What true religion is and isn't

In the body of this section of Paul's letter, he goes on to list the characteristics of authentic, Christ-like love. Again, in keeping with the comparison to the contemporary religious world, I'll frame these instructions in what is not. Please know I'm not making up any of these negative examples. They are all things I've seen, heard, and experienced in the contemporary church.

True religion is not impatient. It doesn't disfellowship people because they don't repent in a certain time frame. True religion doesn't cast aside members who aren't "progressing" in their Christian walk.

True religion doesn't boast of being the true religion! It doesn't set itself up in superiority to others. It doesn't condescendingly tell a lost world it's going to Hell and if they'll just start attending this congregation, they'll be among the "chosen."

True religion isn't rude. It doesn't look askance at visitors not dressed the "right" way. It doesn't ignore new faces. It doesn't take up all the good parking spaces near the front so visitors have to walk further. It doesn't tell a homeless mother looking for something to feed her child to wait until services are over and someone will help her.

True religion isn't self-seeking. It's not a members-only fraternity whose programs and services are only there to benefit the members. It's not worship that gets upset because the "preacher just isn't speaking to me," or "the music is just boring." It doesn't ask "what's in it for me?"

True religion isn't easily angered. It doesn't retaliate to those who've challenged it or attacked it. It doesn't tell the world that "God hates fags" or "God damn America." It doesn't blow up abortion clinics. Furthermore, true religion doesn't keep a record of wrongs. It doesn't stew over decades or centuries of wrongdoing. It doesn't demand reparations, it doesn't continue to cite sins committed in the Middle Ages, it doesn't refuse forgiveness. It doesn't demand earthly justice for spiritual wrongs.

True religion isn't relativistic; it's based-in everlasting truth. What was evil still is, and true religion doesn't promote it. It is more interested in the objective truth behind an act rather than who's doing it. True religion doesn't excuse evil because it occurred in it's own house. It doesn't look the other way when a brother is hurting another. It protects and trusts even those outside its walls. It would never excuse evil because its victim wasn't "one of us."

True religion never fails. It's not dependent on an age, or a particular gift. It's not based on any great body of knowledge or theological understanding, only that God came to Earth in the flesh and gave His life as a sacrifice, once for all so that the creation He so dearly loves might not perish but spend eternity with Him. It's not dependent on anything that is earthly. All of that, our bodies, our minds, our skills, and our strengths, will diminish and pass away.

True religion is contingent on the state of our soul. It's our heart, our attitude, our innermost being and desires. When we finally meet our Creator and face Him, that is all we'll have.

True religion, Paul-style

Much is made, especially in the fractured world of American theology, about "true religion." Many Christian sects claim some exclusive hold or even pedigree that entitles them to this title. Still more in our increasingly relativistic society dismiss the idea of theological truth altogether. My thoughts on the issue, as always, take me back to the Bible, the source of all truth. What is true religion, according to the scripture?

As always, we have to be cautious about cherry-picking pieces of scripture to support our pre-conceived notions. Perhaps the most tragic flaw in hermeneutics is the propensity to rip sections of scripture out of context. I humbly submit my thoughts on "true religion" in this piece. I do not claim authority. I certainly invite feedback and criticism to my ideas.

As I looked at where my search led me, I could not see any real resemblance to any modern-day religious body; so what follows is not so much a description of what true religion is, but rather what it is not. Sadly, our modern theological context lends itself to a catalogue of what isn't true religion rather than what is. As to what is, I've chosen the renowned 13th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians as the basis for what is "true religion." The reasoning behind that is two-fold: First, everything Paul writes to the Corinthian church here is in accordance with Jesus' teachings and in agreement with other Apostolic teaching. Second, Paul is writing here to a church in Corinth torn asunder by strife and disagreement on this very issue. The context of this chapter is Paul's attempt to get the Corinthians to stop bickering over which spiritual gift and religious practice is superior and to come together to serve God.

Paul begins this part of his letter by listing some spiritual gifts that have been elevated in the Corinthian culture, namely speaking in tongues, prophesying, showing faith, and giving to the needy. The Corinthians are not all that different from us, placing value on outward signs rather than internal attitudes. Paul, echoing Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees, sets the Corinthians straight right away. I can have all these gifts, Paul says, but if I don't have love (agape), then none of it matters.

