The New Intellect is a way for us to connect. We are all in this together, we are all on the same team, so lets connect and dialogue.
We will post articles, essays and resources for you to peruse and explore. We will have
Born guests who you will want to read and connect with. We will make this a place for you to hang out, to kick it, to be a place to again….CONNNECT!
SALLY MORGENTHALER ON WORSHIP EVANGELISM, NEW IDEAS.
Maybe I was, but a storm had been brewing in my soul for five long years. I remember meeting with the worship leader of a well-known church in the fall of 2000. He had followed my work and respected many of my viewpoints. When we met
over coffee, he shared a concern he’d had for a while over my book Worship Evangelism. In his view, Worship Evangelism had helped to create a “worship-driven subculture.” As he explained it, this subculture was a sizeable part of the contemporary church that had just been waiting for an excuse not to do the hard work of real outreach. An excuse not to get their hands dirty. According to him, that excuse came in the form of a book—my book. He elaborated. “If a contemporary worship service is the best witnessing tool in the box, then why give a rip about what goes on outside the worship
center? If unbelievers are coming through the doors to check us Christians out, and if they’ll fall at Jesus’ feet after they listen to us croon worship songs and watch us sway back and forth, well then, a whole lot of churches are just going to say, ‘Sign us up!’ “
To be honest, I wasn’t surprised. The attitude he described certainly didn’t fit every congregation out there in contemporary-worship-land, but it matched too much of what I’d seen. The realization hit me in the gut. Between 1995 and
2000 I’d traveled to a host of worship-driven churches, some that openly advertised that they were “a church for the unchurched.” On the good occasions, the worship experience was transporting. (I dug a little deeper when that happened. Invariably, I found another value at work behind the worship production: a strong, consistent presence in the community.) Too many times, I came away with an unnamed, uneasy feeling. Something was not quite right. The worship felt disconnected from real life. Then there were the services when the pathology my friend talked about came right over the platform and hit me in the face. It was unabashed self-absorption, a worship culture that screamed, “It’s all about us” so loudly that I wondered how any visitor could stand to endure the rest of the hour.
Were these worship-driven churches really attracting the unchurched? Most of their pastors truly believed they were. And in a few cases, they were right. The worship in their congregations was inclusive, and their people were working hard to meet the needs of the neighborhood. Yet those churches whose emphasis was dual—celebrated worship inside, lived worship outside—were the minority. In 2001 a worship-driven congregation in my area finally did a survey as to who they were really reaching, and they were shocked. They’d thought their congregation was at least 50 percent unchurched. The real number was 3 percent.
By 2002 a few pastors of praise and worship churches began admitting to me that they weren’t making much of a dent in the surrounding non-Christian population, even though their services were packed and they were known for the best worship
production in town. Several asked me to help them crack the unchurched code. One wanted to invest in an expensive VJ machine and target twentysomethings. The others thought a multisensory, ancient-future, or emergent twist might help. However, when I visited their congregations, it wasn’t hard to see that the biggest barrier to reaching the unchurched had little to do with worship technique or style. It had to do with isolation and the faux-worship that isolation inevitably creates.
No, what my friend shared with me wasn’t news. He’d simply confirmed my worst fears. How ironic. When I wrote Worship Evangelism, I’d had no intention of distracting people from the world outside. I only wanted to give them another way of connecting to it. I certainly had never meant to make worship some slick formula for outreach, let alone the one formula. I’d only wanted to affirm that corporate worship has the capability to witness to the unchurched if we make it accessible and if we don’t gut it of its spiritual content on the way to making it culturally relevant.
But those were different times. To witness through worship, the unchurched actually need to show up. And back then, this was happening. Those were the days when a church start-up could simply put up a billboard sign, send out several hundred glossy mailers, and the unchurched-curious would come to check it out. The contemporary, user-friendly spin may not have been as
factory fresh as it was in the ’80s, but it was still interesting. To the religiously allergic who hadn’t been to church since grade school, it looked like religion had come of age.
And maybe it had. In the mid-90s, the community church section in the yellow pages was awash with self-conscious logos and catchy taglines, all competing with each other for that upwardly mobile, savvy church shopper. Strip malls and school gyms were bursting with “churches-on-wheels”: shiny-faced set-up crews towing two-wheeled storage trailers, each chock full of sound equipment, Plexiglas podiums, informational handouts, plastic plants, name tags, and nursery toys.
But by 1998 something had shifted. The set-up crews weren’t looking quite as fresh as they once were. Why would they, playing “portable church” 52 weeks a year, year after hopeful year? Of course, they were waiting for the “promised land”—the gleaming megaplex their pastor had envisioned on those 20 farm acres south of town. The savviest start-ups reached that promised land. Most did not. By 2000 there were only a few trailers backing up to warehouse doors. The start-ups had thinned out. It was as if the “if we build it, they will come” game had suddenly grown stale. Like last year’s action toy, the bright outfits, plastic plants, oozy choruses, and pink-shirts-with-Dockers-slacks went into culture’s garage sale bin. Contemporary church plants that hadn’t reached critical mass (300 to 400) by the end of the ’90s were in deep trouble.
But there was a conundrum. The contemporary congregations that were well-established by the turn of the millennium—with 1,000 or more attendees and with the founding pastors still at the helm—seemed to grow exponentially, and they kept growing. These mega-survivors were invariably congregations with visionary, talented leaders and the determination to do whatever it took to grow. Many of them became the largest congregations in their cities and have developed significant ministries that are still impacting the face of American religion.
Who they were and who they were growing by, however, is a crucial question. As negative attitudes toward conservative Christianity among the unchurched increased in the late ’90s and early 2000s, most large-congregation growth efforts became more focused on the churched consumer, even as their written and spoken vision remained focused on the unchurched. And these star performers became masters at what the churched wanted. They raised the bar several times
over for what could be expected out of a Sunday morning experience, and they worked tirelessly to develop the high quality, practical programs the churched now demanded. Having excelled at making theirs the best churched experience on the market, they were perfectly positioned to absorb the windfall of disgruntled attendees from dwindling mainline congregations and failed, contemporary start-ups.
Some counter this view that growing churches have increased primarily by the churched. They cite situations where a large congregation has indeed attracted a high percentage of non-churchgoers.
Or they point to the well-advertised fact that both the number and average size of megachurches increased between the early ’90s and early 2000s. Between 1994 and 2004, church attendance in congregations between 1,000 and 2,000 grew 10.3 percent. Congregations over 2,000 grew 21.5 percent.1 According to a Hartford Seminary study titled “Megachurches Today 2005,” there are 1,210 Protestant churches in the United States with weekly attendance over 2,000, nearly double the number that existed in 2000.2
Yet, according to The Barna Group, the number of adults who did not attend church nearly doubled in the same time period.3 In a parallel trend, pollsters were charting the lowest ratings for religion in 60 years.4 With both numbers and attitudes of the unchurched going in the opposite direction, where was all the growth in these big-and-getting-bigger churches coming from?
