According to Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus said: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (TNIV).
We naturally take the wide roads, not the narrow ones. Jesus invites us to take the narrow road.
If I am taking a long trip south, I check the route on an Internet mapping program or on a GPS device. Every such program that I have used instructs me to take H and H Road, but I never do. H and H Road is almost directly across from my subdivision and it is definitely the shortest way to go if I am headed to points south. The problem is that the road is little more than a dirt path with ruts and holes and some pretty big puddles when it rains. Furthermore, H and H Road only trims maybe 1 or 2 tenths of a mile off the trip. So I take the nice, wide, hard surface Mount Pisgah Road instead taking H and H Road despite what the mapping programs and the GPS devices say.
I don’t know of anyone in my subdivision who routinely takes H and H Road. No sensible person would take that narrow road when there is a nice, easily accessible, wide road.
Jesus invites us to take H and H Road. The Lord invites us to travel the path that seems a strange choice to the prevailing notions of our culture.
Jesus told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12:33). He told us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). He said that, if someone strikes you on one cheek, don’t hit them back, just offer them the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). He told us to prize the lowly people of society rather that the prestigious people (Luke 14:12-14; Matthew 25:31-46). He said to give your shirt to the one who takes your coat (Matthew 5:39). He said to give to the one who asks you (Matthew 5:42), and to lend without expecting repayment (Luke 6:43). He said blessed are you who are poor, but woe to you who are rich (Luke 6:20; 24). He said blessed are you who are hungry, but woe to you who are well fed (Luke 6:21; 25). He said blessed are you when people hate you but woe to you when everyone speaks well of you (Luke 6:22; 26). He said blessed are you who weep now, but woe to you who laugh now (Luke 6:21; 25). He followed the path of the cross and he told his followers to take up their own crosses.
Do you see that following Jesus means taking H and H Road? He turns many of our values upside down. His teaching runs counter to the conventional wisdom of our society. Following him means being weird and most of us don’t want to be weird.
I guess that’s why we keep wandering over to the wide road.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The soul's disease and mere church attendance
In Untamed Hospitality by Elizabeth Newman, she describes the "inward/outward journey ... rooted in accountability and community disciplines" in The Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. which is led by Gordon and Mary Cosby. The church requires that each member be involved in one of its "communal missions." Gordon Cosby said, "We try to make it as difficult for a person to merely attend our church as possible, because we feel this can be detrimental and contribute to the soul's disease rather than the soul's health."
When I read that line, I thought to myself, "In most Baptist churches we would love to get the members on our rolls merely attending."
How far most Baptist congregations stray from the fellowship ideal depicted in the New Testament. Acts 2:42 tells us that believers in the early church devoted themselves to mere attendance? No, "to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (TNIV). Furthermore, in the early church, "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" (Acts 3:32, TNIV). Surprisingly by today's standards, "there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need" (Acts 3:34-35, TNIV).
Yes, that does sound like a commitment far exceeding mere attendance. Yet many Baptist churches have members on roll that they haven't seen in some cases for years. We are more interested in stats than the New Testament notion of fellowship. Ironically, if we would just dedicate ourselves to the New Testament ideal of church involvement the stats would probably improve. But no matter what happens to the numbers we really must recover the New Testament ideal of fellowship.
Do we, in our neglect of genuine koinonia, contribute to the soul's disease rather to the soul's health?
When I read that line, I thought to myself, "In most Baptist churches we would love to get the members on our rolls merely attending."
How far most Baptist congregations stray from the fellowship ideal depicted in the New Testament. Acts 2:42 tells us that believers in the early church devoted themselves to mere attendance? No, "to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (TNIV). Furthermore, in the early church, "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" (Acts 3:32, TNIV). Surprisingly by today's standards, "there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need" (Acts 3:34-35, TNIV).
Yes, that does sound like a commitment far exceeding mere attendance. Yet many Baptist churches have members on roll that they haven't seen in some cases for years. We are more interested in stats than the New Testament notion of fellowship. Ironically, if we would just dedicate ourselves to the New Testament ideal of church involvement the stats would probably improve. But no matter what happens to the numbers we really must recover the New Testament ideal of fellowship.
Do we, in our neglect of genuine koinonia, contribute to the soul's disease rather to the soul's health?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Govenment choosing of preferred religions
Did you hear about the Supreme Court decision this week related to placing religious monuments on government property? There is a park owned by the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah in which stands a donated monument listing the Ten Commandments. Another small religious group called Summum sought to give the city a monument depicting some of its basic precepts called the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum." The city refused the gift from Summum and the sect sued saying their free speech rights had been violated. On Wednesday the high court ruled that Pleasant Grove does not have to accept the gift from Summam.
