The Terebinth

Would John Wesley recognize house churches?

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Fri, 08 Sep 2023 18:43:00 +0000

Thank you to Jeffrey Rickman, host of PlainSpoken, for having me on a recent episode of his excellent podcast.

Rickman, who once languished in the United Methodist denomination as a pastoral candidate but found acceptance in the new Global Methodist Church and now shepherds two brick-and-mortar churches in Oklahoma, knows a thing or two about what we're doing in the organic/house/simple churches. He saw first-hand how without formal ordination, God still uses "the laity" powerfully and for his purposes. He believes and has experienced first-hand the priesthood of all believers. He's hopeful a revival of the Wesleyan ideal of a Class Meeting may take root and breathe new life into Christianity. Read his thoughtful testimony here.

Now when we think of Methodists, house churches don't often come to mind. You're more likely to think of a steeple, a minister in a robe, and reciting creeds from a lengthy church bulletin! Having been raised around the Evangelical wing of the Methodist fold (often without robes or recitations) they didn't exactly point me in the direction of starting a house church. However, as I studied more about the history of what many members of my family believed, it was like discovering oil beneath the floorboards.

In addition to discovering more about holiness, I learned that God often calls us "outside the camp" (Hebrews 13:10-14) to not only spark the fires of revival but also to save our very souls though Jesus Christ. In a similar way, God mightily used those early Methodist small groups to do what the established churches could not/would not. If you know anything about Christian history you know the rest of that story and how it changed the game.

In the podcast conversation, we explored some of the surprisingly organic and open-participatory elements of the early Methodist movement, particularly in John and Charles Wesley's ministry. John himself often wrote of "the primitive church" (another term for the early church) as the ideal -- something to push toward, though realistically not everyone will embrace it (see here for Martin Luther's similar struggle).

Though John Wesley was known for his lengthy debates with Calvinists and "papists," he was even more famous (and despite his exacting nature) for surprising many by considering them fellow Christians. His partnership with George Whitefield as one prime example. This witness has served me well having a local house church with many different views and traditions represented, and as my wife and I serve many other churches of various expressions -- we're still one in the Body of Christ if we agree to the Bible basics.

Throughout the history of the movement that bears Wesley's name, there were many lesser-known efforts to simplify the church although the mainline became more organized and hierarchical. Early on, there was the short-lived Republican Methodist Church in America that soon dropped the politically-sounding name and went on to lay the seeds of what's known as the Restoration Movement. Later there were various "primitive" and "congregationalist" denominations that broke away to assert the rights of local churches. Today, there are a few scattered efforts to plant Wesleyan house churches (even if most have veered closer to the Missional movement, but that's a longer discussion for another time). See a list below for a few examples of denominational efforts to recognize and even plant organic churches and local missions. And then you have a few weirdos like me!

Now to the question asked in the headline: Would John Wesley recognize organic house churches if he was alive today? It seems that he would have embraced them, even if he would have preferred a more structured approach for his ministry. There's no doubt in my mind he would have eagerly visited many of them, having been inspired by efforts to bring Christianity back to its New Testament roots (Moravians, for one) and his research on the Church Fathers while at Oxford.

Again, thank you to Jeffrey for this opportunity to be heard where we often are not. --Andy.

House Church/Organic networks in Wesleyan denominations, plus a few local examples:

Christian & Missionary Alliance:

https://simplechurchalliance.com

NEO House Church Network | Making disciples · Planting churches

NEO House Church

Church of the Nazarene:

https://organicnazarene.org

United Methodist Church:

https://discovernewwineskins.org/about-us/who-we-are

https://www.umc.org/en/content/what-is-a-house-church

Perfect love (or the art of telling fear to take a hike)

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sun, 12 Apr 2020 04:56:00 +0000

"Perfect love casts out fear." How many times have we heard that verse and glanced over it, knowing it to be true?

As many times as we've meditated on I John 4, we always seem to miss the context of just how perfect love is able to cast out fear in the first place.

Anyone reading this has loved someone while simultaneously being frightened for them or their ill-advised choices. And anyone who has been frightened for someone knows that love can motivate us to make a difference (or at least attempt to) while fear is a consuming thing that can lead to bitterness, heartache, division among friends and family, and even physical symptoms. I once worried myself into a stomach ulcer over missing a loved one before I learned to leave these things in God's hands.

This kind of amplified love does just what the Bible says it does: it tells it to take a hike. It may even prevent an ulcer or two.

Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
--I John 4:17-18.

A few observations:

1. Perfect love must be "made" perfect (in other words, complete, comprehensive). It does not start out that way. It can be built upon, therefore not everyone who professes faith has that level of love.

2. "As he [Jesus] is" means we who are alive on this earth have a high mark to aspire to when it comes to this love.

3. The Day of Judgment is no day in traffic court. It's not few minutes before the Judge, and then, after checking the Lamb's Book of Life, you get waved right into heaven. Leading up to the Day is a frankly horrifying deal of persecution, divine judgment, and supernatural signs. Even the elect shall be deceived (Mark 13:22). Grown men's hearts will fail them (Luke 21:26). The ramp up to it will be frightening, as are the "birth pangs" (Matthew 24:8) no matter how far out we are. We'll need that boldness as God's judgment (and Satan's amped-up rebellion) approaches.

4. Love cannot contain fear anymore than darkness can fully contain light (John 1:5). But there are degrees of each. In this case, fear is an anti-type of light: even a tiny flicker cannot exist in a pitch black cave or it is ever so slightly illuminated.

5. It is only perfected love that casts out fear. Imperfect love must fall short of that goal, even while testifying against fear, showing a better way forward, wooing enemies, etc.

6. "Fear has torment." Torment is the result of fear, and is not at all concerned with the overall well-being of others nor the long-range effects of an action. Any amount of fear, no matter how small, has torment. Note how it does not refer to "perfect fear." Plain, garden variety fear does the job. Love has a property of calming that torment, but only when love is fully expressed and full developed can it overwhelm it and cast it away.

7. Fear should not be confused with the fear of the Lord (or reverence, Acts 9:31), cautiousness (what the King James Bible would call circumspect-ness, cp. Exodus 23:13), or concern over the effects of sin in one's self or in the lives of others (conviction, virtue, etc.). There is also a such thing as righteous anger (Psalm 139:19–22).

On observation 7, consider that the fear of the Lord is in stark contrast with the fear of man.

"The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe." --Proverb 29:25.

Also:

"I’ll tell you by what authority I do these things if you answer one question,” Jesus replied.
“Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?”
They talked it over among themselves. “If we say it was from heaven, he will ask us why we didn’t believe John."But if we say it was merely human, we’ll be mobbed because the people believe John was a prophet.”
--Matthew 21:24-26 (NLT).

Choices, choices. Follow Jesus or fear the mob. The man-fearer may in their heart and mind want to follow Christ, but may be more motivated by earthly reasons to follow man's ways. Consider how Nicodemus opted to stay with the leadership of the Pharisees rather than joining the adventure of a lifetime in following the Messiah of Israel (John chapters 3, 7, 19 -- a good read for Easter weekend).

Fear manifests itself in many ways, more than just concerning angry mobs. The outbreak and domestic arrival of coronavirus/COVID-19 over the past month or two has brought out a lot of fear -- sometimes justified (the virus is deadly and dangerous, which is why we have opted to meet online via video conferencing in the meantime). But often that fear is often reactionary and sometimes unjust.

(Sidenote: As one recent example of an unjust reaction here in the Austin metro area, the mayor of Austin shut down every sit-down bar and restaurant in this town known for its night life and live music scene, except for airport "sky lounges." I kid you not.)

The reaction of churches to the shut down orders was eye-opening: how rapidly they agreed to close without questioning the rationale behind the decisions (e.g. why liquor stores can still pack in the customers so long as they maintain "social distancing" guidelines, but even small churches are not offered the same opportunity). On one hand, it was impressive to see the quick turning of the cheek.

Those ministers who rebelled against the orders and defiantly drew in the crowds faced an ire from their brethren unseen in recent times.

Others ministers, by stark contrast, were quick to close things down completely: only poking their heads out once it became clear that online meetings and clever alternatives such as drive-in services were being implemented by their peers.

(Another sidenote: Now we see clearly how "underground churches" came to be in countries where Christianity is officially persecuted. Maybe the persecution started out lightly and in the interests of keeping the peace, and the Church was complacent with those orders.)

Through this, I've developed a greater appreciation for the brave souls who dare to ask the important questions and find creative ways to make sure their loved ones are healthy and fed. I resolve to keep them close.

But I'm finding it's not just courage we should seek after. Without love, courage succumbs to fear -- it becomes a simulated bravery fueled by hatred for those who step out of line with one's personal beliefs or social parameters. And both extremes of the debate over COVID-19 quarantines can fall prey to that.

Those who are reacting in perfect love and not fear find themselves in a rare category: taking the outbreak quite seriously, looking out for the vulnerable, yet not being consumed with worry about what may happen. Nor do they wax on romantically (perhaps annoyingly) about the plight of those adjusting to "the new normal." Instead, the person powered by God's love is God's idea of normal: a pillar of strength during a time such as this, and the worse times yet to come.

I may hold my courageous brethren who weathered this recent outbreak close to my heart from now on. But I think I will also turn some ordinate attention to those who caved into fear, encouraging them to instead follow after love as a means of building the only kind of courage that actually matters. This will be especially true for those with mental health conditions or traumatic life-experiences who require a loving response instead of the strong arm of the law.

In all this, Paul exhorts us to:

"Warn them that are unruly.
"Comfort the feeble-minded [or faint of heart].
"Support the weak.
"Be patient toward all men."
--I Thessalonians 5:14.

Paul presents us a tall order that only God's love can empower us to fulfill.

Martin Luther: house church advocate?

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sun, 23 Dec 2018 23:19:00 +0000

It's the thought that counts, right?

Tucked into the wordy preface to instructions for a formal, public worship gathering was an admission by the Great Reformer himself that the Reformation did not go far as he had wished.

While this is by no means a new discovery (and we've made reference to it on this blog previously), it's curious that Martin Luther himself would in theory support something similar to what we're doing in today's organic house churches.

