February 28, 2009

As most of my readers know, our family serves people in various ways. We spend time with people in a local nursing home and government assisted housing project. But, in reality, these opportunities to serve God by serving other people are the tip of the iceberg.

What do I mean by that? I mean that primarily God uses us to serve people in simple, everday ways. Grace at “Kingdom Grace” has written an excellent post about this type of serving in a post called “Missional in the Moment“.

Grace expresses how she has learned to serve people moment by moment:

• The main thing that I learned about myself is that in order to love others, I usually have to go one step beyond what I am culturally comfortable with. I was raised to respect other people’s privacy, to be non-intrusive, to be non-demonstrative, and to be somewhat introverted about approaching others. Not that I am now obnoxious, but in order to express care to others, I have to step outside of my comfort zone and risk stepping into theirs.
• I have also discovered that I have to stay present in the moment and present to the people around me. Most missional moments appear fairly insignificant.
• Missional moments look like an opportunity to let someone know that I care about them and what they are going through, sometimes just with words, sometimes with specific actions.
• Remembering I carry within me the light, power, and life of Jesus Christ, the choice is always available to me to share that love with others or to withhold it. I try to be generous with His abundant love.
• I am sharpening my awareness that everywhere around me are people who need words of life and sharpening my sensitivity to where God is at work.
• From a kingdom perspective, every act of love and care is an investment in eternity. I remind myself of the eternal significance of even the smallest opportunities to love.
• That’s it. Learning moment by moment to hear from the Father, to follow the Spirit, and to share the love of Jesus in every imaginable opportunity that presents itself during my day.

There is alot of wisdom is what Grace has to say. We’ve found that God gives amazing opportunities to serve and demonstrate his love to others when we are aware of the people that he puts in our lives, and when we are willing to go beyond our comfort zone. What do you think about Grace’s list?

February 27, 2009

In commenting on a passage from Charles Spurgeon (which I quoted in a post called “Spurgeon’s ‘Building the Church’“), Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has made some excellent observations in a post called “On the Lord’s Supper and genuine, Biblical Christian fellowship“. First, read the Spurgeon quote, either on Arthur’s post or mine, then read Arthur’s comment:

That is a far cry from how we break bread with one another today. I think that the problem with the prior post on denying the table to Christians is that we are not talking about the Lord’s Supper in the same frame of reference that the Bible speaks of the Supper. We see the Lord’s Supper, the fellowship, the breaking of bread as being something that is reserved for formal, organized meetings “at church”, on schedule and in the proper format. Nothing could be further from the Bible. We have lost the sense of the Supper being an act of worship, of fellowship, of community among the redeemed. It is now a ceremony, a function, a sacrament. We are poorer as a people for it and the Supper is less meaningful because of it.

Again, this is not to discount the need for and the value of corporate gathering and worship. We have been in fellowship with other believers in a corporate setting every Sunday since we moved, often multiple times on Sundays. But we as the Body of Christ have so modified the idea of Christian fellowship and the breaking of bread and worship from how it appears in the Bible that I fear that we are doing a lot more tradition following than we are Bible following. Especially from those of us who are Reformed, who believe in the inerrancy, perspicuity and sufficiency of the Bible. We, of all people, should seek in the spirit of semper reformanda to constantly test what we believe and what we do with the words of Holy Writ and not let our theology and practice be dictated by tradition or culture or confessions, but instead be guided by the Word of God. What is tragic is that being “Reformed” seems to require greater and greater form and structure. What is ironic is that being “Reformed” is looking less and less like a reformation and more and more like what Christians were trying to reform in the first place.

Are we willing to admit that we’ve replaced community with ceremony? Are we then willing to move beyond ceremony and seek true community in Christ?

February 27, 2009

Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Minimalist Definition of the Church“. Have you thought much about the essence of the church? What makes a group of people a church? This was the question that I was starting to think about with this post.

