"You may have heard that retirement can kill you. Men and women die of boredom, for lack of intellectual challenge, or from the deafening silence that can accompany a spouse’s death. Depressed saving accounts may represent another motivation to stay gainfully employed. Even if times were better, you might simply prefer staying active in your career, maintaining a position of influence that you’ve worked hard to reach."
You can read rest of this great article on retirement here: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2009/10/1198_Don't_Retire_We_Need_You"
It is an excellent challenge to a congregation like ours that is a pairing of young families and those ready to or already retired. The demographic of Kimberley matches our congregation and probably won't change as Kimberley continues to attract this demographic. Instead of battling against this trend, Chediak's article is a beautiful picture of how these two worlds can work really well together. There are many examples in our church of how this is working well, I hope this encourages more of it. And for you on the younger side of this pairing, the article is good challenge for you as well, so read on.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Baptism
On September 19th, hours before packing up the kids for the fall event at the Taggarts, I got in touch with Jesse (we were playing phone tag for a couple of days). He wanted to get baptized. I’ve known Jesse for almost a year now and we’ve talked about baptism and I knew that he understood it, and would be ready for it when he said he was. 20 hours notice to fill and warm the church tank isn’t much, so I gave Jesse a few options. We could wait a couple weeks (I was out of town the next Sunday), do it in cold water, or do it in a few hours in the hot tub at the fall event. We opted for the hot tub and it ended up being more significant than I had thought.
Baptism is practiced immediately after a profession of faith. I don’t ask people to go through classes, clean up their life, or hang around for a few years before baptism. So I loved it that we were doing it immediately after Jesse was reading his Bible and feeling prompted by God. I also loved that it was informal, real, before God’s people as they were gathered and without the unnecessary feeling that we should be in a church building. There was around 25 people there and everyone was really affirming of the way it was done.
Jesse’s story is that his life was in the wrong direction until a few years ago he was involved in a car crash that should have killed him. He had to be resuscitated three times, and suffered many serious injuries spending over a month in hospital to recuperate. Today he knows that God has intervened in his life and provided a very uncommon recovery. He has also been on a search to find out more about the God who saved his physical life. As a result he has heard the gospel and received God’s grace in his life. He knows that Jesus is his substitute and has given him a new heart.
The event, where he was baptized, ended up being only a few hundred feet away from the site of this accident that initiated his new life in Christ. It was a powerful testimony that God is working to redeem our lives for his glory. Next time you see Jesse, encourage him in his new life.
“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Update of Collision Movie
Finally, the release date of October 27th has been set for the movie 'Collision'. It is a documentary that features a series of debates between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian Doug Wilson. I've been excited about this for quite a while now. You can visit the website 'www.collisionmovie.com' and watch the first 13 minutes of the film. I plan on organizing a showing somewhere in Kimberley. I you are interested, please show yourself.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Responses to 'Missional Church'
What I shared about on Sunday has been on my heart for some time, and I am amazed at how it has been on the hearts of others at the same time. If you haven’t heard it, please take the time to do so and get in on the conversation. Video of the Sermon is posted in the teaching section of the church website (www.kimberleyfellowship.com)
Before I could leave the front of the church someone greeted me to talk about the idea of our church being engaged in our community. Toward the end he made one of those ‘wouldn’t it be great if...’ statements that when I got it, it summed up what I’m thinking perfectly. ‘Wouldn’t it be great if one day the city had to come to us if they wanted something to happen’. What if the church was the critical player in addressing the needs of the city? I think that is a great vision. Going from irrelevant to relevant.
Others are not quite there, still unsure of the wisdom or viability of engaging the city, but others were already out the door doing the kind of ministry I’m talking about before the service was over. And I’m not kidding. You’ll be hearing more about a huge opportunity to engage in ministry outside of the church shortly. And it’s already happening by God’s wisdom.
I have heard great applications to our church budget. Does our budget need to shift? Yes. Our budget needs to change and so does the way we organize our ministry teams. We must remain committed to teaching our children and serving communion, but somewhere we must say no to things so we can make shifts toward recontextualizing the gospel.
It is unrealistic to wait for me to do everything that needs to be done to shift our church back on vision. And this is my fear. But how encouraging it has been to hear some of us begin to made the applications we need and lead in the areas they are called to do so. Let us continue to talk, dream, encourage, do, and live our God-given mission.
Before I could leave the front of the church someone greeted me to talk about the idea of our church being engaged in our community. Toward the end he made one of those ‘wouldn’t it be great if...’ statements that when I got it, it summed up what I’m thinking perfectly. ‘Wouldn’t it be great if one day the city had to come to us if they wanted something to happen’. What if the church was the critical player in addressing the needs of the city? I think that is a great vision. Going from irrelevant to relevant.
