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.

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)

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

Anawim Photos

Check them out:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php#/album.php?aid=213419&id=706245213&ref=mf

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.

Facebook Badge

Parable of the Model Christian

Andy Wade wrote on the Anawim:Radicals for Jesus cause on Facebook:

In the parable of the man who fell among theives Jesus redefined for us who our neighbors are - anyone we encounter who is in need. I'm challenged when I think about how I pamper myself; my needs, my wants. But what about the least of these? Oh, how I love myself while tossing leftovers to those in need.

I used to laugh, then cringe, when I heard stories of people sending used tea bags to missionaries. Now I'm caught wondering, "What are the used tea bags I'm offering the poor and homeless, my neighbors?" It's not about solving problems for people in need, it's about understanding that our humanity, our lives, are wrapped up with each other.

As I feast on Starbucks coffee and fresh scones, what shall I offer the one who gave me the bread of life and springs of living water? Used tea bags and a little stale bread? To cheapen my offering is to forsake the one who died for me. To offer my leftovers to those in need only produces spiritual malnutrition.

What do you think?

Once there was a wonderful Christian who loved his family, prayed daily and read the Bible frequently. He was wise and frugel and didn't waste money unnecessarily, taking care to save it up for a rainy day. Nevertheless, he didn't neglect his responsibility for the poor and needy. He would give out the socks that he couldn't wear anymore to the people on the street. He would give out the clothes that were so out of fashion that they were laughable to the Salvation Army. He would give watery broth and stale bread to the local soup kitchen. And he knew he was in favor with God, for he had done what Jesus wanted him to.

Then he died and he truly did enter Jesus' kingdom, for he was truly a good man at heart and loved Jesus. Jesus welcomed him with a hug and said, "Well, let's get down to it! I'll show you where you're going to live." And Jesus brought him to a cardboard shack. The man looked disapointed, so Jesus said, "Come in, I've got a feast waiting for you!" On the broken table inside the shack was a bowl of watery broth and stale bread. "And I have some clothes for you!" Jesus showed him his bed of newspaper and on it were the unfashionable clothes he had discarded to the poor.

In whatever we give to the poor, that is what we give to Jesus.

Whatever we give to Jesus, that is what we will live with for eternity.

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor and you shall have treasure in heaven."

Remarriage

Discussion on MennoDiscuss:

Here's my understanding: if you have a spouse, you should be faithful to your spouse. (I'm leaving out discussion of the exception clauses in Matthew to simplify discussion here.)

Some people here seem to believe that if a divorced person marries another, while the original spouse is still living, the new marriage doesn't really count as a marriage. They encourage a person in that situation to get out of the marriage they are in and attempt to reconcile with the original spouse.

I don't see that as biblical. Here's why.


When Jesus teaches against divorce, he does not say that divorce is OK as long as it isn't your first marriage. Divorcing your second spouse doesn't heal your first divorce. If you divorce again, that's just adding another divorce to your tally.
In Deuteronomy 24, if you marry another, you aren't allowed to come back to your first spouse. The original marriage has been broken. And practically speaking, the odds of reconciliation after one partner has married are very, very small.
In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, adultery comes from getting married to another person, which breaks the first marriage. In German, the word for adultery is Ehebruch, "marriage-breaking", and I think that's a biblical understanding. Once you marry another, you are one flesh with your current spouse, you have broken your first marriage.
When Jesus refers to remarriage adultery, it's getting married to another, not the state of being married thereafter. That's what "marries another" means. I know some people suggest that it doesn't mean this in the original Greek, but I've looked pretty carefully at the Greek, it really does refer to marrying another.

Some of y'all clearly disagree with me. Can you explain why? If someone has married another, what good can come of divorcing your current spouse, and how would that divorce be a sign of following the call of Jesus to not divorce?

Jonathan

Matthew 5: 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,’ 32 but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.

Note that Jesus says nothing about first marriages vs. second marriages here, putting away your wife is wrong.

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
3 If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.

Note that once you remarry, going back to the original spouse is not an option.



I think that ignoring the exception clause in Matthew is a grave mistake.

Becuse that exception clause gives us a hint as to God's idea of marriage. Divorce, Jesus is clearly saying, does not break the marriage commitment. When a person is divorced, the vows of marriage still stand. Otherwise, it could not be adultery for a person to get married after divorce. This is one of the errors we often see in our Christian culture, because most people think a marriage is broken after divorce, but Jesus clearly says that it is not.

However, the exception clause teaches us something else. That adultery DOES break a marriage. Why does Jesus give the exception clause? Since divorce doesn't break a marriage, divorce can only make sense IF THE MARRIAGE IS ALREADY BROKEN. Thus, adultery is the act that revokes the marriage. Of course, forgiveness can be offered and the vows renewed, but adultery breaks the marriage.

Thus, remarriage is only problematic if adultery has not taken place. But if it has, the old covenant is broken and remarriage is possible.

If there is adultery and a marriage is broken, then a person gets remarried. If they separate from the second spouse to return to the first, it is not a restoration of the original marriage-- it is breaking another vow in order to commit adultery again!

Thus, how I read what Jesus is saying, it is sin to break a marriage at all. But it is continuing the same crime to break a second marriage to try to retore the first.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

I noted that Von posted an interesting comment on another post-- Yes, of course it was Von-- but I'd like to continue the discussion of that here.

He said that he believed that Scripture guides us in all things. I take from the context of that statement that he believes that Scripture will give us wisdom or guidance in all situations. I am willing to be corrected on that, Von.

Just to get the ball rolling, I have to say that I strongly disagree.

While Scripture gives us specific commands on some issues and general principles on others, there are some situations that Scripture doesn't really talk about.

Should I take my children to see the new Narnia movie? (I dislike them, by the way) Let's see, the Narnia movies depict children in war situations, which doesn't really go well with "Love your enemies" and Scripture commands me to "Train your children in the righteousness of the Lord." On the surface, it looks like I shouldn't. However, I also have the freedom to take them to the movie and then explain to them afterwards what the Lord would say about it.

Should I homeschool my children or send them to public school? Should I celebrate Christmas in a Jesus way, or ignore the holiday? Should I take in this homeless person off the street or offer them money? There is wisdom that could be given in all of these situations, but the Scripture isn't specific about any of them.

Rather, the Scripture says that it isn't the Scripture that would guide us into all truth but the Spirit. The Scripture gives us guidelines and principles and commands-- all of which we should follow. But the Spirit helps us know how we should apply them to specific contexts.

Not As Easy as 3.14

Originally posted on the "End Homelessness" blog in Change.org. In response to a post about how getting more housing will end homelessness and a response to that which says that homeless people don't get jobs and so want to be homeless:

1. No one chooses homelessness, at least at first. People are forced to be homeless because they can no longer live at home or because they are forced out of their home. Then they find the homeless community and find that there really is a decent life on the street. Uncomfortable, and an outcast community, but people can often find more family on the street than in a home.

2. Part of the problem is labor. Not just getting a job-- which is almost impossible for a homeless person-- but maintaining it once they get it. If a person is mentally ill they often can't fill out the necessary paperwork and have social problems that create catch-22 situations. If a person is an addict, the last kind of situation we want them to be in is to be in a highly stressed situation with a bunch of money in their pockets-- talk about a recipe for furthering addiction! And for the rest of the homeless, they, for one reason or another, can't work 40 hours a week on a continual basis. It's not a matter of laziness-- trust me, you can't be homeless and lazy, it takes a lot of work-- it's a matter of doing the kind of work people ask folks to do. Not everyone can fill out paperwork and work in four hour blocks with a small break afterwards.

