Category: stuff I think about

Here’s an interesting link to a link to a link regarding the above. Please take a look at it, then come back.

I think one of the weaknesses of our late twentieth century evangelicalism is the emphasis on a “personal relationship” with Jesus. Now hold on before you call me a heretic.

The idea of a “personal” relationship with God was all but unknown to the Israelites of the Old Testament. Sure, Abraham and Moses had a friendship with God, but that was the exception, not the rule. (Bunny trail: how many of today’s Christians say that their relationship with God is like a friendship? Not me. In fact, aren’t we encouraged to set aside the “Jesus is my friend” notion as something that is OK for grade school but not as we get older? Maybe we should be rethinking this. But, back to the point.)

It is clear that one of the primary purposes of Jesus on this earth is to emphasize the fatherhood of God. We are to relate to God the Father as his children. And in the upper room, Jesus made the big pronouncement that he is calling his followers his friends. Both positions (child and friend) imply a personal relationship.

However, in our rush to be personal with God, I think we have all but thrown out the relationship that was already established and well-known to the children of Israel: relating to God as his people. The idea so prevalent in the Old Testament is not something I hear much about. However, it is echoed in the New Testament as well.

When the church relates to Jesus as a body does to the head, it’s not in a personal way. That is, a body’s organs do not relate personally or directly with the head; they simply take direction and follow orders. A soldier in an army (another picture of the church) does not personally know the commanding officer. In both scenarios, each member is incomplete (dare I say useless?) without the other members, and all members function as a unit to accomplish the will of their leader. Their identity is found within a larger group.

So we have this dichotomy. I enter into a relationship with Jesus where He calls me friend, and we have love for each other. I also enter into a relationship with other followers, where we band together to accomplish a greater mission than anything I could accomplish alone.

It seems that many of us think of church as a place where we can learn more about our personal relationships with God, rather than as a place where we have a job to do together. Church hopping, a lack of commitment, and a “what’s in it for me” mentality are the result of the over-emphasis on being a child of God, and not spending enough time on being the people of God.

I’ve been thinking a bit about this idea of revival, and what it would look like, and it is making me wonder if we really want it. There have been a number of events and phenomena called “revival” over the years, and if we generalize and say revival is “a renewed interest in spiritual things,” then many of these would qualify. However, if we take a look at revivals in the Bible, I think we’ll find that things aren’t quite as romanticized as we perhaps imagine them to be.

Let’s start with the New Testament (maybe I’ll get ambitious some day and do a “Part 2” with the Old Testament), and begin with Acts 2. Peter preaches and we’re told that three thousand people are baptized. I have heard people say, “Wow! Three thousand people! Wouldn’t it be great if three thousand people were saved at our meetings!” I’ve said the same things, but then I started wondering what that looked like.

First of all, how do we baptize three thousand people? And where? I wonder if the disciples would think it makes sense to baptize these people in the same place where they were baptized — the Jordan River. The map in the back of my Bible shows that the Jordan River is several miles from Jerusalem; did they all trek out for a baptism? And how did they baptize three thousand people? With 120 followers of Jesus in the upper room, and three thousand converts, that’s 25 baptisms per person.

Ok, but let’s suppose that of those three thousand people, some don’t want to be baptized by just anyone; they want to be baptized by Peter, or at least one of the twelve. This could slow things down a great deal. (One more thing: I doubt three thousand people could each have clearly heard Peter speak in the square that day, and completely understood why they were being baptized. The disciples may have had to perform a short interview with each one, just to make sure the person was there for the right reasons. Who knows how long this actually took, or whether it all happened in that one day.)

Ok, now that we’ve baptized everyone, what do we do with them? In Acts 2, many of these people were travelers, not residents of Jerusalem. They were there for Pentecost, and so were staying at inns or with friends or whatever. However, they no doubt wanted to stay in Jerusalem to learn from the apostles. So we read that they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, attended temple together, and ate in each others’ homes. The record shows that they were glad, generous, and had favor with everyone, but it also shows that there was favoritism and selfishness — in short, they were like any other group of new believers. When someone comes to Jesus today, we know that although the person is redeemed, there is still quite a bit of maturing which must take place. The person needs to be taught, needs to repent of certain sins, needs to make restitution or reconcile with others, etc.. Can you imagine if your “small group” consisted of 25 brand new believers, many of whom did not live in your town, who knew hardly anything about Jesus or his message, but who were excited to live in your house and eat your food? Welcome to revival!

