Randy's Ruminations

HISTORY LESSONS

2009-03-10T14:41:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I love to read history is to see both the right things people did in their lives and their mistakes. Learn from others. Moreover, how people have worded things, especially in different eras, can be striking.

I am currently reading, among other things, Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin which profiles many of Lincoln's political rivals whom he then appointed to posts in his administration. One such rival was Salmon P. Chase.

Chase always longed for achievement. His family worried that he had his priorities wrong. His sister wrote to him, "I confess I almost tremble for you as I observe your desire to distinguish yourself and apparent devotedness to those pursuits whose interests terminate in this life." The fact that I would not say it that way makes me stop and soak it in.

Chase's 23 year old wife died from complications of childbirth. Not only did he greatly mourn her loss but he also felt guilt on two counts. First he had been assured by the doctor that she would recover so he had been away on business when she died. "Oh how I accused myself of folly and wickedness in leaving her when yet sick. How I mourned that the prospect of a little addition to my reputation...should have tempted me away."

Second, he regretted not having engaged with her more on matters of spiritual concern and salvation. "Oh if I had not contented myself with a few conversations on the subject of religion, if I had incessantly followed her with kind & earnest persuasion...she might have been before her death enrolled among the professed followers of the Lamb. But I procrastinated and now she is gone."

A friend once described Chase's pursuit of achievement with these words. "He restlessly looked beyond for the will-of-the-wisp, which deceitfully danced before his gaze."

On the positive side was Chase's resolute determination to carry on a wiser life having experienced a "second conversion." In light of many losses, 3 young wives as well as children, he lamented but carried on with life. "What a vale of misery this world is. To me it has been emphatically so. Death has pursued me incessantly ever since I was twenty-five....Sometimes I feel as if I could give up--as if I must give up. And then after all I rise & press on."

In describing Lincoln's dealing with the losses in his life, particularly his first love, Ann Rutledge, Kearns quotes Leo Tolstoy. "Only people who are capable of loving strongly can also suffer with great sorrow; but this same necessity of loving serves to counteract their grief and heal them."

And a little vignette of simplicity in life: After Ann's death Lincoln headed out to Springfield, Illinois to begin his law career. He came to the general store owned by Joshua Speed who would become one of his best friends. Lincoln inquired about purchasing a bed but warned Speed that if he failed he would be unable to repay him. Speed looked him over, impressed with his concern over possibly not being able to repay a small debt, and offered for Lincoln to bunk in with him till he got established. Lincoln grab his bags, bounded up the stairs and returned in a minute exclaiming, "Well, Speed, I am moved!"

I don't really want to be able to relocate that easily, but there is something attractive in traveling light!

THE NEW EXODUS

2009-02-12T10:29:00.000-08:00

Our church home groups are beginning a new study leading up to Easter. The material covers the last week of Jesus in Jerusalem. Earlier in Luke's gospel we are given the setting and context for the "passion" week.

In Luke 9 Jesus asks the disciples who they think he is and we get Peter's great confession that Jesus is the long awaited messiah, "The Christ of God." But then comes an unimaginable, unfathomable response from Jesus. He tells them for the first time that he will die! Talk about pulling the rug from under them!

A week later Peter, James and John are given a special privilege which serves to reinforce their shaken, uncertain faith. They accompany Jesus on a mountain at which time he is "transfigured" appearing in a glorious state. Moreover, the two most iconic figures of the OT are with him - Moses and Elijah.

Moses received the law of God (commonly called the "law of Moses") directly from the hand of God on Mount Sinai. Moses was God's chosen servant to lead the exodus of Israel out of Egyptian slavery and through the Red Sea. Moses took them up to the border of the Promised Land. And Elijah was the great prophet of God who was carried away in a flaming chariot into the arms of God himself. It was Elijah for whom the empty chair was reserved at Passover celebrations anticipating his return heralding the new age.

The Law and the Prophets! All of Israel's faith and life are summed up in that phrase. And all of that is summed up in Moses and Elijah. Now they appear with Jesus in front of Peter, James and John and they are discussing something. Most translations say something like the "departure" of Jesus which he is about to "accomplish" or "fulfill" in Jerusalem.

What "departure"? Yes, it is his death, but the actual term used in the conversation is "exodus"!! Talk about a loaded term! The whole of the history of Israel represented in Moses and Elijah is acknowledging the great new act of God, the New Exodus, which will be accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What he is about to accomplish or fulfill in Jerusalem will be the ultimate rescue from bondage and slavery into the ultimate promised land of God's kingdom. For all, forever.

And so the scene on the mountain ends not with Peter's implication that the three figures are peers on an equal footing, but with God's call to listen to his chosen Son. And the other two disappear.

The disciples would still struggle with the idea of the messiah's death. But years later Peter would remember this moment on the mountain as a bedrock experience of his time with Jesus and of his faith.

He writes, perhaps 30 years later, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16-18)

REAL PEOPLE MAKING CHOICES

2009-02-10T14:30:00.000-08:00

In the book Washington's Crossing David Fischer describes the incredible turnaround of fortunes for the American Revolution from Christmas Day 1776 through the winter of 1777. The American cause was nearly dead by December of '76 after the loss of New York and the British occupation of New Jersey.

The Continental Army was a ragtag army of short enlistments constantly expiring, low morale, and destitute of proper clothing (many marched barefoot that winter).

Yet by the end of winter, the British were pushed back to the Jersey shoreline, on the defensive, and panicking in London while the morale and enlistments in the American cause spiraled upward. Yes, the generalship of Washington was key, but there was much more.

Fischer writes, "We have seen how it happened: not in a single event, or even a chain of events, but in a great web of contingency. This book is mainly about contingency, in the sense of people making choices, and choices making a difference in the world....This is the story of real choices that living people actually made...a dense web of contingency, in which many people made choices within a web of relationships...."

Not only was this true of many a subordinate and ordinary soldier under Washington's ultimate command, but also of many independent volunteer militias operating in New Jersey that winter. There was a spirit of independent, volunteer action that Washington at times bemoaned because he had no control over it, but which he came to appreciate and which helped save his army and the revolution.

After the battles of Trenton and Princeton, Washington's army was exhausted and depleted. The army retreated to recover and was down to less than 3,000 men in fighting condition. During this time the pressure was kept up by the militias who harassed British foragers and supply lines keeping the British on high alert the entire winter - and demoralized. There were 58 attacks by such volunteers in less than 4 months. It changed the whole complexion of the situation.

