Jason's Body Blog

Making a Switch!

2009-06-21T12:53:00.001-07:00

Hello "everybody,"

This is more of an announcement post. I want to transfer "Jason's Body Blog" from Blogger to Wordpress. I'm also changing the title from "Jason's Body Blog" to "Faith Seeking Understanding" (I'll add an explanation of that phrase to my About page later when I have some time). As of today, all future posts will be here: http://jasonsbodyblog.wordpress.com. Wordpress has better tools like seeing how many people view your posts and stuff.

There is a new post already there titled, "Losing Unbelieving Loved Ones." Take a minute to go check it out.

It's been several weeks since I've written a post. Honestly, it is less motivating to post when you think no one is reading them. Wordpress should at least help in that regard. I was inspired to get things going again when an old friend of mine who I haven't spoken to in over a decade (thank you facebook) told me he enjoyed reading my blogs.

I initially started Jason's Body Blog to chronicle my new experience in a house church fellowship. It's been a year now and it's time to broaden the subject matter of this blog to the more general categories of Church Life and Theology.

I will continue to only write posts of theological substance. I am a writer and not a speaker and I am hoping my gifts can be released and find a home in this written, digital world. I again invite readers to interact with the posts through comments. The dialogue through comments is often more engaging than the original post. Debate, challenge, contribute, question, share, whatever.

The Lord's Supper: A reminder to the Lord?

2009-04-14T19:19:00.000-07:00

Genesis chapter 9: 15-16: "I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures. ...Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

Notice that this sign of the covenant is explicitly meant to remind God of his promise. No explicit link is made between Noah or others and the concept of remembering.

Exodus 2:24: "God heard [the Israelites] groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob."

Exodus 16:60: "Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you."

Notice the pattern here. It seems (among other things) God uses covenants to remind himself of his promises. And so now we transition to the sign of the "cup" which is "the new covenant in [Jesus'] blood" (Luke 22:20).

The commentator I was researching points to the words "of me" in Jesus' statement, "do this in remembrance of me" as being particularly significant. The Greek word behind "of me" is, emou, and is emphatic, signifying personal possession. Literally, the phrase would read, "do this unto my reminder." In other words, in keeping with the Old Testament references to covenant signs as reminders to God, the new covenant sign celebrated as the Lord's Supper is a reminder to Jesus! But a reminder of what?

We already have the answer from what was discussed in the last post. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is a continual reminder to Jesus to come back to bring his bride to his Wedding Supper! And perhaps this makes more sense of the conclusion in I Corinthians 11:26 which states that in eating the Lord's Supper together we are "proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes." Proclaiming to who? Could the Lord's Supper be something of an enacted prayer: "Lord, remember! Come back. Let's start the feast!"?

In summary up to this point we have a full meal, or better yet, the atmosphere should be more akin to a holiday feast. This regularly-observed feast is a celebration of both the atoning sacrifice of our Savior (bread the body broken; fruit of the vine the atoning blood) AND a reminder for both bride and Groom ("until he comes") to "look forward to the day of God and speed its coming" (2 Peter 3:12).

This meditation keeps growing. In the next post I will express some ideas on the pragmatic mechanics of how the principles of the Lord's Supper might more ideally be observed in a body's weekly gathering.

The Lord's Supper: For the future?

2009-04-12T19:38:00.000-07:00

This is "part 2" of my post on the Lord's Supper. In the last post I promised I would write about how the Lord's Supper should focus as much (maybe more?) on the future as the past ("past" meaning reflection on the atoning crucifixion of our Lord) and secondly how the Lord's Supper might also be a reminder for the Lord as much as for us.

In Luke 22:15-16 (the Last Supper passage) Jesus says, "...I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffered. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Jesus mentions this again in verse 18: "For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." (Notice also verses 29-30.) What exactly is he referring to as finding fulfillment in the kingdom of God? Most interpreters notice that the only possible biblical reference to this is found in Revelation 19:7-9: "For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. . . . Then the angel said to me, 'Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!''

