|
The Chapel Light - March 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 09 March 2008 |
With all the talk of small groups in the air, some folks have expressed concern about cliques developing in our church. People label as ‘clique’ any group from which they find (or feel) themselves excluded. We always use the term pejoratively and infer with its use the accusation “That group is bad because it excluded me.”
The Spirit of God says “love believes and hopes all things,” meaning love always chooses to believe the best options first, to give the benefit of the doubt; love doesn’t quickly accuse others of wrongdoing or malicious motives. So why, at the suggestion of the creation of small groups among adults, would we right up front start expressing concern about cliques and exclusion? For many of us it’s a residual habit we learned in childhood. As Jonathan Swift observed in Gulliver’s Travels and as the 1992 Disney film Honey, I Blew Up the Kid! illustrated in comedic form, children can be very nasty and dangerous! Most of us have in our growing-up years experienced intentionally malicious exclusion from a group. Perhaps some experienced it often enough to make cliquishness a knee-jerk fear or concern whenever we think of having to join in a gathering of some sort.
But do mature adults intentionally and maliciously exclude people merely for the joy of being spiteful? I have a really hard time believing that to be a common occurrence. Rarely have I seen such malice in a church. What I’ve seen more often is people who react quickly and emotionally to any perceived slight and who fail to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of thinking through the actual dynamics of the way groups work.
Whether you’re talking about a church, a team, a family, a Scout troop or any circle of friends, a group is a group because bonds have been forged between the members. The longer a group has been together and the more experiences its members have shared, the stronger, the greater and the more numerous the bonds. Any time a new person comes to join such a group the newcomer is at a disadvantage because he hasn’t participated in the experiences that molded the group. Newcomers don’t understand the group’s history, the various relationships between members, or the fun inside jokes, subtle looks and catch-phrases used in the group’s communication. A sensitive newcomer may interpret a group’s normal interaction as rejection. “I don’t understand” leads to “I feel stupid for not understanding” leads to “This group is trying to make me feel stupid” leads to “They think I’m stupid” leads to “They don’t want me. They’re a clique.” Love interrupts this logic early on: “I don’t understand because I haven’t been part of this very close group. They’re not trying to hurt me. I have to get over feeling stupid and go through the uncomfortable natural stages of being a newcomer until I learn enough to feel comfortable fitting in.”
Sometimes moving through stages of life can make us feel rejected by a group. A few years after we graduated from college my wife and I returned to campus for a group conference. We were so looking forward to reliving the good old days. But when we got to campus, we realized that the thing that made school so great was the people, not the campus. None of the students knew us or our accomplishments; we weren’t important to the life of the campus. We weren’t greeted or lauded. We were pretty much overlooked and ignored and left to ourselves. It would have been very easy to feel rejected by our college; instead we just noted that we’d moved on to a different stage of life, and we rejoiced in our memories and took pleasure in watching the new generation of collegians making their own memories.
Young people will experience this once they have children. Suddenly you don’t fit with your unmarried friends. “The singles” start going places without you. Are they maliciously excluding you? No – they just realize babies don’t do too well white-water rafting or rock-climbing. Love believes the best and moves on – no hurt, no blame, no accusations.
The reverse can also be true. Singles can feel excluded by married friends, simply because when you’re married and start having children, your perspective generally changes. The issues that concern you are no longer the issues of your single friends. The common bonds that make a group a group start to disappear. Love believes the best: My married friends aren’t ignoring or rejecting me. They’ve moved on to a new stage of life with concerns that are different from mine and that I won’t understand until I move on to that stage of life. Our own friendship will not be as intense as it used to be – and that’s fine. This is how love talks to itself to prevent self-pity and accusation of others.
