Discipleship: Quality Precedes Quantity

In the institutional model of church, bigger usually means better. Leaders are always looking for programs, formats, buildings or anything else that can be used to reach more people. It's a very noble goal. The problem happens though when quantity, rather than quality, becomes the measuring stick of success. In the eyes of many, more money, bigger buildings, and most importantly, more people are the earmarks of a "successful" church. But how many of those people actually translate into true disciples of Jesus?

I don't know if we have ever really heard the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

Notice that Jesus says nothing about converts. He says nothing about getting people to repeat the "Sinner's Prayer". Rather, He says that the job of the Church is to make disciples. Now here is the interesting part; how many disciples did Jesus make Himself? (hum the Jeopardy theme with me) That's it! Only 12! Now if anyone understood the importance of disciple-making, surely Jesus did. But, by modern church standards, Jesus would have been considered a pretty big ministry failure! So, even though Jesus ministered to crowds of people at various times throughout His ministry, we only find Jesus completely replicating Himself in 12 other people.

What does this tell me? Well, it seems like Jesus cared about quality above and beyond (but not to the exclusion of) quantity. Obviously, Jesus wanted a world filled with disciples as He stated in Matthew 28:19-20. But, He realized something that the Church at-large has yet to grasp; quantity does not necessarily lead to quality, but quality will eventually lead to quantity!

If every present-day believer knew that they only had 3.5 years to make an impact on the unbelieving world, what would they do? Well, from best I can tell, they would probably go all over the world, renting stadiums and coliseums, to proclaim the Gospel message to as many people as possible. Noble as it sounds, this is not what Jesus did. Having a total of 3.5 years of "public ministry", Jesus chose to invest most of His time in a few social outcasts who would later be known as "those who have turned the world upside-down".

What did Jesus understand that we don't? Maybe that the impact of one true disciple is greater than the influence of a thousand converts.

So how can we best promote effective discipleship? I think that one decision we can make is to completely invest our lives in a few people rather than investing sparingly in many. (Multiplication Ministry and Maturity makes for some interesting reading on this subject.)

Are our efforts driven by effectiveness, or by a paradigm that makes us feel more important about "our ministry"? What do you think?

What Are You Going To Do About It?

"What are you going to do about it?"

This question was posed to me by RC in the comments section of the last post. Great question RC! It is relatively easy to pose the right questions, but it requires more of us to actually answer them. I appreciate someone being willing to look beyond good sounding ideas to practical implementations of the same.

There are two different ways to take this question. Within this one question I actually see two:

1. What are you going to do to help the Church make the shift from an obsession with orthodoxy to an out-working of orthopraxy?

Or...

2. What are you going to do personally to bridge your own gap between your beliefs and actions?

I hope that at least one of these represents RC's question to me.

First, I would like to answer question number one. For myself, I would like to think that my interaction with other people (believers and non-believers) would be characterized by love rather than by cliquishness brought about by doctrinal exclusivity. I am making the decision to "love without a hook". That is, I want to love others unconditionally just as my Father has loved me.

In the Church, love is said to be unconditional, but alot of the time I do not find this to be the case. Many times "love" is only given when one chooses to tow the party-line, or submit to whomever is in charge.

Evangelism is one area that I believe could benefit from more unconditional love. I am reminded of an example from my own life; I used to go "witness" on the streets of my local town at least once a week. While I would be "sharing the Gospel" with people, I would often say "the reason that I'm sharing this with you is because I love you." The truth, however, was that I was out there "sharing the Gospel" with them because I thought that I had to in order to keep God happy with me. I would preach, call for a decision, and then walk away. My evangelism was not motivated by love; rather, it proceeded from a guilty conscience.

I believe that as the Body of Christ, we need to grasp the fact that God loves us unconditionally prior to trying to "share" the Gospel with others. Most of what I see within the Church is a bunch of people doing good deeds (evangelism, teaching Sunday School, cleaning the church building, etc.) to try to keep God "off of their backs." As long as we are not receiving God's unconditional love, there is no way that we can give it to others. Our good works end up proceeding from a heart that is trying to please God instead of a heart that rests in a constant state of experiencing God's pleasure. This is not a peripheral problem, but rather a fundamental one. We either believe that Jesus' sacrifice placed us into a right relationship with God, or we don't. If we are constantly trying to measure up, trying to earn God's favor or love, then it seems to me that we are not trusting in what Jesus did and therefore refuse to believe that "it is finished".

If we help people only to ease our conscience, then once we feel that we have "done our part", we will drop the ball and go back to life as usual. This reveals that our good works really were more about us than about the person in need. But, if we really love people as a result of God's having first loved us, then we are willing to stick with that person as long as it takes. One question I have to ask myself is: "If I knew that this person would never respond to the call of Christ for his/her life, would I still be willing to show them the same amount of love and service?" If my answer is no, then I am really manipulating them instead of showing them love. Love is not about getting people to jump into my boat, rather it is about meeting that person's needs without regard to their response.

