Titus

This summer we have been going through books of the Bible that are three chapters or less. The goal has been to get an overview of what is going on in each book, the theology of each book, how it fits in the narrative of Scripture, and then what it is saying to us today. This past Sunday we were on the book of Titus. This is my sermon manuscript (warning, its long): Titus Sermon.

Would LOVE to hear thoughts, and feedback. It's how I learn! Enjoy!

New Website

I know it has been a while, and I will give an update soon on everything going on here...but one reason I haven't been blogging is that I have been getting a website ready for our church. Check it out at chiltonfbc.org

It's been a loooong time!

Well both of my readers have been getting on me that I haven't updated this thing in a really long time. Let me begin by apologizing to the readers! It is now summer time and things have started to pick up with preparing for camps and going to camp, preaching/teaching (and the prep time for each), and on and on...I think you get the point!

So this is what has been going on since I last had an entry on this thing. We finished up Malachi, it was a good little book, it forced us to look at issues like what God considers acceptable worship, we talked a little bit about our attitude toward divorced people, as well as the faithful remnant that stood firm while everyone else was grumbling against Yahweh. I really enjoy the prophets (in particular the minor prophets) because they paint such a beautiful picture of the God we serve.

For mother's day, we looked at Hannah, and we talked about what it meant to be a mother who prays for her child, and a mother who goes through great lengths to see her son/daughter grow up into all that the Lord has for him/her. I shared some personal stories from my life about my mother and made a few ladies cry, so it was a good day!

We then started the summer and have been doing this series entitled "short stories." We first looked at Nahum, and asked 2 questions: 1) what is going on in this book? and 2) why are there two stories about Nineveh in our Scriptures, one where it ends well for Nineveh (Jonah) and one where it doesn't end so well (Nahum)? To make a long sermon short, we talked about Scripture giving a complete picture of God, that wrath and mercy are both realities of God, that God is an all consuming fire and will destroy all that is not of him, but he is a God of grace and mercy and wants people to know him and fall in love with him. Perhaps the sermon will be a later post. Second, we looked at Philemon and how what happens in that book is an outworking of the Gospel working in our lives, namely that the gospel breaks down barriers that society has set in place and puts everyone at equal footing, if it can reconcile a wealthy slave owner and a runaway slave, it can be used in reconciliation of any two people!

We just got back from camp and I will update that when I have more time! But keep an eye out! The Lord did a great thing at camp and I am excited about getting to follow up with the youth!

Malachi 2

Yesterday we were in Malachi 2 (v. 10-16 to be specific). On Monday when I started studying for this particular passage I was nervous after reading it. For those of you who don't know, the passage deals with the issue of divorce, and specifically 2:16, "God hates divorce," has been used as a blanket statement to indict all divorced people as some sort of second class citizen. I don't believe that we should ever use one verse to form a theology on a subject, particularly when we do it in order to demean certain people in the church. Disclaimer: I am not advocating divorce, or even saying it is a good thing. What I am saying is that we aren't meant to use Scripture to belittle or demean people who have gone through some horrific event. We should extend grace and compassion (kind of like God has done to us :) ).

With that being said, I began studying the passage further and started to see that the passage is really about people doing things their own way and then wondering why when the bring a prayer offering to God (even with tears!), God doesn't seem to respond. In the passage, v. 13-14 says this:

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because God no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts with pleasure from your hands.

You ask, "why?" It is because the Lord is acting as a witness between you and the wife of

your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner the wife of your marriage covenant.

Now what is going in this passage is that Israelite men (including priests!) were divorcing their wife in order to marry Samaritan women in order to try and reclaim the land that was theirs before they were exiled. So what happens according to the text is that they married these women who served foreign gods, and eventually they began to worship these gods as well. In other words, they started down this slippery slope to the point that they are no longer even worshipping God as he deserves. So because they have broken the marriage covenant, and they are now breaking the Sinai covenant (namely they are worshipping created images instead of the one true God) God has stopped listening to their prayers.

What I see going on here is the same thing that Paul describes in Romans 1. As these priests began to engage in acts that went against God, they gradually became fully engrossed in a lifestyle that was not pleasing to God, so God sets His face against them. In Romans 1 (which has erroneously been used to condemn solely homosexual activity) tells us that if we continue to live a lifestyle that is going against the way God intended for us to live, eventually we will become hard hearted to hearing from God, and will be given over to our sins.

And that is what I see going on in Malachi 2. Divorce is what is happening at the time that Malachi is speaking against on behalf of the Lord. But the real issue is the priests' faithlessness in Yahweh. Their actions started out by trying to regain land through remarriage. To be fair to them, land is tied to blessing in the OT, but where their thinking is flawed is on the fact that they think it is up to them and their actions to reclaim the land. So what is really going on, is that the priests began to engage in this lifestyle that was contrary to how the Lord has told them to live, and they eventually get to the point where they are not even worshipping Yahweh only, but are worshipping the gods of their wives. So God refuses to accept their prayers, though they may weep and wail.

So the text ends with "guard yourself in the spirit, and do not break faith." We need to remember that God is a god of covenant, and that his nature is to remain faithful to the covenant he has established. We may try to set new terms of the covenant, but God's nature is never changing, and he will always be faithful to the covenant he has established. So the question for us, is this: what stuff do we have in our lives that prevent us from hearing from God, or that prevents God from hearing our prayers? In other words, is there stuff in our lives that is contrary to how God has told us to live, yet we are still trying to rationalize and hold on to?

These are questions that do not need to be asked once and then never to be asked again, rather they are questions that we should ask ourselves daily. It is part of the sanctification process. We should examine our lives on a daily basis and plead with God to root out the evil that exists in us. We should plead with him to reveal to us any parts of our life that do not line up with his teachings. This is the pursuit of being holy as he is holy, or being perfect as he is perfect. This is the goal, this pursuit should not be rationalized away some sort of impossibilty so I am not even going to try, but our goal should be more like Jesus today, than we were yesterday. (disclaimer: this only happens with the Holy Spirit working in us, it is not some personal effort thing).

One other word. This process is often times going to be slow and painful. We live in a world, where we think we should have everything, and have it right now. That isn't how becoming like Jesus works. It is a life long process of pursuing Jesus and desiring to have anything sinful in my life rooted out and bound up in Christ.

So we really have two choices: 1) we can continue to try and rationalize any sin we have in our life and let it slowly but surely overtake us until we are eventually given over to it and it hinders our prayers to God or 2) we can decide that we are not longer going to live our way, but give our lives fully to God and examine our lives based on the truths that he has revealed to us and at the end of our life hear the words "well done good and faithful servant."

Malachi 1

We have just recently finished our series in Acts. It was a good book to go through because I felt that it reminded us that as church we have neglected the role of prayer in our daily lives, as well as the role of prayer in our worship services. It was also good because it gave a biblical basis for some of the new things that we have tried to do here, and I think all and all it is good to be reminded of the purpose of the church and what her function is in the mission of God.

So naturally after finishing Acts, the next logical book is Malachi. The reason I chose Malachi is practical, personal and theological. Practically we have 4 Sundays (not including Mother's day) before the summer starts, and I wanted to finish this book before everyone scatters for the summer! On a personal level, I love the minor prophets! And theologically, it is good to be reminded of some things about God. Especially after a whole book where I challenged them to "do" something every Sunday.

So with that being said, we launched into Malachi 1 this past Sunday. I really enjoyed studying this chapter. In the first 5 verses there is so much packed in there that we would have been there for 2 hours unpacking everything! With that being said, I will probably have to do another post about the Jacaob-Esau motif that is used by Malachi to illustrate God's love for his people.

