Scandalous: Judgment or Grace

Which is more scandalous and remarkable?

That God judged and wiped out the world of Noah, Sodom & Gomorrah, and the Canaanites? Or that God gave them many years and even centuries in which to repent from their wickedness?

It was God's love and grace that He became human and gave Himself so that those who believe and rely on His redemption and grace would spend eternity with Him. It is a scandal of God's love and grace that He didn't wipe me off the face of the Earth the first time I sinned but am instead a beneficiary of His love and grace.

A Reason Why God Doesn't Show Himself? Maybe?

James 2:19 makes an interesting statement: You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. Satan and demons know for certain of God's existence, and are forced by that knowledge to believe in God. But it doesn't save them from their rebellion.

Were God to manifest Himself to humans so that His existence, majesty, power and love were undeniable, would that then make impossible salvation through faith in Jesus's death and resurrection?

Men and Women of Our Times?

I recently read http://danielsilliman.blogspot.de/2014/02/if-i-did-not-believe-god-loved-blackest.html, an article about racism among Pentecostals of a century ago. It gives a little general history of the Pentecostal movement, and of several notable men in its history. Particularly, it mentions a several men who affirmed the racial separation that was the norm of that era; not all were white.

Many years ago, now, I read an excellent biography of Martin Luther. Along with his accomplishments, it noted that, late in life, he also wrote and published some very ugly things about Jewish people. This was, at the time, new to me. I was raised in a Lutheran church, and his antisemitic writings were not taught. They might have remained ugly historical curiosities, but 4 centuries later, Adolph Hitler and other anti-Semites cited Luther's writings to bolster their credibility.

In both cases, it could, accurately, be said that they – Luther and racists/racialists among early Pentecostals – were “men of their times”. The writer of the article I linked above noted this idea … but went used over half of his article to give the histories of two white Pentecostal leaders who were not “men of their times”. They rose above their times, and they paid a price for it (not only with whites, BTW). One can only wonder what might have been – for them personally, the Pentecostal movement, and for the US – had many more Pentecostal leaders similarly and righteously refused to be “men of their times”.

I think this is the kind of thing Jesus had in mind when He prayed that believers not be “of the world”! Many Christians worry about and expend energy pointing out worldlinesses such as fashionable clothes, cosmetics, dancing, expensive cars and homes, music, gadgets, and such – and there certainly is room for concern. But aren't the compromises of being “men of their times” when the views and doings of “the times” are unrighteous far more “worldly” than the brand of clothing one wears or the the model of car one drives? Tossing out one's cosmetics or music collection is easy and cheap, not requiring any change of heart or loss of friends and social standing.

Now ... forget, for a moment, about the sins of men and women of the past. Don't point fingers at others' sins. Have the courage and faith to look in a mirror. Where do we (I!) now compromise with our society and culture over what God has said is right?

Rethinking Modern Church Practice, Part 2

I recently finished reading the Bible, Genesis through Revelation. One of the things that struck me was in 2 Timothy 2:2. Here, Paul instructs Timothy to train/appoint mature leaders who will, in turn, train and raise up the net generation of leaders in their congregations. Obviously, Paul was not committed to the idea that Jesus would return in his lifetime. Aside from that, note the leadership training process. Congregations were not to send of their brightest and best to a seminary tens or hundreds or thousands of miles away, and then receive as new leaders men or women who were chosen after brief acquaintance or appointed by some regional leader. Congregations were to train - in Scripture and in hands-on service (= ministry) - and develop their own leaders from within, and send out people to service elsewhere as the Holy Spirit led.

While there is significant value in learning the languages of Scripture and the teachings of Christians throughout history, I think much of value is sacrificed and lost in the farm-'em out model of leadership development. Churches, thereby, sidestep their responsibility to make disciples, leaving it to others. Potential leaders who cannot afford seminary (or whose gifts do not fit in a seminary) do not become what they could be. Leaders being developed in seminaries do not have the accountability they need and would get from a church whose members know them well. And churches select, or have imposed on them, leaders they don;'t know and who do not know them. Much vulnerability can come from that lack of knowledge, from incompatibilities and understandings to fraud and various sorts of abuse.

Rethinking Modern Church Practice, Part 1 (of ??)

One of the ideas I've long nursed came up recently in the discussions I was having regarding speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts. While there is no detailed instruction or description in the New Testament of the early church's "worship services" Paul does give some very interesting information about what was "normal" at the very beginning of the church:

When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26

That certainly sounds like pretty much no "worship service" I've ever seen! Paul's picture is of a meeting where - potentially and sometimes literally - contributed something to the overall worship and  building up of the assembled Body. Modern "worship services" are like a hybrid concert, stage production, and lecture. While this modern (and it is centuries old) performer--participative-audience model is a more organized and efficient for preplanned worship and teaching in a large group, it channels limits the work of the Holy Spirit. In fully scripted (= liturgical) churches, the Holy Spirit could almost go on a years long sabbatical, unnoticed.

It also severely limits the expression and variety of gifts that can be used in a gathering. Looking over the lists of spiritual gifts listed in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4,  some would be impractical or extremely difficult to express and oversee in the performer-audience worship service model. And those that do fit are limited to particular circumstances (e.g. "worship time", "offering time", "sermon time") and particular people (e.g. the worship leaders, the pastor or guest speaker).

All in all, the modern performer-audience worship service model does not fit Paul's "each one has a" and "(l)et all things be done". Does anyone sincerely believe we modern Christians are smarter than what Paul described and the Holy Spirit developed? Have we modern Christians improved on the early church? Or lost/discarded something extremely valuable? And have we done so for so long that we wouldn't recognize our loss or what Paul wrote of as normal?