Bagel's World
Monday, April 06, 2009
"The Shack"--a review and other ramblings
Bottom line: “The Shack” provided a good reminder about relating to God through a relationship—not in terms of rules or institutions. The Shack is also a great book if you question why God allows suffering (my number one question for God!) It’s also a good book if you need to forgive someone or let something go. Reading “The Shack” will be an emotionally cathartic experience for many readers.
*****
So, I read “The Shack”. I’ve got a few thoughts. Let me start with a brief summary: The Shack is a story about a man named Mack whose young daughter is kidnapped and murdered. Her bloody dress is found in a shack in the forest. God, aka “Papa”, then invites Mack to meet Him in the shack by sending him a note in the mail. Mack goes to the shack and spends several days with the Trinity--who show up in various human forms (including Papa as a sassy black woman). Mack is able to talk freely with all three forms of the Trinity and to process through his pain and confusion about why God would allow so much evil and pain in his life and in the world. Through this process he learns about God’s desire for real relationship with his creation and he learns to forgive. The cover of the book advertises it as a story "where tragedy confronts eternity."
Immediately after starting the book it seemed clear to me that it was written by someone who has truly experienced deep pain and loss. A little research on the author William P. Young confirms this. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Young
The story is a bit contrived--but emotionally powerful nonetheless.
Young has said in interviews he was trying to write a book for his children and wasn’t expecting the book to become such a phenomenon. I think Young is also speaking to himself and anyone like him who is familiar with theology and familiar with the institutional church. I would probably not give this book to someone new in their faith as it might just confuse them. I’ve read more scholarly books on the topic of suffering—such as books by Philip Yancey or CS Lewis. But keeping in mind the intended audience, I think the book is good for getting us out of our ruts of thinking and helps us be honest about our biases, frustrations, and pain.
I liked the following:
• Challenges thinking of God in terms of gender and age
• Reminds us to be real with God—pain, questions, and anger included
• Reinforced the image of God as a loving parent
• Affirms that evil exists only in relation to what is good
• Portrays the loving relationship within the Trinity and Jesus as human
• Promotes the idea that we must forgive to be free
• Bottom line: promotes the need for a real relationship with God.
A few things I didn’t like:
His use of several stereotypes to combat stereotypes about God is interesting. I mean, God as a big sassy black woman is funny but admittedly a little contrived.
I can see how the book might be shocking to someone invested in the “institutional church.” After years of tradition and acculturation we tend to think of God and church in terms of gender, hierarchy, and institutions. It’s hard to think outside that box. I don’t find Young’s criticism of the institutional church subversive or wrong. (See my note on “Pagan Christianity”.) That said, he does not clearly affirm the need for human community in the book. I worry that one could easily read “The Shack” or similar books and cross too far into individualism. We all need community and we need accountability. We need each other. The Bible is clear that we should ‘not forsake gathering together’ and that our gifts are given to us for the equipping and encouragement of God’s church (as in—the people).
Some final thoughts on themes that came up in the book:
Young’s portrayal of the Trinity really struck me in this book. Frankly, I’ve never thought much about the Trinity. He portrays the Godhead as in relationship and mutual submission with each other—a perfect circle of love. Some people argue that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity and that Young’s book is theologically wrong. I’ve done some research on that and, while none of us can claim to truly grasp the Trinity, I am inclined to believe that it is not a hierarchy—at least not as we think of hierarchy. In fact, I think that understanding the relationship of the Trinity is the right place to start when trying to understand God or our relationship with God or our relationship with each other. Here is a quote from “Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola that sums this up well:
“The biblical teaching of the Trinity is not an exposition about the abstract design of God. Instead, it teaches us about God’s nature and how it operates in Christian community. As such, it shouldn’t be relegated to an endnote to the gospel. Rather, it should shape the Christian life and inform the practice of the church…Within the triune God we discover mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community. In the Godhead there exists an eternal, complementary, and reciprocal interchange of the divine life, divine love, and divine fellowship.”
Anyway, I’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts on the book.
A few links:
www.theshackbook.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Young
www.reimaginingchurch.org ¶ 11:20 AM 0 Comments
*****
So, I read “The Shack”. I’ve got a few thoughts. Let me start with a brief summary: The Shack is a story about a man named Mack whose young daughter is kidnapped and murdered. Her bloody dress is found in a shack in the forest. God, aka “Papa”, then invites Mack to meet Him in the shack by sending him a note in the mail. Mack goes to the shack and spends several days with the Trinity--who show up in various human forms (including Papa as a sassy black woman). Mack is able to talk freely with all three forms of the Trinity and to process through his pain and confusion about why God would allow so much evil and pain in his life and in the world. Through this process he learns about God’s desire for real relationship with his creation and he learns to forgive. The cover of the book advertises it as a story "where tragedy confronts eternity."
Immediately after starting the book it seemed clear to me that it was written by someone who has truly experienced deep pain and loss. A little research on the author William P. Young confirms this. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Young
The story is a bit contrived--but emotionally powerful nonetheless.
Young has said in interviews he was trying to write a book for his children and wasn’t expecting the book to become such a phenomenon. I think Young is also speaking to himself and anyone like him who is familiar with theology and familiar with the institutional church. I would probably not give this book to someone new in their faith as it might just confuse them. I’ve read more scholarly books on the topic of suffering—such as books by Philip Yancey or CS Lewis. But keeping in mind the intended audience, I think the book is good for getting us out of our ruts of thinking and helps us be honest about our biases, frustrations, and pain.
I liked the following:
• Challenges thinking of God in terms of gender and age
• Reminds us to be real with God—pain, questions, and anger included
• Reinforced the image of God as a loving parent
• Affirms that evil exists only in relation to what is good
• Portrays the loving relationship within the Trinity and Jesus as human
• Promotes the idea that we must forgive to be free
• Bottom line: promotes the need for a real relationship with God.
A few things I didn’t like:
His use of several stereotypes to combat stereotypes about God is interesting. I mean, God as a big sassy black woman is funny but admittedly a little contrived.
I can see how the book might be shocking to someone invested in the “institutional church.” After years of tradition and acculturation we tend to think of God and church in terms of gender, hierarchy, and institutions. It’s hard to think outside that box. I don’t find Young’s criticism of the institutional church subversive or wrong. (See my note on “Pagan Christianity”.) That said, he does not clearly affirm the need for human community in the book. I worry that one could easily read “The Shack” or similar books and cross too far into individualism. We all need community and we need accountability. We need each other. The Bible is clear that we should ‘not forsake gathering together’ and that our gifts are given to us for the equipping and encouragement of God’s church (as in—the people).
Some final thoughts on themes that came up in the book:
Young’s portrayal of the Trinity really struck me in this book. Frankly, I’ve never thought much about the Trinity. He portrays the Godhead as in relationship and mutual submission with each other—a perfect circle of love. Some people argue that there is a hierarchy in the Trinity and that Young’s book is theologically wrong. I’ve done some research on that and, while none of us can claim to truly grasp the Trinity, I am inclined to believe that it is not a hierarchy—at least not as we think of hierarchy. In fact, I think that understanding the relationship of the Trinity is the right place to start when trying to understand God or our relationship with God or our relationship with each other. Here is a quote from “Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola that sums this up well:
“The biblical teaching of the Trinity is not an exposition about the abstract design of God. Instead, it teaches us about God’s nature and how it operates in Christian community. As such, it shouldn’t be relegated to an endnote to the gospel. Rather, it should shape the Christian life and inform the practice of the church…Within the triune God we discover mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community. In the Godhead there exists an eternal, complementary, and reciprocal interchange of the divine life, divine love, and divine fellowship.”
Anyway, I’d love to hear anyone else’s thoughts on the book.
A few links:
www.theshackbook.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Young
www.reimaginingchurch.org ¶ 11:20 AM 0 Comments
Monday, March 23, 2009
Pagan Christianity--Everyone should read!
Lest I offend or hurt anyone. I want to agree with the last couple lines of this blog: "We see house church in scripture. We do not see anything similar to the modern institutional church. That doesn't mean the institutional church is wrong. God is using it, but I would hate to have to defend it from an argument of Biblical silence." Likewise, God is so gracious as to use imperfect people as well as imperfect groups of people. So slice or dice it--we all got room to grow! That said, I do see tremendous value in getting back to an *interactive* way of encouraging each other and worshiping together. Peace.
That said, if you are like me, this book will confirm a LOT of what you've been thinking about the way modern "church" is structured. I want to emphasize that my goal is not to be rebellious or prideful in any critique of the institutional church. Rather, my hope is that we can be free from any extraneous things that may inhibit our relationship with God and with each other. I have gone to "institutional" churches for years--some more hierarchical than others--some more aware than others. I have grown and been blessed in many. I have also been frustrated and hurt by many--particularly when the hierarchy is a form of control--even whens subtle. This book is really worth reading--whether or not you agree with every point.
