SOUND ADVICE

I haven't been well, of late, so more silent than usual, but I was motivated to write today to simply urge you to read this, by another old-timer, like myself, http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2011/09/mistakes-made-by-modern-ministers-part.html

It's one thing to read the words of the "young idealistic upstarts" who "think they know everything"( many of whom DO know what they are talking about), but we would do well to take notice of an experienced one who has long "on-the-job" experience.

Don't forget to follow through with Part 2, here http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2011/10/mistakes-modern-ministers-make-part-11.html

Maybe I’m just culturally handicapped

A small word with so many connotations, which can be steered by culture, attitude, health, or misapprehension of intent.

  

Random House Websters College Dictionary defines the word “sigh” as “to let out one's breath audibly, as from sorrow, weariness, or relief; to yearn or long; to pine; to lament.

Princeton WordNet is much simpler in its definition: an utterance made by exhaling audibly; a sound like a person sighing,"she heard the sigh of the wind in the trees";to heave or utter a sigh; breathe deeply and heavily,"She sighed sadly"; utter with a sigh.

Kennerman Learner’s English Dictionary defines the word “sigh” as: to breathe out noisily when you are sad, tired, bored, relieved, etc. “He sighed in frustration.”

Webster’s Dictionary says the word means:  to inhale a larger quantity of air than usual, and immediately expel it; to make a deep single audible respiration, especially as the result or involuntary expression of fatigue, exhaustion, grief, sorrow, or the like, to lament; to grieve, or mourn over, a deep and prolonged audible inspiration or respiration of air, as when fatigued or grieved; the act of sighing

It’s obvious that we can normally sigh if we are either frustrated, can't do something or are bored.  I’ve been known to sigh if when I’m trying to explain something to someone but cannot get the message across. I know that people sigh they are sad or happy or tired.

As a matter of fact, people sigh as a result of feeling most emotions, it just depends what context the sigh is in to determine why the person is sighing.

In 1858, James Smith wrote about the last days of a believer: “Death-beds differ, even the death-beds of true believers. Some are filled with joy, others are only hopeful. Some glide away smoothly and softly — while others have much hard fighting at the last. Some have no doubts or fears — while others are very much tried with them. Some shout victory — others can only say, "I have a good hope." Some speak much to those about them — others say but very little. This was the case with the good man I was reading of, his whole dying experience was comprehended in one sentence, "I am sighing for Jesus!"

He did not sigh for life, nor for ease — but he was sighing for Jesus. I cannot help observing, how much of my experience now, is expressed in those words, "I am sighing for Jesus." Yes, yes, I can do without riches, or fame, or the honor which man confers. I am pretty well content with what providence sends me — and yet I often sigh, and sigh deeply too. Some would think me unhappy — but I am not. Some may conclude I am discontented with my situation in life — but I am not. Yet I sigh — I often sigh.”

Having ministered in some very sad situations over the years, especially at funerals, sighing was rather common. I’m discovering that this little action of sighing can be interpreted negatively or positively according to cultural mores, or maybe whim, often without reference to context, or explanation from the one who sighed. That's certainly true in my household. My wife sighs quite often, and for a multitude of reasons. I used to think they wee sighs with a negative content. They weren't, I'm pleased to say.

I don’t think  Eric’s small contribution was negative, especially in the light of His writing about the unity of Christians, wherever they come from, and previous words such as he penned, “I'm reminded once again that Christ and His gospel are of first importance. Church practice, while critical in the life of the Christian, is secondary. Our oneness in Christ binds us together. Because of this, we can and should strive to remain as one even if what we think about church differs significantly.”

Maybe I’m just culturally challenged, and understand words differently ! After all, we are upside down here!

Be the Judge!

I see, and hear, a lot of criticisms regarding those brethren who are genuinely seeking to practice their faith in a manner which is closer to Scripture. Some of the criticism is out of genuine concern, many from an arrogant sense of , “we know better than that. We’ve moved on since those days”.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is often dismissed as a radical rebel, nothing more than a philosopher who had a bit of knowledge about Scripture, and some rather strange ideas.

I cannot help but think that he had some sound insight into what God wants for those who claim to be disciples/followers of Jesus Christ. For example think about the following two quotes:

 

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?”

