Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts

2007-10-12T08:07:00.001-05:00

He's Dead Jim

Sorry... this alternate blog site is dead. Use it or lose it, and nobody's using it.

But the real blog lives on: http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen

2007-09-23T16:09:00.000-05:00

Just As I Am (all 6 verses)

Personally, I’m not satisfied with the traditional invitation song. I think that there are better ways to give people a chance to respond to a message.

But I’d like to hear your thoughts. Here’s a couple of questions: Do you think that the traditional “come down front” invitation song is the best way to let people respond to a sermon? If not, do you have any suggestions as to what might be better?

2007-09-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

www.hopeforlife.org

We interrupt this regularly scheduled blog to bring you this special announcement…

I haven’t been mixing in my ministry stuff on this blog, but I decided to make an exception. We just revamped our www.hopeforlife.org website, and I wanted to invite you to take a look. Take a moment to listen to a video or two and read some of the stuff there. Then let me know what you think.

Of course, I’d appreciate it if you’d pass the site address on to others. Thanks!

2007-09-08T09:01:00.000-05:00

Swimming in other waters

I started my last post with a saying that I’ve found useful: “The fish doesn’t know that he’s wet.” It captures the idea that we are surrounded by a culture, and because it surrounds us, it’s hard for us to be aware of its effects. In that last post, I raised the question of how the church can objectively deal with questions about the Christian and the military while living in a militarized society.

Let me offer a short role playing exercise to aid in the process. Admittedly, I’m going to choose rather extreme examples; I think we need to look at contexts that are very different from our own.

So, here goes. Imagine that you’re a parent. Your 18-year-old son comes to you and tells you that he wants to join the military. How do you think you would react if…

You live in the second century. You’ve seen the Roman military used to round up Christians in times of persecution. The current emperor tolerates Christianity, so there is no persecution at present. Now your son wants to join the military.

You live in Germany. Your grandfather fought for the Kaiser, your father for Hitler. You were forced to serve in the military under the Communists in East Germany, guarding the Berlin Wall to make sure that no one escaped. Now your son wants to join the military.

You live in Latin America. You lived through the time of the “dirty war,” when thousands who opposed the government disappeared at the hands of the secret police and the military. Now your son wants to join the military.

You live in Nigeria, one of thousands of Christians in that African nation. The U.S. has declared that Nigeria is aiding terrorists and is planning to intervene. Your son wants to join the military to defend his country.

You live in Kentucky in 1861. The men from your congregation have divided, some joining the Union, some joining the Confederacy. Now your son wants to join the military, taking up arms against people he grew up going to church with.

Maybe five fish bowls will be enough to start with. Swim in those waters a bit before wrestling anew with the question of Christians and the military.

2007-09-03T07:25:00.000-05:00

The church in a militarized society

The fish doesn’t know that he’s wet.

“Can a man who served in a war be considered for elder since he might have killed?” Question asked in Piedras Negras, Mexico, during a training session on elders

“Can a Christian be a policeman?” Question asked in Córdoba, Argentina

This post isn’t about the answer to those questions. (Patrick Mead { http://patrickmead.net/tentpegs/ } has been doing an interesting study on the question of whether or not a Christian may kill.) This post is about whether or not we ask these kinds of questions. Does living in a militarized society shape our views of Christian life? The obvious, easy answer is yes, but I’m not into obvious, easy answers.

Most countries have some sort of military. In many countries, military service is obligatory. Most who serve in the armed forces around the world will never be involved in combat activities; their military will never be used to fight. That’s not true in this country. For decades, our military has been almost constantly in action, so much so that we take it for granted. The use of force to accomplish goals is a given.

Rather than snap decisions about being pacifists or being pro-military, we need to learn to try and step out of our culture, step out of our current situation, step out of the emotionalism, and look hard at what Scripture has to say. It’s not easy. But it’s necessary. On every issue.

So to start with, give me suggestions on how we, the fish, take a look at things from a non-fish point of view. How do we step out of the water to look at the world around us? Don’t give me the answers yet to war, pacifism, self-protection, etc. Tell me about the process. How do we escape the cage of culture?

I’m going to be traveling a lot in the next few weeks, but I’ll try and stay with this study, stay with this discussion.

2007-08-24T08:07:00.000-05:00

A both/and mission trip

Something happened to missions in the church. I don’t know if it’s a symptom or a cause (probably both), but you see it in our mission trips. When we returned from Argentina, I was soon invited to go on a mission trip to Mexico. It wasn’t until it was almost time to go that I realized that the whole trip was going to be about building houses. That’s all the kids would do. Very limited interaction with the local members. Almost no interaction with outsiders. No sharing their faith verbally (I’m trying to choose my words carefully).

We have a generation, or seemingly several generations, that gives little importance to verbal proclamation of the gospel. Yes, we preach with our actions. I know the phrase “I’d rather see a sermon than hear one.” But honestly, people need both. Samuel Shoemaker, instrumental in the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous, wrote: “A good life can testify to the belief in some kind of Higher Power… I do not know any mere example that can quite tell people that we believe God spoke in Christ to all men forever, or that Christ is His incarnate Son, or that the cross saves you and me from sin, or that the Resurrection is the crowning article of faith for us Christians.” (Extraordinary Living for Ordinary Men, p. 71) We live out the gospel, but it takes our words to explain it.

I work for Herald of Truth, a non-profit that does mass media ministry around the world. A few years ago, the leaders of our group toyed with the idea of becoming a relief organization. Why? Because it’s easy to raise money for relief. Show people a picture of a hungry child, and they’ll give you money. Talk about wanting to take that child’s family the message that will transform them and their people forever, and people yawn. After the tsunami in 2005, money poured in to help that area. A missionary to that area sighed and said, “Why can’t we even raise a fraction of that for Bibles?”

When we tell our kids that they are going to do missions, then the only tool we train them to use is a hammer, we are affecting their idea of evangelism for the rest of their life. Why not create opportunities for our kids to share their faith through their actions and their words? Must it be either or?

In college, I went on a 5-day mission trip to Hartford, Connecticut. We worked in a soup kitchen. Volunteered with retarded kids. But we also canvassed a neighborhood, inviting people to a seminar at the newly planted church in that area. It can be done.

Let’s recapture missions in the church. Let’s teach our people about evangelism. Let’s turn our mission trips back into mission trips.

2007-08-18T21:05:00.001-05:00

The Curse of Knowledge

When I’m reading an interesting book, I drive my wife crazy by quoting bits and snatches to her (this is just one weapon, of course, in my drive-my-wife-crazy repertoire). Lately I’ve been doing it with the book Made to Stick.

Find this book. Read this book. Anyone who shares ideas with other people could benefit from reading this book.

One concept used throughout the book is the concept of The Curse of Knowledge. The authors illustrate this problem in the following excerpt:

In 1990, Elizabeth Newton earned a Ph.D. in psychology at Stanford by studying a simple game in which she assigned people to one of two roles: "tappers" or "listeners." Tappers received a list of twenty-five well-known songs, such as "Happy Birthday to You" and "The StarSpangled Banner." Each tapper was asked to pick a song and tap out the rhythm to a listener (by knocking on a table). The listener's job was to guess the song, based on the rhythm being tapped. (By the way, this experiment is fun to try at home if there's a good "listener" candidate nearby.)
The listener's job in this game is quite difficult. Over the course of Newton's experiment, 120 songs were tapped out. Listeners guessed only 2.5 percent of the songs: 3 out of 120.
But here's what made the result worthy of a dissertation in psychology. Before the listeners guessed the name of the song, Newton asked the tappers to predict the odds that the listeners would guess correctly. They predicted that the odds were 50 percent. The tappers got their message across 1 time in 40, but they thought they were getting their message across 1 time in 2. Why?
When a tapper taps, she is hearing the song in her head. Go ahead and try it for yourself — tap out "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's impossible to avoid hearing the tune in your head. Meanwhile, the listeners can't hear that tune — all they can hear is a bunch of disconnected taps, like a kind of bizarre Morse Code.

There are lots of good points in this book, but this one jumped out at me. It’s so hard to put ourselves in the shoes of those who don’t know what we know. Have you ever tried to explain the gospel to someone who knew nothing about the Bible? Have you ever tried to tell the message of salvation without using church words?

Sometimes I think we’re preaching “Amazing Grace,” but the world hears “Happy Birthday.”

2007-08-13T18:39:00.000-05:00

The Powers That Be

Is it too late to apologize to King George III? And, of course, return to British rule here in the States. No, wait... Texas should return to Mexico. No, wait... to Spain. No, wait... let’s take it all the way back. Let’s all be Romans!

There are a lot of people who want to read Romans 13 as a commandment for all times. While I think the teachings and principles contained in Romans 13 speak to us, I believe that Paul was speaking to a specific situation. I don’t believe in the “divine right of kings.” I don’t believe that it was God’s will that Hitler come to power, nor that we can hold Him directly responsible for every king that ever walked the face of the earth.

Paul writes to the Roman Christians that should submit “to the powers that exist.” I believe that they were not to rebel against the Roman empire, that they were to follow the laws of the empire. This would facilitate the preaching of the gospel and postpone the inevitable persecution. I believe that he was giving a teaching for that specific situation.

He goes on to say: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
(Romans 13:3-4) Are we willing to say that Paul, Peter and all of the Christian martyrs were wrongdoers? If they had done good, they would have received the approval of the emperor... if this passage was meant to apply to all situations at all times. We can’t apply this passage universally without being forced to make some ridiculous statements about who did good and who was a wrongdoer.

And that doesn’t include all the questions that arise during civil wars, revolutions, coup d’etats, etc. Even wars are problematic... If one authority orders us to attack one of the other “existing powers,” should we obey? Or are we going against God’s appointed?

Let’s read this passage in its context. The principles of respect continue. The principle of following laws that don’t go against God’s law continues. But let’s not get too carried away with applying this passage.

