Culture, Women, and the Church

             In case you’ve been living under a rock the past couple weeks, you are well aware that former U.S. Olympic decathlon star Bruce Jenner underwent a surgical transformation so he could become Caitlyn Jenner.  He’s made the cover of Vanity Fair, has been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, and his decision has been soundly endorsed by popular culture, the media, and Hollywood, and just as soundly repudiated by conservative Evangelical Christianity.

               I’m not here this morning to jump on the pile.  I’ll let 1 Timothy 1:10 and other clear passages in the Bible speak for themselves on this particular issue, adding that if you take a rose and cut off its stem, it’s still a rose, albeit a confused, broken, and now mutilated one.

               But it got me to thinking this week as I prepared my message.  Back in the first century, would women have had to have undergone a similar artificial metamorphosis in order to serve in the church the way they do today?  Would Beth Moore, who’s written nearly two dozen books and Bible studies, have been allowed the same freedom to do so back then?  Would Dr. Dinelle Frankland, who teaches graduate worship studies and serves as the academic dean of the seminary at Lincoln Christian Seminary, be given that privilege?  How about Deb Hafer, who for years led teams of Bible college students on weekend trips to Jefferson City Correctional Center?  Would our own Alisa Brockelsby be granted the opportunity to serve the local church as youth minister?

                Times, they are a changing.  When I was a student at Ozark Christian College, women were not eligible to enroll in preaching classes.  Twelve years later, now they are, and they are not alone.  And for the first time ever at the North American Christian Convention, the Restoration Movement’s largest annual gathering, a woman will preach at one of the main sessions.  Are we as a movement capitulating and turning to the left and into error with these moves?

               On the other hand, times may not be moving so fast.  Last year, Alisa attended the Illinois Teen Christian Convention with her youth group.  At one point the director of the convention said, “Now it’s time for us to have a little youth minister time, and all you youth minister’s wives can have some ladies’ time together, too.”  Oops.  Alisa was the only female youth minister there.  You didn’t realize we were such trendsetters, did you?  I guess Alisa could have sent Kirt to go off with the ladies to drink tea and eat cucumber sandwiches, or take part in whatever activities they had planned.

               So it was with great interest, as well as with great trepidation, that I began to study our text for this morning.  It’s from 1 Timothy 2, verses 8-15.  It contains some of the most culturally and interpretively challenging topics and statements in Scripture in our day and age.  Hear the Word of God:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

We’re going to examine this text in two movements.  First of all, I want to look at what it meant to its readers’ context back then.  Second, we’re going to ask ourselves what timeless truths about the text need to applied to our context today.

First of all, what did this text mean to the original audience?

               We need to keep in mind that no teaching from the Bible comes out of vacuum, and this is particularly true in the New Testament epistles.  These were documents written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to address specific problems or situations.  And we already know from what we’ve read earlier in this letter that Paul wrote 1 Timothy to help his young protégé deal with serious error and the subsequent unrest and division that was taking place in the home churches of Ephesus.            False teachers were rising up out of the church’s leadership, indulging in speculative theology, manipulating and enforcing the Old Testament code to suit their fancy, and creating a system of salvation based not upon the good news of Jesus Christ, but upon one’s level of knowledge and one’s level of performance according to their personalized religious system.

               And apparently, these false teachers had found fertile ground among the younger widows of the church family.  If we jump ahead to 1 Timothy 5, we learn a little more.  The younger widows were learning to be idlers, going from house church to house church, being gossips and busybodies, saying things they shouldn’t say.  And in Paul’s second letter to Timothy, chapter 3, he describes the licentious false teachers as those who creep into house churches and capture weak-willed women who were burdened with sin and led astray by various passions.  Such women, Paul continued, had an insatiable thirst for knowledge, but could never come to a knowledge of the truth.  This gives us some valuable information on what was going on.  The false teachers had found an eager following among otherwise unoccupied women, were making them disciples of error, and then turning these wanton women, driven by their passions, loose on the rest of the believers in Ephesus.

               So this is the situation in which Paul writes these words.  How will he address the problem?  He first deals with the way the women should present themselves to others.  They are to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty, and with self-control.  In contrast, he says they should not dress with braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly attire. 

Now on the surface, this flies in the face of our church culture thinking.  We don’t have the expression “wear your Sunday best” for nothing, right?               Some suggest that the reason Paul did not want the ladies to dress up was because it created a distinction between the wealthy and the poor in church, making it quite clear who were the have’s and who were the have-not’s.  However, closer examination of the cultural context reveals that the kind of dress Paul is condemning was sexually provocative in his day and age.  In fact, historical evidence shows us that it could be considered even marital unfaithfulness if a married woman went out adorned like that in public.  Imagine, if you will, the choice between two Christmas presents.  One is wrapped in a paper sack and tied off with duct tape.  The other is wrapped in gilt paper, tied off with bright ribbon, has an engraved nametag, and is topped with a bow.  Which would you rather open?  The fancy one, of course.  That’s the idea here. 

So Paul was not forbidding women to wear quality clothing; he was putting an end to these young widows and possibly others parading about in what was then considered provocative, alluring, and seductive attire.  Instead they were to adorn themselves with good works, as women who profess to worship God are prone to do.

               Next Paul says that the women should learn quietly and with all submissiveness.  That word “quietly” does not mean in silence.  Rather, it has the meaning of being restful, peaceful, tranquil.  It is used up in verse 2 to describe the quality of public life that all of God’s people should pursue.  “In all submissiveness” refers to placing oneself under all appropriate sources of authority, the first being Christ, the second being to one another.  And the word “learn” is the same word translated as “be a disciple.”  So in a church situation where there was not order but discord, not peace but unrest, and not true discipleship but speculative and harmful teaching, Paul is calling for reform.

               Next Paul tells his readers “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,” and again he reiterates the need for women to learn in tranquility.  Given the nuances of the Greek verb here, a better translation may be “I am not permitting a woman to teach or exercise authority,” which would indicate that Paul is giving this command in light of the current state of affairs rather than setting down a once-for-all command.  The verb “exercise authority” is a hapax legomenon, that is, it is only used once in the entire New Testament.  Extrabiblical sources of a similar age that use the term give it a very negative connotation.  It has the meaning of “domineer,” “give orders to,” “exert control over.”

               The prohibition on teaching goes hand in hand with the concept of domineering a man.  In Paul’s culture, the didaskolos, or teacher, was a revered figure who commanded authority.  He called students to follow him.  He would impart his knowledge of certain topics or skills to his disciples, and they, while under his teaching, would call him “master.”  The Hebrew word for an exalted figure was “rabbi,” and while not every rabbi was a teacher, every teacher was a rabbi.  If a Jewish teacher entered the house of his father, and his father was not a teacher himself, his father was expected to stand in his presence.  One teacher’s mother demanded to wash her son’s feet; another’s feet were kissed by his father-in-law.  That was the level of respect afforded to the authority of a teacher in Paul’s day.

               Paul then explains in part why he’s placing this prohibition over the church at Ephesus.  First, there is a natural, God given order to the genders; man was made first, then women.  Second, Eve was the first to be deceived by Satan, and thus became a transgressor.