While military metaphors for the kingdom of God can have negative implications in light of history (ex. the Crusades), there is a powerful analogy to what American volunteers and small bands of citizens were able to accomplish in the Revolution and what we can do for God's kingdom in the world today. There is a place for the church as a whole to plan and act, but so much of the good that is done is by small groups of volunteers. And the choices that individuals make in trying circumstances and in order to seize opportunities change the world.

Real choices by the living people of God change the world one act, one "skirmish" at a time. Remember what Jesus said about even a cup of cold water offered in his name.

THE IMPACT OF BEING CONNECTED

2009-01-21T09:17:00.000-08:00

The book Heroes and Cowards by Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn analyzes the causes of desertion in the Union army in the Civil War. Some 200,000 soldiers, roughly 10%, deserted. Many factors played a role, but the single biggest factor was the degree of social cohesion within the unit.

If a soldier was in a unit made up of his comrades from the same area with whom, therefore, he shared common interests, connections and experiences, he was unlikely to desert. But if there was a high degree of diversity within the unit - a lack of connection, a soldier was more likely to walk away.

As Ardant du Picq, a 19th century French colonel, wrote, "Four brave men who do not know each other will not dare attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely."

The book also notes that the more peer connections a soldier had in a prison camp the more likely he was to survive. And one soldier at Andersonville noted, "If one was captured alone, put with strangers and became sick, it was ten chances to one he would die unattended by any human being."

None of the above should be surprising. We are created to be connected. We function, grow, mature and achieve in connection with others. That is our God-created, God-designed pattern and he provides for that in his own family.

Connection is absolutely essential for thriving, even just surviving, spiritually. The call to a church connection, membership, commitment, and involvement is both a call to fulfill God's purpose in the world and for our own spiritual survival.

Those who don't connect end up deserting. And alone. Ultimately forever.

A CULTURAL METAPHOR

2009-01-13T14:50:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday Jerry Rushford, from Pepperdine University, shared stories at class time. A detail of one of the stories struck me as a metaphor for our world.

His story concerned Lord Shaftesbury in 19th century London who, though he was born to wealth and position and could have lived a life of ease and self-indulgence, became the greatest reformer of the era. He took on the cause of child labor abuse and ended the 16 hour work days for children. He championed the poor, the dispossessed, those who could not fend for themselves. He cared about the down and out such as prostitutes.

When he died in 1885 his funeral procession was attended by thousands, one of London's largest turnouts even though the procession occurred during a driving rainstorm.

In honor of Lord Shaftesbury and his acts of mercy, a statue was erected in the center of Piccadilly Circus. Piccadilly can claim to be, in some ways, the center of the world. It is a circle from which radiate out significant roads in London, which at the time was the center of the world. (Americans might think of Times Square, but it is a johnny-come-lately.)

Alfred Gilbert's statue is today identified by tourist guides as Eros. Eros, the Roman name is Cupid, is the god of erotic love, lust, desire and was sometimes worshipped by fertility cults. But this is not Eros!

It is the angel of mercy shooting arrows of Christian mercy out into the world. (There may be some basis that Gilbert also had in mind Anteros as his model. This is the counterpart to Eros, the god of requited or returned love. Love that is shared and returned - also an appropriate concept.)

This inappropriate mis-identification is not only an affront to the orginal intent of the memorial and the honor of a man whose Christian love changed his world, it is a sad indicator of the whole cultural shift in which we live and which forgets true history and reinterprets the past in superficial ways. The substitution of cupid's erotic arrows for the love of Christ helping others says volumes.

What was originally selfless and purposeful, manifesting godly humanitarianism is replaced by the superficial, insipid, self-centered and sensual. And hardly anyone even notices.

CONSEQUENCES

2009-01-06T08:36:00.000-08:00

I am a Texas Longhorn football fan. Last night they ended the season with an exciting, come-from-behind bowl victory. But the season ended up quite a frustration.

Missouri and Oklahoma played for the Big 12 championship - Texas beat them both in the season. Oklahoma and Florida, both with one loss like Texas, are playing for the championship. Again, Texas beat Oklahoma.

A few weeks ago Texas was #1 but loss to Texas Tech's high powered offense. Texas had come from behind to go ahead with less than 2 minutes left in the game. Tech was driving when a pass was tipped into the air and floated right to a Texas back defender. It was one of those kind of floaters your grandmother could have caught. But he dropped it.

Tech scored and won. And the above scenario is the result.

We can understand the defensive back choking in the moment. We have all done it. We can forgive that and know his team mates have done so. We wish him well. But the consequences are still what they are.

Life's decisions, actions and mistakes have consequences. It's what all parents try to teach their children. It is also a huge spiritual lesson.

For while the grace of God and the gift of forgiveness is an unfathomable blessing to be claimed and celebrated, choices still have consequences. Forgiveness does not erase all consequences. Jesus still had the nail marks in his hands and the gash in his side for Thomas to see and feel. May we respond in 2009 as Thomas did centuries ago, "My Lord and my God!" - so there will be fewer nail marks and scars in our lives and in the world.

CULTURAL SHAPING

2008-12-19T14:57:00.000-08:00

One other weight loss suggestion: stay out of Texas. Oh my, the barbecue and Mexican food! I gained three pounds in three days. I felt like one sitcom character who once complained about getting the "meat sweats."

But it got me thinking about culture and how culture shapes us - our habits, thoughts, preferences, actions, etc. Texas has a barbecue and Mexican food culture. It's everywhere. Hard to avoid and easy to like.

And it was nice to be back in a culture where this might happen. Here is a picture of our silverware wrapping at a Mexican Restaurant in Dallas.

Three prayers - each with a little different emphasis. Being from the Bay Area this was a refreshing change although I confess that I am not sure how much difference it really makes in people's commitments and lives.

Culture does have a power. The cultural attitude toward smoking has changed incredibly in my lifetime. Kids today might find it hard to believe that we suffered through smoke-filled offices and movie theaters. And had you asked me then if the culture's attitude toward smoking would ever change, I would have answered "no." But it did and to great effect.

This is why people engage in the so-called culture wars. The flow of the stream of culture has power and an impact on people. What person of "traditional values" (however that may be defined) doesn't regret the culture in which kids are being raised today.

But Christians must be careful not to put their faith in winning the culture wars or in doing so at the cost of what is supposed to be our witness of servanthood and love. First of all, it is my opinion that we will not win the culture wars - at least in any foreseeable future. Second, the way of power always corrupts - look at the history of "Christendom." And third, the church has often faced and often triumphed in times of being the minority.

