For fun
Posts
A Kingdom Outpost: More Than A Meeting
10 years ago
Search
Custom Search
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Authority
An online discussion got some juices flowing:
The church, as a collective outside the individuals, has no authority. Bold statement? Yes, I agree. It flies into the face of much we've been taught, or we've caught, from church leaders, but it is true scripturally. Properly understood, church should be merely a community of individuals, not an institution or organization, but a community. Churches which are institution or organizations demand authority, and many do submit to the churches rather than the proper place - to God and to other individuals.
Authority is typically associated with power. But power is limited when it comes to authority as the word is used in scripture. Authority is from the Greek for a word that may be better translated "authorship". We typically think of author as a writer, but the original meaning is more to do with creativeness or creating. To bridge the gap from the original Greek meaning and the modern meaning, an author "creates" a written piece. Authority, in the original language the word originates, is to have the function to create or foster in others. A father is an authority in his household for the purpose of creating fully realized children and helping his wife fully realize her potential. He is not a ruler, but the authority. Some amount of "power" comes with that, but only in exercising a kind of discipline meant to foster growth and development. If this power is exercised to "keep things in line", it's an abuse of authority. When I submit to another, it is in the hopes they will exercise the authority I permit them to help me grow.
Authority within the church (not "of the church" but within the community) comes not because of a role, but because one recognizes in another the ability of that other to help one grow. In practice, it is almost always only for a season.
So authority comes by submission to one another for the benefit of creating in one another what we are meant to be fully as God's creation. We allow others to mold us, to shape or hone us, but submitting to them, by granting authority. We do not "recognize" another's authority - the only authority to be "recognized" is God. Authority within a community of believers does not come from a role, but from recognizing the ability of another to help one become more fulfilled as a child of God.
The church, as a collective outside the individuals, has no authority. Bold statement? Yes, I agree. It flies into the face of much we've been taught, or we've caught, from church leaders, but it is true scripturally. Properly understood, church should be merely a community of individuals, not an institution or organization, but a community. Churches which are institution or organizations demand authority, and many do submit to the churches rather than the proper place - to God and to other individuals.
Authority is typically associated with power. But power is limited when it comes to authority as the word is used in scripture. Authority is from the Greek for a word that may be better translated "authorship". We typically think of author as a writer, but the original meaning is more to do with creativeness or creating. To bridge the gap from the original Greek meaning and the modern meaning, an author "creates" a written piece. Authority, in the original language the word originates, is to have the function to create or foster in others. A father is an authority in his household for the purpose of creating fully realized children and helping his wife fully realize her potential. He is not a ruler, but the authority. Some amount of "power" comes with that, but only in exercising a kind of discipline meant to foster growth and development. If this power is exercised to "keep things in line", it's an abuse of authority. When I submit to another, it is in the hopes they will exercise the authority I permit them to help me grow.
Authority within the church (not "of the church" but within the community) comes not because of a role, but because one recognizes in another the ability of that other to help one grow. In practice, it is almost always only for a season.
So authority comes by submission to one another for the benefit of creating in one another what we are meant to be fully as God's creation. We allow others to mold us, to shape or hone us, but submitting to them, by granting authority. We do not "recognize" another's authority - the only authority to be "recognized" is God. Authority within a community of believers does not come from a role, but from recognizing the ability of another to help one become more fulfilled as a child of God.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Credibility and integrity
The amount of bs spouted by Christians is incredible, and many don't even know they are espousing the equivalent of urban legends. I did an extended blog post on integrity on Christmas before. Now that I've caught myself in an urban legend, it is time to return to the topic.
[To kill the curiosity before it distracts you, I got caught in my belief of the stat that only 1 in 1150 couples who pray together end up divorced. A friend quoted a similar stat with those numbers for a slightly different set of actions, and I thought I was correcting him in commenting. Even a quick search found a citation of the version I had heard. Digging deeper later, however, I found the whole thing is just an urban myth. Various versions are out there, but so is the research from "Smart Marriages" who spoke with each of the various cited sources for such statistics (Gallup, Barna, Harvard) and no one at any can verify any such study or poll was ever done. I've been busted.]
