Two Unrelated Thoughts

First, I am almost done with The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I watched the movie a couple of weeks ago, and I was so astounded by the inaccuracy of the film that I was certain the book could not be as bad. It is.

There are so many historical inaccuracies and myths in the book that it would take weeks to catalog them. But here is the best – the Merovingian kings of early France were descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It would be laughable if so many people hadn’t bought this book.

Fact: The Merovingians did rule post-Roman Empire Gaul/France. They were named for a semi-mythical founding father named Merovech.

Fact: The Merovingians did not accept the Nicaean Creed as properly detailing Jesus’ divinity. They were followers of Arius, who taught something similar to modern Jehovah Witnesses.

The problem with any theories involving the Merovingians is that we know next to nothing about them. There are only three sources – Decem Libri Historiarum by Gregory of Tours; Chronicle of Fredegar by Fredegar and others; and Liber Historiae Francorum by an unknown editorial team. All are relatively close to the period, and yet they say next to nothing.

The book was terrible. It is so inaccurate as to be absurd.

The other thought was the film Stranger than Fiction. I wasn’t sure what to think about Will Ferrell in a serious role. The film was surprisingly well done. The acting was passable, but the premise was great. We often cause havoc and pain in others lives without being aware of what we do. When confronted with the pain, any thinking person would change their actions.

Will Ferrell’s character, Harold Crick, resolves himself to his fate, and showing himself willing to put his own life at the hands of the writer controlling his life. When he submits, it alters everyone’s paths and brings about non-linear results.

I found the work thoroughly post-modern; the art of writing driving real life but then real life altering art. It was intriguing. I wouldn’t class it as a phenomenal masterpiece or anything, but it was much more intelligent than anything else I’d ever seen Ferrell in.

So, a book I find absolutely inaccurate and repugnant; and a film that was surprisingly intelligent. It was a decent week.

What I’ve Been Up To

Hey readers:

Just wanted to let you know. I haven’t forgotten about my blog. We’ve been setting up our temporary church website on wordpress, and it has consumed most of my computer time.

So, head on over and check it out.

www.heritagemanchester.org

What the heck is DISCIPLESHIP?

This may be a pet-peeve of mine, but I find myself endlessly frustrated by the words that Christians have invented – this little private language we have. Sometimes these words convey huge ideas (like the word Trinity which has been a part of our faith since the 4^th century although it does not appear anywhere in Scripture), but often they are simply substitute words for things that we already have perfectly good words for.

The current word that is annoying me is discipleship. Beside the fact that this is a very awkward compound which literally means “the shape of a learner”, this word just does not feel right. To me, it gives the impression that people must be pounded into the form of a disciple. It is probably my own experiences with “discipleship programs” but it is not about exploration but rather information. Discipleship often means “indoctrination” rather than “conversation.”

I think the reason it gets under my skin is that we have taken a perfectly good noun - disciple – and turned it into a verb – discipling – and then into a process – discipleship. These are essentially Protestant, English words for catechumen and catechism.

Disciple comes to us from the Latin – through French – word discere meaning “to learn.” This word entered English vocabulary from the Latin Vulgate when William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English.

When he sawe the people he went vp into a mountayne and when he was set his disciples came to hym [Matthew 5:1]

There’s nothing wrong with the word disciple and I want to be very clear about that. We are disciples. It is our recent permutations of the word that bother me.

• The verb form of disciple is discipline, not disciple. You cannot disciple someone because a disciple is a person who is being taught. You can discipline them, but not disciple them.
• Likewise, the process of becoming a disciple is not discipleship or discipling. If anything, it is development or training. There is no reason for inventing a word just to be different.

Now, all of this may seem like an etymological rabbit trail, but it does have a rhyme and reason. Somewhere along the line, we separated the idea of a disciple from the concept of a Christian. We turned the maturing process inherent to every believer’s journey into a process to be completed with curricula and catechism. The division was necessary because in recent years, we have had such an emphasis on moments of conversion that we do not allow for the development of one’s faith. Since a person “gets saved”, they have to turn into something, right? So, we have separated “becoming a Christian” from “becoming a disciple.” I think Jesus would have a problem with that – since it is clear his disciples were not yet Christians, and certainly had some real development issues even after they were called into ministry.

