Well if you are tracking with our most recent sermon series at all three campuses, you know we are all about some Netflix binging!
Here is a portion of the plot description that you can find on one of my favorite websites and most used phone apps...IMDB, "In a small town where everyone knows everyone, a peculiar incident starts a chain of events that leads to the disappearance of a child - which begins to tear at the fabric of an otherwise peaceful community. Dark government agencies and seemingly malevolent supernatural forces converge on the town, while a few locals begin to understand that there's more going on than meets the eye." At the time I pulled that quote, there were over 165k user reviews for this show and the average rating was 9.1 out to 10...which is historically high! Now be warned, the show can be creepy, evil, and disturbing. So if you are prone to nightmares, you may be living with EVERY light on in your house for a while...especially all the new Christmas lights!
I love this show because I believe it reminds us that just because something is strange doesn't mean it can't be real. In the series at the Newport News Campus, we are exploring some strange things in the Bible that I believe God wants to be our reality! They may belong in an "upside down world" but God's hope is that we will grow to both expect them and embrace them!
We started our study in 1 Corinthians 12. If you are interested in listening to those two opening messages, then you can use this link: City Life Podcast. Last week I was not able to finish our look into this amazing chapter and wanted to share my final thoughts to complete the teaching on this text.
In the first two weeks, we talked about how God wants us to expect and embrace a "strange voice" in our lives. That is the opening of 1 Corinthians 12. Paul is exhorting them and now us that we need people in our lives who love us enough to challenge and even when necessary bring correction. That feels strange if you aren't used to it but it is most certainly a vital part of any healthy spiritual family. I build trusting relationships at church so God can use me to help others and so I can have people I trust to help me. We also talked about a "strange expectation." This is where we worked through the list of nine results of grace that manifest God's reality in a supernatural way. I like the phrase results of grace because that is the true meaning of the word "gift" that appears in the text. But for simplicity sake, we call them: three gifts that reveal, three gifts that declare, and three gifts that command. Being a candidate for God to use to reveal Himself in a supernatural way feels strange, especially the first time we experience something otherworldly like the working of a miracle or a word of knowledge. We talked about a "strange reliance" that took us through verses 12 to 27. All ministry begins by learning how to serve one another as part of the same body. Mutual dependence is not easy for us; it feels strange. We like to champion this idea of rugged independence! You will never be fully complete until you connect your life to others in a covenantal community called the local church and there is a local church out there somewhere that will be forever incomplete until you show up!
The point we never reached is a "strange deference." Take a minute to read 1 Corinthians 12:28-30. Remember, Paul has already given us an outline for this chapter in verses four through six. Here he is shifting gears into part three of this chapter in talking about a "varieties of activities" that he connects to God. (If you recall, he connected a "varieties of gifts" to the Holy Spirit and a "varieties of ministries" to Jesus). I believe what Paul is trying to communicate to us here is that if the activity of church is not directed by the activity of leaders who ensure order then chaos will soon be present which is why Paul is having to write this letter to Corinth...they are a chaotic church! Paul is assuming that you have read the preceding verses. His use of "first, second, and third" are to say all of these three are examples of directive leaders in a church. We know this from connecting this text to Ephesians 4, which Paul also wrote. Paul believes in the principle of directive leaders (which I also call nucleus leaders or senior leaders). And these numbers are not to be interpreted as an order of importance. It is simply three offices in a church whose primary activity is to bring healthy authority. The emphasis should not be placed on the unique role that apostles, prophets, or teachers carry out. That is more related to the "varieties of ministries." The emphasis should be placed on their specific activity of being directive leaders. This is why we have this portion of the chapter connected to God because He reminds us of the need for the presence of a directive authority. Again, Paul assumes you have read the whole chapter so when the verses shift in the NKJV with the use of "after that" and "then" Paul is pulling examples from both of the two former lists. He gives us some examples of "varieties of gifts" and "varieties of ministries." He is saying that what makes a church a safe place for these former two lists of "varieties" is the activity of directive leaders. It can be strange for people to allow others to be in a place of spiritual authority in their life. Although I am a nucleus, directive leader now, that has not always been the case. Many of my years in church were benefitting from the direction of elders and other senior leaders. They created order, defined vision, created ministries, set the pace in giving, exemplified Christ, cared for people in crisis, and invested in others who might one day walk in their shoes. I can't imagine what my formative years as a Christian would have been like without them. Leaders can never demand this relationship from people. They can make demands of people and sometimes that is necessary but those demands are never fruitful unless the person being directed has already embraced that person's authority in their life.
Verse 29 is basically a synopsis verse for everything that preceded before. Every person matters. Every ministry is important. Every role is essential. The family of God is made complete when each part does it's work in love...again, the great partner text here is Ephesians 4. Remember, even though I am constantly referring to verses and chapters, this was originally a letter. It did not have verses and chapters. Verses and chapters aid our study but sometimes they break the flow of the original text. Verse 31 is supposed to flow right into chapter 13...where Paul reminds us that love must be the defining aspect of any church culture. And love is not the only standard...all of chapter 13 points to every other portion of Scripture that demands of us the character of Christ. And when we find ourselves immersed in a healthy community of people called the local church, we are able to challenge one another to that end...so let's be a little "strange" together!
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Divergent - Politics of 2016
Frustrated, disappointed, angry, sad, and embarrassed are all words that best describe my reaction to the 2016 Presidential race. I am not speaking of any candidate in particular nor any one political party. These feelings are the result of what I believe to be the root of the dissension and frustration in the entire elective process.
In 2014, the first in a book series by Veronica Roth became a successful film at the box office -- Divergent. Her blog describes Divergent this way: "In Beatrice Prior's dystopian Chicago, society is divided into five factions, each dedicated to the cultivation of a particular virtue—Candor (the honest), Abnegation (the selfless), Dauntless (the brave), Amity (the peaceful), and Erudite (the intelligent). On an appointed day of every year, all sixteen-year-olds must select the faction to which they will devote the rest of their lives..." If you have read the books or seen the movies you know that once an adolescent chooses a certain faction, they must serve that virtue for the remainder of their lives. For example, if I am Amity, I will never be allowed to work or serve in any role that is assigned to the faction or class of Erudite. What makes these fictional stories so compelling is the contrast to our society where we celebrate and cherish our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as so courageously penned in our Declaration of Independence. America is a great nation because we champion the right of self-determination...unless we are talking about politics.
One of the distinctive differences between the Republican and Democratic primary process is the presence of super-delegates in the Democratic Party. Both parties are well into their respective primaries whereby citizens in each state have the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice. In an effort to simplify this process, think of it this way. The number of votes a candidate receives correlates into points. The Republican candidate must amass a total of 1237 and the Democratic candidate 2383. These points are called delegates because they are actual people.
At each party's convention this summer, every state will send delegates/representatives to select a candidate that will run for the office of President. And while both party's rules vary, the expectation is that these delegates will vote at the convention based on how their state voted in the primary. For example, in Virginia's primary, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by approximately 65% to 35%. So she was assigned 62 delegates and Sanders was assigned 33 delegates from Virginia. If both candidates are still in the race by the Democratic convention, those delegates will vote for their assigned candidate. The Republican party operates in a similar fashion. However, if there were two candidates still in the Republican race at the time of the convention, the only delegates who are allowed to vote are those sent by the states. And those delegates sent by the states vote according to results determined solely by the voters. However, if there is more than one ballot, then the rules begin to change so that a candidate can ultimately be selected. But the first ballot is clear, delegates sent by states represent the will of the people as expressed through their vote in the individual state primaries.
