Seems like centuries ago now, but when I first came into the ranks of those seeking to serve churches as a pastor, I came with high ideals regarding that person.
Naive? Yes! I wouldn't have thought so then.
Idealistic? Yes! Still so!
Realistic? No! Long way off!
My first pastors conference started to sort out my naïveté and my view of reality!
I can't help but commend Dave Black on his honesty about himself,and his awareness of his own weakness and struggles, a very rare quality, indeed!
Then I came across this quote by J.C. Philpot from a sermon preached at North Street Chapel, Stamford, on March 6,1859:
I have ever found myself to be my greatest enemy. I never had a foe that troubled me so much as my own heart; nor has any one ever wrought me half the mischief or given me half the plague that I have felt and known within. And it is a daily sense of this which makes me dread myself more than anybody that walks upon the face of the earth!
Keep a watchful eye upon every inward foe; and if you fight, fight against the enemy that lurks and works in your own breast!
I wonder what gives me the impression that not too many in leadership today would agree with Mr. Philpot?
Why do I get the feeling that Pogo was right when he said, “I've found the enemy and he is us.”
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Have You Ever Wondered?
Have you ever wondered about Peter’s motives when he sought to prevent Jesus predicted suffering? Jesus rebuke makes me wonder,
We can conjecture, and come to some logical conclusions, but are we right, or, more to the point: What do we learn from that moment in time?
Peter’s reasons are reflected in the other disciples’ actions in the ensuing couple of chapters. In Mark 9:33-34, we find the disciples had been disputing about who was the greatest,
Then, in 10: 35-37 we see the heart of the matter, which is displayed so eloquently in much of the traditional church scene today; with ignorant temerity, induced by an over inflated opinion of their own importance, James and John asked Jesus to place them in a position of great honour.
Again, illustrating what we see commonly happening across the churches today, the other ten disciples get themselves involved in these ugly proceedings. We find them showing great concern that Zebedee’s two sons may be placed in a position which will have negative impact on their own selfish aspirations.
Notice the way the ten, after hearing Jesus initial response, try to squirm out of their implication in this farce, as they turn His attention to James and John ( v.41 ), but, Jesus continues in a way that must have been a solid blow to their regal ambitions for prominence amongst followers of Christ.
Their cherished desire , and strong drive, to be recognized as successful and influential, is rebuffed by Jesus, who compared their behaviour with the way the Roman political overlords functioned. He likened them to the very people who oppressed the Jews, who took advantage of them, and who would put Jesus to death in the very near future,
Can you tell me that the same attitude isn’t common amongst Christians today, amongst leaders who clamour for recognition, who love titles, and bask in the supposed glory of being seen as the top dog in the pack, often reminding congregations of their “authority”?
Jesus repudiated and reversed this Adamic human behaviour. To be a leader amongst the people of God is to eschew the enterprising, dominant spirit of religious political power. To be a leader in the family of God is to shun the obnoxious control and subjugation of people for narcissistic glory, the manipulation of congregations for ones own career ambitions. To be a discipler of disciples is to be a truly sacrificial servant and lover of others, who puts the interests of others before ones own.
This is what Jesus modeled, as the mark of greatness! He did so by His own life, teaching, death and resurrection.
Surely that must make those who have a penchant for regularly reminding congregations of their “authority” and “office” to think ?
Maybe I’m living on another planet!
You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of man(Mark 8:33).
We can conjecture, and come to some logical conclusions, but are we right, or, more to the point: What do we learn from that moment in time?
Peter’s reasons are reflected in the other disciples’ actions in the ensuing couple of chapters. In Mark 9:33-34, we find the disciples had been disputing about who was the greatest,
Then they came to Capernaum. While Jesus was at home, he asked the disciples, ‘What were you arguing about on the road?’ But they kept silent, for on the road they had argued with one another about who was the greatest.
Then, in 10: 35-37 we see the heart of the matter, which is displayed so eloquently in much of the traditional church scene today; with ignorant temerity, induced by an over inflated opinion of their own importance, James and John asked Jesus to place them in a position of great honour.
Again, illustrating what we see commonly happening across the churches today, the other ten disciples get themselves involved in these ugly proceedings. We find them showing great concern that Zebedee’s two sons may be placed in a position which will have negative impact on their own selfish aspirations.
Notice the way the ten, after hearing Jesus initial response, try to squirm out of their implication in this farce, as they turn His attention to James and John ( v.41 ), but, Jesus continues in a way that must have been a solid blow to their regal ambitions for prominence amongst followers of Christ.
Their cherished desire , and strong drive, to be recognized as successful and influential, is rebuffed by Jesus, who compared their behaviour with the way the Roman political overlords functioned. He likened them to the very people who oppressed the Jews, who took advantage of them, and who would put Jesus to death in the very near future,
You know that those who are recognized as rulers among the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors act like tyrants over them.The sinful nature of man was made very evident amongst the Roman political traders in power and oppression, and here were the disciples actually imitating them!
Can you tell me that the same attitude isn’t common amongst Christians today, amongst leaders who clamour for recognition, who love titles, and bask in the supposed glory of being seen as the top dog in the pack, often reminding congregations of their “authority”?
Jesus repudiated and reversed this Adamic human behaviour. To be a leader amongst the people of God is to eschew the enterprising, dominant spirit of religious political power. To be a leader in the family of God is to shun the obnoxious control and subjugation of people for narcissistic glory, the manipulation of congregations for ones own career ambitions. To be a discipler of disciples is to be a truly sacrificial servant and lover of others, who puts the interests of others before ones own.