What we should call it is “growing” and “maturing” – which are two Biblical words. We do not become Christians. We become disciples. We develop in our faith over our entire lives. Our entire existence is growth in faith.

For my two cents, I believe that blurring the lines between “salvation” and “discipleship” as well as “evangelism” brings us much more in line with what happened with Jesus’ disciples during his ministry.

Clergification

A great article from Ed Stetzer - a guy who spends a lot of time asking the question “why?” when it comes to the way church is done. It includes some stuff from Neil Cole, author of Organic Church which is a necessary read for those looking to get into “professional” ministry.

It is a definite read, especially for those who think church is done by the “paid staff” rather than something we do together.

Click here to read it.

Hey is the Church Where They Have Keg Parties?

It happens all too often. Someone visits our church, and some Christian they know feels it necessary to inform them of our church’s “liberalism.” Then we get to have these discussions about what Heritage’s position is on a list of secondary issues:

• Drinking - “I heard that church lets people drink. They even joke around about it.”
• Dress - “That church has no standards. People show up looking like slobs.”
• Theological Liberalism - “They believe in __________; can you believe it?”
• Versions of the Bible - “You don’t want to there; they don’t use the Bible.”
• Salvation - “They don’t give altar calls and they believe salvation is a PROCESS!”
• Language - “They approve of swearing and profanity.”
• Politics - “The pastor over there is not even a Republican.”
• Separation - “There’s no difference between them and the world.”
• Gender Roles - “They let women do just about anything” and “The pastor there hates women.” [I love how we get picked on for both extremes on this particular issue.]

The list goes on and on, and I am sure there are some that I missed because there are always new ones coming up. It is fascinating how inter-connected the Christian community is in our region and how quickly rumors and accusations fly. As Douglas Adams once quibbed:

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.

These criticisms are generally followed by out-of-context quotes of the same old tired Scriptures used to justify positions. [By the way, this post is not related to any recent criticisms. It is just for general information.]

One of the most amazing rumors was that we are universalists. This rumor was started when a pastor in our region went on our website and read our Articles of Faith (which, by the way, are under revision because they were just boiler-plated when the church was incorporated). In our Articles is the affirmation that we “We believe in the universal church, the body of Christ, which is composed of all born-again believers of this age and that Christ is the only head of that church.”

Just for the record, universalism means that you believe everyone of every religion is going to heaven.  Believing in the universal church however means that you believe all who are saved are part of the Body of Christ, what we have recently begun to term “the assembly of the firstborn” which is the Biblical terminology (Hebrews 12:22-23)

Answering Critics
So, here are the official answers to these questions - from the pastor’s desk.

• First of all, rumor-bearing and gossip about the body of Christ is ungodly.  When people try to “set you straight” with unsubstantiated accusations about individual believers or churches, take them to the Scripture.
• Second, our church is focused on reading the Scriptures literally and contextually.  This requires that we set aside our cultural expectations, learn about the world in which the Scriptures were written and then attempt (to the best of our ability) not to go beyond the original, intended meaning of the Word of God.
• We then apply this original, intended meaning to our current context.  We attempt, to the best of our ability, not to read our cultural expectations into the Scriptures.

Let me use the issue of language as an example.

The Scripture most often quoted on the issue of language is Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” [Ephesians 4:29, KJV]  People take this verse and say, “See?  Swearing is corrupt communication, hence you should never use inappropriate language.”  The result is people labeling this word or that word as “corrupt communication.”

Most of our leadership came from churches were cussing and swearing were frowned upon intensely.  We would certainly agree that corrupting communication should not come from our lips.  But, in studying the Scriptures, we have had to ask the question of what is corrupting communication?  We have had to consider the question from the point of view of the original audience and then with consideration of our current culture.  I have included two examples: one dealing with sexual language and the other dealing with vulgarity.