So back to super-delegates. If you are interested in a more complete history of super-delegates you can see this article by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. There are 712 super-delegates. These individuals are major elected officials, notable party figures, and select leaders of organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Convention (definitions by Becca Stanek). Their support is not dictated by the voters. They are allowed to choose which Democratic candidate to support. Now you have to decide which process you prefer. For me, I always want a process that has the opportunity to be determined solely by the outcome of voters.
The former Democratic Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt said the following in November of 1981, "We must also give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice." I'm not sure how the voters' mandate can be anything but clear. People vote and margins are based on math and a winner is declared. Really what Governor Hunt was saying is that sometimes the voter is not savvy enough to pick the right candidate and we the political elite must step in to protect the general public from themselves. Is it possible for no single candidate to gain enough delegates to be selected? It is certainly possible in the Republican Party. In that case, there are rules that guide the process forward so a candidate can be selected. But what the Democratic Party has done through the creation of super-delegates is to never give the voters of their party an opportunity to express a clear mandate.
We have factions. They are not formalized factions like Veronica Roth's novels but they exist and they are powerful influences in our society. And I believe one of those factions is the faction of the political elite. The presence of super-delegates is a clear example. 712 of the 2383 delegates that choose the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States are not bound by the vote of citizens. This concerns me. The will of the people can be thwarted. As of this morning, Hillary Clinton has earned 1,716 delegates through the voting of citizens. Bernie Sanders has earned 1,433 delegates through the voting of citizens. So when you hear news outlets continue to report that it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination for his party, doesn't that surprise you? The will of the people has yet to be determined. In an article by Huffington Post yesterday, Bernie Sanders has won 19 of 25 State primaries/caucuses and is only a few hundred thousand votes behind in the popular vote which is a small margin given how many votes have been cast. Both he and Hillary Clinton are tied in National polls for their party. But super-delegates swing heavily in her favor, people who are not bound by the will of voters.
I am equally concerned for the Republican Party. There are no super-delegates in the Republican Party. But there is a faction of political elites that should be equally disturbing to us. When former Presidents and their families publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. When candidates who ran but lost publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. When elected officials publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. Oh they are going to say it violates their conscience or their position is because of their personal integrity...they lie. They are the political elite. They are a part of the class of people in our society who have been controlling the political process for decades. And now someone who is not part of their "faction" is trespassing. They should be ashamed of themselves. Their withholding of support has nothing to do with character. They are spoiled elites who are pouting about their loss of control or they are political candidates posturing in a way they believe better positions them for future elections...or both!
Regardless of how you may feel about any of the candidates in this year's Presidential race, champion and protect the foundation of our political system...a free elective process whereby the will of the people is expressed at the polls. Do not support the political elites who seek to control outcomes and derail the will of voters. Be wise and recognize when media outlets who are supposed to be journalists stop reporting the narrative and begin creating their own narrative. Don't be naive. Both conservative and liberal media outlets are pushing an agenda and that agenda is the profitability of their respective brands. In addition, many of them are just as much a part of this "faction" of the political elites as the candidates themselves.
I'm for a faction free world. I don't want to live in Veronica Roth's dystopian society. May we never stop being these people, which people? "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Pastor Fred
In 2014, the first in a book series by Veronica Roth became a successful film at the box office -- Divergent. Her blog describes Divergent this way: "In Beatrice Prior's dystopian Chicago, society is divided into five factions, each dedicated to the cultivation of a particular virtue—Candor (the honest), Abnegation (the selfless), Dauntless (the brave), Amity (the peaceful), and Erudite (the intelligent). On an appointed day of every year, all sixteen-year-olds must select the faction to which they will devote the rest of their lives..." If you have read the books or seen the movies you know that once an adolescent chooses a certain faction, they must serve that virtue for the remainder of their lives. For example, if I am Amity, I will never be allowed to work or serve in any role that is assigned to the faction or class of Erudite. What makes these fictional stories so compelling is the contrast to our society where we celebrate and cherish our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as so courageously penned in our Declaration of Independence. America is a great nation because we champion the right of self-determination...unless we are talking about politics.
One of the distinctive differences between the Republican and Democratic primary process is the presence of super-delegates in the Democratic Party. Both parties are well into their respective primaries whereby citizens in each state have the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice. In an effort to simplify this process, think of it this way. The number of votes a candidate receives correlates into points. The Republican candidate must amass a total of 1237 and the Democratic candidate 2383. These points are called delegates because they are actual people.
At each party's convention this summer, every state will send delegates/representatives to select a candidate that will run for the office of President. And while both party's rules vary, the expectation is that these delegates will vote at the convention based on how their state voted in the primary. For example, in Virginia's primary, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by approximately 65% to 35%. So she was assigned 62 delegates and Sanders was assigned 33 delegates from Virginia. If both candidates are still in the race by the Democratic convention, those delegates will vote for their assigned candidate. The Republican party operates in a similar fashion. However, if there were two candidates still in the Republican race at the time of the convention, the only delegates who are allowed to vote are those sent by the states. And those delegates sent by the states vote according to results determined solely by the voters. However, if there is more than one ballot, then the rules begin to change so that a candidate can ultimately be selected. But the first ballot is clear, delegates sent by states represent the will of the people as expressed through their vote in the individual state primaries.
So back to super-delegates. If you are interested in a more complete history of super-delegates you can see this article by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. There are 712 super-delegates. These individuals are major elected officials, notable party figures, and select leaders of organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Convention (definitions by Becca Stanek). Their support is not dictated by the voters. They are allowed to choose which Democratic candidate to support. Now you have to decide which process you prefer. For me, I always want a process that has the opportunity to be determined solely by the outcome of voters.
The former Democratic Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt said the following in November of 1981, "We must also give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice." I'm not sure how the voters' mandate can be anything but clear. People vote and margins are based on math and a winner is declared. Really what Governor Hunt was saying is that sometimes the voter is not savvy enough to pick the right candidate and we the political elite must step in to protect the general public from themselves. Is it possible for no single candidate to gain enough delegates to be selected? It is certainly possible in the Republican Party. In that case, there are rules that guide the process forward so a candidate can be selected. But what the Democratic Party has done through the creation of super-delegates is to never give the voters of their party an opportunity to express a clear mandate.
We have factions. They are not formalized factions like Veronica Roth's novels but they exist and they are powerful influences in our society. And I believe one of those factions is the faction of the political elite. The presence of super-delegates is a clear example. 712 of the 2383 delegates that choose the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States are not bound by the vote of citizens. This concerns me. The will of the people can be thwarted. As of this morning, Hillary Clinton has earned 1,716 delegates through the voting of citizens. Bernie Sanders has earned 1,433 delegates through the voting of citizens. So when you hear news outlets continue to report that it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination for his party, doesn't that surprise you? The will of the people has yet to be determined. In an article by Huffington Post yesterday, Bernie Sanders has won 19 of 25 State primaries/caucuses and is only a few hundred thousand votes behind in the popular vote which is a small margin given how many votes have been cast. Both he and Hillary Clinton are tied in National polls for their party. But super-delegates swing heavily in her favor, people who are not bound by the will of voters.
