1 Timothy 5:17-24
As I mentioned in the sermon, when we are discussing what it means to follow well, we enter into some principles that have often been wrongly interpreted and painfully applied.
Basically, the primary principle that governs how we follow those who lead us is submission. On every level of life, the Bible calls us to submit to those who are over us, whether it be our government leaders (elected or otherwise--Romans 13), parents (Ex 20:12 and other places), masters or employers (Eph 6:5 and other places), in marriage (Eph 5:21-22), or to church leaders (Heb 13:7, among others).
This being the case, it is imperative that we understand what it means to submit. I work at that in the sermon, and also mention that submission does not necessarily equate to obedience. We honor God with our primary submission, and we must obey him before man (Acts 5:17-39).
Submission is first and foremost an attitude that governs our life in respect to how we relate to each other--in all human relations. The Greek word which is virtually always translated "submit" or "subject" is hupotasso and is formed from a prefix and main word. The prefix hupo is also a standard preposition in Greek and means under or beneath. The main word, tasso, means "to arrange something in an orderly manner", or "to appoint it to an proper position." As far as I have seen, the word hupostasso is always used in a passive voice, meaning the subject of the verb creates action that flows back on themselves. Thus the frequent translations "subject yourselves" (Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 16:16; Eph 5:21; Col 3:8, etc.)
So the first thing one might notice is that submission is a voluntary act that we do for ourselves. It is a choice we make, not one forced upon us. God asks us to submit ourselves to the powers that be. We do it, because it is the right thing to do and brings with it the fulfillment of God's promises, that flow from our obedience.
Antonyms of submission are concepts like rebellion, disrespect, and disobedience. In the sermon, I work a bit at the importance of living under the authority that God places over us and what happens when we do not. The warning of 1 Samuel 15:23 is chilling: "rebellion is like the sin of divination." How can that be? Divination (attempting to foretell the future via omens and the like) is one of many forms of Spiritualism that when practiced opens up our lives to deeper forms of Satanic involvement. Rebellion does the same thing. Rebellion occurs whenever we belligerently disobey a form of authority under which God calls us to live. This being true, disobedience to authority is a serious issue.
Ephesians 5:21 calls us to submit to one another and suggests that to do so is a part of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Submission, as I understand it, relates to my attitude, which then impacts my actions. To live in the attitude of submission, means I honor other people, see their importance and respect their value, treating them as I would want to be treated. Submission is the strength to view others as better than ourselves and to bless them and see them prosper. It is to understand that we are a called to serve each other, not to lord it over one another. Submission is the natural outgrowth of true love (1 Cor 13 kind of love).
So the question arises: What do I do when someone, especially someone who is in authority over me, asks me to do something that I believe violates biblical teaching and goes against my conscience? I must obey God rather than man, but I also am not supposed to disobey for fear of losing the protection that God gives me through those over me in authority.
I suggested in my sermon that there are ways to disobey submissively, and there are ways of disobeying rebelliously. It comes down to a matter of the heart. There are a few simple steps we should follow when we find ourselves in a position where we cannot blindly obey someone or some law.
First, we should appeal to the appropriate person/people calling on them to reconsider their decision.
Second, our appeal should be based on the harm that said decision will have on them (our boss, parents, company, church, or whatever). In other words, why is this a bad decision? What will be the consequences?
Third, we should present, if possible, a creative alternative. Sort of a "I cannot do that, but I would do this." During WWI there was no allowance for Conscientious Objectors (CO's) to War in our selective service system. After the war, and as war clouds were again gathering in Europe which eventually led to WWII, representatives from the historic peace churches when to Washington. They effectively said, "To not have some way of honoring CO's is to deny the principles upon which or Constitution is built. To keep on this way harms who we are as a people." They also presented an creative alternative. It is called, guess what, "Alternative Service." They basically said, "we cannot take human life for any reason, but we will serve our country in non-violent ways." The government heard their appeal, recognized the fundamental correctness of it, accepted their creative alternative, and thus many people have been able to save their conscience and serve their country.
