Love Trumps

Houston, Florida, Mexico, and now Peurto Rico.  Every day I wake up and there seems to be another natural disaster.  Another loss of life.  Another city destroyed.

Charlottesville, the NFL, and now Las Vegas.  Every day I wake up and there seems to be one more event that is causing profound disagreement.  Another story breaking that will also cause a break in a relationship, and possibly even a city.  Another signal clarifying how disunified we are from our neighbors.

I don't want to waste this post stating my opinions or beliefs on these issues.  I don't want to try and extrapolate some truths from these events; that will only further the distance between two sides, and trivialize the monumental impact these cities are currently trying to recover from.  Instead, I want to offer an alternative.  A different destination for our minds to wander and for our conversations to venture.

There is a word I learned my sophomore year of college from the greatest teacher I ever had, Doc Reece.  The word was rarely used in the Greek language, mostly because of its specificity.  However, the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), made the word infamous.

AGAPE

It means to "will the good" of someone.  Literally, it means to love someone with such genuineness and selflessness that your ultimate desire is to see them become better than what they currently are.  That could mean "willing the good" for them financially until they are able to make ends meet.  it could mean "willing the good" as their dreamer and advocate when they are depressed.  It could even mean "willing the good" for an enemy who has done nothing to warrant your favor or affection.  "Agape" has nothing to do with how they feel towards you, or how they treat you.  The burden of proof for this altruistic kind of love is placed squarely on the one giving it.

So, what does this kind of love mean for Houston, Florida, Mexico, and Puerto Rico?  What does "agape" have to do with Charlottesville, the NFL, and Las Vegas? How does your mindset change when "agape" is the destination?

--------

For thousands of years, it was believed (and still believed in some cultures) that bad things only happen to bad people, and good things only happen to good people.  If a bad thing happened to you, then you must figure out what bad thing you did and correct it.  But, a good person would never help a bad person.  They believed if you brought the "storm" on yourself, then you should deal with it.   However, this entire concept changed because of one unknown attorney.

The attorney sits and listens to the greatest preacher he has ever heard.  His friends had told him about this young zealot: how his stories left you spellbound and his teachings left you striving for greatness.  However, as an attorney, he had learned to question everything, to look for the loophole.  Maybe it was out of a desire to try and stump this great teacher, maybe it was sheer curiosity, or maybe it was something more, but whatever the case may be, he found himself at the next event with this teacher.

The young preacher didn't disappoint.  He retold some of the same stories and truths that had garnered him such notoriety.  But, seemingly inspired by something greater, began to challenge the very foundation of the religion he represented.  He stated you must not only, "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength", a teaching well-known to any Jewish man, woman or child, but that you must also "Love your neighbor as yourself."  To do this was to fully live out God's plan for your life.

The audience is silent, almost indignant, but the young attorney is mesmerized.  Who is this man that turns the very words of God on its head, and redefines what God "wants?"  As a man accustomed to questioning everything, this left him in a very vulnerable position.  He had questions, and the only person who had the answers was this teacher.  So, at the next possible occasion, the young attorney once again found himself in the audience.  And once again, the young preacher proceeds to unleash his revolutionary teaching.

As was common in Jewish culture, while the Rabbi taught, the audience sat.  Jesus stood, and once again proclaimed his message of hope and love.  And as was common, at the end of his teaching, Jesus opened himself up for questioning.  Anticipating this, the attorney stood up in the crowd, and recited the question he had been practicing for weeks:

"Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?  Jesus replied, 'What does the law of Moses say?  How do you read it?"  Thrilled that his line of questioning was working according to plan, the attorney responds, "You must love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength", and with the faintest smile continues, "and, you must love your neighbor as yourself."  Thrilled that someone had answered completely, Jesus grins: "Right!  Do this and you will live!"

But just as Jesus was about to walk off, the attorney stops him.  Now it was time for the real question; what had been bothering him ever since he first heard Jesus preach.  "And who is my neighbor?"

Nobody knew at this point that the most famous story of all time was about to be told.  Nobody knew the phrase Jesus was about to coin would be turned into an idiom, monikered across hospitals, imprinted upon companies, and used as a universal statement of kindness and love.  You know the story, even if you've never stepped foot inside a church.

Jesus told of a man who was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, a notoriously dangerous path when he was attacked by robbers and left for dead.  A priest walks by and sees the naked and bloodied man.  "He must have done this to himself", he thinks and continues walking.  Next, an elder in his church (a Levite) walks by and sees the naked and bloodied man.  "He must have done this to himself", he thinks and continues walking.  Finally, a Samaritan walks by...

The hatred between a Jew and a Samaritan was not only common, it was socially and culturally acceptable. It was institutionalized racism.  For a Jew to even speak to a Samaritan would ostracize them from their community and their friends.  If a "good" Samaritan saw a naked and bloodied Jew along the road, he would ask, "Should I bother touching this man so that I can kill him?"

But, the Samaritan stops when he sees the naked and bloodied Jew.  He bandaged his wounds, put his own coat on his back, sat him on his own donkey, and took him to the closest inn.  He paid the innkeeper two days worth of pay to take care of the man and then promised to come back and reimburse the innkeeper for any additional expenses that might be incurred!

