I have always agreed and identified with the Apostle Paul’s finding that he/I is/am the chief of sinners. That has not posed a problem for me nor caused me to reflect on the paradox that I am pure before the Lord as a result of my acceptance of His Grace through the blood of Jesus. I have, however, wondered about calling myself a Christian when so many of my actions are not Christ-like.
Some weeks ago during a sermon I received an epiphany of sorts. It struck me that I am more of a follower of Jesus than a Christian. Since the first followers of Jesus were first called Christian after they began to preach the good news to people other than their own ethnic background I realize my own deficiencies.
I can – with all good conscience – call myself a follower of Jesus. I aspire to be a Christian and that aspiration takes legs when I follow Jesus.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Random thoughts on male female leadership
I wonder why the issue of who leads – male or female – has such a bite to it. I don’t believe reasonable people would put the discussion in the category of “taboo.” By that I mean if you hold the “no woman in leadership over men” position that you would also believe that allowing women to be Pastors, for instance, would not bring God’s anger and retribution. Some might, but, there are a few who believe woman should be ordained pastors who would place their restriction of that rite in the category of taboo. There are extremes on both sides.
However, for the most part, it seems to me to be a comfort thing that is stated in theological terms. Certainly there are stories and statements in the Bible to support and not support either position. What it seems to come down to in most churches I have witnessed, and, these are anecdotal data, is whether there are women capable of such leadership and men capable of allowing that leadership.
Women who serve as pastors without title are legion. Anyone who has been in church leadership – regardless their position on the debate – has “ordained” a woman to pastor a group of people and if that leader has his, or her, wits about him or her, they have left that un-ordained female to do the work of an elder. The same could be said about men who do not want the title but serve in the responsibility.
From a gathering of the followers point of view we might do well to follow the lead of the Friends Churches who sit quietly at times waiting for one anointed, whether male of female, to speak wisdom from God into each heart.
However, for the most part, it seems to me to be a comfort thing that is stated in theological terms. Certainly there are stories and statements in the Bible to support and not support either position. What it seems to come down to in most churches I have witnessed, and, these are anecdotal data, is whether there are women capable of such leadership and men capable of allowing that leadership.
Women who serve as pastors without title are legion. Anyone who has been in church leadership – regardless their position on the debate – has “ordained” a woman to pastor a group of people and if that leader has his, or her, wits about him or her, they have left that un-ordained female to do the work of an elder. The same could be said about men who do not want the title but serve in the responsibility.
From a gathering of the followers point of view we might do well to follow the lead of the Friends Churches who sit quietly at times waiting for one anointed, whether male of female, to speak wisdom from God into each heart.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thoughts on Romans 7:19
“For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.”
I think of myself as a good person.
I do things that make people refer to me as a bad person.
If both statements are true how can I rely on either statement to give me a basis for action in my next encounter with life?
This kind of cognitive dissonance (holding opposing statements as equally true) darkens even the brightest of days and sometimes dims the view of God’s grace in my life. I struggle with the knowledge that I am both people: the good and the not good. How do I continue to be good regardless the truth that I am sometimes not good?
Here are three propositions you can use to unravel truth when what you think about yourself seems to be challenged by what is happening in your life.
When one incident becomes your whole world, you have lost perspective. My life is not made up of one or two incidents in a day. What I did in 1966 cannot be allowed to drive what I choose to do today or think today. Certainly it informs it, but, does not dictate to it. My impact on the world around me must be kept in divine perspective. What would Jesus want me to do – is much more helpful.
When one experience is your whole world, you have lost context. A traffic ticket for speeding, while financially hurtful, cannot be allowed to drive how I respond to my wife when I get home. She may agree it is harmful to the family finances and my future use of the car, but, not my future relationship with her.
When one person can change your whole view of life for the worse, you have lost yourself. I need wise counselors in my life to help guide me through decisions great and small. Their opinion of my choices are helpful but not obligatory. They do not define who I am in God’s kingdom. They do not define who I am in my family. By using all of those voices combined with my understanding of God’s work in my life, I can see more clearly the person God wants me to see in the mirror of life.
I think of myself as a good person.
I do things that make people refer to me as a bad person.
If both statements are true how can I rely on either statement to give me a basis for action in my next encounter with life?
This kind of cognitive dissonance (holding opposing statements as equally true) darkens even the brightest of days and sometimes dims the view of God’s grace in my life. I struggle with the knowledge that I am both people: the good and the not good. How do I continue to be good regardless the truth that I am sometimes not good?
Here are three propositions you can use to unravel truth when what you think about yourself seems to be challenged by what is happening in your life.
When one incident becomes your whole world, you have lost perspective. My life is not made up of one or two incidents in a day. What I did in 1966 cannot be allowed to drive what I choose to do today or think today. Certainly it informs it, but, does not dictate to it. My impact on the world around me must be kept in divine perspective. What would Jesus want me to do – is much more helpful.