This is what Jesus modeled, as the mark of greatness! He did so by His own life, teaching, death and resurrection.
Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many(10:45).
Surely that must make those who have a penchant for regularly reminding congregations of their “authority” and “office” to think ?
Maybe I’m living on another planet!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Disciples or Converts
Well, Paul, I have tried to keep it short, and failed.
For those who don't know me, I have been in that part of the institutional church, which is proud to call itself evangelical, for most of my adult life which has now reached its Biblically allotted span. During those many years, more than fifty, apart from John 3:16, Matthew 28:19-20 would be the most quoted Scripture in the sermons I have listened to.
Sadly, most of the sermons, in which that passage was quoted, were designed to press members of the congregation to “evangelize” unbelievers, by inducing in them a sense of guilt for not doing so.
That verse of Scripture was also prominent during my college days.
In both church and college, we were never told explicitly, but implicitly left with the impression, that maybe, we were not even Christians if we didn’t evangelise, or, at the very least, we were bad Christians who were letting our Master down.
How on earth did we get that idea from Matthew 28: 19-20?
Jesus explicitly charged his followers to make disciples of all nations . He also exhorted them to teach those who became disciples under their ministry,and to observe all that I have commanded you”.
The church has managed to twist make disciples , into preaching a message, or using a gospel centered program coupled with some good, persuasive rhetoric (salesmanship) about what “Christians believe” and the horrible consequences for those not believing, hopefully finishing up with the dubious privilege of helping a, now guilt laden, person admitting to being “sinner” who must be penitent and pray a special prayer, which God must take notice of.
Did this Great Commission of Jesus mean that those who were His disciples were to do something He never did?
Disciple-making most certainly includes the precious message of the Gospel, without doubt, but if we look at the disciple making methods of Jesus we can see that it is about more about gaining the trust of the disciple, about demonstration of what it means to be a disciple, in which teaching the Good News of the Gospel, and its practical outworking, or the fruit, in the life of the disciple-maker is a major part; and, over a long period of time.
There can be no doubt that, as Jesus demonstrated, disciple making it is not about filling the disciples head with information, but much more to do with life transformation, beginning on the inside. It was about leaving of the old life governed by a heart of stone, and emerging into new life with a soft, malleable heart open to the shaping power of the Holy Spirit. That is what Paul was talking about in Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.Its a metamorphosis.
The making of a disciple is a long term process which can only come to fruition within a relationship between two people, the disciple and the disciple-maker. The disciple-maker will exhibit to the disciple, a strong commitment of spending one-to-one quality time, however long it takes, maybe three to four years, to bring the disciple to such a level of spiritual maturity in Christ, that the disciple will begin to make disciples.
Being obedient to the command of Christ to make disciples, IS NOT DONE by what we popularly call “evangelism”, which actually, in many cases, militates AGAINST making disciples!
Now you might respond by saying, “What about the Holy Spirit in all of this?”
My response to that is: We have effectively, and methodically programmed the Holy Spirit out of the equation by using schemes and programs to get instant results. Our egos require us to present a record of achievement, which we call “souls won for Christ”, but which are no more than the proud notches on the gun of the gunfighters in popular Western fiction.
What we have achieved through this is only an apparent success, a hollow victory measured by numbers, but history proves the lie of these numbers by the rate of attrition, which, by all accounts, has dramatically increased.
All we have succeeded in doing is compromise and undermine the true God honoring, Holy Spirit motivated ministry of making disciples of ordinary Christian brethren whom we denigrate by calling them "laity".
I will repeat what I wrote earlier, making disciples is about two people walking together, the one demonstrating the love of Christ, by expending their life on the other in word and deed. It’s about one member of God's special family of adoptees, who desires to share the love of that family and their Father, with another human being.
Making disciples is NOT about one of the most sickening concepts I know, when it is applied to the spiritual life, programs which teach that successful evangelism is available to all who will use “replicable,transferable methods”!
To do what? To get a “prospect” to become a "believer" by giving intellectual assent to some potted speil presented by a well trained salesman. What a miserably low view of true disciple making!
James tells us very clearly that the devil is a believer (James 2:9). So, what does that tell us about simply making converts, "believers" who intellectually assent to some information we give them? Are we telling them that they have joined the illustrious company of demons?
Such an intellectually persuaded convert becomes dependent on the person who offered them the Bible flavored bill of goods they accepted, which dependence is then transferred to the leadership (pastor) of the group to whom the persuader belongs. The convert also has a sense of “owing” the person for throwing them, what they have been told is, their lifeline.
On the other hand the true disciple, is powerfully moved in heart and mind, by the Holy Spirit, NOT by the disciple-maker, to follow the One revealed in the life of the disciple-maker, by the love they see demonstrated (John 13:35). The disciple maker, in their every-day contact, gives testimony, to the disciple about the life changing work of Christ who has made him who he is. Taught and moved by the Holy Spirit, the disciple understands the characteristics displayed in the disciple-maker, which are a reflection of his Master, as such characteristics are revealed as genuine in the disciple-makers life. The disciple-maker is living proof of the reality of his/her words.
Spending much quality time with the disciple-maker, the disciple sees that the disciple-maker’s life is not ruled by legal requirements, but that some inner power has caused him/her, whilst remaining completely, feet firmly planted on earth, human, to be honest about their inadequacies and faults and struggles, yet without fear of reprisal from the One in whom they have implicit trust. The disciple clearly sees that the disciple-maker has complete confidence in his/her adoptive Father who will never leave or forsake His child. In the very likely event of the disciple-maker failing, the disciple will see that the disciple-maker has such confidence in the Father that he/she will get up, deal with the failure and run back home to the Father.
