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?

Camp Orthodoxy

My friend Steve has been hosting a good conversation lately on his blog "Theological Musings". The topic: orthodoxy. I don't want to repeat what has already been said there, but I do encourage you to read the posts and comments from "Why Such A Short List", "But What About Those Mormons?", "Orthodoxy: Starting A New Thread", and "Thoughts On Sound Doctrine". (Wow! That sure is alot of "required reading" for my post huh?...but well worth it!) What I would like to do here is expand on/respond to the previously mentioned posts in a little more depth than I can go into in the comments section of "Theological Musings".

There seems to be a reoccurring theme that runs throughout the history of God's people. That theme? Camping! Now what do I mean by camping? What I am referring to is the process of receiving something from God as revelation and then camping on or stopping at that revelation. As far back as the time of Moses, we find God's people receiving His provision and then desiring to stay in that moment where they "met God". The children of Israel were led by God in the desert for some time before Moses sent spies into the promised land to see how they would go in and possess it. Notice that Moses did not send the spies to see if they would possess it, but how. The result of this expedition? The children of Israel determined that what God was calling them to do was too hard, and they became satisfied to just remain in the place that they believed to be "safe".

The Pharisees are another example of a group of people who were caught holding on to stale bread that had once been "manna from heaven". (Rabbit trail: Isn't it interesting that God instructed the Israelites that they were to only use the manna for one day before it rotted? Was God setting a precedent here that yesterday's sufficiency can become today's corruption?) The Pharisees were quick to point out the Law of Moses (which was at that time the "word of God") to Jesus in order to correct Him or condemn Him of sin. Jesus, contrary to the ideas of many an evangelical, actually superceded the "word of God" though by, for all intents and purposes, saying that some things that Moses said no longer applied. One such case was that of divorce. The Pharisees used a quote from the Torah to prove to Jesus that it was acceptable to divorce as long as one followed the Mosaic command of providing a certificate thereof. Jesus, however, superceded the Law of Moses by saying, "Moses gave you this command because of the hardness of your heart, but from the beginning it has not been so." In other words, "There was a time when this was true, but a new day has dawned, and now there is a higher standard; the standard of love."

We find Jesus doing this kind of thing alot. He really seems to like the phrase, "you have heard it said...but, I say unto you." I believe that Jesus is trying to show us something very important. "And what would that be", you ask? Maybe that revelation is more dynamic and less static. Maybe that our theology should be less about the head, and more about the heart. Maybe that God just doesn't like the box that we have built for Him? Sound dangerous? It just might be:)

I think that the author of Hebrews give us some interesting insight into the nature of God's revelation:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Hebrews 1:1-2 NIV

Notice the progression. At one time, God, in a limited way, revealed Himself through the words and writings of people. But now, God has chosen a living Person by which to reveal Himself. Hmmmm. In other words, simply a record of good rules and regulations was not enough. In order for God to completely reveal Himself, He had to transcend doctrinal statements, prophets and spokespersons, and even the writings of the Old Testament, and instead, simply live among us as the revelation. Now, this idea by itself is awesome! So, understandibly, once again, this is where many people decide to set up camp. "Brother, we have the Bible to show us how God revealed Himself in Jesus. That's all we need." Contrary to popular belief though, this is still not enough! It's not just about how God revealed Himself in Jesus, but how He is now revealing Christ in us! Paul said:

it pleased God...to reveal His Son in me
Galatians 1:15-16 NKJV

Written revelation is wonderful, but it has it's limits. Words can only go so far in explaining who God is. Words can only go so far in grasping the riches of His grace. It seems to me that our theology must be impacted by living fellowship with the Son, and not only by a book. I love the Bible. I thank God for the Bible, but the Bible is only the record of the Word of God, not the Word itself. That title belongs to Jesus alone. The Bible was simply meant to point us to the Word of God, which is Jesus. Our understanding of God must come from our encounter with the Living Word, not only from the record thereof.

Now, how does this tie into the question of orthodoxy? I think that when it comes to the idea of orthodoxy, we need to take care not to put God "in a box". If God has now chosen to reveal Himself in Jesus and continues to do so through us, then we must be careful that we don't try to convey the idea that creedal or doctrinal statements can contain this revelation. If the record of the Bible itself is not sufficient to completely grasp the revelation of God, what makes us think that a confession or creed can? I do understand that there are certain essential beliefs that one must embrace in order to consider themselves a member of the Body of Christ, but I believe that sound doctrine cannot be contained simply in the mind. Following Jesus, at the heart, is not about knowing the right doctrinal verbage or having a polished theology as much as it is about daily living in Christ, and allowing God to reveal the Son to me and in me. My question is this; by nailing down our entire belief system in something such as a creed, are we becoming static and stagnant, and therefore, in the name of truth, closing ourselves off from any further revelation that God might want to give us? Are we drawing a line in the sand that even God Himself cannot cross? I sure hope not. Hmmmmm?!?!?!? Maybe we need to stop camping on the "truth", and instead start walking with the One who is the Truth. What do you think?

