Do I have too much stuff and too little time?

I was reading an article this past week about a Christian lady who was concerned that she simply had too much stuff and decided to make her life simpler. So she started a process whereby she would examine everything she owned to see if she really needed it. If she found stuff she hadn't used or worn in a long time, she simply gave it away.

For example, she had 50 pairs of shoes, so she gave away all but about a dozen. (Of course, for guys, this isn't appropriate - we only have a couple of pairs anyway.) She did this with clothes, books, jewelry, and even things in her kitchen.

My point here is not to encourage us all to give away stuff we don't need - even though that isn't a bad idea - but to transfer this idea of too much stuff to too little time.

If this woman had too much stuff she wasn't using, do you and I have the same problem with time. Are our "time-closets" filled to overflowing with too much to do? Do we, as one young couple I know, have something scheduled for every evening of the week including weekends? Is our life a series of commitments to soccer, band, gym, ball games, etc? Is there too much stuff like this in our life? WHY?

What is it about American culture which leads us - particularly those with children - to do everything we possibly can, not only for ourselves but for our children? Do your kids belong to several activity groups all at the same time? Do your own activities fill in the remaining time? And the big question, how much time does God get in your schedule?

WHY? Why do we feel the need to fill our time with stuff? "Well, I like to do a lot of things and so I do a lot of things?" OK, but do those things include God? And I know that we can also become so committed to church activities that we still have no time for God. So the question really is, how much balance is there in your life? The balance I am speaking about is (1) between your hobbies (maybe even your work) and your Christian service and activity, and (2) between your Christian activity and your personal and family time. (I do not consider going to some one's sporting event a family activity.) I mean where the emphasis is on being TOGETHER, doing things to enjoy one another.

Does your life need to be simplified? Not by removing stuff, but by removing activities? Do your kids do too much? Do you do too much? Do you have adequate spiritual time?

What do you think?

Charlie

NO MORE “MUSTY” FAITH!

Bonhoeffer, and others, talk about “cheap grace,” by which they usually mean that as believers we must respond to God’s grace-gift by transformed lives and obedience to the will of God. And I concur with much of what is said in this regard.

However – you knew a “however” was coming – what normally happens in churches, sermons, teachings, and discipleship is a series of oughts, shoulds, musts, and have tos. These “musty teachings” are too often phrased in such a way as to imply that if we: (1) don’t do what God wants us to do, (b) do the things God doesn’t want us to do, or (c) aren’t what God wants us to be then He: (1) won’t love us anymore, (2) won’t hear our prayers, (3) will allow us to suffer more and have more problems, (4) will not bless us, and (5) will cause us to question whether we are saved or not. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

I say, we don’t have to do anything!

Rather, when we come to Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as our Lord and Savior, he gives us the Holy Spirit so we will know we don’t have to do anything for Him to love us more and we can’t do anything for Him to love us less. AND, while we don’t “have to” to do anything, we GET TO pray, serve, love, praise, share, and fellowship, etc.

For example, I don’t have to do anything to be a husband or a father, or even a good friend, but I want to! Love for my wife and my kids flows out of me naturally. (Now I know there are a lot of unloving fathers and mothers out there. You may have experienced this in your own childhood, or you may be one?! But that is not the norm.) I have no list of things to do or not do to be a good father/husband. I could even keep such an imaginary list and NOT love my wife or kids, or be a husband or father. That is because being a husband or father or friend is a relationship with the other person.

Faith in God is not agreeing to a set of propositional truths about God. Satan knows more about God than we do and yet is not the recipient of grace nor is he saved. Faith in Jesus Christ (and God the Father and the Holy Spirit) is a living, breathing, active relationship of trust and love. It certainly isn’t “musty.” One cannot be forced to love, nor fulfill a certain set of requirements. Love is freely received and freely given.

And once I find and receive that love from God, my greatest joy comes in loving Him in return by serving Him and loving and serving the rest of His creation.

If you find your faith-life to be too "musty," then try simply listening to the Holy Spirit and being and doing what God leads you to. You may even find Christianity fun and liberating!

What do you think?

Charlie

Atheists and anti-theists take note.

Part 1
I don't believe in love! It doesn't and cannot exist. There is no proof of its existence. It only exists on the level of feelings and we all know how transitory and unreliable those are.

Love is simply another way of talking about "enlightened self interest." In other words we love in order to either be loved or to feel self satisfied, a way of perpetuating our self and our own happiness. Love is nothing more than chemical responses to certain stimuli, which in pre-historic times ensured the survival of the fittest (most desirable?) and of the species.