There are numerous urban legends (we'll be generous in our terms) are out there, pushed by Christians and cited in blogs, books, and worst of all sermons. They are just so numerous one could spout one a day for years. What happens to our credibility, our integrity, when we cite them, oft repeating them, without verifying them? You may have heard them from "the pulpit", but that doesn't mean we trust them blindly - as it we who pay for being caught in the lie, not that preacher.
If the message of Christ has the power and restoration capability we believe it does, we need not exaggerate, need not grasp at straws to prove it. A part of me is glad the 1 in 1160 divorce figure is a lie - it shows the power lies not in a magic formula of praying together (or as my friend heard it - studying the bible, praying, and going to church together), but in grace and reliance on Jesus. So what if the origin of the candy cane was not the mythical symbolism of stripes of red representing blood, etc (heard that myth?). So the Easter Bunny and eggs is purely pagan in origin, along with the other traditions around Easter and Christmas. That is not where the power is anyway.
In seeking God's truth, let's pursue truth in what we say, what we repeat. Let's not allow a false sense of need to trust professional clergy undermine our integrity. Let's trust instead in God.
[To kill the curiosity before it distracts you, I got caught in my belief of the stat that only 1 in 1150 couples who pray together end up divorced. A friend quoted a similar stat with those numbers for a slightly different set of actions, and I thought I was correcting him in commenting. Even a quick search found a citation of the version I had heard. Digging deeper later, however, I found the whole thing is just an urban myth. Various versions are out there, but so is the research from "Smart Marriages" who spoke with each of the various cited sources for such statistics (Gallup, Barna, Harvard) and no one at any can verify any such study or poll was ever done. I've been busted.]
There are numerous urban legends (we'll be generous in our terms) are out there, pushed by Christians and cited in blogs, books, and worst of all sermons. They are just so numerous one could spout one a day for years. What happens to our credibility, our integrity, when we cite them, oft repeating them, without verifying them? You may have heard them from "the pulpit", but that doesn't mean we trust them blindly - as it we who pay for being caught in the lie, not that preacher.
If the message of Christ has the power and restoration capability we believe it does, we need not exaggerate, need not grasp at straws to prove it. A part of me is glad the 1 in 1160 divorce figure is a lie - it shows the power lies not in a magic formula of praying together (or as my friend heard it - studying the bible, praying, and going to church together), but in grace and reliance on Jesus. So what if the origin of the candy cane was not the mythical symbolism of stripes of red representing blood, etc (heard that myth?). So the Easter Bunny and eggs is purely pagan in origin, along with the other traditions around Easter and Christmas. That is not where the power is anyway.
In seeking God's truth, let's pursue truth in what we say, what we repeat. Let's not allow a false sense of need to trust professional clergy undermine our integrity. Let's trust instead in God.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Passivity and the church
Frequent readers of my blog will remember the oft-quoted Alan Hirsch phrase: 'the method is the message'. This past weekend I was at a Ransomed Heart Boot Camp, and the tendency for Christian men to be passive was, as always, brought up in the opening session. This isn't how God intended men to be. But it is the message they get from the typical church model of a worship service with optional small group appendages.
When the church is seen as a worship service, that worship service invariably sends the message to all who attend, men and women. The typical service consists of filing in, staring at the back of heads, and for all but a small handful, sitting down and shutting up. Except when you get to read words off a screen. And even for that handful, for all but one or two of them, they are stuck following a script. Sounds like a formula for teaching passivity, doesn't it?
(bonus point - the other thing it teaches is that we aren't capable enough to engage God on our own. We've got to follow the script with the presence of the pastor/priest intermediary)
This all gets justified as being the way God intended it. Hardly. There are no letters or secret books of the Bible which have a Paul writing a Timothy saying - "in your sermons ... ". The examples in Acts of a dominant figure in meetings are limited to a visiting apostle, not a regular figure. Historically, there is evidence this continued on as such into the late 2nd century before there was a new trend to having a regular preacher, and even then, it wasn't in a majority of churches until the early 4th century (and, interestingly, the trend began and was solidified in part, some speculate, due to a popular form of entertainment - going to listen to an orator).
