Skip navigation

Category Archives: faith

Be Not Afraid

1 Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them to the top of a very high mountain. 2 He was transformed in front of them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light.

3 Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Jesus. 4 Peter reacted to all of this by saying to Jesus, “Lord, it’s good that we’re here. If you want, I’ll make three shrines: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, look, a bright cloud overshadowed them. A voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son whom I dearly love. I am very pleased with him. Listen to him!” 6 Hearing this, the disciples fell on their faces, filled with awe.

7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Don’t tell anybody about the vision until the Human One is raised from the dead.”

Matthew 17:1-9 (CEB)

The above is the story of the Transfiguration, and it is often spoken of as an example of Jesus’ divinity. What struck me today was not the divinity of Jesus, but personableness of Jesus. The historic separation between God and Creation (even his treasured people, the Israelites) is pretty straightforward when on reads Exodus 19:18-25. The people (with exceptions) are to not even approach the metaphorical throne of God. We see God here as a distant God. When one comes face-to-face with God, as Moses did in Exodus 34:29-35, one is profoundly (and in Moses’ case, physically as well) changed, that separation is desired by those who have not been so touched, and graced, by God’s changing presence. In fact, in some ways, there seems to be a quiet desperation in the Israelites that says, Moses, you go take care of that God fellow. We’ll just stay here…away from Him…and you, by extension.

The three Apostles, Peter, James and John, immediately fall into the Israelite habit. The falling onto their faces, as much as it is a (deserved) act of homage, it is also an act of avoidance, similar to the game of peak-a-boo; I can’t see you, so you can’t see me. In the midst of all this, seeing Friends of God, hearing God’s voice, a blinding light, Jesus just says, “Get up.”

Hiding is no longer an option. On the other hand, there is no separation either.

 

Slandering & Evangelism

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another

Acts 19:35-18 (ESV)
I find it very interesting that the city manager had heard of Paul–if not heard Paul speak–and thus had either an opinion or a lot of information. Yet despite Paul preaching and teaching about Jesus, the city manager did not believe the goddess had been slandered. Of course, it could be that the city manager was trying to keep the peace (or regain it), but from what we know of Paul, it would seem that he somehow managed to speak the truth about Jesus the Christ without slandering other religions. Can we say the same?

I ask this with nothing in particular in mind, nor anyone. Even Paul’s famous speech on Mars Hill was respectful towards those with whom Paul disagreed. What makes this respectful stance of Paul very interesting (to me at least), is that he was the central villainous character earlier in Acts. He persecuted (quite violently) followers of  ”The Way” (the initial name for Christians). However, after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, his entire methodology changed.

It would seem that there are some lessons there.

Is There a Future for the Church of the Nazarene?

Let’s get the easy/hard stuff out of  the way. I LOVE my denomination. Okay, I love a lot of denominations, but I love mine. I do not love it over the Church, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Back on the 19th of September, I quoted Ed Stetzer (on Google+ & Facebook) regarding his views on the house church and mega-church models.

…I think that the megachurch is a growing trend and the house church is also a growing trend– at the same time. For what it is worth, I am excited about both. God has used the megachurch to reach Korea and the house church to reach China. Let’s hold our models loosely and our Jesus firmly.

Ed Stetzer

It was with great sadness that I read about Shaun King’s resignation from the Atlanta-based Courageous Church. It was an even heavier heart that I read his wife’s emotional response to the turmoil. I don’t know either Shaun or Rai King, but I can “hear” the breaking of their hearts. I also cannot help but feel that there was a tad bit of gloating over at Stories From the Revolutions: The Journal of the LK10 Community, but that really is an aside rather than the point. If Ed Stetzer is correct (and demographically, he probably is), what does that mean for a denomination like the Church of the Nazarene?

The Church of the Nazarene is a collection (in the United States, at least) of many churches, of many sizes. Most are not house churches (though, there are more every year, but still, not the fastest growing segment), nor are most mega-churches (though, we have a few of those, too). The Church of the Nazarene is primarily made up of churches with a population of 50 to 150. This range doesn’t fit into either “model”. As the demographics of the church head toward the “well-curve” of the house/mega-church extremes, where does a denomination that is more of a bell-curve fit?

