Doing or Being

Three of the four gospels tell the story of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and asked, "What can I do to have eternal life?" Most who read the story focus on his backing off when Jesus told him to "Sell all you have and give to the poor, and come, follow me." His riches are seen as the sticking point. I am not so sure that is all of the story.

I think we see here two different approaches to "eternal life"--man's, and God's. Matthew quotes the young man as saying, "What excellent and perfectly and essentially good deed must I do..."(Matthew 19:16, Amplified NT)--and I'm afraid he meant, "What ONE good thing can I do (and have it over with and get on with the rest of my life.)" And Jesus' answer boils down to, "Get rid of your stuff, and come hang out with me." These are two totally different approaches, one based on actions and hoops to be jumped through, and one based on an ongoing relationship.

Years ago I read that the natural state of fallen man is legalism. It is, so to speak, the default position. You don't even have to be a Christian to be a legalist--I've seen vegetarians and environmentalists show the same attitude over their convictions. Human beings are constantly setting up codes of behavior (all too often, for others to follow--which was at the heart of Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees). It is typical of religious man to want things he can DO to show how good he is and be approved, whether it's natives sacrificing the chief's daughter to keep the volcano from erupting all over their village or the Pharisee in Jesus' parable bragging to God about how much he did--or Bob Girard's description of the good church member in "Brethren, Hang Loose":

"I found myself measuring individual spiritual growth by some of the same outward standards I had deplored in the established churches:
--how they were picking up the "language"
--whether they would pray in public
--regularity of attendance
--how many of the church's activities they involved themselves in
--availability to the organization
--agreement with the pastor
All the marks of a "truly involved" churchman." "Brethren, Hang Loose" p.31 [the italics were Bob's, not mine]

The thing is, you can jump through the hoops, conform to the expectations outwardly, reap all of the rewards of status in the church and public approval--and still be a sinner in the eyes of God. The truth is, outward religious practices do not reliably result in changed lives--all too often they result in people acting one way in church on Sunday and acting just like everybody else they know the rest of the week--sometimes even worse if they think they can keep it a secret.

So what do we do? Jesus Himself said, "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart." It isn't about what you do, it's about what you are. This runs through both the Old and New Testaments. The prophets kept telling the people that fasting and keeping the festivals was no good if they oppressed the poor the next day--"I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" was only one of many examples. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus expanded to the reach of the Law to the inner thought life, not just the outward actions. The lists of qualifications for church leadership that Paul gave to Timothy and Titus do not say anything about specific "deeds"--they are all character qualities. The "fruit of the Spirit" from Galatians 5 are all character qualities, not actions.

Yes, these character qualities are going to produce actions, sometimes the same actions that the "religious" types perform. But God is not that interested in the actions for their own sake, but the motivation of the heart behind them. The real difference is between a person who puts on a mask on Sunday and takes it off when the spotlight blinks off, and a person who is who he is, 24/7/365.

But how do you know which is which? It is not easy, especially in our modern fragmented society, with no more front porches, little neighborhood interaction, and even very little interaction between Christians once they're away from the church building. It takes time and proximity, spending lives together, not just looking at the back of someone's head on Sunday morning.

Roughly forty years ago there were some efforts to deal with this issue, some called the "renewal movement," some in the "Jesus people," some reflected in the book "Body Life" by Ray Steadman, some in Bob Girard's "Brethren, Hang Loose!". The term "emerging" or "emergent" church has been big in recent years--it was in use then to describe what was going on. There were variations, but much of it boiled down to restoring community in church life--people living their lives together in Christ, not just sitting in pews on Sunday morning. My wife and I were part of this movement as young adults.

So what happened? A lot of it faded away. One church we were part of dwindled to nothing because some of the men in leadership failed to love their co-workers. Others got distracted by new trends--the "discipling" movement, the "praise and worship" movement (and accompanying "worship wars"), the "Toronto blessing" and following "outpourings" and "next big things."

As I said, "emerging" churches have been hot for the past few years. A lot of the things they say remind me of what happened before, some do not. But already I am beginning to see some signs of fading. A church here in Indianapolis that we were part of for a couple of years shows signs of this drift already. A church in Cincinnati that our Indianapolis congregation tried to use as a pattern has drifted even farther, and seems to have ceased growing.

There's been some stir this past month over Michael Spenser's essay "The Coming Evangelical Collapse" in the Christian Science Monitor (first published in three posts in his blog "Internet Monk." He didn't claim Evangelicals will disappear totally, but thinks they will lose half their numbers, much of their funding, and their societal clout (Michael is a Southern Baptist, by the way, and seems quite committed to them). I think I see some of the same things that concern him (I blogged last year about rural churches having an appearance of strength without the substance).

The difference between Michael and me, I guess, is that I see some hope that this collapse is not merely a human thing. Back in January Frank Viola posted one of his old messages on his blog, "Reimagining Church," from a passage in Hebrews: "He [God] takes away the first that He may establish the second." Frank traced this pattern in God's dealing with His people through history. Jesus said in the opening of John 15: "I am the True Vine, and my Father is the Vinedresser. Any branch in me that does not bear fruit He takes away...." I think we are going to see some deadwood removed in the coming years, so that God can do something else. I'm afraid the Evangelical church is going to collapse because God has already given it two wake-up calls and most of them kept on in their own happy little rut. And while there may be some things lost that we may miss, my main concern is to be part of what God is doing, and to be the person He wants me to be.

Seeking the Experience?

