Community: “Why Should Christians Live in Community in the Church?”

A sermon by Claude Rouviere, 11/Oct/2015

Outline

•Early church community as a 'model’ (Acts 2, 42-47)
•Why community?
•Brothers and sisters, not friends
•Community is not THE aim

« They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together at the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. » (Acts 2, 42-47)

This well-known text describes the first fellowship of believers and gives us a model of how the Church should be but it seems that most communities have drifted from this over centuries.
Francis Chan wrote in ‘Crazy Love’ : « We all know that something is wrong. In the beginning I thought I was the only one concerned. Until the day I asked this question to twenty thousand Christian students : « How many of you, after reading the New Testament, wonder if you haven't missed something? » Almost everyone raised their hands and I was suddenly reassured. At least, I was not crazy »
The life of the early Church could sound like a dream but the Bible never says that there was an early church and then another one. There is only Christ’s Church and God’s Word says all we need to know to be what He wants.
A first point is self-evident from the beginning of this chapter even if Luke didn't think that it was necessary to remind us of it : this Church is born from Pentecost ; it lives fully in the power of the Holy Spirit. To restore confidence in the Holy Spirit, to let Him have all the authority in the Church seems to me the first essential step to come back to the Church that God wanted. But this could be a whole sermon in itself !
This early Church was clearly a community of life as shown by these words :

« everyone», « all », « together », « in common ».

When Jesus said « For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them » he highlighted something very special about community in His name : it’s a refuge where His presence is assured in a very special way.
Believers lived fully in fellowship not only for spiritual activities. It was just in this manner that Jesus lived with the apostles and He used the word « brothers » to show in what way He wanted His disciples to live. This image of the family means care of one another, help, support, encouragement. Brothers and sisters share what they live ; the young learn a lot from the old … It is what Jesus desires for His Church.
Going to church is really not the same thing as going to the cinema ! It’s being part of a community where people know each other, trust each other, share the joys and difficulties of being a disciple. Everyone knows he can count on others whatever he needs.
But do we dare to revel our needs ? And what about calling for help ? Often we are afraid of bothering people But Jesus Himself called the apostles for help in the garden of Gethsemane. They were not very useful, that’s right but it was before the cross, the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit that changed them ! But if we support each other especially with prayer, we will see God acting, we will be awed and we will grow up in faith.
No one is strong enough to face disciple life alone. They always will be dark days, days of discouragement when we will need to be reminded about God’s love and faithfulness ; days when we will have no more strength to pray and then others will support us with prayer and on the other hand, days when we will be happy to support and encourage others, sharing the mighty Works of God with them.
This text talks about prayer –and this too could be a whole sermon. Praying for others is good but praying WITH others is very important. This may be difficult for us because the language used in our Church may not be our mother tongue and it is difficult to pray in another language –unless one is perfectly bilingual- because often our heart goes faster than the translation ! And prayer needs to flow in liberty. This is something we could think about together in order to decide what we could do.
A friend shared something very interesting to me. She was at a prayer meeting and someone came with a Dutch friend. She didn’t speak French and so she prayed in Dutch. My friend didn’t try to understand because… it was impossible but she opened her heart to God and then a prayer came and she spoke it out loudly. The lady who came with the Dutchwoman said in her ear : « that is almost exactly what she said ». Prayer is not only human speaking and thinking. God is there !
But there is much more to fellowship as David said in Psalm 133 :

« How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity !
It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe.
It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the Lord bestow his blessing, even life for evermore. »

