The word Pentecost simply means “fiftieth day.” It was that day that the Holy Spirit was bestowed on the people of God. I think it’s important to understand that the Holy Spirit did not come into existence on the Day of Pentecost. Like the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit has eternally pre-existed. Genesis 1:2 tells us that during the creation the Holy Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep. So the Spirit wasn’t invented at Pentecost. So what’s the difference? A simple way to think about it is that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit worked with the people of God, energizing them to do God’s will. People like David and Samson experienced the Spirit this way. But from the Day of Pentecost on the Spirit began to dwell in the people of God. From "with" to "in." See the difference?
So Pentecost means that the Spirit of God baptized believers into the body of Christ, and to dwell in every believer. John 14.16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever — the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." Do you see the difference? Before Pentecost, He dwelt with His people; after Pentecost He dwells in His people.
What is the meaning of Pentecost? Pentecost simply means that now every born again believer, at the moment of salvation, is baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ and is indwelled by the Spirit. The Spirit energizes and empowers the people of God to fulfill God's mission for the world (Acts 1:8).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Integrity by Dr. Henry Cloud
Henry Cloud may be best known for his series of works co-authored by John Townsend on the subject of Boundaries. But his most helpful contribution to my life has been his book titled Integrity. It was recommended to me about a year ago by a friend, and when I saw it at a local bookstore I picked it up and read it. I am not sorry!
Without going into tremendous detail, Cloud defines integrity as "the courage to meet the demands of reality." That alone should pique your interest. From that starting point Cloud presents the case for integrity as the unifying ordering of one's character which allows the leader to meet the demands of reality. The book is organized around six aspects of character, which I list as follows.
1. The ability to connect authentically which leads to trust.
2. The ability to be oriented toward the truth which leads to finding and operating in reality.
3. The ability to work in a way that gets results and finishes well which leads to reaching goals, profits, or the mission.
4. The ability to embrace, engage, and deal with the negative which leads to ending problems, resolving them, or transforming them.
5. The ability to be oriented toward growth which leads to increase.
6. The ability to be transcendent which leads to enlargement of the bigger picture and oneself.
I think this book would be helpful to any leader, manager, or person who desires to do some genuine "heart work." You will find the benefits to be enriching.
Introducting the Missional Church by Alan Roxburgh and Scott Boren
Recent releases on the Missional Church fall into two categories. First, there is the theological reflection category replete with information on what the Scripture says about embracing our sentness into the world around us. The other category of books on the Missional Church are the ones that focus on the tactical and the practical.
Introducing the Missional Church by Roxburgh and Boren does a nice job of accomplishing both tasks. Because of its newness, defining the Missional Church is a work in progress. But the authors do an exceptional job of explaining what the missional church is and what she is to be about in the Kingdom landscape.
Beyond the definition, the authors provide some helpful materials for established churches that are considering transitioning from their attractional model to a more missional minded model of ministry.
The book is a simple read and is well written. If you're just tuning in to the missional church, I encourage you to pick up a copy. It is well worth the simple investment.
Six Kinds of Critics by Mark Driscoll
One of the blogs I frequent is The Resurgence, the blogsite of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Today I came across this video clip that I thought was very helpful on Six Kinds of Critics. Good counsel!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Summer of Love Week 3
It's not to late to join the Summer of Love! For more information or to sign up visit http://www.arbcsummeroflove.com! To view the full screen version, just click inside the video window after the video begins.
The Day of Pentecost (Part 1)
Last weekend my family make our annual pilgrimage to Northeast Missouri for our family reunion. For the last several years, my mother has done her best to assemble all of the relatives to share a meal and catch up with each other. Notice I mention the meal first. My mother is 84 years old, but hasn’t lost her touch in the kitchen. Having grown up during the great depression, she learned at an early age that if you have an iron skillet, some lard and flour you can make anything delicious. The serving table looked something like that old Rolling Stones album cover Beggars Banquet. Most people get up from the table and say “excuse me.” I got up from the table on Saturday and said, “forgive me.”
There’s something about food that brings the people of God together. Baptists are notorious for using (and maybe abusing) food at gatherings. Do you have something to celebrate? Let’s eat! A new baby? A wedding? A promotion? A good dental check up? By all means, let’s eat! But we also eat during times of sadness. When word circulates that an illness or hospitalization has been incurred, Baptists come to the rescue armed with casserole dishes. Should someone from the church family pass away, one of the first questions asked is, “Who will serve the meal?” I think Baptists believe they have cornered the market on food. But I am aware of kindred denominations that perform the same regiment with equal discipline.
Interestingly enough, we didn’t invent this phenomenon in the last few decades. God is big on food and has been for thousands of years. In fact, God was the first to suggest that his people use food during times of teaching, celebration, sadness, and memory. The Old Testament explains seven feasts that the people of God were to conduct during the year. Each one of them was with purpose. Each one of them was God’s idea.
Three of the seven feasts were pilgrimage feasts. That means that the people of God were required to return to Jerusalem to observe them. The first one was the feast of shelters (or booths). This feast was given to remind the people of God of God’s great protection during the wilderness wanderings. As they lay in their booths at night they were to look up to the stars and remember that God is their protector. The second major pilgrimage feast was Passover. Passover is probably the most familiar of the Old Testament feasts, and was instituted on the night the death angel passed over the land of Egypt and the Israelites were freed from slavery and bondage. Jesus was crucified during Passover, a celebration at which scholars estimate 120,000 lambs were sacrificed in Jerusalem.
Fifty days following the Passover was the Feast of First Fruits. This harvest celebration commemorated the first portion of the harvest and dedicated it to God in anticipation of the remainder of the harvest that would soon be gathered. On God’s calendar, Jesus was crucified on Passover and the Spirit was given fifty days later on the Day of Pentecost…during the Feast of First Fruits. Interesting, isn’t it? Someone has said that the average Christian and the average church are somewhere bogged down between Calvary and Pentecost. They have been to Calvary for pardon, but they have not been to Pentecost for power. I think all of us agree that we need to recapture that power that was manifest in that upper room on the day of Pentecost so that we can be the church Jesus desires us to be and do the work Jesus desires us to do. Tomorrow I’ll get into the thicket of last weekend’s message from Acts 2:1-21. In the meantime, have something to eat.
There’s something about food that brings the people of God together. Baptists are notorious for using (and maybe abusing) food at gatherings. Do you have something to celebrate? Let’s eat! A new baby? A wedding? A promotion? A good dental check up? By all means, let’s eat! But we also eat during times of sadness. When word circulates that an illness or hospitalization has been incurred, Baptists come to the rescue armed with casserole dishes. Should someone from the church family pass away, one of the first questions asked is, “Who will serve the meal?” I think Baptists believe they have cornered the market on food. But I am aware of kindred denominations that perform the same regiment with equal discipline.