2007-08-06T12:11:00.000-05:00

Some Practical Conclusions

This is not the end of my study of this matter, but I want to draw some closure for now. Here’s where I am, based on the two months we’ve spent looking at this topic

As we look at worship in the Old Testament, I think it is the feasts of the Mosaic Law which teach us about our assemblies. None of the other aspects of Old Testament worship seem to have much to say to us about our regular assemblies (I know, I know… some point to the sabbath, others to temple worship… I just don’t see it)

I think the Lord’s Supper is our feast under the new covenant

I don’t see the New Testament as offering a command as to frequency. However, I think the two passages that speak of the first day of the week are important, as is John’s reference to “the Lord’s day” in Revelation. There is no room for law on this matter, since the New Testament lays down no such law. And I can’t throw out Acts 2:46, referring to daily gatherings, quite possibly involving the Lord’s Supper. I think the early church gathered at least once a week to share the Lord’s Supper

This series has focused on whether the weekly assembly should be the main activity in our Christianity, the center of everything, the mark by which we judge faithfulness. The answer, in my opinion is NO. Jesus didn’t die to sanctify a people for weekly assembly; He died to redeem a people eager for good works (Titus 2:14). Paul says we are “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). We are to meet together to spur one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25). I am not denying the need for worship, but assembled worship is not the main purpose of our existence as Christians. As said in the comment section of the last post, I think the measure of our faithfulness as Christians is how we live out the Christian life. That meshes well with what the prophets said time again, like these words from Micah: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)

Like I say, that’s not “the end of the matter,” nor has all been heard. But that’s where this study has brought me.

2007-07-30T17:12:00.000-05:00

We Gather Together

OK, here’s what I see:

1) The average congregation spends a significant part of its budget on the things necessary to “do church,” to have an assembly on Sunday morning.

2) The average congregation defines itself by what happens on Sunday morning: “We average 250 in attendance”; “We are a contemporary church”; etc.

3) Most of the arguments that rage within our brotherhood concern what goes on during the Sunday assembly.

4) The average Christian believes that there is a special time called “the assembly” within our time together. This time has special rules, which do not apply to Bible class, for example.

5) The faithfulness of the average Christian is judged by their participation in this Sunday assembly.

6) The average Christian judges his own faithfulness by the same measure.

Problem is, I don’t see these things in the New Testament. I don’t see this special time, set off by an opening song and a closing prayer (or by an opening prayer, as was once explained to me; announcements, before the prayer, were not part). I even have trouble transforming Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16 into a prescription for worship every Sunday/only on Sunday/only in the assembly.

From what I see in the Bible, worship in the first 39 books of the Bible did not center around one day a week. If that was changed when Jesus came, why isn’t that stated somewhere? Why is so little said about the assembly in the New Testament, especially compared with the weight given to it today.

So what do I suggest? For now… more study. Let’s discuss this a bit this week and see where we get to.

2007-07-25T08:06:00.001-05:00

Assembly & My Druthers

All right, let me take a pause in this series to talk about “my druthers” in this matter. Just yesterday I was talking with a friend about how at times my preferences and my theology don’t line up.

I tend to be a bit introverted. Shy. There are situations that I hate, like having to make a phone call to a person I don’t know. But I am, at the same time, a bit of a showman. I grew up performing in musical groups; I love it. While I fear the phone, I love the microphone. I may have trouble meeting people at a party, but give me the chance to get up and speak to 10,000 people, and I’ll jump at it.

The showman in me loves assemblies, especially if I get a chance to be up in front. The bigger, the better.

I’m also one of those people who is cursed with an overblown view of himself. I’d rather go to church and listen to myself than to someone else. I know more than the Bible class teacher and preach better than the preacher. My song leading would wow them all, and I would have come up with more appropriate communion thoughts. One prayer was too long, the other too short. I would love the assembly to be about me.

So what are my preferences? Daily assemblies, where I get to preach every day, like I’ve heard the Puritans did. Barring that, weekly assemblies, centered around my preaching. Put the spotlight on the preacher, and let the preacher be me.

Theologically, I don’t think the sermon should be the center of the service. Not even close. There shouldn’t be a spotlight, and it certainly shouldn’t be on me. And should the assembly be the center of our Christian life? Did Jesus die on the cross so that His people would meet together once a week? I’m obviously having my doubts.

But I’ll continue with those in another post.

2007-07-15T22:01:00.001-05:00

Assembly in the New Testament

Someone asked me to continue this study, not putting on the brakes when I hit the end of Malachi. I’ll do my best, as long as everyone continues to contribute. I’ll be in Cuba for a week or so, so you’ll have time to comment.

Jesus and his early followers were Jews. They attended the synagogue; they participated in daily temple activities; they participated in feasts. The early church was very Jewish. They continued following Jewish behavior for many years (Acts 21:20).

It’s amazing how little is said about the assembly in the New Testament. To be fair, some have suggested that since the letters were intended to be read to the assembled church, much of what is said can be assumed to be directed toward assembly behavior. I’m not convinced, but I’ll mention that argument out of fairness (or an attempt at the same).

1 Corinthians discusses the assembly. Hebrews 10 talks about “assembling” (sorry folks... the term “forsaking the assembly” isn’t in there). We have Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 20:7-12. And that’s about it (let’s throw in Matthew 18:17 for good measure).

Fill in the gaps for me. What am I missing?

2007-07-08T15:30:00.000-05:00

Assembly and Synagogues

This series of posts is attempting to see what the Bible has to say about assemblies in the worship of God. That’s being done in an attempt to answer the question of whether or not God intended Christianity to be built around a series of weekly assemblies or not. I was encouraged to re-examine what the Old Testament says about assembly, which is what I’ve been trying to do. Thanks to all who’ve been helping.

This week I want to look at the synagogue system. “But that’s not Old Testament,” you wisely observe. That’s true. The synagogue system was not established in Scripture, but grew up out of necessity. When the Israelites found themselves in captivity, with their temple in ruins, they developed a series of assemblies which continue through the present time; that’s the synagogue system.

According to Jewish sources, the synagogue is primarily a place of prayer. It is also a place for the reading and exposition of Scripture. It required the presence of ten males and followed a set pattern of activities. It is built around three times of daily prayer, although special services take place on feast days and sabbaths.

Jesus attended synagogues, as did the apostles and early Christians. Does that mean that God approved of this “innovation”? Did the synagogue become the pattern for early Christian worship? Should it be a pattern for what Christians do?

2007-06-30T11:48:00.000-05:00

Assembly and Holy Places

All right, a little cajoling and we get some serious discussion going. Let’s continue our study of assembly in the Old Testament. Please join in, especially if you spot a mistake!

I want to look at the holy places that God appointed for worship: the tabernacle and the temple. In theory, the activities were to be the same in both. The basic activities (some of this taken from this website: THE ROUTINE SERVICE OF THE TABERNACLE) were:

Daily — The high priest was to replenish the oil-lamps of the seven-branch candlestick, and offer incense before the vail, every morning and evening: and on the great altar, he was to offer a lamb in sacrifice every morning and evening.

Weekly — On the Sabbath day, the daily sacrifice was to be doubled.

Monthly — On the first day of the month there was to be a large addition to the daily sacrifice. There were to be seven lambs, two young bullocks, and one ram, besides the daily lamb of the morning and evening; and these additional burnt offerings were to be accompanied by proportional meat offerings and wine offerings in the quantities specified (Num. 28:11-14) in addition to which, there was to be an offering of one kid of the goats for a sin offering.

In addition, there were annual services related to the feasts, which we discussed in the last post. As for the average worshiper, his interaction with the tabernacle had to do with what is seen in Numbers 29: “In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, prepare these for the LORD at your appointed feasts: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings and fellowship offerings.” (Numbers 29:39) We see from later use (like Solomon, Daniel, etc.) that the Israelites understood that their prayers were to be directed toward this holy place. They also began to come to the temple to pray there (Luke 18:10). At some point, the Jews developed the practice of three daily times of prayer in the temple, one of which coincided with the evening sacrifice (Acts 3:1).

The primary purpose of the “holy places” was not for assembly, although assembly did take place there. How would you relate all of this to our day? [If you want to discuss “the priesthood of all believers” in relation to this, please include Exodus 19:6 in the discussion] Do the practices and commands surrounding the tabernacle and the temple teach us anything about our worship today, especially our coming together to worship?

2007-06-23T09:59:00.000-05:00

Assembly and Feasts

As Bob and I continue our study of what the Bible says about “assembly,” we’d like to invite some of the rest of you to join in with us. :-) Actually, I know that this is summer, and we all have unusual schedules. I’ll continue on with this study and hope that anyone that wants to comment on any part of it will feel free to chime in.

I wasn’t sure which order to look at things in, but Bob mentioned the festivals, so that seems like a logical continuing place. You can make a strong argument that Old Testament religion was feast-driven. As Deuteronomy 16:16 says, there were three times when all men were required to assemble: “Three times a year all your men must appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles.” They had other special days, but these three days were the unifying points of their religion and their nation, the time when all able-bodied men were to gather in a designated place (first Shiloh, later Jerusalem).

There were other days that were holy days, community celebrations, that did not involved a national assembly. The Law says of these days: “These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day, besides the LORD’s Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.” (Lev 23:37-38 ESV)

It seems to me, and please feel free to correct, that the Law envisioned the Israelites living in a situation where every man could come to “the appointed place” several times a year. Sacrifices and offerings had to be made and could not be made just anywhere. There were priests and Levites throughout the land, yet the tabernacle/temple was the designated place for worship.

What, if anything, does this say to us about our Christian worship?

2007-06-17T20:44:00.000-05:00

Assembly & Sabbath

In the comments section for the last post, a wonderful suggestion was made: reexamine what the Old Testament says about assemblies, particularly weekly assemblies. As I expressed there, my special interest is not just looking at what people did in the Old Testament, but what God told them to do.

The concept of the Sabbath goes back to creation, when God rested from His work on the 7th day. Beginning in Exodus 16, He tells His people to observe the 7th day of the week as a day of rest. That’s what Sabbath was about: rest. People were to refrain from all unnecessary work and allow their servants and animals to do the same. The Israelites were to keep the Sabbath holy by refraining from work.

