Against Piper’s Suggestion That Jesus Must Have Just Killed at Least 39 People

Note: There is certainly more to say, but I am exhausted by this discussion. I feel I need a little time to think and rethink the implications of what has been said. For now, I will just leave you with my initial thoughts with the understanding that I will more than likely refine and adjust after I have allowed my emotions to subside. As I often say to protect my ego after posting something without much proofing. Please forgive any errors/typos, I hope to recharge and revisit this soon.

“If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays on the ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command.” –John Piper, Fierce Tornadoes and the Fingers of God

Here we sit, mere days after precious lives have been lost, and instead of acting pastorally, giving a hurt American community hope in God in spite of tragic loss, hope that death is not the final say so, Piper decides to take this very sensitive opportunity to deliver an insensitive response. Instead of hope in God in light of tragedy, John Piper suggests God is the cause of such. Is this the sort of message that needs to be given in difficult times? John Piper thinks so. I for one, do not. But, I often feel like a small, Wesleyan fish in a huge Reformed pond. Not only do I think certain truths are better used at certain times, I simply believe Piper is wrong in general. However, for lack of space, my argument at present will not be an alternative view, but a demonstration of a lack of warrant in Piper’s. While I can hardly fathom a reason why it could be the case, maybe Piper is right in his assumption that God sent the tornadoes as an ordained act of His sovereign reign; however, Piper’s defense for such leaves much to be desired. My purposes here are to suggest Piper try again. If he wishes to suggest the onus for these deaths are upon God and are not the sheer result of a fallen world and sin, as most death seems to be, then he needs to do a better job of defending his point than a pithy 800 word essay that assumes too much from the Scripture he uses for proof texting. If you are going to hide behind a blog in order to tell hurt persons that (Lord forgive me for even typing such) Christ has just killed their relatives, then you have a responsibility to not mention your premises in mere passing, but to explicate them in full. Until then, I refuse to make such bold assumptions, and I hope most persons who read this post refuse to do so as well.

Addition for clarity:   I want to make myself clear from the outset. Nowhere in this blog am I suggesting that God cannot or does not control weather as an act of judgment. Instead, I am merely suggesting that there is not sufficient ground for an a priori assumption that God has to be the cause of every natural disaster directly. Piper’s argument is not that it is possible God killed 39 people, but that He did. He assumes as much because of the premise that all natural disasters have to be of God, for nothing within the created order has such power. I find this highly speculative. First of all, where is this suggested anywhere in Scripture? Second, although it is feasible that God caused the recent tragedy, we cannot make an assumption that suggested He must. If it is the case that God has to be the direct cause for such events, then every disaster that has befallen humanity due to some uncontrollable, cataclysmic event is the result of God’s divine hand. Are we warranted to say such? While we might be warranted to assume He permitted such events, there does not seem to be biblical evidence to suggest He directly orchestrates all such events. On the other hand, if it is the case that God is not always the direct agent of causation for all disaster, but sometimes the result is due to the fallen nature of the world under sin or is the result of Satan’s actions, then to attribute all tragedy to God would be blasphemous, for we would be attributing the work of sin and/or the devil to God. While it is possible that Piper is correct about this one event, his argument also suggests that all such events are of God, and, if even only one is not such that God is the primary agent, Piper has a very big problem on his hands and has led many astray. My concluding that Piper believes God to be the author and agent of this recent disaster is not based on one mere excerpt from his blog. Instead, it comes from the whole tenor of the argument and from the explicit statements he says at the end, to which I refer later in this blog. I also demonstrate that there is a high possibility that not all such events are the direct actions of God.

First, Piper opens with a list of Scripture that is to somehow cement within our minds that God controls all violent acts of nature (Hosea 13:15; Exodus 10:19; Jonah 4:8; Psalm 107:25; Matthew 8:27), that nothing else in existence has the means to cause such destruction. I guess God built the atomic bomb as well. The issue here is that these Scripture merely state that God can control nature, not that He always does. We live not only as fallen creatures, but we live as beings in a fallen creation, which groans for redemption as well. To suggest that God has to be the author of such destruction does not come from biblical evidence, but from the logical conclusion of Piper’s heady, systematized theology, which suggests that for God to be sovereign He must control all events. This is not the result of biblical theology, but is the result, as I argue elsewhere of a systematic theology, which forces the adherent to ascribe all things to God. Since Piper holds to such claims and even champions them, he apparently feels the need to defend such claims, especially after tragic, nationally known events. 

But back to Piper’s biblical examples of God being the agent of causation, let us narrow our focus for a moment. Considering the gospel accounts concerning Jesus calming the storm, it would seem strange to assume God the Father set a storm in motion only to have the Son rebuke the storm. This seems to be a house divided if there ever was one. The response is not, “Who is this that the Father would obey Him?” Instead, the response attributes the storm to nature itself, “Who is this that the winds and waves should obey Him” (Matthew 8:27). One could respond with an argument from silence that suggests that God caused the storm precisely so that Jesus could demonstrate His divine nature, but, once again, this would trivialize the act, much like a man paying an attacker to stage a rape against a woman, so that he could look like a hero once he stops the attack. It simply appears to be deception: The ancient Hebraic culture would not have assumed God caused the chaotic weather, so they would never make the connection that it was a set up.

After giving a list of Scripture that suggests that God has the ability to control weather, none of which suggest he causes all events of nature, he turns to Job. In order to continue the argument that God is the One who directly causes devastation, Piper discusses the winds that came to kill Job’s children, and Piper seems to praise Job for his response to the devastation: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21). This is an utterance coming from a man who God still has much to teach.  The whole story of Job demonstrates that Job had much to learn about His God. So, taking something Job says of God in the very beginning of the story as being pure, theological gold is less than warranted. Yet, this verse is misused in eulogies almost every day. In response to such narrowed use of this portion of Scripture, Dr. Ben Witherington III writes the following after the loss of his own daughter:

The words “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away,” from the lips of Job, are not good theology.  They’re bad theology.  According to Job 1, it was not God, but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health and wealth.  God allowed it to happen, but when Job said these words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened about the true nature of where his calamity came from and what God’s will actually was for his life — which was for good, and not for harm.

Simply that Job attributes his extreme loss to God, does not make it the case (also see Job 7:20, 13:24, 21:7). Let us not theologically trivialize true loss by suggesting, “While it looks bad, it really is the good will of God that we should suffer loss” What Job experienced was true loss, real pain, and the result of sin in a fallen world, and he was really honest in his expression, feeling that God was against him. Those of us who read the story to the end, a privilege Job did not have when he made his statement, and see it is actually Satan acting against Job, should dare not attribute such to God, and we should not simply say, “Well, God means well.” To say, “God works all things for the good of those who love Him,” (Romans 8:28) is not to say that God causes all those things that He in turn uses for good. Instead, God’s redeeming nature can cause the suffering Christian to grow even in light of true evil’s impact. As Joseph said to His brothers, “What you intended for evil, God has intended for good” (Genesis 50:20). That the event was evil is not denied, but there is recognition that God can use such situations to further sanctify the believer. If Satan is capable of such destruction, yet our assumptions ignore this fact and immediately attribute all disaster to God, we might find ourselves at fault for blasphemy, attributing the acts of Satan to those of a good and loving God. While Piper might not be guilty of such, he seems to be playing fast and loose with his assumptions.

