Question put forward on Facebook: "How do we reconcile the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament?"
The God of the OT is the God described as "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness" (Exodus 34, Psalm 103).
The God of the NT is the God who killed Ananias and Saphira.
The God of the OT is the God who had mercy on Ahab-- the worst king of the northern tribe of Israel-- and didn't judge him when he repented. (I Kings 21)
The God of the NT is the God who does not forgive the one who has all of Jesus and rejects him (Hebrews 6; Hebrews 10:26ff)
God is merciful throughout the Bible.
God is judging throughout the Bible.
God is love throughout the Bible.
God is vengeful throughout the Bible.
Even as it is said of Jesus, so is God the Father: The same, yesterday, today and forever. He never changes.
Only our ability to respond to Him changes. Praise God that He sent His Son, so that we longer have to respond in legalism and judgement, but can now rest in repentance and His forgiveness!
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Christian Pacifism 101
The strongest argument for Christian pacifism is the New Testament. The simplist argument is Jesus said "love your enemies" and then described that loving includes not harming, not killing. To love someone is to do good to them; to kill someone is the opposite of doing good (See Mark 3:4).
The reason why Jesus and the others didn't get preach against soldier's killing is because, for the most part, they didn't. They acted as a police force in Judea, not a military killing machine-- the Romans who did that work were sent elsewhere.
The NT as a whole argues against the whole miltary machine. Revelation-- getting back to topic-- is an excellent example. The whole book glorifies martyrs-- those who submit to death rather than have their faith be compromised-- and assumes that those in the military machine are those who kill the martyrs. It's a pretty fair assumption. But even if one disagrees with that assumption, we have to admit that those who participate in the society of the Beast-- the military empire-- and those who participate in Babylon-- the commercial support of empire-- are condemned. If we accept this as Scripture, we have to take it seriously and not just dismiss its radical notions.
BTW, the basis for saying that the early church was anti-military isn't based on Roman records but on Christian documents. We have martyrologies of soldiers becoming Christians and then were killed because they refused to participate in warfare. We have early Christian authors saying that participating in the military in unacceptable for a Christian. To see these sources, you can find them in Eberhard Arnold's excellent book, "The Early Christians."
The reason why Jesus and the others didn't get preach against soldier's killing is because, for the most part, they didn't. They acted as a police force in Judea, not a military killing machine-- the Romans who did that work were sent elsewhere.
The NT as a whole argues against the whole miltary machine. Revelation-- getting back to topic-- is an excellent example. The whole book glorifies martyrs-- those who submit to death rather than have their faith be compromised-- and assumes that those in the military machine are those who kill the martyrs. It's a pretty fair assumption. But even if one disagrees with that assumption, we have to admit that those who participate in the society of the Beast-- the military empire-- and those who participate in Babylon-- the commercial support of empire-- are condemned. If we accept this as Scripture, we have to take it seriously and not just dismiss its radical notions.
BTW, the basis for saying that the early church was anti-military isn't based on Roman records but on Christian documents. We have martyrologies of soldiers becoming Christians and then were killed because they refused to participate in warfare. We have early Christian authors saying that participating in the military in unacceptable for a Christian. To see these sources, you can find them in Eberhard Arnold's excellent book, "The Early Christians."
Strength And the Christian Life
Discussion on MennoDiscuss: What do you think evangelicals mean by the sin of "trying to live the Christian life on one's own strength."
I think what evangelicals mean by this second esoteric phrase is trying to live the Christian life without the Spirit is wrong. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so much wrong as impossible. If a person tried to love their enemies, sell their possessions and give to the poor, do religious acts only for God's reward not man's, etc, it's just not human. So we have to have God's strength to help us do as Jesus asks.
The problem comes in when they say that we are doing something wrong by doing what we can. Look, if I can, on my own, not say hateful things about my brother or sister, then why shouldn't I? Is that a sin? We should admit that we can't do it on our own, that we need God's help, but to not do what we can... of course we should.
I think what evangelicals mean by this second esoteric phrase is trying to live the Christian life without the Spirit is wrong. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so much wrong as impossible. If a person tried to love their enemies, sell their possessions and give to the poor, do religious acts only for God's reward not man's, etc, it's just not human. So we have to have God's strength to help us do as Jesus asks.
The problem comes in when they say that we are doing something wrong by doing what we can. Look, if I can, on my own, not say hateful things about my brother or sister, then why shouldn't I? Is that a sin? We should admit that we can't do it on our own, that we need God's help, but to not do what we can... of course we should.
Evangelicals On Legalism
A post on legalism originally here:
http://heraldsofhope.org/newsletters/0901/pg3.html
And then posted on MennoDiscuss here:
http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7714&p=222568#p222568
The text from the article first, and then my response:
Few subjects have as much variation among believers as our interpretations of personal holiness. Many Christians interpret the freedom we have in Christ very liberally. They tend to run with their freedom and often pay little heed to Christ’s commands. These people focus on the love of Christ and the community of the Church rather than God’s holiness and doctrine.
At a deeper level, it is very easy for us to have a simple view of holiness because it requires little of us - if all we understand of the Christian life is freedom, our view is likely informed more by the world than by Christ. The sacrifices to which He calls us do not resonate with a “freewheeling” Christianity. A low view of sin and righteousness can mar our witness by blurring the distinctions between the Church and the world and open us up to the temptations of the enemy.
The opposite extreme is represented by legalism - the view in which personal holiness is of paramount importance. These folks go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of worldliness and take very seriously God’s call to “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .” Very little in their lives is free from rules and traditions, and they often spend a great deal of time and effort to follow them strictly.
Legalism becomes grievous sin when we believe that we have within ourselves the ability to attain God’s favor. Even when well intentioned, we cannot live up to the required standard. This leads us to judge others and ourselves by the “severity” of our wrongs rather than by God’s standard (that all sin is equally offensive to Him and destructive to our relationship).
A strong devotion to holiness does not have to be legalistic, however. Just as we dishonor God in pursuing righteousness on our own, we honor Him when this pursuit is borne out of love for Him. Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” sets personal holiness as an outcome rather than a condition of belief. His concern is not with individual sins but with sin (that is, whether we pursue Him or pursue ourselves).
Does the Lord want us to live in righteousness? Absolutely. Did He fulfill the law and set us free? Completely. But His command was neither “keep the Law” nor “be free”—He confronts us with something much simpler and yet so difficult that we can’t hope to live up to it outside of the Spirit’s enabling: “Follow Me.”
Spirit-led holiness motivated by love is perhaps the most distinctive marker of the faith; it is a picture to a dying world of the hope of forgiveness. Such an attitude is vital if we are to have the impact God desires.
Sincerely in HOPE of the Gospel,
HERALDS OF HOPE, INC
J. Mark Horst, President
This is reflective of a common evangelical viewpoint, and I think it's really confused. Perhaps the author knew better, but didn't write well, I'm not sure.
He certainly starts out well-- focusing on obedience to Jesus' commands, saying that there is a place between complete freedom and a law based on tradition. And he ends okay as well-- talking about following Jesus and obedience as being Spirit-led.
But in the middle he certainly sounds anti-nomian (in opposition to any regulations). As if any individual sin we do doesn't matter at all in God's eyes-- God is ready to overlook that-- as long as we have prayed the right prayer or whatever that gets us into Jesus.
It is an issue with evangelicals that as long as you've done the right entrance exam ("sinner's prayer", baptism, four spiritual laws, whatever) and you're in the right club (name church here) then it's all going to be okay because salvation is based on "grace" not "works". What evangelicals are scared of is the accusation that they are saying that unless a person DOES something they can't be saved, which is the original Lutheran idea of "works"-- salvation by doing something. This has been taken more broadly as meaning salvation by NOT doing something as well. As if we could murder someone without repentance and not be saved (no one actually believes this, but you could put almost any other sin in place of "murder" and it would work).
The fact is, the NT does demand of us a certain lifestyle. Jesus is, in some ways, more strict about how we should live than Moses-- we can't look at another woman, not just not have sex with her. If we have a habitual lifestyle of sin, then we do not enter God's kingdom (I Cor 5-6). So to help other brothers and sisters not live that way, and to stricly avoid sin is not legalism, it is a part of our salvation.
The problem of "grace/faith not works" is the problem with just about any one line theological statements: The definitions of the words change over time and people don't remember what the original idea was. So theology becomes as much as a fad as music.
http://heraldsofhope.org/newsletters/0901/pg3.html
And then posted on MennoDiscuss here:
http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7714&p=222568#p222568
The text from the article first, and then my response:
Few subjects have as much variation among believers as our interpretations of personal holiness. Many Christians interpret the freedom we have in Christ very liberally. They tend to run with their freedom and often pay little heed to Christ’s commands. These people focus on the love of Christ and the community of the Church rather than God’s holiness and doctrine.