The book is available on amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/141431485X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237757431&sr=8-1
See further discussion here: http://www.openheaven.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=5727&PN=1
Q: Can you summarize the reason for the title, Pagan Christianity?
Sure. The title neatly packs the entire point of the book into two words. Pagan Christianity is actually an oxymoron . . . both terms carry concepts that are mutually exclusive. And that is precisely what we have on the earth today. Modern Christianity, whether Protestant or Catholic, is a blending of pagan and Christian practices and mindsets.
The book demonstrates that virtually all of the practices of the modern church have their roots in pagan culture rather than the Word of God. The book contains over 1100 footnotes documenting (historically) this proposal. A secondary purpose of the title is that it is shockingly thought-provoking. So I’ve been told anyway.
Q. Could you compare the two types of sermons--the kind Peter gave on the day of Pentecost and the kind we hear in traditional churches today?
I’ll take a stab at it. The modern sermon has the following characteristics:
1. It is a regular occurrence delivered faithfully from the pulpit at least once a week.
2. It is delivered by the same person typically the pastor.
3. It is delivered to a passive audience; it is essentially a monologue.
4. It is a cultivated form of speech, possessing a specific structure. It typically contains an introduction, three to five points, and a conclusion. This structure was borrowed from the pagan rhetorical form of speech known as the Greek “homily.” Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Augustine baptized it and called it “Christian.” And we’ve never recovered.
By contrast, the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts possessed the following features:
1. It was sporadic rather than a weekly ritual delivered every week ... world without end.
2. It was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems.
3. It was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure.
4. It was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse).
5. It was not delivered by the same person. (As in Peter’s case with Pentecost, the other apostles preached regularly as well.)
6. It is temporary. Regular preaching is designed to win the lost or equip the church. Once equipped, the members of the church minister one to another.
Add to that, the New Testament letters show that the ministry of God’s Word came from the entire church in their regular gatherings. This “every-member” functioning was also conversational and marked by interruptions (see 1 Corinthians 14). That’s a brief sketch. I dedicate an entire chapter on the subject in my book which goes into greater detail. More importantly, it makes a strong case as to why this issue is important in the first place, explaining how the modern sermon does damage to the Body of Christ.
Q. Some people think that if we really want to understand how a New Testament church is supposed to operate, we should consult the writings of the church fathers. What is the problem with this?
Liturgical churches, particularly the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, map their roots to the early church fathers. I think that the early church fathers are good in nailing down Biblically orthodox Christian belief which is shared by all Christians in every century. This is especially true when it comes to holding fast to the truths regarding the Person of Jesus Christ amid various heresies.
As far as their views on church leadership, they really are a mixed bag. And as time went on, their views on church practice were heavily influenced by Greco-Roman concepts of hierarchy and official authority. This all came to a fine point with Emperor Constantine who patterned the church’s service and officers after the officers and ceremonies of the Roman government.
Q: Since the word pastor is listed in Ephesians 4:11, we know it is a valid term. How have pagan ideas influenced the way that ministry is generally perceived and how should it operate ideally?
The chapter on the modern pastoral role is the longest in the book. This is because it is the largest sacred cow that must be turned on its ear. It is also because the history of where it came from traces very far back into time. To put it briefly, the modern pastorate is no more than a Reformed Catholic priest. And a Catholic priest is an unscriptural office that added a ton of hierarchical power to an “office” that possessed absolute moral and spiritual authority. The modern pastor system is so ingrained in our thinking as Protestant Christians that I have made available an article which treats the subject online. You can find it at http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm .
Q: Since the traditional churches mostly recognizes pastors and evangelists, where are the apostles, prophets and teachers within these movements?
The Charismatics and the Third-Wavers have a copious supply of apostles, prophets, and teachers in their movement. However, to my mind, a first-century teacher, prophet, and apostle is a far cry from what typically carries that label today. These terms have been invested with hierarchical power and “official” authority.
In the Bible, apostles, prophets, and teachers are terms to describe a spiritual function. They were never used as offices or titles. Apostles were people who were sent to plant churches. Prophets were people who could articulate clearly. Their major function was to reveal the present mind of God to the church. Sometimes they saw the future. Teachers were those who could read and write (which would put them in a class of only 5-10% of the first-century population), and who had the ability to disclose Christ through the Old Testament Scriptures. Aside from the apostle, who was itinerant, prophets and teachers were local people who had regular jobs. None were clergy in any sense of the word.
Q: When did tithing become an accepted teaching in the history of the churchand how should it be regarded today?
Great question. The shocking answer is the 8th century! The early Christians rightly understood that tithing was like an income tax for the nation of Israel. If a Christian wants to give 10% of their income to the Lord’s work today, they are perfectly free to. They are also free not to. In Christ, we are free to give what we wish. The New Testament standard is to give cheerfully and according to one’s ability (2 Corinthians 8-9). That equates to more than 10% for many people. Further, New Testament giving was never to support clergy. I discuss this in detail in my book.
Q: Who were the Nicolaitans, the people whose deeds Jesus says He hates in Revelation 2:6.
No one really knows who they were. Some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus condemns in Revelation 2:6 is a reference to the rise of an early clergy. F.W. Grant, Nicolaitanism or the Rise and Growth of Clerisy (Bedford: MWTB), pp. 3-6 was among them. Interestingly, the Greek word nicolaitane means “conquering the people.” Nikos mean “to conquer over” and laos means “the people.” Grant believed that Nicolaitans are those who make “laity” out of God’s people by raising up “clergy” to lord it over them. I think this interpretation is quite plausible.
Q: In I Samuel 8:4-7, the Jews rejected God's as their king and demanded an earthly king instead.What relevance does this Old Testament story have for the church?
This story establishes a crucial spiritual principle. Namely, God will often give His people what they desire even if it does not reflect His perfect will. Therefore, the argument that says, “The modern church must be God’s will since God has allowed it to remain on the earth all these centuries” is refuted by the story in 1 Samuel.
In large measure, the Body of Christ has opted for an earthly king to rule over her. His name is “pastor.” The New Testament is quite clear that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church. There are no points of contact with the modern pastor and the “shepherd/elders” of the first century. The latter did not suppress Christ’s Headship or the free functioning of His Body as does the former.
Q: How should house church people relate to other types of churches and their leadership?
Each house church will have to walk that out for themselves. Some institutional church leaders are quite hostile toward Christians who meet outside the religious system. Others simply ignore them and have little interest in establishing fellowship with them. A house church should have a posture that is open to all of God’s people no matter where they gather or what they believe. If Christ has received them, we must also. The exception to this would be those who would seek to poison or divide the church. Paul was very clear in his letters that such ones should not be received into a church.
Q: Some of those who read Pagan Christianity may want to immediately plant a house church. What words of caution would you give as they seek to follow God more fully.
The New Testament is quite clear that not all are called to plant churches (1 Corinthians 12:28-31). I have watched people try to start their own house churches who were not called or qualified to do it. In every case, I saw nothing good come of it. Most of these groups were simply glorified Bible studies that were facilitated by the person who started the group.
I have written a detailed volume on how churches were started in the first century. It’s called So You Want to Start a House Church? I believe that if we would embrace the principles that God has established for the raising up of churches, we would see an enormous restoration of God’s spiritual house on the earth today.
Q: There are not many of us who can claim to being raised in house church. What process did God use to take you to your current understanding?
At age 16, I was a very hungry Christian. Desperate is actually a better word to describe my state. My desperation led me to countless denominations, movements, and para-church organizations. Later I realized that I was in quest for my natural habitat as a Christian. It didn’t take me long to realize that the modern institutional system was not the proper habitat that I was to live in. No believer is for that matter.
After searching the Scripture in quest for the first-century church, I along with some others left the religious system and began the journey of learning what it means to meet under the Headship of Christ. I was 23 years old at the time. That “experiment” lasted eight very intense years. We made many mistakes and tried some very foolish things. But we learned. And in the midst of it we touched authentic Body life.
The net was that I learned a great deal about Christ and His church. That was the beginning of my trek. From then until the present day, the Lord has taken me through various and sundry experiences with Christians outside the organized church in the US and overseas. The result is that I could never go back to institutionalized Christianity after touching the glories of Body life.
Q: What do we need beyond the correct structure for house church?
I would say that we not only need some things beyond the house church structure, but that these things are far more important than the structure. What is of utmost significance is the necessity for a ground-breaking revelation of the Person for whom the church lives. We need a new seeing of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God’s eternal purpose which is in Him.
We also need broken people who have had deep dealings with God, who have been taken into deep waters by the Holy Spirit, who have had years of experience in first-century church life as a non-leader, and who are able to proclaim this glorious Christ with vision, power, and practicality. In other words, we need those who are able to impart life, to cast vision, and to provide practical tools that will put believers into the living reality of that vision. We also need a restoration of the first-century Christian mind, which is radically different from the contemporary Protestant/evangelical mindset. The church and its structure are the natural outflow of these things.
