Snow!

My seven year old is requesting that Christians everywhere please pray for snow to hit Columbia and cancel school tomorrow. She's very convicted of this. They're calling for it tonight but so far the weatherman's been 0-2. Remember when you were a kid and they were calling for snow overnight and you couldn't wait to get up and see if the ground was white?

Tony Dungy's Faith

This week a lot of media attention will focus on Tony Dungy. They'll talk about his greatness as a coach (he's taken a team to the playoffs for 8 straight seasons & he's the winngest active coach in the NFL). They'll talk about his achievements for African-American coaches (both he and Smith are the first to coach in a Super Bowl and both have paved the way for many others). They'll talk about his calm demeanor on the field (when have you ever seen Dungy curse an official or go into a sideline tirade?). But along the way I hope they'll also talk about his faith . . . because according to Dungy that's why he is who he is.

Check out the speech he gave at a prayer breakfast before last year's Super Bowl. This was 6 weeks after the death of his son, James Dungy.

To see the first half of the speech click here.

Beer-vangelism

This morning in Bible class we discussed the effectiveness of traditional Sunday school and asked whether or not it's time to start thinking differently about how we engage people with God's Word. When I got home, this article (Beer and the Bible) was waiting in my Inbox with a question about how far we were ready to g0. I'm pretty sure they meant it "tongue in cheek" but it's an interesting concept. Take a minute to read the article . . .

What do you think? Is this an example of a church that's reaching out and engaging non-believers in a creative and effective way? Or is this an example of a church that's gone too far in its attempts to be relevant? Surprisingly, I find myself leaning towards the former. I realize there's a fine line between relevance and compromise, but as Christ-followers we have to be willing to engage our culture with the gospel, even if that means taking it to places outside of the comfort zone of the religious establishment. Jesus certainly engaged people in places that were frowned upon by the religious folk of his day. I wonder if he ever worried that he was "sending a mixed message" or "compromising his beliefs in order to attract people?"

Why Haven't I Heard of This Guy?

One of the things I appreciate about Hughes' book is that he includes both the voices of the majority and the minority. One of those minority voices was (at least in the 1930s) K.C. Moser. Here's how Hughes describes him . . .

By the 1930s, there were few preachers among the Churches of Christ who proclaimed a message of "unmerited grace." One of the few who did was K.C. Moser, a native Texan and a preacher in Oklahoma and Texas from the 1920s through the 1970s. Moser became convinced early in his career that God's grace was to be found not in his commands but in the cross. He published his views in 1932 in a book he entitled "The Way of Salvation." But it was not until 1934, when he published an article on this issue in the "Firm Foundation," that Churches of Christ paid any serious regard to his perspective. The response, when it came, was almost entirely negative.

Quite simply, Moser argued that while baptism and good works were important, the proper response to the gospel was not so much a matter of believing facts and obeying commands as it was of trusting in "Christ crucified, buried and raised for our justification." The editor of the "Firm Foundation," G.H.P. Showalter, rejected Moser's claim and pressed him to "speedily abandon such fantastic speculation and urge the lost not only to believe, but to obey."

Soon, a storm of controversy erupted over Moser's emphasis on unmerited grace. He became "persona non grata" in many quarters of the Churches of Christ for the next forty years...Even more significantly, Moser complained in 1937 that the message regarded as "gospel" had, by and large, been lost from pulpits of Churches of Christ. He had confirmed his sense that this was the case, he said, by reading numerous sermons and sermon outlines and listening to many sermons from a variety of preachers. Time and again, he "noticed that the gospel was not being preached."

In spite of his efforts to point Churches of Christ toward a more grace-centered theology, however, Moser never carried the day. He had friends and supporters at Harding College and in Tennessee, but for the most part, back at home, his was a voice crying in a Texas and Oklahoma wilderness.

K.C. Moser died in 1976, just about the time that many churches of Christ begin recapturing a grace-centered theology. I wonder if he could have envisioned such a time? Perhaps his voice carried farther than he realized.

Dividing Over What?!

I'm about halfway through Richard Hughes' Reviving the Ancient Faith. It's a history of the churches of Christ that focuses primarily on how the theological views of the movement were shaped. I find it very interesting because it explains the roots of many of our doctrinal emphasises (the good, the bad, and the ugly). In fact, the chapters on Campbell and Stone explain so much that I think they should be required reading!