When one experience is your whole world, you have lost context. A traffic ticket for speeding, while financially hurtful, cannot be allowed to drive how I respond to my wife when I get home. She may agree it is harmful to the family finances and my future use of the car, but, not my future relationship with her.
When one person can change your whole view of life for the worse, you have lost yourself. I need wise counselors in my life to help guide me through decisions great and small. Their opinion of my choices are helpful but not obligatory. They do not define who I am in God’s kingdom. They do not define who I am in my family. By using all of those voices combined with my understanding of God’s work in my life, I can see more clearly the person God wants me to see in the mirror of life.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
On Being Watched
"Stay out of life!"
"You don't have the right to snoop around my life."
"Get off my back - its my life."
Because we live in a society whose highest value is individualism we are always going to come to the flash point of Child's rights/Parent's responsibility. I remember as a young teen on a foreign mission station being concerned that certain of my things were hidden from the "prying" eyes of my mother. I did not re-think this closely held truth (my stuff, my life, stay out) until hearing the testimony of an 18 year old drug addict who stood up in church (I was attending because my good friend was the Pastor and I was passing through)affirm during testimony time, "I praise God that He wont stop bugging me."
I had not yet experienced the joy and fear of parenthood. I was still pretty sure my life was my own to live as I chose and any benefit to others was purely tertiary. I was struck by the reality of God's invasive nature - and - how badly I needed Him to be that way. I wondered how my life would have turned out had my father not "caught" me sneaking out for a first beer. I remembered how fortunate I was that my dad's elder sister demanded I call every hour from a party my hooligan friend was having "at his house" - er - older friend's drinking hole in Chicago - which effectively grounded me saving me from the police raid that night.
While the transformation was not complete that day it was begun. I prayed that I would desire invasion into my life by Him and those He appointed as watchmen and watchwomen over my life and ministry. Like that young man almost 50 years ago I too praise God for His meddling in my private life. While not always pleasant it has always been beneficial. If I had not opened my life to God's invasion I would never have opened all my drawers, files, cupboards, wallets, cases, file cabinets, internet history, voice mail, texts and email to my wife - which secrecy - even if benign - would have built a wall love could not scale.
Now when I hear young people complain that their parents invade their privacy and want them to stop I wonder if they realize they are asking for less and not more individual power.
"You don't have the right to snoop around my life."
"Get off my back - its my life."
Because we live in a society whose highest value is individualism we are always going to come to the flash point of Child's rights/Parent's responsibility. I remember as a young teen on a foreign mission station being concerned that certain of my things were hidden from the "prying" eyes of my mother. I did not re-think this closely held truth (my stuff, my life, stay out) until hearing the testimony of an 18 year old drug addict who stood up in church (I was attending because my good friend was the Pastor and I was passing through)affirm during testimony time, "I praise God that He wont stop bugging me."
I had not yet experienced the joy and fear of parenthood. I was still pretty sure my life was my own to live as I chose and any benefit to others was purely tertiary. I was struck by the reality of God's invasive nature - and - how badly I needed Him to be that way. I wondered how my life would have turned out had my father not "caught" me sneaking out for a first beer. I remembered how fortunate I was that my dad's elder sister demanded I call every hour from a party my hooligan friend was having "at his house" - er - older friend's drinking hole in Chicago - which effectively grounded me saving me from the police raid that night.
While the transformation was not complete that day it was begun. I prayed that I would desire invasion into my life by Him and those He appointed as watchmen and watchwomen over my life and ministry. Like that young man almost 50 years ago I too praise God for His meddling in my private life. While not always pleasant it has always been beneficial. If I had not opened my life to God's invasion I would never have opened all my drawers, files, cupboards, wallets, cases, file cabinets, internet history, voice mail, texts and email to my wife - which secrecy - even if benign - would have built a wall love could not scale.
Now when I hear young people complain that their parents invade their privacy and want them to stop I wonder if they realize they are asking for less and not more individual power.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Time to Connect
When I ask our members, "What would make the church more productive?" the No. 1 answer is communication (after that, it's focus, collaboration, teamwork, time and understanding). The natural follow up question is, “What kind?” That is were it gets more diverse.
Some want information easily accessible them about the activities and responsibilities of the church. This group typically is happy with updating in hand outs and postings on the web.
Others are asking for personal touch – a more face to face delivery which is over and above the Sunday announcements. As long as they are involved with a Growth Group or a ministry team that touch happens on a monthly basis, at least.
The final group want more than information. They want to take part in a discussion about the information. Twitter, FaceBook and email are not considered “communication.” For them the Growth Group is a good option.
