Church Day

As the paradigms continue to shift like the plates of the earth’s crust, more new ways of thinking and, thus, more new ideas are continuously and relentlessly crashing against the old established norms. Our political environment, worldwide, is a perfect example of this fact. Another example can be found in the church, where the understanding of the role of Sundays is to be (if it is not already) the next point of contention.

It is common knowledge that the accepted norm for previous generations concerning Sundays was that stores and business of all sorts were closed, and the church was open for business. The norm for the average family and/or individual was to be in church on Sunday. The norm for society was congregational, thus the church is where people congregated. Membership of the church, therefore, was calculated according to the Sunday Services attendance and the offering plates were piled high on this accepted, congregational day, norm.

For better or for worse (a conversation to be had at another time), this social mindset is no longer the accepted norm. Many stores and businesses are open for business on Sundays, thus, many folks work on Sundays, and many churches are closed for business because their business model no longer works. A bigger issue here, though, is that the congregational mindset is no longer the social norm. Concerning the church, many do not trust the institution and regard the establishment as corrupt (as can be seen, also, in the political environment). Not rejecting God, but rejecting the established institution, many in society are rejecting public, congregational worship and turning to smaller groups for spiritual enlightenment.

Thus, the organized church, if it is to survive (and I believe it is), must find ways to return to its roots – i.e., the primitive church of the first three centuries of Christian history. A time is coming when it will not be able to count membership only by Sunday Services attendance, but will have to take into account (as obvious as it sounds) the other six days of the week as well. It is going to have to think of new ways to pay its bills, pay for its missions, and pay for its ministries besides counting the coins in the offering plates.

Let me make this clear, the old church paradigm (which is not being replaced, but built upon by God) is an unsustainable system that is shuttering under its own weight. The new paradigm is streamlined for mobility. It is not erecting church buildings (and thus filling church pews), but making disciples for Jesus Christ (who, therewith, become the church wherever and whenever it is found). It is about building communities (not congregations) where the community is the church and the building is the place where things are offered within (not to or for) the community to meet the needs of the community. The new paradigm is calling forth a vision of identity and not a ministry for identification; it is calling out seven days a week, everywhere at anytime within everyone. Perhaps Sunday will be a common day, but it will not be the only day.

The Leader

A “leader,” according to the old paradigm, can be defined as “the guardian of the institution.” By “institution” I mean, “a system of power and provision for those within itself.” Therefore, “a leader is one who exercises power over and controls provisions for those within the institution.” A common mistake for many is in thinking that, because the system has failed and leaders have come to resemble the power hungry busy-body lords of serfdom, we should rebel against the system (which is still old paradigm thinking). To understand the new paradigm, and transform (rather than rebel against) the broken system, we must necessarily redefine “the leader” and that over which he/she is “guardian.”

According to the new paradigm, the “leader” is “the guardian of the vision.” Since the leader is no longer guardian of the institution, he/she is no longer that which exercises power over and controls provision for anyone (including his/herself). The leader is called and equipped to be an agent of the vision which, therewith, is also an agent of change to the system. It is in the vision, not the institution, that one finds power and provision. The leader (simply) casts the vision. The vision is rooted in and is sent out from the mind of God.

For example: The church leader is no longer the guardian of the Christian Religion (not to be confused with the Faith of Christ, which would be the vision). He/she is, in the new paradigm, the guardian of the vision. The church leader, therefore, has no power to exercise over and no provision to control for the people in his/her care. The church leader has been called and equipped by God to cast the vision of God, which alone is the power and provision for the people as well as the leader. This necessitates “sola fida” (faith alone). Likewise, the “job” of the leader, then, is to cast the vision so that people can catch the vision. The leader is not the moral/ethical police; he/she does not tell people how to live, and he/she is not the source of power by which all provisions flow. The church leader casts the vision of God. The people catch the vision of God and know Jesus for themselves. They live according to the vision of God in Christ, who is the true source of power for all provision. In this sense, the leader casts the vision and the people enact and walk-out the vision as a way of life. To over-simplify: The church leader casts the vision and the people do the work of the vision. The leader is not responsible for the work, but casting the vision. If he/she does not cast the vision, then he/she is responsible for the people’s ineffectiveness.

God provides for God’s vision. If God has called the vision casters (visionary leaders) then God has also called the vision carriers (detail people to do the work). The leader is not the fund-raiser. He/she is the vision caster and God provides for God’s vision. And, thus, the Church does not make disciples for itself, but of Christ. God provides for God’s vision. The leader casts the vision; the people catch and follow the vision (not the leader), and God adds to the church as many as are being rescued – the transformed system.