               This argument seems a little foreign and perhaps a little offensive to us on the surface.  But I think two things are going on here.  First, Paul is using the Fall as a picture of what is happening to the church in Ephesus.  Satan targeted Eve, got her to buy into his lie, and she then passed it on to Adam.  In the same way, false teachers have risen up in Ephesus, and the first victims of their deception were the young widows who were looking for something more in life.  In turn, those women had begun taking the poisoned fruit to others in the church, forming their own little groups of followers and spreading the false teaching, tearing the church apart as they bounced from house church to house church. 

The second thing I noticed is that Paul is pointing to the creation order as a natural place to determine where the buck stops.  For a woman to domineer a man violates God’s desired order for his creation.  God did not create the genders in order to provide mankind with a power struggle, but rather to complement one another in their respective roles within the context of mutual submission.

                 And now we come to verse 15, which is one of the most difficult verses in all of Scripture to explain.  “Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self control.”  What exactly does this mean?  Well, here are the options.  One:  Christian women will suffer no harm during childbirth.  I think it’s safe to assume that one is wrong.  Two:  Only women who bear children will be saved.  Nope, but thanks for playing.  Three:  Women are saved who pursue their God-mandated gender role.  I think we’re getting warmer here.  After all, what is the one thing a woman can do that a man can’t?  Okay, ladies, I know the list is long, but I’m thinking reproductively here—that’s right, they can bear children.  And that lines up with 1 Timothy 5, verses 10 and 14, which highlight the bearing and nurturing of children of being as being a woman’s responsibility.  But I think an even better explanation is Four:  It is referring back to Eve, the transgressor, who will be saved through the bearing of children, which eventually leads to the promised Deliverer, Jesus Christ.  This statement from Paul comes right on the heels of his reference to the Fall, he never uses the “salvation” word for anything other than redemption through Jesus Christ, and to suggest that women are justified by doing womanly things smacks too much of works salvation to me.  In Genesis 3:15 we have the first promise of deliverance—the offspring of Eve.

               So my interpretation of this passage is this:  Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is speaking into a situation where false teachers have caused a disturbance within the church at Ephesus.  Their false teaching found fertile ground among the younger widows.  These younger widows in turn began to bounce from house church to house church, seeking to gain their own followings through their own false teaching.  Quite possibly one of their tactics was to exert control over men by dressing in a sexually provocative way.  To correct the problem, Paul enforces a dress code, insists on tranquil discipleship, and puts a ban on women teaching or domineering men.

               And now perhaps for the more important question.  How do we apply this text to our context today?  Are these prohibitions local and limited or timeless and universal?

               In order to answer that question we must first determine whether or not these commands were local and limited or timeless and universal.  There is no doubt that Paul was addressing an androcentric culture in his day.  Women were often considered second class citizens in the Ancient Near East.  They were generally not afforded the same educational, vocational, social, or political opportunities.

               Christianity began to change all that.  Jesus, for example, was peculiar for having women among his followers, the most famous of whom was Mary Magdalene, but she was far from the only one.  Paul himself worked together with certain believing women.  One of those women was Priscilla, who, along with her husband Aquila, made tents alongside Paul.  It’s also interesting to note that Priscilla and Aquila took the young preacher Apollos aside and explained to him more accurately the way of God in Acts 18.  In the six times that Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the New Testament, she gets the preeminence two thirds of the time.  So here is a clear reference to a woman teaching a man in Acts 18, though it is in the context of team-teaching.

               Elsewhere, of course, Paul can be found giving commands about the behavior of women in public worship.  The church at Corinth also had problems in that area.  In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 he says women need to wear head coverings, and in 1 Corinthians 14 comes what seems his harshest words toward women:  As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

               Obviously we consider both the command for women to wear head coverings and for them to shut up when they walk through the church doors to be limited and local in their scope.  If we see them as timeless and universal, we sure aren’t enforcing them, are we?  While it was considered a social taboo for women to be vocal in public settings in Paul’s day, could you imagine the reaction if we handed out muzzles to the women today?

               With the Industrial Revolution, women’s suffrage, the Equal Rights Movement, and other such socio-economic changes between us and the biblical audience, we are forced to be very careful with the commands made to and about women in Scripture.  Women are afforded opportunities in today’s world that they never would have dreamed of back in Paul’s day.  We are drawing ever closer to the ideal Paul expressed in Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  I for one do not think it is a bad thing that women have greater freedoms and greater opportunities today than they did in Paul’s day.  And if those greater freedoms and opportunities available outside the church are good things, than ought the church afford them greater freedoms and opportunities within it?

               However, I do believe there are some timeless and universal principles in play here.  Obviously, modest dress is something that all followers of Jesus, regardless of their gender, ought to be devoted to.  We are not here to draw attention to ourselves, particularly in a sexual manner, but to draw attention to the One who loves us and saves us, Jesus Christ.  Dressing provocatively not only produces temptation for others, it also makes less of you.  Put on your Sunday best, ladies, but please don’t attend church in a bikini.  Put on your Sunday best, men, but please don’t show up with your shirt unbuttoned to your navel.  I’m not sure that’s an attractive look, anyway.

               Second, there is a God-given order to the genders, and for a woman to exert control over or domineer a man violates that order.  And just to be clear, fellas, for a man to exert control over or domineer a woman is also a violation of God’s heart for the genders.  God calls for a covenantal relationship between the genders, a context of mutual submission in which men have the responsibility to take a pastoral and loving lead.  What that means for the church is that final authority in the form of church doctrine, discipline, and policy ought to ultimately rest with a godly male leadership.  But if there is no male leadership willing or able to serve in such a way, a woman has to do what a woman has to do.  Just ask Deborah in the book of Judges. 

Part of the problem in our churches and in our culture, which I believe indirectly and directly have led to instances like the Bruce to Caitlyn Jenner thing, is that men aren’t being men, and women aren’t being women.  We were made different for a reason, and to embrace one’s gender role does not make one a lesser or greater person.  The Christian call for particular gender roles under mutual submission would end a lot of the gender dysfunction and confusion out there.

               But I believe there is great leeway when it comes to every other ministry of the church under such a leadership.  Take teaching, for example.  The authority of a teacher is not the same today as it was back then.  My father-in-law does not kiss my feet when he greets me.  My stepdad doesn’t stand up in respect when I walk into his house.  I don’t know that I’ve ever been called “master” by someone.  Teachers are often afforded respect today, but among adults, at least, they have very little authority, far less the kind of authority that demanded such overt acts of reverence and respect back in Paul’s time..

               That’s why I don’t have an issue with Ozark training women to prepare exegetically sound, Biblical messages.  And I’m not disturbed by the North American Christian Convention having a woman preach at one of its main sessions.  Nor am I troubled by Alisa leading our youth group and its sponsors.  And I was greatly blessed by my time learning and serving under Dr. Frankland, Deb Hafer, and others.  In all these instances, women are providing the church with their valuable gifts and insights under the context of godly male oversight. 

It may sound to some of you that I am compromising the gospel to accommodate the surrounding culture.  I don’t see it that way.  I feel I am contextualizing the gospel so that it is readily accessible to the surrounding culture.  Paul did the same.  In 1 Corinthians 9 he writes, For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.  In endorsing greater freedoms and opportunities for women in the church, I am becoming as a 21^st century American in order that I might save some 21^st century Americans.