Location just might be a clue. Nearly 72 percent of churches with average weekly attendance of at least 2,000 people are found in a swath from Georgia and Florida across Texas to California…roughly the Bible Belt and the most churchgoing sectors of the Sun Belt.5 It’s hard not to see the correlation.
As influential as they are, megachurches aren’t the whole story of American religion. To get a complete picture of church growth in the 1990s and new millennium, we need to look at overall church attendance patterns. Traditional pollsters conduct telephone interviews and expect people to be honest about their religious practices. According to the numbers gathered this way, we’re still at a 40 percent attendance rate. But pollsters who actually do seat counts and take exit polls tell a different story. The average weekly church attendance when measured by actual “bodies present” was at 17.4 percent in 2006, down from 20.4 percent in 1990.6 David Olson of TheAmericanChurch.org remarks, “You’d have to find 80 million more people that churches forgot to count to get to 40 percent.”7
The upshot? For all the money, time, and effort we’ve spent on cultural relevance—and that includes culturally relevant worship—it seems we came through the last 15 years with a significant net loss in churchgoers, proliferation of megachurches and all.
In 2003 the film Saved debuted at the box office. Many evangelicals were horrified and panned the movie. The fact that the film was produced in the first place should have tipped us off that something was afoot. The fact that it opened in theaters nationwide should have provoked a sizeable dialogue among contemporary church leaders about attitudes among the unchurched. But no such dialogue ensued.
Was the film exaggerated? Yes. It’s satire, and that’s what satire does. Was it slanted? Yes. But then, wasn’t that the point—the chance for non-Christians to reflect back to us how some of them perceive us? Truth hurts. Here was a film that depicted the smug, self-absorption of an evangelical school culture—complete with narcissistic praise and worship. I wondered if the dozen or so who walked out on it were Christians who didn’t want to face themselves on the screen. If it hadn’t been for my colleague drawing me aside in 2000, I could have been one those.
The question is, should cultural and missional realities have anything to do with worship? Perhaps not. It would appear that we’re more than capable of creating our own view of the world, and we tend to promote and perpetuate that view in our sanctuaries and worship centers. Somehow, the show goes on…even if most of the unbelievers we thought we were reaching either weren’t there in the first place, or they left the building some time ago.
Early in 2005 an unchurched journalist attended one of the largest, worship-driven churches in the country. Here is his description of one particular service:
“The [worship team] was young and pretty, dressed in the kind of quality-cotton-punk clothing one buys at the Gap. ‘Lift up your hands, open the door,’ crooned the lead singer, an inoffensive tenor. Male singers at [this] and other megachurches are almost always tenors, their voices clean and indistinguishable, R&B-inflected one moment, New Country the next, with a little bit of early ’90s grunge at the beginning and the end.
“They sound like they’re singing in beer commercials, and perhaps this is not coincidental. The worship style is a kind of musical correlate to (their pastor’s) free market theology: designed for total accessibility, with the illusion of choice between strikingly similar brands. (He prefers the term flavors, and often uses Baskin-Robbins as a metaphor when explaining his views.) The drummers all stick to soft cymbals and beats anyone can handle; the guitarists deploy effects like artillery but condense them, so the highs and lows never stretch too wide. Lyrics tend to be rhythmic and pronunciation perfect, the better to sing along with when the words are projected onto movie screens. Breathy or wailing, vocalists drench their lines with emotion, but only within strict confines. There are no sad songs in a megachurch, and there are no angry songs. There are songs about desperation, but none about despair; songs convey longing only if it has already been fulfilled.”8
No sad songs. No angry songs. Songs about desperation, but none about despair. Worship for the perfect. The already arrived. The good-looking, inoffensive, and nice. No wonder the unchurched aren’t interested.
Truth may hurt, but if there’s something leaders do, they tell it. In 2000 I didn’t have all of the numbers I have now, but I had seen enough to know what was happening. The contemporary church—including the praise-and-worship church, the worship evangelism church—was in a holy huddle, and I began to talk about it. It was excruciating. It was career suicide. But from pastors conferences to worship seminars to seminaries, I began challenging leaders to give up their mythologies about how they were reaching the unchurched on Sunday morning. Yes, worship openly and unapologetically. Yes, worship well and deeply. (Which means singing songs that may include anger, sadness, and despair. Have we forgotten that David did this? Have we discarded the psalms?) But let our deepened, honest worship be the overflow of what God does through us beyond our walls.
Conference organizers were confused. They wondered what had happened to me. Where was the worship evangelism warrior? Where was the formula? Where was the pep talk for all those people who were convinced that trading in their traditional service for a contemporary upgrade would be the answer? I don’t have to tell you this. The 100-year-old congregation that’s down to 43 members and having a hard time paying the light bill doesn’t want to be told that the “answer” is living life with the people in their neighborhoods. Relationships take time, and they need an attendance infusion now.
I understood their dilemma, and secretly, I wished I had a magic bullet. But I didn’t. And I wasn’t going to give them false hope. Some newfangled worship service wasn’t going to save their church, and it wasn’t going to build God’s kingdom. It wasn’t going to attract the strange neighbors who had moved into their communities or the generations they had managed\ to ignore for the last 39 years.
As I pulled my Sacramentis site off of the Web, I posted this statement: “Sacramentis has been a pioneer site on worship and culture for seven years. From the beginning, it has been a gathering spot for the most helpful worship ideas and resources we could find. Sacramentis has also been a place where church leaders could go deeper into what classic Christian worship is and does, and where they could re-imagine worship for communities where churchgoing is no longer the norm. But as culture has become incessantly more spiritual and adamantly less religious, we at Sacramentis have become convinced that the primary meeting place with our unchurched friends is now outside the church building. Worship must finally become, as Paul reminds us, more life than event (Romans 12:1-2). To this end, we will be focusing on the radically different kind of leadership practices necessary to transform our congregations from destinations to conversations, from services to service, and from organizations to organisms.”
In January USA TODAY featured an article titled, “Can the ‘E-Word’ [evangelical] Be Saved?”9 I think we need to ask a parallel question. “Can the W-word [worship] be saved?” Saved from the definition that it’s just what goes on inside the tent? From the lie that worship is a place you go, not what you do or who you are?
JCPenney stores adopted a new motto a few years ago: “It’s all inside.” That may work well for clothes and housewares, but it doesn’t work so well for spreading the gospel. Ah, but aren’t buildings important? Yes, they are. Jesus himself spent crucial time in synagogues and the Temple. He affirmed that the worship of God is central to what it means to be a disciple. But here’s the catch. He did not make the building—or corporate worship—the destination. His destination was the people God wanted to touch, and those were, with few exceptions, people who wouldn’t have spent much time in holy places. Jesus’ direction was always outward. Centrifugal. Even in death, he was broken and poured out for the sake of a needy world. God’s work may not be “all outside,” but if we look at where Jesus spent his time, I think we can safely say that most of it is.
