True Paradigm: Inconsistent Christians
I have not read anything from this blogger other than this specific article, but it is worth a few minutes of your time to read, and even longer to ponder....
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Who put what in
Financial stewardship is a topic I spend a great deal of my life on. I work with this issue in both my personal and professional life. Because stewardship (financial in particular) is one of my passions, this will without a doubt be a first of many posts on the topic.
In this post, however, I want to look at something that has created a great deal of conversation (read: controversy) whenever I bring it up.
In Mark 12: 41-44 (and Luke 21: 1-4, but I prefer Mark's account), we read the popular account often dubbed "The Widow's Offering" or "The Widow's Mite." There are a number of lessons in these four short verses, but keeping to this blog's name sake, I want to look at an often overlooked portion of this passage.
In the 41st verse we read: "Jesus sat...and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury." He was watching who put what in the equivalent of the offering plate. Let me say that again--He watched. In fact, we see this wasn't a passing glance, as the scripture tells us he was actively watching. So much so, that it is implied He choose His seat specifically for this view.
Since I am too simple minded to believe that the scriptures just through in fluff when it seems needed, I have to believe there is a point to this passage's inclusion, a lesson that is often overlooked. I am no Bible scholar, but I think the lesson related to Public Accountability.
I think Jesus is sharing with us that there is importance to openly making offerings to His Church. But this is a VERY slippery slop. Because in today's society, as in Christ's day, when humans do things in public it can very easily become a point of pride...a prideful display. This is NOT what Jesus wants.
However, I think there is something to be ask about actions taken in "the light." rather than in the 'secret' (from man not God) of "the dark." Financial stewardship, I think, is one of those things that may need to be done in "the light."
I think you can see some ways in which the church has attempted to cast light into the shadows. In fairness, these actions most likely had other intended purposes as well, but all the same...
For example, many churches ask their congregation to sign a 'pledge' card for the coming fiscal year. Often times, this card asks specifically if the amount pledged is "a tithe," "a tithe and an offering," "or striving to be for tithe." For now, set aside the tithe concept (I'll get on that soap box in a later post(s), I promise.).
Another example is the fact that offering envelopes are printed with a place to write your name. I have counted my church's offering for years, and I can tell you there are very few who pay with cash.
Another example is simply the collection of offerings at all. Most denominations still pass an offering plate around the sanctuary. The collection tool being passed from one person to the next, applying--to some level and degree--peep pressure.
I think these all trace their roots back to this passage--even if subconsciously. However, I can't help but believe their is something more I am missing in this portion of scripture.
We are commanded to financially support the building of God's Kingdom, but are we also commanded to make a public proclamation of it--or to have a public proclamation of support made? Is anonymously slipping our offering into the plate God honoring?
I would say "yes" the first, and "no" to the second. I believe that there should be some sort of congregation-wide knowledge of where the church's money comes from. Specifically who, how much, and how often. I also stand on this passage to infer that anonymous giving is considered charity, but would not qualify as our offering. OK, saying it is not God honoring is probably over doing it, but I think you get the point.
We are all called to Christ with a spiritual gift; and, I believe, a calling to support God's work in specific ways, financial support is only one way we are called to support. But in this way, I believe we are called to a VERY specific type and amount of support. It is only in living up to that calling that we will receive a full measure of God's blessings. No, He won't love us any more, but we will feel better, and His blessings will be more abundant and bountiful.
In this post, however, I want to look at something that has created a great deal of conversation (read: controversy) whenever I bring it up.
In Mark 12: 41-44 (and Luke 21: 1-4, but I prefer Mark's account), we read the popular account often dubbed "The Widow's Offering" or "The Widow's Mite." There are a number of lessons in these four short verses, but keeping to this blog's name sake, I want to look at an often overlooked portion of this passage.
In the 41st verse we read: "Jesus sat...and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury." He was watching who put what in the equivalent of the offering plate. Let me say that again--He watched. In fact, we see this wasn't a passing glance, as the scripture tells us he was actively watching. So much so, that it is implied He choose His seat specifically for this view.
Since I am too simple minded to believe that the scriptures just through in fluff when it seems needed, I have to believe there is a point to this passage's inclusion, a lesson that is often overlooked. I am no Bible scholar, but I think the lesson related to Public Accountability.
I think Jesus is sharing with us that there is importance to openly making offerings to His Church. But this is a VERY slippery slop. Because in today's society, as in Christ's day, when humans do things in public it can very easily become a point of pride...a prideful display. This is NOT what Jesus wants.
However, I think there is something to be ask about actions taken in "the light." rather than in the 'secret' (from man not God) of "the dark." Financial stewardship, I think, is one of those things that may need to be done in "the light."