Finally, there are some groups to which we just can’t belong because we’re not qualified to belong. The Bible college I attended required Christian service projects every semester. I wanted to go to churches on the weekends with a school gospel team (a singing group). I can’t read music and I had no voice training, but I signed up for a tryout anyway. And I did miserably. The music professor criticized me from the first note that I sang, and he rejected me as unqualified. In my immaturity (I was 17) I charged the school musicians with being a snotty narrow-minded clique. The truth was that I was unqualified musically – and that I had too much pride to acknowledge that fact. Crying ‘clique’ was much easier. Love would have believed the best of the professor and wouldn’t have vaunted itself the way I did.
Recognize that people can easily be hurt in the ways that I have mentioned, and that it’s very easy to feel rejection where none is intended. Be sensitive to outsiders and newcomers – ‘aliens and strangers’ to use the Old Testament terminology – who want to fit in and belong. Make the extra effort to help them to understand your group and its idiosyncrasies, to eliminate every possible roadblock that would make them say ‘clique’.
|
|
The Chapel Light - February 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Wednesday, 13 February 2008 |
I’ve read Scripture in front of lots of people on many occasions. But as I looked down at the black words on the white page this time, I had trouble finding my voice. “…And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes…there shall be no more death…nor sorrow…nor crying…” The next sentence brought a knot to my throat. My eyes were burning, and I couldn’t hold back any longer. I let the grieving flow and read through my tears: “There shall be…no…more…pain.”
Those last three words were so hard to get out at my father-in-law’s funeral, because they summarized the life of the man who I had come to know and love. My father-in-law, Clarence Dunnett, was born in Toledo, OH in 1926. Conceived close to his mother’s change of life, Clarence was so small that his mother didn’t know she was pregnant. She went to the hospital that October morning to find that what she thought was an attack of appendicitis was actually labor pains for her fifth child. His mother was unprepared to have a baby that late in life. She even gave the task of naming him to Clarence’s sisters, almost twenty years his senior, and Clarence was always perplexed as to how such young women could name a boy something as unromantic and uninspiring as “Clarence Elwood”!
Clarence was never a big man. The Dunnett’s weren’t towering stock to begin with, and being born just in time for the Great Depression to parents on the older end of the scale, Clarence Dunnett suffered poverty and malnutrition as a child. He may have reached 5’9” at his tallest, and for most of his adult life he wasn’t much more than 130 pounds. One of our family’s fond memories from this past Christmas was an “argument” he had with my daughter Amy (barely 5’4”) about who had smaller feet. Clarence often had trouble finding shoes small enough in men’s sizes, but when Amy challenged him to fit into her high heels, he tried – and lost the contest. Antics like this were common, and he often had the family in stitches.
Being small and poor, he was often the butt of jokes as a child, and being the butt of jokes he learned how to fight. He relished telling David & Goliath stories of fights from his childhood. Because of his quickness and speed he ended up being a very good boxer and an even better baseball player – and coach (though it took him awhile to realize the latter). In his seventies someone persuaded him to help coach the local Christian school’s girl’s softball team. A number of those parents were among the nearly five hundred that came to pay their respects at Clarence’s viewing, thanking us for the patient input that Clarence had had in the lives of their daughters. He also coached his children and grandchildren to excellence in athletics. You don’t want to play catch too long with my wife. To this day she can give your glove hand a pretty good beating! (She can box too – ask her to tell you the story…).
Perhaps it was the times, or her time of life, but whatever the reason, Clarence’s mother was very hard on her son and extremely critical of him. He grew up believing himself to be stupid. But this “stupid” kid ended up doing an honorable stint in the Navy; when going through his things in the attic the family found several achievement medals which we’d never heard about. He also ended up managing a very successful business engineering and selling cutting tools to the automobile industry. When word of his death got around, letters – not cold form letters, but very detailed personal notes – were sent from managers at General Motors and other businesses that dealt with him testifying to Clarence’s engineering expertise in this precision business as well as his truthfulness, his servant’s attitude and his outstanding business ethics. My father-in-law didn’t play games – he didn’t wine and dine people – he was a straight talker and he refused to lie – even when telling the truth meant losing a sale.