————————————————-

Minimalist Definition of the Church

As I have studied (and continue to study) ecclesiology (the study of the church), I’ve noticed that there are two ways to define the church. The first method of defining the church is one that I’ll call an “extensive” definition. This method develops a definition that describes what the church should be, how the church should act, and what differentiates one “church” from another “church”. Thus, in this type of definition, you will find items such as the proper understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, various teachings concerning leadership within the church, and activities carried out by the church such as teaching and mission.

My primary concern with an “extensive” definition is that it goes beyond what a “definition” is. For example, let’s say that a definition of the church says something like this: The church is … operating through democratic process… Since “operating through democratic process” is part of the definition, then this definition suggests that any group that does not operate as a democracy is not a church. If, on the other hand, people agree that a church can operate as other than a democracy, the definition given does little to help us understand what actually defines a church.

As John Hammett suggests in Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, this type of definition blurs “health” with “essence”. A “healthy” church may operate in a certain way, but this does not help us determine the “essence” of the church. I am putting “health” and “essence” in quotations, because, as far as I can tell, very few have tried to define what falls into “health” and what falls into “essence”. But, this is exactly my desire. I want to know what defines the “essence” of the church, such that if the “essence” is present, then a church is present. If the “essence” is not present, then the church is not present. Anything beyond this does not belong to a definition of the church, although other criteria could be used to define a “healthy” church, with at least as many definitions of “healthy” as there are denominations, etc.

The other type of definition, and the one that I prefer, is often called a “minimalist” definition. A “minimalist” definition only includes those attributes that are necessary for the existence of the church. Several “minimalist” definitions have been suggested throughout history. Here are a few “minimalist” definitions that I have been able to find:

1. The church is any group indwelled by the Spirit of God.
2. The church is any group that has been changed by the gospel.
3. The church is any group that rightly proclaims the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments.
4. The church is any group that has been gathered by the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

I like some of these definitions, especially the ones that remove the existence of the church from the activities of men.

What are the dangers of using an “extensive” definition of the church? What are the advantages?

What are the dangers of using a “minimalist” definition of the church? What are the advantages?

February 26, 2009

Lionel at “The Gospel in 3-D” has interviewed me. The interview is in his post called “Interactive Interview with Alan Knox“. I enjoyed the interview process very much. I hope the result is as interesting and fun as the process.

For those who are interesting in learning even more about me and my journey so far, I’ve also been interviewed before by Michael in “A Conversation with Alan Knox: Interview Series Pt. 5“, by Glenn in “Featured Blogger: Alan Knox“, and by Dave Black in “Interview with Alan Knox“.

February 26, 2009

In his short letter, Jude tells his readers that he was planning to write about their common salvation. Instead, he says that he decided to appeal to them “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”. (Jude 3)

But, what did Jude intend for his readers to do? How were they supposed to “contend for the faith”?

In the next sentence, Jude warns his readers that some divisive and disruptive and ungodly people had sneaked in among them. For the next twelve verses (Jude 5-16), Jude tells his readers that ungodly people will be punished by God. He gives them several examples of how God judges and punishes the ungodly.

But, this still doesn’t answer the question. How are Jude’s readers supposed to “contend for the faith”? Read the next 7 verses:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. (Jude 17-23 ESV)

Did you see the commands? There are only five commands (instructions) in the Jude’s short letter, and they’re all contained in these verses. How would Jude’s readers (and us by extension) “contend for the faith”?

1. Remember the predictions of the apostles. The apostles told them that people with ungodly passions would come in. They should not be surprised nor fearful of them.
2. Remain in the love of God, by a) building each other up in faith (that is, helping one another trust God), b) praying in the Holy Spirit, and c) waiting for the mercy that comes from Jesus Christ.
3. Have mercy on those who doubt.
4. Rescue (save) those who are trapped in sinful behavior.
5. Have mercy (cautiously – with fear) on those whose lives are covered with sin.

(By the way, the last few verses have quite different attestations in different manuscripts. But, most agree Jude instructs his readers to have mercy on others.)

