Monday, February 25, 2008
As I have stated in an earlier post, I am taking a church history class. I find that I am surprised by the pleasure I am getting from it. The perspective that has been gained from taking this class has challenged my worldview of the church a great deal. Let me explain:
One insight I have gained from this class is how much luxury we live in as the western church today. By luxury I do not mean wealth, though we certainly are affluent beyond our willingness to steward that affluence in a godly way. No, what I mean is that we (the church) are living in such luxury that we get to decide what kinds of Christians we will have fellowship with and what kind of church we will go to.
Just stop and think about that for a moment. The western church has the unique privilege of saying, "I do not want to have fellowship with this person or that person, thank you just the same. We do not get along particularly well. Our personalities simply do not mesh well together. No big deal really. That is just how God made us."
We also have the luxury of saying, "You know I think I'll be going to a different church. This one no longer 'does it' for me. I'll go find one that better fits who I am as a person and what my needs are during this season in my life."
Living in such luxury has only fed the 'consumer mentality' western Christianity is going through. We think the church is there for us to meet our selfish wants and desires. This is, in absolute terms, unbiblical and ungodly.
The church is to be in giver-ship not receiver-ship. The work of the church that people need to recieve is the training for works of service (giving). So even when we are receiving, it is for the purpose of giving.
There seem to be two kinds of Christians in the west; those who come to give to the church and the community it lives in and those who receive from the church until it can no longer satisfy their immediate needs and they move on to find another church to 'receive' from.
Which one are you?
Just some random thoughts on church and other related matters.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Which Great US President Are You Most Like?
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as Dwight Eisenhower|
34th President, in office from 1953-1961
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
There is a believer I know who is divorcing her husband. She is walking in rebellion, no longer wanting to walk with Christ but still recieve all the benefits of doing so. Her husband is powerless to change her mind/ heart and devestated by her course of action. He has been getting counseling from the church. The elders and counselor all agree that she has no biblical grounds for divorce. While, at first, they were going to confront her in her sin they are no longer going to do so for fear this may drive her further away from God. Had she maintained her volunteer status with the church they would have stepped in but since she has stepped down from the ministries she was serving in they are not going to approach her about her sin and treat her as an unbeliever.
The husband asked me what I thought about all this and below was my reply (with the names removed to protect both the innocent and the guilty).
"Well, it seems to me that they are referring to Matt. 18. This is a three step process where after the third step, if the person will not repent, then you treat them as an unbeliever (which in bible times dealt with the excommunication of the person from the fellowship of the believers). The reason for this was because they would not have fellowship with people who claimed to be in Christ yet refused to live as Christ.
While I think this is a biblically valid means of discipline I would also contend (based solely upon what you have told us) that they are bypassing all three steps and skipping right to the end; except in this case they are still willing to have her fellowship with them. This is not the biblically identified way of addressing sin in the life of a believer; especially one who is still claiming to be a Christ follower
(as she is doing). By skipping to the end they are cowardly avoiding the difficult task of confrontation and restoring a fallen brother. In doing so they are neglecting to love her as Christ calls the church to love one another."
As someone who is going into the ministry fulltime let me say that I in no way look forward to having to do this in the life of someone I have fellowship with. Still, the process is clear and it is for the sake of restoration that it must be done. As scripture tells us, "Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins" James 5:20. This must also be done with gentleness and respect and after a period of self-examination lest we be found guilt of 'plank-eye' syndrome.
Restoration is the goal of Matthew 18. When we think that our efforts in this area will be ingnored or possibly make the situation worse we are allowing fear and not hope to dictate our response. What if the opposite happens? What if the person actually says, 'hey you know what? You are right. Forgive me! I have been living in sin and need to turn back to living in righteousness.' This is a rosey and over-simplified picture I have just painted I know but... would not a response of repentance be worth the risk?
To be sure the heart and tone of the confrontation need to be saturated with love, truth and grace but confrontation must happen if we are going to love one another well.
Just some thoughts on whether to shut up or speak up.