Sexual Language
Let’s consider the Scriptures for a moment, shall we?  Here are a couple examples of the Scriptures using terminology and words most Christians would consider inappropriate for public discussion:

• In Isaiah 64:6, Isaiah refers to our righteous deeds as “filthy rags.”  This is a pleasantly modernized phrase isn’t it?  Of course when you read the underlying text, you discover that the phrase in Hebrew is beged-’einenu, literally “menstrual rags.”  This was the ancient equivalent of a tampon, strips of cloth that a woman to contain her menstrual flow.
• In Deuteronomy 23:1, we read in the KJV “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”  The phrase for wounded in the stones is petzu’a-dake’ or literally “crushed testicles.”  The word translated privy member is shafkah or penis.

Many Christians do not even publicly admit the existence of sexual organs, almost as if they are ashamed of them because they are “dirty”, but here is the Scripture - the very Word of God - referring to these things both openly and plainly.  There is no hidden code.  Can you imagine Isaiah or the Deuteronomist blushing when writing these words?

Clearly, God’s Word uses these terms unashamedly.  The sexual being is not dirty or sinful.  It is the twisting and perversion of the sexual that is sin, but sex is of God.  Our bodies are still built the way God intended them, thus men have penises and women have vaginas.  There is no shame in the fact that God created us as male and female.  Thus sex should be discussed properly and completely without embarrassment.

Vulgarity
There is no end to the debate on the issue of what is a vulgarity and what is not.  The word vulgarity itself comes from Latin meaning “common” or “peasant.”  How did this terminology come about?

When the French-speaking Normans invaded England in 1066, they took over a largely Germanic culture.  The Anglo-Saxons who inhabited and ruled the island of Britain used a language similar to Old German.  The French conducted a campaign of cultural eradication, attempting to destroy the Anglo-Saxon languages and replace them with French for common conversation and Latin for scholastic work.  These languages were considered the languages of “civilized” and “cultured” people while Germanic tongues were pagan and unchristian.

As a result, the rough gutteral language of Anglo-Saxon was pushed down and repressed by labeling it vulgar and barbaric. It then became a sign of rebellion against these oppressors to speak in the forbidden tongue.  Hence we have some of our most vulgar profanities:

• Fock was the Germanic word for penis and by extension act of sexual intercourse.  It actually means the same thing in modern Swedish.
• Scheissen was the German word for manure (which ironically was the French word for work that we also get maneuver from)
• Kunte was the common Anglo-Saxon word for a woman’s vulva.

So extensive was the eradication of these terms that even words that came from Latin which sounded like German words were considered vulgarities, like cock (from the Latin coco).

These two examples show how Scripture uses terminology and how culture determines what is acceptable or unacceptable.  They prove little except that the common, modern Christian definition of what is “corrupt communication” and what is not is based on culture often far more than it is on Scripture.

That being said, our church’s position on language is plain - strong language belongs only in strong situations. We do not make common usage of words consider profanity because such terminology has proper usages.  A child born out of wedlock is a bastard.  A female dog is a bitch. A long-eared equine animal is an ass. These are proper words, used properly.

The misuse and misapplication of words is poor communication.  Ephesians 4:29 is not speaking of specific words but of specific actions - specifically bitterness, wrath, anger, excess, clamor, and slander (see verse 31).  These are corrupting communications.  Any words can become profanity when used these ways.  We do not attempt to accumulate a list of words that are sinful but rather attitudes and actions.

Conclusion
I have used a sampling of the issue of language because it is such a flashpoint for so many.  In many areas, our church does differ from the Christian “norm” because we feel the norm is unbiblical and driven by an unbiblical culture.  In many other areas, our church lines up with the norm because in searching the Scriptures, we found it to be the biblical position.