Right now I'm working through the chapters on the premillennial controversy. Aside from music, this was the defining issue of the early 1900's. Most of the mainstream churches and key leaders in the movement were postmillennial, yet a significant minority were beginning to express some premillennial views. The premillennialists were attacked in the religious journals. They were branded as heretics and excommunicated by many. Churches were splitting over the issue and almost every preacher in the movement was preaching, debating, and writing on the topic.

By now you're probably asking "what in the world is postmillennialism and premillennialism?" Interesting isn't it. Less than 100 years ago our brothers were aruging, debating, and dividing over this topic and now most of us can't even define the words. Makes me wonder. What are the issues that we're dividing over in this century that in the year 2,100 will have become mute points?


(For definitions, see premillennialism and postmillennialism)

Roughin' It

The blog has been quiet because I’ve been duck hunting in West Tennessee for the last two days. It was cold, wet, and there were no ducks. But don’t feel sorry for me. Check out the accommodations of the pit we hunted on Monday . . .




Yes that’s a TV w/satellite, a full-size fridge (stocked), sofa, lounge chair, stove, gas heater, telephone, etc. The pit is made out of two old fuel tanks that are welded together and it’s all underground in a flooded cornfield next to Reelfoot Lake. The duck hunting was rough, but that was about it.

Cultural or Eternal?

On Wednesday nights we're doing a study called "Got Questions?" Basically its a study of all the questions you had, but were afraid to ask in Bible class. Last Wednesday we discussed the question of "how should we apply the Bible?" Thanks to Mike Cope for stirring this discussion with his blogs on the Bible.

The specific question was "how do we determine which examples or commands are cultural (applying only to Christians back then) and which ones are eternal (applying to all Christians for all time)?" We discussed the following passages:

Acts 20:7-8: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking to midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.

We (the churches of Christ) have tended to use this example as one of our reasons for taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week. So apparently the first part of the verse is eternal. But what about the second? Why do we also not take the Lord's Supper upstairs in a room with many lamps? Why did we decide that the first day of the week was eternal (and therefore binding) and the upstairs room was cultural (and therefore not binding)? Of course someone also brought up the point that I should get to preach until midnight every week, but that was quickly shot down. As someone explained, "that part of the verse is clearly cultural!"

James 5:13-16: Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call on the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the pray offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Again, we have traditionally given different weight to different parts of this passage. We've used it to teach that Christians should pray, sing, and confess their sins. But we've not used it to teach that Christians should call on the elders to anoint them with oil when they're sick. Why not? What made confession eternal and anointing cultural? Credit Maury Hills here. Our elders actually practice anointing with oil, but only when it's requested by one of our members. But why wait on people to request it? Shouldn't we encourage them to do so in the same way we encourage confession or prayer? Maybe its because none of us grew up doing it. I confess I was a little uncomfortable the first time I saw it done. And it brought up some bad jokes about encouraging members to come in every 3 months or 3,000 miles.

The last passage we discussed was 1st Corinthians 11-14 (women's role). That one was interesting! Why have we determined that the command for women to wear head coverings (1st Cor 11:3-10) is cultural, but the command that forbids women from speaking in the church (1st Cor 14:33-35) is eternal? They both seem to be spoken with the same authority and reasoning. So why did one become binding and the other not?

So what's the answer to all these questions?? Not sure. We ran out of time.

Good Morning America

There was an interesting story on Good Morning America this morning about the recent decline in cancer deaths. One of the experts (didn't catch the name) was asked the question, "Does this news surprise you?" His reply was "Not really. Two-thirds of cancer is preventable if we would just do the things we already know to do: 1) Stop smoking. 2) Exercise. 3) Eat healthier. 4) Get regular screenings." I thought that statistic was astounding. The majority of cancer is preventable if we would just do what we supposed to?! Amazing. I keep looking for something to get me motivated on #2 and #3. Maybe this is it.

************

The followup story was interesting as well. It was about American Idol. Are the judges too mean? Is Idol using cruelty to increase ratings? It would be an interesting discussion for a Bible class. Why do Americans (38 million of them) enjoy watching other people fall flat on their face and then get verbally abused about it? Or maybe a better discussion, what drives some of these contestants to put themselves through this?