The point of the first part of Malachi is that God has loved us perfectly, even though we are continually unfaithful to His covenant. The Israelites forget this and "ask when have you loved us?" In other words, they were implying that God has not loved them at all, or at least not loved them the way they thought they were supposed to be loved. They are still a weak nation. They are still small, and they are rather poor. They have just returned from exile where they suffered great humiliation, and to them it seems like they have suffered all for nothing. So Malachi reminds them that they are still God's covenant people, and reminds them basically that even though they had whored themselves out to other things, God has been with them and loved them through everything and has brought them out of exile, and had destroyed Edom because of their opposition to his covenant people. So really the Lord's response in layman's terms is "You have got to be kidding me, how can you even say that!?" It is equivalent to the friend who always asks you for favors and then after 25 times in a row of saying yes and doing whatever it is he/she needs, you say "no" one time and they get all huffy and say "I thought we were friends!" I know this illustration breaks down at some point, but the issue here is that Israel has benefitted greatly from God establishing a covenant with them, and when things don't turn out like they want it to, they ask God "when have you loved us?" Perhaps this is something to think about when we are going through rough times, and to be grateful that we have a God who is still deeply concerned, and deeply in love with his covenant people, even when it is not tangible to us at the time.

The second half of the first chapter (and going on into chapter 2, through v. 9) deals with the priests accepting sacrifices to the Lord that are specifically forbidden in Leviticus. In short, this deals with the issue of lack of fear (reverence for the Lord). The whole situation is summed up when God says (through Malachi), "you wouldn't even bring this to your governor, and yet you bring it to me?" They are bringing sacrifices to God that wouldn't even be acceptable to a fallen, sinful human being, and they are trying to pawn off these things to God!? Moral of the story: take God seriously!

It seems to me that, at least in the Western Cuture, and particularly in the Bible Belt, we have this tendency to view worship with this contemptuous attitude. In other words, we really don't focus on God throughout the week, and we simply show up to church hoping to "experience" or "feel" something. When in reality, the Scriptures are full of passages that condemn this attitude. We have whole book (Leviticus) dedicated to how things should be prepared for worship and what is acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to offering something in worship. Now we don't have the need for animal sacrifices anymore, but we do have our lives to offer. And this attitude of simply coming to worship services because of what we might get out of it, or because we think that somehow it will appease God and he might have mercy on us is wrong and irreverent! God says in Malachi, it would be better for the doors to be shut and worship not to go on, than to do what you are doing. In fact, the passage in Malachi even says that their prayers are not heard by Yahweh because of their irreverent attitude!! In 1 Peter 3:7 it warns husbands who are mistreating their wives, that their prayers can be hindered. Honestly I have never been taught that there are some things that I can do, or a lifestyle that I can live that will cause the Lord to have deaf ears when it comes to my prayers and the things I offer him. This passage really caused me to reevaluate how I prepare for worship each Sunday, and not only that, it has caused me to reevaluate the way I live my life. It has caused me to always be reminded that the sacrifice I bring to the Lord is my very life. I am either living for him, or I am living in opposition to Him. There really is no other option.

May we evaluate our lives, and may they be pleasing to God. May our worship be pleasing to God because of the sacrifice that we offer to Him.

Women in Scripture #7

Ok so confession time. I said in my last post there would be 2 more posts on this topic. However, I have decided that this will be the last entry on this topic. Why you may ask? Well 7 is the perfect number, so it seemed appropriate (ha, sorry, lame seminarian joke). Really, I am just feeling like I am repeating myself, and that is no fun to write, and if it is no fun to write, logic tells me, it is even less fun to read. So this will be the last entry simply because I am ADHD and want to write about other things!

So the passage that must be addressed in this entire thing is the big one in 1 Corinthians 14, starting in verse 34 which says that women should remain silent in church. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husband at home; for it is disgraceful for women to speak in church.

Now at first glance this would seem to end any argument about women preaching in church, teaching men in church, etc. However, it seems to me that this is the worst case of proof texting that we do as a church. To apply this passage as deeming it inappropriate for women to speak, teach, or preach in church is to lift it entirely out of cultural context. The reason this is important is because if we are going to take the things Paul says literally then those same people who claim this passage is applicable for today with no regard to cultural context, should not let their wives cut their hair (1 Cor. 11) or to wear jewery, braid their hair, wear expensive clothes, wear anything that could be considered immodest (i.e. any leg showing) (1 Tim. 2:9). Further, if they take everything literally that Paul writes then any woman who does not bear children cannot be saved (1 Tim. 2:10).

So it seems to me that we take these passages about women teaching over men and hold them up as the example of which to follow in our churches, yet we completely ignore anything else pertaining to women when it comes to the way they are dressing, when it comes to the way they wear their hair, when it comes to whether or not they cut their hair, and if we took literally things Paul said, then women are saved through the cross plus childbearing (which no one would ever say).

Incidentally, the 1 Timothy passage also talks about women not having authority over man as well. But the interpretation of that passage and how to look at it will be the same basic argument as looking at this Corinthians passsage.

So to the passage in 1 Corinthians 14. First it is appropriate to discuss the cultural setting in which the Corinthian church is set. The view of woman was very low, in the Greek world Sophocles actually said "silence confers grace upon a woman." According to Barclay, women, unless they were very poor or very loose, usually lived a life of solitude in Greece. If you can believe it, the Jewish view of women was even lower!! There were many Rabbinic sayings that belittle women such as: "to teach the law to a woman was to cast pearls before swine." The Talmud actually lists among the plagues of the world "the talkative and the inquisitive widow and the virgin who wastes her time in prayers!"(Barclay, Letters to Corinthians, 136) WOW! According to his, women shouldn't even pray, should we enforce this as well? Lastly, it was forbidden to speak to a woman in the street.

So with that setting, we read what is going on in the passage of Corinthians. There are two different views on what is going on in this passage.

First, Paul is not negating the fact that as he wrote in Galatians, "there is no Greek or Jew....male or female," where he essentially is saying that in Christ all walls are broken down. Rather, these women are abusing their new found freedom and causing disruption in the church service itself. And so essentially he is saying that if you cannot control your freedom, then you don't get to use it at all.

Second, Paul is writing to a church that is in infancy, and with a concern of their lax moral standards. And so in his mind he is trying to help a church in its infant stages not to bring upon itself the suspicion of immodesty.

In either scenario, Paul is writing within a particular context and culture. We see this all the time even today when the Gospel penetrates a culture where men are dominant and women are to be seen and not heard. There is not this drastic change that happens overnight where men and women are viewed as equals. And so we see here in Corinthians, Paul is concerned with the church's witness as a whole, and is speaking to a specific issue of the time. To take this passage about women speaking in church and extrapolate it and take it literally as a universal truth causes great problems with the rest of the things Pauls says in this letter and other letters.

No one has ever been able to explain to me why women can not preach and teach in church, yet they can wear gold, designer clothes (usually skirts that are too short), heels, hair done up, and that not be going against what Paul writes in our Scriptures.

Either we are going to take everything that is said literally and apply it as universal truth, or we need to examine Scripture and understand it within the culture it is written, and THEN figure out the application for us today. Those are the only two options. Can we please stop picking and choosing which passages about women we want to enforce?

Women in Scripture #6

Before getting into the topic today, I want to remind people of why I have decided to do this series. This is an attempt to search Scripture in order to find out if the stance we have taken when it comes to women is Biblical or if it is a result of traditionalism that has left women oppressed within our church congregations. The goal is to start discussion and maybe influence change in a way that still keeps the unity of the body in tact.