I am currently headed further outside my comfort zones than I ever thought I could go. I am taking time for the preacher to heal herself. As I exit the world of corporate worship, I want to offer this hope and prayer. May you, as leader of your congregation, have the courage to leave the “if we build it, they will come” world of the last two decades behind. May you and the Christ-followers you serve become worshippers who can raise the bar of authenticity, as well as your hands. And may you be reminiscent of Isaiah, who, having glimpsed the hem of God’s garment and felt the cleansing fire of grace on his lip
From Nathan Arnold…(www.myspace.com/nathanarnoldmusic)
What is worship?
So… here I am late at night again having a musing. Actually, more than a musing… a full on sermon erupted in my head. (Actually… it’s funny, in my head I can be this great preacher with fascinating illustrations (verbal and visual) and great comedic moments that illustrate my points…. but in reality I hate preaching. Not for fear of being in front of people, but I just stink at it an rather prefer music.)
Here’s what has me all fired up. The question, “What is worship”. It has always bothered me, that question, and I could never figure it out. Something just twisted in my gut every time I heard it and every time the debate fired up. Maybe it’s because the “fight” between modern and traditional worship still rages. Maybe it’s because to my eyes it has always seemed an indefinable art. Maybe I spend too much time thinking about it.
But thinking about it I was, and quite frankly it was driving me nuts. I was trying to sleep and all I kept hearing in my head was, “what is worship? What is worship?” Over and over again, like a parrot that only knows one sentence. “Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker!”, or the seaqulls in Finding Nemo, “Mine, mine, mine, mine!” Then it hit me. It was fortunate for my sanity but not fortunate for my sleep as I rolled out of bed to grab my computer. I just knew I had to get it out though for fear of losing it by morning.
You know what I hate about it? That word, what. Just typing it makes me frustrated. What. What is worship? What is worship? What, what, what, what? I hate that word right now! What a stupid question! Talk about a question that divides! The very question begs a definitive, singular answer.
I’ll give you and example. Ask me what I am and there is a definitive answer. I am a human, of the male gender. Ask me what I drive and you get another definitive answer: a Dodge truck. Now ask me who I am and the story changes… who am I opens the door to theories… and more questions… and deep, thoughtful exploration. Ask me how I drive, and the answer is long winded again. (well, the short version is ‘angry’, but it’s very situational and far from definitive.)
Ask a person who attends a “traditional” style church and you’ll get answers like, “special music, hymnals, hand bells, choirs and pipe organs”. It’s definitive… no room for another answer. Same question to a “contemporary” church member? “Rocking bands, killer vocals, songs with a catch and multi-media that reminds me of MTV.” Definitive… Now here is the kicker… What happens with a definitive answer? Those who don’t agree get offended. “Well, no! That’s not worship to me!” (As if our opinion is all that matters.)
No… I think the better question is “how can we worship?” Then the answers aren’t, “worship is“, but rather, “we can worship by“. It’s inclusive and inconclusive. No answer ends up being the end of the story.
How can we worship? We can sacrifice… we can sing… we can shout… we can sit in silent reverence… we can serve… we can hope… we can pray… we can play… we can dance… we can create… we can love…we can encourage… we can empower… we can include… we can give… we can hold… we can weep… we can laugh… we can breathe…
How can we worship the One who has given us everything? That’s a question I like.
From Sistren Jahmah…
the night tells us to remember the trees , the leaves , the wind….
all of these gentle in their stature of their composure and speech.
Everything consumed by the viciousness of the day to accomplish a task. A support of means. Quickly and forget our brothers and our sisters.
We come to a home
and the sun sets.
” Quiet your soul , my love “
The circle of the sun and the setting of His love upon our faces.
Just one morsel to feed
our craven souls. but we forgo His delight as He awaits us, we forgo His song passing by like a gypsy wherewith He has nowhere to lay His head.
the beautiful masses have sifted into containments and voices turn inward.
My Love fans the flames.
He takes His lovely sonnet
and all His ornaments of myrrh.
I love the night for all the world
sleeps, but I do not….
Until I have met Him in the garden.
He passes by with His song
He calls. I run to Him while my heart breaks because it cannot contain it.
Oh My love
will you find Him ?
and listen to His song as he passes ?
on the quiet dark of night
Get a Bigger View Of God
The real authentic faith
aria anaforian ( www.ariaanaforian.com )
Matthew 17:20 “You don’t have enough faith,” Jesus told them. “I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible.”
What a scripture! The important thing to grasp here is the context of the physical realm. Jesus was not just using this as an example He really meant it. He was trying to show us that with Him anything is possible. By faith a mountain literally could be moved. That is the kind of faith we need to get a hold of. We have got to make a declaration over our lives that we will live by faith. That we serve a God who does the impossible, a great big God who loves me enough to come into my world and make the impossible possible.
The Influence on the Church and Your Worship Ministry
As you grow and take on this new and BIGGER view of God it will affect everything you do. Every decision you make, every conversation, every thought, every belief, and every interaction. You will become the greatest influence to those around you. You will find yourself with an incredible amount of faith and trust not only for yourself but also for every person you come in contact with. It will strengthen the house of God.
Your personal times in worship will deepen and you will experience a new hunger for a relationship with God and a new love for the house of God. This kind of faith will make worship more then music, or a melody, or a cool band. It will transform a worship service from a sing along to an incredible, empowering, and life giving experience and encounter with the living presence of God.
The challenge…
Ask yourself this question,
“What do I really believe a Sunday morning service needs to possess to see people impacted?”
Take a moment and honestly assess your answer…
How easy was it to instantly picture a rockin band, emotionally stirring sermon? How about an exciting and innovative children’s program? How about a cool café? Be honest! It’s easy to set our eyes on the natural things that we can create. Churches in America are full of great programs. Programs are important and very helpful in Christian growth however; the danger in this thought process is that it can pull away from the faith that is the foundation of who Jesus is. It can tend to put too much of an emphasis on the form and in that we subtly begin to let go of the power. Our faith and trust in God decreases as we invest more and more energy into programs and events.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have an awesome worship time, great teaching, and innovative programs because those are all crucial. As a church though, it is so important for us to challenge our thinking on this issue.
Do I believe I serve a big enough God who can take a desperate and lost person and turn them inside out by simply the presence of His mighty hand?
What’s important to me in church and/or my ministry?
Everyday we should be asking ourselves these questions as we let our heavenly father search our hearts.
TRUST THAT AS YOU STEP OUT IN FAITH AND EXPERIENCE THE PRESENCE AND BRING THE PRESENCE OF GOD IN YOUR WORSHIP, HE WILL MOVE!!! WE MUST TRUST IN THE POWER OF THE CROSS.
Jesus,
Show me how to have a bigger view of you. You are an awesome and mighty loving God. Give me the faith to really believe that I can move mountains. Help me to trust in your power more then anything I could create. You are truly the only one who can change and capture a heart. I long for an even deeper time in your presence. To meet with you face to face and to learn to trust in the power of your awesome hand.