This very short psalm is fundamentally built around these words : « live together in unity » . Everything else describes this fellowship with the words « it is like », « it is as if »
First it is simply good and pleasant as said in verse 1, as human friendship can be but verse 2 compares it to the priestly anointing that was reserved for God. We must remember that some parts of the Temple were forbidden to those who had not received anointing.
In verse 3 the comparison with dew shows fellowship as a gift from God that brings freshness and life. It is rainwater and dew on Mount Hermon that gives life to the Jordan, the vein of life in this desert country
The last verse in a way, summarizes everything : « For there –in fellowship- the Lord bestows his blessing, even life for evermore ». If we simply « live together in unity » God can bestow on us « his blessing, even life for evermore » ! ! Have you ever thought about this ?
Could fellowship be a condition for blessing and abundant life ? Could God wait for His children to be united in communion to bestow His blessings ?
This is what David seems to be saying in this Psalm. As with salvation, God gives us the means to enter into the blessing of abundant life but we must accept them and put them into practice.
And this is not about well-being –not so easy to attain- in a small group of chosen friends but about spiritual communion with all the children of God, those who are easy to get on with and all others, even the ones who have hurt us, even those who don’t think the same about how and when Jesus will return : millenarian, premillenarian, postmillenarian, amillénarian… and even those who don’t care ;-)
Could we imagine that it was easier for the early Church ? That they were all kind and gentle ? Do you think that it was easy to live with Peter ? And with Paul ?
We are brothers and sisters because we have the same father. Let us not forget that Jesus taught us to pray « Our father », not « My father ». Why ? Perhaps because of the blessing and the abundant life. Love is not a choice, it’s a commandment.
Sometimes one of my sons came to me saying « he is not my brother anymore! » I explained to him that I understood his anger but that his brother will stay his brother forever. It generally was short but very painful for me. Could we imagine God’s heartbreak every time we find good reasons to avoid loving those who are also His children, not necessarily in our community but in the all Church ?
How can we say « Abba Father » without loving those who are our brothers and sisters in our father’s heart ? Remember : «  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another ». It’s easier to stick a fish on my car… Sometimes the attitude of the Church denies the gospel that it is supposed to announce. The world looks before listening…
Rodney Smith (English evangelist) wrote with great pertinence. : « They are five Gospels : Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Christians. There are some people who have never read the first four »
The text of Acts 2 lists the activities of the early Church and its fruit. I also note a notion of discipline. The verb « to devote oneself » seems to be about the time spent while in Greek the verb indicates more a sustained effort that could be better translated by the word 'persevere'. It is not only a question of presence but it is about making progress, digging deeper, without giving up.
First « the apostles' teaching », the « fellowship », « the breaking of bread » -that could mean Holy Communion- and « prayer » result in « awe at the many wonders and signs». The word translated by « wonder » means in Greek « signs sent by the gods » and the one translated par « signs » speaks about marks which enable us to recognize, about proof. It’s a kind of stamp put by God in order to validate the witness of His Church.
Then, Luke describes the radical and visible commitment of this community : to have « everything in common », to « sell property and possessions », to « give to anyone who had need », to meet everyday at the Temple, again the breaking of bread, to eat together, the joy and praise that resulted in many conversions everyday.
But it is very important to note that God is always the one who acts : the community and the apostles don’t produce wonders or signs. They are only the means and the Greek word « dia » said precisely « through ». They are in no way the principal actors nor the subject of the sentence. It is written : «many wonders and signs happen through the apostles. ». The apostles are exactly like a pipe that drives water to a watering place.
You really need the pipe but it is only the water which quenches and gives life, not the pipe ! Take a pipe, even a new one, a very long one, you will never drink unless water flows through it.
This Church was in some ways the extension of the group of apostles. They lived together with Jesus, they shared the gospel everywhere they went. Jesus is no longer present physically but they aren’t alone ; He is still the centre, the reason for this fellowship, the strength and the light they need to continue the mission and Jesus is still acting through them BY the Holy Spirit.
Paul uses the image of the body. Jesus is the head. In what state is the body that we offer to him ? It seems to me that in this country, we give to him a heap of scattered limbs and organs. What can He do with this ?
Together, around Christ who continues to be, by the Holy Spirit, present and acting through them. It’s very simple and nevertheless not so easy because through the centuries the Church has slidden away from this model.
Could we try to see what could weaken the Church ?
Firstly, community can be such a soft and comfortable cocoon that the spiritual life of others comforts and is enough. No need to seek God. And then, gradually, professionals of the faith have been established (I don’t speak about ministries, but about faith) When Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was torn from top to bottom but through the centuries, the Church mended it. The strength of the Church is not the number of attendants but the number of people entering God’s presence.
Community is a gift from God for believers and the world but the main danger is to build such a nice community only on human foundations where God is no more the centre nor the main actor. Also, good programs can be based only on human strategies, more like marketing than faith and their results will be very human and won’t show the power of God.
Another big risk is to give priority to activities (even very spiritual ones, even ones that help others) rather than to God himself. They could become idols, like the bronze serpent that Hezekiah must destroy because the people of Israel offered incense to him.
But no activity, even shown to the world in love will give sense to the Church. What I do FOR God will never replace what God wants to do IN us, THROUGH us. We are God’s instruments !
Finally, the image used most frequently in the Bible to express God’s Relationship with His people is the image of a couple. Could you imagine a husband who would like an intimate moment with his wife. She answers : « I do the shopping, I do all the cooking, I do all the washing, I take care of the children, I even help the neighbors… what more do you want ? » It makes you laugh ?
But we say this to God, very often… perhaps not in words but in facts.
No program could take priority over the time of love with God, the time on the mountain, in the tent of meeting, in the silence of prayer. Even with fasting. Individually but also together. Speaking about God will always be less important than listening to God.
Our deeds –even excellent- our work –even very hard- our perseverance are not the objective. Let us remember the letter to the Church in Ephesus :
« I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance… Yet I hold this against you : you have forsaken the love you had first » (Rev 2, 2-4)
We often understand the word ‘protos’ (first) as an indication of time (the love you had first) but in Greek, the main meaning is about priority, value, first place.

« I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance… Yet I hold this against you : you have forsaken to give me the first place in your love»

Jesus didn't blame this Church for its lack of good works but the lack of desire for Him. Religious activities can easily make us forget God or relegate Him to second place.
But loving God must take precedence over deeds and work !
I believe that the world will be transformed if –and when- the Church will come again to the absolute priority – the intimacy of a loving relationship with God.
The whole Bible tells us about God's desire for a loving relationship with us.
Do you know why we can find in the Bible such a surprising book as Song of Songs ?! So that we never forget God’s burning desire. A fiancé doesn’t desire that his fiancée does things for him but spends time with him. Do we dare to hear what the Bible says through this image of a loving couple that runs throughout all the Bible ?
How can we respond to God’s desire for us ? What we can do for Him will never replace in His heart what he wants to do WITH us, IN us ! This is how the the early Church lived.
If we dare to do the same, TOGETHER, then the world will see that He is God ! There will be wonders and signs and He will add daily to the Church those who will be saved !

N. T. Wright and “The Way of the Wilderness”

I came across this meditation by N. T. Wright, based on his book The Way of the Lord: Christian Pilgrimage Today ( N. T. Wright, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co

The wilderness comes in many shapes and sizes, just as the deserts of Judaea and Sinai are by no means uniform. I used to think of deserts as simply miles and miles of flat sands, punctuated by the odd oasis; but the wilderness that surrounds the Promised Land comes in many forms. There are huge crags, like Masada, the last bastion of the revolutionaries after the fall of Jerusalem, an enormous barren rock to the south-west of the Dead Sea. There are gullies and crevasses, great rocky outcrops and hidden valleys. Walk a mile or two off the road and you could get lost quite easily.

The wilderness of the spiritual journey is much like that. For some, it is simply a sense that everything has gone very dry. There is no delight in prayer or reading the scriptures. Going to church has become boring and futile. The sacraments seem a pointless ritual. Where before there was a sense of God’s presence as a loving parent, gently nursing and guiding, or of the wise prompting of the Holy Spirit, there now seems to be a great emptiness. The story of Jesus, once so full of interest and stimulation, the scrap-book of the life of a new best friend, seems dull, and even the story of the cross and resurrection has apparently lost its power to sweep the heart. This is the common experience of many, many Christians at some stage in their pilgrimage. Tragically, some at once conclude that what happened at the Jordan was all a delusion, a passing phase, that there really is no Jerusalem to go on to. Others wander blindly without hope, and stumble by accident — or was it an accident? — back on to the right path. But the way of Christian maturity is to recognize the desert path for what it is — another mile on the road called ‘Faithfulness’ — and to tread it with obedience and patience:

On the Road to Easter

Mark 8:27–30 (GNB)

²⁷ Then Jesus and his disciples went away to the villages near Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Tell me, who do people say I am?” ²⁸ “Some say that you are John the Baptist,” they answered; “others say that you are Elijah, while others say that you are one of the prophets.” ²⁹ “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” ³⁰ Then Jesus ordered them, “Do not tell anyone about me.”