It seems our Lord has this future party with his bride very much on his mind when he celebrated the Last Supper. One source I looked at commented that "whereas modern Gentiles associate heaven with clouds and harps, first century Jews thought of heaven as a time of feasting at Messiah's table." Examples: "I confer on you a kingdom . . . so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" (Lk 22: 29-30); From the mouth of a Jewish leader -- "Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15).

The early church longed for the Lord's return in a way we no longer do. The Didache reveals that the early church concluded their meetings by saying maran atha, "Our Lord, come!" Regarding the Lord's Prayer, some interpret it in following way. The phrase, "give us this day our daily bread," is in fact very difficult to render for translators. Literally, it reads something like, "the bread of us belonging to the coming day give us today." Given the early church's intense longing for feasting with the Lord upon his return and the earlier reference to asking for the kingdom to come, some suggest the meaning to be something like this: 'let the Feast, that is, the wedding supper of the Lamb, begin today!' It is more of an invocation, an expression of our longing to see the fulfillment of the Kingdom and enjoyment of full fellowship with our Groom in that coming glorious wedding banquet.

So what is the implication? In contrast to our current practice of observing the Lord's Supper which honestly has more the feel of a funeral -- sobering introspection, pall bearers, I mean ushers, passing the elements, etc., -- the feel should be more like a wedding banquet. We should celebrate it in anticipation of the great Wedding Supper of the Lamb! The grounds that make this possible is certainly the atoning sacrifice of our Lord as the symbols of the bread and wine convey. In addition to gratitude for that sacrifice, we should get excited with Hope as we anticipate feasting with our Savior. It appears Jesus seemed to anticipate that Day when he shared the Last Supper with his disciples. Perhaps so should we. Perhaps we should conclude our Lord's Supper feasts with the spirit of maran atha, Our Lord Come!

Well, this post is long enough. I'll share the last point (a reminder to the Lord?) in a subsequent post. Even in spite of the fact that it has been recently pointed out to me that I'm perhaps a bit too excessive on referring to postponing subjects to later posts! Love ya guys :)

The Lord's SUPPER vs. Chip & Sip?

2009-04-05T18:19:00.000-07:00

It was more than a decade ago that I honestly (and secretly) admitted to myself that the way I practiced the Lord's Supper didn't make much sense to me. Particularly, I noticed that the New Testament practice looked a whole lot like a full meal rather than a token ritual, and I thought to myself -- that would at least feel a lot more meaningful. But what could I do? There were no other options.

At least not until I began celebrating the Lord's Supper in the context of a home!

This ability to observe the Lord's Supper as an actual whole meal was another reason why I felt like organic church (most often expressed in the context of a home) was a more authentic expression of weekly body life over the traditional worship service.

By the way, if the "chip & sip" reference in the title was not obvious, just think of the way the elements are consumed in a traditional Sunday morning worship service.

All that I want to write about this will consume longer than a single post. Here I will describe some arguments for celebrating the Lord's Supper as a full meal rather than a token symbol. I will also mention why the Lord's Supper should play a more prominent place in believers' weekly body gatherings. In a subsequent post, I will share arguments that the Lord's Supper should be 1) as much focused on the future as the past, if not even more so, and 2) that the Lord's Supper is as much a reminder to and for Jesus himself as it is for us. I'm still testing these interpretations but they are currently very persuasive to me.

So, why a full meal? For starters, it's not a debate that the New Testament church practiced the Lord's Supper as a full meal. My guess is that most justifications are rooted in why it is not necessary to practice the Lord's Supper as a full meal. Of course, this gets back to the whole traditional service versus organic fellowship debate. Obviously, it is too impractical for a body to celebrate a full meal in a large, traditional service.