Interestingly enough, we didn’t invent this phenomenon in the last few decades. God is big on food and has been for thousands of years. In fact, God was the first to suggest that his people use food during times of teaching, celebration, sadness, and memory. The Old Testament explains seven feasts that the people of God were to conduct during the year. Each one of them was with purpose. Each one of them was God’s idea.
Three of the seven feasts were pilgrimage feasts. That means that the people of God were required to return to Jerusalem to observe them. The first one was the feast of shelters (or booths). This feast was given to remind the people of God of God’s great protection during the wilderness wanderings. As they lay in their booths at night they were to look up to the stars and remember that God is their protector. The second major pilgrimage feast was Passover. Passover is probably the most familiar of the Old Testament feasts, and was instituted on the night the death angel passed over the land of Egypt and the Israelites were freed from slavery and bondage. Jesus was crucified during Passover, a celebration at which scholars estimate 120,000 lambs were sacrificed in Jerusalem.
Fifty days following the Passover was the Feast of First Fruits. This harvest celebration commemorated the first portion of the harvest and dedicated it to God in anticipation of the remainder of the harvest that would soon be gathered. On God’s calendar, Jesus was crucified on Passover and the Spirit was given fifty days later on the Day of Pentecost…during the Feast of First Fruits. Interesting, isn’t it? Someone has said that the average Christian and the average church are somewhere bogged down between Calvary and Pentecost. They have been to Calvary for pardon, but they have not been to Pentecost for power. I think all of us agree that we need to recapture that power that was manifest in that upper room on the day of Pentecost so that we can be the church Jesus desires us to be and do the work Jesus desires us to do. Tomorrow I’ll get into the thicket of last weekend’s message from Acts 2:1-21. In the meantime, have something to eat.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The 90 Day New Testament Challenge
We are wrapping up the Gospel of Luke this week and beginning the Gospel of John. If you haven't joined the 90 Day New Testament Challenge, it's not too late! To find out more, visit http://www.nt90.com!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Leading from the Second Chair (part 5)
The other thing I’d like to add concerning leadership in the church is that the most dominate model for leadership in the New Testament is parenting. Consider Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12, “As apostles of Christ we certainly had a right to make some demands of you, but instead we were like children among you. Or we were like a mother feeding and caring for her own children. We loved you so much that we shared with you not only God’s good news but our own lives, too. Don’t you remember, dear brothers and sisters, how hard we worked among you? Night and day we toiled to earn a living so that we would not be a burden to any of you as we preached God’s good news to you. You yourselves are our witnesses—and so is God—that we were devout and honest and faultless toward all you believers. And you know that we treated each of you as a father treats his own children. We pleased with you, encouraged you, and urged you to live your lives in a way that God would consider worthy.” (NLT) Notice the "family" words in the passage.
Sometimes I hear that church is like a business and should be run by CEOs. Others suggest church is like an athletic team that should be run by coaches. Others still compare the church to the military (think “Onward Christian Soldiers”) which is led by generals. I’ve even heard that church is like the government, and should be led as a democracy in which the will of the majority prevails. While each of these proposed models were part of first century culture, Paul did not look to business, sports, the military or the government as a model for church leadership. He looked to the family, and observed that families are led by parents. That’s the model he chose.
What does this say about how churches should operate? What does this say about how churches should be led? Those are good questions. But maybe we’re missing a more basic question: what kind of organization is the church? Maybe the nature of the organization determines the nature of leadership for the organization. It all depends on what you’re after.
Sometimes I hear that church is like a business and should be run by CEOs. Others suggest church is like an athletic team that should be run by coaches. Others still compare the church to the military (think “Onward Christian Soldiers”) which is led by generals. I’ve even heard that church is like the government, and should be led as a democracy in which the will of the majority prevails. While each of these proposed models were part of first century culture, Paul did not look to business, sports, the military or the government as a model for church leadership. He looked to the family, and observed that families are led by parents. That’s the model he chose.
What does this say about how churches should operate? What does this say about how churches should be led? Those are good questions. But maybe we’re missing a more basic question: what kind of organization is the church? Maybe the nature of the organization determines the nature of leadership for the organization. It all depends on what you’re after.
Leading from the Second Chair (part 4)
In concluding this week’s series of postings on church leadership, I want to add a couple of thoughts from the New Testament that have helped shape my understanding of God’s design for church leadership. The first thought comes from a miracle story in the gospels. Matthew 8:5-9 tells the story of a Roman centurion who had a sick servant. He went to Jesus on behalf of his servant and asked him to heal him. The centurion expressed great faith and told Jesus that he didn’t think it necessary for Jesus to go to the servant. “Just say the word,” the soldier said, “and he’ll be healed.” It’s a great story about great faith. But tucked in the story is one of the best leadership principles in the New Testament.
The centurion explained to Jesus why it was not necessary for him to go. He said, “I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves ‘do this,” they do it” (Matthew 8:9, NLT). Did you catch it? Because the centurion was “under” authority, he was placed in a position “over” his subordinates. Interestingly enough, this Roman made the same observation about Jesus.
Those under God’s authority will be effective when the opportunity arises to be in positions of authority. Spiritual leadership works that way. It’s always more concerned with being under God’s authority than being in positions of authority. Many books are being written on how to “Lead from the Second Chair.” In the church of Jesus Christ, we’re all always in “the second chair.” It’s not our church, for it rightfully belongs to Jesus Christ. When we are rightly related to the head of the church, many leadership “issues” may become resolved. It begins with recognition that Jesus is in charge.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Leading from the Second Chair (part 3)
The third observation I would make about how the post resurrection disciples viewed spiritual leadership is from Acts 1:23-26. Having nominated Barsabbas and Matthias, they “all prayed, ‘O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.’ Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.” (NLT)
The disciples used an Old Testament process for making decisions, that of casting lots. This was a practice that had been in existence from the time of Moses, so it would have been familiar and comfortable (cf. Proverbs 16:33). Obviously, after the Spirit came at Pentecost, this practice was no longer utilized as the disciples learned to listen to and move with the rhythm of the Holy Spirit. The point is that they assumed that God had a vested interest in the leadership selection process. So the observation is this: Leaders were selected by discerning God’s will.
I wonder what would happen in our churches if our leadership selection processes were more committed to finding God’s will than plugging holes and twisting arms? Sometimes I hear desperate complaints from people who can’t fill leadership voids because, “people are just uncommitted.” While we may feel that we have problems filling leadership vacancies, God does not have a problem filling leadership vacancies. It begins with prayer. It continues with a Scriptural understanding of the task at hand. It involves valuing a person’s character and walk with God more than their talents and skill set, and concludes with discerning God’s will. This certainly takes a little more time and energy, but doing things right usually does.