So that's the first thing true religion isn't. True religion is not a show. It's not about the preacher, the song leader, the dynamic teacher, the faith healer on TV, the CCM artist with the newest hit single, or any other "gift" which might put us in the public eye. Those talents are all good, but if they are not practiced with an attitude of love, they're worthless. We all know only too well of preachers who took the pulpit only to be the center of attention, of "religious" TV personalities who were more interested in raising funds for their own use than with sharing the gospel. Sadly, that list is large. Paul tells us clearly that true religion isn't about gaining notoriety. It's about practicing your God-given talents, in anonymity if necessary, in the edification of others. Any other motive, and your talents are of no import.

How would a recognition of this truth impact the church today? What about the arguments about the role of women in the church? What about the disagreements over praise teams and other changes in worship? What about the complaints and grumblings of church members who feel "hurt" because nobody recognized their service?

Paul sets the tone for the rest of his letter here in his first paragraph: true religion is based in authentic love. Next then, Paul tells the Corinthians what authentic love is. Let's see if that looks like anything we might recognize today.

Sorry for the lack of posting

The job search (yes, again!) has been consuming my time. Looks like there may be a break there, however. I'll keep you posted. Meanwhile, I've stored up some ideas I need to get out.

Process Matters pt. 3: Politics

Valuing outcomes over process is nothing new in the realm of politics. Ever since Machiavelli penned "The Prince," the concept of "the ends justify the means" has been in place. Certainly that principle has been on display over the centuries when we look at tyrants who use any means necessary to secure their ends, whether that be Lenin and the Russian Revolution or Mao with the Chinese "Cultural Revolution."

Surely though, in America, a nation steeped in the process of the Constitution, this attitude couldn't creep in....could it? It has and continues to be an issue in American politics. The desire to bring about political ends even if it means a Constitutional "end around" has unfortunately become part of our naton's fabric.

We can go back to the Civil War era to see this principle first at work. No one will argue that ending slavery was the moral thing to do. What can be argued and continues to be the subject of debate is the method taken. The Civil War was a direct result of a Constitutional crisis created by legislators who threw process to the wind and tried to enforce results on unwilling participants. This prompted the secession of the Southern states and the resulting five year period of bloodshed. Following the war, needing to pay off massive debt, a confiscatory income tax was adopted, again shortcutting the priciples of protecting private property for the pursuit of a short term gain. That began the inevitable growth of the Federal government to the point today where our founders would barely recognize what they had put together.

The past month has seen a heated debate over Federal health care. Again, we see a noble goal being reached through means of a shortcut. This is completely unsurprising, given President Obama's discipleship to Saul Alinsky, and his "Rules for Radicals." If Machiavelli wrote the gameplan of how the "haves" could protect themselves from the "have nots" by hook or crook, Alinsky wrote the "Bizarro Prince," a tract that instructs "radicals" to achieve "social justice" by any means necessary.

What we see as a result is what we've always seen: instead of citizens getting behind a social movement and helping their fellow citizens, the disregard of process has lead to a feeling of disenfranchisement which breeds resentment and anger. We should be unsurprised to see "Tea Party" movements developing when process is being sacrificed for outcomes. If we look back at our Revolutionary roots, few Americans were in favor of rebelling against Great Britain. They considered themselves British by birth and were not just engaging in a fit of pique against their "parent" country. Even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence shows a people frustrated by failed attempts to engage the British in a peaceful process and continued resentment by a government which was regularly circumventing process in order to gain short term goals.

Similarly, few, if any Americans would argue that health care is unimportant or that the current system needs fixing. Contrary to the demonizers in the media, those who oppose this measure are not "racists," or "uncaring." In fact, research shows clearly that conservatives are in fact a very charitable group. What we're seeing is the same anger and resentment we've seen everywhere when process is sacrificed for outcomes.

Just like in sports and education, American government desperately needs to return to a system which respects the processes outlined in the Constitution. Our nation's leaders, on both sides of the aisle, need to reject measures that shortcut the Constitution, no matter how desireable the goal is.