I think it is very interesting that Jude tells his readers to “contend for the faith” (and thereby thwart the work of divisive, deceptive, and ungodly people) by encouraging one another to remain in God’s love and by having mercy on those who are doubting or sinning.

I’m not sure that this is the way the church is attempting to “contend for the faith” today. It seems that we tend to tear down those who disagree with us and ridicule or label or dismiss those who are doubting or sinning. Could it be that its not “the faith” we are contending for?

What if showing love and mercy contends for the faith more than apologetic arguments? What if helping and strengthening one another (other believers) preserves the faith more than creeds and confessions? What if “the faith” is more about living in God’s love and trusting him than it is about a set of systematic doctrines?

What if the church focused on love and mercy and allowed God to continue to deal with the divisive, the deceptive, and the ungodly as Jude shows that he always has in the past?

February 25, 2009

This post is part of my “stories” series. In this series, I share stories of how people live their lives in response to the gospel and as a demonstration of God’s love in order to teach us and to provide an example to provoke us to love and good works. (See “stories: A New Series” for more information about this series.)

My friends go to the nursing home almost every week to read the Bible and sing songs. Before they begin to read and after they sing, my friends (along with their four boys) make their way from resident to resident and pass out hugs and listen to their stories. Since I was not teaching last summer, I went with them a few times. On my first visit, I met Mrs. Jennie.

Mrs. Jennie is in her mid-eighties and rides around in a motorized wheelchair because her legs are very weak. I sat beside her the day that I met her, and I held the song book open for her when we sang. She later told me that she couldn’t see the words, but she appreciated me holding the book for her.

After my friend read from Matthew’s gospel about “the least of these”, Mrs. Jennie leaned over to me. In her New York City accent she said, “I’m not an atheist, but all this religion stuff is new to me. I only come to Story Time because of him”. She pointed at the three year old son who was passing out song books to the residents with a big smile on his face. When he got to us, he handed me a song book and grinned at Mrs. Jennie. She touch his hair and beamed back at him.

We made a connection that day, and my family has fallen in love with Mrs. Jennie. We visit her in the nursing home every week. As we got to know her, she started telling us more about herself and her family. We found out that she has a daughter that she doesn’t talk to, and that there was even a restraining order once. She told us that she had two sons (“Both of them were good boys”), and they both died in traffic accidents when they were 21. Each one left a wife and child behind – and a mother who wondered why they were taken from her.

Mrs. Jennie talks about how she’s different now than she once was. She talks about how she was once mean and angry and sad, but now she feels “blessed”. One day, when we were visiting with us, she pulled out an evangelistic tract that a well-meaning person had given her. She said, “He wanted to push me to make a decision. I told him that I couldn’t pray something that I didn’t mean in my heart. Plus, I told him that if I needed to talk to someone, I have you and your family.”

In December and January, we were out of town for several weeks, both because we were travelling for Christmas and New Years, and because my wife’s father had open heart surgery. We sent word to Mrs. Jennie through our friends, so that she would know what was going on and why we were not visiting her.

Later, the kids and I came back home and left Margaret in Alabama for a few more weeks to take care of her father. We went to see Mrs. Jennie not long after we got back home. The first thing she did as ask about Margaret’s father. Then she said, “Tell Margaret that I’m praying for him. I don’t know how to pray, so I look out my window and talk to God like he’s here with me. I think he hears me.”

Last week, for Valentine’s Day, we gave Mrs. Jennie a bouquet of roses. She barely talked for our whole visit. Finally she said, “I don’t know what to say. No one has ever given me flowers before. Not even my husband.” She half-smiled and half-cried for the remainder of our visit.

On one visit, Mrs. Jennie surprised us with a gift. She had painted a picture of a cross and had it framed for us. When she gave it to me, she pointed to the cross and said, “I’m very close”. Mrs. Jennie still struggles with the death of her sons. She still wonders why God would take them away from her. But, God is changing her. I’m glad that God has allowed our family to be part of her life and part of the process that he’s using to draw her to himself.