Frank Viola's website can be found at www.ptmin.org.
And a note from Steve Eastman:
This is a bit funny but he makes a good point:
I Corinthians 14:26 mentions five means by which brethren may minister to one another – a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation and an interpretation. As noted by Denise, there seem to be limits of a maximum of three prophecies in a meeting. There is also an apparent limit of three tongues, and by implication, three interpretations. If we assume prophecies and revelation as equivalent (they may or may not be), we are left with psalms and teaching. I think it’s safe to say most tongues and interpretations, as well as prophecies, take a minute or less. Psalms (think songs in modern vernacular) are typically around three minutes, but often run longer. Teachings could be short (3 minutes), but can also last much longer. Denise mentioned that other gifts function as well, but for the sake of discussion, we will stick with the ones that Paul says should occur every time the church comes together.
As we do the math, we see that for a church of 60 to 70 people (let’s pick 65), the three tongue speakers may typically take a minute each with three interpreters also taking a minute each. Three prophets may take a minute each. So far, 9 people have used a total 9 minutes. 56 people are left for the longer activities. 56 people at three minutes each use a total of 168 minutes. Adding in the 9 minutes mentioned above, a total of 177 minutes, or nearly 3 hours has been used in a service. The figures I use are conservative and certainly a case could be made for a much longer service.
In a church of 200 people, 582 minutes, or almost 9 hours and 45 minutes would be needed. In a mega-church (which begins at 2000 members), nearly 5,982 minutes would be required for every-member functioning. The service will have lasted for more than 4 days. That is why I say it would be difficult to imagine what Paul described as happening in a gathering of more than a dozen or two.
There were 120 gathered together on the day of Pentecost, which many consider the church’s birthday. 3,000 were added to the church that day. After that they met in houses where each one could grow. Later still, Paul gave his instructions.
The Greek widows were being neglected in the daily ministrations. The twelve summoned the multitude of disciples to deal with the issue. If the multitude regularly gathered together as a group, there would have been no need to call a special meeting to deal with the problem.
In Galatians 4:11-12, Paul urges the Galatians to become like him. That is a good example of mentoring. But Paul did not hang around in Galatia or any of his other church plants very long. He left churches in their infancy so believers would learn to look to Jesus, and not him, as their spiritual source. There is no conflict between that kind of mentorship and the warning against the Nicolaitans.
I have no new revelation about the church growing more and more alike. The credit for that idea goes to St. Paul. II Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” As we look more like the image of Christ, we also look more like each other. Paul’s statement was not made to those who only believe in Christ as a mere human being.
We see house church in scripture. We do not see anything similar to the modern institutional church. That doesn’t mean the institutional church is wrong. God is using it, but I would hate to have to defend it from an argument of Biblical silence.
Steve Eastman ¶ 9:31 AM 1 Comments
That said, if you are like me, this book will confirm a LOT of what you've been thinking about the way modern "church" is structured. I want to emphasize that my goal is not to be rebellious or prideful in any critique of the institutional church. Rather, my hope is that we can be free from any extraneous things that may inhibit our relationship with God and with each other. I have gone to "institutional" churches for years--some more hierarchical than others--some more aware than others. I have grown and been blessed in many. I have also been frustrated and hurt by many--particularly when the hierarchy is a form of control--even whens subtle. This book is really worth reading--whether or not you agree with every point.
The book is available on amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/141431485X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237757431&sr=8-1
See further discussion here: http://www.openheaven.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=5727&PN=1
Q: Can you summarize the reason for the title, Pagan Christianity?
Sure. The title neatly packs the entire point of the book into two words. Pagan Christianity is actually an oxymoron . . . both terms carry concepts that are mutually exclusive. And that is precisely what we have on the earth today. Modern Christianity, whether Protestant or Catholic, is a blending of pagan and Christian practices and mindsets.
The book demonstrates that virtually all of the practices of the modern church have their roots in pagan culture rather than the Word of God. The book contains over 1100 footnotes documenting (historically) this proposal. A secondary purpose of the title is that it is shockingly thought-provoking. So I’ve been told anyway.
Q. Could you compare the two types of sermons--the kind Peter gave on the day of Pentecost and the kind we hear in traditional churches today?
I’ll take a stab at it. The modern sermon has the following characteristics:
1. It is a regular occurrence delivered faithfully from the pulpit at least once a week.
2. It is delivered by the same person typically the pastor.
3. It is delivered to a passive audience; it is essentially a monologue.
4. It is a cultivated form of speech, possessing a specific structure. It typically contains an introduction, three to five points, and a conclusion. This structure was borrowed from the pagan rhetorical form of speech known as the Greek “homily.” Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Augustine baptized it and called it “Christian.” And we’ve never recovered.
By contrast, the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts possessed the following features:
1. It was sporadic rather than a weekly ritual delivered every week ... world without end.
2. It was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems.
3. It was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure.
4. It was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse).
5. It was not delivered by the same person. (As in Peter’s case with Pentecost, the other apostles preached regularly as well.)
6. It is temporary. Regular preaching is designed to win the lost or equip the church. Once equipped, the members of the church minister one to another.
Add to that, the New Testament letters show that the ministry of God’s Word came from the entire church in their regular gatherings. This “every-member” functioning was also conversational and marked by interruptions (see 1 Corinthians 14). That’s a brief sketch. I dedicate an entire chapter on the subject in my book which goes into greater detail. More importantly, it makes a strong case as to why this issue is important in the first place, explaining how the modern sermon does damage to the Body of Christ.
Q. Some people think that if we really want to understand how a New Testament church is supposed to operate, we should consult the writings of the church fathers. What is the problem with this?
Liturgical churches, particularly the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, map their roots to the early church fathers. I think that the early church fathers are good in nailing down Biblically orthodox Christian belief which is shared by all Christians in every century. This is especially true when it comes to holding fast to the truths regarding the Person of Jesus Christ amid various heresies.
As far as their views on church leadership, they really are a mixed bag. And as time went on, their views on church practice were heavily influenced by Greco-Roman concepts of hierarchy and official authority. This all came to a fine point with Emperor Constantine who patterned the church’s service and officers after the officers and ceremonies of the Roman government.
Q: Since the word pastor is listed in Ephesians 4:11, we know it is a valid term. How have pagan ideas influenced the way that ministry is generally perceived and how should it operate ideally?
The chapter on the modern pastoral role is the longest in the book. This is because it is the largest sacred cow that must be turned on its ear. It is also because the history of where it came from traces very far back into time. To put it briefly, the modern pastorate is no more than a Reformed Catholic priest. And a Catholic priest is an unscriptural office that added a ton of hierarchical power to an “office” that possessed absolute moral and spiritual authority. The modern pastor system is so ingrained in our thinking as Protestant Christians that I have made available an article which treats the subject online. You can find it at http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm .
Q: Since the traditional churches mostly recognizes pastors and evangelists, where are the apostles, prophets and teachers within these movements?
The Charismatics and the Third-Wavers have a copious supply of apostles, prophets, and teachers in their movement. However, to my mind, a first-century teacher, prophet, and apostle is a far cry from what typically carries that label today. These terms have been invested with hierarchical power and “official” authority.
In the Bible, apostles, prophets, and teachers are terms to describe a spiritual function. They were never used as offices or titles. Apostles were people who were sent to plant churches. Prophets were people who could articulate clearly. Their major function was to reveal the present mind of God to the church. Sometimes they saw the future. Teachers were those who could read and write (which would put them in a class of only 5-10% of the first-century population), and who had the ability to disclose Christ through the Old Testament Scriptures. Aside from the apostle, who was itinerant, prophets and teachers were local people who had regular jobs. None were clergy in any sense of the word.
Q: When did tithing become an accepted teaching in the history of the churchand how should it be regarded today?
Great question. The shocking answer is the 8th century! The early Christians rightly understood that tithing was like an income tax for the nation of Israel. If a Christian wants to give 10% of their income to the Lord’s work today, they are perfectly free to. They are also free not to. In Christ, we are free to give what we wish. The New Testament standard is to give cheerfully and according to one’s ability (2 Corinthians 8-9). That equates to more than 10% for many people. Further, New Testament giving was never to support clergy. I discuss this in detail in my book.
Q: Who were the Nicolaitans, the people whose deeds Jesus says He hates in Revelation 2:6.
No one really knows who they were. Some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus condemns in Revelation 2:6 is a reference to the rise of an early clergy. F.W. Grant, Nicolaitanism or the Rise and Growth of Clerisy (Bedford: MWTB), pp. 3-6 was among them. Interestingly, the Greek word nicolaitane means “conquering the people.” Nikos mean “to conquer over” and laos means “the people.” Grant believed that Nicolaitans are those who make “laity” out of God’s people by raising up “clergy” to lord it over them. I think this interpretation is quite plausible.
