Most of us are familiar with the term “missionary”; for one thing, it seems to have had some influence upon what position a man and woman should take in the act of procreation.
Beyond that we know that missionaries have had a tremendous impact upon the way that Western civilization has permeated the world.
How so? Obviously by carrying out their objectives of sharing the good news of the Messiah Jesus Christ, he of Jewish ethnicity and prophecy, who would be the savior of Jews and Gentiles alike.
But wait a minute; what does sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ have to do with the spread of Western civilization? Well, everything! That is, if you are a missionary.
Christianity is a religious belief system that was introduced in the East (the Middle East, to be more precise), spread phenomenally from there, and eventually became morphed into the large-scale and apostate enterprise that we see on display today. And along with the apostate church, the frequency of the term “missionary” has evolved from the tiny mustard seed of being used on just one occasion in my New Testament into a spectacular plant so large that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR CAN NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.
So what is meant in that single incidence of the Bible where the term “missionary” is used? In that case it was Paul, the author of so many of the letters featured in the New Testament. He was speaking in terms of his mission as an activist of the Christian faith.
Paul propounded on the historical Jesus Christ, he appealed to men to pray and seek Christ’s pardon and intervention in their lives, and he apparently did his utmost to spontaneously obey the promptings of the risen Christ, now revealed in the invisible yet metaphysically-revealed Holy Spirit. Paul also served as an enforcer of the pure doctrine of Christian belief, but it is my opinion that no one on this side of life really knows how pure Paul’s doctrine actually was.
Anyway, that was what Paul (who called himself a “missionary” just once in my Bible) did. We usually refer to Paul, as he himself commonly does, as an “apostle”, which is summed up mainly with the same job description that we just saw in the last paragraph. “Apostle” is much like “ambassador”, or someone who represents a ruler in that particular role or place where the ruler is not bodily present.
Most of us are familiar with “ambassador”, but “apostle” is a term we generally reserve for a senior official in a major Christian denomination, a top-ranking religious guy.
Back to the missionary/Western civilization topic, my premise (along with many others, I might add) is that the term “missionary” as a vocational career in the Christian faith is actually quite inaccurate and quite deserving of the scrutiny it receives from those outside of Christianity. Historically speaking, the missionaries, as many cultures know, were the first wave of outsiders to penetrate new frontiers, preaching and practicing logic, peace, and compassion, followed closely by a second wave of men, men of a different ilk, who subjugated and exploited the natives, many times in collusion with the most despicable and ruthless criminals of the land.
So goes the story of the advance of Western civilization, and while every civilization certainly holds its own shameful acts of belligerence and inscrutability, the West doesn’t seem to take a back seat to anybody in regards to the trade-off of benevolence for power.
So then, what’s the difference between a “missionary” and an “apostle”? I think the distinction has become important in our modern times, and therefore I propose this list that features characteristics that help identify each, and distinguish them from one other:
Primary Job Description: Missionary – Serves his organization, protects his organization’s doctrine, and seeks his organization’s approval. Apostle – Abducted by God because he sees the futility of managing his own life, he serves in submission to Christ.
Career Objectives: Missionary – Make a good name for yourself as a minister of the gospel, acquire many notches on your bible for the number of people you have had a part in getting saved, write a newsletter that makes people laugh and cry at the same time. Apostle – When God is into something, then I must be, too; who or what do I have in heaven and earth besides you, O Lord?
Career Outlook: Missionary – It’s a decent job if you have the stomach for it. Apostle – The heart of every matter is God’s will.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians.”
The impact of a Christian’s life upon those around him depends largely upon whether he is conducting himself as a missionary or as an apostle.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
When Trust is Broken
Trust is an empowering dynamic to relationships and organizations. Trusting people commit wholeheartedly to a person or a cause. Trusting people easily cast off the shackles of worry, doubt, and cynicism because they envision a secure bond or a projected outcome ahead.
Conversely, lost trust is lost power. Suspicion and doubt are as leaks from the combustion chamber, bleeding potential power to unspecified, unwarranted places.
Perhaps you have heard the adage: “double-cross me once. . . your fault; double-cross me again. . . my fault.” Only the fool allows trust to be repeatedly betrayed; only the sick-minded will make a supreme commitment to someone or something that he doesn’t entirely trust.
This is why so many of us live in the doldrums. When trust has been broken, we live in perpetual despair; as human beings we are so inclined to give our hearts away to a person or cause, and yet we harbor so many suspicions of trustworthiness. We can no longer give our hearts wholeheartedly. Life loses its savor.
If these views seem too secular, if the obvious being stated doesn’t match up with the ideal of God’s justice and sovereignty over all things, I’ll honor that. We are warned not to trust even ourselves, after all, but finally to trust God.
Since Jesus told his listeners to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to give the shirt off of your back, it appears that a guarded mindset or suspicious nature clashes with the will of Christ.
Then are we really expected to continue with those who have somehow betrayed us? The answer, it appears, is “yes”. Jesus did so, and to date I have not found any convincing evidence that he later rescinded or somehow qualified this idea.
But, as this stream of thought progresses, is everything as it should be because we have placed our trust in God? I find that question a lot more difficult to answer. We are admonished to be fools for Christ, yet I would argue that the responsible person finally accepts responsibility for involvements with the unreliable person, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
A friend once made the off-hand remark, “People are going to end up letting you down, no matter what.” Yes, no matter what; and then. . . what?
I think we have to begin with trusting God again; perhaps that was the very place where trust was first broken.
If we can get to that place of confessing and accepting “the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places” (Ps. 16), then we stand a better chance of being able to face anyone we feel has betrayed us. This is not the goal, mind you; it is only a possibility.
We still reserve the right to tell our double-crossers that their character is in question; Jesus did so, and so might we. We may also continue to keep double-crossers a ten-foot pole distance from our lives. After all we are not commanded to chum-up. We are only expected to submit our heart attitudes to the custodial care of the Holy Spirit, and if this leads us to reconciliation, so be it.
Either way lost trust is lost power. It is an enormous setback for any person or organization. Once trust is lost, it is a very slow and difficult procedure to patch or seal the leak. It may never be fully repaired. If we care at all about our lives, we would do well to maintain it.
Conversely, lost trust is lost power. Suspicion and doubt are as leaks from the combustion chamber, bleeding potential power to unspecified, unwarranted places.
Perhaps you have heard the adage: “double-cross me once. . . your fault; double-cross me again. . . my fault.” Only the fool allows trust to be repeatedly betrayed; only the sick-minded will make a supreme commitment to someone or something that he doesn’t entirely trust.
This is why so many of us live in the doldrums. When trust has been broken, we live in perpetual despair; as human beings we are so inclined to give our hearts away to a person or cause, and yet we harbor so many suspicions of trustworthiness. We can no longer give our hearts wholeheartedly. Life loses its savor.
If these views seem too secular, if the obvious being stated doesn’t match up with the ideal of God’s justice and sovereignty over all things, I’ll honor that. We are warned not to trust even ourselves, after all, but finally to trust God.
Since Jesus told his listeners to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to give the shirt off of your back, it appears that a guarded mindset or suspicious nature clashes with the will of Christ.
Then are we really expected to continue with those who have somehow betrayed us? The answer, it appears, is “yes”. Jesus did so, and to date I have not found any convincing evidence that he later rescinded or somehow qualified this idea.