Process Matters pt. 2: Education

Gradually, our society has shifted from one that emphasized process and doing things the "right" way, to one that is only interested in results. Yesterday, we discussed this phenomenon and how it is evident in sports. No longer is "how you play the game," but whether or not the team wins or loses.

This attitude has taken over American education as well, and not to our advantage. Rather than focusing on the importance of the education process, we've turned our eyes to outcomes, often ignoring the development of the child.

This focus on results over process is evidenced by the prominence of "Outcome-based Education" (OBE) in our school systems. Increasing pressure from politicians and taxpayers over increasing spending in schools has lead to an overemphasis on performance and test scores. Don't get me wrong, students should be held accountable and schools should have clear expectations for student achievement; however, the hyper-focus on learning outcomes to the detriment of the process has resulted in teacher "teaching to the test" rather than providing an authentic education. In my 20 years as an educator, I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually seen a scope and sequence being actively followed and evaluated. In fact, I know several schools who have this document filed away somewhere, only taking it out when the next round of accreditation occurs. The classroom teachers have no consistent process they are following, only getting the results by hook or crook. Instead of creating an effective process that can be repeated for ongoing success, we've begun to focus only on the results.

This has resulted in several negative byproducts in our schools. Parents have begun to lose sight of the gradual development of their children, instead focusing on "test results." This in turn has put greater pressure on schools to "produce" these test scores. States have attached funding and other incentives solely to the achievement levels of the schools, not taking into account the process. Academic dishonesty among students is at an all-time high, with students being told by their local schools and colleges and universities that results are all that matter.

Once upon a time, we taught our children the processes. We emphasized how Algebra and Geometry helped the individual think and problem solve more effectively. We valued the study of literature and writing and how these processes helped develop the character of the individual. We taught our students the scientific method, making sure they knew that true science wasn't dedicated to achieving a desired result. Our students knew that learning history was a necessary component to making informed decisions in their futures. Our students were encouraged to be musicians and artists and develop every aspect of their being. Now, our students are taught that it's just the information that matters. If they can spit it back out on the FCAT or the SAT, then it's served its purpose. Learning for its own sake is an antiquated notion. School and learning is merely a means to an end for both teachers and students.

This development, like with sports, has robbed education of its soul.

Process Matters

I enjoy reading the work of Dr. Richard Beck at Abilene Christian University and his blog "Experimental Theology." I don't always agree with Dr. Beck's theses, but his thoughts are provocative. Recently, he wrote a blog post on social justice and the church. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/03/glenn-beck-social-justice-at-church.html

Here, Dr. Beck pulled some scripture in an attempt to justify social justice as a goal of the church. I take no issue with Dr. Beck regarding this as a goal of the church. What I find problematic with Dr. Beck's thinking is a complete disregard for the process toward achieving that goal. It is that line of thought that has become all too prevalent in our society. We stake out noble goals, but neglect to consider the need for an appropriate process toward those goals.

At the end of this series of posts, I'll address Dr. Beck's theological points in more detail. Theology is just one area where this focus on outcomes over process is destructive. I'll attempt to focus on four areas where I am intimately involved as a coach, educator, citizen, and Christ-follower. In each of these realms, I will show how an overemphasis of preferable outcomes and a neglect of process has resulted in an overall negative for that realm.

Part I-Athletics

I choose to address athletics first because the occurrence of this phenomenon in this field is probably the least controversial, and the solutions in sport are quite often tremendous object lessons for the rest of society (see Jackie Robinson and integration). Once upon a time, the sportswriter Grantland Rice penned these famous lines:

For when the One Great Scorer comes
To write against your name,
He marks-not that you won or lost-
But how you played the game.

Rice's sentiment expressed in this poem seems today as antiquated as leather helmets and peach baskets when viewed in comparison to the contemporary attitude about sports. Today, only winning matters. At the professional level, we see athletes risking their lives and abusing their bodies in pursuit of that alluring end. At the college level, we see administrations, coaches, and players paying but lip service to the "collegiate" side of intercollegiate athletics. Players are routinely coddled through "classes" designed to keep them eligible so their teams can keep winning. Coaches and administrators talk a good game about the protection of the "student-athlete" all the while creating a system that uses up their talents and all too often carelessly throws them out without regard once those talents are used up.