3. Getting housing alone isn't the answer. No matter how much housing there is, the community of homeless that our society has created isn't going to do it. Some people have been on the street long enough that they get claustrophobic in an apartment. Others are so connected to their community, they have a moral requirement to invite all of their addict friends into the apartment with them. Others literally scream in their sleep from past trauma, causing problems for neighbors.

I'm not saying the situation is hopeless. I'm saying it's complicated and no simple solution will solve the reality of an outcast community in our midst. It requires acceptance more than organization, relationship more than politics.

Labor and Support

An email returned to a long lost friend, Nadja:

It seems that every culture has their own blind spots. In Germany, it seems, it's education. In the U.S., it's labor. There is a standard way of doing labor in the U.S.-- find an employer, work for them 40 hours a week and then you can get a place to live, etc. If you don't work that much, then you can't make enough money to rent a place, and no one will rent to anyone anymore unless they have a job (or some government help). But there are so many people who don't qualify for government assistance and yet can't work 40 hours a week. And that's the category most homeless people find themselves in. They can't do the labor our society expects as a minimum, and then they are forced to be outlaws because cities declare homelessness illegal.

As to why you have the "turning over tables" syndrome? I went through that myself when I was really struggling with life and stuff a few years ago. I felt so desperately lonely, as if Diane and I were going through it all alone. And no one cared about what I saw or did or the people I cared about. I can honestly say that no one was praying for the people we were praying for. No one cared about them. We just felt so isolated. But for me, anyway, a lot of it was a hormone imbalance. Probably caused by overwork. And, honestly, a lack of support. We have more support now than we have ever had. And I feel more confident and assured than ever before. It's strange, really. I have been so used to going it alone, blazing a trail no one wanted to follow, that I feel like an administrator now, which is really out of my league. I'd much rather cook for a hundred people myself than to gather five people to do it for me. But part of the ministry, now, is providing people with opportunities to serve God. I really believe that working for God is a part of our salvation, whether we are wealthy or on the street. So I look for work for people to do. But who made me a delegator? This is not the job I wanted! Actually, I never DID get the job I wanted. Oh well, just going through the flow.

Disaster Averted

This was written for the PNMC Evangel

The problems begin because Portland is a relatively warm city. It rests in the Willamette Valley, and though the winds from the Columbia River Gorge often blow through it, by the time they reach Portland proper, they have died down considerably. This draws a number of the homeless to live in Portland, and those who grew up in the city who become homeless have no real reason to leave. Thus, Portland has about two thousand homeless people, as an estimated average.

So when Portland has almost a month of snow and temperatures in the teens, it may seem like a small thing to those outside the city who deal with such weather all the time, but in Portland, this is a crisis. The city was ill prepared to deal with such weather. As was the homeless. While the far majority of homeless have semi-permanent resting spot at night, prepared with tarps and sleeping bags, no one was ready to deal with layers of snow and ice with a drop of temperature to 15 degrees.

However, at the end of the crisis period, it is reported by the Portland Tribune that only one homeless person died during this season. And the main ones who averted a potential disaster in Portland are the churches. One of the many churches assisting the needy was Anawim Christian Community.

Right at the beginning of the bad weather, “warming stations” were opening up in churches. One of the largest churches in the metro area, Portland Foursquare, opened up their doors during the coldest nights to more than 200 homeless folks a night. Anawim also opened up a warming shelter in Gresham, on the east side of Portland, before any other warming centers were open for non-families on that side of town. John, a homeless teen in Gresham, reported, “If it weren’t for the church opening, I would have died that night!”

When many churches were closing down services, Anawim remained open. On the Sunday before Christmas, Victory Chapel, a local congregation, traveled through the icy snow to Anawim to serve a Christmas meal of turkey, potatoes and gravy. They provided warm socks and eight hour hand warmers to the forty people who came.

There were near disasters as well. Jerry, one of the homeless in Anawim, was checked into Providence Hospital for a spine surgery. A few days after his surgery, he was sent to a recovery center in a building providing housing for those on the street. However, he wasn’t offered help when he asked for someone to close the windows with the snow coming onto his bed. In his post-operative delirium, he took a number of pain pills and walked out the door. He was found by the police two and a half miles away, trying to dig a shelter out of a snow bank with his walker. The police brought him to Emanuel Hospital, where he is being cared for.

Another member of Anawim, Paul, was trying to get to a warming center, when he had a seizure due to a sudden stop of his usual amount of alcohol, and fell headlong into a snow bank. His friend, Rich, was there and called 911. Paul spend some time in a rehabilitation center and now he is healthy and ready to get on with his life.

The homeless were protected through this crisis because God led his Spirit to stir up the people of Jesus to have compassion. It wasn’t easy for these believers to take extra time amidst the difficulty the weather presented everyone, but with God’s power and the compassion of Christ, lives were saved and a disaster was averted.

Protecting Children

Posted originally in MennoDiscuss, concerning taking precautions for children who might get sexually approached on the internet.

I think that Stoltz' warning is a good one. He is not talking about a present danger, RP, but a potential one. One that exists not just on MD, but everywhere-- parks, public school, homeschool (a Mennonite couple I know who homeschooled their kids, their one son molested his sister), play dates, etc, etc.

What I do to help protect my kids-- we can't protect them from EVERYTHING, but we can take wise safeguards-- is the following:
a. to give them a descent education about sexuality as soon as they are old enough to comprehend it,
b. to keep a parental eye on them as much as possible, and to check on them regularly
c. to observe them while online, as much as possible and keeping their online activity in a public area where it is constantly observed.

At the same time, once a child is old enough to make their own decisions and to safeguard themselves, I feel I must give them freedom, if they feel ready for it.

Any other suggestions?

Connection

Originally published on the interesting stuff blog:
http://interestingbutpointlessstuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/connection.html

 

There is no background. There is no foreground. Everything is equal in reality. We are just as important as everyone else. And they are just as important as us. We are not staring in our own autobiographical movie. Everyone is all together in a Robert Altman film, yet we all think we are the star. What we haven't figured out yet is that there ARE NO STARS. There's only us.

Who We Are in Negativity

 

When we surrender ourselves to our rage, our bitterness, our lust or our hatred, we are not the mature human being we pretend to be on the outside. We have become a primal self, so caught up in our emotions that we are no longer even human.

Prevent such evils by being so caught up in love that you don't have energy for such pettiness.

One Brick At A Time

 

Lately I've been listening to Black Heart Procession, which is a kind of spacey Pink Floyd on downers. They've got one lyric on their second album (conveniently named "2"):

change your hate cause that's your slave
turn your head from your evil ways
your church is red blood flows black from your heart
we build our temple one brick at a time

Although they are speaking figuratively, it also applies to real, live churches. If we subly encourage prejudice, separation, hatred, desire for things of the world, or living the American Dream, then we are building that church on blood.

Each church that encourages hatred or lust is a temple to Mars, a worship center for Mammon.

Optimism

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Is Wall-E the best movie of 2008? Check out Steve's Interesting Stuff blog, here:
http://interestingbutpointlessstuff.blogspot.com/

What the Future Has In Store

This discussion was originally posted in MennoDiscuss:
This thread is only for those of pre millenist persuasion. I'd like a discusion of how present day events are pointing to the second coming of Christ and the rapture of the church.
-hillperson

I am pre-mil, although not pre-trib and certainly not dispensational (sorry GC).

It seems that there are three topics in this thread and I want to comment on each:

1. 1948
I don't find this significant for Biblical prophecy because the state that calls itself Israel is not the Israel of promise, as some would have us believe. Just because there is a rebel group in Africa called the Kingdom of God, that doesn't mean that we should all rush out and join it. Even so, Israel the secular nation is not spoken of in Scripture and there are no promises concerning it. Just another historical blip. An interesting one, but still, just a blip.