But, as this stream of thought progresses, is everything as it should be because we have placed our trust in God? I find that question a lot more difficult to answer. We are admonished to be fools for Christ, yet I would argue that the responsible person finally accepts responsibility for involvements with the unreliable person, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
A friend once made the off-hand remark, “People are going to end up letting you down, no matter what.” Yes, no matter what; and then. . . what?
I think we have to begin with trusting God again; perhaps that was the very place where trust was first broken.
If we can get to that place of confessing and accepting “the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places” (Ps. 16), then we stand a better chance of being able to face anyone we feel has betrayed us. This is not the goal, mind you; it is only a possibility.
We still reserve the right to tell our double-crossers that their character is in question; Jesus did so, and so might we. We may also continue to keep double-crossers a ten-foot pole distance from our lives. After all we are not commanded to chum-up. We are only expected to submit our heart attitudes to the custodial care of the Holy Spirit, and if this leads us to reconciliation, so be it.
Either way lost trust is lost power. It is an enormous setback for any person or organization. Once trust is lost, it is a very slow and difficult procedure to patch or seal the leak. It may never be fully repaired. If we care at all about our lives, we would do well to maintain it.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Making Disciples
On the surface, making disciples would appear to be a simple objective; once one has opened his heart to faith and obedience, believing in his heart and confessing with his mouth that Christ is Lord, it’s only a matter of guiding this person along on their path of discipleship.
But then what will the disciple’s first step be? He will say, “Teach me.” He will want to understand scripture, and he will want to know, to borrow from Francis C. Shaeffer’s book, “How Shall We Then Live?”
Let’s not be so foolish or shallow to think that the only learning that the disciple receives is from the Bible. He will also observe (and naturally) imitate the behaviors of those believers around him whom he perceives as devoted to the faith. What does the Bible say about wine? (He will be watching to see who has a glass at weddings, before and after meals, etc.) What about entertainment? (He will be interested in the kind of movies and literature that his mentor enjoys.) What about anger? (He will see when it’s okay to be angry in righteous indignation and when it’s something that should be repented of). What about respecting others? (He will be watching to see which authorities are worthy of respect, and which are the corrupt officials and degenerates who are not worthy of Christian respect).
So you see what we have here. It doesn’t take long before we have transferred our thoughts from belief in Christ’s atonement of sin to what I would call critical thinking. The disciple is now seeking the path that his God has prepared for him, and trusting God through his sojourn in God’s kingdom.
Jesus told his first disciples to go and make disciples; as someone has pointed out, the first two letters in “gospel” are “go”. This is true in English, of course. In Aramaic, perhaps the idea wouldn’t be quite as catchy.
Do all roads lead to the same place for the Christian? No one has convinced me pro or con. I am told that no one shall snatch me away from my omnipotent Lord’s grasp, whilst at the same time I am to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. These verses belong to all Christians, but what comes of these verses is hardly consistent from one disciple to another.
Jesus’ lordship is always forefront to the disciples’ confession, to be sure. This is the litmus test of Christianity, the ‘Apostles’ Creed’, an edict of the way to believe across all Christian faith. Once we have met the approval of Christianity’s pardon, we have satisfied its unconditional requirement – one God, one faith, one baptism.
It is when this doctrine is brought to implementation that diverse ideas begin to formulate.
With Roman Catholicism, disciples have become all things to all men that by all means they might win some. This explains to me why we have shrines in Latin America, temples in India placed by Roman Catholics. In this case we have a ‘chameleon’ Christianity that blends with the dominant society, sending a message of Christ’s limitless compassion upon all of humanity.
With Pentecostals and their ‘shirt-tailer’ denominations, disciples understand that it is only a resilient, faith-overcoming-mind headset that can realize God’s kingdom come, his will be done. By grace alone will a man find salvation, but taking on God’s tasks will certainly give a boost to the realization of God's glory. Anything secularism might do, spirit-filled Christians can do bigger, better, and with spirit-filled panache’ (call it ‘anointing’, if you like).
Southern Baptists realize their sanctification by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth, their personal deeds to little effect. Bloated and constipated on a staple diet of scriptures for salvation,they see only through the prism of pre-determinism and Dispensationalist belief. They are the Lord’s, and their deeds have been relegated to the Lord. They well-know the color of the horse that the king of kings and lord of lords will be riding, and place an unrelenting trust that they cannot be beguiled. They will stand in the judgment, as is decreed, and everyone else will simply go to hell.
Then come the para-church and interdenominational faith ministries, bringing a refreshing change to the stunted doctrines of the major Christian denominations. Thriving on the best elements of all the afore-mentioned Christian doctrines, they shun traditions as they create their own, sexing up testimonies and rushing headlong for celebrity on the “cutting edge” of Christianity.
Indeed, how shall we then live? What have the disciples learned, and what has the mind of Christ brought to critical thinking?
I am only a writer, a pro-pounder with the written word; perhaps I am struggling with matters too great for me. Certainly the readers will see my fault.
If I am an agent in the great falling away, whereby men’s hearts grow cold and lawlessness abounds, it appears there is little I can do about that, according to the Southern Baptists. To the Pentecostals and the proponents of the afterglow, if I am indeed a chosen and compliant vessel, there’s a good chance that the glory of God will encompass me all about, as it did the priests at the unveiling of the new temple in Jerusalem. To the Roman Catholics, if I’m a devout soul, confessing my sins and doing penance for every known transgression, then perhaps God will have mercy upon me.
If I thrust these aside and meet God in the inter-denominational river of life, then perhaps I will inevitably go wherever it is that he leads me; perhaps I’ve already been there, and didn’t take enough notice!
If I am a disciple of Christ, however, I am right to wonder what he thinks. I am obliged to think about two roads he mentioned, obliged to recall that the narrow one is the one that I had better take. I should think about the way he reacted to the religious conventions of his country, and I should remember how vocal he was when the most obvious things about him were taken amiss. When I realize how far my mind has strayed from the way I should be thinking, I rejoice in God, because he adjures me, “Come let us reason together; though your sins are as scarlet, I will cleanse them with hyssop and make them white as snow.”
But then what will the disciple’s first step be? He will say, “Teach me.” He will want to understand scripture, and he will want to know, to borrow from Francis C. Shaeffer’s book, “How Shall We Then Live?”
Let’s not be so foolish or shallow to think that the only learning that the disciple receives is from the Bible. He will also observe (and naturally) imitate the behaviors of those believers around him whom he perceives as devoted to the faith. What does the Bible say about wine? (He will be watching to see who has a glass at weddings, before and after meals, etc.) What about entertainment? (He will be interested in the kind of movies and literature that his mentor enjoys.) What about anger? (He will see when it’s okay to be angry in righteous indignation and when it’s something that should be repented of). What about respecting others? (He will be watching to see which authorities are worthy of respect, and which are the corrupt officials and degenerates who are not worthy of Christian respect).
So you see what we have here. It doesn’t take long before we have transferred our thoughts from belief in Christ’s atonement of sin to what I would call critical thinking. The disciple is now seeking the path that his God has prepared for him, and trusting God through his sojourn in God’s kingdom.
Jesus told his first disciples to go and make disciples; as someone has pointed out, the first two letters in “gospel” are “go”. This is true in English, of course. In Aramaic, perhaps the idea wouldn’t be quite as catchy.
