Misdirected

Chase Bank has a new adversing campaign for its Sapphire credit card. You can watch both the "Holiday Flying" and "Bones" commercials here. The commercials are obviously a spoof of people who should be interested or amazed by one thing (A vacation with Chevy Chase or the discovery of a dinosaur bone) but instead are amazed by something trivial (using airline miles). We all get a smile out of these misdirected folks while at the same time getting the point of the commercial. As I watched these commercials I realized something: we often live exactly like these misdirected folks. We focus our lives on the trivial while ignoring the important--and like the people in the commercial we don't even realize how misdirected we are. In 1 Timothy 4.7-9 we find just one example of this. Paul writes, "Rather train yourself for godliness; 8 for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. 9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance." Paul tells us that a well-directed life pursues godliness as of first importance, bodily training is a good thing, but at best it is of secondary importance. We flip these two things around focusing much time and effort on bodily training and far less on pursuing godliness--and we think we've got it right, like people who think airline miles are more important than an amazing discovery of a dinosaur bone.

Learning about our world is an important step to seeing with different eyes. Too often we see only what is close by--a rather safe and easy world--while missing what goes on around us. Here is a video intro to a new movie about Guatemala called "Reparando"

Reparando - Trailer - 01 from Athentikos on Vimeo.

What language do you use?

Paul mentions "redemption," the great metaphor of emancipation taken from the slave market in Ephesians 1. The costliness of this act is spelled out in the term "through his (Jesus') blood," a reference to his life poured out. In a culture in which a significant proportion of the population was enslaved, this metaphor spoke dynamically about the significance of the salvific act accomplished in the death of Christ. For modern man the metaphor's significance is not readily apparent. For him slavery is a historical phenomenon from the remote past, while redemption is that which is done to green stamps and store coupons. Thus, for him the biblical metaphor has lost its significance. Ironically, however, redemption is one of the terms used most often by the church, usually without explanation, in its proclamation of the Christ-event. Whereas Paul used metaphors from everyday experience to describe the meaning of the Christ-event, we tend to proclaim the metaphors themselves (which modern man has no experiential basis for understanding) as the reality. Instead of proclaiming what is unknown in terms of what is known, we tend to proclaim the unknown in terms unknown, insisting that our hearers first learn our language. In the use of language we have much to learn from Paul.
From: To the Praise of His Glory in Review and Expositor

What the poor need--Law Enforcement

For a poor person in the developing world, the struggle for human rights is not an abstract fight over political freedoms or over the prosecution of large-scale war crimes but a matter of daily survival. It is the struggle to avoid extortion or abuse by local police, the struggle against being forced into slavery or having land stolen, the struggle to avoid being thrown arbitrarily into an overcrowded, disease-ridden jail with little or no prospect of a fair trial. For women and children, it is the struggle not to be assaulted, raped, molested, or forced into the commercial sex trade.

Efforts by the modern human rights movement over the last 60 years have contributed to the criminalization of such abuses in nearly every country. The problem for the poor, however, is that those laws are rarely enforced. Without functioning public justice systems to deliver the protections of the law to the poor, the legal reforms of the modern human rights movement rarely improve the lives of those who need them most. At the same time, this state of functional lawlessness allows corrupt officials and local criminals to block or steal many of the crucial goods and services provided by the international development community. These abuses are both a moral tragedy and wholly counterproductive to the foreign aid programs of countries in the developed world. Helping construct effective public justice systems in the developing world, therefore, must become the new mandate of the human rights movement in the twenty-first century.

From article by Gary Hagen of International Justice Mission

An Atheist's View of the Bible

Camille Paglia is an art critic and an atheist. Here's what she says about the Bible,

[T]he Bible is a masterpiece. The Bible is one of the greatest works produced in the world. The people who all they have is the Bible actually are set up for life. Not only do they have a spiritual vision given to them but artistic fulfillment. They don't even recognize just the pleasure of dealing with this epic poetry and drama. Everything is in the Bible.

Curious about the importance of the Bible for building a better culture? Read Culture's Fallow Ground: The Shame of Biblical Illiteracy

What Game are you playing? Part 4

As a church moves forward those in leadership and in the congregation have to play ball. Last words from Larry Osborne's article:

Play ball!

