Blog Archives
Destructions and Treachery
“Destructions are planned by your tongue;
As a sharpened razor, you work treachery.”
(Psalm 52:4 [verse 2 in English translations])
Normally, we are not used to seeing the word “destruction in the plural.” Destruction is more or less total and the idea of repeating a destruction over and over seems rather redundant. At the same time, as David writes these words, he is communicating a great and deep truth when dealing with wicked people: wickedness feeds on itself. The wicked do not simply find their satisfaction in tearing you down once, but repeatedly they delight in kicking you down as you try and stand up. The question does not so much lie in whether they will be there with a boot to kick you in the head, but whether you are going to continue trying to stand as they continue trying to beat you down. Jesus said:
If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you. If you were from the world, the world would love as one in the same. But because you are not from the world—rather I chose you from the world—for this, the world hates you. Remember the word which I spoke to you—a slave is not greater than his lord. If they drove me out, they will also drive you out. If they treasure my word, they will also treasure yours.
(John 15:18-20)
To drive the word-picture home, David continues by speaking of the tongue’s work of planning destruction as being like a sharpened razor, slicing away all that it touches and being the tool of treachery. The word that we render as “treachery” comes from the Hebrew root hAm∂r (ramah), which means “to abandon” or “to betray.” Of course, the ultimate betrayal of all time is that of Judas betraying our Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time, how often the actions of the world are marked by betrayal when dealing with believers in Christ Jesus.
More importantly, the contrast between the world’s oppression and the faithfulness of God should be made. While the world seeks destruction and betrayal, God builds up his own and promises never to leave or abandon us. It is sad that so often when people desire to be nurtured and treasured they turn only to those places that will betray and destroy. Of course, it is also sad that often the Christian church follows the world’s lead and betrays its own rather than demonstrating the love and faithfulness of Christ even when such things are difficult. Jesus said that the world will know that we are his disciples on the basis of our love for one another (John 13:35) — when we choose not to live out that love in fellowship, what does it say about the quality of our witness?
The Church as Blessing in the Midst of a Pagan World
“And the Sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying, ‘Hear us, my lord, you are a prince of God in our midst; in the choice of our graves bury your dead. Not one of us will withhold his grave from you for the burial of your dead.”
(Genesis 23:5-6)
At the onset, the offer that is made sounds quite generous and Abraham’s insistence on purchasing the plot of land may seem a bit rude. Yet, as with other things in God’s design, there is a reason and a purpose behind Abraham’s refusal, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. It should be noted that some modern translations render “The Sons of Heth” as “The Hittites” in this passage. Simply that is a result of scholarly inquiry which has suggested that the nation we now refer to as the Hittites has their origin with this particular Canaanite tribe. Literally, their name means, “The Sons of Terror,” which is an appropriate name for any ancient pagan tribe, needless to say, it is with these that Abraham is now negotiating.
What we ought to take note of, though, is the attitude that these “Sons of Terror” have taken with Abraham. They refer to him as a “Prince of God” and generously offer to him any choice grave site that they have prepared and reserved for themselves. There is nothing left over to doubt that these pagans can see that God has given favor to Abraham and that they (even as pagans) have been blessed by Abraham’s presence.
Such an attitude in the life of unbelievers is a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3, that the nations of the world will find their blessing in the children of God. How far, it seems, that we have fallen from that mark. How rarely do the unbelieving neighbors of our churches speak of our presence in their community with thanksgiving. Biblically, our churches should be seen as a place of good blessing to all around us. How far so many of our churches have fallen. How easy it is to begin turning our focus on ourselves (building our programs, our membership, our buildings, and our resources) instead of being focused outwardly on the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. How often we fear taking a stand for the Truth for fear that people won’t like what it is that we have to say, where if we were to speak truth in love and grace we would instead be respected for holding with integrity to our views. When we compromise the gospel we also compromise the blessing we are to be to the non-believers in our midst.
Loved ones, may we live intentionally in such a way that the pagans in our midst would say, like the Sons of Heth, that we are “princes of God” and that they would sacrifice to preserve our presence in their midst. How differently our communities would look were we to live in such a way that it produced this response amongst unbelievers? How different the work of evangelism would look were this the case as well.
