barnabas' triad

Within the Apostolic Fathers is The Epistle of Barnabas (which probably doesn't have anything to do with the person mentioned in Acts, but nevertheless displays some early Christian teaching). He admonishes the intended recipients of the letter with 'three basic doctrines' gleaned from Jesus' teaching.

"Well, then, there are three basic doctrines of the Lord: the hope of life, which is the beginning and end of our faith; and a righteousness, which is the beginning and end of judgment; and a glad and rejoicing love, which is the testimony of works of righteousness. For the Master has made known to us through the prophets things past and things present, and has given us a foretaste of things to come. Consequently, when we see these things come to pass, one thing after the other just as he predicted, we ought to make a richer and loftier offering out of reverence for him."

(trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers 3rd ed, 382-383)

Reflecting on these three aspects of our faith reminds us of the importance of daily witness. It is not enough to claim to be followers of Christ, we must also demonstrate our sincerity with the fullness of our lives. Many people can claim that they have hope, but few take the time to make genuine hope turn to a new reality for the hopeless. Our culture continues to seek justice and righteousness, but it always seems as though it eludes our ability to achieve it in this world. And it seems like everyone is talking about love (or the need to love), with so few people showing actual love to their neighbor.

These ideas are of divine origin, and the world cannot replicate them. Simply stated, we try to make these happen without the work of the Spirit or submission to the Savior, and that is why we fail to actualize. That is also why we can hear a lot of people who say they can bring a culture of hope, righteousness and love, and never make it a reality. All sorts of people have been promising this for generations, but without any lasting change in the world. The reality of our broken and fallen world returns to remind us that we are unable to fix ourselves - it will take a more radical solution.

The heritage of faith ought to remind us of such things, by looking back at the saints who have gone before. They kept the faith alive by showing how to live out faith, righteousness and love (among other things). Our remembrance at once gives us challenge and inspiration to face the uncertain days ahead with the unwavering proclamation of the gospel - to remember that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is Lord of this world. As the work of his church continues to bring the fullness of his kingdom, I pray that each would have a blessed All Saints' Day.

quiet quote

"What deadens us most to God's presence within us, I think, is the inner dialogue that we are continuously engaged in with ourselves, the endless chatter of human thought. I suspect that there is nothing more crucial to true spiritual comfort . . . than being able from time to time to stop that chatter including the chatter of spoken prayer. If we choose to seek the silence of the holy place, or to open ourselves to its seeking, I think there is no surer way than by keeping silent."

Frederick Buechner, Telling Secrets (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 105.

extreme makeover

The concept: Locate a family dwelling in poor living conditions, often with a hardship or crisis that they cannot quite overcome or have problems dealing with, and rebuild their home in seven days with a professional design team and an army of skilled and unskilled volunteers.

This is the essence of what is now a well-known and popular television show in the US. When Extreme Makeover: Home Edition rolls into town it is with no small disturbance to live-as-usual. I don't get to watch all that many of them, but I will confess - I'm a fan. There is a strong emphasis on human emotion, hope and life restored built into each episode. In the process of helping out one family, the crew is able to pull together an incredible number of volunteers and donations to remake an entire home within a week's time - often having competing contractors swinging hammers side-by-side for the common goal. It takes the dire condition of one family and turns it into a hopeful situation. By remaking a house.

In a few hours this team will be revealing their latest completion which is just a few miles from where I live. The Cowan-Brown family will drive up the road and have their new home given to them, a place where they can face the future with a renewed spirit. I was unable to go and watch the building, and will not be at the reveal today. But I did keep up with much of the news coming out of the plethora of activities there . . . FYI, the local Chipotle went and rolled over 300 burritos for volunteers one night. It has been a flurry of excitement for the past seven days, ever since I passed the production bus - complete with police escort - coming down the highway last Wednesday. (Until then, I didn't even realize they were coming!)

A great concept and perhaps one of the best uses of television entertainment. But, without intending to throw a wet blanket on everything, it is imperative to ask of ourselves: Where is the church?

I was told by one person, 'This family attends our church' without any pause for why their situation was so dire and hopeless. That is where I started to wrestle with this, especially knowing that the process of show-selection considered three other homes for production . . . this means that at least two families in this area need help as well. Who will come in and change their lives? Who will restore their hope? Who will reshape their future?