While Martin Luther never, to our knowledge, acted on this hypothetical "third order" of worship gathering (the first two orders were a Catholic-like Latin liturgy and the other a more simplified service in a native language -- similar to what many Lutherans practice today), his very mention of this kind of simple, interactive gathering shows a snippet of Luther's long-range vision. Totally reforming the church involves Christians developing intimate communities focused on mutual edification, and these communities happening rather spontaneously.

As just about every house churcher, past and present, can attest, finding people willing to do this is not easy. Not even Luther could find enough people interested. Read on:

... [T]he third sort of Divine Service, which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works.

In this Order, those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, reformed, rejected, or excommunicated, according to the rule of Christ in Matt. 18. Here, too, a general giving of alms could be imposed on Christians, to be willingly given and divided among the poor, after the example of St. Paul in II Cor. 9.

Here there would not be need of much fine singing.

Here we could have baptism and the sacrament in short and simple fashion: and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love.

Here we should have a good short Catechism [teaching] about the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer.

In one word, if we only had people who longed to be Christians in earnest, Form and Order would soon shape itself. But I cannot and would not order or arrange such a community or congregation at present. I have not the requisite persons for it, nor do I see many who are urgent for it.

But should it come to pass that I must do it, and that such pressure is put upon me as that I find myself unable with a good conscience to leave it undone, then I will gladly do my part to secure it, and will help it on as best I can. In the meantime, I would abide by the two Orders aforesaid; and publicly among the people aid in the promotion of such Divine Service, besides preaching, as shall exercise the youth and call and incite others to faith, until those Christians who are most thoroughly in earnest shall discover each other and cleave together; to the end that there be no faction-forming, such as might ensue if I were to settle everything out of my own head. For we Germans are a wild, rude, tempestuous people; with whom one must not lightly make experiment in anything new, unless there be most urgent need. [...]

Source: Luther's preface to "The German Mass and Order of Divine Service," January 1526 (1911 translation), Cambridge Press, (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/luthserv.html).

It should be noted that Luther's idea of this Third Order did not involve reading the Bible directly, though keep in mind that Bible reading was something still reserved for those who could afford a printed copy or those who could understand the language that copy was printed in. Luther held to a co-existence between the three orders, so the third order should not be interpreted as a stand-alone faction.

What do you think? Leave us a message in the comments section.

Fondness for tradition or 'childish things?'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:28:00 +0000

What often keeps a believer from making the jump to an organic house church isn't always fear of it.

Often it's a fondness for earthly things that keep many way from simpler worship practices. Be it a love for tradition, a family or ethnic heritage, an awe of history, a deep appreciation for ornate, ancient architectural trends, or even just the warm fuzzies some get from the "smells and bells" and other religious trappings, it can be difficult for those wrapped up in it to find themselves at home in a church setting where everything is reduced to the biblical basics. Without buildings, without priests, without ritual, they'll often feel that something is missing and not consider it to be "real church."

Our local meeting is unique in that we encourage each other to mix it up with local brick-and-mortar churches. In other words, and for example, an Anglican steeped in tradition and ritual -- priestly robes, responsive readings, saint festivals, and all that -- can have it both ways and meet with us, too. At least in theory.

As a resident of the Austin metro area (the political community, on top of that) it can be difficult for me to make the case for a simple, organic fellowship. So many are drawn to the systematic rhythms of the traditional church, as well as the prestige it brings to be a part of a church that seems much more connected to our cultural history. A thousand years of Western Christendom can't be wrong. It appeals to the senses, particularly to the college-educated, and collectively knows what works.

As an appreciator of Christian history and a conservative in many regards, I can identify with that sense of fondness. There's a certain grandeur you miss out on, though I've come to see it as separate from the actual functioning of the Body of Christ -- man-made extras that take absolutely nothing away from the life of the Body when avoided. These extras are "childish things" that can be done away with easily by mature believers (I Cor. 13:11). The danger is when the allure of these things overshadows or obscures the basics of how the Body is designed to function.

Revival figurehead John Wesley, himself an Anglican cleric who died loyal to the Church of England, also walked that line between the "high church" and organic meetings. While he never let the Methodist "societies" and "bands" (small, often home-based accountability and teaching sessions) baptize new believers or offer the Lord's Supper, his hope was that these meetings would invigorate the Church of England and bring it back to something closer to the "primitive (early) church" of the New Testament.

I'll let "the Right Reverend" Mr. Wesley have the final word:

"The need for repentance in the life of the believer further extends to his sense or feelings of desire to gratify the imagination with something great, beautiful, or uncommon. In how many ways does this desire assault the soul? Perhaps with the poorest trifles, such as dress or furnishings -- things never designed to satisfy the immortal spirit.

How hard it is, even for believers, to conquer just one branch of the desire of the eye, curiosity, to constantly trample it under their feet and desire nothing merely because it is new!

How hard is it even for the children of God wholly to conquer "the pride of life" (I John 2:16)! St. John seems to mean by this nearly the same with what the world terms "the sense of honor." This is no other than a desire of, and a delight in, the honor that comes from men: a desire and love of praise. And always joined with this is a proportional fear of dispraise.

Nearly allied to this is evil shame, the being shamed of that in which we should glory.

This is seldom divided from the fear of man, which brings a thousand snares upon the soul. A thorough conviction of the remains of these evil tempers in the heart is the repentance belonging to true believers."

What will the next Reformation look like? Pay attention to the rumblings ...

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 04:34:00 +0000

The rumblings are already taking place underneath your feet. Can you feel them?

"So let us go out to him, outside the camp, and bear the disgrace he bore." --Hebrews 13:13 (NLT)

The Protestant Reformation didn't happen 500 years ago simply because a German priest decided to nail his list of 95 opinions to a door. Martin Luther's act was unquestionably heroic, but the act itself was as common as thumb-tacking a flyer to a cork board for discussion on a college campus today. It wasn't because his "theses" were so persuasive and so well-written that it inspired Christians to risk their lives to reform the Western Church. Rather, Luther's words struck a nerve.

For a movement to last half a millennia it couldn't have been the work of one man in only one historic event. Nor will any future, widespread changes to Christianity take place overnight.

For Luther, the time was right. The stage was set by many reformers who came before -- many of whom lost their lives -- in defense of the simple truth of the Gospel. The circumstances made for a ripeness whereby Luther's words echoed and pierced more than just a wooden door but the hearts of great academics and church leaders whose excesses and errors are well known. Those paying attention had known for years what led to this earth-shaking act of defiance that toppled strongholds. They felt the rumblings.

Reformation didn't take place in a vacuum
This major quake happened 500 years ago, Oct. 31, 1517, to be exact, when Luther's little rebellion sparked the Protestant Reformation. It also inspired the Catholic Church's re-evaluation of itself via the Counter-Reformation and a gradual shift of priorities in other streams of Christianity (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, and a trickle of reformation groups that pre-dated Luther). That's a quarter of the entire age of Christianity that Protestantism has been in existence. And if you don't know why this change in Western Christianity is significant even today, read this. If you don't feel like clicking links, or even if you confuse Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Lutheran church guy, just be thankful that you can read the Bible in your own language.

We know from Scripture God used men like Abraham, Moses, King Josiah, Daniel, Jonah, even Saul of Tarsus to enact a changing of the guard that one man could not have orchestrated on his own. We know from church history there has been a fairly consistent trend of movements and martyrs who prophesied to the Church to "hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches." These "rumblings" are what broke up the ground for the Protestant Reformation.

Those of us worshiping as intentionally simple congregations, house churches, missional communities, and various forms of "body life" know another tectonic shift is on it's way. For now, we're often voices crying in the wilderness. But it's not that we picked up on something forgotten for 2,000 years. There were The Lollards. The Hugenots. The Waldensians. The Anabapists. Moravian Brethren. The Wesleyan Revival. The camp meeting movement. And so many others. Remnants of each of these "awakenings"still exist and have fed in to what we're doing. Some say this is proof that we're not "Protestants" at all because there has been a "crimson line" or a "trail of blood" that extends back to Pentecost -- though it's a sparsely dotted line if it exists at all. Either way, it's not out of God's character to "preserve a remnant" and call believers to repentance from time to time.

Meeting simply around the Lord's table was not only a revolutionary act for this "great cloud of witnesses" and sometimes a life-threatening one. We will likely never learn about remnants of Christians who met underground to pursue their conscience in following after Jesus. Records of others are lost to the Dark Ages. And let's not forget today that many of the saints still meet in secret in East Asia, portions of the Muslim world, the infamous 10-40 window, and other portions of the world where believers in Jesus are persecuted. American Christians have it easy, though comfort has its own drawbacks.

Turning vision into reality
Those of us in the "organic" corner of Christianity often imagine ourselves as modern reformers -- quixotically at times. Some call what we're doing a "last reformation" before the return of Christ. Others aren't quite that dramatic, though we raise quite a few eyebrows:

We've rejected the clergy-laity hierarchy and not only declared every "member" a priest in Christ Jesus but allowed them to exercise that right freely.
We've traded discipleship programs for direct relationship-building.
We've put function and responsibility over leadership and credentials.
We've made an art of getting to the bottom of biblical practices, such as recapturing the Lord's Supper and bringing it back to its New Testament "love feast" context.
We've put the focus on building the kingdom through our time and giving rather than physical structures (e.g. no church building means more money to help others and send missionaries).

Even though most Christians agree that this was the way of the Early Church, for various reasons these remain controversial practices. But I don't know of anyone losing their jobs over it.

The future is already here
Our natural gravitation is to look around and point to various book authors, conferences, and networks to define our exodus and bring us to a "promised land" -- a golden age where un-chartable, internecine networks of simple churches criss-cross the globe and supplant common attitudes about what it means to be the Church.

Despite the wild dreams, the reality is that "house church networks" are rare and many meetings often short-lived and elusive. And this way of "doing church" tends to attract those with an aversion to authority in general, which presents a challenge to building a credible movement. And motives vary: some do it out of a rejection of leftover pagan rituals in Christianity and some do it because they've been burned by "organized religion" and a fear of legalism. Some cooperate with Christians who meet in buildings and pay pastors (as mine does) and some turn their backs on them. Some are in it to start a movement, while others are just burned out and tired of fighting.

It's perhaps not wise to point to any one man or gathering of minds to predict where this organic movement is going any more than we can say that Martin Luther was the one who reformed the Western Church. We know that the next 500 years (if Jesus doesn't return for us before then) could very well incorporate our current practices into mass Christian culture. And if this is in any way like the Protestant Reformation, the work is already being done. The peaks and troughs are appearing on the Church's seismograph!