In response to question number two, I would like to say that while I am not doing everything I can to bridge that gap, I believe that I am on my way. My wife and I have been discussing what we can do to live this out. We are currently making active plans to impact the lives of hurting people in real ways. I wish I could go into more detail, but I don't feel that I am at liberty to do so at this time, and in reality, it isn't about "tooting my horn" for Jesus anyway. On a practical level, I believe that, as ded said, each of us has to wrestle with this question personally and hear from God for ourselves. The same mission exists for us all, but our specific directions for carrying it out can only come from the mouth of the Father. What do you all you think?

Are We Missing The Point?

Lately I've been wondering if we, as believers in Jesus, are really missing the point. I've been seeing alot of coverage of Oprah Winfrey's funding of a $40 million dollar school for South African girls who have been sexually abused, neglected, orphaned, etc. Also, I've seen coverage of Hollywood star Angelina Jolie adopting orphans from impoverished countries and trying to educate people on the great need of orphans in third-world nations. These are two people who would definitely be considered "outside of the fold" in Christian circles, yet here are two persons who are giving of themselves to help others in need. Meanwhile, many in the Body of Christ are too busy debating theology, sharpening apologetic skills and preaching to people to actually be Jesus to hurting people.

Sometimes I wonder just how important having all of our "doctrinal duckies" in a row really is. While much of the thrust of the contemporary church is on understanding, mentally assenting to and defending the right doctrinal positions, the thrust of Jesus' ministry (both then and now) seems to be more focused on helping and healing hurting people. In speaking of this, James said

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27 (NIV)

Pure religion...not characterized by having it all together doctrinally speaking, but rather determined by our actions toward our local and worldwide neighbors. At times, we have interpreted the phrase "and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" to mean "don't cuss, don't drink, don't chew and don't run with those who do". But, could it be that not allowing ourselves to be polluted by the world rather means refusing to play the worlds game of "loving those who love you", and instead choosing to give to those who can't give back and choosing to love those who would even be considered our enemies? Have we really bought into the pollution of the world while seemingly refusing to give into it?

Tonight, while thousands of children have been orphaned because of the AIDS pandemic in Africa, while many more are suffering from malnutrition and disease, and while thousands of people don't know where their next meal is going to come from, we American Christians are preoccupied trying to prove pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib; Calvinism or Arminianism; etc. Are we missing the point?

Pumpkins, Pew-Sitters & Paganism

It's late October again and you know what that means....more preachers bashing halloween!:) I was driving home last night, listening to good ole' Christian radio and hearing the ever-so-familiar "pagan roots of Halloween" talk. According to this radio personality, the celebration of halloween should be avoided at all costs due to it's evil connection to pagan roots. Don't send your kids "trick or treating", send them to the "harvest festival" instead!:) (You can laugh there!):)

Now, I am in no way defending the demonic symbolisms, etc. that are attached to halloween. I just think that the whole thing is a bit paradoxical. After all, pagan traditions are pretty common throughout the institutional church system. Much of what we have come to expect from our Sunday services actually finds it's roots in pagan culture and ritual. Everything from the Aristotelian three-point sermon to the elegant chairs on the stage demonstrates the willingness of the traditional church to embrace pagan traditions and ideas.

Many believers go from service to service without ever stopping to think about what they are doing. While being scared to question or simply failing to do so, many believers simply partake of whatever the system serves up. Eventually, someone stops to ask why. Oftentimes, this person is neither popular nor welcome.

One such person was Martin Luther. It just happens that on October 31st (of all days), Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of the church at Wittenberg, thus declaring his distaste for and disagreement with the "system" of his time, the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, Martin Luther confronted a machine that had been steadily rolling downhill for over one-thousand years. Of course, the cry of the institutional church of his time was "How dare you?", or "This is the way we have always done it!". But, for Luther, tradition was simply not enough. He had tried everything from performing acts of penance to worshipping relics, but nothing seemed to cleanse his conscious. Finally, he discovered that wonderful passage from the book of Romans, "the just shall live by faith", and thus was the formal beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Think of it. The Reformers were willing to stand against long-held traditions and practices that had preceded their own lives by a multitude of years. I feel that in many cases, we should do the same.

What bothers me about many of our current church practices is really not so much that they are steeped in paganism. Rather, it is the inability of believers to distinguish such from biblical teaching. Instead of simply recognizing a tradition for what it is--either a past way in which the church tried to contextualize a biblical teaching or simply a case of getting it wrong--, we use "proof texts" from the Bible in order to read our practice(s) back into the Scripture. The danger in this is apparent; one can no longer distinguish between biblical teaching and someone's continued misapplication thereof.

Which is worse, someone's participation in a purely pagan custom with full acknowledgment of it as such, or the church trying to pass off long-held pagan traditions as sacred? What do you think?

Simple Church...Simply Reactionary?

We have been having a great interaction in the comments section of the recent post, "Our church...God's intention?" My new friend, Tony Sisk, has been asking some very good questions in regard to the concept of what I, and several other commenters on this blog, call "simple church". Instead of responding to these questions in the comments section, I decided to create a post out of my comments. I would love for us all to continue this great discussion. For anyone else who has been reading these posts/comments and has not yet responded, please feel free to do so. Your comments are welcome and would serve to enchance our dialogue!