There are many things about our culture I cannot affirm, such as its approval and celebration of same sex attraction, its fixation on material wealth, its wanton narcissism, empty pursuits, and mindless distractions.  But I can affirm its desire for all people, regardless of gender, to be treated with respect and afforded an opportunity to use their gifts to advance their community.  The world around us has changed, and while much of it has been for the worse, the opportunity for women to contribute more to the ministry of the church is not one of them.  And I think if Paul were here today, he’d agree.  So let’s be a church family that welcomes and takes advantage of the giftedness of our ladies, in whatever form that takes, under the guidance of godly male leadership, and let’s see God do something marvelous through it.

Cuts Like a Knife: Living Among Broken People

I've received a lot of cuts over the course of the 45 years I've walked on this earth.  Many of them were self-induced, like the time I pretended to be Superman in the back seat of my grandma's station wagon.  I had suspended my upper torso over the top of the front seat while dangling my legs over the top of the back seat, and then, with arms thrust out, I yelled, "Look!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  No, it's--"  I didn't get the last part out.  Did I mention that my grandmother was driving at the time?  She hit the brakes, and I actually went airborne--for all of about two feet--until I landed face-first into the dash and split my forehead open.  That could be why I'm more of a Marvel comics fan these days, and perhaps why I'm addled enough to do what I do.

I've also tried high-jumping over a barbed wire fence (to escape an angry pit bull), attempted to carry a melted trash can that had jagged pieces of glass embedded in it, and caught my hand on an upturned corner of sheet metal as I tried to dunk a basketball.  I have the scars to prove it.

But the scars that hurt me the most are the ones you can't see.  They're the scars I've received from other's words and actions.

You know what I mean if you've ever:

- Been lied to or about by a close friend.
- Been belittled by someone you admired.
- Been betrayed by someone you love.
- Been the butt of jokes.
- Been picked on by a bully.

These and other experiences in my life have persuaded me that whoever wrote the song "Sticks and Stones" must have been a deaf hermit.  The words and actions of others hurt way more than physical blows, and they leave much deeper scars.

But here's the deal.  In each of all the scenarios I listed above, I have to say that I've also been on the giving end.  I've lied to or about close friends, belittled others, betrayed someone I love, made cutting jokes about others, and bullied yet more.

We're all broken people, and broken people have sharp edges.

I think that's why Jesus made forgiving one another such a high priority for his followers.  He knew that if we were going to stick together, odds were that we'd come into contact with the sharp edges of those around us, and we'd get cut.

I've seen people handle these kinds of cuts in different ways.  Some choose to avoid as much contact as they can.  They isolate themselves from others, placing themselves in a social bubble.  But man was not made to live alone, and such a tactic leads to an empty life.  German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer likened these people to porcupines on a cold winter's night, who unable to huddle together because of their sharp quills, drifted apart and froze to death.

Still others choose to pick at the scabs, keeping the wounds fresh and bleeding.  Refusing to let the hurt the go, they nurse it, dwell on it, allow a root of bitterness to grow within them until their entire existence is consumed by nothing more than pain, anger, and hatred.  Such people are miserable, and, quite frankly, are miserable to be around.

There is a better way.  It is to allow God's grace to do more than simply wash us clean; it is to allow his grace to heal our cuts and to soften our edges.  When we realize the amazing depth of God's relentless love for us, that despite all the wrongs we have done to him, he offers us forgiveness, how can we not but forgive others?

The first step in releasing others from what they've done to us is to realize that in Christ Jesus, God has released us from what we've done to him.  In order for us to dispense grace, we must first receive it ourselves.

The next time I get cut, I'm going to do my best to apply God's grace and extend forgiveness to the one who inflicted it.  I think the church would be a much better example of God's love if we all tried the same.

Getting Real with God

Last night and this morning, I stared at the darkened ceiling and mulled over which was worse—bad dreams or insomnia.  There are many situations going on in our life and in our circle of family and friends that are tragic, decisions that are life-altering, outcomes that have the potential to push people on the edge of trust into the abyss of unbelief, and I have little or no control over them.  Usually I can quiet my mind by giving these things to God and trusting him to work according to his good will and relentless love for us.  I can sing “Lord, You Are More Precious than Silver” in my heart, feel his presence, approval, and delight, and get to sleep.  Not so much these past few days.

Before you ask, no, I’m not depressed.  I’m not having a crisis of faith. I’m not spiritually dry.  I’m simply troubled.  I’m troubled by a world where cancer prevails more often than not, where some parents have their children ripped away from them while others are free to abuse theirs, a place where good men and women seeking to serve God and others are often beat up by the very people they’re trying to serve, a place where commitment is cheap and relationships are disposable, a place where kindness and mercy are seen as weaknesses and where anger and contempt seem to be the prevailing sentiments of the day.  It’s a place where, as a wounded healer, I often feel powerless to make a difference and here lately wonder how much longer I’ll even have the opportunity to try.

Followers of Jesus will often try to hide from these nagging observations.  We try to hand out pat answers to ourselves and to those around us when tragedy strikes.  We turn the other way, focus on the good, look heavenward, and wait for better days.  We know that Christ wanted us to live the abundant life not just in the hereafter but in the here and now, but quite frankly, that can often seem like just so much wishful thinking, can’t it?

The psalmists were not a “pie in the sky, sweet by and by” lot like many of us modern day Christians try or pretend to be.  Of the 150 Psalms in the Bible, over a third of them are what we call “laments,” songs composed by those who found themselves in the crucible of tragic loss, overwhelming defeat, bitter betrayal, self-destructive behavior, and even imminent death.  Here is where we find such questions as:  “O Lord God of hosts, how long will you be angry with your people’s prayers?  You have fed them with the bread of tears and given them tears to drink in full measure.”  “Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?  Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?”  “Lord, where is your steadfast love . . . ?”  “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  As the writer of Psalm 137 rightly observes, sometimes our circumstances make it just downright difficult (impossible?) to sing the song of the Lord while in the midst of a world that makes no sense.

If I want to get real with God, I go to the Psalms.  I find comfort in the fact that it’s okay to express outrage, to have doubts, to call out God when things don’t make sense to me.  In the Psalms I see a God with big shoulders, a God who knows that in our finite knowledge and understanding, we’re just not going to be able to box up all the horrible junk that happens around us and to us into some neat, tidy, theological package and go about with dry cheeks and painted-on smiles.

We all know how disastrous it can be to yell at our fathers or at our bosses when we think they’ve dealt us an unfair hand.  Usually the consequences of such outbursts are quite painful.  Not so with God.  He simply weathers our rage, our finger-pointing, our limited understanding of his ways and his plans, and, if we allow him, he will draw near after we are spent to dry our tears with his gentle touch and wrap us in his tender embrace.  Most of the laments in the book of Psalms end with this kind of consolation and expression of hope.

We serve a God whose ways, quite honestly, often don’t make sense to us.  And that’s a good thing, because the greatest oddity about God to me is that irrespective of anything I have done or haven’t done, he has an undiminished love for me.  The most senseless act in the world was that while I was still his enemy, God laid down his Son’s life for the chance that I might turn to him and return his crazy love for me.