Part 2
I don't believe in God. He/She/It doesn't and cannot exist. There is no proof of His existence. He only exists on the level of feelings, and those are too unreliable and subjective.

God is a term we use to describe our own self-interest. In other words, we believe in God because we feel satisfied and content and happy when we do, believing that some super-person is looking out for us. God is felt because of certain external stimuli (a majestic sunset or a star filled sky) or internal feelings (love, compassion, desire for community). Belief in God is a remnant of our pre-historic past, designed to answer what we don't know and to see ourselves (humans) as the highest order of life in the universe.

Part 3
I decided that since there are a growing number of atheists and anti-theists in our world, I would seek to show that something normally affirmed by every human being can likewise be dismissed as unprovable.

Does anyone anywhere really believe that love doesn't exist? How can I say that it doesn't? Just look at all the acts of kindness and goodness in the world, all the acts of self-sacrifice by one person on behalf of another, the lengths people go to keep their children safe, etc.

How can I say that love doesn't exist when there is such evidence to the contrary? We know love exists because we see the results.

Gotcha! Don't we also see the results of the existence of God? There is order and structure to the universe - from the cosmos to the atom. There is the ability humans have to think and, yes, to love. There is the enormous variety of species. (Why does the ocean need millions of kinds of fish, each different from the other?) There is the fact that human beings exist with the mental, creative, and emotional capabilities we have. All these and countless more reasons could be listed to "show" the existence of God.

I would suggest that if God doesn't exist then neither does love. And if love doesn't exist, then there is no cause for seeking the meaning to life. All is irrelevant and meaningless, a little like what the Preacher in Ecclesiastes has to say.

Think about it.

Charlie

The tyranny of the minority...

has too often been my experience in the Christian Church over my 60+ years. What do I mean?

Believers who have been Christians for a number of years and active members of the church for most or all of that time come to a certain understanding of the "faith." They become rooted and grounded in the scripture and after a while become more or less closed to change. Their faith relationship to God and Jesus Christ doesn't change or grow. They become content, satisfied, and comfortable in their Christian life. And it is most likely that they surround themselves with like-minded people, including preachers and teachers.

Then someone comes along - maybe a preacher or teacher or just another believer - with a different point of view. Suddenly the comfortable one become uncomfortable. He (or she) has built so much of their faith on things "unchangeable" that any variation to that belief must be wrong and opposed at every step. (Note: I am not speaking of the essentials of the Christian faith, but peripheral beliefs and traditions.) The trouble is, many of his/her fellow members are open to new things and see the changes as positive. These people may eventually become the majority and desire to move forward. But, the minority are having no part of it. Now we have controversy.

The church leaders are in a quandary. They may even be on the side of change, but because of these vocal opponents, they defer any action hoping in time that the whole body can become united in its approach and life. Their reasoning is usually: "Is the change really necessary? and if we act, won't that push some people away and cause disunity?"

The problem with this thinking is that it is generally the older and more experienced members of the church who are the intracktable minority. The very ones who should be open to the Lord and to growth are the very ones who hold on for dear life to non-essentials and in the process prevent others from growing! The tyranny of the minority.

I have been in the Church of Jesus Christ all my life. And the Lord has continually challenged and changed my life and my faith. If you asked me how I have grown/changed in the last 5, 10, or 20 years I would have no trouble responding. I believe if I am not growing (changing?), I am not listening to the Lord or to His word.

But ask one of these minority how they have grown/changed and they will probably say they have the same faith now they had then. Indeed, they may even be proud of the fact that they haven't changed. "Gimme that old time religion!" "It was good enough for Grandpa; its good enough for me!" Is this what Peter had in mind when he said to believers: "Grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?" (II Peter 3:18) Or Paul, when he said, also to believers: "That the eyes of your heart may be enlightened..." (Eph.1:18) and "That you may be able to comprehend..." (Eph.3:18) and "Not that I have already attained it...but I press on." Phil.3:12)

Many things cause church divisions and splits. I have been involved in two such circumstances. They are unpleasant and ungodly because they divide what should be one, i.e. the body of Christ. Yet, in both situations, there were a minority of people who wouldn't listen to or dialogue with others, but stood frozen in place, refusing to budge. And the issues were not about the gospel or the person and work of Jesus Christ, but about less important matters. When was the last time you heard of a church split over the gospel? How childish are we?