February 24, 2009

Is there a difference between knowing about something and experiencing something? Jonathan at “Missio Dei” asks this question in his post “Does Love Exist?” Jonathan says:

The space between the two, between knowing information about something because it was given to you and knowing something from experience, is a chasm. I think it is the difference between what makes the body of Christ strong and irrelevant to the world. Knowing about something produces no real tangible evidence or penetrating experience. Knowing something from experience produces evidence that cannot be ignored. It can be rejected but it can’t be ignored.

The question then is, what is the dominant structure we’re seeing in the church today. Knowing about something or knowing from experience?

I’ll ask his question in a slightly different manner: Is it possible to know about something without experiencing it? Is it possible to experience something without knowing about it? Is one more important than the other when it comes to God, love, service, etc.?

February 24, 2009

Several weeks ago, the publishers sent me a review copy of Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches that Reach Them (Nashville: B&H, 2009) by Ed Stetzer, Richie Stanley, and Jason Hayes. While this post will not be a review, I would like to interact with some of the content in this book.

Lost and Found is the result of several polls of 20-29 year olds offered and compiled by the authors. The results are compared to data for 30-39 year olds as well, but the primary target group was 20-somethings. The book is divided into 3 parts: “Polling”, “Listening”, and “Reaching”.

In the first part, “Polling”, the authors describe the research methodology and report the raw research data. In the second part, “Listening”, the authors suggest four “markers” that indicate what 20-somethings value: community, depth, responsibility, and cross-generational connection. In the last part, “Reaching”, the authors give examples of churches that are “reaching” 20-somethings.

For me, the most beneficial part of this book is the second part: “Listening”. As the authors point out community, depth, responsibility, and cross-generational connection are very important to 20-somethings. Also, the authors point out that these four “markers” are biblical concepts that should be important to the church as well (more on this later).

When the authors talk about “community” they mean “life is meant to be experienced together. Community is about intimately journeying through life with those who surround you.” (76) But, they also recognize that, “The church has, for generations, spoken of community. However, most of us would agree that community has been more of an aspiration than a reality”. (69)

The authors share an interesting anecdote about Starbucks to demonstrate the importance of community to 20-somethings:

Maybe the only thing that young adults desire as much as community is coffee. They are the men and women who not only like coffee, but they know everything about it… Perhaps that’s why Starbucks has the appeal it does. Most young adults have Starbucks as part of their experience… But interestingly enough, many young adults will say that Starbucks isn’t the best coffee they’ve ever had… Starbucks is successful because it sells more than coffee. It sells community. In their stores they intentionally create environments by design and acoustics that encourage conversations, comfort, and accessibility. (77)

Twenty-somethings are willing to pay $4 for coffee that’s not their favorite because they go to Starbucks to foster community. (An interesting question would be, does the church foster community? But, more on that later.)

According to the authors, 20-somethings also value “depth”. What do they mean? They mean that young adults do not want to wade in the shallow end. They want to deal with the tough issues of life. And, they want to be part of that process. As one person said, “It’s not one person with all the answers. Rather, it’s about all the people with their combined knowledge and experience.” And, this is the other part of depth: for young adults, depth is about real life, not theories or -ologies. If it doesn’t affect their life, then its a waste of time. The young people indicated that they learn through discussion and hands-on experience.

The third marker of 20-somethings is “responsibility”. By responsibility, the authors mean service and social responsibility. The authors point out that for these young adults, service was not something that was just talked about, or something that was left for others (professionals) to do. For example, they write:

Young adults believe in global responsibility; they know their choices make a difference. And they are living their lives in a manner that reflects this belief. (111)

The final marker for this group of young adults was a desire for “cross-generational connection”. One of the authors shared part of a conversation that drives this point home:

She said, “I’m twenty-four years old. I’d like to know how to cook, but I’ve never met my mother. Who can teach me?” (124)

The authors say that 20-somethings are looking for people who will “walk alongside them and give advice here and there. They’re looking for mentors who are willing to invest in their lives and teach them some things along the way.” (129)

The authors present a fictional narrative which runs throughout the book. The story follows the lives of a group of 20-somethings that they live out these four values. This narrative may be the most important part of the book, because it demonstrates how community, depth, responsibility, and cross-generational connection can play a part in the lives of 20-somethings.