Here are a few "pre-shocks" I can think of taking place in mainstream churches:

An explosion of the "cell church" model in contemporary churches ("life groups," home groups, etc.).
An undercurrent of theologians supporting a "plurality of elders" to shepherd the flock rather than a single head pastor calling all the shots.
A rise in the popularity of "missional" efforts to physically address problems specific communities are facing.
"House churches" that are connected to larger organizations, churches, or denominations as a means of spreading the gospel, each with non-seminary trained, volunteer leaders in place.

As one example to support that last bullet-point: former megachurch pastor and author Francis Chan recently left his flock to plant house churches in San Francisco. Though his system is still tightly organized (~$500 to get trained!) with its own system of appointed leaders and curriculum, that he feels this is an avenue worthy pursuing shows that predominant Christian figures are beginning to wake up to the practicality of what we have been suggesting all along. Even Facebook's headquarters had him come speak, curious of what this might mean for the future.

This writer keeps running across references to "oikos mapping" and "missional DNA" in church-planting circles, which has long been the domain of certain streams of organic house church activity but has now caught on elsewhere.

The institutional church has noticed what we're doing, is still paying attention, and will continue gleaning from our example.

Through a mirror, darkly
The next reformation will almost undoubtedly be a relational revolution. Some are predicting it will leverage technology and mass communications to help Christians better disciple and connect with one another. But it could be just the opposite, as a generation raised in an ever-complicated and entertainment-focused world begins to long for face-to-face dialogue and localized community. After all, "micro is the new macro" in the business realm, from local farmer's markets to regional flavors of brands in retail stores. Consider how handheld devices have transformed our world in terms of peer-to-peer e-commerce and social media and you may see how a church birthed in this reality (and mingled with the prophetic voice of the organic movement) could shake up Christianity throughout the next centuries A.D., or until the Trumpet sounds.

But again we don't know. We don't know what God has cooking. We "see through a mirror, darkly" and cannot be certain what a future Reformation will consist of. It likely won't call itself a "reformation" at all (that term is spoken for!), but will sneak up on us in a completely unexpected way as Luther's otherwise mundane challenge to his intellectual peers caught fire five centuries ago.

Let's not forget in all this that our call to baptize and make disciples goes back four times as long ago.

Why do we meet? (And why bother?)

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 02:32:00 +0000

Man, tonight was a shift in perspective!

Even with just three of us adults present (we'll blame Spring Break, among other factors) after reading Psalms 63 and 139 we were faced with (dare I use the phrase) existential questions over whether our souls "thirst" the way David's did (63:1), if we readily invite God's discernment of our hearts (139:23) and even whether our worship is as pleasing a thing as "flavor" on a brisket (63:5 -- yep, we're Texans, though I'm told by a certain Californian that an avocado has as pleasing a taste and texture).

Ideally, we should run to any opportunity to engage in private and corporate adoration of God. If God gave us a spirit to worship him, if our non-spiritual parts are yielded to Jesus Christ then that's what we should crave.

You see, we don't often look at communing with God as a pleasant thing, but something that plays second-fiddle to earthly things that please the flesh. This goes for any of us at times, no matter how spiritually mature you are or think you are.

This is especially true for our desire to meet as a church body. "Church" is such a heavy word and it may not be adequate for this question of "why do we meet?" All etymological discussions aside, it's supposed to be a simple meeting of of Christians already engaged in the work of the Kingdom of God. (The term "kingdom" can be awfully loaded lately, too, but that's whole other shooting match.) When we think of church as nothing more than the regularly occurring rendezvous of saints on mission for God, it makes total sense to gather. It's our war room. We want to catch up with each other in love. We want to rejoice in victories had. We want to bear each others burdens, and by doing so fulfill Jesus' mandate. That makes sense. And the more engaged you are in the Great Commission the more you look forward to "debriefing" with your co-missionaries.

Conversely, simple gatherings don't make a whole lot of sense for Christians who are not on-mission for Jesus during day-to-day life. Many reserve church for something to do on a weekend that doesn't involve excursions or pro sports for that very reason. It just isn't a priority for them. Nor should we expect it to be until there is some reason to meet as active Christians. But we often spit at the wind trying to find clever ways to woo them back.

Please note that I wrote "simple gatherings." More complex church meetings often bring along activities and edifices that draw in otherwise lackadaisical Christians. In traditional meetings, there are varying degrees of liturgy (some include pages of instructions on when to stand, repeat sayings, kneel, etc.), there is impressive architecture to give a sense of grandeur, there could be echoes of ancient rituals from exotic world cultures, and there are likely frequent appeals to the Five Senses that give awe and wonder and plenty of worldly reason to "attend church." You know, if you're into that kind of thing.

And on the other side of the spectrum we're seeing an increasingly complex form of stagecraft that accompanies an otherwise simple gathering consisting of a few songs and one guy giving a talk. This is for people who don't care much for "smells and bells" in the traditional churches, and who prefer a fresher, more modern and austere approach. Many megachurches (and smaller churches based on that model) have made an art out of creating a Sunday morning experience that is "relevant" to the crowd they're reaching for Jesus (more power to them on that). If you like Modern Rock, then you'll LOVE our worship band! You know, if you're into that kind of thing.

The same can be said for the fondness many feel for a variety of trends, new and old: Southern Gospel worship music, revivalism, Gregorian chanting, shouting during prayer, long periods of "swaying and praying," hymnal pages instead of PowerPoint screens -- you name it. The truth is, we often "feel" God when our artistic preferences are met.

So what "kind of thing" should we be "into" as sincere Christians? I don't want to split hairs on worship styles, as we all have our preferences, but I do want to share my experience. The more I've drawn closer to God -- the more I've studied the Bible, prayed frequently, told others about Jesus, fasted, confessed, contemplated the Lord's Supper, kept a sabbath, basked in the peace that passes understanding, etc. -- the more jittery I become in a church meeting that is stacked full of fleshly reasons to "attend." It almost doesn't matter to me what style of worship it is. It gets lonely when one guy is talking 80% of the time, and you can't share. Or stop and ask someone how they're doing without the clock ticking. Or just pray for anything and everyone as there is need. It's downright stifling to my spirit, and makes me want to find reasons ... not to meet. (And, yes, I understand there are small groups, Sunday Schools, outreaches, etc., where this itch can be scratched, but it often lacks the "sanction" and permanency of the larger gathering and opportunities are limited.)

So there I am in standard building-centered churches, craving a chance to freely share and freely pray in a packed auditorium that at the same time can be devoid of souls. Yet how boring my ideal of a stripped-down meeting may seem to others! No programs or entertainment, but at the same time a very useful function for a much broader kingdom lifestyle. You'd have to really be into Jesus to enjoy my three-person church this evening. Used to be, I'd have a sense of guilt for not being exciting or winsome enough by attracting such small numbers. Tonight, though, Jesus was enough.

In short: The meeting (church) does not exist for itself. The meeting serves a vital role in the Kingdom of God ... you know, if you're into it.

Love through a prism

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:15:00 +0000

Common interests. Favorable physical appearances. The kind of friends someone keeps. "Birds of a feather flock together."

It's in our nature by birth. And that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. However, it is incomplete.

The "perfect love" Jesus gives us (I John 4:15-21) can transcend these earthly reasons we have for loving others and open up new doors for relationships that our old nature would shudder to even imagine. "Narrow is the gate" (Matthew 7:13-14) that leads to a life of loving others without carnal motivation. I doubt any of us ever enter the fullness of this love expressed in our lifetimes, but the sanctification of the Spirit can bring us closer and closer to a love without barriers as we dwell in Him.

Sometimes we think we're there when we find a church. Instantly, you find a diverse group of people of (hopefully) many ages, races, economic backgrounds, and stages of spiritual and emotional growth. But even that may be a cover for an imperfect form of love as the common bond becomes the building, the mission, the identity, or whatever else the institution promises.

This under-developed, ulterior-motivated love can be compared to light filtered through a prism. For argument's sake, let's say the prism represents a church (or any institution, for that matter, be it a social club, the "regulars" at a restaurant, poker night crowd, etc.). The beam will represent someone's love.

When the light hits the pyramidal glass, it's dazzling and impressive. The concentrated beam of light breaks into the multiple colors of the spectrum. It's colorful, but it's diluted and each band of color is not as strong as the original beam. But it sure is bliss to bask in the colors.

The angle is off. And when the prism is removed, we see that the original beam of light was not directed at the same place where the rainbow once was, but somewhere else -- truthfully, the beam was only ever directed at the prism, not you.

If you're reading this, there's an almost certain chance you've been on the other side of this imperfect love before when you fall from the graces of the crowd you recently ran with. Whether you've once been rejected by a social clique in high school, fired from a job, benched for the season, or you happen to be on the wrong side of a local church schism, like the old saying goes "you find out who your friends are." It's tempting to write off those who stopped caring for you as soon as you left the group/team/whatever as phonies or (in the case of fellow believers) "fake Christians." To resist this temptation we must instead be moved with compassion for those who suddenly lost compassion for us.

We're not talking about understandable reasons for the loss of the closeness of a friendship: whether you move, change jobs, or a significant other pulls you in another direction, you don't frequent the same hangout spot or "third space" as much anymore, etc. These things happen, as close relationships wither with intentions of one day re-uniting. Paul's epistles are full of remembrances of his old friends, salutations to them (often by name -- see a long list in Romans 15), and his desire to one day reconnect with them.

Those persons who suddenly stopped caring as soon as you voted with your feet, strayed from the herd philosophically, or otherwise moved on? They have proven themselves to have imperfect love by their instant rejection. A better way to word that would be a love that has not yet matured. These persons need our prayers, not retaliation

As mentioned above, there are good reasons for a change in the closeness of a friendship, and there are also solid reasons for sudden dismissal -- relationships can be complex, and you have to chose your company carefully in order to hold on to a job or an intimate relationship. The Bible has a place for disfellowshipping others in extreme circumstances where sin may affect the entire Body. "Tough love" has a place, too.

What about you? Have you ever lost friends once the social "prism" was removed? Don't despair -- it's likely not a reflection on you, but a call to action to demonstrate "a more excellent way" (I Corinthians 12:31, and chapter 13), a more direct and meaningful love that only God can give.

