Based on some questions I've received, I need to make sure that nobody believes I am advocating the "Emergent Church" movement.
The Emergent movement is, in my opinion, nothing more than political correctness gone mad INSIDE the church. For a basic understanding of the Emergent movement, in essense they say that as the world (& culture) has changed, the church should change (or emerge) to meet the world. While this may sound like a good thing, we must make ourselves aware of what that really means in the context of the Emergent movement.
In a post-modern world (Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity."), the norm is compromise for the purpose of ecumenism (unity among people coming from different religious and ethnic backgrounds and diversity in the expression of corporate worship). Unity sounds like a great thing. I mean, nobody (especially Christians) should be fighting with each other. Unity, at the peril of the Truth, is NOT of God. We are called to be "set apart" from the world, not compromise for the sake of getting along and not rocking the boat. If we are strangers and aliens, why would we want to blend in?
Emerging churches are teaching "experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth." Since experience is more valuable than reason, Truth has become relative. Because feelings are more important than truth, everything biblical is subjective. There can be NO absolutes any more. This is a result of our PC world, where we cannot offend anyone...especially with Truth. Emergent thought is not of God because He is absolutely Holy. He hasn't changed. He is no different today than when He said "I AM."
In "Boxes", my point is that we (the church) have become a country club and a place of exclusivity. We love our traditions; our legacy. We are comfortable and complacent. We like our status, both in the community and in the church. Folks, the people we see every Sunday are NOT the people we're supposed to be reaching with the Gospel. We should be ministering to each other inside the church while reaching out to those on the "fringes of society," because they are the ones who are being left out.
Jesus died for people with tattoos. Jesus died for people with piercings. He died for the poor and destitute. He died for people who don't look like you. He died for people who DO look like you.
Jesus sacrificed Himself. He gave up His rightful place at the right hand of God, to take upon Himself the penalty for the sins of everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. He paid MY price. He paid YOURS.
Jesus paid Hitler's price, too. He paid for Osama bin Ladin. He paid for Jeffery Dahmer.
The difference between Hitler, bin Ladin, Dahmer, and myself is that I have accepted the FREE GIFT of salvation. I humbly accept Jesus' payment on my behalf. My debt has been paid. I know that I don't deserve it, and but for the Grace of God, I could be another Hitler, bin Ladin, or Dahmer. I am well aware of the depth of my own depravity. This is the Truth that is compromised in the Emergent movement. This Truth must not be compromised.
If we, the church, were consistently more aware of the Truth, there would be no reason to focus on differences between denominations. We would be able to see the only difference that matters: our salvation versus the lost condition of the world around us. If I am as grateful as I should be, then my greatest desire should be to share, with as many as possible, the FREEDOM I have been given through the Cross.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Worship
have you ever thought about worship and why sometimes it's better than others?
worship, in and of itself, comes natural to us. we worship many things on a daily basis. perhaps it's a job. it could be a football team. maybe it's ourselves or someone we love. regardless, most of us are worshiping someone or something on a regular basis. the first step of any 12-step program is acknowledgment of sin. this is a gut-wrenching process of breaking. for most of us, we acknowledge our sin daily. for others, it's not quite as often that we think about it. ultimately, the first step of worship is seeing ourselves for what we are...completely unworthy of anything good from the Father.
ah, but here's the good part...step 2 (acknowledging God). this is where worship becomes real. when we come to a point where we can see God for who He is...the Holiness, the Love, the Glory, and everything else...that's when we can individually, and as a group, enter boldly into His throne-room and sit at His feet. seeing God as He is helps put ourselves in the proper place. there can be no pretense in His presence. pride cannot exist there. control disappears. when we see God in His true relation to us, we have no choice but to worship Him with absolute abandon. my favorite hymn is "It Is Well With My Soul." i sing it all the time...and to me, it's not a sad song. i can worship to that song like no other...especially the 3rd verse. "My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part, but in whole is nailed to the cross and i bear it no more! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, oh my soul!"
those of you who know me well understand i'm not a "pew jumper." my actions during worship usually appear reserved. it's my nature to be reserved in appearance. that is not indicative of what's going on inside. i encourage each of you to think about these things and when you find yourself in a place of worship, throw yourself into it with absolute abandon. think about what God's done for you in-light (and in spite) of your own depravity. you'll find the worship is sweeter.
just in case you're wondering...the 12 steps are:
1) I admit that I am powerless over things I believe I should control, and my life has become unmanageable.
