DIARY OF A FAT, WHITE PREACHER

Titus

2010-07-28T08:14:00.001-07:00

This summer we have been going through books of the Bible that are three chapters or less. The goal has been to get an overview of what is going on in each book, the theology of each book, how it fits in the narrative of Scripture, and then what it is saying to us today. This past Sunday we were on the book of Titus. This is my sermon manuscript (warning, its long): Titus Sermon.

Would LOVE to hear thoughts, and feedback. It's how I learn! Enjoy!

New Website

2010-07-11T14:30:00.001-07:00

I know it has been a while, and I will give an update soon on everything going on here...but one reason I haven't been blogging is that I have been getting a website ready for our church. Check it out at chiltonfbc.org

It's been a loooong time!

2010-06-19T04:51:00.000-07:00

Well both of my readers have been getting on me that I haven't updated this thing in a really long time. Let me begin by apologizing to the readers! It is now summer time and things have started to pick up with preparing for camps and going to camp, preaching/teaching (and the prep time for each), and on and on...I think you get the point!

So this is what has been going on since I last had an entry on this thing. We finished up Malachi, it was a good little book, it forced us to look at issues like what God considers acceptable worship, we talked a little bit about our attitude toward divorced people, as well as the faithful remnant that stood firm while everyone else was grumbling against Yahweh. I really enjoy the prophets (in particular the minor prophets) because they paint such a beautiful picture of the God we serve.

For mother's day, we looked at Hannah, and we talked about what it meant to be a mother who prays for her child, and a mother who goes through great lengths to see her son/daughter grow up into all that the Lord has for him/her. I shared some personal stories from my life about my mother and made a few ladies cry, so it was a good day!

We then started the summer and have been doing this series entitled "short stories." We first looked at Nahum, and asked 2 questions: 1) what is going on in this book? and 2) why are there two stories about Nineveh in our Scriptures, one where it ends well for Nineveh (Jonah) and one where it doesn't end so well (Nahum)? To make a long sermon short, we talked about Scripture giving a complete picture of God, that wrath and mercy are both realities of God, that God is an all consuming fire and will destroy all that is not of him, but he is a God of grace and mercy and wants people to know him and fall in love with him. Perhaps the sermon will be a later post. Second, we looked at Philemon and how what happens in that book is an outworking of the Gospel working in our lives, namely that the gospel breaks down barriers that society has set in place and puts everyone at equal footing, if it can reconcile a wealthy slave owner and a runaway slave, it can be used in reconciliation of any two people!

We just got back from camp and I will update that when I have more time! But keep an eye out! The Lord did a great thing at camp and I am excited about getting to follow up with the youth!

Malachi 2

2010-05-03T08:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we were in Malachi 2 (v. 10-16 to be specific). On Monday when I started studying for this particular passage I was nervous after reading it. For those of you who don't know, the passage deals with the issue of divorce, and specifically 2:16, "God hates divorce," has been used as a blanket statement to indict all divorced people as some sort of second class citizen. I don't believe that we should ever use one verse to form a theology on a subject, particularly when we do it in order to demean certain people in the church. Disclaimer: I am not advocating divorce, or even saying it is a good thing. What I am saying is that we aren't meant to use Scripture to belittle or demean people who have gone through some horrific event. We should extend grace and compassion (kind of like God has done to us :) ).

With that being said, I began studying the passage further and started to see that the passage is really about people doing things their own way and then wondering why when the bring a prayer offering to God (even with tears!), God doesn't seem to respond. In the passage, v. 13-14 says this:

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because God no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts with pleasure from your hands.

You ask, "why?" It is because the Lord is acting as a witness between you and the wife of

your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner the wife of your marriage covenant.

Now what is going in this passage is that Israelite men (including priests!) were divorcing their wife in order to marry Samaritan women in order to try and reclaim the land that was theirs before they were exiled. So what happens according to the text is that they married these women who served foreign gods, and eventually they began to worship these gods as well. In other words, they started down this slippery slope to the point that they are no longer even worshipping God as he deserves. So because they have broken the marriage covenant, and they are now breaking the Sinai covenant (namely they are worshipping created images instead of the one true God) God has stopped listening to their prayers.

What I see going on here is the same thing that Paul describes in Romans 1. As these priests began to engage in acts that went against God, they gradually became fully engrossed in a lifestyle that was not pleasing to God, so God sets His face against them. In Romans 1 (which has erroneously been used to condemn solely homosexual activity) tells us that if we continue to live a lifestyle that is going against the way God intended for us to live, eventually we will become hard hearted to hearing from God, and will be given over to our sins.

And that is what I see going on in Malachi 2. Divorce is what is happening at the time that Malachi is speaking against on behalf of the Lord. But the real issue is the priests' faithlessness in Yahweh. Their actions started out by trying to regain land through remarriage. To be fair to them, land is tied to blessing in the OT, but where their thinking is flawed is on the fact that they think it is up to them and their actions to reclaim the land. So what is really going on, is that the priests began to engage in this lifestyle that was contrary to how the Lord has told them to live, and they eventually get to the point where they are not even worshipping Yahweh only, but are worshipping the gods of their wives. So God refuses to accept their prayers, though they may weep and wail.

So the text ends with "guard yourself in the spirit, and do not break faith." We need to remember that God is a god of covenant, and that his nature is to remain faithful to the covenant he has established. We may try to set new terms of the covenant, but God's nature is never changing, and he will always be faithful to the covenant he has established. So the question for us, is this: what stuff do we have in our lives that prevent us from hearing from God, or that prevents God from hearing our prayers? In other words, is there stuff in our lives that is contrary to how God has told us to live, yet we are still trying to rationalize and hold on to?

These are questions that do not need to be asked once and then never to be asked again, rather they are questions that we should ask ourselves daily. It is part of the sanctification process. We should examine our lives on a daily basis and plead with God to root out the evil that exists in us. We should plead with him to reveal to us any parts of our life that do not line up with his teachings. This is the pursuit of being holy as he is holy, or being perfect as he is perfect. This is the goal, this pursuit should not be rationalized away some sort of impossibilty so I am not even going to try, but our goal should be more like Jesus today, than we were yesterday. (disclaimer: this only happens with the Holy Spirit working in us, it is not some personal effort thing).

One other word. This process is often times going to be slow and painful. We live in a world, where we think we should have everything, and have it right now. That isn't how becoming like Jesus works. It is a life long process of pursuing Jesus and desiring to have anything sinful in my life rooted out and bound up in Christ.

So we really have two choices: 1) we can continue to try and rationalize any sin we have in our life and let it slowly but surely overtake us until we are eventually given over to it and it hinders our prayers to God or 2) we can decide that we are not longer going to live our way, but give our lives fully to God and examine our lives based on the truths that he has revealed to us and at the end of our life hear the words "well done good and faithful servant."

Malachi 1

2010-04-29T07:31:00.000-07:00

We have just recently finished our series in Acts. It was a good book to go through because I felt that it reminded us that as church we have neglected the role of prayer in our daily lives, as well as the role of prayer in our worship services. It was also good because it gave a biblical basis for some of the new things that we have tried to do here, and I think all and all it is good to be reminded of the purpose of the church and what her function is in the mission of God.

So naturally after finishing Acts, the next logical book is Malachi. The reason I chose Malachi is practical, personal and theological. Practically we have 4 Sundays (not including Mother's day) before the summer starts, and I wanted to finish this book before everyone scatters for the summer! On a personal level, I love the minor prophets! And theologically, it is good to be reminded of some things about God. Especially after a whole book where I challenged them to "do" something every Sunday.

So with that being said, we launched into Malachi 1 this past Sunday. I really enjoyed studying this chapter. In the first 5 verses there is so much packed in there that we would have been there for 2 hours unpacking everything! With that being said, I will probably have to do another post about the Jacaob-Esau motif that is used by Malachi to illustrate God's love for his people.

The point of the first part of Malachi is that God has loved us perfectly, even though we are continually unfaithful to His covenant. The Israelites forget this and "ask when have you loved us?" In other words, they were implying that God has not loved them at all, or at least not loved them the way they thought they were supposed to be loved. They are still a weak nation. They are still small, and they are rather poor. They have just returned from exile where they suffered great humiliation, and to them it seems like they have suffered all for nothing. So Malachi reminds them that they are still God's covenant people, and reminds them basically that even though they had whored themselves out to other things, God has been with them and loved them through everything and has brought them out of exile, and had destroyed Edom because of their opposition to his covenant people. So really the Lord's response in layman's terms is "You have got to be kidding me, how can you even say that!?" It is equivalent to the friend who always asks you for favors and then after 25 times in a row of saying yes and doing whatever it is he/she needs, you say "no" one time and they get all huffy and say "I thought we were friends!" I know this illustration breaks down at some point, but the issue here is that Israel has benefitted greatly from God establishing a covenant with them, and when things don't turn out like they want it to, they ask God "when have you loved us?" Perhaps this is something to think about when we are going through rough times, and to be grateful that we have a God who is still deeply concerned, and deeply in love with his covenant people, even when it is not tangible to us at the time.

The second half of the first chapter (and going on into chapter 2, through v. 9) deals with the priests accepting sacrifices to the Lord that are specifically forbidden in Leviticus. In short, this deals with the issue of lack of fear (reverence for the Lord). The whole situation is summed up when God says (through Malachi), "you wouldn't even bring this to your governor, and yet you bring it to me?" They are bringing sacrifices to God that wouldn't even be acceptable to a fallen, sinful human being, and they are trying to pawn off these things to God!? Moral of the story: take God seriously!

It seems to me that, at least in the Western Cuture, and particularly in the Bible Belt, we have this tendency to view worship with this contemptuous attitude. In other words, we really don't focus on God throughout the week, and we simply show up to church hoping to "experience" or "feel" something. When in reality, the Scriptures are full of passages that condemn this attitude. We have whole book (Leviticus) dedicated to how things should be prepared for worship and what is acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to offering something in worship. Now we don't have the need for animal sacrifices anymore, but we do have our lives to offer. And this attitude of simply coming to worship services because of what we might get out of it, or because we think that somehow it will appease God and he might have mercy on us is wrong and irreverent! God says in Malachi, it would be better for the doors to be shut and worship not to go on, than to do what you are doing. In fact, the passage in Malachi even says that their prayers are not heard by Yahweh because of their irreverent attitude!! In 1 Peter 3:7 it warns husbands who are mistreating their wives, that their prayers can be hindered. Honestly I have never been taught that there are some things that I can do, or a lifestyle that I can live that will cause the Lord to have deaf ears when it comes to my prayers and the things I offer him. This passage really caused me to reevaluate how I prepare for worship each Sunday, and not only that, it has caused me to reevaluate the way I live my life. It has caused me to always be reminded that the sacrifice I bring to the Lord is my very life. I am either living for him, or I am living in opposition to Him. There really is no other option.

May we evaluate our lives, and may they be pleasing to God. May our worship be pleasing to God because of the sacrifice that we offer to Him.

Women in Scripture #7

2010-04-29T06:49:00.000-07:00

Ok so confession time. I said in my last post there would be 2 more posts on this topic. However, I have decided that this will be the last entry on this topic. Why you may ask? Well 7 is the perfect number, so it seemed appropriate (ha, sorry, lame seminarian joke). Really, I am just feeling like I am repeating myself, and that is no fun to write, and if it is no fun to write, logic tells me, it is even less fun to read. So this will be the last entry simply because I am ADHD and want to write about other things!

So the passage that must be addressed in this entire thing is the big one in 1 Corinthians 14, starting in verse 34 which says that women should remain silent in church. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husband at home; for it is disgraceful for women to speak in church.

Now at first glance this would seem to end any argument about women preaching in church, teaching men in church, etc. However, it seems to me that this is the worst case of proof texting that we do as a church. To apply this passage as deeming it inappropriate for women to speak, teach, or preach in church is to lift it entirely out of cultural context. The reason this is important is because if we are going to take the things Paul says literally then those same people who claim this passage is applicable for today with no regard to cultural context, should not let their wives cut their hair (1 Cor. 11) or to wear jewery, braid their hair, wear expensive clothes, wear anything that could be considered immodest (i.e. any leg showing) (1 Tim. 2:9). Further, if they take everything literally that Paul writes then any woman who does not bear children cannot be saved (1 Tim. 2:10).