We’re Off the Map

I really like maps. I like the maps in the back of many Bibles (especially the ones outlining the journeys of the Apostle Paul). I have a pair of maps hanging on my wall, written in Latin, depicting the ancient world. When I was trucking, it was with the aid of maps that I could find just about anywhere I had to go (and sometimes exactly where I was!). The church has always used maps, as it were, to discover where it was and where it needed to go. But despite the use the church today finds itself in a place that is not on its favorite map. In fact, we find ourselves “…off the map. Here, there be monsters.”

Maps are a result of the work of surveyors and explorers. We, the users of maps, simply travel where others have already been, and usually in ways that others have deemed best. The map that the church has been reading for the past 1500+ years is worn out. Not only that but it no longer portrays, accurately, the landscape for the journey on which it now finds itself. Like the ancient maps written in Latin on my wall, they do not show the world as we now know it is. Meanwhile, the church inches farther and further; lost, with no means to locate it-self or where it is going. Regardless of how one turns the map, eschewing its markings, the actual landscape is unrecognizable and, apparently, unchartered.

Certainly the Apostle Paul had a map as he toured the landscapes of Asia Minor and Europe. Yet, at the same time he was pioneering the design of another map. The map he was drawing was a map for the spreading of the gospel, guided by the compass of the Holy Spirit. When one looks at the map in the back of many Bibles of Paul’s journeys one can see a map of the landscape, but also one sees the passage of the Good News across that landscape. We don’t look at the map of Paul’s journeys for the landscape, but the movement of the message he carried across it.

Understand, I do not think that the church finds itself in the wrong place. I think that the church is studying the wrong map. Our trusty map of Christendom has taken us as far as it was designed to take us. Our compass has taken us off the map. He has removed us to another place in need of another map; off of which we refuse to blow the dust, to unroll, and to gaze upon. This map, after all, is nearly 2,000 years old. It contains only a path less traveled (and not tread upon in 1500+ years). The original surveyor and explorer of this map was Jesus Christ. The pioneers who first utilized this map were the apostles, and the primitive and early church. This map has the landscape of the world as we now know it, and lacks only the continued charting of movement – the movement of the message of the Good News to the uncharted monsters. According to the compass we are precisely where we’re supposed to be. We simply need the right map to tell us where exactly we are.

Baptism of Death

While baptism is the means by which one enters the membership role of his/her local church, it is in actuality entrance into the identifiable “Catholic” (i.e. Universal) Church; which is both, visible and invisible, and earthly and at the same time heavenly. So, yes, baptism is technically a joining of the church, though not simply the local but the Universal (which traces itself back to the original disciples, but also those who had “the faith of Abraham” before the Cross of Christ).

Furthermore, besides baptism making one identifiable in the Catholic Church, it is also about identity. Baptism, first and foremost, is an act of God’s grace more than an act of human will. As such, the mode of baptism makes no difference. Whether sprinkled or dunked – smothered, covered, or chunked – Baptism is about God and our identity in His Son, not by what means we are baptized. However, the act of submersion is a better analogy of God’s grace at work.

In the sign of baptism, we are first buried with Christ and then we die with Christ. Upon coming up out of the water it is Christ that is raised. We, our old fallen natures, are still buried under the waters of death. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us – the resurrection of Christ in us. You ask, “Why water?” I answer, “Because water represents judgment.”It is through water that God first redeemed creation (Gen. 1:1-2). It is through water that God redeemed primitive humanity in the Noahtic Deluge (“Noah’s Flood”). In the first flood humanity is baptized under Adam (being made from that which was created) signifying their identity in him. In the Noahtic flood humanity is baptized under Noah, signifying their identity in him. Likewise, under Moses the Israelites were baptized through the Red Sea signifying their identity in Moses (1Cor. 10:2). And under Christ all humanity (Jew or non-Jew), is once again identified with God in Christ. 

Thus, our baptism is a killing of our old nature – inherent from Adam, passing along through Noah (and Moses), and crucified with Christ on His cross – and the resurrection of our new nature is identified in Christ (as God’s exact image) and identifiable as the church (Christ’s express image); returning us to the original baptism of creation and its goodness (Gen. 1:4).

Baptism is so much more than membership into a local church. The Baptism of Death signifies a killing of the old fallen nature and a resurrection of the new creation in Christ (Mark 10:38-39).

