|
The Chapel Light - December 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 08 December 2008 |
Life flies by me so quickly that every day seems the same. But every now and then one of those moments transpire that stops everything and hits you right in the face and burrows deeply into your soul.
We had a wonderful time at the Yellow House Hotel for my daughter Abigail’s rehearsal dinner. After the meal, Mike and Abbie began handing out gifts to the wedding party. The first gift went to the flower girl – a colorful bag almost as big as she was, full of “princess” gifts that delighted her soul. Next came the gift for my little son, Sam, the ring-bearer.
He has been in a few weddings now, so he knew there was a gift coming for him. I could see the anticipation on Sam’s face. I could remember the excitement of receiving gifts when I was a boy; how wonderful those surprises were! One of the little joys of life…
In the months preceding the wedding, Mike and Abbie had teased Sam that they were just going to get him a pair of new underwear. But on this evening I think that was the farthest thing from Sam’s mind. When Mike brought out a little bag less than six inches high, Sam gently set it down and gingerly unfolded the tissue paper. The first gift was a little plastic ball about the size of a gumball with a little plastic squirrel in it – something that came from a gumball machine. Sam looked at it slightly perplexed, set it aside and then pulled aside more tissue paper. He began to pull at the next gift; it was a small item of clothing. He unfolded it – it was a little pair of underwear with doggie bones and fire hydrants on it! He looked at it, still somewhat perplexed. And then he went back into the bag, pulling the remaining tissue paper out, looking carefully through it for anything more. There was nothing.
I watched his little face. You could see the disappointment creeping over his face. You could see his wheels turning. And then suddenly, without any instruction or comment, Sam walked over, threw his arms around Mike’s waist, and said in the sweetest voice, “Thank you SO MUCH for my gift, Mike!” And then he hugged Abbie and thanked her, and he walked back over to me, where his little bag was waiting. He took the underwear, looked at it appreciatively, and smiled at me as he folded it neatly and put it back in the tiny bag.
I could hardly keep back the tears. I can hardly keep them back now as I type this story. I will never forget that moment of a little boy’s true giving of thanks as long as I live. It was one of the proudest moments of my life but my heart couldn’t take prolonging that moment any longer than was necessary. I asked Sam if he thought Mike and Abbie were just teasing him. He shrugged that he wasn’t sure. I asked him if he liked his gift, and he nodded that he did.
At that moment Mike produced a big silver box and presented it to Sam. You could see the joy flood back into Sam’s face. He pulled the lid off the box and tore eagerly through the tissue paper and when he found within the box the type of gifts that he was hoping for, he squealed with joy his deeply heartfelt thanks to Mike and Abbie. And as I watched him receive the good gift, my own heart rejoiced, perhaps more than Sam’s, because I understood even more than Sam did the truly wonderful and good thing that had just taken place.
I don’t think that our heavenly Father plays practical jokes on us, but I do think that sometimes He gives us gifts that are far less than we want or expect. He knows His reasons. But He also knows that one day we’ll understand – and He’ll hand us our own “big silver box” that contains things that our eyes had never seen and our ears had never heard, things that had never entered into our imagination as remotely possible, things above all that we could ask or think.
|
|
The Chapel Light - November 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Thursday, 20 November 2008 |
I’ve received some excellent questions about my series on the soul and the brain that I couldn’t address from the pulpit, so I’d like to address them here.
Are there brain problems that really do affect the soul?
Absolutely. Alzhimer’s and Parkinson’s are two prominent examples. The mental retardation caused by Downs Syndrome is another. Brain trauma caused by a fall or a hit to the head can also alter thinking and behavior, as can damage caused by substance abuse. The causal relationship of brain damage to behavior in these cases is demonstrable. These are clear-cut cases of brain damage or malfunction.
My point is not that “mental illnesses” and “personality disorders” cannot be the result of brain malfunction; only that such has been assumed, not demonstrated. Brain malfunction is assumed to be the cause of thinking and behavioral disorders because of the medical community’s naturalistic bias that leaves no other explanation besides bodily malfunction. I counter that chemical problems may very well be caused by thinking or feeling or believing problems. My approach to these things is to deal with “soul problems” when behavior is involved; save drugs and surgeries as last resorts.
Is it a sin to take drugs for mental and behavioral problems?
No – it violates no command of God that I know of. The question is “Do such medications really solve the problem?”
So why not take medications?
I wouldn’t say “don’t ever take medications.” We had just better be aware of some misconceptions that are involved regarding such drugs and the problems they are supposed to address. First, the medical community assumes that the “symptoms” of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, et al, are caused merely by chemical imbalances. They don’t know that for a fact, nor do they seem to take seriously the idea that thinking patterns can affect the physical structure and functioning of the brain. They simply assume that brain abnormalities (i.e. chemical imbalances) are at the root of thinking, emotional and behavior aberrations. There is no way to test whether one has a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Second, many times prescribed medications give little or no relief. If we are sure of chemical imbalance, and we are sure that a given med addresses imbalance, why should that be so? Why are prescriptions of such medications trial and error, i.e. “try this med and if it doesn’t work we’ll try another medication?” That sounds like guessing – not knowing – what’s going on in the brain. Is such use of medications wise?