So it seems to me that we take these passages about women teaching over men and hold them up as the example of which to follow in our churches, yet we completely ignore anything else pertaining to women when it comes to the way they are dressing, when it comes to the way they wear their hair, when it comes to whether or not they cut their hair, and if we took literally things Paul said, then women are saved through the cross plus childbearing (which no one would ever say).

Incidentally, the 1 Timothy passage also talks about women not having authority over man as well. But the interpretation of that passage and how to look at it will be the same basic argument as looking at this Corinthians passsage.

So to the passage in 1 Corinthians 14. First it is appropriate to discuss the cultural setting in which the Corinthian church is set. The view of woman was very low, in the Greek world Sophocles actually said "silence confers grace upon a woman." According to Barclay, women, unless they were very poor or very loose, usually lived a life of solitude in Greece. If you can believe it, the Jewish view of women was even lower!! There were many Rabbinic sayings that belittle women such as: "to teach the law to a woman was to cast pearls before swine." The Talmud actually lists among the plagues of the world "the talkative and the inquisitive widow and the virgin who wastes her time in prayers!"(Barclay, Letters to Corinthians, 136) WOW! According to his, women shouldn't even pray, should we enforce this as well? Lastly, it was forbidden to speak to a woman in the street.

So with that setting, we read what is going on in the passage of Corinthians. There are two different views on what is going on in this passage.

First, Paul is not negating the fact that as he wrote in Galatians, "there is no Greek or Jew....male or female," where he essentially is saying that in Christ all walls are broken down. Rather, these women are abusing their new found freedom and causing disruption in the church service itself. And so essentially he is saying that if you cannot control your freedom, then you don't get to use it at all.

Second, Paul is writing to a church that is in infancy, and with a concern of their lax moral standards. And so in his mind he is trying to help a church in its infant stages not to bring upon itself the suspicion of immodesty.

In either scenario, Paul is writing within a particular context and culture. We see this all the time even today when the Gospel penetrates a culture where men are dominant and women are to be seen and not heard. There is not this drastic change that happens overnight where men and women are viewed as equals. And so we see here in Corinthians, Paul is concerned with the church's witness as a whole, and is speaking to a specific issue of the time. To take this passage about women speaking in church and extrapolate it and take it literally as a universal truth causes great problems with the rest of the things Pauls says in this letter and other letters.

No one has ever been able to explain to me why women can not preach and teach in church, yet they can wear gold, designer clothes (usually skirts that are too short), heels, hair done up, and that not be going against what Paul writes in our Scriptures.

Either we are going to take everything that is said literally and apply it as universal truth, or we need to examine Scripture and understand it within the culture it is written, and THEN figure out the application for us today. Those are the only two options. Can we please stop picking and choosing which passages about women we want to enforce?

Women in Scripture #6

2010-04-20T08:48:00.000-07:00

Before getting into the topic today, I want to remind people of why I have decided to do this series. This is an attempt to search Scripture in order to find out if the stance we have taken when it comes to women is Biblical or if it is a result of traditionalism that has left women oppressed within our church congregations. The goal is to start discussion and maybe influence change in a way that still keeps the unity of the body in tact.

One other thing, this series was never intended to be an exhaustive list of passages of women in Scripture or texts that address women in Scripture. My hope is just to deal with the most controversial ones and then be finished. That being said, there will be 3 or 4 more entries on this topic. One reason being, I will probably start repeating myself shortly, and that is boring to read. Another reason, I am ADHD and need to move to something else or I get really "panicky" :).

Today's blog post actually came out of research I am doing for a new series that we are starting as a church. We just finished the book of Acts (in only short 8 months!) and are moving on to the book of Malachi. In researching for this book, I felt it necessary to research the role of prophecy in general when it came to Israel and give a brief overview of their function. In other words I wanted to start by dispelling the myth that prophets are simply people who talk about the future (foretelling) and demonstrate that when they speak they are speaking into certain situations and giving warnings of God's response as it relates to his covenant with them (forthtelling).

At any rate, I was reading about different prophets, and came across Elijah and Elisha. And as I was reading 2 Kings 4 it hit me that not only were women not a problem when it came to leadership, they were actually part of guilds or schools known as "sons of the prophets!" In 2 Kings 4 we see that Elijah and Elisha were leaders of prophetic communities at Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal (2 Kings 2:3-4; 4:38). Now members of these guilds were not tied down to any one place but were free to travel around and deliver the oracles of God. In 2 Kings 4:1-7 we see that a woman was part of this guild!

Now, this is not new to us in one sense. We have women in seminaries all over the place preparing for ministry. What is unique is that fact that these women belonging to these prophetic communities seem to function in the same capacity as the men, and there is no real debate concerning whether or not what the women are doing when they prophesy is biblical. It still amazes me that women who are in seminary are still told where they can serve, and in what capacities. And again, this may not be explicit, but implicit in the way things are structured in the church, in the silence on topics such as women's ability to being pastor's, etc. However, it seems that there is an increasing amount of pastors out there who are becoming more vocal about the "appropriate" roles for women.

Yet throughout the history of Israel, women served and functioned in all capacities. Even prophets (which as I have said before is equivalent of a pastor today)! It seems to me that views on this issue are not grounded on our Scriptures so much as a tradition that was started by human origins.

If women were being used by God throughout all of Israel's history and are good enough for God to use as he sees fit. Shouldn't they be viewed by us in the same way?

Update!

2010-04-20T08:38:00.001-07:00

So it has been a long time since I have entered something on this blog and I know both of my readers are eagerly waiting in anticipation, so I wanted to give a quick update before I continue the series of "Women in Scriptures."

It has been an exciting last month at our church. We have seen three people come to Christ, and have had 2 baptisms! This past Sunday was the third person to accept Jesus. This one was exciting for me because it was one of the youth that lives directly behind our house. We have been praying for him and his family since being here. The Lord has allowed me to build a relationship with the entire family and yesterday He allowed us to see the benefits of our prayers and that relationship. I must say here, that it was not just my relationship with the family, but my wife's leadership in the youth ministry that was very instrumental in this boy coming to know Jesus. She put on a D-now that really challenged the students about the way they should live their lives, and the demands that Jesus' call places on all of us who desire to follow him. The best part of the D-Now was that there was a challenging message but in an environment that was fun and relaxed. I believe the Lord was working through that D-Now and this kid has been coming every Sunday and Wednesday since then, hearing the message of God.

I am thankful that the Lord allowed us to see the results of our labor. Also, I am not saying it was just us that was involved in this process. As John 4 reminds us, some plant and others water. Some will never see the fruit of their labor this side of heaven, but some will. And in those times when the Lord allows you to see someone with whom you have a relationship and been praying for come to faith it gives a feeling like no other!

So the last month has been a whirlwind of baptisms, visiting with people who have confessed Christ and are beginning a life with Christ. God is really doing something here in our church, and I am so blessed that we get to be a part of it!

So as God continues to do amazing things (even in spite of the pastor they have :) ) pray for us as continue on this awesome journey!

Women in Scripture #5

2010-03-30T07:46:00.000-07:00

Pauls seems to be the most quoted when it comes to fighting against the idea that women can have a place in ministry other than teaching other women and children. Yet it seems that Paul worked with quite a few women who served in a variety of different roles.

In Romans 16:7, Paul greets Andronicus and Junia as being "prominent among the apostles." Junia (a woman) fulfilled the Pauline criteria for apostleship. Therefore she obviously had seen the risen Christ and engaged in missionary work.

Her leadership role as an apostle are very similar to female leadership roles in ancient Judaism--such as head of synagogue or elder. She was one of several female church leaders that associated with Paul. Others include Prisca (Rom. 16:3-4), whom Acts describes as a teacher (18:26), then there is Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3). Yes the last two were involved in a conflict with each other that Paul had to address. However, can that really disqualify all of women from being in leadership roles? If we went by that criteria for men, we would no longer have any pastors at all! We fight about everything!

Back to Junia though. There has been much debate about Junia and her role among the apostles. For a long time it was read as she was one of the prominent apostles. Then somewhere along the line, a translator with this ridiculous mentality about women came along, and tried to prove that Junia was mistranslated and should have been "Junias" making it a male name. When that didn't work, some were left trying to prove that Junia was an abbreviation for a longer male name. This didn't make any sense because it didn't follow any pattern of abbreviation that we have from Greek documents (biblical or otherwise). When all these attempts failed, there was a movement to read "prominent among the apostles" to mean that she was well known by the apostles, but just because someone knows them doesn't mean they are part of the group. While it is true, a person simply being known by someone in another doesn't make that person part of a group (I have friends who are in gangs, doesn't make me a gang member), this reading is ridiculous since it was widely accepted for centuries as meaning that Junia was an apostle, and prominent among them.

We cannot allow revisionist history to do away with the fact that there were women apostles. There were women teachers. And that God is in the habit of using everyone regardless of gender to accomplish his purpose. In the Kingdom of God there is supposed to be no more distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek or Scythe, slave or free, male or female. We have done a good job with the first three, I am just dumbfounded as to why we are struggling with the fourth.

Another Update...

2010-03-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

Well we got back from Mexico about a little over a week ago. There was a long gap between posts because we were in Mexico for a week, and then I felt like I was going 100 mph trying to catch up on some things I needed to get done when I got back.

Overall Mexico was awesome! There was some great things that happened on that trip. There was a youth who seemed to really find his niche. A mother who shared that she went on the trip for her son, but soon realized that God had much to teach her about the value of friendship and the stories go on and on. I am really hopeful that that the lessons we learned in Mexico will be implemented now that we are back in Chilton.

We are now going through the Easter season. This is quite possibly my favorite time of year. It is a time of new beginnings. To reflect on the implications of the resurrection and what that means in our lives. We are not having any services during holy week, but next year I definitely think we will. Easter Sunday is just so much more meaningful if you have gone through the week remembering the cross and the obedience that Jesus displayed in taking all of that on himself. It is truly remarkable Lord that we serve!

After Easter, we will hit up the fundraising for youth camp and also begin making preparations for the month of June. It will be a busy one (Youth Camp, Pre-teen camp, VBS in 3 consecutive weeks!). In that time between Easter and that crazy 3 week stretch, Meredith and I will celebrate our 2 year anniversary. I can't believe it!!!

Anyway, that is a short update on what is going on with us. Hope this finds everyone well!

Happy Easter!!

Women in Scripture #4

2010-03-29T14:21:00.000-07:00

One of the most fascinating things that I find when talking to people about the Bible is how people (men in particular) seem to elevate David and hold him up as an example that all should follow. Most likely they will quote the verse that calls David "a man after God's own heart." While there are certainly a lot of good qualities found in David, the reason that he gets this description is that he has a very repentant heart. Which we all should have. But what this also means is that David messed up...ALOT. I love studying the life of David because it gives me hope when I read his story. He messes up, God teaches him a lesson, he repents and tries to follow God to the best of his ability before inevitably messing up again. I like it because it reminds me of my spiritual journey.

Anyway, there is one particular incident that I find fascinating. The story is found in 2 Samuel 14:1-20. It is the story of the wise woman from Tekoa. Tekow is located in a Judean hill country about ten miles south of Jerusalem. In this particular story it is made clear that this woman is a village leader--in today's world it would be very similar to the role of a male elder.

In 2 Samuel 13, the story of the rape of King David's daughter (by her half brother) is told. David grieves that this has happened, but takes no steps (required by the Law) to address Absalom. In fact Absalom flees and it is not until three years later that David's general, Joab, comes up with a scheme to get Absalom and David back together (the story is much more detailed than what I am portraying, but I am trying to get to the part of the woman from Tekoa).

Joab's plan involves seeking this woman from Tekoa. She is to pretend to be a single mother of two boys, and one has murdered the other. (If you are having flashbacks of Nathan and David, you are not far off!) So she acts out this scenario and just like the scene with Nathan, David is forced into clear thinking.