In fact, the instructions on meeting all lack any mention of worship or sermons - they talk of encouraging one another, equipping one another (not being equipped by a professional), spurring one another on to love and good deeds. All very non-passive activities in their contexts. Our most detailed instruction of what happens in meetings says everyone has something (I Corinthians 14:26ff). EVERYONE. What better way to encourage an active faith, one unique to as the individual, than to have them contribute UNIQUELY to the meetings!!! With an expectaion in the meetings, the expectations of involvement beyond the meetings spills out into life. No Sunday only faith of sitting down and shutting up with what life gives you.
The method is the message. If the message of the method doesn't mesh with the message of the gospel, maybe we need new interpretations of what we think are biblically mandated methods (and typically aren't). If the method we discern from scripture doesn't match the message, maybe we need to stop justifying our methods by reading them into scripture.
When the church is seen as a worship service, that worship service invariably sends the message to all who attend, men and women. The typical service consists of filing in, staring at the back of heads, and for all but a small handful, sitting down and shutting up. Except when you get to read words off a screen. And even for that handful, for all but one or two of them, they are stuck following a script. Sounds like a formula for teaching passivity, doesn't it?
(bonus point - the other thing it teaches is that we aren't capable enough to engage God on our own. We've got to follow the script with the presence of the pastor/priest intermediary)
This all gets justified as being the way God intended it. Hardly. There are no letters or secret books of the Bible which have a Paul writing a Timothy saying - "in your sermons ... ". The examples in Acts of a dominant figure in meetings are limited to a visiting apostle, not a regular figure. Historically, there is evidence this continued on as such into the late 2nd century before there was a new trend to having a regular preacher, and even then, it wasn't in a majority of churches until the early 4th century (and, interestingly, the trend began and was solidified in part, some speculate, due to a popular form of entertainment - going to listen to an orator).
In fact, the instructions on meeting all lack any mention of worship or sermons - they talk of encouraging one another, equipping one another (not being equipped by a professional), spurring one another on to love and good deeds. All very non-passive activities in their contexts. Our most detailed instruction of what happens in meetings says everyone has something (I Corinthians 14:26ff). EVERYONE. What better way to encourage an active faith, one unique to as the individual, than to have them contribute UNIQUELY to the meetings!!! With an expectaion in the meetings, the expectations of involvement beyond the meetings spills out into life. No Sunday only faith of sitting down and shutting up with what life gives you.
The method is the message. If the message of the method doesn't mesh with the message of the gospel, maybe we need new interpretations of what we think are biblically mandated methods (and typically aren't). If the method we discern from scripture doesn't match the message, maybe we need to stop justifying our methods by reading them into scripture.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Two interesting blogs I read this week
Came across two very interesting blogs this week, each which fit well from another angle with my last post.
The first was by an old friend, Ronnie. Ronnie's one of those guys you either love or hate, with no lukewarm. Kind of like Jesus if you really know what he's about. In a recent blog entry, he spoke of how scripture talks if a seed doesn't die, there is no growth. He made the excellent point of how a church too must be willing to risk death to see the kingdom advance. Ronnie, who is the senior minister of a church (near equivalent of senior pastor to most who live in that matrix), is in process of leading a body into an adventure that may kill, literally or figuratively, the current makeup of a church. At least that's the criticism he must be getting. Churches too often are more about their survival than advancing the kingdom. If the individual is to die to self, shouldn't the corporate body be willing to do the same for the sake of the kingdom? Great thoughts!