It’s Terminal

The church is hemorrhaging humanity from open wounds. Studies show that over half of the folks under 30 who were raised in the church have left it. Not to mention the same age-group which has been completely unaffected by the church at any point in time in their lives (in a positive sense, anyway). At best, many in the church are attempting to stop the bleeding. While credit should be given for recognizing a problem, points are deducted for applying a band-aid to a sucking chest wound. At its worst, others have “circled the wagons,” fortunate enough to have entered before the doors shut, they simply peer out of stained-glass windows at an alien world around them.

Contrary to the faith movement founded by Jesus Christ and carried into humanity for nearly three hundred years: The religion termed “Christianity” (as a rule) is utterly disconnected from the world in which people actually live. Love, by design, has an inherent risk. Yet the church has a tradition of fear, while irrationally claiming to love (which drives out all fear, by definition). Likewise, when Jesus came he brought abundant life with Him. Why, then, is the experience of many within the church empty, hollow, shallow, and ineffectual to their daily lives? In another bit of irony the church has taken upon itself the role of “Doctor,” all-the-while suffering from internal bleeding itself. The church has no answers to certain questions, so it decided to answer questions that are not even being asked. Again, it claims moral/ethical supremacy while its own adherence to the claim is selective and situational. And another thing, the leadership within the church is hereby called into question. “If you can’t or don’t lead me, I will not follow.” Incidentally, “leading” is not synonymous with being a busy-body. “Leading” does not imply that you are anyone’s conscience but your own. Nor does “leading” imply that you are the final authoritative word on any given subject. By “leading” you are an example to imitate as you seek out Christ in your life and living, daily. A leader casts the Vision of the mind of Christ. People follow the leader only as far as said leader is casting said vision.

Restructuring, reorganizing, and revitalizing are simple attempts to rebuild, in the hopes of reproducing that which is shattered and broken beyond repair. In this paradigmatic shift in which we find ourselves today, the old is being crushed to dust by the new. While this crushing can be painful, it is not pointless and unproductive. As He did when He broke-in to time and space nearly 2,000 years ago, God is moving the massive plates of change on which we have been standing. As economies, countries, and polities (and the religion called “Christianity”) sway and collapse under their own weight, the faith movement termed “the church” – the Body of Christ – by design, shifts and rolls with the every quake and aftershock. And as He did after the cold, cruel death of His flesh, God resurrected the body making something new and extraordinary. It’s terminal… Let the carcass of the old lie… And watch the Body of the new live.

Think! It’s Not Illegal Yet

Some friends of mine were vacationing not too long ago and thought of me when, on their journey, they found a refrigerator magnet that read, “Think! It’s not illegal yet.” I have the magnet, in fact, on my refrigerator today. I appreciate my friends thinking of me, but I am more thankful that my friends, upon seeing this magnet, did actually “think.” Certainly the magnet reminded them of me because (to the point of aggravation, of myself even) I continuously remind us about the gift – our ability to think – and the necessity of our use of this gift.

As a pastor, obviously, I am concerned about rescued souls. As a member of the Church, of course, I am interested in its healthy growth. Certainly I care about speaking the Good News into the life of humanity. But I believe that the most effective way to do these things is by insisting that humanity utilizes its God-given gift to think (exercising logic and reason, which are from the mind of God).

Case in point: The notion that perception is reality is, in fact, illogical and void of any kind of rational thought. I once spoke to a woman whose perception (her circumstances and feelings) told her that God did not love her (in reality). Emotions are relative, but logic (truth) is not. If God, by definition, loves humanity; and this woman, by definition, is human; then, God must necessarily love this woman. Her perception of reality does not change the fact of that reality (either way).

Incidentally, I often (and painstakingly) add the phrase “by definition” (which is a point of aggravation for some, including myself) because it draws attention to what was just actually stated and demands the importance of the logical meaning of words rather than the emotional baggage attached to them. For example, when I say “God, by definition,” I aim to rid us of the irrational, emotional baggage that we have “God” carry. I wish to drill-down to who “God” is in reality and not who we would have “God” be in our own perception. Further, by adding “by definition,” I insist that we “think” about what we are saying; balancing our feelings and emotions with logic and reason.

Operating out of our animal instinct (i.e. not thinking) is precisely that which lead to our separation from God and our subsequent altered perceptions of reality (Romans 1). Likewise, our religious nature (negatively speaking – Romans 1) is full of emotional insecurities, irrational fears, blind ignorance, and hypocritical actions precisely because we quit thinking. Thus, the Church is rightly being rejected by a generation that demands (whether they know it or not, the God-given) right to “think.” The Church has nothing to fear and everything to gain from people exercising thought. Our ability to “think” is presupposed by the mind of God.