One other thing, this series was never intended to be an exhaustive list of passages of women in Scripture or texts that address women in Scripture. My hope is just to deal with the most controversial ones and then be finished. That being said, there will be 3 or 4 more entries on this topic. One reason being, I will probably start repeating myself shortly, and that is boring to read. Another reason, I am ADHD and need to move to something else or I get really "panicky" :).

Today's blog post actually came out of research I am doing for a new series that we are starting as a church. We just finished the book of Acts (in only short 8 months!) and are moving on to the book of Malachi. In researching for this book, I felt it necessary to research the role of prophecy in general when it came to Israel and give a brief overview of their function. In other words I wanted to start by dispelling the myth that prophets are simply people who talk about the future (foretelling) and demonstrate that when they speak they are speaking into certain situations and giving warnings of God's response as it relates to his covenant with them (forthtelling).

At any rate, I was reading about different prophets, and came across Elijah and Elisha. And as I was reading 2 Kings 4 it hit me that not only were women not a problem when it came to leadership, they were actually part of guilds or schools known as "sons of the prophets!" In 2 Kings 4 we see that Elijah and Elisha were leaders of prophetic communities at Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal (2 Kings 2:3-4; 4:38). Now members of these guilds were not tied down to any one place but were free to travel around and deliver the oracles of God. In 2 Kings 4:1-7 we see that a woman was part of this guild!

Now, this is not new to us in one sense. We have women in seminaries all over the place preparing for ministry. What is unique is that fact that these women belonging to these prophetic communities seem to function in the same capacity as the men, and there is no real debate concerning whether or not what the women are doing when they prophesy is biblical. It still amazes me that women who are in seminary are still told where they can serve, and in what capacities. And again, this may not be explicit, but implicit in the way things are structured in the church, in the silence on topics such as women's ability to being pastor's, etc. However, it seems that there is an increasing amount of pastors out there who are becoming more vocal about the "appropriate" roles for women.

Yet throughout the history of Israel, women served and functioned in all capacities. Even prophets (which as I have said before is equivalent of a pastor today)! It seems to me that views on this issue are not grounded on our Scriptures so much as a tradition that was started by human origins.

If women were being used by God throughout all of Israel's history and are good enough for God to use as he sees fit. Shouldn't they be viewed by us in the same way?

Update!

So it has been a long time since I have entered something on this blog and I know both of my readers are eagerly waiting in anticipation, so I wanted to give a quick update before I continue the series of "Women in Scriptures."

It has been an exciting last month at our church. We have seen three people come to Christ, and have had 2 baptisms! This past Sunday was the third person to accept Jesus. This one was exciting for me because it was one of the youth that lives directly behind our house. We have been praying for him and his family since being here. The Lord has allowed me to build a relationship with the entire family and yesterday He allowed us to see the benefits of our prayers and that relationship. I must say here, that it was not just my relationship with the family, but my wife's leadership in the youth ministry that was very instrumental in this boy coming to know Jesus. She put on a D-now that really challenged the students about the way they should live their lives, and the demands that Jesus' call places on all of us who desire to follow him. The best part of the D-Now was that there was a challenging message but in an environment that was fun and relaxed. I believe the Lord was working through that D-Now and this kid has been coming every Sunday and Wednesday since then, hearing the message of God.

I am thankful that the Lord allowed us to see the results of our labor. Also, I am not saying it was just us that was involved in this process. As John 4 reminds us, some plant and others water. Some will never see the fruit of their labor this side of heaven, but some will. And in those times when the Lord allows you to see someone with whom you have a relationship and been praying for come to faith it gives a feeling like no other!

So the last month has been a whirlwind of baptisms, visiting with people who have confessed Christ and are beginning a life with Christ. God is really doing something here in our church, and I am so blessed that we get to be a part of it!

So as God continues to do amazing things (even in spite of the pastor they have :) ) pray for us as continue on this awesome journey!

Women in Scripture #5

Pauls seems to be the most quoted when it comes to fighting against the idea that women can have a place in ministry other than teaching other women and children. Yet it seems that Paul worked with quite a few women who served in a variety of different roles.

In Romans 16:7, Paul greets Andronicus and Junia as being "prominent among the apostles." Junia (a woman) fulfilled the Pauline criteria for apostleship. Therefore she obviously had seen the risen Christ and engaged in missionary work.

Her leadership role as an apostle are very similar to female leadership roles in ancient Judaism--such as head of synagogue or elder. She was one of several female church leaders that associated with Paul. Others include Prisca (Rom. 16:3-4), whom Acts describes as a teacher (18:26), then there is Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3). Yes the last two were involved in a conflict with each other that Paul had to address. However, can that really disqualify all of women from being in leadership roles? If we went by that criteria for men, we would no longer have any pastors at all! We fight about everything!

Back to Junia though. There has been much debate about Junia and her role among the apostles. For a long time it was read as she was one of the prominent apostles. Then somewhere along the line, a translator with this ridiculous mentality about women came along, and tried to prove that Junia was mistranslated and should have been "Junias" making it a male name. When that didn't work, some were left trying to prove that Junia was an abbreviation for a longer male name. This didn't make any sense because it didn't follow any pattern of abbreviation that we have from Greek documents (biblical or otherwise). When all these attempts failed, there was a movement to read "prominent among the apostles" to mean that she was well known by the apostles, but just because someone knows them doesn't mean they are part of the group. While it is true, a person simply being known by someone in another doesn't make that person part of a group (I have friends who are in gangs, doesn't make me a gang member), this reading is ridiculous since it was widely accepted for centuries as meaning that Junia was an apostle, and prominent among them.

We cannot allow revisionist history to do away with the fact that there were women apostles. There were women teachers. And that God is in the habit of using everyone regardless of gender to accomplish his purpose. In the Kingdom of God there is supposed to be no more distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek or Scythe, slave or free, male or female. We have done a good job with the first three, I am just dumbfounded as to why we are struggling with the fourth.

Another Update...

Well we got back from Mexico about a little over a week ago. There was a long gap between posts because we were in Mexico for a week, and then I felt like I was going 100 mph trying to catch up on some things I needed to get done when I got back.

Overall Mexico was awesome! There was some great things that happened on that trip. There was a youth who seemed to really find his niche. A mother who shared that she went on the trip for her son, but soon realized that God had much to teach her about the value of friendship and the stories go on and on. I am really hopeful that that the lessons we learned in Mexico will be implemented now that we are back in Chilton.

We are now going through the Easter season. This is quite possibly my favorite time of year. It is a time of new beginnings. To reflect on the implications of the resurrection and what that means in our lives. We are not having any services during holy week, but next year I definitely think we will. Easter Sunday is just so much more meaningful if you have gone through the week remembering the cross and the obedience that Jesus displayed in taking all of that on himself. It is truly remarkable Lord that we serve!

After Easter, we will hit up the fundraising for youth camp and also begin making preparations for the month of June. It will be a busy one (Youth Camp, Pre-teen camp, VBS in 3 consecutive weeks!). In that time between Easter and that crazy 3 week stretch, Meredith and I will celebrate our 2 year anniversary. I can't believe it!!!

Anyway, that is a short update on what is going on with us. Hope this finds everyone well!

Happy Easter!!

Women in Scripture #4

One of the most fascinating things that I find when talking to people about the Bible is how people (men in particular) seem to elevate David and hold him up as an example that all should follow. Most likely they will quote the verse that calls David "a man after God's own heart." While there are certainly a lot of good qualities found in David, the reason that he gets this description is that he has a very repentant heart. Which we all should have. But what this also means is that David messed up...ALOT. I love studying the life of David because it gives me hope when I read his story. He messes up, God teaches him a lesson, he repents and tries to follow God to the best of his ability before inevitably messing up again. I like it because it reminds me of my spiritual journey.