Others are not quite there, still unsure of the wisdom or viability of engaging the city, but others were already out the door doing the kind of ministry I’m talking about before the service was over. And I’m not kidding. You’ll be hearing more about a huge opportunity to engage in ministry outside of the church shortly. And it’s already happening by God’s wisdom.
I have heard great applications to our church budget. Does our budget need to shift? Yes. Our budget needs to change and so does the way we organize our ministry teams. We must remain committed to teaching our children and serving communion, but somewhere we must say no to things so we can make shifts toward recontextualizing the gospel.
It is unrealistic to wait for me to do everything that needs to be done to shift our church back on vision. And this is my fear. But how encouraging it has been to hear some of us begin to made the applications we need and lead in the areas they are called to do so. Let us continue to talk, dream, encourage, do, and live our God-given mission.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Don't Give up Everything
The prayer in often sincere ‘Lord, I give everything to you’. But I think it is a lame excuse to look pious for a moment just to start doing things again later that day. This begins a cycle of guilt, disconnects us from our mission and ultimately makes us at the centre, not Christ.
Are Christians ever commanded to ‘give up everything?’ The answer to this question would take more than I am willing to write at this moment, but the conclusion would be ‘not in the sense we often are thinking when we say that’. The disciples tell Jesus that they have left everything, the rich young ruler leaves sad because he doesn’t give up everything, and all things are to be subject to Christ in the next age. But does this mean that we are to give up EVERYTHING? I don’t think we mean ‘just sin’ when we say ‘everything’. I think we mean, literally everything.
I remember being at evening church gatherings where my worship of God was pure and honest. I left humbled, yet joyful over the power that God yields in my life. Yet before bed as I watched the eleven o’clock sports highlights I felt guilty for going back to the pagan things I repented of hours ago. I even felt guilty about going to bed, should I give that up too?
I don’t think so. If we follow the ultimate good of the idea of giving up everything for God I think we ultimately see ourselves in a perfect church, meditating, praying and drinking tea made with ingredients listed in the Old Testament. This isn’t what God wants. Please resist the desire to disagree with me here. God wants to redeem our lives. God wants to put us on a mission to proclaim the gospel. We should not think of giving up everything item by item until we are like him but rather redeeming everything so we are not empty, but full of godliness. We should keep our jobs, be connected to our culture, speak to our children, cut our lawns, make dinners, have sex with our spouse, clean our bathroom, vote in elections, and if there is time left over, watch the sports highlights.
The end result of giving everything up to God is a Christian elitism where some Christians are superior to others and these elitists form a church that is disconnected from both the world and any Christians who are not as good as they are. This is not the church. The church is both radically connected to culture and radically different than culture at the same time.
If instead of trying to give up everything (which is really impossible anyway) and started asking God what he wants us to do with everything, we’ll be in the direction to transform our lives.
Are Christians ever commanded to ‘give up everything?’ The answer to this question would take more than I am willing to write at this moment, but the conclusion would be ‘not in the sense we often are thinking when we say that’. The disciples tell Jesus that they have left everything, the rich young ruler leaves sad because he doesn’t give up everything, and all things are to be subject to Christ in the next age. But does this mean that we are to give up EVERYTHING? I don’t think we mean ‘just sin’ when we say ‘everything’. I think we mean, literally everything.
I remember being at evening church gatherings where my worship of God was pure and honest. I left humbled, yet joyful over the power that God yields in my life. Yet before bed as I watched the eleven o’clock sports highlights I felt guilty for going back to the pagan things I repented of hours ago. I even felt guilty about going to bed, should I give that up too?
I don’t think so. If we follow the ultimate good of the idea of giving up everything for God I think we ultimately see ourselves in a perfect church, meditating, praying and drinking tea made with ingredients listed in the Old Testament. This isn’t what God wants. Please resist the desire to disagree with me here. God wants to redeem our lives. God wants to put us on a mission to proclaim the gospel. We should not think of giving up everything item by item until we are like him but rather redeeming everything so we are not empty, but full of godliness. We should keep our jobs, be connected to our culture, speak to our children, cut our lawns, make dinners, have sex with our spouse, clean our bathroom, vote in elections, and if there is time left over, watch the sports highlights.
The end result of giving everything up to God is a Christian elitism where some Christians are superior to others and these elitists form a church that is disconnected from both the world and any Christians who are not as good as they are. This is not the church. The church is both radically connected to culture and radically different than culture at the same time.