As a kid I played a variety of sports. I certainly had a favorite. But once a season began, it didn't matter which one I liked the best or which one came most naturally. All that mattered was my ability to adapt to the game we were currently playing.

That was great training for ministry. Some leaders choose their game without considering their church's season, and they keep playing it no matter the results. It's a tough way to do ministry. The odds of success are about the same as Tiger Woods dropping a 15-foot putt with a basketball. Some things just won't happen, no matter how hard we try.

In contrast, successful leaders play the game that's in season. They accept the conditions and the rules. They discern which kind of leadership is needed and they adjust their structures, roles, and relationships accordingly. And they play ball!

What Game are you playing? Part 3

As the church grows the structures change to deal with new sitution, with the reality that the game has changed. Larry Osborne points out some ways that help us know the game has changed.

How you know it's a whole new game

A star football player and good athlete, Tim decided to go out for the varsity basketball team. He made the team. But whenever it came time to play hard-nosed defense, he reverted to the tactics he'd learned on the football field. He never quite understood that this was a new game with new rules.

What football player Tim called "a little pushing and shoving," the basketball referee called a foul. Soon Tim was on the bench, frustrated that the officials didn't appreciate the tight defense that had won him awards as a cornerback.

While changes are inevitable in a growing church, they are not always easy. Leaders who don't see them coming or don't realize they have already taken place pay a high price in emotions and relationships. So do their teammates and churches.

Besides simply the number of players, here are other signs that the game has changed.

Relational overload.

An increase in time spent massaging relationships is an early sign that the game may have changed.
My preferred style of leadership is relational. I'd rather convince than give directives. I don't do memos (okay, I didn't do memos). Instead, I prefer to pass vision and direction through ad hoc meetings around lunch or the water cooler.
That worked well for a long while. Adding a few staffers and a weekly staff meeting, we easily made the transition from track to golf to basketball. We hit our stride. We hummed along on a long winning streak. It was a blast. Everyone was happy.

But with steady growth in attendance came the need to add new players. Eventually we were no longer an overgrown basketball team. We were a football team. But since the staff came aboard one at a time, I didn't realize the game had changed. I noticed I was suddenly spending a lot of time keeping everyone in the loop.

The ministry team thought we were still playing basketball, so they were upset every time something happened that they didn't know about. I thought we were still playing basketball, so I assumed their complaints were legitimate. Their grievances about relational issues eventually pointed me to structural issues. Only when I realized I was trying to lead a football team like a basketball coach did I find my way out.

Increased miscommunication.

When important messages are chronically missed or misunderstood, it's time to change the way we play the game.
On a golf team, communication is easy and natural, there is seldom a need to set up a special meeting to discuss anything. They probably covered it on the way to the clubhouse.

When our church staff was small, we hardly ever had a scheduled meeting. It felt silly. If we had something to discuss, we did it on the spot. It was fun and fluid, and took little time or planning. But as our staff grew, that style was less effective. Someone was always missing from our discussions. The larger team needs intentional communication.

I've coached my son's basketball teams. Ocasionally, another team will throw a surprise defense our way. Nothing is harder than trying to explain to the kids in the middle of a game what's happening and how to beat it. It seldom works.
The information is not that complicated. But you need a chalk board, about two minutes of explanation, and several walk-throughs. The problem is the number of people who need to grasp it. If just one kid misunderstands or tunes out, we'll turn the ball over, no matter how well the others understand. Usually, we just do the best we can and then deal with it at the next scheduled practice. Larger teams need special meetings, chalk talks, and film sessions to keep everyone on the same page. And if the group grows large enough, you'll have to break it down into smaller groups to facilitate communication.

That's not as easy as it sounds. Expect resistance when shifting between sizes. Duffers who thrive on leisurely fairway talks will feel cheated when you suddenly call an in-bounds play for the last shot. They don't want to substitute rambling conversations with agenda-driven meetings.