I think you can see some ways in which the church has attempted to cast light into the shadows. In fairness, these actions most likely had other intended purposes as well, but all the same...
For example, many churches ask their congregation to sign a 'pledge' card for the coming fiscal year. Often times, this card asks specifically if the amount pledged is "a tithe," "a tithe and an offering," "or striving to be for tithe." For now, set aside the tithe concept (I'll get on that soap box in a later post(s), I promise.).
Another example is the fact that offering envelopes are printed with a place to write your name. I have counted my church's offering for years, and I can tell you there are very few who pay with cash.
Another example is simply the collection of offerings at all. Most denominations still pass an offering plate around the sanctuary. The collection tool being passed from one person to the next, applying--to some level and degree--peep pressure.
I think these all trace their roots back to this passage--even if subconsciously. However, I can't help but believe their is something more I am missing in this portion of scripture.
We are commanded to financially support the building of God's Kingdom, but are we also commanded to make a public proclamation of it--or to have a public proclamation of support made? Is anonymously slipping our offering into the plate God honoring?
I would say "yes" the first, and "no" to the second. I believe that there should be some sort of congregation-wide knowledge of where the church's money comes from. Specifically who, how much, and how often. I also stand on this passage to infer that anonymous giving is considered charity, but would not qualify as our offering. OK, saying it is not God honoring is probably over doing it, but I think you get the point.
We are all called to Christ with a spiritual gift; and, I believe, a calling to support God's work in specific ways, financial support is only one way we are called to support. But in this way, I believe we are called to a VERY specific type and amount of support. It is only in living up to that calling that we will receive a full measure of God's blessings. No, He won't love us any more, but we will feel better, and His blessings will be more abundant and bountiful.
Always remember, "Whose you are and at what cost"
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The power of the mind
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2
I love this passage, it is a powerful passage, and can be the basis for dozens of sermons, blogs, and/or devotionals.
I love this passage, it is a powerful passage, and can be the basis for dozens of sermons, blogs, and/or devotionals.
As you might guess, I want to look at an often times more controversial side of this passage--the power of the mind.
Romans 12:2 clearly talks about the importance of thoughts. The Apostle Paul, spent a lot of time on the power and influence of the human mind. The mind is the basis of the will. Paul (and King David in the OT) is insistent that our minds dwell on God. If our mind is on God, and our mind is the basis of our will, then our will will be God's will.
To help me with this I found a secular source far better than any I found in the "Bible Bookstore" circles. The book that I found and strongly recommend to you is Jeff Olson's The Slight Edge
In that book, we find steps to help with focusing our mind, in turn our will; at the root our philosophy. Mr. Olson stresses the importance of what Steve Covey calls: "Integrity in the moment of decision." The idea is that the cumulative effect of the small decisions is far greater than the major decisions we so often fret about.
I challenge you to read Jeff Olson's book is, apply his steps to your Walk With Christ. Of course, you can (should) apply this to every area of your life. Then again, your Walk should cover every aspect and area of your life.
Jeff Olson's background is network marketing (fancy name for MLM). The Slight Edge
Always remember 'Whose you are and at what cost'
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Gold -- VS -- Lead -- VS -- Salt
I have spent my life struggling with the dreaded disease: "Keep Up With The Jones". Mine seems to be a more advanced case of "Show Up The Jones". I have wanted (and still want) the nicest car, most stylish clothes, highest grades, whatever made me look like I had more money (or was smarter, or better, or...) than anyone/everyone around me. To make matters worse, I have (almost) always attended a Church which promotes and lives a minimalist life. Our chapels are often multi-function rooms, there is rarely stained glass, and you won't find gold or silver anywhere--very sparse, very functional. I learned that money spent on pretty gold decorations could be better spent feeding Christ (Matthew 25). Not bad right? Right, but I always got a bit confused when I read the Old Testament.
Throughout the Pentateuch [there I go again] and elsewhere in the Old Testament we read over and over again where God gives very precise directions on how His Temple is to be built and furnished. Gold is the most common descriptor we find, but other "precious" metals and jewels are also named and demanded.
, by Mark Kurlansky we can see when salt was the most precious thing.
Society places values on material, these values are ever changing. I feel God views all of His creation as equal, save man--the species not the race. That is to say, God does not value Gold, or Salt, or Platinum, or whatever anymore than dirt, or leaves, or rain drops. These are intrinsic values humans place on God's perfect creation. If I were to guess, I would guess this need to value is rooted in man's original sin and the resulting need to quantify and rationalize God's existence. But I digress....
God's specific command to adorn His Temple with gold and silver and jewels, had nothing to do with gold or silver or diamonds, or even salt. His command...His goal...His desire was to teach sacrifice--no matter how superficial it might be.
