Category: Life with Others

Small but Significant Church: A Review of an EFC Study

Hiemstra, Rick and Lindsay Callaway.  The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada“Significant Church: Understanding the Value of the Small Evangelical Church in Canada.”  Toronto, ON: Faith Today Publications, 2023.

A review by Tim Stewart, also published at: Northwest Institute of Ministry Education Research

 

“Is it ok for a church to be small?”

Rick Hiemstra and Lindsay Callaway, authors of a recent EFC study, seem to think so.  While ministry organizations, denominations, and publishers have often focused on the needs of larger churches and their strategies for numerical growth, the EFC has taken the time to explore and discover the unique opportunities and particular needs of smaller churches.  Commissioned by a group of thirty Canadian ministry organizations and church denominations, the EFC conducted a multi-stage research process between 2019 and 2022.  Beginning with a review of relevant literature, they proceeded to interview dozens of ministry experts and pastors before finally distributing a survey to 569 pastors of smaller Canadian evangelical churches (10).  Thus, their research model facilitated a progressive narrowing of their focus toward the most pertinent questions and issues before broadening their reach to their targeted subjects.

And what did their survey accomplish?  Perhaps to put it most succinctly, it gave a voice to those who are, in a sense, “voiceless.”  While small-church pastors certainly speak to groups on a regular basis, it would be rare for their views to be heard beyond their immediate context.  They may preach to fifty or one hundred congregants every week, but no publishers or conference circuits are knocking on their office doors.  Does the small size of their congregations indicate that they are not worth hearing, or might we learn something valuable from them?  Hiemstra and Callaway have taken the time to listen and find out.

And so, what did their study reveal?  Before even mentioning their survey results, the authors establish an essential point: that small churches are fundamentally different from large churches.  This crucial distinction is supported by experts like Lyle Schaller and Tim Keller who argue that church size, more than any other factor, gives shape to the relationships, ministry goals, staff roles, and atmosphere of a church (18).  Thus, when trying to define “smallness,” Hiemstra and Callaway indicate that it is more of a “mindset” than a numerical value.  While large churches are known for complex structures and polished programs, small churches are marked by simplicity of ministry and relational proximity – they are places where everyone can know each other and share a common identity (19).  However, anthropologist Robin Dunbar claims that this “mindset” actually does correspond with a number: humans are only cognitively capable genuinely relating to 150 people or less.[1]  Accordingly, for the purposes of their survey, Hiemstra and Callaway have used this same number as the upper limit for their definition of “small church.”  Yet, this anthropological rule does more than provide an arbitrary number for categorizing churches; it raises a new question: “is it good for a church to be bigger than that?  The authors clearly view small churches not as inferior versions of larger churches, but as communities that are uniquely suited to “succeed in particular kinds of ministry” (10).

While these ideas are well-explored in church ministry literature,[2] this EFC survey makes a crucial contribution to the ongoing discussion: by interviewing and surveying a large number of ministry leaders from a focused subset of the Canadian church, they are able to illuminate the differing perceptions that people hold about small churches.  Most notably, their survey reveals a strong contrast between the language used by denominational leaders and the language used by pastors when speaking about small churches.  Whereas the former frequently referred to them as “toxic, needy, discouraged, insular and broken,” the latter chose terms like “family-like, welcoming, faithful, and community-minded.”  As denominational leaders identified “difficult people, poor leadership, and low pay” to be problems in small churches, their pastors spoke of the advantages of belonging, being known, and valued in community (24-25).

What do these survey results indicate?  It seems, to the authors, that “denominational perceptions may be driven in part” by implicit rewards for numerical growth and the frequent need to intervene in unhealthy congregations (22-27).  While the first part of that assertion may be conjecture, the second might reveal a potential bias in the results of this survey.  It could be that denominational leaders predominantly hear from churches experiencing crisis or a pastoral transition, while the EFC researchers might have received more survey responses from pastors who were content in their role.  That being said, the survey still highlights the stark difference between these two perspectives and gives a voice to many who have not previously been heard.  By doing so, it underlines a crucial point: there are actually pastors and congregants who prefer the intimacy, participation, and other inherent advantages of small churches (22, 25, 27).