The Supreme Court concluded that a lower court went too far when it forced a government entity to effectively endorse the views of a private group on public property. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court's decision, wrote, “The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech." In this perhaps narrow sense the ruling makes sense. It seems to me that the lower court ruling could force the government to accept and display monuments from white supremacist religious groups such as the Christian Identity Church or those of Satan worshipping groups.
However, all of this begs the question of whether the city should have accepted the monument to the Ten Commandments in the first place. Now a government entity is placed in the position of deciding which religious teachings should and should not be displayed on public property which opens a different can of worms. It did not escape the notice of the Supreme Court that, while a lower court may have improperly applied the Free Speech Clause, the situation in Pleasant Grove, Utah may run afoul with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an opinion that concurred with the decision of the court but not with its reasoning, Justice David Souter wrote, "If the monument has some religious character, the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove it to take care to avoid the appearance of a flat-out establishment of religion."
In a statement, J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), said “the government should not be able to pick and choose the favored religion and then erect a monument endorsing the religion’s scriptural precepts.” The BJC had filed a friend of the court brief asking that the Establishment Clause dimension of the case be considered, but the high court did not take up that question. However it probably will in the near future. The attorney for Summam has announced his intention to amend the lawsuit to include church-state separation claims.
It is worth noting that Baptists who were around at the founding of this nation would not have agreed with the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property and they surely would not have quietly accepted the notion of the government picking and choosing what religious teachings it will display. They were strict adherents to the principle of the separation of church and state. John Leland, perhaps the most prominent U.S. Baptist leader of the late 1700's, opposed the closing of Post Offices on Sunday because he said it amounted to government favoritism toward Christian teaching. Leland and the Baptists of his time were firm in their conviction that government should show preference for no religion.
Sadly many Baptists of today reject the view of their spiritual ancestors in this country. Based on the teachings of Christ and their experience as a persecuted minority, Baptists of the late 1700's in this land said what was later affirmed in all three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000): "Church and state should be separate." For the good of the church and for the good of the spread of the gospel, Baptists at the founding of this nation were among the strongest proponents of a strict church-state separation. Tragically, in more recent times, some prominent Baptist leaders have called the separation of church and state "a modern fabrication" and "the figment of some infidel's imagination."
Would that all Baptists of today would again embrace authentic religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state. After all, when Satan tempted Jesus to use the power of government to accomplish his mission, the Lord turned him down.
The Supreme Court concluded that a lower court went too far when it forced a government entity to effectively endorse the views of a private group on public property. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court's decision, wrote, “The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech." In this perhaps narrow sense the ruling makes sense. It seems to me that the lower court ruling could force the government to accept and display monuments from white supremacist religious groups such as the Christian Identity Church or those of Satan worshipping groups.
However, all of this begs the question of whether the city should have accepted the monument to the Ten Commandments in the first place. Now a government entity is placed in the position of deciding which religious teachings should and should not be displayed on public property which opens a different can of worms. It did not escape the notice of the Supreme Court that, while a lower court may have improperly applied the Free Speech Clause, the situation in Pleasant Grove, Utah may run afoul with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an opinion that concurred with the decision of the court but not with its reasoning, Justice David Souter wrote, "If the monument has some religious character, the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove it to take care to avoid the appearance of a flat-out establishment of religion."
In a statement, J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), said “the government should not be able to pick and choose the favored religion and then erect a monument endorsing the religion’s scriptural precepts.” The BJC had filed a friend of the court brief asking that the Establishment Clause dimension of the case be considered, but the high court did not take up that question. However it probably will in the near future. The attorney for Summam has announced his intention to amend the lawsuit to include church-state separation claims.
It is worth noting that Baptists who were around at the founding of this nation would not have agreed with the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property and they surely would not have quietly accepted the notion of the government picking and choosing what religious teachings it will display. They were strict adherents to the principle of the separation of church and state. John Leland, perhaps the most prominent U.S. Baptist leader of the late 1700's, opposed the closing of Post Offices on Sunday because he said it amounted to government favoritism toward Christian teaching. Leland and the Baptists of his time were firm in their conviction that government should show preference for no religion.