Quantifiable Christianity

It seems that the modernistic world we live in is in love with measurements. Of course we all have measuring cups in our kitchens for measuring ingredients, measuring tapes in our toolboxes for measuring walls and spaces, and odometers on our vehicles for measuring the miles that we travel. But, it just can't stop there can it? No, it seems that our rational minds just have to dominate every area of our lives. We have IQ tests to measure how "smart" we are, travel services to measure (in stars) how comfortable a particular hotel is, and even letter and number grades to measure the cleanliness of our restaurants. But, once again, it just can't stop there. We need Food Network competitions to decide whose dessert is the "best", just as we need Randy, Paula, and Simon to tell us whose voice is the most pleasing to the ear. Can everything be so neatly compared and tightly packaged?

My wife and I just got back from our 10th anniversary vacation in which we went hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park. While there, we purchased a little book called "Best Easy Day Hikes--Rocky Mountain National Park" by Kent & Donna Dannen that that gave us some tips on good places to hike within the park. In the front of the book was a section that we both found humorous entitled "About the Cranky Authors". Here is an excerpt:

"For a quarter century, guidebooks by Kent and Donna Dannen have been the standard reference for the trails of Rocky Mountain National Park. Therfore, many reviewers of their trail guides have accused the Dannens of being "experts". This accusation offends the Dannens, who maintain that experts should never write guidebooks. For example, experts write user guides for VCRs, fax machines, and computers. Experts lack ignorance and, therefore, lack the perspective of the ignorant, which is essential to explain anything. Because experts really do know all the answers, they have no clue about the questions. Guides written by experts are understood only by other experts, who rarely read them because they do not need to."

Wow! I could hardly have said it better. This reminds me of conversations that I have had with computer techies in which I was led to feel pretty stupid. In this age of experts, of professionals measuring and quantifying everything for the rest of us, little creedance is given to someone actually experiencing something for themselves. Instead, we prefer to have someone else pre-process any kind of abstract knowledge for us and then deliver it back to us in chunks of steadfast, absolute, and pre-measured answers.

While I believe that these prepackaged measurements can sometimes be detrimental when measuring things like music and food, I think that they can be downright dangerous when used in reference to our relationship with God. I, for one, am growing tired of things like systematic theologies and creedal statements being used to determine who's "in" and who's "out". Many times I have had a good conversation with someone about the things of the Spirit interrupted by the question "And where do you go to church?", or "What do you think about ________?". As a matter of fact, this very thing happened to me twice today. As many of you know, I work at a Christian bookstore. Just today, I was helping a customer find a Bible. He was wanting some information on various translations, so I began to tell him about some of the differences and tried to help him find one that would be beneficial to him. About half-way through our conversation, he just had to ask, "What denomination are you?"...Why??????...What does it matter???? Well, best I can tell, this was the measuring rod to determine whether or not it was "safe" to continue listening to what I had to say.

One area that I have struggled with myself, is the way in which we, as believers in Jesus, seem to measure our spirituality or the validity of our walk with God. The daily "quiet time" is a perfect example. A "good" Christian reads the Bible at least once every day and spends time everyday in "prayer". What this has boiled down to for me is feeling okay about myself on days in which I read one chapter of the Bible and prayed through certain mental checklists, and feeling that I was displeasing to God on days when I failed to do so. This is a Scripture that I have not been able to shake for a long time though:

"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don't be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!"
Matthew 6:7-8 New Living Translation

That sure doesn't sound like the ritual that I have become oh so familiar with. What is prayer anyway? Is it a time or times throughout the day when I stop to talk to God, or is it the very atmosphere I live in as I continually walk (even into the bathroom) with God?

It seems like the reason we like formulas and rituals is because they are so easy to measure. It's more quantifiable to "spend time with God" than it is to embrace Christ as your very life. It's easier to measure your time in the written word than it is to measure your life as influenced and impacted by the Living Word (Jesus). It's more appealing to the flesh to go to the "house of God" than to actually be the house in which He dwells.

I think that the main reason we seek to measure our spirituality is because of a lack of security in our idenitity in Christ. If Christ really is my identity, then I don't need to rely on religious rituals to make me feel "safe". I know that I am safe because of His finished work as well as knowing that I am in Christ, and Christ is in me.

I, myself, used to feel like I had all of the answers. Now I feel like I have many more questions than answers. I am beginning to embrace "the perspective of the ignorant" which truly does seem "essential to explain anything." It seems that only when we know what the questions are can we begin to uncover an answer. What do you think?

It's in the game!

Well, you may or may not have been wondering where I have been lately. Have I been preparing for a really deep post? No. Have I been too busy commenting on the blogs of others to write a post of my own? Not exactly. So where have I been? :)Playing the new John Madden football of course! :)

What time is it? It's almost football season, and I can't wait. I can smell it in the air....oooooooo......ahhhhhhhh. This is by far my favorite time of the year. The leaves are falling, the air is cooling, and grown men are getting paid to knock the stuff out of each other! Can it get much better than that?

As for my favorite team, the Carolina Panthers, everyone is picking us to make it to the Superbowl, and to win it! Wow! What an exacting season must lie ahead. But, until then, I continue to make the presence of my Panthers felt in the world of XBOX Live, as the intimidating "Newman Ray"!(Okay, maybe a 7-14 record is not exactly intimidating, but I have only begun to fight!)

I hope you enjoy the fall season, and may the best team (the Carolina Panthers:)) win!

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?