For many of them, it's not the game but the relationships that count most. And hoopsters who once knew everything about the game plan aren't usually thrilled with a new structure that leaves them focusing on only part of the picture. For them, knowledge holds the key to power and prestige. Because of this resistance (and the fact that some of us like the old game better than the new game), it's tempting to communicate in the old ways long after they no longer work. That might keep one or two players happy, but the rest of the team will flounder. The coach can either help the team adapt to the new reality, or wait until serious conflict solves the problem by shrinking the group to a more comfortable size.
Conflict over decisions. Many ministry teams are hamstrung when it comes to making decisions. Their structures remain stuck in the past, appropriate for a game they are no longer playing.

More commonly the bottlenecks occur when we try to include too many people in the process. Some years ago we added just one person to a key team. Previously, this tight golf team made great decisions and enjoyed the process. But suddenly things fell apart. A group that once reached consensus quickly started debating every little thing. Coalitions formed, relationships suffered. What were once enjoyable strategy sessions became dreaded staff meetings.
What happened? The game had changed, but the players didn't know it. The problem was not the newest member. The problem was adding one player too many without changing the rules.

Look what happens each time a new person joins the decision-making mix: With two people, you have to maintain just two lines of communication. Adding a third creates six lines. A fourth, 12. A fifth, 20. Add a sixth person and you now have 30 lines of communication to monitor!

No wonder growing leadership teams find their old processes breaking down.

The basic principle: daily operational decisions need to be pushed out to the frontline while decisions about vision and direction are made by an ever-narrowing group at the top. This ensures that those close to the action make good decisions and those who shape vision are not bogged down by relational overload. As a church grows, directional decision-making shifts from congregation to board to staff. At the same time, operational decisions once vested in the solo pastor and a few lay members shift to staff or to specialized team leaders. Unfortunately, it's here that many church leadership teams get stuck. As a result, important decisions become bottlenecked and meetings turn combative. The real issue is not who makes decisions, but that the decision-making architecture remains appropriate to the game. When it no longer fits, we must be willing to change it.

Next Time: Play Ball!

What Game are you playing? Part 2

As we continue to look at how churches change as they grow one of the things to remember is in the world of church structure the church seeks to be acting one size bigger than it is (or is moving in that direction) so that it is set up for growing to the next size.

More from Larry Osborne:

Playmakers and scorers about 400 - 700 in worship
As the team grows beyond a foursome, its relationships begin to resemble those found in basketball. More a team sport than a friendship sport, basketball depends upon working together, trusting one another, and sharing the ball.

No one expects everyone on a basketball team to be best friends. There are too many players for that. Some are stars and some are role players. It's also played before a larger crowd.

The ministry team of five to twelve key leaders (whether paid or volunteer) is similar. Everyone is in the loop. They all know what the others are doing and are supposed to do. When the coach addresses the team, he speaks to everyone at once. There are few surprises.

During a basketball game, those who aren't in the game watch those who are. Offense and defense involve everyone. Most players can play multiple positions. Changing positions for the good of the team is usually no big deal, a minor change in focus.

A winning team needs a star player or two. Given freedom to go one-on-one, these players can make or break the team. Adding or losing a star player can turn the season around.

While basketball teams do not have the same depth of relationships found on the golf course, the good ones have great esprit de corps. Everyone rides to the game in one van. The locker room is lively. Trash talk is half the fun.

Offense, defense, special teams about 700-2000 in worship
When the primary leadership team increases beyond 15, the game changes radically. More like a football team, the dynamics can be very uncomfortable for the golfer. And for those who still think they're playing basketball, ministry can become confusing—and painful.

Football is a game of highly specialized roles. Few players are interchangeable. Guards seldom become quarterbacks. Teamwork is more important than one-on-one skill. In fact, a great athlete who freelances can mess up the entire game.

Football players don't know what everyone else is doing. The offensive and defensive teams have different playbooks and different game plans. When not in the game, they may not even watch their teammates; they huddle with their unit and position coach to plan for the next series. Most players have to watch the game films to know what happened.

The sheer number of players and the distinctly different roles make camaraderie a challenge. While the basketball team rides everywhere together, the football team takes may take two buses.