Previously, Tony said:

As I remarked in my previous comment to ded, from someone on the outside looking in, the house church does look like it has formed in response to obscured ideals or unmet expectations.

I do not doubt that this is true for many people. However, I can only speak out of my own experience. While, of course, I had issues with various things inside the traditional church that I was in (like anyone else), no hurt feelings, etc. led me to "strike out on my own". The main reason that I left was because, after examining the Scriptures and Church history (as well as some great dialogue with other believers), I came to believe that the traditional church model was not God's ideal. As a matter of fact, I have come to believe that there is no right way to "do" church. Rather, I believe that we are called to "be" the Church.

I think that this is the concept that Jesus was introducing to the Samaritan woman in John 4. In Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman, a question arose from her as to where or how true worship was to be performed. Today, we might ask "How are we supposed to 'do' church?". Jesus' answer is revealing. Instead of giving the woman a solid answer of "on this mountain" or "in Jerusalem" as the true place of worship, Jesus instead shows the woman that she is altogether missing the point. Worship is not confined to a place or form. Rather, worship transcends time and space, so that true worship forms from a heart attitude instead of as the result of being in the right place at the right time.

Jesus said,

"Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 4:21-24 NIV

If my move to a simpler concept of church is at all reactionary, I believe that it is no more so than the reaction of the Reformers to what they saw as unscriptural practices within the Roman Catholic church. Or, the reaction of the early disciples to the Grecian widows, which led to the formulation of deacons. In both instances, people saw a problem and reacted with what they perceived to be a solution.

Tony, you also said:

If the simpler church concept takes off and you have a large group of people attending your meetings, what then? You wouldn’t cast them away for the sake of preserving intimacy and fellowship, would you? This is where it seems to get problematic to me and even more insular than traditional church, that once you reach a particular number either you must grow out or just simply refuse to let other folks in. This is where, in my mind, someone then must come in to exercise leadership and say we need to split into separate groups and where I see potentially that problems could arise. So it seems a “cap” must be placed to keep the house church from growing past a particular number. That seems troublesome to me.

Very good questions! I would like to attempt to respond to them in the same way that Jesus responded to the Samaritan woman. I think that while your concern is valid Tony, it really misses the point.:) I think that you are trying to superimpose your concept of the traditional church and how it functions on to the simple church paradigm. A question: "How often would you invite more than 20-30 people into your home?" Now granted, you probably know and have friendships with more than this number of people, but how often would all of the people that you currently have a spiritual connection with meet within your home? If you were to invite all of these people into your home at once, would it not limit the amount of interaction you had with each one? While everyone would feel as if they had been included by the initial invitation, would the gathering truly tend toward intimate fellowship? I doubt it. In other words, there does not have to be a specific time or place in which all of us must gather. At times this can be helpful, but I believe that it is to be the exception and not the rule. Just as Jesus only had 12 disciples with whom He was intimately acquainted, yet found time to minister to many, many others, so it is with our concept of simple church. Just as Jesus informally hung out with the twelve without a certain agenda, so it is with us.

I personally experience "church" in homes, in restaurants, at work, etc. Church is not a place. Church does not "happen" only as the result of certain people gathering at certain times. Rather, Church is an identity. Church is who we are. When we begin to try to figure out how to "do" it, it seems that we are in danger of ceasing to simply "be" it.

When institutional churches begin to grow higher, it seems that many struggle to grow deeper. This is usually combated by the emergence of small groups within the larger body. Isn't this simply an institutionalized version of simple church that attempts to foster intimacy while still seeking to maintain control over the group? I think that your question more readily applies to a small group setting within a traditional church.

Thank you Tony for your willingness to question, and to truly think-out subjects that usually get "canned" answers. I look forward to everyone's continued interaction on this and other topics. While we might not come to a concensus, I believe that we still can serve to strenghten each other as we walk in Christ. What do you think......?

Our church...God's Intention?

Lately, I have been having a great discussion with a new friend, Tony Sisk. Tony has exhibited lots of patience and love toward me in our dialogue on the nature of the church and the ministry/ministers thereof. I would like to here continue this discussion in greater length than really can be given in the comments section of another post.

In the comments section of a post I wrote a while back entitled "Who's the Priest", Tony pin-pointed my responses to him by saying, "It seems that you are arguing for the abolition of the traditional church model as we know it." This is a correct assessment. While this may sound harsh and a bit over-the-edge, I would like to ask you to consider the following brief overview of the situation as I see it.

As I see it, God's original intention was to have a people who could and would commune with Him. He created Adam and Eve and it seems He enjoyed walking with them "in the cool of the day". As we know, Adam and Eve (and thus the rest of us) fell and, as a result, broke fellowship and intimate communion with God. Even after all of that, God's intention did not change. As a matter of fact, God's intention has never changed. Even after the Fall, and the emergence of fallen man, God's intention still did not waver. God wanted relationship with the crown of His creation, man! The record of the Bible is the record of God bringing man back into intimate relationship with Himself.

