I John 1:1 - 2:2 and James 5:16
This sermon leads into a healing service where people are encouraged to follow the simple directions of James 5:13-16. The sermon, however, focuses not so much on the anointing service and the promise of God to heal, as it does on the power of making confession to God and to each other.
A few weeks ago as the staff at church were working through the chapter on confession in Richard Foster's book, Celebration of Disciple, I was caught by his comment that sometimes we do not find freedom from habitual sin because we fail to confess our sins to each other. He was referring to James 5:16. Not long after that, our Leadership Team was away for a weekend retreat. We had asked Dave Witmer, a local church leader, to come and listen to us and share his evaluation. In the course of our time together, and sort of in passing, Dave mentioned that we "confess to God to be forgiven and to each other to be healed." He was referring to 1 John 1:9 and James 5:16.
I must confess, that even after my nearly 40 years in ministry and having done countless anointing services, this struck me as a new thought--or at least a new insight into an old thought. There is no doubt that as part of the Protestant Church, we have been a bit afraid of the "Confessional." In the Catholic Church, as you may know, times of confession are offered wherein you come to a priest and in the privacy of the confessional booth, share your confession and receive forgiveness. Protestants have reacted to this on a number of levels. One, we do not believe confession must be made to Priest, not that a Priest has any power to grant forgiveness. Secondly, we believe that to "require" confession leads to insincere and spurious confession, which lacks any spiritual benefit.
Unfortunately, by reacting to the formalized confession of the Catholic Church, we lost the power of confession our sins to each other. We emphasize confessing sin to God, but not confessing to each other. We Brethren have held on to this concept through the anointing service. When ever we practice this rite, we are taught to encourage the one receiving it to examine his or her life and make appropriate confession. But I must admit, in my own experience, I have seen so many shallow confessions that I sometimes gloss over this part of the service. I know, shame on me!
What would a Protestant confession look like, especially one in the Anabaptist vein of the church. Let me venture a guess. The power of confession to each other would be taught. People would freely seek out each other, trusted friends, and confess their sin to each other. The friend would pass along from God his promise forgiveness and then walk in relationship with the person as he or she continues to strive to live free from the sin. There would be relationship, friendship, discipleship and accountability in love. It is a beautiful thing.
I know this kind of confession happens more often in the Body of Christ than we realize. It happens in the midst of our groups of people who come together to pray and study; it happens between friends who are pursuing intentional spiritual friendships; and it happens in the home as couples pray for and love each other and as parents train up their children in the Lord.
But it could happen more, and the impact on the Body of Christ would be beautiful. Link here to a short section from the Inter-Varsity New Testament Commentary on James, written by George M. Stulac as he comments on the impact on the church, when people come together in confession and prayer. It is a good read and encouragement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfWHRzM0aOzBT2NFvVB2GMXMc1xOBVVrieOabqJwZBI/edit
Thanks for digging deeper.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
When Hell Invades Earth
Genesis 6:1-8 and 1 Peter 5:5-8
This is sort of a follow up sermon to last week's sermon, "When Heaven Invades Earth." In this sermon I talk about Satan, who he is, and his methodology in promoting evil throughout the world.
In the sermon, I do not discuss the difficult question of where Satan came from. I'll take a shot at that here.
When the Bible opens in Genesis, Satan is present and active, as seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. So we logically conclude he was here then and thus his origin lies before that event..
The origin of Satan and thus evil are somewhat cloaked in the mysteries of ancient times into which God's revelation of truth has not given clear insight. You can ask "why not?" but only God can answer that one.
Now that said, there may be some glimpses in Scripture. Two Old Testament texts have been seen by some scholars as perhaps giving some insight into the question of where Satan came from. Let me quote here from the Nelson's Bible Dictionary:
"Two Old Testament passages-Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:11-19-furnish a picture of Satan's original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, many scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself. They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God's creatures, who became proud and ambitious. He determined to take over the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position of great dignity and honor.
"Building upon this foundation, Rev 12 sketches the further stages in Satan's work of evil. In his fall from God's favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev 12:3-4)."
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Take the time to read the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, and their larger contexts. It does seem to me that the language of these verses "goes beyond" application to the earthly kings to which they are directly addressed. This is a normal way in which Old Testament prophecy works. Most of the passages that we understand as being messianic prophecies in the OT, have first of all an immediate reference and fulfillment, and then also a future and more far reaching one (e.g. the virgin of Isaiah 7:14).
This rebellion of angels in heaven may, in part, lie behind the comment in Jude 6. And in four OT accounts, Satan appears as an angel. Consider Numbers 22, Job 1-1, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21 (as it interprets the events of 2 Samuel 24). (The revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Satan which elaborates on these four texts).
