My Top Ten Favorite Hymns

Yesterday I briefly posted about one of my favorite hymns. That got me thinking about other hymns that I love. After a moderate amount of time and effort, I've come up with a top ten list of my favorites. Each is in link form to a youtube video of it being sung.

Here's the list, from tenth to first:


10. Amazing Grace

9. Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing

8. Crown Him With Many Crowns

7. When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

6. It is Well With My Soul

5. For All the Saints

4. There is a Fountain

3. A Mighty Fortress is Our God

2. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty

1. And Can it Be?


I suppose it is appropriate in some way that my favorite hymn, And Can it Be?, was written by Charles Wesley. I was raised in the Wesleyan denomination and frequently attended church services in a college chapel named after John and Charles Wesley. Even through I now reject the Arminian bent of Wesleyan theology, I am thankful for the Wesleys' work for the Kingdom.

What do you think? What are your favorite hymns?

Changing Perspectives One Person at a Time

A couple of days ago I mentioned that Google Images shows 63 church buildings in a row when you type in the search word "church." Only at the 64th image do any people actually appear.

How can we change this thinking in our broader culture? I believe we do it one person at a time. How is this accomplished? It happens through loving, sacrificial acts of service. It occurs through meeting needs as we see them. It takes place through explaining that we love because God first loved us.

I realize that it is not our duty to change how our culture at large defines the church. However, if our service to others brings about the by-product of changed perspectives, then all the better. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people began thinking of photos like the one on the left to describe and define the church?

One of My Favorite Hymns

I love the great hymns of the faith. "For All the Saints" is one of these. Enjoy!




Thanks to Dave Black for pointing this out.

Missions in I Timothy

I Timothy is a letter written by Paul to his son in the faith, Timothy. At the time of the writing, Paul was most likely under some sort of house arrest in Rome. Timothy was in Ephesus, living as part of the church there. The apostle writes to Timothy to exhort him to stand up for correct doctrine in both belief and practice within the Ephesian church.

(To read the first post in this series, please click here.)

In the midst of this epistle on corrective doctrine, is there anything worth noting about missions? The answer, not surprisingly, is yes. Paul says the following in 1:16 (several translations provided):

“But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.” (ESV)

“Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.” (NASB)

“However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” (NKJV)

“But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.” (NLT)

In 1:15 Paul refers to himself as the “foremost” or “chief” sinner. He’s using hyperbole to make the point that his sins against the church were grievous. In 1:16 Paul explains that God has shown him mercy. Why has God done this? One of the reasons is so that Paul would be an example Christ’s perfect patience to those hearing and responding positively to the gospel.

The book of Acts shows us that Paul traveled from place to place proclaiming the gospel. If those hearing the gospel needed an example of the mercy and patience of God, Paul was right there. He could share his experiences with them. They could see a concrete example of God’s forgiveness right in front of them. There could be no doubt that God does in fact forgive since He was willing to use a former church-persecutor as His foremost missionary.

What can we learn from this? The answer is that we are also examples of God’s patience and mercy. When we proclaim the gospel to the lost, we should share our own stories with them. It makes the truth of the gospel real to people when they hear where we were prior to Christ and where we are now.

In gospel proclamation, we must first and foremost share biblical truths in a manner that is understandable to those listening. However, we should also take advantage the real-life illustrations that we are. We’ve all sinned terribly against God. He’s forgiven us. Let’s tell others about it.


To read any or all posts in this series, please click here.

63!

Just out of curiosity I went to Google images and looked up the word "church." The first 63 (!) images that came up were photos of either the inside or outside (mostly outside) of buildings. Sigh.

It was not until the 64th image that any people appeared. I'm not sure how Google selects which images to show, but regardless this is some sort of statement about how our culture both views and defines the church.

The Church is Healthy. The Institution is Not.

“Is the church healthy or is it not?”

This is a popular question that I’ve heard answered in a variety of ways. Some believe the church is healthy. Others believe it certainly is not. Most give answers somewhere in the middle.

I’d like to suggest that all of the above answers are missing something significant. They ignore the fact that the church is fundamentally different from the institution. What’s the difference? The church is the people of God. The church follows the model for church life that God has given us in scripture. The institution, on the other hand, is all the man-made traditions and structures that have been placed upon the church over the centuries.

Keeping the difference in mind, the answer to the question at the beginning of this post becomes clear. The church is healthy. The institution is not.