The Culture Wars
In Christian circles, we talk a lot about the culture wars and at least vaguely, I think, most people have some sense of what is meant by that. As we look around us, the western culture has grown more secular and less markedly “Christian” as a whole and the culture war is the crusade that many have engaged themselves in to turn back the cultural influence toward one that is more markedly Christian. And, as one who has spoken and written on the importance of Christians living out their faith in every aspect of life (both inside of the church and outside of the church), this cause is one toward which I am very sympathetic. Having said that, can we talk?
First of all, I am not entirely convinced that we are going about things the right way in terms of what we are trying to achieve. Is it the culture we are called by Jesus to redeem or is it the people we are called to evangelize? One might respond that both go hand in hand, and they do, but which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The group that would broadly be defined as leading the culture war would argue that as we see a change in the culture, we will see a change in the people. There is a certain degree of truth to this line of thinking as it would seem that most people will go with the flow and do what is acceptable to the culture.
When the “Blue Laws” were in place, people’s lives revolved around church because there was little else to do. There is no question as to the sociological benefit of these laws as even the most basic moral teaching of the Bible affects people’s lives and behavior. Yet, when the Blue Laws were repealed, church attendance dropped, which indicates that the percentage who left were only there because of the cultural expectations upon them and not because they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus did say that in the final judgment there will be many who will cry out, “Lord, Lord!” and to whom Jesus will say, “Get away from me, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:21-23). So, did the “Christianization” of the culture build the church? The church as an institution perhaps was built up, but the word “Church,” in a Biblical sense, normally refers to a body of believers that have been called out from the world and into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Arguably, then, the church was not built up by simply existing within a Christian culture.
It should be noted that we use the term “culture” in a variety of different ways. In addition, we talk about cultures and sub-cultures within a given culture. There are also various “cultural expressions” that people may embrace as well as the “culture” of certain pieces of music, art, or literature. In addition, when you are sick and go to the doctor, he or she may take a swab and apply it to the back of your throat to take a “culture” to see what kind of bacteria may be developing in your body. So, when we talk about a “Culture War,” what kind of culture are we talking about and is that even the proper term that we ought to be throwing about?
Typically, when speaking of a “Culture War,” we are referring (as do sociologists) to those shared norms, ethics, linguistic expressions, histories, folk-stories, values, and beliefs that bind a group of people together. We might talk broadly of the “Western” culture that has been dominated by the thought of the Greek Philosophers and Latin thinkers, the European Renaissance, and the Christian religion (as this was the dominant influence in the development of Europe for well over 1,000 years.
We might narrow the discussion down further and talk about the “American” culture or even about the evangelical sub-culture within America, but bottom line, it still gets back to these shared beliefs and histories that bind a people together. But how do these beliefs get propagated? Certainly they are not innate as cultural expression varies widely throughout the world. They are taught then, by one generation to the next, either intentionally or unintentionally, by those who hold said beliefs. And unless one makes a deliberate effort to “break out” of a cultural norm, that culture will continue into another generation.
Interestingly enough, the word “culture” comes from that Latin term colere, which means “to cultivate or tend,” and was originally used to describe the way that a farmer would work the ground and tend to the crops that he has planted. This is a valuable note because there is nothing unintentional about the way a field is cultivated. The farmer chooses how he prepares and fertilizes the plot of land, the kinds of seeds that are sown, and the way those plants are tended and harvested. Similarly, culture is created by those within the community.
Yet, if culture is created by those within the community, does the idea of a “culture war” really make any sense at all? It presents a picture of workers in a field warring over which seeds to plant — one side fighting to plant corn and the other fighting to plant wheat. Does it not make more sense to focus on changing the hearts of the planters?
Prejudice is one of the things that people have been trying hard to change in our culture (and rightly so). And in many areas, the work has been very successful. But what is bringing the most success? Is it laws that are written outlawing prejudice or is it people’s hearts being changed and choosing not to propagate the prejudices of their parents in the lives of their children? I would suggest that the latter is the tactic being used with success. I would also suggest that the families where people marry across ethnic lines is where you will see the most pronounced removal of the prejudices because hearts change when people are in fellowship with one another.
Does this mean that Christians should not engage the culture? Of course not, we are called to tear down the strongholds of Satan in this world (2 Corinthians 10:3-6). As Christians, we should express the faith that we hold in every area of life. That being said, we will not fulfill the Great Commission by once again having Christian thought and principles dominate the cultural norm; the Great Commission needs to be fulfilled by discipling people. And for people to be discipled, their hearts must first be changed by the power of the Gospel.