Q: In I Samuel 8:4-7, the Jews rejected God's as their king and demanded an earthly king instead.What relevance does this Old Testament story have for the church?
This story establishes a crucial spiritual principle. Namely, God will often give His people what they desire even if it does not reflect His perfect will. Therefore, the argument that says, “The modern church must be God’s will since God has allowed it to remain on the earth all these centuries” is refuted by the story in 1 Samuel.
In large measure, the Body of Christ has opted for an earthly king to rule over her. His name is “pastor.” The New Testament is quite clear that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church. There are no points of contact with the modern pastor and the “shepherd/elders” of the first century. The latter did not suppress Christ’s Headship or the free functioning of His Body as does the former.
Q: How should house church people relate to other types of churches and their leadership?
Each house church will have to walk that out for themselves. Some institutional church leaders are quite hostile toward Christians who meet outside the religious system. Others simply ignore them and have little interest in establishing fellowship with them. A house church should have a posture that is open to all of God’s people no matter where they gather or what they believe. If Christ has received them, we must also. The exception to this would be those who would seek to poison or divide the church. Paul was very clear in his letters that such ones should not be received into a church.
Q: Some of those who read Pagan Christianity may want to immediately plant a house church. What words of caution would you give as they seek to follow God more fully.
The New Testament is quite clear that not all are called to plant churches (1 Corinthians 12:28-31). I have watched people try to start their own house churches who were not called or qualified to do it. In every case, I saw nothing good come of it. Most of these groups were simply glorified Bible studies that were facilitated by the person who started the group.
I have written a detailed volume on how churches were started in the first century. It’s called So You Want to Start a House Church? I believe that if we would embrace the principles that God has established for the raising up of churches, we would see an enormous restoration of God’s spiritual house on the earth today.
Q: There are not many of us who can claim to being raised in house church. What process did God use to take you to your current understanding?
At age 16, I was a very hungry Christian. Desperate is actually a better word to describe my state. My desperation led me to countless denominations, movements, and para-church organizations. Later I realized that I was in quest for my natural habitat as a Christian. It didn’t take me long to realize that the modern institutional system was not the proper habitat that I was to live in. No believer is for that matter.
After searching the Scripture in quest for the first-century church, I along with some others left the religious system and began the journey of learning what it means to meet under the Headship of Christ. I was 23 years old at the time. That “experiment” lasted eight very intense years. We made many mistakes and tried some very foolish things. But we learned. And in the midst of it we touched authentic Body life.
The net was that I learned a great deal about Christ and His church. That was the beginning of my trek. From then until the present day, the Lord has taken me through various and sundry experiences with Christians outside the organized church in the US and overseas. The result is that I could never go back to institutionalized Christianity after touching the glories of Body life.
Q: What do we need beyond the correct structure for house church?
I would say that we not only need some things beyond the house church structure, but that these things are far more important than the structure. What is of utmost significance is the necessity for a ground-breaking revelation of the Person for whom the church lives. We need a new seeing of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God’s eternal purpose which is in Him.
We also need broken people who have had deep dealings with God, who have been taken into deep waters by the Holy Spirit, who have had years of experience in first-century church life as a non-leader, and who are able to proclaim this glorious Christ with vision, power, and practicality. In other words, we need those who are able to impart life, to cast vision, and to provide practical tools that will put believers into the living reality of that vision. We also need a restoration of the first-century Christian mind, which is radically different from the contemporary Protestant/evangelical mindset. The church and its structure are the natural outflow of these things.
Frank Viola's website can be found at www.ptmin.org.
And a note from Steve Eastman:
This is a bit funny but he makes a good point:
I Corinthians 14:26 mentions five means by which brethren may minister to one another – a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation and an interpretation. As noted by Denise, there seem to be limits of a maximum of three prophecies in a meeting. There is also an apparent limit of three tongues, and by implication, three interpretations. If we assume prophecies and revelation as equivalent (they may or may not be), we are left with psalms and teaching. I think it’s safe to say most tongues and interpretations, as well as prophecies, take a minute or less. Psalms (think songs in modern vernacular) are typically around three minutes, but often run longer. Teachings could be short (3 minutes), but can also last much longer. Denise mentioned that other gifts function as well, but for the sake of discussion, we will stick with the ones that Paul says should occur every time the church comes together.
As we do the math, we see that for a church of 60 to 70 people (let’s pick 65), the three tongue speakers may typically take a minute each with three interpreters also taking a minute each. Three prophets may take a minute each. So far, 9 people have used a total 9 minutes. 56 people are left for the longer activities. 56 people at three minutes each use a total of 168 minutes. Adding in the 9 minutes mentioned above, a total of 177 minutes, or nearly 3 hours has been used in a service. The figures I use are conservative and certainly a case could be made for a much longer service.
In a church of 200 people, 582 minutes, or almost 9 hours and 45 minutes would be needed. In a mega-church (which begins at 2000 members), nearly 5,982 minutes would be required for every-member functioning. The service will have lasted for more than 4 days. That is why I say it would be difficult to imagine what Paul described as happening in a gathering of more than a dozen or two.
There were 120 gathered together on the day of Pentecost, which many consider the church’s birthday. 3,000 were added to the church that day. After that they met in houses where each one could grow. Later still, Paul gave his instructions.
The Greek widows were being neglected in the daily ministrations. The twelve summoned the multitude of disciples to deal with the issue. If the multitude regularly gathered together as a group, there would have been no need to call a special meeting to deal with the problem.
In Galatians 4:11-12, Paul urges the Galatians to become like him. That is a good example of mentoring. But Paul did not hang around in Galatia or any of his other church plants very long. He left churches in their infancy so believers would learn to look to Jesus, and not him, as their spiritual source. There is no conflict between that kind of mentorship and the warning against the Nicolaitans.
I have no new revelation about the church growing more and more alike. The credit for that idea goes to St. Paul. II Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” As we look more like the image of Christ, we also look more like each other. Paul’s statement was not made to those who only believe in Christ as a mere human being.
We see house church in scripture. We do not see anything similar to the modern institutional church. That doesn’t mean the institutional church is wrong. God is using it, but I would hate to have to defend it from an argument of Biblical silence.
Steve Eastman ¶ 9:31 AM 1 Comments
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
You know you are a baby boomer if...
I’ve always held a bit of disdain for the boomer generation—mostly because I feel that most are over-consumers who lack global sophistication or concern—preferring to hole themselves up in their suburban homes with their SUVs and toys and ignore real issues such as the environment, global poverty, race relations and war. I still find those things frustrating. However, I also realize that pride comes before the fall, eh?! After a week with my parents in the mountains I reflected on their interesting and curious combination that makes them who they are: American by culture, baby boomers by generation, Christian by religion, conservative in politics. I was trying to detangle the pieces—how much of their conservatism is due to the church/religion and how much is just a lack of global education? How much is their consumerism a reaction to their own parents or how much of their politics is a reaction to the free-sex-drugs movement of the 60s? How much of this is just simple dysfunction and denial?
Anyway, it’s easy to stand in judgment. I’m sure they find my generation confusing and frustrating too! While I don’t want to ignore or bury some of the pain that my parent’s choices have caused me or the realities that the boomer generation has left us to deal with (global pollution, debt etc), I was pretty humbled when I started reading some blogs about boomers. It made me sad there isn’t more talk between generations about these things—to further our understanding of each other. Many were intended to be humorous but also made me realize that the boomers, while affluent, also had a lot to deal with growing up! They had the Cold War, Vietnam and the draft, Watergate, the 60s, the Civil rights movement, feminism/changing gender roles, and last but not least—a radical shift in technology creating a technological generation gap between them and their own children. It kind of humbled me and helped me understand them a bit more.
Here was one post I found insightful:
1. If you remember air raid sirens and hiding under your school desk to prepare for the inevitable nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, then you are a real baby boomer.
2. If you remember being scared shitless every time a car engine backfired during the Cuban Missile crisis, then you are a real baby boomer.
3. If you remember clearly where you were and what you were doing in elementary/middle/high school at the very the moment you first heard the news that JFK had been assassinated, then you are a real baby boomer.
4. If you watched Ed Sullivan on the three consecutive weekends that the Beatles first appeared on American TV, then you are a real baby boomer.
5. If you remember the day Sam Cooke was shot to death in LA, then you are a real baby boomer.
6. If you remember listening to the radio broadcast from Miami the night Sonny Liston refused to leave his corner for the 8th round of his first fight against "Cassius Clay," then you are a real baby boomer.
7. If you remember the assassination of Malcolm X, even if you weren't sure who he was at the time, then you are a real baby boomer.
8. If you (or a boyfriend if you were female) owned a draft card at some point during the Vietnam War, then you are a real baby boomer.
