Asbury Experience

I went to visit Asbury Theological Seminary on Monday and Tuesday. There is a high probability that I will be attending this school to get my PhD in Biblical Studies. But I wanted to share a bizarre yet extremely encouraging experience.

Most Seminaries place a high priority on spiritual growth as well as theological and academic growth. And, I believe many fail. Many reasons could be cited I suppose, but in the end I have found that many seminaries don’t have an atmosphere of excitement. That is not the case at Asbury. From my limited experience at the school, the people are excited not just about learning but about sharing what God is doing. The people were genuinely kind and caring

Let me use the chapel service I attended as another example. Being a United Methodist school, I expected stale, uptight, impassionate worship. On the one hand, it was very traditional. A beautifully large pipe organ in a conventional pew-filled sanctuary belted out the classic tune “He Arose” while students in robes brought a cross and various banners down the aisle. It was at this point that my expectations were completely destroyed. The students sang with the sort of zeal you would see at a Hillsong or Passion concert. Hands were raised, parts were sung, ‘Amen’s were shouted – Christ was praised. Then a PhD candidate got up to pray, and prayed from the heart as he lifted up the situation in Sudan in more than generic intercessory prayer, but in the fervent prayer of a man who has been personally affected by the tragedy (he is originally from Africa). The aged president spoke eloquently but energetically expounding joy of the resurrection. Throughout the chapel service I was reminded that it is not the form of worship that promotes passionate worship, but the heart of worship.

I left dumbfounded as the meshing of the traditional and the charismatic had such a profound impact on me and clearly on the spiritual life of the students. It was encouraging to know that my PhD experience will be far more than an academic exercise, but will refresh my soul and prepare me for my continued life of ministry.

Unpacking the Hermeneutic Quiz

First, thanks for taking the quiz. I hope you found it interesting. I think there is much to be gleaned through such an exercise. And though pigeonholing people and painting with broad brushes tends to bear little fruit in most cases, if taken as a general starting point to understand one another, then categorizing can be helpful. With this caveat in mind, let me attempt to unpack some of the questions and responses with the goal of understanding one another’s approach to the Bible better.

The conservative response to the question of “The Bible is…” was “God's inspired words in confluence with the authors” and “God's exact words for all time.” In addition, this view tends to view the Bible as “inerrant on everything.” In other words, there is no possibility of human error or the author’s opinion making its way into the Bible. If you have this “top-down” view of inspiration, you will tend to be more literalistic – God said it, so I believe/do it. Though some original context and cultural background is taken into consideration, this view more or less takes the Bible at face value. Many Christians say they take the Bible literally – as though every story happened as recorded and every law, commandment, and exhortation remains valid for present day Christians. The underlying reason that many take this tact is, I believe, is because they are attempting to avoid defying God and God’s expectations for followers. Though people with this view tend to be dogmatic, they are basing their interpretation on a genuine desire to live according to God’s will.

The second, “moderate” option given was still literal in nature but allowed for some leeway in modern appropriation. This moderate response framed the Bible as, “God's inspired words that arise out of a community and then are written down by an author” and “God's message (instead of exact words) for all time.” The idea of a “community” takes much more of the original context into consideration. In addition, the word “message” leaves plenty of room for interpretation and application. For the most part, I think adherents to this view often choose to err on the more conservative side. As the response to question three indicates, they believe that the Bible is “Inerrant on only matters of faith and practice.” So, things like punctuation, grammar, etc. are irrelevant and unimportant. What is important is that God has the final say and overrides any bias or theological interpolation by the writer. So, though they do not believe God took over the brain and hand of the original writer, the message that God wanted to convey has been written down. This view allows for some of the author’s style, perspective, etc., but keeps the Bible authoritative and inspired by God.