If instead of trying to give up everything (which is really impossible anyway) and started asking God what he wants us to do with everything, we’ll be in the direction to transform our lives.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The gospel...plus (part three)
Culture is unavoidable. The language we speak, our interests, jobs, food, humor, etc is all cultural. The idea that that the church needs to avoid cultural fads is simply an excuse to choose one cultural expression over another. It is impossible for the church to do things the same way for centuries and it obviously hasn’t happened.
There is one thing that should not change. It is the central teaching that we are bad, God is righteous and we can only be made righteous by God saving us through Jesus. This is the gospel, the only teaching the New Testament has.
The battle though, is often not fought for the gospel, but for how the gospel is applied in culture. We keep waiting for the ‘right’ cultural expression of the gospel and when we think we’ve found it, a little time goes by, our culture changes, and we are searching for it again. Some examples:
The Salvation army seemed to have it right when they sought to enroll people in ‘God’s army’ in the post-WWII culture. It was well respected until a new generation grew up in a country no longer at war. It was then criticized.
Dressing up for church, standing during services, removing hats at the church door seemed to be part of the Christian life for those who grew up respecting royalty. Since we took off our hats, dressed proper and stood at attention when the queen came to town, so much more should we do the same when we are in God’s house. Now that royalty looks less and less like God we don’t think this is so important anymore.
Reformers like Martin Luther wrote lyrics to songs sung in the pubs and the puritans brewed beer. Alcohol and Christianity went together like steak and red wine until prohibition 100 years ago. When drinking was associated with criminal activity drinking was heavily criticized. Only recently has this cultural trend swung back again and Christians once again drink beer and talk theology.
Since culture is not right and wrong, there will never be a perfect expression of the gospel. Rather we should seek to apply the unchanging truth about the work of God to love us in every culture. The application should constantly be changing, but the message not. Drinking or not drinking isn’t always right, but applying the gospel to the current culture.
I find this to be detrimental when churches create a culture that is so different from the surrounding city that they demand the people’s culture change so they can be forgiven by God. They ask them to listen to a specific style of music, do certain activities, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, vote for one particular political party, etc. I hope that our church looks like the cultures of Kimberley, but with the marked difference that the gospel makes.
I believe in the gospel, not the gospel plus common interests, not the gospel plus my position on a specific non-essential issue, and certainly not the gospel plus some cultural element.
There is one thing that should not change. It is the central teaching that we are bad, God is righteous and we can only be made righteous by God saving us through Jesus. This is the gospel, the only teaching the New Testament has.
The battle though, is often not fought for the gospel, but for how the gospel is applied in culture. We keep waiting for the ‘right’ cultural expression of the gospel and when we think we’ve found it, a little time goes by, our culture changes, and we are searching for it again. Some examples:
The Salvation army seemed to have it right when they sought to enroll people in ‘God’s army’ in the post-WWII culture. It was well respected until a new generation grew up in a country no longer at war. It was then criticized.
Dressing up for church, standing during services, removing hats at the church door seemed to be part of the Christian life for those who grew up respecting royalty. Since we took off our hats, dressed proper and stood at attention when the queen came to town, so much more should we do the same when we are in God’s house. Now that royalty looks less and less like God we don’t think this is so important anymore.
Reformers like Martin Luther wrote lyrics to songs sung in the pubs and the puritans brewed beer. Alcohol and Christianity went together like steak and red wine until prohibition 100 years ago. When drinking was associated with criminal activity drinking was heavily criticized. Only recently has this cultural trend swung back again and Christians once again drink beer and talk theology.
Since culture is not right and wrong, there will never be a perfect expression of the gospel. Rather we should seek to apply the unchanging truth about the work of God to love us in every culture. The application should constantly be changing, but the message not. Drinking or not drinking isn’t always right, but applying the gospel to the current culture.
I find this to be detrimental when churches create a culture that is so different from the surrounding city that they demand the people’s culture change so they can be forgiven by God. They ask them to listen to a specific style of music, do certain activities, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, vote for one particular political party, etc. I hope that our church looks like the cultures of Kimberley, but with the marked difference that the gospel makes.
I believe in the gospel, not the gospel plus common interests, not the gospel plus my position on a specific non-essential issue, and certainly not the gospel plus some cultural element.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How many meanings?
Muslims, Jews, and Christians all consider the Bible to be scripture (although, Jews only consider the Old Testament scripture, and Muslims also consider the Koran scripture). And within each of those groups exist many divisions over how these scriptures should be read and applied.