2. The Antichrist
First of all, I don't like the term. It is only used in I John, and he was speaking of false prophets, not "the beast" as referred to in Rev. 13, or the "man of sin" as referred to in II Thess. 2.
The main characteristics of the "beast" seem to be-- he is a worldwide power, he persecutes all the people of God and kills many, he desecrates all that is holy to God on the earth, he expects people to worship him as a god.
This person hasn't arrived on the scene yet, although Antiochus Epiphanies, Domitian and Diocletian are all excellent examples of such a person. We will only know who this person is by their leadership in the world scene and in the persecution of God's people.

3. Coming up signs
I need to say that I don't believe in a multiplicity of signs. I think the period we are in is pretty distinct and that the next items Biblically would be pretty narrow. I don't believe that we should be looking for a rapture, a temple, a nation, an economic crisis, earthquakes, famines, wars or rumors of wars. The gospel spread to all ethnoi is a prossibility, but that prophecy seems to already be fulfilled.

Rather, the best indication that God is ready to wrap things up will be on the basis of the actions of the world (which includes much of the church). When there is an organized effort to rid the world of all people who believe in Jesus, especially when that effort is directed by a single world power (whether a nation, organization or a single person), then we should start looking for other signs.

If You Think This Blog is Interesting...

Well, there's a lot more. If you want to read more of Steve's stuff, or to check out other resources that relate to some of the stuff talked about in this blog, visit my other blogs. There is a little overlap, but, honestly, not very much. I must be some kind of writing machine!

Ministry To The Homeless
http://pastoralblog.blogspot.com/
A blog about my ministry to the homeless.

Radical Sermons for the 21st Century
http://radicaltheologians.blogspot.com/
A selection of my teachings from 2001 to the present day.

The SKV—A New Translation in the Making
http://skversion.blogspot.com/
My translations-- literal and extremely dynamic-- of the Greek New Testament.

Brief Bible Basics
http://briefbiblebasics.blogspot.com/
Short summaries of Bible themes and a retelling of the story of Scripture.

A Commentary on the Sermon On the Mount
http://sermononthemountcommentary.blogspot.com/
Verse by verse commentary on Jesus' Law in Matthew 5-7.

Meditations On The Psalms
http://livingpsalms.blogspot.com/
A selection of the psalms and commentary

The Faithful: Brief Summaries of 20 Christians Who Changed The World
http://followingthefaithful.blogspot.com/
A list of my heroes throughout Christian history with a brief summary of their lives and what they teach us about following Jesus.

Class War: Thoughts On The Interaction Between Classes
http://jointheclasswar.blogspot.com/
Essays on povery and the relation between the middle and lower classes in the U.S.

Questionable Wisdom
http://pithywisdom.blogspot.com/
Short principles of life written by both me and quotes from many others.

Interesting Stuff
http://interestingbutpointlessstuff.blogspot.com/
Various stuff that I find interesting that don't fit the category of my other blogs. Movies, music, poems, internet sites, whatever.

SOON TO COME: An illustrated commentary on the book of Revelation!

Standards and Abilities

Two responses to the question, "Should we hold everyone to the same standard, or should we change the standard for those who have less ability?"

(First posted in MennoDiscuss)

Hopenafuture writes:
When you have a standard and someone is not naturally gifted in that area, it IS going to require that he work harder to reach that level. On the other hand, there are some things (such as dunking a basketball) that are [i]part of a larger goal[/i], and that a shorter guy might [i]play a different role[/i] than being a dunker. Perhaps his 3-point shots are his strength. Or defense, or moving the ball down the court. As part of a team, he can contribute to the scoring without being a "lean mean dunking machine" like a taller teammate might be. but the goal is still to win games.

In school, there is a level of perfection (A+ or 100% and there is an acceptable level of ability (C, or often 70-75%) If a student reaches the acceptable level, and is performing to the best of his or her ability, there is no need to hold them to the level of perfection. To do so is unfair and unkind.

So in that respect, one could say that I feel different standards are necessary. But in the long run, the basic goal is that each student passes his classes and learns to read, cipher, or write. So in another sense, the standard is the same for all.

Steve writes:
So then, perhaps the problem with education-- and much of the church-- is not that the standards are the same for everyone, but that some standards shouldn't apply to everyone.

In education, there are different ways of learning, and different skills that we are all good at. Some may be good at some things, while others good at other things. But if we only see someone as being educationally successful if they get 'A's or 'B's in everything, then perhaps our standards are faulty. Perhaps someone can consistantly get a 'D' in all math subjects, but an 'A' in all English subjects-- then they are still successful in many things, but not math. They have met the English standard, but not the math standard.

And in the church, we have a lot of standards. We want to see people pure and loving, because that is what Scripture says we all ought to be. But we add in many other standards as to whether someone is a "good Christian" or not. Do they attend service? And when they are there, do they disrupt the service? Do they only use language we deem as appropriate? Are they socially connected to other Christians? Do they wear (or not wear) the appropriate kind of headgear? And on and on and on... These are the kinds of things that Jesus calls "traditions of men" and they aren't appropriate standards in considering whether a person is a "good Christian" or not. We should stick to Jesus' standards, not our own, or else we put blocks in people's way to the gospel.

Discussion on Addiction

Originally posted on the Portland Mercury Blog:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2008/12/11/holy_diver_update

Posted by el cubano on December 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM

I just wanted to share something- while this might be hard to talk about, I wanted to ensure that it's not impossible. I'm 25 years old and I'm a year away from graduating at PSU- when I was younger, I had an addiction to drugs that lasted a few years and was homeless for a while as well- couch-surfing and whatnot if not sleeping out of my own car while I was trying to get a job that would scrounge up enough money to be able to afford rent in the L.A. area.

I was lucky enough that I had some family support, although I had to move all the way across the country to Miami to be there to get it. I had heart palpitations and was having all sorts of health issues, including trying to quit smoking to be completely clean. While I'm certainly not perfect now, I've definitely turned my life around and I know that I can stay clean, healthy, and happy- but the will definitely has to lie with the individual and they absolutely, positively have to leave whatever life they had behind in order to move on to a better one.

It's a shame, but it doesn't look like Diver has gotten the support he's needed to be able to do that, since he apparently felt a connection to those people in Gresham in that lifestyle again. It hurts to not have family support, and to not have good friends who are willing to help you through those dark times and won't bring you down. I hope he can pull it together and make it, and as for you Sarah- believe me, it's possible!

Posted by Steve Kimes:

Sarah, first of all, I really want to thank you for your article, and for your update of Diver here. It must be hard to correct a good story, even if you didn't write anything wrong. Ankles and I give you an honorary "breakfast pie" piece for your excellent effort.

But also to respond to El Cubano above. Diver has all the support he wants, if he wants it. Either from his mother, or from our community, which is a strong family, complete with arguments. We all want him to succeed in being clean and in living a positive life.

But there is another community that pulls at him. A community that encourages him to endulge, not really understanding that it means his death and it cripples him spiritually. And he's lived in that community for as long as you, El, have been alive. It's hard to surrender a whole life and begin a new one. We who have done it keep going back to the old life until we are really ready to surrender it.

The road to freedom is different for different people. The reasons for addiction are complex and the solutions can be even more complicated. Chronic homelessness is even more complex still. There just isn't a single answer-- sometimes not even for one person.

But I am confident of this. Diver has left before and returned. When it is time, he will return.