God didn't command those "precious" gifts because they were precious to Him, but because they were precious to the giver. God wanted His chosen people to give to Him sacrificially. God was demonstrating that all they need to hold dear is in His Temple--not the gold, but His living Spirit.
This is just as true today. God was modeled this sacrificial love and giving. God has proven time and time again to His children, that all they need is in Him.
Oh, I'm not down on the big fancy Churches, some folks need that to feel closer to God. Let's face it, God certainly deserves all that we can give Him and immeasurably more. However, I can say with confidence that my life is more precious than gold in the only eyes that ultimately matter--God's.
Throughout the Pentateuch [there I go again] and elsewhere in the Old Testament we read over and over again where God gives very precise directions on how His Temple is to be built and furnished. Gold is the most common descriptor we find, but other "precious" metals and jewels are also named and demanded.
Each time I would read this, I would look around our Chapel and wonder how my church had gotten it so wrong. I grew up in a primarily Catholic community. I have attended Mass with friends and knew first-hand how ornate and beautiful their chapels are. Those folks had it right....Right?
But what about whole "Feed my sheep" and "I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink" thing? I was really frustrated by this seemingly contradictory set of commandments. But, then again, I've always been a little slow.
From science's earliest days, Alchemists have worked to create precious gold. The base heavy metal most frequently referenced in these attempts is lead. There is, of course, no comparison between the value of lead and gold. I quick glimpse on the market shows gold trading at over $675.00 per ounce; whereas lead is a measly $0.875 -- big difference. But these are values our society has placed on these items. You don't have to look too far back into history to see when salt (you know that stuff we throw out on the sidewalks and scatter on roadways) was far more valuable. In fact in a fascinating book (that sounds really boring), Salt: A World History, by Mark Kurlansky we can see when salt was the most precious thing.Society places values on material, these values are ever changing. I feel God views all of His creation as equal, save man--the species not the race. That is to say, God does not value Gold, or Salt, or Platinum, or whatever anymore than dirt, or leaves, or rain drops. These are intrinsic values humans place on God's perfect creation. If I were to guess, I would guess this need to value is rooted in man's original sin and the resulting need to quantify and rationalize God's existence. But I digress....
God's specific command to adorn His Temple with gold and silver and jewels, had nothing to do with gold or silver or diamonds, or even salt. His command...His goal...His desire was to teach sacrifice--no matter how superficial it might be.
God didn't command those "precious" gifts because they were precious to Him, but because they were precious to the giver. God wanted His chosen people to give to Him sacrificially. God was demonstrating that all they need to hold dear is in His Temple--not the gold, but His living Spirit.
This is just as true today. God was modeled this sacrificial love and giving. God has proven time and time again to His children, that all they need is in Him.
Oh, I'm not down on the big fancy Churches, some folks need that to feel closer to God. Let's face it, God certainly deserves all that we can give Him and immeasurably more. However, I can say with confidence that my life is more precious than gold in the only eyes that ultimately matter--God's.
Always remember 'Whose you are and at what cost'
Friday, August 3, 2007
And it begins...
...right or wrong, the Apostle Paul is credited for first assigning us the name that would later be translated to "Christian".
Frankly, I don't care who dubbed the title; I don't feel I can carry the name. Oh, I want to, but can't. Why? My (limited) research has shown me that the word "Christian" means "Christ Likeness". While I openly admit I have a rampant ego, even I can't claim to be like Christ. Oh, I can try to be like Christ; I can strive to be like Him; I can even move closer to Christ likeness. I cannot, however, claim to be 'Christ-like.'
There is nothing wrong with the word/title. I'm certainly not saying you (or you, or even you over there in the corner) are not a Christian. All I'm saying is--"I'm not."
Oh, you say, then explain the title of your blog. OK, Christian and Christianity are two VERY different things. The former refers to a person, a descriptor--a personal proclamation--one with a very intense and heavy definition. The later is a name give to a collection of beliefs--a thing (if you will), not a person--beliefs specific to those of us who believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and who through His suffering and death make an atonement for our sins, so that whosoever will, may be saved. [Sorry, slipped into the the brainwashed mode of doctrine, but it is still correct].
Of course, you might argue that no one (with the exception of yours truly) uses so precise of a definition today; and you would probably be right. In fact, I would argue that the vagues so often presented or projected when referring to "Christians" is reason enough not to want to be called a "Christian". "Christian" means so many different things to so many people, that it falls short of even a marginally apt descriptor. Does that bother you as much as it bothers me?
Here's a test, the next time you in a group of people you don't know ask ten or even five people to tell you what the word "Christian" means to them, and I bet you get as many different answers. Why would you want to be called something for which you or those around you can't decipher an accurate meaning? Talk about a 'recipe for disaster'. How many converts do you think you can win (and keep) with such a recipe?