It doesn’t. Ooops. I said it. We, the Church of the Nazarene, don’t fit.

I think I’m okay with that. No. I don’t think I’m okay with that, I am okay with that.

I don’t think the extreme of house/mega-church will last long, it really can’t. Neither one really fits American tendencies particularly well. They seem to, on the surface, but they have no particular balance. I could be wrong, but I do think the face of the American church will change…for the better. Mega-churches will have their mega-star pastors who hold their churches together by force of will or by almost in-human organizational skills (this, by the way, is a stereotype, and does not apply to all). House churches will rise and fall almost as much as breathing, especially as many (as shown far too often by history) will start to split/form based upon personalities and minor (and not-so minor) theological differences. Both seem (again, a stereotype) to be non-denominational either by intent or by nature, so there will often not be a larger body that can provide the balance that often seems to be needed to the local body.

For whatever reason, the Church of the Nazarene seems to live/survive/thrive between the extremes of house/mega-church. I strongly suspect that much of that is based upon our Holiness heritage. Much of what the mega-church seeks is a body driven to serve Christ in a huge way (at least in their words and mission statements). The Holy Spirit is the best driver of that, rather than human will and desire. The house church seeks/demands discipleship (rightfully so) of the body, but often seems to leave that to individual desire (not always bad), with little balance or boundaries (can lead to very bad things). The Holy Spirit brings those with open hearts to Christ to do His work in the world, shaping them more and more to be like Him. That is Holiness.

Once the dust settles, which it will, from the church-size wars, the Church of the Nazarene will still be here, preaching Holiness to His people who have been called and have answered, and preaching it to those called, but have yet to answer.

 

Loving Little

41“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.“

Luke 7:41-47
This was one of my passages this morning. I continually struggle—being a fairly stoic person—with my denomination’s (Church of the Nazarene) Pentecostal/Evangelical/Charismatic roots. In many ways the Lutheran tradition I left matched more of my personality. However, it isn’t supposed to be about my personality, but my faith.

What really struck me was that perhaps I don’t love God enough, because I haven’t been forgiven of enough. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? God’s son, Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life, willingly surrendered his life on the cross, rose to life after death, and I haven’t been forgiven enough? Everything that I did and will do has and will be forgiven as long as I put my faith in him. Yet, I haven’t been forgiven enough?

Perhaps I am not fully aware of everything that has been forgiven. Even worse, perhaps I am not aware of the depth of my depravity that God has forgiven. Now, here is the part that I struggle with, and many struggle with. I am intellectually aware of what Jesus Christ for me on the cross. However, emotionally I am often too distant from that intellectual assent.

The Pursuit of Happiness

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

Dangerous Questions

3And when David and his men came to the city, they found it burned with fire, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4Then David and the people who were with him raised their voices and wept until they had no more strength to weep. 5David’s two wives also had been taken captive, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 6And David was greatly distressed, for the people spoke of stoning him, because all the people were bitter in soul, each for his sons and daughters. But David strengthened himself in the LORD his God.

7And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, “Bring me the ephod.” So Abiathar brought the ephod to David. 8And David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I pursue after this band? Shall I overtake them?” He answered him, “Pursue, for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue.”

1 Samuel 30:3-8 (ESV)

I don’t know about you, but I have a gut reaction to David’s inquiry of God in regards making a rescue of the taken wives and children…Duh! Do you even have to ask? Why? Go for it! Go get them!. I’m sure someone would say, “of course I’d ask God first!” Hmm, somehow I doubt even the most devout would really do that when the rubber met the road.

Look at our reactions to tragedies (i.e., natural disasters, wars, crimes, etc.). We want to do something now. I suspect that this is a pretty universal reaction. Yet, David was willing to put his desires on hold to confirm that God’s will would be fulfilled by his rescue of those taken. God told him, go. Yet, David was taking the risk that God would say, “no”. That requires both commitment and a lot of faith. Granted, it is a mere philosophical question as to what David would have done had the answer been,”no”? However, it is worth pondering.

