If you dig around in the archives of this blog, my second post, on April 18, 2007, was on "Authority and Respect." I don't want to repeat exactly what I said there, but lately I've been thinking about a related issue--trust. To a certain extent our current financial meltdown has been described as a lack of trust--trust between banks, trust in the investment system (a lot of people trusted Bernie Madoff, and got burned for it) trust in the auto companies, trust(or lack of it) in various institutions of our current society. The way the stock market has trended downward for nearly two months now may well indicate that investors do not put a whole lot of trust in the ability of our government to improve things.
I'm inclined to think of "trust" as being "applied respect." When a person or company or other entity has earned your respect, you are more willing to do business with them or work with them or rely on them. Some people do trust more easily than others--after all, there are some people who do buy the Brooklyn Bridge! Others are more cautious (I'm usually--not always, but usually-- one of the more cautious ones). Either extreme can cause problems.
But when you have trusted someone and they let you down in some way--cheated you, didn't do what they said they would do, lied to you, whatever the shortcoming--trust is broken. And it generally isn't that easy to fix. Because when trust is broken, respect dies too. And it will be harder to restore damaged respect than it was to gain it in the first place. Also, the more the guilty party whines about "You don't trust me!" the more the injured party is reminded of what happened when they trusted that person.
But what about forgiveness (for Christians, anyway)? Well, we have to be careful to distinguish between a hurtful action and its consequences, and between forgiveness and repentance. Forgiveness does not remove consequences; when we come to the cross our sins are forgiven, but the consequences of them in our lives remain: broken relationships, physical problems (just because an alcoholic comes to Christ and stays sober doesn't mean he is necessarily free from the risk of cirrhosis of the liver), financial problems, legal problems (just because Christ forgives a murderer doesn't mean he will not face prison or execution for his crime). Repentance, on the other hand, is really a necessary condition for forgiveness. It is more than regret or sorrow (some people are only sorry they got caught!); it is a regret to the point that you reject the behavior and resolve not to do it anymore. The Greek word used for "repent" in the New Testament actually means "to turn"--essentially to turn away from or turn around and go the other direction. It means there is going to be a change in the way you behave. But if there is no repentance...why should you expect forgiveness--or be trusted again?
Back to the current situation today: there is plenty of blame to go around for violating trust, from debtors and creditors to investors and brokers to the highest levels of government. And there are plenty of consequences for all of us; even those who didn't abuse credit will suffer from the loss of the value of their homes, from the economic conditions, and other consequences of the current meltdown. But unless there is repentance--at the individual level, the corporate level, the governmental level-- it is going to take a long, long time to restore trust in our society and economy. And until trust is restored, things cannot get very much better.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A Modest Proposal
I know I said when I started this blog that I wasn't going to say much about politics. But this particular subject has been on my mind for a while, and it really is sort of bi-partisan--it digs at both parties equally, not just one. So let's run it up the flagpole and have some fun seeing if anybody salutes.
I am a lifelong history buff, and one thing I read years ago, can't even remember where or who wrote it, was that the American Revolution was essentially a quarrel between the American colonists and the "governing class" of Great Britain--the nobility, the professional politicians, the Members of Parliament, and the dregs and shirt-tail relations and castoffs of all the preceding who staffed what bureaucracy the British had at that time. Well, as I look at the current scene, I think there is a quarrel building between the American people and our own home-grown governing class--the politicians, members of Congress, their staffs, the bureaucrats of the various agencies, etc. When you look at the approval ratings for Congress, the indictments and criminal convictions of members of Congress and governors, the proposed laws and regulations that make no sense to ordinary folks, and the rest of what's going on, people in much of the country are getting disgusted with the whole thing. And I have an idea that may not totally fix it, but maybe it would help.
I think it is time for a new U.S. capital. Washington, D.C. was good enough when the whole country was east of the Mississippi, and thinly settled once you got away from the coast; but that situation changed over a century ago. And people in Washington have been getting farther and farther out of touch with the mass of the American people.
