One of the great questions in the Bible was addressed by God to Elijah as the prophet on the lam was standing on Mount Horeb, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" (I Kings 19). This could be a pure existential question, the irony being that it is the Creator asking the creature for an answer. It could also be a simple and straight forward question asking why here instead of somewhere else.
The Lord gave very little attention to Elijah's response. I wonder what the Lord thinks of my own attempts to answer that question.
Elijah was the prophet of the Lord. He was accountable to the Lord for a faithful response to his calling. In no less way I am responsible to God for a faithful response to his calling on my life. In the current context that means a faithful response as an associational missionary. This involves an accountability not only for my own life, but also an accountability for my leadership in the asociational structure and a handling of associational resources whatever form they may take. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
Yet accountable we all must be. The associational representatives voted to ask me to fill this position. We both hoped that it was done under the guidance of and in the will of God. To accept that last point is to say we both recognize a greater Power than just a group of churches in control of the situation and setting the standards for expectations. I am more accountable to God than I am to these associational members. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
His calling. His standards, His resources. His expectations. Ultimately his job description. Regardless of what individual pastors or churches or groups of churches think, say, or do, I am first and foremost accountable to God. Then I am also accountable to the association who took action believing that I was supposed to be here.
God's standards basically revolve around faithfulness to his nature. The association's expectations basically revolve around meeting their perceived needs. I will be held accountable to them and evaluated by them based upon my ability in one way or another to meet their needs.
Unfortunately this can often mean answering questions they won't ask and perceiving needs they won't admit. Yet when you do either or both, you are praised as one who is always there for them to help them be more effectvie in their context. This is good because you are never too sure you are getting it just right or whose toes you will step on while providing the answer you feel they need.
Accountability springs from responsibility. He who is not responsible will not be held accountable. When I took this position, responsibilities came along with it. In a most glorious spiritual form, those responsibilities are defined by God. Assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to the churches who constitute those responsibilities. Much more so assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to God. Part of my responsibilities involves leading the churches to see they have that same accountability. God will hold me accountable for that!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Autonomous: To Be or Not To Be
I wish I were a brilliant historian. I would have a big title, a big salary, and a big list of books carrying my name as author. Alas, I am no such creature. So I must gather a foundation for my thoughts in other ways or simply give my opinion.
Federalism versus States' Rights. Autonomous local church versus autonomous association versus autonomous state convention versus autonomous national convention. By the way probably Southern Baptists are the only ones who understand the implications of this previous sentence. We have ongoing crises among Southern Baptists because of misunderstandings and an outright wrong approach to the concept of autonomy and its sister concept of connectionalism. We have ongoing discussions about the cause of the Civil War. Was its cause grounded in slavery or was slavery simply the chosen issue over which the battle for a strong central government versus strong states' rights was finally fought rather that tariff questions or rules governing international trade agreements or the right to print your own money (or maybe even how many wives you could have)?
Alas, I am not that brilliant scholar in American history. So, as to the other issue, why is there so much emotional upheaval among Baptists over autonomy and a proper understanding of connectionalism? It has everything to do with priesthood of the believer and organizational freedom. At this fall's annual meeting for the NC Baptist State Convention, messengers will hear a report concerning the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Should the state convention accept it as our confessional document or stick with the 1963 BF&M?
This question has arisen because one messenger said we have a "mess" if we don't address it. Where's the mess? The national convention with less than 10,000 messengers supposedly representing sixteen million members adopted the 2000 as drawn up by a presidentially hand picked committee. The 1963 version was drawn up and presented by a committee composed of the executinve directors of the various state conventions, people chosen by the states from which they came!
If NC Baptists have a mess, it is because someone has forgotten that great Baptist element called connectionalism and its relationship to autonomy. In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (c. 1958, vol. I, p. 99), the article author quotes the SBC constitution and then adds his own comments. "'While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, association, or convention.' This limitation is prompted by the theological proposition that each church is independent and autonomous. No other body may usurp the authority of the church."
We are "connected" as NC Baptists to the SBC by choice, choosing to cooperate as we mutually desire. We do not have to follow the SBC in each step it takes, nor does it create a mess when we choose not to do so.
We do not have a mess except when someone decides to turn our convention into a strong federalist organization instead of the local church rights, associational rights, state convention rights organization it was designed to be. We are connected as a community, not as a family bowing before the ruling patriarch who dictates how the entire family will live.