Perhaps we do not want to agree with Dr. Witherington in saying that Job was mistaken when He said, “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away,” (Job 1:21), although I tend to agree. But, perhaps instead we want to assume God did take something away, but are we to assume that what God took away was all of Job’s belonging and even Job’s children through the direct acts of “natural disaster?” This is not what the text seems to suggest. Instead, if we can say God took anything away from Job, it would be His “hedge of protection” (Job 1:10) so that it is Satan who then takes from Job all that he holds dear. In this passage, Satan suggests that Job is only loyal to God because God has provided above and beyond for Job by protecting Job against Satan. All that befalls Job hereafter is the work of Satan. God allows it, for all that happens must be allowed, but it was not of God--and, yes, I am referring to the “natural disasters” that befell Job.

If we wish to affirm Piper’s statement quoted at the beginning of this blog: “If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays on the ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command,” we have to say that God caused the devastation of Job’s family. Don’t allow the language of Piper’s quote to have you imagine he might not be saying God caused the recent disaster, but merely permitted it, for Piper is also so bold to defend the following question, “Why would God reach down his hand and drag his fierce fingers across rural America killing at least 38 [now 39 since an infant has passed] people with 90 tornadoes in 12 states, and leaving some small towns with scarcely a building standing, including churches?” It is this question that Piper sets out to answer, adding, “We do not ascribe such independent power to Mother Nature or to the devil.” In other words, "This was God." While Piper might not ascribe such power to Satan, the book of Job seems to do so:

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.  But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”

                        Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:9-11)

While Satan petitions God to strike Job, God’s response is not to then turn and smite this righteous man. Instead, He allows Satan to do as he will, demonstrating Job’s goodness is not predicated upon Job’s understanding of works righteousness. Immediately following this allowance, Job’s sons and daughters are killed by a violent wind. The assumption should be that Satan attacked. It is only obvious that such is the case, unless we assume God does what Satan wishes and causes evil to befall Job by His own hand. This is clearly not the case. So, Piper suggesting that Satan has no such power to cause great winds seems to be in contradiction to what is happening in Job 1. Once again, Piper assumes it is God’s finger that ripped through the homes of many Americans just a few days ago because only God could do so, and while I allow for now that he might be right (although my assumption is that he is not), I also contend that he has not sufficiently considered the alternative, that evil is a destructive force that often befalls humanity in considerable ways.

To suggest that only God can perform such powerful acts such as storms, earthquakes and the like is silly, unless, of course, one’s theology forces one to suggest that God’s sovereignty forces Him to be the cause of all that happens, which is Piper’s stance, it seems. God’s power extends to such greatness that He can cause universes to exist. A storm is small potatoes and to suggest evil can cause such destruction does not threaten God in the least. How can we make such claims? What if I said,  “No man is powerful enough to murder another. Only God can give and take life.” Does it make it any less true that murders are the culpable agents of the causes for murder? Absolutley not. Does the fact that murders happen make God the cause; does it make God a murderer? No. To say something as whimsical as God alone has the power to control weather might sound nice, but it is simply untrue and leads to unwarranted assumptions concerning His character that Christians then have to unnecessarily defend.  With scientific advances, even humans impact weather. If we were to set off a nuclear bomb, or a series of bombs, inside the earth that caused great devastation, we need not say, “Whoa, that must have been God.” Likewise if a fallen creation produces a devastating wind because of natural consequences of the order of things (otherwise, how did meteorologist predict such would happen), we need not blame God a priori.

In the next section of his blog, Piper seems to move further and further away from his defense of God being just while being the cause of the devastation. Instead, he begins to discuss results, as if the ends justify the means. Piper begins to discuss the Luke 13:4-5 passage in which Jesus discusses the death of those whom were crushed by the tower of Siloam. Piper’s point is to suggest that the deaths of those in the path of destructive forces serve as a warning to the rest of us, and this story in Luke seems to suggest Jesus took occasion to make such a point. However, how does this then suggest that God caused the event? That it reminds us of our finitude, and that such a reminder can be beneficial, does not mean God justly caused a disaster that would otherwise be evil. If this event is to be analogous to recent disasters, Piper once again must be assuming that the tower did not fall for any other reason than God’s mighty hand pushing it over. Such is never suggested in this passage.  Instead, a more natural reading would be that Jesus simply takes occasion to use the tragedy to make a point of correction to unwarranted assumptions concerning the cause of destruction. During this time, it was often assumed that evil befell persons because they had sinned perhaps worse than others, that we all could avoid such by being “good enough.” Jesus is simply saying that this is not the case, but it is the case that if we do not repent then we all shall perish, whether by such dramatic causes or by simply dying of old age. In the end, perishing is perishing. Let us not fool ourselves. The point is that we are all going to suffer termination one way or another if we repent not. In other words, we are no better off simply because the tragic event did not directly impact us. It is not proof we are sinless. Once again, the present discussion is whether or not God causes natural disaster. In the end, this Lukan passage is so far removed from the present discussion that to import it in as a backing for God’s destructive nature seems dishonest.

Piper ends the section by saying; “Every deadly wind in any town is a divine warning to every town.” If we are to assume this is a justification for God touching His finger to the earth so that it ripped through the homes of several American families, then we can put Piper’s statement thusly: “God did not simply permit evil to befall people with the result that persons would be reminded of our finitude and need for God [as seems to be a natural reading of the Lukan passage], but that God Himself touched His finger to earth, killing several, so that some might be so fortunate to know we need Him.” This is an ends justifying the means approach that seems to be forced upon this situation. Like so many things Hyper-Calvinistic, this can be construed as something great for those spared, but not so good for those who were not. On the other hand, that God allows such to happen, with the result being that some take stock of their own finitude is different than that He causes the devastation of some for the benefit of others.

