The conversation of our discourse this week had to do with the calling of Levi - the tax collector. We looked at the trouble with the self-righteous vs. those who recognize their need for a savior. The question I received after the service was "How can we resolve conflict with a self-righteous believer?"
The trouble with the self-righteous is that they don't believe they have done anything wrong. Their morality is based upon popular opinion and comparisons with others. Self-righteous people are not necessarily righteous - in fact I would argue that they are the least righteous. They do not realize that they are in the wrong and they believe they are better than most.
Lest we begin to point the finger at "those" people, let me first say that all of us are self-righteous. This is why more than 80% of all drivers believe that they are an "above-average" driver. We love to call people hypocrites - or posers - or actors (they all mean the same thing). However, to do so is to be one yourself.
Might I suggest that the best way to resolve conflict with a self-righteous person is to first recognize that the conflict is probably your fault - not theirs. If you are convinced that the problem is not you but the other person is convinced it is you, then that is when a third party is involved. This is why Jesus tells us to confront someone individually first, then with someone else.
I once was asked to go with someone to confront them - suprisingly it ended up being that the person who asked me to come was the problem in the relationship. Hmmm...
Someone said to me after church, "My self-righteousness is found in my belief that I am not self-righteous and I tend to judge those who are self-righteous and that is my self-righteousness." That is the reality - humility is the opposite of self-righteousness. But humility is not to be self-abasing, but the recognition of who we really are. Jesus was never self-abasing but was the most humble person to walk the earth.
May we be people who serve Christ in humility - knowing who we are and how we got here. This will go a long way toward the resolution of conflict.
4/09/2009
Women and Silence
I am currently preaching on the importance of being a Spiritual Church - not just a community or a building. In this context the current discourse is on how the church should be a supernatural organism that exists in the spiritual and the physical. On Palm Sunday we discussed, actually I lectured, on the importance and role of the Gifts of the Spirit in a Spiritual Church.
Two people raised questions about women in the church. The context of the questions came from 1 Corinthians 14. Should women be silent in the church? How do we know this is a cultural statement?
There are some clues in this passage that indicate Paul's intent. First, he is giving other orderly ways that the church should conduct herself. He is most concerned about how the church is perceived by those who come in from the outside and whether the church is doing things in an orderly and fitting manner. He gives some instructions: some of which are more relevant to the church in America today and others less so.
Peace comes from God, but order is defined by culture and context.
Everything from verse 26 through 38 is the cultural application of the doctrine of the gifts outlined in the previous discourse. Note vs. 26, "What shall we say..." and then vs. 39, "Therefore, my brothers..." One is the beginning of the discourse on cultural application of the universal principle and the other is the conclusion of the application and the conclusion of the "sermon on the Gifts" that began in 12:1. Therefore, I also would concur that the "2, or at the most 3 prophets" reference of verse 29 is also cultural - but it is relevant to our culture today. "Orderly & fitting" is impossible without exegeting the culture as well as the scripture.
Second, Paul was certainly not against women serving in ministry. One of Paul's disciples was Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, who together were gifted missionaries. Some have argued that Priscilla was the teacher and prophet while Aquila was the administrator. This is not a hugely strong argument other than the issue that Priscilla is always listed first in the book of Acts - something Luke did. He always listed the primary speaker first, (Paul & Silas, Paul & Timothy, Barnabas & Paul and then Paul & Barnabas, Peter & John, etc.).
This has direct bearing on our passage because it gives us understanding that what Paul is trying to communicate to the church in Corinth is that having women speaking in their context was not fitting and orderly. Paul knew Corinth -- he understood the context.
A Vibrant Church is one that knows the culture and context in which She ministers and speaks into the culture in such a manner that the culture itself is transformed.
Two people raised questions about women in the church. The context of the questions came from 1 Corinthians 14. Should women be silent in the church? How do we know this is a cultural statement?
There are some clues in this passage that indicate Paul's intent. First, he is giving other orderly ways that the church should conduct herself. He is most concerned about how the church is perceived by those who come in from the outside and whether the church is doing things in an orderly and fitting manner. He gives some instructions: some of which are more relevant to the church in America today and others less so.
Peace comes from God, but order is defined by culture and context.
Everything from verse 26 through 38 is the cultural application of the doctrine of the gifts outlined in the previous discourse. Note vs. 26, "What shall we say..." and then vs. 39, "Therefore, my brothers..." One is the beginning of the discourse on cultural application of the universal principle and the other is the conclusion of the application and the conclusion of the "sermon on the Gifts" that began in 12:1. Therefore, I also would concur that the "2, or at the most 3 prophets" reference of verse 29 is also cultural - but it is relevant to our culture today. "Orderly & fitting" is impossible without exegeting the culture as well as the scripture.