One final note on this line of thinking from the five years that I taught Bible in a Christian Academy. It was amazing how often I had students who could answer all of the questions correctly on a Bible or a Worldview test but when left on their own, would live as an unbeliever. The culture at the Christian School was intentionally Christian. The curriculum was also designed to foster a Christian worldview. As teachers and administrators, we had won the “Culture War” at our school (at least on the surface). Yet, we had many kids who could live in the Christian culture, yet were not being discipled because the Christian culture was not the culture that they had embraced as their own. The solution for the school environment was not to institute more rules or to offer more Christian “cultural” experiences. The solution is to get to the heart of the student and apply the Gospel in the hopes and prayers that God would regenerate their dead hearts and give them life.
The school tends to be a microcosm of the community and the Christian school is a microcosm of a community that is dominated by Christian culture. If we aim to change hearts by changing the visible culture, we will likely lose both. Yet, when hearts are changed, the culture will be changed by default. The “Culture War” as described is at best a crusade that will change small pockets of life — we may take the promised land by force, but for how long will it be held? Instead, let us wage war against the powers and principalities of Satan, seeking to evangelize the hearts of men, for this will be the “Holy War” that will bring long-lasting and spiritual fruit.
Turning the Model Around: Mentoring Evangelism
For about 5 years I have been teaching High School students how important it is to have a mentor and how to go about seeking someone to mentor them. We talk about setting goals, knowing what you would like to achieve, and about looking for a man or woman who has achieved those goals already who might be willing to serve as a mentor. We also talk a great deal about the character of the person sought as a mentor and how that character reflects that person’s commitment to Christ. And we also talk about how to approach such a candidate for mentoring purposes without making that person feel like they are tying themselves into a long-term relationship.
All of this is fine and good. We need mentors at every level—I seek out mentors myself. Of late, though, I have realized that I have concentrated primarily on the ascending relationship of finding mentors and that I have not focused much on looking downward (if you will allow me the analogy)—the looking for someone to mentor. And, to be more specific than that, as a Christian leader, I have been reflecting on the principle of looking for people to mentor for the express purpose of evangelism, not just to replicate the successes you have had in the lives of others.
Usually, as we walk though life, we are all pretty self-centered. Sorry to offend if I have stepped on toes, but all of us can be pretty-self serving if left to our own devices. We want people to mentor us so that we can get ahead in business or in other personal goals. We even want to mentor others so that we can replicate ourselves in them…sometimes even living vicariously through the person we have sought to mentor. We do it as Christians and we even do it in the Christian church. How often we attract people to the church by attracting them to the pastor (his messages, his vision, etc…). I am suggesting that the model needs to be rethought.
The Apostle Paul told the church that they should seek to imitate him, but he did not end there. Paul said that the church should imitate him so that they may imitate Christ as they see Christ in him (1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6). In addition, both Paul and the writer of Hebrews affirmed that we ought to watch believers who are more mature than we are to learn about Christ from them (Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 13:7). The principle is that we attract to ourselves with the purpose of turning to Christ.
So, what model am I proposing? To begin with, I propose a mentoring model that is driven from the top, not from the bottom. Highly motivated people will always seek out mentors above them; those who are Christians and leaders in the community ought to start aggressively looking for those they would like to mentor and then invest time and resources into that person. Take them out to lunch several times, learn their goals and aspirations, and build a relationship with that young man or young woman. Then, use that relationship as an opportunity to evangelize those who you are mentoring.
To take that and apply that to a church context, pastors ought not stop at attracting people to themselves, but should attract people to themselves for the purpose of pointing people not only to Christ but also to those in the congregation who are mature in their faith. Thus the pastor functions as one who creates mentoring opportunities between two others within his congregational context.
To a degree, churches that are building small groups are accomplishing something like this model—groups of people living life together. I am not knocking small groups, they are necessary for building community, but where the small group model can fall short is in two ways. First, small groups typically do not exist to spawn other small groups; the purpose of a small group is to live life-on-life together in a relationship that grows deep over a long period and is not necessarily focused on growing wide. The small group model essentially takes a group of people who are at roughly the same point in their spiritual walk and grows them together. Sometimes small groups will grow and spin off other small groups; this happens best as an organic division (a younger leader is rising up and is ready to “spread his wings”) and not as a programmed split (if you tell people that they will be part of this small group for two years and then split off, the relationships will never grow vulnerable, transparent, or deep).