Fourth, if all this is to no avail, we must be true to our understanding of what is right, even if it means we disobey those over us. If we need to disobey, we do so carefully, prayerfully and submissively. In other words, we do not rise up in rebellion, but rather firmly resist. We accept the consequences of our choice to obey God rather than man. We do not run from it. (Of course, we make use of every honorable way to escape pain and death. Paul was quick to call upon his rights as a Roman citizen. Acts 22:22-29) That means we may lose our job, our home or our lives. But we will not lose our honor.
As I write this, I see Martin Luther standing in the courtyard before the judges at his inquisition, declaring "Here I stand, I can stand nowhere else. God help me." I see Rosa Parks taking a seat in the front of the bus. I see Nelson Mandela writhing in jail for 20 odd years because he would not submit to the yoke of Apartheid. I see my wife's ancestor in the tower prison in Basel Switzerland because he chose adult baptism.
God grant to me and to you, the grace to be honorable in both our submission and, when necessary, our disobedience.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Servant Leadership
1 Peter 5:1-11
When I initallly planned this sermon, I thought I would spend about half the time outlining leadership principles and the other half discussing "followership" (you like that word? I think I made it up!) principles. However, as I developed things,there was just too much to say about leadership to cover it adequately in one sermon. I will need to return to followership principles later.
In the sermon I discuss three biblical metaphors for leadership, One of them is a Bond-Slave.
As soon as we mention "slave" today, our mind goes back to slavery as we had experienced it here in the USA and in England, during the early days of our nation. The black slave trade involved removing people against their will from their home land, transporting them in inhuman conditions, selling them to masters who often, though not always, treated them worse than livestock and rarely, if ever, providing any opportunity to be set free. This was an evil practice that created a stain on the moral fabric of our nation.
The problem is that slavery in the Bible could often be very different. The Old Testament Law that guided the Israelites laid down very specific laws relating to slavery. In the context of the ancient Middle East, these laws were progressive, generous and aimed at recognizing the full humanity of slaves. During New Testament times in Greek society, though there were abusive owners, many treated their slaves very well. In both Jewish and Greek cultures, and opportunities to gain freedom were provided.
What I find very strange is that often in these ancient cultures, people would sell themselves into slavery. This was especially true for those who were poor. To serve as a slave for a period of years, meant a place to live with food and, often, education, or at least the opportunity to learn a trade. After a season of this, one could save up some money, be trained in a job, and then reenter society much better off than before. It was in this tone that Paul advises slaves to serve their master well, but if they have opportunity to gain their freedom, they should do so, and he admonishes masters to be kind and generous (1 Cor 7:21; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22 - 4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9). Peter also offer advice to slaves and masters in 1 Pet. 2:13-22.
In this context of slavery the possibility of entering into a bond-slave relationship existed. This idea is introduced as part of the Old Testament Law (Ex 21:2-6 and Deut 15:12-18). What if things were really good in the household where you served as a slave. Your master cared for you and treated you well. What if the idea of living out on your own and having to make all those ends meet really was not for you. In this case the Law allowed the creation of an interesting concept. Upon your manumission, you could turn to your master and say, "Thank you very much, but I want to remain your slave and continue to serve you." That point, the master took you to the entry door to his home, took an awl and drove it through your ear lobe into the door post of the house. Ouch! The idea was that you were now permanently attached to this household. Many scholars believed that the slave then wore a special earring in that ear, marking him as a bond-slave. You might say a love-slave (though today that word has other, not very positive, connotations).
It is this word for bond-slave (Greek, doulos) that the New Testament usually uses when it calls us to view ourselves as slaves of God (1 Pet 2:16) and when Paul and others call themselves slaves of Jesus (Phip 1:1). Often in English Bibles, doulos is translated "servant" which is misleading. It means bond-slave. (The English word "servant" is used to translate other Greek words like diakonos and huperetes, both meaning more of what we understand as a servant.)
