Which is easier? Getting two individuals to agree or getting two groups to agree?
Marriage is an example of two individuals who are supposedly working and agreeing together. The reality is that everyone knows that marriages rarely operate on the basis of unity and working together.
Many marriages are more like super powers agreeing to not interfere with designated areas of influence. When dialogue actually does happen in order to get agreement, it is more like acquiescence has taken place. One partner has simply worn the other partner out. Other forms of agreement are really just trade offs. “You can get your motorcycle if I get a new living room set.” By the way guys, if your wife says, “you can get your damn motorcycle”, make sure whoever you are buying it from has a good return policy.
If it’s hard for a couple that really love each other and will clearly benefit from working in unity, how much harder is it for Christians to actually live out this idea? It almost seems that Paul is barking up an impossible tree when he gives the purpose for apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastors/teachers.
“to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:12,13 (NIV)
When individuals form into organized groups it is necessary to have exclusive thinking (practices and doctrines) in order maintain their identity. Without some form of exclusivity the group will eventually cease to exist.
Therefore when church groups say they have a pastor they also must say that their pastor is not working towards what he is biblically mandated to do. His mandate from the words of Paul is to work towards unity among all Christians. But his reason for existence in the group is to maintain the group’s uniqueness or exclusiveness. Therefore he may be called a pastor in modern language but he is not fulfilling his job description as outlined by Paul. The general rule of thumb when interpreting Ephesians 4 is to simply put your thumb over it.
What does Christian unity look like? Definitely not the exclusiveness that creates disunity between the 39,000+ denominations that exists today.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Ironic Blame
From a casual reading of my blog one might conclude that I believe that Sunday services, especially the weakly sermon, paid pastors and church buildings are a significant hindrance to people growing in their faith. If I refer to people at all, hopefully it’s in the context of illustrating the seductive power of the institution.
Some people think I’m crazy, bitter, uninformed, angry, wasting my time, and I’m just plain old fashioned mean.
It’s fascinating when things aren’t working in a church people never consider that it’s the stuff I’m writing about that might be the problem. Instead they blame the pastor or the people for not working hard enough or giving enough or caring enough.
And yet I’m the mean one.
Choices That Confuse Me
Choices can be good and at times they can make us feel lost. A lady came back from 4 years of living in a third world country. People were feeding a family of 6 on a $1.82 per week. I know that sounds impossible. Obviously the food choices were limited even for my friend. No money therefore no demand therefore no supply.
She said it was difficult at first but eventually she came to realize that lack of choice for material things meant focusing on relationships. The people were genuinely happy and thankful for each day. They shared an entire month’s food supply to celebrate her coming to them. To refuse their gift would have been worst than the guilt she felt for depriving them of their basic necessities.
When the 4 years were up she was surprised how difficult it was to be leaving such a warm and generous group of people. On arriving home she had her first encounter with reverse culture shock when she went to the grocery store. The 27 choices of salad dressing that were stacked from top to bottom on a huge set of shelves literally flooded her emotions. She left with nothing and cried the rest of the day. It took her a week before she even attempted to go back for anymore groceries.
Interpreting the Bible is rather like having a huge shelf of choices flooding your senses. Some people like to see the the Bible as God’s clear word that can be easily digested from a 1 X 3 promise coupon while having a bagel with cream cheese in the morning. Others are quite serious when they make statements and bumper stickers that say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” When I hear that line I’m not quite sure what they mean. Do they really believe they have the exact right interpretation of every single sentence in the Bible? Or do they mean, my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.
It seems to me that there are lots of interpretive options when approaching the Bible. Even saying there are choices is sure to alienate some people but the reality is that we do have choices. Sometimes the choices are polar opposites with one being quite humane and reasonable and the other being quite controlling and harsh. I get confused when the latter option is chosen by a large number of Christians.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
A while back I was exploring alternative ways of practicing the Lord’s Supper/Communion. In Suppertime I took a thoughtful approach to rethinking how we practice taking communion. I was pissed off when I wrote, Communion: Take at Your own Risk, because I had just heard a normally kind pastor use Paul’s teaching about eating unworthily as an example of how God still kills people for messing up from time to time.