In fact, maybe that is when the church is in the best position to shine. It is when we are at great odds with the culture that the difference can be seen. Too many polls indicate that up till now one can hardly tell the difference between a middle class American pagan and a middle class American Christian. (And probably the same for all economic classes.) The choice before us is to continue to acquiesce and comply OR begin to feel more and more alien and more and more part of an alternative kingdom - that of God.

Culture's power is not absolute. Not every Texan is overweight and, in spite of "California cuisine" and sushi, not every Californian is thin. We still choose our own path. And Christians have to choose their own path (in the Lord) in spite of whatever is going on around us.

TEXAS TRIP

2008-12-16T15:08:00.000-08:00

Our whirlwind trip to Texas was great. Bethany, Danny, Trisha, Kathy and I went to Grace's graduation from Abilene Christian University.

Kathy and I landed at DFW around noon on Thursday and had to pick up the others at Love Field at 5:00 pm. So we went to downtown Dallas to the JFK assassination scene and the 6th Floor Museum in what was the Texas School Book Depository from which Oswald shot the President. This is a historical site I had always wanted to visit.

It is said that everyone remembers where they were when it happened, and I do. I was in the 7th grade in November of 1963. It was a Friday - looking forward to the weekend. We had just finished lunch and rumors were flying. I went to science class and the PA system was broadcasting the radio news, including the announcement of Kennedy's death. I remember the girls crying hysterically.

This was at the height of the cold war, after the Cuban Missile crisis a year earlier. There was the immediate wondering if the Russians were involved. Then on Sunday just as were were getting out of church, Oswald was shot. Monday was the funeral. This series of events was the first life-changing national experience shared by live television - at least in my life - equaled only by 9/11 some 38 years later.

To stand at the sixth floor windows looking out on the scene brought back all those childhood memories and emotions. I always find it hard to believe that "this really happened right here." It is as if such historic events become mythical and transcend a concrete place. The emotions and meaning seem too large and significant to be contained in such a mundane, small space.

The grassy knoll is still there with an old wooden fence from behind which some swear a shot was fired. The corner from which Oswald fired is preserved as it appeared that day. The museum has artifacts and videos such as an original teletype printout of the news and Oswald's handcuffs.

From there we picked up the rest of the family and headed for Abilene where we did a 9:00 pm belated birthday celebration dinner for Kathy. Friday morning we tackled Grace's apartment to help her clean and arrange it plus buying furniture for her grad school time.

Then lunch at the shack that is Harold's BBQ. The line was out the door. Danny bought 7 bottles of sauce to share (some by request in California). More furniture shopping, assembling the do-it-yourself stuff, graduation rehearsal and then the real thing that evening. Grace and Kathy were the on the very end of a row which made pictures easy. (A parent "hoods" the graduate as part of the ceremony.)

I got to give a hug to one of my most significant grad school professors at the reception. Then to dinner at 10:00 pm at a typical Texas steakhouse. (Good thing we were on California time.)

Saturday was a late start. We finished up at Grace's and headed back to Dallas after a Mexican food lunch. (Sorry, Bill and Ann, we simply ran out of time!) Dinner with my Aunt and Uncle at a cousin's house. Jarrod Robinson and his wife and newborn were there. He is looking and doing very well after his extended medical crisis.

Sunday morning we met some of Bethany's Pepperdine friends at church and got to hear Randy Harris from ACU speak. It was a good worship time with a large church. (Like Campbell they had two screens and two Christmas trees.) A late lunch was more Mexican food.

Then off to the Cowboys' game - the next to last game at Texas Stadium. During the game a Texas blue-norther blew in. The temperature went from 75 to near freezing by the time we got home at mid-night. Kathy and Bethany screamed their lungs out as the Cowboys beat the Giants. We hung around after the game to get a picture of the two of them at the Tom Landry statue. Even Bay-Area Danny is sort of a Cowboy fan. Or at least he lets Bethany think that.

Monday we took 3 different flights on two different airlines from two different airports and to two different airports - and all arrived home safely. Grace is home for the break and will return to grad school at ACU in January. A good time was had by all!

THE SECRET TO WEIGHT LOSS

2008-12-08T09:37:00.000-08:00

Ah hah! Got ya! There is no secret to weight loss.

Being quite visible in the church family here, I have been asked by many how I lost weight. Some are curious; others are looking for help to do the same. So I decided to tell my story. Take what works for you.

I am currently down 36 pounds from where I was on May 11. I lost 15 pounds early on Sabbatical, maintained the loss, that is, I broke even, on the long road trip (which is a victory), and lost 21 pounds since coming back to work August 4.

There is no secret, but there is one basic fact of weight loss. Burn more calories than you consume. Attack the problem from both sides of the equation.

I did not use a "diet" but chose changes that I can maintain. Most people gain back weight they lose. The only way to succeed is to make sustainable changes. So I chose to go slow and make changes I can live with.

I started exercising. Like many, my job is sedentary. I sit in a chair. In fact, when I am researching and writing sermons, email and other tasks on my computer, I move so little that my motion-sensor operated office lights go off all the time.

I started using a treadmill doing a fast walk, not running. To get a fast start to losing I did a mile and a half in the morning (30 minutes) and mile or mile and a half in the evening. Now I do the morning only but have bumped it up to two miles (40 minutes). My absolute minimum is to do this 5 days a week, but I usually do 6 and sometimes 7 days. If you miss a day, that is ok. Try hard not to miss two in a row.

Besides making the time to do this, the other challenge is boredom. I listen to music on headphones and work on my sermon in my head. Some people read or watch a show. Or you could use the time to explore your memory. The trick is to keep your mind busy.

I also started walking to work. I am the fortunate rare one who lives close enough to work to do this. In fact, I walk home for lunch so I do two round trips a day. I walk on Sunday, too. Some weeks my car doesn't leave the garage. Few people can do that, but try to add walking where you can. I have seen school staff here walking on their lunch break.

Park further away from work or shopping. It is amazing that people will pay to go to a gym, then circle a parking lot looking for a close-in spot. Why not pick the furthest corner of the lot and add a hundred steps? The small stuff adds up either in weight gain or loss.

The walking also has a non-weight benefit. It is so refreshing to be outside and quietly walk really seeing trees, flowers and birds, etc. One doesn't have to go out of the city to enjoy the outdoors, sunlight and nature. Walking to work on a cool, foggy morning this fall is great. I miss the fall trees of my childhood back east, but there are some great colors now in my neighborhood. Walk when you can.

And now the food. Three basic changes. Eat less at meal time. Cut out the worst snacks. Cut way back on eating out - especially fast food lunches.

Know what you are eating. Read the labels for the calorie information. Go online and look up the fast food nutrition info (sometimes you have to hunt for it). I was shocked at the truth. You don't have to give up everything, but choose the lesser of two evils.