Now to be fair, we can't exactly say this is a one to one comparison with Nathan. Nathan's account is appointed by God, this account happens because of Joab. And the overall wisdom is not realy clear, seeing as Absalom revolts four years later.

However, with that being said there are still things that point to the role of female leadership being accepted in Israel. As I said earlier, she is depicted as a village leader, which would be akin to the male role of elder. She is also depicted as a woman who is able to appropriate the fundamental cultural values of ancient Israel--the preservation of patriarchal lineage (14:7) and the people of God (14:13), and the king's obligation to protect the right of the orphan and widow to enjoy God's heritage (14:6).

Further, she is depicted in this account as being very well spoken indicating her experience in dealing with similar incidents in the past. This woman was a leader and no one had any problem with her reminding David of his duty as king. Perhaps this plan originated in the mind of Joab, but God was definitely present throughout this entire story using this woman.

Now this is obviously not making a case for women to be pastor's. That isn't my goal with all of this. My goal is to simply show that Scripture shows a God who uses both men and women. That God can, at any time, lift up a man or woman to lead God's people. We find here in this story that God uses a woman to remind David his obligations as king. Inevitably someone will say she was just submitting to Joab's orders. However, this is a weak argument in light of the fact that she is obviously a village leader (a village which I will go out on a limb and say includes men). So why would she all of a sudden need to submit to someone coming to her and asking for her help, doesn't make sense.

What this story shows me is that God uses who he wants, when he wants and we as people of God do not have the right to step in and tell people in what capacity they can serve. Last time I checked, that was totally God's call.

Update on our lives!

2010-03-14T07:27:00.001-07:00

Well Spring Break is here!

Spring Break in Chilton, TX starts tomorrow (Mar. 15) and with it comes our first mission trip since being at Chilton. We have six people going and we will meet up with another church from Abilene, TX when we get to Del Rio. There will be 55 from that group and our 6 makes 61 people headed to Mexico to do construction projects around the city, a VBS for the kids (run by your church's youth), and a women's ministry which is great for some of the more mature ladies of the church who can't quite keep up with the kids at VBS and aren't really interested in doing construction for 3 straight days.

Anyway, we leave on Tuesday (Mar. 16) and return Saturday (Mar. 20). I am excited to see what God is going to teach us as we make the journey down there. I find that God teaches the most to the missionaries going when it comes to short term mission trips like the one we are taking.

The hope and the prayer is that as we are transformed by this short term mission trip, we will bring back what we have learned and use it to reach our community. The neighborhood we will be in when in Mexico, and the neighborhood here in Chilton known as "Little Mexico" are virtually the same. So the mission trip is not just so we can call ourselves an "Acts 1:8" church or any other ridiculous label, the purpose of this trip is to learn from God what we can be doing in Chilton. Sometimes, it takes getting away from the comfortable surroundings to be able to see things anew when you return.

So that is our hope and our prayer as we go to Mexico. I hope you will remember to pray for us as we are gone. This also means that there will not be another post on here for about a week. Sorry to disappoint both of my readers! :)

Women in Scripture #3

2010-03-13T06:26:00.000-08:00

Today, I will shift the focus a little from a particular woman in Scripture, to a passage in Scripture that I believe has been used wrongly to support woman "staying in the home." The passage is Titus 2:1-9.

In this letter, Paul is giving Titus instructions on how teaching to various groups. He tells Titus to teach the older men to be temperate, self controlled, sound in faith, etc. He then goes into what older women should teach younger women (we will come back to this), and then he tells the older men to teach the younger men to be sound in their speech so that when others speak against them, they will end up shaming themselves (Jesus said something similiar--"heaping coals on their head").

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with the advice that Paul is giving Titus. There is absolutely a place for men to teach young men, and women to teach young women. There are things that my wife can teach (and should teach) a girl in our youth group that I can't (and shouldn't) teach her. Likewise, their are issues that young boys deal with that I can relate to and speak to that my wife has no experience with. So please do not hear me say that when it comes to discipleship issues we should mix genders. We shouldn't. The problem comes when people use this verse to say "women should stay in the home" (complimentarian camp) or when people use this verse to say "see women can only teach women and children" (sexist camp).

Here is what he says about women: " teach older women to be reverent, so that they can teach younger woman to love their husband and children, to be self controlled and to be busy at home...so that no one will malign the word of God."

Now at first glance this seems like an open and shut case that women should stay at home and love their husband and children. Now I do agree that women should love their husband and children (obviously!), just as a husband should love his wife and children(mutual submission--Ephesians). And I am not saying if a woman CHOOSES to stay at home and be a "stay at home mom" that she is somehow wrong or am I telling her to go do something else. I believe that is a calling just like any other. What I am speaking against is men who use this passage to make their wives stay at home in order to "live according to Scripture."

Here are a couple of reasons off the top of my head that this reading of Scripture is invalid:

1. Culture--To read this passage and apply it the way some people have is to take the reading completely out of its cultural context. In this culture, women were not allowed to work outside of the house. In essence they had to stay at home. So Paul here is basically telling Titus to train the older women so that they train the younger women to do their housework as if doing it for the Lord. (Col. 3:23). Also, in this culture it would be completely inappropriate for women to teach men. So Paul is writing within a cultural context and telling those who have become followers of the Way to live a life that is worthy of their calling. In other words, he is telling men and women to live in a way that brings glory to God within this particular culture.

It should be noted here, that when I speak of the treatment of women I am speaking strictly in the context of the country which I live. I am not saying we take these same principles and apply them to other contexts (i.e. Islamic countries). There should be different strategies based on whatever context ministry occurs.

2. Danger in "literalness"

I find it funny that men have used this passage in its most literal sense to "prove" that women should stay in the home. If we this passage is to be interpreted literally then the way this passage ends should be used to support slavery. Afterall, Paul does not say anything about releasing slaves or that slavery is wrong. Rather he simply tells them to embrace their life situation and be the best slaves possible. It seems to me that if one were to take this passage literal, that those men using this passage to keep their wives at home should also own some slaves as well. Yet, no one seems to use this passage to defend slavery (and they shouldn't, I am not advocating slave use. I am just pointing out the intellectual inconsistency). We cannt pick and choose which verses we want to take literally and which ones we don't within a particular passage. Either Paul is writing in a cultural context and we need to take principles from what he is writing and figure out how they translate into our culture. Or we take everything literal, which would mean that the complimentarian camp would have to take the slave verses literal as well.

There are other reasons that I believe the "literal reading" of this passage is off based, but I do not have time to go into them at this point. One final disclaimer. When referring to our picking and choosing of what to take literal and what not to take literal, I am not speaking about going passage from passage. In other words, there are places in the Bible that we should take literally, and there are passages that we should read as metaphors. All should be read with their context in mind, and understood in that context before applying principles to live by for us today in a different context.

This passage is not a passage that can be used to tell women that they can't teach men, or that they need to stay at home and take care of the house while the man works. If a woman feels called to be a stay at home mom, GREAT. However, if she is being forced to stay at home because of a horrific reading of this passage in Titus that situation is defined by one term: oppression.

Women in Scripture #2--Huldah

2010-03-11T08:28:00.000-08:00

As I study this topic of women found in our Scripture, I am astounded at the leadership roles I find in the Old Testament and how the gender of the person delivering the word from God is never an issue. They receive it as authoritative because it comes from God, not because it comes from a man or woman.

Today I want to look briefly at Huldah. Reason being, I simply find the account of Huldah fascinating. Her story can be found in 2 Kgs 22:14-20 and 2 Chr 34:11-28. I would recommend reading it when you get the chance. Basically Huldah is summoned after Josiah's servants find a document during his temple renovations.

Huldah is summoned to validate whether or not the document is authentic. Huldah is a temple prophet, which as we have discussed before functions in the same role a pastor would today. She is not the only prophet during this time, however. Jeremiah is prophesying during this time as well. In fact, Jeremiah is probably closer in distance to Josiah than Huldah (according to some commentators), yet Huldah is summoned. This should put to rest the whole "women can serve if there is no man to step up" argument.

The story ends with Huldah declaring that the document found during the Temple renovations is authentic. Most people think that this document found is what we refer to in our Scriptures as the book of Deuteronomy. There is some debate about this, but the internal evidence seems to point to this conclusion.

So the story is basically about a WOMAN authenticating a document that is central to both Judaism and Christianity. Jesus quotes this book more than any other. So it could be said that God used a woman to start the canonization process by using her position as prophet to authenticate the writing as being from God.

Further, Huldah functions in the role of pastor more than Deborah. She takes a written text and interprets it, and then her prophetic words of judgment are based on a written text. Isn't this what pastors do every Sunday? Not the judgment part, but take a text and discern how the text applies to their congregation, and then speak prophetically from the pulpit on Sunday mornings?

Note also Josiah's reaction. It wasn't a "I can't listen to this, she is a woman" attitude. Rather he recognizes the authority with which this prophet is speaking, and quickly makes changes (tears his clothes because he realizes that they haven't been doing what is pleasing to God).

Isn't it ironic that the first person to authenticate a written text that is in our sacred literature was a woman. Yet, today they are not seen (in most churches) as having the right criteria to preach. Weird...Women are good enough to be used by God, but we have a problem with women in certain roles...

International Women's Day

2010-03-09T22:35:00.000-08:00

I didn't even realize they had "International Women's Day." But here is a link my friend Brenda Sanders had on her facebook status. It is faces of displaced women around the world.

"Jim and Casper Go To Church"

2010-03-09T21:32:00.001-08:00

Today's post will not be about women in Scripture. Two reasons: 1) I did not really have time to sit down and read well enough to discuss another woman or a passage about women in the church. Tuesdays are usually my busy day in which I go visit a member in the nursing home, go to lunch with some folks from the church, and then play dominoes with them the entire afternoon (hard job I know). 2) Our church has started a book club and it has been a really good thing in my opinion. I love to read and discuss, and I feel like we have read good books and had discussions on a variety of topics (i.e. The Great Divorce, The Shack, Same Kind of Different As Me, etc). The book we read for tonight was no different. The book for discussion tonight was, Jim & Casper Go To Church. In this book, Jim Henderson (Christian) and Matt Casper (atheist) travel to different churches around the country and basically critique each church.

There are some values for reading this book. First, it is always good to hear a critique from someone on the "outside." By outside I mean, a person who is a non-believer and does not attend church. It is usually their critique that is the most honest and challenging. Too often, "insiders" (people accustomed to a certain way things are done) get too comfortable in their setting and become immune to seeing the flaws of what they are involved in. In this book, it is the same way. Casper offers great insights into what most churches have become. His main gripe about the church is that too often the church does not compel anyone to "do" anything with what they heard in the service. He observed that everything was about belief and nothing else. While this is a valid critique on our faith, I think it is somewhat an unfair assessment by Casper. 2) No matter what you think about Casper's critique/observation it causes all who read to take an honest look at the church they attend and ask the question, "is what we are doing consistent with Scripture?" 3) Along the same lines it asks the question of whether or not we attend church for our own benefit (what we can get out of it), or to be equipped to serve (what we can contribute) in the Kingdom of God. I fear that the former is what is driving church membership. 4) Shows the true value of authentic friendship. These two men seem to genuinely care about each other, and that relationship grows throughout the book.

There are of course other values to this book, but I thought those were the two most important benefits.

The book also left me frustrated. In all honesty, I probably would have written a glowing report on this book had I read it in seminary. However, after being a pastor for 7 months now, I think this book is a tad bit unfair.

First, these guys are going to a church for ONE service. They are trying to critique a whole church based on what they do in worship. This is unfair because no one can adequately critique anything in one church service. As a pastor, I would fear to be critiqued after one sermon or one church service. Churches are full of people, fallen people. They are susceptible to bad days, and to base an opinion on what one church does in one service seems to me a tad unfair.