However, as you look at all three (and I realize they break down into more categories) you will no doubt see the proverbial fly in the ointment for all of them. Time – actual minutes free to take in the information – is an issue for all of them. The reality today is that people working today have less time than people in past generations – regardless the “time saving” devices. I have read that the eight-hour or nine-hour workday has been replaced by the 10 or even, 12, and, that is before travel time is considered.
Executives and managers have less than 90 minutes of free time in the course of a day and most have less than an hour each day - total. Given that we are so tied up each day – how do we communicate with each other in such a way that we feel we have been communicated with?
Hmmm, well, I dunno. Really – I don’t. Unless we begin to give the most important connections in our lives the top 25% of our time allotment – we will just work till we expire. I assume everyone has to work extra hard some of the time. With God, Family, and, Church priorities that hard work only gets a moment in time rather than a habitual process in life.
Oh, why only 25%? Well, if we alot our time in connection to our energy and we give the first 25% of our energy to God, Family & Church we wont find ourselves giving our “cast off” time to the ones who mean the most to us.
Some want information easily accessible them about the activities and responsibilities of the church. This group typically is happy with updating in hand outs and postings on the web.
Others are asking for personal touch – a more face to face delivery which is over and above the Sunday announcements. As long as they are involved with a Growth Group or a ministry team that touch happens on a monthly basis, at least.
The final group want more than information. They want to take part in a discussion about the information. Twitter, FaceBook and email are not considered “communication.” For them the Growth Group is a good option.
However, as you look at all three (and I realize they break down into more categories) you will no doubt see the proverbial fly in the ointment for all of them. Time – actual minutes free to take in the information – is an issue for all of them. The reality today is that people working today have less time than people in past generations – regardless the “time saving” devices. I have read that the eight-hour or nine-hour workday has been replaced by the 10 or even, 12, and, that is before travel time is considered.
Executives and managers have less than 90 minutes of free time in the course of a day and most have less than an hour each day - total. Given that we are so tied up each day – how do we communicate with each other in such a way that we feel we have been communicated with?
Hmmm, well, I dunno. Really – I don’t. Unless we begin to give the most important connections in our lives the top 25% of our time allotment – we will just work till we expire. I assume everyone has to work extra hard some of the time. With God, Family, and, Church priorities that hard work only gets a moment in time rather than a habitual process in life.
Oh, why only 25%? Well, if we alot our time in connection to our energy and we give the first 25% of our energy to God, Family & Church we wont find ourselves giving our “cast off” time to the ones who mean the most to us.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Can Spiderman Do This?
I read somewhere (before hard drive storage) that bioengineers have determined the chemical makeup of an ordinary strand of spider's web is five to 10 times stronger than steel. While I knew from personal experience they are sticky, clingy and tenacious, not to mention, almost impossible to get that well-woven spider web out of your hair, your eyelashes or your clothing, this was news to me. I understand why bioengineers would spend time to break the spider's genetic code so that they can create a biochemically engineered polymer of which a pencil-thick strand could stop a Boeing 747 in flight (well, that might not be a good idea, but, you get the point). Rather than stopping a jet in flight I just hope it can stop a 2 year old from falling on his head after scaling Mount Pantry in search of forbidden fruit.
Strange as it seems this bit of trivia reminded me of the relatively small but logarithmic power of the Body of Christ. A community of normal people separated from the world population by nothing more than a belief in Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” A small population that not only stops powerful forces from destroying souls but reaches beyond its own culture boundaries to bring peace, joy and healing to a lost and lonely world, which, for the most part, doesn’t even believe it needs.
This wonderful web, woven by the Holy Spirit, is made up of the church’s witness and commitment by believers to the mission of God.
The person who led you to Christ. The person who forgave you before you wanted forgiveness. The person who sat with you silently when others wanted to speak into your life words you were not yet ready to hear. These and many like them are the strands of this powerful web community.
Now we too, are those strands. What we do as a part of this body will determine who will be standing where we are standing in our church 40+ years from now. When you combine our spiritual gifts with the body in which we serve, not to glorify our individual selves, but to build up this body, we, the church, become a most powerful web for the world.
First I thank God for believing in me. Second I thank God for giving me La Habra Christian Church. Finally, I thank God for the chance to be part of a web strong enough to stop the runaway train of sin and injustice in our community.
Strange as it seems this bit of trivia reminded me of the relatively small but logarithmic power of the Body of Christ. A community of normal people separated from the world population by nothing more than a belief in Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” A small population that not only stops powerful forces from destroying souls but reaches beyond its own culture boundaries to bring peace, joy and healing to a lost and lonely world, which, for the most part, doesn’t even believe it needs.
This wonderful web, woven by the Holy Spirit, is made up of the church’s witness and commitment by believers to the mission of God.
The person who led you to Christ. The person who forgave you before you wanted forgiveness. The person who sat with you silently when others wanted to speak into your life words you were not yet ready to hear. These and many like them are the strands of this powerful web community.