I am equally concerned for the Republican Party. There are no super-delegates in the Republican Party. But there is a faction of political elites that should be equally disturbing to us. When former Presidents and their families publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. When candidates who ran but lost publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. When elected officials publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite. Oh they are going to say it violates their conscience or their position is because of their personal integrity...they lie. They are the political elite. They are a part of the class of people in our society who have been controlling the political process for decades. And now someone who is not part of their "faction" is trespassing. They should be ashamed of themselves. Their withholding of support has nothing to do with character. They are spoiled elites who are pouting about their loss of control or they are political candidates posturing in a way they believe better positions them for future elections...or both!
Regardless of how you may feel about any of the candidates in this year's Presidential race, champion and protect the foundation of our political system...a free elective process whereby the will of the people is expressed at the polls. Do not support the political elites who seek to control outcomes and derail the will of voters. Be wise and recognize when media outlets who are supposed to be journalists stop reporting the narrative and begin creating their own narrative. Don't be naive. Both conservative and liberal media outlets are pushing an agenda and that agenda is the profitability of their respective brands. In addition, many of them are just as much a part of this "faction" of the political elites as the candidates themselves.
I'm for a faction free world. I don't want to live in Veronica Roth's dystopian society. May we never stop being these people, which people? "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Pastor Fred
Thursday, March 17, 2016
An Answer to Prayer
Do you remember your first prayer? Not the first time you memorized, "Now I lay me down to sleep..." and not even those meaningful prayers you may have prayed at bedtime as a child. I'm asking for you to recall that first time you cried out to God in desperation. I'm asking you to remember that first time you faced a situation so overwhelming that it exposed the magnitude of your human limitations and left you in a place of frenzied faith for divine intervention. Do you remember that time?
I do. I was eleven. My mom was well into her pregnancy with my brother. I remember my mom being in her room and dad was on the phone calling people on the phone to come to the house. I'll never forget the expression on his face. It is the only time I ever remember seeing my dad afraid. Neighbors came rushing over, mom was helped into a car that raced off to the hospital. They told me and my sister (13) that everything was going to be okay and that we should go back to bed. It was one of those moments as a child when you realized that adults lie.
September of that year my brother was born after months of my mom being on bed rest. I know scores of people were praying that night. No Facebook in 1978, just the telephone! Churches then had prayer chains. You were assigned people to call to notify them of a prayer need whenever you were called...I think all of Varina's phones were ringing that night! I made a call too, my first prayer.
I was in bed crying, afraid, I saw the look on everyone's face. Was that going to be the last time I ever saw my mom? Was she going to die? Was my brother/sister going to die? I found my prayer voice that night. And although my prayer life went through what should probably be referred to as the silent years during the debauchery of my high school and college life, that first prayer has now become a life of prayer. And God answered.
As I was praying for North Riverside Baptist Church on Wednesday, March 16th for their impending vote to invite City Life to join them at their church here on 311 Selden Road, God reminded me of that night in 1978. Faith builds in our hearts when we recall the times from our past when God heard our cry! Think of all the times God has intervened on your behalf! Think of all the answers to prayer God has graciously given to you! Think of all the times you have posted on Facebook, called a friend, shared at church, cried with your family...because of an answer to prayer!
But what if you could be an answer to prayer for God? What would that be like? Even though we call Matthew 6:9-13 The Lord's Prayer, this is really our prayer. This is Jesus teaching us to pray. But Jesus does have a prayer. But that prayer is in John 17. Look at verses 20 and 21. Jesus says this prayer is for us, for all future Christians. And what does He pray? In verse 21 He prays for unity. City Life has a vision for multi-church campuses for one central reason. We want to be an answer to Jesus' prayer just as He is so often an answer to ours! When NRBC voted in the affirmative last night, Jesus pointed at 311 Selden Road and told all of Heaven that another room full of Godly people answered His prayer!
I know there will be dissenters. There will always be people who are not able to see past their own superficial, personal preferences...people who only ever want answers to prayer but never willing to make the kind of sacrifices necessary to be an answer to prayer, not even for Jesus. I love how this decision for City Life to join NRBC and form a new multi-church campus here in the 757 is just weeks before Easter as we celebrate Jesus' greatest of sacrifices! It's never wrong to question. It's never wrong to be honest about your concerns. It's never wrong to share your fears, your reluctance. But God expects us to work through the reaction that comes from our humanity and feel the eternal part of who we are deep within beginning to resonate with the call of the Holy Spirit within us saying, "Be an answer to Jesus' prayer!"
City Life has never had 24/7 access to a facility before. We have never had a campus where all of our operations were in one central location. I believe God is going to give some of you dreams for new ministries, dreams that are going to be possible now because there is a place for those ministries to begin. For example, we have never been able to do conference type ministry that starts on a Friday night and culminates with our Saturday night service. We've dreamed for years of encounter type weekends where people can come for extended times of prayer and worship. How about being able to baptize people...during our weekend worship service!
There is triple the parking capacity here compared to The Mosaic and a building with endless classroom space, phenomenal nursery, youth rooms, a commercial kitchen, and a fellowship hall that can accommodate our entire campus. The sanctuary can seat 400 people which means our NN Campus can double in size. There is also a budget to renovate the existing chapel for our weekly youth service on Wednesday nights! I know from the picture I posted to Facebook yesterday of the existing sanctuary you see a worship space that is quite different from what you are accustomed to seeing on Saturday nights. But once the renovation is complete which includes $70,000 in theatrical lighting, a stage redesign, $20,000 in sound upgrades, and all the technicals support systems necessary to provide a modern worship experience, you are going to fall in love with this sanctuary!
Jesus prayed. Will you be an answer to prayer?
Pastor Fred
I do. I was eleven. My mom was well into her pregnancy with my brother. I remember my mom being in her room and dad was on the phone calling people on the phone to come to the house. I'll never forget the expression on his face. It is the only time I ever remember seeing my dad afraid. Neighbors came rushing over, mom was helped into a car that raced off to the hospital. They told me and my sister (13) that everything was going to be okay and that we should go back to bed. It was one of those moments as a child when you realized that adults lie.
September of that year my brother was born after months of my mom being on bed rest. I know scores of people were praying that night. No Facebook in 1978, just the telephone! Churches then had prayer chains. You were assigned people to call to notify them of a prayer need whenever you were called...I think all of Varina's phones were ringing that night! I made a call too, my first prayer.
I was in bed crying, afraid, I saw the look on everyone's face. Was that going to be the last time I ever saw my mom? Was she going to die? Was my brother/sister going to die? I found my prayer voice that night. And although my prayer life went through what should probably be referred to as the silent years during the debauchery of my high school and college life, that first prayer has now become a life of prayer. And God answered.
As I was praying for North Riverside Baptist Church on Wednesday, March 16th for their impending vote to invite City Life to join them at their church here on 311 Selden Road, God reminded me of that night in 1978. Faith builds in our hearts when we recall the times from our past when God heard our cry! Think of all the times God has intervened on your behalf! Think of all the answers to prayer God has graciously given to you! Think of all the times you have posted on Facebook, called a friend, shared at church, cried with your family...because of an answer to prayer!
But what if you could be an answer to prayer for God? What would that be like? Even though we call Matthew 6:9-13 The Lord's Prayer, this is really our prayer. This is Jesus teaching us to pray. But Jesus does have a prayer. But that prayer is in John 17. Look at verses 20 and 21. Jesus says this prayer is for us, for all future Christians. And what does He pray? In verse 21 He prays for unity. City Life has a vision for multi-church campuses for one central reason. We want to be an answer to Jesus' prayer just as He is so often an answer to ours! When NRBC voted in the affirmative last night, Jesus pointed at 311 Selden Road and told all of Heaven that another room full of Godly people answered His prayer!