Remarriage

Suppose your spouse left you and divorced you, and either (a) sexual immorality prompted the divorce, or (b) your former spouse died, or (c) your former spouse has married another and there just ain't no way they are ever coming back.
Suppose you had someone interested in marrying you. How would you decide whether to marry them? I've heard some suggest that even when there are scriptural grounds for a divorce, you should not marry another. I've heard others suggest that if 'sexual immorality' was a grounds for divorce, you may marry another.
What guidelines do you suggest? And why?
Jonathan

According to Jesus (Matthew 19), divorce does not end a marraige. Only two things do: adultery and death. After adultery, the couple could be reconciled (as you see with Hosea), but the original covenant has been broken. Paul says that, in the case of a believer being married to an unbeliever, that if the unbeliever leaves the believer then the believer is "not under bondage", (I Cor 7:15) which I take to mean free to remarry.

I see marriage as being like a contract. Once the contract is broken by one party, then the second party is under no obligation to remain in the contract-- it was already broken. So one can join in another contract, in contradiction to the first, because the original is null and void.

However, again, the crux of the matter is that divorce doesn't nullify the covenant one made before God. But adultery (or remarriage) does). So for my congregation who are divorced, but neither of the couple has remarried, I strongly encourage reconcilliation, or celibate patience for God to reconcile. But if one of the couple remarries, then I can give freedom to the other to remarry, if they choose.

I know this is in opposition to most Christian viewpoints, but the one side seems too harsh in comparison with Jesus' actual teaching, while the other side seems to just be ignoring Jesus' teaching.

What Does God Want In A Marriage?

First published in MennoDiscuss:

I think that the most important thing we should remember is that a Christian marriage should be a little congregation.

We should hold each other accountable to living in Jesus and obeying Him. We should restore each other with gentleness and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We should be aware of each other's needs and meet them when we can. We should pray for each other, especially when one is in difficult circumstances. We should rejoice when the other is rejoicing and weep when the other is weeping. And while the wife is to submit and the husband is to sacrificially love, this will often look on the outside as the couple submitting to each other. And there should be no place for pride in a marriage.

Obviously, this is a goal. My wife and I are still working on it. If we acheive it, we'll let you know.

Special Needs, Special Rules

First posted in MennoDiscuss in response to a discussion on the question: "Should we have lower expectations of obedience for those with special needs?"

Now I'm going to throw a wrench in the whole works.

My congregation is perhaps 75% mentally ill. I don't know what that says about me as a pastor, but I do know that we are a lot more flexible than other churches. For instance, I allow people to talk back to be during the sermon. This is partly because the folks get interested enough that they can't help but respond. So that's okay. But, at the same time, no matter how mentally ill someone is, I don't allow the conversation to be a free-for-all, where people are talking over each other.

Nor do I allow arguments. However, should there be an argument, I hold the more mature (read: mentally capable) brother to be responsible to back down. If they persist in the argument, then I ask the more mature brother to leave, even if they didn't begin the argument.

The church is also for the homeless, who are uncomfortable with a church where people dress well, because they can't match it. So the rule is casual dress in our church. Thus, if someone shows up in a tie, I politely ask him to take it off for the sake of the brothers.

The church runs well, although considerably different than one's run of the mill congregation. But since we are a congregation of the homeless and mentally ill, it SHOULD run different. And I will say that while the middle class isn't very comfortable in our church, for the homeless and mentally ill, they are able to develop community and call it home.

Thus, I guess, I create a different context for those unable to follow the rules, and then make everyone follow the new rules.

For more about our congregation, check out our website:
www.nowheretolayhishead.org

The Law of Jesus

First posted in MennoDiscuss in response to the question, "If we are all followers of Jesus, should Jesus' teaching be a law, and if so, how literal should we be?"

1. For those of us who declare Jesus as Lord, Jesus' teaching is law.
2. And Jesus is the only teacher of the law we have (Matt 23-- "And you shall call no one teacher, for you have but one teacher and that is the Christ")
3. Under Jesus, we are all equal in trying to understand the law of Christ and in trying to obey it.
4. We are to assist each other to be obedient to Christ
5. However, if we have a disagreement as to how to obey Jesus-- as long as we do not deny a principle of Jesus-- then we must allow other's their interpretation without judging them. (Romans 14)
6. Nor, if we hold to a more loose interpretation, should we cause our brothers to sin against their interpretation. (Romans 14)

Even this brings up a lot of points.
For instance, my "interpretation" of "love your enemies" means that followers of Jesus should never kill anyone under any circumstances. Does this mean that I can't fellowship with a brother or sister who holds to the idea of "loving them in your heart" but harming them in the flesh? I believe that the interpretation is in reality opposed to the teaching of Jesus, not in harmony with it at all. But what I can do is pray that the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to them, over time. But I shouldn't deny fellowship with them simply because of a misunderstood interpretation.

On the other hand, I would not allow such a person to teach in my congregation, because it says in Scripture that one who stands against the word of Jesus is a false teacher and shouldn't be allowed in the church (I Timothy 6; II John). I do, however, allow people to publicly have a discussion about these interpretations with me in front of my church, so people can hear the different points of view and make their own choice. It is good to allow the Holy Spirit reign to lead people as He will.

The Grammar of God

Originally posted in MennoDiscuss:

Greek is often pulled out in converstions about the Bible or theology, as if a grammar is the final word. However, Greek experts are usually humble and recognize that there is much we do not know.

I think that there is much that we cannot prove from the Greek. First of all, no one today speaks the Greek of the NT, because that form of Greek is dead. Yes, some people could possibly learn to speak old English, but it is a dead language, and isn't used in a real way except to understand texts. Even so with Koine Greek-- it is fine for understanding texts, but we can't use even Modern Greek to really help us understand it.

Most of the time when people get into arguments about Greek or Hebrew, they are arguing the positions of their faviorite scholars, not their own understanding-- thus, it is an argument from authority, not from knowledge.

But in reading the Greek Testement, one the most important things I learned is how many things translations seem so clear on that are NOT clear. Every once in a while, I find a new insight from a literal translation that was translated more dynamically, but there are the occasions that I find translators just adding more words than exist in the original. Thus, I think they are trying to clarify too much. Sometimes this is necessary to have it make sense in English, but sometimes the translation just seems like an ideological rather than a literal interpretation.

Jesus, Law and Grace

Posted on MennoDiscuss, concerning the question "Is Jesus' teaching just another restrictive law that stands in the way of grace? Isn't that why Jesus taught in parables so that there would be varieties of interpretation and flexibility?" (That's my summary)

Jesus at first gave clear principles, opposing them to Moses' more specific laws (Matthew 5-7). These same principles he illustrated by his life-- his healings and his approach to the outcast (Matthew 8-9). But he was rejected by the Jewish leaders, specifically for his example and teaching of love, and so called a servant of Satan (Matthew 12). It was only at this point that he taught in parables-- not to illustrate his principles, but to hide them (Matthew 13). Jesus taught in parables because they had already rejected his clear principles of life. It is interesting to note that most of the parables in Matt 13 have to do with a division among God's people between those who listen to God and those who don't.

The main subject of God's word is that He has a lifestyle that He wants us to live. That lifestyle was presented in a very specific way in Moses' law and the world was invited to participate in it. However, Moses' law was also compromised (See Matt 19 about divorce) and it was also culture-specific. Jesus presented the same God-pleasing lifestyle in principles that could translate to any culture, among any context.

The principles are general enough that they offer flexibility to different points of view, as Paul talks about in Romans 14. But this does not mean that there aren't standards to uphold. It is clear that a free-love lifestyle isn't the love that Jesus talks about. Nor is a life of judging others based on petty rules. Jesus' standard is a perfect mean, a perfect moral lifestyle of both restraint and radical sacrifice, of both loyalty and striking out against the evils in our culture.

If we are followers of Jesus, I don't think we can compromise this life. I don't think we can talk about "love" in general terms and that's enough. But also, I believe that talking about hats and movies and coats aren't a part of the general principles. We might try to apply something in a specific congregation, but let's not call anyone else a sinner because they don't follow our specific constraints. The ethic of Jesus is a law, but it is the only law we need.