Perhaps these pastors would resonate with the writings of Eugene Peterson, who relentlessly defended the vocation of a pastor as one who would “know and value and love people in place and over time in Jesus’s Name.”[3]  Rather than dealing primarily with theological abstractions and remaining aloof from his surroundings, he practiced the “art of small talk,” engaging humbly in down-to-earth situations.”[4]  Recognizing ministry opportunities in “the interruptions,” he also affirmed that participating in Christ’s “incarnational” ministry must necessarily be personal, practical, and relational.[5]  Therefore, for Peterson, being a faithful pastor necessitated that he serve in a small church, where he could know everyone’s name.[6]  How else could he fulfill His vocation?

Recognizing the value of the small church context for ministry, Hiemstra and Callaway seek to find out from pastors what success looks like in their particular situation and what their churches need in order to thrive.  Their survey helps to demonstrate just how hard it can be to transfer “church growth principles” into contexts that are shaped by a unique congregational history, demographic change, and economic turmoil.  Moreover, pastors shared that what mattered most to small congregations was getting know their unspoken “covenant” that guided their family-like relationships.  Only when a pastor became “part of the family” could he or she be permitted to renovate the home (45).  This is a great example of the unique contribution that a survey like this can make: while some authors and experts may offer a “bird’s eye view” from their office or headquarters, this study has collected and processed a great deal of ground-level insight directly from the “front lines.”

However, it seems that not everyone views ministry success in the same way.  The survey generally reveals a tendency for denominational leaders to define it quantitatively, and for pastors to define it qualitatively.  Although this sounds like an over-simplification, it could be concretely observed.  While certain denominational leaders blamed pastors for a lack of numerical growth in their churches, some pastors spoke of numerical factors (finances, human resources) that impeded the spiritual growth and health of relationships within their communities (70-73).  For whatever reason, there appears to be a disconnect that needs to be bridged in order for these pastors and churches to feel affirmed and supported.  Moreover, many pastors described a disconnect between their “specialist” theological education and the daily demands of a ministry “generalist.”  On average, they reported spending 30% of their working time in “areas of weakness,” which was often exacerbated by times of crisis.  Accordingly, the authors suggest that denominations, Bible colleges and seminaries should develop ways to support and develop well-rounded pastors for such ministry settings (91, 105).

Yet, despite all that has been said, a question remains: are small churches worth it?
Are they simply inferior versions of larger churches, with pastors who can’t get the job done?  Have they simply failed to implement proven principles of growth, due to their stubbornness and complacency?  Or do they serve a unique and necessary role in God’s kingdom that is worthy of our attention and support?  According to their pastors, the answer to the last question is yes.  Small churches provide an ideal context for valuable ministry to occur.

Furthermore, others are seeing the value of smallness in ministry too.  Some, after experiencing problems with larger church settings, have started movements of smaller missional communities in order to “put discipleship back into the hands of ordinary people.”[7]  Others, in response to cultural fragmentation, have called for a return to the “faithful presence” of local parish ministry.[8]  Lastly, noting how believers were dispersed into local congregations in the book of Acts, Brandon J. O’Brien calls for churches to reimagine what success looks like.[9]  He argues that, rather than “trying to imitate large-church ministry, small churches would do well to recognize and capitalize on their own inherent and strategic strengths.”[10]  These ideas ring true for me, as I recall times when Jesus left the crowds to focus on His disciples, and times when I have experienced the value of slow conversations and congregational participation in the small churches where I’ve served.

I once heard someone compare church fellowship to a rock tumbler.  That analogy stuck with me, as I have served as a solo pastor in small churches for twelve years while collecting rocks for about three times as long.  Each time I climb a mountain or visit the beach, I return with pockets full of treasures – each with its own origin story, unique composition, and notable properties.  Just like the unique people in church!  And the idea is, as they tumble together, bumping into each other and creating friction, their rough edges get smoothed off and they emerge from the barrel transformed into gems – or, at least, the best versions of themselves.

So, for those who are tumbling in the barrel, serving in close quarters alongside others in a small-church setting, I expect that this EFC study may provide just what you need to hear: voices of others on the front lines, working in the thick of similar situations.  These voices have affirmed the value of small-church ministry, and offer helpful insight for educators, authors and denominational leaders who want to see churches of all types thrive.

 

[1] Robin Dunbar, (1998). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 77.