Anyway, there is one particular incident that I find fascinating. The story is found in 2 Samuel 14:1-20. It is the story of the wise woman from Tekoa. Tekow is located in a Judean hill country about ten miles south of Jerusalem. In this particular story it is made clear that this woman is a village leader--in today's world it would be very similar to the role of a male elder.

In 2 Samuel 13, the story of the rape of King David's daughter (by her half brother) is told. David grieves that this has happened, but takes no steps (required by the Law) to address Absalom. In fact Absalom flees and it is not until three years later that David's general, Joab, comes up with a scheme to get Absalom and David back together (the story is much more detailed than what I am portraying, but I am trying to get to the part of the woman from Tekoa).

Joab's plan involves seeking this woman from Tekoa. She is to pretend to be a single mother of two boys, and one has murdered the other. (If you are having flashbacks of Nathan and David, you are not far off!) So she acts out this scenario and just like the scene with Nathan, David is forced into clear thinking.

Now to be fair, we can't exactly say this is a one to one comparison with Nathan. Nathan's account is appointed by God, this account happens because of Joab. And the overall wisdom is not realy clear, seeing as Absalom revolts four years later.

However, with that being said there are still things that point to the role of female leadership being accepted in Israel. As I said earlier, she is depicted as a village leader, which would be akin to the male role of elder. She is also depicted as a woman who is able to appropriate the fundamental cultural values of ancient Israel--the preservation of patriarchal lineage (14:7) and the people of God (14:13), and the king's obligation to protect the right of the orphan and widow to enjoy God's heritage (14:6).

Further, she is depicted in this account as being very well spoken indicating her experience in dealing with similar incidents in the past. This woman was a leader and no one had any problem with her reminding David of his duty as king. Perhaps this plan originated in the mind of Joab, but God was definitely present throughout this entire story using this woman.

Now this is obviously not making a case for women to be pastor's. That isn't my goal with all of this. My goal is to simply show that Scripture shows a God who uses both men and women. That God can, at any time, lift up a man or woman to lead God's people. We find here in this story that God uses a woman to remind David his obligations as king. Inevitably someone will say she was just submitting to Joab's orders. However, this is a weak argument in light of the fact that she is obviously a village leader (a village which I will go out on a limb and say includes men). So why would she all of a sudden need to submit to someone coming to her and asking for her help, doesn't make sense.

What this story shows me is that God uses who he wants, when he wants and we as people of God do not have the right to step in and tell people in what capacity they can serve. Last time I checked, that was totally God's call.

Update on our lives!

Well Spring Break is here!

Spring Break in Chilton, TX starts tomorrow (Mar. 15) and with it comes our first mission trip since being at Chilton. We have six people going and we will meet up with another church from Abilene, TX when we get to Del Rio. There will be 55 from that group and our 6 makes 61 people headed to Mexico to do construction projects around the city, a VBS for the kids (run by your church's youth), and a women's ministry which is great for some of the more mature ladies of the church who can't quite keep up with the kids at VBS and aren't really interested in doing construction for 3 straight days.

Anyway, we leave on Tuesday (Mar. 16) and return Saturday (Mar. 20). I am excited to see what God is going to teach us as we make the journey down there. I find that God teaches the most to the missionaries going when it comes to short term mission trips like the one we are taking.

The hope and the prayer is that as we are transformed by this short term mission trip, we will bring back what we have learned and use it to reach our community. The neighborhood we will be in when in Mexico, and the neighborhood here in Chilton known as "Little Mexico" are virtually the same. So the mission trip is not just so we can call ourselves an "Acts 1:8" church or any other ridiculous label, the purpose of this trip is to learn from God what we can be doing in Chilton. Sometimes, it takes getting away from the comfortable surroundings to be able to see things anew when you return.

So that is our hope and our prayer as we go to Mexico. I hope you will remember to pray for us as we are gone. This also means that there will not be another post on here for about a week. Sorry to disappoint both of my readers! :)

Women in Scripture #3

Today, I will shift the focus a little from a particular woman in Scripture, to a passage in Scripture that I believe has been used wrongly to support woman "staying in the home." The passage is Titus 2:1-9.

In this letter, Paul is giving Titus instructions on how teaching to various groups. He tells Titus to teach the older men to be temperate, self controlled, sound in faith, etc. He then goes into what older women should teach younger women (we will come back to this), and then he tells the older men to teach the younger men to be sound in their speech so that when others speak against them, they will end up shaming themselves (Jesus said something similiar--"heaping coals on their head").

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with the advice that Paul is giving Titus. There is absolutely a place for men to teach young men, and women to teach young women. There are things that my wife can teach (and should teach) a girl in our youth group that I can't (and shouldn't) teach her. Likewise, their are issues that young boys deal with that I can relate to and speak to that my wife has no experience with. So please do not hear me say that when it comes to discipleship issues we should mix genders. We shouldn't. The problem comes when people use this verse to say "women should stay in the home" (complimentarian camp) or when people use this verse to say "see women can only teach women and children" (sexist camp).

Here is what he says about women: " teach older women to be reverent, so that they can teach younger woman to love their husband and children, to be self controlled and to be busy at home...so that no one will malign the word of God."

Now at first glance this seems like an open and shut case that women should stay at home and love their husband and children. Now I do agree that women should love their husband and children (obviously!), just as a husband should love his wife and children(mutual submission--Ephesians). And I am not saying if a woman CHOOSES to stay at home and be a "stay at home mom" that she is somehow wrong or am I telling her to go do something else. I believe that is a calling just like any other. What I am speaking against is men who use this passage to make their wives stay at home in order to "live according to Scripture."

Here are a couple of reasons off the top of my head that this reading of Scripture is invalid:

1. Culture--To read this passage and apply it the way some people have is to take the reading completely out of its cultural context. In this culture, women were not allowed to work outside of the house. In essence they had to stay at home. So Paul here is basically telling Titus to train the older women so that they train the younger women to do their housework as if doing it for the Lord. (Col. 3:23). Also, in this culture it would be completely inappropriate for women to teach men. So Paul is writing within a cultural context and telling those who have become followers of the Way to live a life that is worthy of their calling. In other words, he is telling men and women to live in a way that brings glory to God within this particular culture.

It should be noted here, that when I speak of the treatment of women I am speaking strictly in the context of the country which I live. I am not saying we take these same principles and apply them to other contexts (i.e. Islamic countries). There should be different strategies based on whatever context ministry occurs.

2. Danger in "literalness"

I find it funny that men have used this passage in its most literal sense to "prove" that women should stay in the home. If we this passage is to be interpreted literally then the way this passage ends should be used to support slavery. Afterall, Paul does not say anything about releasing slaves or that slavery is wrong. Rather he simply tells them to embrace their life situation and be the best slaves possible. It seems to me that if one were to take this passage literal, that those men using this passage to keep their wives at home should also own some slaves as well. Yet, no one seems to use this passage to defend slavery (and they shouldn't, I am not advocating slave use. I am just pointing out the intellectual inconsistency). We cannt pick and choose which verses we want to take literally and which ones we don't within a particular passage. Either Paul is writing in a cultural context and we need to take principles from what he is writing and figure out how they translate into our culture. Or we take everything literal, which would mean that the complimentarian camp would have to take the slave verses literal as well.

There are other reasons that I believe the "literal reading" of this passage is off based, but I do not have time to go into them at this point. One final disclaimer. When referring to our picking and choosing of what to take literal and what not to take literal, I am not speaking about going passage from passage. In other words, there are places in the Bible that we should take literally, and there are passages that we should read as metaphors. All should be read with their context in mind, and understood in that context before applying principles to live by for us today in a different context.