Confession time--the only part of American Idol that's interesting to me are these first few weeks. Once the talent improves and the judges get nicer, I stop watching. Pray for me.

2007 Goals

Note--This post is geared towards my MH family (it's actually a reprint of my Hilltops article), but I would love to hear comments from others as well.

As promised here are the 2007 goals for our church . . .

1. Renew our passion for worship. Ever since I’ve known this congregation we’ve had a reputation for enthusiastic, heart-felt worship. That was one of the most refreshing things for me about coming to Maury Hills—there was real emotion in your praise! In my opinion we lost some of that fire at the end of last year. I’m ready to regain it and judging from the last two weeks you are too.

2. Increase our enthusiasm for Bible study. I know that “enthusiasm” and “Bible study” are two phrases that don’t normally go together. In fact a lot of Bible studies end up being dull, lifeless, and irrelevant (including some of the ones I’ve lead). I’m ready to break out of that mold and approach the Bible with fresh questions and open ears. I want us to hear what God is saying to us apart from our biases and traditions. That’s easier said then done, but we need to give it a try.

3. Focus more on ministry rather than events. It seems like churches are always pushing events. Come to this! Go to that! That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but what are we doing to minister to one another and our community? Is the purpose of church to fill up our social calendars or to make a difference in our world? Not exactly sure how this goal will play out, but I’d like us to start thinking about church membership in terms of “serving in a ministry” rather than “attending an event.”

4. Grow. Yes, I’m talking about numbers here. I believe church growth is important because it’s an indicator of church health. To steal from Rick Warren, “healthy things grow.” We accomplished quite a bit last year—over 30 families placed membership, our attendance increased by 20%, we moved into a new building—but don’t think we’ve arrived. There are still many people in our community who are living apart from Christ. We have to continue being a place where they can find & develop a life-long relationship with Him. I realize this may cause some discomfort for us (growth is rarely painless), but I believe the gospel demands it.

Jesus wept

This morning I attended the funeral of someone I don't really know. It was the mother of a good friend of mine. I did know of her and I'm sure she knew of me (you don't live in Hohenwald without knowing each other on some level), but for the most part I don't remember our paths crossing very much.

You don't really expect to cry at the funeral of someone you don't know, but I confess to shedding a few tears. It wasn't the words of the preachers or the beauty of songs or the memories of others I have lost. It was the sight of my friend walking slowly behind the casket as they proceeded out of the chapel. He was pushing his Dad in a wheelchair and the pain was still lingering on both of their faces.

What is it about seeing a friend hurting that causes us to hurt as well? I'm not sure. But I'm sure that our Savior experienced it. When Lazarus died the Bible records the miraculous story of Jesus raising him from the dead, but before he raised him, it says this . . . When Jesus saw her [Lazarus' sister Mary] weeping, and the Jews [Lazarus' friends] who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. "Where have you laid him?" he asked, "Come and see, Lord," they replied. Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"

In my opinion the Jews misinterpreted Jesus' tears. I don't think they were for Lazarus. After all, in just a few minutes he was going to call him forth from the tomb! His tears were for Mary and the others who were hurting. When they hurt, he hurt. When they wept, he wept. That's a powerful image of our Savior! Especially in light of the fact that he knew the final outcome would be victorious and joyful. Yet, he still took time to weep with his friends.

The same is true for my friend's mother. The final outcome for her will also be victorious and joyful because the same Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead will also raise her! But before he does I think he'll stop to shed a few tears with my friend.

You will be made rich in every way

Back to the topic of giving . . .

In 2nd Cor 9:11 Paul writes "You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion." I've been thinking a lot about this verse lately. Not because I'm interested in getting rich (well maybe a little), but because I have to preach on it Sunday! What exactly is Paul saying here?

At first reading my interpretation was this--"trust God through generous giving and he will supply the means for you to continue doing so." But that sounded too much like a TV preacher, so I begin to seek other understandings. Yet God kept pulling me back to this one . . . with the following disclaimer: Paul is not addressing our motivation for giving, but the result of our giving. (For our motivation, see 8:9)

In other words, we shouldn't practice generosity for the purpose of obtaining wealth. Instead we should obtain wealth for the purpose of practicing generosity. In that sense Paul is not only encouraging us to give more of what we have but also to think differently about what we keep. We tend to pursue wealth for fleeting purposes--security, comfort, pleasure, etc. Paul says to pursue wealth for a greater purpose--generosity. Or better yet, he says to pursue generosity and God will provide the wealth.