The Working Poor

I was asked on a survey about my experiences with the working poor. This was my response:

How much space do you have?

I have been working poor since 1997 when I quit my job and started living on donations. However, my children have never gone hungry, even one meal, nor have they had to sleep on the street. God has provided for us, and now even a house and our daily food, although we often eat food from dumpsters-- but not filthy food.

I have seen people who don't want to beg and so they look for cans to recycle. They may make 30 dollars a day for working five hours in independent recycling.

I know of some people who work for phone sales. They get hired in one place, work for a few weeks or months, get laid off and then they have to look for work again. They never get enough to get an apartment.

I know of others who are on disability at about 500 or so dollars a month. They try to work as often as they can, but their physical or mental disabilities don't allow them to work for long, so they soon have to quit or they get fired. Eventually they find another job.

People who live on the street all want to work. Everyone is looking for work to do. But they have mental or physical or social limitations that don't allow them to work as long as they would like. I know of some people who look for work, but then they have an attack from their mental illness, and they are unable to work for two days to a week after that. They can't hold down a job like that.

What people on the street and some folks on disability need is work that will be flexible with their situation. Work that will allow them to take off and who will help them to fill out the necessary paperwork. Not just a day labor place, but a social assistance project that gives people work as they are able to work so they can make more income than they currently get-- even if they don't have enough for an apartment.

Gentrification and the Homeless

Originally posted in the Portland Mercury blog:

Gentrification doesn't have to mean kicking the homeless out of their outdoor homes, but it almost always does. After all, the name of the game is "beautification" and "improving the real estate value" and the homeless are unwitting enemies of those shining values.

When my apartment building in Rockwood was being "cleaned up" on the first day the new owner took ownership, he gave me and my family a thirty day notice, because the homeless people we had visiting us in our apartment (not sleeping around our apartment, mind you) wasn't good for the "work I am doing" as he put it.

The fact is, the homeless are seen as non-enitities, non-existant, or persona-non-gratia by property owners and developers. And those who work with or defend the homeless are simple nuisances.

What a wonderful day it will be when the poor of the world can kick the developers out of their homes for being compassionless!

Sexy Stuff In The Bible

Published in MennoDiscuss.

I've been trying to find the place of Song of Songs in the Bible for some time.

It is a pretty common-- if long-- piece of love poetry that was pretty common in the Mid East in the first millenium BC. You can read Egyptian poetry that sounds just like it.

On the surface it doesn't seem very theological-- it is just a celebration of romantic and erotic love.

I did read an interesting article on it, though. The author was saying that there are a number of parallels between Song of Songs and Genesis 1-3, but with the idea that erotic love is the "leftovers" of God's original creation of the world. It is described as the "paradise" and the lovers at one point go into a "garden".

This could very well be. In the ancient world, sex was used in two ways-- as a commitment of marriage and for prostitution (usually as an idolatrous practice). But if we think of it, the eroticism of marriage is as close to being a part of the original creation of Adam and Eve that we have left. Perhaps Song of Songs just celebrates this.

God's Gifting and Calling

'Everyone should spend time with God. But it should be in the manner God has appointed them'. Would you please expand on this point, with scripture. Also, what way do you think has been appointed to me? -Gordon


In general, the different kinds of connecting with God or serving God is found in Romans 12. This is where Paul says that everyone has something to do with God, a God-given function (one of which is prayer, btw), but no one has the same function, and no one should look down on another because they have a different function.

There are two types of appointments with God: calling and gifting.

Gifting is the ability or abilities that we have received from God. Not necessarily the abilities we were born with-- although they can include that. But that which is especially given after we become a believer and are truly following God. Paul talks a lot about gifting, especially in I Corinthians 12. We know what gifting we have because God has granted us an ability to do something and we do it well. We are often drawn to do this thing because we know we do it well and we are praised for it. I am gifted in Bible teaching. I may do nothing else in my ministry well, but I know I do this well. I'm not certain what your gifting is. It is good to know, though.

Calling is that which God specifically directs us to do, whether we have the ability to do it or not. We have an example of this in Acts 13 1-3. Paul and Barnabas were specificall called out by the Holy Spirit in community to a particular task. They didn't do that task in the same way. And it might be said that Paul was more gifted to the task than Barnabas. But that's not the point. Sometimes God calls us to do something we are not particularly talented in. Or only marginally talented in. But we do the task because God calls us, not because we are good at it.

Sometimes we are called to do something long term, and sometimes short term. A person might be called to do a particular ministry only for a year, and then they are called to do something else. Or a person might be called to a lifetime project, like Mother Teresa. But the calling is just as much God's appointement as a gifting. I am called to do Anawim.

You, my friend, are called to service and prayer. It doesn't matter how WELL you do the service and prayer, how talented you are at it. Rather, you are doing it as an obedience to the most high God. You keep at it, not because you are particularly gifted, but because it is what you are called to do. It is God's appointment for you.

The Centrality of Prayer

How important is prayer? If prayer and meditation are not foremost in our lives, what good are we to God? For that matter, if God (through prayer) is not first in our lives, then what good are we to anyone (i.e. friend, girl friend, family, random people we meet, who ever)? Should we not allow worldly things to get in the way of our relationship with God? ?Should not God come before other things? Such as: music, books, learning, even people? What would happen if we spent more time in prayer then reading some trivial novel (be it entertaining). Should prayer and meditation come before down time? Should prayer and meditation be our center. Should prayer and meditation be more to us than some thing we try to fit into out daily, mundane, trivial lives?
-Gordon



Excellent questions.

Prayer is one of the most significant things in our spiritual life. Without asking, God will do nothing-- God only acts when someone requests it. Apart from prayer, there is a system that God designed-- the natural world, government, spiritual judgment, etc-- that works adequately well, as far as it goes. But it doesn't work for everyone. If anyone wants God's mercy, or God's justice in an unjust situation, then they need to ask.

Prayer is not as significant among most of the the higher classes, because they already have decent lives. This is why when a country or society becomes well-off, spirituality may be significant, but devotion and supplication is little-- because so little is needed. God's special assistance is only desired when the regular systems of life fail. Those who do not need salvation rarely ask for it. After all, why pray "Give us this day our daily bread" when you have a refrigerator full of food? God's salvation is unnecessary and prayer becomes hollow.

This does not mean that the well-off cannot pray with sincerity. But it can only happen when they associate with the needy, and truly have compassion for them. Then they will find many to pray for and God will heed their prayers as long as they sacrifice what they have for the needy. But if prayer is all they offer to the needy they know, then their prayer becomes a curse to themselves, not a blessing (see James 2:14-17).

Prayer can also be connection to God. But what we don't want to ignore is that God connects to people through different ways. Not everyone is gifted with direct speech from the Spirit, just as not everyone is gifted with tongues. Some delve into the word for connection to God, some experience God through His people, some are intimate with God by living out the characteristics of God. So we can't be judging some because their lifeblood isn't prayer. That is only given to some.

Everyone should spend time with God. But it should be in the manner God has appointed them.