If we are blessed as a state convention, the committee that has been appointed by the president of the convention will remember that we are autonomous and serve together through a clearly defined connectionalism. They will recommend that we maintain our freedom by continuing to function under the 1963 BF&M, a document that was prepared in part by our own elected personnel. When we forget our foundations of autonomy and connectionalism, then we will have a mess! And I really don't want to have to lead my association to assert its autonomous rights.
Federalism versus States' Rights. Autonomous local church versus autonomous association versus autonomous state convention versus autonomous national convention. By the way probably Southern Baptists are the only ones who understand the implications of this previous sentence. We have ongoing crises among Southern Baptists because of misunderstandings and an outright wrong approach to the concept of autonomy and its sister concept of connectionalism. We have ongoing discussions about the cause of the Civil War. Was its cause grounded in slavery or was slavery simply the chosen issue over which the battle for a strong central government versus strong states' rights was finally fought rather that tariff questions or rules governing international trade agreements or the right to print your own money (or maybe even how many wives you could have)?
Alas, I am not that brilliant scholar in American history. So, as to the other issue, why is there so much emotional upheaval among Baptists over autonomy and a proper understanding of connectionalism? It has everything to do with priesthood of the believer and organizational freedom. At this fall's annual meeting for the NC Baptist State Convention, messengers will hear a report concerning the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Should the state convention accept it as our confessional document or stick with the 1963 BF&M?
This question has arisen because one messenger said we have a "mess" if we don't address it. Where's the mess? The national convention with less than 10,000 messengers supposedly representing sixteen million members adopted the 2000 as drawn up by a presidentially hand picked committee. The 1963 version was drawn up and presented by a committee composed of the executinve directors of the various state conventions, people chosen by the states from which they came!
If NC Baptists have a mess, it is because someone has forgotten that great Baptist element called connectionalism and its relationship to autonomy. In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (c. 1958, vol. I, p. 99), the article author quotes the SBC constitution and then adds his own comments. "'While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, association, or convention.' This limitation is prompted by the theological proposition that each church is independent and autonomous. No other body may usurp the authority of the church."
We are "connected" as NC Baptists to the SBC by choice, choosing to cooperate as we mutually desire. We do not have to follow the SBC in each step it takes, nor does it create a mess when we choose not to do so.
We do not have a mess except when someone decides to turn our convention into a strong federalist organization instead of the local church rights, associational rights, state convention rights organization it was designed to be. We are connected as a community, not as a family bowing before the ruling patriarch who dictates how the entire family will live.
If we are blessed as a state convention, the committee that has been appointed by the president of the convention will remember that we are autonomous and serve together through a clearly defined connectionalism. They will recommend that we maintain our freedom by continuing to function under the 1963 BF&M, a document that was prepared in part by our own elected personnel. When we forget our foundations of autonomy and connectionalism, then we will have a mess! And I really don't want to have to lead my association to assert its autonomous rights.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
One Man's Death
Everybody dies. Most have not known or will not know when that is to happen. The assurance, however, is there. We will all die. The only way to avoid that is to be alive at the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that will still bring about a rather significant change. Death in and of itself does not therefore hold any particular uniqueness for us. That is, until it takes someone of importance to us.
I must admit there was no great rejoicing in my spirit when I got the word that Osama bin Laden had been killed. My first thought was simply, "Who will be the next world assasin?" In one form or another the bin Ladens have been around since long before we even read of Barabbas, a local Jewish zealot, being traded for Jesus. My emotions reflected my feelings that executionary death removes a symptom of a problem from our midst. It does not remove the problem.
Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? If you weigh the pain he and his organization have caused millions of people, Americans and non-Americans, Christians and non-Christians, rich and poor alike, it would be hard to find any man in the first decade of the 21st century who deserved it more? If allowed to live in freedom, would he have been searching for additional ways to cause pain to anyone who differed with his agenda? Without a doubt!
I only raise the question that should we as civilized people, as Christians, find in the violent death of any person, no matter how deserving, a reason to celebrate. Let us grieve with those who have lost loved ones due to this man's hatred, bigotry, and twisted mind. Let us work to restore justice in areas where such hatred finds fertile soil. Let us bring love, compassion, and hope for redemption into relationships that would otherwise be attracted to such a perverted view of human existence.