The disciples used an Old Testament process for making decisions, that of casting lots. This was a practice that had been in existence from the time of Moses, so it would have been familiar and comfortable (cf. Proverbs 16:33). Obviously, after the Spirit came at Pentecost, this practice was no longer utilized as the disciples learned to listen to and move with the rhythm of the Holy Spirit. The point is that they assumed that God had a vested interest in the leadership selection process. So the observation is this: Leaders were selected by discerning God’s will.
I wonder what would happen in our churches if our leadership selection processes were more committed to finding God’s will than plugging holes and twisting arms? Sometimes I hear desperate complaints from people who can’t fill leadership voids because, “people are just uncommitted.” While we may feel that we have problems filling leadership vacancies, God does not have a problem filling leadership vacancies. It begins with prayer. It continues with a Scriptural understanding of the task at hand. It involves valuing a person’s character and walk with God more than their talents and skill set, and concludes with discerning God’s will. This certainly takes a little more time and energy, but doing things right usually does.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Leading from the Second Chair (part 2)
This week’s series of posts relates to leadership and leadership development in the early church. Yesterday I observed from Acts 1:15-16 that the Bible should be the basis for leadership decisions in the church. In today’s post I want to share a little about the qualifications for leadership in the church. It should be no surprise that the qualifications for leadership in the church are spiritual in nature. What kind of spiritual qualifications am I talking about?
For one, those considered for leadership were to be people who had been intimates of Jesus. Acts 1:21-22 says, “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were travelling with the Lord Jesus—from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” (NLT) Clearly the expectation was for those considered for leadership were first and foremost people who were close to Jesus. Notice that close proximity to Jesus trumps talent, skill, upside, education, and track record. The most important thing any spiritual leader can possess is a vibrant and dynamic walk with Christ.
The second qualification that is called out is character. In Acts 1:24, the disciples prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart.” Literally the prayer was, “Lord, you are the heart-knower.” It reminds me of that famous story in the Old Testament that recounts the selection of David by Samuel. Samuel looked over Jesse’s sons, and was impressed by size and physical appearance. God then reminded Samuel that he didn’t look on the outward appearance, but on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7) As I think about God’s emphasis on knowing the hearts, I am reminded that God is far more interested in character than competence. Don't forget that before Judas was a betrayer he was a thief! Judas’ replacement was to be a person who was an intimate follower of Christ and a person of character and integrity. Those should be the primary items we focus on as we look for spiritual leaders today.
For one, those considered for leadership were to be people who had been intimates of Jesus. Acts 1:21-22 says, “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were travelling with the Lord Jesus—from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” (NLT) Clearly the expectation was for those considered for leadership were first and foremost people who were close to Jesus. Notice that close proximity to Jesus trumps talent, skill, upside, education, and track record. The most important thing any spiritual leader can possess is a vibrant and dynamic walk with Christ.
The second qualification that is called out is character. In Acts 1:24, the disciples prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart.” Literally the prayer was, “Lord, you are the heart-knower.” It reminds me of that famous story in the Old Testament that recounts the selection of David by Samuel. Samuel looked over Jesse’s sons, and was impressed by size and physical appearance. God then reminded Samuel that he didn’t look on the outward appearance, but on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7) As I think about God’s emphasis on knowing the hearts, I am reminded that God is far more interested in character than competence. Don't forget that before Judas was a betrayer he was a thief! Judas’ replacement was to be a person who was an intimate follower of Christ and a person of character and integrity. Those should be the primary items we focus on as we look for spiritual leaders today.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Leading from the Second Chair
Americans love to talk about leadership. From the President of the United States all the way down to our son’s little league baseball coach, we evaluate and assess the leadership qualities that people possess. Evidently Americans love to read about leadership. Amazon.com, for example, yields nearly 62,000 book title matches from a simple search for “leadership.” Even more amazing than that, Amazon.com boasts 72 new titles on the subject of leadership that have been released in the last 30 days. That’s two new books per day for the last month!
Leadership concerns are not new. The disciples in the upper room were also concerned about leadership. In the midst of their prayer meeting, Peter rose to address a leadership need: finding a suitable replacement for Judas Iscariot.
There are several important observations we can make from Acts 1:15-26 concerning leadership for the early church that we can apply to today. For example, Scripture was the basis for their leadership decisions. Acts 1:15-16 states, “During that time, when about 120 believers were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them. ‘Brothers,’ he said, ‘the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas, who guided those who arrested Jesus. This was predicted long ago by the Holy Spirit, speaking through King David’.” (NLT)
Implied in those verses is that the disciples prayed with their Bibles open. They were sensitive to God in prayer, and informed by God through the Scriptures in their prayer. Their leadership decisions were informed by and based on the Bible. I think it’s very important for churches today to follow the same practice. After all, the Bible is not silent on the subject of leadership. The lives of people like Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, and Daniel provide excellent role models for leadership from the Old Testament. The New Testament is not void of leadership either, and speaks much of the qualifications for spiritual leadership. But more about that later.
If the Bible is to be our authority for faith and practice, then it makes sense that the Bible should inform our leadership decisions in the church.
Leadership concerns are not new. The disciples in the upper room were also concerned about leadership. In the midst of their prayer meeting, Peter rose to address a leadership need: finding a suitable replacement for Judas Iscariot.
There are several important observations we can make from Acts 1:15-26 concerning leadership for the early church that we can apply to today. For example, Scripture was the basis for their leadership decisions. Acts 1:15-16 states, “During that time, when about 120 believers were together in one place, Peter stood up and addressed them. ‘Brothers,’ he said, ‘the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas, who guided those who arrested Jesus. This was predicted long ago by the Holy Spirit, speaking through King David’.” (NLT)
Implied in those verses is that the disciples prayed with their Bibles open. They were sensitive to God in prayer, and informed by God through the Scriptures in their prayer. Their leadership decisions were informed by and based on the Bible. I think it’s very important for churches today to follow the same practice. After all, the Bible is not silent on the subject of leadership. The lives of people like Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, and Daniel provide excellent role models for leadership from the Old Testament. The New Testament is not void of leadership either, and speaks much of the qualifications for spiritual leadership. But more about that later.
If the Bible is to be our authority for faith and practice, then it makes sense that the Bible should inform our leadership decisions in the church.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
What Happens When People Pray Together (part 3)
The final thing that happens when people pray together is that unified people empowered by the Spirit advance the Kingdom of God. There is an often quoted verse found in Proverbs 29:18, which says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Modern translations do a better job than the KJV with this verse. A more accurate rendering would be “Where there is no unified purpose, the people all do what is right in their own eyes.” The upper room prayer meeting was not for the disciples to figure out what they were going to do next. The prayer meeting was to bring them together and to put them in touch with the plan of God and the power of God to bring the Kingdom of God.