The final, “progressive” option stated the following: “The Bible is words of an author who speaks out of a community's tradition, but which sacramentally lead us to God” and is “God's words and message for that time but need interpretation and contextualization to be lived today.” Basically, there is a core message conveyed and there is still application, but the modern appropriation requires more nuancing instead of a one to one direct application. My view of women’s roles in the church would probably fall into this category. In addition, the Bible is, “Not defined by inerrancy or errancy, which are modernistic categories.” I will say that I agree with the first part of this statement but not the second. The concept of “modernistic categories” is a bit of a cop out. I would say that the Bible has to more to do with conveying the journey of faith by faithful followers and therefore is truth rather than being truth by virtue of its “inerrancy.” The point of the Bible is to aid us in experiencing the fellowship of God with a community similar to the communities of the original writers.

The stream of interpretation has ebbed and flowed throughout history. Few people would align themselves completely with one camp or another. I think most believers understand that the Bible is a diverse book, containing multiple genres in a different language making interpretation a difficult process at best. At the same time, I believe we all have interpretive tendencies based on our inspirational view. I will unpack this concept in next week’s post.

My thoughts on Obama and race

This started out as reply to Shannon's post, but it became too long.

I am biased. I did vote for Obama in the primary. I do not know for sure if I will vote for him in the general election. It depends on if there is a third-party candidate that I like. I wish every reporter had to make a statement like that.

As for Wright's comments on 9/11, I find myself in agreement. It is only by the grace of God that we do not find ourselves being bombed and terrorized on the homefront every day. It does seem that we do deserve it. I would actually wager that we deserve much worse. And we are all indirectly responsible for what our government does because we elect them and give them the money to do what they do. We cannot wash our hands and act like we are innocent. The blood of Iraqi children who have been killed by stray missiles is on my hands just as much as it is on every Americans.

His other comment about the government giving black people drugs seems a little strange to me, and I would also like to see some evidence.

In the end, I really had a tough time in wondering what Reverend Wright's comments really had to do with Obama. Things are said from the pulpit in the church I go to that I do not agree with. I would hate for someone to judge me based upon what is said in the pulpit at the church I attend. I just think that people were trying to find something to smear Obama with. This tells me that Obama is pretty squeaky clean if this is the best they could come up with. "Let's go after his pastor. That will show the American people how bad he is."

Having moved churches once based upon a theological (practical) difference, I am never going to do that again. I am going to stay where I am because I value fellowship and every church is flawed. Why should I condemn Obama for remaining in a church with a flawed pastor. Who is not flawed? If people like Sean Hannity (I heard him say that he would have left Obama's church) actually believe everything their pastor states from the pulpit, then I fear the ignorance of the American Christian. I think that Obama did a great job in his speech explaining how you have to take a church with both its good and its bad. His church does some great things. It's flawed, just like all of us and just like our churches. I wish my church would be doing as much good for the community as the church Obama attends.

As for racism and its impact on people, I have a good friend who shared with me over a lunch that he had to go home rather than the gas station across the street to get a drink during the hot summers when all the kids in town would get together to play baseball in the open lot. I just cannot imagine what being brought up like that would do to a person. Thankfully, he is a very forgiving individual and does not seem to carry a racial grudge, but could you blame him if he did? I can see those seeds of oppression manifesting themselves in times of anger, and I really can not see much fault in them. We have done some terrible wrongs as a society.

Another experience I had recently was a group of white cops threw a group of black guys on the ground in front of my store. A white woman had claimed that they had waved a gun at her. A black customer in my store said that he had seen the whole thing happen in the parking lot and there was no gun. If I were him, I would go tell the cops what happened. I asked him, "Why don't you go tell the cops what happened?" He replied, "I'm black. They won't listen to me."

We have much work to do, but let us allow grace to lead the way.

Mandy Thursday Video

Today is Maundy Thursday, and though communion and service are important aspects of the day, the rejection of the Savior is a motif that also looms large. So I have posted a video below that I used this past Sunday intended to focus our thoughts on the ways in which we honor God with our lips and deny him with our hearts.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Having defended Sen. Obama's church already, I feel I need to address comments made by its former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The comments you have no doubt heard were made years ago. They were released by the McCain campaign (according to ABC News) for purely patriotic reasons. No politics here (tongue obviously in cheek).