At a deeper level, it is very easy for us to have a simple view of holiness because it requires little of us - if all we understand of the Christian life is freedom, our view is likely informed more by the world than by Christ. The sacrifices to which He calls us do not resonate with a “freewheeling” Christianity. A low view of sin and righteousness can mar our witness by blurring the distinctions between the Church and the world and open us up to the temptations of the enemy.
The opposite extreme is represented by legalism - the view in which personal holiness is of paramount importance. These folks go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of worldliness and take very seriously God’s call to “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .” Very little in their lives is free from rules and traditions, and they often spend a great deal of time and effort to follow them strictly.
Legalism becomes grievous sin when we believe that we have within ourselves the ability to attain God’s favor. Even when well intentioned, we cannot live up to the required standard. This leads us to judge others and ourselves by the “severity” of our wrongs rather than by God’s standard (that all sin is equally offensive to Him and destructive to our relationship).
A strong devotion to holiness does not have to be legalistic, however. Just as we dishonor God in pursuing righteousness on our own, we honor Him when this pursuit is borne out of love for Him. Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” sets personal holiness as an outcome rather than a condition of belief. His concern is not with individual sins but with sin (that is, whether we pursue Him or pursue ourselves).
Does the Lord want us to live in righteousness? Absolutely. Did He fulfill the law and set us free? Completely. But His command was neither “keep the Law” nor “be free”—He confronts us with something much simpler and yet so difficult that we can’t hope to live up to it outside of the Spirit’s enabling: “Follow Me.”
Spirit-led holiness motivated by love is perhaps the most distinctive marker of the faith; it is a picture to a dying world of the hope of forgiveness. Such an attitude is vital if we are to have the impact God desires.
Sincerely in HOPE of the Gospel,
HERALDS OF HOPE, INC
J. Mark Horst, President
This is reflective of a common evangelical viewpoint, and I think it's really confused. Perhaps the author knew better, but didn't write well, I'm not sure.
He certainly starts out well-- focusing on obedience to Jesus' commands, saying that there is a place between complete freedom and a law based on tradition. And he ends okay as well-- talking about following Jesus and obedience as being Spirit-led.
But in the middle he certainly sounds anti-nomian (in opposition to any regulations). As if any individual sin we do doesn't matter at all in God's eyes-- God is ready to overlook that-- as long as we have prayed the right prayer or whatever that gets us into Jesus.
It is an issue with evangelicals that as long as you've done the right entrance exam ("sinner's prayer", baptism, four spiritual laws, whatever) and you're in the right club (name church here) then it's all going to be okay because salvation is based on "grace" not "works". What evangelicals are scared of is the accusation that they are saying that unless a person DOES something they can't be saved, which is the original Lutheran idea of "works"-- salvation by doing something. This has been taken more broadly as meaning salvation by NOT doing something as well. As if we could murder someone without repentance and not be saved (no one actually believes this, but you could put almost any other sin in place of "murder" and it would work).
The fact is, the NT does demand of us a certain lifestyle. Jesus is, in some ways, more strict about how we should live than Moses-- we can't look at another woman, not just not have sex with her. If we have a habitual lifestyle of sin, then we do not enter God's kingdom (I Cor 5-6). So to help other brothers and sisters not live that way, and to stricly avoid sin is not legalism, it is a part of our salvation.
The problem of "grace/faith not works" is the problem with just about any one line theological statements: The definitions of the words change over time and people don't remember what the original idea was. So theology becomes as much as a fad as music.
Biblical Legalism
A question was posed on a forum in MennoDiscuss about what the Bible says about legalism:
Biblically, that which we call legalism I think is discussed in the following ways:
a. Enforcing a law without regard to the needs of the other person. "I require mercy not sacrifice" Matthew 12
b. Insisting that one become a part of the law of Moses in order to be a follower of Jesus. This was the main discussion in the book of Galatians.
c. In matters not determined by Jesus, enforcing one's opinion or interpretation as legally binding. Romans 14
However, Biblical legalism is not a matter of not having a code to live by, because Jesus affirmed that we were not to murder, commit adultery, defraud, dishonor one's parents, etc. As well, he gave more laws such as to love one's enemies, to not be a hypocrite, to not judge, etc. There is a code for us to live by, and to say that all followers of Jesus obey Jesus is not legalism in a biblical sense.
Biblically, that which we call legalism I think is discussed in the following ways:
a. Enforcing a law without regard to the needs of the other person. "I require mercy not sacrifice" Matthew 12
b. Insisting that one become a part of the law of Moses in order to be a follower of Jesus. This was the main discussion in the book of Galatians.
c. In matters not determined by Jesus, enforcing one's opinion or interpretation as legally binding. Romans 14
However, Biblical legalism is not a matter of not having a code to live by, because Jesus affirmed that we were not to murder, commit adultery, defraud, dishonor one's parents, etc. As well, he gave more laws such as to love one's enemies, to not be a hypocrite, to not judge, etc. There is a code for us to live by, and to say that all followers of Jesus obey Jesus is not legalism in a biblical sense.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Lust For God?
Is it possible to take sexual energy and direct it toward God? In other words, instead of using the sexual energy on masturbation, etc, is it possible to focus it on God?
Okay, a tricky one.
Sexual energy comes from a combination of hormones and brain activity that we can call lust. This lust is focused on a physical being and is tied into the sights, smells, actions and personality of that being. I don't think it can really be focused on God. It can be used for God-- in a marriage, of course. But the energy and the build up of pleasure hormones in the brain can be redirected-- with difficulty-- to act for God's kingdom, especially service.
There are three biochemical aspects to love: lust, "falling in love", and affection. While sexual energy can't be focused directly on God, the second two can. I have experienced this myself, but "falling in love" with God didn't last, just like it doesn't with a human being. But when it did, I was more focused on God and ready to worship Him than ever in my life. The important thing, however, is to not focus on the feeling but on God himself. Otherwise, when the feeling goes away, you feel emptied of God. But God is always there, always loving, always supporting, even if we don't feel Him.
Okay, a tricky one.
Sexual energy comes from a combination of hormones and brain activity that we can call lust. This lust is focused on a physical being and is tied into the sights, smells, actions and personality of that being. I don't think it can really be focused on God. It can be used for God-- in a marriage, of course. But the energy and the build up of pleasure hormones in the brain can be redirected-- with difficulty-- to act for God's kingdom, especially service.
There are three biochemical aspects to love: lust, "falling in love", and affection. While sexual energy can't be focused directly on God, the second two can. I have experienced this myself, but "falling in love" with God didn't last, just like it doesn't with a human being. But when it did, I was more focused on God and ready to worship Him than ever in my life. The important thing, however, is to not focus on the feeling but on God himself. Otherwise, when the feeling goes away, you feel emptied of God. But God is always there, always loving, always supporting, even if we don't feel Him.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Common Foundations of Isalm and Christianity
This is a summary of the main letter from Muslims to Christians. I highly recommend you read the whole thing at:
http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
From 138 Prominant Muslims to Christians around the world:
Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity. The following are only a few examples:
Of God’s Unity, God says in the Holy Qur’an: Say: He is God, the One! / God, the Self-Sufficient Besought of all! (Al-Ikhlas, 112:1-2). Of the necessity of love for God, God says in the Holy Qur’an: So invoke the Name of thy Lord and devote thyself to Him with a complete devotion (Al-Muzzammil, 73:8). Of the necessity of love for the neighbour, the Prophet Muhammad r said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ u said: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. / And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. / And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High enjoins Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture):
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)
The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God. Hence they all relate to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries on the Holy Qur’an the words: that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, mean ‘that none of us should obey the other in disobedience to what God has commanded’. This relates to the Second Commandment because justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour.
Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
And may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad
http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
From 138 Prominant Muslims to Christians around the world:
Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity. The following are only a few examples:
Of God’s Unity, God says in the Holy Qur’an: Say: He is God, the One! / God, the Self-Sufficient Besought of all! (Al-Ikhlas, 112:1-2). Of the necessity of love for God, God says in the Holy Qur’an: So invoke the Name of thy Lord and devote thyself to Him with a complete devotion (Al-Muzzammil, 73:8). Of the necessity of love for the neighbour, the Prophet Muhammad r said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ u said: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. / And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. / And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High enjoins Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture):
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)
The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God. Hence they all relate to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries on the Holy Qur’an the words: that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, mean ‘that none of us should obey the other in disobedience to what God has commanded’. This relates to the Second Commandment because justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour.
Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
And may peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad
Responses to the Recession
I think it is time for the church to reconsider its politics.. I'm not advocating that we all try to get elected or take over the government necessarily. But I do think we might be entering a 1930's scenario where if we think things have been bad for the middle-class and poor through the 1970's, 80's and 90's, you ain't seen nothing yet. I know I'm going to hear it from those who like to keep Jesus out of politics (and I do still harbor many healthy anabaptist political hesitations myself) but I'm becoming equally angry with a church that seems more interested in building new administrative centers and benefiting from our MMA retirement portfolios (well, up until 6mo. ago at least), but seems less interested in walking the neighborhood, asking how people are doing and searching for real ways to bring hope and healing to those who know first hand what it feels like to search for scraps beneath the "master's" table. I've recently been inspired by reading about church leaders of the 1930s who searched for ways to move beyond insular spiritualism to both care for the poor AND passionately advocate for significant social change. I wonder if the coming revolt might need some committed nonviolent Mennonites who can help keep it nonviolent.
-Matt F.
I think, Matt, that you're barking up the wrong tree. I feel I can say this as a person who is deeply involved in my communities here in Portland. I personally think that the governments and corporations and banks are so full of their own self interest, especially in maintaining whatever status quo there is, that the system itself is unreliable. I believe that if we as Christians took over the system, then we would do no better than those who hold it now (or previously). Part of the problem is the structure of the system itself, whether that be the U.S. government, capitalism, the banking system, or modern labor being controlled by large corporations. What is needed is a complete breakdown of the systems-- which we will get when Jesus returns.
However, in the meantime, we need to do SOMETHING. I think the best option is to create alternative communities that can provide both an economic safety zone as well as an example to others as to how to act in God's economy. I am not advocating dropping out of the world, but rather calling on believers to have an economic change of heart. This would look like this:
a. Our economic insentive would not be to obtain more income or property ourselves, but to invest into the community. This investment would include money, but not be limited to that. It would also include property, time and labor. Thus, we could encourage others to think about every economic decision to be about the community rather than about individual gain. Each decision would still be made by the individual, but the incentive of the individual would be different. (Acts 2:44-45)
b.The economic gain would not be on the basis of reciprocity, but on a broad concept of meeting other's needs without obtaining anything back. A broad concept of need would include survival issues, but it would also include issues of respect, entertainment and inner peace. But, again, it is focused on what can give the community these things instead of individuals or nuclear family units. (Luke 6:30-31)
c. The focus of this economic return would be to provide the greatest amount of economic resourcing, not to those who have the most resources, but to those with the greatest needs. Thus, should all else fail, the basic needs of all the community-- including the poor and outcast of society-- would be met. (Luke 12:33; Luke 14:12-14; Acts 4:34-35)
d. Because all people's needs are met, the community will draw those who are poor and outcast, who are the most economically vulnerable. While this seems unsustainable, in a cash poor society, this means that the community will be wealth in a viable economic resource-- namely those able to do labor and time and who have the insentive to act in resiprocity for what they have received even if reciprocity is not demanded. Namely, a work force will be available for the community, which will make them a viable self-sustaining community. (Luke 16:1-9)
This is what we do in Anawim, with minimal assistance from our (more) wealthy friends in other churches. And, actually, I just read of a similar report in the latest issue of the MMN publication (forgot the title). In Argentina, many were losing their jobs. Since they didn't want to just be sitting around waiting for their next opporunity, many in the Mennonite church decided to create a food co-op, which provided for the entire community.
-Matt F.
I think, Matt, that you're barking up the wrong tree. I feel I can say this as a person who is deeply involved in my communities here in Portland. I personally think that the governments and corporations and banks are so full of their own self interest, especially in maintaining whatever status quo there is, that the system itself is unreliable. I believe that if we as Christians took over the system, then we would do no better than those who hold it now (or previously). Part of the problem is the structure of the system itself, whether that be the U.S. government, capitalism, the banking system, or modern labor being controlled by large corporations. What is needed is a complete breakdown of the systems-- which we will get when Jesus returns.
However, in the meantime, we need to do SOMETHING. I think the best option is to create alternative communities that can provide both an economic safety zone as well as an example to others as to how to act in God's economy. I am not advocating dropping out of the world, but rather calling on believers to have an economic change of heart. This would look like this:
a. Our economic insentive would not be to obtain more income or property ourselves, but to invest into the community. This investment would include money, but not be limited to that. It would also include property, time and labor. Thus, we could encourage others to think about every economic decision to be about the community rather than about individual gain. Each decision would still be made by the individual, but the incentive of the individual would be different. (Acts 2:44-45)
b.The economic gain would not be on the basis of reciprocity, but on a broad concept of meeting other's needs without obtaining anything back. A broad concept of need would include survival issues, but it would also include issues of respect, entertainment and inner peace. But, again, it is focused on what can give the community these things instead of individuals or nuclear family units. (Luke 6:30-31)
c. The focus of this economic return would be to provide the greatest amount of economic resourcing, not to those who have the most resources, but to those with the greatest needs. Thus, should all else fail, the basic needs of all the community-- including the poor and outcast of society-- would be met. (Luke 12:33; Luke 14:12-14; Acts 4:34-35)
d. Because all people's needs are met, the community will draw those who are poor and outcast, who are the most economically vulnerable. While this seems unsustainable, in a cash poor society, this means that the community will be wealth in a viable economic resource-- namely those able to do labor and time and who have the insentive to act in resiprocity for what they have received even if reciprocity is not demanded. Namely, a work force will be available for the community, which will make them a viable self-sustaining community. (Luke 16:1-9)
This is what we do in Anawim, with minimal assistance from our (more) wealthy friends in other churches. And, actually, I just read of a similar report in the latest issue of the MMN publication (forgot the title). In Argentina, many were losing their jobs. Since they didn't want to just be sitting around waiting for their next opporunity, many in the Mennonite church decided to create a food co-op, which provided for the entire community.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Asking for Money
If you were called to be a missionary today, would you ask for money? -Jake Ray on Facebook
My wife and I have been "missionaries" among the homeless for 15 years now, with my wife working one day a week on minimum wage. But we NEVER asked anyone for money. The Lord is our employer and so He pays our wages. We do not ask the government or the church to pay that which is His responsibility. When we get donations, it is because the Lord stirs people's hearts through the Spirit and He provides abundantly.
The church has a huge number of resources, both financially and otherwise. And I don't believe the NT teaches tithing, and even if tithing were great (50% or more) I think that most churches don't have their priorities correct. Jesus commands us to give to those in need, especially those doing His work (Luke 12:33; Matt 10:10; Galatians 6:6-10). But the churches seem to think that their main responsibility is a huge salary for their pastor and a huge building. God's people need to re-prioritize toward those in need, without judging, without hoops.
My wife and I have been "missionaries" among the homeless for 15 years now, with my wife working one day a week on minimum wage. But we NEVER asked anyone for money. The Lord is our employer and so He pays our wages. We do not ask the government or the church to pay that which is His responsibility. When we get donations, it is because the Lord stirs people's hearts through the Spirit and He provides abundantly.
The church has a huge number of resources, both financially and otherwise. And I don't believe the NT teaches tithing, and even if tithing were great (50% or more) I think that most churches don't have their priorities correct. Jesus commands us to give to those in need, especially those doing His work (Luke 12:33; Matt 10:10; Galatians 6:6-10). But the churches seem to think that their main responsibility is a huge salary for their pastor and a huge building. God's people need to re-prioritize toward those in need, without judging, without hoops.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Homelessness in Gresham
Anabeth asked how homelessness in Gresham differs from Portland and who is involved in helping them. "I am wondering about the situation in Gresham regarding people living outdoors as I am only more familiar with what is going on in Portland. Can you please tell me a little more about it? Do we know approximately how many people are living outdoors in Gresham- have the numbers increased the past couple of years b/c of Mayor Potter's ordinances? I know that Eastside Foursquare Church there has done some things- are they empowering people?? Is it My Father's House that was just built for housing people living outdoors in Gresham- though I know that obviously not everyone is helped in a situation like that, people are still left out and my question for them is still about how their services are being played out- are they empowering or patronizing?"
There are basically three services for street folks in Gresham: Zaraphath Kitchen which has a meal six days a week, Anawim (showers, clothes and a meal one day a week) and My Father's House for homeless families. EastHill has been out of the loop for a number of years, but they are trying to re-organize their assistance. Right now, they are filling out Zaraphath so that there are meals every Sunday, and they want to provide socks-- which is what Anawim has done for years. But maybe this means that we can provide socks for the SE group instead.