It has been said that the disciples prayed 10 days and preached 3 minutes and 3,000 people came to faith. Today, we want to pray 3 minutes and preach 10 days and we wonder why our communities are not transformed. God has a plan already on the drawing board. We need to pray together and get on the same page together for the sake of our communities and our world.
But what happens when people do not pray together?
We resort to an economy of scarcity vs. an economy of abundance.
We drive our private agendas vs. the corporate mission.
We exhibit pettiness vs. exhibiting grace.
We emphasize rules over relationships.
We value independence vs. dependence.
We become small in our thinking vs. visionaries who dream of reaching our world.
We turn into creatures of habit vs. innovators who are able to creatively share the gospel of Christ.
Don Miller once remarked, "Jesus said that his Father's house was to be a house of prayer. If it's not a house of prayer, then its somebody else's house." That's a good thought for the week.
It has been said that the disciples prayed 10 days and preached 3 minutes and 3,000 people came to faith. Today, we want to pray 3 minutes and preach 10 days and we wonder why our communities are not transformed. God has a plan already on the drawing board. We need to pray together and get on the same page together for the sake of our communities and our world.
But what happens when people do not pray together?
We resort to an economy of scarcity vs. an economy of abundance.
We drive our private agendas vs. the corporate mission.
We exhibit pettiness vs. exhibiting grace.
We emphasize rules over relationships.
We value independence vs. dependence.
We become small in our thinking vs. visionaries who dream of reaching our world.
We turn into creatures of habit vs. innovators who are able to creatively share the gospel of Christ.
Don Miller once remarked, "Jesus said that his Father's house was to be a house of prayer. If it's not a house of prayer, then its somebody else's house." That's a good thought for the week.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
What Happens When People Pray Together (part 2)
“They all met together and were constantly united in prayer…” (Acts 1:16, NLT)
When people pray together, they become one. Think about the diversity that was in the room. The larger text tells us that there were 120 present, including the apostles, Jesus’ mother and brothers, and some women. Through all of the diversity, they became one in spirit through prayer. Prayer begins as communication. But when prayer occurs with consistency and fervency, communication becomes communion. The result of communion with God is union. As I understand it, prayer begins with talking to God and listening to God about a particular need or concern. Communication (the sending and receiving of messages) is a back and forth exchange. The difference between communication and communion is that it communion, the posture changes from across the table to side by side. Two are in agreement about the same thing. Union occurs when the two become one to the extent that the relationship is more significant than the request. It think that’s what transpired in the upper room over the course of those 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost.
When people pray together, it creates an environment for the Spirit to come. The prayer in the upper room was not a prayer of ignorance. They knew they were to pray with anticipation that God would bestow his Spirit. Though they anticipated the coming of the Spirit, they had no idea what would transpire on the day of Pentecost. Pentecost would arrive and the Spirit would come in breath taking fashion, largely due to the fact that they were in one accord in the upper room. Which leads me to a simple question: What would God do if his people were united in prayer?
When people pray together, they become one. Think about the diversity that was in the room. The larger text tells us that there were 120 present, including the apostles, Jesus’ mother and brothers, and some women. Through all of the diversity, they became one in spirit through prayer. Prayer begins as communication. But when prayer occurs with consistency and fervency, communication becomes communion. The result of communion with God is union. As I understand it, prayer begins with talking to God and listening to God about a particular need or concern. Communication (the sending and receiving of messages) is a back and forth exchange. The difference between communication and communion is that it communion, the posture changes from across the table to side by side. Two are in agreement about the same thing. Union occurs when the two become one to the extent that the relationship is more significant than the request. It think that’s what transpired in the upper room over the course of those 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost.
When people pray together, it creates an environment for the Spirit to come. The prayer in the upper room was not a prayer of ignorance. They knew they were to pray with anticipation that God would bestow his Spirit. Though they anticipated the coming of the Spirit, they had no idea what would transpire on the day of Pentecost. Pentecost would arrive and the Spirit would come in breath taking fashion, largely due to the fact that they were in one accord in the upper room. Which leads me to a simple question: What would God do if his people were united in prayer?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
What Happens When People Pray Together (Acts 1:12-14)
It must have been quite a sight! Having given his followers their marching orders, Jesus simply began to levitate into the air and out of their sight. And with that, the disciples began the three quarters of a mile hike back to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. The Bible says that they returned to “the room.” Because the Greek language uses a definite article (“the”), one could easily suppose that they returned to the upper room where they had observed the Last Supper with Christ.
Their first act of obedience following the ascension was to wait. I don’t know what the disposition of first century culture was toward waiting, but I do know human nature, and if there’s anything we hate to do its wait. What did the disciples do while they waited for the “promise of the Father?”
Using a little sanctified imagination, and trying to put myself in the group, I wonder if they discussed what they had just witnessed. Certainly they had seen Jesus walk on water, but floating away like a balloon would have been a new one! Maybe they talked about that.
Perhaps the conversation turned to the things they had just heard. Jesus had laid out the mission and its resources, explained the strategy, and challenged them to count the cost. Maybe someone speculated as to how 120 people were going to take the message of the resurrection and make it go viral.
Possibly the disciples expressed curiosity about the events of the world. You know, the normal stuff about family, kids, and jobs. Maybe one had a subtle temptation to go fetch a newspaper. But they were told to wait, and somehow in the mix they began to pray about what they had heard and to ask the Father for the promised Spirit.
If you’ve been serious about Christianity for any length of time, you know there is a difference between meetings with prayer and prayer meetings. When God’s people get serious about prayer and pray together, there is an energy and dynamic that is beyond description. Sometimes when God’s people pray together, the Spirit of God moves in a way that evokes relational reality and transparency.
In my mind, as I sit in this meeting of 120 people and pray, I see Thomas rise from his place of prayer to speak. Thomas says something like, “You know, when Jesus first appeared after his resurrection, I wasn’t there, and as you well know, I didn’t believe. I demanded tangible proof before I would believe what Jesus said about rising again, and for that matter, what you were saying about his resurrection. I was wrong to doubt. I should have believed. And for that, I’m sorry.” And he sits down.
The disciples continue to pray, and then Jesus’ brothers stood up and asked for everyone’s attention. “If we could have a moment,” they begin, “as you know, during Jesus earthly ministry we didn’t believe. In fact, we thought Jesus was nuts. We were so embarrassed by his words and actions. We couldn’t believe he was who he said he was. But seeing how he handled himself during the crucifixion, and seeing him alive after he arose, we can’t believe how blind we were! We should have been there for him and for you. We could have helped. We’re sorry, and we’re all in!”
The disciples prayed a little more, then James and John spoke. “We have always struggled with ambition. When Jesus started teaching about his kingdom, we wanted to be recognized and have positions of power. That ambition was unhealthy, and we know our thirst for power and recognition was a real distraction, even on the night of Jesus arrest. We were wrong, and we’re sorry.” And like the others, they sit down and resume their prayers.