Here are the comments that have made me fear for a race riot:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." (From a 2003 sermon)

He seems to believe that government is dispensing drugs to black people and then locking them up as some elaborate scheme. It seems preposterous to me. I wonder why he would believe that. If it's true (and I'm certainly not saying it is) then indeed America deserves damnation.

All in all, it is irresponsible to insight a crowd based on an unsubstantiated theory. But if he has some proof that I am unaware of, then he is rightfully following the tradition of his namesake, Jeremiah.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." (From Sept. 16, 2001, right after the World Trade Center attacks).

Tough statements. Of course, many of us were not quite right at that time. Most churches I heard about went to the other extreme preaching a patriotism that one could call America worshiping idolatry. But that does not let Wright off the hook for these words.

I don't think 9/11 is something we, the people, deserved. The people who were most hurt had little to nothing to do with our country's foreign policy. At the same time, we must examine to what degree our country's foreign policy motivates the murderous hatred we saw displayed. If we arrogantly demand that we did nothing wrong, aren't we just setting ourselves up for more attacks.

Again, I don't know if his accusations about what the U.S. did to Palestinians and black South Africans is true, but it is worth investigating.

Then he had some tirade about how Hillary Clinton and John McCain do not know what it is to be black. This absolutely true. He used the "n" word, which I wish no one would use.

And this gets to a larger point about you and me. We do not understand enough about each other. We tend to send back at a distance judge the words attitudes and actions of others.

I read this article that says the while two thirds of whites believe that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality, nearly eighty percent of blacks believe that racial justice for blacks will not be achieved either in their lifetime or at all in the U.S.

Before you start trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong, we should all be struck by the disparity. Why do we see things so differently?

I don't like what Wright said. But I need to try to understand why he and so many Christian Americans do believe the sort of things he has said.

Grace Hit Me

I would like to share some quotes from an adulterer, murderer, and denier of Christ.

"The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake." - The Adulterer

"I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God." - The Murderer

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." - The Denier

It amazes me how legalistic we can be at times. I remember a conversation with another Christian in which they would not want someone who ever looked at porn to be in a pulpit. They would leave the church. If applied to its logical conclusion, this sort of legalism would prevent David, Paul, or Peter from preaching in our churches. This is kind of ironic since most churches read something written by one of those guys every week. A legalistic test of morality to a current leader's past is pretty silly since the same legalistic test would eliminate much of Scripture.

The grace of God amazes me, and we need to be open to that grace in those around us. That person that seems most likely to do anything for the kingdom because of their tarnished past might just be the person who God will use to change your church. God has a history of working in that way. God is full of grace, and for that I am most thankful.

Hermeneutic Quiz

Shannon directed Regan and me to a little Hermeneutic Quiz from building church leaders.com. For those who are unaware with the terminology, a hermeneutic is a method or principle of interpretation, usually applied to the Bible. So this quiz, through a series of questions, attempts to identify how you interpret the Bible.

Though not perfect, it is quite insightful regarding your Biblical approach. We will be using this quiz as a springboard for future discussions. So, we encourage you to take the quiz (follow the link and click on “Take Assessment”) and report your score to give everyone an idea of where you stand before we continue with the specific topics. I give you the same advice Shannon gave to me – take the quiz honestly, because it is easy to skew your answers conservatively or liberally.

By way of reference…
Sam scored an 80
Shannon scored a 64
Regan scored a 68

An Amazing Fellowship

In 1773, the young pastor of a poor church in Wainsgate, England, was called to a large and influential church in London. John Fawcett was a powerful preacher and writer, and these skills had brought him this opportunity. But as the wagons were being loaded with the Fawcetts’ few belongings, their people came for a tearful farewell.

