My hang-ups about being anti-war.

Many of the people who are held up as (imperfect) examples of faithfulness in the Old Testament did violent things either under the command of God or without the condemnation of God. Abraham was a warrior (Genesis 14). Moses was a warrior (Numbers 21). David was a warrior. Elijah was a warrior (1 Kings 18).

None of this justifies our involvement in war per se. However, with that standard in place Jesus would need to be pretty darn clear on the issue to make sure his followers (raised to revere such men) would be absolutely clear on the issue. And I don’t think he is.

Some will certainly point to the Sermon on the Mount and wonder how much clearer Jesus would need to be. “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” “Love your enemies.”

From my perspective, it is clear enough to lean that way, but not clear enough to be dogmatic about it.

Here’s why it remains somewhat murky to me. No one is ever commanded to leave military service. No one is condemned for their military service. Just the opposite, Jesus was ready to risk uncleanness to help one (Luke 7:1-10). And of course, Peter preached in a soldier’s home without mention (in our text at least) of the sin of war (Acts 10).

And most baffling for anyone who would believe Jesus to be staunchly anti-violence is his command in Luke 22:36-38 (if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one…).

When is war okay? When is violence acceptable? I don’t know the answers to that. I’m mostly anti-war and anti-violence. It’s these couple of things that keep me from becoming one of the extremists*.

*I don’t intend to associate the negative connotations that are usually related to that term. Being an extremist can be very good thing, a very bad thing, and even something in the middle.

Beautiful Eyes

“And a man lame from birth was being carried in. People would lay him daily at the gate of the temple called the Beautiful Gate so that he could ask for alms from those entering the temple…And [Peter] took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.” Acts 3:2,7

This story mirrors many found in the New Testament. An outcast, a second class citizen, an overlooked member of society receives restoration through the power of the gospel. Many such stories come to mind – the woman caught in adultery, the crippled and lame, the woman with the bleeding issue – on and on it goes. The incredible message of the gospel contains the power to rebuild broken lives.

We see it over and over throughout the Bible. And we do see it at times today, but I wonder why we don’t see it even more? We talk about the power of the gospel. At times we even experience it. But why aren’t we constantly seeing changed lives? Why is the world not being restored as Jesus clearly wants it to be? I don’t think we see with the right eyes.

If we examine Jesus, the apostles, and those who make big differences in this world perhaps we find that they see the world differently. Think back to the story at the Beautiful Gate. Peter and John could have walked by this lame guy. After all thousands of God fearing Jews did every day. And perhaps even the disciples walked by him before today without giving him a second thought. But today was a different day. Today these two disciples saw potential and promise. They did not see a lame guy but a guy in need of restoration. They did not see an outcast but a fractured member of society who needed healing and grafting back in.

I am cynical. I am pessimistic. I am much more likely to see a lame man than the potential available through the power of the gospel. May I and may we see through Beautiful Eyes – the kind that do not pass by the hurting, but through the power of God stop and transform the world.

“This world is enchanted. Lean closely to see it.
This world is enchanted. Dare to breath it in.
O God give us new eyes to see…
The faith of a mustard seed;
A holy naiveté;
To swim in your mystery
We need to be free.”

“Enchanted” by Aaron Niequist

God's Prison - Relying Only on the Bible

To some, the Bible is where God is contained; it is the only source of truth about God. Whether it is a well-used copy or an old dusty tome on the coffee table, it just needs to be opened up for the individual to experience God. To know God, one just has to read the magical words.

Adherents of this view seem to teach, although not always deliberately, that God quit working with man once the New Testament was completed in its writing. All that we need to know is contained in Scripture, and through Scripture is the only way that God works. The Bible has, for all intents and purposes, become God's prison.

This view comes from a twisted and out-of-context interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:9-11:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

In this view, God no longer needs to interact with humanity because he has laid out his word in Scripture. The perfect, Scripture, has come. The Bible contains all that is needed to attain salvation, which is usually the ultimate goal of these adherents.