Well, enough of Acts 2. Let’s go on to Acts 10. Peter is preaching to the house of Cornelius, and the record shows that while he was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on the listeners. How did Peter know the Holy Spirit fell? Because they were speaking in tongues! How would you like to be preaching a message, and right in the middle of your three-point sermon, people started standing up and speaking in tongues! Others jump up and start praising God, even before your altar call! Now, people don’t normally jump up and interrupt someone they have specifically invited to come and speak. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that those who were doing the interrupting were perhaps a little beside themselves, or at least excited. Bring on the water, it’s time for more baptisms! Of course, these were Gentiles, who may not have heard of or understood baptism, so it may not have been as easy to accomplish this as with the Jews in Jerusalem. Maybe that’s why Peter had to “command” them to be baptized.

Ok, so now there are a bunch of Gentiles in the mix, and the Jewish apostles have to figure out what to do with them. The idea of Gentiles receiving the message was an absolutely new doctrine to them, so the apostles had to change their thinking. And when I say “new doctrine”, that is an understatement. It absolutely flew in the face of anything they had heard or seen in their lives as Jews or in the ministry of Jesus. It is probably not possible to overstate the magnitude of this event.

If we were to have a revival in our church/culture/society, what kinds of new doctrines would we discover? Or do we assume that we have a full understanding of how God works? I am not so bold.

So while we pray for revival, let’s be prepared to what revival brings. If God brings three thousand people to faith in our meetings, I think we’ll need a lot more chairs.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about the quality of Christian music. His observation was that the average Christian song heard on the radio was inferior to the average secular song. He is a self-described music lover, and I guess he’s heard enough music to be able to make that judgment.

I’d like to take this friend with me to a village in the mountains of Guatemala. The village is only a little over 100 miles from Guatemala City, but it takes well over 10 hours to reach it, traveling by school bus over dirt roads that switchback their way up the mountain.

Off of the village’s square is a nondescript building marked by a neatly painted sign. The sign is in Spanish, though I wonder if any who enter can actually read. Translated, the sign reads, “Jesus Heals and Saves”, which is the name of the church. (Side note: the order of the actions of Jesus is important, because that’s what happened to the founding pastor. First Jesus healed him, then he saved him. In fact, I’m wondering now if that’s the name of the church, or just a proclamation of what Jesus can do for them. Hmm.)

Inside the building, a church service is being held. You can hear it from the square, but from there it sounds like a discordant cacophony of noise. Once you enter the building, the cacophony is not resolved — it just gets louder. Oh man, is it loud. And discordant. And did I say cacophony? There is a band at the front, consisting of a couple of guitars and a drum kit. You wonder if the guitars are in tune. You doubt it. A man is singing into a microphone. The song is in Spanish or — more likely — one of the native dialects, so you don’t know the words. However, it is impossible to pick out the tune, or to imagine if the singer even knows the tune. Besides, the volume is up so high on the small speaker on the floor that the distortion is making any word or particular note virtually indistinguishable.

All around you, people are singing, either that song or perhaps another. Whatever they are singing, they are doing it at the top of their lungs, while many are rattling a tambourine or just shaking.

Your conclusion is easily reached: whatever this is, it is most definitely not quality music. However, you can also reach another conclusion: these people are praising their God, and do not seem to be affected by the lack of quality in the music.

Oh, I imagine they might like a cleaner sound, or better instruments. Then again, maybe not. If you were to suggest to them that they might have a better worship experience if they had tighter harmonies or some dramatic lighting, they may stare at you as if you had just grown a third eye. Maybe they would wonder about your priorities.

And maybe they’d be right.

Along the lines of change, how do spark a culture change – specifically a Revival in a church? What does it really take? I know the obvious answer of prayer and a few dedicated people. But what if the church is not revival minded? There is no special emphasis placed there, no special event or time of year. How do you take a good church to a great church? I have heard recently how we might not want to do something then because it is hard to get people to church on ‘other’ nights. ‘Other’ being not a Sunday or a Wednesday. Why?

I don’t want a church so legalized we go to church just because it is church, it’s open and that is what we do. I want to be a part of a congregation that is so God-only, Christ-first and Spirit-led that we are looking for the next opportunity to serve, witness or worship our awesome Creator and Lord. What legacy do we want to pass on to the next generation? One where God is #1 when we can fit Him in or He is #1 and we can fit other things in too?

I am ready for a Revival. R U?