For the members of a leadership team that once played basketball, this is a difficult adjustment. They may feel out of the loop and insignificant. Some won't be able to make the change. Some won't want to. But there is nothing they can do about it. The game has changed. The only question: Am I going to put on the pads, retire, or just stand here in my shorts and get run over?

Next Time: "How you know you need to be playing a new game"

What Game are you playing?

What game are you playing? Larry Osborne of North Coast Church asks that question in relationship to the local church. As the size of a church changes the game also changes. A church of 500 isn’t just a church that has doubled in size from a church of 250. It has become more complex and it has become a different organization.

The leadership of EverGreen after reading the book on church structure entitled One Size Doesn’t fit All recognized this more than a decade ago. In response we decided to become a staff run, council led church. In this system the staff makes the day-to-day decisions while the council is responsible for setting vision and for setting the policies within which the vision and the work of the staff is carried out.

As we are continuing to grow it can be helpful for all of us to see that the decision to be staff run, council led is not simply a different way of carrying out the work of ministry, but one that becomes necessary if the church is going to function well. Larry Osborne sets out a good picture of all of this in his book Sticky Teams. Here is a bit of what he writes using a picture from the world of sports. (I’ll publish this in three parts over the next few days. If you’d like another longer version Tim Keller’s article Leadership and Church Size Dynamics is excellent.)

Track star pastor Small Church about 0-150 in worship

The solo pastor can be compared to a track and field star. That’s where most of us start out, and many choose to stay. On the up side, the single-staff pastorate offers tremendous freedom. On the down side, it can be overwhelming and lonely. Like the sprinter, the solo pastor may work out with others, but he performs alone—often without fanfare and usually before a small crowd peppered with family and friends.

Clubhouse buddies about 150-400 in worship

With growth comes the inevitable addition of a team member or two. Key leaders may be paid staff or lay members. Either way, the small leadership team of two to four resembles players on the golf course. Golf is a highly relational game. So are these teams. Golf is most enjoyable when played with friends. And while it’s preferable that players have similar skills, a stroke a hole is no big deal among pals. The leisurely pace allows for extended conversation and camaraderie. It’s a major part of the game. Afterward, everyone is expected to hang around for a snack and a drink while debriefing that round and planning the next one. For the highly relational pastor, a golf-size leadership team is the most enjoyable stage. The relationships are often deep, the sharing genuine, and the concern for one another goes far beyond the course. Doing what you like with people you like is hard to beat. Next

Time: Basketball teams and Football teams

Cities and Orphans

It is celebration time at EverGreen, the church where I am honored to be on staff. This is the time of the year when we look back at what God has done and look forward to what God is calling us to do in the coming ministry year. In a couple of weeks we will have our budget listening meeting where people have the opportunity to ask questions about our coming ministry budget.

This year one of the things that we are excited about is a new focus for the money that we use to support gospel movements that renew lives, cities, and cultures. When the budget details are published in about a week you will find some new gospel movements/organizations that we are supporting. There is a particular focus on orphans through the work of Steve and Cara VanderWerf, the work of another couple in the orphanages of Romania, and our on-going work in Colima Mexico. Along with this comes an emphasis on cities--especially large cities. We are placing an emphasis on such urban centers because they are the center of culture change and have a huge influence on the entire world. One of the ways we are diving into the city is through a grant we are giving to Redeemer Presbyterian's City to City initiative. Enjoy watching a bit about that work

Redeemer City to City from Redeemer City to City on Vimeo.

Dealing with Idolatry--ideology

"...fidelity to the gospel lies not in repeating its slogans but in plunging the prevailing idolatries into its corrosive acids. We must learn to address the spirituality of institutions, as well as their visible manifestations with the ultimate claim of the Ultimate Human." Walter Wink

The Real history of the Church

Myth and lack of historical fact checking often lead to a misreading and a misunderstanding of history. One of those places we've believed myth over reality is in the crusades. In his book God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades Rodney Stark takes on the myths that have been passed down through the centuries. Scholar Thomas Madden does a similar debunking in his article on the Inquisition. Here is a bit of the article:

"The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community."