Examples:
At Del Taco I used to get the combo of two tacos, a quesadilla and Mr. Pibb. With a large drink that is 1,234 calories! While I seldom go to Del Taco anymore, sometimes I want tacos. I now get two tacos and a diet drink. That is 320 calories. A difference of 914 calories! That's a difference you can see. (By the way, I always hated diet drinks and still can't drink them alone. But with tacos it's ok.)

At Jack-in-the-Box the ultimate cheeseburger alone is 1,010 calories! Medium french fries adds 450 calories and large adds 640 calories. Throw in a soda or shake and you have consumed what should be total for the whole day!

On the other hand the Asian chicken salad is 160 calories with the grilled chicken. If you get "crispy," meaning fried, it jumps to 330. If you add the dressing, that is another 190 calories. So the difference between grilled without dressing vs. crispy with dressing is 360 calories. Over and over again the question you face is "Is it worth it?" Sometimes the answer is yes, but often it can be no.

The point is not to deny everything you like, but to be a knowledgeable consumer and make informed decisions. The other day Kathy and I both wanted an In-and-Out burger. But instead of each ordering a double cheeseburger and fries we each ordered a single cheeseburger and split one order of fries.

The same goes for snacks. Read the labels and decide what is worth it and what isn't. Don't bring it into the house if you don't really want to eat it. Again, it isn't a matter of total denial, but of choices. A single serving bag of low fat popcorn and a diet soda goes great with a Sharks game, but is a lot less damaging than a whole bag of "movie butter" popcorn with a regular soda. Huge difference. Eat ice cream - just take half of the serving you used to take.

Meals: instead of eating out for lunch I walk home and eat a microwaveable low calorie lunch: Lean Cuisine, Healthy Choice, Weight Watchers, Cafe Steamers. They run around 250 - 330 calories and I find them quite good.

For dinner I simply eat less and avoid the worst stuff. For some reason the stomach is slow letting the brain know it is full. Eat a reasonable serving and then when you would usually go for another helping of something, give the brain time to figure out you are full enough. If you can just hold off five minutes, the desire for seconds usually wanes. When I seem to be especially hungry I go for more lean meat instead of potatoes and bread.

Yes, it takes some discipline. At Breakfast with Santa I ate the scrambled eggs, but declined the sausage and pancakes. I pretty much avoid Peggy's candy dish and eat saltine crackers for a snack.

The other thing I did was use an accurate digital scale that measures every .2 pounds. Nothing is more encouraging than dropping even 4 tenths of a pound. And if you slack up a little and gain some then make sure you hold the line and move back down. I gained 2 pounds Thanksgiving weekend. Ate some good stuff! But by the end the following week it was gone. I enjoyed Thanksgiving without totally overdoing it and was still even par a week later. I'm good with that!

There is a mind element to this that is important. You have to teach yourself, convince yourself, that you really don't want fried food. Think about the greasy aftertaste. Eat a cold french fry. Look at a day old doughnut and realize, "It's not worth it." If you get on board, you will also find that good food (good-for-you food) is actually good. It is nice to eat dinner when you are pretty hungry. It is satisfying.

So I guess that is the last point. Food can become something other than a satisfaction for nutrition hunger. We talk of "comfort food." Be sure food isn't an opiate for being down, or for things that are wrong in life that have nothing to do with food. Deal with those matters on their own.

That's it - that's what I did. Probably more than you wanted to know.

SANTA'S APPRENTICE

2008-12-08T08:52:00.000-08:00

I heard some people not in the auditorium at sermon time yesterday wanted to see this picture from Breakfast with Santa. (click image to enlarge)

GENETIC DETERMINISM

2008-12-03T14:24:00.000-08:00

Popeye the sailor man said "I am what I am." The more we learn about genetics the more we seem to be "hard-wired. The social/psychological/philosophical impact of the biological sciences is to conclude that who we are is basically determined by nature. This determinism has significant, disturbing implications about human freedom, responsibility and ability to change.

So I was intrigued by a current Newsweek article (December 1, 2008) titled When DNA Is Not Destiny. Sharon Begley cites studies and argues that experiences and what we believe actually make a difference. Some quotes:

- "...growing recognition that experiences can silence genes or activate them..."

- "...the influence of genes wanes with age: in middle and later adulthood, environment plays a larger role than genetics in shaping personality, a hint of the power of accumulated experiences."

- "More and more research is suggesting that, far from simply being encoded in the genes, much of personality is a flexible and dynamic thing that changes over the life span and is shaped by experience." - Carol Dweck of Stanford University

- about introversion: "a 'genetically shy' child whose parents gently encourage her to get herself into the sandbox and mix it up with other kids is more likely to outgrow her shyness by age 12 than a shy child whose parents take her trait as a given."

- "In a rat, being licked and groomed by its mother turns off brain genes linked to fear of the unknown and neuroticism. DNA is not an inert set of blueprints; it responds to life experiences."

- "Whether you believe that your core traits, such as intelligence, are fixed, or are things you can develop, matters a great deal." Dweck. (In a study, junior high students who were taught that intelligence is malleable and that the brain grows in response to intellectual challenge became significantly more conscientious and diligent in their studies. "Beliefs about yourself play a causal role" in life choices. "Beliefs can be changed and when they are so is personality."

This should be good news to parents and a hopeful challenge to teachers!

It also counters biological determinism and reinforces the Christian truth that we can be changed and what we believe makes a difference. (Not to mention the indefinable role of God's Holy Spirit working within us and on us.)

Consider these words from 2 Peter:
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world cause by evil desires.

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

We can actually realize this! Peter goes on to speak of possessing these qualities in "increasing measure!" We can actually do that.

Knowledge matters. What you believe matters. Participating in the divine nature matters. Effort matters. Good news! DNA is not destiny!

FORGIVENESS

2008-11-26T13:24:00.000-08:00

The sermon series on Forgiveness generated more response and conversations than any other in memory. Every person deals with the need to be forgiven and to forgive others. It is one of the most significant quality of life issues (practically speaking) and at the heart of the spiritual life.

Because of the interest I wanted to give information on three books I read for the series.
*Forgive for Good, by Dr. Fred Luskin gives good analysis of the problem of grudges and grievance stories. It describes the need for forgiveness in our lives. However, it is non-Christian in orientation and gives psychological solutions to the problem. These may work at times and do some good, but they are not spiritually empowered.

*Two Christian perspectives are The Art of Forgiving by Lewis Smedes and The New Freedom of Forgiveness by David Augsburger. There is a lot of good material in these books and I am indebted to them as resources for the series, but neither one was a home run.