I suggest we build a new capital city, say out around where Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri come together. That would be a nice central location. But location in itself is not the whole answer. How do we get from here to there? LET 'EM WALK!!! Really, I do think that! Everybody currently working in Washington for the Federal government should have to walk, or maybe ride a bicycle, to the new capital. They can ship their stuff, but their bodies need the walk; not only will it be good exercise, but it will get them out among the people they serve for a while, and give them a chance to get acquainted again. The ones who've only lived in the big cities need to see just how much open space there still is out here in the heartland, and some of those who write regulations should have to spend the time among the people their regulations affect. Members of the House and Senate should have to start by walking their own state--whatever direction is the longest. It really won't disrupt the operations of government that much--departures can be scheduled so there aren't too many on the road at any one time, and there are such things as cell phones and fax machines to enable keeping in touch (wouldn't do them any harm to find out how spotty cell phone reception can be in the rural parts--or how far it can be to a Starbucks or a WiFi hotspot). And if anybody, especially Representatives and Senators, is too old and decrepit physically to do it (and they're welcome to take all the time they need--the more time among the people, the better) then maybe it is time to step aside and retire. A little fresh blood won't hurt.
And when they get there, let's do things a little differently. Washington wasn't built in a day, nor even a year. So let's only build enough office space for, say, five or ten staff people per member of Congress--to answer the phone and the mail and so on. That means the members of Congress, House and Senate, will have to do their own research and write their own legislation instead of having staffers write it. And speaking of legislation, let's require each Representative and Senator to to write out a copy of every bill, in his own handwriting, and present it before he can vote on it. That will have two results: it will guarantee that they have personally read the bill before they vote on it, and it will force them to keep the laws they vote on short, simple, and uncomplicated. It might also make them think more in terms of getting the other two branches to enforce the existing laws so they don't have to write new ones. It might even keep them busy enough they won't have time for dining with lobbyists, going on junkets, and getting into legal trouble. And anybody who feels too overworked is welcome to go back home and let somebody else try it for a while.
But what about the Fourth Estate, the Press? Let them walk, too. New Yorkers and the media have come up with the expression "fly-over country" to describe where the rest of us live. If any members of the current Washington press corps want press credentials for the new capital city, they should have to take an extended itinerary that meanders through all fifty states--they REALLY need to get back in touch with the people! Come to think of it, that would probably be the best route for the President, too--although I wouldn't blame him if he chose to walk separately from the Press. (As for the New Yorkers, they'd learn a lot more respect for the rest of us if we just quit shipping them food--let them live for a year or so on what they can grow within their own city limits.)
But what do we do with the old capital in Washington? It's got a lot of monuments, and we can turn the old government buildings into museums or tear them down and build any new monuments we'll want on their sites. Most government employees don't live in the city itself anymore; they live in the suburbs, out in Virginia and Maryland. And the people who actually do live in D.C. can have the rest of it themselves--as long as they pay for it themselves--no federal subsidies for anything beyond the monuments and new museums. We'll need that money for the new capital.
One more thing: to keep the new capital from ending up just as bad as the old one, let's require The Walk after every new election, for all elected officials and political appointees, and maybe every three or four years for the career bureaucrats in the agencies. After all, when Washington was first built, they all had to travel there by the conveyances available at that time--horseback, carriage, stagecoach or sailing ship. That helped keep them in touch with ordinary folks; even the early railroads didn't allow much distancing from the population. Cars and planes have done a lot to enable the governing class to insulate themselves off from the governed.
I know this is going to be hard to pull off. Some of it might be possible to accomplish by rules changes and executive orders, other parts might even take Constitutional amendments. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen, but it's been fun thinking about it. And just maybe, if enough of us did think about it and talk about it, the powers that be might get wind of it and start to take a hint or two.
I am a lifelong history buff, and one thing I read years ago, can't even remember where or who wrote it, was that the American Revolution was essentially a quarrel between the American colonists and the "governing class" of Great Britain--the nobility, the professional politicians, the Members of Parliament, and the dregs and shirt-tail relations and castoffs of all the preceding who staffed what bureaucracy the British had at that time. Well, as I look at the current scene, I think there is a quarrel building between the American people and our own home-grown governing class--the politicians, members of Congress, their staffs, the bureaucrats of the various agencies, etc. When you look at the approval ratings for Congress, the indictments and criminal convictions of members of Congress and governors, the proposed laws and regulations that make no sense to ordinary folks, and the rest of what's going on, people in much of the country are getting disgusted with the whole thing. And I have an idea that may not totally fix it, but maybe it would help.
I think it is time for a new U.S. capital. Washington, D.C. was good enough when the whole country was east of the Mississippi, and thinly settled once you got away from the coast; but that situation changed over a century ago. And people in Washington have been getting farther and farther out of touch with the mass of the American people.