There is a very clever philosophical slight-of-hand maneuver that is often used (by many Reformed thinkers, certainly not all) to rebut such claims as I am making, namely that there is a difference between permitting and ordaining/causing. Reformed persons might suggest that there is really no difference and that Christians must own up to the fact that God causes everything. To demonstrate this claim, Calvinist will often suggest that the onus for all things is still on God since He could possibly stop every event. This ignores causation. While God’s permitting evil to befall Job, the people at Siloam and the recent victims of the tornadoes might be unsavory to us still, we must not suggest that God’s allowance of attack only pushes the issue of God’s onus back a step. In other words, we cannot simply say, “Well God could have stopped Satan from attacking so that God is still responsible for Job’s loss.” The result of such is that many reformers task does not become a question of who is to blame, but how is God justified in doing such. I would submit that suggesting God only permitting destruction is not the same as saying God ordains such. Saying God ordains and causes such an event places Him as the direct agent and even the coordinator of evil, while His permitting such does not have to suggest He fixed the events or set them in motion. The question of causation cannot be avoided by the simple statement that whatever is caused could be nullified by God. The cause is still the cause.

As C.S. Lewis often suggested, if God were not to permit sin from ever having its affect upon the earth, we would not need salvation from sin. It is because sin is destructive that we need freedom from such bondage. God’s allowance of sin in the world does not create a philosophical problem that makes God the culpable agent no matter who causes such destruction. Instead, the onus for sin’s destructive place in the world lands squarely on humanity’s shoulders. In the end, Jesus is not saying, unless you repent the Father will crush you with a tower.” He is simply saying, “Sin will take occasion to finally terminate your being if you do not repent.” Jesus seems to suggest the onus to be on us. Jesus is not defending a destructive God. He need not do so.

In his final section, Piper ends his thoughts with the following statement:

Jesus rules the wind. The tornadoes were his.

But before Jesus took any life in rural America, he gave his own on the rugged cross. Come to me, he says, to America — to the devastated and to the smugly self-sufficient. Come to me, and I will give you hope and help now, and in the resurrection, more than you have ever lost.

You can show your partnership in suffering, and help lift the load, at Samaritan’s Purse.

John Piper cannot pass up the chance to bash humanity by suggesting that we are smugly self sufficient. So, although Piper suggested we cannot know the ins and outs of God’s judgment, he cannot help himself from accusatory statements, even if they are not the cause. He seems to miss the point that Jesus suggests that not all evil is the direct result of the victims’ sins, but the natural result of a fallen world. In other ridiculous words, Piper suggests Jesus devastated these people, but if you wish to be more benevolent than He and lift the burden He caused to befall these people, you can help by giving to the Samaritan’s Purse. This is theologically bankrupt. Jesus said this of His own purpose: “I came to give life, and give life abundantly” (John 10:10). Jesus died so that we do not have to die.

In these words, John Piper makes the bold assumption that it was God the Son who killed all the people in the storms. While he wishes to argue in his third section and also in his second section that God’s ways are inscrutable, in other words, we cannot decipher why God would do such, Piper nonetheless ironically tries to give at least some defense as to why God would do such. In the end, God’s ways are not our ways for sure, but Christian’s should not use such as a crutch to say, “Well, God sure did a number on them, and, while I might hate it myself, He has His reasons.” Piper uses statements in Job and Romans to suggest that, while we do not understand, it is not our place to question. This would be accurate if God indeed killed 39 people and we knew not why, but that this is the case is inconclusive to say the least. Christians should not feel silenced by Piper’s use of the texts suggesting we simply cannot understand why God would do such, for he conveniently forgets to mention the texts that tell us more about who we are, as Christians, concerning our understanding: “Who has known the mind of the Lord as to instruct Him, but we have the mind of Christ.” Paul is suggesting that we have a deeper insight as Christians than mere surface understanding. While Job cannot comprehend the inscrutable actions of God, Christians have at least some advantage over this position in that the Love of God resides within us, giving us some insight into His ways. This is not to say we can know all of what God is up to, but it seems to suggest that we do not have to be completely befuddled. If the Christian mind God has given me seems to rail against something as being not of God, I have good reason to think I am right. I should not simply say, well God did it and I have to live with it. I have the privilege to test situations and persons to see if they testify of God or demonstrate evil. Once again, this is not to suggest that this particular event was not as Piper insists, but it is to suggest we are given the grace to discern for ourselves if this testimony is of God. We do not simply have to write it off.

In the end, Piper’s argument is lacking in many ways. First, his selection of Scripture fails to suggest, as he assumes it does, that God controls all natural events, including disasters. Second, that God would allow evil to befall humans does not mean that he had to cause such. There is no suggestion that God justifies sin so that he might better us. Instead, in light of sin, God’s grace works against sins natural tendency to destroy and instead takes opportunity to redeem, even though we are the culpable party. Thirdly, while we all will perish, disaster is not proof that God is punishing some for the sake of others. Instead, as Christ suggests, death is a sobering reminder that sin is real. Nowhere is this a reminder that God causes sin, evil or all disasters. Finally, Christ came to give life, not to take it away. Moreover, if Christ were the cause, who are we to go against his action in order to restore the devastation by giving to Samaritan’s purse.

So, I say again:

Try again. -TM

Losing Traction: Part Two, Reviewing Bass’s Take Upon the Decline

In my last post, I acknowledged the admittedly hard, cold fact that the American Church is on the decline. In my personal experience as a Christian minister, I can tell you that this is not a blow to my pride that I must try to soften as much as I possibly can. Instead, it is a saddening fact that I feel I must expose if there is any hope for the future, not just for the church, but for those the church is supposed to impact. We are the salt and light in a tasteless and dark world. Christians must be concerned for our own health, not for the sake of self, but for the sake of others.

A few days after writing my previous post, “Why is the American Church Losing Traction,” a friend of mine sent me a link on Facebook to an article in the Huffington Post. We had been discussing the issue from our own differing perspectives, and here was yet another perspective from a differing point-of-view. While we all disagree on the “why,” we all acknowledge the “what,” the American Church is spiraling downward.

The title of this particular article read: “The End of Church.”* The author, Diana Bass, was also acknowledging the current tendencies of our American culture to move away from “religion.” Yet, per my last blog, I believe Bass’s title to be a bit premature. First of all, while the church in America is certainly on the decline and will be on the margins by the year 2050 if current tendencies hold, certainly we cannot assume that we are seeing outright extinction. Moving from the social norm to a small minority is one thing; total nonexistence is another. Now, this might be a Christian minister’s attempt to be optimistic. I hope not.

Second, and perhaps more pertinent, I must once again note, mainstream writers are intent on focusing on the decline here, while failing to acknowledge Christianity’s exponential growth elsewhere. Even while the Christian community is losing numbers in one area of the world, namely here in the United States, it is growing at such a rate elsewhere that the faith as a whole is actually increasing. Let me be clear, this is not just “church talk.” I am not just repeating some cliché idea you hear bantered about the halls of church, “Well, you’ve heard of the conversions in Africa haven’t you. Thousands a day!” While this might sound like ungrounded Christian optimism, according to peer-reviewed research in the realm of academia, the hard numbers demonstrate a growth. Thems the facts, as they say.