The church is a vibrant, supernatural, wonderful organism created by God. As we look at the church today, we can all see amazing things happening. We see pagans transformed from children of darkness to children of light by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. We see new creations living for Christ the King. We watch as the church cares for the poor, lives at peace with all men (as much as possible), suffers patiently, and gives generously. The church makes itself evident around the globe by meeting needs in society, not retaliating when hurt, living holy lives, and bravely proclaiming the gospel even when threatened with death. We see the church come together to carry out the one anothers and build one another up in Christ. We see service as the highest form of leadership.

The institution is different. The institution is large buildings that require thousands, if not millions, of dollars in mortgage payments and maintenance. We see the institution in burned-out pastors with too many responsibilities. We see a corresponding passive laity that has been trained to expect the paid clergy to do most of the ministry. The institution scripts its main gatherings so that nothing unexpected happens. In the institution, the pastors lead from top-down, and then leave when “God calls them” to a larger church. We watch as the institution keeps most of its money for itself. We see the institution continue to lose any sort of impact it had on broader society.

I have no fear for the church. It is vibrant, active, holy, and making a difference in this world. It is by no means perfect; it is composed of people after all. I believe that the church will, in the years to come, increasingly thrive as the bonds of the institution waste away. The church is getting healthier in part because the institution is getting sicker. When man-made traditions fall to the wayside, the church soars. Let me give three examples:

1. When the church building is lost or discarded for financial reasons, the church is forced to split into smaller groups. This brings about increased intimacy and sharing of lives. This in turn leads to a more vibrant church that can much more effectively carry out the one anothers and the Great Commission.

2. When the separation between clergy and laity is dropped, then everyone begins to see his own responsibility in the body. Things that need to be done do not automatically fall in the pastor’s lap. Rather, everyone must be active. Passivity is jettisoned in favor of an awakened church family.

3. When planned-out worship services become a thing of the past, the church can meet simply. As this occurs, each person can use his or her gifts for the strengthening of the body. The Holy Spirit can move as he sees fit, unconstrained by man’s plans. When the scriptural model is followed, church meetings go from being repetitious to exciting.

These are just three examples. The church is moving in this direction. Necessity is one of the reasons for this. Most churches will not be able to continue their current financial paths for more than a few more generations. The irony is that what many Christians fear will actually be a fantastic thing for the church.

The church is healthy and is getting healthier.

The institution is sick and dying.

These are hopeful trends as we move forward together following our Head, Jesus Christ.

Keeping I Corinthians 9 in Context

Context can be an inconvenient thing. It keeps us from taking words, phrases, clauses, or even entire verses from scripture and using them for our own purposes. Context makes us look at the paragraph, chapter, and book for meaning. When we are faithful to the context, we usually arrive at the meaning of the author. That's the key. If we are looking to prove a point that is not supported biblically, then we must ignore context.

I bring this up because of a semi-controversial post I wrote last week entitled Cake. In that post I asserted that the job of the professional pastor is relatively easy. The comment string is interesting. Not surprisingly, that post led to discussion on this blog and other responding blog posts about whether or not pastors should be paid salaries at all.

Those who defend pastoral salaries usually go to two primary texts to defend this practice. I Timothy 5:17-18 is the first. This is appropriate since Paul is dealing specifically with elders; elders and pastors may not be the same function, but there is certainly overlap. Looking at those verses is in context for dealing with the issue of pastors and salaries. Click here if you'd like to read about what I believe "double honor" refers to in I Tim. 5.

The second passage often cited by those supporting pastoral salaries is I Corinthians 9. Verse 14 is the point of key interest. Paul writes in that verse, "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

The problem in using I Corinthians 9 to support pastoral salaries is that it takes the chapter completely out of context. (I'm taking much of this part of the post from one I wrote in late 2010 around the time of my resignation).

The reality is that this passage does not apply whatsoever to pastors. Nowhere in this verse or the entire passage does Paul even mention elders, overseers, or pastors. Simply put, elders do not appear here.

Paul is discussing those who travel from location to location proclaiming the gospel. He has apostolic workers and (possibly) evangelists in mind. Since they travel around, they need financial support. Elders, since they come from local congregations where they live, do not need this support. They can have regular jobs. Ephesians 4 makes it clear that apostolic workers and pastors, among others, are distinct functions within the church.

We should also keep the broader context in mind when studying this passage. Paul is discussing the issue of Christian liberty. Paul is not willing to use this liberty, as it relates to receiving financial support from the Corinthians, because he does not want it to in any way hinder his proclamation of the gospel.

We know that Paul received financial support from the Philippian church, thus showing that it was acceptable for apostolic workers to do so.

Back to the issue of pastors/elders. When Paul wrote this passage, he did not have elders/overseers/pastors in mind. The context excludes them altogether. Therefore, this verse should not be used to justify pastors receiving any sort of financial support.