Very briefly, let me provide some summaries about some of the other flashpoint issues from the list at the beginning:

• Drinking - There is a lot of drinking Scripture.  Wine is considered a blessing from God.  Drunkenness, however, is universally condemned.
• Dress - Jesus did not wear a tie.  End of discussion.
• Theological Liberalism - Most of the accusations are false based on parts of things and misunderstanding.
• Versions of the Bible -Jesus did not speak English.  End of discussion.
• Salvation - We do not have altar calls; and we do believe people will journey toward encounters with Christ.  Salvation is not a work of man, but a work of the Spirit.  As we perceive the work of God, salvation is a process.
• Language - Language’s appropriateness is not arbitrarily decided.  Appropriate language is language which suits the situation and issue being described or explained.
• Politics - For the record, I am not a Republican; and I happen to believe America is dangerously close to being imperial in the tradition of the Roman Empire, which our founding fathers revered but the church fought against.
• Separation - We are part of this world.  Jesus said so.  End of discussion.
• Gender Roles - Men should love Jesus and submit to him.  Women should love their husbands and submit to him as he submits to Jesus.

Hope that clears everything up.

The Sin of Comfort

I have to admit, recently I have become complacent.

What I do for a living is tough. I am the human leader of a nearly-twenty year old church. (When we turn 21, I think we are legally allowed to have alcoholic communal wine.) When I came to Heritage in 2004, it was a relatively comfortable place. Over the past three and a half years, we have been uncomfortable a number of times. We’ve lost big givers because of my views on Bible teaching (I think it should not only be accurate but also interesting and applicable), dress code (we don’t throw people out who come dressed “inappropriately”) and personality (NOTE: stating that you are not the former pastor’s clone is a bad idea). And when I say givers, I don’t mean just financially.

So you would think, with a church whose budget is much larger than her offerings and working a part-time job to make ends meet, I would not become complacent. I mean, I work hard during the week and there is always more to do. But I have become complacent. Ministering to the 50 or so who come every Sunday is easy. Meeting people’s needs (even those that require crowds or hospitals) is easy. Learning and leading new songs for worship is easy. I can do these things by rout. Even “challenging” people can become easy.

I hate easy.

It is fine when it comes to making dinner or fixing something around the house, but for ministry? Ministry is not supposed to be easy.

Being comfortable in ministry is a sin.

Most pastors would disagree with me. They think that after hard work for years, we deserve to coast, to have it easy. We are often lulled into this sense of accomplishment and self-worth that says “I’m doing good. We’ve got this down.”

Here is the reason why this complacency is dangerous. Consider air conditioning. We bought a house with central A/C and now, when it gets hot outside the A/C clicks on and we stay nice and cool. The problem is that we lose our perception of heat by comparison. We tend to accept the conditioned air as normal and the outside as “too hot.” But the comfort is the anomaly, not the heat outside. It is the air conditioned house which is the exception to the rule.

By the same token, when we get too comfortable in ministry, we view the heat of change or crisis as the exception when in fact, the crucible is the norm. We become isolated and used to the ease, so the struggle becomes worse. Our perceptions change. The world has always been a mess – since the THUD in the Garden of Eden – but inside our little religious cocoon, we get comfortable, which makes the world look even worse.

I love our church. It is awesome to see people transformed, and we do see that. But it is always those who come into the air conditioning. We are not bringing relief to the people.

Did you ever notice that Jesus never stayed in one place for very long? He was always moving. He told his disciples to keep moving.

And He called the twelve to Himself, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts— but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics. Also He said to them, “In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place.
And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” So they went out and preached that people should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them. [Mark 6:7-13, NKJV]

Jesus’ ministry was not locked to one place. He went to people. Three times Jesus used the illustration of a harvest for the ministry of the church (Matthew 9:35-38, Luke 10:1-12, John 4:34-38). Three times he reminded his disciples that people don’t come to you; you go to the people. We want to “bring people to Jesus” but do not bring Jesus to the people.

• Is Jesus not risen? He is risen. He walks among us, but only when we walk with him.
• Is Jesus not powerful? He is powerful. Power is only seen when there is someone for the power to work on.
• Is Jesus not the Word of Truth? He is truth, but not for us. He is the truth for those who live in the lie. They will not seek out the truth. We must bring the truth to them.