______________
UPDATE (6/5/17): Revisions made.

Forgetting God's provision 'while the food was in their mouths'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 02:54:00 +0000

Free Will(y)

Regardless of which side of a blessing you're on, it's in our nature to forget God's goodness and instead wallow in our own doubts or self-aggrandizement.

Psalm 78 -- one of the many "contemplative" psalms (Hebrew: maskills) -- examines the recurring trend of how success can become the beginning of defeat if the focus is misplaced. In the case of the children of Israel fleeing Egypt, they went from one extreme to the other -- doubting God's ability "to provide a table in the wilderness" (v. 19) to acknowledging God's power (the sending of manna, quails, favorable winds, water from a rock, etc.) but giving him mere lip-service and going as far as to lie to him (v. 36). God saw this change of heart "while the food was still in their mouths" (v. 30)!

You're probably familiar with the Exodus account. At points, the Israelites even preferred death or becoming re-captive to Egypt over continuing to wander (even with the most obvious and spectacular of God's miracles to guide them in the desert). Strange how even the greatest blessings can become curses based on how we react to them. It's not that the Israelites ever hated God, per se, but in their selfishness and forgetfulness inadvertently became the enemies of God at various times.

Breakpoint's blog had a creative way of explaining this phenomenon, relating it to a situation where a love for God's creation in our oceans morphed into a setback for those whose life mission it is to save the creatures in it.

Sea World was its own undoing — a victim of its own enormous success. A generation raised on the majesty of Shamu has done what it’s been taught to do. ...

... To the point of taking the next "evolutionary" step which is to "free" these noble creatures to their natural environments and shut down the institutions that brought them into the public conscience in the first place. Before, whales were thought of as Moby Dick.

The writer, G. Shane Morris, relates it to the success of a Christianity that, faced with the blessings of scientific knowledge and high culture, attempted rewrite what we knew of God according to modern philosophies. The result, the author contends, is a Christian liberal movement once co-existent with its evangelical moorings but now bent on destroying the reputations of those who zealously cling to the fundamentals of the faith.

A little over a century ago, Christians in liberal denominations allowed the admirable campaign for social justice to overshadow the worldview that justified it. Today their descendants are openly attacking that worldview. I’m reminded irresistibly of how Sea World allowed the push for public love and awareness of marine mammals to become too sentimental—to override that central commitment to the uniqueness of human beings that made it acceptable to have dominion. Today their own enraged catechumens are overrunning them. Sadly, the result for orcas will be less funding and manpower for conservation. The result for our civilization will be—has been—less real justice and freedom, even as our demands for both grow ever louder.

So are we much different than the Israelites, who forgot God's goodness while still chewing on it? Mr. Morris words it better than I can at:

http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/30398

Have we reached 'peak house church?'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:31:00 +0000

The gauntlet has been thrown. But is there anyone left to take it up?

It's a safe bet to say House Church was never a tremendously popular stream in American Christianity. However, its legacy cannot be denied.

No, we've never undergone the level of persecution that often drives large number of churches "underground" and into private homes, such as the ones we know of in China. Rather, we meet simply as a means of keeping the focus on Christ.

Denominations and church planting associations answered this gauntlet-throw of returning to New Testament Christianity. They gave their cell groups greater authority and roles in the life of the church. They returned to local, community-based churches. Megachurch leaders such as David Platt and Francis Chan have taken cues from the movement and incorporated them into their own ministries.

The House Church Movement itself did not form in a vacuum. It answered the challenge laid forth by Chinese Evangelism movements (Watchman Nee, etc.) and various breakaways from British Anglican (Ernest Southcott) and Pentecostal (British New Church Movement) life in the 1960s. Those earlier waves of New Testament restoration owe much to a "torch of testimony" borne in previous eras by Anabaptists, Brethren, Quakers, Mennonites, Moravians, and the Wesleyan movement. In turn, even those awakenings hearkened to monastic awakenings such as the Waldensians and the Priscillianists which preferred to meet simply and treat all believers as priests in Christ Jesus as the Early Church did.

It's clear that no one movement has the trademark on what the New Testament church consists of. But what happened to the awakening know today as the House Church Movement, that once stood such a strong chance of growing into a formidable call for restoring Book of Acts churches across the world? And to be clear, let's define the House Church Movement as a wave of non-hierarchical churches which value spontaneity and home-based gatherings, free of programs, salaries, titles, and control by outside organizations such as denominations. Specifics may vary "from house to house."

It reached a crest of public curiosity about a decade ago before a noticeable slump. In my personal experience, the peak was in 2005, when several website house church directories were running full-steam and books like "Pagan Christianity?" were generating dialogue like we've never heard before.

In the Dallas-Fort Worth area alone, I knew of at least 10 actual house church meetings that gathered regularly and faithfully. I saw evidence of many more attempts sprinkled all over the area. We even had two such gatherings in Denton, Texas -- none of which gained a lot of traction, but certainly raised eyebrows.

According to house church planter Gene Edwards, America reached "peak house church" around 2000 and was "dead" by 2010. Before then, Edwards recalled a groundswell of interest:

"I would say by the year 1995 I was receiving at least one phone invitation a week, to
help someone to start a church that met in homes. There was also a national magazine [House2House Magazine, now retooled as the Simply Church blog] that appeared at this time on the topic. Everything looked like, and everything pointed in the direction of a very prevailing movement that could very well sweep America.

"Today I receive no such phone calls. The telephone rarely rings that has anything to do with the so called house church movement. The magazine no longer exists, and the annual conferences are no longer being held. By the year 2010, the enthusiasm had disappeared."

Ironically, it was 2010 when house churches finally started receiving significant national media coverage -- just in time for a wind-down. USA Today published a well-distributed article titled "'House churches' keep worship small, simple, friendly," giving some hope to awareness of the movement. According to a Barna Group survey mentioned in the article, 6-12 million Americans were house churchers. Pew Research found 9 percent of Protestants met in homes.

What happened?

In one respect, many house churchers moved on to the next big thing. Some became "Emergent" Christians, others morphed into "Missional communities," while still others scrambled to find new names that didn't limit the churches to a house (e.g. Simple Church, Organic Church, Micro-church, etc.). Let's take a look at how the House Church Movement intersected with these new developments in Christianity:

EMERGENT -- Emergent Christianity, which rose to prominence in the early 2000s, originally had much in common with the house churches originally in that they were spontaneous, decentralized, and conversational. Now the Emergent label seems to be on the decline. Those with a left-of-center political bent found greater synthesis with Mainline Christianity. Devoted to the "worship arts," a good share of the original Emergents became attracted to the "smells and bells" of historic Christianity. Many are now full-blown liturgical Christians with pre-written orders of service, ceremonial vestments (a fancy word for robes) and even buildings to meet in that are primarily designed for worship. Others with a more Evangelical view hopped on board the Missional train.

MISSIONAL -- Other house churchers grew tired of couch-centered church life and adopted a "missional" mindset. Also rising in the early-2000s, this movement stresses an emphasis on community service projects and neighborhood relationship-building -- think Missionaries to the local level, but who also place a value on worship and discipleship. As many house churchers transitioned to a Missional model they left behind their resistance to hierarchical leadership and programs. Some have put Bible teaching and worship on the back burner as an emphasis on local mission work took centerstage. Some (but certainly not all) go as far as considering the work itself to be incarnational and a substitute for worship and evangelism. Unlike the Emergent movement's waning, Missional seems to be gaining strength.

AND THE REST -- Many figureheads of the American House Church movement have come to consider the title a bit of a misnomer. House churches that now prefer adjectives such as "Organic," "Simple," "Micro," etc. still resist hierarchical leadership structures and programs, but have adopted other practices that the House Church Movement may generally oppose. It's difficult to categorize these Christians -- think a Venn diagram where many aspects of Emerging and Missional models may intersect with them. Case in point: Authors such as Neil Cole and Alan Hirsch are often hailed as Organic church figureheads, but who are also claimed by the Missional movement. A read-through of Hirch's "The Forgotten Ways" shows an awfully mechanical approach. Even Frank Viola, the co-author of "Pagan Christianity?" began slowing down efforts to plant house-based churches circa 2011, feeling God has led him and others into a different season of ministry. As Frank points out, the word "organic" has been used (and mis-used) a lot, lately.

As another case in point: Many Simple Church proponents have grown weary of primarily meeting in living rooms and see nothing wrong with having a storefront ministry center, an outdoor gathering, renting a public park facility, etc., to meet as a simply organized but more institutionalized church. An Anglican house church network leader I know in Austin has since planted a more traditional Anglican congregation, but with a much more seeker-sensitive approach and a premium on neighborhood groups. His desire to do house church seems to have diminished in 2011, as well.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of house churches around that haven't jumped on another bandwagon. As Felicity Dale, the former editor of House2House magazine blogged:

"When house church, or organic church, or simple church became a buzz word, many people jumped in with all four feet. But, as I go on to say, if people don’t truly live out the DNA, they will soon find that what they have is only a pale substitute for the real thing.

"Thankfully, those days are over. We’re no longer a fashionable fad."

"Next big things" come around often these days, and surely there are the steadfast house churchers who will keep their feet planted on the convictions God gave this movement. Regardless of where you stand, I hope this post gives some insight into why it is that the American House Church Movement, as it was prior to 2010, did not become the "third Great Awakening" or "new Reformation" for which they hoped and prayed.

At least not yet.

The next post will examine my categorization of the post-2005 House Church Movement.

Healthy skepticism or 'practical atheism?'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:39:00 +0000

Below is my latest post on Seedbed.com based on a rather obscure sermon from John Wesley and how it intersected with my skeptical side. It's a little eccentric, but I hope you get something out of it!

... Does this “practical atheism” even cloud our understanding of salvation? And what about sanctification?

Wesley, urging his hearers to flee the darkness (no matter how cozy and convenient one’s own “tree trunk” may be), warned them not to confuse outward religious ritual, or a mere moral resolution to swear off conflict and injustice, with the “blaze of gospel-day!”

A faith that takes risks on the improbable can generate the kind of inward excitement and passion that leads us into an adventure like no other, one worthy of many tales to be told. ...

Read the entire article at:
http://www.seedbed.com/christians-and-the-allure-of-practical-atheism

Wisdom: a group discussion

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 16 May 2016 02:18:00 +0000

Some (much-summarized) thoughts from Sunday's group discussion on wisdom, based on the previous Sunday's interactive teaching on the subject.