But since the sermons could only lay out basic principles and every person and situation in which forgiveness is an issue has some unique aspects, reading the books would allow a slower digesting of the whole topic and working through applications on your own.

RANDOM RUMINATIONS

2008-11-14T08:59:00.000-08:00

1. I see that Sears is bringing back the layaway plan. I vaguely remember putting things on layaway several decades ago, but it hadn't hit me that layaway was not even an option anymore. Not only is this retro move a manifestation of the new economic reality, but it made me realize how much I had shifted to the credit card mentality. Let's hope the layaway plan is part of a broader shift away from immediate gratification to sensible and patient spending.

2. After a homecoming event at my college I received a memorial email listing the deceased from our graduating class. I was shocked that 60 from my graduating class of the year 1973 are already dead. That may be within the statistical norm, but it sure surprised me. And not in a good way.

3. Barack Obama's election is having, and I hope will continue to have, tremendous impact on race and identity in our country. I hope that anglo-Americans are hearing and reading the meaning this election has not just for African-Americans, but all minorities.

I heard of one elderly black lady who said something to the effect that she had always been an American and felt like an American, but now felt like she could unpack her suitcase. And a Sikh, who suffered stares and threats after 9-11 because of his ethnicity and wearing a turban, shared how the election of Obama brings him a personal sense of hope and belonging. One black columnist expressed the hope that Obama's election would undercut the gangsta rap ghetto mentality.

Whether one voted for McCain or Obama and whatever concerns one may have about the election, let us hope and pray that a major positive result will be healing in the American racial divide and within the black, inner city victim mentality which, while understandable, is so destructive.

4. The morning paper continues to bring news of anger and opposition to the outcome on Proposition 8. A very troubling aspect of this is the public listing of individual donors to Yes on 8. (i.e. www.antigayblacklist.com). It is one thing to boycott corporations or unload their stock, but post-election retribution on individuals has serious implications for democracy. At least this sheds light on where the real intolerance lies. The politics of hatred (on any side) is detrimental to all.

BAPTISM AND LORD'S SUPPER - 4

2008-10-30T10:47:00.001-07:00

While Campbell came to what I believe is a more biblical understanding and practice of baptism, it is not without its potential problems.

Samuel Rogers looked back on the shift from the mourner's bench to baptism and lamented, "We long since abolished them, and we did right in so doing; but I almost fear that we did it in such a way as to abolish the mourners too." If there is a problem with subjectivity in the mourner's bench, there is a problem with objectivity in baptism.

It is so easy for an external action to become divorced from the heart and repentance. On the one hand baptism may come to be viewed almost magically as if simply doing the deed has effect. On the other hand baptism can be viewed as an action or deed that one does in order to assure the self of salvation - as if to say "I did what it said to do." Thus the charges of "water salvation" "salvation by works" and the like.

Campbell wrestled with how to understand baptism's significance. In a debate he said "I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism 'saves us,' that it 'washes away sins.' Well, Peter and Paul have said so before me."

But he also knew that clearly the NT emphasizes the elements of a changed heart and will in coming to salvation. Faith (trust) and repentance are at the core of coming to the cross for salvation in the sacrifice of Christ. How does the external ritual fit in?

His conclusion included a concept of a "formal" remission of sins. "The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins." Later, in 1851, he wrote, "The influence which baptism may have upon our spiritual relations is, therefore, not because of any merit in the act as our own; not as a procuring cause, but merely as an instrumental and concurring cause, by which we 'put on Christ,' and are united to him formally, as well as in heart." This may not be all that helpful but it shows Campbell's struggle with trying to understand the internal and external aspects of conversion.

The question of baptism and salvation/fellowship has always been problematic. In 1832 a reader of Campbell's paper wrote to ask about this very issue. His reply as to who was a Christian was "Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will." This reply allowed for the "measure" of an individual's understanding about baptism.

But over time many came to believe that one must be baptized with a full understanding of the meaning of baptism, not simply in response to the biblical call to be baptized. So a controversy arose over the need to "rebaptize" Baptists who had been immersed in a Baptist church. Campbell adamantly opposed this view, but it came to be quite predominant and is still the conviction of many today.

It is interesting that this need to fully understand baptism usually centered only on the phrase "for the remission of sins" but excluded "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Such are the twists and turns of history in which one issue becomes primary while another is less so.

BAPTISM AND LORD'S SUPPER - 3

2008-10-21T15:21:00.001-07:00

Having looked at the positive outcome of the "restoration" approach to baptism and the Lord's Supper, let me also illustrate the downside of our heritage, as described previously, by looking at how views on these two topics hardened into restrictive dogma. The problematic view of the NT as a constitution or detailed blueprint by which every detail of belief and practice must be accurately inferred and enforced can be illustrated first in the Lord's Supper.

While the observance of the Lord's Supper weekly is theologically sound, and is implied by Acts 20:7 and seems supported by post-biblical early church history, the frequency of observance is not clearly stated in the NT and certainly isn't a matter of command. Therefore, it should not be an issue about which others are condemned or the breaking of fellowship.

Yet that is exactly what happened. Weekly observance became an ironclad hallmark of "true" Christianity and a "true" church. Any other frequency of practice was wrong, even sinful. This came to include practicing communion at any time other than a Sunday (such as at a retreat or wedding) or even partaking twice on a Sunday if one attended two worship gatherings. But the issues don't end there.

In a Christian Chronicle news article two years ago titled Are We Exporting Church Conflicts? came this sad scene. "Some churches in Malawi sing during the Lord's Supper. Others don't. Until recently, the difference never kept congregations from fellowshipping with each other....But then some--including missionaries from the United States--started teaching that singing during communion is wrong. Now some Malawian churches ask visitors about the issue and, based on their response, either welcome them or show them the exit."

God forgive us! As one person commented in the article, "All this is going on while people are starving to death, babies are dying of malnutrition...villages are not hearing the gospel and Muslims are trying to make deep inroads in Africa."

Note that it was not enough to be willing to attend a service and accept the way that church practiced communion. One had to pass the dogma test of one's personal understanding being aligned with that church's practice.

The people enforcing such rules are not bad people. They really believe they are "speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent." They want people to be saved. But this illustrates why all of us need to be humble in realizing how blind we can be due to our background, training, and human frailty. (The paradox is that pointing out such examples doesn't seem very humble!)

I remember someone coming to me a few years back commenting on their adult child who was attending a church that did not observe communion weekly and confessing that they had come to realize after all that this was not a salvation issue nor a NT command. But that realization was a surprise for it ran counter to what they had always been taught in the church.