Peter, who always spoke first, speaks last. He stands and straightens himself. Clearing his throat to gain everyone’s attention, Peter speaks. “I’ve always been a big talker. I told Jesus that he would never die for me. That if anyone was going to do any dying, it was me for him! I told Jesus I would never deny him. Yet when he was arrested, I was fearful and cowardly beyond levels that I knew existed. I know many of you looked up to me and counted on me, and I let you down. I let the Lord down. He has forgiven me, and I need to ask for your forgiveness as well.”
True prayer always reveals something about who God is, and when we see who God is, then we can come to terms with who we are. God doesn’t use perfect people to conduct his mission. He uses imperfect people who are forgiving and forgiven to conduct his mission. James 5:16 states, “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so you may be healed” (HCSB).
Their first act of obedience following the ascension was to wait. I don’t know what the disposition of first century culture was toward waiting, but I do know human nature, and if there’s anything we hate to do its wait. What did the disciples do while they waited for the “promise of the Father?”
Using a little sanctified imagination, and trying to put myself in the group, I wonder if they discussed what they had just witnessed. Certainly they had seen Jesus walk on water, but floating away like a balloon would have been a new one! Maybe they talked about that.
Perhaps the conversation turned to the things they had just heard. Jesus had laid out the mission and its resources, explained the strategy, and challenged them to count the cost. Maybe someone speculated as to how 120 people were going to take the message of the resurrection and make it go viral.
Possibly the disciples expressed curiosity about the events of the world. You know, the normal stuff about family, kids, and jobs. Maybe one had a subtle temptation to go fetch a newspaper. But they were told to wait, and somehow in the mix they began to pray about what they had heard and to ask the Father for the promised Spirit.
If you’ve been serious about Christianity for any length of time, you know there is a difference between meetings with prayer and prayer meetings. When God’s people get serious about prayer and pray together, there is an energy and dynamic that is beyond description. Sometimes when God’s people pray together, the Spirit of God moves in a way that evokes relational reality and transparency.
In my mind, as I sit in this meeting of 120 people and pray, I see Thomas rise from his place of prayer to speak. Thomas says something like, “You know, when Jesus first appeared after his resurrection, I wasn’t there, and as you well know, I didn’t believe. I demanded tangible proof before I would believe what Jesus said about rising again, and for that matter, what you were saying about his resurrection. I was wrong to doubt. I should have believed. And for that, I’m sorry.” And he sits down.
The disciples continue to pray, and then Jesus’ brothers stood up and asked for everyone’s attention. “If we could have a moment,” they begin, “as you know, during Jesus earthly ministry we didn’t believe. In fact, we thought Jesus was nuts. We were so embarrassed by his words and actions. We couldn’t believe he was who he said he was. But seeing how he handled himself during the crucifixion, and seeing him alive after he arose, we can’t believe how blind we were! We should have been there for him and for you. We could have helped. We’re sorry, and we’re all in!”
The disciples prayed a little more, then James and John spoke. “We have always struggled with ambition. When Jesus started teaching about his kingdom, we wanted to be recognized and have positions of power. That ambition was unhealthy, and we know our thirst for power and recognition was a real distraction, even on the night of Jesus arrest. We were wrong, and we’re sorry.” And like the others, they sit down and resume their prayers.
Peter, who always spoke first, speaks last. He stands and straightens himself. Clearing his throat to gain everyone’s attention, Peter speaks. “I’ve always been a big talker. I told Jesus that he would never die for me. That if anyone was going to do any dying, it was me for him! I told Jesus I would never deny him. Yet when he was arrested, I was fearful and cowardly beyond levels that I knew existed. I know many of you looked up to me and counted on me, and I let you down. I let the Lord down. He has forgiven me, and I need to ask for your forgiveness as well.”
True prayer always reveals something about who God is, and when we see who God is, then we can come to terms with who we are. God doesn’t use perfect people to conduct his mission. He uses imperfect people who are forgiving and forgiven to conduct his mission. James 5:16 states, “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so you may be healed” (HCSB).
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Who Tithes These Days?
Interesting research from the Jesus Creed blog by Scot McKnight. Check out his post titled
Who Tithes These Days?
Who Tithes These Days?
Introduction to Acts (part 3)
The introductory verses of Acts, 1:1-11, serve as Jesus final briefing on the mission that he gave to the disciples. Yesterday I posted the first two portions of the briefing, that being the objective (implement the Kingdom) and the resources (the risen Lord and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit).
The third item covered in Jesus’ briefing was directed to the available personnel for the mission. Who is included? In Acts 1:8, Jesus said, “You shall receive power…” The word “you” is plural, so we can easily deduce that the personnel for the mission was everyone. The words of the briefing were spoken to the 120 who witnessed Jesus ascension. Each one received the same assignment. No one was excluded or exempt.
Jesus went on to introduce the strategy for the mission. The personnel were to take the resources Jesus provided and be “witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world” (Acts 1:8). In other words, they were to begin where they were and to move from the epicenter of home in concentric circles to the furthest reaches of the world.
The word witness is literally “martyr.” It is used some 28 times in the Book of Acts. Today when we think of being a witness, we usually have an image of one who testifies to the truth of a situation or circumstance, like in a court of law. That’s not a bad take, however the imagery changes some when it is viewed through the lens of martyrdom. When I think of being a martyr, I think of laying down my life for a particular cause. So what’s Jesus saying? Witnessing is an activity. But living as a martyr is a commitment that calls for full sacrifice. Being a living martyr (cf. Luke 9:23; Romans 12:1-2) involves a daily sacrificial commitment to the mission versus making protracted attempts toward telling others about Christ when the situation arises. Beginning where I am, I am to lay down my life each and every day for the sake of the gospel.
Finally, the time frame to complete the mission is the return of Jesus Christ. Acts 1:9-11 indicates that Christ will return some day, and until that day comes we are to be busy about taking the resources God has given and implement the mission, laying down our lives each day until Jesus comes again.
So why study Acts?
In his book, The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark reports that during the first three hundred years of post resurrection Christianity, half of known world came to faith in Christ. Numerically, Stark suggests 33 million people out of 60 million people were professing Christ. In Acts 1, 120 people took the mission and the resources and chased a movement that continues today. They didn’t have facilities, programs, educated staff, or a completed Bible. They didn’t have technology, the internet, or the printing press.
What could we do if we utilized the resources and gave our lives to the gospel? Dare we dream about changing the world?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Introduction to Acts (part 2)
Those who are fans of military movies know that most every depiction includes a briefing by a commanding officer prior to sending his troops into battle. That is the motif of the opening verses of the Book of Acts. With that being said, I believe it’s helpful to see these verses as more than an introduction. The first eleven verses of chapter one constitutes the briefing of Jesus to the disciples for the mission at hand.