I suggest we build a new capital city, say out around where Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri come together. That would be a nice central location. But location in itself is not the whole answer. How do we get from here to there? LET 'EM WALK!!! Really, I do think that! Everybody currently working in Washington for the Federal government should have to walk, or maybe ride a bicycle, to the new capital. They can ship their stuff, but their bodies need the walk; not only will it be good exercise, but it will get them out among the people they serve for a while, and give them a chance to get acquainted again. The ones who've only lived in the big cities need to see just how much open space there still is out here in the heartland, and some of those who write regulations should have to spend the time among the people their regulations affect. Members of the House and Senate should have to start by walking their own state--whatever direction is the longest. It really won't disrupt the operations of government that much--departures can be scheduled so there aren't too many on the road at any one time, and there are such things as cell phones and fax machines to enable keeping in touch (wouldn't do them any harm to find out how spotty cell phone reception can be in the rural parts--or how far it can be to a Starbucks or a WiFi hotspot). And if anybody, especially Representatives and Senators, is too old and decrepit physically to do it (and they're welcome to take all the time they need--the more time among the people, the better) then maybe it is time to step aside and retire. A little fresh blood won't hurt.
And when they get there, let's do things a little differently. Washington wasn't built in a day, nor even a year. So let's only build enough office space for, say, five or ten staff people per member of Congress--to answer the phone and the mail and so on. That means the members of Congress, House and Senate, will have to do their own research and write their own legislation instead of having staffers write it. And speaking of legislation, let's require each Representative and Senator to to write out a copy of every bill, in his own handwriting, and present it before he can vote on it. That will have two results: it will guarantee that they have personally read the bill before they vote on it, and it will force them to keep the laws they vote on short, simple, and uncomplicated. It might also make them think more in terms of getting the other two branches to enforce the existing laws so they don't have to write new ones. It might even keep them busy enough they won't have time for dining with lobbyists, going on junkets, and getting into legal trouble. And anybody who feels too overworked is welcome to go back home and let somebody else try it for a while.
But what about the Fourth Estate, the Press? Let them walk, too. New Yorkers and the media have come up with the expression "fly-over country" to describe where the rest of us live. If any members of the current Washington press corps want press credentials for the new capital city, they should have to take an extended itinerary that meanders through all fifty states--they REALLY need to get back in touch with the people! Come to think of it, that would probably be the best route for the President, too--although I wouldn't blame him if he chose to walk separately from the Press. (As for the New Yorkers, they'd learn a lot more respect for the rest of us if we just quit shipping them food--let them live for a year or so on what they can grow within their own city limits.)
But what do we do with the old capital in Washington? It's got a lot of monuments, and we can turn the old government buildings into museums or tear them down and build any new monuments we'll want on their sites. Most government employees don't live in the city itself anymore; they live in the suburbs, out in Virginia and Maryland. And the people who actually do live in D.C. can have the rest of it themselves--as long as they pay for it themselves--no federal subsidies for anything beyond the monuments and new museums. We'll need that money for the new capital.
One more thing: to keep the new capital from ending up just as bad as the old one, let's require The Walk after every new election, for all elected officials and political appointees, and maybe every three or four years for the career bureaucrats in the agencies. After all, when Washington was first built, they all had to travel there by the conveyances available at that time--horseback, carriage, stagecoach or sailing ship. That helped keep them in touch with ordinary folks; even the early railroads didn't allow much distancing from the population. Cars and planes have done a lot to enable the governing class to insulate themselves off from the governed.
I know this is going to be hard to pull off. Some of it might be possible to accomplish by rules changes and executive orders, other parts might even take Constitutional amendments. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen, but it's been fun thinking about it. And just maybe, if enough of us did think about it and talk about it, the powers that be might get wind of it and start to take a hint or two.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Values, anyone?
I know I haven't posted anything in a long time--it's been a busy year for me. I've wanted to get back to it, but just haven't managed it. For a while after we moved I didn't even have Internet access at home. But through it all I did keep reading.
One of the things I read this year--actually re-read-- was one of Francis Schaeffer's later books, "How Should We Then Live." Some of the things in that book struck me this time, especially in light of the election, the economic events of this year, and some other happenings. He believed that most people in this country had drifted away from the Judeo-Christian values of the past and were left with two "impoverished" values--personal peace and affluence, which he described this way:
"Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city--to live one's life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity--a life made up of things, things, and more things--a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance."