Second, Paul was certainly not against women serving in ministry. One of Paul's disciples was Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, who together were gifted missionaries. Some have argued that Priscilla was the teacher and prophet while Aquila was the administrator. This is not a hugely strong argument other than the issue that Priscilla is always listed first in the book of Acts - something Luke did. He always listed the primary speaker first, (Paul & Silas, Paul & Timothy, Barnabas & Paul and then Paul & Barnabas, Peter & John, etc.).
This has direct bearing on our passage because it gives us understanding that what Paul is trying to communicate to the church in Corinth is that having women speaking in their context was not fitting and orderly. Paul knew Corinth -- he understood the context.
A Vibrant Church is one that knows the culture and context in which She ministers and speaks into the culture in such a manner that the culture itself is transformed.
3/31/2009
Order vs. Freedom
When I am driving I like to know that the person next to me is going to stay in their lane. There is nothing more frustrating than when I am obeying the rules and my freedoms are encroached upon by someone not obeying the rules of the road.
Freedom is not the same as anarchy. Anarchy, in fact, is one of the greatest infractions of freedom. The freedom to travel across America is guaranteed by the order given by the rules of the road. Try and drive across a developing country the size of Colorado - the rules are really just suggestions. You can get there, just not very easily! In fact, I know it can take a day or two because cows, goats, chickens, and sheep make passage on the state highways difficult. This does not take into account the risk to life and limb, nor the buses that stop at any moment the driver jolly well pleases!
However, freedom can be equally stifled by rules. I have heard of places that determine how far you can go in a day, how many people can ride in the car, what roads you can take, and how unsafe you can or cannot be in the car while it is moving.
The same is true when the church gathers for worship as a community.
If a church wants to know the freedom of expression in worship as well as seeing the glory of God, there have to be some guidelines in order for the freedom to exist. There are also rules established in Scripture that assure the freedom of the church - these are principles that should always be followed. The guidelines are culturally relevant for the context and the individual church. The rules are always true anyplace and everywhere.
Most of the rules established in Scripture have to do with interpersonal relationships, but there are also some rules regarding the gifts of the Spirit (1 Co. 12-14). But even these rules are connected with how the parts of the Body relate to one another. Some of the "rules" are obviously guidelines in that they are directly related to the context in which an individual church is located. Hence, the rule one could take from the guidelines in Scripture would be, "Honor God in a way that is consistent with the manner in which the culture honors people."
The goal of every church is to provide enough order so that people feel free to worship and enough freedom that people do not feel stifled in worship. A vibrant church is one that has found the balance that works for the context in which they are located and is also sensitive to the community of the church itself.
It is like finding the sweet spot on a bat. Sometimes you hit it, and sometimes you don't. When you hit the spot there is no pain and the ball is sent into the bleachers in left field. When you miss horribly, you experience a rattle in your hands that somehow makes it way to your teeth. Most of us have experienced both - sometimes in the same service!! But, honestly, most of the time we just come close to the sweet spot.
Maybe this is why the Vibrant Church is not centered on the Weekly Community Worship Event...
Freedom is not the same as anarchy. Anarchy, in fact, is one of the greatest infractions of freedom. The freedom to travel across America is guaranteed by the order given by the rules of the road. Try and drive across a developing country the size of Colorado - the rules are really just suggestions. You can get there, just not very easily! In fact, I know it can take a day or two because cows, goats, chickens, and sheep make passage on the state highways difficult. This does not take into account the risk to life and limb, nor the buses that stop at any moment the driver jolly well pleases!
However, freedom can be equally stifled by rules. I have heard of places that determine how far you can go in a day, how many people can ride in the car, what roads you can take, and how unsafe you can or cannot be in the car while it is moving.
The same is true when the church gathers for worship as a community.
If a church wants to know the freedom of expression in worship as well as seeing the glory of God, there have to be some guidelines in order for the freedom to exist. There are also rules established in Scripture that assure the freedom of the church - these are principles that should always be followed. The guidelines are culturally relevant for the context and the individual church. The rules are always true anyplace and everywhere.
Most of the rules established in Scripture have to do with interpersonal relationships, but there are also some rules regarding the gifts of the Spirit (1 Co. 12-14). But even these rules are connected with how the parts of the Body relate to one another. Some of the "rules" are obviously guidelines in that they are directly related to the context in which an individual church is located. Hence, the rule one could take from the guidelines in Scripture would be, "Honor God in a way that is consistent with the manner in which the culture honors people."
The goal of every church is to provide enough order so that people feel free to worship and enough freedom that people do not feel stifled in worship. A vibrant church is one that has found the balance that works for the context in which they are located and is also sensitive to the community of the church itself.
It is like finding the sweet spot on a bat. Sometimes you hit it, and sometimes you don't. When you hit the spot there is no pain and the ball is sent into the bleachers in left field. When you miss horribly, you experience a rattle in your hands that somehow makes it way to your teeth. Most of us have experienced both - sometimes in the same service!! But, honestly, most of the time we just come close to the sweet spot.