2) I believe there is a Power greater than myself and that He can restore me to sanity.
3) I make a decision to turn over my will and my life to the care of God.
4) I make a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself.
5) I admit to God, to myself, and to others the exact nature of my wrongs.
6) I am entirely ready for God to remove all these deficits of character.
7) I humbly ask God to remove my shortcomings.
8) I make a list of all those I have harmed, and become willing to make amends to them all.
9) I make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10) I continue to make moral inventories and promptly admit when I am wrong.
11) I seek through prayer to improve my relationship with God, praying for knowledge of His will and power to carry this out.
12) Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, I will carry this message to others and practice these principles in all life's affairs.
worship, in and of itself, comes natural to us. we worship many things on a daily basis. perhaps it's a job. it could be a football team. maybe it's ourselves or someone we love. regardless, most of us are worshiping someone or something on a regular basis. the first step of any 12-step program is acknowledgment of sin. this is a gut-wrenching process of breaking. for most of us, we acknowledge our sin daily. for others, it's not quite as often that we think about it. ultimately, the first step of worship is seeing ourselves for what we are...completely unworthy of anything good from the Father.
ah, but here's the good part...step 2 (acknowledging God). this is where worship becomes real. when we come to a point where we can see God for who He is...the Holiness, the Love, the Glory, and everything else...that's when we can individually, and as a group, enter boldly into His throne-room and sit at His feet. seeing God as He is helps put ourselves in the proper place. there can be no pretense in His presence. pride cannot exist there. control disappears. when we see God in His true relation to us, we have no choice but to worship Him with absolute abandon. my favorite hymn is "It Is Well With My Soul." i sing it all the time...and to me, it's not a sad song. i can worship to that song like no other...especially the 3rd verse. "My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part, but in whole is nailed to the cross and i bear it no more! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, oh my soul!"
those of you who know me well understand i'm not a "pew jumper." my actions during worship usually appear reserved. it's my nature to be reserved in appearance. that is not indicative of what's going on inside. i encourage each of you to think about these things and when you find yourself in a place of worship, throw yourself into it with absolute abandon. think about what God's done for you in-light (and in spite) of your own depravity. you'll find the worship is sweeter.
just in case you're wondering...the 12 steps are:
1) I admit that I am powerless over things I believe I should control, and my life has become unmanageable.
2) I believe there is a Power greater than myself and that He can restore me to sanity.
3) I make a decision to turn over my will and my life to the care of God.
4) I make a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself.
5) I admit to God, to myself, and to others the exact nature of my wrongs.
6) I am entirely ready for God to remove all these deficits of character.
7) I humbly ask God to remove my shortcomings.
8) I make a list of all those I have harmed, and become willing to make amends to them all.
9) I make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10) I continue to make moral inventories and promptly admit when I am wrong.
11) I seek through prayer to improve my relationship with God, praying for knowledge of His will and power to carry this out.
12) Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, I will carry this message to others and practice these principles in all life's affairs.
What is scripture?
over the last few weeks, some things have come up through conversations. they have made themselves more and more evident as i've had more conversations about them. i know this could be a dangerous subject and i'm trying not to be a heretic.