During the good-byes, Mary Fawcett cried, “John, I cannot bear to leave!” “Nor can I,” he replied. “We shall remain here with our people.” The wagons were unloaded, and John Fawcett spent his entire fifty-four-year ministry in Wainsgate.

Out of that experience, Fawcett wrote the beautiful hymn, “Blest Be the Tie that Binds.”

"Blest be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love; the fellowship of kindred minds is like to that above. Before our Father's throne we pour our ardent prayers; our fears, our hopes, our aims are one, our comforts and our cares. When we asunder part, it gives us inward pain; but we shall still be joined in heart, and hop to meet again."

What a fellowship!

Beatitude Check part 3

Before we get to my take on those words. I wanted to take an opportunity to say that I was never a believer in the idea that anagrams held secret meaning until today. Today I discovered that Regan Clem is an anagram for "mere clang". A reference to 1 Corinthians 13, no doubt. And Samuel Long is a an anagram for "one all smug" or "unsmall ego" or "soul mangle". So "mull on, sage". I'm on to you. I could not find a good one on me. Just "Scandal? An honor."

Moving on... Let me briefly refresh you on what we covered. The traditional understanding of the Beatitudes can be summed up thusly: Because of these meritorious conditions you receive these blessings. Conversely, Willard's understanding is this: Despite your pitiable conditions, your blessings are this.

His is much, much better, but it is is still lacking. After laying out his perspective he says;

Sometimes I am told that the reading of the Beatitudes given here works well for all except the ones about hungering and thirsting for righteousness and being pure of heart.

[I might add to that the one about the merciful and maybe even the one about the meek.]

But if the "old engineering" or legalistic interpretation is wrong, it is wrong for those as well.

I agree with this. However, it is not either the old "engineering" or Willard. I think both are wrong. The way the old way interprets "poor in spirit" is a very terrible manipulation of the given words. It is classic eisogesis. Willard's use of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the pure in heart, the merciful, and the meek are not quite as bad. But they do follow the same technique of ignoring the obvious meaning of the terms to try to make them fit a theological construct. His are not quite as heinous, but still, we should want better.

We need a third option. I propose that Willard was right that Jesus was pointing to the crowds and announcing how the kingdom would impact them. I just do not agree that all of them were in such pitiable conditions. Some were had some very good qualities that were going to to be blessed far beyond what they currently were. We are not saved by works, but that does not mean that are works are forgotten (Revelation 14:13).

Since Christ had come into their lives, they are blessed. Certainly not because of who they were, but I don't think this is simply saying that it is despite our character either. We are saved despite our character, I just think this text says more. I think it talks about how his kingdom effects various people from all conditions. The mourners find comfort. the poor and the abused enter the greatest kingdom of all time. The less aggressive find material blessing.

But those who have set their hearts toward God, those who hunger for righteousness, those who have found some purity of heart (perhaps through sincere Jewish worship and devotion) will find gigantic blessings for being that way. They are not saved by it. But they are rewarded for it. Think of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2:21-40, for instance. Are they not a perfect representation
of how the pure in heart see God at the dawning of the Kingdom?

Grace does not simply make bad things good. That is too simplistic. Grace makes good things better too.

Love to hear what you think. Signing off, I'm Shannon Caroland (Hosanna! Land Corn)

The Disappearance of the Fellowship Meal

When we gather together for sharing together in the Lord's Supper, it is a proclamation of the fellowship we have with one another. In 1 Corinthians 11, we see the fellowship meal and the Lord's Supper intimately linked. If I were to just read "Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?" (1 Corinthians 11:22a) or "If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home" (1 Corinthians 11:34a), we might conclude that the church is not supposed to share a meal together. Those verses if read in isolation could be as a proclamation supporting modern church practice of not frequently eating together as a church, but when read in the context of the whole passage, Paul was giving instruction on how to participate in the fellowship meal. This meal, at least for the early church, was the context in which the Lord's Supper was remembered.