However, I’m afraid this book will be used to create another church program designed to attract 20-somethings to a certain church organization. Consider this statement by the authors concerning community:

You can’t buy community, program community, or fake community. It’s the reality of the relationships that makes Christ believable to an unbelieving society. The person far from God will not come to Christ until the love of Christ annihilates the opposing worldview upon which they depend. Community is the love of God manifesting itself in and through the people of God. (76)

This statement could be repeated for the values of depth, responsibility, and cross-generational connection. In fact, concerning cross-generational connections, the authors say:

When people from an older generation invite young adults into their lives, they have that chance. Whether eating a meal, going to the movies, or having a conversation, the natural circumstances emerge to see and seize teaching opportunities through sharing life together. Though some specific direction can be emphasized in those relationships, the greatest learning moments will surface during everyday occurrences as they live life together – funerals, weddings, meals, baseball games, and family events. (134)

Yes! I agree completely! But, this is so foreign to the majority of churches, who rely on staff and programs, measurements and control. “Sharing life together” (I term that I like to use as well) cannot be programmed, measured, or controlled. However, several statements in the book even indicate that programs are in the mind of the authors:

Knowing this [that young adults are interested in social action], we must focus our efforts toward establishing social action as a major element in the strategies and programs of our churches. (117)

While the unchurched have a reduced interest in traditional “front door” approaches, we should now consider using service as a primary entry point into the lives of nonbelievers. Rather than initially inviting the unchurched to a traditional church program, perhaps we should invite them to help serve at a rescue mission or to attend a benefit dinner for a local charity. (119)

Note that I’m not opposed to inviting unbelievers to help us serve. The question is: Why are we serving? Are we serving because we desire to serve people out of the love of God, or are we serving people in order to attract young adults? If we are serving to attract young adults, they will eventually recognize our hypocrisy and steer clear – as they have been doing.

Unfortunately, just as surveys from a previous generation led to a plethora of “youth programs”, I think many will use this book to create additional “young adult programs”. These programs will serve the right music, offer the right buzz words, have plenty of coffee, and do service projects, but soon, the majority of 20-somethings – those who even try the program – will see the efforts as just another form of commercialization – a way to gain their trust in order to sell them a product or service. Those who are successful creating a “young adult community” will then wonder why those same 20-somethings are not participating in the other programs of the church.

Why? Like the authors said, “You can’t buy community, program community, or fake community” (76). And, those who appreciate community the most, can more easily sense a fake or inauthentic “community”.

I do not think we should be asking, “What can the church do to attract or reach 20-somethings?” Instead, we should use this very important research to ask two different questions: 1) Why are 20-somethings not finding community, depth, responsibility, or cross-generational connection among the church? (according to the authors, most of the people surveyed had been part of churches) and 2) Why are 30+ year olds not as interested in community, depth, responsibility, or cross-generational connection as they should be, at least, as Scripture indicates God’s people will be interested?

If we start addressing these questions, and seeking real community, depth, responsibility, and cross-generational connection, others will notice.

February 23, 2009

Yesterday, for the second Sunday in a row, I did not meet with the church. A stomach bug decided to visit me beginning Saturday afternoon.

As I was thinking about my friends getting together; talking about their lives; talking about what God is doing; talking about their plans; laughing, crying, hugging, speaking, listening… I missed them. As much as I like singing, I didn’t miss singing. As much as I like to learn, I didn’t miss the teaching. I missed the people.

While I was at home, I watched part of an NCIS marathon. One episode highlights a troubled family: father, mother, daughter, and son. At one point, the daughter makes the following statement to one of the NCIS agents:

We may be four people, but we’re not a family.