I know there will be dissenters. There will always be people who are not able to see past their own superficial, personal preferences...people who only ever want answers to prayer but never willing to make the kind of sacrifices necessary to be an answer to prayer, not even for Jesus. I love how this decision for City Life to join NRBC and form a new multi-church campus here in the 757 is just weeks before Easter as we celebrate Jesus' greatest of sacrifices! It's never wrong to question. It's never wrong to be honest about your concerns. It's never wrong to share your fears, your reluctance. But God expects us to work through the reaction that comes from our humanity and feel the eternal part of who we are deep within beginning to resonate with the call of the Holy Spirit within us saying, "Be an answer to Jesus' prayer!"
City Life has never had 24/7 access to a facility before. We have never had a campus where all of our operations were in one central location. I believe God is going to give some of you dreams for new ministries, dreams that are going to be possible now because there is a place for those ministries to begin. For example, we have never been able to do conference type ministry that starts on a Friday night and culminates with our Saturday night service. We've dreamed for years of encounter type weekends where people can come for extended times of prayer and worship. How about being able to baptize people...during our weekend worship service!
There is triple the parking capacity here compared to The Mosaic and a building with endless classroom space, phenomenal nursery, youth rooms, a commercial kitchen, and a fellowship hall that can accommodate our entire campus. The sanctuary can seat 400 people which means our NN Campus can double in size. There is also a budget to renovate the existing chapel for our weekly youth service on Wednesday nights! I know from the picture I posted to Facebook yesterday of the existing sanctuary you see a worship space that is quite different from what you are accustomed to seeing on Saturday nights. But once the renovation is complete which includes $70,000 in theatrical lighting, a stage redesign, $20,000 in sound upgrades, and all the technicals support systems necessary to provide a modern worship experience, you are going to fall in love with this sanctuary!
Jesus prayed. Will you be an answer to prayer?
Pastor Fred
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Jesus' Costume
I read a post to FB this morning that has inspired me to share an apologetic on why I believe Halloween for Christians is something to consider. I think that if Jesus were here in bodily form, He would be out there with us. Besides, He likes the whole idea of costumes...remember that one time He came into the world dressed like a person? How great was that! And then when He was on the Mount of Transfiguration and Peter, James, and John saw Him without His costume...what a day! I'm convinced too His teaching about what goes into our mouths doesn't defile us. I wish I had better Bible knowledge as a child...I would have shared that text with my parents on Halloween and Easter when they said I couldn't have any more candy!
The post I read had a great point. Let's stop comparing Christians celebrating Halloween with Christmas and Easter. Those aren't fair comparisons. I agree. Although many Christian holidays have pagan influences, Christmas and Easter are now fully Christian. There are no other two holidays more sacred to Christians than Jesus' birth and His resurrection. Even if their origins have to own some fault for pagan assimilation, today those holidays have one focus for us as devoted followers of Jesus...Him! We cannot let the history that is behind us rob us of the opportunity we have to make the history that is before us! And the history that is before us is desperate for devoted followers of Jesus to glorify His name! From someone who has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, people turn their attention to God on those two holidays! I know the Holy Spirit is always working in every life to bring them to Jesus and those two holidays create moments for His seeds to find good soil!
I believe people's reluctance to celebrate whatever you want to call 10/31 is born out of two streams of thought. The first is that it violates someone's conscience. I understand that. We all need to understand that. Scripture is clear in it's division of sin. There are moral issues. Those things that are wrong for all people for all time, without exception. There are matters of conscience which are things that are wrong for one person but not for someone else. The Apostle Paul used certain dietary restrictions as an example of this. Then there are forgoing liberties. This is where the Apostle Paul, on more than one occasion, talks about our need as Christians to forgo liberties if in exercising that liberty we may cause another to stumble in temptation. For example, if you are having dinner with a recovering alcoholic, you should not have that favorite glass of wine with your meal. This is the first reason there is conflict with Halloween, in two ways. The first way is found in the name used. We don't avoid the use of "Halloween" because we are ashamed of our activities. We don't use that name because we don't want to unnecessarily offend. This isn't being politically correct or white washing our sin...it's being sensitive to others which quite frankly needs to be more abundant in the Christian community! The second way is that people who don't celebrate Halloween because it violates their conscience need to be respected, honored, and celebrated. But those same people need to stop trying to justify their abstaining by making this a moral issue. I have a definition of unity I like to teach. Unity is when absolute commonalities transcend relative dissimilarities. We need to agree on absolutes and hold them in common. We also need to agree on what is relative and embrace how we are dissimilar. When we force those things that are relative (matters of conscience and forgoing liberties) into the category of morality, we create legalism. When we force those things that are absolute into the category of relative, we create permissiveness. If you have come out of a background of the occult, some sort of satan worship, or used to get falling down drunk and stupid on Halloween and celebrating that day now in any way, even if your celebration now is wholesome, creates a feeling of conviction in your heart then most certainly, respect your conscience!
This post I read today also used comparison like orgies or naked group dancing around a fire...all pagan practices. That we would not do those things and defend them as Christians. No we wouldn't. I prefer to do my naked fire dancing in private...just kidding! I can't even dance clothed! But just in the same way you don't like unfair comparisons like with Christmas and Easter, neither do we. All those examples in and of themselves are immoral. Sex outside of marriage, sexual immodesty...all of those are wrong regardless of the reason. Halloween for Christians who are celebrating community, having fun as a family, reaching out to their neighbors, using it to tell people about Jesus like we do at City Life...those are all virtuous, noble Christian actions. Just because other people are using this night to celebrate evil does not undermine why we are celebrating. Just because it is historically evil also does not taint the virtuous reasons we celebrate today. If anything, because other people are using this night to celebrate evil is all the more reason we should be out there celebrating righteousness and life fully devoted to Jesus! Those comparisons are born out of a need for people who have a legitimate matter of conscience objection but want to press it inappropriately into the category of morality.
Okay, here is the second stream of thought among Christians about Halloween. As I was reading the Bible this morning, I found myself in Luke 14. The chapter begins with Jesus healing on the Sabbath much to the anger of the religious leaders there. These conflicts with Jesus and the religious establishment were related to what is referred to as traditions of the elders. These were restrictions that were not specifically called for in the Mosaic Law but were born out of rabbinical interpretation. For example, because working was prohibited in the Sabbath, a person with a tooth ache could not rinse their mouth with vinegar and spit it out because that would be practicing medicine and is working. You could however rinse and swallow because that fell under the category of eating. There were limits on how far you could walk...which is why you find in Scripture the phrase "a Sabbath days journey" to communicate distance...people of Jesus' day knew how far that would be, based on these traditional restrictions. Jesus' frustration with the religious establishment was that they viewed God as a God who took pleasure in denial. This same view point gave birth to the failed experiment of Monasticism. Does God have boundaries...yes! But His boundaries are only for the purpose of releasing us into more liberty! Wasn't it Jesus who said in John 10 that He came so we could have life to the fullest possible measure? Many Christians today find an unhealthy fulfillment in denial. I'm all for denial that is virtuous. But I would humbly suggest that many of the people who feel the need to take hard stance against Christian families having fun tonight in an effort to honor God would have complained about Jesus violating the traditional Sabbath, not following washing rituals, parties He attended, and disciples He chose. Liberty is a celebrated virtue of Christianity and one that we must not lose.