The END. Stay tuned for more or check Aria out at www.ariaanaforian.com
BE A MAN! A Jesus for Real Men
“The stallions hang out in bars; the geldings hang out in church.” This observation from David Murrow strikes a little close to home for someone like me. I always thrived in my congregation but was never certain I fit the mold of masculinity I saw modeled around me. So as much as I resent Murrow’s sentiment, it nevertheless rings true: In many churches, a certain type of man is conspicuously absent.
The disparity in men’s and women’s attendance in American churches has made men the target of specialized ministry over the last two decades. Promise Keepers kicked off the men’s movement in 1990 by challenging stadiums full of men and boys to fulfill their duties to God and their families. Today a growing body of literature is leveling its sights on the church, suggesting that men are uninvolved in church life because the church doesn’t encourage authentic masculine participation.
The first writer to popularize this concern was John Eldredge, who, in his three-million-selling Wild at Heart (Thomas Nelson, 2001), lamented that the masculine spirit was at risk because “most men believe God put them on the earth to be good boys.” The church’s tendency to promote discipleship as merely becoming “nice guys” keeps men from embodying their God-given maleness.
Wild at Heart sowed seeds that have sprouted as a new “masculinity movement” aimed to get men into church by changing the church’s atmosphere. David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church (Thomas Nelson, 2004), founded the group Church for Men because, while the local congregation is “perfectly designed to reach women and older folks”—with its emphasis on comfort, nurture, and relationships—it “offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant.”
Inspired by Murrow, comedian Brad Stine began GodMen, a ministry that provides space in which “men can be men; raw and uninhibited; completely free to express themselves in the uniquely male way that only men understand.” In a 2002 GodMen meeting, this experience included videos of karate fights, car chases, and songs like “Grow a Pair!” whose lyrics read:
We’ve been beaten down
Feminized by the culture crowd
No more nice guy, timid and ashamed …
Grab a sword, don’t be scared
Be a man, grow a pair!
It’s not sung to the tune of “In the Garden.”
The message of Church for Men and GodMen is resonating with ministers of all stripes. Following Murrow’s advice, Don Wilson, pastor of Christ’s Church of the Valley in Peoria, Arizona, has geared his entire ministry toward reaching young men. And while his ministry is not to men in particular, Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church, nevertheless desires greater testosterone in contemporary Christianity. In Driscoll’s opinion, the church has produced “a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. … Sixty percent of Christians are chicks,” he explains, “and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks.”
The aspect of church that men find least appealing is its conception of Jesus. Driscoll put this bluntly in his sermon “Death by Love” at the 2006 Resurgence theology conference (available at TheResurgence.com). According to Driscoll, “real men” avoid the church because it projects a “Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ” that “is no one to live for [and] is no one to die for.” Driscoll explains, “Jesus was not a long-haired … effeminate-looking dude”; rather, he had “callused hands and big biceps.” This is the sort of Christ men are drawn to—what Driscoll calls “Ultimate Fighting Jesus.”
Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy (Bethany House, 2005), agrees: The problem with the wimpy Jesus of the popular imagination is that “a meek and mild Jesus eventually is a bore. He doesn’t inspire us.”
I respect what these authors are trying to accomplish. They recognize that the Jesus of the Bible—unlike the Jesus of much contemporary Christian art and music—was not afraid to denounce, challenge, and offend. After all, he called the Pharisees vipers and Peter the Devil. Thus, the greatest contribution of the movement is that it identifies ways the American church has reduced Christian discipleship to minding one’s manners. Murrow is right; much of a typical experience in church is “sweet and sentimental, nurturing and nice.” For these writers, nice is an expletive that summarizes the church’s digression from radical discipleship to simple moralizing. In short, the movement reminds us of what Jesus and Paul insisted: The gospel is an offense and discipleship is an invitation to the cross.
Re-masculating Jesus
The movement’s method of reclaiming the radical nature of the gospel, however, poses a genuine threat to Christian discipleship. These authors see the church’s fixation on morality as part and parcel of the church’s feminization, and they suggest that the solution is to inject the church with a heavy dose of testosterone. In other words, allowing women to create Jesus in their image has emasculated him; thus, regaining a biblical image of Christ is as simple as re-masculating him.
The masculinity movement’s solution assumes that Jesus came to model genuine masculinity. The authors don’t say so explicitly, but their rhetoric assumes manly instincts are inherently godly. In Wild at Heart Eldredge claims, “We are never told to kill the true man within us, never told to get rid of those deep desires for battle and adventure and beauty.” The GodMen repeat the theme: “None of our maleness is toned down because we believe … that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.” These statements imply that when the church adopts the supposedly male psyche, it fulfills its purpose, but when it conforms to the supposedly female psyche, it becomes aberrant.
Murrow tries to avoid this conclusion by insisting that the church is healthiest when it looks like a marble cake, with masculinity and femininity present in equal parts. But what he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. He says that women believe the purpose of Christianity is to find “a happy relationship with a wonderful man”—Jesus—whereas men recognize God’s call to “save the world against impossible odds.” Moreover, he claims to have history on his side. While the church was masculine, it fulfilled its purpose. But in the 19th century, women “began remaking the church in their image” (and they continue to do so), which moved the church off course.
Driscoll comes closest to imagining Jesus as the model of maleness when he argues that “latte-sipping Cabriolet drivers” do not represent biblical masculinity, because “real men”—like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist— are “dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes.” In other words, because Jesus is not a “limp-wristed, dress-wearing hippie,” the men created in his image are not sissified church boys; they are aggressive, assertive, and nonverbal.
I’m not sure where a man like me fits when the only categories for masculinity are “metrosexual” and “Ultimate Fighting champion.” Like Jesus, I’ve worked as a carpenter, and I’ve sweated in a lumber mill. But I don’t gauge my masculinity by the girth of my neck, and I’d rather not sweat for a living. I’m happiest when I’m reading and writing. I like lattes.
Besides offering an extremely narrow view of masculinity, this framework totally excludes women from real discipleship. To begin with, it blames them for neutering the gospel. Left in their hands, the church became nice and affirming and lost its vision to reach the world. Perhaps worse, if Christ is the model of masculinity, then women can’t imitate him. They can pursue him as the lover of their souls. They can imitate his devotion to the Father in their relationships with their husbands. But they can’t become like him in any essential way.
Jesus, Fully Human
Fortunately for women and men alike, the Bible never speaks of Christians as reformed men and women, but as altogether new creations (2 Cor. 5:17). The Fall has done more damage to the human heart than the masculinity movement seems willing to admit. For instance, a man’s natural inclinations may prompt him to be “Boss, Bold, Brash, Bully, and Blunt,” as one of GodMen’s sayings suggests. But most of these are qualities of the old self that are destroyed when one is transformed into the image of Christ. A man’s urge for battle—with fist or pen—may well be natural, but that doesn’t automatically make it godly. In other words, conversion does not sanctify our instincts; rather, it demands that we submit all our instincts to the lordship of Christ and crucify the sinful ones, what Paul calls “the flesh” (Eph. 2).