He was quite confident in speaking this way as most of Christianity interprets Paul’s words to mean God kills people for taking the bread and wine with unconfessed sin in their lives.
Here’s the offending passage.
1Cor
Here’s an alternative interpretation to the God will kill you for getting it wrong way of thinking.
Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t just for our salvation, it was the means through which He would create and build His church, His body. The Corinthians were very excited about their salvation but were being very careless in how they treated and cared for His body, the rest of the believers that they were to love. They didn’t care if others were in desperate situations and were being malnourished.
The well off ones were obviously very spiritual as they had lots to eat. Consequently, they didn’t care about their brothers and sisters who were in real need. In their carelessness towards Jesus’ body, (other Christians), some were literally dying or becoming sick through lack of care.
Note that in verse 30 Paul isn’t saying that the one’s who were eating unworthily (not caring about others) had died but that others had died because of their inaction.
He isn’t trying to scare them into focusing on their inward and hidden sin but on their need to love one another. Taking communion isn’t about celebrating our ticket to heaven. It’s about having a great meal with great friends who are living out their faith in their risen Lord together. It’s about taking responsibility for each other. When we don’t, some, as Paul says, get sick and some even die.
Why choose the classic interpretation that causes you to focus on yourself and sees God just waiting to pounce on those who aren’t doing it quite right?
It’s your choice.
Everyone Agrees
Everyone agrees that in New Testament times there were:
No church buildings
No Sunday services
No paid elders or pastors
No Sunday schools
No offerings or tithing
(collections were made for the poor)
That means the Bible doesn’t require those things and the early church didn’t need those things to turn their world upside down.
We all agree then.
We can shut down all of the Sunday services, sell all the buildings, fire all the pastors and get back to giving to the poor.
Churchgoer: Those are fightin words. It’s obvious we need those things. The New Testament writers simply weren’t as enlightened as we are.
Everyone agrees.
n.b.
If standard church practices were shut down, the 20% of the people that do 80% of the work wouldn't know what to do with themselves and the 80% of the people that do nothing would feel guilty doing nothing at home.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Sheep Stealing 101
There’s a dirty little secret that pastors often talk about behind closed doors but usually never openly admit to. It’s called sheep stealing. This is when another pastor overtly tries to get someone from a different congregation to join theirs. It’s considered quite reprehensible and morally questionable. The funny thing is that it happens ALL the time.
Most church growth these days happens through what is called transfer growth. People who are Christians and have left another church for various reasons: disappointed, called out, frustrated, ignored, not fed, moved, got married, kicked out, bored...
Pastors don’t usually try to do a poor job. In fact, they go out of their way to devise ways of getting new people into their church. Better programs, better communication skills, better facilities, better youth groups, better mission, better care… All of this is considered good pastoring. Good business is never mentioned. With all these enticements it’s hard for the consumer (parishioner) to not leave one church to go to another from time to time. Maybe the grass is greener…
The secret of being a good sheep stealer is that you never directly approach a Christian from a different church. You let what you are doing speak for itself. I touched on this back in the spring from a different perspective titling it “the circulation of the saints.”
Pastors don’t generally advertise good stuff that is going on in other churches and they don’t recommend books that might give their members alternate views of the group’s (his) philosophy. After all his sheep might leave if they realize they are being limited in their personal growth and that is simply not good business. When someone leaves their congregation they are generally none too pleased and are sometimes a little miffed at the church that they went to. (unless of course that person was asking too many “why” questions.) However, they don’t generally get too unhappy about people leaving other churches to join their congregation.
In all of this a fundamental question of “whose sheep are they?” is never asked. Pastors really do believe that his congregation are his sheep. The truth is that Jesus is the good shepherd and we are His sheep. He hasn’t stopped building His church and no pastor should ever think that he has dibs on Jesus’ sheep.