“It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression follower. He never asks for admirers, worshippers, or adherents. No, he calls disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for.

Christ understood that being a disciple was in innermost and deepest harmony with what he said about himself. Christ claimed to be the way and the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). For this reason, he could never be satisfied with adherents who accepted his teaching – especially with those who in their lives ignored it or let things take their usual course. His whole life on earth, from beginning to end, was destined solely to have followers and to make admirers impossible.

Christ came into the world with the purpose of saving, not instructing it. At the same time – as is implied in his saving work – he came to be the pattern, to leave footprints for the person who would join him, who would become a follower. This is why Christ was born and lived and died in lowliness. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to sneak away from the Pattern with excuse and evasion on the basis that It, after all, possessed earthly and worldly advantages that he did not have. In that sense, to admire Christ is the false invention of a later age, aided by the presumption of loftiness. No, there is absolutely nothing to admire in Jesus, unless you want to admire poverty, misery, and contempt.

What then, is the difference between an admirer and a follower? A follower is or strives to be like what he admires. An admirer, however, keeps himself personally detached. He fails to see that what is admired involves a claim upon him, and thus he fails to be or strive to be what he admires."

What do you think? Reasonable thoughts, or those of an eccentric?

WHAT BRINGS GLORY TO GOD?

As I read the blog scene today, I see much clear thinking dealing with the failures of Christendom, especially in the area of ecclesiology. As much as I applaud the writing of some in this area, I also have concerns regarding what appears to be a focus on one aspect,whilst overlooking others. The one aspect, which a group focuses on seems to vary. One group will focus on social action, another will focus on one or more of the "one anothers" of Scripture, others seem to have a fixation on a "warm and fuzzy feeling" kind of love.

Eric Carpenter wrote a good article entitled No Guarantee, in which he argues that the purpose of gathering “is the edification of the body in Christ to the glory of God”.

Whilst not disagreeing with Eric, I would ask the question,”Is it not the purpose of the Christian to glorify God in every aspect of his/her life?”

I was rather pleased to read Dave Black, as he entered an opinion on the matter when he says,

I do not disagree with this perspective. But it seems to me that the emphasis in Reformed circles on the glory of God is rather nebulous. In my opinion, this definition is neither missiologically broad enough nor theologically deep enough. As I understand Scripture, the church is to carry out the Missio Dei of the Triune God at both the micro (individual salvation) and macro (societal) levels, with a view to redemption, reconciliation, and social transformation. I recognize that many Christians today are starving for genuine koinonia and deeper relationships within the Body of Christ. Yet Jesus Christ defines His followers as those whom He has sent forth into the world. Thus, while it is good and proper to unpack the theological and ecclesiological significance of such texts as 1 Cor. 14:26, which speak of mutual edification as a goal whenever the church gathers, I think it is neither scriptural nor helpful to reduce our definition of "church" to the gathering. The ecclesiological challenge must drive us closer and closer to our original mission, not further away from it. An outward focus is critical, not optional.

That last small sentence encapsulates my concern about much of what I have observed regarding the newer expressions of gathering Christians, which have become very singular in their focus, often becoming insular mutual admiration societies, which pat themselves on the back for being so “Biblical”. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I see happening is simply a smaller expression of what has been going on for decades, and no different to denominations wearing their denomination labels and distinctions as badges of honor, and declaring themselves “Biblical” for doing so.

Dave Black further says,

The Book of Acts consistently emphasizes "missional hermeneutics," and is clear that the Gospel is the Holy Spirit's instrument for the formation of faithful witnessing communities that enjoy corporate life both together and scattered in the world. This same Spirit now works through believers to enable them to be Christ's witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. To be sure, "church" is broader than the missional church. But the focus of God is the world, not the church. Thus, while calls for mutual edification are valid (and sorely needed), it does not help to make the overcorrection of emphasizing corporate discipleship at the expense of Trinitarian mission. The only way Christ is presently incarnated to a lost world is through believers as they carry on His presence, His Word, and His works to a new generation. We are no longer citizens of this world but Christ's ambassadors, sent to this world from another kingdom, operating in His authority and power. If we're rightly connected to the Head in this way, it would be hard to imagine making the focus of the church the gathering rather than the going

.