Leviticus 23:3 calls the Sabbath “a holy convocation.” This could mean an assembly. However, when people were reprimanded in the prophets for failing to observe the Sabbath, they were never charged with “forsaking the assembly.” They were accused of working on the Sabbath.

During the Babylonian exile, the synagogue system was developed. People began to meet there for instruction in the Scriptures. Eventually they began to come together there each Sabbath. This was not because of divine instruction, but because men chose to do it that way.

Modern Jews are encouraged to meet on the Sabbath, but the assembly is not considered to be the main point of the day of rest.

When looking for a biblical emphasis on a weekly assembly, we’ll have to look elsewhere. The Sabbath doesn’t provide justification for such an emphasis.

2007-06-13T06:35:00.000-05:00

A Question

I hate to go for ever without posting; this is travel season, and it’s hard to find a moment to sit at the keyboard. But you didn’t really want to know that, did you?

As I try to organize some thoughts, let me get some input on something. From reading the New Testament, do you believe that Christianity was designed to be an assembly-driven religion? The old covenant wasn’t; most worship was done on an individual basis, sabbath was a family time, not a corporate time. The whole synagogue system came about much later than the time of Moses. Unity came from everyone doing the same things, not necessarily doing them together.

Modern Christianity is built around the Sunday assembly. Is that what you see in the New Testament? I’ve got some thoughts, but really want to hear yours. I’ll lower myself and beg for comments this week, even if it’s a simple yes or no. Is New Testament Christianity an assembly-driven religion?

2007-06-01T16:51:00.000-05:00

The Promise

I’ve been around the church a long time. I’ve been a Christian for over 30 years. So it’s amazing to me how many basic things I’ve come to grasp only in recent years.

Like the promise to Abraham. I knew Abraham was important. I mean, three major religions count him as one of theirs. But I tended to lump Abraham in with Isaac, Jacob, Joseph & Co. And I certainly didn’t put him on the same plain with Moses.

What I just didn’t see was that the promises made to Abraham are the basis for just about all of the promises that follow. In fact, our salvation stems from the fact that we’ve been made spiritual heirs of Abraham. Read Romans 4. Galatians 3. For Paul, the promise to Abraham wasn’t part of the “Patriarchal Era.” It’s our promise, too. We have been made heirs of Abraham, heirs to the promise.

When Paul talks about us sharing in “the promise” (Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:29, Ephesians 3:6, etc.), he means that we now receive the benefits of the promise that God made to Abraham. God chose Abraham and his descendants to be His people. The only way we could become the people of God was to somehow share in that promise. It never went away, it was just amplified. Jesus gave us access to the promise, the promise made to Abraham.

I know, I know, you’re all saying “Duh! I’ve always known that.” It just takes longer for some of us to figure things out.

Puts singing “Father Abraham” in a whole new light.

2007-05-27T17:14:00.000-05:00

Signs that your congregation is part of a bigger history

You’ve probably heard it too. Some Christians claim that their congregation doesn’t have a past, that it is only connected to the church of the New Testament and not to any other. If one suggests that the church of Christ stems from the so-called “Restoration Movement,” they resist the idea violently. “Everything we do comes from the Bible and only from the Bible. We are free from human influences.” Don’t talk to them about church history, don’t talk to them about being influenced by culture, don’t suggest that they are doing anything different than what was done in the first century.

For most of us, to not say all, for most of us, it’s just not true. There are clear and obvious signs that what we do stems at least in part from what we’ve learned from others. If your congregation does any of these things, it can’t claim to be free from human influence:

If you sing songs that are sung in other congregations, you didn’t get those from the Bible.

In the same vein, if you have a song book, you must have gotten it from someone.

If you have a song leader, that’s an “innovation”; the New Testament says nothing about that.

Does your church meet in a room with seats basically facing forward, looking toward a place where “the speaker” stands?

If you’ve got pews, well, that’s a sure sign of outside influence.

Do you pass the Lord’s Supper around in trays?

How about an invitation song? There’s definitely not one of those in the Bible. Nor is there a “closing prayer.”

Dare I point out that having a bound Bible isn’t biblical? Using a Bible in book form, with chapters and verses, is a sure sign of having been influenced by people outside of the biblical writers.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. None of us is free from the past. None of us is free from the influence of our culture.

George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [Yeah, I know… that appears in lots of different forms] Until we admit that we have a past, admit that we’ve been influenced by others, we’re locked into an endless cycle of influence. After a time, we fail to recognize which influences are human and which are divine.

Let’s embrace our past, deal with it, learn from it, and use it to help us recognize what’s Bible and what’s tradition in what we do.

2007-05-21T20:03:00.000-05:00

Sinners Anonymous

“Hello, my name is Tim. I’m a sinner.”

From what I know of the 12 step programs, I like them. Recognize your helplessness, your need for help from a higher power. Meet with others and admit your need. Share readings and advice to help overcome the problem.

I think that we need to develop a sort of Sinners Anonymous. Too many times we communicate the idea that sinners are the exception, that the “normal members” have no struggle with sins, that sin is the great unmentionable. The best we can do is go forward and admit that we’ve sinned… but be sure that you don’t slip and mention what that sin was!

I need to tell at least three people that I’m a sinner:

(1) God. I need to go to Him and tell Him that I’ve sinned. Yes, He knows it. But our relationship will never be right unless I admit the obvious to Him.

(2) You. You need to know that you aren’t alone in your struggles with sin. You need to know my struggles, so that you can hold me accountable, so that you can share suggestions of how to overcome my weaknesses, so that you can continually challenge me to do better.

(3) Me. I need to be sure that I know that only God’s grace can make me righteous. God tolerates no boasting in His presence, so I need to get rid of all pride. I can’t overcome sin on my own, and I need to admit that.

Have you noticed how many of our prayer requests at church have to do with physical health issues and so few with spiritual health issues? There is no problem as big as sin; why do we pray so often about money problems and job problems, yet ignore the “elephant in the room” that is sin? Let’s talk about sin. Talk about how to overcome it. Talk about the damage it does. Talk about our weaknesses so that our brothers can help. Let’s pray about sin. Together.

Sinners Anonymous Meets Here: Sunday, 10 a.m.

2007-05-16T08:00:00.000-05:00

Tumblin'

I haven’t particularly used this space for personal stuff. I’ve kind of wanted to maintain a focus on discussions. But I’ve yielded to the pressure. I’ve got a new space on Tumblr.com: timarcher.tumblr.com . I’ll post things there from time to time. Be sure and check out the picture of my tree-climbing dog (both dogs in the picture escaped yesterday, but were back in the yard this morning; I almost had a sad post to offer).

One downside: Tumblr doesn’t seem to allow comments. : - (

2007-05-11T08:06:00.000-05:00

Plagued by Plagiarism

I was really surprised. Not that somebody would take something I’d written for Heartlight.org and repost it. Not even that they would repost it without crediting the source. But to see my article posted under someone else’s name on a church website was shocking to me. (Finding it again on another site was less of a shock; guess I’d gotten used to it).

I’ve heard the stories of preachers sitting in the audience and hearing their own sermons being preached. Or the stories of preachers using others’ stories as if they had actually happened to them. I even know of one preacher who was interviewing for a job and used a sermon by someone else… and the other sermon was on tape in the church library. Oops!

Don’t plagiarize. It’s as simple as that. Go overboard in quoting your sources. Nobody will think the less of you. Preachers, if you say, “I got a lot of these ideas from a sermon I heard,” no one will be upset (though you might not want to do it every week). If the story happened to somebody else, it still has power. Don’t lie. It didn’t happen to you. It happened to them. If you want to put somebody else’s article in your bulletin, go ahead. But credit the source. People will appreciate your bringing that information to their attention. Bloggers, people will value what you have to say even more when you point out where it came from. Teachers, writers, speakers, everyone! Don’t plagiarize.

Now somebody help me down from this soapbox.

2007-05-02T12:41:00.000-05:00

A Simple Definition of Good and Bad

I doubt this is original, but I can’t tell you where it came from if it’s not. I came up with it without hearing it from someone else, but like the saying goes: “The ancients stole all my best thoughts.” Somebody probably said it first. It’s a simple definition of what is good and what is bad. Here goes:

Good things move us closer to God, closer to heaven.
Bad things move us away from God, move us away from heaven.

That’s how a promotion at work can be bad, while a terminal illness can be good. Success can be bad, failure can be good. I guess the rub of it comes in the fact that we have to look a little harder at things to tell the difference. And sometimes we can’t really know; that’s when we have to trust that God is always working for good.

2007-04-28T11:14:00.000-05:00

Basketball & Bible

It’s that time of the year. There’s only one team in the league with two players from Argentina, so all I can say is “Go, Spurs, go!”

During the NBA playoffs in 2006, my family and I moved from the heart of Spurs country (Stockdale) to a city in enemy territory (Abilene). Suddenly I was surrounded by Mavericks fans. Right in the middle of the Dallas - San Antonio series.

It wasn’t just a change in geography; it was a change in perspective. Listening to San Antonio sports announcers, I was fully informed of the league-wide conspiracy against the Spurs. I knew all the things that the officials were doing to insure that the Mavs came out on top. I knew that the Spurs were the better team, and the victories that had been won by the Mavericks were totally undeserved. Besides the Mavericks’ owner was loud and profane, having cursed at a Spurs player following a game because the player had played well, having led his fans to boo an ex-Mav star who had joined the Spurs when the owner refused to pay to keep him in Dallas. It was obvious that no true Christian could consider backing the Mavericks.

Funny thing was, people in Abilene didn’t see it that way. They talked about a league conspiracy against the Mavs. They thought all the calls were going against the Mavs and that the only reason the Spurs were still in the series was because of luck. And the Christians thought the Mavs owner “colorful.”

It’s amazing what different perspectives can do. Just wondering… do you think anything like this ever happens when we talk about Christianity?

2007-04-24T07:57:00.000-05:00

The Lion, the Lamb, and the Throne Room

It’s definitely one of my favorite passages in the Bible. Revelation 5. The great throne room scene. The apostle John is seeing a vision of the very presence of God. “Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.” (Rev 5:1-4) Why does John get so upset? Because the scroll represents God’s plan, and that plan will not come about unless someone opens the scroll.