the first thing is scripture. what is it, really? my definition is: the word of God, period. so, is ALL of the Bible (as we know it) God-breathed? the easy answer is "yes." i'm not sure if the easy answer is the right one though. i mean, our definition of scripture is different from Paul's. when he said "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"...surely he wasn't referring to his letters to Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Colossae, et al. Paul was writing letters to his friends, his disciples, his "children in the faith." Do you think when Paul authored a letter to Timothy, it occurred to him that we'd be reading his words nearly 2000 years later? i doubt that. Paul's letters were not designed to become scripture when he wrote them...or were they? in the Bible, when scripture is quoted or paraphrased, it's always Old Testament stuff. when scripture is referred to in the New Testament, it's not Peter talking about something Luke said...it's not John referring to James. did Peter quote Paul's letters when he was preaching? if the Bible, as we know it today (66 books), IS all scripture, why is that so? what about "lost" gospels, epistles, and historical texts that were once considered scriptural? (that is NOT including the so-called gospels that are in direct contradiction to the rest of the Bible) take the book of Enoch, for example. Jude (14-15) quotes it. Enoch was widely accepted in Jesus' time, but in the 300's AD, it was rejected...except by the Coptics. why do Catholics accept the Apocrypha, but we protestants largely ignore those books?
there are a number of references in Paul's letters that indicate a good deal of epistles that we do not have now. a first letter to Corinth (1Cor 5:9), a 3rd epistle to Corinth (2 Cor 2:4 & 7:8-9), an early epistle to Ephesus (Eph 3:3-4), & an epistle to Leodicea (Col 4:16) are all mentioned, but why aren't they in the canon? ....and that's just the Pauline writings.
there is an impressive list of non-canonical books that are quoted, or referred to, in both Old & New Testaments. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible ) if those books were important enough to be widely read & accepted at one point, why were they later rejected?
frankly, it comes down to a matter of faith to me. if i believe God is who He says He is, then He is powerful enough to provide me with a means to know Him and His words.
are those 66 books a complete collection of scripture? probably not, in my opinion.
are those 66 books a sufficient means to have a servicible knowledge and understanding of God? yes.
the first thing is scripture. what is it, really? my definition is: the word of God, period. so, is ALL of the Bible (as we know it) God-breathed? the easy answer is "yes." i'm not sure if the easy answer is the right one though. i mean, our definition of scripture is different from Paul's. when he said "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"...surely he wasn't referring to his letters to Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Colossae, et al. Paul was writing letters to his friends, his disciples, his "children in the faith." Do you think when Paul authored a letter to Timothy, it occurred to him that we'd be reading his words nearly 2000 years later? i doubt that. Paul's letters were not designed to become scripture when he wrote them...or were they? in the Bible, when scripture is quoted or paraphrased, it's always Old Testament stuff. when scripture is referred to in the New Testament, it's not Peter talking about something Luke said...it's not John referring to James. did Peter quote Paul's letters when he was preaching? if the Bible, as we know it today (66 books), IS all scripture, why is that so? what about "lost" gospels, epistles, and historical texts that were once considered scriptural? (that is NOT including the so-called gospels that are in direct contradiction to the rest of the Bible) take the book of Enoch, for example. Jude (14-15) quotes it. Enoch was widely accepted in Jesus' time, but in the 300's AD, it was rejected...except by the Coptics. why do Catholics accept the Apocrypha, but we protestants largely ignore those books?
there are a number of references in Paul's letters that indicate a good deal of epistles that we do not have now. a first letter to Corinth (1Cor 5:9), a 3rd epistle to Corinth (2 Cor 2:4 & 7:8-9), an early epistle to Ephesus (Eph 3:3-4), & an epistle to Leodicea (Col 4:16) are all mentioned, but why aren't they in the canon? ....and that's just the Pauline writings.
there is an impressive list of non-canonical books that are quoted, or referred to, in both Old & New Testaments. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible ) if those books were important enough to be widely read & accepted at one point, why were they later rejected?
frankly, it comes down to a matter of faith to me. if i believe God is who He says He is, then He is powerful enough to provide me with a means to know Him and His words.
are those 66 books a complete collection of scripture? probably not, in my opinion.
are those 66 books a sufficient means to have a servicible knowledge and understanding of God? yes.
Genesis chapter 2 questions
1. What is sin? (my definition is: anything that is direct contrast, or direct opposition to the nature of the holiness of God.)
2. Who sinned first, Adam or Eve? (Eve ate first...but was the first sin the lie/misquotation of God's command not to eat of the tree? she said that God had said not to eat of it OR even touch it. was Adam at fault in that God made the command to Adam before Eve was created thereby making him responsible for Eve's understanding of the command?)