What we do know is that Satan is a being of super human powers, but not divine powers. In other words, he is stronger than us but not a strong as God. He is a spirit being who has corralled a host of other spirit being helpers who are subordinate to him. We call them demons. Just as good angels seem to have some kind of leadership structure (angels and archangels and seraphim and cherubim) so too demons have some kind of functional structure (thus Jesus refers to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.) They are given rather free reign to rule the world, as their domain, raking havoc as they will. But even so, they have their powers ultimately limited by God. This is especially true in reference to their affliction of God's people. (My sermon works at these concepts a bit.)
One might ask, "Why would God allow Satan to lead people astray and to afflict the world with so much suffering?" That is not a bad question, for which, unfortunately, we do not have a complete answer. But think about it, what joy would there be in your life if your spouse, or special friend, or kids, only loved you because there were no other options. Not much joy in that. However, when I realize that out of all the possible men my wife could have chosen (and believe me, she had options!), she chose me. Wow! And so it is; God wants us to choose him; not because there were no other options, but rather, to choose him in the midst of man of what appear to be very enticing options.
And that is really the purpose of these two sermons--to help us think about how our choices always reflect which kingdom we are living in--the kingdom of this world, or the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.
Choose wisely.
Thanks for digging deeper
This is sort of a follow up sermon to last week's sermon, "When Heaven Invades Earth." In this sermon I talk about Satan, who he is, and his methodology in promoting evil throughout the world.
In the sermon, I do not discuss the difficult question of where Satan came from. I'll take a shot at that here.
When the Bible opens in Genesis, Satan is present and active, as seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. So we logically conclude he was here then and thus his origin lies before that event..
The origin of Satan and thus evil are somewhat cloaked in the mysteries of ancient times into which God's revelation of truth has not given clear insight. You can ask "why not?" but only God can answer that one.
Now that said, there may be some glimpses in Scripture. Two Old Testament texts have been seen by some scholars as perhaps giving some insight into the question of where Satan came from. Let me quote here from the Nelson's Bible Dictionary:
"Two Old Testament passages-Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:11-19-furnish a picture of Satan's original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, many scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself. They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God's creatures, who became proud and ambitious. He determined to take over the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position of great dignity and honor.
"Building upon this foundation, Rev 12 sketches the further stages in Satan's work of evil. In his fall from God's favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev 12:3-4)."
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Take the time to read the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, and their larger contexts. It does seem to me that the language of these verses "goes beyond" application to the earthly kings to which they are directly addressed. This is a normal way in which Old Testament prophecy works. Most of the passages that we understand as being messianic prophecies in the OT, have first of all an immediate reference and fulfillment, and then also a future and more far reaching one (e.g. the virgin of Isaiah 7:14).
This rebellion of angels in heaven may, in part, lie behind the comment in Jude 6. And in four OT accounts, Satan appears as an angel. Consider Numbers 22, Job 1-1, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21 (as it interprets the events of 2 Samuel 24). (The revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Satan which elaborates on these four texts).
What we do know is that Satan is a being of super human powers, but not divine powers. In other words, he is stronger than us but not a strong as God. He is a spirit being who has corralled a host of other spirit being helpers who are subordinate to him. We call them demons. Just as good angels seem to have some kind of leadership structure (angels and archangels and seraphim and cherubim) so too demons have some kind of functional structure (thus Jesus refers to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.) They are given rather free reign to rule the world, as their domain, raking havoc as they will. But even so, they have their powers ultimately limited by God. This is especially true in reference to their affliction of God's people. (My sermon works at these concepts a bit.)
One might ask, "Why would God allow Satan to lead people astray and to afflict the world with so much suffering?" That is not a bad question, for which, unfortunately, we do not have a complete answer. But think about it, what joy would there be in your life if your spouse, or special friend, or kids, only loved you because there were no other options. Not much joy in that. However, when I realize that out of all the possible men my wife could have chosen (and believe me, she had options!), she chose me. Wow! And so it is; God wants us to choose him; not because there were no other options, but rather, to choose him in the midst of man of what appear to be very enticing options.
And that is really the purpose of these two sermons--to help us think about how our choices always reflect which kingdom we are living in--the kingdom of this world, or the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.
Choose wisely.
Thanks for digging deeper
Monday, February 6, 2012
When Heaven Invades Earth
Matthew 6:10 and 33, Mark 1:14-15
I am struck by the fact that when Jesus began his ministry, as recorded in each Gospel, his message was "The Kingdom of God has come. Repent and believe the good news." He spent a great deal of time in the Gospels (especially Matthew) explaining what the kingdom of heaven was like (check out all those parables in Matthew 13). And yet, the modern church today says so little about the Kingdom.