I hope this helps bring some clarity to why people can't seem to agree on this issue. We don't need to agree...that is a beautiful aspect of the Christian faith that makes Jesus so very different from the rest!
Pastor Fred
The post I read had a great point. Let's stop comparing Christians celebrating Halloween with Christmas and Easter. Those aren't fair comparisons. I agree. Although many Christian holidays have pagan influences, Christmas and Easter are now fully Christian. There are no other two holidays more sacred to Christians than Jesus' birth and His resurrection. Even if their origins have to own some fault for pagan assimilation, today those holidays have one focus for us as devoted followers of Jesus...Him! We cannot let the history that is behind us rob us of the opportunity we have to make the history that is before us! And the history that is before us is desperate for devoted followers of Jesus to glorify His name! From someone who has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, people turn their attention to God on those two holidays! I know the Holy Spirit is always working in every life to bring them to Jesus and those two holidays create moments for His seeds to find good soil!
I believe people's reluctance to celebrate whatever you want to call 10/31 is born out of two streams of thought. The first is that it violates someone's conscience. I understand that. We all need to understand that. Scripture is clear in it's division of sin. There are moral issues. Those things that are wrong for all people for all time, without exception. There are matters of conscience which are things that are wrong for one person but not for someone else. The Apostle Paul used certain dietary restrictions as an example of this. Then there are forgoing liberties. This is where the Apostle Paul, on more than one occasion, talks about our need as Christians to forgo liberties if in exercising that liberty we may cause another to stumble in temptation. For example, if you are having dinner with a recovering alcoholic, you should not have that favorite glass of wine with your meal. This is the first reason there is conflict with Halloween, in two ways. The first way is found in the name used. We don't avoid the use of "Halloween" because we are ashamed of our activities. We don't use that name because we don't want to unnecessarily offend. This isn't being politically correct or white washing our sin...it's being sensitive to others which quite frankly needs to be more abundant in the Christian community! The second way is that people who don't celebrate Halloween because it violates their conscience need to be respected, honored, and celebrated. But those same people need to stop trying to justify their abstaining by making this a moral issue. I have a definition of unity I like to teach. Unity is when absolute commonalities transcend relative dissimilarities. We need to agree on absolutes and hold them in common. We also need to agree on what is relative and embrace how we are dissimilar. When we force those things that are relative (matters of conscience and forgoing liberties) into the category of morality, we create legalism. When we force those things that are absolute into the category of relative, we create permissiveness. If you have come out of a background of the occult, some sort of satan worship, or used to get falling down drunk and stupid on Halloween and celebrating that day now in any way, even if your celebration now is wholesome, creates a feeling of conviction in your heart then most certainly, respect your conscience!
This post I read today also used comparison like orgies or naked group dancing around a fire...all pagan practices. That we would not do those things and defend them as Christians. No we wouldn't. I prefer to do my naked fire dancing in private...just kidding! I can't even dance clothed! But just in the same way you don't like unfair comparisons like with Christmas and Easter, neither do we. All those examples in and of themselves are immoral. Sex outside of marriage, sexual immodesty...all of those are wrong regardless of the reason. Halloween for Christians who are celebrating community, having fun as a family, reaching out to their neighbors, using it to tell people about Jesus like we do at City Life...those are all virtuous, noble Christian actions. Just because other people are using this night to celebrate evil does not undermine why we are celebrating. Just because it is historically evil also does not taint the virtuous reasons we celebrate today. If anything, because other people are using this night to celebrate evil is all the more reason we should be out there celebrating righteousness and life fully devoted to Jesus! Those comparisons are born out of a need for people who have a legitimate matter of conscience objection but want to press it inappropriately into the category of morality.
Okay, here is the second stream of thought among Christians about Halloween. As I was reading the Bible this morning, I found myself in Luke 14. The chapter begins with Jesus healing on the Sabbath much to the anger of the religious leaders there. These conflicts with Jesus and the religious establishment were related to what is referred to as traditions of the elders. These were restrictions that were not specifically called for in the Mosaic Law but were born out of rabbinical interpretation. For example, because working was prohibited in the Sabbath, a person with a tooth ache could not rinse their mouth with vinegar and spit it out because that would be practicing medicine and is working. You could however rinse and swallow because that fell under the category of eating. There were limits on how far you could walk...which is why you find in Scripture the phrase "a Sabbath days journey" to communicate distance...people of Jesus' day knew how far that would be, based on these traditional restrictions. Jesus' frustration with the religious establishment was that they viewed God as a God who took pleasure in denial. This same view point gave birth to the failed experiment of Monasticism. Does God have boundaries...yes! But His boundaries are only for the purpose of releasing us into more liberty! Wasn't it Jesus who said in John 10 that He came so we could have life to the fullest possible measure? Many Christians today find an unhealthy fulfillment in denial. I'm all for denial that is virtuous. But I would humbly suggest that many of the people who feel the need to take hard stance against Christian families having fun tonight in an effort to honor God would have complained about Jesus violating the traditional Sabbath, not following washing rituals, parties He attended, and disciples He chose. Liberty is a celebrated virtue of Christianity and one that we must not lose.
I hope this helps bring some clarity to why people can't seem to agree on this issue. We don't need to agree...that is a beautiful aspect of the Christian faith that makes Jesus so very different from the rest!
Pastor Fred
Thursday, October 29, 2015
My Mind Didn't Change (part 3)
This is the third and final post for this series. I hope that it has accomplished two things: inspired you to read and study the view points of those with whom you disagree and has equipped you with knowledge to better understand the serious cultural changes happening in society with regards to marriage and sexuality. Thank you for reading and if this topic interests you then please take the time to read through the LGBTQI series which is a much more exhaustive look at this subject.
I want to address two other parts of Gushee's book. They are both found in the chapter entitled Creation, Sexual Orientation and God's Will. On my iPad (horizontal) the first is on pages 298 and 299. He sites again the percentage of people who identify with the LGBTQI community as being 3.4 to 5 percent of the population. Then, he fairly estimates this number to be 2 percent if we remove bisexual and what he refers to as "some measure of sexual-orientation fluidity." His point is that 2 percent of the population who long for romantic relationships, meaningful life partnership, are denied this basic human need by those of us who believe Scripture prohibits same gender romantic relationships. Listen to this quote from Gushee, "These phenomena, embodied by real people, exist. How are we to integrate these stubborn facts with Scripture, while responding compassionately to the real human beings in front of us?"
I find that quote terribly troubling. The suggestion is that because people are at odds with Scripture then some sort of accommodation should be made. What? Isn't that the nature of Scripture? We submit our lives to the text! Gushee is clever. He knows to blatantly suggest such a thing would be borderline heresy so what does he do? He points out that mankind has a proven history of misinterpreting the Bible. One, he rightly reminds us that people used to believe the earth was at the center of our planetary system and inappropriately used Scripture to support their claim. His second example is less certain. I think old earth vs. new earth is still a debate that is evenly championed in the Christian community. But Gushee offers this as another example, suggesting that the earth is billions of years old and that Christians have inappropriately used the Bible to suggest otherwise. His point? Our interpretation of Scripture has been flawed and could very well be flawed with the issue of a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships.