We see this fellowship meal throughout the New Testament. In Acts 2:46-47, we see that the early church just after being established shared in meals together. This practice was still in practice 20 years later as we can see in it being addressed in the chapter 11 in Corinthians. Jude also mentions the love feast in his letter which was written 30 years after the beginning of the church. The practice of sharing a meal together was practiced throughout the New Testament church, and I think it is something that we would benefit from today if we practiced it more regularly. So let us read together Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church in regards to how they should share their meal together.

In an examination of 1 Corinthians, we see that Corinthian church had a major problem with the divisions within the body. Throughout the book, these issues of division were revealed. From the very first chapter where in verse 12 Paul wrote, “One of you says, “I follow Paul'; another 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.' All sorts of divisions manifested themselves in the Corinthian church.

In chapter 11, the divisions seemed to manifest themselves among economic lines and were exposed during the fellowship meal.

“For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothings?”

Verse 21 shows that some people are getting drunk while others remain hungry. Verse 22 mentions that those who were hungry were those “who have nothing”.

In order to properly understand chapter 11 and the struggle with the abuse of the Lord's Supper, we have to picture the fellowship meal as it was at that time of the early church because it is an almost forgotten practice in our time. For the early church, the fellowship meal was the intimate time of family gathering in which the sacrifice of Jesus was remembered and the unity of the church was proclaimed. Prior to the crucifixion, Jesus implemented the Lord's Supper during a meal with his disciples. This shared meal continued to be practiced throughout the early church. In I Corinthians 5:11, where Paul commanded the church not to eat with the immoral brother, Paul was telling them to not allow that guy into the fellowship meal. The fellowship meal was supposed to be the sacred time in which the eternal fellowship of believers actually peeked through the veil of eternity and manifested itself in our physical reality. The fellowship meal was the church gathering. It should not have been violated by a self-proclaimed believer who refused to stop living in an intentional and flagrant sin.

We find ourselves on the other side of history. At some point from the time of the early church to now, the important fellowship meal and its proclamation was discarded and the meal transformed into a token piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine or grape juice. This happened to the detriment of the church because a result of the meal being thrown out was the eventual watering down of fellowship and a loss of its true meaning. No longer was the church a family that shared a meal together. They were just a collection of individuals who gathered together to worship and be educated. With the disappearance of the meal went the disappearance of near universal fellowship.

Exploitation Enterprise

As I mentioned in my last post, lately I have been especially convicted regarding the plight of the poor. And though I don’t know what to do about it, this week I have seen examples of things NOT to do. As if being poor, homeless, and generally outcast wasn’t bad enough, what if they were exploited to make the rich even richer? Impossible you say? What else could they give? They have nothing after all. Well, leave it to pop culture to go where no one has or should go.

Let me sight the most egregious offender first – Tyra Banks. Some time ago for her show she dressed up in raggedy clothing and “played” homeless for a day. Her thinking was that she could sympathize more with the homeless if she was one for a day. Was she serious? Apparently, yes she was. She said that she had a newfound understanding of what the homeless go through…after one day in non-designer clothes without makeup (maybe) with the full understanding that she would return to her plush environ at the end of the taping.

As if that wasn’t enough, she continued the exploitation this week by whisking her “Next American Top Model” contestants to the streets and switching places with 3 “homeless” people (there is some doubt as to whether they were actually homeless people and not plants). In other words, the homeless girls got made up and decked out while the contestants had to look glamorous in less than ideal conditions (see picture below and the video recap here - its laughable if it weren't so sad). Which makes perfect sense, because we all know that models need to be able to adapt to any situation, including feigned poverty. Is anyone else repulsed by these sorts of actions? It is like a politician coming into the soup kitchen for a photo op just to convey the image that s/he is from the “salt of the earth.”