Now I'm starting to sound like a TV preacher again . . .

Rosie vs Trump

For the past three weeks Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump have been in a "name-calling" war. Fortunately I don't watch The View or The Apprentice, but I do watch the news and apparently some outlets believe this is "news." When I've seen video clips from both parties I'm amazed at how childish this thing has become. They're making fun of each other's weight & hair?! In Trump's last interview I half expected him to stick out his tongue and say "nahny, nahny, boo, boo." Is anyone else tired of this?

Giving & Jesus

For at least six months now I've been reading the teachings of Jesus with renewed interest. I'm amazed that this "sweet & docile" figure I grew up with has the capacity to be so "outspoken & radical." Many of his teachings are hard to digest (both then and now). One of those is his teaching on money, possessions, and giving.

I studied some of those passages last week for a message on giving and noticed that in at least two instances Jesus tied our use of money to salvation. For example, when Zacchaeus gave half his money to the poor and paid back what he had cheated others, Jesus didn’t say “thanks for your generousity” he said “today salvation has come to this house!” (Luke 19) And when the rich young ruler came to Jesus asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus didn't answer with John 3:16 or Acts 2:38. He simply told him to "follow the commands." When the ruler assured him that he had already done all that, Jesus told him, "you still lack one thing--sell everything you have and give it to poor--then come and follow me.” (Luke 18)

What is the message of those stories? Is Jesus saying that giving money is essential for salvation? That we can, in effect, earn our salvation if we just give enough money? No. The point is not that our giving effects our salvation, but rather that our salvation effects our giving! When Zaccehaus came in touch with Jesus he was transformed into a new person and the proof of that was his willingness to give. When the rich young ruler came into touch with Jesus he claimed transformation, but the proof (or lack thereof) was his unwillingness to give.

Randy Alcorn intreprets it this way . . . The conclusive proof of a spiritual change was an altered perspective on the handling of money and possessions. I think that's pretty close to what Jesus is trying to say (or show). But, as with most of Jesus' words, understanding them doesn't make them any easier to follow.

NA & Jesus

We have a Narcotics Anonymous group that meets at our church on a regular basis. This morning I was looking for something in the classroom they meet in and picked up their brochure. Under the title "What is the NA program?" was the following:

NA, is a non-profit fellowship or society of men & women for whom drugs has become a major problem. We are recovering addicts who meet regularly to help each other stay clean...There is only one requirement for membership, the desire to stop using...There are no strings attached to NA. We are not affiliated with any other organizations. We have no initiation fees or dues, no pledges to sign, no promises to make to anyone...Anyone may join us, regardless of age, race, sexual identity, creed, religion, or lack of religion. We are not interested in what or how much you used or who your connections were, what you have done in the past, how much or how little you have, but only what you want to do about your problem and how we can help.

My first thought was "What an invitation! That's exactly what the church needs to be saying to our community. Come on! Everyone's welcome! We don't care about where you've been or what you've done. We're more interested about where your going. We don't require complete change in order to join us, but only the desire & willingness to change. We've all been there and that's why we meet together now. To praise the God who changed us and to help one another continue living for Him."

But then my theology started to get in the way . . . "Well, we couldn't necessarily say that there is only one requirement for membership, because God demands more than just desire, he demands action. And we couldn't say there are no promises to make because the Bible contains many things that we must do and practice. And we couldn't say that we don't care about their connections or their past because we don't want them to tarnish the church's reputation for holiness. And we couldn't leave sexual identity in the list of those we accept. That would certainly send the wrong message."