I don’t expect that the bad dreams or insomnia will go away overnight because I’ve read a few Psalms or reflected on God’s love for me.  I am a troubled soul living in troubling times.  But tonight I will once again sing “Lord, You Are More Precious than Silver” in my heart as I lay my head down on my pillow.  And despite what has come or will come, I will rest in the fact that I am his and he is mine. And though I don’t have all the answers, he does, and I will wait on him.

When Trying to Help Hurts: Dumb Things to Say to the Grieving

THE ROAD TO HURT IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

                As a pastor, I often find myself in the company of the bereaved.  Death is, ironically, a part of life that has or will affect us all.  And yet oftentimes we find ourselves at a loss for words when someone we know has just lost a loved one.  This loss for words, coupled with our desire to comfort the grieving, often produces statements that have the opposite effect of what we intended them to have.  In other words, in our effort to help, we can often hurt.  Over the years I have collected a list of some of the most damaging though well-intended things people have said to those who have experienced a recent loss.

“Everything happens for a reason.”  At its most basic value, this statement is true.  However, the “reason” may be nothing more than the fact that we live in a world broken by sin in which bad things happen in the midst of a twisted creation.  Nor was it "part of God's will."  Death was never a part of God’s original plan for mankind, but sin crept in, and death is penultimate result.  Knowing this truth is not going to provide much comfort to the survivor; in fact, by implication, you might actually lead the grieving to believe that they lost their loved one because of something specific they or their loved one did or did not do.  While trying to give them perspective, you might actually give them greater confusion, guilt, or anger.     

“Heaven has another angel.”  I hear this a lot, and I cringe every time I do.  In the first place, it’s bad theology.  I suppose the thinking comes from Jesus’ statement that those in the age to come will “be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 16:27; Mark 12:25).  However, the context is about whether or not humans will be married in heaven, not about what we become.  Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:3 that we will actually judge angels, not become them.  Much akin to this is the notion that our loved ones are now “watching over us,” as if they have become our personal guardian angels.  Again, there is no supporting Scripture for such an idea, and it seems to fly in the face of the dead in Christ being in paradise as they await reunion with us.  Is it paradise to helplessly watch over us as we continue to mourn, to make bad and painful decisions, to grow old, grow sick, suffer, and eventually die ourselves?  This does not sound like a pleasant experience to me.

“Only the good die young.”  Great song, bad thinking.  Gang-bangers, Cartel members, and drugged-out celebrities also die young.  And how exactly does this offer comfort to the bereaved?  Is the lesson to raise up godless children so they’ll live a long life?  Should we pray for our children to be untalented and unskilled?  Are we the cause of a life cut short because we pushed them to excellence? 

“God wanted them more up there than he did down here.”  This is probably the one that most makes me have to restrain myself from tackling people at funerals.  It makes God out to be a capricious monster who felt one more soul among the countless myriads of others in his courts was more important to him than a parent, spouse, child was to someone here.  Seeing people suffer from the loss of a close loved one breaks God’s heart (John 11:32-35).  God does not use death as a tool to pad his numbers in heaven; Christ died to put an end to death once and for all.

“God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.”  Again, this is terrible theology.  God can and often does give us more than we can handle . . . on our own.  But we serve a God who is there, who will be with us every step of the way, no matter how painful or crushing the journey may get.  This is also a roundabout way of telling someone to “suck it up;” if God doesn’t give us more than we can handle, why are you such a mess over this? 

“It will get better with time.”  Possibly true.  Not helpful at the moment.  Moving on.

“I know how you feel.”  No, you don’t.  I have to admit I’ve said this before, in an attempt to connect with a grieving brother or sister, intending to impart the things I learned that helped me get through the mourning process.  But I failed to realize that not only do I not truly know how someone is feeling during his or her loss, but I was also making their loss all about me, not them.

“At least you were expecting this. / At least it happened fast.”  There’s no good way to lose someone.  I’ve been around enough mourners to have learned this one.

“I’m sure you did all you could.”  This is often said to those who have cared for a loved one who suffered through a long, terminal illness.  And I know the intent is to recognize the heroic efforts and faithful love of the bereaved.  But it also hints that maybe their best wasn’t good enough, that perhaps their loved one would still be alive if they could have done more.  A better way to express this thought would be, “I was so impressed with the way you cared for him/her.”

“You’re still young.  You can marry again/have another child.”  Do I really need to explain this one?  An even more callous statement I heard someone was told was, “At least you still have other kids.”  It’s a good thing I carry a Bible and not a baseball bat to funerals.

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO OR SAY?

Show Up, Well Up, and Shut Up.  This may sound odd, but I believe the book of the Bible that portrays one of the best pastoral approaches to the grieving is the book of Job.  Job was a man who lost all ten of his children in one fateful day.  Three of his buddies came to see him.  Here’s the text:

Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that had come upon him, they came each from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him.   And when they saw him from a distance, they did not recognize him. And they raised their voices and wept, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads toward heaven.  And they sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great (Job 2:11-13).

There are three principles here.  First, show up.  Make your presence felt.  Give them a hug, a handshake, some kind of personal touch to assure them that you are there.  Second, well up.  Allow your pain for their loss to be evident; this isn’t the time for you to “be strong” for them, but for you to let them know how broken you are over their loss.  Finally, shut up.  Resist the urge to be Mr. or Mrs. Fix-It.  You can’t fix this.  Let them know you are sorry for their loss, ask if there is anything you can help with, and leave it at that.  Don’t try to explain things for God or make everything all right with a pithy platitude.  It’s okay to say, “I don’t know.”  When we shut up, it allows the mourner to speak up.  Let them know you are there to listen.  The best thing Job’s friends did was sit there in silence for seven days with him.  The trouble began when they opened their mouths and tried to fix Job and defend God.

Allow the Grieving to Vent.  God’s got big shoulders.  He can handle our anger, our outrage, our despair over a messed-up world.  Just read through the Psalms if you need to be convinced that it is okay for hurting people to express the raw emotions of their pain, to question God, and even to be angry with him.

Be in It for the Long Run.  Most people on the outside forget about someone’s grief after a couple of months, but the grieving process can last for years, even a lifetime.  Do not be afraid to ask them how they are doing with their loss.  Be mindful that holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, and other memorable dates will often trigger fresh bouts of grief.  Reach out to them on these days.  Involve them in your life.  Help them, when the time is appropriate, to find new activities and relationships to get involved in.  Never push them to “get over it.”  Pray for them.  Above all, be available.

I’m interested to hear your opinion on these things, or, if you have heard other well-intentioned but unhelpful things said to the grieving, what were they?