Again, I'm not saying the label "Christian" is bad. I just saying 1) I don't measure up to its true meaning; and 2) the common meaning is...well, there is not real common meaning.
Thus, I doubt you will ever see the label "Christian" in my posts. Oh sure, you will see it in articles I quote, or in comments posted to this blog, but you won't see them in my posts.
Are you a Christian? Or are you like me, and striving to become Christ-like?
Frankly, I don't care who dubbed the title; I don't feel I can carry the name. Oh, I want to, but can't. Why? My (limited) research has shown me that the word "Christian" means "Christ Likeness". While I openly admit I have a rampant ego, even I can't claim to be like Christ. Oh, I can try to be like Christ; I can strive to be like Him; I can even move closer to Christ likeness. I cannot, however, claim to be 'Christ-like.'
There is nothing wrong with the word/title. I'm certainly not saying you (or you, or even you over there in the corner) are not a Christian. All I'm saying is--"I'm not."
Oh, you say, then explain the title of your blog. OK, Christian and Christianity are two VERY different things. The former refers to a person, a descriptor--a personal proclamation--one with a very intense and heavy definition. The later is a name give to a collection of beliefs--a thing (if you will), not a person--beliefs specific to those of us who believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and who through His suffering and death make an atonement for our sins, so that whosoever will, may be saved. [Sorry, slipped into the the brainwashed mode of doctrine, but it is still correct].
Of course, you might argue that no one (with the exception of yours truly) uses so precise of a definition today; and you would probably be right. In fact, I would argue that the vagues so often presented or projected when referring to "Christians" is reason enough not to want to be called a "Christian". "Christian" means so many different things to so many people, that it falls short of even a marginally apt descriptor. Does that bother you as much as it bothers me?
Here's a test, the next time you in a group of people you don't know ask ten or even five people to tell you what the word "Christian" means to them, and I bet you get as many different answers. Why would you want to be called something for which you or those around you can't decipher an accurate meaning? Talk about a 'recipe for disaster'. How many converts do you think you can win (and keep) with such a recipe?
Again, I'm not saying the label "Christian" is bad. I just saying 1) I don't measure up to its true meaning; and 2) the common meaning is...well, there is not real common meaning.
Thus, I doubt you will ever see the label "Christian" in my posts. Oh sure, you will see it in articles I quote, or in comments posted to this blog, but you won't see them in my posts.
Are you a Christian? Or are you like me, and striving to become Christ-like?
Always remember 'Whose you are and at what cost'
Thursday, August 2, 2007
In the beginning
Not that I'm worthy of starting in the same way as the Bible, it is just that I felt it was strangely appropriate.
Thank you for taking a few minutes to stop by and take a look at "Controversial Christianity". It's not that I want to be particularly 'controversial', hateful, or even augmentative; it's just that from time-to-time it seems to me that we need to shaken up. We need to question what we believe, and why we believe it. No, I'm not taking about the fundamentals of Christianity, rather the things that divide us into different groups--worshiping the same God. I'm also talking about the things that seem taboo in today's worship service, or smoothed over in Bible study (if not completely ignored).
Without a doubt, what I will post here will be controversial, but then by its very definition, I have (at least partially) achieved my goal. I don't mind 'raising your ire' if you are thinking through your
Oh, there is one more reason why I decided to create this blog--for years now many of these things have been rolling around in my head. This give me a place to get them out of my head and into the world. With all the above in mind, please feel free to post your comments, observations, and/or thoughts. I would hope that this can develop into a somewhat interactive medium.
Well, that's it for now...nothing really controversial this time. I'll save that for my first real post.
Thank you for taking a few minutes to stop by and take a look at "Controversial Christianity". It's not that I want to be particularly 'controversial', hateful, or even augmentative; it's just that from time-to-time it seems to me that we need to shaken up. We need to question what we believe, and why we believe it. No, I'm not taking about the fundamentals of Christianity, rather the things that divide us into different groups--worshiping the same God. I'm also talking about the things that seem taboo in today's worship service, or smoothed over in Bible study (if not completely ignored).
Without a doubt, what I will post here will be controversial, but then by its very definition, I have (at least partially) achieved my goal. I don't mind 'raising your ire' if you are thinking through your
Oh, there is one more reason why I decided to create this blog--for years now many of these things have been rolling around in my head. This give me a place to get them out of my head and into the world. With all the above in mind, please feel free to post your comments, observations, and/or thoughts. I would hope that this can develop into a somewhat interactive medium.
Well, that's it for now...nothing really controversial this time. I'll save that for my first real post.
Always remember 'Whose you are and at what cost'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)