Then he gets the wonderful news: the Lion of Judah can open the scroll. He is worthy. Why? Because He has conquered. John turns to see the conquering, triumphant lion… and finds a lamb. Whereas lions are an image of strength, lambs are just the opposite. How many schools use “the Fighting Lambs” as their mascot? And not only is this a lamb, but a lamb with its throat slit. It’s a slaughtered lamb.

This verse is key to understanding the whole book of Revelation, dare I say, the whole of Christianity. Christ has redefined victory. You win by losing. You live by dying. The Lamb isn’t worthy in spite of having been slain. He is worthy because He was slain. Suddenly all the Old Testament prophecies take on a new light. All of our images about who the Messiah is are now defined in terms of the cross. There is victory in dying! There is triumph in suffering. The Lion is a Lamb. Death is a victory. Christians overcome by being faithful when persecuted, following the example of the Faithful Witness who triumphed through martyrdom.

What a message for a church that was about to be persecuted. “Faithful unto death” doesn’t mean a lifetime of faithful service; it means being faithful even as the blade severs our head from our body, even as the wild animals rip our lives from our bodies. It means faithful to the point of death… and beyond. We share in the Lamb’s triumph when we renounce our lives to share in His death. We don’t become powerful lions, we become lambs to the slaughter. By doing so we become worthy, just as the Lamb is worthy. Not because of our sacrifice, but because of His.

“And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5:9-10)

Powerful image. Powerful passage. Powerful message.

2007-04-17T08:04:00.000-05:00

Collecting money in 1 Corinthians 16

“Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.”

Having beaten the topic of breaking bread into the ground, I want to look at a text that is somehow strangely related. In countless tracts, we find 1 Corinthians 16:2 paired with Acts 20:7 to prove unequivocally that Christians met for a worship assembly on Sunday and only on Sunday. And that one of the authorized acts of worship is giving. (For those who may be unfamiliar, the teaching goes that the authorized acts are not only allowed, but must be present in the main assembly each week)

Interesting passage this one. If I were to read all of 1 Corinthians, I would have to conclude that Paul is instructing the Corinthians about something new. Note that he doesn’t say “as I instructed you before.” No, this is something that he has shared with the Galatians. He doesn’t say “here’s what I want you to do with the collection that you take each week.” No, he tells them when to take a collection. It’s a new instruction, not something that had been taught to them as a normal requirement.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that this passage is legislative, that Paul is laying down rules for all places and all times. Using the laws of approved example and silence, let’s make a brief list of what those rules would be:

This collection was "for the saints." Any use for non-saints is prohibited by silence.

We also see that this collection was for the saints in Jerusalem. Any use for non-Jerusalem saints is prohibited.

This collection was for saints in another geographical area (as are all collections mentioned in the New Testament). Collecting money to be used locally is prohibited.

These collections were to end before Paul went to Corinth. Any continuation of collections by Christians are thereby prohibited.

Monies collected are to be held until Paul's arrival. Any prior disbursement is unauthorized and thereby prohibited.

It’s interesting to me that we can take a brief mention of a short-term, special collection and somehow extract “laws” for the modern church. It’s a wonderful example of Christian generosity, of how the church should come together to meet a specific need such as the famine in Judea. The procedure used is no more normative than the practice seen several times in Acts of selling goods to raise funds for the local church. One could easily argue that a garage sale is as scriptural as the Sunday collection and even moreso when applied to funds destined to be used locally.

But that wouldn’t suit our purposes, so it’s much easier to mold 1 Corinthians 16 into something that it never was.

2007-04-08T17:10:00.000-05:00

Breaking Bread—Acts 2:46

“And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,” (Acts 2:46)

For all of those willing and able to set me straight on all of this about breaking bread in Acts, please feel free to comment on the last few posts. I’m trying to figure out how we decide when “breaking bread” in Acts refers to the Lord’s Supper and when it refers to a common meal. In the last post, I asked for help with Acts 20:7. Lots of people believe that this is one of the most important verses in the Bible; it consistently makes its way into tract after tract, proving that the Lord’s Supper must be taken every Sunday and only on Sunday.

So what do we do with this verse? Acts 2:46. It’s threatened my Sunday-only mindset, so now is the time for people to bring me back to orthodoxy.

In Acts 2, the brand-spanking new church is meeting in the temple. They apparently aren’t holding their church assemblies in homes nor church buildings. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of them to take the Lord’s Supper together in the temple. They would have met together in the temple, then separated into individual homes to take the Lord’s Supper… just like this verse describes! Don’t let the fact that it was in homes get in your way.

The best evidence also indicates that the early church took the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal (yes, I know that’s debatable; feel free to give evidence to the contrary, just don’t say “as 1 Corinthians 11 says,” unless you’ve found something new in that passage). So the “received their food” wouldn’t be out of place, either.

What makes us conclude this passage is not about the Lord’s Supper? Please don’t be shy about giving reasons. I honestly, sincerely, truly want to know. If you know someone who knows reasons why Acts 20:7 is the Lord’s Supper and Acts 2:46 isn’t, please send them here. I consider this an important point and would truly appreciate any insights toward resolving this.

2007-04-04T17:00:00.000-05:00

Breaking Bread in Acts 20

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

How many doctrines hang on this verse? I can think of several (okay, maybe not on this verse alone, but much literature cites this verse when speaking of these doctrines):

(1) Sunday as the day of meeting.

(2) Lord’s Supper every Sunday.

(3) Lord’s Supper only on Sunday.

I’ll continue asking the question I’ve asked in the last two posts: how do we know this is the Lord’s Supper, over against, for example, Acts 2:46? That seems like a pretty important thing to me, especially considering the weight we’ve hung on this one verse. There’s got to be some people that read this blog that believe this verse refers to the Lord’s Supper and teaches the things I list above. Will no one step forward?

2007-03-28T16:39:00.000-05:00

Breaking Bread in Acts, II

I’ll be out of the country until next Tuesday, but I wanted to try to spur some more discussion on this. Let’s simplify it. Give me your view on the following passages:

(1) Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(2) Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(3) Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(4) Acts 20:11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(5) Acts 27:35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

2007-03-26T08:48:00.000-05:00

Breaking Bread in Acts

Keep those pitchforks sharp and those torches burning… but save them for a week.

In the meantime, help me with this study. Here are the passages in Acts that refer to “breaking bread.” How do we decide which ones are the Lord’s Supper and which ones are a common meal?

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Acts 20:11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.

Acts 27:35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.

2007-03-23T15:46:00.000-05:00

1 Timothy 2:8-10 (addendum)

This post merely adds to the previous one, so if you haven’t read it, please do so. In the spirit of this blog in general and the last post in particular, it’s time for me to say that I think I was wrong about something. I think that I was misreading 1 Timothy 2:9. I accused most of the Western world of misreading that verse, but now I think it was me. If you haven’t read the comments on that post, please do so, especially the ones by Bob Bliss. He and I want to study this passage further, but my initial impression is that I was wrong.

I still feel, however, that we’ve read too much into what Paul is saying. His statement that he wants men to pray does not mean that he doesn’t want women to pray. When he says that older women should teach younger women in Titus 2, that doesn’t mean men can’t teach younger women. Paul wants the men in Ephesus to get together and pray, lifting holy hands (why don’t we bind that part of the verse?), without fighting. They apparently have a problem with that, and he wants it to change.

All right, citizens… back to your lives. I just thought I shouldn’t leave these things to the comment section.

2007-03-17T16:46:00.000-05:00

1 Timothy 2:8-10

All right, I’ve gathered my courage and am ready to delve into a couple of passages where I hold unorthodox views. If you’d rather not have any preconceived notions challenged, please don’t continue reading. These are the kind of posts that inspire the local villagers to gather around my castle with torches and pitchforks, ready to slay the monster…

Let me begin with some disclaimers:

No, I’m not promoting anything. Too many people want to start with the conclusions and work backwards. I’m trying to deal with the text. Only when we have fully dealt with the text can we work on the application. Too many people let what they want to find dictate what their study will reveal.

I’m presenting hypotheses. If the orthodox conclusion is correct, I will be thrilled to return to that view. Help me get back to it, if that’s what I need to do.

So, what better passage to get into trouble with than a passage about gender roles in the church? Or, should I say, a passage that we’ve made to be about gender roles in the church. Let’s look at 1 Timothy 2:8-10:

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (ESV)

Many people feel that Paul, in this passage is telling us who can pray in public and who can’t. My belief is that he’s talking about what and not who. Here’s why:

What if this passage said, “I desire that in every place men go to church instead of going to the theater on Sunday”? Would we then argue that only men can go to church? Paul is telling the men to stop quarreling and start praying. His command that men should pray doesn’t preclude women from praying as well. Look at Titus 2:2-3; we logically understand that the older women are to have the same traits as the older men. Interestingly enough, the grammatical construction between these two passages seems to be similar. The connecting word between the instructions for the two sexes, “likewise” or “in like manner,” is used both in 1 Timothy 2 and in Titus 2.

I think that most of our translations have allowed their views toward this passage to override their grammatical understanding. To help you see what I mean, let me quote from Young’s Literal Translation. Young seeks to reflect the grammar as closely as he can, and he translates this passage as follows: “I wish, therefore, that men pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning; in like manner also the women, in becoming apparel, with modesty and sobriety to adorn themselves, not in braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or garments of great price, but — which becometh women professing godly piety — through good works.” There is no verb in verse 9, only a participle. It seems that Paul is saying that the men should pray without quarreling and the women should pray in becoming apparel. A. T. Robertson admits that this is what the grammar could say, but he doesn’t think it fits with verses 11-15. I say that’s not translation, that’s interpretation. Besides, Paul talks about women praying in public in 1 Corinthians 11; why can’t he do it here as well?

I think that in 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul tells men how they should pray and in 1 Timothy 2:9 he tells women how they should pray. No, I’m not advocating women preachers, women elders, nor any outings on slippery slopes. I’m trying to figure out the meaning of this passage in 1 Timothy 2. Help me out with your comments. Save the pitchforks and torches for later.