On Being Safe and Culturally insignficant

I was looking back at some work I'd done in the book of Proverbs and came across the following words. I don't remember if I wrote them or if they came from another source, nevertheless they reflect a reality that many of us in the Christian community live in.

On the surface, cultural separation masks itself as a form of godliness, but a closer look reveals an enterprise driven more by self-preservation than anything. “We may bemoan a moral decline in the country. Our actual concern, if truth be known, is not to see a vital Christianity flourish, but rather to secure a more orderly and less violent society in which to live out our comfortable and self-satisfied lives.” In other words, we want a safer world. We are not as concerned about the salvation of those in the world as much as we want them to behave better around us for our comfort.

This is where so much of our current attitude and approach to the world differs from God’s will as expressed in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. We want to be safe in a safer world; God wants us safe in an unsafe world. We want to protect ourselves by removing ourselves from danger; God wants to protect us in the middle of danger. These differences may seem insignificant on the surface, but in fact they are huge, involving entirely different worldviews and ramifications.

This theory of safety through removing ourselves from the world could be one of the most dangerous doctrines to invade the church in recent years. It is now thought to be more spiritual to be safe from the world than to interact with it.

What would it look like if we traded in a doctrine of safety for a doctrine of engaging the world? What impact would it have on the way we raise our kids?

America: The Founding Fathers

There is a debate that seems to rage continually about whether the U.S. was founded by Christians or by secularists who used some Christian language. Both sides of this debate have much invested in their view since if their view wins the day, they can appeal to it to set directions and disenfranchise the other side. I've done some reading on this whole issue and have always been leery of the "Christian America" idea. At the same time it is clear that there some type of religious roots in the founding of the U.S. A recent article by Alissa Wilkinson helped me sort through a lot of the fog.

If this is something you've wondered about or fought for one side or the other it is worth the read.

The good of law

One of the struggles faced by developing nations is building a base of good laws that are enforced so wealth can be developed. We often miss this as a central ingredient in defeating poverty. A recent article talks about a rather creative way to bring such law to developing nations. Enjoy the read.

What's going on in 1 Corinthians 11

Every once in a while someone asks me about the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that deals with the Lord's supper. There is that verse that can is very disquieting, 1Cor. 11:27 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." What does one do with this verse and who can dares to take communion in the light of eating and drinking judgment on yourself, after all, even the most committed and faithful of us never gets the faith completely right. Knowing this I've talked to some from very conservative traditions who have never taken communion for fear that they will eat and drink judgment on themselves.

So how do we take these verses? The first is we have to take them in context. The problem in Corinth is that people are coming to the Lord's Supper and focusing only on themselves while ignoring the needs of the body of Christ (the church). The rich are coming, eating, and getting drunk while the poor, who have to work first, come to the worship service hoping to get their one good meal of the week and find the food gone and their "fellow" Christians fully sated. What this tells us is that the people in Corinth are missing out on the body of Christ in two ways. The first way is they are missing the reality that Christ has sacrificed his body, given his body so that they can be reconciled to God. In the supper they come face-to-face with this wonder and it should floor them in such a way that they desire to imitate the sacrificial heart of Christ. As Christ's heart was broken for their need so their hearts should be broken for the needs of those in their community who are poor. As Paul will say in 2 Corinthians 8 concerning the need to give to the poor, 2Cor. 8:9 "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that sthough he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich." The second way they miss the reality of the body of Christ is that the church is the body of Christ and they are dishonoring this body when the rich ignore the needs of the poor in their community.

The important thing to get here is that "not discerning the body of Christ" is not that these people didn't know who Jesus was or didn't understand that the bread represented his body (that's easy to get, a couple of seconds of instruction and a person can tell you the bread represents the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ), no the problem is much deeper than that: these people didn't get that bread in their hand was a call to be like Jesus, to act in a Christ-like, self-sacrificing manner for others in the community. We would say that these people didn't get depth of the second greatest commandment, "love your neighbor as yourself" or as John will says in 1 John 4.19 "We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

At one level this levels a lot of people who come with confidence to the table and declare they get that the bread is the body of Christ. These people are not discerning the depth of what Paul is after. He's not looking for some intellectual assent (certainly he wants us to believe rightly, but right belief doesn't get us into the core of his desire), he is looking for a people whose hearts are breaking over the poor, the struggling, and broken in their midst. He is looking for people who really to love their neighbor as themselves and as they take the bread are overwhelmed with a God who loved them, so overwhelmed they can't help but bring his love to others, can't help but be those who though they are rich become poor for the sake of others.