Jesus twists the knife of guilt further and further into the only other person standing...the attorney.
The audience stares: silent, indignant, mesmerized.  Jesus pauses before asking one of the most history-defining questions of all time:

"Which of these three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?"

Mesmerized, indignant, and nearly silent, the young attorney cannot even bring himself to say the word of the one who "willed the good" of his Jewish neighbor.  He mutters, "The one who showed him mercy."

--------

There is a kind of love that looks beyond race, beyond politics, and beyond mistake.  That kind of love only looks to "will the good" out of the one in which they have differences.

There is a kind of love that looks beyond their finances, time constraints, or physical distance.  That kind of love only looks to "will the good" by bandaging the wounds and providing payment for the one who cannot do it themselves.

There is a kind of love that not only told the story of the good Samaritan but became the good Samaritan for you and me.  He bandaged our wounds and healed our sins.  He took the robe of a king off his back to place it on yours; calling you his child.  He paid far more than two days wage for you.  He paid with his life.  And he asks us the same the question he asked that young attorney that fateful day:  Who is the neighbor to the one who saw a need a met it? Who is the neighbor to the one who knew the price and paid it?  Who is the neighbor to the one who "willed the good" from the one who didn't deserve it?

Love is the destination.  Now go and do likewise.

Be Honest.  Be Open.

This is the Christian Safe Zone.

What's the Point (of Church): Part 2

Everywhere Jesus went, controversy followed.  From the prostitute who interrupted Jesus' meeting with the Pharisees to the story of the "evil" Samaritan who had the audacity to help a Jew; Jesus never shied away from stirring the pot.  But, the perpetual question that swirled around him was one of identity.  Specifically, "Who are you!?"

Eventually, Jesus broached the subject directly.

He was just outside the newly crowned capital city of King Philip's empire, Caesarea Philippi.  Philip's father, King Herod had erected a magnificent temple made of white stone where citizens came daily to worship their emperor God, Augustus Caesar.  Just eleven hundred feet above this temple, on the slopes of Mount Hermon, Jesus sits down with the Twelve, and asks them the very question that had plagued his audiences: "Who do people say that I am?"  

Peter (who's name means "rock" in Greek) responds, "You are the Messiah [the Christ], the Son of the living God!"  Elated, Jesus responds, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." And with a clever play on words, Jesus adds, "And I tell you that you are Peter [rock], and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

This is the first time the term "church" shows up in our New Testament, and it's referenced within a prediction.  Jesus predicted that nothing, including death, would stand in the way of His church.  But, there is something else that is referenced here; something that our English translation misses.  The Greek word (ekklesia) where we get our word, church, is not a religious term!  An ekklesia was simply a gathering or an assembly of people called out for a specific purpose.  You could have an ekklesia of soldiers called out for war, or an ekklesia of citizens called out for civic purposes, but you would never have an ekklesia referencing a specific location....only a specific gathering.

Ekklesia always referred to a gathering of people united by a common identity and purpose.

So, what the disciples heard Jesus say was this: "I am going to build my own assembly of people and the foundation for this new assembly will be ME!"

But, if ekklesia means "gathering", why don't we just call church "gathering"?  Where did church come from?  Jump forward with me two hundred and fifty years.

In AD 313, Constantine (the soon-to-be-emperor of Rome), legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire.  Well, technically he legalized the freedom of religion.  Christianity was illegal up to this point because Christians were insistent about this whole "only worshiping Jesus" thing...what a bunch of sticklers.

Before Constantine's rise to power, Christian worship was relatively informal.  Believers met in homes, enjoying potluck banquets they called "love feasts", singing hymns, reading Scripture, discussing theology, and most importantly, sharing communion.  In rare cases, a gathering of Christians in a religiously tolerant city would be able to dedicate a special room for these gatherings, but these rooms were few and far between.  

But after Constantine's rise, powerful people brought their former ideas about worship with them as they professed a new belief in Christ and began influencing Christian ekklesias.  Worship began to incorporate protocol including incense, ornate clothing, choirs, and pageantry.  Worship became formal and hierarchical, relegating the congregation from participants to spectators.  Buildings began to be erected on top of the graves of martyrs.  If the land around the grave wasn't conducive to building, they would exhume the bones, and transport them to their desired location.

Within a decade of this edict, "the Way" was no longer an expanding group of people sharing a unique identity and purpose.  It was a location, filled with rules, paid staff, and predictable services.   The Gothic (or Germanic) culture used the word kirche, which means "house of the lord", and was used to refer to any ritual gathering place, Christian or otherwise.

Eventually, the New Testament was translated into English.  But instead of following protocol and using a word-for-word translation from Greek to English, the word church was changed from ekklesia to kirche.  A kirche is a location.  An ekklesia is a purposeful gathering of people.  "Church" went from a movement to stagnation.  From gathering to spectating.  From participation to protocol.  This simple word created the most dangerous dynamic that the Christian "church" faces today:

Whoever controls the location controls the church.