Third, the assumption is that the “chemical imbalance” is an abnormal activity of the brain that needs to be corrected. But what if the brain is simply responding normally to bad patterns of thought or bad circumstances? Is the chemical adjustment of the medication really fixing the problem? Could such unnecessary “fixing” be making things worse? Could it be creating other problems? We simply don’t know. I would point out, however, that it is not uncommon for people who take medications to find themselves having other “chemical difficulties” later which require different medications.
I’m not saying that medicines have no effect on emotional problems. They obviously can make chemical adjustments that result in different feelings. But if the chemical imbalance is being caused by wrong thinking (as we’ve seen is possible), and the wrong thinking continues, then aren’t we interfering with the body’s normal functioning – and is that a good thing? Furthermore, there is no evidence that such chemical imbalances are occurring EVERYWHERE in the brain, i.e. that every synapse is affected by low levels of chemicals in need of “fixing”. There is also no evidence that the medications affect ONLY those synapses which HAVE low levels of chemicals. How do such medications affect the parts of the brain that are functioning normally? We simply don’t know. Could such meds be causing damage in such healthy places? We don’t know. Hence my notion that people proceed with caution with medication.
If you must take medication to get relief from symptoms, recognize that you’re just getting relief from symptoms. This is a good thing! But while you’re feeling better on the meds, use that condition to try to address wrong patterns of thinking so that the real problem gets addressed. Unfortunately, this is not what usually happens. Learning to undo bad habits of thought and belief is hard; taking a pill is easy. If the pill gives relief, why do the hard work of correcting deeply ingrained thinking patterns? It is not unusual for people to become dependent on a medication, and if or when the med fails to provide relief because the body grows accustomed to it, the person scrambles for a different medication, then another, and another. The real “soul problem” goes unaddressed. The doctor trying to help will prescribe as many meds as it takes to give relief; but pastors and counselors are concerned about more than relief. We’re concerned about healthy, wholesome souls that live by right belief and right thinking.
|
|
Looking Through Different Windows |
|
|
Sermon Notes
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Tuesday, 11 November 2008 |
In Sunday's sermon Pastor Chris mentioned this link to the Arabic newspaper Al Jazeera. Click on the link and go to the end of the article and read the many responses from around the world to get a taste of "looking through different windows" as mentioned in the sermon.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081154282266589.html
|
|
The Chapel Light - September 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 08 September 2008 |
Last month I laid out some principles of our philosophy of missions support here at MVC. My goal is to achieve a high-percentage of support for each missionary; I’d rather support a few missionaries at a high percentage of support than throw nickels and dimes at twenty different missionaries.
When you go onto the mission field, you’re away from home. You’re with people who are different from you – they think differently, speak differently, act differently. Everything truly is foreign, and “foreign” can’t help but translate into uncomfortable. I was only in the Pacific Islands teaching for three weeks, but I had no access to phones or computers, and I missed my way of life; I missed my family and friends. I missed the personal comforts that those familiar to me could give to my soul. I realized that I drew a lot of inner strength from my fellow Christians and the things that were comfortable to me. That got me thinking about the needs of long term missionaries – people who faced the “foreign” every day for three or four years at a pop and had to try to get comfortable with it. And it made me think about how easy it is for the church to send money every month, but to not really be personally involved with its own missionaries. They come home on furlough and are guests of honor for a Sunday – but they live here every day for a year while they’re home. What an opportunity to BLESS them – and to be blessed by them – if we’ll only take advantage of it and connect personally with those who represent Christ in our behalf around the world.
I want to get our church – and that means our people, not our “institution” – more in touch with our missionaries. One of the things that I’d like to see started is “circles of support” for each missionary – a small cluster of people interested in each missionary – a cluster of people that will pray regularly for a missionary and will use the technology that we have to communicate with our missionaries. You can IM and e-mail just about anywhere in the world (Chuuk was one of the few exceptions!). You can send pictures and videos. You can take (and demonstrate) personal interest and care. Can you imagine what a blessing this would be to a missionary? Rather than feeling alone and abandoned, he’d know – not just by a few words scattered occasionally here and there – but by more regular interaction that people really do care about what he’s doing on the field, and that they care about him – and I use the masculine pronouns editorially – but missionary wives and single female missionaries need the same thing! If we surround every missionary with ten people – say five families each – we can develop relationships by regular friendly and informal contact; not the cold, stiff contact of a letter on church stationery, but of casual and true caring from “regular folks.” Through this we can build our own understanding of missions and our own connection to missions; we can become liaisons for that missionary to the rest of the church, conveying his needs, his successes, his struggles. Such relationships also mean that when the missionary comes home from furlough he can feel he’s a part of us; he’s already got a circle of friends that really care. He doesn’t have to be assigned by the “hospitality committee” to some random person’s home for a meal when he’s here preaching during furlough (or worse, be sent out to dinner at a local restaurant with the pastor). Instead he’ll have friends familiar with his work, people that he can talk to, people he can let his hair down with. I think that’s good for our church and for the missionary. (Anybody interested in heading up these circles of support? Get in touch with me!)