Brandi:

Though we may not know if we're wise, it's the little things that God does through us, in us, and in those around us that gives us the knowledge that we're on the right track.

"Let not mercy and truth forsake you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart, And so find favor and high esteem In the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.
It will be health to your flesh, And strength to your bones." --Proverbs 3:3-8

(This passage appeared in a responsive reading she happened to flip to in the back of the hymnal after we finished singing. Pretty cool!)

Katrina:

Ephesians is chock-full of references to wisdom and how godly wisdom differs from that of the secular world. In sum, Jesus is wisdom!

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence." --Ephesians 1:7-8.

We should camp out in Ephesians for awhile if we want to understand how it relates to our walk with Christ.

Braden:

We can all seek it, like Solomon did:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." --James 1:5.

Andy:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." --Proverbs 9:10, 15:33.

Repeated in various ways in a few places in the Bible, and accompanied by knowledge in other places, this means the awe, reverence, and worship of God is the beginning of God-sourced wisdom. There is also a general, earthly shrewdness called wisdom, but there is a difference between that and what God gifts us with.

The context of Proverbs 9 shows that wisdom is accompanied by being open to correction. Fools hate correction and surround themselves with "platitudes" (Brandi's word!) and those who are only interested in having fun. Meanwhile, foolishness creeps in unaware. A wise man may not enjoy being corrected, but will know what to do with it.

Emma (grade 5):

When asked the difference between knowledge and wisdom ...

"Knowledge is knowing things, and wisdom is ... what an old man knows."

Then we sung a few hymns:

Have Thine Own Way, Lord
The Church's One Foundation (in honor of the Church's birthday, Pentecost!)
Blessed Assurance (request from Braden)
It is Well with My Soul (request from Brandi)

Jesus was a Democratic Socialist and other urban legends

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:56:00 +0000

Communism in Poland. And you thought Franklin's was bad.

"... We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." --II Peter 1:16

There's a Robin Hood version of Jesus in the popular imagination with whom I have an on-again/off-again relationship.

On one hand, I like that just about the entire world wants a piece of Jesus of Nazareth. Even hard-core secularists who indict the God of Abraham for alleged war crimes and laugh off the Holy Spirit as a mere superstition revere Jesus to some degree. They like what he represented. He "stuck it to The Man" and preached love and forgiveness. Even Gandhi, a Hindu's Hindu, famously said "'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

It's that Folk Hero Jesus that paves the way for me to introduce my Lord and Savior to just about anyone I meet. It's like asking someone if they'd like to talk about Mr. Rodgers. Evangelism made easy.

On the other hand, I cannot stand the way personal attitudes and biases are often projected on Jesus. Because he preached forgiveness, he must be indifferent to whatever sin you're practicing. Because he was all about healing the sick and helping the blind to see, then anyone who boldly preaches Christ (or happens to hurt someone's feelings otherwise) must be a hypocrite that has never read the Red Letters.

This Folk Hero version of Jesus I can do without, as it flies square in the face of many things Jesus taught as a perfect Jew and one with God the Father. The one who would go to the bar and have a drink with you, while laughing his way through all the heartache and bad life decisions. "Buddy Jesus."

Fewer than 12 percent of Christians surveyed (according to a Barna study) thought Joan of Arc was Noah's Wife. A recent Lifeway Research study discovered only 45 percent of those who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week, 40 percent occasionally, and 1 in 5 never read it at all.

Non-Christians read the Bible even more seldom, naturally. But this doesn't stop them from building opinions about Jesus. Be their misconceptions stem from church tradition, folklore, non-Christian religions, or even TV, it's comforting to believe a popularly-held lie.

In a recent worship gathering, I thought I'd engage in a little myth-busting on these folk tales about Jesus. I'm not talking about apocryphal accounts of Jesus (such as turning clay into pigeons or rebellious children into goats or a Gnostic take on the crucifixion) but the twists-of-truth that plague us even in the 21st Century.

Here are four I could think of off-hand. If you can think of any others, by all means leave a comment!

Folk Tale No. 1: Jesus was too busy performing miracles and good deeds, and never had time to tell anyone to stop sinning or repent.

Truth: "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." --Mark 1:14-15.

Jesus would explain this gospel (good news) throughout his ministry. As a matter of fact, John 3:16 was a direct Jesus-quote!

Folk Tale No. 2: Jesus was for the redistribution of wealth, so he would be a Socialist if he were on earth today.

Truth: "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." --Paul (an Apostle called by Jesus!), II Thessalonians 3:10.

While there are some interesting theological discussions going on currently about Distributism (particularly in Catholic circles in lieu of the pope's comments which seem to favor Socialism), there is a persistent myth that our Lord favors the nationalized collection of each individual's wealth. But we see in Acts 2 that there was a voluntary sharing of resources on the local level. In no way did Jesus ever order this -- it was a spiritual outgrowth of love that unified people on a very practical level. This does not mean the Early Church were Socialists. "Communitarians," perhaps. But not Communists. And not even Democratic Socialism, as much as certain people of the liberal political persuasion would have us believe a vote for Bernie Sanders is somehow a more enlightened moral choice in the 2016 Presidential race! (No, seriously -- people are actually saying that!)

So what about the flip-side? Was Jesus an overt Capitalist? The "cleansing of the temple" is often used to make a point that Jesus must have hated it when money exchanged hands (if so, why did he ever say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" and why did he praise the Widow's Mite offering?)

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables." --John 2:13-15.

(See Matthew 21:17-23 for another instance where Jesus turned over the money changers' tables. Yes, there are more than one.)

It was likely the profiteering that he was opposed to, not so much the act of paying someone for a service rendered. After all, it was ordered that every Jew use local currency to make a payment in lieu of an animal offering. If you came in with any currency other than Judaen legal tender, it would not have been accepted. Jesus didn't address this practice, but instead the thievery that was taking place in the name of temple worship.

Folk Tale No. 3: Jesus said not to judge and did not preach moral absolutes.

Truth: Often ignored in the table-turning story is the verse that occurs after the tables are turned in John 2:

"Then His disciples remembered that it was written, 'Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.'" --John 2:17 (cp. Psalm 69:9).

This zeal translates to some pretty strict standards Jesus had: especially when it came to the equally strict Pharisees and Saducees who routinely hounded him (he was much less prone to quibble with non-Jews, but they weren't playing by the same set of rules -- something to keep in mind when we address non-Christians). Jesus would often cut to the heart in these doctrinal discussions, and distinguish between man's Law and the Law God sent to Moses (there's a difference).

While Jesus sometimes intentionally bucked authority, by no means did Jesus even once break GOD's Law. Even when he used mud and spit to heal a man's blindness on the Sabbath day, it was a rejection of the Mishnah (man-made) and not the Law given directly by God.

Wait a minute: didn't Jesus say to "judge not?" Yes, but the full quote is "judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1). In other words, be prepared to be judged yourself if you are being judgmental. Clean up your own backyard, first. That kind of thing.

Consider that Jesus also ordered us to judge, but to be incredibly careful when doing so.

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." --John 7:24.

So it's not religious zeal or personal holiness that Jesus was opposed to, but self-determined righteousness and man-made religiosity.

Folk Tale No. 4: Jesus was against riches.

Truth:

"Then [Jesus] entered and passed through Jericho. Now behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not because of the crowd, for he was of short stature. So he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He was going to pass that way.
And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, "Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully.
But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, "He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner."
Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold."
And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

--Luke 19

This is related to the "was Jesus a Socialist" thought above, but putting politics aside, would Jesus smile at someone who was commercially successful? What about a tax collector? What about a normal guy who just really likes his money? The answer is obvious that he did, but he often had a lot to say about how wealth and the world's expectations can distract from God's will.

Consider this: If he was such a foe to the rich, why did he befriend them? Matthew, one of the twelve disciples, was a tax collector and likely rich. And that "wee little man" Zacchaeus was very much rich. But then you have the Rich Young Ruler, and the disciple of Christ's who wanted to delay following Jesus because he had to tend to his father's estate.

I'm sure there are more "folk tales" out there, and I'm certain there are way-better, lengthy discussions about each of these four points I've brought up. I don't claim to be a scholar. But those are the ones I hear all the time in my regular interactions here in the Austin, Texas, area.

It doesn't take a theology degree or a textbook on biblical interpretation to see beyond our cultural biases and look instead to the actual Risen Christ. It's easy for anyone to read for themselves -- but again, how few of us actually do and follow after "cunningly devised fables." It's more fun to believe in Robin Hood, but it's a belief in the Risen Lord that leads to the joy that the Holy Spirit can give and the peace that passes understanding.

Being a disciple means growth, not simply preservation

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:14:00 +0000

Don't be this guy.

Living as a disciple is nothing that can be taught out of a book, or made into a systematic approach that works the same for every single person. Every Christian's story is different. And for it to be a story it must be lived out in a manner worthy of being told, as well as communicated to others.

Too often we relegate one's "testimony" to that time when he or she first accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. But is that where it stops? Does Jesus trap us in amber as soon as we're his, only to be released on the Last Day? Inasmuch as we can stand on God's promise of a future salvation, our testimony continues day by day, as we not only testify of God's power to deliver, but live out the work of God in our lives! We're set free for a purpose, and it's not to simply wallow in his grace. As the old saying goes "we've been saved, we're being saved, and we will be saved."

Below are four indispensable elements of becoming the kind of disciple that makes other disciples:

Grow
Ok, this one is obvious, but the first thing a new believer must do is submit to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual growth may not happen at the same pace for every new Christian (nor do we always notice it, or can measure it), but God is faithful to keep his promises. If we come to Jesus he "will in no wise cast [us] out" (John 6:20).

Tell others about that growth
Yes, your walk must match your talk, but let's not negate talking entirely! It's one thing to live as a Christian and have a solid reputation that inspires many to give their lives to Jesus (see below). But think about the Ethiopian Eunuch who was reading Isaiah and was very much confused by it (Acts 8). If Philip had not said something the eunuch would have never been saved and had never been baptized on the road to Azotus. There's "a time to be silent and a time to speak."