A practical lesson here: any human interpretive scheme or principle can become toxic when elevated to a status equal to God's word and will. No "system" can ever capture God's will simply through rigid adherence as if it were a mathematical formula. We always have to live with the reality that our grasp of the divine and his will is flexible and fallible. That practical reality is manifested in Alexander Campbell's struggles to understand baptism--to which we next turn.

BAPTISM AND LORD'S SUPPER - 2

2008-10-15T10:38:00.001-07:00

Lord's Supper In the first As I See It blog I mentioned that Alexander Campbell had walked out of a communion service before even coming to America. A Scottish version of a Restoration Movement was happening in the 1790's and one of the hallmarks was the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. Most churches observed communion less frequently, from monthly to annually. Communion was "closed" in that it required an examination by clergy (functioning in a "priestly" role) before being cleared to participate.

The practice of weekly communion is not unequivocally spelled out in the NT. It is fairly inferred from the reference to the purpose of the weekly gathering of the church in Acts 20:7 where Luke says, "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread..."

It is theologically consistent with the significance of the first day of the week being the day of Christian worship because it is the day of Christ's resurrection. The resurrection, of course, is the culmination of the saving event of the cross and the foundation of our joyous hope celebrated in worship.

Without the communion memorial and celebration of the cross and resurrection, the church gathered in worship is often deprived of its core purpose and center of the faith.

Our practice of communion is "open" rather than closed calling upon each person to "examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup" as Paul instructed in I Corinthians 11:28. Thus, in these two primary, theologically significant, and visually apparent practices Churches of Christ are different from many other churches.

BAPTISM AND LORD'S SUPPER - 1

2008-10-09T13:58:00.000-07:00

Two of the most significant developments in churches of the Restoration Movement had to do with the two primary ordinances or sacraments of Christian church practice - baptism and communion. With a view to taking a fresh look at the simple faith and practice reflected in the NT our ancestors in Churches of Christ introduced changes in understanding and practice related to these two ordinances.

Baptism
The heritage of the early leaders was in Calvinism. Calvinist theology held that a human being was totally depraved at birth due to Adam's sin. Born in sin, a baby needed to be baptized. Such baptism was by sprinkling water on the infant.

As for adults, the depravity of unredeemed humanity made it impossible for a person to respond to God. What was needed was a work of God's Spirit upon the human heart in order enable a man to respond. This God would do for the elect - those predestined to be saved. Otherwise a man did not have the ability to hear God and choose to respond to him.

The sign or proof of such election and work of the Spirit was a religious (or conversion) experience. For one it might be literally a bolt of lightening striking nearby on a stormy night resulting in a change of heart and confidence of election. For another it might be an interior warming of the heart. Testimony of such an experience was usually required for church membership and to be fully considered a Christian.

In revival meetings it was common to have a "mourner's bench" where those who knew they were sinners and were seeking salvation might come and seek relief, seek that religious conversion experience. Often such relief never came.

When Alexander Campbell's baby was born, the issue of baptism became personal and practical. Would he sprinkle his child? He seriously studied what the NT had to say about baptism. His conclusion was that faith and repentance were pre-requisites and that immersion (the literal meaning of the Greek term) was the form to be practised. That is, baptism was a response of one who had come to personal faith and repentance. He did not baptize little Jane, but was immersed himself.

The understanding that a person who was sorrowful over sin and wanted to find salvation in God could, in fact, respond by dying with Jesus in baptism and being raised to walk a new life in the Holy Spirit was profound. Barton Stone, Samuel Rogers, B.F. Hall and others were troubled by the mourner's bench theology and its subjective element. In 1826 Hall read a debate Campbell had held on the topic of baptism and dropped the book to the floor exclaiming, "Eureka! Eureka! I have found it! I have found it! I have found the keystone of the arch." In other words, responding in baptism was the missing piece which tied everything together in an understanding of coming to salvation.

So Churches of Christ joined a minority thread coming out of the 16th century Reformation heritage concerning baptism that church historians commonly call "believer's baptism." Rather than baptizing infants, who have no personal faith, or seeing adult baptism as simply a post-salvation testimony and joining of a specific church, believer's baptism sees immersion as coupled with repentance and as the culminating response to Christ under the overarching concept of "faith."

AS I SEE IT - 8

2008-10-07T14:03:00.000-07:00

The genius of our church movement has always been the willingness to look afresh at scripture and try to conform to it. What we called others to do, we also had to be willing to do. There have always been times and places where that was not welcomed or allowed, but it keeps breaking through the weight of history, tradition and prejudice from time to time.

I like the scene in Charles Kingsley's 1848 novel Yeast. The young hero who has had his eyes opened to the plight of the poor in Victorian England comes to the afternoon service at St. Paul's cathedral. As he listens to the choir a stranger next to him says, "Shall I tell you what they are singing? He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and the meek. He hath filled the hungry with good things and the rich he hath sent away empty."

He continues to speak to the young man, "Is there no life, think you, in these words, spoken here every afternoon in the name of God? No, I dare not despair of you English, as long as I hear your priesthood forced by Providence, even in spite of themselves, thus to speak God's words...about the condition of the poor and the duties of man."

And so our church life is a journey of continual restoration - of continually hearing the word of God, of seeking to better understand the will of God, to better reflect the mind of Christ, and to live it out in a constantly evolving world. It is to realize at times how we have been blind to God's will as it breaks through our defenses and our eyes are opened to a deeper plane of spiritual formation.

One more way to explain the difference between the church here and some of the others both in the past and present is the realization that the task of becoming what God wants is never done. There have been those who felt the church was fully "restored" or reclaimed at some point and the only task was to get everyone to see it and to keep defending it. Others of us, however, realize we are always dependent on grace in our imperfection - not just of performance, but also of understanding and, even, of heart.

AS I SEE IT - 7

2008-10-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

Although there were always people who bemoaned the legalism and division manifested in the church and there were those who tried to recall the original vision along with a more grace-filled approach, things began to significantly change in the 1960's (as did a lot of things!).

Some of the threads of change included:
* More and more people with a sense that something was wrong.
* People tired of negativity and debate.
* As society became obviously a less visibly Christian culture there was a sense that the church needed to get its act together and address the bigger issue of a lost world.
* A feeling of the emptiness of a rationalistic Christianity along with a recovered sense of God's presence in the Holy Spirit.
* An openness of critique in print and lectureships, etc. that criticized the status quo.
* A more highly educated cadre of professors in Christian colleges and ministers in churches who were willing to rethink their heritage.
* More interaction with believers of other Christian groups (as had been the case with the Campbells and Stone.)
* Preaching on the blind spots of our heritage (racism, for example) which undercut the notion of being completely "right" as opposed to everyone else being completely "wrong."
* Preaching that began to elevate God's love and grace (and the concurrent need for those to be manifested in our own lives).