The church is the risen, walking message of Jesus. We are the caretakers of the greatest message people could hear; and we sit in our rows of chairs week after week, waiting for the “lost” to find their way into the fold.

If this not our time, then when? If this is not our place, then where?

We’re wasting Jesus’ time. Faith is not comfortable.

Who Said It?

Has it already been a week since my last quote post? Is that even possible?

Ok, here is this week’s quote:

Every morning I jump out of bed and step on a landmine. The landmine is me. After the explosion, I spent the rest of the day putting the pieces together.

Last week’s quote came from the pen of none other than that famous dictator, Julius Caesar.

Here’s a little trivia for you. There are four ancient theories for the origin of the name Caesar.

• According to Pliny the Elder, it comes from the Latin caedo which means “to cut” and it was tied to one of Julius’ ancestors being born by Caesarean section (the procedure was not named after Julius).
• The Historia Augusta provides three alternate theories: either the Caesars were known for killing elephants (caesari in Moorish), they were known for having bright eyes (oculis caesiis) or
• My personal favorite and probable reason, the Caesars had coarse, thick hair (caesaries)

Isn’t it fascinating that the most famous and duplicated name in all of European history (both czar and kaizer derive from it) might mean “hairy”?

Who Said It?

This week’s quote won’t be as hard as last week’s apparently was. Ok, that’s a lie. This week’s quote will be a challenge, but go ahead and guess.

Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish.

I will give you a hint – on the screen, this person has been played by Sir Alec Guiness, Rex Harrison, Graham Chapman, Timothy Dalton (who also played James Bond), and Karl Urban (best known for playing Eomer in The Lord of the Rings).

Last week’s quote was, “I know God will not give me anything I can’t handle. I just wish He didn’t trust me so much.” Although only one person guessed, he got it right – it was Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, known to the world as Mother Teresa.

Agnes was born in what is now the Republic of Macedonia in 1910 and left home at the age of 18. She joined the sisters of Loreto as a missionary and never saw her family again. She took holy orders in 1931 and chose the name Teresa in memory of Thérèse de Lisieux of France. She spent forty years serving the poor of Calcutta, India and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

Going on the Record

The Honorable Greek Geek from Manchester (that’s me) would like to offer his most congenial and abject apologies to the Respected Java Geek from Nashua (that’s Doug). On Sunday, I made a comment that Albert Einstein had failed mathematics as a child. When Doug hung a “BUSTED” sign on the sound booth during the sermon (a practice not to be encouraged in most churches but one that is right at home at Heritage), I questioned his facts.

Upon further research, Doug is most correct, although I must offer this anecdote of clarification.

Einstein’s sister inadvertently started the rumor of Einstein’s failure when she quoted him as saying that as a child he had a more difficult time with “easier” math than “hard” math. So, although it is a myth, it is a myth that was based on a misunderstanding of a true statement. It was not conjured up out of thin air.

As a point of fact, Einstein was clearly a genius even as a child, and he mastered both Euclid geometry and calculus by the age of twelve. He did, from time to time, miss assignments or simply not complete them because he felt they did not further the curricula or challenge him. He was constantly in trouble with the administration at his school, Luitpold Gymnasium, because he felt their structured and rigid curriculum did not encourage creative thinking and stunted learning. And when his family moved to Italy, he dropped out of school without telling his parents so he could join them during the term. He finished school with them.

Later in life, he failed his entrance examination to the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich but retook the exam and was accepted into the school. It is also true that he did not obtain a job teaching physics or mathematics until 1912, seven years after solving Brownian motion, revamping Newtonian gravity and completely changing the world of physics.

Since we’re on the topic of dispelling Einstein myths, he also did not receive a Nobel Prize for his work in relativity. His Nobel prize came in 1921 for another work entirely, the QED theory of light. Although general relativity totally changed the landscape of physics, it was largely incomprehensible to the vast majority of physicists. It would take decades before people began to grasp its implications. The quantizing of light, its inherent wave-particle duality – was something that practically everyone was working on, and was stumped by, at the time. Einstein solved the problem almost out of hand, a testament to his greatness.