One of the most amazing things about Clarence Dunnett was that he built much of this success after he had been stricken nearly to death with a devastating combination of spinal meningitis and encephalitis in 1979. He was hospitalized for a month; when the doctors released him they told my mother-in-law they were sending him home to die. Carolyn, who’s quite a fighter herself, insisted that Clarence wasn’t going to die if she had anything to say about it.
That was about the time I met Clarence and Carolyn (1980). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching Carolyn stubbornly nurse him back to health and watching Clarence stubbornly struggle back to normal life against his own weakened body. I watched him build a successful sales business, despite his having to learn to drive again due to nerve damage in his feet (he couldn’t feel the pedals – riding with him during that time was a real hoot!), the residual effect of the meningitis, and despite regular debilitating headaches, the residual effect of the encephalitis. I have so many memories of family get-togethers where Clarence would suddenly pull back into a corner, cross his legs, and his head would drop into his hand, toughing out a headache without complaint. When the pain would pass, he’d come back and play with his grandchildren like nothing was wrong. He suffered so gracefully.
Last year a nasty bacterial infection (C. diff.) almost killed him. He was hospitalized for several months. While recovering a nurse administered the wrong medication which damaged his optic nerves, making him almost completely blind. He kept on. Once home he went back to work, and his cheerfulness masked the fact that he was almost totally blind. We would all forget about it until dinner, when he would stare at a full plate that he couldn’t see, and then would say, with a chuckle in his gravelly voice, “Would someone tell me what I’m having for dinner?”
A few weeks ago my father-in-law suffered a stroke and while in the hospital contracted several staph infections. His body battled once more with such focus that he went into a coma. On the morning of January 23rd, the family phoned us from the hospital room and said that my wife should say good-bye. They put the phone to Clarence’s ear; Chrissy said her goodbyes, and then began to sing “I’ll Fly Away." Just as she began the third verse, her sister came on the phone and said, “Chris, he’s gone.” He flew away.
“…No more pain…” The many memories recorded in this brief tribute rushed through my mind in the second that I pondered those words in Revelation 21. The tears flowed, not merely because of the loss of my father-in-law, but for the memory of the heroic and graceful endurance he demonstrated in life, and the joy that we have because our hope in Christ means no more pain.
No more staph infections.
No more strokes.
No more headaches.
No more struggles. No need to fight ever again. Just rest. Blessed rest. Rest in his true home – the loving arms of the Father of all spirits (Hebrews 12:9) to Whom he really and rightfully belongs.
|
|
The Chapel Light - January 2008 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 13 January 2008 |
The “whispering-down-the-lane” aspect of the grapevine never ceases to amaze me, especially when it comes to what I believe or teach. Recently someone told me that they heard we teach and believe that a Christian can lose his salvation. Since that’s a question that a lot of people have anyway, I thought I’d address it (and the rumor) briefly here in the Scrip.
Traditionally, conservative Christianity has been divided into two camps on this question. One camp says a Christian can never be lost; this idea is often referred to as “once-saved, always-saved.” This is the camp I was raised in. The other camp says that a Christian can be lost, though there are differences of opinion over what it takes to bring about such a loss. We always called this the “ye must be born again and again and again” school of thought.
The two camps have arisen because there are Scriptures which seem to teach both points of view. The “once saved, always saved” people emphasize the verses that seem to say a believer can never be lost; the other side focuses on the ones which seem to say that a believer can lose his salvation. Each side accuses the other of fostering weak Christianity.
“Ye-must-be-born-again-and-again-and-againers” say that if you can never lose your salvation then there’s no reason to live in obedience. Sin away since you’re bound for heaven no matter what! Proponents of “once-saved-always-saved” say that if you can lose your salvation (and regain it so easily) why not do the very same thing; sin, if you want to sin, lose your salvation – and then pick it up again when it’s more convenient to you and you feel like being a Christian. Do this as often as you want!