In other words, the terms “end” and “death,” which are used throughout this article, are a bit premature at best, and can be very misleading at worst. Yet, this does not negate that the church has a problem right here right now, and Bass has some very interesting comments to make that we should consider. While I assume Bass and I would almost certainly disagree upon many topics such as the nature of Christianity and the direction in which the faith should move, we are seeing the same data, and some of the information she brings to light helps shed light upon my last post. So, let’s dig in.

The first statement that caught my attention was spot-on and rife with irony: “For decades, mainline Protestants have watched helplessly as their membership rolls dwindled, employing program after program to try to stop the decline.” I would only add to this that, along with programs, the church is also resorting to marketing. The United Methodist Church, the denomination that I officially belong to as a lay man (not my ordaining body), has for some years now tried to regain its status in America through commercials and sloganeering: “Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds.” Such attempts have not proven fruitful. It is not that the church has just not figured out the right marketing strategy or program, it is that people are not looking for such. In fact, it is the programming of which persons are so annoyed. Persons do not want programs; programs that came to replace church education and practice, are the exact problems that have caused our decline in the first place. So using such programs in order to draw persons in is quite ironic. People are looking for a faith that changes life, a point Bass makes and one that we will discuss presently. Speaking about labels, Bass states:

Americans are extremely warm toward "spiritual but not religious" (30 percent) and, even more interestingly (and perhaps paradoxically), the term "spiritual and religious" (48 percent). While "religion" means institutional religion, "spirituality" means an experience of faith. Large numbers of Americans are hankering for experiential faith whereby they can connect with God.

While the tenor of Bass’s entire article seems to suggest that the movements of American sensibilities upon religion are new, exciting, and evolutionary, I would argue that the want for “experiential faith” is nothing new. Moving back only a few centuries, we can note that John Wesley often spoke of Christianity, at its core, as being an “experimental faith.” While there is no need to examine the full etymology of the term “experimental,” it is obvious from its use by this 18^th century thinker that the word he would use today would be “experiential.” The New Testament clearly demonstrates Christianity as a new way of life. The movement of the church to devolve into merely an institution of programs and marketing is the emerging church. If we do move towards a more experiential faith, it will not be an evolving, but purification from “progress.”

In the above quote Bass also demonstrates that the average American is not simply becoming irreligious and naturalistic. It is not as if Americans have a sense of evolving as persons who understand faith as outmoded and academically inferior. In fact, there is a large faction of persons who still want for spiritual connection. It is not simply that Americans are through with faith in things unseen. If it were the case that deepening knowledge has made our want for faith superfluous, pluralism would not be on the rise. Instead, the trend would simply be a shift to atheism and naturalistic thought: “But,” as Bass points out, “nearly half of Americans appear to hope for a spiritual reformation -- or even revolution -- in their faith traditions and denominations.”  Instead of leaving belief in a deeper reality behind post-modern persons are simply dabbling in various faiths, trying to fill their need for a deeper connection, and where the church is more attentive to real needs, instead of denominational concerns, progress is made.

There are successful individual congregations -- Catholic or Protestant, mainline or evangelical, liberal or conservative, small or large -- everywhere. But the institutional structures of American religion -- denominations of all theological sorts -- are in a freefall…They are still trying to fix institutional problems and flex political muscle instead of tending to the spiritual longings of regular Americans…Americans are not rejecting faith -- they are, however, rejecting self-serving religious institutions.

Bass seems to point out an interesting fact, and I wonder if there is another possible outcome that this could produce beyond Bass’s assumption of an ending of the church. While I do not believe Christian-based faith communities that have a deep desire for experiential faith are new, they might be relatively new in America, although, as I alluded to earlier in mentioning Wesley, such a presence has existed in America before, at least during the early Methodist movement. Maybe, instead of an end, some persons are leaving denominationalism in hopes that “self-serving” church institutions will catch a hint that people are hungering for something much more authentic, and the church will remerge stronger than before. This has happened in Australia. According to a conversation I had with Brian Edgar, a Christian ethicist in Australia, while denominations still exist in Australia, persons do not decide on attending a church based on the name over the door. Instead, persons test the churches on an individual basis. In other words, people go to churches that promote true Christian life, not denominationalism. Perhaps, and I simply say perhaps, if the church in America can realize this truth, that it is not about marketing or programs, but about experience, then maybe there is hope for the church. I do not think this is absolutely outside the realm of possibility. As Bass points out, there are individual churches within many traditions that are successful.

In the end, Bass suggests that our present culture “expresses a grassroots desire for new kinds of faith communities.” In one way, I find this statement oxymoronic, especially when the author seems to be simply equating the American church with Christianity as a whole. How can we be expressing a “grassroots” desire for something “new”? On the other hand, I can agree that many American persons are craving something that can be largely unavailable in many mainline churches today, a promotion of experiential faith. As I stated in my last blog, one of our biggest problems is our lack of want to theologically educate our communities on what it means to be a Christian. Instead, we just give them things to do, programs as it were. This is entirely lacking. Persons do not inherently know how to live within a culture. They must be taught. The church has an ontological responsibility to teach others what it means to live out the faith.

*Bass, Diana.(Feb. 18, 2012). “The End of Church.” Huff Post Religion, Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/the-end-of-church_b_1284954.html

My Audrey’s Little “Uh-Oh:” From Utter Sadness to Sanctification

Have you ever experienced one of those moments when your emotions overwhelmed you in a time you would never expect them to do so? That happened to me last night while I was lying in bed with my wife and daughter. I found myself extremely sad. Along with the sadness, I felt a sense of embarrassment, assuming if someone knew what warmed the tears in my eyes, he or she would find the cause extremely silly. The event seemed so out of place at the moment that I did not even mention it to my wife, maybe for the concern I might just lose my grip entirely if I spoke of the reason my heart was melting in my chest.

“Uh-oh, Mommy…. Uh-oh, Daddy…” I hear these phrases uttered from my daughter’s lips more times in a day than I care to count. Usually, Audrey voices her concern with this phrase when she drops something, bumps her head, or the like. In other words, she is recognizing, at nineteen months, a mistake, something that should not or does not have to be, “Uh-oh…” So there we lay, the three of us in the bed, because Audrey is ill and cannot find comfort. She is tossing and turning, and I cannot do anything to help. That was bad enough, but what happened next absolutely broke my heart.

As she tossed and turned, she whimpered, her congested chest and sinuses making lying down in any position uncomfortable. Then she tugged at her ears and said, “Mommy, ears… ears, Mommy…” It was obvious that she was in pain. Maybe the congestion was taking its toll on her sinuses so much so that it was putting pressure on her ears. It might have not been related to her sickness at all. She is, we think, also cutting here two-year molars, just adding insult to injury. Whatever the cause, she was suffering. In the grand scheme of things, this is no big deal. All babies fall ill sometimes, and they all cut teeth. But it was the reaction of her innocence that broke me down to sadness and even anger if I am honest.