God and Kingdom

On Memorial Day I'm once again reminded that it is an odd thing to live in the USA and also be a follower of Christ. I'm thrilled to have the political freedoms that we do, but I also realize that political boundaries mean nothing within the Kingdom of God. I'm grateful to the service men and women who have died defending these freedoms, but at the same time I cannot personally justify the taking up of arms to kill another human being for political reasons.

I choose not to celebrate patriotic holidays such as Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Veteran's Day because this nation is not truly my home (to clarify, I enjoy the day off from work, but I don't wave the flag). My ultimate citizenship is not here. Rather, it's in heaven. I've written previously here and here about not loving my country.

As opposed to the phrase "God and Country," we followers of Jesus should be thinking in terms of "God and No Country." A more positive way of saying that is "God and Kingdom."

Jesus spoke more about the Kingdom of God than just about anything else. It may have been his favorite topic. For example:

"But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Matthew 6:33

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:15

But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Mark 10:14

"I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." Luke 4:43

"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." Luke 8:10

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3

Those of us who are in Christ are also in His Kingdom. We have the daily privilege and duty of living out Kingdom life in whatever place we call home.

The Kingdom of God is not constrained in any way by political boundaries. There was a time when this was, to one degree or another, not the case. God dealt specifically and uniquely with the nation of Israel from Abraham until the time of Christ. Upon Jesus' coming, the kingdom began to spread to the Gentiles. We see this in rapid fashion in the book of Acts. Political boundaries, while a reality of the day, no longer mattered.

Christ's commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to us as the people of his kingdom is to make disciples of all nations. This refers to people groupings, not political states. In Acts 1:8, his followers are told to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. In Luke 24 Jesus says, "Repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations." Again, our Lord is referring to people groups.

As we live for Christ, most of us will remain in the political states where we were born. This is just the nature of life. In ultimate terms, where we live is not significant. We could reside in the USA, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Andorra, North Korea, Chile, or any other country. The circumstances of our lives certainly differ based on where we live. For example, Christians in North Korea face vastly more persecution than anything we deal with here. Despite this, Christ expects us to live for him and him alone wherever we live.

Some of us will no doubt cross political boundaries to share the gospel. This is a beautiful thing. We must remember that we do this and/or support others in doing this in order to take the gospel to those who haven't heard it - regardless of political entity.

Political nation-states do not matter in God's Kingdom. This, quite simply, is why I do not love my country, I feel no duty to it, and I no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance.

My allegiance is to Christ and him alone. It is his kingdom that has eternal significance.

What I Used to Believe About Membership

I began blogging about five years ago. Over that time, my views have changed a great deal on a variety of things, especially the church.

My first blog was entitled Hammer and Nail. In early 2008 I wrote a series on church reform. I still believe most of what I wrote in the series. However, there is one post that now makes me chuckle. It is entitled Church Reform - Membership and Discipline.

My emphasis in the post was that church reform would come about through increased stress on local church membership and discipline. The comments, mostly gracious challenges from friends, are fascinating.

The big difference between my beliefs now, when compared to then, is that I now think of the church as a family as opposed to an organization. This led to a dramatic change in view of church membership (see here and here). I'm glad God is merciful with us as our views change.

To read any or all of the church reform series, click here.

For What This Is Worth (Hint: Not Much)

Created by Gift cards online at GiftRocket

Does it matter what a blog's reading level is?

What level do you prefer?

People Groups and India

People Groups.org

Psalm 96

Why We Do and Don't Have a Statement of Faith

I know it sounds confusing, but our church family both does and does not have a statement of faith. While that sounds like it breaks the law of non-contradiction, it really doesn't.

Although we've never written it down, it's safe to conclude that our church family's statement of faith is a simple yet profound one: Jesus is Lord!

What we do not have is a lengthy statement of our beliefs. The reason for this is that we don't all agree on many of what we might call secondary doctrines. For example, I'm sure that we see differently on the doctrine of predestination. Our views of eschatology don't all line up. Our views of women's roles do not all fully correspond. If we had a statement of faith that demanded agreement, it would automatically force a wedge between us. It would create division.

That said, I wouldn't mind a statement of faith that focuses on core truths. If I had to select one, it would likely be The Nicene Creed. Core doctrines, by definition, are things that all Christians should agree upon. Therefore, a statement with only these should not be a problem.

The real difficulty becomes the secondary doctrines. This is what has led to the multitude of denominations we have today. Many of these newer (post-Reformation) statements of faith are solid documents; however, if adherence to one of them acts as a separator between Christians, then "Houston, we have a problem!"