Ash Wednesday was celebrated last week, which traditionally marks the beginning of the Lenten season, the 40 days to Easter and the Passion of the Christ. Often times Protestant do not participate in the ceremony, and they do not usually contemplate the meaning of the event.

The aim of Ash Wednesday is said to be threefold:

• to meditate on our mortality, sinfulness, and need for a savior;
• to renew our commitment to daily repentance in all of life;
• and to remember with confidence and gratitude that Jesus has conquered sin and death.

Our daily worship should be filled with the impact of this gospel truth. In order to truly understand and appreciate the impact of these three statements above, we have to start by answering the question that Jesus posed to Peter: “Who do you say I am?” If we can answer whole heartedly to Jesus, as Peter did, “you are the Messiah,” we can then rejoice with the Apostle Paul when he says,

“Consider yourself dead to sin and alive in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11).

To Reflect:

Spend some time being still before God, and ask the Spirit to search yourself:

Psalm 139:23–24 (GNB)

²³ Examine me, O God, and know my mind; test me, and discover my thoughts. ²⁴ Find out if there is any evil in me and guide me in the everlasting way.

Picture Credit: The White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall, 1938

Women of God: MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS Luke 1

God was about to break into the world in human flesh. His plan included working through the life of a teenage girl. It is interesting that in a patriarchal society, the angel visited Mary first. He did not visit Joseph first to get his permission. He did not discuss God's plan with Joseph and ask if he was willing to go along with it. Nor did Mary put the angel's message on hold and go to ask Joseph what she should do before responding.

Mary did not need to get Joseph's permission or submit to his authority. She had God's word, God's authority. That was enough for her. Mary was willing to submit to God's will with or without Joseph. She had no idea what Joseph's response would be. She had no idea what he would do. The decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was called on by God to do his work and she willingly submitted. She was willing to face the humiliation, ridicule, and rejection of pregnancy before marriage — alone if need be.

That does not mean that Mary did not need Joseph. She needed Joseph's love, his support, his understanding, his willingness to serve God alongside her, his partnership, his protection in a patriarchal society. She needed him to walk the journey with her. But, when she responded with a resounding yes to the angel, she did not have the assurance that Joseph would stand with her when she accepted God's call on her life. But, she did not need his permission to do what God called her to do. Joseph was told after the fact, and he willingly submitted to God's call on Mary's life. He stood with her, supported her, and encouraged her. Joseph was Mary's "ezer kenegdo" — her "suitable helper." --dona

Why a Victory Dance?

Matt 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
How do we square this verse with the victory celebration that has poured out over the news of the death of Osama bin Laden? I shed no tears for the death of this man; he sowed much evil in his life.

Should we not ask if it was right to use violence to end a person’s reign of violence? After all, if you live by the sword,  will you not die by the sword?

I do think there are times when we are to sell our cloak and buy a sword:

Luke 22 ³⁶ He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

It still remains that I am troubled by the hatred I’ve seen displayed at the news of his death.  People dancing and waving a flag is one thing, but to rejoice and shout “rot in hell” or something like this, I find no justification for it.

Some will say, “well, they would do the same if it had been George Bush or Barak Obama.” My response to this is, “well, we are not them.” Where is our moral high ground if we react as we say they would? And, if we purport to be a follower of Christ, how can we justify this reaction?

I suppose a little good news is welcomed when the world seems rather dark, but I still am troubled over the response I have seen. 

I would like to ask the question, Is there any time or place where when it is okay to react like? Seriously.

These are the thoughts that I am giving daylight to as I ponder this situation. It is a complicated issue, and there are no easy answers, but I think that we need to pull back from an emotional response and look seriously at the impact of this event, and consider carefully what our response should be.

Any thoughts?

Jacques Ellul on Social Justice

...Jesus Christ has not come to establish social justice any more than he has come to establish the power of the state or the reign of money or art. Jesus Christ has come to save men, and all that matters is that men may come to know him. We are adept at finding reasons-good theological, political, or practical reasons, for camouflaging this. But the real reason is that we let ourselves be impressed and dominated by the forces of the world, by the press, by public opinion, by the political game, by appeals to justice, liberty, peace, the poverty of the third world, and the Christian civilization of the west, all of which play on our inclinations and weaknesses. Modern protestants are in the main prepared to be all things to all men, like St. Paul, but unfortunately this is not in order that they may save some but in order that they may be like all men.  The Ethics of Freedom (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 254-255

Worship – A Dialogue on the Purposes of the Church Part 3

Ever watch a group of people who will stand and shout when their favorite team makes a great play or wins a hard fought game? Or how the audience at a concert will stand and applaud a talented musician who just gave a great performance?

I once attended the matinee of a mediocre Mozart opera with a friend. When it came time for the tenor to come on stage, Plácido Domingo came out to sing the role. Everyone stood and gave him a standing ovation--before he even sang!

Compare this reaction to the picture that John gives us in Revelation 4 and 5, of the One seated on a throne surrounded by 24 Elders and angels, and the response of all creation to the Lamb seated on the throne in chapter 5.

Note what N. T. Wright says about this scene:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a few ideas in this quote from Wright that resonate with me:

1. Worship means, literally, acknowledging the worth of someone or something. All creation worships God, humans, animals, birds, et. al. because he deserves to be praised.
2. Humans have something more to say when they join in the song of worship: They know Why God should be praised. He has made all things, and he has ransomed saints from all languages, people and nations.

I like what Wright says: This is God’s world as it should be, and the way it is in heaven already. I get goose bumps every time I read these two chapters of the Book of Revelation.

The question is, then, how do we worship here and now in our lives that somehow hearkens beyond us and replicates this heavenly scene?