Maybe this is why the Vibrant Church is not centered on the Weekly Community Worship Event...
3/17/2009
Covenant or Contract
It seems that everyone is living under some sort of covenant anymore. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
There are covenants for neighborhoods and schools. It seems these are more like parlay (Pirates of the Caribbean) - "They are really more like guidelines." However, is this the meaning of covenant? Is it really more like a guideline?
I made the statement on Sunday that we should have covenantal marriages instead of contractual marriages. This raised the question, "What's the difference between Covenant and Contract as it relates to marriage."
We are such a capitalistic society that it seems we describe everything in financial terms. Lest you think I'm out to lunch on this, let's think about the bottom line on this. I mean, shouldn't we take an account of our situation? Is this really an asset or a liability? Maybe we should compile a balance sheet of pros and cons?
So, it is no wonder that we have taken the most intimate of relationships turned it into a contractual agreement!
So this brings me to why I think this is a big deal.
As a church we lost the battle over marriage when we allowed the government to perform the role of the church. For instance, would we let the government perform a funeral? Why not? And would we let government tell us how to worship or tell us what to preach? Why not? Because those are religious "institutions." In the same way, marriage is inherently a religious institution. It only has meaning in the context of the church because marriage has its roots in religion - not government.
But what about those who are not religious, can't they get married? No, they can have a civil union, but that is not marriage - marriage is a religious term. When a couple gets their marriage license, anyone can sign it (in Colorado). I would argue that it is not a marriage license as much as a certificate of civil union. If they want a marriage, they should receive their marriage certificate from the church.
But, that is not what we have in our society... This is actually the result of having a government founded with only one major religion in mind and wanting to support the primary religion of the culture. Therefore, it was the church's fault for allowing the government to "support" her.
Now, back to the real question. What is the difference between covenant and contract?
Covenants cannot be broken except by death - the shedding of blood. A contract can be nullified by either party breaching the terms of the contract.
Biblically a covenant could only be ratified through the shedding of blood - including marriage. And, though one could get a certificate of divorce - it did not nullify the covenant. Divorce still meant that the couple was still under the responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of marriage. Needless to say, there was really no benefit to divorce and therefore very few actually happened.
So, what does this mean for us today? Lest you think I lack compassion, I know that there is grace and forgiveness for every situation and this is from the covenant that Christ has made with us - through the shedding of blood. I have no problem with government unions and each person should have the freedom to choose the religion of their choice. If you want a contract that can be nullified, then get a civil union certificate. If you want a covenant that cannot be nullified, then get married.
There are covenants for neighborhoods and schools. It seems these are more like parlay (Pirates of the Caribbean) - "They are really more like guidelines." However, is this the meaning of covenant? Is it really more like a guideline?
I made the statement on Sunday that we should have covenantal marriages instead of contractual marriages. This raised the question, "What's the difference between Covenant and Contract as it relates to marriage."
We are such a capitalistic society that it seems we describe everything in financial terms. Lest you think I'm out to lunch on this, let's think about the bottom line on this. I mean, shouldn't we take an account of our situation? Is this really an asset or a liability? Maybe we should compile a balance sheet of pros and cons?
So, it is no wonder that we have taken the most intimate of relationships turned it into a contractual agreement!
So this brings me to why I think this is a big deal.
As a church we lost the battle over marriage when we allowed the government to perform the role of the church. For instance, would we let the government perform a funeral? Why not? And would we let government tell us how to worship or tell us what to preach? Why not? Because those are religious "institutions." In the same way, marriage is inherently a religious institution. It only has meaning in the context of the church because marriage has its roots in religion - not government.
But what about those who are not religious, can't they get married? No, they can have a civil union, but that is not marriage - marriage is a religious term. When a couple gets their marriage license, anyone can sign it (in Colorado). I would argue that it is not a marriage license as much as a certificate of civil union. If they want a marriage, they should receive their marriage certificate from the church.
But, that is not what we have in our society... This is actually the result of having a government founded with only one major religion in mind and wanting to support the primary religion of the culture. Therefore, it was the church's fault for allowing the government to "support" her.
Now, back to the real question. What is the difference between covenant and contract?
Covenants cannot be broken except by death - the shedding of blood. A contract can be nullified by either party breaching the terms of the contract.
Biblically a covenant could only be ratified through the shedding of blood - including marriage. And, though one could get a certificate of divorce - it did not nullify the covenant. Divorce still meant that the couple was still under the responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of marriage. Needless to say, there was really no benefit to divorce and therefore very few actually happened.
So, what does this mean for us today? Lest you think I lack compassion, I know that there is grace and forgiveness for every situation and this is from the covenant that Christ has made with us - through the shedding of blood. I have no problem with government unions and each person should have the freedom to choose the religion of their choice. If you want a contract that can be nullified, then get a civil union certificate. If you want a covenant that cannot be nullified, then get married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