The first aspect of any good briefing is to clearly state the objective. In this case, the objective was to implement the Kingdom of God. One might expect Jesus to speak of the formation of the church, but the more I study the Bible the less convinced I am that the end game of the mission is to be the institutional church. The church seems to be a part of a bigger movement, that is the encroachment of God’s righteous rule and reign on earth. It has been said that “the church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church.” I think that’s a significant truth to grasp, especially in this era in history as we witness the transition from attractional church models to more missional models.
In the next part of the briefing, the disciples are informed of the resources they have at their disposal for achieving the objective. There are two in the text: the risen Lord and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. The passage tells us that for 40 days Jesus appeared to the disciples and gave them undeniable evidence of the resurrection. To summarize, the disciples who were gathered on Ascension Day were absolutely convinced that Jesus was alive. The resurrection was a conviction they shared that encouraged them to march forward, even when it was difficult to do so.
I have a friend who teaches American History. He’s a Civil War buff and is an avid reader of biographies on the life of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a historical figure whose word and actions are inspirational today. But he’s dead. You can visit his tomb in Washington, D.C. Jesus was also a historical figure who lived in history. His words and deeds are unparalleled and exemplary. As 21st century Christians we get that. We study his life, observe his actions, and heed his words. But Jesus is not dead. He’s alive. Perhaps it’s time for Christians to experience a renewal of the conviction that Jesus is alive today.
The second resource the disciples had was the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that John had baptized with water, but they would soon be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Granted, a lot of ink has been spilled on the ramifications of this statement. Denominations and churches have emerged from emphasis on this statement. While the disciples may not have fully understood the implications, they certainly would have gathered that somehow they would be fully immersed in the Holy Spirit and this immersion would empower them to perform the mission at hand.
Tomorrow I’ll follow up with the personnel for the mission, the strategy for the mission, and the time frame to complete the mission.
The first aspect of any good briefing is to clearly state the objective. In this case, the objective was to implement the Kingdom of God. One might expect Jesus to speak of the formation of the church, but the more I study the Bible the less convinced I am that the end game of the mission is to be the institutional church. The church seems to be a part of a bigger movement, that is the encroachment of God’s righteous rule and reign on earth. It has been said that “the church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church.” I think that’s a significant truth to grasp, especially in this era in history as we witness the transition from attractional church models to more missional models.
In the next part of the briefing, the disciples are informed of the resources they have at their disposal for achieving the objective. There are two in the text: the risen Lord and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. The passage tells us that for 40 days Jesus appeared to the disciples and gave them undeniable evidence of the resurrection. To summarize, the disciples who were gathered on Ascension Day were absolutely convinced that Jesus was alive. The resurrection was a conviction they shared that encouraged them to march forward, even when it was difficult to do so.
I have a friend who teaches American History. He’s a Civil War buff and is an avid reader of biographies on the life of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a historical figure whose word and actions are inspirational today. But he’s dead. You can visit his tomb in Washington, D.C. Jesus was also a historical figure who lived in history. His words and deeds are unparalleled and exemplary. As 21st century Christians we get that. We study his life, observe his actions, and heed his words. But Jesus is not dead. He’s alive. Perhaps it’s time for Christians to experience a renewal of the conviction that Jesus is alive today.
The second resource the disciples had was the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that John had baptized with water, but they would soon be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Granted, a lot of ink has been spilled on the ramifications of this statement. Denominations and churches have emerged from emphasis on this statement. While the disciples may not have fully understood the implications, they certainly would have gathered that somehow they would be fully immersed in the Holy Spirit and this immersion would empower them to perform the mission at hand.
Tomorrow I’ll follow up with the personnel for the mission, the strategy for the mission, and the time frame to complete the mission.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court, and a Lament for American Protestantism
Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court, and a Lament for American Protestantism
For those of you interested in politics, I thought this an interesting blog by Diana Butler-Bass concerning the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
For those of you interested in politics, I thought this an interesting blog by Diana Butler-Bass concerning the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
An Introduction to Acts
This weekend I began a verse by verse series based on the Book of Acts. Those of us who grew up in church may recall that the King James Version titled the book The Acts of the Apostles. I think that it would have been more appropriate to have titled the book The Acts of the Holy Spirit, or The Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.
Acts was written by a physician named Luke, and functionally serves as volume 2 of a two volume work that completes his gospel account. Scholars believe that the two books, Luke and Acts, were divided as such because the scrolls upon which they would have originally been penned were only about 35 feet long. Luke and Acts are the second and third longest books in the New Testament and together account for approximately one fourth of its material.
The book spans the first thirty years following the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you take the most generally accepted date of Jesus’ birth to be 4 BC, that would place the events of Acts around 30 AD to 60 AD.
We don’t know much about the occasion of writing, other than Luke clearly addresses both volumes to a person named Theophilus. Theophilus means “one who is loved by God.” Other than that, we really don’t know much about him or how he functions in relationship to the larger picture. At the turn of the century, some scholars began to suggest that Luke-Acts was a trial brief prepared by Luke for the Apostle Paul’s defense in Rome. While that is a romantic notion, the truth is that we really don’t know. We can be certain, however, of Luke’s meticulous writing style and attention to detail. His compilation has served the Christian community for two millennia, providing a wonderful source of information regarding dates, places and events.
Acts was written by a physician named Luke, and functionally serves as volume 2 of a two volume work that completes his gospel account. Scholars believe that the two books, Luke and Acts, were divided as such because the scrolls upon which they would have originally been penned were only about 35 feet long. Luke and Acts are the second and third longest books in the New Testament and together account for approximately one fourth of its material.
The book spans the first thirty years following the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you take the most generally accepted date of Jesus’ birth to be 4 BC, that would place the events of Acts around 30 AD to 60 AD.
We don’t know much about the occasion of writing, other than Luke clearly addresses both volumes to a person named Theophilus. Theophilus means “one who is loved by God.” Other than that, we really don’t know much about him or how he functions in relationship to the larger picture. At the turn of the century, some scholars began to suggest that Luke-Acts was a trial brief prepared by Luke for the Apostle Paul’s defense in Rome. While that is a romantic notion, the truth is that we really don’t know. We can be certain, however, of Luke’s meticulous writing style and attention to detail. His compilation has served the Christian community for two millennia, providing a wonderful source of information regarding dates, places and events.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Lost Art of Owning Your Own Stuff
Major League Baseball fans have been treated to an extaordinary season. Although the season is barely two months old, fans have seen two perfect games, the first by Oakland A's pitcher Dallas Braden, the second turned in last weekend by Philadelphia Phillies Roy Halladay. Prior to these two performances, Major League Baseball had recorded 18 perfect games in its entire history. But in the last two months, two more have been added. Last night should have been the third.