When Mission and Academia Collide

Dr. Anthony Le Donne’s departure from Lincoln Christian University has created quite a buzz on the internet.  The attempt is being made to make Dr. Le Donne a martyr for intellectual freedom.  I am not so sure that this is the heart of the matter, but in Dr. Le Donne’s own words:

“I am writing with disappointing news. After over a year of pressure from Lincoln Christian University donors, concerned citizens, and certain employees, the president of the university has decided to terminate my employment. I have been told that this decision is in direct response to the publication of my popular-level book, Historical Jesus (Eerdmans, 2011). I have no doubt that the LCU administration made a staunch effort on my behalf, but eventually needed to assuage the fears of (what I am told) is a largely anti-intellectual constituency.”[1]

Sometimes I am too flippant.  This can become a hindrance when I have the opportunity to do good and instead try to be funny.  At least two opportunities were presented to me during my time at Lincoln Christian University.  Both took place in group settings.  The first was a “think-tank” session where several seminary students, past and present, were asked to reflect on a possible change in the school’s name from Lincoln Christian College and Seminary to Lincoln Christian University.  We were asked by the school president what questions we might have.  My only question at the time was, “How much more per hour will it cost me to have the word ‘university’ on my degree?”  See?  Flippant.  (Although I was paying $500 a credit hour before I finally earned my MDiv!)  I should have instead asked, “What will this mean for Lincoln Christian’s emphasis on being a sending school and remaining true to her identity as a Restoration Movement institution?”

Another opportunity came during my exit interview from the seminary about this time last year.  This interview took place in a group setting (I guess in order to save time).  The usual questions were asked, the usual pat answers, for the most part, were given.  Finally, the inevitable closing question was asked:  “If you could be president of the university for a day, what would you do?”  My (paraphrased) answer to that question was:  “I’d be more interested in keeping this institution’s focus on being a sending school rather than in expanding its academic reputation and options.”  My response was met with instant opposition from several of my peers.  Generally speaking, the negative reaction could be summed up as (1) we need Christians in all vocations, (2) and Lincoln needs to pursue academic excellence.  To both of these assertions I agree.  Not just being flippant but also a people-pleaser, I refrained from elaborating on their responses with the two immediate thoughts that came to mind.

First of all, if someone wants to get a business degree and then actually get hired, one ought to go somewhere that offers a business degree that is respected in the business world.  Yes, we need Christians in every vocation (well, save for exotic dancing, pornography, telemarketing, and other unsavory entrepreneurial fields—only slightly joking about the telemarketing, by the way), but when we turn a school whose focus is preparing men and women for Christian vocation into a school that tries to “be all things to all people,” the school quickly loses its identity.  This has happened again and again to schools within our particular movement.  Bethany College is a prime example.  Founded by Alexander Campbell in 1840, it makes no claim to being a sending school or a Restoration Movement institution today:  “The College's program of classical liberal arts education prepares students for a lifetime of work and a life of significance. Bethany places particular emphasis on leadership and incorporates pre-professional education in dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, physical therapy, public administration, theology and veterinary medicine.” [2]  There’s also Butler University, Texas Christian University, and Pepperdine, to name a few other institutions founded by our movement but who have now all but lost their identity as a Restoration Movement schools.

There’s a reason we have Christian campus ministries, and it’s not just to evangelize students who do not know Christ.  Campus ministries ought to also exist in order to provide college students pursuing non-vocational ministries a place to preserve and nurture their faith while swimming the strong currents of secular academia.

So if a Christian is seeking a non-vocational ministry field, I would point them to a secular liberal arts school with a strong campus ministry presence, a Christian liberal arts school that has a reputation for generating graduates who excel in the particular vocational field the prospective student is seeking, or a Christian sending school that partners with a secular liberal arts school to provide its students with vocational diversity.  I would not recommend that a student who wants to be a businessperson go to a school known for preparing men and women for vocational ministry.

Secondly, pursuing academic excellence and embracing viewpoints that are destructive to one’s stated mission do not have to coexist.  Many of Dr. Le Donne’s supporters have accused the school of sacrificing academic freedom/excellence in making this move.  Any institution has the right to maintain standards by which it is able to carry out its stated mission, so academic “freedom” is limited in any institution of higher learning.  (Just ask intelligent design advocates who have been canned from secular schools!)  There has been a lot of dancing around the issue by these same people concerning Dr. Le Donne’s book, but the fact of the matter is he does implicitly challenge several key Christian doctrines when his position is taken to its inevitable conclusion.  John Hobbins says it well when he sympathetically responds to a pro-Le Donne blog post:

“LeDonne challenges the tacit (not necessarily the real: you will appreciate the distinction) epistemological foundations of broad swathes of Christendom. 

“Moreover, at least not in the book in question, he does not offer a cogent alternative epistemology whereby a believer in Jesus in the sense of Philippians 2, Romans 1, or John 1, to cite confessional statements from the NT, would have justified belief.

“Am I missing something? 

“LCU's mission statement is plain as punch. Whereas I am convinced that LeDonne is an excellent scholar, it is not clear to me that he was contributing well to the objectives of the institution which hired him unless he also articulated a religious epistemology (a rationale of justified belief) compatible with his findings as a NT scholar.

“Since I have some knowledge of the tradition LCU represents, I would add that this would appear from the outside to have been a train wreck just waiting to happen.

“Here's hoping that an institution that relates to a more post-modern polity (in the positive sense!) picks up this fine scholar.” [3]

I was one who expressed my concern about Lincoln Christian University’s direction when approached by an official representative of the school.  The interesting thing about the conversation is that Dr. Le Donne was not even on my mind, but his was the name that popped up in immediate response to my concern.  But Dr. Le Donne’s position in the historical Jesus conversation was only a symptom of what I saw as a larger concern.  It appears to me that the institution seems far more interested in gaining the world of academia’s approval than it is in preparing men and women for vocational ministry.  I was as much told so when the remark was made by the representative that there isn’t a need for preachers like there used to be.  If that is indeed the case, fine, but don’t ask churches and other donors who for years have given their support for the express purpose of preparing men and women for vocational ministry to be happy when you shift your focus to something else.  And when your shift includes the tacit approval of perspectives on what we can know from the Bible that clash with the perspectives of those same churches and other donors, only the naïve would see no inevitable fallout.

I believe Dr. Le Donne is a fine scholar, possesses more intellectual firepower than I can ever hope to have, and will leave a bigger mark in the world of academia than most.  That’s why I see this as a win-win situation both for him and for the university.  I have no doubt he will be able to find a place where he can continue to exercise his intellect and promote his ideas, and Lincoln has taken a positive step in retaining the identity that the majority of her supporters and alumni want her to keep.  But there is still work to be done in this latter endeavor, and only time will tell if this was only a speed bump on the road to "progress" or a turning back to values the school was founded upon.

If you want to lose my respect, all you have to do is call me “anti-intellectual” “fundamentalist,” or someone holding to a “sectarian, obscurantist view of Christianity” (all comments recently posted in response to Dr. Le Donne’s departure from LCU) merely because I disagree with you on how to approach the Bible from epistemological, historical, hermeneutical, and theological perspectives, or because I disagree with you as to what LCU’s emphasis should be.  I don’t see name-calling as very helpful in this dialogue.  Just because my worldview conflicts with yours does not give either of us license to bash the other.

Did LCU's administration cave to pressure from donors, concerned citizens, and certain employees?  I imagine there’s some truth there.  But the greater question is, was it right for them to do so?  In my eyes, LCU is offering a product, a product funded, supported and carried out by those same donors, concerned citizens, and certain employees.  If those entities are unhappy about the product being produced, then they have every right to make some noise and threaten to take their support away, or give it to an institution that will produce the product they are seeking.

Bottom line on this whole issue is this:  if you are unhappy about this move by Lincoln Christian University, do something about it.