The death of one man such as Osama bin Laden will ultimately be a note on a page in a history book. The millions who died in the Holocaust deserve and will get more space. Those who have died in mass ethnic cleansings deserve and will get more space in those same books. Those millions who died at the will of some passing dictator deserve and should get more space.
One man's death rarely makes a difference in social history. Thankfully, there is one man's death that has. Jesus carried neither spear nor sword. He carried a cross. He preached neither social correctness nor ethnic superiority. He preached love and forgiveness. He sought the death of no one. He sought only salvation for all through his own death.
Dictators die. Jihadists die. Theologians and philosophers die. Their deaths offer no one abundant life now and salvation eternal. One man's death did.
I must admit there was no great rejoicing in my spirit when I got the word that Osama bin Laden had been killed. My first thought was simply, "Who will be the next world assasin?" In one form or another the bin Ladens have been around since long before we even read of Barabbas, a local Jewish zealot, being traded for Jesus. My emotions reflected my feelings that executionary death removes a symptom of a problem from our midst. It does not remove the problem.
Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? If you weigh the pain he and his organization have caused millions of people, Americans and non-Americans, Christians and non-Christians, rich and poor alike, it would be hard to find any man in the first decade of the 21st century who deserved it more? If allowed to live in freedom, would he have been searching for additional ways to cause pain to anyone who differed with his agenda? Without a doubt!
I only raise the question that should we as civilized people, as Christians, find in the violent death of any person, no matter how deserving, a reason to celebrate. Let us grieve with those who have lost loved ones due to this man's hatred, bigotry, and twisted mind. Let us work to restore justice in areas where such hatred finds fertile soil. Let us bring love, compassion, and hope for redemption into relationships that would otherwise be attracted to such a perverted view of human existence.
The death of one man such as Osama bin Laden will ultimately be a note on a page in a history book. The millions who died in the Holocaust deserve and will get more space. Those who have died in mass ethnic cleansings deserve and will get more space in those same books. Those millions who died at the will of some passing dictator deserve and should get more space.
One man's death rarely makes a difference in social history. Thankfully, there is one man's death that has. Jesus carried neither spear nor sword. He carried a cross. He preached neither social correctness nor ethnic superiority. He preached love and forgiveness. He sought the death of no one. He sought only salvation for all through his own death.
Dictators die. Jihadists die. Theologians and philosophers die. Their deaths offer no one abundant life now and salvation eternal. One man's death did.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Post Easter Thoughts
A group of the disciples went fishing. The others, we presume, found themselves back in some kind of routine. Jesus had to make a personal appearance again, and then the full force of Pentecost had to be felt, before those first believers got the hint they had something the world needed to hear!
That was 2000 years ago. What are we as believers doing this week in the days following our celebration of Resurrection Sunday? Have we jumped back into our favorite pastimes? Have we found the comfortable routine that keeps life simple and predictable? Did the annual remembrance of the suffering, the death, and the victory of Our Lord Jesus Christ simply roll on by without causing so much as a hick-up in the way we practice our discipleship?
I would encourage you to visit persecution.com, the web site for Voice of the Martyrs. Think about what celebrating Resurrection Sunday means to believers that live under hostile governments. Consider the impact of having to live a secret faith in a land where Christians are regulalry harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. What will these days following Resurrection Sunday mean to these people?
May I make a few suggestions about how to spend these fifty days between Resurrection Sunday and Pentecost? During Lent we gave up something. During these coming days add something to your life.
1. Commit yourself to a greater attention to hearing God's voice in your time of prayer, in your reading of his word, and in the lives of the people you meet each day.
2. Give more of yourself to others through the time you spend listening to them and through offering the gift of presence.
3. Open your life to another person. Allow them to invest themselves in you making your own life richer through their experiences and wisdom.
4. Add a resolve to be a force for change in your community that would open doors for the Person of God to be seen in clearer ways.
5. Add a new friendship to your circle of acquaintances.
6. Add a positive note of gratitude in your speech and actions that will point others to the God who has given you so much.
7. Add a personal responsibility to share the message of Resurrection Sunday as God opens the opportunity to you.
We could all just go fishing or back to other jobs or some comfortable routine. I don't think that is what Christ intended. The Christ Event should leave us changed, radically changed. How can you go back to the old ways when you have met God?