Because God exists and is self-aware – i.e. God has (is) a mind of God’s own – we are able to think. We would not be able to “think” if there was not a self-aware God who has opened the mind of God to us. It is when we stop thinking that we stop expressing God. I am convinced that when human beings “think,” we have no other conclusions to draw but that without God (by definition) we are hopelessly lost, helplessly in need of God’s grace, and necessarily, therefore, in dire need of Jesus Christ (the only means to reconciliation and redemption, by definition; which in turn, places us in the community of the Church). Therewith, to not believe in God or the need of a God (by definition) or, therefore, the need of Jesus Christ to regain community, is to not “think” (by definition) at all.

The Body of Frankenstein

Just as the notion of sameness perverts the idea of oneness, so the human ideology of (so-called) unity counterfeits divine community. At first glance sameness and oneness appear synonymous. Likewise, unity and community seem only a play on words. However, sameness and unity are simple attempts to alter perception in the effort to create a new reality. While oneness and community are a reality that takes on a new perception when properly understood.

Sameness and unity, simply, are politically correct ways of forwarding utopian nonsensical madness. By definition they are a denial of reason and reality. They are alienated and completely separated from sound logic and are, instead, based on emotion and feeling (while emotion and feeling in and of themselves are fine, to house an entire worldview in them is sheer insanity).

Oneness and community, on the other hand, accept things as they are. For example, an eye is an eye, a foot a foot, an ear an ear, and a hand a hand, etc (1Cor. 12:13-17). They do not attempt to deny that any of these are what they are, but instead they rightly identify them all as equally important parts of the body (1Cor. 12:18). If the parts were unitarily the same parts, then, they wouldn’t and couldn’t be parts of one body (1Cor. 12:19), but several parts of several bodies (Rom. 12:4).

Thus, oneness demands adversity (Rom. 12:5; 1Cor. 12:20) and, therefore, sameness is necessarily perverted pluralism. Likewise, community insists on many varying members to compile a whole (1Cor. 12:12), but unity consists of a denial of differences and, therewith, an invention of a body of a different sort. Oneness and community are the varying array of members which are fitted together as the Body of Christ (1Cor. 12:27). Sameness and unity are mutated (so-called) members which are sown together into the body of Frankenstein!

The fundamental difference in these two poles is one denies the reality that things are different for a pre-designed purpose, and the other truly accepts the differences as the manifold expression of the oneness of God’s community within Gods-self (1Cor. 12:22-25).

Necessity of the Virgin Birth

The notion of Mary, being a virgin, giving birth to Jesus the Christ is necessary for good theology. When one takes into account that, as the Spirit of God overshadowed the surface of the waters (Gen. 1:2) generating life, so the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary (Luke1:35) likewise generating life, a virgin birth is altogether probable. To understand the necessity of the virgin birth we must begin with a profound presupposition. The Jesus that was born to Mary is the eternal Word of God who was at work speaking forth creation (John 1:1-3, 14). The Word of God created Adam and Eve, who were created in the image of God and to whom it was given to be the expression of God on earth (Gen. 1:26-28).

When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost that expression. Though they lost the rite of expression, it was still given to humanity to be that expression in all creation. Since, therefore, the rite of expression was given to humanity it must be a member of humanity that redeems that expression. Nothing else on earth was given the rite of expressing God. Angels could not redeem the expression to humanity, obviously, because they are of a different order of creation and not human. God Himself, in His incorporeal essence, could not redeem humanity for the very same reason. Again, it must be a human being that redeems humanity since it was humanity that forfeited the expression. But no human being was able to do so because all humanity suffers under the sin nature brought about by the sin of Adam and Eve. It is ironic to conclude that humanity had to save itself, but was unable to do so for the very reason it had to do so. In other words, humanity could not save itself because of the sin nature, which nature was the reason that humanity had to save itself.

Enter, here, the continually existent Word of God. The invisible Word of God put on flesh and was born as a human being. The virgin birth is necessary in order to avoid the irony of the sin nature. Seeing that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and not impregnated by human means, Jesus was born without the sin nature. In fact, it is the only way to be born without the sin nature that so plagues humanity. Thus, though He was tempted as every human being, Jesus lived a sinless life having not caved to temptation because of the lack of the sin nature (which causes the rest of humanity to so cave).