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And [the eunuch] said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. (vv. 30-31)

Be an example of growth
In Acts 9:10-31 we see that Saul/Paul's immediate conversion was enough to raise eyebrows, but it was his rapid growth in the Holy Spirit that gave Ananias, Barnabas, and others to confidence to confirm Paul's message when he "Immediately preached the Christ in the synagogues, that [Jesus] is the Son of God" (9:20). Be the change you want to see in the world, and you'll find that you're not alone in your walk with Jesus! Your story will attract others who are walking that same path after our Savior.

Continue to grow
Growth does not stop -- even if the Holy Spirit has filled your heart with perfect love and ironed out all your desire to sin. We must daily put aside the flesh and follow after Jesus. That goes for all of us, and as Paul wrote the saints at the ancient city of Colosse:

"... Since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." --Paul, Colossians 1:9-14.

Discipleship: Reading the Scout Handbook is fine, but don't forget to camp!

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 02:57:00 +0000

Seedbed's timing in running my article on discipleship -- as it relates to a recent camping excursion with my stepson -- goes well with our church's discussion theme this month:

It [discipleship] has to be more than a concept taught by a book. It has to be more than a series of meetings. Discipleship must be lived out and lived together.

There are, of course, many helpful and proven curricula, book studies, and Bible study guides available for new disciples and their mentors. There are countless retreats, conferences, camps, and camp meetings as well. But, nothing is a substitute for walking alongside a fellow Christian in regular, plain-old daily life.

While in the tent, I jotted down a few elements often missing from discipleship. ...

Read more: http://seedbed.com/feed/a-basic-vision-for-local-discipleship

Image credit: Getty Images/Rob Reece

Proving who you say you are

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 20:54:00 +0000

Subject: Keeping one's word

Target passage: I John 2:1-6

Date: Jan. 31, 2016

When we're asked today to identify ourselves, there's more than one way to respond. Readers of this blog may remember my misgivings of having to show a driver's license to claim my one-year-old child at a mega-church recently!

A scanner can verify your identity through your fingerprints and your irises to prove that it's you, so long as your fingerprint and "eye print" are registered in the correct database. A credit score tattles on your financial history. We're on the cusps of facial recognition technology, where a camera can tell who you are from a long distance, and pull up a rap sheet on you in a matter of seconds. "No Hiding Place Down Here," indeed.

When the Apostles walked the earth that wasn't obviously the case. Kings had their signets and nobles had their seals, but if you were the average person all you had was your word and the recommendation of others. In ages before, all anyone had was their reputation. Your word was your bond, and your trustworthiness or notoriety in the community was your "credit."

With that in mind, we looked at a few verses that had to do with keeping one's word as a means of identifying ourselves with Christ. There's no "Jesus Card" to say you're a follower of Christ (other than, arguably, a baptism certificate). When we say we're Christians then for our witness to be credible, we have to live and act as Christians -- though imperfect as we all can be at times.

"Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him’, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, ‘I abide in him’, ought to walk just as he walked." --I John 2:5-6.

Love is revealed to be the context here, if you read further in chapter 2. And what are the Commandments of God summarized, according to Jesus' own words? Also love, which means that if we're Christians we must show love for others.

"Then Moses said to the heads of the tribes of the Israelites: 'This is what the Lord has commanded. When a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.'" --Numbers 30:1-2

In other words, God commanded the Israelites to be men and women of their word. Bearing false witness was not to be taken lightly -- even at great personal sacrifice. Believers keep their word.

‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.' --Matthew 5:33-37.

James echoes Jesus' teachings about keeping your commitments simple and few in James 5. Here's another passage, where we're urged "let your words be few" -- to focus on the quality of what is said rather than the quantity.

"Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than the sacrifice offered by fools; for they do not know how to keep from doing evil. Never be rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be quick to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few.
For dreams come with many cares, and a fool’s voice with many words.
When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfil what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfil it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake; why should God be angry at your words, and destroy the work of your hands?
With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God." --Ecclesiastes 5:1-7.

Next week, we'll look at what it means to LIVE your word.

* * *

And we sung a hymn ...

O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing!

* * *

Networking:

Gathering with us was Ray Altman, the pastor of Leander United Methodist Church. Ray is considering planting several home-based churches in the North Austin-Cedar-Park-Leander area. We were excited to pray with him and lend our support as he lays the groundwork for this plan to expand his local church in an organic, mission-centric way.

The Modern Reject's refreshingly organic take on 'prayer requests'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:28:00 +0000

I ran across this now-inactive blog today and thought I would share the link for future reference for those curious about what this house church thing is all about.

The author explored many of the topics we've addressed as a community in her journey from institutional church to a home-based fellowship that at one time gathered upwards of 60 people.

http://modernreject.com/category/featured/house-church

Here's an eye-opening snippet concerning why her church doesn't practice prayer "requests," per se (not that there's anything wrong with them -- methods vary!):

"... Very often, a person might begin to share with the body about what God was doing in their life that week. They may start to explain their struggles from the week or their hurts. Or they may just be sharing a piece of encouragement. Either way, if they need prayer it is evident. Another person will usually initiate prayer by going over to them…and get this, starting to pray.

We then gather around that person–all 40 or 50 of us–and lay hands on them. (As an aside, at the end of our corporate meeting we have a time of ministry where we pray for each other in groups of 2- to maybe 7 or 8 people. This time of prayer also follows the description that follows and it is amazing…)

... People begin to pray in and through the Spirit. Some pray quietly, some boldly, but every prayer is led by the Spirit. Which means that it is God who is directing the prayer, not us.

And very often, the prayer request that was given is not what the Lord begins to speak to. Very often, we watch as God opens up the quiet, untouched, often dark places of a person’s soul. Very often, God’s agenda is different from our own. Very often, Jesus has something else to say altogether.

... And time and time again, this is what I have seen in my church family–that as we step back and allow the Holy Spirit room to move and quietness to speak, He never intends to only meet an earthly need. He always intends to do more. He heals the whole man because He loves the whole man."

'Amen' digs below the surface

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:20:00 +0000

Subject: "Amen"
Target passage: Various
Date: Jan. 24, 2016

With the proliferation of social networking "share and type amen" memes, "amen" has continued as one of the most overused, misunderstood, and misapplied expressions in the English language.

If there ever was an official motto of the Church of Jesus Christ, this might be it. When we say "amen" is it a churchy word for "so be it?" Is it a way of saying "over and out" when you're finished praying? Is it a not-so-secret shibboleth to let other Christians within earshot know that they're not alone? Or is the foundation of "amen" a lesser-known but much more beautiful expression of unshakeable truth?

While the origins of Hebrew words are often obscure (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, after all), we can determine that "amen" is related to the word for "firm." This is probably what "amen" means: firm, impermeable fact. I can almost imagine a group of nomadic hunters hailing from the tribe of Israel looking for a place to pitch a tent for the season -- neither too shifty and sandy nor too rocky and craggy. "AMEN!" might be the cue for the travelers to start hammering their stakes into the firm ground.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike are fond of the phrase, and it has found its way into many languages touched by these faiths. And it's said in various ways: "ah-men," "ay-men," "ayy-mayen" (yes, I'm a Texan!), "ah-meen" in the Middle East, and some groups have turned it into almost a mantra. If you speak Hebrew, you might even hear a subtle "h" at the front of the word.

Jesus, likely an Aramaic language speaker, used it many times. Here's an example (I'll use the King James Version for cultural familiarity's sake):

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." --Matthew 5:18

"Verily" (or "truly," "truthfully," etc.) is actually "amen" in the New Testament Greek. Maybe that's because "For amen I say unto you" doesn't make much sense in English. (We can talk about "jot" and "tittle" later!)

Here's another example, in which Jesus turns up the frequency (again, in the King James):

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." --John 5:25.

That's "amen" twice. If you've ever read the Bible through, you know that when something is repeated you had better pay attention. Think of it as putting it in bold type. In other words, this is a saying that one can stake his life on (even eternal life, in this case).

We should never mistake "amen" as an expression of immobility, or refusal to change. As any nomad can tell you, ground conditions change from season to season and cycle to cycle. That's why Jesus said (returning to Matthew) ...

"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." --Matthew 10:38.

(For a little background on this "take the cross" phrase, see also the following verses: Matt. 16:24; Matt. 27:32; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21; Luke 9:23,24; Luke 14:27; John 19:17).

The Crosswalkers take this very literally! Nice people, though.

Hearing that phrase "take up the cross" while growing up, I thought it was literally about picking up a Latin-style cross -- you know, the exact kind on top of the Christian flag or hanging on the wall of the church building somewhere. Then, I thought that meant "be proud of Jesus" and proclaim the crucifixion. Whatever shape the actual cross of Jesus was, we see that Simon of Cyrene literally carried Jesus' cross en route to Golgotha. The traditional teaching here is that Jesus foreshadowed his own death, and urged his disciples to attend to him even if it meant death. Simon either fulfilled the prophesy or did what Jesus advised metaphorically, as the usual teaching goes.

But here's another possible meaning, based on this lesson. The Greek word used for cross is "stauros," or stake.

A stake? You mean like with tents? The kinds that are hammered into the "amen" ground to hold the tent in place? Yes, and Jesus gave his life for us on a very large one used by the Romans as a form of execution. Whether it had a horizontal crossbeam or not is a long debate, but you won't find many takers.

Before you label me as a heretic, perhaps -- and just throwing this out there -- Jesus was asking us to forego our own perceptions of truth (our traditions, our theology, our politics, our cultural values, etc.) and "pull up stakes" (or "take up the stake") to follow him wherever that may lead.

The rich young ruler was one example of someone who stayed put on what he thought was solid ground (his own possessions). There was also the man who wanted to wait until his father died before following Jesus as a disciple:

"And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:62.

When you say "amen," regardless of how you say it, and no matter what your definition of the word may be, try thinking of that as staking your tent (e.g., your life, your beliefs, your identity) to the truth. Try saying it when a fellow Christian says something you agree with strongly. Try saying it after you come to a new understanding of God's truth. Try it while you pray, and not just after.

And when Jesus says to pull up your stake (or "take up the cross") to follow after him, do not worry and do not be sorrowful, but rejoice and RE-joice: Wherever it is, he will lead us to firmer ground.

* * *

And we sung a hymn: "As the Deer"

Note: This was the first Sunday we had the kids (ages 9, 7, 7, 4, and 2) stay for the teaching. We kept it rather short (not nearly as long as this blog post!), and they responded well with lots of questions. They understand "amen" better than we do, I found!