That was 2000 years ago. What are we as believers doing this week in the days following our celebration of Resurrection Sunday? Have we jumped back into our favorite pastimes? Have we found the comfortable routine that keeps life simple and predictable? Did the annual remembrance of the suffering, the death, and the victory of Our Lord Jesus Christ simply roll on by without causing so much as a hick-up in the way we practice our discipleship?
I would encourage you to visit persecution.com, the web site for Voice of the Martyrs. Think about what celebrating Resurrection Sunday means to believers that live under hostile governments. Consider the impact of having to live a secret faith in a land where Christians are regulalry harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. What will these days following Resurrection Sunday mean to these people?
May I make a few suggestions about how to spend these fifty days between Resurrection Sunday and Pentecost? During Lent we gave up something. During these coming days add something to your life.
1. Commit yourself to a greater attention to hearing God's voice in your time of prayer, in your reading of his word, and in the lives of the people you meet each day.
2. Give more of yourself to others through the time you spend listening to them and through offering the gift of presence.
3. Open your life to another person. Allow them to invest themselves in you making your own life richer through their experiences and wisdom.
4. Add a resolve to be a force for change in your community that would open doors for the Person of God to be seen in clearer ways.
5. Add a new friendship to your circle of acquaintances.
6. Add a positive note of gratitude in your speech and actions that will point others to the God who has given you so much.
7. Add a personal responsibility to share the message of Resurrection Sunday as God opens the opportunity to you.
We could all just go fishing or back to other jobs or some comfortable routine. I don't think that is what Christ intended. The Christ Event should leave us changed, radically changed. How can you go back to the old ways when you have met God?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Acknowledging Evil
In the past few days I have received the blessing and felt the pain of working in Sanford, NC, an area hard hit by recent tornadoes. An editorial in the local paper proclaimed that as bad as the storms were, they brought out the best in people through the outpouring of assistance in a multitude of forms. I can vouch for the truth in those comments. In the midst of what may be called natural evil, good came forth.
Unfortunately I also heard the stories related to moral evil. There were the people arrested trying to steal material from the devastated Lowe's store. Trying it in front of the police was not intelligent as well as being morally wrong. There were the teens caught riding ATVs out of the woods into a destroyed mobile home park to loot the homes counting on the idea that the police were all at the front entrance. Thankfully they weren't. Then of course there are the scam workers wanting to clean up your yard and repair your house for lots of money and no accountability.
Natural evil. Moral evil. How many books have been written on these subjects over the centuries? I have no wise word to add to the arguments. I just know that Jesus made some very basic statements that would eliminate many of these problems if we heeded them. I also know that passing a lot of laws will not change a person's desire to loot the home of someone struck by tragedy.
Moral evil was born in man's rebellion against God's Lordship. I believe there is good reason to believe that we live with natural evil for the same reason. Unlike most of my brothers and sisters in the Lord, I don't believe nature fell because man did. I think nature lost its chance for perfection because man fell.
God did not tell the first man to enjoy a paradise where everything would be handed to him on a silver platter. God told man to go out and have dominion over creation and subdue it. Subdue it? That sounds like nature had to be brought under control. Yet God did not intend for man to do it alone. There was a partnership implied here, a partnership between God and man.
It is interesting in light of this idea to reexamine the episode in which Jesus stood at the front of the boat and commanded the wind and waves to be still. In Mark's and Luke's accounts he turned to the disciples and asked, "Where is your faith?" Was Jesus questioning their faith in him, or was he saying that as his followers, they should have had enough faith to calm the storm themselves and let him keep sleeping? He said that only a lack of faith prevented his followers from uprooting trees and moving mountains. Unless these statements were simply colorful hyperbole, then Jesus was calling believers to exercise a world changing faith. Did our rebellion cost us both a relationship with our Creator that could only be restored through the blood of his Son and our ability to work as colaborers with God in creation as was his original plan?
Moral evil we must address with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It may well be that in some fashion that we have rarely considered we must address natural evil in the same way.