That brings me to one final thought. I think our people would be more prone to get involved with missionaries at these more significant levels if they knew that missionary (or does Jesus’ statement about a prophet being without honor in his own country apply here too?) Many missionaries that contact me got my name off of a Christian mailing list; they don’t know me or our church from “Adam;” they’re just looking for Christians that will pray and send money so they can get on with their work. They all have worthy missions, and I don’t mind inviting them to come. But we have a number of local people – friends and family members of our own congregation, and even a few from our own congregation – who serve the Lord in various mission fields, and some of them are looking for support. And I’m thinking that perhaps seeking to support them first will do more to build our connections and our care about missions than if we bring in total strangers. Any thoughts on that?
I’d appreciate any response to these ideas as the elders continue to develop our missions program here at MVC…
|
|
The Chapel Light - August 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Saturday, 02 August 2008 |
Last month I spelled out how independent churches do missions. This month I’d like to explain some problems that we’ve encountered in doing missions.
Every month I get several missionaries requesting permission to come to MVC to seek support. Most of them I don’t know at all; they found our church on the mailing or phone list of some other organization. When I tell them that we are not presently taking on new missionaries, they always respond cheerfully and prettily: “That’s okay, I’m not looking for financial support; prayer support is so much more important!” I’m always tempted to respond: “Okay, I’ll put you on our prayer chain; no need to take up an entire Sunday service for your presentation if all you want is prayer.” Deputation is about raising money; it takes money to go to the field. The missionary knows that; I know that. Why do we have to try to sound so pretty and spiritual?
I always imagined that the bulk of a missionary’s support came from churches and was filled out by the regular gifts of a few individuals. I was shocked to find the opposite to be true: most support comes from individual donors. Should I just accept this as a fact of life and adjust our missionary strategy to it? Instead of the entire congregation sending a large monthly amount to a few missionaries, why not just open the door to every missionary who requests access, and let each person in the congregation decide which missionaries they want to send their monthly checks to?
Here’s why we aren’t going in that direction. The biblical picture is that a missionary is an extension of the local church. Our missionaries are an arm of Mountain View Chapel reaching out into the world. As such, I believe we should shoot for giving them as much support as possible. If one church can provide 60 percent (or better) of a missionary’s monthly support, the missionary doesn’t have to be on deputation as long and doesn’t have to worry so much about fund-raising; he can get on with the job he’s called to do. Furthermore, the missionary doesn’t have to be accountable to 100 different individuals in 50 different churches spread over three or four states, nor does he need to send out 100 different mailings or visit 100 different people while home on furlough. Instead, he can work primarily in and through and with the church that provides the bulk of his support. He can get to know us, and we him, and this keeps the church as a whole more involved in the missionary and his mission.
So this is the type of missions program that we’re trying to develop here at MVC. But if this is the governing philosophy (achieving a high-percentage of support for each missionary) then inviting missionaries that we are not going to support as a congregation just so that they may randomly “beg” for funding from individuals diverts those funds from the main objective, and seems counter-productive.
Along the same lines, this is one of the reasons we have reconsidered giving “church support” for short term missions trips. While we were doing the trips, I received a number of questions about short term trips to China from those who had contributed to those trips. Are these missions really worth all the money that is being poured into them? Do the two-week missions really accomplish anything that contributes to long-term success, or are the trips primarily benefiting the “missionary?” After all, if you’re in a place for a mere two weeks, unless you’re accomplishing a very particular task (e.g. building a building, teaching a class), you’re not really much more than a tourist. And how much effect can tourists really have? Our folks may have a great experience, but are we trying to give experiences, or are we trying to accomplish a deadly serious task in a foreign country? And if it’s “the task,” isn’t that task done more effectively by long-term missionaries who are on the field and “in” the culture?
The same goes for trips to South or Central America to build churches or schools. Isn’t it a more effective use of funds to send the money to the on-field long-term committed missionaries and allow those native to South America to build their own buildings? Is it good stewardship to send ten guys at $3000 a pop to work for ten days among people with whom they can’t communicate to build a building which becomes, in the eyes of the natives, the “Americans’” church – which means that when something goes wrong with the Americans’ building, the Americans will have to send another team down to fix it? Aren’t there workers in South America who can build their own buildings and maintain them for a lot less than $3000 a week?
These aren’t the whinings of tight-fisted stingy people, but thoughtful questions about wise stewardship from real committed givers. I know that our decision to not pursue short-term mission trips at this time doesn’t sit well with a few, but such trips are not contributing to the overall direction in which we’d like to head with our missions program. Nor does the idea of inviting in missionaries at random to skim off funds that we’d like to go to the support of those missionaries we choose…
And I’ll spell out some thoughts about choosing missionaries to support in the next installment of the Scrip…
|
|