It seems to me that if we are to be truly Biblical, whilst dealing with the very real problems of our ecclesiology, and its implications for the local assembly, we need to remember that we individual believers, are the only interface many have with the things of God.

So,in the light of what I've emphasised in Dave's last paragraph, I would ask another question, “Are we not stewards of God’s great grace, and will not God be equally glorified as we tell these people, in our Jerusalem, of His amazing grace in Jesus Christ, and on into Samaria, and to the end of the earth?”

SELF PROMOTION

As I write the occasional bog, and read those of others, I’m becoming more, and more, aware of the need to avoid self-promotion of any kind.

When I read a blog which chronicles the exploits performed in the Name of Christ by the writer, I sometimes have a real sense of unease about what is going on.

Marlena Graves, a guest blogger on Her-menuetics, the Christianity Today womens’ blog, wrote an article entitled , “Is Self-PromotionSinful?”, in which she refers to J.D.Salinger’s book The Catcher in The Rye.

In her article she refers to  Salinger’s “efforts to spurn fame and self-promotion because they can lead to phoniness, something Salinger abhorred.”

As her article continues, Graves speaks of her own thoughts when writing, 

"Am I doing this only to build a bigger platform? Is this just self-promotion? Sometimes, “You have to have an audience built up before you write a book” gets translated into, “Throw yourself down from this high point of the temple" (do something spectacular to get attention) (Matt. 4:5-6) or, “No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world” (John 7:4). Some readers might accuse me of scraping my conscience or of being oversensitive; on the other hand, some may think that I’m using this very post to promote myself."

She goes on to quote Salinger saying something  about this in “Catcher in the Rye”. When protagonist Holden Caulfield’s sister, Phoebe, asks him why he doesn’t become a lawyer like their father, he says:

[T]hey’re all right if they go around saving innocent guys’ lives . . . but you don’t do that kind of stuff if you’re a lawyer. All you do is make a lot of dough and play golf and play bridge and buy cars and drink Martinis and look like a hot-shot. . . . Even if you did go around saving guys’ lives and all, how would you know if you did it because you really wanted to save guys’ lives, or because . . . you really wanted to . . . be a terrific lawyer with everyone slapping you on the back. . . . How would you know you weren’t being a phony? The trouble is, you wouldn’t. (p. 172) 

This fictitious character is right. That bothers me when I write, right at this moment. It bothers me when I make subjective judgments about the writings of another, because I don’t know the other person and their thinking, to legitimately make the judgments I am inclined to make. As much as there may be some truth in what we say we need to be careful how we critique a particular post, or article, with which we disagree, without taking into account what the author has revealed he/she thinks in their other writing.

I wonder if this is what Spurgeon had in mind when he said, “Self-love is, no doubt, the usual foundation of human jealousy...the fear lest another should by any means supplant us.”

 

MANDY IS SEEING HIM FACE TO FACE

In a recent post I asked for prayer for Mandy and Johnny. Thank you for praying.

After a short rally, Mandy has succumbed to the cancer that had ravaged her body.

The elder who cares for the congregation, of which, prior to our retirement, we were a part, reports that Johnny is absolutely surrounded by his loving family. Please continue to pray for this sensitive, loving man.

I am most privileged to have had the joy of introducing Mandy to her Savior so long ago.

Jonathan Edwards speaking at the funeral of David Brainard, said that David was now enjoying "the ineffable delights he has in heaven, in the enjoyment of his Father ".

Mandy is now doing the same.

AN ENCOURAGING MORNING

I'm usually going through some of my favorite blogs by 5.30AM, and then read emails.

This morning? What an encouraging morning!

I must share the joy I received! In no particular order of preference: 

Firstly an old curmudgeon like me, Paul Burleson  who warmed me up on this second morning of winter, then Alan Knox "A criterion, a treasure, an assumption, and a broken heart". He features four blogs which are a must read, the third one, written by Eric Carpenter is a regular for me.

Then there was the icing on the cake as I read Dave Black  at Wednesday, June 1,10:42 AM, writing what is so very important for followers of Christ to understand. The cherry on top of this was Becky Black's morning reflections.

Trust you are blessed as I am!