3. Was Eve's misquotation of God's command the first example of legalism? (adding our thoughts to the Word of God, as if it is not sufficient to stand on it's own.)
4. Was sin possible before they ate of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil? (my answer: ignorance is no excuse. God's law is God's law. whether we understand it or not, sin is sin.)
5. What is the Law? (the reason for this question comes from the life of Cain. we know Cain was married. did he marry his sister? if so, was the Law not in effect until Moses wrote it down? if the law helps us define and determine those things that are "in direct contrast, or direct opposition to the nature of the holiness of God," was incest permitted in the case of Cain & Seth (along with their other brothers and sisters) despite the fact that Leviticus prohibits it? the same question arises later in the life of Noah's sons' offspring. if it was permitted at one point, then prohibited later, i don't see consistency. is there such thing as "necessary evil?")
6. Where was Adam created? (2:15 says God took the man and put him in the Garden)
7. How long did it take Adam to name "every beast of the field and every bird of the sky?" (just think of the magnitude of that task!) my contention is that time still had very little meaning to Adam. he didn't see time in "months" or "years" because he only knew the concept of a 7-day week. based on this contention, there is no way to know how long Adam was alone, nor how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden together before the "fall."
8. Did the days of Adam (930 years) start at his creation, or at the time of banishment from the Garden? years had no meaning until it became the countdown to Adam's death.
9. Why wasn't Eve scared when the serpent spoke to her? If a cow spoke to you, how would you react? I know that I'd run away while questioning my sanity.
9. Who twisted God's command concerning the tree, Eve or Adam? (God said "don't eat it or you will die." Eve told the serpent God said "don't eat it or touch it or you will die.") I can't help wondering if Eve accurately quoted Adam's version of God's command, or if she embellished it herself. So, was the first sin eating the fruit or telling a lie?
Notice Eve's curse (3:16). virtually every translation I've looked at uses the same language.
"I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children..."(NASB)
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children..."(NIV)
"I'll multiply your pains in childbirth; you'll give birth to your babies in pain..."(Message)
"I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth..."(New Living)
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children..."(English Standard)
"I will greatly increase thy travail and thy pregnancy; with pain thou shalt bear children..."(Darby)
"I will make your pain much worse in giving birth. You will give birth to children in pain..."(New Life)
my point is a bit of a stretch, but with words like "multiply, increase, sharpen" it begs the question in me, "increased pain compared to what? multiplied pain compared to what?" i think this could be a hint that Eve had had children (Cain and Abel) before the fall.
2. Who sinned first, Adam or Eve? (Eve ate first...but was the first sin the lie/misquotation of God's command not to eat of the tree? she said that God had said not to eat of it OR even touch it. was Adam at fault in that God made the command to Adam before Eve was created thereby making him responsible for Eve's understanding of the command?)
3. Was Eve's misquotation of God's command the first example of legalism? (adding our thoughts to the Word of God, as if it is not sufficient to stand on it's own.)
4. Was sin possible before they ate of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil? (my answer: ignorance is no excuse. God's law is God's law. whether we understand it or not, sin is sin.)
5. What is the Law? (the reason for this question comes from the life of Cain. we know Cain was married. did he marry his sister? if so, was the Law not in effect until Moses wrote it down? if the law helps us define and determine those things that are "in direct contrast, or direct opposition to the nature of the holiness of God," was incest permitted in the case of Cain & Seth (along with their other brothers and sisters) despite the fact that Leviticus prohibits it? the same question arises later in the life of Noah's sons' offspring. if it was permitted at one point, then prohibited later, i don't see consistency. is there such thing as "necessary evil?")
6. Where was Adam created? (2:15 says God took the man and put him in the Garden)
7. How long did it take Adam to name "every beast of the field and every bird of the sky?" (just think of the magnitude of that task!) my contention is that time still had very little meaning to Adam. he didn't see time in "months" or "years" because he only knew the concept of a 7-day week. based on this contention, there is no way to know how long Adam was alone, nor how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden together before the "fall."