Professor William Cook of the State University of New York uses the illustration of Huey, Dewey, and Louie, Donald Duck's three adventurous nephews, and the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook to describe the results of this view of Scripture. Whenever Huey, Dewey, and Louie, had a problem to any sort of issue, they could open up the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook and it would tell them what to do in that specific situation. The Bible is no Junior Woodchurch Guidebook.

When I was a lost freshman in college and struggling with whether to surrender my life to Christ, I spent much time thinking, reading the Bible, and praying. Some might be able to make that jump of faith based upon some passage of Scripture, but for me it was difficult because I did not understand why I should believe the Scriptures. It seems rather silly to say, but God revealed himself to me through Tom Hanks' Apollo 13. After seeing that movie, I was ready to surrender my life to Jesus. And I did.

Some might argue that Apollo 13 is not a firm foundation because it is not the Word of God, meaning Scripture. I could not tell you because I have not seen the movie in a long time. I do not hold it up as Scripture, but I do know that God spoke to me through that movie to spur my heart toward him. He was not confined to the Scriptures but he was living and breathing in every aspect of my life. He still is if I would only pay attention to it all the moments of my day.

We can learn about God, and more importantly, know God, from movies, books, conversations, through loving the lost, or any other moment of living. Every aspect of our life is a window into God if we would only look.

This is not to belittle the role of Scripture but to highlight the role of living. Scripture still has a role to play. Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

How from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Sometimes it seems we have morphed the passage into saying:

How from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are the only thing able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Only Scripture is God-breathed and is the only useful tool for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This view of God working through all things is derided because it is dangerous and can lead to all sorts of strange beliefs. The Apostle John addressed this problem in 1 John 4:1:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

We are to test those spirit that we encounter throughout the day against the Scripture. There is no truth contrary to the Scriptures, but that does not mean that Scripture contains all truth. It might be dangerous to encounter God throughout the day, but that is the danger that is.

Let us realize that God is unlocked from the Scriptures. When we do that, we will begin to encounter God every where we go in everything thing we do. The Scripture is useful to check our understandings against and to derive understandings from, but it is not the Junior Woodchucks Guidebook or God's prison. God is free. God works through all things, whether it be a bush, a donkey, or a wrestling messenger like he did in the Old Testament, or through a movie, a book, a neighbor, a homeless man, or a prisoner like he does now; God works through all things. Let us have the eyes to see Him.

The End of a Movement?

For those readers who are familiar with the background of the contributors of this journal, you know that we are all part of the Restoration Movement. All three of us have been educated at Stone-Campbell schools. We all agree with and support the principles of the Movement to some measure.

Though each church affiliated with the Restoration Movement maintains autonomy and does not answer to a governing body, all of the churches still gather together at an annual convention call the North American Christian Convention (NACC for short). Basically the convention is a gathering of Christians from across the country (and world at times). No decisions are made. No edicts are handed out. It is just like-minded Christians coming together to worship, learn, and fellowship. Growing up I attended every year to compete with other teenagers in Bible Bowl. I have not gone lately, though my parents and sister continue to make the effort.

However, the convention has fallen on hard financial times lately as the attendance continues to decline. One could attribute this decline to various factors – the downward economic trends, the cost of gas, the rising cost of putting on the program, etc. And though those factors affect the older generation of attendees, I believe the problem lies in the absence of the generations that are ages 40 and under. Few Christian Church believers in this age group know about or feel compelled to support the convention. As a result, I foresee the convention going under within the next 15 years as the older generation dies out and is not replaced by new believers.

Another diminishing resource of the Restoration Movement is the “Christian Standard.” This weekly magazine is filled with articles, lessons, meditations, and news relating to the movement. Like the convention, I believe you would be hard pressed to find many people under the age of 40 regularly reading and taking an interest in the magazine. I only read it when a topic is especially intriguing. I don’t know their financial status, but I believe this magazine along with “The Lookout” could be defunct within a few years.

