke 12: Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household (Leadership)
The other Biblical references to being a steward or stewardship in general is simply as a title or an administrative role one may fulfill. While I think we can certainly say that financial responsibility is a good thing and even a God thing, I don’t think we can omit the poor widow that served as an example for Jesus to teach his followers some 2000 years ago. Maybe Jesus still wants to use her example to teach his followers today.
Are power structures in the typical church dictated by finances? I would argue that generally speaking, churches do exactly what Jesus says the dangerous teachers of the law did and exactly what we are warned not to do again in James 2 by showing favoritism.
James 2: “1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose someone comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor person in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the one wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the one who is poor, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? 8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”
Lest we forget brilliant and emancipating aspects of the Kingdom of God is that the last is first, the broken made whole, the lacking is made sufficient, the blind see and the lame walk (Luke 7). Sadly the Kingdom is often portrayed to the world by church attendees in the areas of finances and power as being no different than the world. All too often, the attractive, wealthy, talented and gifted fill the roles within the leadership hierarchy and the major decisions are made, directly or indirectly by those who wield the funds. Can it be that the Golden Rule of Jesus has been traded for the Golden Rule of the world…”those who have the gold make the rules”?
So what about wealth? Often the Bible is misquoted when people declare with the best intentions, “money is the root of all evil”. Actually it is the “love of money” which is that root. Many rationalize wealth by pointing out all the “blessings” Solomon had or all the possessions Abraham or David enjoyed. While certainly God bestowed some people in the Bible with abundance in those areas, this in no way negates the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 18.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
What if Jesus is serious about that?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tribes, Politics and Liquid Feces
Today I am posting an email I sent out to my "church" in reply to one sweet female who said she is voting for Obama and then provided the link for an article that presents the Republican Party as mean, hateful, racist and corrupt...as though they have a monopoly on that. Maybe it will speak to some of you. Enjoy
I say all of that to draw the similarities between the Tanzanian system of government and our own. The Republican Tribe has been in control of the Executive Branch for 8 years...and SURPRISE SURPRISE, the people of that tribe have received special favors and have benefited. On the flip side of the past 8 years were 8 years of the Democratic Tribe being in power of the Executive Branch. Again, guess who got the favors, the benefits and even "special cigars"? Those within that tribe...well, Monica got the cigar but that's another story.
Of interest, the Democratic Tribe has been in charge of the Legislative Branch of Government for the past two years and guess what kind of laws they have passed or have attempted to pass...ones that benefit their tribe.
As I contemplate what will happen one week from today I am sure of several things...to say that I will vote for one party because the other party uses fear to motivate is myopic at best. To say that I will vote for one tribe over another because one tribe is corrupt and one isn't would be less than accurate. To say that we should support one tribe over another because Jesus would support one platform over another is absurd. Jesus can't be bought with campaign money and repeatedly said that his Kingdom isn't of this world...in effect, bypassing his chance to tattoo a donkey or elephant on his legacy. To say that I will vote for one tribe over another because one tribe will wage war is to be a poor historian. I personally packed my gear under Bill Clinton to wage war in countries that we had as much reason to be there as we do Iraq and Afghanistan...let's not forget Sudan's Aspirin Factories, The Chinese Embassy Bombing, the USS Cole, The first World Trade Center Attack, Bosnian Conflict, etc. Both Tribes wage war and both tribes manipulate wars for the good of their tribe...I have been there, done that and still have some of my "battle-rattle" to prove it. Just ask Jeff...I'm a nut job in a crowed bar to this day :)
So anyway, let's all go out and vote...or not. Vote for McCain or vote for Obama. Let's discuss in love whatever issues we want but I personally think each side should come down off our thrones long enough to objectively observe that each candidate will do the exact same thing if elected....support the agenda of their tribe while trying to limit or even destroy the agenda of the opposing tribe. You support in this election doesn't make you a christian, atheist or even moralist...it makes you an official part of a particular tribe.
We are collectively about to get exactly what we ask for...I seriously question if any of us will like what we get? It reminds me of when the people of God demanded a king. God gave them the desires of their hearts...and allowed them to soak in the pool of liquid feces they squirted in their Hebrew boxer briefs...and with that, it appears that I have come full circle so I must say, "Amen"
I didn't gasp at the thought of you voting for Obama as you imagined some of us would...but I do think I squirted a little liquid feces into my boxer briefs. :)
I have heard others mention how tired they are of mean, cruel, racist, and whatever else political campaigns. I have also heard about the corruption run amuck in the republican run white house and congress. I hate...and I can't state it strongly enough....HATE the corruption in politics. I HATE the cruel, mean-spirited, selfish, racist aspects of life in general...politics notwithstanding.