8. Did the days of Adam (930 years) start at his creation, or at the time of banishment from the Garden? years had no meaning until it became the countdown to Adam's death.
9. Why wasn't Eve scared when the serpent spoke to her? If a cow spoke to you, how would you react? I know that I'd run away while questioning my sanity.
9. Who twisted God's command concerning the tree, Eve or Adam? (God said "don't eat it or you will die." Eve told the serpent God said "don't eat it or touch it or you will die.") I can't help wondering if Eve accurately quoted Adam's version of God's command, or if she embellished it herself. So, was the first sin eating the fruit or telling a lie?
Notice Eve's curse (3:16). virtually every translation I've looked at uses the same language.
"I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children..."(NASB)
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children..."(NIV)
"I'll multiply your pains in childbirth; you'll give birth to your babies in pain..."(Message)
"I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth..."(New Living)
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children..."(English Standard)
"I will greatly increase thy travail and thy pregnancy; with pain thou shalt bear children..."(Darby)
"I will make your pain much worse in giving birth. You will give birth to children in pain..."(New Life)
my point is a bit of a stretch, but with words like "multiply, increase, sharpen" it begs the question in me, "increased pain compared to what? multiplied pain compared to what?" i think this could be a hint that Eve had had children (Cain and Abel) before the fall.
Boxes
BOXES
Boxes can be useful. They help to keep things organized. They are good at preventing clutter. Presents often come in boxes.
Boxes can also be irritating or bad. Sometimes we open a box, and cannot fit the contents back into it afterwards. We’ve all heard the phrase "opening Pandora’s box."Many Christians today have tried to put God in a box. We think we can clearly define His nature. We think we can understand Him. We’ve (wrongly) given God attributes that are based on our limited understanding. The Creator of all is beyond our comprehension. "For now we see through a mirror, dimly..." Why do we assume that the Infinite can be categorized by the finite?
My family and I are now part of a Baptist church where "tradition" is revered, if not worshiped. We are at this church because this is where God has led us. He hasn’t given us the "ok" to leave, despite that we are not happy. Being in God’s will is not about happiness...and this is a difficult lesson to learn. God is not a genie in a bottle, of which we are the master. It doesn’t work that way. Service to the King is not full of "ifs." Either we are in His will, or we are not. Either we are serving Him, or we’re not. He will not be mocked.
In our current church, God has been put into a box of tradition. He is expected to respond and act in "traditionally accepted" ways. If something is proposed that falls outside of those "traditionally accepted" things, it is summarily rejected. There are no new ideas that are acceptable, unless they come from the headquarters of the SBC in Nashville and someone has written it into a program. Don’t question things...ever. Do what your parents did, and your grandparents, and their parents before them, and so on. Just go along, be part of the program. It was good enough for your parents’ generation, it should be good enough for you. Believe what you’re told from a pulpit because it’s easier than thinking for yourself.Tradition is not bad, in and of itself. My contention is that when tradition becomes something we hide behind, and more important than the work God has set before us, it couldn’t be more evil.When we were asked to help bring the church out of the 1960's (technologically speaking), we offered to do whatever we could. Once we started making suggestions, we were told (concerning worship services), "We don’t want them to become so produced that we inhibit the spontaneous nature of the Holy Spirit." We haven't suggested anything outrageous...simply ways to streamline things and have the services run like they were not just thrown together. Their's is just an excuse to keep things status quo. I haven’t seen a truly spontaneous movement of anyone, including the Holy Spirit, since we joined this church.
People are generally afraid of change and that’s why we like our boxes. They’re safe. We reject the idea of anything different. Rejecting change leads to stagnation. That always leads to complacency. Jesus told the church of Laodicea (Rev 3:15-16) "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish you were either cold or hot. Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." You see, it’s easier to put God in a box and try to limit what He can, and will do. What if, just for the sake of argument, God wanted us to reach the lost and dying world in which we live? If we choose to stay inside the box we’ve created for our churches, we will never reach anyone. That is why the church is now failing to effectively reach people with the Gospel. The church, as a whole, has failed to adapt. We are making great strides overseas, but our next-door neighbors are going to hell. We’ll send people to Africa, but not on the other side of the railroad tracks. We do not know how to meet people where they are any more. People today want to be part of a community, but the church (in general) will not accept "outsiders." At the same time, the church has become more of a country club; a place to network and commune with those in our same social status.