Unfortunately I also heard the stories related to moral evil. There were the people arrested trying to steal material from the devastated Lowe's store. Trying it in front of the police was not intelligent as well as being morally wrong. There were the teens caught riding ATVs out of the woods into a destroyed mobile home park to loot the homes counting on the idea that the police were all at the front entrance. Thankfully they weren't. Then of course there are the scam workers wanting to clean up your yard and repair your house for lots of money and no accountability.
Natural evil. Moral evil. How many books have been written on these subjects over the centuries? I have no wise word to add to the arguments. I just know that Jesus made some very basic statements that would eliminate many of these problems if we heeded them. I also know that passing a lot of laws will not change a person's desire to loot the home of someone struck by tragedy.
Moral evil was born in man's rebellion against God's Lordship. I believe there is good reason to believe that we live with natural evil for the same reason. Unlike most of my brothers and sisters in the Lord, I don't believe nature fell because man did. I think nature lost its chance for perfection because man fell.
God did not tell the first man to enjoy a paradise where everything would be handed to him on a silver platter. God told man to go out and have dominion over creation and subdue it. Subdue it? That sounds like nature had to be brought under control. Yet God did not intend for man to do it alone. There was a partnership implied here, a partnership between God and man.
It is interesting in light of this idea to reexamine the episode in which Jesus stood at the front of the boat and commanded the wind and waves to be still. In Mark's and Luke's accounts he turned to the disciples and asked, "Where is your faith?" Was Jesus questioning their faith in him, or was he saying that as his followers, they should have had enough faith to calm the storm themselves and let him keep sleeping? He said that only a lack of faith prevented his followers from uprooting trees and moving mountains. Unless these statements were simply colorful hyperbole, then Jesus was calling believers to exercise a world changing faith. Did our rebellion cost us both a relationship with our Creator that could only be restored through the blood of his Son and our ability to work as colaborers with God in creation as was his original plan?
Moral evil we must address with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It may well be that in some fashion that we have rarely considered we must address natural evil in the same way.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Who's Afraid of Change!
I am getting older. Can't stop it. Not sure I would want to if I could. Staying young, or at least locked into one age or another, would just make you weird and out of place. People would look at you as if you were some kind of freak, that you needed to be in a laboratory somewhere or at least in a museum. After all, everything around you is changing. Why aren't you?
We have met the enemy of change and it is us! (Sorry, Pogo) There is a church sign in my area that says something like "When change stops, death starts." Not bad for a church. In fact most churches I know would consider that heresy. Change comes hard, so hard that for some death is preferrable.
People don't change much, at least not their basic needs and their basic patterns of life. Society does change and with it comes the way we as Christians must relate to it. The questions arise as we look at how much our methods and our images must change to keep us communicating with a society in constant change.
Baptists don't like change. After all if God doesn't change, why should we? Therefore churches shouldn't change. Associations shouldn't change. State conventions shouldn't change. National conventions shouldn't change.
Of course we know all the responses to this. Change the methods without changing the message. Be relevant in a changing society. Meet the never changing basic needs by using ever changing different methods. God's love never changes. Man's sinful nature never changes. Only the methods of communication change.
The conflict arises when the new method reflects a desire to change rather than a more effective method. Churches can change and die in the process. Associations can change and lose all reason to exist. Same can be said for state and national comventions.
Change can be initiated because the old has become ineffective. It can also be initiated because someone felt they weren't receiving the attention they deserved. Change can also come about because someone felt that a little revolution is always healthy regardless of the methods or outcome.
Churches and their cooperative structures have to change. Are we changing for the right reasons? Do we have any reasonable assurance that what will result after the change will be an improvement? I can say change is essential. I cannot say yes to either of the two remaining questions. Baptists need to be very aware of the consequences of change for the wrong reasons and in the wrong direction.
We have met the enemy of change and it is us! (Sorry, Pogo) There is a church sign in my area that says something like "When change stops, death starts." Not bad for a church. In fact most churches I know would consider that heresy. Change comes hard, so hard that for some death is preferrable.
People don't change much, at least not their basic needs and their basic patterns of life. Society does change and with it comes the way we as Christians must relate to it. The questions arise as we look at how much our methods and our images must change to keep us communicating with a society in constant change.
Baptists don't like change. After all if God doesn't change, why should we? Therefore churches shouldn't change. Associations shouldn't change. State conventions shouldn't change. National conventions shouldn't change.