A few years back, a group of scholars from the movement attempted to increase the scholarship level of the Restoration Movement by publishing “The Stone-Campbell Journal.” The journal contained quality work, but again, I don’t know how they are fairing. I tend to think not as good as they could be.

Finally, though many newer churches and church plants are staffed by men and women from the Restoration Movement, fewer and fewer churches are celebrating this heritage. Even the names “Christian Church” and “Church of Christ” are being traded for “Community Church” or just a simple name like “Lighthouse Church”. I don’t have a problem with the name change, but these are just observations about the distancing from the tradition from which these churches draw their present practices.

The point of all of these observations is simple – I see the “Restoration Movement” ending within the next few years as a new generation of Christians seeks more ecumenical and post-modern approaches to “church”. Though I do not see this evolution as a bad thing, I do know that if the new movement does not replace the old with comparable practices, they will suffer. Hopefully the publications will be replaced with blogs, websites, and other means of communicating between Christians. Hopefully the convention will be replaced with other gatherings of like-minded individuals who are seeking unity. Whatever happens, as long as Christians are attempting to restore the church to the New Testament model, than perhaps the Movement will never die.

Starting with Prayer, Reaching Men

This is a continuation of the thread on Brandon's post at The Cultural Taproom from yesterday.

"This willingness to just abandon those who are more comfortable with old thinking so you can do it your own way comes across as incredibly arrogant."

I actually view it as the opposite of arrogant. Arrogant to me would be believing I am right and trying to lead, manipulate, or force people to be church in a way they don't need to. I don't view house church so much as I am "right" but as a valid expression of Christ's body here and now. I do apologize that I might come across as arrogant in defense of it being a legitimate example of Christ's body, a defense I wish I never had to make. Likewise, that house churches are viewed as illegitimate comes across as arrogant to me. There should be enough room in the kingdom for "house" and "sanctuary" churches.

A good leader would make the congregation want the proposed change by showing or creating a vision of what that change would create. I guess I am somewhat lazy and would rather start a church rather than try to change a church because I enjoy being in a group of like-minded people serving together without the struggle (although planting a church is a struggle of a different sort) of getting there. To me, changing a church is so much more difficult than planting a church. To others, I have heard the opposite. I would not confuse my character flaws of laziness and selfishness as arrogance.

Planting a church that does things differently to reach those, whether men or women, that are turned off by the current system while allowing those who participate in the current system to continue to do so seems very loving to me. There is enough room for everyone to worship and be the church the way they feel led to. My personal experience has shown that house church is an answer to the question asked on how men can find a love for being the church. When you ask how the collective whole can reach more men, I consider house churches part of that collective whole and a good answer to that question. If house churches reach more men, the Church as a collective whole has reached more men. I don't see that divide between "house" church and "sanctuary" church; both are part of the Church, just different expressions of Christ's body.

There might be other ways to reach more men. I just proposed the one I knew because you asked how it could be done; it is the only one I know because I have had the experience of more women and less men in all of the other churches I have been part of. I did not expect to have to defend house church again as being a legitimate way of being a church or as part of the collective community of Christ. I just tried, albeit apparently too confrontationally and ineffectively, to explain why I think that might be the case.

I agree that figuring out how to reach more men is a tough and important question. I am struggling with transforming a church right now. I am not really focused on reaching men but on how we can reach anyone. My not-so-novel conclusion is that it all has to start with prayer, but some times the cliches are right. My first proposal for a prayer group was shot down; me and another deacon are proposing it differntly this Sunday. I found it disturbing that anyone would reject a prayer group meeting in the church, but I think it is important enough to try again before giving up.

I also believe that no answer would be universal. There is no universal "men's ministry" that can be plugged into every church that would work. What might work in your church would probably not work down here. So if you are struggling with how the local church you are part of can reach more men, I would suggest starting a prayer group for discovering that ministry.

