Monday, February 27, 2006
we should be just like the first church.
ACTS 8:1 "On that day a great persecution broke out against the church (not capitolized) at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria." v4 "Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went."
Most people would have quoted chapter 2 verse 42-47.
Jesus's last command after He rose from the dead and before He left this Earth. Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
Acts 2:42-47 recounts the glorious pow wow of Christians eating together and sharing every worldly possession, praying together and enjoying the teaching of the apostles. BUT this is short lived. I make this emphasis in response to hearing that we should be living this Acts 2 model in todays world. I believe this is a mistakeI think people see that "and the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." People reason that because God did this He desires us to use this model for the church today. Does it mean this?
I believe this was for a short time only. Not that God might not do this at times but just imagine if the persecution never came. The Gospel is much more inclusive. Extend your tent stakes. For the Gospel to spread we must move out. I believe the mega church movement, the tendancy for Christians to cloister together as much as time allows, and the concept of "be in church whenever the doors are open", will be looked back upon and seen as a movement that should be for a short time only if at all. In other words I believe the emphasis should not be placed on gathering together too often. Why because we train people to do what we want them to do. If we want them to be able to disciple each other and move out and share the Gospel then we should do that instead of training people how to sit or stand in a large auditorium and listen to music or talks. Anyway, The Gospel would not have spread if the early Christians had their way and stayed cloistered together. In heaven we will have plenty of time for that but for now many people are dead in their sins and need to hear what we have heard. Yes of course we should meet together sometimes but the question is how often do we need to gather in order to be equipped for sharing the message of Christ? Because that is one of the main purposes of meeting together.
There all alot of things that are "biblical" but not what God wants us to do. Murder is "biblical", in the Bible, but of course God does not desire us to participate. We have to be very careful of extracting our doctrine from narrative portions of the Bible. We have to lookm for the point of the scripture and also at the bigger picture.
After having said this, I do beleive there are principles we can live out from the Acts 2 portion of scripture, but its a story about what God did and what happened. We cant say we should do exactly what they did. The attitudes should be the same but the application will be different during different seasons. If we truly desire to be like the first church we should look at the whole account of what the church was like, especially the use of authority of the apostles, how they discipled new leaders, the problems the early believers encountered, the differences in different cultural settings, and the emphasis on going out as opposed to cloistering together.
Whats the point? Will we move out on our own like God wants us to or will we need a kick in the pants?
Most people would have quoted chapter 2 verse 42-47.
Jesus's last command after He rose from the dead and before He left this Earth. Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
Acts 2:42-47 recounts the glorious pow wow of Christians eating together and sharing every worldly possession, praying together and enjoying the teaching of the apostles. BUT this is short lived. I make this emphasis in response to hearing that we should be living this Acts 2 model in todays world. I believe this is a mistakeI think people see that "and the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." People reason that because God did this He desires us to use this model for the church today. Does it mean this?
I believe this was for a short time only. Not that God might not do this at times but just imagine if the persecution never came. The Gospel is much more inclusive. Extend your tent stakes. For the Gospel to spread we must move out. I believe the mega church movement, the tendancy for Christians to cloister together as much as time allows, and the concept of "be in church whenever the doors are open", will be looked back upon and seen as a movement that should be for a short time only if at all. In other words I believe the emphasis should not be placed on gathering together too often. Why because we train people to do what we want them to do. If we want them to be able to disciple each other and move out and share the Gospel then we should do that instead of training people how to sit or stand in a large auditorium and listen to music or talks. Anyway, The Gospel would not have spread if the early Christians had their way and stayed cloistered together. In heaven we will have plenty of time for that but for now many people are dead in their sins and need to hear what we have heard. Yes of course we should meet together sometimes but the question is how often do we need to gather in order to be equipped for sharing the message of Christ? Because that is one of the main purposes of meeting together.
There all alot of things that are "biblical" but not what God wants us to do. Murder is "biblical", in the Bible, but of course God does not desire us to participate. We have to be very careful of extracting our doctrine from narrative portions of the Bible. We have to lookm for the point of the scripture and also at the bigger picture.