Here are some considerations from my research (and as this is not a professional publication, we are going without all the footnote referencing):

The greek for "supper" (deipnon) never means anything less than a full meal.
How could the Corinthians get drunk if it wasn't in the context of a full meal (I Cor. 11)? How could they be chastised for letting some of their brothers and sisters go hungry? You have to have a meal to get filled up.
In the Luke 22 version of the Last Supper, Jesus passes the cup during the meal AND after the meal making comments about its significance both times. The subtle significance of this is perhaps that only in the context of a full meal could you draw attention to the meaning of the cup more than once.

The argument for observing a full meal is more forcefully made in the consideration of what I'm calling the future-orientation of the Lord's Supper; but that will be made in a subsequent post (stay tuned!).

And now I will address the second point which is that the Lord's Supper should occupy a more prominent place in our weekly gatherings than we currently allow.

The Lord's Supper may have been the main way the first believers practiced fellowship. And it may be the primary way the Lord intends his followers to continue practicing fellowship. In the famous Acts 2:42 passage, some commentators suggest that the terms 'fellowship' and 'the breaking of bread' are linked together as simultaneous activities. In other words, they had fellowship as they broke bread together (i.e., celebrated the Lord's Supper).

Consider these passages. Acts 20:7 reads, "on the first day of the week we came together to break bread." I Corinthians 11:20 reads, "when you come together it is not the Lord's Supper you eat." The implication is that the reason for their coming together was to share an authentic Lord's Supper meal. Finally a few verses later, verse 33 reads, "so then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other." Certainly there are other biblical references for the purpose of the weekly meeting, particularly as seen in I Corinthians 14. However, according to one commentator I read, we should draw significance from the fact that there are no other places in Scripture that give the same kind of explicit language for the reason for the weekly meeting as the above references to the breaking of the bread reveal.

So, there's part one. More interesting stuff is coming later.

One thought for my brothers and sisters in traditional church. Why not consider observing the Lord's Supper in your home/community groups? All the benefits of the full meal can be had there.

Spiritual Maturity and Heaven

2009-03-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

I am in the midst of meditating on the question of what it really takes to see radical maturity formed in Christians. I've tried beginning a post a couple of times only to realize that I am only at the beginning of a long meditation. To avoid a too-long-of-a-gap in between posts, I thought I would record this provocative passage from Dallas Willard in his Divine Conspiracy. I would be curious if it stirs something within you:

[the first sentence is in response to the concern over "Lordship" salvation that it might be perceived that it disallows permanently immature, but professed, converts entrance into heaven]

". . . I am thoroughly convinced that God will let everyone into heaven who, in his considered opinion, can stand it. But "standing it" may prove to be a more difficult matter than those who take their view of heaven from popular movies or popular preaching may think. The fires of heaven may be hotter than those in the other place.

"It might prove helpful to think occasionally of how, exactly, I would be glad to be in heaven should I "make it." . . . I often wonder how happy and useful some of the fearful, bitter, lust-ridden, hate-filled Christians I have seen involved in church or family or neighborhood or political battles would be if they were forced to live forever in the unrestrained fullness of the reality of God, . . .

"There is a widespread notion that just passing through death transforms human character. Discipleship is not needed. Just believe enough to "make it." But I have never been able to find any basis in scriptural tradition or psychological reality to think this might be so. What if death only forever fixes us as the kind of person we are at death? What would one do in heaven with a debauched character or a hate-filled heart?"

So that's the passage. Does it make you think twice about the emphasis you are currently putting on discipleship in your life?

Are there apostles today?

2009-02-15T19:59:00.001-08:00

The fellowship I am committed to was birthed by an apostolic team. It is our body's assumption that one of our core mission objectives is to, what we call, "release the 5-fold." This means we intend to support individuals and teams with apostolic gifts in starting new discipleship works in other cities. Here's my dilemma: I don't even know if I'm fully convinced of the question of whether the Ephesians 4:11 apostolic gifting is supposed to be alive and functioning today.

Here are some reasons that are in the persuasive direction for me regarding the question of whether apostles are functioning today:

Pragmatically, it makes more sense. I share the concern that the traditional model of churches being founded and/or centered around just one of the Ephesians 4:11 gifts is limiting at best and unbiblical at worst. More specifically, the idea that apostles are uniquely gifted to start new discipleship works makes more sense to me than the traditional model which is typically centered around a pastor, a teacher, or an evangelist.