So, while Jesus was/is in fact God (the preexistent Word), He came to earth in the form of a man in order to save humanity. By living a perfect life He regained the expression of God. He, having suffered to the point of death on a cross, was raised from the dead for the redemption of humanity. He now sits at the right hand of God (in human form) for the reconciliation of humanity with God. He is, technically speaking, as God’s express image, the Head of the Body; which body humanity is, as we express the image of Christ, who returned us to the image of God. This magnificent plan necessitates the virgin birth of the Word of God in human form.

A Gap Theory

I think the church is conducting the wrong argument when it carries on about a so-called “Six-Day Creation.” Likewise, it insists on a literal 6,000 years for the history of the earth, while deriving that number by lifting certain texts out of context (Psalm 90:4; 2Pet. 3:8); converting days to years when it refers to the history of the planet, while insisting on literal days when it speaks about creation. Now, don’t get me wrong, I find no validity in the evolutionary hypothesis (and/or any of its confounding “big bangs” or the like). The six-days of Genesis Chapter one are not so much a “creation” as they are a “making out of material previously created.” It is possible that the earth is millions or billions of years old (not because the empiricist irrationally demands it) and, that the six-day account is historically accurate as well.

In the beginning God created the universe and the earth (Gen. 1:1). And the earth was chaotic and in ruins (Gen. 1:2). God does not create in chaos and ruin (or whatever two-word combination your translation may have). These two words, in the Hebrew, speak of judgment. God destroyed the verse one creation, by-the-way with a flood, in judgment. Incidentally, He then spoke forth light (Gen. 1:3), which is the Resurrection Life of Christ (John 1:4-5). The “light” counter-acts the darkness, which was never a part of God’s creation, but a result of that which God judged in the “gap” between verses one and two.

Notice, during the Six Days of Genesis 1:3-31 that God does not “create.” According to Gen. 2:4 this is the account of “heaven and earth” when they were “created” and “earth and heaven” when they were “made” (notice an initial creation and a secondary making out of that creation). Created and made are two completely different Hebrew words. One speaks of a creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) and the other describes a making out of previously created material. God made Adam out of the clay of the soil (Gen. 2:7), which clay God had previously created (Gen. 1:1). Likewise, out of that which was previously created did God cause to grow every living thing on the earth (Gen. 2:5-14).

It is beyond the scope of this writing, but it could be argued that it is here, in this gap between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, that the dinosaurs are found. It could also be that here, in this gap, is where one could argue for the fall of the evil one (the source of the uncreated darkness – Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Luke 22:53; John 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46). The possibility of an old earth, however, is within this writing’s scope. It does not contradict the Scriptures (or itself) in any way to understand that God created the material (and the immaterial, for that matter) innumerable years ago and then, more recently, made out of that creation, in a literal six day time frame, the present universe and earth.

It would be easier to argue that humanity has only 6,000 years of existence than to argue it for all of creation. One could at least find more support for it in the Scriptures.

Occupy the Cross

The cross must be occupied. It cannot simply remain an object in the misty recesses of time. Because it was the instrument of death that day, all those years ago, it must maintain its killing power today. That which became the Cross of Christ must remain the cross to bear by humanity. While it is true that Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of humanity, it does not necessarily follow that humanity is not still in need of the crucifixion.

The Theology of the Cross insists that Christ carried the sins of humanity to, and took the punishment for those sins on His cruel cross (Col. 1:20). It mandates that Christ nailed sin and death to His flesh on the tree (Col. 2:14). Justification accomplished! Reconciliation and redemption achieved! All who believe these facts are in right-standing-with-God, it is true (1Pet. 2:24). But the theology of the cross also demands the reality of sanctification, as well.  Now that we have been justified – sins forgiven; punishment due, paid in full – we must walk out our new relationship with God (and others and ‘self’) becoming more like Christ every day. Sanctification is the process of becoming Christ-like – not in His life, but in His death. It is the Form of the Crucifixion (Phil. 3:10).

The Resurrection Life of Christ can only come after the crucifying death of Christ. “Resurrection” necessitates, by definition, a dying. The Resurrection Life of Christ is only afforded to us after our own crucifying death to ‘self’ (2Cor. 13:4). Jesus hanged on the cross built for Barabbas (Matt. 27:16-26), but Barabbas would still have to claim his own cross (Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27; Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:19-20; 5:24; 6:14).

Christ was crucified once and for all those many years ago (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10), but, today, we die daily for the killing of the flesh (Rom. 8:36; 1Cor. 15:31). He pioneered our faith on His cross (Heb. 12:2). He pioneered perfection – Entire Sanctification – through the suffering of its killing power (Heb. 2:10). If a Pioneer, then, He is the first of many who will occupy the cross.