Gresham is a different street experience than Portland. There is a lot more room for camping in tents and there is less dependence on services. The police are more consistantly active in kicking the homeless out of the city and there are people hired by the city to throw away people's tents and gear if left behind. So the homeless are more hidden. The only place they are alowed to hang out is Gresham Main Park, but even there they are carefully monitored by the police. Sometimes the police are abusive and in fact at least four homeless I know have successfully sued the city of Gresham for police brutality. Many more have been abused without suing. For all of these reasons, not very many people have moved from Portland to Gresham.
Homelessness has grown in Gresham, but mostly it is young people who have increased the numbers. When we talk about the homeless, the numbers are all guess work, but I'd say there's about 200 chronic homeless and someone has quoted to me a statistic of 200 young people on the street (That number might be a bit high-- they might be including those who hang out with the "gutter punks" but still sleep at home). A large number of these people live on the Springwater Corridor bike trail.
Recently there have been three groups wanting to advocate for the poor in Gresham. But I noted that all three of these groups were full of middle class churches and leaders who wanted to help the homeless but who weren't interested in having the homeless own the services. That is the kind of system we don't need in Gresham. We have a lot of strong, ready-to-work folk who would do work to support a service as long as it was a service they asked for. This was one of the main purposes of this community meeting-- to get the homeless involved in the conversation of how to serve the homeless. To get them to own the service from the ground level so they would own it and participate.
I'd say that My Father's House does empower, but they aren't dealing with the chronic homeless at all. They help families in crisis, which is great. But I note that Gresham-- East Hill in particular-- is willing to spend literally millions of dollars for My Father's House, but the chronic homeless get nothing but tickets and abuse. I think it is long overdue to have some services for all the homeless in Gresham, but I also think that to do it rightly, we need to draw upon the willing help and resources of the homeless.
Okay, you asked a lot of questions and got a long answer. Hope that's okay!
There are basically three services for street folks in Gresham: Zaraphath Kitchen which has a meal six days a week, Anawim (showers, clothes and a meal one day a week) and My Father's House for homeless families. EastHill has been out of the loop for a number of years, but they are trying to re-organize their assistance. Right now, they are filling out Zaraphath so that there are meals every Sunday, and they want to provide socks-- which is what Anawim has done for years. But maybe this means that we can provide socks for the SE group instead.
Gresham is a different street experience than Portland. There is a lot more room for camping in tents and there is less dependence on services. The police are more consistantly active in kicking the homeless out of the city and there are people hired by the city to throw away people's tents and gear if left behind. So the homeless are more hidden. The only place they are alowed to hang out is Gresham Main Park, but even there they are carefully monitored by the police. Sometimes the police are abusive and in fact at least four homeless I know have successfully sued the city of Gresham for police brutality. Many more have been abused without suing. For all of these reasons, not very many people have moved from Portland to Gresham.
Homelessness has grown in Gresham, but mostly it is young people who have increased the numbers. When we talk about the homeless, the numbers are all guess work, but I'd say there's about 200 chronic homeless and someone has quoted to me a statistic of 200 young people on the street (That number might be a bit high-- they might be including those who hang out with the "gutter punks" but still sleep at home). A large number of these people live on the Springwater Corridor bike trail.
Recently there have been three groups wanting to advocate for the poor in Gresham. But I noted that all three of these groups were full of middle class churches and leaders who wanted to help the homeless but who weren't interested in having the homeless own the services. That is the kind of system we don't need in Gresham. We have a lot of strong, ready-to-work folk who would do work to support a service as long as it was a service they asked for. This was one of the main purposes of this community meeting-- to get the homeless involved in the conversation of how to serve the homeless. To get them to own the service from the ground level so they would own it and participate.
I'd say that My Father's House does empower, but they aren't dealing with the chronic homeless at all. They help families in crisis, which is great. But I note that Gresham-- East Hill in particular-- is willing to spend literally millions of dollars for My Father's House, but the chronic homeless get nothing but tickets and abuse. I think it is long overdue to have some services for all the homeless in Gresham, but I also think that to do it rightly, we need to draw upon the willing help and resources of the homeless.
Okay, you asked a lot of questions and got a long answer. Hope that's okay!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Hermeneutics (I Had To Look It Up)
Kim:
Kim is confused....aren't the Supremes supposed to rule per the law/Constitution and NOT per the social and cultural mores of the times? Does NPR know this???!!!
Steve:
The Supremes' job is to interpret the Constitution. ALL interpretation, whether the Constitution or the Bible or whatever, is based on one's worldview and cultural norms. This is why appointing the Supremes is so significant, because that indicates what cultural norms are going to be used. And the recent effort by appointees to say that they are "objective" and don't use cultural norms to interpret are just being disingenuous.
Kim:
I thought the idea was to interpret based on the Constitution as per the original intent. But, apparently many think that the document was written with "wiggle room" for the ages to come.
As for Biblical interpretation, it's supposed to be done with a SOUND hermeneutic basis. But I don't even know if i spelled that correctly. Thing is, we are human and we sin, so there is human error, even with the most steadfast folks. No matter how much integrity I bring to Scripture, I am sure that I goof it up at times. That's one of the places His grace coems into play.
But getting back to the Constitution, if you want Supremes that interpret according to the way the wind is blowing at that time, you would definitely want a new crop in on a regular and more constant basis...they were talking about every 10 years...
Steve:
The fact is, the term "sound" (and that other word which I use often enough but I also don't know how to spell) is also interpreted. Thus, our method of interpretation is interpretation. I want to use the interpretation of the apostles in studying the Bible, but that's hard to do, and even that is disagreed about. What about a secular document like the constitution? Every form of interpretation is just a form of cultural values
Kim is confused....aren't the Supremes supposed to rule per the law/Constitution and NOT per the social and cultural mores of the times? Does NPR know this???!!!
Steve:
The Supremes' job is to interpret the Constitution. ALL interpretation, whether the Constitution or the Bible or whatever, is based on one's worldview and cultural norms. This is why appointing the Supremes is so significant, because that indicates what cultural norms are going to be used. And the recent effort by appointees to say that they are "objective" and don't use cultural norms to interpret are just being disingenuous.
Kim:
I thought the idea was to interpret based on the Constitution as per the original intent. But, apparently many think that the document was written with "wiggle room" for the ages to come.
As for Biblical interpretation, it's supposed to be done with a SOUND hermeneutic basis. But I don't even know if i spelled that correctly. Thing is, we are human and we sin, so there is human error, even with the most steadfast folks. No matter how much integrity I bring to Scripture, I am sure that I goof it up at times. That's one of the places His grace coems into play.
But getting back to the Constitution, if you want Supremes that interpret according to the way the wind is blowing at that time, you would definitely want a new crop in on a regular and more constant basis...they were talking about every 10 years...
Steve:
The fact is, the term "sound" (and that other word which I use often enough but I also don't know how to spell) is also interpreted. Thus, our method of interpretation is interpretation. I want to use the interpretation of the apostles in studying the Bible, but that's hard to do, and even that is disagreed about. What about a secular document like the constitution? Every form of interpretation is just a form of cultural values
What is Fruit About?
just read gospel of john chapter 15, verse 8. it says when you bear much fruit then you are my disciples. i was wondering what is meant by "fruit"? i know the evangelicals think it means that we must bring many to making a decision for Jesus. i was wondering if it could mean other things in your opinion. i realize that the fruit of the Holy Spirit are fruit, but can we bear fruit of the Holy Spirit. i thought it was the Spirit in us that did that. not coming from us, but a work done through us, as we are willing vessels in him.
-David
"Fruit" really means doing what Jesus said. We can see this clearly in Matthew 7 where it says "You shall know them" meaning false teachers "by their fruit." And he goes on to talk about good and bad fruit. The passage ends with two warnings of judgment-- one against false teachers who were "lawless", meaning disobedient and another warning about hearing and doing what Jesus says.
In John it's the same. Do the teachers who say that "fruit" is getting converts also think that people who don't make converts get burned in hell?
"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
(John 15:5-6)
It's saying that all who live in Jesus has "fruit". If you don't have "fruit" you don't live in Jesus. And then you are separated from Jesus and get "burned"-- punished. All that for not having converts? I don't think so.
As far as the Holy Spirit "fruit" goes, love is borne is us as a result of having the Spirit. If a person doesn't partner with the Holy Spirit in having love-- in refusing the Spirit's influence to love and gentleness-- then the Spirit doesn't hang around. We see this in Romans 8--
"and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Also in Galatians 5--
"If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."
The fruit of the Spirit isn't just something that happens to us, although we might be surpized at the changes that occur when we begin living in the Spirit. Love is something that the Spirit gives us the ability to do and we, in agreement to be followers of Jesus, partner with the Spirit to act that way.