I have an increasing suspicion over the cessationist mentality. Growing up it started with the miraculous gifts - no tongues or miraculous healing allowed please. I've since let go of that. More recently I've loosened up on the idea of prophecy and prophets (another post there). Is my hesitancy with apostleship more rooted in tradition than exegetical soundness?

Okay, so the winds may be blowing in the direction of my embracing apostleship. However, obstacles remain that I'll need answers to.

Here's the main one - it comes as a pair: the traditional understanding that the criteria for being an apostle included a) that one had seen the resurrected Jesus, and b) that the risen Jesus explicitly commissioned an apostle to carry a unique authority to represent his word (see Acts 1:22, I Cor. 9:1, I Cor. 14:37, 2 Peter 3:16). To be specific on the second criteria, this is how most theologians explain the canonicity of the NT Scripture - they say it is apostolic, meaning, the idea of apostleship carried with it the authority to transmit Scriptural revelation.

So, before I fully embrace the proposal, I personally need to learn a satisfactory exegetical explanation of how the idea of apostleship being current today addresses the above understanding.

The last element I'll bring up is the idea of splitting apostles into two categories. This is typically labeled capital 'A' apostles and lower case 'a' apostles. The idea is that capital 'A' Apostles shared the eyewitness and authority characteristics mentioned above and indeed expired with the first-century church. Small 'a' apostles don't have those characteristics but do share the gifting related to starting new discipleship works (I'm deliberately avoiding the term "planting churches;" ask me later). This would solve most of the problems in my mind, but again, I am still searching for an exegetically satisfying explanation. The following are some questions and points related to this:

Point: to retreat to the etymology of the word, apostolos, as "sent one," to argue for the essence of its NT meaning is unsatisfying to me. With nothing more being said, that is merely the etymological fallacy being committed (if some things are being lost on some readers, ask me; I don't have space to explain everything).

Question: If there are two categories of apostles, I need to learn a robust exegetico-theological explanation. So far, nothing has been satisfying to me.

Question: For those who believe there are two categories of apostles today, how do you argue that the Ephesians 4:11 apostle is both capital A-postle and little a-postle?

'Nuff said for now.

My Kingdom Calling

2009-02-08T21:03:00.000-08:00

Can't figure out how to import/export or cut-paste this, so hopefully the link will do.

Wanted to post this here. The biggest dilemma in my life right now (actually for the past 8 years!) is figuring out what action I'm supposed to take in the near future given what I perceive as my calling. For my body or others who might be of help with this, this link will take you to a background explanation of what I perceive my calling to be.

http://diffisarch.blogspot.com/search/label/Calling

Discernment Part 1

2009-01-30T11:48:00.000-08:00

In this post, I will share my current bewilderment over the issue of discernment of the Spirit in the Christian life; in my life.

In an earlier post I wrote how the kind of church life my body engages in is radically dependent on the Spirit; particularly hearing from the Spirit in our lives in various ways and on a regular basis. If this is true, my life with the Spirit needs a radical shift since, I will confess, I'm pathetic in my experience of hearing the Spirit.

So, for the past several months I have been investing in the discipline of listening to the Spirit. Those of you who know me, know that I'm one of those overly-analytical types. While thought-related gifts are a blessing within the sphere they are intended, left unchecked, they can be a curse for, well, things like listening to the Spirit. I joke that I've been given the gift of skepticism. Anyway, it is all too easy to categorize most all my thoughts and convictions as mine rather than do the hard work of discerning which ones are from the Lord.

I have been persuaded that I need to let my analytical guard down to a degree that I can be more open to the Spirit. This has been beneficial as, at least now, there is a lot more experience that at least I'm wrestling with the Lord about over whether it is Him speaking versus something else. I think that's better than not paying much attention at all. Of course, I'm still predominantly confused rather than feeling confident that I'm hearing from God reliably.