Sadly many Baptists of today reject the view of their spiritual ancestors in this country. Based on the teachings of Christ and their experience as a persecuted minority, Baptists of the late 1700's in this land said what was later affirmed in all three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000): "Church and state should be separate." For the good of the church and for the good of the spread of the gospel, Baptists at the founding of this nation were among the strongest proponents of a strict church-state separation. Tragically, in more recent times, some prominent Baptist leaders have called the separation of church and state "a modern fabrication" and "the figment of some infidel's imagination."
Would that all Baptists of today would again embrace authentic religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state. After all, when Satan tempted Jesus to use the power of government to accomplish his mission, the Lord turned him down.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
I wish Eric Holder was right
Attorney General Eric Holder
I wish Eric Holder was right because I think he gives most Americans more credit than we deserve when he calls us "cowards" on racial matters. Attorney General Holder, in a much-discussed speech delivered on February 18, indicated that we do not talk to each other enough about race because "it is an issue we have never been at ease with ..." Many have criticized the Attorney General as harsh in applying the term "cowards" to American efforts in the realm of race relations. Unfortunately it is probably more accurate to say that Holder was overly kind to us in his assessment.
The Attorney General believes that we do not have many if any serious conversations with each other about race because we find the subject too difficult to broach. To some extent he is right and where we Americans avoid the subject of race due to the level of difficulty involved we are being cowards. Dictionary.com says that a coward is "a person who lacks courage in facing ... difficulty." So, to the degree that we fail to discuss race because of the difficulty in doing so, we are in fact being cowards.
But around here, the main impediment in having serious conversations about racial matters is more sinister than cowardice. We do not avoid the subject of race because we are cowards; we avoid it because we are apathetic. Most of our neighborhoods lack racial diversity and don't care. Most of our churches lack racial diversity and we don't care. Most of our social gatherings lack racial diversity and we don't care. We don't care because, truth be told, most of us like it that way.
Eric Holder suggests that we want to improve race relations and to move ahead but we are just scared to have the necessary conversations. I wish he were correct because it would mean that addressing the ongoing racial divide in this country is simply a matter of overcoming our fear of discussing the problem. But I am afraid that it is more accurate to say that, for the most part, we do not move forward in improving race relations because we do not care about moving forward and we do care about moving forward because we do not want to move forward.
Having said that Holder gives us more credit than we deserve in calling us cowards when it comes to race, it is too bad that one of the suggestions in his speech has been overlooked in the tempest over his perceived inflammatory language. The Attorney General challenged you to "use the opportunity of [Black History] month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters." Holder believes that "in this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America." I am all for any opportunity to have that sort of conversation. Maybe if we talk more about racial matters then we will begin to care more about doing the right thing in race relations.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Shocking entrance requirements
In a biography of James Madison, Ralph Ketcham quotes the entrance requirements of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. Among other things, incoming freshmen had to be able to "render Virgil and Tully's orations into English and to turn English into true and grammatical Latin, and to be so well acquainted with the Greek, as to render any part of the Four Evangelists [Gospels] in that language into Latin or English ..." Again, these were among the entrance requirements for undergraduate work.
I find this incredible. I did not begin to learn Greek until I entered a Masters program in theology and even then I didn't learn it well enough to render any part of the gospels into English without the aid of a Greek dictionary. And translating any part of the gospels from Greek into Latin? I could not begin to do that after graduating from a Masters program in theology. Yet such skill was the expected general base of knowledge for 17 or 18 year-olds entering college in the latter half of the 1700's.
I watched too much TV growing up.
I really did. Now, on top of TVs, we have video games, MP3 players and cell phones to help turn our brains into mush. Most of us need to study more and entertain ourselves with mindless garbage less. Maybe we need to entertain ourselves more with truly enlightening knowledge.
We have become accustomed to junk food for the brain as we have become accustomed to junk food for our bodies. There is a lot of talk about the "obesity epidemic" in America. I think our brains are as out of shape as our bodies.
"Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge" (Proverbs 23:12, TNIV).
I find this incredible. I did not begin to learn Greek until I entered a Masters program in theology and even then I didn't learn it well enough to render any part of the gospels into English without the aid of a Greek dictionary. And translating any part of the gospels from Greek into Latin? I could not begin to do that after graduating from a Masters program in theology. Yet such skill was the expected general base of knowledge for 17 or 18 year-olds entering college in the latter half of the 1700's.
I watched too much TV growing up.
I really did. Now, on top of TVs, we have video games, MP3 players and cell phones to help turn our brains into mush. Most of us need to study more and entertain ourselves with mindless garbage less. Maybe we need to entertain ourselves more with truly enlightening knowledge.
We have become accustomed to junk food for the brain as we have become accustomed to junk food for our bodies. There is a lot of talk about the "obesity epidemic" in America. I think our brains are as out of shape as our bodies.
"Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge" (Proverbs 23:12, TNIV).
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"Do whatever we can to combat it"
I almost didn't make it.
I attend a monthly meeting of Baptist pastors and a few weeks ago a member of the group noticed that our regular meeting day in January was also inauguration day. He suggested that we watch the inauguration and that we discuss the church’s role in the issues facing our communities and country and devote a good amount of time to prayer for our governmental leaders. The rest of the group thought it was a good plan and we decided to meet in Wilmington (35 miles away for me) in a church facility that has a wonderful television room. For the purposes of this entry I should point out that all of the members of this group of Baptist pastors are white.
In mid-afternoon on the day before our meeting I learned that an Inaugural Watch Service would beheld at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church which is a predominantly African-American church just a few miles from my home. I wondered if similar services were being held in Wilmington that our group could attend but I knew that it was too late to explore that possibility and to get the word out to everyone.
On inauguration day I set out for Wilmington to watch the inauguration with some white Baptist ministers. By the time I got maybe 10 miles up Highway 17, what had been rain turned into heavy snow. But the roads remained clear, so I continued my journey. When I arrived I discovered that, besides two ministers from the church that was hosting the gathering, I was the only group member present. Everyone else decided not to brave the snowy driving conditions.
The ministers of the host church, at my request, looked up inaugural watch gatherings in Wilmington. But, after checking my watch, I decided that I should be able to just make the service at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church as the official inaugural ceremonies began. Fortunately the roads were still clear and I arrived at Cedar Grove just after 11:30 a.m. and found the congregation gathered around a large, flat screen TV in the sanctuary. There was one reporter there who was white. I was the only other white person in the place.
I was welcomed and guided to the best seat left in the place—up on the second row on the aisle. The congregation was in a festive mood and it cheered with crowd on TV. After Obama’s inauguration speech, we sang “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.” Following this song the pastor, Dr. Gause, made a few brief remarks and we sang another song, the name of which I do not know. Then the congregation retired to the fellowship hall to eat and I started to make my way out.
As I was leaving I was stopped numerous times by folks that I know and a bunch of other folks who I don’t know. They all greeted me very warmly and expressed their appreciation for my attendance. The only other white guy in the room, Steve Jones, a reporter for the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, caught me in the vestibule and asked me a few questions. He wrote an article on the event that was published the next day.
Among the things I told Jones was that Christians should be leading the way in racial healing. Yet, too often, especially among many evangelicals, we have brought up the rear instead. The Lord created all people of every race in God's image. In Acts 17:26 we read that from one person God made every person--everyone of every race ultimately has the same ancestor. In Galatians 3:28 we see that the gospel tears down gender barriers, socio-economic barriers and racial barriers--we are all one in Christ Jesus. Billy Graham wrote, "Racism is a sin, and God doesn't want us to ignore it or refuse to do whatever we can to combat it."
I have not done enough to promote racial healing. I really am going to try to do better in this area. However, it was my privilege to stand with my brothers and sisters in Christ at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church on inauguration day as we celebrated a milestone together. Many communities in this country, including this one, still have a ways to go in improving race relations. But at least a few of us left a sanctuary here in Brunswick County, North Carolina feeling a little more hopeful.
I attend a monthly meeting of Baptist pastors and a few weeks ago a member of the group noticed that our regular meeting day in January was also inauguration day. He suggested that we watch the inauguration and that we discuss the church’s role in the issues facing our communities and country and devote a good amount of time to prayer for our governmental leaders. The rest of the group thought it was a good plan and we decided to meet in Wilmington (35 miles away for me) in a church facility that has a wonderful television room. For the purposes of this entry I should point out that all of the members of this group of Baptist pastors are white.
In mid-afternoon on the day before our meeting I learned that an Inaugural Watch Service would beheld at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church which is a predominantly African-American church just a few miles from my home. I wondered if similar services were being held in Wilmington that our group could attend but I knew that it was too late to explore that possibility and to get the word out to everyone.
On inauguration day I set out for Wilmington to watch the inauguration with some white Baptist ministers. By the time I got maybe 10 miles up Highway 17, what had been rain turned into heavy snow. But the roads remained clear, so I continued my journey. When I arrived I discovered that, besides two ministers from the church that was hosting the gathering, I was the only group member present. Everyone else decided not to brave the snowy driving conditions.