The Holy Spirit applies that evidence in the life of the disciple.
To cut a long story short, I became an elder (pastor) in a denomination well known for its emphasis on evangelising. As a young man I believed the spiels and pep talks which came from the denominational leaders and pulpits, and was willingly, and enthusiastically trained in program after program, each one supposedly better than the other. I became proficient in using these programmes, as I had when a successful secular salesman for a brief period.
I was so pleased, and even proud, that many I spoke with became convinced converts, and took part in classes about baptism and membership, just like the many who sat, like silent zombies, in the pews, closing their eyes when appropriate, standing and opening their mouths likewise, and dutifully and patiently doing what they had been taught that good Christians do, injecting their money into the church offering and quietly allowing the preacher to assuage his conscience by doing what he is paid to do.
Which brings me to who is commanded to “Make disciples”.
Does Jesus command only apply to those in leadership positions, and, so-called special “office”? If so: How can that command be obeyed according to the description I have given of spending much quality time with a disciple over, what can amount to several years?
The answer is quite simple! It cannot, and is not done!
Church leaders, pastors, if you like, are able to easily disciple one or two disciples.
What about the huge numbers of people who have not heard the Gospel?
Most genuine followers of Christ would be very comfortable being labeled as a disciple of Christ, one who sits at the feet of their Master, an apprentice, if you like.
Jesus’ command to “make disciples” was given to such disciples.
According to Paul, when speaking to the church at Ephesus, the elders’ (pastors’) proper task is to, “…equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,…”.
In other words, the elders’ task is to teach disciples of Christ, followers of Christ, to be disciple-makers, NOT to be faithful followers of an elder, a pastor, a pope, a bishop, any other title holder, nor the of denominational propaganda, or even the systematic theology they favor.
I think Paul understood one of the more important principles which is missing from almost all of the institutional church scene, and that is the understanding that IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO TEACH A DISCIPLE-MAKER THAN TO MAKE A DISCIPLE.
That’s why he told the Ephesians that those He appointed as leaders were to equip the saints for the work of ministry NOT jealously protect, what they regard, as THEIR ministry, as is commonly done.
Indeed, they were to multiply themselves, releasing as many as possible into ministry.
Before you jump up and down and yell, “Heresy!”, think about it.
Making disciple-makers is about multiplying ones own ministry. Every disciple of Christ, after two or three years spent with a mature disciple-maker, ought to now be as mature as their teacher, they ought to be a disciple-maker.
Now do the math and see what would happen if, led by the Holy Spirit, that was repeated by these two, and the next four, the next eight, the next sixteen, etc.
There may be individuals who have the gifting and ability to expend their lives on more than two or three. Jesus expended His life with the twelve, and He never preached guilt inducing messages, nor did He stand on a box in the street preaching fire and brimstone, nor did He stand in a pulpit reminding His congregation of His authority over them, but He did spend quality time with the twelve, demonstrating what it means to glorify God with ones life and even ones death. When He did speak about the law it was not to assert its authority but to show that there can be no perfect keeping of the law this side of the grave, no matter how religious a person may be, and that true right standing before God can only be found in Him and His finished work, and to ensure that His followers understood that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Conversion is about accepting some information given over a short period of time. It’s about good salesmen bagging their prospect.
Making disciples is about commitment to Jesus’ command to “make disciples” by long term commitment to individuals, who, in turn obey the command,” make disciples”, who, also, in turn obey the command, “make disciples.
No! As a maker of disciples you’ll never be recognized as one who climbed the ladder of, so-called, “success”, or as a well known evangelist, or as an erudite speaker, or proudly wear the title of “Pastor” of a large church or denomination, but, you will receive the commendation of the only One entitled to say,”Well done good and faithful servant,. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.”
For those who don't know me, I have been in that part of the institutional church, which is proud to call itself evangelical, for most of my adult life which has now reached its Biblically allotted span. During those many years, more than fifty, apart from John 3:16, Matthew 28:19-20 would be the most quoted Scripture in the sermons I have listened to.
Sadly, most of the sermons, in which that passage was quoted, were designed to press members of the congregation to “evangelize” unbelievers, by inducing in them a sense of guilt for not doing so.
That verse of Scripture was also prominent during my college days.
In both church and college, we were never told explicitly, but implicitly left with the impression, that maybe, we were not even Christians if we didn’t evangelise, or, at the very least, we were bad Christians who were letting our Master down.
How on earth did we get that idea from Matthew 28: 19-20?
Jesus explicitly charged his followers to make disciples of all nations . He also exhorted them to teach those who became disciples under their ministry,and to observe all that I have commanded you”.
The church has managed to twist make disciples , into preaching a message, or using a gospel centered program coupled with some good, persuasive rhetoric (salesmanship) about what “Christians believe” and the horrible consequences for those not believing, hopefully finishing up with the dubious privilege of helping a, now guilt laden, person admitting to being “sinner” who must be penitent and pray a special prayer, which God must take notice of.
Did this Great Commission of Jesus mean that those who were His disciples were to do something He never did?