After having said this, I do beleive there are principles we can live out from the Acts 2 portion of scripture, but its a story about what God did and what happened. We cant say we should do exactly what they did. The attitudes should be the same but the application will be different during different seasons. If we truly desire to be like the first church we should look at the whole account of what the church was like, especially the use of authority of the apostles, how they discipled new leaders, the problems the early believers encountered, the differences in different cultural settings, and the emphasis on going out as opposed to cloistering together.
Whats the point? Will we move out on our own like God wants us to or will we need a kick in the pants?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
These little statues represent stillborn or aborted babies. Read on it gets really interesting. This particular type was create din 1960 despite the belief that they are ancient. This was taken on our trip to Kamakura. Kamakura is like Kyoto. Lots of history and temples. It was the place where the military run government started. Only 50 minutes from our house. I believe the common right wing view of nationalism and military dominance was birthed here. The little statues are called JIZOU BOSATSU.
I dont believe the problems we have as a global society are with the areas we disagree about. I believe the problems lay where we agree but fail to act.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Pioneering
Pioneering is 98% staying some one once told me. Its easier to start something new with a few people rather than a large group. A large group must reach a consensus and that is a very hard thing to do. With 2 people you can just say " do you agree?" "yah I agree" and you can begin. But what can happen is becaus ethose two have less to worry about they can move quite quickly out ahead of the larger group. I beleive this could have been some of God's wisdom in sending early followers out 2 by 2. But its also important not to move too far out in front or the larger group will be lost. No one left behind. As I write this I have a picture of 2 people moving through the wilderness in thick brush. There is no way the group could keep up with them so they press on ahead exploring the new territory. They find possibilities, new things, and dangers. If they move too quickly the brush behind them will start to grow in and the trail will be lost and they will become isolated from the larger group. The 2 must come back and lead people onto the new possibilities. The probelm is the group has not seen that it might be a better deal on the other side and they are quite content where they are. This i believe was the way the early church felt in Jerusalem just before God allowed persecution to come and the church was scattered. They were now the church at large, the diaspora. Some might think that is too bad that they couldnt stay together and enjoy one another's company, but I think it was a good thing. The Gospel was supposed to be shared with all. This scattering allowed that to happen. If that happened today would we fight it? Is God doing a similar work today? maybe it might look different. I do believe the Church is complacent in many ways. Not lazy and well meaning but we are in a rut.
What is God's vision of what the Church should look like today? The Bible compares the Church to a body. One big unit not really a family but something much closer. I trully believe God is not happy with so many factions and divisions. I think he wants us to divide physically, or to spread out to cover more ground and be more effective in sharing the good news but not spiritually. Denominational borders help us understand where we stand on different issues. It feels safer to me to know where sop and so belongs, in what category I can put them. I would be bold in saying it is fear that creates denominations. This is what I beleive. Just because we have denominations and God chooses to bless the church doesnt mean He approves. I can only imagine what it would be like without them. Paul said He considered it all loss compared to knowing Christ. He lists numerous socail and religous classes he belonged to in that context. In most of the introductions of his letters he states his identity as being sent from God, or of God etc. My point is he never mentions a church or religeous group. I realize this is not a perfect world but just because its not perfect does not mean we should pretend these things are right.If God had his way with the church in this world what would it look like? Would there be denominations or not? Denominations are a result of a disagreement. People could not resolve their differences and choose to leave one group and start another. They felt the differences were so great they could no longer in good conscience worship and live together. If it was simply a different ministry they would be a sister church or plant of the original and not tak on a new identity. We should speak the truth- in love of course and strive toward the truth. Its really dangerous to live our lives simply the way our fathers have just because unity seems immpossible. Paul said he had not attained these things but he strived towards them. Havent we stopped striving? I guess I could simply do what I am saying and hope that my life would convict others but really I am not strong enbough I need the rest of the Christian Community to "spur me on toward love and good deeds".