So, what does this all mean?  Simply put, it means that how you view the church determines how you live out your faith.  

Do you believe that the church is a building you go to weekly for inspiration or a gathering united behind a movement?  

Do you believe that your church is conducting services or making an impact?  

Do you believe your church is united around a model or a mission?

Do you believe the church's money is allocated based on the needs of the community or the facility?

Do you believe you are meeting or gathering?

Do you believe you are a part of an ekklesia or a kirche?

I can tell you with certainty that the people I know who have left church did no do so because it became too much of an ekklesia.  That it became too focused on it's surrounding community; to concerned with sharing its resources; or to deliberate in its mission of reaching those outside of their current group.  They left because it was a kirche who was first and foremost concerned with keeping its kirche as protected and comfortable as possible.

So, if the church is a gathering, who gets to participate?  What are the requirements for membership?  How good do you have to be to stay in the club?  That's all in the next post.

Be honest.  Be open.

This is the Christian Safe Zone.

What's the Point (of Church)

What the Church is and what the Church should be are two radically disproportionate institutions.  The Church you go to on Sunday (or your parents go to, and you hear about it on Sunday afternoon) is a far cry from what is was created for.  Originally, the church was a gloriously messy movement with a laser-focused message and a global mission.  Now, it is an argument waiting to happen.  I'll go so far and say that you probably don't even agree with other Christians about what the purpose of the Church even is!  How can the Church be effective, grow, and transform lives and communities if we can't even agree what role she plays in our lives?

I'm really upset about this.  Through all of the turmoil and heartache that I've experienced at the hands of Christians, I still deeply love the Church.  As Bill Hybels famously states, "The local Church is the hope of the world."  That's why I started in ministry, and that's why I still love it today.  The Church has the ability to genuinely change the landscape of our culture if we give her the freedom to do so.  The problem is, we (pastors included) don't know the role of the Church.  We don't know what personality makes up a "good" church.  Is it the music?  The preaching?  Their involvement with the poor?  How they spend their money?  No!

To understand the role of the Church, you have to understand the creation of the original Church.

What separates Christianity from every other world religion...ever...is the simple fact that its growth was fueled not by what they believed, but what they had seen.  It wasn't the teachings of Jesus that sent his followers into the streets preaching, but his resurrection.  The men and women who were leaders of the first Church were not believers, they were eyewitnesses!  So, how did the Church begin?

In Andy Stanley's book, "Deep and Wide" (which should be required reading for anybody considering ministry) he describes the launch of the first Church this way: 

A small band of Jewish dissidents defied a superpower and a religious system that had been in place for thousands of years and, in the end, prevailed.  At the center of this grassroots movement, originally referred to as The Way, was a Jewish carpenter whose message centered around a "kingdom" that wasn't directly connected to this world.  He spoke mostly in parables that few could understand.  He insisted that those who followed him love the Romans and pay those onerous taxes.  He alienated the influential and the powerful.  He offended practically everybody.  His family thought he had lost his mind.  After only three years of public ministry, he was arrested, publically humiliated, and executed.  Sounds like the perfect way to start a movement.

Stranger still, these Jewish separatists claimed that not only had their leader risen from the dead but that they had touched him, eaten with him...they had seen him!  Within a few weeks, their numbers swelled from the hundreds to the thousands; to the point where The Way replaced the entire pagan pantheon of gods as the primary belief system of the Roman Empire.  From a purely secular point of view, it would seem as if the Church grew in spite of itself.

However, if you know your church history, you know that once the church got legalized, it got organized.  What was once organic became institutional.  What was once a movement became an establishment.  Two thousand years later, we are still struggling to regain our identity, purpose, and passion.

Very few people think "movement" when they hear the word "church" today.  But that is the very struggle we see in today's church.  We have become fossilized.  Our ideas have turned to law, and our fluidity to adjust has been hampered like a bad hip.  The church needs leaders who are willing to do what is necessary so that they hand their churches off better than when they found them.  The church needs men and women who are willing to put themselves up for scrutiny and to counteract the adage of, "this is just the way things are."  They way the Church "are" is not what the Church needs to be today are two very different institutions.

I'm not saying that the construct of the Church is wrong, or that the original tenets need changing.  I'm arguing for a re-evaluation of why we, as Christians and leaders of churches, continue to fall into the same habits.  Let's ask the difficult question:

What is the Church?
Who is it for?
What traits should be characterized in every church?
How can my church change?

I know we won't all agree on every point, and that's fine.  But before we part ways on method and approach, it's critical that we find common ground on the purpose and core characteristics of the Church.  Churches have isolated themselves for too long over petty differences.  It's time to unite under the banner of "Christian" and spur the Church onward together.

I know that I haven't given any specifics on how to go about moving the Church forward, finding common ground, and identifying the purpose.  My next few posts will address all of that.  I've taken some time off this blog the past few weeks to wrap my head around this issue.  I'm planning a "summer series" if you will identifying the major issues the current constructions of the Church faces, and providing real, tangible solutions to the problems.

Stay tuned.  Next post, I'm going to need your help!  As always:

Be honest.  Be open.

This is the Christian Safe Zone.