When I express this confusion, the response I typically get is an admonishment to set my skeptical introspection aside and be more trusting. I do agree that for me personally, my overly-skeptical posture is a barrier for my ability and confidence to hear God speak to me. And I will continue to submit to this admonishment. However, there are extremes in everything and here are some questions and convictions that I am still wrestling with and would like to dialogue with brothers and sisters about:

I have observed some Christians who label nearly every decision, or at least "big" decisions, they have made as a response to having "heard from the Lord." At the same time, I personally would interpret a lot of those decisions as flat out unwise or merely a gratification of some fleshly desire.

This reminds me of a point J. I. Packer made in Knowing God in the chapter titled, God's Wisdom and Ours. I don't have space to relay the whole passage but here's the essence: some Christians suppose that " the gift of wisdom consists in a deepened insight into the providential meaning and purpose of events going on around us, an ability to see why God has done what He has done in a particular case, and what He is going to do next. ... Such people spend much of their time pouring over the book of providence, wondering why God should have allowed this or that to take place, whether they should take it as a sign to stop doing one thing or start doing another, or what they should deduce from it. If they are baffled, they put it down to their own lack of spirituality. ....So far from the gift of wisdom consisting in the power to do this, the gift actually presupposes our inability to do it."

I'm curious what others think of Packer's perspective here? Is a theology of expecting to hear God speak to nearly every life decision at odds with the idea of needing wisdom?

There are more questions I wanted to post but I'll save those for later.

Tithing verses Direct Kingdom Giving

2009-01-27T15:17:00.000-08:00

This post is primarily for my immediate Body-Family. As an aside, it is interesting that even though we see each other so much throughout the week, we still don't have enough time to talk about all the important things there are to talk about. I suppose that is not surprising since this happens to married couples as well. Anyway.....

Onto the subject of tithing. We are beginning to figure out what we are to do about the whole corporate giving and spending thing and we haven't fully shared what our theological convictions are about tithing. Since we may not get around to a full body discussion of it anytime soon, I will post my convictions here and point you to this blog post so anyone can interact with it if they want on their own time.

Starting qualification: these convictions are based off of a confluence of these two things over the past 3 years or so: 1) My memory of what Scripture says about the subject and 2) The pragmatic concern over what is the most strategic use of money for advancing the Kingdom of God. Point: this is not an exegetical treatise on the subject. When I have more time I'll get to that. You can reserve your exegetical critiques for that post! :)

Enough throat clearing. Here we go. I do not believe the traditional concept of the 10% of gross income tithe is a law binding on Christians. From what I understand from different OT scholars it is even only an educated guess on what the total percent an Israelite was supposed to give of their resources when you added up all the various laws concerning their giving. Those teachers suggested, however, that that number was much more than a mere 10 percent.

I'm not at home writing this right now so I can't go to my books which would remind me of the labels of the different views of how the Old Covenent relates to the New Covenanent. On one extreme of those positions, the term I think was theonomist (see the root words of God and Law). This is a view where most of the Old Testament laws are to be observed (on basis of law keeping) by New Covenant believers (Christians). For Christians who hold that we are to "tithe" they are adopting this theonomic hermeneutic whether or not they are aware of the options and terms (most aren't of course). The tricky thing for all of us is when to apply this principle to which Old Testament laws. We're quite inconsistent in applying it!

I am personally persuaded of a hermeneutic that sees that the vast majority of the Old Covenant laws have been superceded by the New Covenant. I won't go into the arguments for that here. I believe the New Covenant guiding principles here are represented by such New Testament admonitions of giving cheerfully, giving sacraficially, and giving as the Spirit leads. (Again, I'm not a human Bible concordance and I don't want to take the time to find the references for those Scriptures at this moment. You know what I'm referencing). This is not more or less than the Old Covenant "tithe." God may ask for more. He may ask less. That it is not a law does not let you off the hook. The Spirit may not just be asking you for 10%. He may ask you for your job and your house! In the Old Covenent you are just breaking the law. In the New Covenant your quenching the Spirit.