Mentoring, though has a different goal in its sights. Mentoring’s purpose is to take someone and assist them in reaching a specific goal. There are markers and the relationship is designed to be temporary. My role as a mentor, typically, is to help identify untapped potential in you and to help you grow in your gifts to a certain end; either to accomplish a specific goal I have already achieved or to exceed the plateau that I have reached. Mentoring relationships are deep, but in a very limited respect in that the depth is focused not on life in general, but upon the specific goal and purpose that is in sight.
The second area in which the small group model sometimes falls short is that small groups can become disconnected from other small groups within the church body—especially when the church is larger. There may be unity within groups “x” and “y” respectively, but many times, not unity between those in groups “x” and “y.” Some of this “inter-group” unity can be achieved through group projects or if co-workers, family, or friends are spread between multiple small groups. Also, said connections can be found when people in various small groups serve in the larger church fellowship—fellow Sunday School teachers, on the music team, etc…
Yet, to use the analogy that Paul employs in 1 Corinthians 12, the body is not made up of a bunch of isolated parts or parts that only occasionally come together. In the body, all of the parts exist organically together and in harmony. We are accustomed to reflecting on this passage in terms of individuals, but the analogy also applies to small groups. The reality is that none of us are a hand or a foot or a kidney unto ourselves, but we are individual cells that are part of the hand, foot, or kidney. In a small group model, the groups as a whole are the body parts and need a means by which they can be bonded together. The “coming together” of the church body on Sunday is part of that equation, but body parts do not occasionally come together; they exist together in connection as a whole.
The model that I am suggesting pictures the church body as a giant, interconnected network—a giant constellation per say—where everyone is connected to one or two mentors and one or two people they are mentoring. This is not meant as a replacement for small groups, but an addition to. To continue with the body analogy, the network of mentoring relationships being like the network of nerves or capillaries that transport life-giving blood to every body part and provide an inter-connected network by which the small groups never become isolated from the whole. And that the mentoring process be used for the intentional purpose of evangelism and discipling (Great Commission) as well as be designed to grow intentionally outward into the community around us and not inward. In other words, while typically small groups exist to serve the church, the mentoring network not only connects the church parts internally, but connects the church externally to the community.
If this model is done well, you will even find mentoring relationships between local church bodies. This is not for the purpose of stealing people from one local fellowship to another, but to build up the kingdom. Remember, Christ has one body (now we are applying this to inter-Church relationships), there needs to be an interconnectivity between Bible believing churches that runs deeper than the local pastors’ association. Surely we would all agree that any one of our towns or cities are large enough that no one church is big enough to effectively be salt and light for the whole. Getting on mission means getting out and being that witness in our community, but it also means that those who are not against us are for us (Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50).
In this context, part of the role of the pastor is to know existing members well enough that new people to the church can be introduced not only to small groups, but to members that will reach out to them and provide them with mentoring. Also, it is his job to know the community well enough that he can connect mature Christians in his church to those who could use mentoring (and evangelization) in the community…kind of like a spiritual match-making service (though I detest the analogy).
It should be noted that this model is almost impossible to monitor. In a church that is large enough to support a connectional pastor, perhaps he can facilitate such relationships, but for most of us who pastor either single or small-staff churches, it is not realistically feasible to know who is mentoring whom throughout your church network. At the same time, that is the organic nature of the church. We are not simply a mechanical organization with rules and guidelines that can be easily charted, but we are a living and breathing entity—structured indeed, we are not a blob from outer-space—and just as a medical doctor does not always know everything that is going on within you, but will have a good sense of your overall health, so too the pastor and leadership of the church will have a sense of what is going on, but may not be able to map out the ever changing network of mentoring relationships.
Yet, is this not the relationship we find in the Bible and in the early church (one where having large buildings and facilities was not possible ala Roman law). Barnabas saw what God was doing in Paul and facilitated Paul’s connection with the Apostles in Jerusalem. Paul identified Timothy for the purpose of mentoring him. Timothy was instructed to find others to mentor who would hold fast to the faith handed down from person to person, generation to generation. We are part of that giant mentoring network through history and mentoring happens within our churches in ways that none of us are aware. But where I believe our churches need to go is to the next step where we become intentional about creating the network of mentoring relationships inside and outside of our church body with a specific aim of evangelizing those whom we have sought out to mentor.
Building Museums or Kingdoms
Museums can be a lot of fun to visit. They contain relics and artifacts from which we can learn a lot about our past. They are monuments and testimonies to where we have been as a culture and from where God has brought us as a civilization. They serve a very important role in our culture as they help us to appreciate the sacrifices and successes of those who have gone before us in the hopes that we do not become proud and arrogant as a culture and they provide useful instruction in terms of the mistakes of the past in the hopes that we do not repeat them. There are many kinds of museums, but they all have one thing in common…they do not contain any life.