2007-03-12T17:19:00.000-05:00

Labels, labels, labels

"I never call Christians or others 'anti's,' 'digressives, ' mossbacks,' 'tackies,' or 'trash.' I concede to all, and accord to all, the same sincerity and courtesy I claim for myself, as the Golden Rule demands…" T.B. Larimore

As I’ve taken another look at Restoration History the last few years, I’ve become a fan of T. B Larimore. I’d love to be known as a man who refuses to take sides and who refuses to label others. It wasn’t until recently that I realized that the church where I grew up in San Angelo, Texas, was basically started through a one-month gospel meeting by T. B. Larimore. I guess some of his views were imparted to me from very young. One of those views is a deep-set distrust of labels.

Conservative. Liberal. Change agent. Anti. Progressive. Digressive… who wears what label depends on who is speaking. It’s rare that someone applies a label to himself. I’ve been called sectarian. I’ve been called liberal. I’ve been called a legalist. I’ve even been called evil (I’m sure that e-mail was sent in Christian love!). And all for expressing basically the same ideas. It just depends on where the other person is standing. In the big scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter what others say:“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor 4:3-4) Still, I hate to see people resort to labels. There are several reasons why:

When we resort to labels, we’ve stopped viewing the other person as an individual. We judge them in terms of other people, not according to what they actually think and believe.

When we resort to labels, we stop listening. “Everything you’ve got to say, I’ve heard before from others just like you.”

When we resort to labels, we tend to fall back on preset ways of reacting. “Post-modernists think this way, and here’s what I always say to them.” If I were to accept anything that a “post-modernist” says, I’d be accepting everyone else to whom I’ve given that label.

So here’s one suggestion for preserving the integrity of our Lord’s church: stop the labeling!

If you want to heal wounds in the Lord’s Church today,
Gather all of your labels and put them away.
If you have to use labels, I suggest these and few others:
Christians, fellow saints, disciples and brothers.

2007-03-04T18:45:00.000-06:00

I Pledge Allegiance

Take a look at this, taken from an article on Pew Research entitled “42% - Christians First, Americans Second”

Some people will look at this and worry about the Muslims being too fanatical. I look and worry that the citizens of the Kingdom of God don't seem to know where their citizenship lies! Only the Nigerians seem to have a clue about this; is it any wonder that churches are multiplying in Africa while they stagnate and die here in the States?

I am a Christian. A citizen of heaven, a subject in the Kingdom of God. I was born in this country and admittedly love it, yet would be willing to see her pass away for the good of the Kingdom. The United States of America is not God's chosen nation. My passport says that I am a citizen of this country, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. I am an alien, living out my life away from my homeland. "This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through…"

Paul says that we are fellow-citizens with God's people (Ephesians 2:19). He says that we are citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20, written to the Philippians who would have been proud of the Roman citizenship that was theirs by birth). Peter wrote that we should live our lives as "aliens and strangers" (1 Peter 2:11). In fact, it's always been that way for God's people. Even when they were living in the Promised Land, they weren't at home. God told them: "The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” (Leviticus 25:23) If the people who lived in the land that God had provided for them were supposed to view themselves as aliens in that land, how much moreso should we.

Yet we forget that and get far too comfortable in the land we live in. I lived 15 years in Argentina and came to be very at home there. Yet I was never truly Argentine. (And my accent always gave me away!) What a blessing that was for me, to live those years as an alien. It helps me remember that, even now that I'm back in Texas, I'm still an alien.

There's an important passage in Hebrews 11. While discussing the men of faith from olden times, the writer says: “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16) They recognized that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. And because they didn't seek an earthly homeland God is not ashamed to be called their God! Does our speech make it clear that we are seeking a celestial homeland? Can everyone tell that we aren’t thinking of a land here on earth? Do we readily acknowledge that we are strangers and exiles? Or are we too busy being proud to be Americans?

The apostle Paul, in Philippians 3, writes about his heritage and his past, his identity as a Jew, a Benjaminite and a Pharisee. He then writes: “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:7-11) Does this sound like a man who would walk up and down the street waving a flag? He considered everything else as manure compared to his status in Christ. I hope one day to learn to do the same.

I am a Christian. First and foremost. Above all else. I have a national identity document from Argentina that identifies me as a resident alien. I should have one from the United States saying the same thing. My citizenship is in heaven.

I pledge allegiance to my God,
All else falls far behind.
No land, no piece of earthly sod,
Can my obedience bind.
May my love for this world and the kingdoms thereof,
Not make me forget what I read in the Word.
My citizenship lies not here but above.
My true loyalty belongs to my Lord.

2007-02-26T18:39:00.000-06:00

A Whale of a Story

Jonah didn’t want to go preach in Nineveh. So he tried to run from God. When God sent a storm that put in danger the ship Jonah was on, Jonah was tossed overboard and saved by a “great fish.” After the fish “deposited” Jonah on dry land, Jonah went to Nineveh and preached. Actually, he went and announced destruction. “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” The people of Nineveh repented, and God relented. He spared the city.

Jonah should have been thrilled. One of the most successful preachers of all time. But instead, he was furious. Mad at God. He said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.”(Jonah 4:2)
And he was so angry that he asked God to kill him!

I see several important things in this story:

We should expect God to be merciful and forgiving. God continually surprises with His grace, though those who know him well shouldn’t be surprised. It’s quite possible that in the final judgment God will once again prove Himself to be a God characterized by forgiveness and mercy.

Even though we expect God to be merciful, our job is to preach the message that has been given to us. Jonah thought that it was quite possible that God would not destroy Nineveh, yet that’s not what he preached. He was given a message of destruction and preached what was given to him. (I think that’s why he was especially angry, because God had “made him look bad,” had allowed Jonah to announce something that didn’t happen)

We need to learn to care for all people. There was an article on Time’s website which pointed out that Americans have a good idea of how many Americans have died in Iraq, but grossly underestimate how many Iraqi civilians have died. We tend to focus on “our boys” and forget that God respects no borders, no nationalities. Jonah couldn’t understand why God would love the Ninevites; let’s not be that shortsighted.

It’s a whale of a story!

2007-02-20T08:13:00.000-06:00

Why I don't support the "prayer in school" movement

The petitions come around every now and again, people wanting to get signatures to force the government to do something to “allow prayer in school.” And people are always shocked when I say that I don’t support that. “What? You don’t believe in prayer in school?” Of course, I do. I just don’t believe that prayer was ever taken out of school. And I don’t support any of the actions that government would take to try and “put it back.”

I don’t want the school system trying to teach my kids to pray. [There was a humorous article about this in John Clayton’s Does God Exist magazine (read it here).] The vast majority of teachers and administrators out there don’t believe as I do, and I don’t want them involved in the spiritual formation of my children. I will teach my kids to pray. We pray before they go to school. I teach them to pray at different times throughout the day. They need no permission from a teacher or anyone else to say a prayer. Believe me, as long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school!

I’m much more interested in getting prayer in our homes. If our families are praying with their kids (not just at mealtime!), if kids see their parents turn to God in times of crisis and in times of joy, there will be no need for a “moment of silence” at school. The kids will pray.

Forget the “prayer in school” movement. Let’s work on the “prayer at home” movement.

Teachers don’t bother to make my kids pray,
Their prayers will be there, can’t take them away.
Keep your Hail Marys and“Allah be blest”s
Our kids will be praying as long as there’s tests!

2007-02-12T11:03:00.000-06:00

Aaron’s sons — what’s the point of Leviticus 10?

“Note then the kindness and the severity of God” (Romans 11:22)

This is the fourth in a series of lessons on Aaron’s sons. In the first post, I raised the question of why we in our fellowship have tended to focus so much on Aaron’s eldest sons while basically ignoring the other two. Since Nadab and Abihu are not mentioned in the New Testament nor are they ever held up as an example in the Bible, we need to take a long hard look at our fascination with them. We also need to look at why we don’t talk about Eleazar and Ithamar, even though the Bible talks about them more than their more famous brothers. As a “people of the book,” we should be concerned about such inconsistencies. In the second post, I talked about the forgotten sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. And in my third post, I looked at what happened to Nadab and Abihu.

I think that Leviticus 10 is a living example of what God says about himself in Exodus 34: 6-7 — “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” God is first and foremost a loving and forgiving God. Yet He is also a God who punishes sin. God forgave Eleazar and Ithamar their disobedience yet punished Nadab and Abihu for their rebellion.

The death of Nadab and Abihu is not a case of sincere, godly worshipers who made a mistake as to how they worshiped God. Theirs was irreverent rebellion. It was because of this that Aaron was silent after their death; he did not seek to defend them as he did Eleazar and Ithamar. Eleazar and Ithamar disobeyed God out of pure motives and their sin was forgiven. Nadab and Abihu did not recognize the holiness of God and died for their boldness.

This story shows us once again that God looks on the heart, looking at our motives when we fail to do what He has said and looking at our motives when we do what He has asked. Prideful rebellion against God will be punished as such. Yet God reserves the right to forgive failure to keep “the letter of the law,” because He and only He looks on the heart.

The sin of Nadab and Abihu was the failure to recognize the holiness of God. Theirs was the sin of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:7) and the sin of Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16 and following). Theirs was the sin of Simon the magician (Acts 8) who sought to purchase the gifts of the Holy Spirit. God will be seen as holy by His people or they will not be His people.

And therein lies the main lesson for us. The holiness of God. The overwhelming characteristic of God, from what I can see, is holiness. Beings in His presence cry out “Holy, holy, holy.” His holiness overwhelms. We, as priests, enter into the Holy of Holies because of what Jesus did (“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Hebrews 10:19-22) . He opened the way for us to do what Nadab and Abihu tried to do. We enter confidently (Hebrews 4:16), knowing that our entry is permitted where theirs was not. Yet we must not enter flippantly. We must be aware of the holiness of God. God is not my good buddy; He is the holy God. We fear Him, not in the sense of being afraid of Him, but as we fear electricity: we’re not afraid to be around it, but we’re not going to stick a fork in the socket, either. I remember William Barclay writing about a Jewish rabbi who began every prayer by saying “Lord, forgive me.” He says that this rabbi confessed his fear of dying after calling on the Lord and before asking forgiveness. I by no means advocate that kind of fear of God, but I think we need to recognize that, when we worship God, we are entering onto holy ground. We are entering into the same area where fire consumed Nadab and Abihu, consumed them because they were flippant about the holiness of God. If their story is to be a warning to us, surely that is the warning: “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:28-29) Acceptable worship has to do with the condition of our heart before God.