[2] Gary L. McIntosh also describes One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Bringing out the Best in Any Size of Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1999), 17, 21.

[3] Eugene H. Peterson, The Pastor: A Memoir (New York: Harper One, 2011), 216.

[4] Eugene H. Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 122.

[5] Eugene H. Peterson, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 7.

[6] https://www.missioalliance.org/eugene-petersons-long-obedience-in-the-same-direction-a-personal-tribute/

[7] Mike Breen, Leading Missional Communities (Pawleys Island, SC: 3D Ministries, 2013), v-vii.

[8] Paul Sparks et. al., The New Parish: How Neighborhood Churches are Transforming Mission, Discipleship and Community (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), 188.

[9] Brandon J. O’Brien, The Strategically Small Church (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010), 21, 29.

[10] Brandon J. O’Brien, The Strategically Small Church (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010), 35.

How to Disagree

Disagreement – this is a reality we live with today, woven into the fabric of our everyday lives.

You walk to the grocery store, where you are greeted at the entry with signs telling us what to do and what not to do; we are told who is welcome and who is not. Strolling up and down the aisles, trying to follow the arrows on the floor, you notice an unmasked person walking towards us. Instantly, judgments begin to form in our minds. Age, gender, and racial profiles are drawn up, and stereotypes are silently reinforced. They smile, oblivious to your inner dialogue – how will you respond?

We gather for a Thanksgiving meal. We awkwardly greet each other at the door with head-nods, conscious that some guests are anxious about expanding their social bubble. Others are not with us, due to rules and feelings about vaccination status. In conversation, we remember those who have lost their lives due to Covid-19, and we remember those who have lost their livelihoods due to our government’s response. During this pandemic, some jobs have become much harder; others have disappeared altogether. Conspiracy theories are proposed. Judgments are made. Our perspectives, based on our personal experience, can feel incompatible.

We sit in church – united in our worship of God, our attentiveness to His word, and our commitment to fellowship – children of one Heavenly Father. We are told, in Scripture, that we are one. But, as we look at the person across the aisle in the next section, we wonder: are they “pro” or “anti?” Are they “fearful” or “free?” Are they “tolerant” or “bigoted?” Subconsciously, we have divided one another into categories and camps, as defined by the culture at large. We think that we have figured people out before we actually meet them – and once we’ve pigeon-holed them, we may not even want to meet them.

How did we get here? We live in a country known for its tolerance. Ever since the British won the Seven Years War in 1763, Canada has been officially multicultural and bilingual. French, English, and more. We know that a person’s ethnicity and language do not define what it means to be Canadian – just look at our Men’s National Soccer Team – our coach and top two scorers were born in other countries.

Moreover, Canadians have also been known for their tolerance of diverse values. When Conservative Leadership Candidate Kellie Leitch proposed that immigrants should be “screened for Canadian values,” it drew much criticism. Though the proposed values had to do with non-violence, gender equality, and work ethic, they were viewed as too exclusionary by her opponents.

And, until now, many have viewed our Prime Minister as the figurehead of Canadian tolerance. Columnist Licia Corbella reports that in a eulogy for his father in October, 2000, Justin Trudeau told a story of a lesson his father taught him:

“But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father’s chief rivals. Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him. A generic, silly little grade school thing.

“My father looked at me sternly, with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: ‘Justin, we never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone, without denigrating them as a consequence,’ and, saying that, he stood up, took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man.

“He was a nice man, who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl, a little younger than I was. He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit, and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from another does not preclude being deserving of respect as an individual.

“Because simple tolerance, mere tolerance, is not enough. We need genuine and deep respect for each and every human being, notwithstanding their thoughts, their values, their beliefs, their origins.

“That’s what my father demanded of his sons, and that’s what he demanded of his country.”

Justin Trudeau

In light of this winsome quote from so long ago, it is concerning to see how times have changed. While some have argued that his claims of tolerance have always lacked substance, Trudeau’s own words are beginning to show it. In a French-language interview during the 2021 election campaign, he referred to the unvaccinated in this way:

“They are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists. It’s a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?”