The other blog post I came across is one on the "movement" of multi-campus churches sweeping the US. The idea is that one preacher is somewhere, beaming or tape delaying his sermon to multiple sites. There are numerous examples of this within many urban areas, and at least one multiple state one based in Atlanta - with a campus here in Colorado! I have found this concept disgusting, as it is commonly building on a cult of personality around a man from my perspective, and assumes God doesn't provide enough talent to his people to advance the Kingdom. Interesting that the blogger, Neil Cole, has found no evidence that these churches are effective in planting new ones. Many have planted other multi-campus churches, and some of those have planted, but there is no fourth generation church in this movement yet. While only recently growing in popularity, it has been around for quite some time, long enough for there to exist even a fifth generation of planting, but there is no fourth generation. Rather than growing the kingdom, this suggests limiting it.
I've long thought megachurches are a selfish manifestation of the church, driven by consumerism more than kingdom advancement (see Skye Jethani's book The Divine Commodity for more on how consumerism is devouring the church). I foresee as the original "personalities" that build these megachurches die off or stumble, a few of these megachurches may manage to "pass the torch" to a new personality, but most will collapse or lose all passion for mission becoming hollow shells of themselves. Within two generations, the individual megachurches will die, perhaps replaced by others, perhaps (hopefully) not. This multicampus phenomenon seems like McChurch, and when the preaching pastor driving one stumbles, retires, or dies, the structure will crumble, maybe leaving only the original campus intact.
Two interesting blogs, nice contrast. These multicampus churches are another form of a spiritual tower of Babel, IMO. What we need is not selfish churches looking to be the biggest thing on the block and define kingdom advancement as "market share", but rather are willing to die to self to advance the kingdom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've told some that my next blog post was going to be likely very controversial one whose title gives the preview in itself "Purpose Driven Bondage". It's still coming. But when you chase the wild goose ...
The first was by an old friend, Ronnie. Ronnie's one of those guys you either love or hate, with no lukewarm. Kind of like Jesus if you really know what he's about. In a recent blog entry, he spoke of how scripture talks if a seed doesn't die, there is no growth. He made the excellent point of how a church too must be willing to risk death to see the kingdom advance. Ronnie, who is the senior minister of a church (near equivalent of senior pastor to most who live in that matrix), is in process of leading a body into an adventure that may kill, literally or figuratively, the current makeup of a church. At least that's the criticism he must be getting. Churches too often are more about their survival than advancing the kingdom. If the individual is to die to self, shouldn't the corporate body be willing to do the same for the sake of the kingdom? Great thoughts!
The other blog post I came across is one on the "movement" of multi-campus churches sweeping the US. The idea is that one preacher is somewhere, beaming or tape delaying his sermon to multiple sites. There are numerous examples of this within many urban areas, and at least one multiple state one based in Atlanta - with a campus here in Colorado! I have found this concept disgusting, as it is commonly building on a cult of personality around a man from my perspective, and assumes God doesn't provide enough talent to his people to advance the Kingdom. Interesting that the blogger, Neil Cole, has found no evidence that these churches are effective in planting new ones. Many have planted other multi-campus churches, and some of those have planted, but there is no fourth generation church in this movement yet. While only recently growing in popularity, it has been around for quite some time, long enough for there to exist even a fifth generation of planting, but there is no fourth generation. Rather than growing the kingdom, this suggests limiting it.
I've long thought megachurches are a selfish manifestation of the church, driven by consumerism more than kingdom advancement (see Skye Jethani's book The Divine Commodity for more on how consumerism is devouring the church). I foresee as the original "personalities" that build these megachurches die off or stumble, a few of these megachurches may manage to "pass the torch" to a new personality, but most will collapse or lose all passion for mission becoming hollow shells of themselves. Within two generations, the individual megachurches will die, perhaps replaced by others, perhaps (hopefully) not. This multicampus phenomenon seems like McChurch, and when the preaching pastor driving one stumbles, retires, or dies, the structure will crumble, maybe leaving only the original campus intact.
Two interesting blogs, nice contrast. These multicampus churches are another form of a spiritual tower of Babel, IMO. What we need is not selfish churches looking to be the biggest thing on the block and define kingdom advancement as "market share", but rather are willing to die to self to advance the kingdom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've told some that my next blog post was going to be likely very controversial one whose title gives the preview in itself "Purpose Driven Bondage". It's still coming. But when you chase the wild goose ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
