Charlie's Challenges: 8/27/23

Charlie’s Challenges: Extras from the sermon 

God’s Plan for Every Disciple

Memory verse:  

We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

 Acts 6:4

Text of the day Acts 6:1-7

Can you think of a time when you felt very different from your own family?

Have you ever seen a church become divided over social or cultural issues?  What were those circumstances?  What might have been done to prevent the conflict?

Can you think of an example of the greatest enemy of “the great” being “the good”?

We see the need for character, focus and people.  Why is this pattern and order important?  Why are we so tempted to allow talent to trump over character?

Character was described as the merger of behavior, faith and brain.  Which of these is the most challenging for you?

As a small congregation we have a lot of general practitioners.  As we grow we will need to become more focused.  What do you think could be your area of focus?  

Jesus and the Rich men north of Richmond

Jesus and the Rich men north of Richmond

I am taking a break from my blogs about the church in transition.  I have one more but I am saving it till next week.  This week I wanted to take a side trip.  It was motivated by the hype surrounding the first Republican debate, lots of talk about the economy, and a song that became popular almost out of nowhere.  So let’s talk about Jesus and the Rich men north of Richmond.

It has been called “an Anthem for the oppressed American”.  Oliver Anthony’s, aka Chris Lunsford, viral song has swept the nation.  It is a raw, gritty, protest song that has taken country music and the country by storm.  In part, Chris is the ultimate “not part of the establishment” icon.  A blue collar, high school dropout that has suffered much in his life, is angry about it and is willing to put it into a song.  Chris has struck a nerve with the American listening audience and has become the symbol of the “every man”.

The country music industry is in many cases hated by its fan base because so much of the success within the industry seems to be contrived and arranged by powerful people.  Chris is an outsider.  He recently turned down an 8 million dollar contract solidifying his position as "one of us not one of them”.  The song is long on heart and passion and short on big production values.  His voice may not be one of the great voices of all time and the score and lyrics are not the results of the efforts of professionals; he is the kind of guy who might live next door.

In the song, Chris takes aim at the powerful and corrupt in Washington DC, the “rich men north of Richmond.”  He argues, and I believe correctly, that the political elite in Washington are more interested in advancing their own agenda than the general welfare of the nation.  While there is no doubt that the highly centralized government is a major problem, it is too easy to paint with broad brush strokes a popular message of “all the politicians are bad”.  This song is not actually about solutions, it is about being angry that “they”, whoever “they” are, have done us bad.

At the core and root of the protest seems to be economics.  Chris is not satisfied with his salary, taxes, inflation, and an economic policy that leaves some people hungry while others are manipulating welfare.  Chris seems to be bipartisan with equal disdain for both Democrats and Republicans. As you can imagine everyone and his brother is getting cranked up by the protest diddy.  There is no doubt that Chris has touched the angry nerve of a lot that is wrong in America.  My personal political theory aside, I believe that he has found the most sensitive of all the peripheral issues in our nation, namely the apparent hypocrisy of many or most of our leaders that has led to policies that are very unpopular.  

However, Chris is as deeply mistaken as anyone in Washington.  The error into which Chris, Washington and the nation has fallen is the belief that the root problem is economic.  At the core of its belief Communism teaches that economics or the pursuit of prosperity for the masses is the main objective of government.  Remember the every 4 year political catch phrase, “It is the economy, stupid”?  But when economics is the primary driver the nations have built their houses on sand.  

What if a government were able to secure the peace and prosperity of all its citizens so that everyone had all their desires and wants, but in so doing introduced a society of the worst kind of immorality? What if the economy was great, but the hearts were wicked?  What if every perceived social injustice were eradicated, but truth and righteousness were lost?  Would this be a good government?  Believe me when I say I am not a fan of the status quo in our government.  If you ask me privately I will share my political theories with you, but in this forum I must say and say it very loudly, “Our nation's biggest problems are not economic or social”.  Our biggest problem is sin, both our fallen sinful nature and our sinful acts.  We will never resolve that core issue by pressing on, protesting or even acting against the peripheral issues of the day.  Sin makes every aspect of society rotten, but you don’t cure sin by working on societal ills.  Sin is only cured at the cross. 