Most importantly, Scripture gives no indication that Jesus came to earth to model masculinity. He is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15). As such, he is not simply the perfect male; he is the perfect human being. Through his obedience to the Father, Christ exhibited the qualities that should characterize all believers, both male and female.
Jesus’ triumphal entry is commonly considered evidence of his essential maleness. It seems reasonable: Angered by the blasphemy of the temple officials, Jesus topples tables and whips moneychangers in a demonstration of righteous aggression. But the story must be understood in the context of Luke’s entire gospel. Earlier in Luke (13:34), Jesus describes his love for Jerusalem in maternal terms; he has longed to gather Israel to himself “as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.” Anticipating his final entrance into Jerusalem, he says that he will visit Jerusalem’s house (the temple) when the people proclaim, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” As he approaches the city in Luke 19, he weeps at their stubbornness. Only then does he chase the merchants from the temple. In other words, the temple cleansing was premeditated—not a manly burst of anger, but a passionate and symbolic display of God’s judgment.
My point is this: If Adam and Eve illustrate the essential differences between men and women, Christ highlights their essential unity. All believers are called to imitate Christ by exhibiting the same qualities; Paul makes no distinction between masculine and feminine fruits of the Spirit. In fact, the evidence of the Spirit’s work looks very different from the qualities the masculinity movement suggests typify a “real” man. Instead of “brash, offensive” (Stine), “self-reliant, competitive” (Murrow), “punch-you-in-the-nose dudes” (Driscoll), Paul says that those who are filled with the Holy Spirit will be loving, patient, peaceful, kind, and gentle.
The masculinity movement would have us emulate the glorified Jesus—the one who will return on horseback and brandish the sword of judgment. That is certainly the Jesus we worship. But it is not the Jesus we are commanded to imitate. The only times Jesus appears in Scripture as a warrior are in his pre-incarnate debuts in the Old Testament and post-resurrection glory. Our model of behavior, then, is the suffering Son, not the glorified one. Humanity in the image of Christ is not aggressive and combative; it is humble and poor (Phil. 2:5ff). We are most like Christ not when we win a fight, but when we suffer for righteousness’ sake (Eph. 5:1-2; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14).
Arguing for common characteristics between men and women is not to argue for identical roles. I don’t intend to downplay the significant differences between the genders or the distinct challenges in discipleship that men and women each face. I mean that if courage is Christlike, then men and women should both develop courage, even if the ways in which they display it may differ. In other words, we should mistrust any interpretation of Scripture that simply confirms our instincts. If it is more natural for a man to be aggressive and a woman to be passive, then a genuine encounter with Christ should challenge a man to become gentle (Gal. 5:23) and a woman to become bold (2 Tim. 1:7). The challenge of discipleship is extended equally to both men and women.
True Strength
Indeed, Jesus was not afraid to offend and rebuke. He was not kind at the expense of the truth. But those qualities are not masculine as such; they are godly. Imposing qualities we consider masculine on an image of Jesus we consider feminine does not solve the problem. It only gives us a new problem—another culturally shaped Jesus, only masculine this time.
The way to recover the biblical image of Jesus is to submit ourselves to the Scriptures and let them discipline our preconceptions. In the process, we must remember that the purpose of discipleship is not primarily to become fulfilled men or women, but rather to be transformed into the image of Christ. In the end, the biblical image of Jesus presents a far more radical role model than Jesus the dude. Jesus was gritty, honest, and fearless. Yet his strength was not displayed in his willingness to punch evildoers in the mouth, but in his suffering at the hands of the wicked for their good. Where such strength is found—whether in a man or a woman, a latte-sipping sissy or a muscled mason—there is godly strength.
Brandon O’Brien is assistant editor for Leadership and BuildingChurchLeaders.com.
THE YEAR OF LIVING BIBLICALLY
* from the TODAY SHOW website
What happens when you follow the Bible as literally as you can in the modern age? Journalist and author A.J. Jacobs found out when he spent a year taking a spiritual journey, following more than 700 Biblical rules for 52 weeks.
He chronicles the journey in The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. He sat down with Matt this morning to discuss the book and his experience.
…and after his return to his regular life.
Here’s our conversation:
Q: Once you had a really good beard going and were wearing sandals and white robes, were you constantly having to explain yourself to people on the street?
A.J. Jacobs: I was. I definitely got some second looks. Occasionally people would cross the street to avoid me. But at the same time, there were people who were very interested in my project. And in some cases, I felt very flattered because some people said they felt more reverent in my presence, and that they didn’t want to lie or gossip, which was a nice side benefit.
Q: What were some of the more bizarre reactions you got from people on the street?
A.J.: Well, I got everything from being treated like a D-list celebrity, where people would take photographs of me with their friends to one guy who made an obscene gesture at me. What I did to provoke him, I don’t know. In fact, I did nothing to provoke him, I was just wearing my Biblical clothing and my beard. But apparently he did not like it.
Q: Was he maybe making obscene gestures at everyone or did he single you out?
A.J.: He seemed to be singling me out…he clearly was not following the Golden Rule, because I would not make obscene gestures at him.
Q: Was there ever a point where you thought about quitting? That there was too much stress on your life, too much stress on your marriage…
A.J.: Absolutely, all the time. As you say, there was a lot of stress on my life. I had to build a hut in my living room, and my wife wouldn’t kiss me for the last two months of my year, because the beard was so voluminous. So it was a huge challenge. I’m glad I made it through.
Q: What about food? How did your diet have to change for this?
A.J.: I did try to do a Biblical, Old Testament sort of diet. No pork, no shellfish. I ate a lot of hummus, I drank goat’s milk, because they drank goat’s milk back then. I even tried to eat some crickets, because in the Bible, it says specifically that you’re supposed to eat crickets. It sounds like a crazy rule, but if you think about it, it actually makes sense, because a plague of locusts comes, wipes out the crops, what do they have left to eat? Crickets, the locusts.
Q: You were supposed to wear white all the time, right?
A.J.: I did wear white all the time.
Q: Say you and your wife are invited to a black tie wedding…what do you wear to an event like that?
A.J.: Well that is a great question, but luckily I never got invited to a black tie wedding (or a white tie wedding). In the Bible, there’s a line in Ecclesiastes that says, “Let your garments always be white.” So I tried to follow that literally. And I have to say, it was one of the best parts of my experience. Wearing white made you feel lighter and more spiritual. You felt like you couldn’t be in a bad mood if you were all white and looking like you were playing tennis.
Q: Getting ready for Wimbledon.
A.J.: Right, exactly.
Q: Is there anything in particular that you miss from that lifestyle, from that year that you maybe can’t incorporate into your life now?