I think our Body's church bank account should NOT be thought of as the total funds available to Kingdom financial investment at any given time. Rather the aggregate net worth of every family in a body constitutes the financial assets for Kingdom investment at any given time. The church bank account is merely one strategic tool the body uses when and as it sees fit. Nothing theological happens when a family writes a check to the church bank account. No "tithe" occurred. If a family writes a check directly to a missionary agency for the support of a missionary and if that family writes a check to their home church entity for the purpose of pooling money for the church to send support for a missionary - it's the same thing.

I titled this post Tithing versus Direct Kingdom Giving. From my perspective, there is not as radical a difference between the money believers spend on their food, clothing, entertainment, etc. and money spent to support a poor family for example. All our resources are in service of the Kingdom and that includes my food, entertainment, etc. as well as helping the poor or missionaries. Stewardship touches both areas equally. I'm calling the money spent on things like the poor and missionaries "direct Kingdom giving." This is the kind of expenditures and investments typically labelled as giving or sharing in Scripture. My label of "direct Kingdom giving" is identified as those resources of God's under my stewardship that bypass me and my family and go directly to others. That is New Covenant giving.

I think New Covenant giving should be predominantly dynamic. For example, I don't think a body necessarily needs to, or should, assign a certain portion of their income to be deposited in a church bank account just for the mere sake of the activity of itself. If there is no known need for it, don't build a church bank account beyond known and decided needs. Don't misunderstand me. If a body has decided or felt led by the Spirit to collect a certain amount every week or month for a particular missionary do it. But let's say that just happens to be 3% of a family's income. I'm saying don't contribute another arbitrary 7% to go into an unallocated savings account without any intended purpose other than that. But you say, it could be used as a rainy day fund. Fine! But you see there's a purpose. If your body feels led to that by the Spirit, more power to ya. Remember, nothing theologically magical happened by the mere transference of the money from a personal account to a church entity account. It was already God's money when it was in your pocket. The question is only what is most strategic for the Kingdom.

Well, for my traditional church readers, I wanted to also talk about the relative priorities of the poor, buildings, and church staff salaries in relation to the concept of the Kingdom of God, but once again, this is already too long. Maybe another time.

As I reread this post, I realized I unwittingly adopted a debate-like form of expression (for you exegetes out there, Pauline diatribe is what came to my mind). I should qualify and say the above is merely my current convictions and I would not be surprised if they were substantively modified in the coming months or years. This could have easily been expressed in a question style ("I wonder if...") rather than a confident, argument style. Feel free to blast away!

Word & Spirit

2009-01-27T12:33:00.000-08:00

Blog-length writing is difficult for me on such weighty topics as these. I'll try to meet you half way and ask you excercise a little more patience than usual for your blog perusing. Just know you are missing out on potentially helpful context and elaboration.

Our body (4 families gathering since summer 2009) has entered into a form of church life that is radically dependent on the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit isn't involved in our daily living individually or our weekly gatherings corporately, there will be nothing for us to do when we gather (ask me if you need an explanation of what I mean by "gathering." I'm not explaining that here). The irony is, each of us come from a background of not having much of an experience of the Spirit at all! Yikes! Needless to say, learning to listen and follow the Holy Spirit is one of the top priorities in our body.

Often conversation turns to the Word - Spirit.... I'll say unity. I was about to say the Word-Spirit dichotomy, but that exacerbates the problem. Part of these conversations turn to our acknowledgment of how our church backgrounds have trained us to be woefully lopsided on the Word side of this pair. We have been trained to value to be strong in the Word. While strength in the Holy Spirit is given lip service, in practice, unspoken rituals mold us to value the Word disportionately higher than the Spirit. I'm speaking of our particular body's experience remember. I'm not labelling Evangelicals in general here (e.g, the opposite is probably true of Charismatic backgrounds).