With one out to go in the bottom of the ninth inning, Detroit Tigers right hander Armando Galarraga coerced a ground ball to the right side of the infield from Cleveland's Jason Donald. Galarraga hustled to first, handled the throw and stepped on the bag, ready to celebrate his landmark accomplishment. All that jubilation was quickly squashed as first base umpire Jim Joyce extended his arms to signify the runner was safe.
Immediate outrage filled baseball fandom as the replay showed the runner was safe. And not just safe...safe by a step and a half. It wasn't a "bang-bang" play. It wasn't a close play. The ump blew it extra large. Immediate sympathy gushed for Galarraga and the Tigers fans, appropriately so. I understand what its like to be on the wrong side of a horrible call. What self respecting St. Louis Cardinal fan doesn't remember where they were when umpire Don Denkinger missed a similar call in game 6 of the 1985 World Series? Every Cardinal fan felt that call in the pit of their stomach for weeks.
But let's pause for a reality check. Umpire Jim Joyce walked into the umpire room after the game last night, watched the replay of the call, and immediately went to Armando Galarraga and offered a tearful apology. While that may not erase the mistake that has by now been viewed by millions around the world, it does ease the sting. Jim Joyce is human and made a mistake. But the thing that sets Jim Joyce apart in my mind from most of the other humans who make mistakes is his humble willingness to honestly own his. He apologized and owned his stuff. What an absolute refreshing thing! Think about it...he made a mistake and acknowledged it. Seems like the right thing for him to have done. But all too often we ourselves may be a little too reluctant to follow suit. Our pride encourages us to look at our mistakes and either blame someone else or justify our mistakes with a bucket full of tired excuses. Our world is filled with cheap imitations of Arthur Fonzerelli's who are unable to articulate the simple phrase, "I was wrong."
I don't know Jim Joyce. I'm not an apologist for Jim Joyce. But I'd rather have an authentic Jim Joyce than a fake anyone else I know. I can live with imperfect people, especially when they own their own stuff. Thanks Jim, for being real.
How to Introduce Yourself (part 3)
Yesterday we examined three of Paul’s characteristics of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Today I want to finish with the final three characteristics.
4. The scope of the gospel is all nations. Romans 1:5 reads, “We have received grace and apostleship through Him to bring about the obedience of faith among all nations” (HCSB).
In Paul’s understanding, to be committed to the nations is to be blind to race, gender, status, title, etc. The gospel is for everyone without exception and without distinction. (cf. Romans 1:14-16)
5. The purpose of the gospel is the obedience of the faith. As you just read in verse 5 above, the obedience of the faith is the response the gospel demands. Paul is not referring to obedience to a creed or a set of doctrines. He is talking about full commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is the believer’s appropriate response to the gospel of God.
6. Finally, the goal of the gospel is to honor Christ’s name. Verse five concludes that all of this effort is “on behalf of His name.” Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the nations to bring glory to Christ’s name. The highest missionary motive is passionate zeal for the glory of Jesus Christ.
So what do we do with this tidy analysis of the gospel? Paul wrote in verse 5 that “we have received grace and apostleship.” That sounds like fancy preacher talk, but when you break it down, it is important. Grace speaks of unmerited favor, of receiving something undeserved. Apostleship in its generic form speaks of being “a sent one.” If you mash that up, we have received the undeserved privilege of being sent to share God’s good news about Jesus Christ. That was true of Paul, and its true of you as well.
4. The scope of the gospel is all nations. Romans 1:5 reads, “We have received grace and apostleship through Him to bring about the obedience of faith among all nations” (HCSB).
In Paul’s understanding, to be committed to the nations is to be blind to race, gender, status, title, etc. The gospel is for everyone without exception and without distinction. (cf. Romans 1:14-16)
5. The purpose of the gospel is the obedience of the faith. As you just read in verse 5 above, the obedience of the faith is the response the gospel demands. Paul is not referring to obedience to a creed or a set of doctrines. He is talking about full commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is the believer’s appropriate response to the gospel of God.
6. Finally, the goal of the gospel is to honor Christ’s name. Verse five concludes that all of this effort is “on behalf of His name.” Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the nations to bring glory to Christ’s name. The highest missionary motive is passionate zeal for the glory of Jesus Christ.
So what do we do with this tidy analysis of the gospel? Paul wrote in verse 5 that “we have received grace and apostleship.” That sounds like fancy preacher talk, but when you break it down, it is important. Grace speaks of unmerited favor, of receiving something undeserved. Apostleship in its generic form speaks of being “a sent one.” If you mash that up, we have received the undeserved privilege of being sent to share God’s good news about Jesus Christ. That was true of Paul, and its true of you as well.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Summer of Love is Here!
Welcome to the Summer of Love. From tonight through mid-September, Ashworth Road is taking Wednesday nights and serving our community off campus. I'm excited about what we're going to learn about God, others, and ourselves as we come together do minister to those who surround us.
If you'd like to learn more about Summer of Love or would like to sign up, visit http://www.arbcsummeroflove.com/. We plan to keep this site updated each week with pictures and video of this awesome project.
If you view this blog from out of town, please remember us in your prayers!
How to Introduce Yourself (part 2)
When we moved to Waukee five years ago, I introduced myself to one of my son’s football coaches. Realizing we were new to the community, the coach asked what I did for a living. I told him that I was Pastor of Ashworth Road Baptist Church. His next question started me. He asked, “So what kind of Baptist are you? Are you a ‘better than me’ Baptist, a chicken swingin’ Baptist, or a regular guy Baptist?” I had a pretty good handle on two of those, but my curiosity bested me and I replied, “What’s a chicken swingin’ Baptist?” He laughed and said, “Those are the kind that dance around waving their hand in circles over their head like they’re swingin’ a chicken by the head!” True story!
In the first century, the landscape was littered with itinerant preachers and teachers who were promoting “the gospel.” Audiences who were unsuspecting failed to ask the question, “What kind of gospel are you teaching?” The savvy, on the other hand, wanted to know up front the brand of gospel being delivered to them. Paul is no dummy. Having dispensed with the credentials in short order, he gets to the main concern, his brand of the gospel.
In Romans 1:1-5, Paul provides six characteristics of the gospel he has been sent to proclaim.
1. The origin of the gospel is God. Romans 1:1 reads, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and singled out for God’s good news…” (HCSB). The good news is God’s good news. The apostles didn’t invent it. Much of liberal theology today is consumed with distancing Jesus from the development of the gospel and the church. They hypothesize that Jesus was a good, moral teacher who never intended to develop his words and works into a movement that would span two millennia. They suggest that Paul and other apostles got together after the death of Jesus and developed the ground work for what we know as the church today. Paul would have no tolerance for that kind of opinion. He is crystal clear from the beginning that the gospel was revealed and entrusted to the apostles by God. It is God’s good news for a lost and broken world.