-David
"Fruit" really means doing what Jesus said. We can see this clearly in Matthew 7 where it says "You shall know them" meaning false teachers "by their fruit." And he goes on to talk about good and bad fruit. The passage ends with two warnings of judgment-- one against false teachers who were "lawless", meaning disobedient and another warning about hearing and doing what Jesus says.
In John it's the same. Do the teachers who say that "fruit" is getting converts also think that people who don't make converts get burned in hell?
"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
(John 15:5-6)
It's saying that all who live in Jesus has "fruit". If you don't have "fruit" you don't live in Jesus. And then you are separated from Jesus and get "burned"-- punished. All that for not having converts? I don't think so.
As far as the Holy Spirit "fruit" goes, love is borne is us as a result of having the Spirit. If a person doesn't partner with the Holy Spirit in having love-- in refusing the Spirit's influence to love and gentleness-- then the Spirit doesn't hang around. We see this in Romans 8--
"and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Also in Galatians 5--
"If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."
The fruit of the Spirit isn't just something that happens to us, although we might be surpized at the changes that occur when we begin living in the Spirit. Love is something that the Spirit gives us the ability to do and we, in agreement to be followers of Jesus, partner with the Spirit to act that way.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Mennonites and Anabaptists
LeeAnne asked if the Mennonite church supports Anawim and she gave her general support of Anabaptists:
I replied:
Some Mennonites do get involved, and Anawim has been an inspiration to the Mennonite church. I've just been asked by Urban Connections-- a Mennonite publication-- to write an article about our response to the recession. A local Mennonite church serves a meal once a month and sings hymns. And Mennonites have sent us socks, etc.
Mennonites are different than Anabaptists, really. The Mennonite church is the denominational descendent of the historical Anabaptists. Modern Anabaptists are those who are directly influenced by the historical Anabaptists. There are a lot of Anabaptists in the Mennonite church (I'm one of them), but not all Mennonites are Anabaptists and not all Anabaptists are Mennonite.
I replied:
Some Mennonites do get involved, and Anawim has been an inspiration to the Mennonite church. I've just been asked by Urban Connections-- a Mennonite publication-- to write an article about our response to the recession. A local Mennonite church serves a meal once a month and sings hymns. And Mennonites have sent us socks, etc.
Mennonites are different than Anabaptists, really. The Mennonite church is the denominational descendent of the historical Anabaptists. Modern Anabaptists are those who are directly influenced by the historical Anabaptists. There are a lot of Anabaptists in the Mennonite church (I'm one of them), but not all Mennonites are Anabaptists and not all Anabaptists are Mennonite.
Friday, February 13, 2009
12 Values
I also received yesterday from the same person 12 values to live by. I had already made my own, but I revised it:
Freedom: To grant everyone the God-given freedom they have to make their own choices, even if poor
Tolerance: Accepting that others believe differently than I, while still standing firm in Jesus.
Responsibility: Whatever results from our actions, we resolve to deal with the negative ones
Community: In whatever community we live in, we resolve to live by those principles, even if uncomfortable
Faithfulness: To keep our word and our loyalties in relationship
Do No Harm: To never, under any circumstances, damage another unless for their benefit by their will
Golden Rule: Treat others with the same amount of respect, love, care, compassion, and consideration that we would be treated
Compassion: Putting myself in the other person’s need, and trying to meet it
Generosity: Never keeping anything for myself that someone else needs more
Self-Sacrifice: Meeting other’s needs even if it means to not meet my own
Courage: Standing up for Jesus and His gospel in all situations, especially with other believers
Hope: Trusting in my actions that Jesus is returning to rule the world
Freedom: To grant everyone the God-given freedom they have to make their own choices, even if poor
Tolerance: Accepting that others believe differently than I, while still standing firm in Jesus.
Responsibility: Whatever results from our actions, we resolve to deal with the negative ones
Community: In whatever community we live in, we resolve to live by those principles, even if uncomfortable
Faithfulness: To keep our word and our loyalties in relationship
Do No Harm: To never, under any circumstances, damage another unless for their benefit by their will
Golden Rule: Treat others with the same amount of respect, love, care, compassion, and consideration that we would be treated
Compassion: Putting myself in the other person’s need, and trying to meet it
Generosity: Never keeping anything for myself that someone else needs more
Self-Sacrifice: Meeting other’s needs even if it means to not meet my own
Courage: Standing up for Jesus and His gospel in all situations, especially with other believers
Hope: Trusting in my actions that Jesus is returning to rule the world
Nine Principles
I received yesterday "9 principles" that someone lives by. I didnt' care for them, so I made my own:
9 Principles:
1. The only nation without compromise is the Kingdom of God
2. Jesus is my chosen Lord over that Kingdom
3. Jesus is my Lord and I will obey Him over all other principles or laws.
4. God is my allegiance and I will work for and serve Him.
5. Those who love God will obey, work for and serve the Kingdom of God over the nations of men.
6. The people of the Kingdom of God are the poor and persecuted who live in Jesus, and those who unequivocally support them.
7. Service to the Kingdom of God is using whatever resources we have for those who have greater needs than ourselves
8. All true power rests in God, so to make real change we must pray.
9. No one has the right, in the name of God, to damage anyone.
9 Principles:
1. The only nation without compromise is the Kingdom of God
2. Jesus is my chosen Lord over that Kingdom
3. Jesus is my Lord and I will obey Him over all other principles or laws.
4. God is my allegiance and I will work for and serve Him.
5. Those who love God will obey, work for and serve the Kingdom of God over the nations of men.
6. The people of the Kingdom of God are the poor and persecuted who live in Jesus, and those who unequivocally support them.
7. Service to the Kingdom of God is using whatever resources we have for those who have greater needs than ourselves
8. All true power rests in God, so to make real change we must pray.
9. No one has the right, in the name of God, to damage anyone.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Martin Luther
I also got a question about Martin Luther. The question is of the type which says: "What about Martin Luther?"
This is reasonably vague enough that I can pretty much post what I want to about the man. Below is a brief summary I wrote about him in my Biographical Church History, which can be read in The Faithful, a blog I created to talk about 20 followers of Jesus who changed the world:
http://followingthefaithful.blogspot.com/
But about Martin Luther: He was a great man, a hothead, a stubborn mule, a Bible student, a prolific writer, a professor of theology, but not a really great thinker. He really did change the world by insisting that church tradition be based on Scripture instead of money or power. He stood firm when the church wanted him to change his views on the book of Romans and the basis of salvation. And in trying to escape the inquisition, he inadvertantly created a new church and a new political map of Europe, especially Germany. He also wrote the first modern translation of the Bible into German, which is still used as an important translation today. But by the end of his life, he got kinda strange. Because Zwingli didn't agree with him on an interpretation of the Lord's supper, he agreed to a war between his principality and Zwingli's. Because the Anabaptists were opposed to his views on baptism and the state, he agreed to have his government persecute and kill them off. Because the Jewish people didn't listen to him any more than the Catholics, he preached the worst anti-Semitic sermons you could think of.
So, while he truly changed the world, I wish he had been a better follower of Jesus.
My chapter on Luther:
Martin Luther—1500s
No Salvation Through Money
Background Check:
In the late Middle Ages (1300-1500) much of the Roman church, which ruled over Western Europe, was corrupt. The Romans church was controlled by rich people, who taxed the poor so that they could live luxurious lives. The priests and the monks were the only ones who could preach, but they often did not know the Bible at all, only the theology they were taught by other priests and monks. And then came a practice known as “indulgences”—The church requesting money from people so that their loved ones would not suffer harm from God. In the early 1500’s this became a popular form of devotion, and a way for rich people to feel that they were “saving” their dead loved ones from harm.
His Story:
Martin Luther was a young man riding his horse when a lightning storm struck suddenly. He was scared out of his mind, and so pleaded to God for deliverance. After not being harmed by the storm, Luther decided to live with a community of monks in Wittenberg, Germany (The “W” is pronounced like a “V”). Although he lived by himself, his task was to teach the Bible and theology to the young monks.
In 1517, it became known that a caravan of the Roman church was coming to Wittenberg to encourage people to give indulgences. Luther became angry and wrote out 95 points (or “theses”) against indulgences and then nailed them to the Wittenberg church door (which was the community bulletin board). These points were well presented, written in German and they became printed on a new machine called a printing press. Soon the 95 Theses were all over Germany, and the church leaders were not happy about it.
The church leaders called Luther to a trial in another part of Germany, called Worms (Remember, the “W” is pronounced like a “v”). There, they accused Luther of teaching heresy, but Luther simply stood by the word of God and challenged them to correct him by the Bible. They could not, so they let him go. On his way back home, Luther heard that some of the church leaders were going to try to kill him, so he ran away and hid with some friends.