But then my Jesus started to get in the way . . . "Passing along, Jesus saw a man whose work was collecting taxes. His name was Matthew. Jesus said, 'Come along with me.' Matthew stood up and followed him. Later when Jesus was eating supper at Matthew's house with his close followers, a lot of disreputable characters came and joined them. When the Pharisees saw him keeping this kind of company, they had a fit, and lit into Jesus' followers. 'What kind of example is this from your Teacher, acting cozy with crooks and riff-raff?' Jesus, overhearing, shot back, 'Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? Go figure out what this Scripture means; 'I'm after mercy, not religion.' I'm here to invite outsiders, not coddle insiders." (Matthew 9:9-13, MSG)

What's interesting to me is that here we are 2,000 years later and we still haven't gone and figured out what that Scripture means.

Command, Example, and Inference

In Tradition, Opinion, and Truth Fred Peatross writes:

Traditionally churches of Christ have argued that a belief or practice is pleasing to God only if supported by a biblical command, and approved example from Scripture or an inference based upon a premise. This logical attempt is appealing because it seeks to be Biblical. It is also objective and requires a "thus saith the Lord." But, it does have limits of application and interpretation because we humans are fallible. . . . [for example] We've determined that the Lord's Supper should be eaten each Sunday because of two apostolic examples (1st Corinthians 16:2, Acts 20:7). Our conclusion is based upon an unstated command. So far, so good. Logically, however, this system should force us to eat the Lord's Supper in an upper room. After all, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in an upper room (Mark 14:15) and the context of Acts 20:7 places the Lord's Supper in an upstairs room. But, we've concluded that an upper room is not an approved example. Since this has been our conclusion, does this example become a counter conclusion? Our human reasoning has said that the Lord's Supper should be eaten each Sunday, but the upper room example doesn't "apply?" Interesting. Wonder why? Who determines what's an approved example? It certainly wasn't a divinely guided logician.

I've always struggled a bit with the "command, example, or necessary inference" method of interpretation, especially when it's applied to questions that the Bible doesn't seem to answer. In fact, I'm coming to see that many of the "examples" or "inferences" that I once thought had great application to today, don't really fit when understood within their original context. I think its because for too many years I've read the Bible in reverse. I allowed my already established practices to influence my understanding of the text. A fairly common mistake, but that's still no excuse. Thanks Fred for asking the tough questions and helping me read Scripture with "fresh eyes."

Saturday or Sunday?

Last night in our Bible study we tried something new (actually its probably more retro, but that's besides the point). We started the class with no agenda, no topic, and an unprepared teacher. It was just us, our Bibles, and our questions. So we opened the floor. Anything goes.

The first question was "when did Christians start worshipping (corporately) on Sunday rather than Saturday? And should we have?" The question came from a study that someone had done on Sabbath worship. So we went to the Bible and asked "what Scriptural support do we have for worshipping on Sunday?" Two Scriptures were brought up--Acts 20:7 (a historical narrative, rather than a command) and 1st Corinthians 16:1-2 (a command about giving, rather than the proper day of the week for worship). It was a little unnerving to realize how little the Bible had to say about Sunday. It had always been a given that this was only day that God had ordained for worship.

We finally discussed the fact that worshipping on Sunday probably evolved among early believers because it was the day of Jesus' resurrection, which was naturally a day for worship! And it makes sense for us to continue the practice today. But we also discussed the fact that no one day is any more Biblical than the other when it comes to worship. Maybe the better question is "when did Christians stop worshipping every day of the week?"

Resolutions for our Church?

To my Maury Hills family, In this weeks Hilltops I reviewed our 2006 goals. You can read about them here. We did a pretty good job of achieving some of those goals, but I still feel that something is lacking. I'm ready for some new goals in '07 and I'm seeking your input. What do we want to accomplish for God this year as a church? The shepherds and I will be reviewing goals at our next meeting this Monday and I'll publish them in next week's Hilltops. You can post your comments below.

New Year's Resolution

Goal #7 on my annual list of resolutions was to "start a blog." That means I've officially completed one of my resolutions (a vast improvement over last year). Other goals include losing my gut, gaining back my passion for worship, giving more attention to the important relationships in my life, and getting serious about writing. I realize those are all very vague and subjective goals and thus violate most of the rules for proper goal-setting (be specific, measurable, etc). But that's another goal of mine this year--"stop worrying so much about the rules." Much of my faith journey, within the church, has been about rules. For the first 20 years it was about following them. For the last 10 years its been about breaking them. I'm starting to realize that either way, I'm still focused on the rules. As I study the teachings of Jesus I'm starting to see that he calls us to more than that.