Orthodoxy and Anabaptism

Posted At MennoDiscuss under the topic "Is Anabaptism more than Pacificsm)

A friend of mine who has a doctorate in church history has come up with 26 Anabaptist distinctives (which I am posting at this blog site:
http://26anabaptistdistinctives.blogspot.com/

I have tried to simplify these distinctives to these points which the anabaptist does not share with the orthodox viewpoints of Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches:

The teaching of Jesus and the apostles takes precedence over the Law and the Prophets. Thus, Mennonites do not hold to a “flat” Bible, but see the teaching of Jesus and the apostles as central, and the rest of Scripture being interpreted through the teaching of Jesus. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

The end of all Bible study is to do what it says. We can believe in the Bible, but unless we do it, then our faith is dead. The true believer in Jesus is not just one who agrees with the word of Jesus, but who lives it out. (James 2:14-26; Matthew 7:21-27)

Believers of Jesus must be faithful to the teaching of Jesus, even if this brings them into conflict with the authorities placed over them by God. (Acts 5:29)

Baptism is for believers only. Baptism may not be given to infants or family members of believers in Jesus, but only for those who are firmly committed to Jesus for their whole lives. (Mark 16:16)

Each local congregation is qualified and responsible to decide what should be taught to it. Local congregations should also call, support and discipline their own pastors.

Believers of Jesus are literally to love their enemies and not to resist evildoers. This means that Christians cannot participate in the military. This separates all disciples from the world system which demands warfare and violence. (Matthew 5:38-48)

Believers in Jesus must share what they have with other believers who have needs. (Luke 12:33; 16:9) This means that believers need to live simply, in order to reserve their extra resources to share with others.

hi steve,

i read over your list of qualities which supposedly separate anabaptism from those other faiths you mention, and will say that what you may not realize is that Eastern Orthodoxy has taught many of those things long before anabaptism came on the scene-in fact, i have discovered they are actually emphasized and practised just as much, if not more so, amongst the Orthodox as amongst the mennonites. true, we do practise infant as well as adult, baptism, and there is no official "doctrine" of non-resistance (i believe in it myself), but the Gospel is indeed central to our Faith-indeed utmost reverence is always accorded the Holy Gospels at all times. worship of the Holy Trinity and becoming more Christlike (theosis) is absolutely central to our faith.

anyhow, i just wanted to clarify a bit for you (how would you know these things if you had never experienced the christian life as an Orthodox Christian? we view our Faith not as a religion, but as a "way of life"). Eastern Orthodoxy is neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism ,and in fact, the reality is that in many ways RCism and Protestantism are more akin to one another than the RCC is to the Orthodox Church.

did you check out the website i sent you http://www.stjohnsmission.org ? you can see for yourself how active these folks are in loving and caring for the poor in our midst! we Orthodox are very interested in praxis too! we believe very strongly in the importance of suffering, humility, taking up our cross, sharing what we have with others, living simply. indeed, most of my Orthodox friends live far more simply than the majority of the conservative mennonite folks i used to know-most of whom, upon their marriages had to have everything new and fancy. you would be shocked to see the poverty in which many of my orthodox friends (including myself) live in. i would say that list and characterizations therein to be not quite true, from personal experience.

please forgive me, and do not be offended,

unworthily,

theosis

I am certainly not offended. I have a number of friends who "converted" to Orthodoxy and I have done a bit of research on Orthodoxy myself, although honestly, I've really only read a few authors and the Philokalia.

I am truly very impressed with Orthodoxy, and feel that it comes close to what is considered a New Testament standard. So can Catholicism and Evangelicalism. I feel that the longer any church becomes the persecuted minority, the closer it comes to being the NT church. This is probably why Orthodoxy is further down the track than the other two paths-- they haven't been oppressed near as long as the Orthodox have! Heck, the evangelicals in the U.S. still think they're in charge!

However, I would still hold that these are Anabaptist ideals, not really shared by the orthodox. The Orthodox do see the faith as a "way of life", as you say, but they are less based on the word of Jesus for that life. That doesn't mean that they exclude Jesus-- by no means!-- but they interpret Jesus through the patriarchs, while the Anabaptists go straight to Jesus without any other interpreters (in theory).

As you say, pacifism isn't an Orthodox official ideal, and to not baptize infants would be conisdered a grave wrong. So, although I appreciate your insight, I wonder if your proximity to Anabaptism is adding more to Orthodoxy than you think. Perhaps you yourself see Orthodoxy in this way, but would the average Greek or Russian Orthodox person see their life in this way? I doubt it.

It is the same with Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. There are many that take on a particular aspect of Anabaptism-- like the Baptists not baptising infants or the Emerging church adopting pacificm-- but that doesn't make them Anabaptist.

Still, I appreciate you, your insights and the Orthodox church as a whole. I thank God that you are all there.

Anarchy and Government

Thomas writes on the MySpace group "Philosophy":

Governments use violence and force on others to get them to conform to what they consider to be right. The Epitome of Might makes Right. Anarchism does not mean people dont communicate anarchism doesnt mean people do not work together to accomplish tasks. Anarchism simply means that nobody has a monopolization over the use of force. Since not all people are good it is not logical to appoint anyone to be superior over others. Since all people are supposed to have rights of conscience it is unjust for any entities to use violence to enforce their moral standards on others. Without governments such horrific historical events such as holocausts and ethnic cleansings would never have happened. Those things happen because of government and the BLIND supporters thereof. Yeshua was an anarchist he was brutally murdered by government because the government was afraid his teachings would pacify the people. What is it with these people that are so afraid of peace? Gandhi was an anarchist Buddha was an anarchist in fact every single Great spriritual person EVER were anarchists. I cannot be a follower of Gods ways and support government. It is an absolute impossibility. Governments are made by people who choose not to follow Gods ways they want to instead own the world and place people into subjection under them. The ambitious and unrighteous of the world.

1. A government is not automatically "might makes right" if the people being ruled approve of and support the might. I would not say, for instance in the U.S., that everyone supports the "might" that upholds the law, but the great majority do.

2. "Anarchism" is "without rule", not without force. Without rule means that there is no agreed-upon means of rule. But there is always the ipso facto rule-- whoever has the most power makes the rules. Thus, I believe, anarchism reverts back to that foundational principle.

3. I agree with you that democracy does not exist. Never did. That doesn't mean it couldn't. We have the technology. We can make government better than it was. Better. Stronger. Faster. (no, wait...) It is possible via the internet to give every literate adult to participate in the everyday rule of a government. It just has never been tried before.

4. Yeshua was not a supporter of anarchy. He just taught that every government that ever existed was inadequate. He has a new concept of government-- let God rule through him. The real unique thing is that he wouldn't win that rule through armies or through the vote, but through his death, at which time God would hand him the rule.
Gandhi was not an anarchist, as he supported a national government of India.
Buddha, on the other hand... he was probably an anarchist.
Shiva, Kali, Moses, David, Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Francis-- none of them were anarchists.
But the ancient Chinese philosophy of the Moists-- that might have been anarchist. I'm not sure.

5. My favorite presentation of anarchism is "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlien. It's really rule by capitalism, but it's still very well presented.

6. I also agree that "governments are made by people who choose not to follow God's ways. " There are two ways in which people understand God: through judgment and punishment of societal sin and through grace, mercy and encouragment to repent. The first is the way of government. The second is the way of Yeshua. You can choose one or the other. But this last comment is religion, not philosophy, so I'll leave this train of thought.

Why Does God Test Us?

John Johnson wrote:
One of my theological pet peeves has been this issue of God "testing" us. I had a pretty satisfying theological box until this past week in BSF when God clearly says He will test Israel (In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. Ex 16) apparently for the purpose of seeing what they will do. Still, that is not exactly what the passage says. Then I thought of the three purposes of a test (a test tests the student's knowledge, the professors ability, and the test's validity). Thus, to keep the lid on my theological box, I entertain the possinility that God's tests are not to show Him what we will do, but to show us what we really are. That fits for me.


Here's another idea about God's testing. Perhaps He is not proving to us-- certainly He is not proving to Himself, because He already knows!-- but actually proving to the spirit world who we really are. This seems to be the case in Job. And it would explain Genesis 22 when the angel speaks for the Lord "Now I know..." because it would be speaking for the whole spirit realm. It would also explain why Jesus himself needed to be tested, apart from the fact that He needed to be like us.