Let's begin in the Old Testament. After the exodus, the Israelites settled into the promised land. At this time, the people denied God the pleasure of intimate relationship and instead opted for a human institution; a king. "We want a king!" was the cry heard throughout the land. While God wanted to be Israel's only king and leader, the people wanted someone else to look to when times got tough. In comforting Samuel, God said that the people had "rejected Him" as their king. Rejected Him...Wow!

Simply stated, the rest of the Old Testament is the record of the failure of a system that was set up because of man's rejection of God as her Friend and King! This system was based, not on personal, intimate fellowship with God, but instead on the mediatoral role of mere men.

Enter Jesus.

The first words out of Jesus' mouth at the onset of His public ministry were "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." What did Jesus mean by this statement...repent, and you can go to heaven when you die? I don't think so. Instead, Jesus was saying "There is a new order emerging in which God is the only King. Change your minds and trust Him as your Friend and Lord." While seemingly receptive to this idea, many people view the Kingdom of God as something that is to be, instead of something that now is. However, Jesus said that the "kingdom of God is among (within) you."

What does all of this have to do with the way we do church? Well, I believe that the current model of church (mostly unknowingly) downplays the real Lordship of Jesus and instead reduces Him to a figurehead. For all intents and purposes, the modern church has become a constitutional oligarchy. Much as the Queen is the figurehead of England yet lacking real power, Jesus is praised and spoken of as Lord, but in reality, the "head" of the local church is the "pastor" or "ministry team". While we give lip-service to the Headship of Jesus, the truth is Jesus would not even need to "show up" for most church services to function. Two fast songs, two slow songs, take up the offering, sermon, invitation, prayer...and out the door!

My friend Tony asked a good question to which I would here like to reply.

"Do you discount the qualification passages for leadership in the Pastoral Epistles? If there are no positions of leadership in the church, then what is their purpose?"

No, I do not discount the qualification passages for leadership found in the New Testament. These are valuable exhortations that, by the grace of God, we should all aspire to. However, I do not believe that there are "positions" or "offices" of leadership within the Church. Here is where I believe we have diverged from the biblical model. Instead of interpreting the passages on leadership in light of other Scripture, I believe that we have received a watered-down version of what that same leadership is supposed to be.

Jesus, in contrasting the Kingdom of God's method of operation with the contemporary religious system said:

"you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Matthew 23:8-12 NIV

I believe that here, Jesus is establishing the rule for the Kingdom of God. That is, God is King and you are all brothers (equals). Therefore, bringing instruction into another believer's life does not necessitate one ascending to the position of "teacher". Just because God uses you at one point in time to show the Father's love to another brother does not necessitate you being their "spiritual father". This idea is echoed by John when he says:

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him."
1 John 2:27 NIV

Does this mean that no one will ever instruct us in the way of the Lord. I don't believe so. Instead, I think that the point of John's encouragement is that we need to learn to trust the Lord as our Teacher as opposed to relying only on our fellow brothers/sisters.

In the current model of the local church, the pastor is seen as "bringing the Word of God" to the people. Much like Moses, the pastor is supposed to seek God as to what He wants to say through the pastor to the people. The people are expected to attend at least one service each week in which they are "taught the Word" or "fed". The pastor is expected to act as the "spiritual father" to anywhere from 10-20,000 people. It is as if the temple veil was not completely torn in two. Instead of viewing pastoral ministry as one gift among many, most of the church sees it as an office that one holds; a position of spiritual authority.

This is why I think it is so critical to examine Scripture in light of other Scripture. Ephesians 4 is used many times to show the "need" for the ministry of the local church pastor. The gift of "pastor" is referred to in the same breath as "apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher". I have heard this passage used over and over again as a proof for the existence of the five-fold ministry. Yet, when we look at 1 Corinthians 12:28-31, we are given a different, yet seeminly equal list of ministry gifts. Apostolic and prophetic ministry are mentioned, but only in the same sentence as "workers of miracles", "gifts of healings", "gifts of administration", "those able to help others", and "different kinds of tongues". Guess what's missing...the gift of pastoral ministry. The emphasis in Ephesians 4 is not the individual gifts, but instead, that everyone is gifted by God! He wants to use the whole Body!

In 1 Corinthians 14, speaking of what a typical meeting of believers should look like, Paul states that when we come together:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV

In other words, everyone has something to give! A gathering of the church should never be a one-man show!

I believe that Tony hit it on the head when he said

"The Greek makes clear that elders are those who are “out front” leading by teaching and manner of life (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-5). Their role is to enable the congregation to make decisions that are necessary to help the body grow into maturity (Eph. 4:11-12). Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church. Leaders are “foot-washers” and servants, not only of Christ but of others. Each and every member of Christ’s body is equally important since each has been given a gift and a strategic place of ministry (1 Cor. 12-14). All competition for rank is therefore eliminated! As Jesus put it, we are all brothers, and becoming “great” means becoming a servant of all, with Christ as our example (Matt. 23)."

Leaders are not those who instruct others to do God's will. Instead, I believe that leaders are those who are caught doing God's will, and whose contagious joy in doing such causes others to do the same.

God's intention is to have a family. In this family there is only one Father (God), and only one Head (Jesus). To set up a system that tries to send one man into the Holy of Holies to bring out the word of God for the people is to deny the truth that there is only

"one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
1 Timothy 2:5 NIV

What do you think?