9. If you were able to lie convincingly to anyone at all that you had attended either Woodstock or Altamont, then you are a real baby boomer.
10.If your entire mind just went numb and never recovered after you awoke to the tragic news on your clock radio the morning after the KKKaliforniadise primary in 1968 (less than two short months after the MLK, Jr. assassination) then you are a "real" baby boomer.
This blog compares Gen X-ers and Boomers. It’s sure to irritate and well as lend insight: http://www.bbhq.com/bomrgenx.htm ¶ 4:15 PM 0 Comments
Anyway, it’s easy to stand in judgment. I’m sure they find my generation confusing and frustrating too! While I don’t want to ignore or bury some of the pain that my parent’s choices have caused me or the realities that the boomer generation has left us to deal with (global pollution, debt etc), I was pretty humbled when I started reading some blogs about boomers. It made me sad there isn’t more talk between generations about these things—to further our understanding of each other. Many were intended to be humorous but also made me realize that the boomers, while affluent, also had a lot to deal with growing up! They had the Cold War, Vietnam and the draft, Watergate, the 60s, the Civil rights movement, feminism/changing gender roles, and last but not least—a radical shift in technology creating a technological generation gap between them and their own children. It kind of humbled me and helped me understand them a bit more.
Here was one post I found insightful:
1. If you remember air raid sirens and hiding under your school desk to prepare for the inevitable nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, then you are a real baby boomer.
2. If you remember being scared shitless every time a car engine backfired during the Cuban Missile crisis, then you are a real baby boomer.
3. If you remember clearly where you were and what you were doing in elementary/middle/high school at the very the moment you first heard the news that JFK had been assassinated, then you are a real baby boomer.
4. If you watched Ed Sullivan on the three consecutive weekends that the Beatles first appeared on American TV, then you are a real baby boomer.
5. If you remember the day Sam Cooke was shot to death in LA, then you are a real baby boomer.
6. If you remember listening to the radio broadcast from Miami the night Sonny Liston refused to leave his corner for the 8th round of his first fight against "Cassius Clay," then you are a real baby boomer.
7. If you remember the assassination of Malcolm X, even if you weren't sure who he was at the time, then you are a real baby boomer.
8. If you (or a boyfriend if you were female) owned a draft card at some point during the Vietnam War, then you are a real baby boomer.
9. If you were able to lie convincingly to anyone at all that you had attended either Woodstock or Altamont, then you are a real baby boomer.
10.If your entire mind just went numb and never recovered after you awoke to the tragic news on your clock radio the morning after the KKKaliforniadise primary in 1968 (less than two short months after the MLK, Jr. assassination) then you are a "real" baby boomer.
This blog compares Gen X-ers and Boomers. It’s sure to irritate and well as lend insight: http://www.bbhq.com/bomrgenx.htm ¶ 4:15 PM 0 Comments
Monday, March 02, 2009
Why does God allow suffering? No--really.
There is no simple answer to this question. And believe me, I have thought and prayed over this one many times. And I have been mad. I am furious that God allows so much suffering in the world. I admit it. I think he can handle me saying that. I also think that suffering is an interesting topic though and worth thinking about. I think that one thing to bear in mind is that when the New Testament was written the culture and way of thinking was very different. It was an eastern view of the world. Is suffering necesarrily always bad? Who deserves to suffer?
We are most certainly called to show compassion and mercy--and that is where it's hard for me to understand. I see so many people in the world suffering from things that don't seem to be their own fault...
This is long but I thought really good! These are excerpts taken from: http://www.new-life.net/sufferng.htm
God is in control over all events. -- Suffering is real, but it is not the only reality. God is in charge and nothing happens apart from His involvement at some level (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6-9; 1 Chronicles 29:11-12; Proverbs 16:4; Job 2:9-10; Ecclesiastes 9:1; Isaiah 45:7; Jeremiah 18:1-23; Lamentations 3:37-38; Daniel 2:20-21; 4:17,25,35; Matthew 10:29; Luke 1:53; Acts 1:7; 17:24-26,28; Ephesians 1:4-5; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 4:11).
The King of the universe uses trials and times of suffering for His own ends. What are God's purposes for suffering? Sometimes God reveals His purposes to us immediately. Sometimes it is not until years later that we can look back and see some good come from misery. And sometimes our pain remains a complete mystery to us. There is some pain that we will not understand until we see Him face to face and understand everything completely (1 Corinthians 13:12).
When we don't understand why we are suffering we experience a doubly difficult burden. Ultimately, we must trust in the God who loves us and has promised that "in all things God is working for the good for those who love Him" (Romans 8:28) and "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Hebrews 13:5). Peter said, "Cast all your cares upon Him, because He cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). Our trust is in a Being, not in formulas, principles and explanations.
Even though God is not obligated to explain our suffering to us the Scriptures to provide eight possible explanations for trials, pain, and hardship.
Four Types of Suffering for Our Own Benefit:
1. Consequential (sowing & reaping) -- Much of our suffering is a result of the spiritual, moral, & natural consequences of our own actions and choices. Many things get blamed on God that simply are not His fault. If you jump off a ten-story building and kill yourself, you can't blame that on God. The law of gravity is the same for everyone. When you violate the natural laws of the universe, then you pay the consequences
Just as there are natural laws in the universe, so there are moral and spiritual laws. These laws are the same for everyone. If you violate them you will suffer the consequences of your actions. Our children often experience consequential suffering. We warn them not to touch the stove, but they just have to see why. We plead with them not to swing the baseball bat when other children are around, but "whap!"
In the same way, God often allows His children to experience the natural consequences of their actions. The results are painful, but God is not obligated to deliver us from our wrong choices. Taking responsibility for our actions instead of blaming God is a step toward maturity.
Of course, the amazing thing is that God in His mercy often delivers us from even the hurtful consequences of our actions. That's grace. That's undeserved mercy.
Here are some which illustrate the principle of consequential suffering:
• Galatians 6:7-10 -- The creation principle of sowing & reaping stated by Paul.
• Numbers 14:41-45 -- God said to the Israelites, "Don't go. I won't go with you." Israel said, "We'll go anyway." They experienced the natural consequence of their action.
• 2 Samuel 11:1-5 -- David's adultery results in an unplanned pregnancy which brought must suffering to himself, his family, and his nation.
2. Correctional -- This type of suffering is a little different than the law of sowing and reaping. The suffering we experience here is not a natural consequence of our sin. This is suffering brought into our life by God to stop a pattern of sin before we experience natural consequences. God sees a specific sin or habit which needs correcting in our life and says, "I better administer some correction before this thing really gets out of hand." This is called God's discipline or correction.
The mother who disciplines her child to stop him from running into the street is administering correctional suffering. She administers discipline so that the child will change his actions and not experience the natural consequence of those bad actions.
God disciplines us out of love in the same manner. God sees it as short-term pain for long term gain. Here are some examples:
• Psalm 32 -- God ordained illness (v.4) as a result of a specific sin in David's life.
• James 5:14-16 -- A Christian brother experiencing illness as a result of an unconfessed and undealt with sin in his life.
• 1 Corinthians 11:29,30 -- Weakness, sickness & death as a result of improper participation in the Lord's supper.
• Acts 5:1-11 -- An example of God's discipline and correction in the early church, so that the rest of the church would not lie to the Holy Spirit.
• 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 -- In this case, the church is disciplining the individual in place of God. Suffering is being imposed so that "his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."
3. Educational -- Educational suffering is not a consequence of an immediate sin. Educational suffering is a challenge (we call it a 'trial') that God brings into our life to help us develop and grow. Education suffering is meant to bring spiritual fruit and positive character traits into our life.
I remember when I was sent off to summer camp for the first time--to me that was suffering. Why would my parents send me away? Didn't they love me? Sure they did. They loved me enough to know that I needed to grow up--to be challenged to face new people and new experiences on my own.
Likewise God often puts us in situations that initially seem to be beyond us. "Why should I have to go through this? I didn't do anything to deserve this in my life? This doesn't seem fair, God." God puts us in these situations to help us become mature. Educational suffering is a little like military boot camp. It gets us in shape.
The following Scripture passages use the words "teach" or "learn":
• Deuteronomy 8:3 -- Why did Israel have to go through the wilderness? To teach Israel that man must live by God's words as well as bread.
• Hebrews 12:5-11 -- God places us in suffering situations that we might share in His holiness (v.10) and righteousness & peace (v.11).
• Hebrews 5:7-10 -- Jesus Himself had to 'learn' obedience through the things He suffered.
• Hebrews 2:10 -- Jesus was "made perfect" or "became mature" through suffering.
• 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 -- Preventive suffering so that Paul would learn humility and rely on the Lord's power.