Sadly, churches can also fall into the trap of becoming museums instead of being the living, breathing marks of the Kingdom of God that we are meant to be. This does not mean we oughtn’t look back and celebrate the blessings of God that have been brought in the past and not learn from our errors as well, but if we spend all of our time dwelling in the past—dwelling in the museum of antiquities—the life that we are meant to have will be sapped from us and we will decline into a testimony of what once was, and not to what is. Remember, God is a God of the living, not of the dead (Luke 20:37-38; 24:5).
Instead of a museum, we are called to build a kingdom (Matthew 6:33; Mark 1:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-12). Our great commission (Matthew 28:19-20) is to make disciples of all of the nations—that begins here at home. Our call within our church is to be at the task of disciple-making. Those who are not believers need to have the Gospel proclaimed to them and those who are believers need to be built up in the faith. We should learn from and celebrate the past, but we must never be tempted to dwell there. Like that favorite hymn by Sabine Baring-Gould:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
Like an army, we are to march forward, and for that to take place, though kingdoms rise and fall around us, we must always keep our eyes fixed upon our great and glorious captain, Jesus Christ, who leads us on. Let us never lose sight of the goal that the church is to march onward, breaking down the strongholds of hell in this world around us.
Also, let us count Jesus’ own words to one individual as a warning against dwelling in the past:
“And he said to them, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead;
but you, go and preach the Kingdom of God.’”
(Luke 9:60)
The Law of the Jungle
Recently, I read of the following account:
Elephants and rhinos normally get along quite peacefully, though the elephant defends her calf against any hint of aggression. Once a baby elephant at a water hole near Tree Tops Lodge, in Kenya’s Abedare National Park, playfully approached a rhino. The rhino charged, sending the calf squealing back to its mother, and then the rhino sauntered off. The mother elephant was so enraged that she turned and attacked another rhino drinking nearby, sending a tusk into its chest. While tourists watched from the lodge’s terrace, the elephant then held the innocent rhino underwater with her forefeet until it drowned.[1]
The Law of the Jungle is brutal. It is a law that essentially says, you can do whatever you can get away with. It is a law that says that you, the individual, and perhaps (but not always) your family is the only thing that is important. It is a law that permits one not only to hate his enemy, but also to turn on his friend if such is expedient. Power and survival are the sole virtues of the Law of the Jungle and one’s purpose in life is simply the gaining and preservation of power and the propagation of one’s own line. Sacrifice is meaningless unless it brings about that end. The strong survive; all others are merely in the way.
What struck me about this little account of the elephant and the rhinoceros was not only the brutality of the event where the mother enacts her revenge on an uninvolved bystander, but sadly, how often Christians act in much the same way when dealing with one another. True, we typically don’t drown people in watering holes, but how often we drown others with criticism, exclusion, or outright hostility. How often we follow the example of the Jungle and not the example of Christ in our personal dealings.
In the jungle, when one is offended, revenge is the response. There is no such thing as humility or grace, these things belong only to those who bear God’s image. And in the jungle, when revenge is handed out, there is always an escalation of aggression—even a minor offense yielding capital punishment as in this case. There, of course, are many who would point to the brutality of many of the Old Testament Biblical laws, but the concept of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is a principle that states that the punishment must suit the crime. One could not demand execution in response to a personal injury—in the jungle, as the account of the elephant and the rhino illustrates, death is common even for small crimes. It is not a matter of justice, but of severe vengeance served cold and bloody.
It should not be too surprising when non-Christians choose to follow the Law of the Jungle for philosophically they simply see humanity as a highly developed animal living under the same rule as our “cousins” in the animal kingdom. In addition, to really give grace to others, it requires that one have experienced it in a transforming way. And free grace is one of those things that really is unique to Christianity and to the way our God deals with us.
What grieves me is when I see professing Christians choosing to follow the Law of the Jungle instead of another law—the law modeled to us by Christ—is that they demonstrate that they don’t really understand what it is that Christ did on the cross. When Jesus hung upon the cross of Calvary, the man without sin, being judged as a sinner, his words were not that of vengeance, but he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” The word we translate as “forgive” is the Greek word ajfi/hmi (aphiami), which means to pardon, forgive, or to release from legal obligation.