Do all roads lead to the same place for the Christian? No one has convinced me pro or con. I am told that no one shall snatch me away from my omnipotent Lord’s grasp, whilst at the same time I am to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. These verses belong to all Christians, but what comes of these verses is hardly consistent from one disciple to another.
Jesus’ lordship is always forefront to the disciples’ confession, to be sure. This is the litmus test of Christianity, the ‘Apostles’ Creed’, an edict of the way to believe across all Christian faith. Once we have met the approval of Christianity’s pardon, we have satisfied its unconditional requirement – one God, one faith, one baptism.
It is when this doctrine is brought to implementation that diverse ideas begin to formulate.
With Roman Catholicism, disciples have become all things to all men that by all means they might win some. This explains to me why we have shrines in Latin America, temples in India placed by Roman Catholics. In this case we have a ‘chameleon’ Christianity that blends with the dominant society, sending a message of Christ’s limitless compassion upon all of humanity.
With Pentecostals and their ‘shirt-tailer’ denominations, disciples understand that it is only a resilient, faith-overcoming-mind headset that can realize God’s kingdom come, his will be done. By grace alone will a man find salvation, but taking on God’s tasks will certainly give a boost to the realization of God's glory. Anything secularism might do, spirit-filled Christians can do bigger, better, and with spirit-filled panache’ (call it ‘anointing’, if you like).
Southern Baptists realize their sanctification by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth, their personal deeds to little effect. Bloated and constipated on a staple diet of scriptures for salvation,they see only through the prism of pre-determinism and Dispensationalist belief. They are the Lord’s, and their deeds have been relegated to the Lord. They well-know the color of the horse that the king of kings and lord of lords will be riding, and place an unrelenting trust that they cannot be beguiled. They will stand in the judgment, as is decreed, and everyone else will simply go to hell.
Then come the para-church and interdenominational faith ministries, bringing a refreshing change to the stunted doctrines of the major Christian denominations. Thriving on the best elements of all the afore-mentioned Christian doctrines, they shun traditions as they create their own, sexing up testimonies and rushing headlong for celebrity on the “cutting edge” of Christianity.
Indeed, how shall we then live? What have the disciples learned, and what has the mind of Christ brought to critical thinking?
I am only a writer, a pro-pounder with the written word; perhaps I am struggling with matters too great for me. Certainly the readers will see my fault.
If I am an agent in the great falling away, whereby men’s hearts grow cold and lawlessness abounds, it appears there is little I can do about that, according to the Southern Baptists. To the Pentecostals and the proponents of the afterglow, if I am indeed a chosen and compliant vessel, there’s a good chance that the glory of God will encompass me all about, as it did the priests at the unveiling of the new temple in Jerusalem. To the Roman Catholics, if I’m a devout soul, confessing my sins and doing penance for every known transgression, then perhaps God will have mercy upon me.
If I thrust these aside and meet God in the inter-denominational river of life, then perhaps I will inevitably go wherever it is that he leads me; perhaps I’ve already been there, and didn’t take enough notice!
If I am a disciple of Christ, however, I am right to wonder what he thinks. I am obliged to think about two roads he mentioned, obliged to recall that the narrow one is the one that I had better take. I should think about the way he reacted to the religious conventions of his country, and I should remember how vocal he was when the most obvious things about him were taken amiss. When I realize how far my mind has strayed from the way I should be thinking, I rejoice in God, because he adjures me, “Come let us reason together; though your sins are as scarlet, I will cleanse them with hyssop and make them white as snow.”
Sunday, April 25, 2010
'Divisions' of ministry?
In the sixth chapter of the Book of Acts we have the account of the earliest “division of ministries” among the Christian believers; a plan is developed following a dispute among one faction of the Jews with the others, creating a situation that is simply too messy and time-consuming for the leadership of the new sect to involve themselves with a second time.
Those twelve in leadership come to this conclusion: “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. . . But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”
Bad move. See for yourself. Those original twelve who “devoted themselves to prayer” remain relatively obscure in the Lord’s work from that time forward; instead, those designated to the servant position end up being the catalyst for the growth of Christianity.
Stephen is one of them. He is a reliable, confidence-winning young man, perhaps a likely candidate in future years to take a seat among The Twelve. But see what else The Bible says of this earnest but otherwise undistinguished Christian: He was “full of grace and power, performing great wonders and signs among the people.”
Of course all Stephen’s attributes only serve to get him killed, and this mainly from the urging of the greatest hell-raiser of the time, Saul the Pharisee. However it is from this particular tragedy onward that the Christians are threatened, persecuted, dispersed, and hunted. . . and as a result Christianity spreads in every direction. Within just one generation the message of the word traveled east and south as far as the tip of India, west and north to Rome and parts beyond.
What of those who remained headquartered in Jerusalem? Later we hear from some of them (Peter, James, John); by this time they are old men, steeped in wisdom and humility, urging their readers to pursue simple lives that are pleasing to God, or disclosing magnificent visions and prophecies bestowed upon them by their inestimable Lord. You don’t hear any of them advocating to anyone to “go out and start a ministry”! That is only a conception of the apostate church.
Don’t be beguiled by the holy men who have “set themselves aside” for prayer. These are a large part of the apostasy that exists in the church, both historically and in the present. Idle hands make mischief, and it is obvious that the idle nature of these “set aside” have brought strife, compromise, and corruption to religious duty. With all the extra time given them to follow their sordid pleasures, what have they got to pray about except that they don’t fall into temptation?
Apostasy in the church will continue to exist until Christ’s return, perhaps even longer. There’s not much I or anyone else can do about that. I can’t do much about it, but I don’t have to play along; show me where it says I have to play along.
Those twelve in leadership come to this conclusion: “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. . . But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”
Bad move. See for yourself. Those original twelve who “devoted themselves to prayer” remain relatively obscure in the Lord’s work from that time forward; instead, those designated to the servant position end up being the catalyst for the growth of Christianity.
Stephen is one of them. He is a reliable, confidence-winning young man, perhaps a likely candidate in future years to take a seat among The Twelve. But see what else The Bible says of this earnest but otherwise undistinguished Christian: He was “full of grace and power, performing great wonders and signs among the people.”
Of course all Stephen’s attributes only serve to get him killed, and this mainly from the urging of the greatest hell-raiser of the time, Saul the Pharisee. However it is from this particular tragedy onward that the Christians are threatened, persecuted, dispersed, and hunted. . . and as a result Christianity spreads in every direction. Within just one generation the message of the word traveled east and south as far as the tip of India, west and north to Rome and parts beyond.
What of those who remained headquartered in Jerusalem? Later we hear from some of them (Peter, James, John); by this time they are old men, steeped in wisdom and humility, urging their readers to pursue simple lives that are pleasing to God, or disclosing magnificent visions and prophecies bestowed upon them by their inestimable Lord. You don’t hear any of them advocating to anyone to “go out and start a ministry”! That is only a conception of the apostate church.
Don’t be beguiled by the holy men who have “set themselves aside” for prayer. These are a large part of the apostasy that exists in the church, both historically and in the present. Idle hands make mischief, and it is obvious that the idle nature of these “set aside” have brought strife, compromise, and corruption to religious duty. With all the extra time given them to follow their sordid pleasures, what have they got to pray about except that they don’t fall into temptation?