I thought about that statement for a long time. I can look back over my life and recognize that I have been part of many groups of people that were not families.

I can also recognize that God has now placed me among people who are family to me. There’s a huge difference between being part of a group of people and being part of a family.

Maybe among the chruch we can start asking ourselves: Are we a family? How are we demonstrating that we’re a family?

February 23, 2009

I’ve enjoyed the discussion about worship over at Arthur’s blog “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” (see his posts “A call for a new Reformation in the church: Worship, regulative or normative?“, “Good thoughts from John Frame on the Regulative Principle“, and especially “More on worship“). In that last post, he says:

I think I ended up being more narrowly focused in my post on worship than I intended. My point when I started thinking about this was not to throw mud at the RPW (regulative principle of worship), but instead to question the more broad sense of worship in the church. I have long sought a more pure worship form in Sunday gatherings (which I defined as being more “Reformed”), and I am still sympathetic to that desire, but that is not the end all of the Christian worship experience. I am concerned by an attitude in myself that if we “go to church” on Sunday, we have fulfilled our worship quota for the week when nothing could be further from the truth…

One, but only one, expression of a life of worship is corporate worship. That statement is not to denigrate or diminish the value of corporate worship, but to recognize that culturally and traditionally we expect to see the pinnacle of our worship to take place in a church on Sunday morning but that may not be the reality and probably shouldn’t be. We may affirm the idea of constant worship being a part of our general lives, but we still use the term “worship” in reference to corporate church gathering and focus our worship attention on the corporate expressions which I believe has led to an unhealthy delineation between worship and “the rest of the week”.

The disconnect between Sunday morning piety and the other six days where we live differently are crippling to the church.

(What follows is not a response to Arthur or to anyone who commented on his posts. Instead, his post, epsecially the last one, triggered me to think about worship again.)

Arthur brings up something that I’ve noticed as well. It is very difficult to discuss “worship” in the context of the American church (and perhaps in other nations as well, I don’t know) without the discussion centering on the church meeting. In fact, some readers probably bristle because I used the phrase “church meeting” instead of “worship service”. However, we must realize that the inclination to associate the church meeting with worship did not arise from Scripture.

Go ahead and study… you should. Studying the association in Scripture between the church meeting and worship is one of the reasons that I became interested in ecclesiology. But, that study also encouraged my interest in worship – not singing and praying and preaching, but worship, from the perspective of Scripture. And, as I studied worship in Scripture, I found that worship has more to do with how I live my life than what I do on Sunday mornings – although that is certainly part of it – around 1% of it (1-2 hours out of my 168 hour week). So, why do we act as if that 1-2 hours is 90% of our worship (or even all of it)?

In fact, our Sunday church meeting is not the entirety – not even the majority – of my “corporate worship” – that is, worship along with other people. What do I mean? Well, I work with other people; I live with other people; I invite other people to my house; I go to other people’s homes; I serve with other people. These activities happen throughout the week and should be lives as worship in the presence of other people, and since many of these people are believers as well, they are (or should be) worshiping also – corporate worship.

But, our worship principles (think regulative and normative principles of worship) are not very helpful in these times of worship – the majority of our worship. Whether the church sings hymns or choruses or chants or psalms does not help me worship God during 99% of my week. Whether the pastor’s teaching is expository or topical does not change how I worship God when I’m at dinner with friends. Whether we stand when we read Scripture or not does not tell me how to worship when my friends are visiting my home.

Yes, we need to talk about worship. We need to think about worship. But, more than that, we need to worship – we need to live a life – a whole life – 100% life – that honors God in everything that we do. As long as we continue to use the word “worship” as slang for the church meeting, I do not think we will understand what it means to worship. We will continue to caught up in things like what to sing or how to pray or how to teach – things not covered in Scripture at all – and we will the most important parts of life – walking daily with God, trusting him with every aspect of our lives (yes, even that insignificant aspect and yes, even that huge national problem), showing his mercy and grace, loving others, worshiping.