Five reasons why you should NOT join a house church

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:42:00 +0000

That's not a typo in the headline.

Our friends at Seedbed published a guest blog post from yours truly that lays out a quintet of reasons for why many people may try out house churches, but also why those same people should re-consider their motivations.

If you’re just curious, or seriously considering leaving your brick-and-mortar church for a house church (or simple church, organic church, micro-church, etc.), we want to assist you as you prayerfully seek God’s will. Aside from their many advantages, below are five reasons why you should not join—or not start, for that matter—a house church.

1. It’s so much easier.
Get ready to roll up your sleeves! It is indeed less labor-intensive on many fronts to be a part of a simply organized house church. There’s no grounds-keeping committee or set up/strike down team, as two examples. Yet there’s a surprising amount of work that takes place. It’s enjoyable work, for sure, but every “regular” is expected to pull his or her own weight in a variety of tasks, be it preparing a meal to serve, helping to prep/clean up the house of this week’s host, or studying just as hard as you would for a sermon or Bible study for this week’s interactive lesson. You also find yourself getting pulled into helping others outside the meeting more often as you’re sharing life together. No one gets paid, so everyone must pull together for the home-based church to succeed. Simpler, yes, but not “easier.” ...

Read more: http://seedbed.com/feed/reasons-you-should-not-join-a-house-church

Image credit: Justin Skinner / Thinkstock (via Seedbed.com)

If we talked to people the way we talk to God

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 01:37:00 +0000

Couldn't resist! Carry on, prayer warriors ...

'Faithful sayings' for when you're not sure exactly what to say

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:28:00 +0000

While coming up with a list of the instances of the phrase "this is a faithful saying" (or "trustworthy saying") in the New Testament, I couldn't come up with much in terms of a clever talk. They're unrelated for the most part. Each saying is faithful in its own regard -- maybe this would make for better for a series of lessons on each saying, with supporting verses for each.

Nonetheless, I felt that this was God's leading to share Paul's uses of the phrase, without having to parcel them out into the new year. I'm grateful for having a fellowship of believers that can take Scripture at face value and simply receive it, without there having to be an entertaining tie-in or "ah-ha" moment (house churches for the win!). They even called me out: "I thought you said there were six!" So we read one from Revelation. And, in writing this blog post, I found if you look in the Greek you can throw a seventh one in there from Revelation -- straight from our Lord's mouth.

Whether "faithful saying" was said in order to draw attention, emphasize a certain point, or have the readers/hearers memorize and repeat, we can't be sure. Some even point to these as parts of an Early Church "creed," but I wouldn't go that far! They are what they are, and we would do well to pause and reflect on each one. Bonus points if you memorize them. We'd do even better to have these on the tips of our tongues as we share the Gospel.

Presented below, without further commentary, are the "faithful sayings" of the New Testament. (Did any of them speak to you? Comment below.)

Paul:

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief.” (I Timothy 1:15)

“This is a faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop [overseer], he desireth a good work.” (I Timothy 3:1)

“Bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance.” (I Timothy 4:8-9)

“This is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.” (II Timothy 2:11-13)

“This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.” (Titus 3:8)

Jesus (via John):

“... "Behold, I make all things new ... Write, for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21:5)

"'... These words are faithful and true.' And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. 'Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.'" (Revelation 22:6-7)

Some food for thought on the Fruit of the Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 03:27:00 +0000

Topic: Bearing active spiritual fruit
Target passage: Galatians 5:16-25
Date: Nov. 29, 2015

You've probably heard the venerable litany many times before. You might even have the Fruit of the Spirit memorized: "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." They might seem less like fruits and more like old chestnuts as many times as we've heard them! But they deserve a fresh look.

They're good virtues for anyone to have. But to simply have (or have had) these virtues is not enough. Fruit was made by God to nourish others -- not stay on the tree and wither. They're designed to be picked, or to fall to the ground and be harvested, with the end-result of consumption and nutrition.

We took the list of these nine famous fruits and put them in the "passive" category. Next to this category, we drew an "active" category to show ways we can act on these distinguishing marks of Spirit-led Christians. (This is the result of a group discussion, so this is just food for thought!)

PASSIVE	ACTIVE
Love	Demonstrate/express love
Joy	Get excited!
Peace	Be a peacemaker/reconcile
Longsuffering	Discipline yourself to be patient
Gentleness	Show mercy, relieve others' suffering
Goodness	Flee bad behavior, do good works
Faith	"Walk on water," exercise trust in God
Meekness	Practice humility, be content
Temperance	Yank the chain! Discipline yourself

A key phrase is often overlooked at the end of the list: "against such there is no law." In other words, if you live this way, then there is no Old Testament Law (or continuing standard that God expects us to live by under Grace) that can be used against us. Exhibit these fruits in your daily living and you're well-within God's boundaries.

They are exhibited via God's power, as noted by the word "temperance" (also translated "self control"). The Greek word originally used by Paul means "the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, especially his sensual appetites." In other words, a spiritual person who has his flesh on a leash, tugs gently at the sight of sin, and yanks it back at the first sign of rebellion.

(It's also last on the list, and probably because it is the most difficult to obtain. Notice that this power only comes after "meekness," or humility, gentleness, etc. -- we can only tap into this divine power once we've realized our place in God's universe. He's God, we are not.)

This theme of power is subtly referenced in Paul's second letter to Timothy, where he warns about how people will carry themselves in the end times:

"... men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent [without self-control], fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (II Timothy 3:1-5).

The old word "incontinent" now has connotations of being unable to control one's ... umm ... lower digestive system. But that's a perfect metaphor. In the original language Paul wrote in, it is an antonym of "temperance:" a lack of being able to control oneself.

Another familiar verse follows: "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." Ouch! Is this to say that when we claim to be living righteously, but still live according to our fleshly passions and the whims of popular culture, we're denying the source of that righteousness? That we have a form of Christian religion, but are, as Peter and Jude said, "clouds without water."

It would seem from Paul's writings in Galatians 5 and II Timothy 3 that we have two choices as Christ-followers: live under God's power to deliver us from evil desires, or maintain a mere "form of godliness."

Another question pertained to why Paul said "from such turn away." Perhaps that's because any form of Christianity that doesn't actively produce and distribute these fruits is not a church under God's power. It would be a drain on your time and resources. It's not that we shouldn't approach those people who have "a form of godliness," but that we shouldn't expect a fruit-bearing tree to exist in their ministry.

It was later mentioned that this "form of godliness" can take two forms on two extremes of error: either in lawlessness and uncontrolled passion, or in a hollow religiosity where man-made rules are carried out strictly but not by God's power.

A third word from Paul in Titus 3:5-8 seals this teaching. Compare verse 5 with verse 8:

"... Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men."

We don't earn our salvation, but on the other hand God expects us to do good works -- if not for our own nourishment, to the nourishment of others. And isn't that what fruit is for?

Children bring prosperity; are never 'wrongful births'

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:58:00 +0000

Note: This post of mine originally appeared in The Travis Tracker.

About 120 women are suing drug company Endo because an alleged packaging error they say resulted in unplanned pregnancies ... and, along with that, the expense of raising children.

The class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania last week. The class members hail from 26 states, and it is unclear at the time of writing if a Texan is among them. According to the suit, the birth control pill manufacturer distributed pills (see full list at the bottom of this post) in 2011 with incorrect markings and packaging -- resulting in 113 unforeseen pregnancies in 26 states. Fully 94 of the women carried the babies to term. Other state courts have rejected similar lawsuits.

The class is reportedly seeking millions in damages, including, in a few cases, the costs of raising children through adulthood (allegedly because of the birth control goof-up). While many prestigious sources put the cost-estimate of raising a child from 0 to adulthood at $200,000 to $250,000, that's not a universally held figure.

According to one source we found, a money management site called TheSimpleDollar.com, children can actually bring in money at certain points along the way. Here's the breakdown from author Trent Hamm, based on a working husband and working wife with two children in Iowa at the onset of the Obama Administration (costs have certainly gone up since then, but bear with us!). His comments are in italics below and are worth a read (full article).

$183,600

Base, estimated cost of raising a child

Combined, we spent about $11,000 on child care for the two children this year. After that, costs went down quickly – we estimate that all other expenses combined (food, health care, toys, clothing, and so on) were roughly $7,000 for both children combined. Add onto that $1,200 per child put away for their college education (and I’ll ignore the tax benefits of this, as we don’t have to pay state taxes on contributions) and you have a total of $20,400 spent on both children this year – or $10,200 per child. So, if those costs continued as they are over the next eighteen years, we would spend $183,600 per child during their childhood – not too far from those estimates.

-$6,000

Child care tax credit

$6,000 of that $10,200 is. It’s our child care tax credit, and it knocks roughly $1,800 (assuming a 30% overall tax rate) off of our total tax bill – or $900 per child. So, boom, we’re quickly down to $9,300 per child.

-$2,250

Per child tax credit

At $3,750 a pop, our two children shave $7,500 off of our taxable income. Assuming that same 30% tax rate, we quickly shave $2,250 off of our tax bill, so we’re down to $7,050 per child.

-$6,500

Entertainment budget savings

How much did this actually save us? This is something that’s very difficult for me to estimate, as I didn’t actually do any sort of budgeting or number-crunching during the year prior to our having children. However, based on what I can estimate from that year, we cut our entertainment and food spending (from 2004 to 2008) by $6,500 a year. That’s a drop of $3,250 per child, bringing our per-child expenses down to $3,800 per child.

-$4,200

Once the children are in school and child care costs are greatly reduced.

Obviously, as the child grows, we’ll begin to accrue more non-child-care expenses for them: education costs, growing entertainment costs, and so on. I’ll actually increase our expense per child at $500 per year after age six. So, for the first five years, we spend $3,800 a year. At year six, we actually gain $400. Each year after that, we spend $500 more per child than the year before, culminating with an overall after-tax and after-savings cost of $5,600 during their eighteenth year.

This brings the total cost to $52,800 per child -- far from the $250,000 figure currently bandied about.

Deviating from the scope of Mr. Hamm's point, let's consider what children give back as their parents age. In previous generations, it was up to children to provide for the care of aging parents and grandparents. "You reap what you sow" was the rule then -- so you had better raise your kids right if you expect to be cared for in old age. And bigger families made more sense for this and many other reasons. But today, much of that burden is thrown on the Social Security system and private-sector pensions and retirement plans. However, there's still a great savings to be considered when grown children are available to provide the geriatric care to their parents that would otherwise accumulate to much more than $250,000 per elderly parent.