Now we too, are those strands. What we do as a part of this body will determine who will be standing where we are standing in our church 40+ years from now. When you combine our spiritual gifts with the body in which we serve, not to glorify our individual selves, but to build up this body, we, the church, become a most powerful web for the world.
First I thank God for believing in me. Second I thank God for giving me La Habra Christian Church. Finally, I thank God for the chance to be part of a web strong enough to stop the runaway train of sin and injustice in our community.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
God set all authorites - Questions
In an effort to address the questions sent to ask@mylhcc.com in response to the sermon May 1, 2011, "What Authority Must I Obey?" as soon as possible I am bunching them together.
The following two questions fall into the same general category.
If an authority bans Christian practices or demands unholy practices, should we still obey? If not, then how can we draw the line between what to obey and what not to?
Civil rights mvmt, MLKJr? What about Gandhi?
When Martin Luther King & Gandhi called attention to the ungodly practice of separating people on the basis of their skin color (in the case of MLK) and claiming dominion over a nation on the basis of Manifest Destiny (as in the case of Gandhi) they were attempting to correct a law and/or practice of the existing authority. Without going into the history of both situations – which have been sensationalized in print and film making it hard for the popular reader to follow the main issues – my observation is that both men looked for the least illegal approach to resolving the issue/s they were wanting to address. While both practiced peaceful marches, for which both had precedent, but during which they faced authorities who, themselves, operated outside their own rules.
I do not mean to lessen the choices of them – and others like them in other countries – to disregard the authorities “rule changes” only to point out that when appealing to a higher authority, as in the constitution by MLK, there will be times when the area becomes more unclear. I would emphasize the need to check ones motives before deciding to take on the authorities in such a manner.
Let me address the individual who chooses to disobey a law he or she believes to be ungodly. In those situations the person is to obey God without rebelling against the existing authority. A doctor who refuses to perform abortions while working in a medical facility that requires that of its doctors must leave that employ or refuse to perform and be prepared to accept the discipline of the employer. That same doctor could, under the law, seek other remedies within the law. Christian martyrs throughout history have chosen to disobey laws they believed to be ungodly without rebelling and accepted the punishment.
The other two questions like wise fit into the context of Just War:
The colonies rebelled against England's authority when founding America. Are you saying that this was wrong and our founding fathers brought judgment on our country?
What about the American Revolution? The founding fathers disobeyed the English authorities in breaking away from their government. Was that disobeying God?
The American Colonies sought remedy from the King and when that met a continued deaf ear chose, as a matter of conscience, to separate with an appeal to God, taking the appeal to the level of a Just War. The principles of a Just War were originally put together by Roman Catholic scholars with Thomas Aquinas being one of many. I have included the basics below and more links can be found at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm for further research.
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
The following two questions fall into the same general category.
If an authority bans Christian practices or demands unholy practices, should we still obey? If not, then how can we draw the line between what to obey and what not to?
Civil rights mvmt, MLKJr? What about Gandhi?
When Martin Luther King & Gandhi called attention to the ungodly practice of separating people on the basis of their skin color (in the case of MLK) and claiming dominion over a nation on the basis of Manifest Destiny (as in the case of Gandhi) they were attempting to correct a law and/or practice of the existing authority. Without going into the history of both situations – which have been sensationalized in print and film making it hard for the popular reader to follow the main issues – my observation is that both men looked for the least illegal approach to resolving the issue/s they were wanting to address. While both practiced peaceful marches, for which both had precedent, but during which they faced authorities who, themselves, operated outside their own rules.
I do not mean to lessen the choices of them – and others like them in other countries – to disregard the authorities “rule changes” only to point out that when appealing to a higher authority, as in the constitution by MLK, there will be times when the area becomes more unclear. I would emphasize the need to check ones motives before deciding to take on the authorities in such a manner.
Let me address the individual who chooses to disobey a law he or she believes to be ungodly. In those situations the person is to obey God without rebelling against the existing authority. A doctor who refuses to perform abortions while working in a medical facility that requires that of its doctors must leave that employ or refuse to perform and be prepared to accept the discipline of the employer. That same doctor could, under the law, seek other remedies within the law. Christian martyrs throughout history have chosen to disobey laws they believed to be ungodly without rebelling and accepted the punishment.
The other two questions like wise fit into the context of Just War:
The colonies rebelled against England's authority when founding America. Are you saying that this was wrong and our founding fathers brought judgment on our country?
What about the American Revolution? The founding fathers disobeyed the English authorities in breaking away from their government. Was that disobeying God?
The American Colonies sought remedy from the King and when that met a continued deaf ear chose, as a matter of conscience, to separate with an appeal to God, taking the appeal to the level of a Just War. The principles of a Just War were originally put together by Roman Catholic scholars with Thomas Aquinas being one of many. I have included the basics below and more links can be found at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm for further research.
Principles of the Just War
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