Of course, pastors will vehemently deny that they own or control anyone. They are simply servants. Really! Just ask them how they feel when someone leaves them. If a church had 25 families in it and 10 decided to go to another pasture (church) at the same time, the pastor’s job performance and reputation would be held up to close scrutiny. But if he is the recipient of those 10 families and the offerings took a significant increase he would be seen as being incredibly gifted.
Churches that offer great “whatevers” are naturally doing them to glorify Jesus and better serve their membership. Sheep stealing is simply collateral damage.
Most church growth these days happens through what is called transfer growth. People who are Christians and have left another church for various reasons: disappointed, called out, frustrated, ignored, not fed, moved, got married, kicked out, bored...
Pastors don’t usually try to do a poor job. In fact, they go out of their way to devise ways of getting new people into their church. Better programs, better communication skills, better facilities, better youth groups, better mission, better care… All of this is considered good pastoring. Good business is never mentioned. With all these enticements it’s hard for the consumer (parishioner) to not leave one church to go to another from time to time. Maybe the grass is greener…
The secret of being a good sheep stealer is that you never directly approach a Christian from a different church. You let what you are doing speak for itself. I touched on this back in the spring from a different perspective titling it “the circulation of the saints.”
Pastors don’t generally advertise good stuff that is going on in other churches and they don’t recommend books that might give their members alternate views of the group’s (his) philosophy. After all his sheep might leave if they realize they are being limited in their personal growth and that is simply not good business. When someone leaves their congregation they are generally none too pleased and are sometimes a little miffed at the church that they went to. (unless of course that person was asking too many “why” questions.) However, they don’t generally get too unhappy about people leaving other churches to join their congregation.
In all of this a fundamental question of “whose sheep are they?” is never asked. Pastors really do believe that his congregation are his sheep. The truth is that Jesus is the good shepherd and we are His sheep. He hasn’t stopped building His church and no pastor should ever think that he has dibs on Jesus’ sheep.
Of course, pastors will vehemently deny that they own or control anyone. They are simply servants. Really! Just ask them how they feel when someone leaves them. If a church had 25 families in it and 10 decided to go to another pasture (church) at the same time, the pastor’s job performance and reputation would be held up to close scrutiny. But if he is the recipient of those 10 families and the offerings took a significant increase he would be seen as being incredibly gifted.
Churches that offer great “whatevers” are naturally doing them to glorify Jesus and better serve their membership. Sheep stealing is simply collateral damage.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
BOCTAOE
We all have blinders and we sometimes even wear rose colored glasses that fit neatly between our custom fit blinders. It’s nice not too get distracted with things that might upset our well entrenched thought processes and besides the world does look better in pink. Or is that blue, no it’s yellow…Let’s start a group for all those in favor of green (eternal life). Those that want blue can start there own group, they’ll find out soon enough that green is the best color through which to see the world. Oops, I digress.
A blinder is an obvious exception that people use to dismiss legitimate observations/critiques in order to maintain the status quo. Jamie gave me a book by the cartoonist that created Dilbert, Scott Adams. “Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!” In it he comments on this common thing that people do when he is exploring a new perspective. They always have the obvious exception anecdote ready to fire. Scott says he thinks pointing out the obvious exceptions to assure people he is not a complete idiot when he is exploring new thought processes is boring. So he has come up with the term BOCTAOE that he says people should assume is always included in the new thought processes. The meaning:
But Of Course There Are Obvious Exceptions.
Here’s an example of what I mean by an obvious exception.
The other day a friend was telling me that church services had become routine and boring. It was a lot of work to get the kids ready to go to something that in the end added nothing to them personally. When I said maybe we just do it too often he immediately felt the heat that if we changed the frequency of corporate services that his system would have a difficult time adjusting to the change. The answer to shut down my blasphemous thought process was that a new family had come in that day and even though many others were feeling, been there done that, the new family had a very positive experience. In other words, this example justified holding onto a very expensive, routine and often non-productive form of Christian expression.