The ministers of the host church, at my request, looked up inaugural watch gatherings in Wilmington. But, after checking my watch, I decided that I should be able to just make the service at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church as the official inaugural ceremonies began. Fortunately the roads were still clear and I arrived at Cedar Grove just after 11:30 a.m. and found the congregation gathered around a large, flat screen TV in the sanctuary. There was one reporter there who was white. I was the only other white person in the place.
I was welcomed and guided to the best seat left in the place—up on the second row on the aisle. The congregation was in a festive mood and it cheered with crowd on TV. After Obama’s inauguration speech, we sang “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.” Following this song the pastor, Dr. Gause, made a few brief remarks and we sang another song, the name of which I do not know. Then the congregation retired to the fellowship hall to eat and I started to make my way out.
As I was leaving I was stopped numerous times by folks that I know and a bunch of other folks who I don’t know. They all greeted me very warmly and expressed their appreciation for my attendance. The only other white guy in the room, Steve Jones, a reporter for the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, caught me in the vestibule and asked me a few questions. He wrote an article on the event that was published the next day.
Among the things I told Jones was that Christians should be leading the way in racial healing. Yet, too often, especially among many evangelicals, we have brought up the rear instead. The Lord created all people of every race in God's image. In Acts 17:26 we read that from one person God made every person--everyone of every race ultimately has the same ancestor. In Galatians 3:28 we see that the gospel tears down gender barriers, socio-economic barriers and racial barriers--we are all one in Christ Jesus. Billy Graham wrote, "Racism is a sin, and God doesn't want us to ignore it or refuse to do whatever we can to combat it."
I have not done enough to promote racial healing. I really am going to try to do better in this area. However, it was my privilege to stand with my brothers and sisters in Christ at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church on inauguration day as we celebrated a milestone together. Many communities in this country, including this one, still have a ways to go in improving race relations. But at least a few of us left a sanctuary here in Brunswick County, North Carolina feeling a little more hopeful.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Seven Pounds and grace
How about a movie about a man who makes great sacrifices to help those in need. I mean huge sacrifices. And he makes these sacrifices to atone for one mistake that he made--a mistake that had horrible consequences. This is the story in Seven Pounds, a new movie in theaters now, starring Will Smith.
This film may be worth seeing if only as a conversation starter to talk about things like redemption and sacrifice. I wish I could say more but, as one reviewer said, the less you know going in, the better with this movie. I will, however, point out one major flaw in the philosophy revealed in this story--at least from a Christian perspective.
Early in the movie, Ben (Will Smith's character) goes about evaluating a limited number of people that he is able to help in a significant way. He wishes to make his sacrifices for those who are deserving according to his standards. At one point he angrily refuses to assist a nursing home administrator after he finds out the terrible way that the administrator treats the residents.
Ben's approach seems pretty logical. Most of us, if we are going to make significant sacrifices for a few people, would want to help good people. The problem with this thinking from a Christian perspective is that Jesus died for that sleazy nursing home administrator too. According to 1 Tim 1:15 Christ's great sacrifice was for the worst of sinners. According to Romans 5:6 Jesus died for the ungodly.
The sacrifice that is the pattern for Christ-like living was made for those who were and are undeserving. This is what grace is all about.
But you see. even with this philosophical weakness Seven Pounds has now given me an opportunity to highlight the nature of Christian sacrifice, which, again, is why this movie may be worth seeing. There are a slew of conversations that Ben's sin and his sacrifices could spawn.
This film may be worth seeing if only as a conversation starter to talk about things like redemption and sacrifice. I wish I could say more but, as one reviewer said, the less you know going in, the better with this movie. I will, however, point out one major flaw in the philosophy revealed in this story--at least from a Christian perspective.
Early in the movie, Ben (Will Smith's character) goes about evaluating a limited number of people that he is able to help in a significant way. He wishes to make his sacrifices for those who are deserving according to his standards. At one point he angrily refuses to assist a nursing home administrator after he finds out the terrible way that the administrator treats the residents.
Ben's approach seems pretty logical. Most of us, if we are going to make significant sacrifices for a few people, would want to help good people. The problem with this thinking from a Christian perspective is that Jesus died for that sleazy nursing home administrator too. According to 1 Tim 1:15 Christ's great sacrifice was for the worst of sinners. According to Romans 5:6 Jesus died for the ungodly.
The sacrifice that is the pattern for Christ-like living was made for those who were and are undeserving. This is what grace is all about.
But you see. even with this philosophical weakness Seven Pounds has now given me an opportunity to highlight the nature of Christian sacrifice, which, again, is why this movie may be worth seeing. There are a slew of conversations that Ben's sin and his sacrifices could spawn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