So, now you know the truth – well, more of it than you did before.

On My Bike and in My Study

Last week, I finally bought a bicycle. With gasoline skyrocketing toward $4 a gallon and my waistline skyrocketing toward – well, none of your business – my wife and I decided it would be good for my wallet, my physique, and the environment for me to ride to work a couple of days per week. It is almost 11 miles one way and takes about an hour. Yesterday, I did it for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was great to be outside, to see things from a different perspective.

On Monday, I met with Dave Gilbert, the director of the New Hampshire Institute of Biblical Studies. NHIBS (as it is called) started this spring, and I was on the advisory board. Dave asked me to teach Church History in October. I am very excited about the opportunity, and if you’re interested in learning about the subject, you should check it out. NHIBS is just getting started, but it will be good to have a Bible institute closer to home.

History is one of my passions, particularly the ancient world. Recently, I’ve also developed an interest in the early medieval period, particularly in the Frankish and Byzantine Empires. I know these aren’t what most people consider stimulating history, but they had a tremendous influence on the way the Church developed.

The class will focus on understanding the flow and rhythm of the Church’s development over the ages. It will also reflect on the influence the Church had on major historical transitions. Here is a sample of my notes dealing with the Fall of Rome:

Arianism was also popular with the German foederati. Many of the Germanic tribes had been converted to Arianism by the missionary Wulfila (also called by his Latinized name Ulfilas). Wulfila had been commissioned by Eusebius of Nicodemia, at the time the bishop of Constantinople, and had preached the Arian form of Christianity among his native tribes – the Goths. He translated the Bible into Gothic, creating an alphabet for the language as he went.

An oppressive leader named Athanaric persecuted the Gothic Christians, and Wulfila received permission from the Arian emperor Constantius II to resettle his group of Christians in what is now Bulgaria. In 376, one of Athanaric’s rivals, a chieftain named Fritigern asked permission from Valens to join the Goths Wulfila had resettled. Valens granted them permission with the condition that they serve in the military. In gratitude for Valens’ assistance, they converted to Arian Christianity as well.

Unfortunately, the Roman governors treated the Goths poorly and refused to assist them when a famine struck. In a pattern that would repeat itself a number of times with a number of German groups throughout the Empire, Fritigern led a rebellion. Valens went out to meet him, and the Germans destroyed the Roman troops at the Battle of Adrianople in 381. Valens was killed in battle.

In the wake of the disaster at Adrianople, the Romans began to incorporate the German foederati into the military, replacing Roman citizens and allies. This brought the Arian Goths into contact with many of their German cousins, and many other German tribes converted as well.

As Arianism was on the decline among the Romans, it was on the rise with their German confederates. This, as well as language and style of dress, brought about a persecution of the Germans as second-class people. It was considered indecent to be considered German, and the Nicene Christians used this to their advantage, persuading people that Arianism was the religion of the barbarians.

When Theodosius died, Ambrose praised him: “The faith of the emperor produces strength in his soldiers.” The intent was obvious. Theodosius had been a warrior for God, and it was expected that those who followed him would continue his campaign.

Ambrose followed Theodosius two years later. Under Theodosius I, it had became illegal to be anything but a Nicene Trinitarian. This made the Arians and pagans among the Germans outlaws. Ambrose’s reforms had swept into the Roman legal system. Orthodoxy became a matter of law.

Theodosius’ successors in the West, beginning with Honorius and ending with Romulus Augustulus, were now pawns in the hands of Nicaean Christianity. The Germans would have none of it. They were held in check only because of a strong Eastern general named Flavius Stilicho. He spent his entire career keeping the Goths and their cousins at bay.

If you’re interested in being a part of the class, let me know. We’ll be meeting for 7 weeks in October and November, 6:30-8:30pm. NHIBS meets at Concord Christian Academy.