This attitude has even filtered down to the high schools and youth sports. Recently, at my 9 year-old son's baseball game, I witnessed a coach instructing his players to untie their shoes and tie them again and engage in other fabricated tactics designed to delay the start of the next inning and thereby end the game with their team ahead. What are these children learning about competition and fair play, the process of sport which used to be valued above the outcome of the game?

As in all things, process matters; moreover, attending to the proper processes ensure positive outcomes. The legendary John Wooden, who won 10 championships in 12 years at UCLA, was famous for his emphasis of process over outcome. Wooden would start his practices each year by teaching his players how to properly put on their socks and shoes. It was this attention to detail and process that brought about the Bruins' success. Wooden notoriously would not scout his opponents, insisting that if his players executed their roles as best they could, they would be successful. Wooden is still lauded today for his "pyramid of success," a dedication to process toward outcome if there ever was one.



So we can see in sport that attention to process does bring about desired results. Sadly, we also see in today's sport that the allure of instant success and a reticence toward the hard work required to engage in the process often leads people off the path toward true success and onto a path that might lead to temporary riches, but ultimately ends in destruction.

In succeeding posts, we'll examine how this same attitude has manifested itself in education, politics, and religion.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.3

OK, time to dig into the "meat" of what is probably the most influential speech ever given in the history of humanity, the Sermon on the Mount. Thus far, we've established one very important set of principles that will guide our reading of the rest of the sermon:

Jesus is calling for a change in attitude by His followers. He didn't come to add more legal restrictions, nor did He aim to to foster licentiousness. He plead for His disciples to get back to the holy attitude desired by God. This is not a behavioral handbook. Jesus provides a few relational examples to illustrate His point.

Jesus first discussed how we are to treat one another. The essence of Jesus' instruction is consistent with his thesis: don't just follow the letter of the law, adopt the spirit behind it. Now he will go on to talk about another relational issue: how we treat our spouses.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus used marital references to illustrate His concepts. As Jesus presented it, there was no earthly relationship that more closely resembled that which God desired with His creation than marriage. The unconditional love, the passion, the commitment, the intimacy; these are all ideals presented throughout scripture describing how God desires to relate to us. The problem was, in Jesus' time (and ours), the people had lost the essence of what the marriage relationship was supposed to be. Like with other matters, the people had become concerned with legalistic obeisance rather than faithful following. Not surprisingly, that created incentives for finding loopholes.

Jesus again begins with His rhetorical motif: "You have heard..." Once again, Jesus contrasts the letter of the law with an instruction to go beyond the mere letter. This is a section where many contemporary legalists get bogged down. On one hand, they want to use this section as a literal command for how marital relationships should be: monogamous and lasting. No doubt, that is what God wants for our relationships. But it is clear also that Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate the need to act beyond the law; He is not advocating a literal justice system.

Rather than looking at this as a proof text for disciplining or disfellowshipping the sexually immoral and/or divorced, let's look at this text as Jesus' intended. It's not enough, Jesus' says, to merely avoid an adulterous sexual relationship. If our minds are drifting toward sin, our bodies will soon follow. He then instructs us to engage in acts of dismemberment to prevent our sin. Literal? I think not. It's pretty obvious if we look at this passage in its rhetorical context that Jesus is instructing us to "go the extra mile" to stay faithful to Him, and that was based in how we relate to each other. The essence of this passage is simple: don't treat one another as sexual objects. It doesn't matter whether we "did not have sexual relations with that woman." What matters is our attitude toward that woman, and our commitment to our marriage vows and God. It does not condemn or prescribe punishment, rather it convicts the offender toward repentance and reconciliation.