“Uh-oh, Mommy… Uh-oh, Daddy…” As she tugged on her ears, she kept expressing her feelings with the phrase, “Uh-oh.” Think about the word choice. She knows “ouch,” and she also knows how to express pain by simply crying. Instead of choosing to say, “Ouch, Mommy… Ouch, Daddy,” instead of simply crying, she chose to say, “Uh-oh.” In other words, “This pain I feel is not natural. It is a mistake. Something is simply wrong with this situation.” I am not being overly sensitive here. I know my daughter, and I believe at the depths of my being, this is what she was communicating. As I said, in the light of all the real suffering in the world, this was nothing: A little Tylenol, and presto! She feels better. But the simple fact that she hurt isn’t the rub here; is it?

 As elementary a level as it might have been, my daughter came to recognize and express the human condition in her little, heart-felt, “Uh-oh.”  She knew that the pain she was feeling was not right. It did not have to be so. What breaks my heart all the more is that, while she recognizes it does not have to be so, she does not know why it is now the case that it is so. While she feels it in her being, she still, in some years to be, has to come to know our fall, a reality I do not want her to come to know. She has to learn of her exile from Eden. My heart melted in the knowledge that this is just the beginning of my daughter coming to know that all is not right in the present reality, and anger even filled my heart as I realized that sin is so pervasive that it will not leave her alone with a cold and tooth ache.

It took some time of real grief and anguish, but oh the joy that continues to fill my heart when I realize she will also hear the good news of Jesus Christ and His love for her. No one can take that away. The cruciform heart that led Christ to the cross, which is the same heart at the core of the Father and the Spirit as well, loves Audrey in her brokenness, like this heart loves every child born into this broken world, and one day, when she chooses Him for her Lord, her little “uh-ohs,” will become, “halleluiahs.”

I know this: As my heart melted in my chest from Audrey’s little “uh-ohs,” God’s heart melted as well. I am a father, but He is the Father. The goodness dimly reflected in my love, shines forth from Him at every moment. What my fatherly love draws to the surface of my broken heart is already at the core of His. In her little cries, I am sanctified, becoming more and more like my heavenly Father. My selfish heart fades away, as all my concern and love is lavished upon Audrey. God hears our cries, but He need not be moved to tears to be pulled from selfishness into outwardly focused love. This is just Who He is, and it is who He is making me in the most unexpected ways.

I can only hope that my heart would continue to bleed in love for the hurting children of the world, the hurting children in all of us. It is in the furnace of this love, the love afforded to us by His grace, that we are purified. As much as it hurt, I am glad that I was not too obtuse to hear the depths of her little “uh-oh.” It was not merely a recognition of pain, but of hurt on a deeper level, a recognition that not all is right. I can hardly wait for the day that I share with her the love that calls her out of this reality into His great adoption.

Lord, continue to sanctify me unto entirety through the little “uh-ohs” of the world. Amen

Why Is The American Church Losing Traction?

“We have to learn how to evangelize and plant churches again, and do it from the prophetic margins, not the center, of culture.” –Dr. Timothy Tennent

I was first introduced to the term ‘Christendom’ as a referent to any place in which Christianity has pervaded culture due to a dense Christian community when I read “The Next Christendom” by Larry Jenkins. These communities are those in which Christianity does not exist on the margins, but is a majority view highly acceptable by persons of that region. In a more strict sense, the sense I was more familiar with, this term refers to an official church state, but the broader term, in relation to the more narrowed sense, makes a great, correlating claim about the area being considered.

If we are labeling a state or nation with the term ‘Christendom,’ even while that country is not officially Christian by governmental proclamation, we are saying much about what we think this area of the world is like, and we are saying it is something like the official states in some sense. First, as stated above, we are suggesting that this is a place where Christianity is highly accepted and even assumed to be socially superior to other religions or worldviews. Moreover, since this is a state in which Christianity is not persecuted, it is a place where Christians can relax and interact openly in politics and cultural decisions as a Christian. It is a place where being a Christian, in an openly religious sense is not difficult.

As nice as this is, it does come with dangers, and this is where I think lumping these sorts of nations in with official church states is fitting. Tragically, being declared Christian by association with a certain culture leads to nominal Christianity and to an erosion of evangelical priorities. Whether one is declared Christian in the Constantinian sense, or one adopts Christianity because it is a social norm, a muddling of church and state can lead to true faith taking a back seat. Note that I am not saying that Christendom is or is not a totally negative phenomenon. That is a topic for another time. I am simply pointing out the fact that Christendom comes with its risks. Social engineering often replaces moral formation, and true faith is replaced with religious pretext.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the fallout of a failing Christendom project right here in America. It is not only illustrated by the daily decline of evangelical Christianity in the West, a place where Christianity used to be an assumed reality for almost every citizen. It is seen in the failings of the church in holding our ground due to the blindness of many church leaders to the fact of the condition of our society. There is a glaring neglect for missions and evangelism in so many churches still today, even while our part of the world is the fasting growing mission field in existence.

I have heard so many speak of feeling blessed to have lived in a time when morality in America was taken for granted. While ‘bad people’ were present, the vast majority of Americans had a respect for one another, at very least as a social pretext. I acknowledge that this was surely a blessing in a lot of ways, but, in some ways, I feel blessed to have been raised during the fallout, where TV is full of pornographic images, even on regular cable, where men openly treat women like objects, and women speak with tongues formally reserved for the most base individuals of society.

I certainly do not say this for shock value, nor do I delight in the openness in which people of today participate in immorality. Instead, I see a blessing in the fact that I have not been made delusional by a past that no longer exists except, perhaps, as a façade in certain areas of the country. Nor am I victim of to that which some of the older generations fell prey, which is lethargy and negligence due to ill-conceived assumptions. Christendom can lead to unwarranted assumptions concerning the need for effective evangelism, or lack thereof. In a culture in which everyone is assumed Christian, our missional call as the church takes a back seat. This is surely a huge problem here in America.

There was a time in which I almost fell into this line of thinking. I was only a child, perhaps just before the fallout in my area of the world, which might of held on a little longer, but I can remember coming home from Vacation Bible School in a panic. I figured if I were really called to evangelize to the lost like the Bible says I should, I would have to become a missionary, because everyone in my world, so I thought, was a Christian. It did not take much time out in the real world for me to become disillusioned. Unfortunately, there are those of generations past that are still living in the past because they do not interact on a social level with younger generations that are giving way to pluralism. Instead, these older generations grew up in an assumed Christian culture where missional thinking was fanatical or exotic, and church programs and social events replaced effective evangelism. For many, the church gathering on Sunday morning is as it always has been, a nice sermon, some songs, shaking of hands, and a filling lunch with acquaintances, and the true state of Christianity and the surrounding, declining culture is easily ignored. The assumption of a Christian norm still persists.