What are some positive traits that times of trial can develop in us? Here are some of the positive traits that God wants to build in us through trials:
• Endurance -- Romans 5:3
• Character -- Romans 5:4
• Hope -- Romans 5:4
• Knowledge of God's love -- Romans 5:5
• Empathy -- 2 Corinthians 1:3,4
• Obedience -- Hebrews 5:8
• Maturity -- James 1:4
• Proven faith -- 1 Peter 1:7
4. Evaluational -- God uses trials to test us, to show us the level we have attained, and to open our eyes to areas we still need to work on. These trials are often given for the specific purpose of testing our faith. Do we really trust God or do we just say we trust God? Evaluational trials tell us the answer to that question. Read these Scriptures. The key word in these passages is "test."
• Genesis 22:1-18 -- God tested Abraham. Note the following pattern: Test . . . Verdict . . . Blessing.
• Deuteronomy 8:2 -- Israel tested during the 40 years in the wilderness to know what was in their heart.
• Luke 4:1-14 -- Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tested.
• 1 Peter 1:6-7 -- Peter said that the purpose of the trials this church was facing was to test their faith.
Four Types of Suffering for the Benefit of Others:
1. Sacrificial -- Suffering for the sake of someone else.
The first four reasons that we found for suffering were for our own benefit. But not all suffering is for us. The next four explanations for suffering are for the benefit of others. Sacrificial suffering shouldn't be too difficult for us to understand since examples of sacrificial suffering abound in the natural world:
• The mother who suffers to bring a baby into the world
• The parent who sacrifices to raise a child
• The living donor who gives up his kidney for a transplant recipient
Numerous examples of sacrificial suffering can be found in the Bible too:
• Genesis 45:4-7 -- Joseph suffered loneliness, slavery, and jail in order to deliver the family of Israel from death.
• Isaiah 53 -- Jesus suffered for our benefit (v.5,6,8,10,12).
• Romans 16:3 -- Priscilla & Aquila for Paul.
• 1 Samuel 20:1-33 -- Jonathan for David.
• Romans 14:13-21; 15:1-3 -- Stronger brother for the weaker.
2. Revelational --God causes a situation of suffering so that He might reveal Himself or glorify Himself to others. In Hosea chapters 1 & 3 God tells the story of Hosea. He was commanded to do something which God knew would involve suffering for him. Hosea was commanded to marry a woman that God knew would be unfaithful to Hosea. Why did God ask Hosea to suffer with an unfaithful spouse? In order that God could reveal Himself to the adulterous nation that He loved. He used their marriage as an example of how he felt about Israel being unfaithful to God while God continued to love them anyway. Hosea's marriage --> unfaithful Gomer was like God's marriage --> unfaithful Israel
• John 9:1-3 -- This man was born blind so that God could glorify Himself through his healing. His suffering was an opportunity for God to reveal His mercy, power, and love.
• Romans 3:25,26 -- God made Jesus to suffer in order that His divine justice might be revealed.
• Romans 5:8 -- Christ's suffering on the cross demonstrated and revealed God's love to us.
3. Persecutional -- As we share the good news we suffer at the hands of some who reject it. We suffer like Christ suffered.
• Jeremiah 20:7-10,14-18 -- The ministry God had given to Jeremiah resulted in persecution and suffering.
• Matthew 5:10-12 -- Suffering will come to us as a result of sharing the gospel.
• 1 Peter 3:14-17 -- We will suffer for doing good in an evil world.
• Hebrews 11:35b-39 -- All of these people suffered persecution for their faith and never saw their reward in this life.
4. Invisible Level -- We suffer as a result of heavenly spiritual battles that we don’t really understand or know about:
• Job 1 & 2 -- Job never knew that the reason he suffered was because of a heavenly contest between God & Satan. Does that make Job just a pawn in God's chess game? No. We have no concern for pawns after they have served their purpose. But God does care for Job. That's why there are chapters 38-42 in the book of Job.
• Luke 22:31,32 -- On the human level Peter's denial of Jesus is a lack of faith. But here we get a glimpse of a heavenly battle going on as well. Peter will be sifted by Satan. Jesus is also a participant in this heavenly battle. He prays that Peter's faith would not completely fail.
• Ephesians 6:12 -- There is an invisible realm of conflict about which we know little and yet we are intimately involved in the struggle. This struggle causes suffering for us and yet is largely beyond our ability to comprehend. ¶ 11:20 AM 0 Comments
We are most certainly called to show compassion and mercy--and that is where it's hard for me to understand. I see so many people in the world suffering from things that don't seem to be their own fault...
This is long but I thought really good! These are excerpts taken from: http://www.new-life.net/sufferng.htm
God is in control over all events. -- Suffering is real, but it is not the only reality. God is in charge and nothing happens apart from His involvement at some level (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6-9; 1 Chronicles 29:11-12; Proverbs 16:4; Job 2:9-10; Ecclesiastes 9:1; Isaiah 45:7; Jeremiah 18:1-23; Lamentations 3:37-38; Daniel 2:20-21; 4:17,25,35; Matthew 10:29; Luke 1:53; Acts 1:7; 17:24-26,28; Ephesians 1:4-5; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 4:11).
The King of the universe uses trials and times of suffering for His own ends. What are God's purposes for suffering? Sometimes God reveals His purposes to us immediately. Sometimes it is not until years later that we can look back and see some good come from misery. And sometimes our pain remains a complete mystery to us. There is some pain that we will not understand until we see Him face to face and understand everything completely (1 Corinthians 13:12).
When we don't understand why we are suffering we experience a doubly difficult burden. Ultimately, we must trust in the God who loves us and has promised that "in all things God is working for the good for those who love Him" (Romans 8:28) and "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Hebrews 13:5). Peter said, "Cast all your cares upon Him, because He cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). Our trust is in a Being, not in formulas, principles and explanations.
Even though God is not obligated to explain our suffering to us the Scriptures to provide eight possible explanations for trials, pain, and hardship.
Four Types of Suffering for Our Own Benefit:
1. Consequential (sowing & reaping) -- Much of our suffering is a result of the spiritual, moral, & natural consequences of our own actions and choices. Many things get blamed on God that simply are not His fault. If you jump off a ten-story building and kill yourself, you can't blame that on God. The law of gravity is the same for everyone. When you violate the natural laws of the universe, then you pay the consequences
Just as there are natural laws in the universe, so there are moral and spiritual laws. These laws are the same for everyone. If you violate them you will suffer the consequences of your actions. Our children often experience consequential suffering. We warn them not to touch the stove, but they just have to see why. We plead with them not to swing the baseball bat when other children are around, but "whap!"
In the same way, God often allows His children to experience the natural consequences of their actions. The results are painful, but God is not obligated to deliver us from our wrong choices. Taking responsibility for our actions instead of blaming God is a step toward maturity.
Of course, the amazing thing is that God in His mercy often delivers us from even the hurtful consequences of our actions. That's grace. That's undeserved mercy.
Here are some which illustrate the principle of consequential suffering:
• Galatians 6:7-10 -- The creation principle of sowing & reaping stated by Paul.
• Numbers 14:41-45 -- God said to the Israelites, "Don't go. I won't go with you." Israel said, "We'll go anyway." They experienced the natural consequence of their action.
• 2 Samuel 11:1-5 -- David's adultery results in an unplanned pregnancy which brought must suffering to himself, his family, and his nation.
2. Correctional -- This type of suffering is a little different than the law of sowing and reaping. The suffering we experience here is not a natural consequence of our sin. This is suffering brought into our life by God to stop a pattern of sin before we experience natural consequences. God sees a specific sin or habit which needs correcting in our life and says, "I better administer some correction before this thing really gets out of hand." This is called God's discipline or correction.
The mother who disciplines her child to stop him from running into the street is administering correctional suffering. She administers discipline so that the child will change his actions and not experience the natural consequence of those bad actions.
God disciplines us out of love in the same manner. God sees it as short-term pain for long term gain. Here are some examples:
• Psalm 32 -- God ordained illness (v.4) as a result of a specific sin in David's life.
• James 5:14-16 -- A Christian brother experiencing illness as a result of an unconfessed and undealt with sin in his life.
• 1 Corinthians 11:29,30 -- Weakness, sickness & death as a result of improper participation in the Lord's supper.
• Acts 5:1-11 -- An example of God's discipline and correction in the early church, so that the rest of the church would not lie to the Holy Spirit.
• 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 -- In this case, the church is disciplining the individual in place of God. Suffering is being imposed so that "his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."
3. Educational -- Educational suffering is not a consequence of an immediate sin. Educational suffering is a challenge (we call it a 'trial') that God brings into our life to help us develop and grow. Education suffering is meant to bring spiritual fruit and positive character traits into our life.
I remember when I was sent off to summer camp for the first time--to me that was suffering. Why would my parents send me away? Didn't they love me? Sure they did. They loved me enough to know that I needed to grow up--to be challenged to face new people and new experiences on my own.