This is my concern with his comparison. The Bible is not given to us for scientific purposes. Do I believe in the historicity of Scripture, yes. Do I believe the Bible will never contradict valid scientific conclusions, yes. But these two examples used by Gushee are not prominent themes taken up by Scripture. Where are the texts that God provides in Scripture that speak to a direct prohibition against anyone who will not accept a heliocentric planetary system? Where are the texts that speak to a direct prohibition against anyone who will not accept an old earth point of view? They don't exist, because my scientific conclusions do not affect my relationship with God but my moral practice most certainly does! Scripture has a plentiful collection of texts that speaks directly to sexuality and marriage.
My final point is found on page 311 of this same chapter (iPad horizontal). Listen to this appalling quote. "If we live in a Genesis 3 world, and not a Genesis 1-2 world, this undoubtedly means that everyone's sexuality is sinful, broken and disordered, just like everything else about us." I find this disturbing because of his misuse of truth. Yes. We are all broken and sinful, saved by God's grace alone. But to use this truth as permission giving for people to not bring their sexuality into submission to Biblical boundaries is inexcusable. He says later that "no one's sexually is innocent." We are not innocent in any way. But forgiveness is not permission to abandon all efforts to Biblical conformity. He is suggesting that because every person his flawed, no one should challenge the lifestyle of another...good thing the Apostle Paul didn't read this book or most of the New Testament would be missing!
I do have one partial praise for Gushee. He does hold firm on the Biblical mandate that all sexual relationships should only be within a covenantal marriage. My disappointment is clearly that he believes marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman. But I am glad to see that he does not give permission for promiscuity. However, if I were to apply all his arguments for permitting same gender romantic relationships against his position for "covenantal-marriage ethics" he would have to yield that ground. Once you undermine the authority of Scripture and the divine authorship of Scripture, you have lost all moral foundation. This is where Gushee leads us.
I hope this series has been meaningful, informative, and inspiring...keep reading!
Pastor Fred
I want to address two other parts of Gushee's book. They are both found in the chapter entitled Creation, Sexual Orientation and God's Will. On my iPad (horizontal) the first is on pages 298 and 299. He sites again the percentage of people who identify with the LGBTQI community as being 3.4 to 5 percent of the population. Then, he fairly estimates this number to be 2 percent if we remove bisexual and what he refers to as "some measure of sexual-orientation fluidity." His point is that 2 percent of the population who long for romantic relationships, meaningful life partnership, are denied this basic human need by those of us who believe Scripture prohibits same gender romantic relationships. Listen to this quote from Gushee, "These phenomena, embodied by real people, exist. How are we to integrate these stubborn facts with Scripture, while responding compassionately to the real human beings in front of us?"
I find that quote terribly troubling. The suggestion is that because people are at odds with Scripture then some sort of accommodation should be made. What? Isn't that the nature of Scripture? We submit our lives to the text! Gushee is clever. He knows to blatantly suggest such a thing would be borderline heresy so what does he do? He points out that mankind has a proven history of misinterpreting the Bible. One, he rightly reminds us that people used to believe the earth was at the center of our planetary system and inappropriately used Scripture to support their claim. His second example is less certain. I think old earth vs. new earth is still a debate that is evenly championed in the Christian community. But Gushee offers this as another example, suggesting that the earth is billions of years old and that Christians have inappropriately used the Bible to suggest otherwise. His point? Our interpretation of Scripture has been flawed and could very well be flawed with the issue of a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships.
This is my concern with his comparison. The Bible is not given to us for scientific purposes. Do I believe in the historicity of Scripture, yes. Do I believe the Bible will never contradict valid scientific conclusions, yes. But these two examples used by Gushee are not prominent themes taken up by Scripture. Where are the texts that God provides in Scripture that speak to a direct prohibition against anyone who will not accept a heliocentric planetary system? Where are the texts that speak to a direct prohibition against anyone who will not accept an old earth point of view? They don't exist, because my scientific conclusions do not affect my relationship with God but my moral practice most certainly does! Scripture has a plentiful collection of texts that speaks directly to sexuality and marriage.
My final point is found on page 311 of this same chapter (iPad horizontal). Listen to this appalling quote. "If we live in a Genesis 3 world, and not a Genesis 1-2 world, this undoubtedly means that everyone's sexuality is sinful, broken and disordered, just like everything else about us." I find this disturbing because of his misuse of truth. Yes. We are all broken and sinful, saved by God's grace alone. But to use this truth as permission giving for people to not bring their sexuality into submission to Biblical boundaries is inexcusable. He says later that "no one's sexually is innocent." We are not innocent in any way. But forgiveness is not permission to abandon all efforts to Biblical conformity. He is suggesting that because every person his flawed, no one should challenge the lifestyle of another...good thing the Apostle Paul didn't read this book or most of the New Testament would be missing!
I do have one partial praise for Gushee. He does hold firm on the Biblical mandate that all sexual relationships should only be within a covenantal marriage. My disappointment is clearly that he believes marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman. But I am glad to see that he does not give permission for promiscuity. However, if I were to apply all his arguments for permitting same gender romantic relationships against his position for "covenantal-marriage ethics" he would have to yield that ground. Once you undermine the authority of Scripture and the divine authorship of Scripture, you have lost all moral foundation. This is where Gushee leads us.
I hope this series has been meaningful, informative, and inspiring...keep reading!
Pastor Fred
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
My Mind Didn't Change (part two)
My comments on David Gushee's book "Changing Our Mind" continues with chapter four, entitled "What Exactly Is The Issue." When reading books of this genre, one must be vigilant in identifying false choices. Authors, all of us, tend to frame the debate in a way that serves our conclusions. Sometimes these efforts are blatant and other times they are more subtle.
Early on this chapter, Gushee calls the viewpoint I hold as the "historic heterosexual norm" while referring to the alternative view that he holds as "...research and mental health efforts..." meaning that mine is based on a mere tradition born out of undue human influence and his is strongly scientific. There is also a subtle accusation in his remarks that traditional gender roles are responsible for excesses like chauvinism. That is the equivalent of saying that the institution of marriage is responsible for the sin of adultery. Ludicrous.
This chapter also acknowledges that according to several studies in the U.S. the LGBTQI community only make up about 3.4 to 5 percent of the total population. Does anyone else find this figure staggering? How could such a small percent of people effect such cultural change in our society? I am not trying to marginalize anyone or condone the degradation of anyone. I believe everyone should be treated with respect, even if their view is different than mine on matters I classify as divisive doctrines. My opinion is that they were successful because The Church over the last several decades has vilified people in the LGTBQI community instead of lovingly opposing their viewpoint. Our response however because we failed in love must not be to make up for our sin by now extending permission.
Probably the most appalling statement by Gushee in this chapter is that he says the "ex-gay" movement has been a total failure. This is another strategy employed by authors, to be overly dismissive of a contrary point in hopes of not having to address the opposition's point of view. Gushee is either guilty of exaggeration or arrogance. Neither alternative is noble. All of the "research and clinical results" he frequently sites are only telling us what we already know. Humanity has from the beginning of time suffered from the desire to self-direct. Let me try and distill Gushee's premise into this statement: because people continue to demonstrate a deep desire and longing for a life in regards to self determination with gender identification and same gender romantic, sexual relationships, we should doubt our understanding of Scripture's teaching on these matters. I'm all for questioning and studying. But let's not be surprised that humanity resists Scripture's boundaries. If I am uncomfortable with conclusions that are divisive and conclusive then I am going to be uncomfortable with the idea of a sovereign God and an authoritative Scripture.
