|
The Chapel Light - February 2010 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 15 February 2010 |
I was going to include a sermon or two in my series on the Holy Spirit about Pentecostalism and speaking in tongues, but I’ve decided that it is better written about than preached.
That the Holy Spirit filled the apostles on the day of Pentecost and that they spoke in “tongues” is perfectly clear. Acts 2 states it straightforwardly. But what exactly was this “speaking in tongues”? And what was the significance of it? And what does it mean for us today? These things don’t necessarily lie right on the surface of the biblical text. So let’s dig a little bit…
That people speak of the “gift of tongues” or “tongue-speaking” gives the phenomenon a sort of mysterious aura, of the “tongue” doing something mysterious. But the word “tongue” simply means “language.” We still use “tongue” that way today when we talk of speaking in a “foreign tongue” or of English being our “mother tongue.” So the “gift of tongues” is really the “gift of languages”; and “speaking in tongues” simply talking means “speaking in languages.” (The New Living Translation correctly translates Acts 2.4 this way: “And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.”)
That the Holy Spirit was enabling the disciples to speak in human languages on the day of Pentecost is abundantly clear from the context. The feast of Pentecost was one of three Jewish feasts that required a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There were Jews from all over the Roman Empire present on the day of Pentecost, and they all spoke different languages and dialects. When the apostles received the “gift of languages” and began speaking about God in the public square, all of the pilgrims in town who heard them began asking, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans??? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own languages!!!”
Some have argued that the real miracle on this day was a miracle of hearing—that the apostles were just speaking gibberish but the Holy Spirit worked on the hearers so that each hearer would hear the gibberish as though it were his own language. If that is the case, then the Spirit is coming upon the hearers, not the speakers! But the text clearly says that the Spirit filled the disciples and gave them the ability to speak in other languages (Acts 2.4). The gift is the gift of languages—not the gift of hearing; it empowers the speaker, not the listener. So the 120 or so disciples (cf. Acts 1.15) were, each of them, speaking different dialects and languages on the day of Pentecost. If you’ve ever been in a crowd in a foreign country, and all of a sudden someone starts speaking your mother tongue, the language you are most familiar with, you hear it right away. It is not gibberish; the language of the foreign country sounds like meaningless gibberish to you—background noise. Your own tongue being spoken makes immediate sense to your understanding—and your attention is drawn immediately to the speaker. That was certainly what the pilgrims in Jerusalem on that first Pentecost observed. Hearing their own dialects captured their attention immediately.
The foreign visitors in Jerusalem who understood the speech marveled that Galileans were doing the speaking (Acts 2.7). How did the visitors know the disciples were Galilean? Perhaps by their dress, perhaps by their accents—the same way we can pick out a southerner or a hardcore Yankee! But Galileans weren’t expected to be able to speak in other languages! Like everyone in the Roman Empire the Galileans most likely spoke Greek. But they were apparently not educated beyond that, and so the pilgrims find it shocking that these country bumpkins are speaking the visitors’ home languages and dialects from all around the empire—with no apparent exposure to those languages!
Others concluded that these Galileans were just drunk (Acts 2.13). The babbling surely sounded unintelligible to those who didn’t know the languages being spoken—perhaps untraveled and inexperienced natives of Jerusalem. What would your first thought be if the neighbor you’d known all your life, who only ever spoke English, suddenly came running out of his house babbling over and over in Chinese at you, smiling and being terribly expressive, perhaps overly so, and acting like you surely understood what he was saying??? I might just conclude that he’d lost it, or that he was drunk or on drugs. Wouldn’t you?
But what would you think if your neighbor, upon hearing your explanation of drunkenness, stopped “babbling” and said in perfect English “I’m not drunk. I’ve been filled with the Holy Spirit”? This is precisely what Peter did. He stopped speaking whatever “tongue” he was speaking, and raised his voice—most likely in Greek—and preached to the whole astonished crowd about Jesus (Acts 2.14ff).
I offer these simple observations on the text for your consideration, and I would point out that right here, at the very beginning of the discussion—the basic definitions of the gift of tongues—we find modern “tongues-speakers” to be at odds with the biblical text. Linguists who have observed “tongues-speaking” in great detail have noted that “tongues-speaking” is not a foreign language, nor is it like any foreign language. It shows no sign of the tell-tale linguistic forms of earthly language and grammar, but tends to be a hodge-podge of mixed-up sounds from the tongues-speakers own language. But modern tongues-speakers generally claim they are not speaking an earthly language at all. Rather they claim to be speaking angelic and heavenly languages that only God can understand!