1. How can our worship acknowledge the worth of the one we worship? Who does that work out in a practical way?
2. Do we fully understand the Why of worship? Do we grasp the full implications of what it means to say that God created all things, creature, nature and human, and that he has ransomed saints from all nations, tongues and peoples, to be a nation of Priests?

For me, the practical question is how can I experience or enter into worship that is worthy of God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Again, Wright gives us two ideas:

First, you become like what you worship.

What happens when you worship money, sex or power? We are shaped by our desires to conform to these objects of worship. What happens when we begin to truly worship the God who created all things and has redeemed us for himself through his son Jesus Christ by the power of his spirit?

Because we are made in God’s image, worship makes us truly human.

You discover more fully what it means to be human as well as you begin to shrink as a human; you are no longer the center of the universe.

Good start, but a long journey. I think Carson Pue (p30f)  has given me some insight on this journey. He has stated that we often fall into two camps in our approach to following Christ.

The first group is similar to power-boaters, for whom the destination is of primary importance. The primary concern is to get to the destination as quickly and as safely as possible, and once there, concern shifts to having fun and enjoying the destination. This is what makes the journey worthwhile.

The second group are the sailors. The journey is as important as the destination. They enjoy the various aspects of the journey along the journey as the proceed toward the destination.

I’ve discovered that I need to become more of a sailor and less of a power-boater in my walk with Christ.

I won’t dwell on the implications of the two metaphors, but hopefully they are food for thought.

Technorati Tags: worship,kingdom,Emerging,France,spiritual formation

Worship – A Dialogue on the Purposes of the Church: Who do we Worship?

Sing to the Lord, all the earth. Psalm 96:1b

This post is a part of an ongoing dialogue about the five purposes of the church. The first post addressed the question of Who Do We Worship?  I want to continue to interact and dialog with Marva Dawn as she dialogs about the “Who” of worship in her book How Shall We Worship?

There is an interesting observation in her book (p. 20) about the nature of our cultures today, described by social analyst Christopher Lasch as a Culture of Narcissism.

Lasch stated that social developments in the 20th century, such as the end of World War II and the rise of a consumer culture in the years that followed, gave rise to a narcissistic personality structure in which peoples’ self-concepts led to a fear of commitment and lasting relationships (including religion), a fear of aging (e.g., the 1960s and 1970s "youth culture") and a overdeveloped admiration for fame and celebrity, nurtured in part by the motion picture industry and television. The result is confusion, anxiety and uncertainty about how to live and relate in the world today (see a review of Lasch here).

Marva believes that this culture of narcissism has entered the church, which has resulted in attitudes and views that ask the question, What’s in it for me? (p. 21) Ever have anyone say to you, “I didn’t get much out of the

worship service today.”

Since worship is the response of all creation to “God’s gift of being,” any response that we have that is “hunting for what will please ourselves” can be nothing more than sin.

A couple of the results that we see in churches today is the tendency to see Sunday morning worship as an evangelistic rally, i.e., using the appeal factor of the worship service to attract those who are not yet Christ-followers by appealing to their immersion in our narcissistic culture. Thus a church can entertain and give people the impression that they have been part of a worship experience.

But if worship is for God, can those outside the community of faith enter into worship? Or more bluntly, can we say that these kind of services qualify as worship?

A pastor friend made a comment to my previous post, “One of the things we teach about worship is that it includes every aspect of life, not just what we do together on a Sunday morning. Worship is also our service to God as we serve His people.”

That to me is the paradox of the question of worship: Worship is about God, but yet as we worship, we can also serve the people of God.  The example I have in mind is the Milepost 13 Band that recently came to Grenoble. I saw some aspects of worship that I hadn’t notice before. They are a worship band, so their main purpose or goal was to worship God. But yet they were also evangelistic in their concerts, and one of the biggest benefits was how they served the two congregations in Grenoble –one French speaking and one English speaking, and the fellowship and community we enjoyed as a result.

So for me, this is a marvelous picture of what worship can be, it is more than an subjective experience on Sunday morning. As Marva points out, worship is the glad response to the immense grace of Triune God.” So when God’s grace is pouring out on us, we can experience the outworking of that grace through fellowship, evangelism, service, et. al., which in turn should rebound in our response to that grace.

Yes, grace is amazing!

 

Technorati Tags: Culture,worship,France,Kingdom,Missional,purpose

Worship: Celebrate God’s Presence. A Dialogue on the Purposes of the Church

To worship the Lord is –in the world’s eyes –a waste of time. It is, indeed, a royal waste of time, but a waste nonetheless. By engaging in it, we don’t accomplish anything useful in our society’s terms. (Marva Dawn, A Royal Waste of Time)

I am starting a dialog about the core purposes of the church, , following Rick Warren’s understanding of the Five Purposes of the Church.

To start the conversation, I want to dialog with Marva Dawn, who has written extensively on the idea of worship. Marva Dawn has written a nice little volume called How Shall We Worship?, which looks at the tensions that exist in the so-called “worship wars,” i.e., the battle between traditional and contemporary worship. She takes an in-depth look at worship and its implications for the church. I would like to interact with some of her questions in a few posts.

I actually discovered Marva by accident. I came into a grad class at Wheaton one day to be told that we were going downstairs to attend a lecture by Marva Dawn. Being so full of myself at the time, I determined that I would sit in the back of the auditorium and suffer through this lecture, since sneaking out would not show respect to the professor.

As I sat and listened to this diminutive woman (who did not impress me in the least), she began to speak with a quiet and soft voice. I was slowly pushed up the aisle and out the door by the intensity and passion of her message. So, I like Marva Dawn and listen when she speaks. And which is why I am sharing her thoughts on this topic.

One reason why I like Marva is more about the questions she asks than the explication. Here are some of the questions she deals with in the introduction to How Shall we Worship?:

1. What is worship?  She begins her discussion by pointing out that worship is…

“our glad response to the immense grace of Triune God.”

All of our life is worship if we live in gratitude and reverence, if coupled with a mindfulness of God and eagerness to serve Him, says Dawn.