All this to say that when we find freedom in Christ from a life of slavery to sin, we really are giving ourselves to God as slaves of righteousness. We are not our own, but have been bought with a price, and are now owned by God, the best Master anyone could ever have. As slaves of God, we are not free to live where we want and do what we want, but rather are obligated by love, to do what he asks of us.
This is true of all of us; but it is especially true of those of us who are called to give leadership to God's people, the Body of Christ. We are His and are honor-bond to do his will.
Thanks for digging deeper
When I initallly planned this sermon, I thought I would spend about half the time outlining leadership principles and the other half discussing "followership" (you like that word? I think I made it up!) principles. However, as I developed things,there was just too much to say about leadership to cover it adequately in one sermon. I will need to return to followership principles later.
In the sermon I discuss three biblical metaphors for leadership, One of them is a Bond-Slave.
As soon as we mention "slave" today, our mind goes back to slavery as we had experienced it here in the USA and in England, during the early days of our nation. The black slave trade involved removing people against their will from their home land, transporting them in inhuman conditions, selling them to masters who often, though not always, treated them worse than livestock and rarely, if ever, providing any opportunity to be set free. This was an evil practice that created a stain on the moral fabric of our nation.
The problem is that slavery in the Bible could often be very different. The Old Testament Law that guided the Israelites laid down very specific laws relating to slavery. In the context of the ancient Middle East, these laws were progressive, generous and aimed at recognizing the full humanity of slaves. During New Testament times in Greek society, though there were abusive owners, many treated their slaves very well. In both Jewish and Greek cultures, and opportunities to gain freedom were provided.
What I find very strange is that often in these ancient cultures, people would sell themselves into slavery. This was especially true for those who were poor. To serve as a slave for a period of years, meant a place to live with food and, often, education, or at least the opportunity to learn a trade. After a season of this, one could save up some money, be trained in a job, and then reenter society much better off than before. It was in this tone that Paul advises slaves to serve their master well, but if they have opportunity to gain their freedom, they should do so, and he admonishes masters to be kind and generous (1 Cor 7:21; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22 - 4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9). Peter also offer advice to slaves and masters in 1 Pet. 2:13-22.
In this context of slavery the possibility of entering into a bond-slave relationship existed. This idea is introduced as part of the Old Testament Law (Ex 21:2-6 and Deut 15:12-18). What if things were really good in the household where you served as a slave. Your master cared for you and treated you well. What if the idea of living out on your own and having to make all those ends meet really was not for you. In this case the Law allowed the creation of an interesting concept. Upon your manumission, you could turn to your master and say, "Thank you very much, but I want to remain your slave and continue to serve you." That point, the master took you to the entry door to his home, took an awl and drove it through your ear lobe into the door post of the house. Ouch! The idea was that you were now permanently attached to this household. Many scholars believed that the slave then wore a special earring in that ear, marking him as a bond-slave. You might say a love-slave (though today that word has other, not very positive, connotations).
It is this word for bond-slave (Greek, doulos) that the New Testament usually uses when it calls us to view ourselves as slaves of God (1 Pet 2:16) and when Paul and others call themselves slaves of Jesus (Phip 1:1). Often in English Bibles, doulos is translated "servant" which is misleading. It means bond-slave. (The English word "servant" is used to translate other Greek words like diakonos and huperetes, both meaning more of what we understand as a servant.)
All this to say that when we find freedom in Christ from a life of slavery to sin, we really are giving ourselves to God as slaves of righteousness. We are not our own, but have been bought with a price, and are now owned by God, the best Master anyone could ever have. As slaves of God, we are not free to live where we want and do what we want, but rather are obligated by love, to do what he asks of us.
This is true of all of us; but it is especially true of those of us who are called to give leadership to God's people, the Body of Christ. We are His and are honor-bond to do his will.