I hate the phrase "house church" because I do not typically refer to the other church as "sanctuary church." Both are just church, but for clarity's sake, I used the phrase throughout this post. I am also not currently part of a house church but think they are very effective at being the body of Christ.

Men and Church

I wrote this in reply to a post by Brandon Caroland, Shannon's brother, at the Cultural Taproom.

It is very easy to offend in talking about this subject, so I will try to tread lightly and not offend.

The church plant in Lansing in which we met in houses, small groups, focused on active love, and did not have a paid minister, was very difficult for many of the women involved to get into. They just did not view it as church. There were a couple of guys that wanted to come and be involved in our church but their wives just did not want them to. I also experienced this recently with a man who was discouraged with church and excited about the opportunity to be a simple, serving church; his wife was not as hip on the idea and they remained where they were while the man wishes he could do more. Women, and I know I am generalizing, do not like the idea of a church without all of the bells and whistles while men hate the bells and whistles and just want to get dirty serving. Maybe there is a happy middle ground.

When I planted the church in Lansing, I focused on, through prayer and seeking God's will, to plant a church for those who did not like church. I was/am a man frustrated with the way church is typically done, as if church can be done. I want/wanted a group of people to be the church rather than do church.

Men are interested in doing. I think tangible loving actions, otherwise called service projects, would be a better way of reaching men (through them participating, not being loved on) and showing them what it means to be a Christian.

The problem with authenticity in church is that a man is an active being and cannot be all that authentic sitting in a pew. He must be active. He must participate in the conversation rather than listen to a monologue. And many men just do not like to sing songs, yet he is expected to do this in church. Authenticity is not usually celebrated in church - silence and conformity is. Try to be authentic and you might just be kicked out.

Why do you think men are not as involved in church as women?

Does the Chrisitian have the right?

San Francisco Court Debates Religions’ Right to Oppose ‘Gay’ Adoption

This story is a little hairy. The Catholic church does not allow gay couples to adopt children through their adoption agency. The city supervisors released a non-binding resolution criticizing the Catholic church and encouraging the local body to break the church's rules. The Catholic church turned around and sued the government for right of the church to not be criticized by the state. They argued that the government was trying to dictate the teachings of the church.

It is an interesting debate. One that I do not think worthy of participating in. I would just take the government's criticism and let it be. But groups like the Catholics standing up for their rights do benefit the rights of all of us. In that I appreciate the effort. However, they just might lose.

Reading Scripture

I wrote this as a comment on Troy's blog. I thought I would share it here.

Scripture was written for the original audience with an original intention. This meaning can be discovered sometimes without any real knowledge of the setting or culture. Other times this meaning cannot be understood without the original context.

After knowing the original meaning of Scripture we must rely on the Holy Spirit to help us transfer the principle of Scripture into our reality. How is that principle lived out? What areas of my life are not in line with that principle? What do I need to change?

Although the meaning and/or principle never changes, the practical application of it might throughout the many years and through the many different people. Loving our neighbor will mean something completely different on a practical level to you as it does me because our neighbors are different people.

Despite the changing applications, the Scripture is unwavering in its principles. Applying those principles throughout the generations and different locations does take a different face some times, although other times it does not.

Wine at the Wedding

What would happen if Jesus came to a non-alcoholic wedding and turned the punch into wine? Do you think some who profess to follow him would kick him out? Or would they just leave? Or would they join in the festivities having a good time with Jesus? What would I do? What would you do?

Is there room at our weddings and in our lives for a radical like Jesus?

tamea

Sunday, Cindie and I discovered that Tamea had been killed in a car accident. We were shaken for many reasons, including our painful history of lost loved ones from car accidents.

But mostly, we were broken for Tamea and her family. She lived with her eight brothers and sister and mom four doors down from us. She was about seventeen years old. We have known her for seven years.

Moving into our neighborhood, into this foreign culture, we probably assumed that we had a lot to teach these kids about how to live rightly. Tamea showed us rather quickly that we had a lot to learn from them.