Each of us who have come to the table know that we are basically lousy at this becoming poor deal. We are self-absorbed, watching out for ourselves, we want people to care for us because we deserve it. But it is just here that the table does two things: first it confronts us with the body of Christ and we are laid low with our failure to love others; Second, it reminds us that the table is both a place where we see the grace of God in the bread and the cup and a place where the only way we can come it by God's grace. We come asking his forgiveness for failing to discern the body of Christ. For fail to discern it we do, over and over again. The simply truth is that without grace we can't get to the table for our failure to discern the body plagues us. The failure to act in a Christ-like, sacrificial manner walks with us like an unwanted shadow.

But this raises another question. As I mentioned earlier, it is easy to understand that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood of Christ. This concept of the bread is a call to see the sacrifice of Christ and to act in accord with that sacrifice is a harder thing to grasp. It is harder to think through the implications of whether I am loving my neighbor as myself, if my life really does reflect becoming poor so that others may become rich. Given how difficult this can be who can take part in the supper? Can a 30 year old downs syndrome person take part in the supper? Can an 80 year old who has alzheimer's? Can a 50 year old who has never been overly self-reflective come to the table? Can a 10 year old who knows they love Jesus but can't wrap their mind around the fullness of what it means to discern the body?

My take is that the supper is open to all of these people. Open not because they get the fullness of what it means to discern the body (after all, which one of us does, which of us really gets the fullness of Christ's sacrifice and then has it so impact our lives that it shapes and molds every move we make?), but because rightly taught and led they, and indeed all of us, can discern the body at the level of understanding that God has given us at any particular moment in our lives. God does not asks that down's syndrome child or the person with Alzheimer's to be more than they are, only to be what he has made them to be. With a child or a 50 year old we want to help them think more deeply, grow more in discerning the body, but we don't withhold the gift and grace of the supper from them until they get it all right. We withhold the supper only if they don't believe or for a child, if the community and particularly the parents discerns the child is not yet ready--so their faith is a mere mimic of the parent's and doesn't yet have a voice of its own or if it's clear the child wants to take part because taking part looks cool or their faith is childish rather than child-like.

In the Christian Reformed Church, of which I am a part, the way we do this discerning with children and young people is a process called, Profession of Faith. A child or young person stands before the community and declares their faith publicly. We are in the process of asking whether children should be at the supper as a matter of course and not only after they stand before the community and make a public profession. Some hold that a child's inability to discern the body disqualifies them from taking the supper. We don't, after all, want them to eat and drink judgment onto themselves. Wherever this ends up it seems to me that we have less to worry about children failing to discern the body i.e. knowing that because Jesus loves them they need to love others, than we do with adults failing to discern the body since many of us as we have become adults have also put up our guard against loving others and have far less willingness to become poor so that others might become rich.

The bottom line for both children and adults is that we come to the table only by God's grace and each time we hold the bread in our hand we both celebrate that grace and are reminded how much we need it because we look so little like Christ who on the night he was betrayed took bread and said...

Seeing the whole picture

"...the very point of salvation is the reweaving, enriching, and renewal of creation! The Spirit of God is not only a preacher but also an artist, a gardener, and a banker..."

Tim Keller Pastor and Author

I love this reminder by Keller of the fullness of the work of the Spirit. The Spirit is about the renewal of the cosmos, not only individual souls (and one of the ways he renews the cosmos is by the renewal of individual souls). This reality shapes our own view of our work. When we are involved in the "reweaving, enriching, and renewal of creation" through our work we join with the Spirit in God's grand master plan. The challenge before us is to know how to take part in this rather than just sliding through life assuming it's happening because we are going about our day-to-day tasks. The question before us is, "Who do I have in my life who I think through, struggle with, have honest conversations with about whether how I do all of life reflects the fullness of the work of the Spirit.