Stop merely writing angry blogs.  Stop signing your name on petitions.  Start writing generous checks, and when you do, sign your name on them.

In other words, don't be upset because people put their mouths where their money was; instead, put your money where your mouth is.

If you think LCU ought to be a place where someone like Dr. Le Donne can have the academic freedom to explore and promote whatever ideas he wishes, then give the institution the financial freedom to be such a place.

Convictions that cost nothing aren’t worth a whole lot.

The Many Faces of Facebook: An Open Letter to Christians Who Use Social Networks

There are tons of blogs and articles on the good, the bad, and the ugly of Facebook statuses out there; just ask Google about it.  So why am I bothering to offer my perspective on the issue?  Well, it’s not that I think I can add any new information to the conversation.  However, I would like to address this issue from a Christian perspective, and in particular, I’d like to address it to my Christian friends.

With over 900 million users, Facebook has become one of the world’s largest cyber gathering places.  It’s a great way to share information, to voice opinions, to have conversations, to promote people/places/things, to stay in touch with long-distance friends, and to connect with people we’ve never met face-to-face.  Expressing oneself requires only a few keystrokes and the click of a mouse.  But like anything else inanimate, Facebook is a tool that can be used for good or ill.

James, the half-brother of Jesus, knew how dangerous our speech could be.  Close to 2,000 years ago, he wrote, “It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire. A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that. By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke and go up in smoke with it, smoke right from the pit of hell” (James 3:5-6, MSG).  The principle carries over to the written word as well, perhaps even more so.  Once something is put down on “digital paper,” it’s pretty hard to take back.

Facebook got its name from the book with students’ pictures, names, and basic information which some colleges and universities hand out at the beginning of the academic year to help their student body get to know one another.  But sometimes when I read certain status updates, I wonder if people have inadvertently wandered in from other sites.  Below are seven “alternate” Facebook sites all Christians need to avoid.  (I picked the number seven because it’s Biblical—yes, that’s said with a wink.)

Firstbook.  Firstbook is especially popular in the small town/rural community.  The members of this social networking site love to be the people with the latest 411, especially if the news is particularly tragic.  If they hear that someone’s Aunt Lucy passed, or so-and-so’s son got busted for pot, or what’s-his-name got in a serious car accident, their fingers will lock up if they don’t hit the keyboard within 5 seconds to let everyone else know that they were the first to know.  Sometimes this will be disguised in obscure terms, like, “Praying hard right now” (see Vaguebook below), so that they can justify leaking the information out when someone comments with, “Why?  What’s going on?”  Often their Firstbook cronies will know all the gory details before immediate family members of the person(s) involved do.  This is really insensitive, especially in the event of someone’s death.  If I lose a loved one, the last place I want to hear about it is from some distant acquaintance’s status update.

Rebook.  (No, not the shoe brand, that’s Reebok.)  This site offers a vast smorgasbord of items for its uninspired and unoriginal subscribers to pass on to others.  Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate something being passed on if it’s thought-provoking, newsworthy, insightful, or humorous.  If you find something interesting, by all means, pass it on.  (But really, folks, there has to be a limit to talking cat pictures and snarky “greeting card” covers, right?)  The really annoying ones I’m talking about here are the reposts telling me if I love Jesus, world peace, baby seals, tofu, etc., I, too, will repost this information.  The absolute worst are the ones that claim a prayer will be answered, an angel will get its wings, world hunger will be solved, etc., if I share it.  These people should be thankful I don’t pass these on; otherwise, God might indeed answer my prayer and they’d no longer have the capability of polluting my newsfeed with such posts.

Vaguebook.  Vaguebook is the information superhighway’s gathering place for people silently screaming for attention.  You know the type.  They’ll post something like, “Ticked off! >.<” “What comes around goes around,” or “Words can’t convey how I feel right now.”  Their Facebook friends will gather over said status update and scratch their heads as they wonder what this post is all about.  Meanwhile, the original poster is dying a slow death inside as they watch their baited line float along the currents of the newsfeed.  Then, that first comment finally appears:  “Everything all right?”  “Can I do anything for you?”  “What’s wrong?”  With the hook set and feeling validated/loved, the Vaguebooker will then open the floodgates on the unsuspecting but compassionate inquirer.

Inyourfacebook.  The passive-aggressive set have made Inyourfacebook a cyberspace success.  Here is where people can unload on others with relative impunity.  Got a beef with your next-door neighbor?  Your boss?  The school board?  That rude checker at Wal-Mart?  Someone else’s bratty kid?  No problem!  Log in and give them a good what-for so everyone can see just how mad you are and how you aren’t scared to show it.  Cool thing is, you can do this all from the relative safety of your La-Z-Boy, and if the target of your ire gets offended, there’s nothing that says you have to answer that angry knocking at your door.

Blackbook.  No, this isn’t a site to store all the contact information of your past loves.  Blackbook is where people go to suck the joy out of all others.  Every status update from them is a complaint, a grim observation, or a dark cloud seeking to rain on everyone else’s parade.  Some people, like me, are pessimistic by nature, but the Blackbookers revel in spreading their gloom to all corners of the global community.  Don’t try to cheer these folks up, either; they seek not comfort, but company, for their misery.

Foulbook.  The ESRB has rated this site “M” for mature, meaning that status updates from Foulbook’s subscribers may contain “intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.”  (I take issue with the “mature” and “adult” ratings of the ESRB.  Exactly how mature or adult is a person who consistently reduces the English language to crude profanity and talks incessantly about inappropriate subject matter?)  Foulbook, sometimes called “F-book” for obvious reasons, is where you can find statuses filled with cursing, shared images one step removed from outright pornography, and constant glorying in ungodly behavior.  “Tied one on last night, it was great, lol.”  “That @#%&$* better watch out for me.”

“Check out the (insert body part here) on this hottie!”  “@#$#%#$ #$%#$%^ !@#^*% #$%#$%!!!!”  Foulbook makes NetNanny dial 911.

Samebook.  Samebook is where Christians go to blend in with the culture around them.  Nothing about their status updates, interests, or likes would make anyone suspect them of being a Christian.  This makes it a haven for those who don’t want to offend anyone, who believe “religion” is a private matter not to be shared in the marketplace of ideas, who are more worried about what people think about them than they are the final destination of those same people.  Often the argument Samebookers will make is this:  “If I’m sneaky about my faith, then I’ll eventually be accepted by those in the culture around me.  Then I can share my faith.”  But that moment of sharing never comes.  There’s too much of a price to be paid.  People might think you’re a kook.  They might mock you.  They might even unfriend you.  That’s why Samebook will always come free of charge.  Don’t get me wrong; I’m not advocating a cyberChristian ghetto like Faithbook or Christbook (yes, these sites exist), where Christians only hang out with other Christians and talk about their latest witness wear purchases.  We need to be engaged in the culture around us.  But if all we do is mingle with those around us and never show the distinguishing marks of being a Christ follower, what’s the point?

Do your posts look like they belong on any of these sites rather than Facebook?