This argument has been going on for almost five hundred years now and has generated more heat than light. In studying both sides I’ve come to the following conclusions. First, the Bible is clear that I’m not saved by my own works but by grace through faith in Christ who died for me. Second, all those so saved by grace are called to be obedient to Christ in everyday life. Generally what the two schools argue about are those who are not living obediently – those who are willfully, carelessly and regularly disobeying God and living flagrantly in sin. The two schools argue over whether such people have lost their salvation or whether such people were ever really saved in the first place.
Hmmmm….I think that it’s really stupid to be arguing fine theological points when you’ve got a rebellious sinner in front of you! Instead of glorying in the splitting of theological hairs, I think we need to focus on practically APPLYING the Scriptures. So what do you do with a person who is living in disobedience? Put your arm around him and tell him it’s okay because when he was three he prayed by his bedside with his mommy to get saved, and “once saved, always saved, so, hey bro – continue in sin that grace may abound???" Or, do you point him to the Scriptures which hold out very serious warnings about his persistent high-handed rebellion, disobedience and unbelief, calling the rebel to repentance?
We can argue all day about whether another person is truly saved or not, but the only person who finally and surely knows if someone’s profession is genuine is God Himself. The Lord knows those that are His. But we’re told that we can have assurance of our profession by looking at the fruits that such faith produces in one’s life (e.g. 1 John 1:5-2:6). Faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). So when the fruit is there, we sense the assurance. And when the works aren’t there? Should we sit back on our blessed assurance? Or should we have questions and fears and concerns which should lead us to repentance?
On the flip side, some people are so emotionally insecure that they worry about tiny insignificant things. Every little peccadillo makes them feel not only guilty, but that they have once again incurred the wrath of God - that they are condemned to hell for lying about their sister’s surprise bridal shower! They are sincerely concerned that they have seriously offended God by such tiny slights. What do we do with such people? Hold up the threats of Scripture and sneer them into repentance? No – I point them to the security that we have in the forgiving love of Christ. There is no condemnation to those who are in Him!
Discerning differing situations and properly applying the Scriptures is, in this case, I believe, far more important than arguing over the technical correctness of one’s theological theory. So for me, asking “Can a person lose their salvation?” isn’t even a good, or important, question. It has no practical value that I can see. So I don’t worry about it.
Or maybe someone can give me a reason why I should?
|
|
The Chapel Light - Oct/Nov 2007 |
|
|
Shepherd's Scrips
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 04 November 2007 |
This month I’d like us to think about stewardship – the responsibility that we have to care for and about certain things.
First, I’d like us to think about the church building. At this point we don’t have a full-time custodian, and sometimes the task of cleaning up our building after a Sunday service or ministry meeting is made more difficult for our part-time cleaners than it needs to be.
Put your hymnal back into the rack. That’s YOUR responsibility and it’s not that hard to do.
If you must bring a beverage into the service, don’t let your cup under your seat. Throw it away. If it’s one of those plastic or stainless types, don’t let it sit half full of coffee where it can be accidentally kicked and spilled. Take it home, dispose of the leftover coffee, and wash the mug. That’s YOUR responsibility. If you don’t, the MVC Coffee Mug Elf has been known to dispose of such lovely mugs permanently. That’s HIS responsibility. :-)
Don’t let your bulletin lay on the seat (or even worse, the floor). Take it with you or throw it away. It’s YOUR responsibility. Show love to the cleaners by making their job a little easier.
Don’t let your stuff lay on tables in the foyer or on the hatracks. If you went through the gym on our recent “Find Your Lost Stuff Day” you saw four or five tables FULL of (among other things) shoes, shirts, jackets, Bibles, and even children’s eyeglasses (I saw 3 pairs!). How can a child go month after month without eyeglasses??? Why wasn’t some parent ringing the church phone off the hook in search of those glasses??? Those glasses laid on the table in the foyer for MONTHS. Are we that “easy come, easy go” that we can just keep buying glasses when little Susie loses them??? (Incidentally, ever since the teens’ all-nighter this summer, one of the guys left his toothbrush, toothpaste, and dental floss container on top of the towel dispenser in the men’s bathroom of the Classic Building. I trust that this was just a spare; I’ve disposed of it. If it wasn’t a spare…well, that’s just despicably gross.)