I seem to have gotten off the trail so to speak, but not really. Sometimes I dont want to share what God has showed me for fear that people might see me as arrogant. This way of thinking implies that those thoughts were from me and not a gift from God. I beleive everyone who has chosen to allow Christ into their life can hear God from the smallest to the largest matter. Of course when He spaeks it is inline with His character. If I am part of the body it is my responsibility to share what I have seen and heard to better the worldwide body. Blogs are great for this sort of thing. I believe the structure of the modern church limits the ability of God to show Himself through the diversity of individuals. When I say limit what I mean is that God , for whatever reason chooses not to interfere in alot of matters. He prefers to guide and allow us the choice to obey Him. He is so amazingly patient. People should not take offense if the administration of the church is questioned because we are all in this together if we are truly part of one body.
If my nervous system tells my brain that there is too much tension on my calf muscle and my brain tells me to stretch that muscle, should I be hurt and get angry at my nervous system? of course not. then why do we get angry when someone questions the administration of the church and its resources? We are all in this together and working towards the same goal. Its obvious why we get angry, because we are not rtruly unified, emotions run high, sin, we have many fears which cause us to desire to control people and our own lives. Its really hard to trust people.
I believe if we have any hope it is in having a correct view of the bibnlical concept of what the church is and wher it should be going so that when we get off track we can recognize how, where, why, and how to get back on track. So as simple as I can say it THe Church is: One body, of one spirit, and One lord. We are moving toward marriage and true unity with Christ in all His attributes for the end puropose of being eternally with God the Father. So the negative of that would be several smaller groups and even further every person just doing their ministry without any connection at all. What I am speaking of is a visual concept or picture in our minds when we think of Church. We even ask each other which church do you go to? this is evidence of a wrong perspective. Yes i understand it is simply small talk but subtly we have been taught a certain picture in our brain. I believe od has a different picture and the Bible illustrates it very clearly. The danger has been a copnstant one. A problem throughout the ages of the Church even before Christ. We moved from a family with abraham and ultmately God as father to religeon, kings and separations. We desire stability and I beleive the best place to find that and our identity and purpose is in God Himself anything short of that allows fear and animosity to take over. We have a great inheritance - God Himself is our inheritance (the livites were promised no imheritance of land and security only God Himself- we are now called a royal priesthood)would we rather trade it for a bowl of soup (comfortable and warm)?
This is oversimplistic I realize- it is vision and not worked out completely in mission but I believe we must start from this foundation of what God wants the church to be. Every supporting ligament working together to accomplish His purposes.
What is God's vision of what the Church should look like today? The Bible compares the Church to a body. One big unit not really a family but something much closer. I trully believe God is not happy with so many factions and divisions. I think he wants us to divide physically, or to spread out to cover more ground and be more effective in sharing the good news but not spiritually. Denominational borders help us understand where we stand on different issues. It feels safer to me to know where sop and so belongs, in what category I can put them. I would be bold in saying it is fear that creates denominations. This is what I beleive. Just because we have denominations and God chooses to bless the church doesnt mean He approves. I can only imagine what it would be like without them. Paul said He considered it all loss compared to knowing Christ. He lists numerous socail and religous classes he belonged to in that context. In most of the introductions of his letters he states his identity as being sent from God, or of God etc. My point is he never mentions a church or religeous group. I realize this is not a perfect world but just because its not perfect does not mean we should pretend these things are right.If God had his way with the church in this world what would it look like? Would there be denominations or not? Denominations are a result of a disagreement. People could not resolve their differences and choose to leave one group and start another. They felt the differences were so great they could no longer in good conscience worship and live together. If it was simply a different ministry they would be a sister church or plant of the original and not tak on a new identity. We should speak the truth- in love of course and strive toward the truth. Its really dangerous to live our lives simply the way our fathers have just because unity seems immpossible. Paul said he had not attained these things but he strived towards them. Havent we stopped striving? I guess I could simply do what I am saying and hope that my life would convict others but really I am not strong enbough I need the rest of the Christian Community to "spur me on toward love and good deeds".