This passage is not a passage that can be used to tell women that they can't teach men, or that they need to stay at home and take care of the house while the man works. If a woman feels called to be a stay at home mom, GREAT. However, if she is being forced to stay at home because of a horrific reading of this passage in Titus that situation is defined by one term: oppression.

Women in Scripture #2--Huldah

As I study this topic of women found in our Scripture, I am astounded at the leadership roles I find in the Old Testament and how the gender of the person delivering the word from God is never an issue. They receive it as authoritative because it comes from God, not because it comes from a man or woman.

Today I want to look briefly at Huldah. Reason being, I simply find the account of Huldah fascinating. Her story can be found in 2 Kgs 22:14-20 and 2 Chr 34:11-28. I would recommend reading it when you get the chance. Basically Huldah is summoned after Josiah's servants find a document during his temple renovations.

Huldah is summoned to validate whether or not the document is authentic. Huldah is a temple prophet, which as we have discussed before functions in the same role a pastor would today. She is not the only prophet during this time, however. Jeremiah is prophesying during this time as well. In fact, Jeremiah is probably closer in distance to Josiah than Huldah (according to some commentators), yet Huldah is summoned. This should put to rest the whole "women can serve if there is no man to step up" argument.

The story ends with Huldah declaring that the document found during the Temple renovations is authentic. Most people think that this document found is what we refer to in our Scriptures as the book of Deuteronomy. There is some debate about this, but the internal evidence seems to point to this conclusion.

So the story is basically about a WOMAN authenticating a document that is central to both Judaism and Christianity. Jesus quotes this book more than any other. So it could be said that God used a woman to start the canonization process by using her position as prophet to authenticate the writing as being from God.

Further, Huldah functions in the role of pastor more than Deborah. She takes a written text and interprets it, and then her prophetic words of judgment are based on a written text. Isn't this what pastors do every Sunday? Not the judgment part, but take a text and discern how the text applies to their congregation, and then speak prophetically from the pulpit on Sunday mornings?

Note also Josiah's reaction. It wasn't a "I can't listen to this, she is a woman" attitude. Rather he recognizes the authority with which this prophet is speaking, and quickly makes changes (tears his clothes because he realizes that they haven't been doing what is pleasing to God).

Isn't it ironic that the first person to authenticate a written text that is in our sacred literature was a woman. Yet, today they are not seen (in most churches) as having the right criteria to preach. Weird...Women are good enough to be used by God, but we have a problem with women in certain roles...

International Women's Day

I didn't even realize they had "International Women's Day." But here is a link my friend Brenda Sanders had on her facebook status. It is faces of displaced women around the world.

"Jim and Casper Go To Church"

Today's post will not be about women in Scripture. Two reasons: 1) I did not really have time to sit down and read well enough to discuss another woman or a passage about women in the church. Tuesdays are usually my busy day in which I go visit a member in the nursing home, go to lunch with some folks from the church, and then play dominoes with them the entire afternoon (hard job I know). 2) Our church has started a book club and it has been a really good thing in my opinion. I love to read and discuss, and I feel like we have read good books and had discussions on a variety of topics (i.e. The Great Divorce, The Shack, Same Kind of Different As Me, etc). The book we read for tonight was no different. The book for discussion tonight was, Jim & Casper Go To Church. In this book, Jim Henderson (Christian) and Matt Casper (atheist) travel to different churches around the country and basically critique each church.

There are some values for reading this book. First, it is always good to hear a critique from someone on the "outside." By outside I mean, a person who is a non-believer and does not attend church. It is usually their critique that is the most honest and challenging. Too often, "insiders" (people accustomed to a certain way things are done) get too comfortable in their setting and become immune to seeing the flaws of what they are involved in. In this book, it is the same way. Casper offers great insights into what most churches have become. His main gripe about the church is that too often the church does not compel anyone to "do" anything with what they heard in the service. He observed that everything was about belief and nothing else. While this is a valid critique on our faith, I think it is somewhat an unfair assessment by Casper. 2) No matter what you think about Casper's critique/observation it causes all who read to take an honest look at the church they attend and ask the question, "is what we are doing consistent with Scripture?" 3) Along the same lines it asks the question of whether or not we attend church for our own benefit (what we can get out of it), or to be equipped to serve (what we can contribute) in the Kingdom of God. I fear that the former is what is driving church membership. 4) Shows the true value of authentic friendship. These two men seem to genuinely care about each other, and that relationship grows throughout the book.

There are of course other values to this book, but I thought those were the two most important benefits.

The book also left me frustrated. In all honesty, I probably would have written a glowing report on this book had I read it in seminary. However, after being a pastor for 7 months now, I think this book is a tad bit unfair.

First, these guys are going to a church for ONE service. They are trying to critique a whole church based on what they do in worship. This is unfair because no one can adequately critique anything in one church service. As a pastor, I would fear to be critiqued after one sermon or one church service. Churches are full of people, fallen people. They are susceptible to bad days, and to base an opinion on what one church does in one service seems to me a tad unfair.

Second, there is no way to preach on everything in one sermon. Meaning, that Casper's critique about a pastor not charging someone to "do" something at the end of the service is not exactly fair. This relates to my first objection. When people gather together for worship they are bringing in a variety of different experiences from the previous week. Perhaps some have lost a loved one, some are stressed about school, etc. Anyway, there are times when a pastor's message is not going to be to "do" something. Rather, people simply need to be encouraged and reminded that God is in control, God loves them, there is hope in the name of Jesus. They do not ALWAYS need to be challenged to do something. I have preached sermons where my application was simply to rest in the fact that they are loved by the God of the Ages. Trusting that when they remember that fact, the Spirit will drive them into action in His timing. It is impossible for a pastor to cover every aspect of the Christian faith in one sermon. Now to his point, there does seem to be this emphasis on belief rather than lifestyle. In other words, believe the right things and you will go to heaven. We have missed the mark on this one. Christianity is not all about "getting into heaven." Anyway, I thought that his critique on this aspect while valid on an overall scale, was unfair to the pastor's preaching the sermons he was hearing.

There are tons of other things that this book made me think about, and there were a lot of things that we discussed as a group. These were just initial thoughts to the book. I have more thoughts of course on the book, but I would recommend the book to anyone involved in church, or that has grown up in the church. I especially would recommend this book to anyone on a church staff. This book will make anyone think about what we call "church" and if what we do as a body lines up with Scripture.

Women in Scripture #1--the implications of what we say

As you read from my previous post, I have decided to go through the Bible and look at different women from our Scriptures. My hope is to simply start a conversation about why we have the view of women we do in the church. It seems to be very inconsistent with Scripture, and at times seems to portray God as a sexist who has relegated women to a "lesser" role of teaching women and children only. Through examining the Scriptures, I am hoping to at least take the first step in changing the way in which we view the roles of women in our churches.

Again, from the previous post, this is a passion of mine because I believe that passing on the legacy of our faith to the generation behind us is very important, and we cannot continue to pass on this legacy of oppression in the church. However, with that being said, change in church usually comes slowly. So to all the women out there who want to see change happen fast, and will pretty much do things in the church just to show men that women are capable of doing things...STOP! While change is necessary, it is also necessary to maintain the unity of the body. Tearing a church apart just to prove that women are equal to men is as unpleasing to God as the treatment some women get in our churches today. The goal should always be to maintain the unity of the body while change is occurring. With that being said, the generation of woman today (and those fighting the good fight with them) will probably feel like they are making very little headway in terms this topic. However, have hope! That the work that is being done now, will serve generations of women in the church far into the future!