I say all of that to bring up something I learned when I was living in Africa. The government in charge of Tanzania when I was there was corrupt...and I don't mean just a little bit. I asked some of the people why they didn't vote for a change and elect the competing tribe. Their answer was that they already did that. The two primary tribes involved in government in Tanzania had alternated control every few terms because the people had become tired of the BS...maybe this time it was that they had had enough of the Sukuma Tribe and the specific ways in which they were corrupt...though several years before they had been begging for reform and begging for the Sukuma Tribe to "Be the Change We Need". The truth was and is that the Tanzanian government was going to be corrupt regardless of who was in charge because both groups were wrong about so much. The tribes not in control were going to get the shaft repeatedly because their opponents were in charge.
I have heard others mention how tired they are of mean, cruel, racist, and whatever else political campaigns. I have also heard about the corruption run amuck in the republican run white house and congress. I hate...and I can't state it strongly enough....HATE the corruption in politics. I HATE the cruel, mean-spirited, selfish, racist aspects of life in general...politics notwithstanding.
I say all of that to bring up something I learned when I was living in Africa. The government in charge of Tanzania when I was there was corrupt...and I don't mean just a little bit. I asked some of the people why they didn't vote for a change and elect the competing tribe. Their answer was that they already did that. The two primary tribes involved in government in Tanzania had alternated control every few terms because the people had become tired of the BS...maybe this time it was that they had had enough of the Sukuma Tribe and the specific ways in which they were corrupt...though several years before they had been begging for reform and begging for the Sukuma Tribe to "Be the Change We Need". The truth was and is that the Tanzanian government was going to be corrupt regardless of who was in charge because both groups were wrong about so much. The tribes not in control were going to get the shaft repeatedly because their opponents were in charge.
I say all of that to draw the similarities between the Tanzanian system of government and our own. The Republican Tribe has been in control of the Executive Branch for 8 years...and SURPRISE SURPRISE, the people of that tribe have received special favors and have benefited. On the flip side of the past 8 years were 8 years of the Democratic Tribe being in power of the Executive Branch. Again, guess who got the favors, the benefits and even "special cigars"? Those within that tribe...well, Monica got the cigar but that's another story.
Of interest, the Democratic Tribe has been in charge of the Legislative Branch of Government for the past two years and guess what kind of laws they have passed or have attempted to pass...ones that benefit their tribe.
As I contemplate what will happen one week from today I am sure of several things...to say that I will vote for one party because the other party uses fear to motivate is myopic at best. To say that I will vote for one tribe over another because one tribe is corrupt and one isn't would be less than accurate. To say that we should support one tribe over another because Jesus would support one platform over another is absurd. Jesus can't be bought with campaign money and repeatedly said that his Kingdom isn't of this world...in effect, bypassing his chance to tattoo a donkey or elephant on his legacy. To say that I will vote for one tribe over another because one tribe will wage war is to be a poor historian. I personally packed my gear under Bill Clinton to wage war in countries that we had as much reason to be there as we do Iraq and Afghanistan...let's not forget Sudan's Aspirin Factories, The Chinese Embassy Bombing, the USS Cole, The first World Trade Center Attack, Bosnian Conflict, etc. Both Tribes wage war and both tribes manipulate wars for the good of their tribe...I have been there, done that and still have some of my "battle-rattle" to prove it. Just ask Jeff...I'm a nut job in a crowed bar to this day :)
So anyway, let's all go out and vote...or not. Vote for McCain or vote for Obama. Let's discuss in love whatever issues we want but I personally think each side should come down off our thrones long enough to objectively observe that each candidate will do the exact same thing if elected....support the agenda of their tribe while trying to limit or even destroy the agenda of the opposing tribe. You support in this election doesn't make you a christian, atheist or even moralist...it makes you an official part of a particular tribe.
We are collectively about to get exactly what we ask for...I seriously question if any of us will like what we get? It reminds me of when the people of God demanded a king. God gave them the desires of their hearts...and allowed them to soak in the pool of liquid feces they squirted in their Hebrew boxer briefs...and with that, it appears that I have come full circle so I must say, "Amen"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