Disciple-making most certainly includes the precious message of the Gospel, without doubt, but if we look at the disciple making methods of Jesus we can see that it is about more about gaining the trust of the disciple, about demonstration of what it means to be a disciple, in which teaching the Good News of the Gospel, and its practical outworking, or the fruit, in the life of the disciple-maker is a major part; and, over a long period of time.
There can be no doubt that, as Jesus demonstrated, disciple making it is not about filling the disciples head with information, but much more to do with life transformation, beginning on the inside. It was about leaving of the old life governed by a heart of stone, and emerging into new life with a soft, malleable heart open to the shaping power of the Holy Spirit. That is what Paul was talking about in Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.Its a metamorphosis.
The making of a disciple is a long term process which can only come to fruition within a relationship between two people, the disciple and the disciple-maker. The disciple-maker will exhibit to the disciple, a strong commitment of spending one-to-one quality time, however long it takes, maybe three to four years, to bring the disciple to such a level of spiritual maturity in Christ, that the disciple will begin to make disciples.
Being obedient to the command of Christ to make disciples, IS NOT DONE by what we popularly call “evangelism”, which actually, in many cases, militates AGAINST making disciples!
Now you might respond by saying, “What about the Holy Spirit in all of this?”
My response to that is: We have effectively, and methodically programmed the Holy Spirit out of the equation by using schemes and programs to get instant results. Our egos require us to present a record of achievement, which we call “souls won for Christ”, but which are no more than the proud notches on the gun of the gunfighters in popular Western fiction.
What we have achieved through this is only an apparent success, a hollow victory measured by numbers, but history proves the lie of these numbers by the rate of attrition, which, by all accounts, has dramatically increased.
All we have succeeded in doing is compromise and undermine the true God honoring, Holy Spirit motivated ministry of making disciples of ordinary Christian brethren whom we denigrate by calling them "laity".
I will repeat what I wrote earlier, making disciples is about two people walking together, the one demonstrating the love of Christ, by expending their life on the other in word and deed. It’s about one member of God's special family of adoptees, who desires to share the love of that family and their Father, with another human being.
Making disciples is NOT about one of the most sickening concepts I know, when it is applied to the spiritual life, programs which teach that successful evangelism is available to all who will use “replicable,transferable methods”!
To do what? To get a “prospect” to become a "believer" by giving intellectual assent to some potted speil presented by a well trained salesman. What a miserably low view of true disciple making!
James tells us very clearly that the devil is a believer (James 2:9). So, what does that tell us about simply making converts, "believers" who intellectually assent to some information we give them? Are we telling them that they have joined the illustrious company of demons?
Such an intellectually persuaded convert becomes dependent on the person who offered them the Bible flavored bill of goods they accepted, which dependence is then transferred to the leadership (pastor) of the group to whom the persuader belongs. The convert also has a sense of “owing” the person for throwing them, what they have been told is, their lifeline.
On the other hand the true disciple, is powerfully moved in heart and mind, by the Holy Spirit, NOT by the disciple-maker, to follow the One revealed in the life of the disciple-maker, by the love they see demonstrated (John 13:35). The disciple maker, in their every-day contact, gives testimony, to the disciple about the life changing work of Christ who has made him who he is. Taught and moved by the Holy Spirit, the disciple understands the characteristics displayed in the disciple-maker, which are a reflection of his Master, as such characteristics are revealed as genuine in the disciple-makers life. The disciple-maker is living proof of the reality of his/her words.
Spending much quality time with the disciple-maker, the disciple sees that the disciple-maker’s life is not ruled by legal requirements, but that some inner power has caused him/her, whilst remaining completely, feet firmly planted on earth, human, to be honest about their inadequacies and faults and struggles, yet without fear of reprisal from the One in whom they have implicit trust. The disciple clearly sees that the disciple-maker has complete confidence in his/her adoptive Father who will never leave or forsake His child. In the very likely event of the disciple-maker failing, the disciple will see that the disciple-maker has such confidence in the Father that he/she will get up, deal with the failure and run back home to the Father.
The Holy Spirit applies that evidence in the life of the disciple.
To cut a long story short, I became an elder (pastor) in a denomination well known for its emphasis on evangelising. As a young man I believed the spiels and pep talks which came from the denominational leaders and pulpits, and was willingly, and enthusiastically trained in program after program, each one supposedly better than the other. I became proficient in using these programmes, as I had when a successful secular salesman for a brief period.
I was so pleased, and even proud, that many I spoke with became convinced converts, and took part in classes about baptism and membership, just like the many who sat, like silent zombies, in the pews, closing their eyes when appropriate, standing and opening their mouths likewise, and dutifully and patiently doing what they had been taught that good Christians do, injecting their money into the church offering and quietly allowing the preacher to assuage his conscience by doing what he is paid to do.
Which brings me to who is commanded to “Make disciples”.
Does Jesus command only apply to those in leadership positions, and, so-called special “office”? If so: How can that command be obeyed according to the description I have given of spending much quality time with a disciple over, what can amount to several years?
The answer is quite simple! It cannot, and is not done!
Church leaders, pastors, if you like, are able to easily disciple one or two disciples.
What about the huge numbers of people who have not heard the Gospel?
Most genuine followers of Christ would be very comfortable being labeled as a disciple of Christ, one who sits at the feet of their Master, an apprentice, if you like.
Jesus’ command to “make disciples” was given to such disciples.
According to Paul, when speaking to the church at Ephesus, the elders’ (pastors’) proper task is to, “…equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,…”.