Maybe that is the case. But if it is, that is not the gift of tongues as Acts describes it! It may not be politically correct to challenge the personal religious experience of another—and I don’t doubt that tongues-speakers have their experiences—but I think it is correct to weigh all of our experiences against the definitions and descriptions given us in the Word of God, and when we do that, I think it ought to raise suspicions about the claims of modern tongues-speakers. More next month...
|
|
The Chapel Light - January 2010 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 18 January 2010 |
The apostle John lay quietly in the cave on the island of Patmos, when the world before his eyes is transformed. He hears a loud trumpet behind him and turns to see the risen and glorified Christ standing in the midst of seven lampstands–his hair white as snow and his eyes gleaming as though they are red coals burning through John’s soul.
“Do not be afraid,” Christ says to the startled and trembling John. “I am the First and the Last; the one who lives and was dead. And look! I am a----”
Beep … beep … beep …
John grabs for his bag and retrieves a cell phone. “Excuse me,” the apostle says. “I’ve got a text from Ephesus that’s really important. Gotta answer it. I’ll be with you in a moment, Lord.”
Can you imagine that sort of thing happening? Well, not in the first century–but I’ve been amazed at the way people use cell phones and texting in the presence of others these days. I’ve been in conversations with people when all of a sudden their phone rings, or they get a beep that they’ve received a text message–and they turn away from me and take the call–or they start texting back to whomever wrote to them. I’ve also been in group interactions where there is a discussion or activity, and noticed people looking down into their laps; upon closer observation I realize they are texting.
With new technology comes new societal behavior–and manners; manners are a form of love–and perhaps we need to do some thinking about how to use our phones and our texting in love.
Have you ever considered that answering a phone when it rings is NOT a necessity? This is what answering machines and voice mail are all about! Even before the days of such things, if I was in the middle of an activity or a conversation and the phone rang, I felt no obligation to answer it. Who says I have to let the caller interrupt what I’m doing??? I don’t allow my children to interrupt me this way; why would I allow someone on the phone to do so? A ringing phone tells me that someone would like to talk to me; it does not obligate me to respond.
Phones have rings and ringtones that are intentionally disruptive. We have little choice but to answer when they go off in public. Thankfully the creators of the cell phone made it possible to have phones vibrate or even be silent–and I would suggest that whenever you’re in a public place–in a meeting, in a class, in any sort of group setting, and especially in church–the phone should be off, silenced or at the very most set to vibrate. And if it starts buzzing in your pocket during a service or a meeting–unless you’re in the emergency medical field or were expecting a call–let it ring. You can take the call after your meeting. There are very few calls that are THAT pressing.
Whenever you are in a meeting with other people, that meeting should have precedence over all other aspects of your life and the people in the meeting should have your complete attention. I have been completely shocked on a number of occasions to have people not only answer calls or texts in a meeting, but I’ve seen people who are disinterested in their surroundings simply sit back and look down into their lap–they are initiating text messages with others. Understand that when you do this–when you break eye contact with living people around you and when you focus instead on a cell phone–you are sending a message to everyone in the room: “I am not interested in you; you are wasting my time; the person on the other end of my phone is more important to me.” You don’t need to say the words; your body language says it all. And that, too, is just plain rude.
And love is not rude …
Develop some self-discipline and some love. Make face-to-face interaction with others the top priority. Let the phone ring; let the text message wait; don’t text when in the presence of others (except in an emergency).
|
|
The Chapel Light - December 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 13 December 2009 |
I know it’s the holiday season, and if I were politically correct I’d write something about Thanksgiving or Christmas, but what’s on my heart right now is a little doctrine that is often overlooked: the priesthood of all believers. I’d like to expound on that in this month’s Scrip for just a bit.
In most of the ancient religions there were “priests.” Priests were religious specialists who mediated between God (or among pagans, the gods) and men. They knew the secret words, the secret formulas, the secret rites that could fix things for people with the deities, and that gave priests a certain divine power and the confidence that goes with that power. Very often knowledge of that power led priests to abuse their power amongst the pagans, the Jews and the medieval Christians.
In the 16th century, medieval Christianity went through a “reformation” under the leadership of men like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and Menno Simon. These men differed on many little things, but in their protest of the Roman Church (and its priesthood) they all held to one precious concept: the priesthood of all believers. According to the Bible, these “Protestants” said, the old priesthood of Levi that held sway–and very often corrupt sway–over the people of God was broken by the cross of Jesus Christ and done away with. There is now only one mediator between God and men –one High Priest, as it were, according to the book of Hebrews–the Lord Jesus Christ; and we believers are all his brothers and sisters, made holy by Him, and we ALL have the role of priests. Both Peter and John said that the church is a “kingdom of priests,” and on the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter quoted the prophet Joel to demonstrate that now the Holy Spirit is given, not only to prophets and priests and kings, but to men and women and even servants- even female servants, and when we have that Holy Spirit, we can be confident in our relationship to God. We have no need of a priest to do the “religious work” for us; we are priests ourselves–and we can act accordingly. We can go to God for men–and we can talk to men for God. We have been told that we have that kind of access to our heavenly Father, and being His ambassadors to men is our calling and our responsibility.