For my generation, at least those involved with the surrounding culture, we can no longer assume, as once was the norm, that those we engage with on the streets are Christian. Pluralism is on the rise, and evangelical Christianity in America, as has already taken place in Europe, is on the decline. Older generations who still are involved with the same friends they have always had, the ones they grew up with, do not see the lash back against Christianity amongst members of my generation, but people my age see it everyday.

Why is Christianity losing traction? In our comfortable Christendom, we lost discipline. Comfort led to nominal religion. Christian education is almost oxymoronic in many minds. The church lost much of its missional talent and we no longer have persons who are willing or educated enough to address a non-Christian, post-Christendom world. Frantically, my generation is trying to make up for lost time, the time in which we should have been discipled to have a missional heart and real intelligence.

The church by and large does not know how to be on mission right here at home. For too long we took for granted the state of the culture, and we are having a hard time fighting for the faith in this postmodern, pluralistic society. We do not know how to live on the margins, to be those ostracized for our opinions, and this only compounds the issue and makes us more and more marginalized. In our blessed comfort, we unwittingly became indolent and forgot catechesis, the raising up of disciples through disciplined, robust Christian teaching.

So, when my friend comes to me frustrated that his church is more concerned with fixing the television in the social hall than they are with working with a failing budget that gives little in the way of missions, and this friend only sees a sense of entitlement coming from an older Christian concerned with secondary concerns over the true mission of the church, my response is not merely to say that this is one bad egg amongst well-intentioned Christians. The question my friend is asking of this church leader is a common question that my generation has concerning many of our superiors: “How can you not see that you are not focusing on the mission of the church.” It is a matter of living in two different worlds. We grew up during the fallout. Many leaders older than us are still living under old assumptions. It is not a matter of one individual being stubborn or one being more intuitive or idealistic. It is a matter of generational assumptions, perspectives, and experiences.

Certainly, we have gained much from our elders, and many of our elders are just as missionally minded and exponentially wiser than many of my generation. We owe much to those who raised us up. But, now we have something to offer back, a new perspective, a call to regain our missional purpose. We need to call attention to the real state in which our American finds itself. Some truly do not realize how bad it is out there. All is not lost, but we must fight.

-TM

The Effectiveness of Prayer

“If God knows all that has ever been, all that is, and all that ever will be, including the little desires of my human heart, then what is the logic behind petitioning prayer? How can I change anything?”

This is certainly a human question that arises often in many of our minds. It is an issue of logic, and logic often serves us quite well. So, it can seem counterintuitive to the logical mind of the devout Christian to petition God for anything. Even so, He asks us to pray nevertheless, even saying such things as, “Give us this day our daily bread.” In other words, “Lord, please provide for me those things I need for sustenance, for without You, I will perish.”

Now, we might suggest that such a petition is to be given so that we might remind ourselves of our utter need for God, that prayer becomes a didactic tool God gives us so that we can verbally acknowledge our dependency, and this certainly might be the case, but not merely so. Prayer is more than cathartic; it is effective (I Chron. 28:9; Matt. 21:22; Luke 11:9-13; James 5:16).

Now we have reached a seemingly paradoxical reality. Before we pray, God knows all that ever will come to pass. Nonetheless, the Bible suggests that our prayer has an actual effect upon reality. A basic response might be to suggest that God has answered our prayers beyond eternity, that time as we know it is not a limiting factor upon God.

I have another response to the Christian who questions his or her need to pray based on a theological understanding of the pervasiveness of God’s knowledge and, perhaps, will. While the one making this argument might within his or her own mind be suggesting a limitation on the human end, suggesting that because we are limited by our place in space and time we cannot effect the decisions of an eternal God, what the person is really suggesting is a limitation in God’s ability.

If we suggest that God’s nature is such that it limits our ability to affect reality through prayer, and yet we note that God says that He wishes for us to pray, what we are saying in effect is this: “While God might wish for us to make meaningful petitions, He cannot respond to the prayers of finite man due to His eternal nature.” In other words, God’s nature is a limiting factor upon what He can do. Is this the case? I do not assume so…

Think about it.

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. James 5:16

-TM

God’s Sovereign Election Demonstrates His Grace

Note to reader: This particular post is very theologically charged and focuses on a very specific stance on certain theological doctrines. This point of view can best be categorized as Wesleyan. I often reserve such posts for a separate blog site, but I am making an exception this time for several reasons. If you do not feel that you can read such commentary without offense or the like, I recommend skipping this particular post. This is meant to spur on healthy thinking, even if the reader does not agree with my point of view. 

Some time ago, I watched a video posted on an old acquaintance’s blog with the title “God’s Sovereign Election Demonstrates His Glory.” I am probably parodying the points within since it has been well over a year since viewing the hour long video, and I do not have the time nor patience right now to review, but, in short, I remember the speaker, Thabiti Anyabwile, suggesting that the ninth chapter of Romans is meant to suggest that, while we might not wish it so, God is glorified by his choice to pick and choose who does and does not go to Hell without any basis in human response or responsibility. So, he concludes, by the sheer fact that God is in such control, one should respond in worship. I believe that video was what spurred me on to write a previous blog, “Glorified For Our Sakes,” in which I argued that God needs not be glorified by us yet chooses to be so that we might be blessed. I guess this blog is somewhat a continuation of such.

My concern for such topics was once again ignited when I heard another famous pastor pointing out, to the chagrin—so he suspected—of many of his audience members, that election can be found throughout the Bible, and such stories demonstrate that God’s grace certainly is not based on merit of any sort. His main example comes from the OT, which was the topic of his talk, and revolves around the election of Israel, especially some of Israel’s main figureheads.  He began with Abraham and pointed out that Abraham was doing nothing to merit God’s election. Instead, it was by God’s initiative that Abraham was chosen. Likewise, God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Certainly, these are biblical examples of God’s sovereign election. No theologian of any orthodox stripe should find offense to such. However, this pastor also invoked the name of John Calvin, which gives the term election a certain spin does it not? Now, in the mind of the listener, this preacher is suggesting that God elected the patriarchs and Calvin taught election, and, therefore, this proves Calvin right.

So, does that settle it? Does God’s individual election of these Israelite leaders prove that there is such a thing as Calvinistic election, predestination typified by double, individualist election of who goes to Heaven or Hell merely based on God’s pleasures, or is there more to the fact of God’s election of these patriarchs? If we are going to use these patriarchs and there counterparts (those who God passed over in order to choose these individuals) as our examples of election and/or double predestination, then let us also get at the heart of what the Bible says about God’s choosing these persons.