I seem to have gotten off the trail so to speak, but not really. Sometimes I dont want to share what God has showed me for fear that people might see me as arrogant. This way of thinking implies that those thoughts were from me and not a gift from God. I beleive everyone who has chosen to allow Christ into their life can hear God from the smallest to the largest matter. Of course when He spaeks it is inline with His character. If I am part of the body it is my responsibility to share what I have seen and heard to better the worldwide body. Blogs are great for this sort of thing. I believe the structure of the modern church limits the ability of God to show Himself through the diversity of individuals. When I say limit what I mean is that God , for whatever reason chooses not to interfere in alot of matters. He prefers to guide and allow us the choice to obey Him. He is so amazingly patient. People should not take offense if the administration of the church is questioned because we are all in this together if we are truly part of one body.
If my nervous system tells my brain that there is too much tension on my calf muscle and my brain tells me to stretch that muscle, should I be hurt and get angry at my nervous system? of course not. then why do we get angry when someone questions the administration of the church and its resources? We are all in this together and working towards the same goal. Its obvious why we get angry, because we are not rtruly unified, emotions run high, sin, we have many fears which cause us to desire to control people and our own lives. Its really hard to trust people.
I believe if we have any hope it is in having a correct view of the bibnlical concept of what the church is and wher it should be going so that when we get off track we can recognize how, where, why, and how to get back on track. So as simple as I can say it THe Church is: One body, of one spirit, and One lord. We are moving toward marriage and true unity with Christ in all His attributes for the end puropose of being eternally with God the Father. So the negative of that would be several smaller groups and even further every person just doing their ministry without any connection at all. What I am speaking of is a visual concept or picture in our minds when we think of Church. We even ask each other which church do you go to? this is evidence of a wrong perspective. Yes i understand it is simply small talk but subtly we have been taught a certain picture in our brain. I believe od has a different picture and the Bible illustrates it very clearly. The danger has been a copnstant one. A problem throughout the ages of the Church even before Christ. We moved from a family with abraham and ultmately God as father to religeon, kings and separations. We desire stability and I beleive the best place to find that and our identity and purpose is in God Himself anything short of that allows fear and animosity to take over. We have a great inheritance - God Himself is our inheritance (the livites were promised no imheritance of land and security only God Himself- we are now called a royal priesthood)would we rather trade it for a bowl of soup (comfortable and warm)?
This is oversimplistic I realize- it is vision and not worked out completely in mission but I believe we must start from this foundation of what God wants the church to be. Every supporting ligament working together to accomplish His purposes.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Out in the open.
some observations about conversation.
my disclaimer: this is raw thoughts and unrefined and yes there is a little hurt and a little indignation, and a little relief at the end.
Subtle. something I am not often accused of being, but my wife mentioned this concept to me when attempting to translate our about us page from our website. Implication. That is i guess a word that is in a similar family. I wrote about what we do and who we for a broad range of people throughout the world who have many viewpoints. The possibility of being misunderstood is so high in the written as well as spoken word, that I was trying to be sensitive and get my point across at the same time. A very difficult task. Here in Japan the culture states that conflict of any kind is not popular. Coming from a western nation I would call it avoidance. I beleive while conflict is not comfortable or desireble, if it is there it just is and cannopt be brushed aside. It will always be there unless properly dealt with. I do believe there is no sense in stirring up desention but I also don't believe walking away and agreeing to disagree solves anything. "To each his own" is a saying that will make anyone who uses it very popular but it is only partially true. Yes everyone has a right to make a final decision about their life but those decisions affact the community as well. No man is an island. We dont live in a vacuum etc.
alot of times I like to bring issues up that I see. Things that are wrong or that could be done better. I guess if I see something and say to myself "that shouldnt be like that", I try to think how it could be put right. I realize people may not think the same and almost everybody does not. But I should be able to say it anyway. People dont like to hear bad things. Negative things. I beleive there is an emotional attachment to negative matters and people associate being unhealthy with anything negative. Negative just is. You can choose to react emotionally or not. Regardless, we all must admit they exist. So I figure what sense does it make to ignore the issue instead of trying to find a solution. Its not comfortable at all. so what? Dont rock the boat . dont make waves. Picking your battles is a good thing. Nobody likes someone who is always picking fights. But I personally dont like people who for shear(sp)personal comfort would rather smile and nod than say what they really think. Its a bad habit. I believe its about investing yourself. Everyone wants to be known and loved, not just known.