Surely, the role of PM would be taxing on anyone – and the amount of criticism he faces must weigh heavily on him. I, for one, know how tempting it can be to defensively counterattack those who oppose me. But, dismissing them as a “fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” does not square with the fact that after the spread of Omicron, a majority of Canadians now agree with the stated demands of the truckers – for restrictions to be lifted. Despite this, Trudeau continued to label his opponents in startling terms:

Such name-calling not only divides people and destroys dialogue, but it also doesn’t reflect the reality facing our country. Numerous studies have shown that the “vaccine hesitant” actually come from a broad swath of society, and have been over-represented by certain visible minorities, women and Liberal voters! Based on another study by Abacus Data, their chairman asserts,

“almost half of (the vaccine hesitant, 46 per cent) live in Ontario and well over half of them (59 per cent) are women. A quarter were born outside Canada. Their average age is 42 . . . If they were voting in a federal election today, 35 per cent would vote Liberal, 25 per cent Conservative, 17 per cent NDP, nine per cent Green.”

So, maybe the people we disagree with are not as evil as we thought. Despite what we hear from certain politicians and media sources, people who hold different views on an issue do not fall neatly into stereotypical categories. Rather, in all likelihood, we have more in common with them than with the rich and powerful voices who have been sowing division in society. Recently, even members of the ruling Liberal party have begun to speak out against the replacement of political dialogue with divisive and dismissive language. Contrast this with an Ottawa resident’s effort to speak personally with the protestors outside his window, to actually hear them out. He was surprised by what he heard!

But I digress. Politics is not the main issue here. It is only an illustration of the issue that each one of us face, each and every day of our lives. Finding a new leader will not solve the problem – politics is not the answer. Each and every one of us need to know how to handle disagreement properly.

Back in May 2021, after the BC government lifted its 5-month ban on in-person religious services, our church slowly began to re-gather outdoors. And as we did, we spent some time exploring Romans 12-16, where the Apostle Paul instructs a very diverse church about how to get along with each other and to function in this world. And while many have looked to Romans 13 for guidance about church-government relations in these times, I found Romans 14 to be even more relevant for us today. While the church must always carefully consider how it relates to the surrounding culture, its ability to function and properly witness to the world will depend on how well its people relate to each other. Consider Jesus’s New Command to His followers, and His prayer for them recorded by the Apostle John:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

John 13:34-35; 17:20-23

Of course, the question remains – “how do we do this?”
If the church is like a family of adopted children, how can we keep from quarreling?
If the church is like a body of many parts, how can we work in synchronization?
If the church is like a building, how do we ensure the bricks all line up?

Well, each of these Biblical analogies contains its own answer – as adopted children, we look to our Heavenly Father and disregard any previous identities. As parts of the body, we look to the Head, Jesus Christ, for direction. And as a building, we are founded on the Word delivered by the apostles & prophets, and united by the Spirit Who dwells in us all.

But when getting down to the nuts & bolts of how to live this out, Paul offers some helpful words to the Roman church. Located in a vast metropolitan center of politics, culture, and trade, they regularly dealt with ethnic and social tensions. But, rather than taking sides in these matters, Paul offers some wise, peacemaking principles:

14:1 – “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.” Here is the first principle – if someone disagrees with you about an issue that is not essential to the faith, then show them acceptance. Recognize that their difference may come from weakness – they may be extra-sensitive to an issue due to their previous experience. Show the same acceptance to one another that Christ showed us (Romans 15:7).

14:3 – “The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” The second principle: both sides of a disagreement have potential to harm the other. One whose conscience allows them to exercise freedom in a certain area (alcohol, diet, Sabbath) should not look down on another who feels the need to limit themselves. And on the flip side, one who follows certain negotiable rules should not judge the person who does not. We must not let secondary issues divide us. In these days of social upheaval and political unrest, the church is in danger of becoming hijacked by political factions on either side, and taken off course from its primary mission.

14:13, 19 – “Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister…Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” The third principle: both sides of a disagreement have the ability to make peace. We can start by asking ourselves, “am I being overly sensitive?” or, “am I being insensitive?” An offended person can withhold their judgement, leaving the issue with the Lord (v.4), while an offensive person can choose to limit their own freedom to avoid distressing others (v.15, 20).