Let us begin at the logical starting point, the Patriarch, Abraham. God certainly plucks an unsuspecting man from history with no coercion on the part of the human individual, and if this was all the information we had, we might rightly conclude that all there is to being of God is His mere election, unbiased and without basis. However, the Bible makes it clear that while God’s election is necessary and is certainly of His own accord, it is not the only factor, as if election was an ends within itself to gathering up a people for His own. No, it is a means with another end. While God’s election of these individuals certainly has profound consequences for the elected individual, God uses election for a further purpose:

Now the LORD had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,

From your family

And from your father’s house,

To a land that I will show you.

I will make you a great nation;
      

I will bless you 
      

And make your name great; 
      

And you shall be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,
      

And I will curse him who curses you; 
      

And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

(Genesis 12:1-3 NKJV)

Here the Lord’s election of Israel is played out in real human history. The Lord is choosing Abraham, at this time known as Abram, and is calling Him to be set apart for the Lord. But, is this being set apart, leaving all that he knows, simply for the fact of being set apart. The Bible clearly says, “No.” God has elected Abraham for a purpose beyond individual predestination. God has chosen Abraham to be a blessing to “all the families of the earth” through a great nation that will come from his seed. So, yes, election of the patriarchs continues. Not only is Abraham chosen, but also is his son Isaac, and Isaac’s son Jacob. Can you guess what happens when God chooses these men? He promises them the same promise He promises to their father, Abraham (see Genesis 26:1-4, 23-25; 28:14). To all these men God suggests that they will be blessings. God’s election of individuals throughout Scripture then is surely to be seen as a blessing to the individual, but more importantly, it is to be seen as a blessing to the world, not an in your face, “the elect are in and you are out” statement.

Three elections come to mind when I reflect upon the great blessing of God’s sovereign election.  The first election that comes to mind is the election that was mentioned and sparked this whole blog, the election of Israel. Israel was certainly elected as an unassuming people. They were slaves. They had not merited any right of election. They were not overly pious people seeking the Lord at the time of their deliverance. No, they were simply making bricks, but God had chosen them long before they had even became a people, and not simply from whim. God had chosen them for a purpose that He soon reveals to them.

Picture the scene. A group of slaves have just been delivered from the hands of their oppressor by feats of strength only the Most High could perform. The supposed God-man pharaoh has fallen, and the people of Israel have done nothing but follow the Lord to gain refuge. They are at the foot of Sinai with no reason to boast in themselves, and God reveals His purpose in election:

In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai.  For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain.

And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:  ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself.  Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.  And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”  (Exodus 19:1-6)

God has thus reminded Israel that it was He alone that brought Israel to Himself. Once again, God not only points out that He has elected, but also reveals his purpose for such: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priest and a holy nation.” Israel has a role and purpose to play. They will serve as priest. In other words, the nation of Israel, through their holiness, shall be God’s means of mediating His blessings to all the nations of the earth, for “the whole earth is mine,” says the Lord.

Before we discontinue our discussion of Israel's election, I must, once again, address the original discussion that sparked this whole conversation. Thabiti Anyabwile suggested that Romans 9 is a demonstration of God’s sovereign election of some individuals over others (Calvinistic election), a fact Anyabwile thinks we Christians must come to grips with. However, from what we have been reviewing, it does not seem that election has always if ever been used as an end within itself for Israel or individuals within, and Paul is certainly addressing issues concerning Israel in chapter 9 of Romans (see vv 3,4). In fact, as Mr. Wesley points out in his NT commentary, individualistic, double predestination is far outside the scope of Paul’s purposes here. Paul is addressing the concerns of many who say of Israel, God’s means of salvation, redemption through Christ, seems to fail many of Israel since they do not believe. But, as Paul points out, God’s Word has not failed as some assume. It is not as if God was simply scrapping Israel and starting over with the church. Israel, through election, was meant to serve a purpose bigger than themselves and they had and were still serving that purpose. In fact, Christ came from Israel, the greatest blessing of all. Paul is defending the election of God and its effectiveness to serve its purpose, blessing the world. If there are those among Abraham’s physical progeny that are willingly rebelling, they are not truly Israel, who had been called to be holy so that others would know God as holy. So, their place in God’s fold did not merely depend on God’s election of Abraham’s physical offspring, but upon their response to such. Only the faithful remain, thus God’s words in His original covenant ring true: “…if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.” Thus, Paul is not here focusing on Calvinistic, individual predestination at all, but whether or not God can be understood as faithful to Israel, even when His decisions seem to be precise and some vessels, individuals within the nation, are used for greater purposes over others. Paul suggests that God is faithful and who are any of us to say, “Well, if you would have just willed for me to be as great as so-and-so, I would believe.” Election is not merely about who is in and who is out, but who will be the one to best fulfill God’s will in election. So, once again, election is God’s means of mercy, mediated to the families of the earth, and Paul is out to defend such. Much more could be said about the individual arguments of Romans 9, but I have done that elsewhere and we need to move on.

The second election that comes to mind is that of the church: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (I Peter 2:9). Like Israel, God has chosen the church to be His, but, once again, this is not an end in itself. There again is a purpose for our election. We called to be a priestly nation, a holy nation that shines light into a dark world. Our calling is not simply a blessing for us, but a blessing for others, a blessing for the lost and hurting world who finds itself in darkness.

The final election that comes to mind and speaks volumes to the present discussion is that of Jesus Christ who “was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake” (I Peter 1:20). This verse really speaks for itself. The Father did not choose Christ so that only Christ would be blessed through this election. He was chosen and revealed for our sakes. In Christ, the predestined one, those who repent and believe find their redemption.

In the end, election is God’s means to bless the world. Through election, grace is poured out, not merely on the individuals elected for certain purposes such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. Those who are chosen are given a great responsibility, to mediate God’s grace to others as priest, Christ being our High Priest.  So, when preachers see election in the OT, there is no need to give a wink to those who cringe at the idea that God gives some no grace to choose Him. There is no need to mention Calvin in passing, so as to suggest, “Well, although I do not have the time to explain all the passages here, election is evident, and, therefore, Mr. Calvin must have been right.” The question is not whether or not God uses election. The question is, “for what purpose does He do so?” It is to demonstrate His grace. We should give Him all praise and glory, for election, even when viewed through this lens, proves our need for God. Without His mediation of grace, we have no hope. He alone decided we could receive redemptive grace, and we all have been given a blessed opportunity to receive grace through those He has elected: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, the Church, the Disciples, the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ.

As your Wesleyan friend, I implore you: Praise God for His sovereign election!