I figured out I was a charismatic over twenty years ago. And while I haven't "done it all" I have done a lot of it. I've been in places where we worshipped our heads off, danced in the aisles, seen healings (one time my wife received some healing she hadn't even sought as she walked by when someone else was being prayed for--never did know whether he got healed or not); I've spoken in tongues, received words from prophets, delivered a few myself, been part of a "laughing revival", been drunk on the Holy Spirit (never have been drunk on alcohol in my life, but that night I was drunk); never cast out any evil spirits, but I've known people who have; and finally figured out that I had walked in a form of the gift of discerning spirits for most of my adult life, even before I knew I was a charismatic.

But the best advice I ever heard on this came from one of the leaders of the Toronto Blessing. I can't even remember who it was, John Arnott or one of his associates. Right around the time they were asked to leave the Vineyard Association, he spoke at the Vineyard Community Church in Cincinnati. And one of the things he said was, "Don't seek the experience--seek Jesus."

And he was right. I've seen a lot of people "seeking the experience"--lining up to be prayed over by a prophet (some almost treat it as if it were fortune-telling), running to the next big meeting, going to see the big-name worship leader or faith healer, running off to Kansas City or Brownville or wherever the next big happening is. And the hype goes on and the egos of the "leaders" get bigger and bigger.

But in recent years I've noticed something else going on. The first hint I picked up was when Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer (whom I've cited at times in this blog) left the heritage he'd grown up in to join the one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. And he's not alone. A number of evangelicals have gone either Orthodox (including a couple of bloggers I read) or Roman Catholic (Sen. Sam Brownback used to be a Baptist, but is now RC). And some of the newer churches--some I've known of, and one I attended for a couple of years--have been getting into things like candles, incense, liturgies, Lectio Divina, Divine Hours--I've even heard someone teach that "spiritual disciplines" are how you "abide in Christ" (from John 15:4--the problem is, IMO, if you read the whole chapter, Jesus told how to abide in Him, and he said something else--more on this in another post sometime).

It's almost seemed for some years now that serious Christians are going in two different directions--some becoming more formal--liturgies, etc.--and others are becoming less formal--house churches, "free-range Christians" ( a term I picked up from Wayne Jacobsen). And I've realized for a long time that my own inclination is to less formality (maybe it's the redneck in me).

But lately something else about this situation has dawned on me. All the formal stuff--liturgies, incense, candles, Divine Hours--is another way of "seeking the experience." The "experiences" they seek are not the same "experiences" the charismatics went for, but the principle is the same. And the problem is, the "experiences" are not Jesus. And while for some the experiences may lead to Jesus Himself, all too many will stop short, just as all too many charismatics kept seeking experiences and never quite got all the way to Him.

So--Don't seek the experience, seek Jesus. If He knows the experience will be good for you, or is something you yourself need, He'll see that you get it. (That was my own attitude about tongues years ago.) But keep your focus on Him, not the experiences along the way. The best they can do is point you to Him, but if you focus on them, you can miss Him. And that road leads to emptiness and the need for more and more "experiences" to try to fill up the void that only He can fill.

Schaeffer and the Emerging Church

After a long absence, I'm back, and with some new material. For Christmas my wife and kids went together and got me the Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer-- a five-volume set containing the 22 books he wrote. I had 8 of them before, and had read a couple more over the years, but never had all his writings available before. So I've been working through them, and finding a lot to appreciate.

In "The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century" (originally published in 1970, apparently revised and updated for the "Complete Works" in 1981) Schaeffer declared in Chapter 4, "Form and Freedom in the Church," that the church would have to change to meet the challenges of our changing culture. He laid out eight Biblical mandates for the form of the church: That there would be congregations of Christians, that they would meet in a special way on the first day of the week, that local elders should be responsible for the churches, with deacons to see to material needs, that these should be chosen according to the Biblical qualifications Paul laid out in his letters, that they must take discipline seriously, that local churches may come together as in Acts 15 to decide some issues, and that the Lord's Supper and baptism must be practiced. He saw these as basic and unchangeable; but within the framework of these forms, he said that the church had great freedom to change to meet current situations, as long as the leadership of the Holy Spirit was followed. He saw church buildings as optional; if you have one, be thankful, but if you don't your congregation is no less a church. He did not even mention professional pastors (seminary-trained or otherwise). He believed the church should meet on the first day of the week, but said the time of day "was left totally open". He didn't even touch on the proper music for services!

I'm going to quote a few passages:

"I am not saying that it is wrong to add other things as the Holy Spirit so leads, but I am saying that we should not fix these things forever--changing times may change the leading of the Holy Spirit in regard to these. And certainly the historic accidents of the past (which led to certain things being done) have no binding effect at all."

From Chapter 5:

"Let us speak where the Scripture has spoken. But let us notice that we must also respect the silences. Within every form, there is freedom....I suggest that where the Bible is silent, it indicates a freedom within the scriptural form."

"If the church will allow freedom for changing situations, churches will be here until Jesus comes back. But let us not mistake historical accidents and what is sociologically comfortable out of our past for God's absolutes either in rules of personal dress or in the forms that individual churches take in individual situations."

And finally "Let us be thankful there is a given form. Then let us be careful to make sure that we are not bound by unbiblical forms, by forms which we have become used to and which have no absolute place in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. In regard to the polity and practice of the church, except for the clearly given Biblical norms, every other detail is open to negotiation among God's people under the leadership of the Holy Spirit."

He was writing these things 27 years ago at least, maybe 38 years ago. And today, change is happening in some places: house churches, emerging churches, even "free-range" Christians--and some who cling to the old ways and spend a lot of time bashing those who are making changes. He did not see much future for those who "ossified" (his word) in the old ways and refused to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

By the time he died in 1984, Francis Schaeffer was widely regarded as one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth-century church. But unlike many, he did not spend his later years reliving the battles of his past, but focused on what his readers would need to do and be in the years to come. He was a conservative Presbyterian, not a Charismatic or Pentacostal, but I believe he was a genuine prophet of God.