Our God, the Holy God, is a consuming fire. Let us draw near to Him with confidence; let us draw near to Him with reverence and awe.

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord!

2007-02-05T08:37:00.000-06:00

Aaron's Sons, Pt. 3

“Note then the kindness and the severity of God” (Romans 11:22)

All right, as Don said last week. let’s talk about “the boys.” Nadab and Abihu. While not mentioned as often as their brothers Eleazar and Ithamar, their story is definitely more dramatic (Sort of like why they always show tragedies on the news, not the happy endings).

Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

What’s that all about? Contrary to popular notion, it is not common in the Bible for God to strike people dead. This is the sort of incident that makes us say, “Man, whatever they did, I don’t want to do it.” So what did they do? With my best investigative skills, I’ve tried to reconstruct what happened. Here goes:

Aaron and his four sons have been named priests, going through an elaborate ritual that ended with fire coming out of the tabernacle and consuming the burnt offering and the pieces of fat that were on the altar. Seemingly, what happens to Nadab and Abihu happens in this same context (remember, that big number 10 in your Bible wasn’t in the original copy). During the festivities, Nadab and Abihu grab their new priestly censers, put fire into them and head off for the tabernacle. Apparently, they didn’t use the fire that God had provided (fire which was to be kept burning at all times and was to be used for holy purposes). The Bible calls what they used “strange fire”; think “strange” in the sense of stranger, not weird. It was fire from another place, not from the place that God had commanded.

A big part of their sin lies in the phrase “before the Lord.” They weren’t just making a strange offering; they were going to trot into the Holy of Holies to do it! Look at Leviticus 16:1-2. “The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the LORD and died, and the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die.” They drew near before the Lord and died. Having been given power, they wanted more. They wanted to do what only the high priest could do, enter the Holy of Holies. They wanted to do it when they wanted, not just on the Day of Atonement. They wanted to use the fire of their choosing, not just what God had ordered. And they died for their audacity. They did not respect the holiness of God. (Leviticus 10:3)

How could this happen? I think the Bible gives us a clue. Look at Leviticus 10:9-10. “Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean.” Now I have to admit, it’s possible that God’s thinking was: “Now that I’ve got their attention, I’ll give them another law to remember.” But the more likely explanation is that this statute had to do with what had just happened. I think that Nadab and Abihu had been drinking. They were sacrificing under the influence. Their inebriated state kept them from recognizing God’s holiness, and they paid the price for it.

That’s my reconstruction of the crime scene. We’ll take a break for comments.

2007-01-28T13:47:00.001-06:00

Aaron's Sons, Pt. 2

“Note then the kindness and the severity of God” (Romans 11:22)

I’m sure you remember the story of Aaron’s two sons that disobeyed God in Leviticus 10, but in case you don’t, here’s the story:

“Moses spoke to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his surviving sons: “Take the grain offering that is left of the LORD’s food offerings, and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy. You shall eat it in a holy place, because it is your due and your sons’ due, from the LORD’s food offerings, for so I am commanded. But the breast that is waved and the thigh that is contributed you shall eat in a clean place, you and your sons and your daughters with you, for they are given as your due and your sons’ due from the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the people of Israel. The thigh that is contributed and the breast that is waved they shall bring with the food offerings of the fat pieces to wave for a wave offering before the LORD, and it shall be yours and your sons’ with you as a due forever, as the LORD has commanded.”
Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned up! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the surviving sons of Aaron, saying, “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.” And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and yet such things as these have happened to me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would the LORD have approved?” And when Moses heard that, he approved.”
(Lev 10:12-20)

I’m sorry… were you thinking of the other two sons? That’s understandable, since, for some reason, we often hear the story of Nadab and Abihu and rarely hear the story of Eleazar and Ithamar. Yet their story is every bit as much a part of the Bible’s teachings as is the story of Nadab and Abihu. In some ways more, since they are mentioned in the Bible more often than their two infamous brothers.

These two, along with their father, Aaron, disobeyed a direct command from God. One that Moses took special pains to make sure that they were aware of. They did so because of grief, even though God had warned them against mourning their brothers’ deaths. Moses had to be in a bit of a panic; if God also killed these men, the priesthood would be wiped out in one fell swoop. But they weren’t killed. They explained the motive behind their disobedience and seemingly received forgiveness for it.

How can we explain this? Is God a capricious God, punishing some sins and forgiving others? Did He just “have it in” for Nadab and Abihu? I think the obvious explanation is: God looks on the heart. Or, as Dr. Glenn Pemberton put it when discussing this story: “The good news is God looks at the heart. The bad news is God looks at the heart.”

(How much easier it would be if we could just “go through the motions.” Unfortunately for us, God wants us to worship Him from the heart.)

Do you remember how God describes himself in Exodus 34? “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”” (Ex 34:6-7) Leviticus 10 is a beautiful illustration of this. Our God is a forgiving God, slow to anger, steadfast in love. But He will punish the guilty.

Next week I want to look at Nadab and Abihu one more time. Although we might like to make that story say certain things, the story shows a great contrast between how God deals with the truly rebellious and how He deals with those whose motives are not those of rebellion against Him.

2007-01-21T15:27:00.000-06:00

Aaron's Sons

Here’s an interesting exercise. Choose your favorite Internet search engine. Put in the words “Nadab” and “Abihu” or put “Nadab and Abihu” as a phrase. Run the search. In the ones I’ve done over the past few years, the majority of the sites that have come up have been sites with articles by members of the church of Christ. I just did one on dogpile.com and had to go down to the 15th position before I found an article by someone from another religious fellowship (there were a few sites with just the biblical text).

Here go some reflections:

(1) Aaron had four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. Two of these are mentioned much more often in the Bible than are their brothers. They are, of course, Eleazar and Ithamar.

(2) In fact, following the passage in Leviticus 10 that records the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, the two who died are never mentioned by name in a passage that does not include their brothers.

(3) The New Testament does not contain the names of Nadab and Abihu.

(4) Nowhere in the Bible are Nadab and Abihu held up as an example to be avoided. There are warnings to not be like Cain, not like Esau, not like Balaam, not like many other people… and not one specific reference to Nadab and Abihu. (Leviticus 16 is the closest I can find)

So why do we as a fellowship refer to these men so often? You can search the Internet on many other biblical stories, and we won’t dominate the rankings as we do with Aaron’s two oldest sons. (Try searching on “Eleazar and Ithamar,” for example) Why the fascination with this story?

Personally, I’ve resolved to follow the biblical example. I try my hardest not to mention Nadab and Abihu without mentioning Eleazar and Ithamar. Next week I want to look at the story of all four of them from Leviticus 10; I think that if we talk about two of them without talking about the others, we get an unbalanced view of God.

Still, I’d like to hear some opinions. Why our fascination with these two men?

2007-01-15T15:03:00.000-06:00

Sophomore English, Central High School. Above grade level, I might add. I sat near the back on the right, with “the guys.” Not the nerds (they were at the front). The guys. Football players, basketball players, swimmers… We weren’t the coolest at school, but we were on the fringe.

And we liked Encyclopedia Brown. Every week our teacher gave us some sort of Weekly Reader, and it always had a case from the files of Encyclopedia Brown. We would read them carefully, trying to see who could pick up the hidden clues that would lead us to the right answer. It was never obvious; you had to piece together different sets of facts to solve the case. Sometimes we got it, sometimes we didn’t, but it was always fun. My feeling was that the author wrote in a way to make them difficult, but not impossible, to understand.

Did the author of Encyclopedia Brown write the New Testament? Is it intended to be some sort of mystery that must be pieced together, uniting half a verse here with the Greek definition of a word from here in order to come up with what isn’t obvious? My belief is that it isn’t and that it can’t be. Partly for some of the reasons I’ve discussed in my last several posts. If people didn’t have their own personal copy of the Bible, if they depended on hearing the Word rather than reading it, then the message could not be based on nuances, inferences and word studies.

Look at the Old Testament Law. God goes to great lengths to explain exactly what He wants. More than 600 commands, explicitly stated. Some would argue that God replaced this inferior law with a superior one, one which is not always directly stated but is sometimes taught through “necessary inference” and “approved examples.” In other words, God went from being a God who spoke clearly to one who spoke in the genre of Encyclopedia Brown. “You missed the fact that John 13 says the Last Supper wasn’t on the Passover, therefore we shouldn’t use unleavened bread. And Paul says we all eat of one loaf, so we can’t use those individual matzah crackers anyway. And that grape juice had better be non-alcoholic because the Greek word actually means…” Folks, I just don’t buy it.

I believe that God speaks clearly. If something is truly necessary, it will be specified in the New Testament. I don’t have to piece verses together. I don’t have to fill in the gaps nor connect the dots. If the New Testaments plainly teaches something, I will teach it. If God has bound something, I will teach it as bound.

I still enjoy Encyclopedia Brown stories (I was pleasantly surprised just now to find out they’re still being published). But that’s now how I’m going to read God’s Word.

2007-01-09T08:29:00.000-06:00

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Is 55:11 KJV)

This verse is sometimes used to say that giving people a Bible is enough, for it is God’s Word and God’s Word will not return void. Personally, I don’t think that’s what this verse is saying. I think that “my word” here refers to God uttering a decree; when God says something it will happen.

Still I have long held to the belief that anyone can and should be able to understand the Bible on their own and, through that understanding, learn the truth and become a Christian. While still believing in the power of God’s Word, I have some doubts about that exact process. Here’s why:

(1) As I’ve been discussing recently, God’s Word was not originally delivered in book form, not originally distributed to the masses in book form as it is today. Therefore, that cannot have been God’s original plan. It could be a way for people to come to the truth, but it’s certainly not intended to be the most important way. In fact, this whole idea didn’t spring up until the last few centuries, when printed Bibles were readily available.