14:22 – “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” The fourth and final principle: talk less, and listen more. Some things are not worth debating; social and political issues come and go, but God’s word remains forever (Isaiah 40:8), and Jesus never changes (Hebrews 13:8). His commands to the church are clear, and we know what we’re here for: to love God, our neighbor and each other – and to make disciples of all nations. Delving into the latest controversies of our culture can divide the church and distract it from its primary purpose. While the church can offer a prophetic voice in response to contemporary issues, and should engage in meaningful dialogue with its neighbors, it doesn’t need to let the latest fads of culture set its agenda or define its goals. We know who we are, and where we’re going. Let’s invite others along for the journey!

Personally, I am so thankful for how Parkdale Church has continued to be a place of acceptance and love – even through these trying times. I trust that Christ will continue to build His Church, guided by His Spirit in each and every believer. My hope is the same as Paul for the Roman Church:

May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 

Romans 15:5-7

Here’s a message on Romans 14 if you’d like to reflect on this more:

Race and History: A Review of “Unsettling Truths” by Mark Charles

Aside from pipeline protests, political campaigns, and the pandemic, one thing we may remember from 2020 are the race-related protests: Black Lives Matter. As a white male who has grown up in Canada, I have grown up in what I understand to be a multicultural society, and consider people of other cultures to be some of my closest friends in life and co-laborers in ministry. I have known that racism has existed in history and exists in individual exchanges, but felt ignorant about systemic issues today. It always seemed that political correctness and celebrations of diversity in our culture meant that everyone had a chance. But language of identity politics has been getting louder and louder – framing some as “privileged” and “oppressors,” and others as “oppressed.” I wanted to learn more, to understand these feelings as best as I could.

A friend recommended this book as a starting point. Unsettling Truths is written by a first-nations American (and Korean co-author) and seeks to explain the origins and effects of the Doctrine of Discovery. From Eusebius to Augustine, from Aquinas to Calvin, the authors explain how European Christianity slowly began to see themselves as God’s chosen people. This “White Christendom” mentality was used to justify slavery, colonialism, and genocide in North America.

Moving on to American history, the authors explain in great detail how the founding fathers and founding documents of the Republic reflect this same attitude, articulated in the “Doctrine of Discovery.” This doctrine laid out a framework for how Europeans would divide and conquer the land, while failing to consider the rights of native populations. This European Christendom attitude eventually took root in the New World settlers in the form of “American Exceptionalism,” with their “Manifest Destiny” of possessing the “Promised Land” like Israel before them. Obviously, this also led some to try to justify the removal or killing of the original inhabitants.

Moreover, the authors explain in great detail how pervasive these attitudes were – even in the actions and words of American cultural heroes. For example, before Abraham Lincoln was elected, he repeatedly sought to reassure voters that he would protect the privileges of whites. Then, while “liberating” slaves, he also authorized alternate forms of slavery through incarceration, and authorized the displacement and killing of natives. Or Robert McNamara, secretary of defense at the start of the Vietnam War, who supervised the fire-bombing of Tokyo, killing more civilians than either atomic bomb. The victors write the history, and determine who is a war criminal.

ca. 1915-1922, Washington, DC, USA — Daniel Chester French sculpture (ca. 1915-1922) of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln memorial in Washington DC. — Image by © Bernard Annebicque/CORBIS SYGMA

All of this history can begin to feel burdensome, and make one wonder – what can we do about this now? Thankfully, the authors (Charles, in particular) offers practical insights and hope for the future. I greatly admire his efforts to not simply accuse and dismiss others, but to create fruitful dialogue toward reconciliation.

He helpfully points out that apologies and friendships between individuals are nice gestures, but fall short of dealing with the root issues. He calls for a recognition that trauma can be experienced communally and be passed down intergenerationally – it can accumulate over time and space. Therefore, these issues need to be dealt with communally and systemically. More could have been said on this – the specific systemic issues and barriers that are relevant today – but I suppose that’d take another book!

Yet, reconciliation goes two ways – and the authors recognize the trauma that the other side can feel as well! Noticing the defensiveness and denial show by many whites, they contend that convicted oppressors (or those associated with or benefiting from them) can feel their own sort of trauma. Without calling them “fragile,” the authors acknowledge the need for compassion for and dialogue with one’s “enemy.”

While it’s impossible for me to say “I agree with everything,” because I don’t have the knowledge or ability to check every fact, the author assembles a compelling case that deeply rooted attitudes have had a long-term negative effect over race relations. 