Schaeffer wrote this in the mid-1970s, and I think the trend he saw got worse in the years that followed. But on September 11, 2001 Americans' personal peace took a hard hit, and at first many stepped up and reponded to the need to act against the new enemies. But as the years passed and the struggle continued it has become clear that many of our people no longer have the stomach for long drawn-out action. "Personal peace" does not provide men and women with the stamina for difficulties that cannot be resolved in short order. "Personal peace" demands that everything be settled in an hour or so, like on television, so we can go back to our own little affairs.
And now "affluence" is taking hits. The "dot-com" bust at the turn of the new century was the first warning, but the "housing bust" of the last couple of years and credit crisis of the last few months have shattered our comfortable complacency. Just a few years ago, when I was contracting in southern Indiana, if my customers felt secure in the balances in their 401K and mutual fund accounts, and their houses continued appreciating, they spent money--a few spent money like drunken sailors (the ones I was more comfortable with tended to be more careful). Now stocks are down, retirement accounts are shrinking, house prices have plummeted, new home construction is way down, and the news is full of doom and gloom.
I do not claim to know what will happen. I don't think it will be as bad as the worst of the predictions, but I don't put much stock in the rosiest projections, either. There have been a lot of excesses in a lot of areas--mismanagement, misuse of credit, misplaced trust, and others, both in business and in government. I think we as a people are having our assumptions and our belief systems tested--will they hold water or not? My hope is that many will see the emptiness and shallowness of what they trusted in, and turn to the Source of Living Water, and values that will see them through tough times.
One of the things I read this year--actually re-read-- was one of Francis Schaeffer's later books, "How Should We Then Live." Some of the things in that book struck me this time, especially in light of the election, the economic events of this year, and some other happenings. He believed that most people in this country had drifted away from the Judeo-Christian values of the past and were left with two "impoverished" values--personal peace and affluence, which he described this way:
"Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city--to live one's life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity--a life made up of things, things, and more things--a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance."
Schaeffer wrote this in the mid-1970s, and I think the trend he saw got worse in the years that followed. But on September 11, 2001 Americans' personal peace took a hard hit, and at first many stepped up and reponded to the need to act against the new enemies. But as the years passed and the struggle continued it has become clear that many of our people no longer have the stomach for long drawn-out action. "Personal peace" does not provide men and women with the stamina for difficulties that cannot be resolved in short order. "Personal peace" demands that everything be settled in an hour or so, like on television, so we can go back to our own little affairs.
And now "affluence" is taking hits. The "dot-com" bust at the turn of the new century was the first warning, but the "housing bust" of the last couple of years and credit crisis of the last few months have shattered our comfortable complacency. Just a few years ago, when I was contracting in southern Indiana, if my customers felt secure in the balances in their 401K and mutual fund accounts, and their houses continued appreciating, they spent money--a few spent money like drunken sailors (the ones I was more comfortable with tended to be more careful). Now stocks are down, retirement accounts are shrinking, house prices have plummeted, new home construction is way down, and the news is full of doom and gloom.
I do not claim to know what will happen. I don't think it will be as bad as the worst of the predictions, but I don't put much stock in the rosiest projections, either. There have been a lot of excesses in a lot of areas--mismanagement, misuse of credit, misplaced trust, and others, both in business and in government. I think we as a people are having our assumptions and our belief systems tested--will they hold water or not? My hope is that many will see the emptiness and shallowness of what they trusted in, and turn to the Source of Living Water, and values that will see them through tough times.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Another Lewis Quote
If anybody hasn't figured it out yet, C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite Christian writers. And this passage has resonated with me, probably because I've made my living for years working on houses. He admitted he borrowed the idea from George MacDonald; I've never read enough of MacDonald's stuff to find the original reference. Here's Lewis' take:
"Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of--throwing out a wing here, putting up an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage; but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself." "Mere Christianity", p.205
My life has had a lot of unexpected changes and turnings compared to where I was, say 40 years ago. But I've learned to trust the Architect, and I have no wish to go back to my own original plans.
"Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of--throwing out a wing here, putting up an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage; but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself." "Mere Christianity", p.205
My life has had a lot of unexpected changes and turnings compared to where I was, say 40 years ago. But I've learned to trust the Architect, and I have no wish to go back to my own original plans.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
My Van
I decided it's getting time for something a little light-hearted around here, so I'll update on one of the things that's been going on for me. I had to replace my work truck this fall. Now, I know Rednecks are supposed to drive pickups, but I'm a bit contrary (which is itself a Redneck trait) and I like vans. My stuff stays dry (even caps on pickups often leak); I can access my gear from the back, from the side doors, and even from the cab; and when I get home for the day, I don't have to take my tools out of an open truck bed, I just lock the doors and go in the house. I hadn't planned on buying another truck this year; I liked the one I had and was hoping it could go for a few more years. But out of the blue, one day a shift went sour and its transmission changed from 4 speeds forward to 2 speeds forward--and no reverse! When I hit the Internet to figure out what was wrong, it turned out to be a very common problem. And apparently in the mid-90s all three American carmakers switched to using automatic transmissions controlled by the engine's computer, and all of them have some kind of problems--stamped parts that break, oil passages that are too small and cause failure from inadequate lubrication--makes me wonder if too many of their old engineers retired and the new ones weren't as smart as expected.
Anyway, I found a 1991 15-passenger, already minus most of the seats. It's early enough to avoid the electronic transmission and its problems, yet only had 75,000 miles--for us, that's practically new (I usually buy them with 100-150,000 and drive them for a couple of years until the wheels fall off--when we part with a car, there usually isn't much left)(I should also add that Indiana hits you an excise tax on the value of your car every year when you get your plates, so it's Old Car Heaven around here--a new car can cost you 3-4 times or more in plates).
The fellow I bought it from had started dealing with the condition of the paint (seems like most Detroit paint jobs since 1980 peel off after 10-12 years). He primed it, using spray cans. I had a compressor and a spray gun available, but I've never been that good at spray-painting, and I didn't have any place indoors to do it--this one-ton van is too tall to fit under a normal garage door, even if there was room to get it in the garage--and there isn't. But I had heard something, and googled "painting your car with a roller" and found it. My truck now has a real "Redneck paint job"--Rustoleum, applied with foam rollers and foam brushes. No, it isn't going to win any prizes at car shows, but I wasn't going to enter it in any car shows anyway. It's a 16-year-old work truck, not a show car. I was concerned about that gray primer just blending into the mist on a cloudy, rainy day--now, with a white roof and "electric blue" body, it shows up real well, on the road and in parking lots.
I found where Hot Rod magazine tested out this method of painting a vehicle. They concluded that it passed the "5-5 test"--if you're 5 feet away and the car is moving at 5 mph, it looks okay. It's an industrial paint, just a lot cheaper than the standard automotive paints--you can buy it at Home Depot and Lowe's. And the guys who've had it for some years say you can match the paint perfectly later, you can't always do that with car paint.
Anyway, that's one of the things I did this fall when I wasn't blogging.
Anyway, I found a 1991 15-passenger, already minus most of the seats. It's early enough to avoid the electronic transmission and its problems, yet only had 75,000 miles--for us, that's practically new (I usually buy them with 100-150,000 and drive them for a couple of years until the wheels fall off--when we part with a car, there usually isn't much left)(I should also add that Indiana hits you an excise tax on the value of your car every year when you get your plates, so it's Old Car Heaven around here--a new car can cost you 3-4 times or more in plates).
The fellow I bought it from had started dealing with the condition of the paint (seems like most Detroit paint jobs since 1980 peel off after 10-12 years). He primed it, using spray cans. I had a compressor and a spray gun available, but I've never been that good at spray-painting, and I didn't have any place indoors to do it--this one-ton van is too tall to fit under a normal garage door, even if there was room to get it in the garage--and there isn't. But I had heard something, and googled "painting your car with a roller" and found it. My truck now has a real "Redneck paint job"--Rustoleum, applied with foam rollers and foam brushes. No, it isn't going to win any prizes at car shows, but I wasn't going to enter it in any car shows anyway. It's a 16-year-old work truck, not a show car. I was concerned about that gray primer just blending into the mist on a cloudy, rainy day--now, with a white roof and "electric blue" body, it shows up real well, on the road and in parking lots.
I found where Hot Rod magazine tested out this method of painting a vehicle. They concluded that it passed the "5-5 test"--if you're 5 feet away and the car is moving at 5 mph, it looks okay. It's an industrial paint, just a lot cheaper than the standard automotive paints--you can buy it at Home Depot and Lowe's. And the guys who've had it for some years say you can match the paint perfectly later, you can't always do that with car paint.
Anyway, that's one of the things I did this fall when I wasn't blogging.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)