So Gushee in his books begins to call in question various texts that are central in this debate. Because of this, I question whether or not he believes in the doctrine of a sovereign God and an authoritative Scripture. I say that because of he begins to systematically undermine the texts that I would use to loving show God is opposed to someone rejecting the gender He assigned them and someone who wants to have same gender romantic and sexual relationships. And one way people have always tried to minimize texts in Scripture that inconveniently oppose their point of view is to suggest that those particular texts are not from God but rather the insertion of a human influence. If we are going to wrestle with the interpretation of Scripture, let's dance! This is healthy. This is edifying. This helps everyone. But if you begin by saying "God didn't write that" then there is nothing more to debate. If you want to have a conversation that starts with, "What did God mean when He said..." then let's have that conversation. But Gushee can't start there! Why? Because Gushee knows these texts do not lack clarity of intent. So he must attack the credibility of the source.
Now the question of the whether or not all Scripture is divinely inspired is worthy of an entire series of its own. I believe all Scripture is divinely inspired and God in His sovereignty was able to give us the Bible He intended for us to have. I know that is a terribly oversimplified response but I wanted you to know where I stand on the authority of Scripture. So not only do his comments in chapter four give me pause but also in chapter 14. He makes this statement in reference to the creation account we so cherish in Genesis, "In Genesis 1-11, a primeval prehistory, the authors/editors both borrowed from and subverted their neighbor's creation stories, while adding new elements, to paint a theological picture of creation, human origins, marriage and family life..." He goes on to say that "most scholars" agree that Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25 are two different creation accounts "interwoven by an editor." Wow...really?
I have to admit. If I had found those statements earlier in this book, I would not have survived its reading. God is the author of Scripture. Do we find similar accounts of creation in other cultures? Yes! Read Don Richardson's book "Eternity In Their Hearts." The fact that these similarities exist is not a foregone conclusion that Genesis was borrowed but rather the realization that God as being the author of creation was somehow divinely revealed to other cultures as a confirmation of the accounts in Scripture we so deeply cherish. Why? Because as Mr. Richardson concludes, this positions these cultures to embrace the Gospel because they could relate to its origin! And how about Gushee's opinion he presents as fact in regards to Genesis chapter one and two. To say "most scholars" agree with him is irresponsible. Maybe most of the "scholars" he knows! I would say Christianity is about evenly split on that issue. This is another example of being dismissive to avoid debating the real facts. But the most disconcerting remark by Gushee for me is his use of the word "editor." He is calling into question the divine authorship of certain Biblical texts. This has always been the argument of people who want to undermine the texts that are inconveniently exclusive and divisive on issues and matters that oppose their point of view.
Be cautious of the conclusions of anyone who will not concede to the divine authorship of Scripture and the authority Scripture should hold over our lives.
I'm looking forward to continuing this series next week!
Pastor Fred
Early on this chapter, Gushee calls the viewpoint I hold as the "historic heterosexual norm" while referring to the alternative view that he holds as "...research and mental health efforts..." meaning that mine is based on a mere tradition born out of undue human influence and his is strongly scientific. There is also a subtle accusation in his remarks that traditional gender roles are responsible for excesses like chauvinism. That is the equivalent of saying that the institution of marriage is responsible for the sin of adultery. Ludicrous.
This chapter also acknowledges that according to several studies in the U.S. the LGBTQI community only make up about 3.4 to 5 percent of the total population. Does anyone else find this figure staggering? How could such a small percent of people effect such cultural change in our society? I am not trying to marginalize anyone or condone the degradation of anyone. I believe everyone should be treated with respect, even if their view is different than mine on matters I classify as divisive doctrines. My opinion is that they were successful because The Church over the last several decades has vilified people in the LGTBQI community instead of lovingly opposing their viewpoint. Our response however because we failed in love must not be to make up for our sin by now extending permission.
Probably the most appalling statement by Gushee in this chapter is that he says the "ex-gay" movement has been a total failure. This is another strategy employed by authors, to be overly dismissive of a contrary point in hopes of not having to address the opposition's point of view. Gushee is either guilty of exaggeration or arrogance. Neither alternative is noble. All of the "research and clinical results" he frequently sites are only telling us what we already know. Humanity has from the beginning of time suffered from the desire to self-direct. Let me try and distill Gushee's premise into this statement: because people continue to demonstrate a deep desire and longing for a life in regards to self determination with gender identification and same gender romantic, sexual relationships, we should doubt our understanding of Scripture's teaching on these matters. I'm all for questioning and studying. But let's not be surprised that humanity resists Scripture's boundaries. If I am uncomfortable with conclusions that are divisive and conclusive then I am going to be uncomfortable with the idea of a sovereign God and an authoritative Scripture.
So Gushee in his books begins to call in question various texts that are central in this debate. Because of this, I question whether or not he believes in the doctrine of a sovereign God and an authoritative Scripture. I say that because of he begins to systematically undermine the texts that I would use to loving show God is opposed to someone rejecting the gender He assigned them and someone who wants to have same gender romantic and sexual relationships. And one way people have always tried to minimize texts in Scripture that inconveniently oppose their point of view is to suggest that those particular texts are not from God but rather the insertion of a human influence. If we are going to wrestle with the interpretation of Scripture, let's dance! This is healthy. This is edifying. This helps everyone. But if you begin by saying "God didn't write that" then there is nothing more to debate. If you want to have a conversation that starts with, "What did God mean when He said..." then let's have that conversation. But Gushee can't start there! Why? Because Gushee knows these texts do not lack clarity of intent. So he must attack the credibility of the source.
Now the question of the whether or not all Scripture is divinely inspired is worthy of an entire series of its own. I believe all Scripture is divinely inspired and God in His sovereignty was able to give us the Bible He intended for us to have. I know that is a terribly oversimplified response but I wanted you to know where I stand on the authority of Scripture. So not only do his comments in chapter four give me pause but also in chapter 14. He makes this statement in reference to the creation account we so cherish in Genesis, "In Genesis 1-11, a primeval prehistory, the authors/editors both borrowed from and subverted their neighbor's creation stories, while adding new elements, to paint a theological picture of creation, human origins, marriage and family life..." He goes on to say that "most scholars" agree that Genesis 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25 are two different creation accounts "interwoven by an editor." Wow...really?
I have to admit. If I had found those statements earlier in this book, I would not have survived its reading. God is the author of Scripture. Do we find similar accounts of creation in other cultures? Yes! Read Don Richardson's book "Eternity In Their Hearts." The fact that these similarities exist is not a foregone conclusion that Genesis was borrowed but rather the realization that God as being the author of creation was somehow divinely revealed to other cultures as a confirmation of the accounts in Scripture we so deeply cherish. Why? Because as Mr. Richardson concludes, this positions these cultures to embrace the Gospel because they could relate to its origin! And how about Gushee's opinion he presents as fact in regards to Genesis chapter one and two. To say "most scholars" agree with him is irresponsible. Maybe most of the "scholars" he knows! I would say Christianity is about evenly split on that issue. This is another example of being dismissive to avoid debating the real facts. But the most disconcerting remark by Gushee for me is his use of the word "editor." He is calling into question the divine authorship of certain Biblical texts. This has always been the argument of people who want to undermine the texts that are inconveniently exclusive and divisive on issues and matters that oppose their point of view.
Be cautious of the conclusions of anyone who will not concede to the divine authorship of Scripture and the authority Scripture should hold over our lives.
I'm looking forward to continuing this series next week!