We owe a debt to God because we have broken his law. In addition, we owe a debt to God because we have inherited the unpaid debt of our fathers that have gone before us (Exodus 20:5, 34:7). This debt goes back to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:20-22). God is righteous and righteous justice is demanded for sin—we have inherited death and earned wrath. Yet, God chose to do something unheard of; he took the punishment for a group of people upon himself by sending his Son, Jesus Christ to die and bear his wrath in their place—a substitutionary work of atonement. To Christ’s work, we contribute nothing. Jesus has fulfilled the righteous demands of the law on our behalf and we vicariously benefit.
Who is the “we” that benefit? It is those who have been given new life by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3) and are thus drawn to Christ in faith. This is a work totally dependent on God and on his Grace, not upon who we are or what we might be capable of doing. Were it earned in any way or reliant on our works in any way, Grace would no longer be Grace (Romans 11:6). In theological terms, we refer to this as God’s act of election, an act which God chose before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1:4,11). We are spiritually dead in our trespasses against God (Ephesians 2:5) before this new life and thus, can do nothing to help ourselves, but are totally and absolutely reliant upon God’s Grace for this salvation. Grace is not favoritism, for favoritism demands that there is a reason one places his affections more so on one person than another; Grace is given where it is not deserved so that the giver of Grace is upheld. Who then is this body of grace-receivers? It is those who are born again believers in Jesus Christ—those who believe in their heart and profess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9).
The sad thing is that so many who profess this betray their hearts when they refuse to show grace to others around them. If you are a professing Christian, you must understand that the bar has been set very high. Christ has shown infinite grace to you; you have an obligation to show grace to others around you. No, it is true that you and I are not capable of the intense level of grace modeled by Christ Jesus; we have been shown a grace that transcends all worldly experience. At the same time, as ones who have received grace that is transcendent we can yet strive for a grace that gives others a taste of the grace that can be found in Christ.
God is not asking you to show others something that he has not first shown to you in super-abundance; he is asking you to show grace to those around you that do not deserve it, who have offended you, and who have rejected the things that you stand for. He has also promised that he will not leave you on your own as you seek to do this, but that he will be with you in the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. The next time you are tempted to gossip, complain, slander, undermine, or get angry at another around you, make the decision to show them grace and shed love upon them instead of wrath (even where that wrath is deserved). If you want to see a change in the culture around us, take the lead not from elephants in the wild, but from Jesus Christ. Then step back and watch what God does through your witness.
[1] Cited from: Shreeve, James. Nature: The Other Earthlings. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987. Pg 166.
Are You Getting with the Program or Watching It?
I will confess that I am a consummate daydreamer. My mind not only drifts off into curiosity on things tangential to what is taking place or being taught, but I am also prone to rabbit trails when I am in the role of teacher. I never realized just how frustrating that must have been to my parents (who were trying to get me to do homework, etc…) until I became a parent and found that my son is prone to the same thing—the apple does not fall too far from the tree. One of the phrases that my parents used to use commonly was, “Come on, Win, get with the program.” What they meant by this was to get focused and to be a part of the task (the program) that was at hand.
Our Lord also gives a “program” to the church. After Peter’s confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Jesus utters the following words:
“And now I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
(Matthew 16:18)
This is one of those passages that contains a tremendous amount of theology, but essentially Jesus is saying that the confession of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God—the confession of the Gospel—is the rock upon which the church will be built. So, what is the church’s “program”? The program is to take this confession of Christ and use it to batter down the gates of hell—essentially to use the gospel of Jesus Christ as a tool by which the fortifications of the Devil that exist on this earth are destroyed. To use military terminology, the church is being portrayed as an army on the march in enemy territory.
Now, there are many things that the church does, we are called in the Great commission to make disciples by baptizing and teaching all that Christ has taught (Matthew 28:19-20), we are called to care for the widows and orphans and to keep ourselves unstained by the sinful things of this world (James 1:27), we are to be ready with a reasonable defense of the Truth that God has given us (1 Peter 3:15-16), and we gather to worship (Hebrews 12:28-29). Yet, all of these things fall under the heading of engaging the enemy’s strongholds and battering in their gates (the primary place where an invading army would focus their attack).
Yet, as I look at the church today, I wonder whether we have allowed ourselves to daydream. For some it may be about the busyness of life; for others it may be their comfort or reputation. Some spend so much time thinking about the world to come that they are distracted from the task at hand. Regardless of the reason, a soldier who is distracted during a time of war usually becomes a casualty (and others are often wounded or killed because of the soldier’s distraction).