Second, there is no way to preach on everything in one sermon. Meaning, that Casper's critique about a pastor not charging someone to "do" something at the end of the service is not exactly fair. This relates to my first objection. When people gather together for worship they are bringing in a variety of different experiences from the previous week. Perhaps some have lost a loved one, some are stressed about school, etc. Anyway, there are times when a pastor's message is not going to be to "do" something. Rather, people simply need to be encouraged and reminded that God is in control, God loves them, there is hope in the name of Jesus. They do not ALWAYS need to be challenged to do something. I have preached sermons where my application was simply to rest in the fact that they are loved by the God of the Ages. Trusting that when they remember that fact, the Spirit will drive them into action in His timing. It is impossible for a pastor to cover every aspect of the Christian faith in one sermon. Now to his point, there does seem to be this emphasis on belief rather than lifestyle. In other words, believe the right things and you will go to heaven. We have missed the mark on this one. Christianity is not all about "getting into heaven." Anyway, I thought that his critique on this aspect while valid on an overall scale, was unfair to the pastor's preaching the sermons he was hearing.

There are tons of other things that this book made me think about, and there were a lot of things that we discussed as a group. These were just initial thoughts to the book. I have more thoughts of course on the book, but I would recommend the book to anyone involved in church, or that has grown up in the church. I especially would recommend this book to anyone on a church staff. This book will make anyone think about what we call "church" and if what we do as a body lines up with Scripture.

Women in Scripture #1--the implications of what we say

2010-03-08T08:09:00.001-08:00

As you read from my previous post, I have decided to go through the Bible and look at different women from our Scriptures. My hope is to simply start a conversation about why we have the view of women we do in the church. It seems to be very inconsistent with Scripture, and at times seems to portray God as a sexist who has relegated women to a "lesser" role of teaching women and children only. Through examining the Scriptures, I am hoping to at least take the first step in changing the way in which we view the roles of women in our churches.

Again, from the previous post, this is a passion of mine because I believe that passing on the legacy of our faith to the generation behind us is very important, and we cannot continue to pass on this legacy of oppression in the church. However, with that being said, change in church usually comes slowly. So to all the women out there who want to see change happen fast, and will pretty much do things in the church just to show men that women are capable of doing things...STOP! While change is necessary, it is also necessary to maintain the unity of the body. Tearing a church apart just to prove that women are equal to men is as unpleasing to God as the treatment some women get in our churches today. The goal should always be to maintain the unity of the body while change is occurring. With that being said, the generation of woman today (and those fighting the good fight with them) will probably feel like they are making very little headway in terms this topic. However, have hope! That the work that is being done now, will serve generations of women in the church far into the future!

Now let us turn to one of my favorite stories in Scripture, featuring one of the most prominent Judges in all of Israel's history. In Judges 4 we find a woman named Deborah. Now Deborah is one of the major judges in the story of how Israel takes the land of Canaan. Deborah is the only judge to be called a prophet (MALE or FEMALE). In this story Deborah summons Barak (leader of the Israelite army) and gives Barak orders that she has received from the Lord to go to Mount Tabor. She then gives him specific instructions. Barak refuses to go if Deborah doesn't go, and so Deborah goes with him (she doesn't fight though). Long story short, the battle is won and another woman, Jael, is given glory for the victory because it is she who kills Sisera with a tent peg through his temple. The story ends with Deborah and Barak singing a song in celebration.

Now this story is one of my favorite stories, mainly because the method of how Sisera is killed is so awesome (morbid I know). But deeper than that, when I read this story, I think of how it wouldn't even have happened had the Israelites had the same view of women we do today.

Deborah is a judge/prophetess. That in itself would be problematic for us in the church today, since the role of the prophet, and role of pastor are very similar. Deborah's job as judge is to rule according to God's law. Her job as prophetess was to hear from God and lead the people of Israel in the way that God directs. Both of which she does beautifully. And incidentally, it doesn't seem as though anybody mentioned in this story has a problem with the fact that Deborah is a female. The sons of Israel continue to come to her to rule over matters they can't settle, and Barak does not seem to have a problem with hearing God's instructions through a woman.

Now I know this story is not happening in a "church setting," but it is a story of God using Deborah as an instrument to accomplish His plans for the people of Israel. God has equipped Deborah and He used her, something I think we don't allow for in our churches today. In fact, I have even heard horror stories of young girls telling a pastor that they think they are called to pastor a church, and that pastor telling the young girl she is either wrong, or has heard wrongly from the Lord about her role in vocational ministry!

I have even heard sermons on this particular passage where the preacher has said Deborah is in a leadership role because there were no men who were willing to step up and fill that role! Now as absurd as that sounds from the reading of the story (Barak gathered 10,000 men--surely one in ten thousand would have stepped up, right?) this was a very common view of women that I would hear when I first became a Christian.

The statement would be made something like this (and this is not just pertaining to the story of Deborah, but to women in general): "God uses women in leadership roles where they would have authority over men, only when there is no man that will step up and lead."

Now the implications of this statement are horrific! In other words, females in the church are God's back-up plan, God's second choice, etc. Now if I asked someone who made a statement like the one above if the saw women as "God's back up plan, or God's second choice," a lot of them would say no , but that in a sense is what they are saying. That God in His infinite wisdom, created women, just in case there was a time in history where men didn't step up to the plate His plan could still move forward.

We need to consider the implications of what we are saying and what we are not saying. When we use language like the quote above we are in a sense telling young girls, that though God may have equipped you for great things, you can only use those giftings in certain areas, unless of course we can't find a man to do something then we will call you. Conversely, if this is something that is never talked about in our churches, and the only people young girls see at the pulpit or on staff are men, we are sending the same message by your silence. Yes a girl may never hear the words "you can't do that," but the median of never seeing women used in any other way than the status quo is still sending the same message.

May we as a church think about the implications of what we are saying or what we are not saying. May we start looking for the giftings that God has given each person (men or women) and start making that the criteria for roles people have in our churches today.

What legacy are we really leaving?

2010-03-07T19:11:00.000-08:00

Today I preached on Acts 12:1-19. In this passage there is a phrase that is very powerful, but if read quickly can be easily missed.

We all know the story (or at least I assume we all do) of Peter being delivered from prison. James has just been killed by the sword, Peter is in prison about to suffer the same fate when an angel of the Lord intervenes and delivers Peter from the hands of Herod. The story is told in a very Greek comedic style, so if you haven't read it, go read it now!

If you do read it, pay particular attention to verse 17. The phrase "Tell James and the others." Basically Peter is recounting the story to people that were praying for his release and his final instruction is of the utmost important. "Tell James..." In this short phrase, Luke has illustrated something very important. Peter will disappear from the story, and James will now be the head of the church in Jerusalem. Luke has just made the transition from the apostles being the leaders of the church to a second generation Christian (James) taking over a leadership role.

The "passing of the torch" is very significant because as Judges 3 reminds us, we are always one generation away from turning and worshipping a different God. In other words, people have short memories, and if there is no one passing on the story of faith, then the generation following will forget all about what God has done in the past.

Reading about this passage, and teaching on it this morning caused me to ask our congregation the question, "what are we passing on to the next generation?" Not necessarily by our words (though those are important), but by our actions (decisions we make, how/if we are connected to a body of believers, etc.). Since posing that question, I have been thinking about what it is our churches have been passing on for generation after generation. While this is not meant to bash the church at all, because I think that the church has been established by God to be used in his mission, and as a witness to the rulers and principalities of the heavenly realm (Eph. 3), I do think it is ok to critique the church where there is a shortcoming or in my view a very damaging view of Scripture. With that being said, I think that the church has a terrible view when it comes to their stance on women and the roles that they can hold in the church.

For some reason, we have used the Bible to oppress women instead of liberate them and tell them that they are of equal value as men. Galatians says that "there are neither Greek or Jew, male or female..." In other words, there is no distinction between sexes in the Kingdom of God. Yet the church seems to be the last place on Earth to embrace this kind of thinking. I mean if you look in the business world, the academic world, or any other aspect of our society women are in leadership roles all over the place, yet we as a church hold them back.

We cannot continue this legacy of treating women like this in our churches. God has gifted women with wonderful talents and skills that are just waiting to be used, yet are not utilized (unless teaching children). Incidentally, women are not the only group of people our churches oppress. Single people are another big group of people that we oppress in the church, by relegating them to a different Sunday school class (sometimes in a completely different building) as if they are a different group of people all together such as college students or youth aged students, or not allowing them to have certain positions in church, etc. But that is for a different post.

The way we treat women really hits home with me, because I have an amazing wife, who has the same degrees I do, is qualified to be a pastor more than I (her giftings are compassion and mercy, she is a great counselor, I could go on). Yet she is going to school now to become a teacher in a middle school (please note, being a teacher is an admirable occupation, and my wife will be a great teacher). My point is, that she is doing this because there are very limited jobs she can get in a church setting. Now let me say that I am so pleased to be at a church where she can be Youth minister and utilize her skills that God has given her. So please don't hear this as an indictment on the church we are currently serving. My point is simply this, we have women in our churches right now who God has equipped to be wonderful instruments in His redeeming mission, but are just sitting in our pews not being utilized because they were born the wrong gender.

Now let me say this little disclaimer. I am not saying that we need to go in cavalier style and change everything all at once. What I am saying is that we need to search Scripture and start having the conversation about women and their roles in the church. Looking at examples of women that were involved in leadership positions of the church, looking at passages that talk about women in the church (yes, even those that may seem at first to say the opposite of what I am talking about), and honestly discuss if our views of women match what is said in Scripture.

So that is what I plan to do, my next blog posts will try to look at different women in Scripture, different passages dealing with women in Scripture and hopefully at least start a conversation about the message we are sending either explicitly by your speech about women, or implicitly by our complete silence on the subject and maintaining of the status quo.

In my opinion, sexism is no different from racism, and the message we are sending to the generation coming up after us needs to change. Anyone would be up in arms if someone were not allowed to be a deacon, pastor, youth minister, etc. because of they were black, asian, or hispanic. I think it is about time we started viewing this topic through that same lens.

As I said, my hope is to look at one passage every day and to really look at the women of our Scriptures and hopefully start a conversation that moves us from our oppressive attitudes towards women and we can pass on a legacy that is pleasing to God.

So I hope you enjoy!

Children: illustration of good or bad?

2010-03-04T07:09:00.001-08:00

I have been thinking about this topic for some time now. It first originated with a conversation I had with a good friend at the BGCT convention in Houston back in November. Now, I could not tell you how we got on this topic, but nonetheless it left me with something to think about and so I decided to put my thoughts down on here and see if there were any thoughts on the subject, or if I am once again delving into things that no one else really seems to care about. :)

The topic I am referring to is the use of children in sermon illustrations. I have not been a Christian that long (coming up on 10 years in August, and really those first 3 years are what I refer to as a nominal Christian. Nominal meaning that I went to church, but Jesus had no influence on how I thought, treated others, used my money, saw the world, etc. In short, Jesus was just something I added to all the other things of my life). Anyway, with all that being said, since I have become a pastor I have really started paying attention to sermon illustrations more closely. I have always enjoyed a good sermon, in fact that is usually my favorite part of the service, and a service can be ruined for me quickly if it is a sermon I feel is unprepared or just really bad theology (i.e. using the phrase "be sober minded" as a text to tell people to abstain from alcohol). Since I have started paying attention to sermon illustrations I have noticed that ALL of illustrations using children are to point out how sinful we are. Why is this?

Now let me say this. I am not arguing against original sin, or even saying that it is a bad thing to use children as an illustration of our fallen nature. You can watch kids interact and see immediately they are selfish and self-centered at times (of course you can add other things to the list here). However, it seems to me that we fall short when using children as sermon illustrations if we only use them to illustrate the negative.

The reason this is troubling to me is that Jesus (particularly in the book of Matthew) seems to always hold them up as examples to people when answering how to enter the Kingdom of God, or when teaching them about characteristics of kingdom citizens (KoG belongs to such as these; to enter the KoG you must become like little children, etc.) If Jesus does this when it comes to children, why don't we? Where did this idea come from that we can only use children to illustrate our sinful nature?

When I look at children interact, I see far more qualities of being like Christ than I do when looking at adults. For example, in our nursery we have two little ones that are the about the same age. Now of course they have their bad days and they get moody if another takes the toy that "belongs" to them. However, 10 minutes later after having just fussed at each other, you can see them playing together as if nothing happened. In other words, they didn't keep a record of wrongs (attribute of love found in 1 Cor. 13).