Basically, my point is this: can you see if there is a box around you? If so, does that box inhibit God’s movement in your life? Does it inhibit your effectiveness in reaching others for Christ? Personally, I’m trying to identify all of the boxes in my life and eliminate them. I don’t want to limit God, in my life or in anyone else’s.
Boxes can be useful. They help to keep things organized. They are good at preventing clutter. Presents often come in boxes.
Boxes can also be irritating or bad. Sometimes we open a box, and cannot fit the contents back into it afterwards. We’ve all heard the phrase "opening Pandora’s box."Many Christians today have tried to put God in a box. We think we can clearly define His nature. We think we can understand Him. We’ve (wrongly) given God attributes that are based on our limited understanding. The Creator of all is beyond our comprehension. "For now we see through a mirror, dimly..." Why do we assume that the Infinite can be categorized by the finite?
My family and I are now part of a Baptist church where "tradition" is revered, if not worshiped. We are at this church because this is where God has led us. He hasn’t given us the "ok" to leave, despite that we are not happy. Being in God’s will is not about happiness...and this is a difficult lesson to learn. God is not a genie in a bottle, of which we are the master. It doesn’t work that way. Service to the King is not full of "ifs." Either we are in His will, or we are not. Either we are serving Him, or we’re not. He will not be mocked.
In our current church, God has been put into a box of tradition. He is expected to respond and act in "traditionally accepted" ways. If something is proposed that falls outside of those "traditionally accepted" things, it is summarily rejected. There are no new ideas that are acceptable, unless they come from the headquarters of the SBC in Nashville and someone has written it into a program. Don’t question things...ever. Do what your parents did, and your grandparents, and their parents before them, and so on. Just go along, be part of the program. It was good enough for your parents’ generation, it should be good enough for you. Believe what you’re told from a pulpit because it’s easier than thinking for yourself.Tradition is not bad, in and of itself. My contention is that when tradition becomes something we hide behind, and more important than the work God has set before us, it couldn’t be more evil.When we were asked to help bring the church out of the 1960's (technologically speaking), we offered to do whatever we could. Once we started making suggestions, we were told (concerning worship services), "We don’t want them to become so produced that we inhibit the spontaneous nature of the Holy Spirit." We haven't suggested anything outrageous...simply ways to streamline things and have the services run like they were not just thrown together. Their's is just an excuse to keep things status quo. I haven’t seen a truly spontaneous movement of anyone, including the Holy Spirit, since we joined this church.
People are generally afraid of change and that’s why we like our boxes. They’re safe. We reject the idea of anything different. Rejecting change leads to stagnation. That always leads to complacency. Jesus told the church of Laodicea (Rev 3:15-16) "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish you were either cold or hot. Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." You see, it’s easier to put God in a box and try to limit what He can, and will do. What if, just for the sake of argument, God wanted us to reach the lost and dying world in which we live? If we choose to stay inside the box we’ve created for our churches, we will never reach anyone. That is why the church is now failing to effectively reach people with the Gospel. The church, as a whole, has failed to adapt. We are making great strides overseas, but our next-door neighbors are going to hell. We’ll send people to Africa, but not on the other side of the railroad tracks. We do not know how to meet people where they are any more. People today want to be part of a community, but the church (in general) will not accept "outsiders." At the same time, the church has become more of a country club; a place to network and commune with those in our same social status.
Basically, my point is this: can you see if there is a box around you? If so, does that box inhibit God’s movement in your life? Does it inhibit your effectiveness in reaching others for Christ? Personally, I’m trying to identify all of the boxes in my life and eliminate them. I don’t want to limit God, in my life or in anyone else’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