Likewise God often puts us in situations that initially seem to be beyond us. "Why should I have to go through this? I didn't do anything to deserve this in my life? This doesn't seem fair, God." God puts us in these situations to help us become mature. Educational suffering is a little like military boot camp. It gets us in shape.
The following Scripture passages use the words "teach" or "learn":
• Deuteronomy 8:3 -- Why did Israel have to go through the wilderness? To teach Israel that man must live by God's words as well as bread.
• Hebrews 12:5-11 -- God places us in suffering situations that we might share in His holiness (v.10) and righteousness & peace (v.11).
• Hebrews 5:7-10 -- Jesus Himself had to 'learn' obedience through the things He suffered.
• Hebrews 2:10 -- Jesus was "made perfect" or "became mature" through suffering.
• 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 -- Preventive suffering so that Paul would learn humility and rely on the Lord's power.
What are some positive traits that times of trial can develop in us? Here are some of the positive traits that God wants to build in us through trials:
• Endurance -- Romans 5:3
• Character -- Romans 5:4
• Hope -- Romans 5:4
• Knowledge of God's love -- Romans 5:5
• Empathy -- 2 Corinthians 1:3,4
• Obedience -- Hebrews 5:8
• Maturity -- James 1:4
• Proven faith -- 1 Peter 1:7
4. Evaluational -- God uses trials to test us, to show us the level we have attained, and to open our eyes to areas we still need to work on. These trials are often given for the specific purpose of testing our faith. Do we really trust God or do we just say we trust God? Evaluational trials tell us the answer to that question. Read these Scriptures. The key word in these passages is "test."
• Genesis 22:1-18 -- God tested Abraham. Note the following pattern: Test . . . Verdict . . . Blessing.
• Deuteronomy 8:2 -- Israel tested during the 40 years in the wilderness to know what was in their heart.
• Luke 4:1-14 -- Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tested.
• 1 Peter 1:6-7 -- Peter said that the purpose of the trials this church was facing was to test their faith.
Four Types of Suffering for the Benefit of Others:
1. Sacrificial -- Suffering for the sake of someone else.
The first four reasons that we found for suffering were for our own benefit. But not all suffering is for us. The next four explanations for suffering are for the benefit of others. Sacrificial suffering shouldn't be too difficult for us to understand since examples of sacrificial suffering abound in the natural world:
• The mother who suffers to bring a baby into the world
• The parent who sacrifices to raise a child
• The living donor who gives up his kidney for a transplant recipient
Numerous examples of sacrificial suffering can be found in the Bible too:
• Genesis 45:4-7 -- Joseph suffered loneliness, slavery, and jail in order to deliver the family of Israel from death.
• Isaiah 53 -- Jesus suffered for our benefit (v.5,6,8,10,12).
• Romans 16:3 -- Priscilla & Aquila for Paul.
• 1 Samuel 20:1-33 -- Jonathan for David.
• Romans 14:13-21; 15:1-3 -- Stronger brother for the weaker.
2. Revelational --God causes a situation of suffering so that He might reveal Himself or glorify Himself to others. In Hosea chapters 1 & 3 God tells the story of Hosea. He was commanded to do something which God knew would involve suffering for him. Hosea was commanded to marry a woman that God knew would be unfaithful to Hosea. Why did God ask Hosea to suffer with an unfaithful spouse? In order that God could reveal Himself to the adulterous nation that He loved. He used their marriage as an example of how he felt about Israel being unfaithful to God while God continued to love them anyway. Hosea's marriage --> unfaithful Gomer was like God's marriage --> unfaithful Israel
• John 9:1-3 -- This man was born blind so that God could glorify Himself through his healing. His suffering was an opportunity for God to reveal His mercy, power, and love.
• Romans 3:25,26 -- God made Jesus to suffer in order that His divine justice might be revealed.
• Romans 5:8 -- Christ's suffering on the cross demonstrated and revealed God's love to us.
3. Persecutional -- As we share the good news we suffer at the hands of some who reject it. We suffer like Christ suffered.
• Jeremiah 20:7-10,14-18 -- The ministry God had given to Jeremiah resulted in persecution and suffering.
• Matthew 5:10-12 -- Suffering will come to us as a result of sharing the gospel.
• 1 Peter 3:14-17 -- We will suffer for doing good in an evil world.
• Hebrews 11:35b-39 -- All of these people suffered persecution for their faith and never saw their reward in this life.
4. Invisible Level -- We suffer as a result of heavenly spiritual battles that we don’t really understand or know about:
• Job 1 & 2 -- Job never knew that the reason he suffered was because of a heavenly contest between God & Satan. Does that make Job just a pawn in God's chess game? No. We have no concern for pawns after they have served their purpose. But God does care for Job. That's why there are chapters 38-42 in the book of Job.
• Luke 22:31,32 -- On the human level Peter's denial of Jesus is a lack of faith. But here we get a glimpse of a heavenly battle going on as well. Peter will be sifted by Satan. Jesus is also a participant in this heavenly battle. He prays that Peter's faith would not completely fail.
• Ephesians 6:12 -- There is an invisible realm of conflict about which we know little and yet we are intimately involved in the struggle. This struggle causes suffering for us and yet is largely beyond our ability to comprehend. ¶ 11:20 AM 0 Comments
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Lunch Buddy Land
I have been neglecting to write much about my lunch buddy. We are having a great time. Our day together is Wednesday. Today when I got there she gave me a huge hug and declared, “Know why today is an extra special day?!...It’s my birthday!” She then gave me another hug and said, “That is your extra big snuggly birthday hug!” (Isn’t that so cute!) She is kind of a scrappy little tom boy but she has a girly side and she has really warmed up to me. I’ve also seen a softer side come out of her in interacting with her friends---which I try to give her lots of praise when she is polite or generous etc.
I asked her what her plans are for her birthday and she is excited because her mom is going to make her TWO chocolate fudge cupcakes. She isn’t really having a party (I don’t think they have the money to throw a party) but they are taking her out for dinner and to an arcade/play park. She was excited about getting a “shrimp or lobster dinner.” LOL! She is quite a character. She does voices and impressions of all her favorite TV and movie characters. (I hope they enroll her in drama in Jr. High.) She was cracking me up cause she kept saying, in her best MC/Hip Hop voice: “I’m in my double digits now. Yeaah.”
A couple times she has mentioned that her family goes to church. I get the impression that they don’t go very frequently. Anyway, today she was drawing a picture of her friend and drew her wearing high heels. She said to me, “I have shoes like that, I just don’t wear them to school—I only wear them to church.” I asked her what church she goes to and she said The Apostolic church on Duke. Hmmmm. That makes me a little nervous. It’s quite an extreme group… But it sounds like she likes it. I asked her if she likes “Veggie Tales” and she said, “Oh, yeah! I LOVE veggie tales!” (She usually talks about Family Guy and South Park so I’m glad she was excited about veggies tales.) I have the Veggie Tales “Lord of the Beans” DVD at home that I had purchased to give to someone with kids but I think I’ll give it to her as a birthday gift next week.
I see so much potential in her. I think she just needs a little extra attention and positive feedback. She is resilient, smart, funny, and has good social skills overall (though she can be a little aggressive with the other kids.) I pray for her often as well as for the other kids in her class. Many of them have really heartbreaking situations at home. Today one kid, who I’ve barely talked to, walked over to me randomly and gave me a hug. It was clear that he just wanted an adult—any adult—to give him some love. I try to keep a positive demeanor though and do my part to give them the little amount of love I can while I’m there and pray for them when I’m not. ¶ 1:25 PM 0 Comments
I asked her what her plans are for her birthday and she is excited because her mom is going to make her TWO chocolate fudge cupcakes. She isn’t really having a party (I don’t think they have the money to throw a party) but they are taking her out for dinner and to an arcade/play park. She was excited about getting a “shrimp or lobster dinner.” LOL! She is quite a character. She does voices and impressions of all her favorite TV and movie characters. (I hope they enroll her in drama in Jr. High.) She was cracking me up cause she kept saying, in her best MC/Hip Hop voice: “I’m in my double digits now. Yeaah.”
A couple times she has mentioned that her family goes to church. I get the impression that they don’t go very frequently. Anyway, today she was drawing a picture of her friend and drew her wearing high heels. She said to me, “I have shoes like that, I just don’t wear them to school—I only wear them to church.” I asked her what church she goes to and she said The Apostolic church on Duke. Hmmmm. That makes me a little nervous. It’s quite an extreme group… But it sounds like she likes it. I asked her if she likes “Veggie Tales” and she said, “Oh, yeah! I LOVE veggie tales!” (She usually talks about Family Guy and South Park so I’m glad she was excited about veggies tales.) I have the Veggie Tales “Lord of the Beans” DVD at home that I had purchased to give to someone with kids but I think I’ll give it to her as a birthday gift next week.