2. The gospel is rooted in Scripture. Romans 1:2 continues, “which He promised long ago through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his son…” (HCSB). Although God revealed the gospel to the apostles, it was not new. In fact, Paul would declare that the gospel was rooted deep in the story of the Old Testament. There is a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament that Jesus affirmed. The prophets of the Old and the apostles of the New spoke of the same person and the same thing, one in future tense and the other in past tense.
3. The substance of the gospel is Jesus. Moving forward, Romans 1:2 states, “Concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a descendant of David according to the flesh and was established as the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness” (HCSB). God’s gospel is good news about Jesus Christ. In this portion, Paul clarifies four significant elements of Jesus’ life: his incarnation, his death (as supposed by the resurrection), the resurrection, and his reign as Lord.
Tomorrow I’ll finish this post by sharing the final three characteristics of the gospel in Paul’s introduction to the Book of Romans.
In the first century, the landscape was littered with itinerant preachers and teachers who were promoting “the gospel.” Audiences who were unsuspecting failed to ask the question, “What kind of gospel are you teaching?” The savvy, on the other hand, wanted to know up front the brand of gospel being delivered to them. Paul is no dummy. Having dispensed with the credentials in short order, he gets to the main concern, his brand of the gospel.
In Romans 1:1-5, Paul provides six characteristics of the gospel he has been sent to proclaim.
1. The origin of the gospel is God. Romans 1:1 reads, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and singled out for God’s good news…” (HCSB). The good news is God’s good news. The apostles didn’t invent it. Much of liberal theology today is consumed with distancing Jesus from the development of the gospel and the church. They hypothesize that Jesus was a good, moral teacher who never intended to develop his words and works into a movement that would span two millennia. They suggest that Paul and other apostles got together after the death of Jesus and developed the ground work for what we know as the church today. Paul would have no tolerance for that kind of opinion. He is crystal clear from the beginning that the gospel was revealed and entrusted to the apostles by God. It is God’s good news for a lost and broken world.
2. The gospel is rooted in Scripture. Romans 1:2 continues, “which He promised long ago through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his son…” (HCSB). Although God revealed the gospel to the apostles, it was not new. In fact, Paul would declare that the gospel was rooted deep in the story of the Old Testament. There is a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament that Jesus affirmed. The prophets of the Old and the apostles of the New spoke of the same person and the same thing, one in future tense and the other in past tense.
3. The substance of the gospel is Jesus. Moving forward, Romans 1:2 states, “Concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a descendant of David according to the flesh and was established as the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness” (HCSB). God’s gospel is good news about Jesus Christ. In this portion, Paul clarifies four significant elements of Jesus’ life: his incarnation, his death (as supposed by the resurrection), the resurrection, and his reign as Lord.
Tomorrow I’ll finish this post by sharing the final three characteristics of the gospel in Paul’s introduction to the Book of Romans.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
How to Introduce Yourself
I think it would be pretty easy to make the argument that Romans is the Apostle Paul’s most known, studied and appreciated epistle. Its influence ranges from Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation to the everyday Bible student. In the first five verses, Paul takes a moment to introduce himself to the readers he has never met who live in a city he has yet to visit.
Maybe you’ve had the experience of being asked to introduce yourself to a group of people. Introductions are pretty uncomfortable when they come from another. They are even more difficult when you have to offer one on your own behalf. Paul’s self introduction is short on credentials and long on doctrine. First, the credentials.
“This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach the Good News” (Romans 1:1, NLT)
Paul calls himself a slave and an apostle in the same sentence. At first glance these would seem contradictory in nature. The word slave (doulos) is sometimes translated “servant,” but slave gives the full impact of what Paul is attempting to convey. Slave bears the connotation of humility, personal insignificance, and of one who bears no rights of his own.
On the other hand, Paul is an apostle. The word apostle is a distinctively Christian word. Jesus used it to designate the Twelve. An apostle was viewed as an authoritative figure among first generation believers. In order to be an apostle, one had to have been personally called by Jesus and have been eyewitness to the resurrection. Paul would claim to have experienced both.
So how does one blend the lowly self assessment of slave with the authoritative position of apostle? I think what Paul is trying to convey here is that he is servant to the gospel he has been sent to proclaim. More than the churches he plants or the communities he visits, Paul is first and foremost a servant to his calling. That is the platform on which he stands.
Brent Clark shared a blog post with me today by a mainline pastor who was bemoaning the fact that their denomination placed ineffective pastors in effective churches and vice versa. As I read the thread of unmoderated comments, it occurred to me that too much emphasis was being placed on pastors being placed to serve churches. There was no comment on whether or not pastors were serving their ultimate calling to the gospel.
I sometimes wonder if pastors and staff members in the 21st century get that there is a higher calling than the churches they serve. The calling of the minister is primarily to serve the gospel and to proclaim it boldly in churches and communities. Sheep are certainly needy, and the pastor assumes some responsibility for their feeding, leading, and equipping. But the primary calling is to the gospel. Anything else makes the pastor a chaplain.
Maybe you’ve had the experience of being asked to introduce yourself to a group of people. Introductions are pretty uncomfortable when they come from another. They are even more difficult when you have to offer one on your own behalf. Paul’s self introduction is short on credentials and long on doctrine. First, the credentials.
“This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach the Good News” (Romans 1:1, NLT)
Paul calls himself a slave and an apostle in the same sentence. At first glance these would seem contradictory in nature. The word slave (doulos) is sometimes translated “servant,” but slave gives the full impact of what Paul is attempting to convey. Slave bears the connotation of humility, personal insignificance, and of one who bears no rights of his own.
On the other hand, Paul is an apostle. The word apostle is a distinctively Christian word. Jesus used it to designate the Twelve. An apostle was viewed as an authoritative figure among first generation believers. In order to be an apostle, one had to have been personally called by Jesus and have been eyewitness to the resurrection. Paul would claim to have experienced both.
So how does one blend the lowly self assessment of slave with the authoritative position of apostle? I think what Paul is trying to convey here is that he is servant to the gospel he has been sent to proclaim. More than the churches he plants or the communities he visits, Paul is first and foremost a servant to his calling. That is the platform on which he stands.
Brent Clark shared a blog post with me today by a mainline pastor who was bemoaning the fact that their denomination placed ineffective pastors in effective churches and vice versa. As I read the thread of unmoderated comments, it occurred to me that too much emphasis was being placed on pastors being placed to serve churches. There was no comment on whether or not pastors were serving their ultimate calling to the gospel.
I sometimes wonder if pastors and staff members in the 21st century get that there is a higher calling than the churches they serve. The calling of the minister is primarily to serve the gospel and to proclaim it boldly in churches and communities. Sheep are certainly needy, and the pastor assumes some responsibility for their feeding, leading, and equipping. But the primary calling is to the gospel. Anything else makes the pastor a chaplain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