If I were to offer any rebuttal, it would be to ask for grace and compassion – not only for current day opponents (which he does well) but for historical figures who are seen as part of the problem. While I completely agree that “past heroes” need to be taken down from their pedestals and seen for the real, flawed people that they are, this does not mean that their good accomplishments should be ignored. So, in Lincoln’s case – yes, his words would not pass the PC test today, and his policies are backward through our present day lens. But what was considered realistic and possible in his time? What options were in his realm of possibility? Did he contribute positively, taking any steps in the right direction? I’d say yes. Did he do enough? Probably no one can say that they have. So, yes – he’s not the perfect hero we thought he was (no one is), but is he worth celebrating? To some extent – along with others who we may have missed.

Overall, I’m reminded of the need to listen to others – to hear their stories with an open mind. And also to hold my privileges with an open hand – how can they be used to help include others?

On the Coronavirus and Cancelling

It was Christmas Day, 1996. In Victoria, BC, it was -8.1 degrees Celsius, a record low. It had been snowing there for 3 days, and people were enjoying their “white Christmas.” But the snow didn’t stop – four feet of it fell between Dec. 27-29, and the city experienced the third-highest snowfall in a 24-hour period, of any Canadian city on record. Quite an accomplishment for the city with the lowest annual average of snowfall in the country. The city became paralyzed; roads were impassable, ferries were docked, airplanes were grounded, and doors were blocked by the mounds of white powder. It was said that the city became so quiet, that you could hear sea lions barking on the shores from several kilometers away.

Yet, in the stillness and silence, Good Samaritans came out of the woodwork. Donning cross-country skis, they delivered food and medicine to shut-ins, and shoveled their walkways. Then they shoveled them again – and again. For Victorians, snow is often seen as a temporary inconvenience that disappears in a matter of hours or, at worst, a few days. But when the city found itself unprepared for the storm of 1996, it brought people together in never-before-seen ways. In fact, for some, it was the best Christmas ever. (See Vancouver Island Book of Everything, p.90)

Now, in 2020, we have the Coronavirus outbreak. As of this moment, there have been over 155,000 cases, and 5,000 deaths. See live updates here. Now, I’m no expert on this issue, but I find it interesting to observe the social effects and ask what we can learn. Here are a couple thoughts:

  1. Facts are Easy to Miss
    We read headlines. We hear soundbites. But there’s a good deal of good information out there, if we look for it.
    It has been said that, though we have no vaccine ready for this virus, the death rate is relatively low (compared to other such outbreaks) and that it primarily concerns those whose health is already compromised. But, this doesn’t mean it should be ignored. It is a tragedy that so many seniors are dying from this, and we need to protect them. Yet, encouragingly, the growth curve has decreased drastically in China and Korea, where the outbreak first began. Counter-measures are working, as can be shown here.
    Moreover, given that the virus spreads through bodily contact and transmission of fluids (through the mouth, eyes, etc.), people have been advised to wash hands, avoid touching their face, and restrict contact with others. This is essentially what people already do to avoid the common cold and the flu, which kills many more people annually than this virus.
    Yet, this has been declared a “national emergency.”
    It is certainly serious, but how should we respond?
    Here are some practical steps that churches can take:
    And some more informed, balanced advice:
  2. The Power of Fear
    I have never before observed such widespread panic in response to such a threat. Perhaps people who are older than me can compare this to the nuclear scares of the cold war, when people lived in fear of an atomic bomb being dropped by the Soviets (see this article quoting C.S. Lewis’s thoughts on this). But for me, after seeing various wars, terrorist acts, and more deadly virus outbreaks occur on our planet, this time feels different.
    People have been panic-buying toilet paper – of all things. One person has stockpiled hand wipes and is making a fortune. Stock markets are plunging. These seem like overreactions – especially given the data mentioned above.
    Public advisors have wisely called for gatherings of 250 or more to be cancelled, in order to decrease the virus’s spread. As a result, major sports leagues have paused their seasons, school assemblies have been cancelled, and large churches have closed their doors on Sundays.
    I have no objection to these recommended safety measures. But what about smaller gatherings, like school classes, social gatherings, and even small churches? My own church has needed to face this question.
    No one wants to be labeled as the “bad guy” and be held responsible for spreading the virus. But I have visited malls, grocery stores, parks, and restaurants that remain open, though they accommodate more people than my church. Daycares and schools have continued, due to the low risk for young people. If they cancelled, much of society would come to a standstill. Healthcare providers, who are well-trained in sanitation, continue to treat patients in hospitals, clinics, and dental offices. So, should I still host my birthday party? Should my child go to music class? Should a small church still meet? Is it offensive if we do? Can choices be left up to individuals?
    Sometimes, in this “age of outrage” in mass social media, it feels like the greatest thing to fear is the toxic reactions of those who are offended.