In other words, the elders’ task is to teach disciples of Christ, followers of Christ, to be disciple-makers, NOT to be faithful followers of an elder, a pastor, a pope, a bishop, any other title holder, nor the of denominational propaganda, or even the systematic theology they favor.
I think Paul understood one of the more important principles which is missing from almost all of the institutional church scene, and that is the understanding that IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO TEACH A DISCIPLE-MAKER THAN TO MAKE A DISCIPLE.
That’s why he told the Ephesians that those He appointed as leaders were to equip the saints for the work of ministry NOT jealously protect, what they regard, as THEIR ministry, as is commonly done.
Indeed, they were to multiply themselves, releasing as many as possible into ministry.
Before you jump up and down and yell, “Heresy!”, think about it.
Making disciple-makers is about multiplying ones own ministry. Every disciple of Christ, after two or three years spent with a mature disciple-maker, ought to now be as mature as their teacher, they ought to be a disciple-maker.
Now do the math and see what would happen if, led by the Holy Spirit, that was repeated by these two, and the next four, the next eight, the next sixteen, etc.
There may be individuals who have the gifting and ability to expend their lives on more than two or three. Jesus expended His life with the twelve, and He never preached guilt inducing messages, nor did He stand on a box in the street preaching fire and brimstone, nor did He stand in a pulpit reminding His congregation of His authority over them, but He did spend quality time with the twelve, demonstrating what it means to glorify God with ones life and even ones death. When He did speak about the law it was not to assert its authority but to show that there can be no perfect keeping of the law this side of the grave, no matter how religious a person may be, and that true right standing before God can only be found in Him and His finished work, and to ensure that His followers understood that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Conversion is about accepting some information given over a short period of time. It’s about good salesmen bagging their prospect.
Making disciples is about commitment to Jesus’ command to “make disciples” by long term commitment to individuals, who, in turn obey the command,” make disciples”, who, also, in turn obey the command, “make disciples.
No! As a maker of disciples you’ll never be recognized as one who climbed the ladder of, so-called, “success”, or as a well known evangelist, or as an erudite speaker, or proudly wear the title of “Pastor” of a large church or denomination, but, you will receive the commendation of the only One entitled to say,”Well done good and faithful servant,. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.”
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Civilized??
“Of Mature age” is how people of my vintage are described in this country. Probably true where you live. In this age of easy communication it doesn’t take long for terms, such as that, to spread.
But I wonder whether the inclusion of the word “mature” is always appropriate when we see the way many of we “older” folk express our thoughts on matters about which we differ.
Maybe the rudeness and arrogance of many of the younger ones can be put down to the behavior of their elders? The lack of practical example, the failure to nurture because of "busy-ness"?
There are so many points we could throw into a discussion about this, but I think my blogging friend Paul at VTBottomline has brought a very important one to the fore in his article entitled “FACTS ABOUT CIVILITY”.
Reading Paul’s definition of civility raises some very obvious questions when applied to, possibly a majority of, what has become known as “Christianity”.
CIVILITY-----A Definition.
Courteous behavior...
Politeness...
A courteous act...
CIVILITY is connected to-----Civilization.
An advanced development of society.
Civilized.
Having advanced in cultural or social
behaviors.
Synonyms-----Respectfully, graciousness.
Antonyms-----Rudely, disrespect.
Courteous behavior, politeness ? An ADVANCED development of society? Civilized, respectful, gracious?
Now, we could easily dismiss what he says as the rambling of another old feller, like me, but, Paul’s right, and if claims to be a follower of Christ are genuine, as we read what he goes on to write, we would ask ourselves some very hard questions about how we respond to people who disagree with us, or have a different point of view, or………Well you read what he says:
UNFORTUNATELY----Lack of civility can be seen as....
RACISM...A belief that race is
the primary determinant of human capacities and traits.
MISOGYNY...Hatred of women.
MISANTHROPY...Hatred of men.
ANTI-SEMITISM...Hatred of
the Jews.
Paul certainly puts his finger on a few of the appropriated character traits, of many who claim the name of Christian, and as he rightly points out:
All this depends on the heart of the one who is being rude [And we can't know that always.] and on the race or gender of the one who is the object of the rudeness or incivility.
Incivility is NOT appropriate or proper for our society and is certainly out of bounds for a true Christian.
INCIVILITY---in our culture is rampant but not surprisingly so since group or accepted guidelines for personal behavior are boundaries that people who see others to be of value and worth are willing to impose on themselves for the good of all. Our society is now emphasizing the individual to the exclusion of others with little respect for the sacredness of life that should begin before the birth experience. That disrespect for the sacredness of life is slowly permeating the entire fabric of our society.
How I like Paul’s next words as he comes to the crux of the matter, for those claiming to be Christian:
CHRISTIAN CIVILITY---is because of the rule of Christ in our lives, however, and is NOT to be taken from or borrowed from our culture.
Our civility comes from truly loving others as we are loved "in Christ" and that includes loving even our enemies. (my emphasis)
Surely, if you and I really are what we claim we would have no negative comment about Paul’s
THREE FINAL FACTS ABOUT CIVILITY
One--It is not optional for the believer.
Two--It is not our goal. Loving Him in return is our goal and that is what is mirrored in our love for others for good or bad.
Three--It would make for a better society any time we're willing to embrace it.
Remember! Paul’s not speaking about religion, or doctrine, or theology, but simple, plain, indwelling Holy Spirit induced relational behavior expected of followers of Christ.
Of course, as Christians we have no trouble claiming 1 John 4:14 as applicable to ourselves, So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
Can we honestly claim these words to be true of us if our LACK of civility towards others indicates otherwise?