As individuals, it is important for us to know what we believe. However, we may be in a place where we honestly do not know what we believe on certain issues. For example, I'm currently working through what I believe about women speaking during church gatherings. I'm in flux, and that is acceptable.

My encouragement to all believers is to know what you believe, but don't use this as a force to divide. Especially on secondary doctrines, it is fine to believe differently from other Christians. This is no reason for division.

Regarding statements of faith, focus on the essentials.

If you'd like to read through some statements, try this link.

What do you think about statements of faith? Do you have one? How does this affect your unity with those in your church family? What about other believers?

Better Than Cake

What's better than cake?

Better is when Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the only Head.

Better is when everyone is the church serves according to his/her gifts.

Better is when all are recognized as equals in the church.

Better is when there is no clergy.

Better is when money is given freely to those who are in need.

Better is when the church gives its money away.

Better is when elders lead through being godly examples.

Better is when preaching is to the lost instead of the saved.

Better is when everyone works.

Better is when pastors work regular jobs to be examples to the body.

Better is when all carry out the one anothers equally.

Better is when the church looks to Christ as the only senior pastor.

Better is when the church follows God's plan for His church that we see in scripture.

Cake

Warning - it is not my intention for this post to come across as bitter or harsh. However, I firmly believe these things need to be said.

My main point is this: a professional pastor's job is mostly cake.

Please let me both explain and elaborate. By "pastor," I'm referring to the professional pastoral role. By "job," I'm referring to the duties that the local church that employs him expects him to do. By "cake," I'm referring to the fact that his job is easy.

I'm in a pretty solid position to make this claim because I've been on all sides of the issue. For many years I put money in the offering plate, thinking that pastors worked really hard and deserved what they were paid. In fact, I even bought into the idea that pastors are underpaid. Then I was a paid pastor for about 2.5 years. My income depended on the people in the pew putting money in the plate. Now I've been out of the system for about a year and a half.

When I pastored, I repeatedly heard people in the church talk about how hard I worked and how busy I was. They asked with reverence if I could possibly spare the time to visit them. Frankly, I have no idea what they were talking about. There is no reason for a pastor to be all that busy. He's got more time and flexibility than just about anyone else.

In what other job do you get to sit in a coffee shop and study the bible for hours per week? In how many occupations can you literally set your own schedule each day (except Sundays of course)? What occupation outside of pastoring encourages going on missions trips and attending theological conferences while the church pays for it?

Seminaries are partly to blame for this situation. Pastors-to-be repeatedly hear how difficult it is to be a pastor. They are told that there is much suffering involved and that it will be a very difficult task. However, since they are "called to preach," they must walk down this painful, lonely road.

To be fair, there are times when pastoring is difficult. Performing weddings is stressful. Funerals are also difficult. Times of crisis in general are tough. However, these are relatively few and far between. Much of a pastor's time involves studying and teaching. Those things are enjoyable. I loved studying the bible for hours each week and then lecturing about it twice on Sundays.

When compared to a regular job, professional pastoring is easy. While there are spikes of stress, in general it is relaxing. Some things are just plain annoying, like budgets and committees, but overall these do not take up too much time. Some pastors spend tons of time talking with folks in the church, performing a sort of Christian counseling. This is for the most part enjoyable.

Some pastors are extremely busy, but much of the activity involves unimportant (at least as far as the Kingdom is concerned) administrative stuff. Other pastors are busy with volunteering, but this is both something they want to do and something that goes beyond the bounds of what they are paid for.

I'm not sure why, but Christians in general believe that pastoring is a very difficult job and that pastors should receive higher salaries. Most professional pastors agree.

I strongly disagree on both fronts.

Professional pastoring is mostly cake.

Missions in II Thessalonians

"Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you, and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith." II Thessalonians 3:1-2

Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians is one that we don't generally pay much attention to. When it comes to world missions, is there any connection at all? If so, what is the key thing Paul has to say? (To read the first post in this series, click here).

Paul writes something significant for missions in 3:1-2. The apostle addresses the importance of prayer as it relates to world missions. Paul, who was a gifted man, realized that anything good he could accomplish would come through the grace of God. His giftings were from God, and anyone's changed heart was from God. Success for Paul came only through Christ.

Paul makes some specific requests of the Thessalonian believers. First, he asks for prayer that the gospel message would move effectively to those who need to hear it. He's hoping for no roadblocks. His desire is that the word be honored through acceptance of it. Second, Paul hopes for delivery from the wicked men who are opposing him. We know, based on other passages (for example this), that Paul is not scared of suffering for the gospel. In this verse, he appears to desire deliverance so that his efforts won't be slowed down through imprisonment, etc.