Bottom line: Children are simply not an economic drain in the long run. Rather, as traditional wisdom tells us, "children are an inheritance from the Lord."

___________
In case you're curious, the types of pills named in the suit are: Cyclafem 1/35, Cyclafem 7/7/7, Emoquette, Gildess FE 1.5/30, Gildess FE 1/20, Orsythia, Previfem, and Tri-Previfem. They were produced under the Endo subsidiary brand Qualitest.

Breathing new life into old songs

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:29:00 +0000

A quirky take on a forgotten favorite.

Although my wife is a classically trained singer with a degree in performance, sometimes it can be hard for us to figure out from the notes in a hymnal or chord chart how to sing a particular "psalm, hymn, or spiritual song."

Especially when these songs are largely forgotten. And especially when you only have a living room full of voices to mask the fact that none of you really know how to sing them!

Recently, we have been enthralled by the lesser-known hymns of Charles Wesley (no surprise, given my theological leanings). A hymnal I bought for a couple of bucks as Lillenas Publishing Co. was going under provided much inspiration but many questions on how to best interpret the bar notes on its pages.

So I took to YouTube. Over the course of several days, I found many performances of these "lost" classics (see one of my favorite renditions at the top of this post). The United Methodist Church had many of them already downloaded.

For most the ones I could not find performances of (particularly the ones with ... shall we say, terse subject matter), I was able to find the tunes. Thanks to YouTube's ability to create a channel and place notes on the videos you add, I was able to note which tunes match which songs from the book. (My playlist, in the off-chance anyone reading is interested, is titled "Wesley Hymns.") Some are good. Some are ... not so good. Some are just a guy on a keyboard. Some are contemporary renditions on guitar, some are traditional on piano, and others are done on historic church-building organs. But the idea, again, is to help a small church without much in the way or resources sing these neglected songs.

Several of the hymns in the book had tunes that were either proprietary to the publishing company or are relatively obscure. I'll list them at the bottom of this post -- we may have to reconstruct them and risk copyright infringement by recording our own performances!

Another handy resource I look forward to getting into: The Seedbed Psalter. And, trust me, none of the source material is copyrighted.

It's basically a new take on an ancient church concept put forth by the folks at Asbury Seminary: a directory of the Psalms, but with suggested tunes, arrangements, etc., for a church to sing along to. If all Scripture is good for “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness," then what better hymnal to sing from than the Bible itself?

And here's another old favorite -- a Calvinist group that is out there making (get this) NEW hymns conducive to public singing:

We'll keep this blog posted to any developments in how we sing together.

--

Wesley Hymns we're looking to find performances of (or may perform ourselves!). If you know of any, drop us a line. Several of these, I've noticed, have MIDI files on Hymnary.org.

O Jesus Full of Truth and Grace (HOLY FAITH)
AWay With Our Fears! (NEW SONG)
O What Shall I Say? (NEW SONG)
Now I Have Found the Ground Wherein (REVIVALIST)
But Can It Be, That I Should Prove? (HULL)
Faith, Mighty Faith, the Promise Sees (FAITH)
Thee, O Lord, I Will Obey (EVERLASTING LOVE)
O My All-sufficient God (EVERLASTING LOVE)
Shall I, for Fear of Feeble Man? (BIRSTAL)
Except the Lord Conduct the Plan (ANNALEE)
I Am Healed, I Am Healed! (AYJAY)
Far Off We Need Not Rove (FREYLINGHAUSEN)

Chicken and cake ... and God's grace

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:11:00 +0000

If you don't recognize this scene, you're not living the church life!

One of the tell-tale signs of a functioning house church is eating. It only makes sense that if you're having people you love over for an activity that will surely run during (or up to) a meal time -- and within feet of a well-stocked kitchen -- that you would want to combine culinary talents and eat together.

Is there anything more New Testament than food? Breaking bread from house to house? The Love Feast? Even the Lord's Supper?

So much of the life of the church is devoted to eating. Even institutional churches, where it's a central element to Christian fellowship. Unfortunately, this is a trend that seems to be waning.
Richard Beck's noteworthy Experimental Theology blog had a thoughtful post on the decline of the communal meal in brick-and-mortar churches -- "the potluck," his tradition calls it, though it may also be called a fellowship meal, a coverdish, church picnic, dinner on the grounds, etc.

... While it breaks my heart to say this, I think the art of the church potluck is on the decline.

We recently had a discussion about this with some friends at church, that potlucks are happening less frequently and, when they do happen, they aren't done very well. A symptom of a potluck gone bad at our church is when the potluck has to be supplemented by Little Caesar's pizza.

So I have to ask, is the Golden Age of the Church Pot Luck over?

It seems so.

With our friends we floated two hypotheses about the decline of the potluck.

The first was church size. It seems that churches are either very big or very small, making it harder to achieve the sweet spot for a congregation-wide potluck.
Our other hypothesis was about a loss of generational skill. The consensus was that our mothers and grandmothers really knew how to do a potluck. And the main thing was that they brought to the potluck a ton of food, enough for their family and many, many more.

This gave me cause for pause. In my personal experience, the communal meal is the obvious conclusion of increased fellowship, increased evangelism, increased discipleship, increased demand for one-on-one time to ask and answer spiritual questions, etc. To put it simply, a meal is the best time for us to put our guard down, dispense with the facades, and be real with each other. What other activity brings us together as fellow human beings and even our mortality? To put it even more simply, we all gotta eat.

On that note, I would like to add a third, fourth, and fifth hypothesis, and borrow a sixth.

Thirdly, the potluck and its related activities are too organic, too spontaneous, and too unofficial. Also in my personal experience, the communal meal is one of the first things those who are out to up-end a church go after. Whether they're intentionally or unintentionally targeting it, they are united in their disdain for the coverdish.

This has always mystified me, as breaking bread together is such a no-brainer. But consider what motives a false teacher or an errant teacher would have (see previous blogs on that subject). Does a potluck meal further their goals? Favor-ability? Convenience? Getting home in time to watch the NFL do their thing? Rather, the shared meal experience as part of the Lord's Day celebration flies in the face of those who use the ministry for personal or impure gains.

Communal meal gatherings open the door to non-approved discussions about the Bible and non-approved efforts to win souls to Christ (in other words, this doesn't do anything for the resume of Reverend Wonderful).

Fourthly, communal meals also pose a social risk that make ministers downright skittish in today's church environment. Throwing together so many dietary practices, health concerns, cultural backgrounds, and personal tastes (especially in today's pluralistic society) you're bound to end up with some hurt feelings. Consider ...

An untouched casserole dish may send a new family crying on the way home.

A meal spread with no vegetarian options may insult the consciences of those who don't eat meat.

And the young and hip may find the whole exercise culturally "irrelevant" and part of "grandpa's religion" or some bygone era. Either that, or they're more accustomed to ordering at a restaurant than having to choose between the various incarnations of chicken and cake on the folding tables in front of them.

Since modern Evangelicalism is all about creating a culture of non-offense and drawing in the young and pretty, then the potluck is nothing but a liability.

In making my fifth point, I'll save my thoughts on the consumer culture's overtaking of our Sunday day-of-rest in another post. But it needs to be pointed out that rushing to a nearby restaurant and pushing tables together has provided much competition for the communal meal.

"Beating the Baptists" to the steakhouse has become part of the American religious landscape. The potluck, by comparison, is a rather quaint predecessor to this modern convenience (note: prior to the 1960s, most restaurants were closed on Sundays and few were tolerant of families with young children -- again, more on this subject later).

Sixth, it's difficult. If indeed Sunday is supposed to be a sabbath (of sorts -- again, much more on this subject later), then why all the work setting up, taking down, washing dishes, spending Saturday nights making the food, etc.? Is this someone's crazy idea of "rest?"

The American Conservative magazine adds a this hypothesis to Beck's reasons for the decline of the potluck. Diversified diets and increased sensitivities are among the writer's indictments for just how complex a simple meal has become.

Beck concludes by comparing the potluck to a metaphor for God's extravagant mercy:

"It seems like an entire generation has forgotten the Golden Rule of the church potluck: Bring more that what you will eat. A lot more. Because it's that excess and abundance that makes the hospitality of a potuck [sic] possible, allowing the spontaneous invitation to the visitor who comes empty-handed to be an experience of gift and grace."

Fortunately, for those in house church environments, eating together is a virtually indispensable element: a constant reminder of God's grace, no matter how awkward, crowded, or offensive it may be.

Now someone pass the banana pudding, please.

Update: We probably should have included "busy lifestyles" as another reason. We live in age where kids' soccer games are scheduled for Sunday mornings, now, so why stick around for another hour of church when your hours are already spoken-for?

Taking Pastor Appreciation Day to the next level

noreply@blogger.com (Andy) — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 01:12:00 +0000

In honor of Pastor Appreciation Sunday, we house church-types would like to expand the the occasion to make it bigger and better than ever before! Now we can wish everyone a Happy ...

Pastor Appreciation Day
Server Appreciation Day
Teacher Appreciation Day
Exhorter Appreciation Day
Giver Appreciation Day
Administrator Appreciation Day
Healer Appreciation Day
Helper Appreciation Day
Tongues Speaker Appreciation Day
Tongues Interpreter Appreciation Day
Preacher Appreciation Day
Prophet Appreciation Day
Elder Appreciation Day
Deacon Appreciation Day
Presbyter Appreciation Day
Singer Appreciation Day

#BetterTogether

(In all seriousness: If you bear the burden of preparing several lessons per week, evangelizing the lost, administering finances, counseling the hurting, overseeing worship programs, and coordinating compassionate ministries, we hope your congregation gives you the respect you deserve for taking on all that work yourself. We also believe that respect comes from your flock using their God-given gifts to assist the same work you're doing to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to your community and worldwide. Take some of that load off your shoulders, for crying out loud! One Sunday and a pancake breakfast ain't gonna do it.)

Romans 12:6-8; I Corinthians 12:8-10, 28; Ephesians 4:11; I Timothy 3; Titus 3; I Peter 4:11 (did we miss one? Leave a reply in the comments below).