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 9:23 (ESV)

The Key is the Response to Community, part 2

(Please read part 1 first)
So, what light can this shine on our lives? Many things bind us together, some are voluntary, some are not. In the case of religion (or faith if the word “religion” bothers you), we do things together to (re)affirm our community. Circumcision was the earliest (and physically experienced) Jewish rite that affirmed community. However, things that seem similar to a certain rite (female circumcision, in this case) can actually have detrimental effects upon the community.
As Christians, we affirm our community through common worship, communion, and baptism. Baptism and communion are the primary “physical” modes to experience our communion with each other, but worship is a vital component as well. By experiencing the same things together, we forge a common identity, a voluntary community. Just as they could not be neglected in Old Testament times (for by doing so, one’s place within the community was threatened), they should not be neglected today.
This is not an old style versus contemporary versus whatever worship war that we’re talking about, but a communal and meaningful call to understand why we are together. However, the signs of communal worship (as defined by Jesus and the Apostles) are communion (with or without a common meal), baptism, and God’s Word (not, by the way, necessarily in that order).
We cannot be the church without understanding why we are the church, and what acts define the church.

Next Sermon: Save the Planet?

At Preaching.com, Jonathan Merritt wrote about the neglect of Creation Care in sermons. In his article, Preaching Gone Green: Why Pastors Should Address Creation Care, he makes some valid points about Creation Care. The biggest point is that right now there is a big disconnect between Christians and the environment.

One can (and I do) equally blame the blind stereotyping promulgated by the “Religious Right” and the “Environmentalist Left”. The sad part really is that the stereotyping is almost worst within the “sides.” In other words, if a person “within” the “Religious Right” starts to state their concern regarding the environment, they quickly become outsiders. The same occurs within the “Environmentalist Left”.

I suppose I should be prepared for when I do preach on it that I’ll be in trouble. Which is just sad.

The Key is the Response to Community

Leviticus 12 (ESV) seems to paint a pretty gender-biased view from our overly sensitive gender aware lives. In fact, it seems pretty anti-female. However, even the ESV Study Bible doesn’t say this, but actually aserts that since the text does not mention why, that it is too much inference. So, where does that leave us?

The mother is unclean (stated specifically) because of the blood that was a result of the birth. It is the sex of the baby that is crucial. Back a few generations, God commanded that a male baby be circumcised. That circumcision was to happen on the eighth day. For the sake of the continued adherence to the commandment of circumcision, the mother is not as unclean on the eighth day.

God did not command that girls be circumcised (a horrible and unjustifiable, in my Western opinion, mutilation of young girls that occurs today), but that boys must be. Therefore, it is my thought that the entire difference of the uncleanness of the mother due to gender is based not on gender per se, but on circumcision.

Circumcision was an outward sign of one’s membership in the nation set apart by God. Circumcision was a physical representation of one’s place in community. Circumcision was a testimony by the parents, family, and larger community, that the child was part of the family and their declaration that they were still followers of God.

It is the larger picture of community, and the vital role that circumcision played in it, that changes the unclean durations based upon the gender of the child. Community was survival, and still is today.

Breaching Faith With God, By Breaching Faith With Others

In Leviticus 5:17-19 (ESV) & Leviticus 6:2 (ESV), we see that God is ever present (i.e., omnipresent) in our lives. This includes, according to these two passages, when one fails to fulfill one’s obligations to others. This includes when one “finds” things that were “lost”.

When one’s obligations to others are not fulfilled, according to these two passages, one’s obligations (or relationship) to God is also unfulfilled. I’ve heard people say that as long as they keep their promises to God (really easy if none are made), everyone else does not matter. These two passages from Leviticus make the point that everyone else does matter. It is not just a one way relationship between the individual and God, but between the individual and other individuals. Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27, emphasize this in another way.

Just as God is present when the obligations between individuals are broken, God is present when love is spread between individuals:

35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 25:35-40 (ESV)

While love is displayed here in a certain way (and, I believe, taken out of the context of scripture by too many advocates of social justice), and doesn’t cover the entire scope of the “social contract” (including discipline), it shows that God is present between the interaction of all of His people. Thad does not mean that all are saved, or that all are doing the will of God, but that God is present no matter what.