Fearful Faith?

We need have no fear of someone who loves us perfectly; his perfect love for us eliminates all dread of what he might do to us. If we are afraid, it is for fear of what he might do to us and shows that we are not fully convinced that he really loves us. So you see, our love for him comes as a result of his loving us first.
1 John 4:18-19 The Living Bible

I wonder how much of our belief systems are actually built on fear masquerading under the guise of "faith". It seems to me that much of our actions within the Church are motivated not by a loving response to the Father's love, but instead as a result of fear.

I know that I have beat this drum before, but it seems that there is an innate problem with the way in which we "do" church. One of the popular ideas in Christendom right now is that of the pastor/church as "covering". The idea goes that if a believer in Jesus is to be kept "safe" from the devil, he/she must be submitted to a pastor or church. To come out from under this "covering" is to make oneself vulnerable to the attacks of the enemy. So out of fear, Christians run to churches, submitting to pastors, because to do otherwise seems to be a dangerous proposition. I have even heard of people staying in churches and under pastors that they felt were totally wrong, simply because they thought that as long as they submitted, they were "safe". Ughh. Where did this idea come from? Well, I think that there have been many contributing factors, but I think that one of the biggest is an insecure/fearful pastor, and insecure/fearful believers. Who is the Head that we should submit to, a human pastor, or the Head of the Body of Christ, Jesus? Who is our covering and protection, a human shepherd or hierarchy, or is it Jesus?

Lately, another thing that has struck me as a fearful, knee-jerk reaction is the response that has been given to Christians that are exploring "unorthodox" streams within the faith. Many times when believers begin to actually sit down and assess their faith, asking questions about long-held beliefs, they are scolded and "put in their place" by Christian watch-dog groups and people who fly the banner of "orthodoxy". What is orthodoxy? Well, some would say that it is "right" belief. I, along with others, personally wonder if it's not just another word for "long-held, majority-ruled belief". It seems that Christians many times are just not honest. I believe that many of us have questions about what we are told is "the truth", but are afraid to ask them. We are afraid to ask because of a false view of God that says that to question is to stand in danger of judgement, and because of the reaction we fear from our fellow believers. Are we so scared of God that we are afraid to ask questions? Do we think of God as so insecure that He would zapp us simply for thinking outside of the box? If something can't hold up to scrutiny, shouldn't we let it go? After all, isn't all truth God's truth? Jesus made an interesting statement that I believe is apporpriate:

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." John 9:40-41 NIV

The problem is not having an imperfect theology. Instead, it's an unwillingness to confess that you do. After all, didn't Paul say that now we "see through a glass darkly"?

I believe our methods of evangelism many times suffer from a motivation of fear. First of all, believers in Jesus fear God's displeasure and anger if they don't "witness" to people. Secondly, fear is used by these same believers as a tool to "win souls" into the Kingdom. Romans 2:4 says that it is the "goodness of God" that leads us to repentance. Many believe that the most effective tool in an evangelists arsenal is fiery evangelism that warns of the flames of hell. I beg to differ. According to the opening Scripture, fear and love cannot coexist. It is impossible to experience God's love for you when you are afraid of Him. In the same way that we avoid people when we know that they are angry with us, most people are not drawn to God when they are afraid of Him. If perfect love casts out fear, then experiencing God's love means that we see Him not as an angry judge, but instead, as a loving Father. According to the Bible, the message that we preach is not a message of doom and gloom, but instead of reconciliation. God is not mad at us, He loves us!

God...reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 NIV

If we are to have faith in God, we must first lose our fear of Him. I am not talking here about a loss of respect for God, but intead a lack of fear in God. I respect my earthly father, but I do not fear him. The reason that I do not fear him is because I know that he loves me. Therefore, I know that his intentions for me are good, and that he would never do anything to hurt me. If only we believed as much about our heavenly Father.

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Matthew 7:11 NKJV

May we move beyond a fear-based faith, and into the freedom of the children of God! What do you think?

Kingdom of God Part 1

Wow! It's been a long time since I posted something. I have just been going some different directions, but I have had alot of things that I have wanted to blog about. Something that I have been giving alot of thought to lately is the idea of the Kingdom of God. I have been trying to understand what it is and how it is different from the kingdoms of this world.

First of all, I would like to say that I have come to the conclusion that the Kingdom of God is not a far-off place that believers in Jesus will go to when they die. This is the idea that I had for many years, but it just doesn't seem to hold water for me anymore. Why would Jesus say things like "the Kingdom of God is near" and "the Kingdom of God is within you" if He was speaking of a "land far far away"? Jesus had some interesting things to say about the Kingdom of God such as:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:20-21 NIV

Wow! It sure doesn't sound like the Kingdom of God is a "place" so to speak. This would mean that the Kingdom is not confined by time and space barriers. The Kingdom of God can be "near" for one person, and at the same time "within" another. As heirs of the Enlightenment, we like to confine things to spatial dimensions that can be experienced through the five senses. That is why it is so easy to speak of the Kingdom of God as "heaven"--a "place" believers in Jesus go when they die. Could it be that heaven is not far from any one of us? Could it be that heaven is not a far-off place, but rather a dimension that is separate from and yet simultaeneously intersecting our world? Hmm.