But I wonder whether the inclusion of the word “mature” is always appropriate when we see the way many of we “older” folk express our thoughts on matters about which we differ.
Maybe the rudeness and arrogance of many of the younger ones can be put down to the behavior of their elders? The lack of practical example, the failure to nurture because of "busy-ness"?
There are so many points we could throw into a discussion about this, but I think my blogging friend Paul at VTBottomline has brought a very important one to the fore in his article entitled “FACTS ABOUT CIVILITY”.
Reading Paul’s definition of civility raises some very obvious questions when applied to, possibly a majority of, what has become known as “Christianity”.
CIVILITY-----A Definition.
Courteous behavior...
Politeness...
A courteous act...
CIVILITY is connected to-----Civilization.
An advanced development of society.
Civilized.
Having advanced in cultural or social
behaviors.
Synonyms-----Respectfully, graciousness.
Antonyms-----Rudely, disrespect.
Courteous behavior, politeness ? An ADVANCED development of society? Civilized, respectful, gracious?
Now, we could easily dismiss what he says as the rambling of another old feller, like me, but, Paul’s right, and if claims to be a follower of Christ are genuine, as we read what he goes on to write, we would ask ourselves some very hard questions about how we respond to people who disagree with us, or have a different point of view, or………Well you read what he says:
UNFORTUNATELY----Lack of civility can be seen as....
RACISM...A belief that race is
the primary determinant of human capacities and traits.
MISOGYNY...Hatred of women.
MISANTHROPY...Hatred of men.
ANTI-SEMITISM...Hatred of
the Jews.
Paul certainly puts his finger on a few of the appropriated character traits, of many who claim the name of Christian, and as he rightly points out:
All this depends on the heart of the one who is being rude [And we can't know that always.] and on the race or gender of the one who is the object of the rudeness or incivility.
Incivility is NOT appropriate or proper for our society and is certainly out of bounds for a true Christian.
INCIVILITY---in our culture is rampant but not surprisingly so since group or accepted guidelines for personal behavior are boundaries that people who see others to be of value and worth are willing to impose on themselves for the good of all. Our society is now emphasizing the individual to the exclusion of others with little respect for the sacredness of life that should begin before the birth experience. That disrespect for the sacredness of life is slowly permeating the entire fabric of our society.
How I like Paul’s next words as he comes to the crux of the matter, for those claiming to be Christian:
CHRISTIAN CIVILITY---is because of the rule of Christ in our lives, however, and is NOT to be taken from or borrowed from our culture.
Our civility comes from truly loving others as we are loved "in Christ" and that includes loving even our enemies. (my emphasis)
Surely, if you and I really are what we claim we would have no negative comment about Paul’s
THREE FINAL FACTS ABOUT CIVILITY
One--It is not optional for the believer.
Two--It is not our goal. Loving Him in return is our goal and that is what is mirrored in our love for others for good or bad.
Three--It would make for a better society any time we're willing to embrace it.
Remember! Paul’s not speaking about religion, or doctrine, or theology, but simple, plain, indwelling Holy Spirit induced relational behavior expected of followers of Christ.
Of course, as Christians we have no trouble claiming 1 John 4:14 as applicable to ourselves, So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
Can we honestly claim these words to be true of us if our LACK of civility towards others indicates otherwise?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Laurel Wreath or Paper Bag?
Once one reaches that time of life when three-score years and ten are past tense, and there are days when one cannot get much more physical than eating and keeping oneself clean (thankfully not too many days like that), it’s during those times thinking and praying are the major exercises available.
During such times reading some of the really good blogs becomes a much anticipated part of the process.
Brother Dave Black’s pages are perfect for such times because they often remind me of the struggles we experienced as a family, and I as the bread winner, regarding the abandoning of the life we knew and entering into a lifetime committed to the preaching and teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
One such entry on Dave’s blog on Sunday September 20, he comments regarding some for whom “Christianity is a faith to be admired or else merely a subject to be studied objectively and historically -- nothing more.”
Writing in the context of some theology students our brother says, “For them the New Testament was nothing more than an analyzable datum of linguistic and historical investigation. For all their audacious ideas, they had no courage to follow the teachings of the One they claimed to have studied so thoroughly. What is true of university students is no less true of the modern church-goer. It really boils down to courage. Do we have the guts to give ourselves to something as costly as genuine Christianity?”
Note that sentence,” What is true of university students is no less true of the modern church-goer.”
How sad! How true!
But I’m drawn back to the comment made the day before the above-mentioned contribution on Dave’s blog, when he draws attention to an article on Henry Neufeld’s blog regarding our propensity to have “concept idols”.
Dave quotes Henry thus: “What's even more dangerous is that once we have made that "concept idol" we become less and less capable of hearing the very proper challenges to our idol and the pedestal on which we have placed it. We hear the challenges to the idols of others. Egalitarians, such as myself, can quite clearly see the dangers of patriarchy and hear clearly when its place on the pedestal is challenged. "Tear down that idol!" we shout!”
How right Dave is when he says, “.. it is sometimes necessary to remove the laurel wreaths around our heads and replace them with paper bags. Our convictions on rightness and wrongness are often ridiculously absurd.”
Just as absurd as are the “concept idols” which stand tall in most groups of Christians, where the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work, despite protestations, is at least secondary.
Read these men , and others such as Alan Knox, and have your “concept idols” challenged, if you dare..