Similarly, Jesus' proscription of divorce in verses 31 and 32 is not intended to be interpreted as legal code. The Jews had developed an elaborate system to circumvent the requirements for marriage. Countless loopholes had been developed that allowed a man to divorce his wife. In this patriarchal society, that was as much as a death sentence to a woman who was no longer chaste and had no means to provide for herself. No, Jesus says, unless this woman breaks her vow, then the man must keep his. There is no getting out of the commitment simply because she's grown older, or another attractive woman has caught one's eye. The loopholes of the Mosaic system might have saved the husband from accusations of adultery, but it was disastrous for those left behind. It's also important to note here that Jesus was not adding anything new here. His was merely stating the status quo, reminding them that the consequences of their behavior didn't just impact themselves.

The rest of the Sermon on the Mount follows the same pattern. Jesus reminds the audience of the Mosaic commands, and then illustrates the attitude behind the commands. Jesus, from beginning to end, is instructing us in how to live a "fulfilled" life. Sadly, rather than accentuate these attitudes, many have adopted the Pharisaical attitude of trying to make this sermon into just another legal code. It's so much more than that.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.2

Yesterday, we discussed the importance of looking at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in its totality. It is ironic that we who proclaim Him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords often do not accord to him the same respect for His rhetorical skills as we would Billy Graham or Max Lucado. Instead, we look at this sermon as if Jesus were reading a grocery list full of scattered, random thoughts. This is obviously an erroneous method of interpretation. No, Jesus spoke here in a clear, unmistakably organized fashion, declaring a clear thesis and providing multiple supports for his claims. We established the thesis in the previous post; Jesus here wants to accentuate two main ideas: First, that His followers were to be the "preservatives" of a rotting world, a light in a world of darkness. Second, Jesus accentuated that He did not come to contradict the law, but to fulfill it. He makes it abundantly clear that His grace is not a license to ignore God's calling. In verses 21-48, He will expand on this idea.

In this, the body of Jesus' sermon, He uses the rhetorical technique of contrast. He begins a series of thoughts with "you may have heard," referencing the teachings of Moses, and then contrasts them with "but I say to you," in which Jesus tells us what He really wants from these teachings. Again, Jesus has stated clearly that He has not come to destroy the law, so this passage cannot be taken as Jesus contradicting any of the law of Moses. Rather Jesus here is showing us the spirit of these laws which had been diluted over generations into merely legalistic guidelines. Jesus wants His followers to forsake seeking the "letter" of the law like the Pharisees, and begin to grasp the full intent of His commandments.

In this passage, Jesus teaches about three main subjects: how we should treat our brothers and sisters in the church, how we should treat our spouses, and how we should treat our neighbors. It's important to note that Jesus could have spoken about any number of Mosaic commands, but He chose these. Let's look at the first section, how we are to treat our brothers and sisters.

Jesus begins this section by referencing the clearest commandment in all scripture: do not murder. This is perhaps the least debated point in all of God's word. Even those who deny the existence of Jehovah God would be in agreement with this commandment. Jesus says, however, that's not enough. It's not enough only to follow the letter of this command. We must, he says, follow it in spirit. He illustrates that by extending this commandment not just to cover the taking of a physical life, but for "character assassination" as well.

As many have experienced, the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is one of the biggest lies ever put forth. Words hurt. They injure, maim, and sometimes even kill. They can cause lasting damage. Here, Jesus tells us that if we are in the habit of assassinating the character of our brothers and sisters, we are as liable for "hell fire" as if we had physically murdered them.

Then Jesus goes on to present what I believe is a revolutionary thought, one that we really need to take a closer look at in our day. He says if you have a problem with your brother, don't come and worship me until you've settled that problem. We can take a couple of very important conclusions from this. First, Jesus is telling us that our relationship with Him is not just a dyad, nor are our relationships with one another. Our fellowship with one another is triangular. I cannot fellowship with God without having healthy relationships with my brothers and sisters. Similarly, I cannot have healthy relationships with my brothers and sisters without a relationship with God. We are part of an inseparable system, much like the Trinity itself. Jesus goes so far with this concept as to imply that worshipping God while in conflict with our brothers and sisters is a worthless exercise. He strongly intimates here that our offerings to God are not acceptable while we are still in conflict with our brothers and sisters.

I ask each of you today: what does this say about the nature of today's divided church? Are we even able to worship God "in spirit and in truth" while living cut off from our fellow believers?