For example, one of the points of greatest division in how Christians have read the Bible in the past 500 years has been over the passages on communion, in particular, 1 Corinthians 11. Questions that come from this text have produced varied answers. How often should we take it, who is allowed to take it, what are we eating, what happens when we take it, and what does it mean are all disputed. The same could be said on the issue of women in church ministry, a Christian’s responsibility to go to war, etc.
On such controversial issues there is an assumption that there is one correct view and the others are dead wrong. Yet when it comes to less controversial verses Christians in particular seem to have a greater openness to a number of appropriate responses.
Now, I know that it is a contradiction to both go to war and be a conscientious objector, so why do we think we can interpret other parts of the Bible any way we want? There are three basic approaches here. 1. The Bible is an inspirational book that can be interpreted any way. This has led to people killing each other in history, or as it is now, ‘I believe one thing and you believe another and we’re all ok’. 2. There can be a few meanings from one verse, but they don’t contradict each other. For example, 1 Corinthians 12:12 (the body is one and has many members) can refer both to the local church, as is clearly the context, but it can also refer to different church denominations, or members in a family. 3. The Bible has one meaning and we are limited to that. While we may not all agree on that meaning, there is only one. So 1 Corinthians 12:12 refers to the local church and while it may be a helpful concept elsewhere, those analogies only helpful, not scriptural.
Here’s how I see it. God exists and has made himself known to us in the Bible. We have no say in what he is like, how he instructs our life, etc. If we choose to ‘make up our own God’ he is just a part of our imagination. The relationship then is God as our creator, and we as his creation. We can’t create God, he knows us, he tells us who he is. Because I see it this way I think we are forever stuck asking the Bible the question, what does it mean. Our answer cannot be plural.
My whole response to the Bible since I read it in my late teens was to search for this singular meaning. It has been my goal to keep the voices of religions out of my head and let God speak for himself. My path has led me to a lot of study, work in the original languages, church life, hard questions, and at times hard stances, but I feel mostly honest about how I’ve approached the text. The text has shaped me, not the other way around.
My Christian friends don’t like it when I tell them that the context of a verse doesn’t allow them to interpret it they way they did. But is it really Christian to read and interpret however we like? That seems more like each ‘christian’ is developing their own religion, rather than getting to know God for who he is.
For example, one of the points of greatest division in how Christians have read the Bible in the past 500 years has been over the passages on communion, in particular, 1 Corinthians 11. Questions that come from this text have produced varied answers. How often should we take it, who is allowed to take it, what are we eating, what happens when we take it, and what does it mean are all disputed. The same could be said on the issue of women in church ministry, a Christian’s responsibility to go to war, etc.
On such controversial issues there is an assumption that there is one correct view and the others are dead wrong. Yet when it comes to less controversial verses Christians in particular seem to have a greater openness to a number of appropriate responses.
Now, I know that it is a contradiction to both go to war and be a conscientious objector, so why do we think we can interpret other parts of the Bible any way we want? There are three basic approaches here. 1. The Bible is an inspirational book that can be interpreted any way. This has led to people killing each other in history, or as it is now, ‘I believe one thing and you believe another and we’re all ok’. 2. There can be a few meanings from one verse, but they don’t contradict each other. For example, 1 Corinthians 12:12 (the body is one and has many members) can refer both to the local church, as is clearly the context, but it can also refer to different church denominations, or members in a family. 3. The Bible has one meaning and we are limited to that. While we may not all agree on that meaning, there is only one. So 1 Corinthians 12:12 refers to the local church and while it may be a helpful concept elsewhere, those analogies only helpful, not scriptural.
Here’s how I see it. God exists and has made himself known to us in the Bible. We have no say in what he is like, how he instructs our life, etc. If we choose to ‘make up our own God’ he is just a part of our imagination. The relationship then is God as our creator, and we as his creation. We can’t create God, he knows us, he tells us who he is. Because I see it this way I think we are forever stuck asking the Bible the question, what does it mean. Our answer cannot be plural.
My whole response to the Bible since I read it in my late teens was to search for this singular meaning. It has been my goal to keep the voices of religions out of my head and let God speak for himself. My path has led me to a lot of study, work in the original languages, church life, hard questions, and at times hard stances, but I feel mostly honest about how I’ve approached the text. The text has shaped me, not the other way around.
My Christian friends don’t like it when I tell them that the context of a verse doesn’t allow them to interpret it they way they did. But is it really Christian to read and interpret however we like? That seems more like each ‘christian’ is developing their own religion, rather than getting to know God for who he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)