What Dawn shows me that too much of our worship is about Me, not God. Someone once commented to me that worship is when God is the audience.

I googled the phrase “worship” to find a picture to preface this post (see above), and I began to notice that the focus of 90% of the pictures of worship had a theme similar to this picture:

What do you see when you look at this picture? --someone standing on a hill or mountain, a beautiful sky in the background, with their hands lifted to the sky, ostensibly worshipping. 

But is this worship? It may say something about the subjective worship experience (who wouldn’t want to have a worship experience like this?), but it says Nothing about WHOM we worship.

Unfortunately, much of what passes for worship is summed up in this illustration: 

I am not sure, but I think this is a long way from “a mindfulness of God and eagerness to serve Him," as Marva Dawn says.

I realize that  worship is often a subjective experience, what lifts one person into worship of God will leave another person feeling like they’ve paid good money for a bad concert.

But we come back to Marva Dawn’s questions: “What is worship?”  Is our worship biblically formed, or does it reveal the influences of the culture that surrounds the church? What do the adjectives that you use to describe worship in your church say about your church?

Why don’t our typical Sunday morning worship services cause us to tremble? Are we really encountering God?

Why don’t our churches seem to be affecting our culture? Why do so many people who say they are spiritual want nothing to do with our worship?

I want to address a few of these questions in order to establish a foundation (at least for me) of what worship is, not what how I do it. So, if you are interested in the discussion, come back and sit a spell, and let’s talk.

 

Technorati Tags: Worship,kingdom,France

Practice Resurrection

I've been on an unplanned hiatus since the beginning of January. It's not that I haven't had anything to say, just have been busy, and didn't feel compelled to address anything in particular.

I've been musing over what to do with this blog. I have another blog that is more directly ministry related,  and I thought perhaps it was time to retire this one. But things being as they are, I was, on the one hand. loathe to give up the name of this blog. I like it, and wasn't ready to see it disappear into the ether.

And, I still feel I need a place to pontificate and bloviate from time to time. So, I'm back.

What I think I'd like to do is take a look at a book I picked up on kindle for PC by Eugene Peterson called Practice Resurrection: A Conversation on Growing Up in Christ.

The first sentence reads:

This is a conversation on becoming a mature Christian, Christian formation, growing up to the stature of Christ.

 I'm hooked --you had me at Christian Formation. According to my friend Matt, it's a great read.


There are 13 chapters and an appendix, published by Eerdmans.


So, pick up the book and join me in reading it. A few comments on the reading would be okay.

Intertextuality

(I made a few revisions to this post after ruminating on it after I posted it. Hopefully the line of thought is a bit clearer as a result.)

In my studies in the Book of Acts lately I’ve been thinking about the issue of intertextuality. The term is a school of thought that attempts to investigate the interconnectedness between texts. A good way to describe it is to think of a bricoleur (handyman or craftsman) who creates improvised structures by appropriating pre-existing materials which are ready-to-hand. The bricoleur constructs new arrangements by the practice of bricolage through several key transformations: addition, deletion, substitution and transposition.

Of course, one always needs a good academic quote to explain things:

“The term “intertextuality” is of rather recent coinage in both Jewish and Christian circles. It denotes not just relationships among texts, but also relationships between texts and their cultures.”

Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic period, pg. xx

“The phenomena of intertextuality – the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a latter one – has always played a major role in the cultural traditions that are heir to Israel’s Scripture: the voice of Scripture, regarded as authoritative in one way or another, continues to speak in and through latter texts that both depend on and transform the earlier.”

Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, pg. 14

I think the key concept here is that intertextuality “denotes not just relationships among texts, but also relationships between texts and their cultures.” In scripture, it is the enculturation of a concept from one culture to another, i.e., from ancient Hebrew culture to the Greek-Jewish culture of the New Testament.

One good example on intertextuality that recurs throughout the Jewish scriptures is God’s Passover the five books of Moses (Ex. 23:10-19; Lev. 23:4-8), with synoptic views in Ex. 12:1-13 and Deut. 16:1-8, and echoed in Ezk 45:21-24 and Ezra 6:19-22. It is picked up again in the New Testament as the writers wrestled with the idea of a New Passover taking place in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:7):

7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast- as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Paul is the master of intertextuality,one need only to look at Romans and his understanding of Abraham (in Gen. 15) and what God wants to do for Israel.

There are obvious examples of this in the New Testament, such as the use of the texts in the Gospel of Matthew related to the coming of messiah. For example, Matt. 1:20ff:

20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”(which means, God with us).

What I see here is that there is more involved than seeing this passage as a prophecy; for me it resonates with how this fits into God’s plan for his people.

Often prophecy is used for apologetic purposes, more to support the idea how it is mathematically improbable for one person to fulfill all these prophecies of Messiah, yet here is Jesus, who fits the bill exactly. Put this prophecy on the pile with other scriptures that will rationally and intellectually prove beyond a doubt that the bible is true and God is real.

This is the same as someone describing a movie to us, giving us the bits they enjoyed, but missing the plot of the story completely.

By doing this, I think we miss the benefit of seeing what God is doing through out the ages to bring his plan to fruition, if we only see OT scripture as a proof text. To quote N. T. Wright:

God had a single plan all along through which he intended to rescue the world and the human race, and that this single plan was centered upon the call of Israel, a call which Paul saw coming to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah (Justification, p 35).

Wright also states that failure to read scripture this way is like trying to figure out a puzzle with half the pieces missing.

So the key is to maintain the unity of the text without ignoring the bits that help us to understand what God is doing in the world.

As one writer states, it is the “absorption et transformation de l’autre text” (the absorption and transformation of another text.) It is the idea of a dialogue taking place between the writer and another text or dialogue.

I share this because as I look over the writings of the new testament and how it is related to event of the Old Testament, it leads me to rethink the role of what we commonly call prophecy. It is not that I don’t believe in prophecy, but I do believe that we should not lift stories and events about how God worked (and is working)among his people and set them up as kind of a proof text, independent of context and connection to the rest of God’s work. Kind of misses the point, I think.