Or if you were to take a group of people, with diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds and put their children in one place, and the parents in another room. I would venture to guess that if you came back in an hour the kids would all be interacting with each other and playing games with one another and you would think that they had been friends for years! On the other hand, if you went into the room of adults, my guess would be that you would find different groups huddled up in different places and they would be marked by some kind of common bond (either socioeconomic status, cultural, or ethnic). Now some might say this is just a hypothesis, but I have seen this happen in real life. And the reason this is so is because children haven't been taught (either implicitly or explicitly) the prejudices of the world in terms of other groups of people. I believe this is what Jesus is talking about when he tells us to become like little children. To see the world through the eyes of children, to see beyond the outer appearances, and embrace those around us as if we have been friends for years.

I could go on and on about positive examples that I have seen in children. Giving a homeless person money (yes their parents gave them the money). But the excitement they exude when giving is something that I have always hoped would be in me.

All this to say, I understand why ministers use children to illustrate sin and our bent towards being self centered, etc. But I do not understand why we don't hold them up as examples the way Jesus did.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic as well!

The Great Divorce

2010-02-08T09:44:00.000-08:00

Well in my first update I mentioned that I believe we had our best discussion at book club thus far. It was over C.S. Lewis,' The Great Divorce.

I mainly enjoyed it because I thought it was one of the really good theological discussions that we have had at book club. Do not get me wrong I think our book club has been extremely good and I have enjoyed reading all the books we have read so far. That being said, I really just enjoyed the discussion of the book. And with that, I will just give my take on the book, because to try and recast the entire discussion would be very hard to do, and I would not want to misrepresent what anyone had said. So what follows is my personal take on the book.

For those of you who have not read the book, I will try to summarize what the book is largely about. For those of you more familiar with the book than I am, please forgive me if this is a crass overview, as it has been a month and several books ago since I read it.

Basically it is a book of conversations between different people after they have passed away on Earth. The book begins with a man in a small town boarding a bus. The bus then takes him on a journey through Heaven and Hell where he meets a host of supernatural people. Before I give my take on the book, let me say that this is written as an allegory and Lewis right off the bat says that this was not intended to be the "end all, be all" of what the afterlife (heaven and hell) would look like. However, I do believe his theology of Hell comes out in this book.

Before I get to that however, there was a strong theme in the book:

Lewis is concerned with how a loving God could send people to hell. In other words, if God is love (as the Bible claims Him to be) then how could God send someone to a place that is torturous? Further, how could He sentence them there for all eternity. This is a valid question that I have asked myself. In the book, Lewis basically points out that God does not send people to hell. Rather God has given the invitation in Christ Jesus for all to accept him and spend their eternal lives with the Father. People end up in hell, separated from the Father (according to Lewis) because they CHOOSE not to accept Jesus.

So it is not God who determines who goes to hell and who goes to heaven, rather it is the responding to the invitation that the Father has already given in Christ Jesus. Now I know that my Calvinist friends would disagree with this point. However, I completely agree with Lewis here. To say that God sends (predestines) people to hell so that others might see His glory is (in my humble opinion) a very masochistic view of God. If God is love then there is no way that He created anyone to go to hell. John 3:16 says that Jesus died for ALL, meaning the invitation has been extended and people are able to freely reject or accept God's offer of salvation. It should be said that Lewis is not advocating a works based salvation here (and neither am I). Rather he is simply saying that human beings have the freedom to accept of reject the Father. It should also be said here, that the offer of salvation is initiated by the Father through the Holy Spirit and that there is a freedom to accept of reject the offer from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise how could love even exist? If a response is coerced one way or the other, how can love truly be expressed. In the determinist view of things, I was going to be a Christian from the beginning of time, and if that is true, then how is it a loving response to surrender my life to Christ if the Father knew he was going to make it happen a long time ago? Without choice there is no such thing as love.

So I liked Lewis' take on why people go to hell and are separated from the Father (I believe for eternity). It is a choice to refuse or accept the offer of Jesus. If it is true love, then a choice has to exist. God does not send people to hell. Hell is a result for those who reject the offer of salvation through Jesus.

So that seems to be the issue that Lewis is mainly dealing with in this book. And there are several other things that come out of this book that are really good and that I really liked. Lewis seems to be really big on the sanctification process and you truly desiring to be changed by God in order for that to happen. In other words, for the God to really get rid of something in your life that is hindering you from being all that you were created to be in him, then there is going to have to be effort on your part as well (or at least the desire for something to be changed). I think this is biblical: "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." So overall I really enjoyed reading this book. That being said, his theology on hell really bothered me and made it troubling for me to read.

As I said before, Lewis is trying to reconcile the concept of a God,who is love, sending people to hell. I do appreciate his take on the fact that our choice on this earth, namely rejecting the offer of salvation is what sends us to hell (not God predetermining who is going and who is not). However, I believe Lewis goes to far in his theology. (And the following is not explicit in this book, but I believe it to be implicit. This next part is from reading other things by him). Lewis believes that a God who is love would not keep people in hell for eternity. This would not be love. Rather, Lewis believes that people are offered a second chance at Christ after they pass away. Again, he cites choices as the reason people remain in hell. He sees those who remain in hell as people who are making the conscious choice to stay there. The illustration is a door locked from the inside. Meaning that to get out all one needs to do is to turn the key from the inside and walk out.

Lewis gets his thinking from George MacDonald (ironically a character in his book). MacDonald offered the possibility that there could be opportunities for those who reject Christ, or for those who have never had the opportunity to accept him in their lifetime. In fairness there are passages that seem to indicate that MacDonald might have some validity to his claims. In 1 Peter for example Peter seems to indicate in a couple of passages that Jesus actually preached to those who were already dead and imprisoned in the afterlife (1 Peter 3:19; 4:6) In Ephesians 4:9-10 it seems to indicate that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth to fill all things. MacDonald would argue that these verses seem to indicate that Jesus' work to save the lost extends beyond our concept of time and space.

So for Lewis (whose thoughts come from MacDonald) a loving God cannot send people to hell (we do that by rejecting the offer of salvation) and a loving God could not possibly keep people in hell for eternity (we remain by refusing to give up our desires and rights we believe we are entitled to) for to keep them in hell would not be loving either. I completely disagree with the latter portion of his thinking.

As I said, I appreciate Lewis trying to explain to people that God is not this heartless deity that simply doles out punishment on people and sends some to hell in order that he might be glorified more. But I cannot go so far as to say that Jesus offers another chance of salvation after death. It is a very nice thought, but does not seem to be very biblica,l save for a few obscure passages that MacDonald uses. I also appreciate the fact that Lewis and MacDonald are taking the problematic issue of those who did not have a chance to accept Christ into account in their theology of the afterlife. However, I believe the whole of biblical witness goes against them in this regard.

While I cannot begin to explain what happens to those who never had the opportunity to accept Christ. Or what happens to those who suffer from mental retardation and will never fully grasp the concept of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and therefore never come to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus. Or what happens to infants who passed away at birth (though I have no biblical support on this one, I am convinced that infants who pass away are not condemned to hell). In these instances I believe that we must trust in God's infinite wisdom and justice and judgment (something MacDonald would for sure not like). I don't believe it is our right or responsibility to start assigning these people to heaven or hell, rather we are to leave that in the hands of the one true judge.

Those circumstances aside, I believe that those who are confronted with the choice of accepting or rejecting Christ only get that opportunity in this lifetime. I am not saying it only happens once and if rejection happens then that is it for that person. I am saying that biblical witness seems to say that there is this life, we either reject or accept, but when we die there is judgment (see book of Hebrews).

All of this to say that I enjoyed Lewis' take on why people go to hell, but I believed he went to far in his view on people getting a second chance after they die to accept Christ. This is the one time I hope I am wrong! For it seems to be a nice idea, a nice thought, and an ideal way for things to work. Yet I am not convinced it is the biblical picture we get of judgment after death.

I would strongly recommend reading this book. It is filled with awesome characters and good dialogue. If anything else it will make you think about different issues. It will for sure make you think about choices that we make in this lifetime that go beyond simply accepting or rejecting Christ. I think the back of the book says it best, "This is the starting point for a profound meditation on good and evil."

Overall it was a good read, an entertaining read, just my knowing of his theological stance on things made it hard for me to get past what was implicit in this book. A lot of people will tell me that this book was about the power of choices. And to an extent I agree with them, but the whole book seems to put forth, at least implicitly, his view on a second chance of accepting Christ after death.

That's my two cents worth on the book! :)

Update of the Update!

2010-02-08T09:32:00.000-08:00

Well I apparently I am not as disciplined at this blogging thing as I thought I would be when I first started this blog back in August.

In my defense, I did not think I would be as busy as I have been either! But it is a good busy, not complaining, just explaining why these posts have been fewer and farther between. At any rate, my last post I gave an update on what had been going on in our lives since the last post. So here is a small update from that blog since it has been longer than I anticipated getting back on here to "blog."

The study of the book of Mark has been quite good, though we have not had it the past 2 Sundays for various reasons, I have enjoyed the conversations we have had over the first 2 chapters. We spent the majority of one Sunday night talking about Spiritual warfare, and demonic possession and cool stuff like that! It was awesome/amazingly beneficial to discuss (in my humble opinion).

The lock-in was fantastic! We had 48 students show up and would have probably had more but we left to go to Waco to bowl 15 mins after the scheduled start time (Chilton kids are notorious for showing up 30-45 mins late!) Anyway, the group of kids was good, and despite having that many students there weren't really any problems in terms of transporting the kids from Chilton to Waco and then back again (special shout out to Lisa Little for driving the bus!). The D-Now is coming up at the end of February and we are busy getting things finalized for our Free Market coming up on Feb. 13th (like a garage sale, only we give everything away to those who need it more than we do...it's a great thing to be a part of...you should see our annex!)

There are 6 of us going to Mexico. It is exciting to see people really excited about the trip. One youth exclaimed how excited she was to be going out of the country! Of course I gave her a hard time that we will only be 1 mile out of the country, but that didn't seem to dampen her spirits any (which is good!). Anyway, things have been going well here, and I have really been enjoying the book of Acts and going through it. It has reminded me of the primacy of the Holy Spirit's role in the church, and the supreme importance of a church being very prayerful as we witness to the world. I hope others have enjoyed hearing me go through it Sunday mornings!! :)

Ok that is an update since the last update...I will try to blog more often to avoid doing all these updates! :)

It's been a while!!

2010-01-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

Ok so I realize that it has been a while since I last updated this blog.

But bear with me, the holiday season is CRAZY!

So this is what has been going on since I last "blogged."

We ended our series, "The Kingdom of God and Money" the next to last Sunday in November. The last Sunday in November started the Advent season and so Meredith, two friends--Jeff Gravens and John Gram--and myself wrote an Advent devotional that we handed out to our church. This was a daily devotional that was intended to help families focus in on the real "reason for the season" as some would say. Our hope was that after the series on money and our responsibility when it comes to how we use our money (or wealth) that the devotional would help to keep that focus going through the Christmas shopping season.

I believe the devotional was a success and people really liked it. I got a report from a pastor who was using the devotionals in his church, and he said he was receiving a lot of positive feedback. So it looks like we will continue this trend next year. I should remember to send a shout out to Meredith's mom, Sharon Pillion for doing an excellent job on the printing and binding of the devotionals for the church, they looked FANTASTIC!

We ended the Advent season with a Christmas Eve service that Meredith planned out. She did a great job. The turn out was good considering that it was our first time doing it in a while, and the weather outside was frightful (snow and ice). I personally thought it went well and hope everyone who attended enjoyed the service as well.

Christmas morning, Mere and I headed out to Abilene to spend a few days with her family. Dr. Brian Brewer, a professor from Truett Seminary preached on the Sunday after Christmas allowing Meredith and I to attend services in Abilene with her family. It was a welcomed break, but there was a sense of sadness of not seeing the people of FBC Chilton on that Sunday morning.

I guess that is what caused my sickness and left me in bed and having an explosion of vomit the day after Christmas! Other than the sickness, time with family was good. Sorry to Mere's family for apparently setting of a string of virus attacks!