If you’re feeling a little put-upon by this blog, I’d like to encourage you with this confession.  I have to admit that it’s somewhat embarrassing for me to share this.  There have been times when my status updates look like they could have come from a great many of these sites themselves.  I’m a recovering abuser of my Facebook opportunities, and I still fall from time to time.  So I don’t come to this issue from on high with an outstretched index finger of condemnation (please ignore my humorous-to-me profile picture as you reflect on this), but as a partner in brokenness seeking to soften my sharp edges along with yours.

Here’s a simple acronym I came across several years ago that can help all of us in our quest to make the most of our Facebook posts.  It was originally intended for our speech, but it crosses over into status updates and tweets as well.  I don’t know where it originated from, so I can’t give credit; if anyone knows the primary source, please post a comment below.

T.H.I.N.K. before you post.

T – Is what you’re about to post TRUE?

H – Is what you’re about to post HELPFUL?

I – Is what you’re about to post INSPIRING?

N – Is what you’re about to post NECESSARY?

K – Is what you’re about to post KIND?

These are not easy standards with which to approach social networking.  Often a post can be true but not helpful, necessary but not kind, or kind but not true.  But if we can filter our posts through this grid, I think we will find the quality of our status updates markedly improved.  

Facebook is not just a pastime; it’s a tremendous tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or for ill.  Above all, Facebook, just like any other expression of our identity, ought to point people to the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Let’s do our best to make the most of it.  “Be gracious in your speech. The goal is to bring out the best in others in a conversation, not put them down, not cut them out” (Colossians 4:6, MSG).  Blessings!

Sleeping Beauty

This was a message I delivered during our community-wide sunrise service this past Easter, April 8.  I believe it is relevant to many small-town communities across America.

The Prince and His Bride.

John informed his wife Isabel one night that a guest was coming to dinner.  And this wasn’t just any guest; this was one of John’s former wives.  And she wasn’t just coming to dinner, she was coming to stay with them permanently.

John loved this former wife of his dearly.  But they had been separated, and she had gone missing in South America over fifteen years ago.  And after a bizarre trail of mysterious travels she finally surfaced, appearing first in Germany, then in Rome, then in Milan, and now, finally, she was going to be reunited with John at his home in Madrid, Spain.  And John was excited and overjoyed at the news.

Isabel’s reaction to all of this was quite odd.  She listened to John attentively, nodding her head, even smiling at times.  And when John’s former wife arrived, Isabel welcomed her into her home and made a place for her at the dinner table.  Night after night, year after year, John and Isabel and John’s former wife could be found in the dining room at supper time.  Isabel took care of the other woman, combing her hair daily, applying makeup, even helping to get her dressed.  But never once did John’s other wife utter a word of thanks or give a smile of gratitude.

It was a bizarre arrangement, to say the least.  And no doubt you’ll think it even odder when you learn that John’s former wife wasn’t even alive.  He and his current wife Isabel shared their dining room with a carefully preserved cadaver.

John’s full name was Juan Peron.  He was the former dictator of Argentina.  And his former wife, the beautiful Evita, the darling of Argentina’s working class, had tragically died at the young age of 33.  It was she whom Madonna played in the 1997 film Evita, in which she sang those famous words, “Don’t cry for me, Argentina.”

Heartbroken over his wife’s death, Juan Peron immediately paid a forensic doctor $100,000, a very handsome sum in 1952, to preserve her body.  And he commissioned a giant monument to be made in her honor where her body would be on permanent display.

Don't cry for me, Argentina!

But in 1955 after a military coup, Juan Peron was run out of Argentina.  Evita’s body remained, but the new regime was reluctant to destroy it, lest they incite a riot.  So it was hidden away in various places, even spending some time stuffed inside the couch of an army major.  It finally came to rest in a grave under a false name in Milan, Italy, where Peron’s supporters discovered it and retrieved it for him in 1971.

It takes a perverse and morbid mind to prefer the cold touch of a lifeless corpse over the warm embrace of a vibrant wife.  Most of us would say that Juan Peron was a somewhat disturbed individual.  I think Jesus would agree.

Revelation 3 begins with a letter Jesus dictates to the church at Sardis.  It is the fifth church of seven to whom Jesus directed the apostle John to compose a letter.  The former letters to the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, and Thyatira have revealed to us that the church in John’s day, much like the church today, was beset with cultural compromise, hostile persecution, rigid legalism, and the danger of apostasy.  The letter to the church at Sardis reveals that it was on the verge of losing its relevance in its community.  Hear the word of God, starting Revelation 3, verse 1:

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.

“‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. ² Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. ³ Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. ⁴ Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. ⁵ The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. ⁶ He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

The seven churches in Asia Minor to whom Jesus
directed John to write.

The city of Sardis, located some 40 miles southeast of Thyatira in Asia Minor, was a rival of both Ephesus and Smyrna.  The once-proud capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia, Sardis had been destroyed by an earthquake in 17 AD, and quickly rebuilt.  Having an estimated population of 80,000, it was a city of sophisticated paganism, housing temples to various deities and demigods.  It also had a synagogue roughly the size of a football field, able to hold a thousand worshiping Jews.

In his letter to the believers at Sardis, Jesus makes no mention of their persecution, a good indication that the church there was not under attack—this despite the fact that the Christians were surrounded on one side by zealous Jews and on the other by polytheistic Greeks and Romans.  While churches in Smyrna and Pergamum were facing hostility from their pagan and Jewish neighbors, the church in Sardis was safely secure.

The church in Sardis was safely secure because it was safely asleep.  No one gets too upset at a church that does nothing, says nothing, that keeps to itself and minds its own business.  No one gets too upset at a church with no witness, a church with no influence, a church with no relevance.  According to one New Testament scholar, the church at Sardis was the perfect example of inoffensive Christianity.  No one gets too upset at a church like that.  No one, that is, except Jesus.

Jesus is not subtle when he holds up the mirror to the church at Sardis.  They have the reputation of being alive, but in his eyes, the only eyes that really count, they are dead.  The church at Sardis had become a lifeless shell.  They continued to meet for services; they praised God, they recalled the good old days.  Other churches knew of their existence, had heard of their reputation, but for some time that reputation had been like a large chocolate Easter bunny; it looked impressive on the outside, but on the inside it was just empty air.

Is our reputation only surface-deep?

These weren’t bad people.  They hadn’t compromised their faith.  They still loved Jesus.  They were just asleep, inactive, for all intents and purposes, dead.  By means of contrast, Jesus says those who have remained awake are walking with him in unsoiled, white garments.  That’s a sign for purity.  It seems to me that Jesus is saying here that those who have dozed off are sleeping in dirty clothes.  Can it be that a silent church is as offensive to Jesus as a sinful church?  I think perhaps the answer is yes.

Implicitly, Jesus also seems to indicate that those who will not carry his name boldly will have their own name removed from the Lamb’s Book of Life, that those who will not openly confess his name to others will discover that Jesus will not confess their name before the angels or His Father.  Now, you might think to yourself, that just means they were never Christians in the first place.  I'm not here to dance on the end of a pin with you.  I say tomayto, you say tomahto.  The result is the same.

Sadly, I think of the seven letters Christ wrote to the churches in Asia Minor over 1900 years ago, this letter is the one that would most closely resemble the letter he would write to the church of small town America today.  I wonder if Jesus would tell us that we are focused more on the glory days of a bygone age than we are on our ongoing commission today?

