If our relationship with God is based on rewards, we’ll tend to focus on what “gets us saved” or “makes us lost.”
If our relationship is based on God himself, we’ll focus on what pleases God.
Saved and lost still exist, but they aren’t our focus. Because we love God, we’ll try to do what he wants. Not out of fear. Out of love.
I’d like to ask you to skim my post from yesterday. As you do so, I’d like you to read it with this question in mind:
I feel like many people read yesterday’s post with a political eye. They were asking questions like:
While those questions have a place at other times, they miss the point of yesterday’s post.What people failed to note was that I was addressing a situation in the University Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas. A church where a significant portion of our congregation is directly or indirectly affected by what is going on with immigration. A church that Sunday affirmed a Hispanic man and his family as being an integral part of our congregation (via a baby blessing).
Interestingly enough, that sort of illustrates something that happens in biblical interpretation. When we read the New Testament epistles, we often forget that many of them were written to address specific situations in specific churches. That’s what several readers did with yesterday’s post.
This wasn’t about what’s going on with the church in Laredo, Texas. This wasn’t about what’s going on with the church in Kalamazoo, Michigan. It wasn’t even addressing a situation at the Oldham Lane congregation in Abilene, nor the Highland congregation. It was about us and how we respond to hurting people in our congregation.
Someone asked if we also weep with those who live on the border and are suffering at the hands of people coming illegally. While we sympathize with them, it’s hard to minister to people we don’t know. Surprisingly few people drive up from the border to worship with us on Sunday.
As you skim yesterday’s post, think about your situation. Maybe you have Hispanics who are frightened and upset; maybe you don’t. Maybe you are in South Dakota and know people who have been impacted by the Keystone pipeline decision. You are to minister to them in ways that I can’t. Maybe you have families of Syrian descent who have relatives who have been displaced. Lay aside your thoughts on allowing refugees into this country, and go sit with them. Weep with them. Pray with them. Maybe you have a significant number of blacks in your congregation who feel threatened by recent events. Maybe you have families in law enforcement who feel disrespected and equally threatened.
Someone asked about families who lost relatives at the hands of immigrants driving drunk. My response was that the grief of those families would be the same whether or not the guilty driver were an immigrant or not. At a time like that, our response shouldn’t be shaped by politics. It should be shaped by love.
Our first responsibility is to those in our congregation. We spend far too much time scouring the Internet for news about terrorist attacks in Luxembourg when we need to be seeing the person down the pew from us whose heart is hurting. We post things on social media attacking this group or that group without considering how our words affect someone who pulls a cup out of the same communion tray we do on Sunday. That’s why yesterday’s post had the title it had. That’s what many failed to see when reading that post.
Here are two principles to start with:
Work out from there. If you do that, you’ll travel a long ways before arriving at partisan politics. If you start with the politics, you’ll have to go a long way before arriving back at the center.
Who is hurting in your congregation? Go minister to them today.
On Wednesday, I mentioned one of the talks that I gave last month at the National Preachers Conference in Cuba, a class on elders. The other talk was a keynote lecture on “Doctrine.” Because the theme of the conference was 1 Timothy, I had been assigned 1 Timothy 1:3-5. And like so often happens, I learned something new when studying this passage again.
I had just heard James Thompson teach a class on 1 Timothy 2, so that was an advantage right there. Taking a cue from him, I went through 1 Timothy looking at descriptions of “unhealthy doctrine” and “healthy doctrine” (which is a better translation than “sound” doctrine; in the 21st century we don’t think of health when we hear the word “sound”). I summarized by saying that sound doctrine is centered on God; not on man, not on philosophy, not on works. It is also reflected in an upright life; moral, not seeking financial gain, with a focus on a healthy family.
Then I turned to the last verse that was assigned to me:
“The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5)
That was the one that I had forgotten about in this context. What an important verse it is! Paul calls on Timothy to stress sound doctrine… so that love may result.