During such times reading some of the really good blogs becomes a much anticipated part of the process.
Brother Dave Black’s pages are perfect for such times because they often remind me of the struggles we experienced as a family, and I as the bread winner, regarding the abandoning of the life we knew and entering into a lifetime committed to the preaching and teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
One such entry on Dave’s blog on Sunday September 20, he comments regarding some for whom “Christianity is a faith to be admired or else merely a subject to be studied objectively and historically -- nothing more.”
Writing in the context of some theology students our brother says, “For them the New Testament was nothing more than an analyzable datum of linguistic and historical investigation. For all their audacious ideas, they had no courage to follow the teachings of the One they claimed to have studied so thoroughly. What is true of university students is no less true of the modern church-goer. It really boils down to courage. Do we have the guts to give ourselves to something as costly as genuine Christianity?”
Note that sentence,” What is true of university students is no less true of the modern church-goer.”
How sad! How true!
But I’m drawn back to the comment made the day before the above-mentioned contribution on Dave’s blog, when he draws attention to an article on Henry Neufeld’s blog regarding our propensity to have “concept idols”.
Dave quotes Henry thus: “What's even more dangerous is that once we have made that "concept idol" we become less and less capable of hearing the very proper challenges to our idol and the pedestal on which we have placed it. We hear the challenges to the idols of others. Egalitarians, such as myself, can quite clearly see the dangers of patriarchy and hear clearly when its place on the pedestal is challenged. "Tear down that idol!" we shout!”
How right Dave is when he says, “.. it is sometimes necessary to remove the laurel wreaths around our heads and replace them with paper bags. Our convictions on rightness and wrongness are often ridiculously absurd.”
Just as absurd as are the “concept idols” which stand tall in most groups of Christians, where the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work, despite protestations, is at least secondary.
Read these men , and others such as Alan Knox, and have your “concept idols” challenged, if you dare..
Friday, September 4, 2009
A Little Too Familiar
I’m very sorry,but, living on the other side of the world, I haven’t a clue who Gary North is, but I like what he is reported to have written in Reality Check, August 18, 2009
Apparently, to quote Mr. North, “The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun the most revolutionary experiment in the history of education, stretching all the way back to the pharaohs. It now gives away its curriculum to anyone smart enough to learn it. It has posted its curriculum on-line for free.”
As the article proceeds the author, under the heading, “The Nature of this Revolutionary Experiment”, goes on to say, “For as long as there have been priesthoods, there has been formal classroom education.
The Egyptian priests had classrooms, lectures, and students taking notes.
The Jews had schools where bright young men came to learn the Hebrew texts and memorize the oral tradition, which began being written down in the second century A.D. This oral tradition was written down centuries later: the Mishnah and the Talmud.
The Classical Greeks had academies. Plato and Aristotle taught young men the rudiments of philosophy.
The Greeks also had medical schools.
These programs were closed to most outsiders. A student had to be accepted. He also had to pay. In most cases, the information was secret.
He then goes on to say that the student was bound by an oath of secrecy. In the case of the above medical students, the Hippocratic Oath, which, apart from being sworn in the name of pagan entities, included the following words,
“To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art -- if they desire to learn it -- without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.”
I couldn't help but think how familiar it sounds as North rightly asserts that “the training created a medical guild”, which, “functioned as an oligopoly. It kept prices high by restricting access to the training.
This is what the college diploma has always done. It has created a guild that restricts entry by non-certified people. This keeps wages high.
To obtain the diploma, a person must pay money to the trainers. The trainers are located at one center or special regional centers. Journeying to the center adds costs. Quitting a full-time job back home also adds to the expense. Forcing students to attend pre-requisites adds to the cost. Everything is done to screen access to the knowledge.
So, the knowledge does not spread. This is the crucial function of the academic screening system, especially for practical knowledge: healing people and building things.
“For the first time in the history of man, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has opened the gates to all comers. It has said, "You won't get certified by us, but you can get the classroom knowledge. If you are smart enough to teach yourself, you will have the knowledge."
MIT has now removed the most important layers of bureaucracy: the layers associated with classroom instruction.
1. The fee to obtain the training
2. The cost of journeying to a training center
3. The pre-requisite system
4. The cost of quitting your job
This has de-mystified the entire guild procedure. It says this: "If you are smart enough, you can master the initial content."
This opens the door for the revival of the local apprenticeship system. Here is where a student masters the non-textbook basics of a field, which are at least as important as the textbook content.
Think about it! Isn't the "guild system" what we have in the traditional church
scene today, with a few holding the "secrets" and passing on just enough information to keep people dependent on them?
The local church is the theological college of Scripture, the elders the academic staff, those they disciple, their apprentices. With the tutelage of the elders (who ought not be elders unless demonstrating, wisdom , knowledge of the Scriptures and character, all of which has grown from long experience as a follower of Christ), both the text book and the non-text book aspects can be taught, without the top heavy, expensive bureaucracies we have inherited from secularism.
Apparently, to quote Mr. North, “The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun the most revolutionary experiment in the history of education, stretching all the way back to the pharaohs. It now gives away its curriculum to anyone smart enough to learn it. It has posted its curriculum on-line for free.”
As the article proceeds the author, under the heading, “The Nature of this Revolutionary Experiment”, goes on to say, “For as long as there have been priesthoods, there has been formal classroom education.
The Egyptian priests had classrooms, lectures, and students taking notes.
The Jews had schools where bright young men came to learn the Hebrew texts and memorize the oral tradition, which began being written down in the second century A.D. This oral tradition was written down centuries later: the Mishnah and the Talmud.