What does that look like applied in the church? Well, for one thing, it means that the pastor is not the only person that can minister or lead ministries. In fact, my expectation is precisely the opposite–I want to see other leaders raised up to “take the bull by the horns” in various ministries and make things happen. I want to see people moved and motivated by the Holy Spirit, ministering in ways that are comfortable to them as worn slippers. I want to see people using their differing gifts. Ministering to others goes beyond preaching and teaching, as important as those things are. Not everyone is a preacher or teacher. Some people have a passion to help children. Some people like helping poor or disadvantaged people. Some people like providing money (or things) for needs of people or other ministries. Some people are planners and organizers; some people love executing what has been planned for them. Some people are prayer warriors. And some people are counselors, or listeners, weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice. Some are leaders, and some are followers. Everyone has a niche, and everyone should work with their God-given passion in a niche that feels comfortable to them. They should do that with all their might.
I, as the teaching elder/pastor, should not be seen as an indispensable part, a necessary component, of every meeting and every ministry that goes on here. I have limited gifts and limited passions–as does everyone. If you have a passion for the work that is laid before you–knock yourself out at it for Christ! I don’t need to be there to “bless it” or to “give it my blessing”–as though somehow I have something in my person that makes your work officially approved.
Yes–get what you want to do approved by the elders, submit to whatever organizational details–rooms, times of meeting, etc.–they give you and take into account their counsel and oversight and directions in carrying out the ministry; they’re trying to maintain decency, efficiency and order in the things that we do. They are “overseeing” everything; they see the big picture. But please don’t feel that if the pastor isn’t personally involved with what you’re doing that somehow you’re disapproved or unwanted or unimportant. Quite the contrary–if I’m not there it’s usually because I am completely confident of your leadership and your passion–and I am relishing the fact that you don’t need me as a babysitter. Knock yourself out for Jesus!!!
Folks, my ideal for Mountain View Chapel, the thing I long for, the thing I’m aiming for, the thing I want to make happen, is a church that is a self-sustaining body–a body full of people passionate for various tasks and busy at them for Christ; a body full of people who are willing to take responsibility for their tasks and who use their gifts and who go forward without prodding and poking and babysitting; a body that has levels of trustworthy and competent leadership; a body so knit together that when the day comes for me to be called home to be with the Lord, another gifted and competent teacher will be able to step in and take my place, and all of the rest of the work will continue on without missing a beat.
That, I believe, is a crucial application of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
|
|
The Chapel Light - November 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Monday, 09 November 2009 |
Thanks to slow motion cameras an entire stadium and an entire television viewing audience can see an umpire’s mistake replayed frame by frame over and over again. So many sports enthusiasts are now calling for instant replay to correct umpire mistakes (which seem to have been legion during this year’s major league baseball playoffs). Just a few thoughts on that subject:
I’ve been an umpire for about nine years, working a little over four hundred games at every level from eight-year-old Pee Wees to high school varsity. For those who think bad calls are just umpire stupidity, I offer one suggestion: try umpiring six games–three behind the plate and three on the bases. It will change your view of the sport forever.
Once I was umpiring behind the plate and my partner on the bases was dealing with a confusing play at second similar to the one that recently occurred in the Yankees game–two runners trying to stand on one base. Both teams on the field had the same color uniforms and the same color hats. Three fielders were gathered around the base, tossing the ball back and forth, bobbling it, dropping it and trying to tag everyone in sight! My partner had to make a split second call, but he was so confused he made NO call at all–and turned to me for help! I had been trying to make sense of the mess from my position. I made a call, and instantly both coaches were out of the dugout arguing. I got them settled down and explained the rules I was applying based on what I had seen.
As I walked back to the plate, one coach said to me, “You know blue, I’m a plumber. And if I do a lousy job at plumbing, I don’t get paid. You hear what I’m saying?”
“I understand,” I said, “but when was the last time your day of plumbing involved split second decisions about complicated matters on the spur of the moment?” I winked and got back behind the plate.
You’d be amazed at how fast things happen on the field! If you blink your eyes you can miss a pitcher’s balk. If you look down at your indicator to check on the batter’s count, you can miss a throw to first. You’d be amazed at how fast the pitch passes the plate, and how quickly that tag is made at the base. And how quickly people groan and yell over what you thought was a clear and simple no-brainer. You don’t have the advantage of slow motion action, of seeing the play a second time in great detail. You must make an immediate decision based on what you saw take place in a fraction of a second. You don’t have five vantage points (camera angles)–you have ONE: the eyes in your head from the place you’re standing. You’d be amazed at how fast things happen, and how easy it is to have your view blocked by a player, or to be unable to get into position so you have the best angle.