You're right!  This is way cooler than my iPod Touch!

Many small town churches have lost their relevance and their voice in their communities.  The world has shifted around us, the landscape of small-town America has changed.  Gone are the days when everyone knew their neighbors and most everybody farmed for a living.  Although 25% of Americans live in small towns, only 2% of those living in small towns are actually farmers these days.  The small town has become globally aware and socio-economically diverse.  And yet we continue applying principles that were effective sixty years ago and wonder why our congregations continue to dwindle.  In a wireless, high-definition, three-dimensional, surround-sound culture, the church continues to bring a flannelgraph mindset to the marketplace of ideas and wonders why no one cares.

One of my seminary professors, Dr. Paul Boatman, once remarked:  “I have visited congregations where the buildings are well cared for, the people are friendly, at least to one another, and they have a schedule of ‘churchy’ activities.  Yet as I left, I found myself asking, ‘Why would anyone choose to be a part of the church?’  The faith was not presented winsomely, the worship had an air of lifeless ritual, and the whole experience was akin to visiting a family museum.”

The church must continually assess and adapt its methodology in presenting the good news about Jesus Christ.  In an ever-changing world, the church must ever change the way it presents the unchanging gospel.  We cannot be so stuck on the past that we ignore the people of the present.

If we don't stop apathy, it
will stop us.

But I think even more than that, the church must first regain its passion for the gospel.  Like the church at Sardis, we must remember what we have received—the incomparable riches of God at Christ’s expense.  And we must cling so tenaciously to the gospel that we cannot help but share it with others.  If we really believe that Jesus is the only means of salvation, hadn’t we ought to act like it?

Edinburg is changing.  It’s changed in the seven short years that I’ve been here.  Not all the changes have been positive; in fact, many have been for the worse.  But two things have never changed:  the gospel of Jesus Christ and the church’s mission to share that gospel with others.  Now, more than ever, Edinburg needs the church to be the church.

There are hundreds of people in this community who desperately need Jesus.  Why is it that, when those who need Christ the most finally realize it and they begin to seek the Lord, they go to a church outside of our community to find Him?  What is it about our churches that they find so unappealing?  Can’t they find Jesus here?

It's not our size but His that matters.

We can say it’s simply a numbers game, that our churches are too small to make a difference.  But that’s not the problem.  It was Dr. Howard Hendricks who once said, “The problem is not the size of your church, it is the significance of your church.  The reason many churches are small is that they are comprised of a group of small people with a very small God, a very small faith, and a very small confidence that God wants to use them in a significant way in their community.”

Are we troubled that Christ might perceive our community’s churches to be alive by reputation but are dead in evangelistic zeal, that our buildings are well-maintained, but we never venture out of them, that our idea of mission is to send money to foreign countries while we neglect the needs of our next-door neighbors?  Are we disturbed that Christ might say of us, “They go through the motions, but it’s been a long time since they have expected me to do anything in Edinburg?”

If we are troubled by these thoughts, we must also take comfort that Christ is the Living One, who was once dead himself but is now alive, who holds the keys of Death and Hades in his hand, who by the word of his mouth can raise the dead.  He is the resurrection and the life, and the grave is no bar to his call.

Jesus is in the resurrection business.

The is the One who raised Jairus’ daughter from the dead, who breathed new life into the son of the widow of Nain, the One who at the tomb of his dead friend shouted, “Lazarus, come forth!”  Jesus is in the resurrection business.  That’s what he does.  And if we ask him to, he will roll back the stone of our ecclesiastical tombs, rip away the grave clothes of our complacency, and shout out, “Churches of Edinburg, come forth!”  If we want him to, Jesus can raise us from the dead, too.

If you go over to our church and walk down the hall to my office, you will notice two signs on my office door.  Both are pertinent to our present time and situation.  The first one simply says, “Perhaps today.”  It’s a constant reminder to me that time is short, that at any moment, the sky could be torn open, and with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel, with the sound of the trumpet of God, Christ could return and the end of days be upon us.  And there are still many, many people here in Edinburg who do not know him.  Before the Lord comes like a thief, we ought to do our best to see that everyone possible is keeping an eye out for his return.

The second sign says, “Yes, there is a God, and no, you aren’t him.”  That’s a reminder to me that I cannot, that you cannot, that we cannot, our churches cannot accomplish this mission on our own.  If we want to win this community to Christ, we’re going to have to lean on his grace, be transformed into his likeness, and be empowered by his Spirit.

So here’s where the rubber meets the road this morning.  If you look around Edinburg and don’t like what you see, if you look inside your church buildings on Sunday morning and you don’t like what you see, if you look at your family and your extended family and you don’t like what you see, if you look at your own walk with Jesus and you don’t like what you see, it is time to take action.  Here’s what you do:

Pray.

The church is the only army that advances on its knees.

I want you to pray for revival.  I want you to pray for revival in your own walk with Christ, pray for revival in your families, pray for revival in your churches, pray for revival in this community.  Pray, starting now, and keep praying all the way to Pentecost Sunday—this coming Memorial Day weekend.  Pray every day.  Pray expecting something to happen.  Pray to a big God, a God with a big heart and big hands who would love to see something big happen here in Edinburg.

But be careful, brothers and sisters.  If you pray like that, with intensity, intentionality, and conviction, God will honor your prayers.  He’ll start to work in your life, he’ll start to work in your family, he’ll start to work in your churches, and he’ll start to work in this community.  He’ll take you from where you are to where he wants you to be and where you need to be.  He’ll move you ever closer to him.  Your path to Jesus will be difficult, fraught with peril, but it will be the most rewarding journey you’ll ever take.

Juan Peron was a sick man.  After recovering Evita’s body, he would often encourage his current wife Isabel to spend some time lying next to the cold and lifeless cadaver resting on the dining room table.  He thought that somehow, through this close proximity to the dead love of his life, Isabel might somehow absorb her charisma and beauty.

Intimacy with Christ
transforms us.

Jesus is a much better bridegroom.  He does not ask his beautiful bride, the Church, to lay next to something dead so that she might incorporate the qualities of a corpse.  No, he lavishes love on his bride, and he tells her, “Come close to me, spend time with me, follow me” because he knows that the closer we are to him, the more like him we will become.

Sleeping Beauty touched the spindle of a spinning wheel and fell into a deep sleep.  Soon everyone in the castle fell asleep, too, and a hedge of briar roses grew up around her castle until it was completely obscured and impregnable.  And there they lay for a hundred years, silent and all but forgotten as the world passed them by.  That is, until a persistent Prince decided that nothing would stop him from seeing Sleeping Beauty.  He eventually broke through to her, woke her with a kiss, and they all lived happily ever after.

Perhaps we have touched the spindle of complacency, have fallen into the slumber of irrelevance, and the hedgerow of indifference has grown up around our sanctuaries.  If that’s the case, the Prince of Peace will not let us rest.  He will pursue us with his relentless love.  He will chase us down until he makes us his.  We still have work to do, Sleeping Beauty!  Have you not felt the kiss of your Prince?  Have you not been warmed by the embrace of your Master?  Wake up!  Be his Bride, be his Church.  Pray for revival.  Love God, love people, save the world!