The Missional Church (Part 2): Identifying Our Gifts:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. -I Corinthians 12:1-14

I hope that any given gathering of believers has a wide variety of members that encapsulate what it means to be eyes and ears and feet and hands, and, for that matter, armpits and ankles, and so on and so forth, and I suspect that this is a reality for most churches that have a thriving congregation. With this as a reality, the local church has the ability to do many and varied tasks that promote the kingdom. It is my prayer that we (i.e. each local church) would have a robust and well-rounded view of our mission as the Church (i.e. the body of all believers), and that we would be mindful of all the parts of the body and their talents as we pursue and follow the missio dei. This is certainly a priority given to the local church and its congregants by Paul (I Cor. 12:1-14), and we need to be ever mindful of it.

With our diversity in mind, the local church needs to be well rounded. However, is it the case that each local congregation has to do all the tasks that their neighboring congregations perform, as if we are in a competition? While I believe wholeheartedly in the need for a well-rounded body, I also find myself believing more and more that each local community has its own strengths that others do not. In other words, it is perhaps the case that while one congregation is filled with people of various talents so that we find all sorts of varying body parts within, when these parts come together as a whole within the local body, the whole, which is still a part of a much larger body (the universal Church), might best be described as a body part, having a few great strengths, rather than a lot of average strengths. I hesitate here to give an example because I hope that each church would be able to find for itself its own unique strength that could contribute to the whole, and I in no way wish to influence the discovery of such a call and gifting. 

Certainly, no church should ever settle by saying, “Well, we have this down and not that, and we are satisfied with feeding our strengths and ignoring our weaknesses.” I certainly am not suggesting we ignore our weaknesses. If a church feels it can ignore any facet of ministry that might utilize one part of the body over others, then there might be several people in the congregation that have their unique gifting ignored. Even so, there is nothing wrong with admitting that, as a whole, the church body can be used most efficiently for this or that Kingdom task.  I am merely saying we come to grips with our strengths and try our best to serve others (individuals or other local bodies) in these areas that might not be as strong in that given area. There are certainly varied attributes that should be held by all local bodies, and this is not a denial of this fact. I am merely speaking of those gifts God gives above and beyond the general gifts promised to all who are faithful. Let me see if I can show the practicality of what I am musing about at this moment:

For the past several years now, I have been involved in a project to raise awareness for the needs of the Navajo Nation and its people. Some time ago, I felt God speaking to me and asking me to stop with my normal pitch, which involved sharing with various church and organization leaders all of the various good deeds my organization was able to provide to these people, which was geared to convince others to support our own efforts, and, instead, God asked me to share the overwhelming issues that we (as a small organization) are unable to touch. So, instead of asking for assistance in the form of support for what is already being done, I was commissioned to ask for help for the Navajo apart from what we were able to do. When God first asked me to change my approach, I was a bit frustrated and did not understand why He would ask such, but I reluctantly followed, and I was often met with the same question.

Although in years past I have found this question to be quite ligament and still find it has its place, I have nonetheless found it increasingly strange for a church leadership to only ask others who are looking for missional assistance: “So, what do you want from us?” As one who has been asked this question several times now, I find it somewhat cutting. It carries with it, most of the time unintentionally, a sense of superiority. Once again, this is not to say the question does not have its place, but, perhaps, it could be reworded to be more servant oriented: “How can we be of help?” Even still, I find this question, no matter how it was framed, frustrating in light of the new approach God had given me.

 Before I share why this question became increasingly frustrating, I must make certain I am not heard as saying it is totally without warrant. Certainly, this question might reflect the reality of the reason the person who comes soliciting church leaders is asking for help in the first place. In other words, the person might be coming with a particular need in mind, such as financial support, and it helps to prevent beating round the bush. This question swiftly moves all involved to put all their cards on the table. The Church need not waist its time tiptoeing. But, what I often found is that, while I did my best to convince others I was not looking for direct support, unless that group felt led above and beyond my petitioning to do so, I was still heard as asking, “Support us,” instead of “Support the Navajo in the unique and special way God has given you, if He has indeed given you such gifts.” Much of the time, certainly not all the time, I was speaking past my audience because they had a preconceived notion of what I was looking for.  So, the question should be asked, and if that is what the person is looking for, then the cards are down, but perhaps, that is not what is being asked, and the conversation needs to continue by a discussion that demonstrates the local church’s understanding of its own call and unique gifting to help promote the Kingdom.

So, why was the question: “How can we help?” so unhelpful to the particular pursuit I was engaged in? Simply put, that was the question I was asking them. God was not interested in my sharing what we were doing so that the local body would know what they were supporting if they simply donated. He was interested in me presenting the issues beyond our control so as to say, “Does this church know of a way to move towards assistance in this or that area that we at my organization have no means to assist in at this time?” I would much rather hear the answer, “We do not feel called to help the Navajo, but we will pray that God calls out a group to assist them with their needs,” instead of “We do not think we can help you at this time.” Believe it or not, I was their asking on behalf of a needy people, not on behalf of a Christian organization looking to improve their own efforts in assisting others.

So, what am I trying to say? What was God trying to teach me by having me present these issues to church leaders, instead of giving them precise ways I, and the organization for which I work, planned to help? I think He was, at least in part, trying to share something of a need within the church on local levels: If the church has a very well-rounded understanding of its own strengths as part of a much greater whole, the leaders might best serve other’s of the greater body and the causes they present by being able to truly say: “We cannot do everything, but we certainly can help with this or that area.” Even here I do recognize that churches can become stretched too thin, even in areas of strength. However, if the body being asked for assistance cannot physically or financially support, I cannot help but think they could, if they knew their own gifts well, help those looking for help, by teaching them to strengthen their own body in this area by saying, “While we know how to help, we cannot physically do so without weakening the areas of ministry we are already involved in, but we would be honored to help you think this through and teach you what we have learned in this or that area of which we are very proficient.”

I certainly do not think this is outside the scope of Paul’s purpose for speaking of gifts and our need as local bodies to recognize that God gives us unique gifts for a specific purpose. While I recognize here that Paul is speaking about individuals, his argument is based on the fact that the individuals are part of a larger body. If this is at least one of his premises for arguing for the individual accepting his uniqueness as part of a bigger whole, I simply wish to use that same premise as it applies to the local church, which is certainly a part of a much, much larger whole. Isn’t it likely that He gives us these unique gifts so that collectively we can complete a specific purpose as well? Our church will most certainly be more affective if we know who we are and what we are called to do. This is not to neglect that each local body has callings that are shared by all local bodies, but it certainly is not limited to the general call, and the general call is certainly not an all inclusive call so that each church must do this or that at every turn. It is not as if we are failing in our outreach if we do not have a mission for every single need that exists. How wonderful would it be if local bodies would share one with another, “Here are our strengths so that if one local body was presented with a need that they where not called or equipped to help, they could tell the seeker: “We know where to send you for help!” Could you imagine what a larger community that houses such local bodies would look like? Instead of having ten churches all serving the food bank and none serving the women’s shelter, the community’s needs are met by the larger church working as a body made up of cohesive parts…

 Just something I have been considering…what do you think?