 

Charlie's Challenges: 8/20/23

 Charlie’s Challenges: Extras from the sermon: Worship in Giving

Memory verse:  Col 3:5

So put to death whatever is worldly in you: sexual immorality, 

uncleanness, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry  

Before today’s sermon what did you know about the PTL scandal?

Who and what had you heard about Jim Bakker, Jesica Hahn or Bill Hybels?  It is funny how people we don’t know can so shape our lives.

Since God is the one who came up with the idea of giving as a part of worship, it is wise to keep giving worshipful and not just church business.  How can we do that?

We are always blessed when we give, but not always with more stuff.  What are other ways we can be blessed by the act of sacrificial giving?

Trick Question:  How often do you use money when compared with how often do we hear Bible teaching about giving?  What should we do about this?

Now that you know that greed can be a doorway by which we allow the demonic access to our lives, what do you think you ought to do about that?

Love of stuff, desire for control, and half-hearted faith went together in Ananias’ life.  What can we do to keep these out of our lives?

God doesn’t need our money, but we desperately need to give.

Learn to give generously.

Learn to give proportionately.

A cool old car, a church transition, and a young monk.

I can’t give any more details than the following, but here is what I can say.  I know where there is an old car sitting in a barn just waiting to be brought back to its former glory.  This old car is pretty rare and in its day was highly prized and praised. Currently, it has some rust, a few fender dents, some cracked glass, a thick layer of dust and bird droppings, and a few tacky add ons that someone must have thought clever.  But underneath it all there is a gem.   I love old stuff, especially if it can be restored.  

Of course, you could pull this car out of the barn it is in, slap a cheap paint job on it, do some “cool” modifications, get it running and drive it around with all the flaws, but why do that?  Its value would be radically higher if it were properly put back together.  Plus, the inherent beauty of this piece of automotive history deserves something better.  

Now, the only way to work on this car is a “frame off” restoration.  The car would be totally disassembled, every part repaired or, if need be, replaced with a factory original part. Beginning at the frame the car would have to be repainted and reassembled so when it was done it would be just like it rolled off the factory assembly line.  This project would be difficult and very expensive.  It is not the kind of thing you would do over a weekend or even in a couple of months. Done right it would take thousands of dollars, it  would be slow and frustrating beyond words.  It would have to be a labor of love or you would never finish it.  In fact, it would be a sort of legacy project, the kind of thing that would mark a lifetime of work.

What does this have to do with church transition?   About 500 years ago a young German monk was leading an effort to get out of the Roman Catholic church all the stuff that he believed corrupted the church.  He was convinced that the selling of indulgences for sins not yet committed was a moral travesty.  Behind the ideal of selling forgiveness of sin before the act was built on the ideal of selling forgiveness of sin after the act, this he found repugnant as well.  The ideal of anyone (Pope, Priest or other mere mortal) offering forgiveness of sin was wrong as well.  It was as if he were looking at a classic car under years of neglect, abuse and bird poop and was trying to solve the problem with a hand broom and a dust pan.  

This began the Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was like an effort to go back layer by layer, removing error, false assumptions, misguided doctrines each of which made the other more harmful to the church.  This protesting of the ills of the Roman Church and the effort to remove everything from the church that was problematic was a major transition for the church.  The debt of Christianity to Luther is huge.  Even Roman Catholic scholars have suggested that this reform was deeply needed. Some have even suggested that if Luther and Pope Leo had both been a little more humble and less polemic there might be within the Roman Church an order called the Lutherans, as there are Fansicans and Benedictians.  But the divisions with the church testify that it was not an entirely successful project.

What if instead of reforming the church we tried to do a frame off restoration?  I can almost hear someone say, “Haven’t you heard of the Campbellite and the Stoneites and the ‘Restoration Movement’?  Yes I have. The Stone-Campbell movement began wonderfully.  But one has to ask,“Has the Restoration Movement become the Restoration Monument?”  It has some significant problems. So, I am not recruiting for the Restoration Movement nor talking about forming a new fellowship or organization.  The restoration I want to see is one that is more organic and more individual, so don’t miss our next edition.  

In the meantime here are some slogans the Restoration Moment has used.  While they may not live up to these, there is some worthwhile wisdom that we would be well advised to use as we face the next transition of the church.

• "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

• "The church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one."

• "We are Christians only, but not the only Christians."

• "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love."