The main lesson being loyalty. We invited Tamea, five of her siblings and many other cousins and neighbors to our church's VBS that first summer that we lived here. Ah, the wonderful things you do when you don't know any better.

Though where we live (Pontiac), white people are a minority, the church is in Waterford, which is over 90% white. The church had (to my knowledge) never had a black person attend with any kind of regularity in it's 50+ years of existence.

Needless to say, they got plenty of looks. And in the culture these kids were from those looks don't fly. When Tamea saw one of the kids giving a look to one of her sisters, Tamea punched him in the mouth.

She knew there would be consequences, but she did not hesitate. She knew she was in trouble, but she was entirely unapologetic. In her mind, she had without question done the right thing. Someone was making her sister feel small, and she was not going to let that happen.

Tamea has always shown that sort of loyalty and fearlessness. I would guess that her sisters always felt more secure having her around. There was never a question that she would have their backs, and she was fierce. I say that with great admiration. How will they cope without her?

A couple of weeks ago she was over to our house. She was holding Ramiah and gushing over her.

We loved Tamea and would give so much to have her back and be able to tell her how much she means to us.

I'm rambling now. So, let me just say, we'll miss Tamea. Or hearts break on behalf of her family.

Faithful in the Small Things

This a lengthy reply in response to Shannon's post and the comments that followed.

Why don't we all pursue feeding the world's hungry through creating an organization to do just what you described? Why don't we quit our jobs and do these great acts of faith?

I think it is the things that I would like to do (stop war, feed a nation of hungry people, adopt a child) are not the things that I am called to do. Mother Teresa is a good example of this. She served doing what she was supposed to do. It started small as caring ministry for the poor in Calcutta; then it grew big. We too often want to start big. The same is true of Shane Claiborne. He started helping the poor in rundown Philadelphia, but his passion has caught fire. I would also assume that many faithful servants have served almost anonymously without being celebrated or having their methods catch fire.

But maybe I need to reevaluate my life. If so, we all would need to reevaluate our lives. I do not think any of our readers, even the most sacrificial, are doing all they could do. Maybe we need to give birth to an organization that is focused on feeding the world's hungry, stopping violence, and giving loving parents to the orphaned children around the world. I think a church hiring someone to create such programs would be a better use of resources than hiring a youth minister.

Aren't there organizations already tackling those problems?

In the end, if we are focused on being disciples, we do what we are called to do. We cannot do everything we would like to do, but we need to make sure we are doing some things. We need to be masters of the small things in a world that only celebrates the big. For Shannon, it was adopting a child. For others, it takes on different forms. This is part of the reason I believe in specific callings (which I know some on here disagree with) because there are millions of options of what to do and we cannot do 99.9% of them. We need to be sensitive to God's leading and do what he wants us to do here and now. It might be starting an organization to change the world or adopting a child, or it might be spending time with a neighbor going through a rough time or lovingly bandaging up our child's scraped knee. The great things I would like to do are not really the things that I am called to do. Some acts of love are more celebrated here on earth than others, but each act of love is necessary.

If God Had Enough Money

"If I won the lottery, I could do a lot of good in Jesus' name."

I have heard this kind of sentiment from many believers. It is a faithless statement when you think about it.

What could you do with some large amount of money that you could not do with Christ, some creativity, hard work, sacrifice, Christian fellowship, and faith (Philippians 4:13)?

There are some things that money can do that faith can't, but all of them are pretty scary to me. If you could just throw free money at something without prayer and faith and interdependence, would there be any spiritual benefit? Would God be glorified at all? I don't think this is what Jesus is looking for at all (Matthew 7:21-23), which is why he does not manipulate the lottery so that only Christians win.

I try to encourage people to imagine what they would do with a sudden fortune, then go do it by faith. Of course, I don't quite live up to that ideal, but I'd love to see it actualized.