Soon, an important political leader called Fredrick the Wise decided to assist Luther and he kept him in his home and Luther was free to give Fredrick advice and to write his books—all of which were printed in German and were very popular in Germany. Luther also translated the Bible in German so that all the people could read the Bible. All of these acts together caused what was called “the Reformation,” or the worldwide challenge to the Roman church. Luther wanted to cause a change in the Roman church, but when the leader of the Roman church, the Pope, rejected Luther, then Luther began a new church, called the Lutheran Church.
Later in his life, Luther did not continue to follow the ways of Jesus, but advised Fredrick and other Lutheran leaders to kill Roman Catholics, Anabaptists (also called Mennonites) and Jews. This immediately caused horrible wars and persecutions to erupt between Christians in Europe for more than a hundred years.
WWJD
Jesus also spoke out against the hypocrisy of people. He constantly said that the leaders of God’s people could not be trusting in money, but in God. And he was rejected and persecuted for this opinion, just like Martin Luther. However, Jesus never affirmed the killing of others. He recognized that people would be judged for their sins, but he held that God would do such punishment himself, and not support the killing of others. Thus, while Jesus might have supported Luther’s ideals, he would not have supported Luther’s ways of achieving God’s righteousness
Final Word (of men)
Martin Luther began a church named the Lutherans, and he actually changed the world upside-down. Because of his writings and teachings the Bible was focused on more by all Western churches and a new kind of Christianity was supported, generally named the Protestants (so called because they broke away from the Catholic church). Most Western Christians honor Martin Luther and his stand against hypocrisy.
A Word From Our Sponsor:
He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, which will entrust you to true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? No slave can be enslaved by two masters; either he will hate the one and love the other or he will love the hone and hate the other. No one can be enslaved by both God and Mammon.
Luke 16:10-13
Beware of scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.
Mark 12:38-40
Helpful Hint: Getting To The Heart of the Matter
In every age, the church had a weakness in following Jesus—and often more than one! The Faithful saw that weakness and spoke boldly to correct it. They were never interested in dividing the church, but only to make the church more faithful to Jesus and His teaching. Anthony saw the worldliness in the church and sought to correct it. Luther saw the demand to live by unfruitful deeds. As we will see, Martin Luther King saw the favoritism and spoke against it. The church was never happy to hear this message—instead, the Christians of these days fought against the message of Jesus! But the Faithful never failed to bring the message their church needed to hear.
This is reasonably vague enough that I can pretty much post what I want to about the man. Below is a brief summary I wrote about him in my Biographical Church History, which can be read in The Faithful, a blog I created to talk about 20 followers of Jesus who changed the world:
http://followingthefaithful.blogspot.com/
But about Martin Luther: He was a great man, a hothead, a stubborn mule, a Bible student, a prolific writer, a professor of theology, but not a really great thinker. He really did change the world by insisting that church tradition be based on Scripture instead of money or power. He stood firm when the church wanted him to change his views on the book of Romans and the basis of salvation. And in trying to escape the inquisition, he inadvertantly created a new church and a new political map of Europe, especially Germany. He also wrote the first modern translation of the Bible into German, which is still used as an important translation today. But by the end of his life, he got kinda strange. Because Zwingli didn't agree with him on an interpretation of the Lord's supper, he agreed to a war between his principality and Zwingli's. Because the Anabaptists were opposed to his views on baptism and the state, he agreed to have his government persecute and kill them off. Because the Jewish people didn't listen to him any more than the Catholics, he preached the worst anti-Semitic sermons you could think of.
So, while he truly changed the world, I wish he had been a better follower of Jesus.
My chapter on Luther:
Martin Luther—1500s
No Salvation Through Money
Background Check:
In the late Middle Ages (1300-1500) much of the Roman church, which ruled over Western Europe, was corrupt. The Romans church was controlled by rich people, who taxed the poor so that they could live luxurious lives. The priests and the monks were the only ones who could preach, but they often did not know the Bible at all, only the theology they were taught by other priests and monks. And then came a practice known as “indulgences”—The church requesting money from people so that their loved ones would not suffer harm from God. In the early 1500’s this became a popular form of devotion, and a way for rich people to feel that they were “saving” their dead loved ones from harm.
His Story:
Martin Luther was a young man riding his horse when a lightning storm struck suddenly. He was scared out of his mind, and so pleaded to God for deliverance. After not being harmed by the storm, Luther decided to live with a community of monks in Wittenberg, Germany (The “W” is pronounced like a “V”). Although he lived by himself, his task was to teach the Bible and theology to the young monks.
In 1517, it became known that a caravan of the Roman church was coming to Wittenberg to encourage people to give indulgences. Luther became angry and wrote out 95 points (or “theses”) against indulgences and then nailed them to the Wittenberg church door (which was the community bulletin board). These points were well presented, written in German and they became printed on a new machine called a printing press. Soon the 95 Theses were all over Germany, and the church leaders were not happy about it.
The church leaders called Luther to a trial in another part of Germany, called Worms (Remember, the “W” is pronounced like a “v”). There, they accused Luther of teaching heresy, but Luther simply stood by the word of God and challenged them to correct him by the Bible. They could not, so they let him go. On his way back home, Luther heard that some of the church leaders were going to try to kill him, so he ran away and hid with some friends.
Soon, an important political leader called Fredrick the Wise decided to assist Luther and he kept him in his home and Luther was free to give Fredrick advice and to write his books—all of which were printed in German and were very popular in Germany. Luther also translated the Bible in German so that all the people could read the Bible. All of these acts together caused what was called “the Reformation,” or the worldwide challenge to the Roman church. Luther wanted to cause a change in the Roman church, but when the leader of the Roman church, the Pope, rejected Luther, then Luther began a new church, called the Lutheran Church.
Later in his life, Luther did not continue to follow the ways of Jesus, but advised Fredrick and other Lutheran leaders to kill Roman Catholics, Anabaptists (also called Mennonites) and Jews. This immediately caused horrible wars and persecutions to erupt between Christians in Europe for more than a hundred years.
WWJD
Jesus also spoke out against the hypocrisy of people. He constantly said that the leaders of God’s people could not be trusting in money, but in God. And he was rejected and persecuted for this opinion, just like Martin Luther. However, Jesus never affirmed the killing of others. He recognized that people would be judged for their sins, but he held that God would do such punishment himself, and not support the killing of others. Thus, while Jesus might have supported Luther’s ideals, he would not have supported Luther’s ways of achieving God’s righteousness
Final Word (of men)
Martin Luther began a church named the Lutherans, and he actually changed the world upside-down. Because of his writings and teachings the Bible was focused on more by all Western churches and a new kind of Christianity was supported, generally named the Protestants (so called because they broke away from the Catholic church). Most Western Christians honor Martin Luther and his stand against hypocrisy.
A Word From Our Sponsor:
He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, which will entrust you to true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? No slave can be enslaved by two masters; either he will hate the one and love the other or he will love the hone and hate the other. No one can be enslaved by both God and Mammon.
Luke 16:10-13
Beware of scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.
Mark 12:38-40
Helpful Hint: Getting To The Heart of the Matter
In every age, the church had a weakness in following Jesus—and often more than one! The Faithful saw that weakness and spoke boldly to correct it. They were never interested in dividing the church, but only to make the church more faithful to Jesus and His teaching. Anthony saw the worldliness in the church and sought to correct it. Luther saw the demand to live by unfruitful deeds. As we will see, Martin Luther King saw the favoritism and spoke against it. The church was never happy to hear this message—instead, the Christians of these days fought against the message of Jesus! But the Faithful never failed to bring the message their church needed to hear.
What About Prophets?
Someone wrote me: What does the Bible say about prophetic gifts (Bill Johnson style)?
Below is my basic teaching on prophetic gifts and discerning prophecy. Just to summarize, I need to say that prophets are real, that they hear God's voice and speaks to God's people. However, it is easy to dismiss all prophets because some false prophets get all the publicity. We need to listen to Scripture (I Thess. 5:19-20) , "Do not quench the Spirit" in other words, let the prophets speak, "but discern all spirits", determine what spirit the prophet is speaking with-- the Holy One or a false one.
What is Prophecy?
There are these people out there and they are obnoxious. They get in your face, and say things you aren’t comfortable with and often they claim to be speaking for God. Those who want to say something positive would typically say, “Oh, he’s a prophet” (inevitably, the prophet is a “he”). But just because a person has a “hard message” does that make them a prophet?