Do people say what they mean or mean what they say. Or are they simply thinking out loud? Just so you know where I stand I think its ok to think out loud. You better be able to trust the people you are with when you do it or at least simply choose to trust them and take a risk. "if you come round here talking about those things you better wear your thickest skin" words by the lead singer of Vigilantes of Love.
I believe there is too much dancing in conversation. People seem to be testing which side of the issue you stand on. Am I in an ally camp or an enemy. There seems to be so much ground to loose. Its not relaxing at all. I want conversation to be relaxing as well as challenging. I do my fair share of dancing. I am now. If you are wondering what my point is I am not sure I have one point. should I?
Did you ever shake somneone's hand and you knew they were on your side? Did you ever talk to someone and you knew they were waiting for a break to teach you something. Its not that they wanted to share and invite you in they just needed to make sure you were on the right path, their path? Maybe I am too old or stubborn, or arrogant, or prideful but I hate that type of conversation. I dont know how to respond gracefully. Seems like there are too many of those conversations lately. Sometimes I am the second guy. This is why God is so amazing. When talking with him there are no strings attached.
my disclaimer: this is raw thoughts and unrefined and yes there is a little hurt and a little indignation, and a little relief at the end.
Subtle. something I am not often accused of being, but my wife mentioned this concept to me when attempting to translate our about us page from our website. Implication. That is i guess a word that is in a similar family. I wrote about what we do and who we for a broad range of people throughout the world who have many viewpoints. The possibility of being misunderstood is so high in the written as well as spoken word, that I was trying to be sensitive and get my point across at the same time. A very difficult task. Here in Japan the culture states that conflict of any kind is not popular. Coming from a western nation I would call it avoidance. I beleive while conflict is not comfortable or desireble, if it is there it just is and cannopt be brushed aside. It will always be there unless properly dealt with. I do believe there is no sense in stirring up desention but I also don't believe walking away and agreeing to disagree solves anything. "To each his own" is a saying that will make anyone who uses it very popular but it is only partially true. Yes everyone has a right to make a final decision about their life but those decisions affact the community as well. No man is an island. We dont live in a vacuum etc.
alot of times I like to bring issues up that I see. Things that are wrong or that could be done better. I guess if I see something and say to myself "that shouldnt be like that", I try to think how it could be put right. I realize people may not think the same and almost everybody does not. But I should be able to say it anyway. People dont like to hear bad things. Negative things. I beleive there is an emotional attachment to negative matters and people associate being unhealthy with anything negative. Negative just is. You can choose to react emotionally or not. Regardless, we all must admit they exist. So I figure what sense does it make to ignore the issue instead of trying to find a solution. Its not comfortable at all. so what? Dont rock the boat . dont make waves. Picking your battles is a good thing. Nobody likes someone who is always picking fights. But I personally dont like people who for shear(sp)personal comfort would rather smile and nod than say what they really think. Its a bad habit. I believe its about investing yourself. Everyone wants to be known and loved, not just known.
Do people say what they mean or mean what they say. Or are they simply thinking out loud? Just so you know where I stand I think its ok to think out loud. You better be able to trust the people you are with when you do it or at least simply choose to trust them and take a risk. "if you come round here talking about those things you better wear your thickest skin" words by the lead singer of Vigilantes of Love.
I believe there is too much dancing in conversation. People seem to be testing which side of the issue you stand on. Am I in an ally camp or an enemy. There seems to be so much ground to loose. Its not relaxing at all. I want conversation to be relaxing as well as challenging. I do my fair share of dancing. I am now. If you are wondering what my point is I am not sure I have one point. should I?