I came to this conclusion years ago, but I have been confronted with an idea recently that has brought me back to it. This past Sunday I met a man at a church we were visiting. After learning that we had adopted Ramiah, he told me that he and his wife had been talking about doing that "if we ever had the money."

This was not the first time someone said this , but I think I get more puzzled every time I hear it.

Now, I don't want to be the guy who thinks everyone needs to do this thing, because I did it. I know that God called us to this path, and not necessarily everyone else. I hesitate being an outspoken advocate for adoption for that reason.

But this excuse just doesn't make sense to me.

One reason would be the way we experienced God's provision throughout it all. We finished with more in the bank than when we started. We were prepared to be paying off the adoption for years, but everything was pretty much paid before we left. I actually had to instruct people to stop giving.

But even if he didn't provide so quickly and so abundantly, I cannot see finances being that big of a deterrent. I mean, once God convicted us to adopt, we became convinced that our daughter was out there. Money was no obstacle. Imagine that your son or daughter was taken from you and was being kept in some third world orphanage, and it was going to take $100,000 (5 times what our adoption cost) to get your baby back, how long would you pray and consider whether or not you could afford getting your baby back? Not a second.

You see what I'm saying? If you think that God would want you to adopt, then complaints about cost seem at best silly and at worst faithless.

Let me get down from my adoption soap box long enough to ask this: If God had enough money, what would he have you do?

Leading through Consensus

The other day, I was sitting in an elders' and deacons' meeting at our church. We were discussing whether to use some money for a certain outreach project. One of the guys was really in favor of it, and he knew that we he would have a majority of the votes if we had a vote and everyone voted the way they felt. However, one other guy was extremely hesitant and expressed that he did not want to do it.

After a few quick minutes of discussion, the guy leading the charge declared, "Let's have a vote then. Can we have a motion?"

I then suggested, "I motion that we operate on consensus and don't make a decision that one of us is uncomfortable with."

The fact that I would vote "no" even when I wanted to vote "yes" would have prevented it from passing. I believe another deacon would have went along with me despite also wanting it. This is the second time that I have forced the group to operate on consensus by being willing to vote opposite of what I wanted to vote. Although I have pushed for it, the group has yet to formally decide to always operate on consensus. We usually are in complete agreement and it does not matter, but then there are times like this.

This refusal to allow a vote that would alienate one of the guys spurred it into a much healthier and further discussion. The guy pushing it asked the guy against it, "So why do you not want to do this?"

A great conversation ensued about the use of God's resources, church marketing, loving the community, and outreach. This conversation would not have taken place and we would have had a divided leadership and ill feelings over just a little thing if we had not decided to operate, against the by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, on consensus.

I think all church leadership should operate on consensus. It might prevent some things from getting done, but the church should never harm relationships for the sake of getting things done. Our job is not to get things done. Our number one task to get done, if it can be phrased as such, is to love one another and show Christ's love to the community around us.

Not operating on consensus prevents healthy dialogue. A vote that alienates always happens without people hammering out a common ground. Consensus makes conversation take place and forces us to share our fears, hopes, and reach a compromise.

Consensus is a result of reliance on prayer and the Holy Spirit. If we believe the Spirit is at work in each of us, is guiding us to the truth, and that God cares about directing the church to where he wants it to be, then we can be comfortable that he will turn all of those who are listening to him to his guidance and direction. This cannot happen if the leadership is all business and never spiritual.

There is no Bible verse that tells us how to conduct a meeting of leadership in a church. I cannot point at some passage and say, "See it there!" But what I can do is point at the principle of love. Is it really loving to alienate or divide a group? Some boards are divided and need some serious spiritual growth time together. With those types of boards, consensus seems almost impossible. However, growing together to be of one mind is a tough job in some situations but it is a worthwhile task. The church would definitely benefit.

In the end, the person that wanted to say "no" on the issue at my church turned around and said "yes." He shared his worries and we worked through them. We were in unison and consensus worked, yet again. It always has.