(2) The Bible never makes the claim that everyone can just read it and understand it. As troubling as that sounds, it’s true. Faith in biblical times was not built around people sitting at home reading God’s Word. They had to come together to do it. And they didn’t have trouble with the idea that someone would need to explain it. Look at Nehemiah 8, when Ezra stood and read the Book of the Law to the people following their return from exile. Notice that the Levites were explaining the meaning as Ezra read: “Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn or weep.” For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law.” (Nehemiah 8:7-9 ESV)
Look also at the eunuch’s words in Acts 8: “So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:30-31 ESV) Philip didn’t reprimand him saying: “Of course you can understand. Anyone can.” He taught him.

(3) I cannot think of even one example in the Bible where evangelism is done by giving someone a Bible. Again, look at Philip and the eunuch. The eunuch had the Bible in his hand, yet Philip was sent to teach him. I believe in the Bible and the power of the Bible. I just don’t see where God says, “Hand out these books and people will become Christians.”

God works through people and through relationships. He always sent a prophet. He didn’t just hand Moses a book. Jesus wrote no book. People need God’s Word, but “Bible-only” evangelism isn’t God’s way.

2007-01-05T07:54:00.000-06:00

Out With the Concordance

We’ve been looking at the idea that the Bible was written to be heard and that it wasn’t written originally in the book form that we have now.

As always, such comments deserve a resounding “So what?”. I see several implications, one of which is the need to trash our concordances. Well, OK, that may be a bit strong. But I’ve found that the misuse of the concordance can be a great hindrance to effective Bible study. We piece together verses and phrases from here and there, creating entirely new “biblical passages.”

Let me give you an example. When studying the subject of elders in the church, many take 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and create a list of “requirements for elders.” The problem is, the resulting list isn’t what is in Timothy nor what is in Titus. It is a new hybrid, one which the Holy Spirit didn’t create. It’s probable that Timothy didn’t have a copy of Titus and Titus didn’t have a copy of 1 Timothy. So, if the only way to have the full list of requirements is to combine the two passages, neither of them had the list. Or at best, one of them had an incomplete list. The truth of the matter is, if God had meant those passages to be used together, He would have given them to us that way! We need to learn to respect the integrity of the biblical books, and read each of them as the early readers would have read them.

Now in this example the lists are very similar. The one in Timothy contains “should not be a recent convert,” because the church in Ephesus had been established decades before. The one in Titus doesn’t have that requirement because Titus was working in more of a mission setting. The list in Titus contains a warning about love of money because that was a common problem in Crete, according to historians. The lists are different because the needs are different. If there had been one list for all congregations, Timothy and Titus would have received the same list, and we would have it as well. As is, when we cut and paste the two together, we create something which God did not! When it comes to Bible study, that’s a dangerous practice.

When we study a passage, we must seek to study it as the early listeners would have, not as modern readers who have 66 books rolled into one.

2006-12-19T08:11:00.000-06:00

The Good Book

Another confession. I don’t open the Bible as often as I used to. That is, I don’t take it off the shelf and open it. I read it on my computer. I have a Bible program installed which I have configured to open 5 versions at once, three in English, two in Spanish. I also have three sets of study notes open under it. It’s a convenient way to study, plus I can easily copy and paste passages that I need to use (I do a 20-minute radio program five days a week and often need to copy fairly long sections of scripture).

This wouldn’t be so bad, except that I do encounter times of guilt. Guilt that my bound Bibles aren’t getting “well-worn” like they used to. Guilt about the dust build-up on the pages (I know… dust can be removed with a cloth). And it can be really embarrassing when I do what I’ve done several times lately — gone somewhere to preach and realized that I didn’t bring a Bible!

The Good Book. I’ve grown up surrounded by the idea that a black bound book is the proper presentation for the Word of God. Funny thing is, how long has anything like that been around? A few centuries at best. Paul would not have thought of the Bible as a book. So much of it would have been in separate scrolls. That could even be what Paul was talking about when he asked Timothy to bring him his scrolls and parchments (if so, we now have scriptural precedent for forgetting your Bible).

Besides interesting trivia, I think it might say something about the way God’s Word is to be taken in, the way it is to be heard, the way it was communicated. If you don’t have 66 books bound into one, if much of your “Bible study” must be done from memory, if you can’t flip back and forth and compare one passage with another, you study differently. You read differently.

A question to my co-chefs in this kitchen of half-baked thoughts: What implications does this fact have for Bible study? Our Bible study. If we were to study as Christians would have in the first few centuries, what would we do?

2006-12-12T08:21:00.000-06:00

Hear the Word of the Lord

I have a bad habit. Well, I have several, but one of them happens a lot during Bible class or sermons. I find myself listening impatiently to the reading of a text, waiting to hear what the preacher or teacher has to say about it. “Yeah, yeah… I’ve read that text. What are you going to do with it?” Nasty habit, that one.

At the same time, I’ve developed a growing awareness that I’m not receiving God’s Word in the way it was intended. I read it. Even when someone is reading from the text, I have to open the book and read it, or I feel like I’m not really participating. But God’s Word was meant to be heard. The Bible continually talks about hearing the Word of God. “That’s a metaphor,” you say. (If you didn’t say it, say it now, just for the effect) I don’t think it’s just a metaphor. For the greater part of history, God’s people heard the Word read to them or quoted to them. Many of them couldn’t read. Of those that could, few owned a personal copy of the Scriptures. If they did, it was probably just a portion, like the Ethiopian eunuch owning a scroll of Isaiah. They had to hear God’s Word. And the books that make up the Bible were written to be read aloud. They were intended to be heard as much as read, or even more so.

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:19-21) I’ve often heard “quick to hear, slow to speak” quoted, but rarely has it been pointed out to me that the context is that of hearing the Word of God (if you don’t believe me, go to James 1 and continue reading). I’ve found the opposite is often true in our assemblies; we preachers are anxious to get the hearing done so we can start speaking!

“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13) Somehow, when men added to the Bible by creating a list of “five acts of worship,” preaching replaced the public reading of Scripture. They are two separate activities, and if either of them has a stronger scriptural base behind it, it is the reading of Scripture.

“So what?” you say. (I hope you’re remembering your lines) Well, I think we need to get back to an emphasis on hearing God’s Word. Especially in our assemblies. We need to de-emphasize the human element and emphasize the Word of God. Here are some suggestions:

(1) Emphasize “stand alone” Bible reading. Not part of a sermon or a class. Not followed by commentary. Just a reading of God’s Word.

(2) Teach our people how to read out loud. It’s not hard, but it takes some thought and practice. Learn to read with feeling and sense, without inserting drama that overshadows the words themselves.

(3) Teach our people how to listen. More than teach, I guess it’s exhort them to do so. To make the effort to listen when God’s Word is read.

(4) Make use of modern technologies. It’s now easier than ever to listen to God’s Word, with it available on cassette, CD, mp3, etc.

Take time to hear the Word of the Lord.

2006-11-29T12:33:00.000-06:00

I sometimes wish I'd taken the blue pill

If you haven’t seen the movie The Matrix, you won’t recognize the reference. At one point in the movie, Keanu Reeves is offered a choice: take a red pill and come to see the reality of life in the Matrix or take a blue pill and go back to peaceful ignorance. Reeves takes the red pill, of course, or there wouldn’t have been much of a movie. One of the other characters later says to him: “I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?”

As I look at my life, I sometimes wish that I could have taken the blue pill. There was a time when I knew everything, especially when it came to religion. The main thing that I knew was who to get the answers from. If there was something that I was unsure about, I could find someone at church to tell me what to believe. We had an exclusive lock on the truth, an exclusive lock on salvation. People that didn’t agree with us were either ignorant or rebellious. Anyone who honestly studied the Bible would come to exactly the same conclusions we had arrived at.

Somewhere along the way, I swallowed the red pill. I learned that there was a difference between studying the Bible and studying what someone said about the Bible. I learned that many of the views that I saw so clearly in the Bible could only be seen there if you started out with those views. I also learned that the Bible is living and active and refuses to be dominated by man; the Word of God must master us; we will never master it.

I sometimes look longingly at life under the effects of the blue pill. A friend encountered a preacher, a 35-year-old scholar, who had written a book on biblical interpretation. My friend asked the man if there was any chance that he was wrong about anything in that book. The confident author replied: “No.” He had come to an understanding on everything, and his mission in life was to help other people come to that understanding. Part of me envies that. Part of me thinks that evangelism would be easier under those circumstances. It’s cut and dried, black and white. You’re in my circle or you’re out. You agree with me or you’re wrong. Unfortunately, I no longer see the world that way.

The whole premise of the Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts is that I don’t have all the answers. The more I study, the more questions I get, so I share them with my intelligent friends, hoping for insights. I don’t really want to go back to a blue pill life, but I sometimes long for its simplicity. Yet I know that I’m better off digging and searching, looking for God’s truth, listening for God’s voice, being willing to put aside previous beliefs in favor of eternal truths. It’s definitely the harder life, but there’s no going back.

2006-11-21T08:27:00.000-06:00

Being Thankful

Seems like a good time to be thankful, doesn’t it? Aside from the upcoming national holiday, my lovely bride celebrates her birthday today. I’ve got a job I love, a healthy family, and three dogs that think I hung the moon (they sometimes think I didn’t hang it correctly, but they still think I did it).

Yet, I’m admittedly not good at being thankful. I’m better at feeling entitled. Rather than feeling thankful for what I have, I’m more inclined to notice what I don’t have.

But I’ve learned that I need to be thankful. Not ought to be, nor should be… I need it. Here’s a few reasons why:

(1) Being thankful helps me fight off that sense of entitlement. When I stop and thank God for what I have, I remember that I didn’t earn any of this. Nor deserve it. If I worked to earn anything, I did that work with the strength that God gave me. And in a situation in which my work could earn me something.