Now let us turn to one of my favorite stories in Scripture, featuring one of the most prominent Judges in all of Israel's history. In Judges 4 we find a woman named Deborah. Now Deborah is one of the major judges in the story of how Israel takes the land of Canaan. Deborah is the only judge to be called a prophet (MALE or FEMALE). In this story Deborah summons Barak (leader of the Israelite army) and gives Barak orders that she has received from the Lord to go to Mount Tabor. She then gives him specific instructions. Barak refuses to go if Deborah doesn't go, and so Deborah goes with him (she doesn't fight though). Long story short, the battle is won and another woman, Jael, is given glory for the victory because it is she who kills Sisera with a tent peg through his temple. The story ends with Deborah and Barak singing a song in celebration.

Now this story is one of my favorite stories, mainly because the method of how Sisera is killed is so awesome (morbid I know). But deeper than that, when I read this story, I think of how it wouldn't even have happened had the Israelites had the same view of women we do today.

Deborah is a judge/prophetess. That in itself would be problematic for us in the church today, since the role of the prophet, and role of pastor are very similar. Deborah's job as judge is to rule according to God's law. Her job as prophetess was to hear from God and lead the people of Israel in the way that God directs. Both of which she does beautifully. And incidentally, it doesn't seem as though anybody mentioned in this story has a problem with the fact that Deborah is a female. The sons of Israel continue to come to her to rule over matters they can't settle, and Barak does not seem to have a problem with hearing God's instructions through a woman.

Now I know this story is not happening in a "church setting," but it is a story of God using Deborah as an instrument to accomplish His plans for the people of Israel. God has equipped Deborah and He used her, something I think we don't allow for in our churches today. In fact, I have even heard horror stories of young girls telling a pastor that they think they are called to pastor a church, and that pastor telling the young girl she is either wrong, or has heard wrongly from the Lord about her role in vocational ministry!

I have even heard sermons on this particular passage where the preacher has said Deborah is in a leadership role because there were no men who were willing to step up and fill that role! Now as absurd as that sounds from the reading of the story (Barak gathered 10,000 men--surely one in ten thousand would have stepped up, right?) this was a very common view of women that I would hear when I first became a Christian.

The statement would be made something like this (and this is not just pertaining to the story of Deborah, but to women in general): "God uses women in leadership roles where they would have authority over men, only when there is no man that will step up and lead."

Now the implications of this statement are horrific! In other words, females in the church are God's back-up plan, God's second choice, etc. Now if I asked someone who made a statement like the one above if the saw women as "God's back up plan, or God's second choice," a lot of them would say no , but that in a sense is what they are saying. That God in His infinite wisdom, created women, just in case there was a time in history where men didn't step up to the plate His plan could still move forward.

We need to consider the implications of what we are saying and what we are not saying. When we use language like the quote above we are in a sense telling young girls, that though God may have equipped you for great things, you can only use those giftings in certain areas, unless of course we can't find a man to do something then we will call you. Conversely, if this is something that is never talked about in our churches, and the only people young girls see at the pulpit or on staff are men, we are sending the same message by your silence. Yes a girl may never hear the words "you can't do that," but the median of never seeing women used in any other way than the status quo is still sending the same message.

May we as a church think about the implications of what we are saying or what we are not saying. May we start looking for the giftings that God has given each person (men or women) and start making that the criteria for roles people have in our churches today.

What legacy are we really leaving?

Today I preached on Acts 12:1-19. In this passage there is a phrase that is very powerful, but if read quickly can be easily missed.

We all know the story (or at least I assume we all do) of Peter being delivered from prison. James has just been killed by the sword, Peter is in prison about to suffer the same fate when an angel of the Lord intervenes and delivers Peter from the hands of Herod. The story is told in a very Greek comedic style, so if you haven't read it, go read it now!

If you do read it, pay particular attention to verse 17. The phrase "Tell James and the others." Basically Peter is recounting the story to people that were praying for his release and his final instruction is of the utmost important. "Tell James..." In this short phrase, Luke has illustrated something very important. Peter will disappear from the story, and James will now be the head of the church in Jerusalem. Luke has just made the transition from the apostles being the leaders of the church to a second generation Christian (James) taking over a leadership role.

The "passing of the torch" is very significant because as Judges 3 reminds us, we are always one generation away from turning and worshipping a different God. In other words, people have short memories, and if there is no one passing on the story of faith, then the generation following will forget all about what God has done in the past.

Reading about this passage, and teaching on it this morning caused me to ask our congregation the question, "what are we passing on to the next generation?" Not necessarily by our words (though those are important), but by our actions (decisions we make, how/if we are connected to a body of believers, etc.). Since posing that question, I have been thinking about what it is our churches have been passing on for generation after generation. While this is not meant to bash the church at all, because I think that the church has been established by God to be used in his mission, and as a witness to the rulers and principalities of the heavenly realm (Eph. 3), I do think it is ok to critique the church where there is a shortcoming or in my view a very damaging view of Scripture. With that being said, I think that the church has a terrible view when it comes to their stance on women and the roles that they can hold in the church.

For some reason, we have used the Bible to oppress women instead of liberate them and tell them that they are of equal value as men. Galatians says that "there are neither Greek or Jew, male or female..." In other words, there is no distinction between sexes in the Kingdom of God. Yet the church seems to be the last place on Earth to embrace this kind of thinking. I mean if you look in the business world, the academic world, or any other aspect of our society women are in leadership roles all over the place, yet we as a church hold them back.

We cannot continue this legacy of treating women like this in our churches. God has gifted women with wonderful talents and skills that are just waiting to be used, yet are not utilized (unless teaching children). Incidentally, women are not the only group of people our churches oppress. Single people are another big group of people that we oppress in the church, by relegating them to a different Sunday school class (sometimes in a completely different building) as if they are a different group of people all together such as college students or youth aged students, or not allowing them to have certain positions in church, etc. But that is for a different post.

The way we treat women really hits home with me, because I have an amazing wife, who has the same degrees I do, is qualified to be a pastor more than I (her giftings are compassion and mercy, she is a great counselor, I could go on). Yet she is going to school now to become a teacher in a middle school (please note, being a teacher is an admirable occupation, and my wife will be a great teacher). My point is, that she is doing this because there are very limited jobs she can get in a church setting. Now let me say that I am so pleased to be at a church where she can be Youth minister and utilize her skills that God has given her. So please don't hear this as an indictment on the church we are currently serving. My point is simply this, we have women in our churches right now who God has equipped to be wonderful instruments in His redeeming mission, but are just sitting in our pews not being utilized because they were born the wrong gender.

Now let me say this little disclaimer. I am not saying that we need to go in cavalier style and change everything all at once. What I am saying is that we need to search Scripture and start having the conversation about women and their roles in the church. Looking at examples of women that were involved in leadership positions of the church, looking at passages that talk about women in the church (yes, even those that may seem at first to say the opposite of what I am talking about), and honestly discuss if our views of women match what is said in Scripture.

So that is what I plan to do, my next blog posts will try to look at different women in Scripture, different passages dealing with women in Scripture and hopefully at least start a conversation about the message we are sending either explicitly by your speech about women, or implicitly by our complete silence on the subject and maintaining of the status quo.

In my opinion, sexism is no different from racism, and the message we are sending to the generation coming up after us needs to change. Anyone would be up in arms if someone were not allowed to be a deacon, pastor, youth minister, etc. because of they were black, asian, or hispanic. I think it is about time we started viewing this topic through that same lens.

As I said, my hope is to look at one passage every day and to really look at the women of our Scriptures and hopefully start a conversation that moves us from our oppressive attitudes towards women and we can pass on a legacy that is pleasing to God.