The obvious exceptions somehow manage to put blinders on people looking for new ways of approaching faith, discipleship, love, honor, care…
Here’s another example of people happily attending church with their blinders on. I wrote about this the other day. Church goers are quite content with the economic reality that 2% of their giving at church goes to real people in real need, whereas at least 40% of their giving goes to a sermon that in many cases they have heard a dozen times already. One response is that we don’t have poor people anyway. The fact that this happens regularly doesn’t cause people to gag over misplaced spending priorities at church seems to me a clear case of people having their blinders firmly in place. BOCTAOE
A blinder is an obvious exception that people use to dismiss legitimate observations/critiques in order to maintain the status quo. Jamie gave me a book by the cartoonist that created Dilbert, Scott Adams. “Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!” In it he comments on this common thing that people do when he is exploring a new perspective. They always have the obvious exception anecdote ready to fire. Scott says he thinks pointing out the obvious exceptions to assure people he is not a complete idiot when he is exploring new thought processes is boring. So he has come up with the term BOCTAOE that he says people should assume is always included in the new thought processes. The meaning:
But Of Course There Are Obvious Exceptions.
Here’s an example of what I mean by an obvious exception.
The other day a friend was telling me that church services had become routine and boring. It was a lot of work to get the kids ready to go to something that in the end added nothing to them personally. When I said maybe we just do it too often he immediately felt the heat that if we changed the frequency of corporate services that his system would have a difficult time adjusting to the change. The answer to shut down my blasphemous thought process was that a new family had come in that day and even though many others were feeling, been there done that, the new family had a very positive experience. In other words, this example justified holding onto a very expensive, routine and often non-productive form of Christian expression.
The obvious exceptions somehow manage to put blinders on people looking for new ways of approaching faith, discipleship, love, honor, care…
Here’s another example of people happily attending church with their blinders on. I wrote about this the other day. Church goers are quite content with the economic reality that 2% of their giving at church goes to real people in real need, whereas at least 40% of their giving goes to a sermon that in many cases they have heard a dozen times already. One response is that we don’t have poor people anyway. The fact that this happens regularly doesn’t cause people to gag over misplaced spending priorities at church seems to me a clear case of people having their blinders firmly in place. BOCTAOE
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Censoring the Bible
(excerpt from Wikipedia)
“William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall) (IPA: /'tindl/) (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th century Protestant reformer and scholar who translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. Although a number of partial and complete Old English translations had been made from the 7th century onward, Tyndale's was the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535 Tyndale was arrested, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels, Belgium for more than a year, tried for heresy and treason and then strangled and burnt at the stake in the castle's courtyard.”
What was his crime?
"He had determined to translate the Bible into English: he was convinced that the way to God was through His word and that scripture should be available even to common people. Foxe describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." In a swelling of emotion, Tyndale made his prophetic response: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!"
The institutional church of Tyndale’s day feared that their system of priests lording it over the people would be overthrown and discarded if the people could have the Bible for themselves.
Boy, both Tyndale and the institutional church underestimated the tenacious spirit that thrives within the human heart to be controlled by others.
“William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall) (IPA: /'tindl/) (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th century Protestant reformer and scholar who translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. Although a number of partial and complete Old English translations had been made from the 7th century onward, Tyndale's was the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535 Tyndale was arrested, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels, Belgium for more than a year, tried for heresy and treason and then strangled and burnt at the stake in the castle's courtyard.”
What was his crime?
"He had determined to translate the Bible into English: he was convinced that the way to God was through His word and that scripture should be available even to common people. Foxe describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." In a swelling of emotion, Tyndale made his prophetic response: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!"
The institutional church of Tyndale’s day feared that their system of priests lording it over the people would be overthrown and discarded if the people could have the Bible for themselves.
Boy, both Tyndale and the institutional church underestimated the tenacious spirit that thrives within the human heart to be controlled by others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