A.J.: There’s a lot, because there were some amazing rules and amazing experiences. One thing is that weirdly, when the year ended, I felt unanchored. I felt overwhelmed by choice. There were too many options. I had lived a very structured life, and there was something too that. We all talk about freedom of choice in this country. But there’s also something to be said for freedom from choice. Should you read a gossip magazine about Cameron Diaz? No. Should you give 10 percent of your money to the needy? Yes. So it provides some structure, which can be very appealing.
Q: Is there any particular thing from the Bible that resonates with you from your day now?
A.J.: Absolutely, there are lots of things. It was definitely a life-changing year. One thing is, as I mentioned on the show, I was saying thanks so often that it became part of my routine. And it’s a great thing, because you forget to thank for all the little things that go right in a day instead of focusing on the three or four that go wrong.
And one other thing, I had kind of a perspective change. As one of my spiritual advisors said, you can either look at the world as a series of rights and entitlements or as a series of responsibilities. And the Bible says to look at it as a series of responsibilities, and I love that. It’s like the JFK quote. Ask not what your country — or the world — can do for you, ask what you can do for the world. It’s a great perspective to strive for. I don’t always achieve it, but I try.
There’s always a story…
With white curly, raggedy hair and a out of control fu manchu goatee, Tino sat in the seat behind me on the light rail.
I had briefly noticed him when he got on the train. So much so, that I sent myself an email with a brief description of what I saw. You see all kinds of people on the train. So many people, so many stories.
I really don’t remember how our conversation started. However, I realized very early on that with his broekn english, I was only going to understand every fifth or sixth word he said. But, it was at that thought that I realized that understanding every word he said was not the point.
It was taking the time to look him in the eye, treat him like a normal human being and that he was valued that was the point.
From our conversation, here is what I learned…
1. He is from Mexico City
2. Came to US in 1982
3. His “momma” had three girls and three boys
4. He last visited them in Mexico City in 1995
At one point in our conversation, he showed me a picture of a person whom he said taught him english. He then asked me if I knew any spanish.
“Barely.” I replied.
I then launched into the only spanish I knew.. his response to each time I spoke something in spanish was priceless. He had the kind of laugh that made you want to continue to make him laugh.
He would place his two small hands in his face and look down with this high pitched rough sounding laugh. It was good to see Constantino laugh. I hope he laughs often. Not sure how much he has to laugh at.
Que Pasa?
Uno Coca por favor?
Chaufer esta muy loco en mexico!
humiliense enla presenious el senor.
I then told him… that’s all I got. and of course… he laughed.
He then told me about getting up every morning at three am to catch max downtown and begin picking up cans and bottles. Tino had an honored citizen max pass giving him unlimited access. Not sure how you get one of those, I thought as he proudly showed me his card.
On money, here is one of his stories about Portland…
Money, it just shows up. Comes from nowhere. Do you know the Coliseum? I was down there and these people would reach into their pockets and money would come flying out. I would go into the bushes and pick up the money. it just shows up and I get the money.
On prescription drugs…
the government… they just keep giving me free pills. I don’t know why, I just get more and more and more. (he then does his laugh routine. I laugh with him. people on the train stare.)
At the end of the train ride, I shook Tino’s cold, red, and very small hand. I said God bless you and keep the hope.
As the train passed me by, I looked up and saw Tino one last time. He waved goodbye to me like that of a little kid.
Sure, I didn’t understand much of our conversation. But, I did understand this… people matter. We cannot and should not judge how people get to be where they are. We are all God’s children and creation. Let us not just walk on by and pass up opportunities to make someone’s day.
And maybe just maybe, that is why Tino sat behind me. Maybe he wanted to make my day.
Tino… well done. Mission accomplished.
Essay 2
How do we as christians interact with culture? How do we view art, listen to music, watch movies and keep it all cool with JC? R. Wesley Hurd has an amazing series of essays on just that topic. Installment One. Culture.
Essay 3
Changing Africa, One Village at a Time
By Marvin Olasky
Thursday, January 31, 2008
CHISAMBA, Zambia — It’s 7:15 Monday morning in a cement-block house near this country’s major highway, the paved, two-lane Great North Road. Supervisor Peter Phiri, who helped to build that road during the 1990s, is speaking to 40 employees starting their workweek in a country where AIDS, unemployment and corruption are all rampant. They sit on planks held up by cement blocks in the building their own hands constructed.
Intense and energetic, Phiri tells them, It’s up to you, up to me, to choose. Pray to God to give you a right choice. Remember that without Jesus, you can’t accomplish anything.” HIV statistics in Africa show that many have chosen wrongly. The well-documented failure of many government and big philanthropic projects shows that many would-be helpers have chosen wrongly.
But the 230-acre Village of Hope farm here, located 45 miles north of the capital city, Lusaka, is a small-scale project designed and managed by those who have gained ground-level experience in the peculiar challenges that Africa offers. The project has Africans in key positions. It is designed to fight the welfare mentality that has grown in Africa as the West has poured in money.
The typical day here begins with a half-hour of call-and-response harmonic singing and Christian education provided by Zambian evangelicals such as Phiri and a local preacher, Pastor Zulu. Then comes harvesting of peanuts left in the sun to dry, or sunflower seeds that will be turned into oil. Some manufacture the thousands of construction blocks (five parts sand, one part cement) that go into building 900-square-foot, three-bedroom cottages for the orphan houses that are central in the village.
The emphasis overall is on village-level technology with no wasted resources. For example, the wood stockpiled during the stumping of the farm goes for fires for lunchtime cooking. The larger goal of the Village of Hope is to teach adults diligence and responsibility on the job, and to save the lives of orphans. American churches and individuals send contributions: To maintain one cottage of eight to10 children plus a widow caregiver costs $500 per month.
Africans administer the project, but one white American entrepreneur is on the scene: Last July, Benedict Schwartz, a Maryland software CEO, uprooted himself and his family and moved to the Village of Hope. Schwartz created an evangelical ministry that directs the project, All Kids Can Learn International (www.akcli.org). He is now recruiting others to build and adopt orphan cottages on the property, to take mission trips to the farm, and to pray for the children. For example, two teams from the U.S. had a Vacation Bible School for 400 children this past summer, and two Americans taught five Zambians to be welders.
Africa has lots of orphanages and agricultural development projects, but putting together the two is brilliant. A daily farm schedule helps to heal children who were child slaves, or took care of dying parents, or struggled to survive on their own in the African bush. Teen workers heal as well: Grace Mkazamwene, 18, explains that My parents died when I was young. I now feel that I have a future. I used to have a short, hot temper, but now things are different. I am more patient with everyone. I have learned love.”
I’ve seen a variety of orphanages in Africa and elsewhere, and this model is the best. It could be replicated throughout sub-Saharan Africa. And it could be done without government money, which often hampers rather than helps. Schwartz’s goal is one church, one cottage, including financial and prayer support. He would like to see a team from a supporting church take a mission trip every 12 to 18 months to visit the children and develop relationships with them. He challenges Americans who have already attained wealth: Don’t think of what kind of home entertainment system or which set of golf clubs to buy. Think of lives that could be changed for the better.”
Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of World, vice president for academic affairs of The King’s College and a professor at The University of Texas. For additional commentary by Marvin Olasky throughout the week, go to www.worldmagblog.com.
Looking at mountains through a window on a plane
by gunnar simonsen
“A Journey through the Early Church”–Making Poverty History
Pastor James Gleason – Sonrise Church in Hillsboro, Oregon
Click here to download message
We’re concluding our series, “Making Poverty History” by looking through the lens of history–the history of the Early Church to see the examples they have left us. We’ve seen God’s heart in the O.T. and God’s heart in the N.T., but today we step out of the Bible and see God’s heart through the lives of the early followers of Jesus. Jesus modeled a life and ministry of “Good News” and “Good Works.” “This is the message of Good News for the people of Israel—that there is peace with God through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee, after John began preaching his message of baptism. And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.“ Acts 10:36-38 (NLT) Jesus modeled both “Good News” and “Good Works.” It’s both!
Today, LET’S LOOK AT THE EARLY CHURCH
If we can learn anything from the history of the early church, we can learn that a church without seminaries, churchgrowth seminars, elaborate programs, Christian politicians, or large buildings can still grow and impact their world at a phenomenal way.
Historically, the church has been found working for change in the least desirable parts of the world. The Church realized that it was vital to the health and well-being of their communities. The early Christians lived in such a way that caused the world to stand up and take notice! They had a love and a lifestyle that could not be ignored. They were followers of Jesus, and they lived and loved as he did–and when it was time to pay the ultimate price for their love, they willingly laid down their lives for their world.
1st century documents describe an unusual Christian “outreach”: collecting the abandoned dead bodies of society’s outcasts to and giving them a proper burial.
“Let the strong take care of the weak; let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich man minister to the poor man; let the poor man give thanks to God that he gave him one through whom his need might be satisfied. Let the wise man manifest his wisdom not in words but in good deeds.” Clement of Rome, 1st Century
“Widows are not to be neglected. You, after the Lord, be their protector.” Ignatius, 1st Century
A 2nd Century document describe “baby runs,” wherein Christians collected unwanted babies left out to die of exposure when no one wanted them. That was the old form of Abortion.
Aristides, a Christian writer described Christians to the Roman Emperor Hadrian this way, “They love one another. They never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who would hurt them. If they have something they give freely to the man who has nothing; if they see a stranger, they take him home, and are happy, as though he were a real brother.” Aristides, 1st Century “And instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.” Irenaeus, 2nd Century In approximately A.D. 150, a Christian writer described the lifestyle of the 2nd century Christians. Summing up his thoughts he wrote, “As the soul is to the body, so Christians are to the world.” Mathetus, 2nd Century
The Gospel is most powerful when Christians are living in face-to-face relationships with those in our communities. Look at the words of the early Christian Church leader and writer, Tertullian, “Do we not dwell beside you, sharing your way of life, your dress, your habits and the same needs of life? We are no Brahmins or Indian gymnosophists, dwelling woods and exiled from life…We stay beside you in this world, making use of the forum, the provision-market, the bath, the booth, the workshop, the inn, the weekly market, and all other places of commerce. We sail with you, fight at your side, till the soil with you, and traffic with you; we likewise join our technical skill to that of others, and make our works public property for your use.” Tertullian, 3rd Century
The early Christians were not a society of separatists, they were actively engaged in the life of their city! The early Church believed that ministering and serving were the normal expression of Christian living. They wanted to serve and bless the city, not control it. They knew that being “salt and light” is about influence, not control. They ended up being assets to their cities, not liabilities! When the horrific plagues of the first three centuries swept over Europe, those who were able fled the cities–but not the Christians. They stayed and ministered to the sick and the dying, whether they were Christian or not. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, described how believers responded to the plague of A.D. 260: “The most of our brethren were unsparing in their exceeding love and brotherly kindness. They held fast to each other and visited the sick fearlessly, and ministered to them continually, serving them in Christ. And they died with them most joyfully, taking the affliction of others, and drawing the sickness from their neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving their pains. And many who cared for the sick and gave strength to others died themselves having transferred to themselves their death…But with the heathen everything was quite otherwise. They deserted those who began to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends. And they cast them out into the streets when they were half dead, and left the dead like refuse, unburied.” Dionysius, 3rd Century
The early Christians ministered to and showed hospitality toward the poor, the orphans, the elderly, the sick, the mineworkers, and the prisoners. “The evidence of the Christians’ zeal and piety was made clear to all the pagans. For example, they alone in such a catastrophic state of affairs gave practical evidence of their sympathy and philanthropy by works. All day long some of them would diligently persevere in performing the last offices for the dying and burying them (for there were countless numbers, and no one to look after them). While others gathered together in a single assemblage all who were afflicted by famine throughout the whole city, and would distribute bread to them all.” Eusebius, 4th Century
The Roman Emperor Julian, one of the chief persecutors of Christians, admitted in disgust that: “These godless Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their table. Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods.” Roman Emperor Julian, 4th Century The early Christians said that if a child starves while a Christian has extra food, then the Christian is guilty of murder. One of the early Church Fathers wrote this, “When someone strips a man of his clothes, we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not–should not he be given the same name? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute.” Basil, 4th Century
Throughout the centuries the Church has played a major role in transforming communities and leading the way in social justice and equality.
–St. Patrick not only Christianized Ireland, he led the charge to end slavery in Ireland.
–John Wesley not only led revivals, he campaigned for prison and labor reform, built orphanages and schools, battled the slave trade, set up loans for the poor and gave away his money to the people in need.
–William Wilberforce pushed to abolish slavery in the British Colonies–and won in 1807!
–William and Catherine Booth began the Salvation Army in 1865. This was written, “Probably during no hundred years in the history of the world have their been saved so many thieves, gamblers, drunkards, and prostitutes as during the past quarter of a century through the Salvation Army.”
–Christians have been at the front of establishing child-labor laws, schools, universities, orphanages, hospitals, aiding in famine relief, and rescue missions. They were not only concerned about saving “souls” but about saving “bodies” as well! They were not only concerned about getting people to heaven, but making a difference now!
The Church is the only organization that exists for the benefits of its non-members!!!
If Sonrise Church ceased to exist, how would the city feel? Would our city weep? Would anybody even notice? Would anybody care?
Our mission: Making the Intangible God Tangible!
“You see, we don’t go around preaching about ourselves. We preach that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we ourselves are your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let there be light in the darkness,’ has made this light shine in our hearts so we could know the glory of God that is seen in the face of Jesus Christ.
“We now have this light shining in our hearts, but we ourselves are like fragile clay jars containing this great treasure. This makes it clear that our great power is from God, not from ourselves.” 2 Corinthians 4:5-7 (NLT)
It’s not about us, it’s about God. That’s what the world needs to see!