The other thing I have noticed in these conversations, is that because we so desperately need to be strengthened in the Spirit (coupled with our frustration of experiencing disproportionately Word-heavy backgrounds), I am suspicous that at times we make the same mistake in the other direction. I find ourselves, myself included, associating strength in the Spirit exclusively with spiritual maturity. Upon reflection I realize I'm mistaking taking our particular need and translating it into something of an exclusive need. Obviously wrong.

Before I go on, I have to explain what I mean by "Word" (and in a later post perhaps "Spirit"). For those well read in Theology this is already familiar. By Word, we mean more than just the Bible or familiarity with the Bible. "Word" signifies more essentially the rational component of our faith and encomposes doctrine and theology as well as strictly the Bible (of course, if you're wondering what the big difference between these are, I plan on teaching a class in the near future that will address that question - perhaps you should come!) One other thing I want to clarify -- when I say that my and my brothers' and sisters' backgrounds have been disproportionately Word-centered, I make a huge distincition between placing value on the Word verses actually knowing the Word. And the more succint point is not that our backgrounds actually trained us in valuing or knowing the Word, the point is that the degree to which we were taught to value the Word was no where proportional to the degree to which we were taught to value the Spirit. In my opinion, our churches needed (and need) to have trained us to know the Word more not less. The average Christian's knowledge of the Word is abysmal! Okay, I'll assume the point is understood.

Briefly, I think it would be helpful to express assesment of myself in the Word-Spirit unity. Using the utility of a 1 to 10 scale, I would put my belief in and experience of the Word, let's say, at a 7.5. For the Spirit, I would put myself at near a Zero!

The Bible uses the phrase "full of the Holy Spirit." We need to be brimming over in both the Spirit AND the Word TOGETHER. What's clear to me is, like in so many other areas of life, we humans tend to radically overemphasize one side of the spectrum at the expense of the other. It's strange to me, but it also seems that Christians can actually be relatively strong in the Word and weak in the Spirit and vice versa.

In a subsequent post, I want to talk about what I see as another confusion and make distinctions between the concepts of being either full of the Holy Spirit or the Word on the one hand, and spiritual maturity on the other.

Confessions of a Confused Simple Churcher 1

2009-01-20T21:46:00.000-08:00

Here I go creating another blog that I fear won't get more than a few posts before I give it up! We'll let time tell.

I'm thinking I'll post thoughts about my experience of organic church life with the primary intended audience being my own body and secondarily for any other interested brothers and sisters in the big 'ol world.

For starters, I'll draw attention to what someone may have already noticed as an apparent mix up of modifiers to the word "church." In my title I used the phrase, "simple church," and in the above sentence I used the term "organic." For those well read in the Emerging Church and house church literature, you will know there are a handful of competing terms for a particular brand of non-traditional church structures these days. The ones I'm familiar with are house church, simple church, and organic church. In the literature (books and internet) there is debate on the best adjective to use. This is all important and in another discussion I would love to dwell there. I personally like "organic" best as it gets to the essence better. For right now I just want to acknowledge that I recognize the limitations of picking (or not picking) any one adjective. I'm saying this because my body had a recent discussion in which the predominant theme was why we should not use the term "house church" when communicating about ourselves to others. I agree with the sentiment due to the effect of how that miscommunicates the essence of the kind of church life we engage in. However, I'm not as concerned that I have to use or not use a supposed best term in every initial communication. I actually prefer the term "house church" when talking to someone for the first time about it (even though I think "organic" is more immediately accurate). Most people have no idea what you mean if you use the terms "simple" or "organic" as a modifier for church. They at least have some clue if you use "house church." I'll trust I can clear up misconceptions with that person in time. A newbie is not going to get the idea in a first conversation no matter what terms I use anyway.

While I'm thinking of it, if you're one of those people who likes to say you don't like labels, I have a counter-point to that but I won't go into it here. Go ahead and ask me if you're interested.

Well, I intended on talking about something else here initially - apostleship. But, I'm learning that people will not read long posts. So, I will wrap this up here if for nothing else to get things started.