I mentioned to the group that I had a document with controversies that had impacted the churches of Christ. I told them there were 28 reasons on the list. Then I said, “Oops! There’s another page.” And I kept using that technique, going from 28 to 57 to 85, all the way up to 171! (I actually left one off. The list I received included “Pretzels”; if anyone knows what the great pretzel controversy was, I’ll up the list to 172)
I told them that we couldn’t afford to be like that. We can’t divide over every issue. I then reminded them that we had another letter to the Ephesian church, written decades after the letters that Paul wrote to Timothy. In that letter, in Revelation 2, Jesus praises the church for their sound doctrine, but chastises them for their lack of love. And he tells them that if they don’t recover that love, they’ll lose their right to be called a church of Jesus.
As we study controversies like gender roles and homosexuality and pacifism and worship questions, we have to keep in mind this important fact: the goal is love. If love isn’t the result, we’ve missed the goal.
I’ve shared with some friends a concern I have about attitudes I see in our churches. Worse, these are attitudes that I see in me.
On the one hand, there are areas in which I’ve become uncomfortable with traditional interpretations and longstanding traditions. I’ve come to see things in a different way. If I’m not comfortable, I communicate those things poorly, coming across as: “If you were truly enlightened, you would understand this issue as I do.”
In other areas, I play the exact opposite role. I grow frustrated with those who seem more interested in criticizing and rejecting than they are in actually evaluating the status quo. I look on in dismay as they seem to dismiss God’s Word in an attempt to conform to culture. On my worst days, I communicate the idea that I stand for truth while they are promoting heresy.
If I’m not careful, in each case I put the emphasis on knowledge, rather than on love. Which is something that is directly addressed in the New Testament:
“We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.”
(1 Corinthians 8:1–2)
There is no need to stand idly by while the church drifts away from what is most pleasing to God. Nor is there an obligation to kowtow to legalism in order to please the overly sensitive. However, there is a great need for humility, for entering every discussion with the recognition that we may be mistaken in some way.
I had a roommate in college that I only shared a room with for one semester. One Sunday, the speaker at church made a reference to unwritten creeds. My roommate was reflecting on that idea later, and he said, “Our only creed is the Bible. When we need to know something, we consult it. We’re always going to find the same thing, but we consult it anyway.” And that last line states the problem well.
One of our teammates in Argentina described what he had found upon visiting his supporting church while home on furlough. They had a new preacher, a man who had been blessed to learn everything learnable during his 35-year lifetime. The man had written a book on biblical interpretation. My teammate asked him if there was any chance that he was wrong about anything in that book. When the man replied that there was no such chance, my teammate said, “Then there’s no point in our discussing the Bible.”
When we enter a discussion with our minds made up, then it can hardly be called a discussion. When we think that truth begins and ends with us, then we will spread division everywhere we go. When we value our knowledge above our love for others, then that knowledge will never equal truth.
I shared the following short prayer with those friends on Facebook:
Father, help me to value love over knowledge! And especially help me to love those who know more than I do.
photo by David Schauer on FreeImages.com
I’m speaking this weekend at the National Hispanic Preachers & Leaders Conference in Daytona Beach, Florida. I’m flattered that they’re letting me speak, even though I’m not Hispanic!
I was assigned 3 classes on 1 John 3:16-18, with the assigned title “By This We Know Love.” Since I prefer doing textual exposition, three classes on three verses is not the easiest for me.
I had to turn in subtitles for each of the classes a few weeks ago. I chose these:
Getting into the preparation, I became dissatisfied with the second title. I really wanted to use John 13 in the third lesson, but I had kind of locked myself into using it in the second lesson. I’ll have to remember to spend a little more time in topic development next time before choosing a title.
With each lesson, I chose a summary statement. They are:
The last one could have been “the cross” instead of “the manger.” But I’ll include the whole imagery of the Word becoming flesh, not just the death on the cross, so hopefully it will work.
Any last-minute suggestions? Any illustrations or applications that you think just have to be made here? The lessons are done, but I never finish tweaking. I’d love any input.