In our next discussion, we'll look at Jesus' teachings about marriage and divorce, another source of great contention in the church.

A Fresh Look at the Sermon on the Mount Pt.1

One of the pitfalls of biblical exegesis is getting bogged down in verse-by-verse interpretations. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the Bible wasn't written that way. It was written prosaically, with an organizational structure and paragraphs not any different than writers do today. When we hyper-focus on verses or even passages taken out of the context of the rhetorical structure of the overall piece, we run the risk of misinterpreting the intention of the text.

This tendency is well illustrated when we look at the Sermon on the Mount. For centuries, theologians have picked this sermon apart, using Jesus' words as a basis for establishing a new set of laws. This interpretation is the polar opposite of what Jesus was teaching here.

When we look at Matthew 5, we have to remember that Jesus was speaking to a crowd here. He was delivering a message, one with a central thesis, a beginning, middle and end. His audience would have been oblivious, not having a textual companion, to any verse-by-verse interpretation of this speech. Rather they would have been focused on the central ideas of Jesus' speech. With that in mind, let's take a fresh look at what Jesus is saying in this most important message.

Jesus begins his sermon with what we know today as "the beatitudes." Here, Jesus uses a fairly common rhetorical technique: he begins his speech with a "hook," an attention-getting device designed to orient the audience's attention toward the speaker and lead them directly into the thesis. Given that purpose, what is it then that Jesus is leading us to here?

If we look at the beatitudes in total and in the context of Jesus' entire ministry, Jesus is boldly instructing his audience to become the antithesis of the religious leaders of the day. Rather than the haughty power-wielding of the Pharisees, Jesus tells his followers to be meek, mournful, and merciful. Rather than being arrogant and convinced of one's own righteousness, Jesus instructs his followers to be humble and constantly searching for the righteousness of the Father. Further, Jesus adds the twin metaphors of salt and light. Here, he is instructing his audience on their role in God's Kingdom. As he will tell the Pharisees later, the Kingdom is rotting from the inside out. Jesus implores his followers to be the "preservative" of the Kingdom. Similarly, Jesus foreshadows the Great Commission here by telling his audience they are to be a "light to the world." He is preparing them for a revolutionary message.

Then, just before Jesus embarks on the "body" of his speech, he reminds his audience that paradoxically, though he is coming to revolutionize the world, he is not changing the foundations that the Father laid. This is going to be a new covenant, not one that negates the old one, but one that clears away the dross that has gathered and prepares the way for building on God's foundation. He reminds his audience that the Pharisees are not condemned for being doctrinally unsound. They know and keep the law better than any. If we are to be righteous in the sight of God, Jesus reminds us, it's not about forsaking the law and the prophets.

If that's the case, then what is it? That will be the essence of Jesus sermon, the body of his speech, which we'll look at in detail in the next post.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt. 4: Don't destroy the work of God

Paul adds a concluding thought to how we ought to view one another within the Body of Christ here in Romans 14. The essence of his thought is this: outside of matters of the cross, don't destroy each other over matters of practice. In doing so, we destroy the work of God.

In the context here, Paul is dealing with cultural issues within the Roman church. There are divisions developing over the eating of meat, the observation of certain feast days, and other cultural issues. We see this throughout Paul's epistles, but perhaps most here in his letter to the Romans. The Roman culture was without a doubt the most diverse in all the Empire to which Paul was preaching. He was writing here to Roman converts who used to worship idols, Jewish converts who struggled with observing Mosaic law, as well as a variety of immigrants from other ethnicities who brought with them their own traditions. Paul's message to this pluralistic group is a simple one, one that should resonate with us today: Let's keep the main thing the main thing.

Paul correctly points out in this chapter that judging (condemning, not discerning) over these kinds of practices is an act of selfishness and pride on our part. Should we condemn our brother in this regard, we divide the Body unnecessarily and lay waste to the work of God, which is Christ's sacrifice to establish His Kingdom on earth. Similarly, if we stubbornly cling to certain rituals and flaunt them in the face of our brothers, we may cause division, causing them to "stumble."