And why does it take a television show to do the work of the church? Extreme Makeover: Home Edition comes in and does an incredible work. They restore, remake, renew and reignite individuals, families and entire communities. That sounds like the definition of church more than it sounds like the definition of TV show. My only answer is that our current culture is more inspired and motivated by money, ratings and notoriety than it is by the power of the Spirit. That's the only thing I can come up with . . . because churches and parachurch organizations which focus on this area cannot seem to generate the same enthusiasm or volunteerism.

The church might not be able to make things as flashy or refined as the production crew of this show, but it can certainly reach into itself and keep people from the conditions which are highlighted at the beginning of each episode. Especially within the context of believers, it is inexcusable for this level of 'extreme' need. Such a situation reeks of the conviction found in 'Go in peace, be warm and well fed' faith without action. Our churches are looking a bit too much like as-long-as-I'm-ok Christianity, and it takes a television program to reveal ourselves.

Congratulations to this family. But now . . . what about the needs which remain?

(2)COR leadership5

5. Those who minister through the gospel may expect persecution as a result of their work.

(2 Corinthians 11:16-33)

In this particular passage Paul gives the Corinthian church a listing of his 'spiritual credentials' to show that if faith were about boasting, he would be far better qualified than his contemporaries. And, while he could choose to claim such superiority, he knows that faith is not about such things - and our boasting is pointless and futile. Thus, he chooses another path to defend himself against those who challenge his ministry.

It should again be noted that Paul is being charged on several levels as a sub-standard minister by many of the other workers in and around the Corinthian church. Perhaps as is so often the case today, those who were challenging Paul were doing so on the poor theory that because of his hardships his message and ministry must have been flawed. The failure of this evaluation is that it imposes worldly values upon a heavenly activity; such methodology measures success by means which are external to the gospel. Paul seems to evaluate his own ministry from a different perspective . . . and if he is forced to defend himself against such opposition he will challenge them to match his sufferings.

Paul's own list of sufferings is much more than many ministers (both ancient and contemporary) encounter. Perhaps this is because so many ministers do not thoroughly engage the world enough to have opposition.

In the end, however, Paul reserves his greatest concern for those who are under his spiritual care (v 28), a stark reminder that ministry is not about us as ministers. What a far cry from so many modern pastors, teachers and leaders who begrudgingly take upon their roles and who secretly (and some not-so-secretly) despise the very people for whom they are responsible! That Paul is willing to look past his own sacrifices for the sake of the gospel and still place others in his view of concern is remarkable. He chooses not to blame the congregations that are associated with his sufferings but rather counts the communal hardships as validation of his work. Far too long has modern evangelicalism allowed pastors and leaders to come with an attitude of 'I-really-really-hate-doing-ministry-but-I've-been-called-so-there's-nothing-else-I-can-do-about-it.'

The choices before Paul are clear: to abandon his mission (or perhaps continue through spite) or to see his circumstances through the eyes of the kingdom. He goes with the latter and is thus able to boast in his weakness and suffering. Yes, this is to say that is is not in his own strength, but through his weakness that the work of the gospel continues. And it is through his sufferings that his message is vindicated and his resolve emboldened. Our models of ministry and evaluation would do well to revisit guidelines on handling suffering.

freefall

The past couple of weeks have moved at an incredible rate . . . with the sense that it is both moving at lightspeed but also enduring never-ending weeks. And part of the future from here is brighter . . . but the other part is full of shadows and uncertainty.

But we move forward, for there is no going backward.

We move forward, for Christian sentiment is summarized in seeing that the best is yet to come.

We move forward, learning to let go and trust in the one who has called us.

We move forward, and accept letting go as a necessary step in this journey.

From spiritual heights we take a step into the unknown, hoping to God that he will be there to catch us . . . or give us wings to fly. It is a challenge to accept God's future and surrender your own plans. And it isn't safe (yes, Mr Beaver, who said anything about being safe?). But the image of freefalling is one which invokes grace and ascension. For, as we fall we find ourselves with nothing to rely on other than his goodness . . . yet we are reminded by the clouds that this is the path our Lord took when he rose to sit on the throne and rule over all creation.

So, it seems to be familiar surroundings after all . . .

honor

In a recent 'open letter' to the President, popular emergent leader Brian Mclaren offers his perspective on war, conflict and the current international challenges facing our nation. If you want to read this letter, follow this link. What I have found in it is simply left-wing ideology put to the cadence of Scripture, with little to no thought of how some of these concepts work either within the context of biblical thought or contemporary application. In other words, while Mclaren's ability to make his position sound quite theological it fails on a number of points.

Yet, I do not wish to become distracted by the political punditry, to which I will readily conclude there are a number of valid perspectives and voices which are clamoring to be heard. My point here is to evaluate a metanarrative by using one or two of Mclaren's points.