Not necessarily. A “prophet” in Scripture is specifically someone who has a message directly from God through God’s Spirit. This isn’t just a message from the Bible or a rewriting of a Bible text. It is something one hears from God directly. Not everyone hears God’s voice in the church, nor does everyone who hears God’s voice necessarily have to speak his messages to others. But a prophet receives a message from God and then he or she must go and speak it to the ones God commanded them to tell. Prophecies could be in dreams, visions, voices or just listening to a silent voice. But it is clear, and it is clearly from God.
Do We Need Prophecies?
The Bible says we do. God often spoke to prophets in the past, and Moses exclaimed, “I wish that all of God’s people would be prophets!” (Numbers 11:29). All of Jesus’ followers receive God’s spirit and all of them have something from God’s spirit to share with others (I Corinthians 12:3-4). Some people are led by the Spirit to serve, others to give, others to teach. Prophecy is one of those “gifts” that some have received from the Spirit.
While prophecies are uncomfortable for many, Paul says that prophecy is essential. He calls it the most essential work of the Spirit for the community of believers. Why? Prophecy, more than any other service to the church, can point out the weaknesses and the issues the Lord wants a particular congregation to work on. The Lord can speak both encouragement and rebuke clearly and immediately without confusion or as many interpretation problems.
How should we respond to a prophet?
If a prophet has a message to give to a church, they should be allowed to do so. This may not be comfortable for many, but Scripture tells us clearly not to “quench the Spirit or despise prophetic utterances.” (I Thessalonians 5:19-20). Prophecy may be a hard pill to swallow, but it is necessary from the Spirit. Such a prophecy should be shared at an appropriate time determined by the leader of the worship time, so any prophet should ask for an opportunity to speak and not be upset if they are asked to wait. Only two or three prophecies per service so that others may share what they have from the Lord as well (I Corinthians 14:29-33). The prophet should speak the exact words of the prophecy and allow the people to test and interpret the prophecy. “No prophecy is of private interpretation” says the Scripture, so the prophet should not interpret the prophecy themselves before they give it to the congregation (I Peter 1:20).
Testing the spirits
After a prophecy has been given, then the spirit of the prophet must be tested. There are many spirits, and not all are the Holy Spirit come from God. We must test every word we receive from a spirit.
We can know if a message is not from the Spirit of God if:
• It encourages people to sin
• It encourages people away from the God of Jesus (Deuteronomy 13)
• It slanders someone with an evil act that is not already publicly known. (Matthew 18:15)
• It serves the personal interests of the prophet.
• It is a message to the whole people of God, but only one group of God’s people has received it. (I Corinthians 14:36)
Another indication that a prophet is sent from God is if they speak a prophecy about a future event, and the prophecy does not come true as stated. If a prophet is inaccurate about the future, then Scripture says “You need not fear that one.” This means that they are not a true prophet from God (Deuteronomy 18:22)
However, a prophecy is more likely true if:
a. The prophet is humble before the Lord and God’s people, and shares with love and gentleness. (Galatians 5:22-23)
b. The message the prophet shares is accurate with the Bible. It does not have to be accurate with popular theology, but it must be accurate with the message of Jesus in the New Testament. (John 14:26)
c. The message leads people to godly repentance, drawing them closer to a relationship with the Lord.
How should we respond to Prophecy?
If a prophecy and the prophet has been tested and has passed, then the word of the Lord is to “fear that prophet”. We must do as the prophecy says. We do not need to tell other people to obey the prophecy, unless they were given it personally. But we need to do it, for it is the word of the Lord for us. If we do not listen to the prophet who spoke truly, the Lord will judge us for not listening to Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Ezekiel 3:19)
Below is my basic teaching on prophetic gifts and discerning prophecy. Just to summarize, I need to say that prophets are real, that they hear God's voice and speaks to God's people. However, it is easy to dismiss all prophets because some false prophets get all the publicity. We need to listen to Scripture (I Thess. 5:19-20) , "Do not quench the Spirit" in other words, let the prophets speak, "but discern all spirits", determine what spirit the prophet is speaking with-- the Holy One or a false one.
What is Prophecy?
There are these people out there and they are obnoxious. They get in your face, and say things you aren’t comfortable with and often they claim to be speaking for God. Those who want to say something positive would typically say, “Oh, he’s a prophet” (inevitably, the prophet is a “he”). But just because a person has a “hard message” does that make them a prophet?
Not necessarily. A “prophet” in Scripture is specifically someone who has a message directly from God through God’s Spirit. This isn’t just a message from the Bible or a rewriting of a Bible text. It is something one hears from God directly. Not everyone hears God’s voice in the church, nor does everyone who hears God’s voice necessarily have to speak his messages to others. But a prophet receives a message from God and then he or she must go and speak it to the ones God commanded them to tell. Prophecies could be in dreams, visions, voices or just listening to a silent voice. But it is clear, and it is clearly from God.
Do We Need Prophecies?
The Bible says we do. God often spoke to prophets in the past, and Moses exclaimed, “I wish that all of God’s people would be prophets!” (Numbers 11:29). All of Jesus’ followers receive God’s spirit and all of them have something from God’s spirit to share with others (I Corinthians 12:3-4). Some people are led by the Spirit to serve, others to give, others to teach. Prophecy is one of those “gifts” that some have received from the Spirit.
While prophecies are uncomfortable for many, Paul says that prophecy is essential. He calls it the most essential work of the Spirit for the community of believers. Why? Prophecy, more than any other service to the church, can point out the weaknesses and the issues the Lord wants a particular congregation to work on. The Lord can speak both encouragement and rebuke clearly and immediately without confusion or as many interpretation problems.
How should we respond to a prophet?
If a prophet has a message to give to a church, they should be allowed to do so. This may not be comfortable for many, but Scripture tells us clearly not to “quench the Spirit or despise prophetic utterances.” (I Thessalonians 5:19-20). Prophecy may be a hard pill to swallow, but it is necessary from the Spirit. Such a prophecy should be shared at an appropriate time determined by the leader of the worship time, so any prophet should ask for an opportunity to speak and not be upset if they are asked to wait. Only two or three prophecies per service so that others may share what they have from the Lord as well (I Corinthians 14:29-33). The prophet should speak the exact words of the prophecy and allow the people to test and interpret the prophecy. “No prophecy is of private interpretation” says the Scripture, so the prophet should not interpret the prophecy themselves before they give it to the congregation (I Peter 1:20).
Testing the spirits
After a prophecy has been given, then the spirit of the prophet must be tested. There are many spirits, and not all are the Holy Spirit come from God. We must test every word we receive from a spirit.
We can know if a message is not from the Spirit of God if:
• It encourages people to sin
• It encourages people away from the God of Jesus (Deuteronomy 13)
• It slanders someone with an evil act that is not already publicly known. (Matthew 18:15)
• It serves the personal interests of the prophet.
• It is a message to the whole people of God, but only one group of God’s people has received it. (I Corinthians 14:36)
Another indication that a prophet is sent from God is if they speak a prophecy about a future event, and the prophecy does not come true as stated. If a prophet is inaccurate about the future, then Scripture says “You need not fear that one.” This means that they are not a true prophet from God (Deuteronomy 18:22)
However, a prophecy is more likely true if:
a. The prophet is humble before the Lord and God’s people, and shares with love and gentleness. (Galatians 5:22-23)
b. The message the prophet shares is accurate with the Bible. It does not have to be accurate with popular theology, but it must be accurate with the message of Jesus in the New Testament. (John 14:26)
c. The message leads people to godly repentance, drawing them closer to a relationship with the Lord.
How should we respond to Prophecy?
If a prophecy and the prophet has been tested and has passed, then the word of the Lord is to “fear that prophet”. We must do as the prophecy says. We do not need to tell other people to obey the prophecy, unless they were given it personally. But we need to do it, for it is the word of the Lord for us. If we do not listen to the prophet who spoke truly, the Lord will judge us for not listening to Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Ezekiel 3:19)
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Shane Claiborne and Celebrities
Craig asked, "What's your take on Shane Claiborne? I didn't care for his book, The Irresistable Revolution, I didn't think it was well written and it seemed to have a "look at me" viewpoint rather than looking at Jesus. Should I give him another chance?"
My feelings about him are very complex. First of all, clearly, the book was well enough written that its a religious best seller. I think its a very popular, autobiographical style that is very interesting to his readership. Secondly, I'm really happy in general about the message he's getting out. I wish he would nuance his stances a bit, but overall he's heading in the right direction-- war is bad, poverty is bad, we need to stand up in Christ and do something about it.
On the other hand, I he's a celebrity. He's getting interviews everywhere, and even MCUSA was thinking about asking him to speak at Ohio this year to "pull in the young people." I don't like people being promoted because their famous. The thing that bugs me the most is that he hasn't done all that much about what he's talking about. He did stand with some homeless folks who were being ejected out of an abandoned church. That's wonderful. But does he really relate to the poor, connect with them? No, he's too busy travelling around the country being a poster child for "Radical Christian."