Our first Sunday back, we picked up in the book of Acts and are continuing that series. My hope is that we will learn lessons from the early church about what it means to be a church and that it will manifests itself into how the community of Chilton views us. I will keep an update of what we are talking about as we go through the book.

Lastly, we are going through the book of Mark on Sunday nights. It is my favorite gospel and I am looking forward to it. Also we have our first mission trip as a church coming up during Spring Break (first one since we have been here) and Meredith has planned a lock-in for the youth on Jan. 22, and a Disciple Now the last weekend in February! We also just completed what I thought was the best conversation we have had as a book club recently. The book we discussed was C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce." My thoughts on the book and the discussion will be in a separate post.

Well that is our lives here in Chilton from the last post until now, I hope you enjoyed it! 2010 (properly pronounced: "twenty-ten") :) is going to be AWESOME!!

Story of Stuff

2009-11-11T17:26:00.000-08:00

Found this on youtube....stuff

Day #9--Like Honey

2009-11-10T05:25:00.000-08:00

In Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel has a word from the Lord. The Lord actually tells him to eat a scroll! He says eat the scroll then go and speak the words to Israel. What is more fascinating about this passage is that Ezekiel says that not only did he eat it, but it tasted as honey on his lips! Of course then Ezekiel is charged with taking that word to Israel, and honestly to me it seems like eating the scroll was easier than taking the word to Israel. At any rate, I have been convicted of something lately as I have fasted and prayed about direction for our church, and guidance for my life in general.

The conviction is that I tend to read more books ABOUT the Bible than the Bible itself. I am not saying that reading outside books is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, we are to learn from those that are wiser in the faith. We are to learn from church historians, and the heroes of the faith that have gone before us. This is how we navigate through life without speaking heretically about our faith.

Still I believe the Holy Spirit can guide the reading of Scripture and my hope is to read through it (Genesis through Revelation) and let the Holy Spirit teach and guide me. Again, not saying I won't read outside sources, my hope is simply that I would love reading Scripture more than I love reading ABOUT Scripture.

As I read my prayer will be that the Lord opens my mind and heart to the Scriptures.

I know I said that I would try to blog everyday, and to both readers who read my blog faithfully :), here is my traveling schedule over this next week just so you know that it might be very sporadic this week:

Today (Tuesday 11/10) Traveling to Shreveport, LA to attend a commissioning service

Thursday (11/12) Going to College Station for a concert, staying the night and returning Friday afternoon

Saturday (11/14) going to Temple, TX for playoff football game

Sunday (11/15) leaving for Houston, TX for BGCT Convention (won't be back until Tuesday, 11/17)

So as you can see we will be driving quite a bit. Keep us in your prayers!

I will try to update as much as possible.

Day #4--Taking off the Headphones

2009-11-05T06:46:00.000-08:00

A couple weeks ago I was doing one of my most favorite things to do in terms of winding down after a long day. I was watching a football game on TV! I know this sounds lame, but sometimes after studying all day, I just need an hour or two, (or three) to do something to give my brain a rest. Anyway, during a commercial break I yelled back to my wife who was down the hall in our bedroom doing something. The first time was a nice, polite raised voice "Dear!" No response. Figuring she hadn't heard me because of the TV, I put it on mute and a little louder, yet still polite mind you, I said "Dear!!" Still nothing. Getting a little frustrated, though not frustrated enough to get my fat butt of the couch, I yelled semi-nicely a little louder, "Hey Dear!!!" And...NOTHING!! By this time I was completely upset and yelled loudly "MEREDITH!!" And again I get no response. So finally pulling myself off the couch I get up and walk back to the room and what do I find? My wife, but she has a computer on her lap and headphones in her ears. She was apparently watching "Smallville" and had not heard a word I was saying. So of course my frustration turned into me making fun of her for watching "Smallville." However, that is not the lesson that I took away from that experience.

I honestly do not remember what I asked Mere, the only thing I remember is that it got me to thinking about how God communicates with me. Was he yelling at me and I had "headphones" on? When I read the Scriptures I see a constant reminder of God's concern for the poor, oppressed, and the outcast. Then I think about my day and wonder if I ever came across anyone in need and didn't see or hear them because I had "headphones" on. In other words was I so consumed with the chores I had to do, the things I had to get done that I was oblivious to anyone hurting. Even worse, did I see and consciously make a decision that my "to-do" list was a justified reason for passing by on the other side of the street.

As I have said before I am studying the parable of the Good Samaritan this week and as I study it I have found that the priest and Levite priest who passed by on the side of the road really did have "good" excuses. The first priest had just come from the Temple in Jerusalem and was considered clean. Had he got within 4 cubits (6 feet) of the man on the side of the road he would have been considered unclean and would have to have gone back, purchased a heifer and started the cleansing process all over again. He would have had to spend more money, and further he would have had to spend more time away from his family whom he was responsible for at the time. The Levite priest basically saw (the road was a road that descended for seventeen miles, so visibility 3-4 miles up the road would have been a possibility) the first priest pass by and most likely thought to himself "well that priest didn't help him and he had for more resources than I," hat can I do if he did not do anything? And so we see that both of these men had very logical excuses. Perhaps even ones we have used (time, money, family).

Now we know the rest of the story, the Samaritan shows mercy on the man. Actually putting himself at risk by caring for this person who has been beaten and left for dead.

As much as I pray to become more like the Samaritan, I actually find myself identifying more with the lawyer who tried to justify himself. He was not really interested in helping, rather he was interested in being praised for what he had already done. In reality, he was loving people that he would have loved had Jesus not come to Earth. As I reflect on my life and where I am in the journey I have to confess that I am that lawyer that Jesus confronts with the parable of the Good Samaritan. My prayer is that I would be changed into the Samaritan. That I would be changed so that I might act like a neighbor to all I come in contact with. And most of all I pray that I would take off the "headphones" of me, myself and I. Take off the "headphones" of all the things I think I am entitled to, of all the things I think I "need." And that I would begin to hear the voice of God. That I would begin to hear the cry of the oppressed. That I would hear the hunger pains of the hungry, and that I would feel the loneliness of those who have no friends, family or loved ones to care for them. I pray that not only would I hear these things because I have taken off the "headphones," but that I would respond to them as God as called me to do.

This is what I have learned since I have started fasting. I have learned that although I strive to live simply I have failed. I am distracted by the "bigger and better," and consequently I have become deaf to the cries of the hurting and down trodden. Please God, take off my "headphones."

Day #3--In Tuned

2009-11-04T07:26:00.001-08:00

As I continue to fast, and Meredith and I continue to discuss money and how we can better use our money for the Kingdom, I have been blown away by how fasting really brings you better in tuned with God and his creation.

Honestly, the hardest part of the fast is over in terms of the hunger. Usually the first 2 days in a long fas are where the "hunger pains" really get intense. However, since the point of fasting is to do away with those "pains" by talking to God (praying, reading His word, etc.) I have had an overwhelming awareness of the needy in our community. I know that there is an end to this fast. I know that on Thanksgiving day I am going to commit the sin of gluttony! (perhaps I should pray for that temptation to go away too). :) Anyway, the point is I know there is an end, I know that I will eat again, and I know where my next meal is coming from.

But have you ever stopped to think about hunger from the perspective of the beggar outside the grocery store who hits you up for money, or the homeless woman who is sleeping under a bridge with her 3 children? I can't imagine the fear of not knowing, the feeling of wondering what am I going to do for my next meal, or what am I going to do to provide for my kids. I can't imagine the humiliation of having to beg for money and the shame I would feel when someone quickly dismissed me because of what I look like or how bad I smell. I have been thinking a lot about this through my first few days of fasting.

This issue of trying to see things from the perspective of the disadvantaged has really been challenged by a couple of recent things. The first being our book club just got done reading and discussing Same Kind of Different as Me. (If you haven't read it, stop reading this and go read that...it will be more interesting and more beneficial!). I won't tell the whole story but I was blown away by relationship and perspective of Denver (the homeless man). The second thing is that I am studying to preach on the parable of the Good Samaritan. The entire parable is about seeing thing from the perspective of the down beat and trodden man left for dead on the side of the road.

So I have been trying to see things from the perspective of the outcast, the oppressed, and down trodden. I have been meditating on Ephesians 5:1-2 (being imitators of God). God did this very thing. He entered into our story through Jesus Christ and took on our humanity, our perspective and made a way for us to be reconciled to God and to each other.

The reality is this: I will not be able to fully "cross over" and understand what it is like to go hungry and not know where my next meal will come from. I will never understand fully, no matter how much I sympathize with those struggling what it feels like to be completely rejected by someone based on what I look like or feel. However, this cannot be my excuse for not attempting to better understand the perspective of the outcast of society. It cannot serve as an excuse not to engage and serve the homeless. And most of all it cannot serve asn excuse not to love and build relationships with those society has deemed unworthy.

I believe the last is the most important. Relationships. It is only in relationships that I can better understand what they feel and what they are going through. It is only in relationship that I will best know how to serve them. AND it is only in relationship that I will be taught by them things about myself and prejudices I hold (consciously or unconsiously). In relationship there is mutual learning, and this is necessary if we are to truly be converted into Christ's image.

My Sacrifice

2009-11-02T07:57:00.000-08:00

As I reflected on the sermon yesterday. I concluded with a list of possible "sacrifices" people could make when it comes to this Christmas season and use that money to take care of the less fortunate.

A couple of things that our church is doing is Operation Christmas Child, and then on November 15th we will have a speaker come and tell us how buying coffee can help us provide for the physical and spiritual needs of farmers in Laos.

My sermon ended by asking people to really seek the Holy Spirit and ask where they could cut back and use that money to help those less fortunate. Some of these suggestions included:

1. asking for less gifts for yourself and asking for some things on your list to go to Operation Christmas Child (this was directed towards the children in the service)

2. Eating out less and putting that money in a jar or something and using that money to buy coffee on the 15th or to use that money and as a family go and fill a shoe box for operation Christmas Child.

3. Sell things you don't need and use that money to buy coffee or fill out a shoe box for Operation Christmas Child.

There were more suggestions but you get the point. Anyway, as I reflected on the sermon and my call for people to sacrifice and use money for others this Christmas rather than hoarding everything for themselves and buying presents for themselves that really won't be used 3 months after Christmas.

Then I started asking what my sacrifice would be (which is always harder than telling others to sacrifice!). And so here it is: I will be fasting until Thanksgiving day starting today. I will use this time to pray for a direction the church should go in at the beginning of next year. I will also pray for our congregation to listen to the Holy Spirit on how they spend their money, as well as ask God to direct Meredith and I on how we should spend our money. As I go through this fast I will try to update daily what is going on with me personally and what is going on with Meredith and I as we truly strive to have every aspect of our lives under the rule of Christ.

Money and the Kingdom of God

2009-11-02T07:19:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: I realize money is a sensitive topic. In this sermon message I began by telling the congregation that I don't think it is a sin to have wealth, nor do I think it is a sin to have nice things and enjoy the blessings God has lavished on us when it comes to wealth. However, I did tell them that there is a responsibility that comes with that and that we are called to help others who don't have as much and that there will be sacrifices and choices we have to make if we are to use our money to influence the Kingdom of God.

This Sunday our church started a series entitled " Money and the Kingdom of God." Basically what prompted this was two reasons. First, I absolutely reject the fact that Jesus taught us to give only 10% of our money to the church, then we can spend the other 90% on whatever we want and be called good stewards of our money. Second, I read so many articles about stewardship when I preached on the Ananias and Saphira passage for last week (out of context in my opinion), that I felt it necessary to explore more what Jesus says about money. Our first stop was the parable of the Rich Fool.

Now I went to a "liberal" seminary. I say "liberal" because honestly it is all relative and if we weren't in Texas, it would not have been labeled liberal at all. Anyway, while in seminary I heard all the time that this passage of the Rich Fool building bigger barns was an indictment against Capitalism. The argument would go, "See this farmer was just being a good Capitalist and God kills him." So, they say, Jesus is pro-Socialism, pro-Communism, but when it comes to Capitalism He sees it as evil. This is utterly ridiculous because in the passage God never condemns the farmer for being rich. He only condemns him for hoarding the riches for himself.