At this point, let me go off on a bit of a tangent. Could it be that because we have looked at the Kingdom of God as a "place" to endeavor to go and not a present reality to be experienced, we have tried to squeeze the operation of the Kingdom of God into conformity with the kingdoms of this world? For example, since the kingdoms of the world advance through force, have we tried to advance God's Kingdom in the same way? Sure the Crusades are one horrific example, but could it be that they are merely one among many examples?

It seems to me that many times believers in Jesus try to advance God's Kingdom using the tactics of the world. Oh, we might not put a sword to someone's throat as coercion to conversion, but we will gladly slice and dice them up using the latest findings from Christian apologists. It seems that we will gladly make unbelievers look and feel stupid in order to "win" them to the Lord. Maybe we are winning the argument, but are we in the process losing the person? Hmm.

Another way in which we imitate the kingdoms of this world is in our power structures.

25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves".
Luke 22:25-26 NIV

Jesus here says that His Kingdom is not going to be like the kingdoms of this world. "The kings of the Gentiles" used there power to keep their people under control, but in their minds, it was for the people's own good (thus the title "Benefactors"). They set the rules, and the people had to follow. Doesn't this sound alot like your average pastor? While calling him/herself a "Benefactor" (ie. "I'm doing this for your good") they set themselves up as a "covering" for the sheep. A member is told that he/she is only safe under the covering of the local church which includes the headship of the pastor. This seems a far cry from what Jesus had in mind--"But you are not to be like that". While trying to imitate corporate America, has the Church become too efficient? It seems that we are more interested in growth than in people. Oh sure, we know the right things to say "We want to reach the lost", "Let's bring God's love to our community", but at the end of the day, are we really concerned about individual people? If so, why don't we invest more in the people that God has brought across our paths instead of looking for "more". Whose kingdom are we really expanding?

A final way that I believe we try in error to advance the Kingdom of God is through politics. It seems to me that Christians have at many times tried to impose "God's will" on others through the ballot box and through political parties. I believe that we have been guilty many times of expecting unbelievers to act like believers. One "hot potato" right now is the possible legalization of gay marriage. Many Christians are fighting legalized gay marriage tooth and nail. Many ministers have said that the idea of gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage itself. Really? Who instituted marriage; God or the state? Is my marriage only valid because I have a document from the state of North Carolina? Would my marriage somehow be in jeopardy if my state legalized gay marriage? I think not. Could it be that while many gay couples are holding out for the legalization of gay marriage, if allowed to marry, many would find that it did not bring about the fulfillment that they thought it would? Could it then be the beginning of the disillusionment of many a gay couple and thus result in a more genuine openness to the Source of true fulfillment, Jesus Christ? Hmm.

I don't know all of the answers. In all honesty, I'm not completely satisfied even with this post. But, I do know that "love never fails". While my arguments for the resurrection of Christ may prove weighty and yet I see someone turn away from Jesus, "love never fails". While I can run "my" church like a well-oiled machine and still be dissatisfied and see "my" people be dissatisfied, "love never fails". I can legislate the morality of the entire world while watching unbelievers grow more embittered against the Body of Christ, but "love never fails". Could it be that we have overestimated the power of fleshly ideas to change the hearts of people, while underestimating the power of God's love shown through believers corporately, and individually to accomplish the same purpose? What do you think?

Onward Christian Soldiers...Marching Just For More?

The metaphors that are used to describe the Church are many and varied. The Bible describes the company of believers as God's family, a holy nation, a royal priesthood and the Body of Christ. These all help us to understand the way in which God views us. While some metaphors can be helpful, I believe that one, in particular, has damaged the Church. That metaphor is the Church as an army.

Many have taken a few verses of Scripture, and built an entire paradigm which states that the Church of Jesus Christ is like an army, marching as soldiers with one goal and one purpose. That goal is world evangelism. That purpose is, as one well-known evangelist says, to "plunder hell to populate heaven". Sounds like a noble and lofty goal, doesn't it? After all, isn't the mission of the Church the "Great Commission"?

This mind-set, while well-meaning and, at times even somewhat fruitful, leads to an enchantment with numbers at the expense of the individual. The Church, while embracing this model, has become just like the local US Army recruiter. In the first meetings with a potential soldier, the local Army recruiter extols the individual benefits and rewards of being a member of the US Army. The young proselyte is told of the GI bill, free college tuition and a salary that far surpasses what an average 18 year-old could find elsewhere. After thinking about these benefits, the young man/woman signs the dotted-line, looking forward to all that the Army has promised. All is well, until the recruit is stripped of their individual identity by being assigned a serial number, given a uniform, having their head shaved and handed a military-issue M-16, just like everyone else. Suddenly, these recruits learn that the Army is concerned with their personal well-being, only in so much as it will contribute to the accomplishment of the greater goal of the US Army. Sound familiar?