If you move tables and chairs around, put them back before you go. That’s YOUR responsibility. Isn’t that what you’d want done to you? Don’t leave it for someone else.
If you see paper or plastic on the floor of the church, or blowing across the parking lot – pick it up and throw it in a trash can! You’re a part of the church family if you come here. You have authority over that trash! Take the responsibility and show a little love and appreciation to those who sacrifice time to clean the church. Make their job a little easier by sharing that stewardship, take care of OUR building.
Second, I’d like to talk about stewardship of babies. The service is not designed for babies two years old and under; the nursery is. A baby in the service is a distraction to AT LEAST a dozen people around you, even if the baby is quiet. People are naturally drawn to watch babies, and that is exactly what all of the people around you do during the sermon if your baby is with you. The same thing is true of babies being walked in the foyer. People near the doors can see you out of the corner of their eyes; and if the baby makes sounds, even happy sounds, people instinctively turn around.
I know – because I watch it happen just about every week.
Part of the responsibility that each of us has is to not distract others who are trying to listen to the message. Keeping your baby with you is disrespectful to those around you, and love is not rude.
More than that, we have a responsibility to our babies to acclimate them to people other than ourselves. An important part of a child’s training involves short times of separation from parents so the child can discover that connection to others is not a bad thing! The only way to learn that is for the child to experience being left with someone else so he can discover that it did not hurt and he did not die. Of course he will cry; you’re stretching his comfort zone! Stretching the comfort zone is how you teach life! A parent’s job – a mother’s job – is not to prolong the womb experience for the child every waking hour. On the contrary, she must gradually wean the child from the womb experience so the child adapts to life in the world. It won’t hurt to do that very early in the child’s life for short periods of time (like the forty-five minutes of a sermon).
“Separation anxiety” is not fatal. It’s not even dangerous; it’s a natural part of growing up that babies must be taught by their parents. Most babies get accustomed to the nursery quickly if you consistently leave them there and if you aren’t swayed by their crying, which is also neither fatal nor harmful (cf. Proverbs 19:18). The child will not die or be seriously damaged in the nursery. We won’t allow it. If you’re really needed, you’ll be called. The nursery workers here haven’t lost a child yet!
So as good stewards of all that is entrusted to us, let us please put ALL babies in the nursery.
-- Pastor Chris
|
|
Notes from the Sermon on Homosexuality |
|
|
Sermon Notes
|
|
Written by Pastor Chris
|
|
Sunday, 07 October 2007 |
|
Bardesanes of Syria (AD 155-220)
Laws in Hatra. - There is a law in force in Hatra, that whosoever steals any little thing, even though it were worthless as water, shall be stoned. Among the Cashani, on the contrary, if any one commits such a theft as this, they merely spit in his face. Among the Romans, too, he that commits a small theft is scourged and sent about his business. On the other side of the Euphrates, and as you go eastward, he that is stigmatized as either a thief or a murderer does not much resent it; but, if a man be stigmatized as an homosexual [arsenokoites], he will avenge himself even to the extent of killing his accuser. ... Again, in all the region of the East, if any persons are thus stigmatized, and are known to be guilty, their own fathers and brothers put them to death; and very often they do not even make known the graves where they are buried. Such are the laws of the people of the East. But in the North, and in the country of the Gauls and their neighbors, such youths among them as are handsome the men take as wives, and they even have feasts on the occasion; and it is not considered by them as a disgrace, nor as a reproach, because of the law which prevails among them.
Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome (c. AD 200)
"Of every tree that is in paradise thou mayest freely eat, but thou mayest not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," which is Naas. Naas...has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural intercourse with him...whence have arisen adultery and sodomy [arsenokoitia].
|
|