Apostasy in the church will continue to exist until Christ’s return, perhaps even longer. There’s not much I or anyone else can do about that. I can’t do much about it, but I don’t have to play along; show me where it says I have to play along.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
conservatives don't associate with losers
The Conservatives in America don’t represent Christian values. Let’s not kid ourselves here. For one thing, Christ is way too big of a loser for the Conservatives to embrace.
Look at Christ. He didn’t own a house or a car, nor did he hold steady work, or pay into Workmen’s Comp. He wasn’t able to get any tax exemptions or unemployment insurance for himself or anybody else. All he had was a rag-tag group of followers that ditched him when he needed them the most.
Now he sits at the right hand of The Father; but what good does that do anybody while they’re trying to maintain upbeat home mortgage investments, accessible loan markets, and the opportunity for a bright future?
Conservatives want their shock and awe, their closed borders, the way of life that Christ intended for them. After all, if all Christ ended up with was a scourging and death on the cross, why shouldn’t those who believe in him get some of the rewards due him? To give up their little piece of Heaven here on Earth would surely be a travesty, and therefore every ounce of our strength should be expended to ensure that Conservatives maintain a status befitting that of the Sons of God.
For all their talk of fiscal responsibility, financial viability, etc., Conservatives were strangely silent when the home mortgage crisis hit and sent its tremors around the globe. When Conservatives had the chance to live up to their so-called lasses-faire manifesto, they grimaced and shuffled their feet just to show how much they hated to do this, but essentially said “Some of these fellers are too big to fail, and if we let ‘em, they’re gonna take everybody down with ‘em.”
Conservatives basically poise themselves at the center of the Pro-Life stance in order to manipulate their voting base and their PAC status. Beyond that they hold little respect for life or Christian doctrine.
Any redeemed-by-the-blood Conservative should be able to tell you that Christ once said that whatsoever a person asked for and believed on him, that thing he would do. I’m just curious as to what kind of prayers God is hearing these days from the Conservatives.
Look at Christ. He didn’t own a house or a car, nor did he hold steady work, or pay into Workmen’s Comp. He wasn’t able to get any tax exemptions or unemployment insurance for himself or anybody else. All he had was a rag-tag group of followers that ditched him when he needed them the most.
Now he sits at the right hand of The Father; but what good does that do anybody while they’re trying to maintain upbeat home mortgage investments, accessible loan markets, and the opportunity for a bright future?
Conservatives want their shock and awe, their closed borders, the way of life that Christ intended for them. After all, if all Christ ended up with was a scourging and death on the cross, why shouldn’t those who believe in him get some of the rewards due him? To give up their little piece of Heaven here on Earth would surely be a travesty, and therefore every ounce of our strength should be expended to ensure that Conservatives maintain a status befitting that of the Sons of God.
For all their talk of fiscal responsibility, financial viability, etc., Conservatives were strangely silent when the home mortgage crisis hit and sent its tremors around the globe. When Conservatives had the chance to live up to their so-called lasses-faire manifesto, they grimaced and shuffled their feet just to show how much they hated to do this, but essentially said “Some of these fellers are too big to fail, and if we let ‘em, they’re gonna take everybody down with ‘em.”
Conservatives basically poise themselves at the center of the Pro-Life stance in order to manipulate their voting base and their PAC status. Beyond that they hold little respect for life or Christian doctrine.
Any redeemed-by-the-blood Conservative should be able to tell you that Christ once said that whatsoever a person asked for and believed on him, that thing he would do. I’m just curious as to what kind of prayers God is hearing these days from the Conservatives.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Christ the servant/substance
I’ve been thinking about Jesus’ ministry as he lived in the flesh, before his ascension from the tomb. Jesus spent his time and effort in meeting people’s needs. It seems to me that Jesus modeled the perfect union of pragmatism as it encountered the metaphysical realm. If the need was a few drachma for temple tax, just go fishing and it will be met; if the need was for healing, bestow it according to the measure of faith demonstrated; if the need was to deny worldly possessions, then do so and follow Christ in faith to a realization of eternal values and eternal life.
I suppose these examples are fairly approximate if not totally the same with criticisms on the “relevance” of the church in contemporary society. Why shouldn’t the ministry of the church be that of meeting the needs of people? However, when this subject gets pressed, the argument tends to fall toward too much Martha in the mix and not enough Mary.
I don’t know if I’ve struck the right balance in all this or not, but I will go on now to give this personal testimony.
I’m still serving in the nation of India. I’m here doing business, providing education services. Until very recently I was mostly serving the expat missions community. However, I must say that I have felt a growing alienation from that segment of society that I was formerly serving.
“Support” has become a dirty word in my consciousness, as I believe that “business” has become a dirty word to that population I speak of. But I truly believe that business has become my way of meeting needs, just as much as missionaries believe that support is their method.
The apostle Paul, along with (1.) preaching and exhorting the populaces and (2.) working in signs and wonders, also (3.) carried bundles of money from one church to another.
It seems to me that modern-day missions programs are basically operating in two of these three. It seems that dispensational doctrine has rendered the signs and wonders aspect of Pauline ministry as questionable, if not openly fraudulent, but financial gifts and preaching to the brethren are hoped to compensate.
In short, what it seems the missions community has in terms of meeting needs is either cash donations or a suggestion to join a movement. What I don’t see is any convincing effort to serve in ways beyond these two. I’ve been around so many of the NGOs and para-church organizations and relief programs and church planters and this-and-that’s, and I’ve come away with the thought that no one is fooled by these self-promulgating operations but the operatives themselves.
The bottom line is that all these “ministries” are funded by the tithes and offerings of outsiders who don’t expect their programs to actually impress anyone (Mary type) besides the in-house constituency. If they did, that would really smack of a secular (Martha type) solution. I’ve heard missionaries on support actually boast about how they constantly lose money, how they neglect their business for the sake of their “ministry”, etc. (Incidentally, the Indian government is now cracking down on these losers, and I have to say that I applaud this as much as I hate to see it happen.)
Paul wrote enough of the New Testament that it should seem no surprise that a great deal of his doctrine is practiced. However, Peter, John, James and Jude also had a few things to say that should warrant reflection. Their messages bring a refreshing change to the bulk of Pauline doctrine that the church and its missions movements have seemingly glad-grabbed, namely money as authority, reached by corporate agility, without any evidence of meeting the needs of a broken world; in short, no substance.
Once upon a time I was hoping for substance, dying without it, and lo and behold, I found the substance, who is Christ Jesus. I don’t think that idea is so peculiar to anyone who calls himself a Christian.
I suppose these examples are fairly approximate if not totally the same with criticisms on the “relevance” of the church in contemporary society. Why shouldn’t the ministry of the church be that of meeting the needs of people? However, when this subject gets pressed, the argument tends to fall toward too much Martha in the mix and not enough Mary.
I don’t know if I’ve struck the right balance in all this or not, but I will go on now to give this personal testimony.
I’m still serving in the nation of India. I’m here doing business, providing education services. Until very recently I was mostly serving the expat missions community. However, I must say that I have felt a growing alienation from that segment of society that I was formerly serving.
“Support” has become a dirty word in my consciousness, as I believe that “business” has become a dirty word to that population I speak of. But I truly believe that business has become my way of meeting needs, just as much as missionaries believe that support is their method.
The apostle Paul, along with (1.) preaching and exhorting the populaces and (2.) working in signs and wonders, also (3.) carried bundles of money from one church to another.