(2) Being thankful helps me have more compassion for those who don’t have what I have. I can get a warped theology that says that others don’t have as much as I because God intended it that way, or because they haven’t earned it (even though I didn’t either!). But when I realize that what I have comes from God, I also realize that it was given to me for a purpose: to share with others.

(3) Being thankful helps me to not worry about the future. When I thank God for what I have, I am much more likely to trust in Him to provide what I need in the future.

It’s hard, but “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” If that verse sounds cheesy or out of place, remember that Paul was talking about contentment when he uttered those words. He was talking about knowing how to live in abundance and knowing how to live in want. He was talking about… thankfulness. So if you want to finally apply Philippians 4:13 in its meaning in context, use it this week. Be thankful, and let Christ help you be thankful.

2006-11-14T16:46:00.000-06:00

Within Understanding Distance

I’m going to leave the discussion on principal themes of the Bible, not because I feel that I’ve exhausted the subject but mainly because the subject has exhausted me! Well, actually, I think that at some point such a discussion can be counterproductive. If you lay out too many rules, passages that don’t fit under any of them suddenly become “unimportant.” As was pointed out by several along the way, we are to look to the weightier matters without neglecting the others.

I also think that we can become too scientific in our Bible study, too logic bound, too mathematical. We want to apply formulas and matrices to the text in order to systematize our beliefs. While we can find guidelines to help us, I think that, in the end, Bible study is a spiritual activity. That may be a bit “touchy-feely” for some, but I honestly think that a scientific approach to Scripture can sometimes get in our way.

I’m not often inclined to quote Alexander Campbell or other leaders from the past, but Mr. Campbell said something very interesting about Bible study (yeah, I know… he said a lot of interesting things). In his Christian System, Brother Campbell wrote:

RULE 7. For the salutary and sanctifying intelligence of the Oracles of God, the following rule is indispensable: We must come within the understanding distance.
There is a distance which is properly called the speaking distance, or the hearing distance; beyond which the voice reaches not, and the ears hear not. To hear another, we must come within that circle which the voice audibly fills.
Now we may with propriety say, that as it respects God, there is an understanding distance. All beyond that distance can not understand God; all within it can easily understand him in all matters of piety and morality. God himself is the center of that circle, and humility is its circumference.
Within understanding distance. Campbell goes on to describe the need for spirituality in Bible study. He says “the philological principles and rules of interpretation enable many men to be skilful in biblical criticism, and in the interpretation of words and sentences, who neither perceive nor admire the things represented by those words.” Put another way… rules alone won’t get you there. It takes humility, it takes prayer, it takes spiritual discernment.

Scientific Bible study can only take you so far. Without a pious spirit, all the rules in the world are inadequate. You’ve got to be close to God to be able to really hear His voice. We’ve got to draw near to Him if we want to understand His Word.

2006-11-07T08:16:00.000-06:00

Is it related to the Good News?

I want to continue looking at the concept that the Word is not flat. Certain teachings in the Bible take priority over other teachings, they are the “more important matters” in God’s Word. One way you can tell is to look for what the Bible says is important. Another is to look for what the Bible emphasizes through repetition. A third way that I’ve mentioned is to see if the Bible relates the issue to salvation.

As we look at “things of first importance,” we can’t help but be drawn to what Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Now, I’m one of those rare birds that doesn’t think that Paul is giving us a complete definition of the gospel here. I think the gospel is broader than just Jesus’ sacrifice… but I guess that’s another topic. I do think, however, that things that are related to what Jesus did by coming to earth and giving himself for us, those things are especially important.

Fourth clue to identifying important biblical teachings: The Bible directly connects some teachings with the gospel of Jesus.

That’s why I think the Lord’s Supper is so special. Following some of the guidelines that I’ve set out, it might not seem to be that important. Yet I think it has a central place in our worship to God because of its direct connection to what Jesus did for us. We directly remember the new covenant established through Jesus’ sacrifice when we “partake” (I love that word) of the Lord’s Supper.

Another obvious teaching is baptism. We would already see baptism as vitally important because of it’s connection with salvation and because of the number of references to it in the New Testament. But when we see that this is how we identify ourselves with Christ’s sacrifice, we can no longer deny its centrality. My study of what is truly important in scripture has made me even more unashamed of strongly emphasizing Christian baptism.

Other teachings flow from the gospel. Paul relates unity and service to one another to the cross. Humility. Repentance. We live transformed, holy lives because of the cross.

So, a fourth guideline for discovering “the weightier matters” of Scripture is to look for that which is connected with the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

2006-10-31T09:02:00.000-06:00

The Bible Sez

I started out a few weeks ago making the assertion that the Word is not flat. I have sustained that certain teachings in the Bible take priority over other teachings, they are the “more important matters” in God’s Word. From there, I’ve been trying to identify some of the ways in which Scripture emphasizes some teachings. The first clue I mentioned was to look for what the Bible says is important. Last week I mentioned a second clue, which is to look for what the Bible emphasizes through repetition.

I believe that another indication of which items are most important has to do with what the Bible says about salvation. In other words, if the Bible says “do this and you will be saved,” I need to take a long hard look at that teaching. If the Bible says, “anyone who does not do this will be lost,” I definitely need to pay attention.

Third clue to identifying important biblical teachings: The Bible directly connects some teachings with salvation.

These clues can seems so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to mention them. Yet I think that sometimes we can complicate the study of God’s Word to a point where the most obvious things get missed.

When we start looking at “saved and lost” passages, the things that jump out tend to be “biggies”: give up your life for the gospel, believe, be baptized, repent, call on the name of the Lord, confess, love one another… these are obviously major things. [One possible exception for me is I Timothy 2:15, which talks about women being saved through childbirth; I’m definitely open to help in understanding that passage.]

Let me clarify: I don’t believe in salvation by works. We are saved by the grace of God. Yet the biblical writers never had a problem with affirming that fact while still pointing out the things that we need to do to be pleasing to God. I have witnessed long, drawn-out debates about the ins and outs of understanding that fact, and I personally believe that it somehow goes beyond our understanding. What I do know is this: if I love God and have faith in Him, I will do what pleases Him. And these passages give me an insight into what pleases Him and what displeases Him.

If the Bible says that I can be saved by obeying a certain teaching, I want to obey it. If it says that I can be lost for not obeying another teaching, I want to obey. So my third clue is: look for the things that the Bible directly connects with salvation

2006-10-24T14:49:00.000-05:00

Read this, read this, read this

As we look at the idea of identifying the preeminent biblical doctrines, it’s important to repeat what I said in the first post in this series: I’m not saying that some parts of the Bible are important and others are not, I’m saying that we need to recognize that the Bible talks about some teachings having more importance, of them being “weightier” than others. As Jesus said, we must practice the one without neglecting the other. But if we fail to recognize which teachings are more important, we can easily find ourselves “majoring in the minors,” elevating opinion matters to the level of salvation issues.

In the book He Loves Forever, a book that should be required reading for everyone, Dr. Tom Olbricht talks about the great themes of the Old Testament. He speaks of learning to recognize the themes that the Bible brings out time and again. By looking at the things that the prophets and others writers said time and again (the apostles, in the case of the New Testament), we can get a feel for what they stressed in their teachings. This is another of those concepts which should be obvious, yet so often gets overlooked.

Second clue to identifying important biblical teachings: The Bible often repeats teachings that are important.

Look for the things that are said more than once. When dealing with the gospels, look for the teaching that appear in more than one gospel. If something appears in all four, that something is probably of special importance. If something was taught by Jesus and repeated by Paul or one of the other epistle authors, it is probably of special importance. If something was taught at different times to different audiences, especially in different cultures, that’s probably one of the weightier matters.

These are clues, not hard and fast rules. Yet I hesitate to stress a doctrine that only appears once. And I am especially slow to teach something that is never stated at all, something that is only learned by inference. The Bible clearly teaches the things that are essential and often repeats the matters that are of highest importance.

So the second rule of thumb: look for the things that are repeated. Look for the things that are repeated. Look for the things that are repeated.

2006-10-17T08:49:00.000-05:00

What’s Important? Sometimes It’s Obvious

My last post talked about the fact that not all of the Bible carries the same weight, that is, some parts are more important than others. Again, all of the Scripture has worth, but even Jesus himself pointed
out certain teachings to be more important than others.

So how do we go about deciding what’s most important? If you think, about it, that’s a pretty big question. And all I have are little answers. I’ll set them out one at a time, and let you guys shoot them down.

I’ll take the safe route on the first one:

First clue to identifying important biblical teachings: The Bible says they are important.

I know, I know… it sounds obvious. But how often have you set down to study to see what the Bible identifies as being important? In our ministry, we’re in the process of evaluating our Bible correspondence courses and possibly rewriting new ones. Something has struck me: our courses rarely teach the greatest commandments. Oh, they may be buried in there somewhere. But shouldn’t we stress to people the most important commandments, which are to love God with all that we are and to love our neighbor as ourselves? Shouldn’t they learn the most important as being, well, the most important?

As we teach the Old Testament, do we follow Jesus lead and teach justice, mercy and faithfulness as being the important matters of the law? I won’t answer for you, but I’ll answer for me: I don’t typically do it.

And I could continue in that vein. That’s why restating the obvious is necessary in this case, because we often overlook this point just because it is so obvious.

So the first step in identifying the most important biblical teachings: look for direct statements of importance. If the Bible says it’s important, it’s important.

2006-10-12T11:42:00.000-05:00

Is the Word Flat?
No that’s not a typo. This post isn’t about whether or not the earth is flat. It’s about whether or not God’s Word is flat. By that I mean, is it all of equal importance?

Please notice that the question says of equal importance. All of God’s Word is important, but it’s not all equal. Oops! I let the answer slip.

How can I say that? Because the Bible itself says it. Jesus spoke of the “more important matters of the law” (Matthew 23:23). Paul spoke of some of his teachings as being of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3). And when Jesus was asked about which commandment was most important, He didn’t reply, “You silly man… they are all of equal importance.” No, Jesus said, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31)

Some parts of the Bible are more important than others. Some teachings are more important than others. Some commandments are more important than others. In another post, I’ll talk about figuring out which are which.