In fact, in the beginning of the passage a man asks Jesus to settle a dispute about an inheritance his brother won't share with him. To which Jesus replies "Who sent me to be a lawyer among you." In other words, Jesus is telling the man not to use Jesus' name to propagate any personal agenda. Jesus is not pro-Socialism, not pro-Communism, and not pro-Capitalism. The Kingdom that Jesus came to establish is so completely other than any man made governmental system. There is no government system that tells you to turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemy, etc. Further, there is no government system that will change the hearts of humanity. It is only in the bottom-up approach (the mustard seed Kingdom) that the Kingdom of God will be established. So lets stop saying Jesus is pro any sort of man made government. He is in the words of Greg Boyd about "power under" (kingdom established through grassroots, prayer, etc.) not about "power over" (governmental, top-down approach).

I apologize for my soap box, but it really irritates me when we try to make the Bible say things that it is not really saying at all.

Back to the text...

The point of the text is being rich towards God and to answer the question: "What does it mean to be rich towards God?" I chose to look at how God has been rich towards us and then go back and answer the question of what it means for us to be rich towards God.

Basically what I did was trace God's interaction with humanity from Genesis to the giving of the Holy Spirit. God created humanity out of love. This alone makes God an unselfish God. But something went wrong and Adam AND Eve sinned against God. God would have had every right to wash His hands of us and choose to leave us to our fallen state. However, God did not do that. He started laying out a long process by which he would progressively reveal himself to humanity (and I will shorten this for time sake). But basically he gave us the Law, then he spoke through the prophets, and eventually Jesus left his throne to come down and live among us. Took on our hell, and our sin, and walked to Calvary, and died. He then ascended and had this been the end of the story then that would have made God a compassionate God. However, God didn't stop there but he sent his Holy Spirit and gave us EVERY spiritual blessing (Eph. 1). God held nothing back from us. He went all the way. It wasn't just salvation from hell, but a total salvation where we begin to live a new and redeemed life here and now.

So God was rich towards us in that he went all the way with us. Gave us everything, and held back nothing!

Ephesians 5 says that we are to be imitators of God. Meaning as God has entered into us through his Holy Spirit we are in turn to lavish blessings on all those we come in contact with. I continued reading the passage through Jesus telling his disciples not to worry about to wear, what to eat or what to drink because God provides for his children. He then tells the disciples to sell their possessions and give it to the poor.

Notice Jesus doesn't say "give to the poor only if they really deserve it." Or, "give to the poor after you have examined the reason why they are poor and figure out if they will squander what you give them." Or "give to the poor only if you deem them worthy enough of your help."

There were no qualifications. The command was simply give because you know God will take care of you.

The point of this teaching is this: To the extent that we are Rich towards God we look like Jesus. To the point that we aren't we look like the farmer.

If we in America buy into this idea that its ok to give only 10% to the church and then hoard the other 90% for ourselves then we delude ourselves and are not using our money to build the Kingdom.

ALL that we have is a blessing from God and we are called to pour out that blessing on those less fortunate (incidentally there are over 2,000 passages that talk about taking care of the poor in Scripture). And we are called to imitate God in holding nothing back when it comes to taking care of the poor and needy.

This Christmas season we will be blasted with commercial after commercial of the new things we "need." And we will even get Christians telling us that as long as you don't go into debt you can buy as much as you want because "who is it really hurting?" But I think this question is wrongheaded. The question should be "who is it really helping?"

As Christians we are called to put everything under the subjection of Christ. This includes our money--even the 90% that we don't tithe.

Christmas Joy?

2009-10-28T06:38:00.000-07:00

As most of you know, our church has been going through the book of Acts. Sunday was the dreaded Ananias and Sapphira passage. I was not looking forward to this talk because I didn't know how to explain why God killed those two people. It didn't make any sense to me. Did it really matter that they didn't give ALL their money? How is that a picture of a merciful God? Thousands of questions raced through my heaad.

Then something clicked as I was studying the passage. It wasn't about the money at all. Contrary to popular belief this story is about covenant relationship within the church. Ananias and Sapphira broke that trust and paid dearly for their deceit.

I did not try to explain why God killed this couple. I only mentioned that God is in the habit of keeping what is His holy, and sometimes does things unexplainable to the human mind in order to do that. I also told them that I do not believe God killing them is in anyway a judgment on their eternal destination (i.e. heaven or hell), nor do I believe that God ALWAYS does this. This is a story of what happened (description) not a story of what happens if we bring something unholy into the church (prescription).

This was not a sermon about stewardship, rather it is a story about covenant, and I tied in what I thought biblical fellowship had to have in order to be healthy. NO MEMBERSHIP INCREASING WAS NOT A CRITERIA!

Anyway, all that tbeing said, I did read A LOT of articles that made this a stewardship and money issue, though in my study the money issue and holding it back was a symptom of the deeper problem going on.

Though I believed those articles to be in error on the central point of the passage, what they said about money wasn't "unbiblical" and made me think about how we use our money as Christians today.

I saw this video from an organization called Advent Conspiracy and it got me to thinking. Here is the video.

The amount of money we spend on Christmas baffled me. Now I realize that most Americans are not Christians (thouh 70% still claim Christ as their Lord and Savior) and I know that money is not the ONLY solution. However, I do believe that we have some serious misconceptions when it comes to Kingdom citizens and the use of money.

The top 2 being:
1) the issue of money is in no way connected to spiritual well being
2) 10% being mentioned anywhere in the New Testament ( I honestly think these two are tied together. Most Christians think that if they give their 10% to the church then they are being good stewards of their money and can spend the rest on whatever they please).

These are not biblical teachings at all. Jesus mentions money more times than he talks about heaven and hell combined.

As we enter into November, our church will be looking at 3 parables that Jesus uses to teach about money. We will also have a guest speaker coming to speak to us about a farm in Laos and opportunities to help with social justice issues in Laos as well as opportunities to GO and work alongside the farmers of Laos. That will take us right into advent season.

My prayer is that we learn to view money as Kingdom citizens. Also that we start thinking of our checkbook register/online bank statement,or whatever record you use to keep track of your money as a tell tale sign of your spiritual maturity.

Devoted to....Jesus?

2009-09-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning I preached on the passage in Acts that everyone is familiar with. It was Acts 2:42-47. This is what the text says:

⁴²They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ⁴³Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. ⁴⁴All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. ⁴⁶Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,⁴⁷praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Now, the verse that jumps out at most of us when we read this passage is verse 45--"selling everything and giving as they have need." And how could it not, particularly in the times we live in now, presidential elections, "Joe the Plummer," and the list goes on and on. And quite frankly most of what I read on this passage (commentaries and articles) dealt primarily with this verse as a key to interpreting the passage. However, I think that we miss the point when we dwell so much on that particular verse and don't take the whole paragraph into consideration. I do believe that these elements will be present within a church body, but to view this simply as a list prescribing things a church MUST do seems to me to miss the point.

What I see in this passage overall, is the complete devotion to the teaching of the apostles and to the fellowship. The words in bold highlight this point. These people were so completely devoted to one another and caring about one another that the thought of another being in need was unacceptable. So the question to ask is not, "MUST we do these things to be called a church?" Rather the question we have to ask of this text is "HOW did they get to the point where they were this devoted to each other?"

I believe the answer to the question truly hinges on the first part of this paragraph--the devotion to the teaching of apostles and to fellowship. In other words they were committed to putting what they were taught from the apostles into practice for their lives, and they were devoted (committed) to each other.

Let's look at each aspect separately (as much as we can) and then put them together at the end.

Devoted to the Apostles Teaching

The apostles were a group of people that were trusted to pass on the teachings of Jesus. These people had spent time with Jesus and so they were trusted by the people to teach them exactly what Jesus had taught while he was on earth.

And when I read the Gospels I see that Jesus was very concerned with meeting the needs of others (followers and non-followers a like). But he also seemed to be concerned with the way people in the church took care of fellow brothers and sisters. This seems to be very evident in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and the goats. In fact it almost seems as thought judgment for Christians is based on this idea of meeting the needs of fellow brothers and sisters. However, the most intriguing thing about this passage is that the goats divided on the left, and the sheep on the right both ask the same question: "When did we see you Lord?" It seems that even those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirst, clothes to the naked, comfort to the sick, and visited those imprisoned did not think they were doing anything extraordinary. Why?

The reason is the phrase "blessed by my father." Dr. Haddon Robinson made a great observation that the idea of being blessed runs throughout Matthew, starting with the Beattitudes (characteristics of a Kingdom Citizen) in chapter 5. And you look at the Beattitudes in chapter 5 and then read this description of the sheep in chapter 25 you see why those who did all those "good" things didn't think anything of their actions. Their character had become so much like Christ that they didn't analyze what they were doing. They didn't wonder if it would be a good financial investment to help someone, they didn't worry about the thought of being taken advantage of, rather they saw a person in need and helped because that is what they were called to do (Phil. 2:1-4).

Devoted to Fellowship

1 John 4:12 says this: "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." In other words John is writing to believers telling them that if you want people to see God, then love one another, let God's love be complete in you, and the world will know God exists because of your love for one another.

In John 17, Jesus prays that the body would be unified so that others will know that Jesus was really the Messiah that came to bring reconciliation between God and humanity.

Devoted to Apostles teaching and to the fellowship

So it is clear that what was being taught by the apostles to these new believers was this: If you want to be a witness to the world about the existence of God, and to the Savior Jesus Christ, you are going to have be an alternative to the way this world lives. You are going to need to be so devoted to each other, that you are willing to do anything to make sure your brothers and sisters are taken care of. Not so that you might get some sort of accolade about how great of a person you are, but so that others may see a different kind of love in this world. If you really want to give witness to this world about Jesus and his love, then take on his character. If you really want to give witness to this world about Jesus and his love, then you must be devoted to one another and take care of one another.

And because of this teaching and this devotion it says that the "they enjoyed favor with all the people." Numbers were also added to them daily, and a lot of people turn this into a list, saying "if you do these things then your church will grow." I think that misses the point, I think the devotion to each other and to the word is why God blessed them, and their witness was so strong.

So the question to ask of our churches today is this: What are you devoted to? Are you devoted to Jesus? Are you devoted to each other? And of course the answer from churches everywhere will be a resounding YES!

And I would say this to them: Look at the choices you are making. Will you watch more hours of football on Sunday afternoon and evening than you will spend praying, reading and communing with God? Will you spend more hours watching things you have recorded on your DVR, Tivo, etc, than you will in fellowship with other believers? Will you spend more hours reading blogs on the internet than you will asking those around you what they are struggling with and then committing to pray for them and do whatever it takes to meet those needs.

Are you willing to sell your possessions so that another member of your church might be able to pay an electric bill, or buy groceries, or put gas in their car? When a member of your church shares a prayer request do you say "I will pray for YOUR problem," or do all present respond with "how do WE take care of OUR problem?" In other words if someone is suffering in your church do you think of it as you suffering as well?

When I read this passage in Acts I see a devotion to one another, a devotion to the teachings of Scripture, and a genuine love exists because of that. In a society that tells us we are all alone, everyone is an "enemy" preventing you from reaching the American dream of wealth and fame, the church has to be a place where devotion to EVERYONE is evident. May we reclaim this spirit of community and be a witness to this world for Jesus Christ.

If we aren't willing to devote ourselves to one another, then all we do on Sunday mornings is gather to sing songs, listen to a sermon and make ourselves feel better about our PERSONAL salvation, but we are delusional to think that we have witnessed to the world about who God is, and his desires for his Creation.

An 'Exodus' Church?

2009-09-11T07:53:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I attended a luncheon on the "Missional Church." Now I am always a bit a nervous when I go to meetings like this because the term 'missional' has become a bit watered down and can mean a variety of different things. Nevertheless I decided to go and see what would happen.

As the speaker began his talk, he went to the passage in Acts that almost everyone that talks about missions these days recites--Acts 1:8. His thesis was that every church should become an Acts 1:8 church and take mission trips at home (Jerusalem), in state (Judea), overseas (Samaria and ends of the earth). His take was that when you are going on mission trips and seeing millions (ok he said hundreds, I exaggerated for effect) then you have a healthy "Acts 1:8" church.