Thanks for digging deeper
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Hope, the Remedy for Grief
I Thessalonians 4:13 and 1 Peter 1:3-9
This sermon addresses the natural occurrence of grief that we feel when we experience losses in our lives, but more than that, it also encourages our congregation. My blog entry will not so much explore some biblical or theological truth as it will simply give some background as to why this sermon was important for us right now. And I will share a bit more of my own story.
Last year, 2011, held a significant number and variety of losses for our congregation and for various of our families. These losses ranged from the death of long time and more recent church members or attenders, to the loss of relationships due to various circumstances, to job losses and to some transitions made in ministries in the church.
These kind of things happen all the time in congregations, of course, but last year held an extraordinary number and variety of them. The result is that hardly a person in the church has not been impacted to some degree. I wrote about this in my November pastor's page in our Newsletter. Read it here http://www.ephratabrethren.org/newsletters/2011_november.pdf (scroll to page three). Since then, there have been even more losses, some of them of a tragic nature.
Part way through the year, I realized that I was grieving. One would think that since a pastor deals with this kind of thing all the time, that we would be immune to it. Quite untrue. Though we feel some losses in a greater way than others, we always feel them, but usually have learned to process them in healthy ways. What made this year different for me was that some of the losses we experienced hit me on a very personal level, and I found that I was feeling the loss on very deep levels. I was feeling alone, discouraged, lethargic and afraid. Yes, afraid. I had lost some people close to me, some by death others by a breach in relationship. I was not sure I wanted to trust anyone anymore, if all that would happen is that I would lose them someday.
One strange thing happened; I began to question my ability to lead. If you know me, you know how weird that is. That scared me even more.
Anyway, not to moan or complain, the sun did come up again, but it took some intentional work on my part. I sought out people to talk to about my feelings, including a fellow pastor who is a trained and gifted counselor. I got honest with my feelings, and shared them with others, and with God. I exercised faith and hope. In other words, I trusted God and began to look around me and to the future. And in the midst of all this, God showed up in my life in surprising and wonderful ways, and I am now on the healing side of grief. I say I am on the healing side of grief--I am not saying I do not still feel some losses in keen ways.
So if is was true for me, I knew that it was also true for many others in the congregation. The wide spread experience of grief had an impact on our corporate experience. For a while there was a heaviness upon us as we gathered. There is such a thing as corporate grief, but it has not been researched well. You can listen to church consultants Kris and Bill Tenny-Brittian discuss the topic here http://churchtalk.tv/on-demand/view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=778&cHash=38a9615850632b5a57253f72ec7f04ed.
I sense this heaviness is lifting. (Last week's celebration of Baptism and Communion was a wonderful upbeat time of celebration for us.) We are moving forward. It is still a part of who we are, but are recovering. I know some of us individually may be still be struggling and will be for a while (the natural grief cycle lasts about a year or so), but we all can move on, if we handle our grief well. Thus, the sermon today.
If you feel you or a friend is stuck in his or her grief, here is a good read by the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/complicated-grief/DS01023. It deals with complicated grief, a situation that occurs when we get stuck somewhere in the natural process and cannot move forward.
If you want to talk about your grief, give me a call and we can cry together.
Thanks for digging deeper.
This sermon addresses the natural occurrence of grief that we feel when we experience losses in our lives, but more than that, it also encourages our congregation. My blog entry will not so much explore some biblical or theological truth as it will simply give some background as to why this sermon was important for us right now. And I will share a bit more of my own story.
Last year, 2011, held a significant number and variety of losses for our congregation and for various of our families. These losses ranged from the death of long time and more recent church members or attenders, to the loss of relationships due to various circumstances, to job losses and to some transitions made in ministries in the church.
These kind of things happen all the time in congregations, of course, but last year held an extraordinary number and variety of them. The result is that hardly a person in the church has not been impacted to some degree. I wrote about this in my November pastor's page in our Newsletter. Read it here http://www.ephratabrethren.org/newsletters/2011_november.pdf (scroll to page three). Since then, there have been even more losses, some of them of a tragic nature.