Now, to change gears a bit, how then shall we live?
What can be learned and gained from this?

What is Lost
For the moment, we have lost large public gatherings. Not long ago, we were wondering whether or not the Toronto Raptors will get another long playoff run, whether the Maple Leafs will finally win a playoff series, and whether the Canucks will finally see postseason play. At this point, they all appear unlikely. There are also no concerts, no school assemblies, and no large church services. A large void has been left. Is that good or bad? Without large church gatherings, is this the end of Christianity as we know it?

A Historical Perspective
After instructing a course in Early Church History, I can’t help but think of the incipient church as it existed in the context of the Roman Empire. Christianity was officially illegal, so Christians gathered in homes, in catacombs, and public squares. Christian gatherings had to fit into their everyday routines and the common places of life (see the book of Acts in the New Testament for more on this). Yet, before it became Rome’s official religion in AD 380, before priests wore fancy robes and led services in opulent cathedrals, the young church grew rapidly, as Sociologist Rodney Stark calculates:

And how did the church grow?
Rodney Stark also shares some ideas about that. Apparently, during plagues in 161 and 251 that killed up to a third of the population, the Christians were known for staying in urban centers in order to care for the sick. They also became famous for saving abandoned infants, who were usually female. Not only did this add children to their numbers, but it demonstrated their value and respect for women in general. These factors, in addition to their willing martyrdom for their faith, added weight to their message. Considering this, one might wonder what was lost when the church became wealthy and politically powerful. For more on this, look at St. Antony and the beginning of the monastic movement.

I have often told my church that buildings and pastors are “temporary luxuries” that we enjoy and use in this particular time and place in history. They can be useful tools for strengthening the church and serving the world, but they are not essential to it. Moreover, legal status and tax exemptions should not be taken for granted. If they are ever removed, along with the ability to hold large gatherings, what would be left?

One need only to look to countries like that today for examples. Who would have guessed that Iran would have the highest Christian growth rate in the world? Yet it is doing so “without buildings and central leadership.” Afghanistan is second highest. Moreover, the growth of the church in China has become well-known, despite the difficulty of many churches to gather publicly.

So, back to the question – when we lose large gatherings, what is lost? Have we placed too much emphasis on Sunday gatherings, while neglecting our more basic calling to discipleship and being good neighbors?

What is Found
Perhaps, rather than worrying about what is lost in the case of a pandemic, we can look for what opportunities come through this.
With the loss of professional sports and other large forms of public entertainment, a void has been created.
What will fill that void?
Will we binge-watch shows on Netflix?
Or, just as in the snowstorm of ’96, will we look up from our own affairs and look to our neighbors?
Now that we are forced to stop many things, will we discover that we never really needed them in the first place?
Will we, in the quiet, in our free time and enforced space to ourselves, find that God has always been there, waiting for a moment like this, to connect?
I’ve sometimes found, in moments of enforced stillness (computer crashes, car breaks down, bus is missed, a meeting is cancelled), that they come just when they’re needed most. And periods of extended rest can often be wonderful times to reconsider our life priorities!

So, in this time of great anxiety, as we feel a sense of loss and lack of control, what will fill the void? Where will we turn?
What opportunities will God bring, and what is He saying to you?

Psalm 62
1 Truly my soul finds rest in God;
    my salvation comes from him.
2 Truly he is my rock and my salvation;
    he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

3 How long will you assault me?
    Would all of you throw me down—
    this leaning wall, this tottering fence?
4 Surely they intend to topple me
    from my lofty place;
    they take delight in lies.
With their mouths they bless,
    but in their hearts they curse.

5 Yes, my soul, find rest in God;
    my hope comes from him.
6 Truly he is my rock and my salvation;
    he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.
7 My salvation and my honor depend on God;
    he is my mighty rock, my refuge.
8 Trust in him at all times, you people;
    pour out your hearts to him,
    for God is our refuge.