What is God doing in your life? What is God doing in your church's life? He is working, you know. He is seeking to bring His Kingdom to the earth, to show to all the world that Jesus died and rose for them, that He is a God of grace and love, and that in Him we have an eternal future. So as God speaks and moves, we listen and discern His voice through the filter of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Then we act.

I suggest that if we run into a minority opinion, we dialogue, we listen, and then we move in the direction God is calling. Anything less is to allow the minority to prevent what God wants to do.

What do you think?

Charlie

Who sets the agenda for what the church does?

I read an article recently in a Christian publication about an informal survey - done in Canada, I think. Several (I don't remember how many) college students were sent to churches in a large metropolitan area and asked to report their impressions of the effectiveness of the Sunday morning worship of these churches in reaching their community. That's a fair enough question, I suppose.

Their report went something like this. The large congregations had a variety of programs for all ages, with mostly structured services which would appeal to some people, but seemed too professional. Then there were smaller fellowships who were more friendly and sometimes less formal and they, too, reached a certain number of people, but there were a lot of things missing. Finally they attended one small inner city church which had a service followed by a community meal at which homeless and other down-and-out people came to eat. The students felt that this last church was the best example of what the church is.

I have no argument with their appraisal of such an inner city church, nor of what that church was doing to minister to its neighborhood. I do have a question, however.

Who sets the agenda for the life and mission of the church? Is it our community? Our neighborhood? The needs of society?

Do these in turn determine for us what music we use, how we worship, what we preach and teach, whether we are formal or informal, how we dress, etc? We are told to be seeker friendly. That seems to make perfect sense.

So then I ask, what did Jesus do and what did the first century church do? And does it matter that they didn't have all the conveniences and technology of the 21st century? How much difference does 2 millenia make?

If we become so carried away with being relevant to our age, will we lose the distinctiveness which was so characteristic of both Jesus and the early church? Their lives - individually and corporately - reflected the nature, character, and purpose of God and the gospel. Is that who and how we are?

If I seek to be relevant like you are, am I being honest with myself and how God made me? If my church seeks to be seeker firendly like your church, will we lose our identity and the unique purpose for which God has called us together? Maybe we are so quick to "evaluate" others based on who we are that we can't let them be the way God made them. My life is unique to me. Your life is unique to you. My church has gifts and skills and a personality all its own. Why do we want to be like you?

Maybe if we all listened to God more, and honestly, we would find that He will sovereignly set our agenda. We may end up being like others, we may end up being totally different. But in the end, it's what God wants that is important.

Oh, and a footnote to all this. God asks us to be faithful, not successful. If we are faithful, I believe He will bring fruit - even if we can't see it for ourselves.

What do you think?

Charlie

What happens when idealism meets reality?

When I was a young college student I felt God calling me to enter the full time ministry, then as a Lutheran Pastor. I had always been religious, went to church faithfully, read the Bible, prayed, did all the stuff you were supposed to do. So when I felt the ministry beckoning, it wasn't a far step to shift college courses toward the Seminary.

One of the reason I wanted to enter the ministry was to make a difference in the church, to help the church become serious about its faith and life, to motivate the "dead and lifeless old folks" into dynamic and vigorous Christians. I wanted to wake the church up and become an exciting place. At 20 years of age I had so much to offer and was so sure that I could change the church and the world.

So entering the minstry and serving churches in California and Albuquerque brought me to reality. The church people were just like me. They had faith. They wanted the church to grow and be strong. The loved the Lord. But like me, as I was starting out in my profession and in my marriage, a lot of things took time and energy.

I soon discovered the reality of Christian life. I worked hard for my church but I also worked hard at home on our house, sought to improve our life by buying a TV, a newer car, better furniture. Soon, energy was needed to make sure we had enough money for the mortgage and the payments we had incurred. Then children came along.

More distractions. Oh, the boys were gifts of God to us, but children take time and emotional energy. I could only leave my wife at home with the kids a couple of nights a week. My conscience knew I should be there to help her.

Priorities shift. Now my mind was filled with the day to day operation of a church, the normal routines and crises of home and family, and the need to have some free time to stay fresh.

Where did my ideals go? Where went the zeal to accomplish great things? Was I a captive to the "stuff" of life? And when your life is so tied up with these things and people - none of which is bad - it becomes easy to seek relief from the stress and strain by waiting for vacation, days, off, time to relax. Suddenly these holiday times and fun activities become more and more important to sort of counter-balance the rest of life.

Again, the ideals became lost.