Paul correctly points out that in matters such as these, the individual is answerable to God, not other members of the Body. "Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats because he is not eating from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

There's the definition to live by. There are countless non-salvific issues on which Christians in good faith disagree. In a pluralistic society, it cannot help but be so. And certainly, Jesus anticipated this eventuality as He encouraged His disciples to "go into all the world." As Paul points out here, our faith in God and His Son is of central importance. If we're not acting out of genuine faith, then we're no different than the Pharisees, who acted out of a sense of legal obligation rather than reverence for God.

Sadly, how often do we witness this in today's church: Self-assured legalists condemning the faithful actions of others and bringing division to the Body. There's nothing wrong with a faithful pursuit of God's will in our lives. What is sinful, according to Paul, is condemning our brother who genuinely comes to a different conclusion.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt.3: The burden of the strong

Thus far we've looked at how we need to interact with the world around us, particularly with regard to civil authorities. Paul outlines this in Romans 13. Now let's turn our attention to another matter, how we in the church are to deal with one another.

Like with the secular world, we can expect to find conflict and disagreement from time to time. How we respond to these conflicts is of the utmost importance. First, let's look at the dynamics of the relationships. With regard to the secular world, God calls us to be "holy," or set apart. Yet in chapter 13, we see that even despite this separation, we are to be respectful and honorable toward our secular neighbors and authorities. In short, we're not to conform, but we're also not to disrespectfully defy or antagonize those with whom we have conflict. How much more so then should we take on an attitude of respect and honor with our Christian neighbors with whom we come into conflict?

Paul begins chapter 14 with a hypothetical conflict between a "faith-based" vegetarian, whom Paul describes as "weak," and one who "eats everything." Paul clearly paints the one who eats everything as the stronger brother here. In context, we can presume that this brother represents the one in a "new" relationship with Christ who enjoys the freedom this relationship brings. On the other hand, the vegetarian brother is maintaining a legalistic attitude from the old covenant. He has yet to realize the fullness of freedom in Christ. Given that context, it is interesting to examine Paul's words and his instructions to the "stronger" brother.

First note that his instruction is to the stronger brother, not the weaker. The onus here is clearly on the part of the stronger to not sit in judgment of the weaker. Paul's clear implication in the first eight verses of chapter 14 is that "strong" and "weak" are matters of perception. His advice echoes that of Christ who cautioned us to "judge not, lest we be judged." Paul is not relativistically asserting that one brother's belief is as good as another's, as some in the post-modern church are wont to do. No, Paul here clearly defines which point of view is "right" and which is "wrong," and he recognizes that these matters are "disputable." What he does address, however, is the attitude of the right to the wrong.

In the Greek, the world for "weak" Paul uses here is synonymous with "ill" or "failing." In other words, our brother's viewpoint is not rebellious or defiant, but it is one that renders him spiritually "sick." It implies not a permanent condition, that would require isolation or palliative care, but a temporary one, that can be improved depending on the "treatment" by the stronger brother. This should inform our response to our brethren in Christ with whom we have conflict.

How did Jesus minister to the sick, particularly the lepers and those whom society had given up on? Did he judge them incurable and leave them to die in their isolation, or did he come to them? Paul is clear here: even if we believe a brother to be in error, we are to respond to him in care, not with contention. He goes on to say about these matters of "dispute" that each is responsible to God for his own conscience. We must not pretend that out brethren are answerable to us, or that we have been put in a position of authority over them. Even as an elder, I must understand that God has appointed me a "shepherd," not a judge. Those with whom I deal are not answerable to me, but to God, the same as I.

How would this change the church if we were to adopt this attitude? I'll examine those thoughts next.

Peace and Mutual Edification Pt. 2

Romans 13 and 14 are written as the beginning of a new thought for Paul in his letter to the church in Rome. This is important to note, as sometimes we as modern readers get lost in "chapter and verse" and forget that Paul was writing a single document to an intended audience. He worked in "paragraph and sentence" not in chapter and verse. In context then, we see that these two chapters come on the heels of a profound conclusion from Paul: Love everybody. Bless those who persecute you and live in harmony with those around you. This reminder of the core of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is the foundation for the next two chapters.