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of his 'open letter' (and I noticed that when he did the same for the previous President, it was then called a 'sermon') is that he too closely acquaints murderers with the military. And this is inexcusable. Because there remains a valuable entity in this world known as honor, and our military has it. People who do nothing more than criticize our men and women in uniform without walking in their shoes demonstrate their lack of honor. And comments which in any way attempt to link the integrity of military service to murder reek of dishonor. So I challenge Mclaren to rethink his position and reword his sentiments, even if they are essentially anti-military.

This is a growing trend in our culture, but also (even more disheartening) among the Christian community. For it has become trendy to take a "Jesus-stand" against all things violent and military regardless of the absurdity or ineptitude of the position. For instance, there are many who take the position of pure pacifism while comfortably resting under the shelter of those who fight for their peace and freedom thousands of miles away. It is always easier to be a pacifist when you live in relative peace and comfort. Yet these men and women know their fight, they understand the risk, and they know that many people they work to defend will seek to undermine them out of an ignorant lack of appreciation.

They do so anyway.

And now I am curious if our spirituality is not taking on a similar journey. In the past few years the trendiness of the evangelical subculture has also led to the ongoing attacks of the work of individuals such as Dobson and Colson (to name two). We enjoy the benefits of their work (yes, even when we may disagree with some of the finer points of their positions), and criticize them from a comfortable distance. The work of this previous generation was not without fault, but it was effective. As they prepare to fade into the pages of history, we can rest assured that they will go with the full confidence of faithful stewardship in the calling of our God. But who among us is stepping up to fulfill their role?

Most would answer this question with a quick look to the emergent leadership. But they are still struggling to figure out their own beliefs, let alone challenge and guide the culture of Christianity into the future. Theologies such as Mclaren has presented here are shallow and do not present a challenge of the kingdom so much as it presents an accommodation of the kingdom to an already preconceived political agenda. And although I recognize (and have some small hope) that Mclaren's thoughts here are a small portion of an overall kingdom-work which does not reflect these trends, the truth of the matter is that I have seen numerous emergent leaders take the same road of eisegetical theology within the framework of modern social liberalism.

I return to the notion that we have incorrectly and inappropriately understood the relationship of church and state as defined and asserted by the Founding Fathers of our nation. As we have strayed from their concept of a divinely inspired national experiment we have lost the honor that also kept us as believers holding to a standard. And now there are Christians who want the benefit of freedom and life, blessing and prosperity without ever enduring the passion of the cross, the lonely hours of prayer, the distinguishing lifestyle of a believer, or the cost of discipleship in the face of a culture.

And there is no honor found here.

Honor is found in sacrifice. Sacrifice is embracing the cross of Christ. Christ demands a surrender of everything to his will, and the establishment of a kingdom agenda. We all agree that God comes before country . . . the Marines also acknowledge that. But to assume that the two are then disconnected is just as fatal a flaw in our thinking. For the amount of good that has come to and through this country - because of its continuing commitment to 'in God we trust' thinking - is truly a divine accomplishment to which no culture or nation or leader or generation could take credit. The same is true of the church. Not faultless, but effective.

On all battlefields there can be found honor.

communion investments

from Geof Surratt, Ten Stupid Things That Keep Churches from Growing

quote of the day

"No Christian thought can encompass the thought of the Master, and that as the body is one but has many members so also the church."

H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (NY: Harper & Row, 1951), 229.

(2)COR leadership4

4. Ministers of Christ should never accept money for their ministry whenever it might call the integrity of their message into question.

(2 Corinthians 11:5-11)

A recent study indicated that less than 5% of American pastors earn more than $50,000 per year and about 14% of the same group earned less than $25,000 per year. One could also decipher a trend within American seminaries in which graduates who have spent this effort to prepare for the ministry believe that they are most likely going to earn large salaries as part of their ministerial employment.

While this is not quite the specific issue that Paul addresses here, it does provide an interesting connection to the text. If for nothing else, it does provide some eyebrow-raising insight into the amount of ministers who begin their work with financial priority as such a high factor in their expectations.

Surprisingly - perhaps to both ancient Corinth and modern evangelicalism - Paul sets forward a fourth principle by asserting that ministers should disconnect themselves from the finances of the church whenever it is an obstacle for kingdom work. Unfortunately, this has often fallen on deaf ears. Our culture has been plagued by pastors and church leaders who have never met a dollar bill they did not like, and take as much as they can get - even at the expense of their own ministries and churches. In fact, many ministers can rightly be accused of too quickly abandoning difficult circumstances in light of the elusive 'greener grass' on the other side, perhaps defined by their financial perspectives and priorities.