It seems to me that modern-day missions programs are basically operating in two of these three. It seems that dispensational doctrine has rendered the signs and wonders aspect of Pauline ministry as questionable, if not openly fraudulent, but financial gifts and preaching to the brethren are hoped to compensate.
In short, what it seems the missions community has in terms of meeting needs is either cash donations or a suggestion to join a movement. What I don’t see is any convincing effort to serve in ways beyond these two. I’ve been around so many of the NGOs and para-church organizations and relief programs and church planters and this-and-that’s, and I’ve come away with the thought that no one is fooled by these self-promulgating operations but the operatives themselves.
The bottom line is that all these “ministries” are funded by the tithes and offerings of outsiders who don’t expect their programs to actually impress anyone (Mary type) besides the in-house constituency. If they did, that would really smack of a secular (Martha type) solution. I’ve heard missionaries on support actually boast about how they constantly lose money, how they neglect their business for the sake of their “ministry”, etc. (Incidentally, the Indian government is now cracking down on these losers, and I have to say that I applaud this as much as I hate to see it happen.)
Paul wrote enough of the New Testament that it should seem no surprise that a great deal of his doctrine is practiced. However, Peter, John, James and Jude also had a few things to say that should warrant reflection. Their messages bring a refreshing change to the bulk of Pauline doctrine that the church and its missions movements have seemingly glad-grabbed, namely money as authority, reached by corporate agility, without any evidence of meeting the needs of a broken world; in short, no substance.
Once upon a time I was hoping for substance, dying without it, and lo and behold, I found the substance, who is Christ Jesus. I don’t think that idea is so peculiar to anyone who calls himself a Christian.
Friday, January 29, 2010
trapped in a culture?
Back in 1960s and the Vietnam Conflict Era of the USA, a university professor named Timothy Leary advised American youth to “Turn on, tune in, and drop out” from the status quo of American society. Leary was a controversial figure in the American consciousness, a pilgrim going the wrong direction and taking many along with him in the eyes of conservative and middle-class America.
The reason why I mention him here is not to eulogize him, his message, or his legacy – it’s simply that his seven-word quote above is as apropos as anything I can summon in terms of what I think Christians worldwide need to do with the cultural church in its present state.
Personally I was drawn to the church after first being drawn to the Son of God and his invitation for freedom from sin and condemnation. Pummeled by my own ways of dealing with the world, I found a refuge as well as a training center through which I could learn more about this marvelous author of a marvelous faith. I think this is a fairly common pattern among newcomers to the church.
I realize that I owe the church a great deal in regards to its support, discipleship, guidance, etc. The church has to a large degree made me the person I am today. However there are times when I wonder if the bride isn’t being confused with the bridegroom, and just what kind of bride truly exists.
There is no singular turning point from where I began to wonder at the relevance of the church. First I began to question the priorities of church governance, which so often regarded the trappings of the sanctuary above the flockless. Then I began to notice how in the house of the redeemed there seemed a coordination of faith with lifestyles; SUVs, home schooling, larger families, real estate purchases, or in other words, more pronounced consumerism. It certainly did appear that riches accompanied the glory of knowing Christ, and I wondered where I was lacking in my faith walk.
I pressed further into my discipleship as a result, only to find that Christ’s message was indeed that which had drawn me in the first place; seek first his kingdom, don’t worry about the rest; it shall be added on.
I worked for Christian businessmen in my church. I tried to be appreciative of having employment, but I was aggrieved that profit seemed to be more important than a pursuit of excellence in so many instances. It was as if money had become the only respectable vice left to these men and women; hence it could be pursued with a zealous, sometimes reckless abandon.
Somewhere within this time I had begun to wonder, “Is this what Jesus had in mind? Is this going out into the world and making disciples? Is this the celebration of his victory, alas, our victory over the world?”
My discipleship eventually led me to training in overseas missions. Certainly here would be a different spirit, so I thought.
Instead I found that what I thought was the esprit-de-corps of the faith are only an extension of the cultural church that I had fled from in the USA. The first topic of conversation after the usual formalities of how-do-you-do is what organization (church) are you with, and how is your support? Missionaries I have known and worked with are consistently, without exception, financially endowed far beyond the populations they work with and witness to. Their financial assets are flaunted before a public that is much more impressed with their affluence than with their faith. Do you remember Christ, his disciples, or God’s prophets doing things this way?
What is the effect upon the faithful of the lands where overseas missions reach? By now you know what I’m going to say: extremely negligible. The harsh reality is that if you are a minister of Christ in overseas missions, you’d better have something tangible to offer the ministries of the land, and I’m not talking about just bible tracts. If you do not have money and gifts you will be politely dismissed with the unspoken message, “Go back home and get some, or just stay home.”
A tie-up with an affluent, generous American is a real feather in your cap if you are in the God business. Despite Jesus’ teaching that the servant should gird himself and serve the master before helping himself, I have seen it the norm that a pastor will lavish his household with vehicles, appliances, furnishings and conveniences first before tending to his often impoverished flock; in fact, his talisman is his display of the wealth and easy manner he has with his foreign benefactors.
The most ironic aspect of all this is that these cultural Christians seem to believe that they have escaped the worlds’ ways and have followed Christ to this haven of rest and plenty. They seem to have fallen for the myth that it’s their “good, clean living” that has brought them to such a desirable place.
A friend of mine once made the statement as he held up a dollar bill: “We are sending our God off to poor countries.” That note proclaims, as we all know, “In God we Trust”. Should it be so hard to realize the cause of the confusion?
The reason why I mention him here is not to eulogize him, his message, or his legacy – it’s simply that his seven-word quote above is as apropos as anything I can summon in terms of what I think Christians worldwide need to do with the cultural church in its present state.
Personally I was drawn to the church after first being drawn to the Son of God and his invitation for freedom from sin and condemnation. Pummeled by my own ways of dealing with the world, I found a refuge as well as a training center through which I could learn more about this marvelous author of a marvelous faith. I think this is a fairly common pattern among newcomers to the church.
I realize that I owe the church a great deal in regards to its support, discipleship, guidance, etc. The church has to a large degree made me the person I am today. However there are times when I wonder if the bride isn’t being confused with the bridegroom, and just what kind of bride truly exists.
There is no singular turning point from where I began to wonder at the relevance of the church. First I began to question the priorities of church governance, which so often regarded the trappings of the sanctuary above the flockless. Then I began to notice how in the house of the redeemed there seemed a coordination of faith with lifestyles; SUVs, home schooling, larger families, real estate purchases, or in other words, more pronounced consumerism. It certainly did appear that riches accompanied the glory of knowing Christ, and I wondered where I was lacking in my faith walk.
I pressed further into my discipleship as a result, only to find that Christ’s message was indeed that which had drawn me in the first place; seek first his kingdom, don’t worry about the rest; it shall be added on.
I worked for Christian businessmen in my church. I tried to be appreciative of having employment, but I was aggrieved that profit seemed to be more important than a pursuit of excellence in so many instances. It was as if money had become the only respectable vice left to these men and women; hence it could be pursued with a zealous, sometimes reckless abandon.
Somewhere within this time I had begun to wonder, “Is this what Jesus had in mind? Is this going out into the world and making disciples? Is this the celebration of his victory, alas, our victory over the world?”