Should there be instant replay in baseball? My perspective is that sports are intended to be a form of diversion–just for fun. I don’t think they should be taken too seriously. But there is something in my soul (or maybe it’s my body)–and I think in most men’s bodies (I think it’s called testosterone)–that makes us more and more competitive when we begin to play. The more competitive we grow, the more detailed our rules become. The more detailed our rules become, the more detailed our rules have to become (yes, I intended to say it twice). And we get more and more serious about our play. Sometimes I think that we as a nation are more serious about our sports than we are about our personal discipline, the rearing and education of our children, the government of our nation, and even our faith. So I think that for people like that, who insist on working at their play, instant replay is inevitable. We will demand it and get it–especially in professional sports, which are about money, not fun. But deep down I think that level of technicality is bad for our souls. It encourages the technical legalist in all of us, and somehow I think that’s harmful to us—whether we’re talking about religion or sports.
I for one prefer the human factor. Accept human finiteness and let the umpire or the referee make the call. Stop replaying it a gazillion times in slow motion! You win some, you lose some. If there was baseball in heaven, how do you think it would be played? I think there would be rules, and even umpires and umpiring. Scores would be kept, and someone would win and someone would lose. But somehow I don’t believe there would be slow motion cameras or instant replay. Not because the umpiring would be perfect, but because people would play and not worry about it.
But this isn’t heaven.
Sigh…
|
|
The Chapel Light - October 2009 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 |
Just some random thoughts on the passing scene…
… I find most public “apologies” ridiculous. Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kanye West, Serena Williams and David Letterman have all recently offered public apologies for bad behavior. But they didn’t offend the public; they should apologize in private to those slighted – and that should be the end of it. A good number of public apologies seem to be more about ego/publicity stunts. A celebrity’s personal failure in most instances isn’t of much public consequence. His words just aren’t that powerful or far-reaching, and he shouldn’t be permitted to think so.
… I agree with Congressman Joe Wilson that President Obama was not being completely truthful about the health care plan, but I think the Congressman’s remark during the speech (“You lie!”) was bad form. Speeches in British Parliament are always this way, with opponents regularly shouting down the speaker. I guess this is freedom of speech; but it makes it really difficult to understand what anyone is saying—and I don’t think it’s the best way to do things. I prefer civilization to barbarity, wherever possible.
… Why are we so shocked by the rising price of health care? We’re not shocked at the rising prices of houses, property, cars, the newest electronic technology or anything else. I have found articles of deep concern about the “crisis” of rising health care dating back into the early 1990’s. How have we survived all these years in the face of such a “crisis”?!?!
… Facebook users – Why should I care which Disney Princess or SpongeBob Squarepants character I am – or, for that matter, which one you are?
… I believe “adolescent” is an artificial social category. If you list the characteristics of “child”, “adult,” and “adolescent,” I think you’ll find little significant difference between “child” and “adolescent.” So what are we really saying when we say that the adolescent years are being stretched into the late-20s?
… Many people expect nothing of their children any more – and that’s exactly what they get.
… I generally don’t allow my children to “hang out.” If they can’t state a purpose in going somewhere, why should they go?
… When I’m umpiring, the people that yell the loudest about my calls are nearly always people who know little or nothing about umpiring and baseball. I think about that every time I’m tempted to yell about anything …
… The guy who doubts his own existence and the guy who says that words have no meaning should either be laughed at or committed to an asylum. He should NOT be paid to teach “serious thinking” in a university.
… People ask me how it feels to be a grandfather. I’m not a real “feely” guy, but I have observed that whereas the relationship with my children was natural and almost automatic, grandparenting depends on how much you choose to intentionally insert yourself into the child’s life, and how much you invite her into yours. You must MAKE the grandparenting relationship happen. I never much thought about that before. I thought I’d raise my kids and then die. For some reason all notions of grandparenting as a significant stage of life eluded me. I’m in for some pleasant discoveries, I think.
… I enjoy holding my granddaughter Emma. I ponder that I’m touching the hands of a girl who may live to see the year 2100. And she’s touching the hands of a man who knew people born in the late 1800s. It makes great swaths of time seem so small. It also reminds me of the brevity of life, and the significance of “moments.” Some only come once—and you dare not miss them.
… Recently my wife and I visited a restaurant called California Tortilla. When I told the cashier taking our order that it was our first time there, I did so hoping to get help with their rather large and varied menu full of unfamiliar Mexican terminology. Instead, the young man began clanging a brass school bell and shouting through a yellow megaphone, “Hey everybody! We’ve got a first-timer here! Let’s give him a big welcome!” I am neither young enough hip enough to find public embarrassment either amusing or an acceptable form of preferential treatment. The fact that I still use the word “hip” probably makes that doubly clear. Perhaps I will eventually get comfortable with it, or forget about it, but presently I have no need or desire for California Tortilla.
|
|