As I am older, I realize that the ideals are still there, but tempered now with reality. Luckily, I can see where I went wrong. I allowed myself to become so caught up in "urgent" things that the important people and ideals went uncared for. Someone has called it the tyranny of the urgent. And it is a tyranny. It is the urgency of maintaining a life style, of having the acceptable clothes, the better car, the bigger house, the higher income. So now Mom works to bring in enough income because we don't want our kids to want for anything. (Why not, by the way? Who said kids were better with the latest stuff?) As a result, both parents are tired and the kids don't get enough attention and the church calls wanting help for something and you're occupied to help and you feel bad but life seems to be so demanding.

Trapped by reality!

To the older folks, did you have ideals as a young person? What happened? Do you still have them?

If you are a young person, do you have ideals? How will you maintain them in the midst of the pressure to get ahead, to conform, to not rock the boat, to be accepted?

Ideals and reality don't have to be mutually exclusive. Jesus managed to help a lot of people (the urgent) on His way to Jerusalem (the important). Even heading for the cross He was able to spend the time it takes to meet the needs of people, but was never burdened by what we might call overcommitment. In a way, His ideals never go lost in the press of people or other responsibilities.

How about you? What do you think?

Charlie

THE ONE TRUE CHURCH...

is the Roman Catholic Church, says the new Pope, Benedict XVI, and causes confusion, consternation, and even condemnation among other "church bodies."

So, what else is new, I ask? Has there ever been a time, including Vatican II, when the RCC
didn't believe that? It is one of the many teachings and practices which for so long has kept the RCC and other Christian denominations apart and suspicious of each other. Present and former Catholics will tell you of days when the church leadership forbid any member from even setting foot inside another "church" building.

"Isn't that awful," I say, "for a church group to say that? Who do they think they are, anyway?"

Well friends, before we crucify our catholic brethren - yes I consider faithful Roman Catholics brothers and sisters - let us be sure the log is out of our own eye.

Is there ANY church group or denomination out there that doesn't feel at some point deep within that they are "doing and being the Church of Jesus Christ" correctly? I know that I am! I admit to thinking that my expression of the Christian faith is directly in keeping with what Jesus would approve of. And this is especially true for Churches of Christ.

In many circles even today one can hear the expression "a member of the church" and know it means "a member of a Church of Christ." Because, some believe, outside the "Church of Christ" there are no TRUE Christians. That is NOT what I or most other Church of Christ members believe.

My point is not to castigate either the RCC or the CoC. The point is that we who believe in Jesus Christ, have an obligation NOT to divide over such things but to approach one another humbly and with an attitude of openness.

That doesn't mean we discard the clear gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection, but that in the words of Thomas Campbell (forgive me if I misquote slightly), "In essentials unity, in non-essentials, diversity."

I also see where some evangelicals are disputing the nature of the atonement. Most would believe that Jesus' essential act was as our substitute, taking upon himself the punishment for sin due to us - substitutionary atonement. The minority would say that that makes God a "child abuser" and is not a worthy description of our God. They would emphasize the Jesus who was the "Christus Victor" of Gustaf Aulen, that He came to defeat the powers of sin, Satan, and death, thereby giving us the fruit of that victory, reconciliation to God and eternal life. (Please note that these brief descriptions are woefully inadequate to the full understanding of these positions.)

However, as in everything, it seems to me both positions have merit. Indeed, to fully grasp the fullness of what Jesus Christ did takes more understanding than either of these two. Biblical terminology is too rich to single out one explanation. We have to use (and explain and preach)words like ransom, redemption, sacrifice, reconciliation, atonement, justification, etc. I believe a classic mistake is made when we limit our understanding of the gospel to one aspect. Paul was correct to pray that we might know the "length, breadth, height, and depth" of Jesus. (Some folks say Paul is being redundant; I think he is trying to give a multi-dimensional aspect to Jesus in a three-dimensional world.)

To return to our original theme. It is also clear to me that for ANY single group of people within the Christian fold to profess to have the complete and true understanding of Jesus and the church is the height of arrogance. It's similar to saying "I know all there is know about God." Or, "I know all there is to know about the universe." Or "I know exactly how the human body functions and what causes illness and other health problems."

I suggest if you know such people, run away as fast as you can! I want doctors to tell me what they know and what they don't. Be honest with me. I want astro-physicists to acknowledge that the universe is too vast for us to fully comprehend. And I want Christian teachers to admit they don't know it all.

As I become older I discover aspects of Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and the Bible itself which I hadn't known before. I realize how much I don't know and how much fun it is to seek and find new insights into the unknowable God and His relationship to His earth.

What do you think?

Charlie