My discipleship eventually led me to training in overseas missions. Certainly here would be a different spirit, so I thought.
Instead I found that what I thought was the esprit-de-corps of the faith are only an extension of the cultural church that I had fled from in the USA. The first topic of conversation after the usual formalities of how-do-you-do is what organization (church) are you with, and how is your support? Missionaries I have known and worked with are consistently, without exception, financially endowed far beyond the populations they work with and witness to. Their financial assets are flaunted before a public that is much more impressed with their affluence than with their faith. Do you remember Christ, his disciples, or God’s prophets doing things this way?
What is the effect upon the faithful of the lands where overseas missions reach? By now you know what I’m going to say: extremely negligible. The harsh reality is that if you are a minister of Christ in overseas missions, you’d better have something tangible to offer the ministries of the land, and I’m not talking about just bible tracts. If you do not have money and gifts you will be politely dismissed with the unspoken message, “Go back home and get some, or just stay home.”
A tie-up with an affluent, generous American is a real feather in your cap if you are in the God business. Despite Jesus’ teaching that the servant should gird himself and serve the master before helping himself, I have seen it the norm that a pastor will lavish his household with vehicles, appliances, furnishings and conveniences first before tending to his often impoverished flock; in fact, his talisman is his display of the wealth and easy manner he has with his foreign benefactors.
The most ironic aspect of all this is that these cultural Christians seem to believe that they have escaped the worlds’ ways and have followed Christ to this haven of rest and plenty. They seem to have fallen for the myth that it’s their “good, clean living” that has brought them to such a desirable place.
A friend of mine once made the statement as he held up a dollar bill: “We are sending our God off to poor countries.” That note proclaims, as we all know, “In God we Trust”. Should it be so hard to realize the cause of the confusion?
Monday, January 25, 2010
two accounts
In the bible we have accounts of Elijah and of John the Baptist. John the Baptist comes in the spirit of Elijah and is spoken of as a forerunner of Christ.
We have a much more detailed account of Elijah than of John. We are given Elijah’s ups and downs, his wanderings, his conflicts, his turmoil and despair. We only get John’s steadfast purpose, his sudden rise to fame, his sudden demise. Elijah runs from pillar to post, chasing and being chased by people and God. John stands his ground in the wilderness until he is arrested. Elijah constantly prays and saves his neck, while John stays defiant and loses his. Elijah gets a sensational and emotional departure from earth, while John’s death seems so senseless, petty and cruel.
Jesus gives tribute to John after his death, yet strangely, he claims that he is least in the kingdom of heaven.
Elijah’s account is like “Gone with the Wind”, while John’s is like “The Great Gatsby”. The first is long and gets its appreciation from the story itself. The second is short and requires more reflection in order to gain its appreciation. The first is ornamental and triumphant, the second stark and disturbing.
We have a much more detailed account of Elijah than of John. We are given Elijah’s ups and downs, his wanderings, his conflicts, his turmoil and despair. We only get John’s steadfast purpose, his sudden rise to fame, his sudden demise. Elijah runs from pillar to post, chasing and being chased by people and God. John stands his ground in the wilderness until he is arrested. Elijah constantly prays and saves his neck, while John stays defiant and loses his. Elijah gets a sensational and emotional departure from earth, while John’s death seems so senseless, petty and cruel.
Jesus gives tribute to John after his death, yet strangely, he claims that he is least in the kingdom of heaven.
Elijah’s account is like “Gone with the Wind”, while John’s is like “The Great Gatsby”. The first is long and gets its appreciation from the story itself. The second is short and requires more reflection in order to gain its appreciation. The first is ornamental and triumphant, the second stark and disturbing.
The Music Matters
Everyone has a song, I believe. Each utters meaning from the voice within. Walt Whitman splendidly conveys this idea in his “Song of Myself” prose, and the minstrel and great Hebrew King David expounds continually on this theme. A more contemporary example comes from one of my favorite singer/songwriters who passed away only a few years ago, Hoyt Axton, who sang “I am less than the song I am singing; I am more than I thought I could be”.
If I seem to be putting undue emphasis upon the importance of music in our lives, it’s only because music matters so much to me. I suppose only another musician can truly relate to my conversation about that tingling that effervesces from deep within whenever I get near a guitar, drum set, piano, etc. From my earliest recollections I have been fascinated with instruments: their shape, color, their flourishing, shining, dazzling designs. Oh! to be able to play them was equal to being a worker of miracles!
Despite my decades of experience with musical instruments, I still behold something miraculous in musical expression. The combination of sounds is never exactly the same, thereby making each musical instant unique, if not marvelous. We musicians look upon one another's performances with admiration, reverence, envy, and disdain, sometimes simultaneously, because we are so “in the moment” whenever we first hear a chord struck.
I cannot speak for that person who doesn’t play an instrument, sing in a choir, or even in the shower, yet I have observed the music motor humming within practically everyone I have ever known. So then I wonder if it is exaggeration to conclude that music connects with life at its very core.
There was a wonderful film back in the 1980s titled “Mr. Holland’s Opus”, in which an aspiring young musician finally faces his reality that he will not be able to subsist solely as a musical performer, and thus becomes a high school band director. Along with this disappointment, he is devastated to learn that his only son was born deaf. Mr. Holland’s challenge is to learn to connect with his son through a medium apart from sound, which in Mr. Holland’s case is particularly painful. Part of that connection comes when Mr. Holland notices that the boy, who has an avid interest in auto mechanics, is able to tune an engine through his sensitivities to its vibrations.
I use this example to defend my notion that music is much more intrinsic than we might first suspect. And because music is so intrinsic to our nature, it carries vast potential in its ability to affect us.
Music is almost always a part of ceremony or campaign to prompt people to action, to clinch the theme, to capture the hearts and minds of its listeners and lead them down the intended path. It summons the warrior to battle, calms tattered emotion, rejuvenates the the weary or indifferent soul, tugs the mournful and melancholy spirit to catharsis. The use of music as a force can be for good or for evil, and in its use I believe the musician holds a responsibility.
If I seem to be putting undue emphasis upon the importance of music in our lives, it’s only because music matters so much to me. I suppose only another musician can truly relate to my conversation about that tingling that effervesces from deep within whenever I get near a guitar, drum set, piano, etc. From my earliest recollections I have been fascinated with instruments: their shape, color, their flourishing, shining, dazzling designs. Oh! to be able to play them was equal to being a worker of miracles!
Despite my decades of experience with musical instruments, I still behold something miraculous in musical expression. The combination of sounds is never exactly the same, thereby making each musical instant unique, if not marvelous. We musicians look upon one another's performances with admiration, reverence, envy, and disdain, sometimes simultaneously, because we are so “in the moment” whenever we first hear a chord struck.
I cannot speak for that person who doesn’t play an instrument, sing in a choir, or even in the shower, yet I have observed the music motor humming within practically everyone I have ever known. So then I wonder if it is exaggeration to conclude that music connects with life at its very core.
There was a wonderful film back in the 1980s titled “Mr. Holland’s Opus”, in which an aspiring young musician finally faces his reality that he will not be able to subsist solely as a musical performer, and thus becomes a high school band director. Along with this disappointment, he is devastated to learn that his only son was born deaf. Mr. Holland’s challenge is to learn to connect with his son through a medium apart from sound, which in Mr. Holland’s case is particularly painful. Part of that connection comes when Mr. Holland notices that the boy, who has an avid interest in auto mechanics, is able to tune an engine through his sensitivities to its vibrations.