• "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.

• "Do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names."

• Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.

NEXT TIME: Our Turn to Make a Transition.

You are a Stupid Head!

 You’re a stupid head

I had a friend, well that is the wrong term for him, when I was a child.  I really didn’t like having him around, but he hung around all the time anyway.  He would come over to my house to play and no matter what I wanted to do he managed to ruin it.  My parents would not allow me to be mean, rude or chase him away, so I just tolerated him.  On one occasion he came over and I climbed a tree to the uppermost branches.  He was a little, overweight kid who couldn’t climb a tree.  So, I simply sat at the top of the tree till he left.  Not my most mature moment, but it worked. 

 After a couple of years, he apparently got the hint and told me, “We were not going to be friends anymore.  And I am not going to come over and play anymore.”

I answered, “Okay.”

He got red in the face and said, “You are a stupid head,” and walked away.  He didn’t keep that promise and I saw him often.  He apparently told his mom he really liked coming over and so his mom and my mom decided we should be close friends.  It was an odd relationship; it wasn’t a friendship.  It would neither reconcile and become healthy nor end with any finality.  So, what does this have to do with church history or transitions?

Of all the transitions the church has faced, perhaps the biggest was an internal fight.  If you are not into church history you may have never heard of the “Great Schism”.  It was a major transition within the church and has become a repeating pattern.  If we were to set a date for the Great Schism it would be July 16, 1054, when Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius.  After this point, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church were no longer in fellowship.  

There is no agreement between the two of them who left the true faith and became a false church.  Nor is there agreement over what was the divisive issue.  Like an ugly divorce, both sides can clearly point to the weaknesses of the other while advocating their own innocence.  

Roman Catholic Church, “You left and you are wrong.”

Eastern Orthodox Church, “No, you left and you are wrong.”

Roman Catholic Church, “No, You left and you are wrong.”

Eastern Orthodox Church, “No, you left and you are wrong.”

Roman Catholic Church, “No, You left and you are wrong”

Eastern Orthodox Church, “No you left and you are wrong.”

Roman Catholic Church, “You left and you are a stupid head.”

Eastern Orthodox Church, “No, you left and you are a stupid head.”

Roman Catholic Church, “I know you are, but what am I?”

Eastern Orthodox Church, “You are a stupid head and no one likes you.”

The arguments between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church may not have always been this immature, but it has had its moments.  Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church priests have a tradition of brawling at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher around Easter.  You can almost hear a version of the high school football cheer, “We love Jesus, yes, we do. We love Jesus more than you!”  But at least the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church are united within their fellowship, unless you count the covert and sometimes open verbal and even physical hostility within each fellowship.  The fight at the Church of the Nativity between two branches of the Orthodox Church did not produce a “Silent Night”.  The Protestant Reformation has rightly been criticized for its fractured nature.  There are reportedly 65 different Baptist denominations.  We all know how united the United Methodist Church of late has been.  One faith community loosely called “The Restoration Movement” was started for the purpose of “restoring Biblical unity to the church.”  The Restoration Movement is divided into three, some would say five, rival tribes.  

The division of the Great Schism was purported to be about disagreements that are all deeply theological, such as can leaven bread be used for communion; but the real causes of the division are much more carnal.  It is almost always the case that church fights, big and small, have at the root something other than theology and doctrine.  Fighting a “good fight” for the sake of “true doctrine" might give us a sense of justification for our fighting.  But if you look, you will find somewhere at the beginning of the splinter there was one of three or perhaps all three motives.  Sometimes the splinter groups go fully heretical and other times they just have a particular twist on a matter.  But when you see the church split somewhere you will find one or more of these motivations; the desire for more power and control, the desire for more experience, or the desire to be a big shot.  You may have heard them called, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, the pride of life”, or “the world, the flesh, and the devil”.  From the “worship wars” to the control of the church cemetery fund, the roots are generally the same.

“Maybe we should start a great big unity movement!”  Been tried often and has failed every time, so far.  So, what can we do?  All we can do is shape our own life, spirituality and attitudes.  Thankfully, there is a counter active to the world, the flesh and the devil.  It is “faith, hope and love.”  Faith to live as though we believe what Jesus said is actually true.  Hope to have a preferred vision of the future that God will provide.  Love to deny self for the benefit of others.  I have it on good authority that this last one is the greatest of all.  I can’t change all the churches and cure all the divisions therein, but I can live out faith, hope and love.  

