RobbyMac on Apologies

RobbyMac has put out a creative piece entitled Apology at OK Corral. He deals with the fact that:

"...so many people apologize, and immediately say 'forgive me'. And, maybe this will sound a little weird, but sometimes it feels like they ask for forgiveness as a way of not really dealing with the damage they've caused."

He calls this "'Apology At Gunpoint'; where if you don't 'forgive and forget' immediately, you become the problem."

He's not down on apologies -- just the fake ones that we all tend to do just a little more often than we should.

Consuming Jesus

Scot McKnight is reading through Paul Metzger's book, Consuming Jesus, and doing a discussion of it on his blog. It's about how consumerism has invaded the western church. Metzger sees that as the root of inherant racism and classism (why whites only go to white churches, blacks go to black chruches, people only fellowship with people their own social class etc.). Basically, it's because the chuch has swallowed the consumerist lie, that everyone is entitled to what they want. Keep the customer satisfied, at all costs, even if it means trashing the costs of discipleship. He sees the born again experience as being the answer -- the vital ingredients being regeneration, repentance and reconciliation.

From this blog: a loud "Amen!"

Relationships -- not something to mess around with

In my last blog entry, I said, "The church is only as strong as the relationship between you, as a believer, and that member of your local congregation to whom you feel the least inclination to express your love." I believe that 100 per cent.

It's quite obvious that our relationships are something we are to take very seriously. Yeshua says in Matthew 5:23 and 24, If you are offering a saccrifice at the alter, and you remember that someone has a grudge against you, then leave your offering, go make up with that person, and then come back and finish the sacrifice.

Consider the expense people went through in Yeshua's day just to comply with the the Torah regulations regarding the offering of their sacrifices at the Temple. It was serious business. It would easily compare with just about anything we'd do in ministry or any form of worship or service we'd do in the church today. Yet, Yeshua says, "Stop. Put it all on hold. Make sure your relationships with your brothers and sisters are right first. Then go ahead with your act of worship/ministry/spiritual obligation."

Yet, look how much priority we give to relationships today. When we hear that brother so-and-so and sister whoever had a falling out, we shrug and say it's none of our business.

That's not how the early church reacted. They took it seriously, as this passage from the Didache indicates. The Didache is like a handbook for doing church, issued towards the end of the first century. It probably dates to before the Gospels began to circulate. The full title of the document is, THE DIDACHE or THE TEACHING OF THE LORD TO THE GENTILES BY THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Anyway, here is a quote from section 14 of that document:

Let no man who has a dispute with his fellow join your assembly until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for it was this sacrifice that was spoken of by the Lord; "In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, says the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations."

What would you think of a church that applied this rule in their congregation today?

how strong is your church?

Here's a thought:

The church is only as strong as the relationship between you, as a believer, and that member of your local congregation to whom you feel the least inclination to express your love.

What Makes Church? 2 - Community and Relationship

The first component in church is community, and relationships within that community. This is the most fundamental aspect, and it is, I believe, the only one that actually defines church -- believers together in fellowship centred around Messiah. It's as simple as that. The other four headings -- authority structure, ministry and gifts, teaching, and worship -- don't define the church, but only help it become what it's supposed to be: transforming, missional, an army, a family, a "spiritual hospital" etc.

It's interesting that there is no reference in the New Testament of anyone outside of Yeshua, ever planting a church. Yeshua said in Matthew 16:13-20, "I will build my church." Other than that, there's no record of Paul, Peter or anyone else literally starting a church. What they did was call people to repentance and make disciples, and only then does the New Testament refer to the resulting group of believers as the church. (In the sense of one's ministry, I won't argue with anyone who calls themselves a "church planter". In fact, I use the term myself. In our 20th century terminology, it's become synonym for making and gathering disciples.)

Because I see community and relationship as being the only defining factor, I can look at any Christian institution, totally ignore the sign over the door, and recognise that the church exists there. Their structure doesn't define the church, but as long as there are true believers there who are in fellowship with one another, they constitute the church. It doesn't even matter if they understand that fact. Even if the official doctrines of that institution were destructive to spiritual life (if one were to follow them), as long as there is life in the hearts of the believers, and they acknowledge one another in love, it's church.

Inversely, even if they had perfectly sound teaching and had a format that encourage true fellowship, they are only the church in so far as there are believers there actually doing it.

Fellowship is what makes us the church. Whatever we can do to enhance fellowship with G-d and with one another on a spiritual level, so that we become a part of one another, will strengthen and vitalise the church. That's where the other subheadings come in.

Lessons my 3 Month Old Son Taught Me

Now our newborn son is three months old, what has fatherhood taught me?
All my life, a baby was always a baby, and usually not someone I tended to want to get to know very closely -- apart from a "goochi goochl goo" and maybe to hold it a time or two. All that has now changed. Not only do I view babies differently, but I now even perceive humanity in a slightly different way.
Our son, Abie, has been with us for three months -- or 9+3 month, depending on how one looks at it. Even now, while holding him, I think, "What a tiny specimine of humanity!" He is a full fledge human being, and yet he can lie down resting his tummy on my forearm, his face in my hand, while dangling his feet at my elbow (which, as you parents know, is the position for the easing of colic).
Okay, so he's tiny. But he's fully a human. There's not a single button, knob or lever on him that we can push, twist or pull that will guarantee a consistent response each time. He's not a pull string doll, nor even one of those that closes its eyes when you lie it down...

LITTLE GIRL: Look mommy, my baby is sleeping! It closes its eyes when it lies down!
PARENT: (sigh) I wish!

He has his own personality, a complicated set of variables within his body and mind, and a will that decides on its own what to do with them. That is the sure mark of humanity. Despite our best intentions, our hopes, our dreams, we can never make up his mind for him. Now, I know just a little of the heart of God. In His profound love for us, his concern, even the sacrifice of sending His own Son to die for us, He won't make up our mind up for us either. Humanity is created in God's image, and that means we have the power of choice. Abie already seems to be reflecting this characteristic of humanity, even if it is on a very basic level.
The only thing Abie lacks is the communication skill to tell us what's wrong with him, and why he won't choose to accept what we've so wisely chosen for him. It's hard to tell whether he's crying for more milk or if he has a tummy ache. He can't hold an intelligent conversation, but he understands the language of love. From the time he was first born, he hungered for love, and he knew when he was receiving it. Now, at three months, he's much more interactive. When we get his attention and talk to him, he laughs and coos, and acts as though he's talking to us. The fact that very little in the way of intellectual content is passing between us seems to make very little difference. The important thing is the fact that we're interacting. That's how it will be for the whole first year of Abie's life, if not the first two or three.
I remember that at the age of six, a family moved next door to us. They had two daughters, one age three and the other, four. The four-year-old was close enough to my age to where we could play intelligently, but I didn't like the three-year-old because she was to far below my intellectual level. However, her older sister would never allow me to exclude her from our activities. She saw things differently. They were sisters.
We adult humans -- even from the age of six -- value our intellect so much! Why, this entire web site is dedicated to intellectual content! Yet for the first three or so years of life we understand only the language of love. In fact, it may be 10 years before Abie will even begin to appreciate the fact that I'm a writer!
Are we adults missing something? Why do we fail to get along? Why do churches split over differences in how we view things intellectually? What happened to the language of love, which is ever so much more basic to our make-up?

He called a child to him, stood him among them, and said, "Yes! I tell you that unless you change and become like little children, you won't even enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" (Matthew 18:2,3 Jewish New Testament)