I use this example to defend my notion that music is much more intrinsic than we might first suspect. And because music is so intrinsic to our nature, it carries vast potential in its ability to affect us.
Music is almost always a part of ceremony or campaign to prompt people to action, to clinch the theme, to capture the hearts and minds of its listeners and lead them down the intended path. It summons the warrior to battle, calms tattered emotion, rejuvenates the the weary or indifferent soul, tugs the mournful and melancholy spirit to catharsis. The use of music as a force can be for good or for evil, and in its use I believe the musician holds a responsibility.
good ol' boys?
Do you think you’re good? C’mon now. . . do you? I mean, can you be trusted? Really, we all have our flaws, but overall, deep down inside, don’t you think you’re a good person? It’s not really healthy to think otherwise, is it?
How about me? Do you think I’m a good person?
If we’re going to get through this conversation cordially, we’d better acknowledge some goodness with each other, right?
Now it might seem necessary to admit that we used to be horrible, but then we gave our lives over to righteousness and justice through the wonder-working power of God; we’re not perfect, mind you, but we are much improved over our former qualities.
Sounds like flawed Pauline doctrine to me, and more of the same milk-toast diet of the universal church that Christ will judge.
Truth is, according to Jesus, we’re not any of us good at all. Truth is, Christ didn’t ask us to scoot over a little and make room for him to enter. Truth is, he eradicated us with his blood, sealed and grafted his righteousness onto us with his blood.
After Jesus settled matters with the seeker (rich young ruler) about righteousness and goodness, the commandments, and all that, he told him to sell all his goods and “Follow me”. That was what the seeker failed to do, and that made everyone feel sad. The seeker didn’t need to be made better; by his own words I’m convinced that he is a better man than me. But by Jesus’ words I’m convinced he needed to be saved.
Sometimes it only seems like Paul is urging the brethren in the churches and his close personal friends to be better. If we inspect more closely, we will see that he is generally just telling them to believe, to enthusiastically enter into the faith he holds. Sometimes he becomes overbearing, in my opinion, urging others to follow his example, itemizing his credentials and exploits, going for the heartstrings of the readers; he wasn’t perfect, after all.
Paul had a lot of issues to work out. He was responsible for a lot of suffering and many deaths. I would think that the martyrdom of Stephen would be pretty hard on any man’s conscience.
Saul who became Paul held the qualities of a driven man both pre-and-post the Damascus Road Experience. He was obviously a man who could galvanize men into action, but that doesn’t make him a good man. He was neither a good man before or after he surrendered his will to Christ; he just got saved.
The problem with Christianity is this constant forgetfulness that there are none good except God. Granted, we’re all each other has, and therefore we will have to make the best of the situation, but this tendency to place certain men in exalted reverence only proves just how foolish people really are. I have known many Christian leaders whose biggest stumbling blocks have been their fawning followers who insist that the anointed of God are error-proof. A lot of good that does in bringing forth Jesus’ message that he is the light of the world!
Those of us who tend to question any inconsistencies in leadership are often led to the teaching on Moses and the sons of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness. The people defied God and his appointed one, Moses, and most if not all grievously regretted the act. However you and I are not following a cloud by day or pillar by night through a desert region, dependent upon mysterious manna for our next meal. We live in homes and go to our pantry or the store for food. Therefore the example of submitting to leaders is good, but not to be taken any more literally than the situation at hand!
Actually someone might have done Moses some good by talking to him about his anger management problem. It was his uncontrolled temper, after all, that made him a fugitive of Egyptian justice. And even after more than forty years of that experience behind him, it was still his temper that prevented him from entering the Promised Land. Moses is another great role model, but if we sugar-coat those aspects of his character that are less than desirable, we show a lack of depth and discernment as Christ’s disciples.
How about me? Do you think I’m a good person?
If we’re going to get through this conversation cordially, we’d better acknowledge some goodness with each other, right?
Now it might seem necessary to admit that we used to be horrible, but then we gave our lives over to righteousness and justice through the wonder-working power of God; we’re not perfect, mind you, but we are much improved over our former qualities.
Sounds like flawed Pauline doctrine to me, and more of the same milk-toast diet of the universal church that Christ will judge.
Truth is, according to Jesus, we’re not any of us good at all. Truth is, Christ didn’t ask us to scoot over a little and make room for him to enter. Truth is, he eradicated us with his blood, sealed and grafted his righteousness onto us with his blood.
After Jesus settled matters with the seeker (rich young ruler) about righteousness and goodness, the commandments, and all that, he told him to sell all his goods and “Follow me”. That was what the seeker failed to do, and that made everyone feel sad. The seeker didn’t need to be made better; by his own words I’m convinced that he is a better man than me. But by Jesus’ words I’m convinced he needed to be saved.
Sometimes it only seems like Paul is urging the brethren in the churches and his close personal friends to be better. If we inspect more closely, we will see that he is generally just telling them to believe, to enthusiastically enter into the faith he holds. Sometimes he becomes overbearing, in my opinion, urging others to follow his example, itemizing his credentials and exploits, going for the heartstrings of the readers; he wasn’t perfect, after all.
Paul had a lot of issues to work out. He was responsible for a lot of suffering and many deaths. I would think that the martyrdom of Stephen would be pretty hard on any man’s conscience.
Saul who became Paul held the qualities of a driven man both pre-and-post the Damascus Road Experience. He was obviously a man who could galvanize men into action, but that doesn’t make him a good man. He was neither a good man before or after he surrendered his will to Christ; he just got saved.
The problem with Christianity is this constant forgetfulness that there are none good except God. Granted, we’re all each other has, and therefore we will have to make the best of the situation, but this tendency to place certain men in exalted reverence only proves just how foolish people really are. I have known many Christian leaders whose biggest stumbling blocks have been their fawning followers who insist that the anointed of God are error-proof. A lot of good that does in bringing forth Jesus’ message that he is the light of the world!
Those of us who tend to question any inconsistencies in leadership are often led to the teaching on Moses and the sons of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness. The people defied God and his appointed one, Moses, and most if not all grievously regretted the act. However you and I are not following a cloud by day or pillar by night through a desert region, dependent upon mysterious manna for our next meal. We live in homes and go to our pantry or the store for food. Therefore the example of submitting to leaders is good, but not to be taken any more literally than the situation at hand!
Actually someone might have done Moses some good by talking to him about his anger management problem. It was his uncontrolled temper, after all, that made him a fugitive of Egyptian justice. And even after more than forty years of that experience behind him, it was still his temper that prevented him from entering the Promised Land. Moses is another great role model, but if we sugar-coat those aspects of his character that are less than desirable, we show a lack of depth and discernment as Christ’s disciples.
Money and The Message
I’ve just read “A Christian Manifesto” by Francis Schaeffer. It’s very informative. I think he is spot-on with his insights. I disagree with him on one point, however. He says that “it is up to Christians to show that Christianity is the truth of total reality in the marketplace of freedom.” Maybe then it was, but now it’s up to God. Christians have blown it.
Everyone misses the point regarding affirmative action and Christian Freedom. Solomon was right. Money is the answer to everything. Jesus was right, too. The widow’s mite was more precious than all the others’ offerings combined.