Part way through the year, I realized that I was grieving. One would think that since a pastor deals with this kind of thing all the time, that we would be immune to it. Quite untrue. Though we feel some losses in a greater way than others, we always feel them, but usually have learned to process them in healthy ways. What made this year different for me was that some of the losses we experienced hit me on a very personal level, and I found that I was feeling the loss on very deep levels. I was feeling alone, discouraged, lethargic and afraid. Yes, afraid. I had lost some people close to me, some by death others by a breach in relationship. I was not sure I wanted to trust anyone anymore, if all that would happen is that I would lose them someday.
One strange thing happened; I began to question my ability to lead. If you know me, you know how weird that is. That scared me even more.
Anyway, not to moan or complain, the sun did come up again, but it took some intentional work on my part. I sought out people to talk to about my feelings, including a fellow pastor who is a trained and gifted counselor. I got honest with my feelings, and shared them with others, and with God. I exercised faith and hope. In other words, I trusted God and began to look around me and to the future. And in the midst of all this, God showed up in my life in surprising and wonderful ways, and I am now on the healing side of grief. I say I am on the healing side of grief--I am not saying I do not still feel some losses in keen ways.
So if is was true for me, I knew that it was also true for many others in the congregation. The wide spread experience of grief had an impact on our corporate experience. For a while there was a heaviness upon us as we gathered. There is such a thing as corporate grief, but it has not been researched well. You can listen to church consultants Kris and Bill Tenny-Brittian discuss the topic here http://churchtalk.tv/on-demand/view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=778&cHash=38a9615850632b5a57253f72ec7f04ed.
I sense this heaviness is lifting. (Last week's celebration of Baptism and Communion was a wonderful upbeat time of celebration for us.) We are moving forward. It is still a part of who we are, but are recovering. I know some of us individually may be still be struggling and will be for a while (the natural grief cycle lasts about a year or so), but we all can move on, if we handle our grief well. Thus, the sermon today.
If you feel you or a friend is stuck in his or her grief, here is a good read by the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/complicated-grief/DS01023. It deals with complicated grief, a situation that occurs when we get stuck somewhere in the natural process and cannot move forward.
If you want to talk about your grief, give me a call and we can cry together.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Baptism and Communion
This Sunday we have the joy of witnessing a baptism and also, on the brink of a new year, celebrating communion.
As I was working on this message I was reminded of how difficult it often is to hold a balance between two extremes when both hold elements of truth. For me, such is the case with these two ordinances, or sacraments, of the church. And right there you have it, should we call these ordinances or sacraments?
Much of the church at large calls them sacraments. A "sacrament" is often defined, as one dictionary does, as "a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it." Sounds good enough, but the difficulty comes in when one asks, "just how does it bring grace?" The struggle to answer that questions has at times split the church. The segments of the church that speak of sacraments, tend to see the acts themselves as conveying grace in some form are another. The role of the participant's faith is more or or less significant, depending on how one views the efficacious nature of the sacrament. These churches tend to baptize infants and to hold communion often.
Another wing of the church calls baptism and communion "ordinances." An ordinance in this sense is "something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony." These churches agree that since Jesus commanded these things, we do them, but rather than the acts bringing grace, they are viewed as symbols which remind us of what Jesus did for us and what he calls us to. The extreme of this view believes there is no spiritual value in the ordinance itself, but what a person receives by way of spiritual benefit is totally linked to the faith of the participant. These churches often withhold baptism until a person is old enough to make their own decision and to have communion less frequently. On the one extreme, baptism is not even a requirement for salvation and communion is not stressed as necessary.