Chapter 13 begins with instructions about dealing with civil authorities. Paul is crystal clear in this regard: We are to honor and respect those place in civil authority, as they are suffered to be there by God. This includes paying taxes and submitting to government authority. Now plenty has been written on this subject, not the least being the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is easy to excuse this passage by justifying rebellion against "unjust" civil authorities. We need to keep mind, however, that the civil authorities Paul is writing about here make Bull Connor look like Mother Theresa. If indeed, as is generally accepted, Paul is writing this letter during the reign of Nero, this admonition to honor those in civil authority is quite a weighty command.

Why then, would Paul instruct us to endure tyranny and injustice? The answer follows in what is the third full paragraph of Chapter 13:

"...whatever other commandment(s) there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (v.9b-10 NIV)

This is the heart of the matter. There are many times that we feel righteous in our anger and rebellion, particularly against civil government. There is no question that we see injustice on a daily basis. We, however, are operation on imperfect knowledge, as Paul reminded the Corinthian church. Justice is not ours to dispense, or even to pursue (see 13:1-5) I would contend that Dr. King's policy of non-violent disobedience COULD fit into this mold. It is possible to resist the government without showing dishonor (see Daniel, Shadrach, et al).

I do think we need to think long and hard about how we as Christians react to the civil authorities. The unbelieving world is watching. Sadly, too many times, they see Christians acting not unlike themselves, engaging in petty politics and personal attacks. This is clearly what Paul was proscribing.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at how we're to respond to community living.

George Will to Evan Bayh: Boom....Roasted

TERRY MORAN, HOST: There's a sense that something is broken in Washington summed up this week by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who announced his retirement. I think it's fair to say he's leaving in disgust. Here's what he had to say.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH, (D-IND.): I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship, and not enough progress. Too much narrow ideology, and not enough practical problem solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done.

MORAN: Is he right, George?

GEORGE WILL: Well, it's hard to take a lecture on bipartisanship from a man who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, the confirmation of Justice Alito, the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Far from being a rebel against his Party's lockstep movement, Mr. Bayh voted for the Detroit bailout, for the stimulus, for the public option in the healthcare bill. I don't know quite what his complaint is, but, Terry, with metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security said, "Oh, that's terrible - the government's broken."

Peace and mutual edification

Ostensibly, the work of Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and their cohorts was to "restore" the church to its New Testament oneness. Chief among their various goals was to combat the fractious nature of denominationalism that seemed to have won the day in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. What has resulted from their work is hardly the unity that they wished to see, but even more fracture, and in some cases, a body dedicated to separating itself from the rest of the Church on the grounds of patterns and doctrinal minutiae.

Indeed, if we read the history of the Restoration closely, we will see that even Stone and Campbell differed significantly on key doctrinal matters, like baptism. Stone was not immersed until late in life, and even then, refused to profess baptism for remission of sins, instead following a more Baptist theology that baptism was the answer of a good conscience toward God. Even so, these men could put these issues to the side and work together for the good of the Kingdom. How could that be?

For me, the answer lies in Romans, chapters 13 and 14. Here we see Paul addressing the Roman church about matters pertaining both to their worldly relationships and those found within the Church. There is a single unifying idea in Paul's words here: honoring one another in a Christlike manner and pursuing that which leads to "peace and mutual edification" above all else.

This week, I'm going to look in detail at these two chapters, outlining how I see them as a true model for restoring the Lord's Church. I invite you to investigate along with me and participate in a dialogue (note I didn't say diatribe!). We need to be about the business of fulfilling Christ's prayer to the father "that we all may be one."

I'm baaaack

It's been a long time since I rock and rolled :-) A lot has happened since I last wrote on these pages. I've moved and taken a new job, so that has occupied a lot of my time. Most of you who read this know all about that stuff already though. I'm back though, sharing my daily introspections for those who care to read them. Even if nobody else reads, this is a helpful avenue for me to collect and voice my thoughts. Consider it an open diary.

In any event, I'll cover the same sorts of topics: theology, politics, sports, as my thoughts take me. Feel free to engage me in dialogue, or engage one another. If my writing can make one person's load a little bit lighter, then it's worthwhile.