(image credit here)

Technorati Tags: scripture,kingdom of God,intertextuality

 

 

Gregory Nazianzus on the Holy Spirit

This is a great quote from Gregory Nazianzus on the person of the Holy Spirit:

“XXIX.  This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence of Scripture.  But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost  (Luke 1.35; 3.22; 4.1) shall be shown to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture.  Look at these facts:—Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner.  He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness.  He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him up (Luke 4.1, 18).  He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them.  He ascends; the Spirit takes His place.  What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power (Acts 2. 4)? 

What titles which belong to God are not applied to Him, except only unbegotten and begotten?  For it was needful that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead which brings all things, even disorder itself, into due arrangement and good order. 

Indeed I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles, and how many Names they outrage who fall foul of the Spirit.  He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. 

For He is the Maker of all these, filling all with His Essence, containing all things, filling the world in His Essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, princely, by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat,  the Finger of God; fire like God (to manifest, as I take it, His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit that knows all things, that teaches, that blows where and to what extent He lists; that guides, talks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; that reveals, illumines, quickens, or rather is the very Light and Life; that makes Temples; that deifies; that perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism (As in the case of the Centurion Cornelius, Acts 10. 9), yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; that does all things that God does; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same thing as most wise and varied in His actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle; and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places; for they lived in different places; thus showing that He is unconfined.” Orations 31.29 

Technorati Tags: Holy Spirit,Kingdom of God,Church Fathers

15 Theses by Wolgang Simson (Conclusion)

15. The Church comes home

Where is the easiest place, say, for a man to be spiritual? Maybe again, is it hiding behind a big pulpit, dressed up in holy robes, preaching holy words to a faceless crowd and then disappearing into an office? And what is the most difficult, and therefore most meaningful, place for a man to be spiritual? At home, in the presence of his wife and children, where everything he does and says is automatically put through a spiritual litmus test against reality, where hypocrisy can be effectively weeded out and authenticity can grow. Much of Christianity has fled the family, often as a place of its own spiritual defeat, and then has organized artificial performances in sacred buildings far from the atmosphere of real life. As God is in the business of recapturing the homes, the church turns back to its roots, back to where it came from. It literally comes home, completing the circle of Church history at the end of world history.

As Christians of all walks of life, from all denominations and backgrounds, feel a clear echo in their spirit to what God's Spirit is saying to the Church, and start to hear globally in order to act locally, they begin to function again as one body. They organize themselves into neighborhood house-churches and meet in regional or city-celebrations. You are invited to become part of this movement and make your own contribution. Maybe your home, too, will become a house that changes the world.

You are welcome and encouraged to redistribute this article.

Technorati Tags: home church

15 Theses by Wolfgang Simson (part 8)

13. From Denominations to city-wide celebrations

Jesus called a universal movement, and what came was a series of religious companies with global chains marketing their special brands of Christianity and competing with each other. Through this branding of Christianity most of Protestantism has, therefore, become politically insignificant and often more concerned with traditional specialties and religious infighting than with developing a collective testimony before the world. Jesus simply never asked people to organize themselves into denominations. In the early days of the Church, Christians had a dual identity: they were truly His church and vertically converted to God, and then organized themselves according to geography, that is, converting also horizontally to each other on earth. This means not only Christian neighbors organizing themselves into neighborhood- or house-churches, where they share their lives locally, but Christians coming together as a collective identity as much as they can for citywide or regional celebrations expressing the corporateness of the Church of the city or region. Authenticity in the neighborhoods connected with a regional or citywide corporate identity will make the Church not only politically significant and spiritually convincing, but will allow a return to the biblical model of the City-Church.

14. Developing a persecution-proof spirit

They crucified Jesus, the Boss of all the Christians. Today, his followers are often more into titles, medals and social respectability, or, worst of all, they remain silent and are not worth being noticed at all. "Blessed are you when you are persecuted", says Jesus. Biblical Christianity is a healthy threat to pagan godlessness and sinfulness, a world overcome by greed, materialism, jealousy and any amount of demonic standards of ethics, sex, money and power. Contemporary Christianity in many countries is simply too harmless and polite to be worth persecuting. But as Christians again live out New Testament standards of life and, for example, call sin as sin, conversion or persecution has been, is and will be the natural reaction of the world. Instead of nesting comfortably in temporary zones of religious liberty, Christians will have to prepare to be again discovered as the main culprits against global humanism, the modern slavery of having to have fun and the outright worship of Self, the wrong centre of the universe. That is why Christians will and must feel the "repressive tolerance" of a world which has lost any absolutes and therefore refuses to recognize and obey its creator God with his absolute standards. Coupled with the growing ideologisation, privatization and spiritualization of politics and economics, Christians will, sooner than most think, have their chance to stand happily accused in the company of Jesus. They need to prepare now for the future by developing a persecution-proof spirit and an even more persecution-proof structure.

Technorati Tags: house church

15 Theses by Wolfgang Simson (Part 6)

9. Return from organized to organic forms of Christianity

The "Body of Christ" is a vivid description of an organic, not an organized, being. Church consists on its local level of a multitude of spiritual families, which are organically related to each other as a network, where the way the pieces are functioning together is an integral part of the message of the whole. What has become a maximum of organization with a minimum of organism, has to be changed into a minimum of organization to allow a maximum of organism. Too much organization has, like a straightjacket, often choked the organism for fear that something might go wrong. Fear is the opposite of faith, and not exactly a Christian virtue. Fear wants to control, faith can trust. Control, therefore, may be good, but trust is better. The Body of Christ is entrusted by God into the hands of steward-minded people with a supernatural charismatic gift to believe God that He is still in control, even if they are not. A development of trust-related regional and national networks, not a new arrangement of political ecumenism is necessary for organic forms of Christianity to reemerge.