So I hope you enjoy!

Children: illustration of good or bad?

I have been thinking about this topic for some time now. It first originated with a conversation I had with a good friend at the BGCT convention in Houston back in November. Now, I could not tell you how we got on this topic, but nonetheless it left me with something to think about and so I decided to put my thoughts down on here and see if there were any thoughts on the subject, or if I am once again delving into things that no one else really seems to care about. :)

The topic I am referring to is the use of children in sermon illustrations. I have not been a Christian that long (coming up on 10 years in August, and really those first 3 years are what I refer to as a nominal Christian. Nominal meaning that I went to church, but Jesus had no influence on how I thought, treated others, used my money, saw the world, etc. In short, Jesus was just something I added to all the other things of my life). Anyway, with all that being said, since I have become a pastor I have really started paying attention to sermon illustrations more closely. I have always enjoyed a good sermon, in fact that is usually my favorite part of the service, and a service can be ruined for me quickly if it is a sermon I feel is unprepared or just really bad theology (i.e. using the phrase "be sober minded" as a text to tell people to abstain from alcohol). Since I have started paying attention to sermon illustrations I have noticed that ALL of illustrations using children are to point out how sinful we are. Why is this?

Now let me say this. I am not arguing against original sin, or even saying that it is a bad thing to use children as an illustration of our fallen nature. You can watch kids interact and see immediately they are selfish and self-centered at times (of course you can add other things to the list here). However, it seems to me that we fall short when using children as sermon illustrations if we only use them to illustrate the negative.

The reason this is troubling to me is that Jesus (particularly in the book of Matthew) seems to always hold them up as examples to people when answering how to enter the Kingdom of God, or when teaching them about characteristics of kingdom citizens (KoG belongs to such as these; to enter the KoG you must become like little children, etc.) If Jesus does this when it comes to children, why don't we? Where did this idea come from that we can only use children to illustrate our sinful nature?

When I look at children interact, I see far more qualities of being like Christ than I do when looking at adults. For example, in our nursery we have two little ones that are the about the same age. Now of course they have their bad days and they get moody if another takes the toy that "belongs" to them. However, 10 minutes later after having just fussed at each other, you can see them playing together as if nothing happened. In other words, they didn't keep a record of wrongs (attribute of love found in 1 Cor. 13).

Or if you were to take a group of people, with diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds and put their children in one place, and the parents in another room. I would venture to guess that if you came back in an hour the kids would all be interacting with each other and playing games with one another and you would think that they had been friends for years! On the other hand, if you went into the room of adults, my guess would be that you would find different groups huddled up in different places and they would be marked by some kind of common bond (either socioeconomic status, cultural, or ethnic). Now some might say this is just a hypothesis, but I have seen this happen in real life. And the reason this is so is because children haven't been taught (either implicitly or explicitly) the prejudices of the world in terms of other groups of people. I believe this is what Jesus is talking about when he tells us to become like little children. To see the world through the eyes of children, to see beyond the outer appearances, and embrace those around us as if we have been friends for years.

I could go on and on about positive examples that I have seen in children. Giving a homeless person money (yes their parents gave them the money). But the excitement they exude when giving is something that I have always hoped would be in me.

All this to say, I understand why ministers use children to illustrate sin and our bent towards being self centered, etc. But I do not understand why we don't hold them up as examples the way Jesus did.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic as well!

The Great Divorce

Well in my first update I mentioned that I believe we had our best discussion at book club thus far. It was over C.S. Lewis,' The Great Divorce.

I mainly enjoyed it because I thought it was one of the really good theological discussions that we have had at book club. Do not get me wrong I think our book club has been extremely good and I have enjoyed reading all the books we have read so far. That being said, I really just enjoyed the discussion of the book. And with that, I will just give my take on the book, because to try and recast the entire discussion would be very hard to do, and I would not want to misrepresent what anyone had said. So what follows is my personal take on the book.

For those of you who have not read the book, I will try to summarize what the book is largely about. For those of you more familiar with the book than I am, please forgive me if this is a crass overview, as it has been a month and several books ago since I read it.

Basically it is a book of conversations between different people after they have passed away on Earth. The book begins with a man in a small town boarding a bus. The bus then takes him on a journey through Heaven and Hell where he meets a host of supernatural people. Before I give my take on the book, let me say that this is written as an allegory and Lewis right off the bat says that this was not intended to be the "end all, be all" of what the afterlife (heaven and hell) would look like. However, I do believe his theology of Hell comes out in this book.

Before I get to that however, there was a strong theme in the book:

Lewis is concerned with how a loving God could send people to hell. In other words, if God is love (as the Bible claims Him to be) then how could God send someone to a place that is torturous? Further, how could He sentence them there for all eternity. This is a valid question that I have asked myself. In the book, Lewis basically points out that God does not send people to hell. Rather God has given the invitation in Christ Jesus for all to accept him and spend their eternal lives with the Father. People end up in hell, separated from the Father (according to Lewis) because they CHOOSE not to accept Jesus.

So it is not God who determines who goes to hell and who goes to heaven, rather it is the responding to the invitation that the Father has already given in Christ Jesus. Now I know that my Calvinist friends would disagree with this point. However, I completely agree with Lewis here. To say that God sends (predestines) people to hell so that others might see His glory is (in my humble opinion) a very masochistic view of God. If God is love then there is no way that He created anyone to go to hell. John 3:16 says that Jesus died for ALL, meaning the invitation has been extended and people are able to freely reject or accept God's offer of salvation. It should be said that Lewis is not advocating a works based salvation here (and neither am I). Rather he is simply saying that human beings have the freedom to accept of reject the Father. It should also be said here, that the offer of salvation is initiated by the Father through the Holy Spirit and that there is a freedom to accept of reject the offer from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise how could love even exist? If a response is coerced one way or the other, how can love truly be expressed. In the determinist view of things, I was going to be a Christian from the beginning of time, and if that is true, then how is it a loving response to surrender my life to Christ if the Father knew he was going to make it happen a long time ago? Without choice there is no such thing as love.

So I liked Lewis' take on why people go to hell and are separated from the Father (I believe for eternity). It is a choice to refuse or accept the offer of Jesus. If it is true love, then a choice has to exist. God does not send people to hell. Hell is a result for those who reject the offer of salvation through Jesus.

So that seems to be the issue that Lewis is mainly dealing with in this book. And there are several other things that come out of this book that are really good and that I really liked. Lewis seems to be really big on the sanctification process and you truly desiring to be changed by God in order for that to happen. In other words, for the God to really get rid of something in your life that is hindering you from being all that you were created to be in him, then there is going to have to be effort on your part as well (or at least the desire for something to be changed). I think this is biblical: "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." So overall I really enjoyed reading this book. That being said, his theology on hell really bothered me and made it troubling for me to read.

As I said before, Lewis is trying to reconcile the concept of a God,who is love, sending people to hell. I do appreciate his take on the fact that our choice on this earth, namely rejecting the offer of salvation is what sends us to hell (not God predetermining who is going and who is not). However, I believe Lewis goes to far in his theology. (And the following is not explicit in this book, but I believe it to be implicit. This next part is from reading other things by him). Lewis believes that a God who is love would not keep people in hell for eternity. This would not be love. Rather, Lewis believes that people are offered a second chance at Christ after they pass away. Again, he cites choices as the reason people remain in hell. He sees those who remain in hell as people who are making the conscious choice to stay there. The illustration is a door locked from the inside. Meaning that to get out all one needs to do is to turn the key from the inside and walk out.