Many people are wooed into the Kingdom by believers who express a personal interest in their lives. Potential converts are told of the unconditional love that God has for them, of the free gifts of peace and joy that can be theirs in Christ, and of the promise of eternal life forever and abundant life today. Acting upon this Good News, the unbeliever places their faith in Christ and, for a time, experiences many of the benefits promised. Before basic training is even over though, another well-meaning believer comes along and shares with the new disciple how they can "really" please God, and what God "really" expects of them. They are now expected to sacrifice many of the benefits previously promised in route to accomlishing the "mission". Peace and joy are now to come second to witnessing and serving. Now, the believer's value is no longer intrinsic, but rather, proportionate to the amount of "service" he/she can provide to the Kingdom of God. The new believer is sent to the front-lines, M-16 in hand.

Instead of focusing on true discipleship, the paradigm of the Church as an army has caused us to seek more converts. As we seek to win nations instead of persons, we become a mile wide and an inch deep. Relationships within the Church become an accessory that takes a back-seat to the attainment of "the goal". As we seek more and more numbers, we don't have time for "non-productive" and "unfruitful" relationships. We can only relate to people in so much as they are useful to fulfilling the "mission". If we are not discipling or mentoring someone, then they become a luxury, a distraction that keeps us from fulfilling our "true purpose". While trying to reach more people, we lose focus of the goal... PEOPLE! Instead of having 10 intimate relationships, we seek to "share our lives" with 100; but is this really possible? Should we each invest a little in the many, or alot in a few? Could it be that while we tell multitudes of the transforming power of Jesus, we are left with no time to actually show anyone the love of Jesus? Is God more interested in faceless masses or in individuals?

Am I suggesting here that God does not want everyone to be reached with the Gospel? Absolutely not! I am simply saying that we must be careful not to lose sight of individual lives and needs in our search for more "souls". Did Jesus die for names or for numbers? Should we woo them with love and caring, only to throw them into the "heat of battle"? Do we truly care about the people for whom Jesus died, or are they just a number to add to the roll? What do you think?

Who's the priest? (A Divided Life? Part 3)

As you may already know, I have been blogging lately on distinctions that are made in the Body of Christ. I talked the first go around about how it seems that the Graeco-Roman mindset has affected Christianity in causing believers to divide their lives into "secular" and "sacred" distinctions. This carries over into many areas of our lives. One such distinction that I feel has had a huge impact on believers is the division between what is known as the "clergy" and the "laity".

Before we get started, let me give you a little of my own personal history/journey. I have ascribed to the traditional model of church since childhood; the model that says that there is a specialized "clergy" that is to lead the "laity" into the things of God. As an adult, I decided to go into pastoral ministry. So, I went to Bible college and studied to be a pastor in the church as I knew it. I became an associate pastor/worship leader in a church, where I was in leadership for a little more than 2 years. I have just recently stepped down to pursue a more simple concept of church. Coming to grips with the distinction between "clergy" and "laity" is one thing that led me to this decision.

In the modern church, the clergy is the leading influence among the believers. The clergy is responsible for everything from preaching to counseling to administrating to recruiting volunteers to evangelism...and the list goes on. The clergy has become the professional caste in Christendom that performs all of the duties that simple laymen and women are not "qualified" to perform. In many circles, the clergy or pastor is considered to be the "head" of a local church; a distinction which the Bible ascribes to Jesus alone. It seems that the Church has adopted the hierarchial model passed on by governments and corporations. We have a "CEO" (the pastor), a board of directors (the elders/deacons), blue collar workers (the "committed" laity) and consumers (unbelievers and "apathetic" believers).

Jesus talked to His disciples several times about order within the Kingdom of God. In speaking of this He said:

"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.
Luke 22:25-26 (NASU) Be sure to check out the references on this one too!

Jesus does not here condemn the oppressive domination of fellow believers. Instead, He shows His displeasure for any form of authoritarianism. Even when this would seem to benefit others, taking authority over brethren in the Body is denounced. Jesus says that we are not to excercise authority even as "Benefactors"--ones who excercise authority for the good of the ones under his/her control. How much authority does the "youngest" have? How much authority does a "servant" have? You get the picture:)

Typically, in a normal gathering of believers, a "professional" clergyman (or team thereof) leads the way and sets the tone. A worship "leader" decides what songs will be sung by all, only to be followed by a pastor or other single member of the clergy who gives a 30 minute to 1 hour "sermon" wherein he/she shares with us "God's Word" for the day/week. Contrast the current model of church to Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 14:

When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:26 (NIV)

According to this verse, when we come together as believers, everyone has something to contribute and should be allowed to do so. Biblically, no place seems to be given to monolithic discourses in meetings with other believers. Every member functioning is not the exception but the rule. It has even been proven scientifically that a person only remembers about 20 percent of what they hear, while they remember 70 percent of what they say themselves and 90 percent of what they do themselves.