Of course we know all the responses to this. Change the methods without changing the message. Be relevant in a changing society. Meet the never changing basic needs by using ever changing different methods. God's love never changes. Man's sinful nature never changes. Only the methods of communication change.
The conflict arises when the new method reflects a desire to change rather than a more effective method. Churches can change and die in the process. Associations can change and lose all reason to exist. Same can be said for state and national comventions.
Change can be initiated because the old has become ineffective. It can also be initiated because someone felt they weren't receiving the attention they deserved. Change can also come about because someone felt that a little revolution is always healthy regardless of the methods or outcome.
Churches and their cooperative structures have to change. Are we changing for the right reasons? Do we have any reasonable assurance that what will result after the change will be an improvement? I can say change is essential. I cannot say yes to either of the two remaining questions. Baptists need to be very aware of the consequences of change for the wrong reasons and in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Priority of Relationships
A two-week absence from this site deserves some explanation. That can be summed up in one word: relationships. The need to sustain relationships and through actions reveal their importance has taken me away from this keyboard for two weeks. You could suggest procrastination was also a part. You could also suggest that neglecting to see the time that was available was also a part of the problem. The bottom line was, however, I refused to allow writing of almost any kind to distract me from the time spent in maintaining family and friend relationships.
I feel I have a very good precedent set for me to feel this way. God acts this way. He has revealed himself as One who believes that relationships are more important than almost anything else, perhaps second only to being true to his nature of holiness. God has revealed himself most clearly in the way he has dealt with relationships, created relationships, and emphasized relationships in his created order.
In the first chapter of Genesis he says, "Let us make man in our image." The plural pronoun points to an existing relationship. He said later, "It is not good for man to be alone." He intended for man to be in relationship not only with his Creator but also with one with whom he could most personally identify. He told his creation to be fruitful and multiply and for them to honor their fathers and mothers specifically commanding that there be relationhips developed between generations.
God wanted to restore his original plan for a relationship with man after the Fall. Because man was incapable of taking the initiative and bringing about reconciliation, God had to do it all. The Incarnation, the Christ Event, made the restoration and the renewed relationship possible.
In the Church we see the relationships of the Kingdom of heaven being lived out, or at least we hope so. These relationships are not limited to those sitting in the same pews, but they exist between people groups and across the centuries. We are in relationship through the Holy Spirit with fellow Christians throughout the ages and across the continents. God has a real thing for relationships.
As a result of God's plan, there cannot be Lone Ranger Christians. There cannot be island Christians. There cannot be Christians who stand immune to the cries and needs of the world.
I recently returned home from nine days involving 2000 miles of travel to maintain and strengthen relationships. My wife and I were tired and the car broke down 36 hours after we got home. To keep these relationships, I would do it all again. Relationships are that importnat. God thinks so. I think so. The Church needs to think so.
I feel I have a very good precedent set for me to feel this way. God acts this way. He has revealed himself as One who believes that relationships are more important than almost anything else, perhaps second only to being true to his nature of holiness. God has revealed himself most clearly in the way he has dealt with relationships, created relationships, and emphasized relationships in his created order.
In the first chapter of Genesis he says, "Let us make man in our image." The plural pronoun points to an existing relationship. He said later, "It is not good for man to be alone." He intended for man to be in relationship not only with his Creator but also with one with whom he could most personally identify. He told his creation to be fruitful and multiply and for them to honor their fathers and mothers specifically commanding that there be relationhips developed between generations.
God wanted to restore his original plan for a relationship with man after the Fall. Because man was incapable of taking the initiative and bringing about reconciliation, God had to do it all. The Incarnation, the Christ Event, made the restoration and the renewed relationship possible.
In the Church we see the relationships of the Kingdom of heaven being lived out, or at least we hope so. These relationships are not limited to those sitting in the same pews, but they exist between people groups and across the centuries. We are in relationship through the Holy Spirit with fellow Christians throughout the ages and across the continents. God has a real thing for relationships.
As a result of God's plan, there cannot be Lone Ranger Christians. There cannot be island Christians. There cannot be Christians who stand immune to the cries and needs of the world.
I recently returned home from nine days involving 2000 miles of travel to maintain and strengthen relationships. My wife and I were tired and the car broke down 36 hours after we got home. To keep these relationships, I would do it all again. Relationships are that importnat. God thinks so. I think so. The Church needs to think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)