I'm sure other aspects could be added to the list, but I will mention one more: a different view of the New Testament. At the risk of oversimplification, the change was the realization that there is no Leviticus in the NT. The problem was treating the NT like Leviticus. The assumption was that the NT is case law and constitutional law by which every small detail and trivial action (cf. Moses Lard) could be determined true or false.

The failure was not seeing the NT as it is and to let interpretive principles or approaches come from the nature of the text itself. For instance, there is not even a single chapter that describes a church worship service. (I Corinthians 14 is the closest, but again that chapter lays out principles, such as edification, in addressing a specific historical situation in the Corinthian church. And the specific instructions found there, such as "if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop" also address a specific problem. "Two or three prophets should speak..." isn't necessarily a universal limit on how many people can speak in an assembly of all churches in history.)

Unlike portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy which detailed all matter of things such as clothing, physical items in worship, sacrifices, holy days and the like, the NT is quite sparse in description. I remember thinking as a student that if what we were debating over was really that important, it seems like God would have said so since he had done such a good job of it in the OT. Why the difference in the NT?

So in treating the NT like the OT, the need for and dependence upon inferences was huge. Most details had to be inferred. The fundamental change that occurred in the last 40 years has been a shift to principles (or "theology") rather than inferred details. What principles lie behind the gospel stories of Jesus and situational instructions of Paul, Peter, James and Jude? Then the question becomes how does that principle play out in our own situation and challenges?

Of course there are direct commands and propositional statements that are pointed and clear. But as for the old slogan "in faith, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, charity" the shift was that fewer things were in the absolute faith category, more things were in the opinion category, and charity was seen to be more fundamentally important.

The shift can also be seen in the history of another slogan. What began as wanting to be "Christians only" evolved in the late 19th and in the first half of the 20th century to a belief that we were "the only Christians." There has been a shift back to "Christians only, not the only Christians."
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 6

2008-10-01T10:22:00.001-07:00

Some observations:
The seismic shift from the earliest vision of the Campbells and Stone was the move away from what Thomas Campbell had laid out concerning inferences. Something that might be inferred from various passages taken together, but never clearly stated, now became essential truth or doctrine to be required by all. And it had to be believed. If one held a different view it often was not enough to hold that view privately and not publicly teach or encourage the view. No, one had to come to the right view on all these issues.

This, of course, led to numerous divisions both small and large and a shattering of fellowship even when division was not formal or official. Small towns where one would expect a single congregation, might have two or three because of such differences.

Not surprisingly this also led to a more acrimonious spirit among people and within the churches. Debates and "defending" the issues (which was called "defending the faith") seemed at times to become more the purpose of ministers and churches than did proclaiming good news to the lost or edifying and building up the Christians.

An example of the thinking underlying this development: Moses Lard published Lard's Quarterly and was highly regarded by many. In typical logical progression Lard begins with the fact that "in settling any question...the first thing to be agreed upon is the standard of final appeal." "We as a people have agreed to accept the New Testament as that standard..." Note his next statemtent: "To this we have consented to bring the smallest point of doctrine, and the most trivial feature in practice." His conclusion is that unless the "smallest" and "most trivial" are "sanctioned" it is "criminal and wrong" to make it part of our belief or practice. By "sanction" he means positively asserted, not merely the lack of condemnation. (Lard's Quarterly, vol. 1 p. 330.)

There is a certain logic and truth in that line of thinking, but imagine what it means to include the smallest detail or most trivial feature in this requirement! I remember a circle of Christians in which a common evaluation of anything that was brought up would be "I'm not too sure about..." It created a bottomless pit of uncertainty (the opposite of what was intended), suspicion, "stand-offishness" and negativity.

All along there was a tendency to systematize the New Testament and reduce it to required points or actions. This is reflected in important book titles of the 19th century: The Christian System, The Scheme of Redemption, The Gospel Plan of Salvation. One church historian commented that legalism was like a "faulty gene" that "brooded within the soul of the Movement."
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 5

2008-09-24T13:36:00.000-07:00

Unity that allows for diversity is a difficult task. First of all it goes against human desire and, yes, pride - after all, I think everyone should agree with me! But the unavoidable issue is always going to be "how much diversity" or, as already indicated, "just what is expressly stated and essential to unity?" And what isn't? That is the Achilles heel about which honest, godly people do not agree.

It did not take long for other voices and attitudes to make their mark. These voices believed that if unity is to be based on the "simplicity" of the early church and the task is to "restore" pure Christianity based only on what the Bible teaches, then every detail of thought and practice must be biblically accurate.

The task became to ferret out the implications of the Bible for every facet of church life and doctrine. An analogy might be that the Bible was viewed as a constitution so everything that came up had to be judged as to whether or not it was "constitutional." This involved a lot of interpretation, logical reasoning and inferences - as do constitutional decisions in our political process.

Rather quickly the list of "essential" beliefs and practices began to expand greatly. An attitude of exclusion rather than inclusion took hold. Journals such as The Heretic Detector appeared by 1837 and have continued down to the present. (The popular versions of this in my college days were a book series titled Axe on the Root and the journal Contending for the Faith. Other journals continue the task today.)

This led to a point where any issue, no matter how seemingly small, might end up causing great debate and, ultimately, division. For example, at the Last Supper, when he instituted Communion, Jesus used one cup to share with the disciples. Some came to feel that this example was binding. How dare anyone change or improve it? In directories of Churches of Christ today one will find a separate category of "one cup" churches.

Every detail which could be inferred from the biblical text became part of the required "pattern" for churches today. One had to discern the biblical truth about having a Sunday School program in addition to the worship assembly, or whether or not the church as a church organization could financially support an orphanage, or if playing a piano along with singing hymns was allowed, or could churches band together for bigger projects like sending missionaries or producing media programs - and if so, how was it to be structured? The list kept growing and is potentially endless.
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 4

2008-09-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

The Campbells and Stone put their words into action by uniting their two movements. What is significant is not that they united, but that they did so within the context of some real differences.

As the two groups, one centered in the upper Ohio Valley and the other in Kentucky, began to encounter one another and learn of each others journey, the question of seeing themselves as one body of Christians presented itself. By 1832 they decided to be one body of Christians.

But in their unity there were differences of understanding and emphasis. Such as:
*One group preferred the name "Christian" while the other preferred "Disciples."