A long time ago in a classroom full of eager freshmen we argued over which was more important, doctrinal purity or unity in the church.  One side said, “Without doctrinal purity the church is not a church, but a prostitute dressing up like the bride of Christ.”  The other side said, “Jesus’ last prayer was for unity among believers; to create a faction is to be fighting against the Lord’s desire, something no Christian can do.”  The argument raged, but got nowhere.  Finally, someone who had said little so far spoke up, “Which is the sign of the true church; unity or purity? Jesus said, ‘By this all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.’”  Not bad for a college freshman.  Not a bad way to work for unity.

Can Christian Nationalism accomplish what Charlemagne did? Let's hope not

 Another transition

The church began on Pentecost and began to expand across the world.  Within 400 years the church experienced a transition.  She moved from being an outsider to being a major player in the world of politics and power. (See last week’s offering). Another 400 years of evolution in the church brought about another transition.  A transition that many Christians today would like to replicate.

Go back with me to about 800 A.D.  The warrior king Charlemagne is about to establish the foundations of what is called Christendom, a sort of Christian Kingdom.   The history is rather involved so for the sake of time we will simply say that Charlemagne wanted all of Europe to be Christian.  The problem was all those pesky Saxons, those heathen, rebellious, troublesome Saxons.  So, Charlemagne engaged in an aggressive evangelism campaign, of sorts.  For Charlemagne, the sign of one becoming a Christian was baptism.  So, Charlemagne came up with the following evangelistic effort; baptism or die.  

If one refused the offer, they would be put to the sword; one less heathen to corrupt Europe.  If they were willing to submit to baptism they were spared. Europe gained one new convert, well, sort of a convert.  In this way, Charlemagne would expand the borders of Christianity and root out paganism, heathenism, and any other “ism” the Pope disliked.  The results were tragically predictable.  There was widespread conversion followed by de-conversions, along with war, bloodshed, and treachery.  Many of the ‘new converts’ were lukewarm about their faith or even hostile towards it.  But numbers, material and training will eventually win the day, and Charlemagne eventually won Europe, more or less.  Christendom was established.

One would never say that all the people of Europe were Christians.  History would indicate that the political leaders were hardly acting like followers of Christ.  In fact, because of the oppressive way that religious orders conducted themselves one would have to ask if the church leaders were even Christian. That is the permanent problem with top down faith.  People join up for all the wrong reasons, if they join at all.  Adherents to the faith are often lukewarm and carnal, political leaders who give lip service to faith can be godless and still approved by the zealots, and church leaders become more concerned about power and less about making disciples and even end up being abusers of the flock rather than shepherds.  That is not to say nothing good came out of Europe, but the system was set up for corruption and corrupt it became.  The transition in the 800’s to advancing the Gospel by the power of the state is not limited to Charlemagne. 

Today, we have a more subtle name for it.  Today it is called “Christian Nationalism”.  Now, I am about to get into hot water, but turn on the bubbles and enjoy the hot tub.  Christian Nationalism is much more than a call for Christians to be good citizens and patriotic. Much of the efforts of the Christian Nationalism is a top down approach to our political/legal system.  The flawed logic being that if we write, pass and enforce the right kinds of laws we can have a Chrsitan nation.  That simply is not true.  Law is a pretty good teacher and given the choice I would prefer laws that reflect a Biblical worldview.  At the core of our problems are not bad laws, the core problem is a  sinful human heart and a rebellious will.  Law may curtail these, but it can never cure them.  If law could save us then Jesus died in vain.

America is not a “Christian nation” in the way Israel was a people chosen by God.  Most of our founders held a Biblical worldview, but not all the founders were individually Christian.  So we can’t take America back for God.  What we can do, what we must do, is avoid the temptation to  hope the government can fix our problems.  We must also pray passionately for our nation.  Paul’s command to pray for the political powers came with Nero on the throne.  We have never had a President as corrupt as Nero.  Most importantly, we can go about making disciples.  If as a nation of 332,000,000 people we had 332,000,000 fully committed disciples of Jesus Christ, we would not need any laws except the law to love one another.  We will never get there by the power of Washington but only by the power of Heaven.