Improper Rescues

I've wandered away from the book of Esther for a time, but I don't want to leave people wondering forever so today Esther makes a reappearance on the blog. So far we've seen a foolish and silly king, while Esther has shown herself to be both the goddess of love and of war (check last post on Esther). As the story continues we also find something else, that Esther's rescue of the people of Israel feels like an improper rescue i.e. it lacks all the clean lines of morality, the proper references to God and more. We like our biblical rescues to be Disneyesque, but a close read of Esther takes it out of Disney and into a movie we wouldn't want our children to go to. Let's take a look:

1. Esther is taken into the king’s harem. Now things get a bit uncomfortable—after all, what is a nice Jewish girl doing in the harem of gentile king? The truth is that some Rabbis have asked basically that question. One Rabbi in the Middle ages wrote, “When Mordecai heard the king’s herald announcing that whoever had a daughter or sister should bring her to the king to have intercourse with an uncircumcised heathen, why did he not risk his life to take her to some deserted place to hide until the danger would pass?.... He should have been killed rather than submit to such an act…. Why did Mordecai not keep righteous Esther from idol worship? Why was he not more careful? Where was his righteousness, his piety, his valor? Esther too should by right have tried to commit suicide before allowing herself to have intercourse with Xerxes. P. 101 NIV Application Commentary There were any number of Rabbis, not to mention Bible translators who have first questioned what Mordecai and Esther did and in the case of the translators, tried to make things look better by adding a verse here or there or getting rid of a verse here of there.

Be that as it may, we’ve got this nice Jewish girl in the harem of a gentile king. Now what—well, God seems to get to work. Mordecai and Esther make their choice and now God works in the context of that choice. Look at Esther 2.When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem. The girl pleased him and won his favor. Immediately he provided her with her beauty treatments and special food. He assigned to her seven maids selected from the king’s palace and moved her and her maids into the best place in the harem. Esther 2.8-9 NIV Go back to Daniel 1. But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel…. Daniel 1.8-9 NIV God at work, at work making the officials favorably disposed toward his kids who find themselves in foreign situations. Now again, most of us are more comfortable with Daniel here, with God stepping up to the plate for Daniel, after all, he’s a good guy, who is determined to stay faithful to God no matter what the cost. Esther on the other had as we are told in Esther 2.10, hides the fact that she is Jewish which probably means that unlike Daniel who struggles to stay pure, that Esther probably eats food she ought not to eat, does things she ought not to do, and doesn’t pray in the manner prescribed, and a bunch of other stuff besides.

Perhaps the greatest irony in this is that back in Israel Ezra is decrying intermarriage (Ezra 9.10-12). While he cries out, Esther is making all the right moves to do what Ezra says shall not be done. And Esther does it at a time when things really are not desperate (they will be, but she doesn't know that). And when times do get desperate Esther tries to get her uncle to find another way to deal with the situation (Es. 4.12-14). Mordecai’s take, relief and deliverance will take place for the Jewish people, I think the best option is for it to come through you as the queen, I think that maybe God has put in you in place for such a time as this—but if God doesn’t use you, he will rescue us in some other way. If that is the case, then why doesn’t God choose another way, why does he continue to work through Mordecai and Esther who have made choices that would make many of us blush?

The answers don't come in the book. Maybe God is just letting us know that he will do his work, even through imperfect people. Maybe God is letting us know that he will do improper rescues that need some forgiveness in the midst of them. Or perhaps God knows and understands that in life choices are not always as easy as we’d like them to be, that life is not as black and white as we’d like it to be and he wants us to know that when we struggle with making the right choices that seek to honor him, to live in a way that brings about his kingdom, that when we do that he can still work through our less than perfect choices. Whatever his reason, an improper rescue is the way of this day and the author never takes the sharpness off and lets us move back into the world of disney.

Did Christianity Cause the Crash

A recent article in Atlantic Monthly asks if Christianity, and more specifically the prosperity gospel of Joel Olsteen and others like him, caused the crash of our economy. It is as interesting article that is stirring good response and debate. You can find both a link to the article and the debate of top notch Christian thinkers here.