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
My Mind Didn't Change (part one)
I am beginning a new series with this post. At the recommendation of dear friend, I purchased and read a book by the author David P. Gushee entitled "Changing Our Mind." I guess you can deduce from the title of this series that my mind didn't change. Gushee chronicles for his readers how his own mind changed in regards to whether or not the Bible specifically forbids same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex. He offers many well prepared arguments and he shares what is clearly an extensive research project to try and bring his readers to the same "paradigm leap" that he himself has made.
I don't doubt his sincerity, his belief in his own convictions, or his academic prowess. I did however find his conclusions to be misplaced and his arguments at times to be poorly constructed. Maybe I am just intellectually obtuse. I will leave those conclusions to you! I do recommend the book because I believe we must be diligent in reading the views of those we oppose. We must not be intellectually lazy, especially with issues that are shaping our culture.
I think the best way to approach this review of sorts is to simply share my perspective on bookmarks and highlights I made as I was reading...to offer, if I may, a running commentary. If you have questions about sections to which I did not respond in this series, feel free to communicate those questions and I will do my best to respond. Some highlights and bookmarks I may group together and others I may address individually.
The first comes from chapter two entitled Our Moment: A Church With A Problem. Let me say I agree, that any church has a problem if they are mean spirited, hateful, and dismissive. Or, as the author later shares in chapter twenty, has contempt for anyone in the LGBT community. We must find our way forward in the path of Christ which is to speak the truth in love. As I shared in a recent sermon reflecting on the text in John 1:14, our words too must be full of both grace and truth. Grace without truth is flattery and truth without grace is an accusation. Unfortunately the author is right in his observation that too many churches historically have lacked grace in sharing the truth of their convictions.
It will be difficult for me to give you a page number because I read this book on my iPad and iPhone! This is towards the end of the chapter referenced above and he writes, "...the Church at least can demonstrate the capacity to live in community with each other even if we find full agreement impossible on this question." I categorically disagree with the conclusion that a church must be inclusive in order to be gracious. If a church feels that a matter of lifestyle is immoral and that conclusion is reached through an honest and clear process of Biblical interpretation, then a church should not be condemned if that said moral boundary is taught and is used to bring accountability to those who willing attend.
I will speak to our church specifically. I wrote a series on this blog entitle LGBTQI that details my position on many of the issues addressed by Gushee in his book. These are also the beliefs we teach at our church (City Life). These are the beliefs we use in caring for people who have questions. Our weekend worship services are open to anyone, whether they agree with us or not. But in order for people to become a member or if people are going to serve in ministry we seek some agreement on issues of morality and a willingness to begin to take steps to align their lives with those beliefs.
There must be allowance for divisive doctrines. I have a definition I teach for unity. Unity is when absolute commonalities transcend relative dissimilarities. Gushee would prefer churches to categorize same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex issues in the category of "relative" meaning lets give people the freedom to believe what they choose. He would say we can be dissimilar on these issues and because they are relative (up to the person) let's not sacrifice unity. I would argue however that the belief in a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex is an absolute and requires common acceptance, agreement by everyone. If we place every belief in the category of "absolute" then we create an unBiblical, legalistic environment. However, if we place every believe in the category of "relative" then we create an unBiblical environment of permissiveness.
If Gushee has any divisive beliefs, meaning that there is any doctrine he holds that he believes should be a requirement for someone to join a church in which he held a position of spiritual authority, then he must champion every church's right to hold divisive doctrines. He is being hypocritical to imply that a church is uncaring if they believe in a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex and holds that belief as a divisive doctrine. Exclusivity is a necessary component of Christianity. Exclusivity makes us nervous, understandably so. Excluding others has been a tragic part of history in a manifold of circumstances. But we cannot let the abuse of others delegitimize the fair and honorable use of exclusion. Unless Gushee is a Universalist, he must acknowledge that exclusion is a necessary aspect of the Christian experience. If he is a Universalist, then I should be writing a blog about his heresy.
Looking forward to exploring this book in greater detail with you!
Pastor Fred
I don't doubt his sincerity, his belief in his own convictions, or his academic prowess. I did however find his conclusions to be misplaced and his arguments at times to be poorly constructed. Maybe I am just intellectually obtuse. I will leave those conclusions to you! I do recommend the book because I believe we must be diligent in reading the views of those we oppose. We must not be intellectually lazy, especially with issues that are shaping our culture.
I think the best way to approach this review of sorts is to simply share my perspective on bookmarks and highlights I made as I was reading...to offer, if I may, a running commentary. If you have questions about sections to which I did not respond in this series, feel free to communicate those questions and I will do my best to respond. Some highlights and bookmarks I may group together and others I may address individually.
The first comes from chapter two entitled Our Moment: A Church With A Problem. Let me say I agree, that any church has a problem if they are mean spirited, hateful, and dismissive. Or, as the author later shares in chapter twenty, has contempt for anyone in the LGBT community. We must find our way forward in the path of Christ which is to speak the truth in love. As I shared in a recent sermon reflecting on the text in John 1:14, our words too must be full of both grace and truth. Grace without truth is flattery and truth without grace is an accusation. Unfortunately the author is right in his observation that too many churches historically have lacked grace in sharing the truth of their convictions.
It will be difficult for me to give you a page number because I read this book on my iPad and iPhone! This is towards the end of the chapter referenced above and he writes, "...the Church at least can demonstrate the capacity to live in community with each other even if we find full agreement impossible on this question." I categorically disagree with the conclusion that a church must be inclusive in order to be gracious. If a church feels that a matter of lifestyle is immoral and that conclusion is reached through an honest and clear process of Biblical interpretation, then a church should not be condemned if that said moral boundary is taught and is used to bring accountability to those who willing attend.
I will speak to our church specifically. I wrote a series on this blog entitle LGBTQI that details my position on many of the issues addressed by Gushee in his book. These are also the beliefs we teach at our church (City Life). These are the beliefs we use in caring for people who have questions. Our weekend worship services are open to anyone, whether they agree with us or not. But in order for people to become a member or if people are going to serve in ministry we seek some agreement on issues of morality and a willingness to begin to take steps to align their lives with those beliefs.
There must be allowance for divisive doctrines. I have a definition I teach for unity. Unity is when absolute commonalities transcend relative dissimilarities. Gushee would prefer churches to categorize same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex issues in the category of "relative" meaning lets give people the freedom to believe what they choose. He would say we can be dissimilar on these issues and because they are relative (up to the person) let's not sacrifice unity. I would argue however that the belief in a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex is an absolute and requires common acceptance, agreement by everyone. If we place every belief in the category of "absolute" then we create an unBiblical, legalistic environment. However, if we place every believe in the category of "relative" then we create an unBiblical environment of permissiveness.
If Gushee has any divisive beliefs, meaning that there is any doctrine he holds that he believes should be a requirement for someone to join a church in which he held a position of spiritual authority, then he must champion every church's right to hold divisive doctrines. He is being hypocritical to imply that a church is uncaring if they believe in a Biblical prohibition against same gender romantic relationships and same gender sex and holds that belief as a divisive doctrine. Exclusivity is a necessary component of Christianity. Exclusivity makes us nervous, understandably so. Excluding others has been a tragic part of history in a manifold of circumstances. But we cannot let the abuse of others delegitimize the fair and honorable use of exclusion. Unless Gushee is a Universalist, he must acknowledge that exclusion is a necessary aspect of the Christian experience. If he is a Universalist, then I should be writing a blog about his heresy.
Looking forward to exploring this book in greater detail with you!
Pastor Fred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)