Recently, my good friend Alan Knox wrote a very creative post about Starbucks that I would like to recommend. It’s called “A Cup o’ Joe or a Cup with Joe“. I highly suggest that you all read it. Enjoy the comment thread after it, too.

I don’t want to give too much away, but just know that you should read it, even if you don’t drink coffee (you’ll understand, hopefully). Be forewarned, though: It might be a little convicting.

Until next time,

steve

To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.

Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?

I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.

And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.

To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?

Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.

Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.

Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.

Until next time,

steve

Dave Black is a man I wish I could spend huge amounts of time with in person.  I’ve had the privilege of meeting him on two occasions, and both times were all too short, yet wonderful.  I don’t say this lightly when I say that Brother Dave (as he prefers to be called) is one of the most godly men I have ever met.

His passion for missions/evangelism, his desire to seek our Lord above everything else, his warm brotherly love to those with which he comes in contact, his genuine humble spirit…this brother exudes the Spirit of God.  And I mean that very sincerely.

I have linked to him a couple of times in the past, and today, I would like to do so again.  His latest essay takes a completely different look at the term “continualist”, and comes at it from an angle that I had never really thought of.

Most of the time, the term “continualist” (or I have sometimes used, and seen is used, as “continuationist”) is only in reference to certain spiritual gifts, including tongues.  Debates rage over “cessationism” and “continuationism”.

But today, Brother Dave has honed in on the important aspects of true “continualism”.  He states up front that he is a “passionate continualist”.  But you have to read the context of the essay to understand what he’s talking about.

One paragraph, to whet your appetite:

I believe we ought to continue bearing a humble, faithful, and consistent testimony to Christ, as the early believers did. Let moderns appeal to the sensational and spectacular; even the early church knew of signs and wonders. But the greatest work of the church has not been the spectacular but rather the faithful day-in and day-out living of normal everyday Christians.

OK, I’ll give you one more (it was hard to pick samples, because the whole essay is excellent):

I believe we ought to follow the example of the apostle Paul and eschew the excellence of human oratory and any appeal to human wisdom. Nothing about the Gospel pleases this world – nothing! – and we are never so foolish as when we try to dress it up in the garish garments of this age.

Now, go read the rest of the article here!  It’s not that long, so you can do it.

Until next time,

steve

Several times in the past, I have talked here on this blog about what doctrinal issues are essential for fellowship, but Jacobsen takes an even better approach. He emphasizes the importance of living out what you believe vs. stating what you believe.

Some may find that to be a false dichotomy, but I think that Jacobsen’s statements line up quite well with biblical statements such as “They will know you are my disciples by your love one for another” and if a person says they love God, yet hate their brother, they are a liar.

Consider this statement by Jacobsen:

Doctrinal statements are an irrelevant test whether anyone is lining up their life with the Scripture. The test is in the living. I know many people who sign on to doctrinal statements but do not live the reality of them. Assent to a creed doesn’t mean anything if someone isn’t going to live in and embrace the reality of it. What really matters is not their theology but their relationship to the Father through the Son. And there [sic] words don’t really matter. Many people claim to know him who do not. What matters is their life in him.

This is a key point worth remembering. Rather than tout our theology as what defines us, we should instead seek to live a life that removes all doubt as to whose we are.

Go read the entire post, and feel free to comment there or here.

Until next time,

steve

I haven’t been mentioning them here or linking to them, mostly because it didn’t seem to fit the flow of this blog to continue discussing it. This blog has a very eclectic audience, and I have been making a concentrated effort this calendar year to address a wider variety of topics.

However, today I read a “Formerly Known” post that literally stopped me in my tracks. In fact, I read it while sitting at a computer in a computer lab at the University, and was honestly afraid I would break down crying right there in front of the students. It affected me that much.

Please be aware that the post I am about to link to may not strike you the same way. It may offend some. There’s a great preamble to the post that addresses this already, so I won’t make a big deal out of it.

But I would strongly encourage each of you to go read this post. We can discuss it here, or you can discuss it over there. Either way, I would love to get some thoughts on it from my readers.

Why did it move me so much? Well, I’ll let you read it first, and then I’ll share my thoughts either in the comments here or in a later post.

Please go read “Formerly Known” by Brother Maynard (not his real name) at Subversive Influence.

Until next time,

steve

I didn’t know it at the time, but apparently, Bill is on a similar journey of exploring life outside the institutional church. I don’t know all of the details, but I did want to highlight a post that Bill wrote yesterday.

The post is entitled “The People formerly known as The Congregation“, and finds itself highlighted here as the first in a new category I’m calling “Wish I Had Written This!”

Here is a paragraph from Bill’s essay, although I definitely encourage you to read the whole thing:

We are The People formerly known as The Congregation. We have not stopped loving the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nor do we avoid “the assembling of the saints.” We just don’t assemble under your supposed leadership. We meet in coffee shops, around dinner tables, in the parks and on the streets. We connect virtually across space and time – engaged in generative conversations – teaching and being taught.

There are minor details in which I don’t fully agree with everything that Bill has included here, but I think this functions as a strong apologetic for those of us who are seeking expressions of church outside of the conventional model. And I especially appreciate the tone with which Bill addresses our brothers and sisters who are still part of what we have left.

You can discuss it here, or on Bill’s blog.

Until next time,

steve