I see so much potential in her. I think she just needs a little extra attention and positive feedback. She is resilient, smart, funny, and has good social skills overall (though she can be a little aggressive with the other kids.) I pray for her often as well as for the other kids in her class. Many of them have really heartbreaking situations at home. Today one kid, who I’ve barely talked to, walked over to me randomly and gave me a hug. It was clear that he just wanted an adult—any adult—to give him some love. I try to keep a positive demeanor though and do my part to give them the little amount of love I can while I’m there and pray for them when I’m not. ¶ 1:25 PM 0 Comments
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
What is a "stumbling block" anyway?!
...
A Stumbling Block: What it is and What it isn't--by Randy Alcorn
The stumbling block of 1 Corinthians 8 (and Romans 14) is an action, taken by a biblically informed believer, that does not in itself violate any scriptural precept or principle, but which a less knowledgeable or less mature believer might imitate, in a way that violates his conscience. In context, the mature believer feels free to eat meat offered to idols, because meat is meat and it's a provision of God, and idols are nothing. But the immature believer has come from a background of idol worship, so when he sees his brother eating meat, it eggs him on to do it. However, he associates the meat with the idols, and therefore is violating his conscience by eating it.
A stumbling block, then, is not just anything that causes someone to be offended.
It is not a stumbling block to commit adultery, because adultery is inherently sinful. It's always a bad example to do wrong, obviously, but this isn't what the passage is dealing with.
It is not a stumbling block for a man to have long hair and a pony tail, if the people who are offended by this are not thereby tempted to have a pony tail themselves, and in doing so violate their conscience.
It cannot be a stumbling block when a woman is offended at a man's beard, unless she is tempted to grow a beard and in doing so would violate her conscience. It is not a stumbling block when a man is offended at a woman nursing a baby in church, since he is presumably not going to be tempted to start nursing a baby.
The church people who are most offended by wine drinking would typically never be tempted to drink wine in the first place. Drinking alcohol may be a stumbling block, but not to those offended by it, but rather to those who may imitate this action without sufficiently strong conscience and self-control. They might not be able to handle it, so it would do them damage, become addictive and lead them into sin.
The biblical stumbling block involves a more mature believer exercising Christian liberty in a way that hurts a younger less mature believer. It does so by prompting him to say "I guess I can go ahead and drink alcohol, watch R-rated movies, etc." when by doing so he will end up sinning because of being unable to handle this action that another believer might be able to handle.
In many churches, it is older Christians, who think of themselves as more mature, who are offended at the behavior of younger Christians. Almost never are they tempted to do what the younger Christians are doing that offends them (such as listening to rock music), and therefore their offense has nothing to do with the stumbling block of 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14.
Instead of saying "you shouldn't do that because it's a stumbling block to me," these "professional weaker brothers" should engage in healthy biblical dialogue concerning the subject and learn to accept those things that are no more than differences in taste. They should not pull out "stumbling block" as a trump card that means "you can't exercise Christian liberty in any area I'm uncomfortable with." In fact, those who are biblically informed enough to even be familiar with the term stumbling block should be mature enough not to trip over one.
Also, notice that in 1 Corinthians 8 the "stumbling block" action is taken in a spirit of pride, arrogance, and selfish independence. It is a deliberate flaunting of Christian liberty, at the expense of others. The stumbling block issue is as much a matter of the offender's attitude as his action.
What a believer is commanded to do, he should do without regard to the response of others. What he is permitted to do, he may choose to do, but never is he compelled to do it. If he realizes his example could be imitated by younger believers not mature enough to do this without facing temptation they're unprepared to handle, out of love he should be willing to forgo this action unless and until they are able to handle it. (Or until they are trained to understand that Christian liberty means some have the freedom to do what others cannot.)
See original post here:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/doctrine_sin/A_Stumbling_Block_What_it_is_and_What_it_isn_t.shtml ¶ 10:55 AM 0 Comments
A Stumbling Block: What it is and What it isn't--by Randy Alcorn
The stumbling block of 1 Corinthians 8 (and Romans 14) is an action, taken by a biblically informed believer, that does not in itself violate any scriptural precept or principle, but which a less knowledgeable or less mature believer might imitate, in a way that violates his conscience. In context, the mature believer feels free to eat meat offered to idols, because meat is meat and it's a provision of God, and idols are nothing. But the immature believer has come from a background of idol worship, so when he sees his brother eating meat, it eggs him on to do it. However, he associates the meat with the idols, and therefore is violating his conscience by eating it.
A stumbling block, then, is not just anything that causes someone to be offended.
It is not a stumbling block to commit adultery, because adultery is inherently sinful. It's always a bad example to do wrong, obviously, but this isn't what the passage is dealing with.
It is not a stumbling block for a man to have long hair and a pony tail, if the people who are offended by this are not thereby tempted to have a pony tail themselves, and in doing so violate their conscience.
It cannot be a stumbling block when a woman is offended at a man's beard, unless she is tempted to grow a beard and in doing so would violate her conscience. It is not a stumbling block when a man is offended at a woman nursing a baby in church, since he is presumably not going to be tempted to start nursing a baby.
The church people who are most offended by wine drinking would typically never be tempted to drink wine in the first place. Drinking alcohol may be a stumbling block, but not to those offended by it, but rather to those who may imitate this action without sufficiently strong conscience and self-control. They might not be able to handle it, so it would do them damage, become addictive and lead them into sin.
The biblical stumbling block involves a more mature believer exercising Christian liberty in a way that hurts a younger less mature believer. It does so by prompting him to say "I guess I can go ahead and drink alcohol, watch R-rated movies, etc." when by doing so he will end up sinning because of being unable to handle this action that another believer might be able to handle.
In many churches, it is older Christians, who think of themselves as more mature, who are offended at the behavior of younger Christians. Almost never are they tempted to do what the younger Christians are doing that offends them (such as listening to rock music), and therefore their offense has nothing to do with the stumbling block of 1 Corinthians 8 or Romans 14.
Instead of saying "you shouldn't do that because it's a stumbling block to me," these "professional weaker brothers" should engage in healthy biblical dialogue concerning the subject and learn to accept those things that are no more than differences in taste. They should not pull out "stumbling block" as a trump card that means "you can't exercise Christian liberty in any area I'm uncomfortable with." In fact, those who are biblically informed enough to even be familiar with the term stumbling block should be mature enough not to trip over one.
Also, notice that in 1 Corinthians 8 the "stumbling block" action is taken in a spirit of pride, arrogance, and selfish independence. It is a deliberate flaunting of Christian liberty, at the expense of others. The stumbling block issue is as much a matter of the offender's attitude as his action.
What a believer is commanded to do, he should do without regard to the response of others. What he is permitted to do, he may choose to do, but never is he compelled to do it. If he realizes his example could be imitated by younger believers not mature enough to do this without facing temptation they're unprepared to handle, out of love he should be willing to forgo this action unless and until they are able to handle it. (Or until they are trained to understand that Christian liberty means some have the freedom to do what others cannot.)
See original post here:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/doctrine_sin/A_Stumbling_Block_What_it_is_and_What_it_isn_t.shtml ¶ 10:55 AM 0 Comments
Friday, February 20, 2009
Some of Us
We don’t understand until we do it
because we haven't been here until today,
and for some of us yesterday has left us unprepared.
Some of us are broken
and impaired
we live in squallor and despair
some of us are just a little bit
off center
stretched out like a canvas for the world's distress
to paint our displeasure.
Some of us are held together with duct tape and make-shift hopes,
some of us are at the end of our ropes
A few of us are the hand that feeds-
but most of us are human beings with human needs.
Some of us are charitable
and some of us are terminal
some of us are saints
but the rest of us are criminals.
Some of us know where to go
and some of us direct the flow
Some of us are famous
and the rest are unknown.
Some of us know how to do it
but most of us need to be shown
Some of us are grown together
and some of us are torn apart
some of us follow are heads
and some live without heart.
Some of us are finished
but I have yet to start.
by Kenneth Alvis (Milwaukie High School senior) ¶ 1:28 PM 0 Comments
because we haven't been here until today,
and for some of us yesterday has left us unprepared.
Some of us are broken
and impaired
we live in squallor and despair
some of us are just a little bit
off center
stretched out like a canvas for the world's distress
to paint our displeasure.
Some of us are held together with duct tape and make-shift hopes,
some of us are at the end of our ropes
A few of us are the hand that feeds-
but most of us are human beings with human needs.
Some of us are charitable
and some of us are terminal
some of us are saints
but the rest of us are criminals.
Some of us know where to go
and some of us direct the flow
Some of us are famous
and the rest are unknown.
Some of us know how to do it
but most of us need to be shown
Some of us are grown together
and some of us are torn apart
some of us follow are heads
and some live without heart.
Some of us are finished
but I have yet to start.
by Kenneth Alvis (Milwaukie High School senior) ¶ 1:28 PM 0 Comments