Riding a donkey, Jesus entered into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. The crowds cheered and shouted out praises to him. They cut off the palm branches and laid them down on the ground for the donkey to ride on. Some even threw down their coats and shouted praises to God.
Now, what if the donkey had thought it was all about him? After all, he was the one doing the work! But it wasn’t about him, he was just a donkey carrying the Message of God.
The church that serves it’s community is just the donkey. We are simply carrying the message!
Mother Teresa said it like this: “I am a little pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world.”
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING ABOUT IT? (Putting your faith into action)
We are his witnesses: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8 (NLT)
The Sonrise “4-H” Initiative: Hunger, Homelessness, Hispanic Ministries & HIV/AIDS
Twelve Sonrise Examples–Small Things Done with Great Love Will Change the World
We need to be like Jesus. Like Jesus, we need to be out in our communities connecting with people through acts of God’s amazing love and connecting them to a God of amazing Grace!Our world is still open to a gospel it can hear and see. The real gospel is two-sided–it’s truth and proof!
Church history tells us the Church has always been at its best when it’s Gospel comes with both sides: grace and truth!
One of the most effective ways to reach people with the message of Jesus Christ today is through real and relevant acts of service. To tell the truth, we must show the truth. After all, it’s the model that Jesus used! He served, he met needs…and people listened!Mosaic pastor, Erwin McManus wrote,
“There is something mystical about servanthood because God is a servant. When we serve others, we more fully reflect the image of God, and our hearts begin to resonate with the heart of God. We may never be more like God than when we’re serving from a purely selfless motivation.”
My son, Josiah, has “show and tell” every few weeks at his Kindergarten class. Remember that? It seems that the Church has become more concerned with “telling” than with “showing.”
–Christians will tell others what they need to do to be right with God.
–Christians will preach about what is not right with the world.
–But most Christians have forgotten how to show God’s love to the world.
–For the most part, what we “show” doesn’t match up with what we “tell.”
In this day and age, whether we like it or not, we have to earn the right to be heard!
We have a chance to build relational bridges with “the least, the last and the lost” so that they can “see” Jesus in us and so that we can share God’s grace in the midst of real need.
We can’t do everything, but we can all do something!
THE HOUND OF HEAVEN
Poet Francis Thompson lead a life pursued by God. Does this mean he avoided pain, temptation, and struggles? No. He experienced the pains of life, unknown as a poet for years, addicted to opium, living with prostitutes, homeless and alone he still felt the pursuit of God. His poem THE HOUND OF HEAVEN expresses this pursuit.A short Bio from our friends at WIKIPEDIA
He was born in Preston, Lancashire, his father was a doctor who had converted to Roman Catholicism, following his brother Edward Healy Thompson, a friend of Cardinal Manning.Thompson was educated at Ushaw College, near Durham, and then studied medicine at Owens College in Manchester. He took no real interest in his studies and never practised as a doctor, moving instead to London to try and become a writer. Here he was reduced to selling matches and newspapers for a living.During this time, he became addicted to opium, which he first had taken as a remedy for ill health. Thompson came to London in 1885 and lived a life of destitution until in 1888 he was ‘discovered’ after he sent poetry to the magazine Merrie England. He was sought out by the editors of ‘Merrie England’, Wilfrid and Alice Meynell and rescued from the verge of starvation and self-destruction. Recognizing the value of his work, the couple gave him a home and arranged for publication of his first book, Poems in 1893. The book attracted the attention of sympathetic critics in the St James’s Gazette and other newspapers, and Coventry Patmore wrote a eulogistic notice in the Fortnightly Review of January 1894.Subsequently Thompson lived as an invalid in Wales and at Storrington. A lifetime of extreme poverty, ill-health, and an addiction to opium unbalanced Thompson, even though he found success in his last years. Thompson attempted suicide in his nadir of despair, but was saved from completing the action through a vision which he believed to be that of a youthful poet, Chatterton, who had committed suicide almost a century earlier. Shortly afterwards, a prostitute – whose identity Thompson never revealed – was to befriend him, give him lodgings and share her income with him. Thompson was later to describe her in his poetry as his saviour. But she would disappear one day, never to return. He would eventually die from tuberculosis, at the age of 48.His most famous poem, “The Hound of Heaven” describes the pursuit of the human soul by God. This poem is the source of the phrase, “with all deliberate speed,” used by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education , the remedy phase of the famous decision on school desegregation. I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat-and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet-
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.)
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to:
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars:
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden-to Eve: Be soon;
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover-
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ‘thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:-
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat-
“Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.”I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.
“Come then, ye other children, Nature’s-share
With me” (said I) “your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine you with caresses,
Wantoning
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured dais,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.”
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one-
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spuméd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak-
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noised Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet-
“Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me.”
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years-
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist.
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must-
Designer infinite!-
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou can’st limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpséd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
“And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught” (He said),
“And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited-
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”
He said ” There was a poet named Francis Thompson, who lived under a bridge in Oxford, England. He was a seminary student for awhile but his heroin addiction got so bad that he couldnt concentrate anymore. So he lived with a prostitute for a period of time. He would write on newspaper clippings poems and and send them to the local paper who printed at one point, “There is a greater than Milton living among us, Please reveal yourself.” But he never did. Thompson wrote that beautiful poem, THE HOUND OF HEAVEN, that talks about all the darkness in his life, all the pain and misery, being but the shadow of the hand of God reaching out to grab him and hold him to His chest. So he looks for God, he looks for Him up in “the wheeling systems darken” as he puts it. The stars, and he can’t find Him. He looks for Him in relationships and he can’t find Him. He looks for Him in beauty and he can’t find him. He dies under a bridge by the river Thames and by his body is a piece of paper with his last poem on it. The last lines, there on the river Thames, reveal not that he found Christ, but that Christ found him.
Oh world intangible, we touch thee,
Oh world unknowable, we know thee,
Inapprehensible, we clutch thee!
Does the fish soar to find the ocean,
The eagle plunge to find the air—
Do we ask of the stars in motion,
If they have rumor of thee there?
Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!—
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.
The angels keep their ancient places;
—Turn but a stone, and start a wing!
’Tis ye, ’tis your estranged faces,
That miss the many-splendoured thing.
But when so sad thou canst not sadder
Cry—and upon thy so sore loss
Shall shine the traffic of Jacob’s ladder
Pitched betwixt Heaven and Charing Cross.
Yea, in the night, my Soul, my daughter,
Cry—clinging Heaven by the hems;
And lo, Christ walking on the water
Not of Gennesaret, but Thames!Praise the Lord, He meets us where we are.
Constantino was a rough looking short guy who wore a hard helmet with Tino painted on the front. He was an older man, but was probably much younger than he looked. My guess is that he was actually in his sixties. But, the years of living on the streets and such provided obvious wear and tear on his appearance.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.