The Classical Greeks had academies. Plato and Aristotle taught young men the rudiments of philosophy.
The Greeks also had medical schools.
These programs were closed to most outsiders. A student had to be accepted. He also had to pay. In most cases, the information was secret.
He then goes on to say that the student was bound by an oath of secrecy. In the case of the above medical students, the Hippocratic Oath, which, apart from being sworn in the name of pagan entities, included the following words,
“To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art -- if they desire to learn it -- without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.”
I couldn't help but think how familiar it sounds as North rightly asserts that “the training created a medical guild”, which, “functioned as an oligopoly. It kept prices high by restricting access to the training.
This is what the college diploma has always done. It has created a guild that restricts entry by non-certified people. This keeps wages high.
To obtain the diploma, a person must pay money to the trainers. The trainers are located at one center or special regional centers. Journeying to the center adds costs. Quitting a full-time job back home also adds to the expense. Forcing students to attend pre-requisites adds to the cost. Everything is done to screen access to the knowledge.
So, the knowledge does not spread. This is the crucial function of the academic screening system, especially for practical knowledge: healing people and building things.
“For the first time in the history of man, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has opened the gates to all comers. It has said, "You won't get certified by us, but you can get the classroom knowledge. If you are smart enough to teach yourself, you will have the knowledge."
MIT has now removed the most important layers of bureaucracy: the layers associated with classroom instruction.
1. The fee to obtain the training
2. The cost of journeying to a training center
3. The pre-requisite system
4. The cost of quitting your job
This has de-mystified the entire guild procedure. It says this: "If you are smart enough, you can master the initial content."
This opens the door for the revival of the local apprenticeship system. Here is where a student masters the non-textbook basics of a field, which are at least as important as the textbook content.
Think about it! Isn't the "guild system" what we have in the traditional church
scene today, with a few holding the "secrets" and passing on just enough information to keep people dependent on them?
The local church is the theological college of Scripture, the elders the academic staff, those they disciple, their apprentices. With the tutelage of the elders (who ought not be elders unless demonstrating, wisdom , knowledge of the Scriptures and character, all of which has grown from long experience as a follower of Christ), both the text book and the non-text book aspects can be taught, without the top heavy, expensive bureaucracies we have inherited from secularism.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A FOOL AND HIS .........
Blogging can be an amazing way of bridging the gap between people living in any part of the world, but being a very public medium it also reveals much about the character of the one blogging, but, more often than not, it reveals much, much more about the character of the ones commenting about an article the blogger submits.
Today, as I read the comments on this blog, a word kept making itself obvious to me, and as I thought about why this was so it became clear that there are some who seem to have such a high opinion of themselves that no one could possibly teach them anything of worth. To define such a person one would have to use the word “fool”.
Actually, the wisest man who ever lived had something to say about such people in Proverbs 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, hut he who listens to advice is wise.” , and then again in 18:2, he said, “A fool has no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may lay itself bare.”
Of course being the wise man he was, King Solomon was entitled to say much more, because he understood that fools not only don’t understand what they are doing, their ignorance towards wisdom compounds the matter, so he advised, “Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words” (23:9).
It’s not the matter of ignorance which is the problem because the attaining of knowledge can cure simple ignorance. A fool cannot be cured because he not only has a problem with matters of truth, but, although he thinks he has a good grasp of, what he would call more important matters of truth, he simply cannot understand the simple, elementary matters of truth.
There is one other thing which really marks such a one as a fool. He will always use words which indicate hostility, or even anger. Ridicule is another mark.
Such a person has, what I call a columnar mind: Everyone is categorized by column, far left, left, centre, or mainstream, right, and far right, or some such system. The interesting thing is that the fool is the only one who knows which column he fits in, but, at least he thinks it is the right one.
One thing is certain, no one else is in the same column as the one he fits in, because he simply has to act emotionally to what everyone else says.
Must be lonely in that column. Maybe that’s why he makes such a fool of himself, he wants to get out!
Today, as I read the comments on this blog, a word kept making itself obvious to me, and as I thought about why this was so it became clear that there are some who seem to have such a high opinion of themselves that no one could possibly teach them anything of worth. To define such a person one would have to use the word “fool”.
Actually, the wisest man who ever lived had something to say about such people in Proverbs 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, hut he who listens to advice is wise.” , and then again in 18:2, he said, “A fool has no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may lay itself bare.”
Of course being the wise man he was, King Solomon was entitled to say much more, because he understood that fools not only don’t understand what they are doing, their ignorance towards wisdom compounds the matter, so he advised, “Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words” (23:9).
It’s not the matter of ignorance which is the problem because the attaining of knowledge can cure simple ignorance. A fool cannot be cured because he not only has a problem with matters of truth, but, although he thinks he has a good grasp of, what he would call more important matters of truth, he simply cannot understand the simple, elementary matters of truth.
There is one other thing which really marks such a one as a fool. He will always use words which indicate hostility, or even anger. Ridicule is another mark.
Such a person has, what I call a columnar mind: Everyone is categorized by column, far left, left, centre, or mainstream, right, and far right, or some such system. The interesting thing is that the fool is the only one who knows which column he fits in, but, at least he thinks it is the right one.
One thing is certain, no one else is in the same column as the one he fits in, because he simply has to act emotionally to what everyone else says.
Must be lonely in that column. Maybe that’s why he makes such a fool of himself, he wants to get out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