One of the pivotal truths that came out of the Reformation was that of the "priesthood of all believers". This came to the forefront in doctrine, but rarely changed the churches practices. While claiming that all believers have an equal standing before God, we have elevated the "clergy" to a place of preeminence in ministry. Instead of the functioning priesthood of all believers, we go to a building and listen to the same person week after week share with us the "word" that God has given them for us! While the Reformation put the Bible back into the commoners hand, the lay person is left to rely on the pastor or clergyman to interpret it for them. If there really only is "one Mediator between God and man" .........then why do I need to trust in a person to hear the voice of God for me? Didn't Jesus say that His sheep would hear His voice? I take it that "all" is the implied description of participants in that verse; that is, ALL of His sheep will hear His voice. If the Holy Spirit really is my "Counselor", as Jesus said that He was, why should I seek to have a "professional" work through my problems with me? Is He not up to the challenge? Do we really believe that the veil in the Temple was torn in two after all? Are we trying to live under a renovated version of the Levitical priesthood? Am I under the New Covenant, or the Old Covenant?

It seems to me that the role of a professional minister impedes the growth of the rest of the Body and contributes to many believers remaining in an infantile state of Christianity. Instead of letting God flow through me to others (and vice-versa), I pay someone to "do the work of the ministry" in my place.

As long as the caste system of "clergy" and "laity" remains the norm, it will be difficult for most of the Body to learn to function in the gifts that God has empowered them with. If this system remains in place we will probably see a continuance of ministry "burn-out", stagnation among "regular" believers and fewer disciples being released for Kingdom ministry. Until we truly look at all of the Body as "a kingdom of priests", we will remain but a limited expression of what God intended the Church to be. All of the Church must rise up and be the part of the Body that God has called us to be. Only together can we manifest the will of God in the earth. That's what I think:) What do you think?

Sacred Spaces? (A Divided Life? Part 2)

I am continuing to think about distinctions that we as believers (and myself personally) have often made. We talked last time about the distinction that has commonly been made between "time with God" and the rest of our day. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that God is more interested in us being aware of His presence all of the time than in us focusing on Him for 15 minutes, 30 minutes or for 1 hour of our day.

The next distinction that I would like us to talk about is the idea of "holy places" or "sacred spaces" (I love to rhyme!). In the body of Christ we have "church sanctuaries", "Christian retreat centers" and something we even call "the holy land". I know that during my childhood, I was always commanded not to run in the "sanctuary". During my time as an associate pastor, I have myself said "Isn't it great to be in the house of God today?". For a good part of my life, I thought that God was like the grouchy old neighbor in some movies I have seen; you better make sure not to mess up His flowers or track mud on His carpet or else! God's "house" sure was not a very enjoyable place to visit!

I would be willing to venture that many children who grew up in this type of atmosphere are now adults who have separated themselves from the experience we call "church". Was this simply because they were rebellious, and not willing to conform to "God's truth"? For many,I think not. Maybe, just maybe, it never really was "God's house" or "God's flowers" that we were protecting. Maybe God doesn't really care that much about owning a house or having the perfect landscape.?!

It seems that this line of reasoning led to the persecution (and ultimate death) of some of the first believers. Steven, the first Christian martyr, said something about the idea of a "house for God" that helped lead to his death:

"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says: "'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things?'"
Acts 7:48-50 (NIV)

The Jewish people and leaders were so upset about these and other comments that Steven made, that they ultimately ended up stoning him to death! My, my, aren't religious people touchy?:) A young man by the name of Saul (we know him better as Paul) consented to Steven's death. Yet, we find him later saying essentially the same thing:

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands."
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)

Paul went from worshipping in a "holy place" to declaring that there is no such thing as a man-made "house for God"! So, if God doesn't live in our buildings, where does He live? Well, I think you know where I'm going:) Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:16

"Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?" (NIV)

The reason that the veil in the temple was torn in two was so that God could move inside of us (boy, when God checks out, He sure does it with a bang!)! We are the temple! We are the "holy place"! God doesn't live in wood, brick and mortar...He lives inside of us!!! I was talking to a friend about this last week and he told me a funny story. He said that a pastor heard a member of the church correct some kids for chewing gum in the sanctuary. He corrected the member by saying "Don't you mean that the sanctuaries are chewing gum?"

It seems to me that the idea that a building can be "God's house" is very stifling to a believer's growth in Christ. Instead of recognizing the fact that we are the temple God longs to dwell in, we endeavor to get out of bed to meet in a cold, uninviting building that doesn't say a whole lot of good things about the Father's character. For many, these times are not enjoyable, but rather, non-optional, weekly pilgrimages that will somehow earn us brownie points with God. Sometimes we act as if Jesus never came. It's as if we are still trudging along under the Old Covenant. We go to the "holy place", listen to the "holy man" and give our "holy sacrifices" (tithes, etc).

One of the things that seems to have set the early church apart from every other religion and belief system is that they didn't have a temple, they didn't have a priesthood and they didn't offer sacrifices. They were not trying to keep their God happy; instead, they were basking in His joyful love for them! Instead of meeting in grand cathedrals that spoke of the "majesty of God", they met in simple homes that spoke of the intimacy of a loving family with a loving Father. If what the Father really wants is a family, wouldn't a regular old home be a good place for His kids to get together? I don't know of many families that get to know each other in a theater:) Maybe instead of building "holy places" for God, we should build up God's holy places (which just happens to be us)!:) What do you think?