The question we must ask of ourselves is whether or not we have “gotten with the program” and are a part of the task. My concern is that there are too many confessing Christians who are watching the program as if it is on television, seeing church as entertainment or a social club, not as an army at war in enemy territory, besieging the fortifications of the Devil. How the church needs to “get with the program” and stop trying to watch it from their easy chair.
“No one who serves as a soldier becomes entangled in the affairs of life in order that he might please the one who has enlisted them.”
(2 Timothy 2:4)
Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem
“You must pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
May those who love you rest at ease.”
(Psalm 122:6)
Beloved, how do you pray for the church? The word that we translate as “pray” in this passage is the Hebrew word, la’v’ (shaal), which more literally refers to the way someone might plead or beg for something. There is a sense of desperation in its tone. Beloved, is this the way in which you pray for the church? Do you plead with God for her purity and for her peace? Are you committing yourself to intercede on her behalf, not just for her witness, but for her genuine peace as well. Just as the psalmist is commending ancient Israel to do this for Jerusalem, how desperately important it is for us to do so for the church—both for our local congregations and for the witness of evangelical churches throughout the world.
But what do we mean by “peace”? The term ~Alv’ (shalom) means more than rest from war or personal comfort without oppression, though certainly those elements are included and those elements should be at the heart of our prayer life. Indeed, we should long for the day when the scoffers and nay-sayers who mock the church are brought into judgment and they can no longer tear down God’s people. At the same time, the call for peace, in the Hebrew tongue also anticipated the coming of the Messiah (for the Hebrews today, it still does—at least in their mindset). It is a longing for the great redeemer that God had promised to send to his people…though the Jewish people rejected Him. And praise the Lord that the Jewish people rejected Christ, for this rejection made way for the Gospel to go out to us, the gentile believers! When we see the mighty plan of God unfolded in this way, all we can do is to say with the Apostle Paul:
“Oh the depth of riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unfathomable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways!”
(Romans 11:33)
Thus, when we pray for peace, we pray with the knowledge that God has already sent his Messiah in Jesus Christ and assured for us, his people, the peace that “passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:7) which will “rule in our hearts” (Colossians 3:15) and be a testimony of a mind that is set upon Jesus Christ (Romans 8:6). Indeed, our Lord, said, “my peace I leave with you” (John 14:27) and it is because of this that our hearts need not fear or be troubled by the things of the world. We have a confidence that the peace of God has been offered in part to us already and that there is a guarantee given to those who are trusting in Jesus Christ that such peace will be enjoyed in its fullness in the world to come, thus as we pray for that peace here and now, we also pray to hasten the day of our Lord’s return. Indeed, “come Lord Jesus, come!” (Revelation 22:20).
Beloved, let us pray for the peace of the church so that our minds and hearts might rest assured. There are many trials and difficulties that must be faced in this fallen world and there are many challenges that must be met, yet the church of Christ has been promised victory; let us be a part of that mighty day and engage the world’s lies with Truth, knowing that the Messiah has come and his name is Jesus Christ.
Let us Go to the House of the Lord
“A Psalm of Ascents; of David.
I rejoiced when ones said to me,
‘Let us go to the house of Yahweh!’”
(Psalm 122:1)
This psalm begins with a wonderful statement that is alien to the experience of many American Christians: “I rejoiced” when it came time to go to the house of the Lord. Now, your temptation might be to argue with me and say that every Christian is now a temple of the Holy Spirit, so there is no longer any “going up” to the temple in Jerusalem (or elsewhere) and thus one cannot make a parallel between the Temple and the Church building. All of that may be true on a surface level, but let’s hear the heart of the psalmist. Why is he glad to go to God’s house? Not only is it the place where he can enter into God’s presence, but it is also the place where he can gather with other believers in fellowship and in common worship and it is a place where he can go and sit under the instruction of the priests of God’s Word. Though there are some theological nuances that we must be careful with, there really are a number of similarities in sentiment as to why the psalmist is rejoicing—this gathering is something that he has been looking forward to for a long time. Hmmm…can we say the same thing about our gatherings on Sunday morning with the other believers? Do we look forward to Sunday all week long, or is Sunday worship just something we do?