Is Anything Possible?

Little Mike posts: Is Anything Possible?
(On the Philsophy group in MySpace)

Anything is possible in reality that does not contractict the definition of anything within reality.

Thus, if we have proper definitions, then it is possible to predict the realm of possibilities which is more vast than we can imagine.

The problem is with many things-- especially the human mind-- we have not properly defined it. We don’t know it’s limits and so a whole realm of possibilities are open to it that we cannot imagine.

Kids on the Street

Elle asked: "Are you working with homeless kids? Are there programs connected with you that are working with homeless kids?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "kids". If you mean youth (14-21) then there are a lot of homeless kids in Portland, and a great ministy working with them is Home PDX, run by Ken Loyd. I could get you his wife's phone number, if you like. Outside In, of course, has also got a great street youth work.

But if you're talking about young kids, under 14, those are few and far between. Families who are homeless either: get off the street really quickly or the kids are taken from the parents quickly by AFS. So young kids don't stay on the street very long, with, of course, the rare exception.

There was a famous example here in Portland of a father and his young daughter (10? 11?) who were discovered by the police living in Forest Park. He would provide for them and teach her through a set of encyclopedias and other school books he'd pick up. After the police found them, they made front page news for about a week. They were offered a lot of services. Then after two weeks, they disappeared again. I assume they went back to their former life. But this kind of example is pretty rare and if they were caught again, the daughter would be taken from her father because he refused to live in a house with electricity. (It is considered child abuse to have one's children live without electricity in Oregon).

Hail to the Chief!

Poem by "ben Adam" on Young Anabaptist Radicals under my post "Why I Don't Vote"


Election Day

Celebrate the coming of the two-term king
who rides on wings not hooves.
Do not be distracted by the injustice next door;
look to the Maverick of Hope.
He will save you from this mire
of systemic iniquity around you.
You are his chosen race,
a royal nation,
a holy priesthood,
the middle class.
Focus your eyes on the ephemeral emperor;
listen as he lulls you to sleep.
“All is well.”
He has come to keep it so.
“All is not well.”
He has come to redeem,
and the suffering of the poor
will be the blood sacrifice for your depression.
Go! Earn your salvation
with your tithes to the alabaster abode,
and he will give you rest.
Cast your lot in the ballot box;
join as heirs to his oval throne.
He will universally heal the sick,
progressively reduce war to peace,
end infanticide with a word,
and pierce the seas to save sedans.
There is no resurrection for a messiah
who does not die, only re-elected.
His democracy shall last forever.
For all eternity, his grace,
liberty, and justice
will be for all who can pay the price
of their freedom.

Good Shepherd

 

This was the main pic Anawim used for years.

Is Denominationalism Partisan?

I am firmly opposed to the two party system in American politics. It doesn’t really give anyone a real choice, just two sides of the same coin. Real change isn’t possible, because the issues are all blocked by partisan rhetoric and limited logic. No one can take a really effective new look at politics and effect real change. Rather, change is slow and bogged down by the fact that nothing will change until it is obvious to almost everyone that the old system has completely failed.

But is denominationalism just another form of the same kind of system? Are we locked into traditionalism this way? Can we really accomplish anything new and exciting in the Spirit through the forms of denominational agreement? Are we not locked into old institutions, with their old systems of bureaucracy, unable to enact the true change of the Spirit?

And if that is the case, then should we be supporting these old systems? And why do we support them? Because of money? If we follow the old means of doing church business, then the old money and the old resources will follow. But should we be limited by these old means? Or should we be set free to seek out the direction the Holy Spirit is going, so that we can also be freed from these old ways of doing God’s business?

I am not denying God’s Spirit in the denominations, nor in traditional ways. I know that God was there, especially in the past. But it reminds me of an ant trail. Certain worker ants, when they find food or something of benefit to the colony, leave a trail that other ants can follow to the significant resource. And that trail will last, and the ants will follow it, long after the food or resource is gone.

Even so, it seems that denominations follow these trails to the Spirit, only to find, in the end, that the old measures are empty and devoid of the Spirit’s true life. Sure, we can obtain the world’s resources through these old trails—money, denominational contacts, the support of the old guard. But when it is empty of God, what is the use?

We need to first seek God, His kingdom and His righteousness. We need to stop first seeking the resources of this world, as if that’s our real goal. Our goal should always be God through Jesus and the Spirit. If something is but the empty shell which Jesus and the Spirit left behind, then it is time to go. This doesn’t mean that I’m saying that we should leave denominations behind, necessarily. But perhaps we need to see where in a denomination God is really working. Where is the Spirit really moving? Who is living out the life of the power of God? Where is Jesus’ word and live truly being fleshed out in the denomination? That should be the direction of any denomination, leaving the past behind.

Because God is not I Was. God is I Am.

And finally, we should not allow the resources of God’s people be limited to those who are a part of a denomination. We should allow God’s resources be used by whoever is doing God’s work, and take it away from those who are only following the structure of old tradition.

Who is giving generously for the poor, not just seeking the least for the least?
Who is living successfully on faith, not just depending on a regular salary for doing the same old thing?
Who is receiving the outcast and helping them life for Jesus, not just keeping an arm’s distance from those outside the church?
Who is discipling the people of God, not just educating them?
Who is getting the world ready for Jesus’ coming, not just talking about it?
Who is building bridges between the separated, not just creating new divisions?
Who is delivering the healing of God, not just the pomp and circumstance that surrounds it?
Who is living out God’s generosity, faithfulness, mercy, truth and forgiveness, not just preaching about it?

This first group should be the focus of any denomination. The second group is the empty shell that should be discarded. However, the difficulty is that the first group is hidden within each denomination. They are the ones who cannot be found unless sought for. They are the hidden saints, the secret heart of the body of Christ. If any denomination, any conference, any board, any bishop, any minister is worth the salt of the earth they claim to be, they will spend their energy seeking these out and pouring all of their effort supporting them.

Otherwise, the denomination is no light of the world, no city on the hill. It is just another part of the shadow f the world.

Set aside the ways of the world, and find the hidden power of God within your ranks.

Why I Don't Vote

1. The system of choosing leaders requires the leaders to boast about themselves, to be self serving. But Jesus tells us to have our leaders be humble, to serve others, not themselves.

2. The only people who gain the highest offices are those of the rich elite. We do not live in a democracy, where the people have a voice, but a plutocracy, where only the wealthy have a real vote to change the country.

3. Voting is the least effective of all political action. Our ideas would be heard much more by the world if we act out the life of Jesus, or if we write people in the government, than if we vote.

4. There is not a single candidate that is concerned about the issues Jesus is concerned about. Not one has a platform about loving our enemies. Not one has a platform about giving to the poor. Not one is concerned about living out a radical life-transforming faith in God. Although some talk about health issues, no one is really concerned about healing the sick.

5. All the candidates are opposed to life. One candidate is a supporter of abortion, while another will increase war. There is no candidate that will support all life.

6. We are only allowed to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one. If they’d let me vote “no” then I’d vote, because then I’d really be able to state my opinion.

7. I could, some say, write “Jesus” into the line. First of all, that’s just wasting a vote, and wasting my time. Secondly, Jesus isn’t running for president and he never will. He is running for absolute dictator of the world—and He would be the best thing for the world.

Because of my radical stance against voting, some think that I am immoral. But it is because of morality and my commitment to Jesus and refusal to compromise that I will not vote for a candidate that I believe will not lead the country into ethical purity.

Some think that I am rejecting my national and patriotic duty. Rather, I do a lot for both of my countries—the U.S. and the Kingdom of God. I help the homeless, I talk about issues, I contact the government about helping the poor. What I am rejecting is to compromise my moral stance by taking part in the least of all patriotic duties.