Then on Sunday, I was listening to some Christian music radio (which by now I should have learned my lesson). And who pops up? Audio Adrenaline. Not a huge fan, but I tolerated them – until that day. They have a new song out called “dirty” (you can listen here). Not to be confused with the remake of Christina Aguilara’s “Dirty”, the lyrics are as follows:

Tired of being clean. Sick of being proper
I want to live among the beggars and dig out in the dirt
step outside the walls we built to protect us
don't be afraid to get some mud on your face
come on come on everybody
come on come on and serve some one
Let's get dirty! let's get used,
no matter where you come from,
if your beaten up or bruised,
let's get foolish, let's get free,
free to be the one thing, you were meant to be,
let's get dirty!

Again, this idea of getting dirty just enough to get a feel for the difficult lifestyle of the poor irks me to no end (which is a problem I have with many short term mission trips). Now, we turn their struggle for survival into a Contemporary Christian pop song that seems to have the goal of getting kids all charged up to dish out some soup. I can just envision a youth minister playing that song with nice clips of poor people playing and telling the kids, “We need to really reach out.” And for a day, or even a week the youth group heads somewhere and makes a real difference – in the lives of the kids. Then they return home to their plush lifestyle with a sense of accomplishment while the poor remain entrenched in their lifestyle.

So where does that leave me (besides by the toilet with a sick feeling in my stomach)? Again, I don’t think we are all called to a vow of poverty, but we have to be called to more than dishing out soup every once in a while. To more than collecting cans for food pantries. To more than brief encounters with the oppressed of the world. To more than activities that simply boost our attitudes but provide little long term improvement for those whom we say we are trying to love.

Maybe writing a journal entry about the problem will solve it.

Beatitude Check part 2

Last time I discussed the traditional interpretation of the Beatitudes, and its shortcomings. In short; 1. It does not do justice the phrasing. 2. It presents a new form of legalism, "salvation by attitude."

This time I want to cover Dallas Willard's understanding of the "Blesseds" (as he sometimes calls them). I hope I can do this justice. For despite its flaws (which I'll get to), it is profoundly superior to the traditional understanding. His teaching on this section (and all of the Sermon on the Mount for that matter) has brought to much of Jesus' teaching a new clarity for me. I strongly suggest "Divine Conspiracy" to any person who longs follow Jesus.

As for the Beatitudes, Willard teaches that this introduction to his sermon about life under his rule is not itself an instruction on how to live. Rather Jesus is using those in front of him (see Matthew 4:23-5:2) to demonstrate the ways his kingdom would impact the world. Willard says, "They single out cases that provide proof that, in him, the rule of God from the heavens truly is available in life circumstances that are beyond all human hope." (You could compare this with Luke's description to the beginning of Jesus' ministry in Luke 4:14-21, I suppose.)

Jesus was not telling us then, that being poor in spirit, mournful, persecuted, etc... are in and of themselves favorable conditions to be in, or strive for. After all, there are billions of people in the world today who are either poor in spirit, or mourning, or meek who will never enter the kingdom. The blessings are not the conditions, but the kingdom and what comes with the kingdom.

In Willard's words:

Those poor in spirit are called "blessed" by Jesus, not because they are in a meritorious condition, but because, precisely in spite of and in the midst of their ever so deplorable condition, the rule of the heavens has moved redemptively upon and through them by the grace of Christ.

Willard envisions Jesus pointing to the crowd filled with people from various backgrounds as he spoke these. There were many who were not of Israel. Some had even recently been filled with demons. Jesus points to them and says, "They're by this kingdom finally being here." Not because of who they were, but because of who He was.

So, he explains "poor in spirit" not as some creative way to describe humility, but as "spiritual zeros--the spiritually bankrupt, deprived and deficient, the spiritual beggars, those without a wisp of 'religion'".

Those who mourn are simply those who grieve, not just about their spiritual condition, but about whatever. The loss of a child, loneliness, in justice, pain... In the kingdom, in Jesus' presence particularly, there is comfort for those who grieve.