This is an important question to ask in a culture where the mindset that many take is that they can worship on the golf course just as well as they can worship in the pew. It is also an important question to ask in a culture where the institutional church is being rejected and being replaced by the “emergent” church—a group that rejects the institutional church altogether. So how do we answer this question? Is it a good thing for us to gather with other believers in the Christian age or must this psalm be relegated to the Jewish church?
To begin with, we must never forget that Christian fellowship was given to the church for her edification. The church is described as a “body with many parts” in 1 Corinthians 12 as well as a building made up of many stones in 1 Peter 2. This idea sets before us the initial reality that if we are going to be believers in Jesus Christ, we are going to have to do so in community and in relationship with other believers. In addition, this community and fellowship is not something that we are to dread, but instead is something that “makes our joy complete” (1 John 1:4). Indeed, the hymnist is correct when he refers to the church as a “happy throng.”
Yet the joy of the church does not come from fellowship with other Christians; one can find that at a variety of social gatherings. The joy comes from Jesus Christ. Not only is Christ in our midst, he is binding us together as one body of Christ to his own glory and honor and to our joy and satisfaction. Indeed, we ought rejoice when our brother or sister in the faith says, “Let us go to the house of the Lord!” For that is an invitation not only for joyful fellowship, but for joyful fellowship before Jesus Christ’s throne of grace as one body—united in faith before a living God. Let us rejoice and be glad!
What does Church Architecture Point Toward?
With the coming of the reformation, particularly with the coming of Calvin’s reformation in Geneva, came a shift in the architecture of the Church building. In the architecture of the medieval Roman Catholic church, the central item in the front of the church—the area that everything in the church pointed, so as to direct one’s attention toward—was the altar. In the Roman Catholic service, it is the Mass that is central to worship, and since the altar was central to the Mass, the altar was made to be the focal point of the church.
Yet, for Calvin, it was not the Mass that was central—in fact, the Mass was done away with altogether as being unbiblical and in contradiction with Christ’s sacrifice being once and for all time as pointed out in Hebrews 10. For Calvin, the Holy Scriptures were central along with their exposition and proclamation. Thus, as a result of the Calvinistic influence, the pulpit and the scriptures were moved to the central part of the church symbolizing its importance and its centrality to worship.
This abovementioned transition is fairly well established in history, but I began to reflect recently on other changes that seem to be taking place in church architecture as churches move away from a traditional church model to a more non-traditional, assembly room/warehouse model of worship. Architecturally, what is center? In many instances, the stage has been cleared as to place nothing at the central point. One of the trends that ties in with this has been a move toward a translucent pulpit, almost as if nothing is there at all.
Now, I confess that I have a bias toward a traditional church worship and traditional church architecture with the Lord’s Sacred Desk (the pulpit) placed centrally in the church to visually make the statement, “This is the most important thing we do!” And, I suppose that by posting these views here I will be stepping on the toes of some folks even in my own denomination who have embraced a more non-traditional model. I know that when you are reaching out to unchurched folks, many times they feel intimidated by the traditional elements of church architecture and worship—then again, is church supposed to be about making people comfortable or is it supposed to be about pointing toward Truth (and Truth never makes people feel comfortable, not even me). The traditional architecture and the scriptures presented remind us that we are part of a tradition that is far older than we are.
But can we set our biases to the side for a moment and pose the question as to what this new, non-traditional architecture points toward? In other words, what does the eye focus on, what does the church layout communicate as being central? I would suggest that in the absence of the pulpit or the altar, what is presented as central is the man, whether that man be the pastor or the worship leader, it seems to be the man that all of the eyes turn toward. It is also worth noting, and this is where many more toes are going to be stepped on, that preaching has also reflected this change. The systematic and consecutive exposition of scripture has largely been replaced by topical and practical preaching. This does not mean that the preaching is not laced with scripture, it is, but the scripture becomes secondary to the topic and the topics tend to be very anthrocentric, dealing more with how to live in this world than with how God has revealed himself to this world.
In making this assertion, please do not think that I am rejecting application in a sermon—sermons must be laced with application, but I would suggest that application needs to be drawn out of the scriptures, while in the non-traditional model, the scriptures are used to support the application. In the first, the scripture is the primary focus, in the latter, the application is the primary focus. In a very real sense, this is reflected in the changed architecture where no longer is every eye drawn to the pulpit, but where every eye is drawn toward the man. Every decision we make carries with it ramifications, and I think that we must be careful in seeking new models and contexts for church worship, for when we change the focal point, oftentimes other changes follow as well.
The Preacher's Study 