Some think that since I don’t vote, I have no right to say what goes on in the country. Rather, I say, my vote has been taken from me. The politically all-powerful parties have made the decision about who my choices really are, and all the choices are awful. If my rights have been taken away from me, then I have a GREATER responsibility to speak out, as do we all.

If you feel that the current political arena has given us no real choice, then don’t vote. Speak out for REAL political change.

Being One With God

God is gracious
He provides for all our needs, whether we deserve it or not.
God is compassionate
He looks with pity upon our shortcomings, and fills up our lack.
God is slow to anger
He hesitates again and again before He punishes us for our sin.
God is true
Never has he spoken a word which has proven untrustworthy
God is good in his faithfulness
He always keeps his promises in a way that is good for us.
God forgives our sin
No matter how often we sin, He is ready to wipe it away, if we would but repent


As followers of God, all God requires is that we be like Him. To be sharers in the divine character. “Be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful.”


How radically different would your life look if you were god-like?

God have mercy on us. Through Your Spirit, let us live out your ways of mercy.

What Does "Under the Law" Mean?

A Question found in MennoDiscuss: "What does Paul mean when he says 'under the law' as in 'you are not under the law, but under grace.'?"

The way I understand it, "under the law" refers to being under the law of Moses as an authority. Paul is saying that to be in Christ, one needs not be of the ancient Jewish Temple system.

Some applications of this:
a. There is NOONE "under the law" in our modern age as there was before 70AD. The ancient temple system with it's distinct Jewish perspective no longer exists.

b. However, this does not mean that we don't deal with the same issues. Many people feel that to be a Christian one must also be under the authority of something else: a particular denomination, a particular non-Jesus theology, a particular cultural habit, a particular politcal party, a particular natinality, etc.

c. Paul affirms that it is only Jesus that saves, not anything else. Only Jesus' law, not any other law. Only Jesus' grace, not any other grace. Only Jesus' government, not any other. Only Jesus' politics, not any other. Only Jesus' hope, not any other dream, American or otherwise.

A dialogue I wrote on the subject could be found here:
http://paulinedialogues.blogspot.com/20 ... ation.html

Living Well

A question was posted on the Young Anabaptist Radicals site: "What does it mean to live well and to die well?"

For me, to live well means to be present for others.

Being present means that I am not distracted by other concerns, expectations or by various technologies, but I am with the person who is in front of me.

Being for others means that I am not using the other for my own gain or well-being, but I am just thinking of their need and how I can best meet their need.

And in this, I meet my own needs. I am not just forgetting myself, but I am living my life through being there for the other and the One who is the Most Other. In this, I find my health and satisfaction, not because I sought my own health or my own satisfaction, but due to God's having made me that the more I give, the more I receive.

I do this in the lives of others, and in their deaths. In my context, it means that even when I contact a recent homeless person's family about thier death and they don't want to talk about him, I will do what I can to offer him the respect of remembering him, of talking about him, of crying for the loss.

I hope that I may do this with my dying breath.

Of course, this is as much a goal as a lifestyle. There are still so many times that I obtain my satisfaction selfishly, for the sole intent of satisfying my needs. But it is so much more nourishing for me to cook a stew to share than a hamburger for myself alone. Yet I write this as I am considering eating a candy bar in the solitude of my office... ah, well. I try.

Was the Book of Revelation Fulfilled in the First Century?

Part of a discussion in MennoDiscuss:

According to the preterist interpretation, there are two events in the first century that could be called Jesus' parousia (coming):
a. Jesus' coming to the Father to take up his authority over the universe. This is described in Rev. 5.
b. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70AD, which is the judgment of Jesus against those who persecuted him and his church.

While the Book of Revelation might allow for this, I don't believe that Jesus does, for the following reasons:


1. Jesus said that "every eye shall see him", and "as the lightning flashes from the east to the west", meaning that the coming would be obvious to everyone, without dispute. Yet for every event that has been declared to be the "coming of Jesus" in the first century (or every century since then) there has been great dispute as to whether Jesus actually returned or not. And the early church after 70AD was still expecting Jesus to return-- they didn't give up on the parousia after Jerusalem was destroyed.

2. After Jesus' return, Jesus said that the people of God will be gathered to him from the four corners of the earth (Matt 24:31). This has never happened, but rather the diaspora has just become more distinct with each age.

3. When the Master comes, Jesus said, all the hypocritical leaders of the church will be cut into pieces (Matt 24:50-51), and yet we find hypocrites just as abounding in the church after 70AD as before. If not more so.

4. Jesus said that when the Son of Man comes all nations would be gathered to him to be judged according to their hospitality to the brethern. (Matt 25:31ff). Every good person will be separated from every bad person (Matt 13:49-50) This has not yet occured, but the judgment is still to come. The majority of the world will still be surprised on the judgment day as to who will be on the "good" side an who will be on the "evil" side.

Thus, I think that we need to admit that the final coming has not yet occured. Thus, Revelation is not competely fulfilled.

This does not mean that the preterist argument doesn't have some excellent points. Matt 24/Mark 13 was certainly talking about the 70AD judgment, and Revelation is certainly talking about the judgment of Roman emperors. But just because things have occured in the past at one point doesn't mean that it won't happen again.

Daniel's abomination that causes desolation was certainly speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes. That was fulfilled long before Jesus, yet Jesus said that the abomination would be fulfilled later. The reason is that not all of Daniel was fulfilled-- much of it still had to come to pass. Even so with Jesus' apocalypse and Revelation. Although much of it is already fulfilled in the first century and other centuries, there is still some that must need be fulfilled. Therefore we can expect more fulfillment in the future.

Thus is my hope. Should the eschatalogical hope have already been fulfilled, then I am sorely disappointed. But as it stands, there is much of Jesus' words that have yet to be fulfilled and I expect that to happen any minute.

Helping Those Who Don't Want Help

There is one thing though that has been obvious to me, some people that are on the street don't really want the kind of help we want to offer them for the long haul, some just want money to continue to do as they please, they don't want to really change. How do you deal with this mindset in your ministry? Or, am I missing something?-Truthseeker, on MennoDiscuss

Some people don't want help for the long haul, that's true. But there are sometimes good reasons for that. They don't want people assuming what they want out of life-- often they don't have the same goals as middle class people. Most everyone wants a change of some sort, but perhaps not the ones we want to give them.

This is how I work things in my ministry-- I offer everyone a step in a particular direction that is for their benefit. For everyone I offer a step toward Christ and an opportunity to eat, for some I offer an opportunity for posititve counsel or for extra help in getting work, or for being more healthy or for getting a detox. For a few I offer the opportunitity to get off the street (if they are ready for discipleship). But everyone gets an opportunity for one small step. Once they take that, then I offer them the next step. But they are making the decisions themselves and doing all the work themselves. Eventually, others will get involved to help them out, but everything has to be initatied from them. That way, no one is forcing them to do anything.

I believe that this also allows the Holy Spirit to do the majority of the work, rather than taking it upon ourselves. If I were just "adopting" some folks (as I have done in the past and other ministries do full time), then WE are the ones with the ideas, WE are the planners, WE are the parents. Rather, what we should be doing is just being a guide, providing small opportunities and allowing God to be the Father and the Holy Spirit being the power.

If we are being the discipline force in someone's life, then when we are no longer in the picture, that person's discipline is gone. But if dicipline is something that comes from within, by the power of God, then that discipline need never fade-- it will always be with them wherever they go.

Why am I going on like this? I don't know. But I guess I'm just saying that we need to be there for people, be patient and gentle at all times, and to be with them, reminding them God's desire for them, but not rejecting them. And then God will do the work of calling them to himself at a pace they can accept.

Am I making sense?