10. From worshipping our worship to worshipping God

The image of much of contemporary Christianity can be summarized, a bit euphemistically, as holy people coming regularly to a holy place at a holy day at a holy hour to participate in a holy ritual lead by a holy man dressed in holy clothes against a holy fee. Since this regular performance-oriented enterprise called "worship service" requires a lot of organizational talent and administrative bureaucracy to keep going, formalized and institutionalized patterns developed quickly into rigid traditions. Statistically, a traditional 1-2 hour "worship service" is very resource-hungry but actually produces very little fruit in terms of discipling people, that is, in changed lives. Economically speaking, it might be a "high input and low output" structure. Traditionally, the desire to "worship in the right way" has led to much denominationalism, confessionalism and nominalism. This not only ignores that Christians are called to "worship in truth and in spirit," not in cathedrals holding songbooks, but also ignores that most of life is informal, and so is Christianity as "the Way of Life." Do we need to change from being powerful actors to start "acting powerfully?"

Technorati Tags: house church

15 Theses by Wolfgang Simson (Part 5)

7. The right pieces - fitted together in the wrong way

In doing a puzzle, we need to have the right original for the pieces, otherwise the final product, the whole picture, turns out wrong, and the individual pieces do not make much sense. This has happened to large parts of the Christian world: we have all the right pieces, but have fitted them together wrong, because of fear, tradition, religious jealousy and a power-and-control mentality. As water is found in three forms, ice, water and steam, the five ministries mentioned in Eph. 4:11-12, the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists are also found today, but not always in the right forms and in the right places: they are often frozen to ice in the rigid system of institutionalized Christianity; they sometimes exist as clear water; or they have vanished like steam into the thin air of free-flying ministries and "independent" churches, accountable to no-one. As it is best to water flowers with the fluid version of water, these five equipping ministries will have to be transformed back into new, and at the same time age-old, forms, so that the whole spiritual organism can flourish and the individual "ministers" can find their proper role and place in the whole. That is one more reason why we need to return back to the Maker's original and blueprint for the Church.

8. God does not leave the Church in the hands of bureaucratic clergy

No expression of a New Testament church is ever led by just one professional "holy man" doing the business of communicating with God and then feeding some relatively passive religious consumers Moses-style. Christianity has adopted this method from pagan religions, or at best from the Old Testament. The heavy professionalization of the church since Constantine has now been a pervasive influence long enough, dividing the people of God artificially into laity and clergy. According to the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:5), "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." God simply does not bless religious professionals to force themselves in-between people and God forever. The veil is torn, and God is allowing people to access Himself directly through Jesus Christ, the only Way. To enable the priesthood of all believers, the present system will have to change completely. Bureaucracy is the most dubious of all administrative systems, because it basically asks only two questions: yes or no. There is no room for spontaneity and humanity, no room for real life. This may be OK for politics and companies, but not the Church. God seems to be in the business of delivering His Church from a Babylonian captivity of religious bureaucrats and controlling spirits into the public domain, the hands of ordinary people made extraordinary by God, who, like in the old days, may still smell of fish, perfume and revolution.

Technorati Tags: house church

15 Theses by Wolfgang Simson (Part 4)

5. The church has to become small in order to grow big

Most churches of today are simply too big to provide real fellowship. They have too often become "fellowships without fellowship." The New Testament Church was a mass of small groups, typically between 10 and 15 people. It grew not upward into big congregations between 20 and 300 people filling a cathedral and making real, mutual communication improbable. Instead, it multiplied "sidewards", like organic cells, once these groups reached around 15-20 people. Then, if possible, it drew all the Christians together into citywide celebrations, as with Solomon's Temple court in Jerusalem. The traditional congregational church as we know it is, statistically speaking, neither big nor beautiful, but rather a sad compromise, an overgrown house-church and an under-grown celebration, often missing the dynamics of both.

6. No church is led by a Pastor alone

The local church is not led by a Pastor, but fathered by an Elder, a local person of wisdom and reality. The local house-churches are then networked into a movement by the combination of elders and members of the so-called five-fold ministries (Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Evangelists and Teachers) circulating "from house to house," whereby there is a special foundational role to play for the apostolic and prophetic ministries (Eph. 2:20, and 4:11.12). A Pastor (shepherd) is a very necessary part of the whole team, but he cannot fulfill more than a part of the whole task of "equipping the saints for the ministry," and has to be complemented synergistically by the other four ministries in order to function properly.

Technorati Tags: House church

Old Testament holy war and the character of God: defining the terms

A request came to me to provide an answer to the question of the Canaanite conquest, and how do we square that with the idea of a loving God (for background on this, go to Dan van Loon’s posts here and here). But having said that, I am now finishing the study I started earlier on this topic, so I will try to share a bit of my conclusions.

A. Is the war of conquest against the Canaanites Jihad? Genocide? Ethnic cleansing? We need to understand that what occurred in the books of Joshua and Judges was not Jihad. Let me explain.

According to the most Muslim traditionalists, the world is divided into two camps:

1. The House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam), where Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails.
2. The House of War (Dar al-Harb), which refers to the rest of the inhabited world.

The presumption is that these two camps will compete and that fighting is inevitable. Therefore the duty of Jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds — treasure in this one, paradise in the next. From the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward the word Jihad is used in a primarily military sense.

Commonly, Jihad requires Muslims to “struggle in the way of God” or “to struggle to improve one's self and/or society.” The four major categories of Jihad that are recognized are:

• Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs),
• Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan),
• Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad),
• Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).

Islam focuses on regulating the practice of Jihad. It is a call to all Muslims to engage in this struggle, ongoing and intentional. You will hear of fundamentalist Muslim groups who will declare a Jihad against a group or country (such as Al Qaeda against the US), but this is an extension of the central idea of Jihad.

Put simply, Jihad is a struggle that every devout Muslim is called upon to wage against the enemies of Allah. It is ongoing, and will not end until the conditions discussed above are realized. The best that the enemies of Islam can hope for are truces. The ultimate goal is submission of the world to Allah and the rule of Islam.

It is important to note that Jihad is mandated by Allah through the Qur’an, but it is declared by people (e.g., leaders), who also identify who the enemies are to be.

B. The focus in Scripture is on Yahweh war, or as it is incorrectly called, “holy war.” The term refers to war sanctioned by Yahweh (usually translated in our bibles with the phrase LORD, all capitals). But we need to note some important differences.