Brethren have not been immune from this struggle. We have adamantly declared that baptism and communion are ordinances. We are not sacramental in our understanding of these elements--in other words, they do not convey grace in some automatic sense. And yet, we have always said they are important as a part of our discipleship. So much so that our actions have sometimes communicated that we actually do think there is some magical merit in simply doing the ordinances. For example, if you grew up Brethren and are my age, you know the pressure that adolescents felt to be baptized as we hit that magical age of 12. And communion, celebrated in the Love Feast, was so important that we would take a registration of everyone to was there (this long before any kind of Sunday morning worship attendance tracking was being done). If you made it to Love Feast, then your membership in the church was in good standing, no matter what else was, or was not, in place. So in theology we said one thing but in practice another. This suggests that we were trying in some way to hold a balance between the two positions outlined above.
So for me, I understand baptism does not save us; if it did, it would be a work we do to be saved and the Bible is clear (Eph 2) that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. However, it is hard for me to conceive of a person who seriously wanted to follow Jesus who would not desire baptism, in obedience to Jesus' command. Baptism, when entered into by ones own choice, is a first-step kind of thing in our obedience to Jesus. No act of obedience goes unnoticed by God.
Likewise, I do not believe the bread and cup of communion is, or becomes, anything other than bread and juice, but I acknowledge the mystery of Jesus saying, "This is my body" and understand that when a person takes communion, exercising personal faith in Jesus, something mystical does happen. Faith is strengthened and obedience is rewarded.
Thanks for thinking through this with me, and digging deeper.
As I was working on this message I was reminded of how difficult it often is to hold a balance between two extremes when both hold elements of truth. For me, such is the case with these two ordinances, or sacraments, of the church. And right there you have it, should we call these ordinances or sacraments?
Much of the church at large calls them sacraments. A "sacrament" is often defined, as one dictionary does, as "a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it." Sounds good enough, but the difficulty comes in when one asks, "just how does it bring grace?" The struggle to answer that questions has at times split the church. The segments of the church that speak of sacraments, tend to see the acts themselves as conveying grace in some form are another. The role of the participant's faith is more or or less significant, depending on how one views the efficacious nature of the sacrament. These churches tend to baptize infants and to hold communion often.
Another wing of the church calls baptism and communion "ordinances." An ordinance in this sense is "something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony." These churches agree that since Jesus commanded these things, we do them, but rather than the acts bringing grace, they are viewed as symbols which remind us of what Jesus did for us and what he calls us to. The extreme of this view believes there is no spiritual value in the ordinance itself, but what a person receives by way of spiritual benefit is totally linked to the faith of the participant. These churches often withhold baptism until a person is old enough to make their own decision and to have communion less frequently. On the one extreme, baptism is not even a requirement for salvation and communion is not stressed as necessary.
Brethren have not been immune from this struggle. We have adamantly declared that baptism and communion are ordinances. We are not sacramental in our understanding of these elements--in other words, they do not convey grace in some automatic sense. And yet, we have always said they are important as a part of our discipleship. So much so that our actions have sometimes communicated that we actually do think there is some magical merit in simply doing the ordinances. For example, if you grew up Brethren and are my age, you know the pressure that adolescents felt to be baptized as we hit that magical age of 12. And communion, celebrated in the Love Feast, was so important that we would take a registration of everyone to was there (this long before any kind of Sunday morning worship attendance tracking was being done). If you made it to Love Feast, then your membership in the church was in good standing, no matter what else was, or was not, in place. So in theology we said one thing but in practice another. This suggests that we were trying in some way to hold a balance between the two positions outlined above.
So for me, I understand baptism does not save us; if it did, it would be a work we do to be saved and the Bible is clear (Eph 2) that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. However, it is hard for me to conceive of a person who seriously wanted to follow Jesus who would not desire baptism, in obedience to Jesus' command. Baptism, when entered into by ones own choice, is a first-step kind of thing in our obedience to Jesus. No act of obedience goes unnoticed by God.
Likewise, I do not believe the bread and cup of communion is, or becomes, anything other than bread and juice, but I acknowledge the mystery of Jesus saying, "This is my body" and understand that when a person takes communion, exercising personal faith in Jesus, something mystical does happen. Faith is strengthened and obedience is rewarded.
Thanks for thinking through this with me, and digging deeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)