And as I sat there I couldn't help but think that Christ came and died and suffered for a heck of a lot more than for churches to be able to go on trips to three different regions of the globe. And as I sat there in complete exasperation about what I was hearing I started to wonder where this whole fascination of "labeling" churches came from. I mean really everyone is wanting to be a "Great Commission" church or an "Acts 1:8" church and so on and so on. And yet I can't help but feel as though these labels miss the point of the church. I am not into labels of a church, but if I were I think I would choose to be an "Exodus Church."

In Luke 9:28-33 Jesus is talking to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration concerning his "departure" he was going to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Now this word "departure" is literally translated "exodus." So Luke seems to be saying that this work that Jesus will accomplish in Jerusalem is like a second "exodus." I believe what Luke does here by linking the Exodus to the cross is huge, and I believe most of our churches miss the point when it comes to the mission of God. We must first understand exactly what the Exodus accomplished for the Israelites.

The Israelites were oppressed in Egypt. In fact Christopher Wright in his book Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament, says that they were oppressed in four different areas:

they were politically oppressed as an ethnic immigrant minority vulnerable to the host state's manufactured hostility against them

they were economically exploited as a convenient source of cheap labor in the host state's agricultural and construction sectors

they were socially victimized through intolerable interference in their family life and then through a program of state-sponsored genocide.

they were spiritually oppressed in servitude to the Pharaoh--one of the claimed gods of Egypt-- when they should have been free to serve and worship Yahweh (Wright, 45)

In the event of the Exodus, God does two things for the Israelites. First he reveals that He is a God who can be known and WILLS to be known. Throughout the Exodus and the entire Old Testament we are constantly reminded that God does things for his fame and his renown (a huge risk considering He is using fallen humanity in order for people to know Him). In chapter 19 of Exodus God establishes His covenant at Sinai and the Israelites become His people. It is important to note here that this covenant also gives proof of God's faithfulness to his promises. This covenant fulfills the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis.

The second thing the Exodus did for the Israelites is that it redeemed them in all four areas of their oppression--politically, economically, socially, and spiritually. This is a huge point when it comes to the mission of God. You see God is in the habit of redeeming all aspects of life. The mission is not to establish trips to different geographical locations (which in my view is a distorted reading of Acts 1:8 in itself), but it is the total and complete redemption of humanity in all aspects of life.

The cross (or second exodus) is part of that plan. The plan is not trips. The plan is total redemption. This is precisely what happened at the cross. Jesus died so that we might have access to the Father and we might be grafted into his plan of redemption (if we are honest sometimes we try to graft him into our plan of redemption--i.e. how many 'salvations' we can get on a mission trip).

The church must get back to what the focus of it's mission is--holistic redemption. We need to get away from labels, and gimmicks and focus on the needs and hurts of this world. God is deeply concerned for these things and we should be too. If you don't think he is concerned for the oppressed then you haven't read your Bible. He hears the cries of the oppressed and he responds.

May we be a church that does the same.

Words DO hurt you....

2009-08-28T08:49:00.000-07:00

There is this false saying that is very popular among grade schoolers that goes something like this: "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

You are probably wondering why I am even mentioning this, and that is a fair question. I was looking at my friend Joe's blog this morning, and he had a video that got me to thinking about some things.

If you watched the video, it is a powerful story about how an African American man defeated the entire Ku Klux Klan with his mind. I thought Joe's title to this blog was great "Defeating Hate, with the Head and Heart not Fists."

This title (and video) got me to thinking of other ways in which we dispense hate towards others. For example, the term "that's gay" has for some reason become a popular way to say something is dumb, funny, stupid, bad, etc. People (and unfortunately a lot of Christians) us this phrase so flippantly without any thought of people that might actually be struggling with homosexuality. They don't understand that when they use this term around people that are struggling with it (most of the time it is an internal struggle precisely because of the use of this phrase) it alienates them even more, and causes them to bury the struggle even deeper.

We as Christians should not engage in such talk as this. And as a side note, there are other things in our speeches that I do not think would please Jesus (i.e. a lot of racial jokes about our new president) Jesus came as a way to reconcile the world with God and to one another. The church and Christians should be leading the way when it comes to reconcilliation.

Now a lot of people that I talk to will say that accepting a homosexual means accepting their lifestyle and I would completely disagree. The gospels are full of stories where Jesus accepted people but not their lifestyle. Yet the people who were living this lifestyle that was antithetical to the gospel were strangely attracted to Jesus.

If we are honest with ourselves, that isn't the case with Church these days. The church should be a place where people can tell of their struggles freely, and where we can all walk together supporting one another in brotherly (and sisterly) love. Yet sadly, this isn't the case.

I really believe one reason for this is the way we alienate people with our speech. I know that the video was about racism, and that is still pervasive in our day. But it got me to thinking about how we alienate people with phrases such as "that's gay."

The church has lost its relevance because we fail to see the world with the eyes of Jesus. We must start caring for the world again as Jesus did, and that needs to start with actions. And actions start with words. May our words no longer be divisive, may we only speak words of healing and reconcilliation and grace to all that hear us.

Alternative Solution

2009-08-27T07:45:00.001-07:00

I was reading a blog this morning by a man name Efrem Smith. He had a post about healthcare reform in which he raised a good point. Basically it can be summed up with this: What is the church proposing for healthcare reform? Why is the government leading the charge? You can find his blog here.

I am not saying I TOTALLY agree with everything he said, but I do agree that the church should be involved in caring for the sick. So what should we as a church do about caring for the sick?

Bad Wording...

2009-08-25T19:19:00.000-07:00

In my last post I wrote these words:

My heart broke for these people. My heart broke for the people of my church. My heart broke for Christians all over the United States who seem to have cast the poor off as unreachable and not worthy.

I didn't mean for it to sound like the church where I am currently serving has done this. The church where I am is probably one of the most loving churches I have been a part of. With that said, the statements above were meant to be three separate statements. Allow me to clarify...

"My heart broke for these people."

It broke my heart that there are people that are out there who feel like their life is not worth living. This is something that makes me cry more than anything. If you ask my wife she will tell you the story about me watching the movie, "The Secret Life of Bees," and crying when the girl in the movie said she was "unloveable." So that is what I meant when I said my heart broke for those people.

"My heart broke for the people of my church"

Now calling it "my church" is bad enough, but I am sure everyone knew what I meant--the church where I am serving. What I meant by this statement, however, is that my heart broke for the people of my church to have their hearts broken over the needs in our town. This doesn't mean that they don't care about people, or have cast anyone aside. There is always room for the Lord to break us more and to transform our hearts to see people the way Jesus sees people. The way the Father sees people (through the cross). I hope that I never stop being broken my God, and I hope that the people in the church where I am serving never stop being broken either. That is what I meant, so I hope that clears things up.

"My heart broke for Christians all over the United States who seem to have cast off the poor as unreachable and not worthy"

This statement is self explanatory I think. I pray that we who are part of the universal church in America would truly be broken over the way we have treated the poor as a whole, and repent, and start living like Jesus when it comes to loving the poor.

I hope that clears things up for anyone who stumbles across this blog (who may or may not attend the church where I serve).

Best Poker Face Ever

2009-08-25T07:19:00.001-07:00

Last night I met with the pastor of Primera Iglesia, a mission church started by the church where I am a pastor. It was an eye opening night to say the least. When we first sat down I told him that I thought the partnership between our churches should be better because the Bible tells us that unity of believers will be our witness to the world (John 17). I told him I was sorry that it had taken me two weeks to call him, to which he replied: "I am glad you called, I was beginning to think no one cared about what was going on at the Mexican church." That in itself broke my heart. We spent the next 45 mins. discussing things we could do to have better community with one another. We decided to set a time to get together and pray. Not just him and me getting together to pray, but opening it up for everyone in the church to come and participate. The next thing we did was drive around town. I have to admit, I have been here two weeks and have barely gone one or two blocks in either direction. He wanted to show me this place called "Little Mexico." Little did I know that God would use this to show me just how much I need to learn about loving like he does.

The first place we came to was a small house with two families of 4 living together. Beside the house was a trailer that was in the construction "process." I say "process" because work had been stalled for a couple years. To get to this house we had to walk through a mine field of horse manure where it was impossible to not step in something. This is where I put on my greatest poker face. I acted like it didn't bother me, all the while in my mind thinking of how disgusting it was, and I was going to drag this stuff back through my house when I got home. As much as I tried to get rid of that thought, it was the only thing I could think of. It was the best poker face ever.

As we went into the trailer to see what work needed to be done, the pastor spoke to this guy telling him how great of a vision I had to reach Chilton (this was all in Spanish as the owner of the house didn't speak English). With every compliment I felt smaller and smaller. Yet I held the best poker face ever.

The thing that broke my heart the most though was the look the guy made when we told the guy that we wanted to help him finish his house. It needed no translation. It said, "I have heard that one before and mainly from you Christians."

On the way back to my house, the pastor said that this, "Little Mexico" formed because these people feel like no one cares about them so they withdrew from everyone and never venture on the other side of town. My heart broke for these people. My heart broke for the people of my church. My heart broke for Christians all over the United States who seem to have cast the poor off as unreachable and not worthy. Then my God broke my heart and I thought of how I was no different. On the outside I had the best poker face ever, on the inside though I just wanted to go home. May the Holy Spirit transform my heart to love like Jesus.

My prayer is that we become the church that makes people feel valuable again, that hugs the homeless, feeds the hungry, and share the love of Jesus by DOING what Jesus did. The last thing the pastor said to me last night, is what I leave you with: "People know all the stories about Jesus, they need to start seeing Christians helping them if something is ever going to happen with them spiritually."

Fresh Perspective

2009-08-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

I am now a pastor at a small, rural church in Texas and I love it! It is so different from being in a classroom of seminary students where the main goal is defend the "right" position (theologically or otherwise). I am not saying that I regret my time at seminary. On the contrary, I value that experience in my life very much. After all it is where I met my wife, where I met friends that I hope will be lifelong friends, and where I grew deeper spiritually. I think seminary is a good thing, I really do. However, I have begun to see things with a fresh perspective. For example, now when I read my Bible, I am not looking to "prove" a position, rather I am reading it and letting God's word rush over me and it is exciting! I feel as though I am regaining an intimacy with Jesus that just wasn't there during my seminary years. It is something I struggled with all of seminary, and it was also a struggle that very few knew about. Now I am seeing things with a new perspective, it is not about defending HOW God distributes His grace, or HOW he sovereignly rules over all of creation, or HOW he does this or that. Now I am simply basking in the fact that he DOES expense grace and that He IS sovereign and not worrying about how to solve the mystery of the "how?" It is truly refreshing.

Yesterday I preached on prayer, and it was encouraging to my soul to look at prayer through a fresh perspective. Our church is going through Acts right now, and yesterday came out of Acts 1:12-26. The apostles are waiting for the Spirit and the Bible says, "they devoted themselves constantly to prayer."

As I began to study this passage and what prayer is really all about, I read this quote in Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster: "Of all the Spiritual Disciplines prayer is the most central because it ushers us into perpetual communion with the Father." This got me to thinking (and incidently was the first point of my sermon :) ) that prayer should be a joyful act. As I was telling my friend Austin Evers about this new revelation, he said "we pray to God like we don't really like him, like its something we HAVE to get through." Little did he know that he was talking about me. That is how I viewed prayer, I hadn't enjoyed it in years, and honestly I had a hard time doing it recently. Then I thought about it...

We have the privilege of talking to the God who spoke creation into being, the God who parted the Red Sea and delivered Israel from oppression, the God that spoke to the prophets, and that God that is faithful to all His promises. WE GET TO TALK TO HIM! And as I began to get this fresh perspective prayer became exciting to me again, and my hope is that this excitement continues.

I am fasting this week and my prayer is that I will enjoy praying and communing with the Father, and that it increases as I know Him more.

It is refreshing rediscovering an intimacy with Christ that I haven't know in sometime, I hope that as I spend more and more time with Him, I will simply bask in His glory and fall deeper and deeper in love with the God of the ages.