Did you ever shake somneone's hand and you knew they were on your side? Did you ever talk to someone and you knew they were waiting for a break to teach you something. Its not that they wanted to share and invite you in they just needed to make sure you were on the right path, their path? Maybe I am too old or stubborn, or arrogant, or prideful but I hate that type of conversation. I dont know how to respond gracefully. Seems like there are too many of those conversations lately. Sometimes I am the second guy. This is why God is so amazing. When talking with him there are no strings attached.
Friday, February 03, 2006
discipleship
"...,discharge all the duties of your ministry."(2tim4:5) Paul says to Timothy just before his death. I believe this is the nature of true discipleship. I also believe it should happen as soon as humanly possible. Pauls life illustrates this. He was a true planter. He seemed to only give instruction as needed. Why am I emphasizing this? The Holy Spirit needs some wiggle room. He needs to do his job of making the word and God's character clear. If we keep interupting with our own words and methods we grieve Him.
If we are too hands on in our approach I believe it reveals a lack of trust in God's ability to lead people and speak to them individually, leads to over dependance on leaders, and a welfare church where people are "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth"(2tim3:7). People will never learn how to hear God's voice personally if we are their ears.
Why dont we just trust God and let Him guide in more practical ways? FEAR or lack of understanding at the least. We fear people will make grave mistakes and believe herasies. This is a real danger but are we saying by our actions that God is incapable of handeling the crisis? He does not need to stand on our shoulders. Sometimes we are being manipulative and controlling in our Christian communities out of pure fear. People see this demonstration of a lack of faith. No wonder people dont want to become part of our Christian community. As far as lack of understanding, we believe it is our duty to take care of people younger in the faith. How noble of us. But why do we believ this. There is little evidence that Jesus did it this way. In fact He allowed people to make mistakes and stood by and watched. Then He leaves the earth at the most vulnerable time in the Christian movement. At Christ's death the disciples didn't get it really. Jesus left so the Holy Spirit could come. He passed the baton. We should do the same.
If alot of leaders left their ministry today the whole thing would fall apart because the ministry is built around one or a few leaders. It doesn't look like a real "body" at all. The ligaments are not supporting and the muscles are atrophied. We have created a welfare community that enables people to to rely on spiritual leaders instead of God Himself.
How does this affect discipleship? We do and say what we were taught to do and say. We produce more of the same. We are in a rut. Someone once said. A rut is simply a grave with the ends knocked out.
If we are too hands on in our approach I believe it reveals a lack of trust in God's ability to lead people and speak to them individually, leads to over dependance on leaders, and a welfare church where people are "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth"(2tim3:7). People will never learn how to hear God's voice personally if we are their ears.
Why dont we just trust God and let Him guide in more practical ways? FEAR or lack of understanding at the least. We fear people will make grave mistakes and believe herasies. This is a real danger but are we saying by our actions that God is incapable of handeling the crisis? He does not need to stand on our shoulders. Sometimes we are being manipulative and controlling in our Christian communities out of pure fear. People see this demonstration of a lack of faith. No wonder people dont want to become part of our Christian community. As far as lack of understanding, we believe it is our duty to take care of people younger in the faith. How noble of us. But why do we believ this. There is little evidence that Jesus did it this way. In fact He allowed people to make mistakes and stood by and watched. Then He leaves the earth at the most vulnerable time in the Christian movement. At Christ's death the disciples didn't get it really. Jesus left so the Holy Spirit could come. He passed the baton. We should do the same.
If alot of leaders left their ministry today the whole thing would fall apart because the ministry is built around one or a few leaders. It doesn't look like a real "body" at all. The ligaments are not supporting and the muscles are atrophied. We have created a welfare community that enables people to to rely on spiritual leaders instead of God Himself.
How does this affect discipleship? We do and say what we were taught to do and say. We produce more of the same. We are in a rut. Someone once said. A rut is simply a grave with the ends knocked out.