First off, we should not get too hung up over the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven (used most often in Matthew) and the Kingdom of God (used mostly in the other Gospels). We are rather sure that Matthew was simply keeping to good Jewish form in not wanting to use the name of God and thus substituted Heaven. The concepts are the same for both phrases in all the Gospels. This can be seen in that the phrases--Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used interchangeably. Matthew does use Kingdom of God (4 times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43) and when Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, the other Gospels use Kingdom of God. For example, in Matthew Jesus begins preaching by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven has come (Matt 3:2) but Mark records him as saying that the Kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:15; and also Luke 8:1). So the terms seem to be interchangeable.
(I know it seems like I am making much of this, but a whole system of biblical interpretation has been built around the idea that the two are different.)
Secondly, it can be a bit hard wrapping our heads around this idea because it is rather meta-physical. Jesus was clear that we cannot see the kingdom (Luke 17:21) and John says to perceive of it, one needs to be "born again" (John 3:3). The Kingdom of God does not have geographical boundaries. There is no capitol, at least not here on earth. The Kingdom of God is a reality and exists whenever and wherever anyone crowns God in Christ as Lord and Sovereign of their lives. It is a spiritual reign, not a physical realm.
That said, one might be tempted to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God. The Church both is and is not the Kingdom. Let me try to explain. Scholars often talk about the true, invisible, Church and the physical church. The invisible Church is the collection of all genuine believers in Jesus and the physical church, or the visible one, includes a mixture of genuine believers and those who are attracted to the beauty and activity of the church, but fall short of true belief. Jesus spoke about this in the parable of the Drag Net in Matthew 13:47-52.
The Kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God when and where ever it exists. The true, invisible, Church is the group of individuals who respond to that rule. So the Kingdom includes the true Church, but is not limited to it. God's coverings rule extends beyond the church.
The real purpose of this sermon is to help us think about choosing to live in the Kingdom by choosing to live by kingdom values. We actually live on the front lines of a battle field in which two sides are warring against each other. This is happening 24/7. Next week I will speak about the converse idea to Heaven Invading Earth--When Hell Invades Earth--and will look a bit at this war. However, being on the front lines, as it were, it is far to easy for us to vacillate from one side to the other.
Lord, help me choose Your Kingdom, Your will, everyday in every way!
Thanks for digging deeper.
I am struck by the fact that when Jesus began his ministry, as recorded in each Gospel, his message was "The Kingdom of God has come. Repent and believe the good news." He spent a great deal of time in the Gospels (especially Matthew) explaining what the kingdom of heaven was like (check out all those parables in Matthew 13). And yet, the modern church today says so little about the Kingdom.
First off, we should not get too hung up over the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven (used most often in Matthew) and the Kingdom of God (used mostly in the other Gospels). We are rather sure that Matthew was simply keeping to good Jewish form in not wanting to use the name of God and thus substituted Heaven. The concepts are the same for both phrases in all the Gospels. This can be seen in that the phrases--Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used interchangeably. Matthew does use Kingdom of God (4 times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43) and when Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, the other Gospels use Kingdom of God. For example, in Matthew Jesus begins preaching by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven has come (Matt 3:2) but Mark records him as saying that the Kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:15; and also Luke 8:1). So the terms seem to be interchangeable.
(I know it seems like I am making much of this, but a whole system of biblical interpretation has been built around the idea that the two are different.)
Secondly, it can be a bit hard wrapping our heads around this idea because it is rather meta-physical. Jesus was clear that we cannot see the kingdom (Luke 17:21) and John says to perceive of it, one needs to be "born again" (John 3:3). The Kingdom of God does not have geographical boundaries. There is no capitol, at least not here on earth. The Kingdom of God is a reality and exists whenever and wherever anyone crowns God in Christ as Lord and Sovereign of their lives. It is a spiritual reign, not a physical realm.
That said, one might be tempted to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God. The Church both is and is not the Kingdom. Let me try to explain. Scholars often talk about the true, invisible, Church and the physical church. The invisible Church is the collection of all genuine believers in Jesus and the physical church, or the visible one, includes a mixture of genuine believers and those who are attracted to the beauty and activity of the church, but fall short of true belief. Jesus spoke about this in the parable of the Drag Net in Matthew 13:47-52.
The Kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God when and where ever it exists. The true, invisible, Church is the group of individuals who respond to that rule. So the Kingdom includes the true Church, but is not limited to it. God's coverings rule extends beyond the church.
The real purpose of this sermon is to help us think about choosing to live in the Kingdom by choosing to live by kingdom values. We actually live on the front lines of a battle field in which two sides are warring against each other. This is happening 24/7. Next week I will speak about the converse idea to Heaven Invading Earth--When Hell Invades Earth--and will look a bit at this war. However, being on the front lines, as it were, it is far to easy for us to vacillate from one side to the other.
Lord, help me choose Your Kingdom, Your will, everyday in every way!
Thanks for digging deeper.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Servant Leadership, Part 2: How to follow well
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.
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.
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)