Lewis gets his thinking from George MacDonald (ironically a character in his book). MacDonald offered the possibility that there could be opportunities for those who reject Christ, or for those who have never had the opportunity to accept him in their lifetime. In fairness there are passages that seem to indicate that MacDonald might have some validity to his claims. In 1 Peter for example Peter seems to indicate in a couple of passages that Jesus actually preached to those who were already dead and imprisoned in the afterlife (1 Peter 3:19; 4:6) In Ephesians 4:9-10 it seems to indicate that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth to fill all things. MacDonald would argue that these verses seem to indicate that Jesus' work to save the lost extends beyond our concept of time and space.

So for Lewis (whose thoughts come from MacDonald) a loving God cannot send people to hell (we do that by rejecting the offer of salvation) and a loving God could not possibly keep people in hell for eternity (we remain by refusing to give up our desires and rights we believe we are entitled to) for to keep them in hell would not be loving either. I completely disagree with the latter portion of his thinking.

As I said, I appreciate Lewis trying to explain to people that God is not this heartless deity that simply doles out punishment on people and sends some to hell in order that he might be glorified more. But I cannot go so far as to say that Jesus offers another chance of salvation after death. It is a very nice thought, but does not seem to be very biblica,l save for a few obscure passages that MacDonald uses. I also appreciate the fact that Lewis and MacDonald are taking the problematic issue of those who did not have a chance to accept Christ into account in their theology of the afterlife. However, I believe the whole of biblical witness goes against them in this regard.

While I cannot begin to explain what happens to those who never had the opportunity to accept Christ. Or what happens to those who suffer from mental retardation and will never fully grasp the concept of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and therefore never come to a "saving knowledge" of Jesus. Or what happens to infants who passed away at birth (though I have no biblical support on this one, I am convinced that infants who pass away are not condemned to hell). In these instances I believe that we must trust in God's infinite wisdom and justice and judgment (something MacDonald would for sure not like). I don't believe it is our right or responsibility to start assigning these people to heaven or hell, rather we are to leave that in the hands of the one true judge.

Those circumstances aside, I believe that those who are confronted with the choice of accepting or rejecting Christ only get that opportunity in this lifetime. I am not saying it only happens once and if rejection happens then that is it for that person. I am saying that biblical witness seems to say that there is this life, we either reject or accept, but when we die there is judgment (see book of Hebrews).

All of this to say that I enjoyed Lewis' take on why people go to hell, but I believed he went to far in his view on people getting a second chance after they die to accept Christ. This is the one time I hope I am wrong! For it seems to be a nice idea, a nice thought, and an ideal way for things to work. Yet I am not convinced it is the biblical picture we get of judgment after death.

I would strongly recommend reading this book. It is filled with awesome characters and good dialogue. If anything else it will make you think about different issues. It will for sure make you think about choices that we make in this lifetime that go beyond simply accepting or rejecting Christ. I think the back of the book says it best, "This is the starting point for a profound meditation on good and evil."

Overall it was a good read, an entertaining read, just my knowing of his theological stance on things made it hard for me to get past what was implicit in this book. A lot of people will tell me that this book was about the power of choices. And to an extent I agree with them, but the whole book seems to put forth, at least implicitly, his view on a second chance of accepting Christ after death.

That's my two cents worth on the book! :)

Update of the Update!

Well I apparently I am not as disciplined at this blogging thing as I thought I would be when I first started this blog back in August.

In my defense, I did not think I would be as busy as I have been either! But it is a good busy, not complaining, just explaining why these posts have been fewer and farther between. At any rate, my last post I gave an update on what had been going on in our lives since the last post. So here is a small update from that blog since it has been longer than I anticipated getting back on here to "blog."

The study of the book of Mark has been quite good, though we have not had it the past 2 Sundays for various reasons, I have enjoyed the conversations we have had over the first 2 chapters. We spent the majority of one Sunday night talking about Spiritual warfare, and demonic possession and cool stuff like that! It was awesome/amazingly beneficial to discuss (in my humble opinion).

The lock-in was fantastic! We had 48 students show up and would have probably had more but we left to go to Waco to bowl 15 mins after the scheduled start time (Chilton kids are notorious for showing up 30-45 mins late!) Anyway, the group of kids was good, and despite having that many students there weren't really any problems in terms of transporting the kids from Chilton to Waco and then back again (special shout out to Lisa Little for driving the bus!). The D-Now is coming up at the end of February and we are busy getting things finalized for our Free Market coming up on Feb. 13th (like a garage sale, only we give everything away to those who need it more than we do...it's a great thing to be a part of...you should see our annex!)

There are 6 of us going to Mexico. It is exciting to see people really excited about the trip. One youth exclaimed how excited she was to be going out of the country! Of course I gave her a hard time that we will only be 1 mile out of the country, but that didn't seem to dampen her spirits any (which is good!). Anyway, things have been going well here, and I have really been enjoying the book of Acts and going through it. It has reminded me of the primacy of the Holy Spirit's role in the church, and the supreme importance of a church being very prayerful as we witness to the world. I hope others have enjoyed hearing me go through it Sunday mornings!! :)

Ok that is an update since the last update...I will try to blog more often to avoid doing all these updates! :)

It's been a while!!

Ok so I realize that it has been a while since I last updated this blog.

But bear with me, the holiday season is CRAZY!

So this is what has been going on since I last "blogged."

We ended our series, "The Kingdom of God and Money" the next to last Sunday in November. The last Sunday in November started the Advent season and so Meredith, two friends--Jeff Gravens and John Gram--and myself wrote an Advent devotional that we handed out to our church. This was a daily devotional that was intended to help families focus in on the real "reason for the season" as some would say. Our hope was that after the series on money and our responsibility when it comes to how we use our money (or wealth) that the devotional would help to keep that focus going through the Christmas shopping season.

I believe the devotional was a success and people really liked it. I got a report from a pastor who was using the devotionals in his church, and he said he was receiving a lot of positive feedback. So it looks like we will continue this trend next year. I should remember to send a shout out to Meredith's mom, Sharon Pillion for doing an excellent job on the printing and binding of the devotionals for the church, they looked FANTASTIC!

We ended the Advent season with a Christmas Eve service that Meredith planned out. She did a great job. The turn out was good considering that it was our first time doing it in a while, and the weather outside was frightful (snow and ice). I personally thought it went well and hope everyone who attended enjoyed the service as well.

Christmas morning, Mere and I headed out to Abilene to spend a few days with her family. Dr. Brian Brewer, a professor from Truett Seminary preached on the Sunday after Christmas allowing Meredith and I to attend services in Abilene with her family. It was a welcomed break, but there was a sense of sadness of not seeing the people of FBC Chilton on that Sunday morning.

I guess that is what caused my sickness and left me in bed and having an explosion of vomit the day after Christmas! Other than the sickness, time with family was good. Sorry to Mere's family for apparently setting of a string of virus attacks!

Our first Sunday back, we picked up in the book of Acts and are continuing that series. My hope is that we will learn lessons from the early church about what it means to be a church and that it will manifests itself into how the community of Chilton views us. I will keep an update of what we are talking about as we go through the book.

Lastly, we are going through the book of Mark on Sunday nights. It is my favorite gospel and I am looking forward to it. Also we have our first mission trip as a church coming up during Spring Break (first one since we have been here) and Meredith has planned a lock-in for the youth on Jan. 22, and a Disciple Now the last weekend in February! We also just completed what I thought was the best conversation we have had as a book club recently. The book we discussed was C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce." My thoughts on the book and the discussion will be in a separate post.

Well that is our lives here in Chilton from the last post until now, I hope you enjoyed it! 2010 (properly pronounced: "twenty-ten") :) is going to be AWESOME!!