Of course, it is the love of money which is the root of all kinds of evil, so we should guard ourselves and our ministries from its destructive forms. Notice that Paul does not say that money cannot play a role in ministry; he himself accepted gifts from various churches, so long as there were no strings attached. But his concern was always for the message of the gospel first, and then for himself.

This standard of evaluation needs to be renewed and strengthened among our churches and leaders.

espiritu rio?

Not surprisingly, the move made by the IOC to hold the 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro has many people within the United States lamenting the 'loss' of Chicago as a candidate city. This is somewhat understandable(although roughly half of Chicagoans did not want their city to host the games - with the enormous stress that accompanies them), and I appreciate the support for the home team.

But the story continues to be about the President, rather than Chicago or the United States . . . or even the Olympics. And here is where I grow quite weary (already!) of the discussion regarding Rio 2016. It may be that a Chicago Olympics would have been spectacular, but now it is time to say something almost entirely missing from the headlines . . . Congratulations, Rio! This is the first time South America has the honor of hosting the world for the Olympic games. And this means it is the first time that South American culture will be showcased for the rest of the world, and that is a big deal.

Yet, I continue to be disappointed with the many supposed 'global Christians' who are sad for Chicago without expressing any excitement for Rio. In actuality, it is not so much that they are sad for Chicago or the USA that they are sad for the failure of our current President to deliver on his bid for the games. What this means is that the issue of the 2016 games is more about one person's leadership than it is a celebration of diversity.

In my lifetime there have been two summer games and two winter games held in the United States. And we are sad because a continent which has never hosted the games 'won out' over El Presidente's failed attempt at Olympic Kum Ba Yah? We were even forced to celebrate the 2008 games under human-rights-violating-anti-freedom-state-only-religion-Communist China more than we have expressed happiness for Rio.

My point? Please do not push for global Christianity and then act like this. For it is neither global nor Christianity. First, Christianity is a worldview which does not bend to the desires of culture, politics, media or Presidents. Such entities do not define the Christian faith. Second, global assumes that we suffer with those who suffer (e.g., China) and celebrate with those who celebrate (e.g., Rio). What I have been witnessing in the last few days is nothing short of hot air originating from pathetic attempts to mix faith and country.

Again . . . Congratulations Rio!

numbers

(2)COR leadership3

3. All believers are to reject any kind of *knowledge* which is not Christ-centered.

(2 Corinthians 11:1-15)

The one who is masquerading as an 'angel of light' is the specific reason for Paul's next point in evaluating ministries. Although Paul himself did not consider his own speaking abilities to be of admirable quality (v. 6), he did come to Corinth with the fullness of truth and gospel. Yet, the congregation has started to turn away form this and are accepting a new type of 'knowledge.'

The interpreter is left wondering just what kind of new 'knowledge' this was . . . Are we talking about the ten secrets to spiritual success? Or life-changing discipleship in just five minutes a day? Or perhaps tips on how to increase your church attendance (and giving) in just forty days? . . . We are unsure. What is clear is that it went against the heart of the gospel message and led people away from the kingdom.

Paul's judgment in 11:14-15 is interesting, for he considers these who are masquerading as workers of righteousness to be themselves deceived by the master of deception. Could it be that this group did not realize the error of their own ways, thinking that they were right all along even when they have failed to rightly judge their own fruits by the Spirit? Perhaps. Or this could be a group which knows of their own falsehood and yet continue to go on as though they were agents of the Spirit (this would then make them the spiritual ancestry of Benny Hinn). In either case, the verdict remains the same: these who prop themselves up to positions of leadership and influence have an obligation to the body of Christ that they evaluate themselves in light of the kingdom and Spirit.

Even those things which come to us as 'church-centered' cannot replace the supremacy of Christ in our churches, and should thus be thrown out. Congregations are not the center of our faith. Through our spiritual bond in Christ we may be the living temple of his presence, but that does not give us license to place ourselves before him. While we spend time talking and evaluating and seeking methodological madness to spiritual *success* we find ourselves devoting more attention to our own earthbound endeavors than keeping our minds focused on things above. And the master of deception continues to mask self-centeredness, greed and accomplishment in the robe of light that might appear to be righteousness.

Through God's great mercy, let us humbly come before him and open our eyes that he might reach in and grab hold of our hearts, keeping us centered on him alone.