It is somewhat ironic that when we attempt to share our faith, we sometimes take our eyes off Christ. We learn from Paul that it is only through Christ that anything good can be accomplished. This is a solid reminder that prayer should be the first missions activity of the church. We see this in Acts 13 as the church in Antioch first sent out Paul and Barnabas.

Let's all be praying missionaries. All success for Christ comes from and through Christ.


To read any or all of the posts in this series, click here.

ATTENTION ALL BLOGGERS: If You Want a Lot of Comments, Just Write about This!

If you are a blogger, well done.

If you are not a blogger, please start. It's not difficult. Just write about what you know and interests you.

Most bloggers, including myself, enjoy the discussion/comments aspect of blogging just as much as writing the posts. I've found a way to help with this. If you desire a boatload of comments, there is a topic that you can write about. This is almost guaranteed to bring in a tidal wave of discussion.

What is the topic? (Drum roll in background.) The topic is whether or not women should speak during church gatherings.

As far as I can recall, I've written about this twice. Both instances have yielded many more comments than normal.

The posts are entitled:

House Church - What About Women?

One Good Reason for Women to Speak

The fascinating aspect of all this for me is that I receive comments disagreeing with me from both sides. I take what could be described as a "middle-of-the-road" position on this issue. My hope is that this is a biblical position. While I do believe that women are permitted to speak during gatherings, I do not believe that they ought to take on any sort of teaching role.

Some commenters believe I'm incorrect in thinking that women should speak at all. Others believe I'm wrong to place any restrictions on women speaking in any way. It all makes for thought-provoking discussion.

To sum up: if you desire comments, simply ask if women should be allowed to speak when the church gets together. Give your position and then wait for the comments to flow in. You won't be disappointed.

Tradition Says...

"I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day Sunday, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, 'Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.'" Revelation 1:9-11 (TAV - Traditional Altered Version)


Idea inspired by Alan Knox.

Should Elders Teach in a Different Manner than Other Men in the Church?

In a previous post, I asked whether or not elders should teach.

Now I'll ask a related question: Should elders teach in a different manner than other men in the church?

In looking at the church in general today, we see that in most instances the elders/overseers/pastors do in fact teach in ways that are different from everyone else. The sermon is the primary example of this. But is this how it should be?

Should elders teach in a different manner than the other men? In a word: No.

When we look in scripture, we see relatively few instances of elders teaching. When we read about teaching in the bible, we get the sense that all of the church was doing it. Col. 3:16, for example, exhorts everyone to teach.

In light of passages such as I Tim. 2 and I Cor. 14, it is fair to say that women should not teach men. Despite this, women should certainly be teaching other women. Teaching like this ought to occur every day of the week. It could be in the form of bible studies, but more frequently it ought to be in the everyday happenings of life.

What about during larger gatherings of the church? Elders will likely do some of the teaching. However, non-elder males will also teach. While elders will defend and shepherd the flock, non-elders will do the same. There is no scriptural warrant for elders teaching in a different manner than others.

That said, it does make sense that elders will be heavily involved in the teaching. The reason for this is that elders have been recognized as godly men. Also, elders have a decent amount of life experience (thus the term "elder"). When a passage of scripture is being discussed, it seems logical that elders would have much life experience to share with the group as it relates to the situation.

As far as teaching with authority is concerned, this role belongs to the Holy Spirit. Elders do not have an authoritative role; rather, their role is one of being godly examples to the people. Their teaching does not tell people what to do, but rather encourages them to do what God has said. They guide through their own obedience and service.

The topic being discussed at any particular time will likely have an impact on who speaks. There are times for elders to teach and there are times for them to learn (as with all of us).

One great benefit to elders teaching just like the other men is that it helps the body see them as part of the body. When elders teach in a different manner from others, it causes them to stand out and stand apart. This makes it tough for them to be a real part of the body.

One great benefit elders can give is in encouraging the younger men to teach. They may be able to instruct them in this. Younger folks have many excellent things to say, but may feel uncomfortable or unprepared to speak. Elders can help with this.

Paul makes it abundantly clear in I Cor. 12-14 that the church is one body that benefits from mutual interaction and upbuilding. When everyone is involved, the body is healthier than if there is an imbalance in any facet of church life. This includes teaching.

In the end, the scriptural model must be our guide. The bible never sets elders apart as men who teach differently from the rest of the flock. They should be able to teach. This teaching looks like the teaching of the rest of the body.

Ouch!

Tithing, Interpretation, and Confusion