*Both practiced immersion but one group did not hold it to be absolutely essential for communion/fellowship.

*One group had a higher view of "clergy" and only allowed ordained ministers to baptize and preside at communion while the other group more fully put into practice the "priesthood of all believers."

*One group observed the Lord's Supper every Sunday, while the other was more irregular in the practice.

*One group was very evangelical and emotional, while the other tended to be more intellectual and rational.

*This difference was manifested in their views of the Holy Spirit and his activity in the believer's life.

*Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone personally had a serious difference over the issue of the "preexistence" of Christ. And Stone rejected the "Trinity" because it was not explicitly taught in scripture. He held that we cannot truly know the mode of God's existence. He believed in the Spirit as a power or energy from God, but not as a third person in the Godhead.

The point is that these are some significant differences, some of which disappeared over time. (There is a lesson in that fact alone. If we will treat each other as brothers, communicate and study as brothers, and give each other time, many differences will be reconciled - but not all. This is a different path than what often happens when differences harden attitudes up front and real communication ceases.)

In spite of the differences, the two men and the two groups could unite under the conviction that no opinion, deduction or inference would stand in the way of Christian unity. The fact that Stone and Campbell could give their blessing to the union in spite of differences they each personally held as important was a model that, had it been followed in later history, would have given us a different history.
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 3

2008-09-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

When Alexander Campbell immigrated to America and made his way to the frontier, his father met him with the proofs of a document he had written titled Declaration and Address. With much relief father and son discovered they were on the same spiritual journey.

Published in 1809, the document laid out key principles for Christian unity. "No man has a right to judge his brother, except insofar as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law." It highlighted the vision for unity and the evil of division which weakens the church in her mission. Jesus prayed for unity the night before his death. We will be unified in heaven, so why not on earth?

Thirteen propositions were set forth. Some key statements:
Proposition 3 - "Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God."

Proposition 6 - "Although inference and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's confession."

And Proposition 7 reinforces the above - "Although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for these purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion; unless we suppose what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did and ever will consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers."

So what does this mean? The path to unity is to require only what is explicitly stated in scripture. There are many things that can be inferred or deduced from what is said in scripture, but salvation and fellowship cannot depend on one's ability to comprehend threads of logic that might be clear to some, but not so clear to others.

The inferences and deductions that go beyond clear statements may be, and often are, true, but I am responsible for such truths only to the degree I can see them. As we will see, the Campbells and Stone tried to live out these principles, but others ended up rejecting this simplicity.

These principles were summed up in another slogan: In matters of faith, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, love. However, even in such a simple slogan there is the problem of identifying the difference between a matter of faith and one of opinion. Thomas Campbell tried to address this, but even using his own wording one can ask what is "expressly taught" and what isn't?
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 2

2008-09-21T10:13:00.000-07:00

Another voice calling for the unity of Christians was that of Barton Stone in Kentucky. In 1798 he was being ordained as a minister in the Presbyerian church and had to answer if he accepted the Westminister Confession of Faith (a system of Christian doctrine). His reply was telling: "I do, as far as I see it consistent with the word of God." The implications of that reply would play out in his life.

In 1801 there was a great revival in the Kentucky wilderness, at a place called Cane Ridge. Ministers from different Christian groups lay aside their theological differences and proclaimed the gospel call of God to approximately 20,000 people. Such a universal call open to all undermined Calvinist doctrine that only certain elect people, so predestined by God, could be saved.

Several ministers were called to defend themselves before church officials. Stone and others penned a "Protest" denying the power of church hierarchy to judge their simple proclamation of the gospel by the standard of church creeds and doctrines. They did not wish to "separate from your communion," but hoped the council would "forbear in matters of human order, or opinion, and unite...for the increasing effusions of that divine Spirit, which is the bond of peace."

In 1804 Stone and others wrote "The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery" which reads "We will that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large..." In other words, we just want to be Christians, which was the name they adopted.

The other significant point in the declaration was that each church should reclaim her right of internal government free from denominational hierarchy and "never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever."

What does this all mean? That in the first decade of the 1800's there were many Christians on the frontier determined to be bound only to the word of God and a local church body, modeling the possibility of a united Christianity in a return to a simpler Christianity peeling off layers of historical tradition and interpretation. One slogan summed it up: Let us be "Christians only."
(more to come)

AS I SEE IT - 1

2008-09-19T13:27:00.000-07:00

In our home small group someone asked "How is the our church different from other Churches of Christ?" Since the majority of the people in the worship time on Sunday morning are not from a Church of Christ background my attempt to answer that question might be of broader interest.

In order to answer the question (assuming for the moment that we actually are different), we have to do a little history and understand Churches of Christ. Every group has certain characteristics and personality just as individuals do. What shaped us and has that shape changed?

In the first decade of the 1800's European Christians were immigrating to the US and flocking to the frontier (which was western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, etc. at that time). They came as Presbyterians, Methodists, and a host of other Christian church members. This was a new land, a fresh start. Anything was possible. Some began to wonder if it was necessary to import and replicate all the European divisions in Christianity. Was it possible to have a fresh start in this arena of life, also? Could we possibly be "just Christians?"

So our roots go back to some people asking this question and hoping to find a way to unite Christians. But how to proceed? The working methodology was to peel away centuries of tradition, interpretation, creeds, and canon law (in Catholicism) and try to rediscover the simple faith of the first century church as reflected in the New Testament.

An example: In the Presbyterian church one had to be examined as to the genuineness of faith, correctness of doctrine and the uprightness of life and receive a token in order to be admitted to partake of communion (done annually). In 1809, even before he came to America, 19 year old Alexander Campbell was troubled by this process and finally declined to participate. He walked out of the communion service feeling free and realizing his life had changed course.

The reasons for such a communion process are understandable. But the whole process is an added layer of complexity and requirement not found in the New Testament. And over time, what gets lumped into the examination ends up going far beyond the basic, simple faith.

Meanwhile, Alexander's father, Thomas, was already in America and was in trouble with the Presbyterian church over communion. Out on the frontier it was hard to find that many Presbyterians of his particular stripe. (In every denomination sub-groups emerge over time, often not in fellowship with one another even in the same denomination.) So he mingled with others and observed communion with them. For this he was brought before a church committee for investigation.

Both Thomas and Alexander were on the same course, unbeknown to each other. They would end up calling Christians on the frontier to accept one another on the basis of the simple gospel faith as laid out in the New Testament and not to draw lines of fellowship based on denominational doctrines and practice. They were not the only ones doing this and such calls, such a vision, captured the imagination of tens of thousands.
(more to come)