The meek are understood as "the shy ones, the intimidated, the mild, the unassertive", which is, of course what "meek" means, not those who have power but learn to control it. Jesus loves to throw surprising ideas out there for us to wrestle with (think of a Samaritan hero or the rich having extreme difficulty entering the kingdom, or needing a righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees). The spiritually poor laying hold of the kingdom and the meek taking the earth are perfect examples of that. But that's what his rule should mean.

He describes those who hunger and thirst for righteousness as those who have been deprived what is right, and so deeply desire justice. Or those who have sinned so badly that they "inwardly scream to be made pure" His kingdom brings resolution to both of those problems.

He sees the merciful as those who so often get taken advantage of and chastised by the pragmatists, those business-minded folk. But now as heaven has opened up and God's favor is near, they will find a mercy beyond that which they have shown.

He sees those who are pure in hear as "the ones for who nothing is ever good enough, not even themselves." They pick everything and everyone apart and find fault. But in the kingdom, they finally find something fully and truly good.

He sees the peacemakers as those who are usually hated by everyone, because they are not taking a side. They fight for those in the wrong (as typically both parties are). Their blessing is that they resemble their father in heaven.

Finally, he sees those persecuted as blessed, because the weight of our eternal glory far outweighs these comparably light and momentary troubles (2 Corinthians 4:17)

Okay, that's all I have time for this week. Next week, I'll offer my critique of this view and offer a slightly modifies view.

Visiting Delta Community Christian Church

We finally made it back to the churches (we visited just one) we planted in Lansing seven years ago. I really did not know what to expect since it had been five years since we had left and we have been bad church planters and have not visited since then. This will be my random thoughts of the experience interspersed with some history of the church.

We arrived a few minutes late to the Bunce's house where the church gathers. Ryan came up from the basement to greet us. (We had just started using the basement right before we had left five years ago.) At that time, they were just one church. Now they are two although they were three at one point. We walked down the stairs and the people were sitting in chairs in a circle. There were some people there that I did not know and others that I love dearly.

The worship began with the passing of the bread in which everyone broke the bread and gave a piece to the person sitting next to them telling them "The body of Christ broken for you." I miss partaking in that way. It seems to bring the body together in a way that partaking in the Lord's Supper with the passing of plates does not do. It's intimate and creates a bond because you usually are not sitting by the same person every week. It also nourishes through ritual an environment of the priesthood of believers rather than a hierarchy of church leadership.

Following that, two people began to play guitar. One of the interesting things about the worship is that the hymn "Be Thou My Vision" has been on my mind a lot lately and that was the concluding part of the singing portion of the service. The worship through music was very touching. I have not been moved from the music service in church like that in a long time. Throughout the service, Scripture was read between the songs. What I liked most is that the worship was not interrupted with anything. We just sung the songs and the Scripture reading assignments were done beforehand.

Then we moved into the lesson/sermon. In a smaller group, it is rather silly to have one person speak while everyone else just listens. It was an interactive learning time in which we talked about forgiveness. I learned a lot from the people in the group, which will prove beneficial to the sermon on grace that I have been working on to preach in two weeks. Dave (I think that was his name) led the discussion through sharing his thoughts on forgiveness. He did a great job at creating a springboard for group discussion and providing insights from his studies on the subject.

After that we shared in the fellowship meal. There was a great vegetable soup, a wonderful rice/meat something, and bread. At the end of the meal, we shared in the cup, remembering the sacrifice of Christ.

Three and a half hours after we arrived, we left refreshed in the Spirit and excited about the Lord. It made me long to be part of a church that gathers in such a way again. I miss it. I miss it a lot. I miss those people, and I created new friendships that will sadly not ripen due to not being around them regularly.

Obviously, a church is much more than what goes on during their gathering on a Sunday morning, but if the gathering is a sign of the life of the body, then these churches are very healthy. I am so overjoyed to see that. May God continue to bless them with fellowship and a love that overflows.