Christian advocacy is all about money. Widows and tycoons respond to the call to give. The groups that handle the donations seek them out. They say things like, “We need your money to get the message out.” This is foolish. How much money did it take Jesus to get the message out? Moses? David? The First Christians? They were getting the message out while they were re-establishing themselves on foreign soils, broke and broken-hearted.
What is the message of Christianity? Christ died for sinful mankind and is the propitiation of sin; how much money is required to thus say?
What is the message of Christian advocacy? Beats me, but apparently it’s much more expensive to deliver than Christianity’s.
Christian advocacy is the use of money to sway perceptions/policy. Want less taxes . . . give to an advocacy group. Want to regulate abortion and immorality. . . give to an advocacy group. Want more respect shown to Christians. . . give to an advocacy group; as if the battle and the message of Christianity were the same thing!
This is also going on in the church worldwide. Money is the answer to everything. Money does make the world go round. Everyone understands this except Western Christians. The best thing going financially in most societies is as a designee to a religious title. Levites are always fat. They may or may not minister wholeheartedly to their skinny devotees, but the only meals they ever miss are the ones they deign not to eat.
So we send Christian advocacy messengers across the waters to make men twice the sons of perdition that we are; does this sound like progress? Not to me!
The message of Christianity never cost anyone anything except his/her status in the world. The message is simple and as affordable as ink on pages, like newspapers that slum dwellers and wait-listed train passengers in India spread out and sleep on.
There’s not near enough money available to propagate to the world “that Christianity is the truth of total reality in the marketplace of freedom”. Only Western Christians are foolish enough to believe they can buy or sell this concept as though it were a patent. The true message, however, will sail as free as the breezes to every nook and cranny of the world, as it always has and always will be.
Everyone misses the point regarding affirmative action and Christian Freedom. Solomon was right. Money is the answer to everything. Jesus was right, too. The widow’s mite was more precious than all the others’ offerings combined.
Christian advocacy is all about money. Widows and tycoons respond to the call to give. The groups that handle the donations seek them out. They say things like, “We need your money to get the message out.” This is foolish. How much money did it take Jesus to get the message out? Moses? David? The First Christians? They were getting the message out while they were re-establishing themselves on foreign soils, broke and broken-hearted.
What is the message of Christianity? Christ died for sinful mankind and is the propitiation of sin; how much money is required to thus say?
What is the message of Christian advocacy? Beats me, but apparently it’s much more expensive to deliver than Christianity’s.
Christian advocacy is the use of money to sway perceptions/policy. Want less taxes . . . give to an advocacy group. Want to regulate abortion and immorality. . . give to an advocacy group. Want more respect shown to Christians. . . give to an advocacy group; as if the battle and the message of Christianity were the same thing!
This is also going on in the church worldwide. Money is the answer to everything. Money does make the world go round. Everyone understands this except Western Christians. The best thing going financially in most societies is as a designee to a religious title. Levites are always fat. They may or may not minister wholeheartedly to their skinny devotees, but the only meals they ever miss are the ones they deign not to eat.
So we send Christian advocacy messengers across the waters to make men twice the sons of perdition that we are; does this sound like progress? Not to me!
The message of Christianity never cost anyone anything except his/her status in the world. The message is simple and as affordable as ink on pages, like newspapers that slum dwellers and wait-listed train passengers in India spread out and sleep on.
There’s not near enough money available to propagate to the world “that Christianity is the truth of total reality in the marketplace of freedom”. Only Western Christians are foolish enough to believe they can buy or sell this concept as though it were a patent. The true message, however, will sail as free as the breezes to every nook and cranny of the world, as it always has and always will be.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
milk toast
Do you like milk toast? Some people do. It gives a warm feeling. It gives comfort. It aids sleep.
Do you like whiskey? Some people do. It puts fire in the belly. So does red chili. Whiskey puts fire in the belly and in the eye. Whiskey is pretty fiery.
Most of vocational Christianity on display is milk toast. There are songs about fire, but they are not fiery songs. There are sermons about fire. Sometimes there are fiery sermons. Everyone is sitting down during them. Then the service ends, sometimes with a milk-toast song about fire. There was never any fire.
Why do they always serve milk-toast? It gives a warm feeling. It gives comfort. It calms down frayed nerves. They can’t serve whiskey. They can pretend to, but they can’t.
Events in The Bible are not milk toast. They are blood and fire. But stories are only milk toast, even if they are about fire.
Missionaries go to countries to spread the gospel. They feel called to. The Bible says to go, and they do. Sometimes they suffer hardship. Usually they are just missing their milk toast. Eventually they find it.
Missionaries have organizations to protect them. They plan carefully. They take enough money for food, shelter, maybe even a car. They usually have a return ticket home. They put their children in the best schools. They have nice quarters and good food. They start churches. Miraculously whiskey changes to milk toast. Many people say this is good.
Events like The Bible’s sometimes occur in missions. Usually they don’t. People often think the missionaries’ lives are like the heroes from the Bible. Usually they aren’t. People in the Bible were forced into their situations. They got the blood and fire, but they didn’t choose it.
Missionaries aren’t forced. They choose to go, but they don’t choose blood and fire. They choose milk toast. They want a warm feeling. They choose comfort over discomfort. They want calm and order. Why shouldn’t they? They are inclined to call their situation blood and fire, however. That is the problem.
They weren’t struck blind on Damascus Road. They’ve never had anyone killed. They’re not crossing a wilderness. They know where their next meal is coming from. No one is chasing them. They take a chance on offending heathens. They might get sent home. Usually that is the extent of their risk.
Do you like whiskey? Some people do. It puts fire in the belly. So does red chili. Whiskey puts fire in the belly and in the eye. Whiskey is pretty fiery.
Most of vocational Christianity on display is milk toast. There are songs about fire, but they are not fiery songs. There are sermons about fire. Sometimes there are fiery sermons. Everyone is sitting down during them. Then the service ends, sometimes with a milk-toast song about fire. There was never any fire.
Why do they always serve milk-toast? It gives a warm feeling. It gives comfort. It calms down frayed nerves. They can’t serve whiskey. They can pretend to, but they can’t.
Events in The Bible are not milk toast. They are blood and fire. But stories are only milk toast, even if they are about fire.
Missionaries go to countries to spread the gospel. They feel called to. The Bible says to go, and they do. Sometimes they suffer hardship. Usually they are just missing their milk toast. Eventually they find it.
Missionaries have organizations to protect them. They plan carefully. They take enough money for food, shelter, maybe even a car. They usually have a return ticket home. They put their children in the best schools. They have nice quarters and good food. They start churches. Miraculously whiskey changes to milk toast. Many people say this is good.
Events like The Bible’s sometimes occur in missions. Usually they don’t. People often think the missionaries’ lives are like the heroes from the Bible. Usually they aren’t. People in the Bible were forced into their situations. They got the blood and fire, but they didn’t choose it.
Missionaries aren’t forced. They choose to go, but they don’t choose blood and fire. They choose milk toast. They want a warm feeling. They choose comfort over discomfort. They want calm and order. Why shouldn’t they? They are inclined to call their situation blood and fire, however. That is the problem.
They weren’t struck blind on Damascus Road. They’ve never had anyone killed. They’re not crossing a wilderness. They know where their next meal is coming from. No one is chasing them. They take a chance on offending heathens. They might get sent home. Usually that is the extent of their risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)