The conquest (and hence Yahweh war), was a single event, a unique event and limited event, lasting one generation, and was not meant to be a model of how future generations of Israelites should live and behave toward their contemporaries. It was an act of God, a call to take part in the Yahweh war. Yahweh war is not a feat of military prowess by the Israelites, or even their victory.

C. Genocide is a word sometimes used to describe the Conquest of Canaan. Genocide means the killing of an ethnic or culture group. In current usage, it is based on vicious self-interest, based on some view or myth of racial superiority, and is little more than ethnic cleansing.

The conquest of Canaan is never seen as ethnic cleansing, or as a mark of moral superiority. Nor is the action of Israel seen as a mark of oppression.

It seems, therefore, that we need to define our terminology. Jihad and genocide are not the same concepts as Yahweh war. To define the conquest of Canaan in these terms misses the point and clouds our understanding of the events. Our discussion can now move into the arenas of philosophy and theology.

When we do this, we find that there are no simple answers for this question. But a comment by N.T. Wright about the Conquest in his book Evil and the Justice of God (IVP, 2006) seems a good place to start:

“We look back from our historical vantage point – and post-Enlightenment thought has looked back from its supposed position of moral superiority – and we shake our heads over the whole sorry business of conquest and settlement. Ethnic cleansing, we call it; however much the Israelites had suffered in Egypt, we find it hard to believe that they were justified in doing what they did to the Canaanites, or that the God who was involved in this operation was the same God we know in Jesus Christ.

And yet ever since the garden, ever since God’s grief over Noah, ever since Babel and Abraham, the story has been about the messy way in which God has had to work to bring the world out of the mess. Somehow, in a way we are inclined to find offensive, God has to get his boots muddy and, it seems, to get his hands bloody, to put the world back to rights. If we declare, as many have done, that we would rather it not so, we face a counter-question: Which bit of dry, clean ground are we standing on that we should pronounce on the matter with such certainty? Dietrich Bonhoeffer declared that the primal sin of humanity consisted in putting the knowledge of good and evil before the knowledge of God. That is one of the further dark mysteries of Genesis 3: there must be some substantial continuity between what we mean by good and evil and what God means; otherwise we are in moral darkness indeed. But it serves as a warning to us not to pontificate with too much certainty about what God should and shouldn’t have done” (pp. 58-59).

Wright is saying that there must be a consistent understanding between what God understands as good and evil and our understanding of good and evil. If we judge the conquest of Canaan from our human, philosophical, ethical, moral standards in a way that is not based on God’s understanding of good and evil, we can very easily be presented with a moral and intellectual gap that may seem insurmountable.

In light of this, there are several questions we can address in the discussion in this issue:

1. We have already discussed how the issue of Jihad in the context of Islam relates to the books of Joshua and Judges, whether it is the same thing as Jihad. How can we understand the idea of “holy war” in Joshua, can we see it as morally justifiable, yet condemn Jihad in the Islamic context?
2. What of the philosophical-ethical issue of the conquest? Can we ponder it through our 21st century mindset, which leads us to interpret the conquest as ethnic cleansing or something similar?
3. How can our understanding of the conquest square with the historical, grammatical situation of event, i.e., how did the Joshua and the people of Israel understand about the conquest?
4. What are the theological issues attached to the question of the conquest? Can God’s command to destroy the Canaanites be seen as a viable command, something that had to be obeyed?

The discussion above is not an attempt to assuage the reality of the discussion, or pretend to offer a defense or apology for the conquest. It is merely an attempt to define our terms.

For my part, although the conquest doesn’t completely set with my view of the world, I do understand that we have to look at the event from the world perspective of ancient Canaan, and deal with the issue from that perspective, and not force our 21st century world view upon the event.

From there, I understand the event of the conquest in terms of God’s dealing with the Israelite people. This event wasn’t something out of context and out of character with God’s overall plan. As Wright says above, this is one of those times that God saw the need to get his boots dirty and his hands bloody in order to put the world to rights.

More to come.

Technorati Tags: Old Testament,Conquest

15 Theses by Wolfgang Simson (Part 3)

3. The Third Reformation.

In rediscovering the gospel of salvation by faith and grace alone, Luther started to reform the Church through a reformation of theology. In the 18th century through movements like the Moravians there was a recovery of a new intimacy with God, which led to a reformation of spirituality, the Second Reformation. Now God is touching the wineskins themselves, initiating a Third Reformation, a reformation of structure.

4. From Church-Houses to house-churches

Since New Testament times, there is no such thing as "a house of God". At the cost of his life, Stephen reminded unequivocally: God does not live in temples made by human hands. The Church is the people of God. The Church, therefore, was and is at home where people are at home: in ordinary houses. There, the people of God:

• Share their lives in the power of the Holy Spirit,
• Have "meatings," that is, they eat when they meet,
• They often do not even hesitate to sell private property and share material and spiritual blessings,
• Teach each other in real-life situations how to obey God's word, dialogue, not professor-style,
• Pray and prophesy with each other, baptize, `lose their face' and their ego by confessing their sins,
• Regaining a new corporate identity by experiencing love, acceptance and forgiveness.

Technorati Tags: House church

A philosophy of education and experience?

John Dewey proposed a philosophy of education that focused on traditional education (education from without) and progressive education (experience, education from within). Traditional education focuses mainly on content, but it can become a “banking concept” for the transfer of knowledge.

Progressive education (education from within, or experience) is the other school of thought. Basically, it is grows out of our life experiences; but without sufficient or proper content, it will do little to offer growth or development. For Dewey, there needed to be a proper tension between education and experience.

As an educator in the church, I think we need the tension between what we are taught and what we experience in our spiritual formation. Teaching that is little more than throwing words out to the learner and hope that somehow they will appropriate them and figure out what we need to know and put into practice is not much use, either to the learner or to the body of Christ . 

Our preaching and teaching needs to educate us (think of it, if you will, as providing the raw materials), it should also provide guided, practical experiences that will help us to understand and assimilate what we have learned and how to apply it to life in order to promote growth and development in our spiritual formation.

Next time: What are we to teach?

Technorati Tags: educaton,spiritual formation,leadership development