On the other hand, I have a friend who spent a bit of time with Shane before the publicity hounds attacked him. And he says that Shane is humble, kind, friendly and just an all around great guy. One of my other friends who had a chance to take part in an interview with him last night said the same.
What can be said? God is using him. He probably deserves to be used. What more really need be said?
Steve
My feelings about him are very complex. First of all, clearly, the book was well enough written that its a religious best seller. I think its a very popular, autobiographical style that is very interesting to his readership. Secondly, I'm really happy in general about the message he's getting out. I wish he would nuance his stances a bit, but overall he's heading in the right direction-- war is bad, poverty is bad, we need to stand up in Christ and do something about it.
On the other hand, I he's a celebrity. He's getting interviews everywhere, and even MCUSA was thinking about asking him to speak at Ohio this year to "pull in the young people." I don't like people being promoted because their famous. The thing that bugs me the most is that he hasn't done all that much about what he's talking about. He did stand with some homeless folks who were being ejected out of an abandoned church. That's wonderful. But does he really relate to the poor, connect with them? No, he's too busy travelling around the country being a poster child for "Radical Christian."
On the other hand, I have a friend who spent a bit of time with Shane before the publicity hounds attacked him. And he says that Shane is humble, kind, friendly and just an all around great guy. One of my other friends who had a chance to take part in an interview with him last night said the same.
What can be said? God is using him. He probably deserves to be used. What more really need be said?
Steve
Monday, February 02, 2009
Anawim Photos
Check them out:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php#/album.php?aid=213419&id=706245213&ref=mf
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php#/album.php?aid=213419&id=706245213&ref=mf
Saturday, January 31, 2009
25 Random Things About Me
Originally posted as a Facebook note:
1. I should be ashamed to do this game because I already have a blog, in which I write about my life and people I know, and am starting to get articles about me and Anawim, but obviously I am so self-absorbed that I think talking about me more is fun.
2. I once drove from Los Angeles to Minneapolis in 30 hours straight to go to a missions conference.
3. I have visited Bangladesh and Calcutta twice and Bangladesh is my favorite place to be.
4. I read Bible commentaries and mystery novels for fun.
5. I recently hosted a pretty successful discussion about pornography on a philosophy forum.
6. I was raised a non-Christian, became a fundamentalist evangelical at 13 and am now a Mennonite pastor.
7. My wife, Diane, is my best friend, and she always was from the time we were 16. I know that seems so clicheish, but it's really true.
8. I really enjoy hanging out with homeless people, and one of my highlights of every week is going to Gresham to feed and fellowship with the homeless folks on Saturdays.
9. I would NEVER have gotten a cell phone, but Gordon Smith made me get one. Then he stuck me with the monthly bill. And now, everytime he sees me he calls me "yuppie" BECAUSE I have a cell phone. Great injustice!
10. I love mind-bending movies and I love animated movies-- especially anime. So Paprika and Spirited Away are two of my most favorite movies of all time!
11. I cut my hair once a year, every August.
12. My friend, Jack, kisses me on the cheek every time he greets me and it CREEPS ME OUT. But it's biblical "Greet one another with a holy kiss" so I put up with it with a smile.
13. Everyone born into the Kimes Family is pig-headed, and I certainly share this trait. However, I use it for the Lord :-)
14. My body has, for some unknown reason, stopped producing testosterone. So, if I stop my regimine of vitamins or hormone replacement therapy (read: shots) every week and a half, then I become a grumpy old man.
15. I have eighteen blogs that I started, two FB causes, four places I post regularlly, twitter updates, and two websites. I like to write.
16. I took three years of Koine (New Testament) Greek, and am working on a translation similar to Clarence Jordan's "Cotton Patch" translation. Not because I'm a Greek scholar (I'm not) but because I think that most translations are just too stuffy (KJV) or too wildly innaccurate (The Message). And because I think most of us misunderstand what the NT really says because we aren't in the culture or context.
17. I eat a small handful of peanut M&M's every night.
18. I believe the Bible teaches that only the poor and.or outcast will enter God's kingdom
19. God told me to quit my job and work full time with the homeless in 1996. I argued with Him about it for months before I actually did it.
20. Diane and I homeschool our children. Ian just went to public school for the first time last year.
21. At one point (this last year) we had 16 people total living in our house, many of them formerlly homeless folks. Yet we didn't kill each other! (That number has reduced since then)
22. I worked at a book binder for five years.
23. One of my studies in high school and college was sign language, and I was an interpreter for the deaf for ten years. My children are facinated with my habit of fingerspelling random words I see or hear and always want to know what I am spelling. I don't usually know by the time they ask three seconds later.
24. It has been my ideal the last 24 years to be a minister to and of the poor. Ministering to the homeless and mentally ill in the U.S. AS a sometimes-homeless and sometimes-mentally ill person wasn't ever my specific plan, however.
25. There is nothing in my life more important than Jesus-- not in some sappy, distant-but-almost-romantic way, but finding out how He lived in the gospels and trying to live that way myself in the midst of a church that is so far distant from the life and teachings of Jesus. I don't just love Jesus, I want to be like Him in every way possible, while still being myself.
1. I should be ashamed to do this game because I already have a blog, in which I write about my life and people I know, and am starting to get articles about me and Anawim, but obviously I am so self-absorbed that I think talking about me more is fun.
2. I once drove from Los Angeles to Minneapolis in 30 hours straight to go to a missions conference.
3. I have visited Bangladesh and Calcutta twice and Bangladesh is my favorite place to be.
4. I read Bible commentaries and mystery novels for fun.
5. I recently hosted a pretty successful discussion about pornography on a philosophy forum.
6. I was raised a non-Christian, became a fundamentalist evangelical at 13 and am now a Mennonite pastor.
7. My wife, Diane, is my best friend, and she always was from the time we were 16. I know that seems so clicheish, but it's really true.
8. I really enjoy hanging out with homeless people, and one of my highlights of every week is going to Gresham to feed and fellowship with the homeless folks on Saturdays.
9. I would NEVER have gotten a cell phone, but Gordon Smith made me get one. Then he stuck me with the monthly bill. And now, everytime he sees me he calls me "yuppie" BECAUSE I have a cell phone. Great injustice!
10. I love mind-bending movies and I love animated movies-- especially anime. So Paprika and Spirited Away are two of my most favorite movies of all time!
11. I cut my hair once a year, every August.
12. My friend, Jack, kisses me on the cheek every time he greets me and it CREEPS ME OUT. But it's biblical "Greet one another with a holy kiss" so I put up with it with a smile.
13. Everyone born into the Kimes Family is pig-headed, and I certainly share this trait. However, I use it for the Lord :-)
14. My body has, for some unknown reason, stopped producing testosterone. So, if I stop my regimine of vitamins or hormone replacement therapy (read: shots) every week and a half, then I become a grumpy old man.
15. I have eighteen blogs that I started, two FB causes, four places I post regularlly, twitter updates, and two websites. I like to write.
16. I took three years of Koine (New Testament) Greek, and am working on a translation similar to Clarence Jordan's "Cotton Patch" translation. Not because I'm a Greek scholar (I'm not) but because I think that most translations are just too stuffy (KJV) or too wildly innaccurate (The Message). And because I think most of us misunderstand what the NT really says because we aren't in the culture or context.
17. I eat a small handful of peanut M&M's every night.
18. I believe the Bible teaches that only the poor and.or outcast will enter God's kingdom
19. God told me to quit my job and work full time with the homeless in 1996. I argued with Him about it for months before I actually did it.
20. Diane and I homeschool our children. Ian just went to public school for the first time last year.
21. At one point (this last year) we had 16 people total living in our house, many of them formerlly homeless folks. Yet we didn't kill each other! (That number has reduced since then)
22. I worked at a book binder for five years.
23. One of my studies in high school and college was sign language, and I was an interpreter for the deaf for ten years. My children are facinated with my habit of fingerspelling random words I see or hear and always want to know what I am spelling. I don't usually know by the time they ask three seconds later.
24. It has been my ideal the last 24 years to be a minister to and of the poor. Ministering to the homeless and mentally ill in the U.S. AS a sometimes-homeless and sometimes-mentally ill person wasn't ever my specific plan, however.
25. There is nothing in my life more important than Jesus-- not in some sappy, distant-but-almost-romantic way, but finding out how He lived in the gospels and trying to live that way myself in the midst of a church that is so far distant from the life and teachings of Jesus. I don't just love Jesus, I want to be like Him in every way possible, while still being myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)