Acts 1-8: A Pattern of Spiritual Growth

What’s wrong with the church?
What should it be like?
What was it originally like, in the time of the apostles?

Have you ever pondered these questions? 
It seems to me that this sequence of three questions, or something like it, has probably entered every thoughtful churchgoer’s mind at some point.  When things seem to be going wrong, at least from our view, we wonder what we’re missing, and our thoughts go back to the early church.

Kenneth J. Stewart, an author to whom I am related, has noted that many evangelicals are looking to Catholic and Orthodox churches for more “authentic” or “original” experiences of Christian worship.  However, he argues that it is not tradition, form, or succession of leadership that defines the true church, but biblical doctrine.  Staying true to the authority of Scripture, the need for personal faith, and the practical living out of that faith is what has historically separated the true church from its variants.  Ever since apostolic times, there has always remained a stream of faithful believers who hold to these convictions.

Ok, but what would this look like today?
How can a church gather and worship, practically living out their faith in a way that is faithful to Scripture?

Many people look to the book of Acts for answers, trying to find a formula to follow, or a model to replicate.  Acts 2:42 might be the most popular verse to be used for this purpose:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Of course, this list of activities are to be recommended and practised by churches today.  But this verse was not meant to be a complete blueprint for the church of all ages.  Acts 2:42 is actually one of many point-in-time snapshots of the early church, as it developed.  Using this as a timeless model would be like trying to replicate Martin Luther’s lectures, John Wesley’s “holiness groups,” or the Azusa street revival in our present time without any regard for our particular context.  Moreover, viewing this point-in-time as ideal would be ignoring the process of how the church developed to that point, and how it developed from there. 

When you read Acts as it was written – as a narrative – you can see a fledgling group of Jesus-followers develop into a united fellowship, then into a mature organisation, and then into a global movement.  It is this pattern, I believe, which we have seen repeated in other places and other times over history; it is this pattern that we can hope to replicate in our own context, in its own way.

I’ve reflected further on this in a short sermon series.
Or, here are some brief thoughts, below:

Acts chapter 1 may be one of the most forgotten chapters in the New Testament.  Readers and preachers may be eager to get to the story of Pentecost in chapter 2 – but what led up to this?  After Jesus resurrected, and before He ascended, Jesus instructed His followers to wait for the Holy Spirit, Who would empower them for their mission (Acts 1:1-8).  So, the apostles and other followers of Jesus, numbering 120, gathered in an upper room to pray.  And as they continued to meet, we see something completely ordinary happen – they open the Scriptures, and seek God’s will together.  This, it appears, is the seed of the church – a “small group Bible study & prayer time.”  Before any public gatherings, programs, or missions developed, these 120 disciples of Jesus committed to meeting together, united in worship of their Savior and Lord.

How much effort to churches and church planters put in to attracting large gatherings?
Didn’t Jesus shy away from these sort of things, in order to prioritise time to disciple the few? 
He knew that He would never physically reach every single person – so He started a multiplying movement, commissioning His disciples to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).  And as the story in Acts continues, we’ll see how this worked.

In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit descends, fills the disciples, and empowers them to proclaim the good news to a multicultural crowd in their own languages.  The result is an instant mega-church – three thousand new believers were baptised, having repented of their sins and believed in Jesus.  This is where we arrive at the famous snapshot in verse 42, mentioned earlier.  And certainly, it could be seen as a description of the pristine, ideal church gathering:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Devotion to Scripture (the New Testament is the apostles’ teaching), to fellowship, eating together/celebrating communion, praying – these, of course are essentials, and serve as a good model to follow.  But the description of this early church goes on – the church also had miracles, communal possessions, daily worship gatherings and meals, favour in the community, and daily conversions.

How did they have time for this?  What motivated them to such a courageous and committed lifestyle?
The closest I’ve come to this is youth group, where I was part of a community of people with a lot of time for each other, and a lot of energy to spend on behalf of others.
Acts 2 was a special time.  Pentecost had just happened, which was a one-time event, birthing a new era among God’s people.  It’s not that we shouldn’t expect these things in our church, but we must recognise this as a step in the journey – a journey that can be taken again and again by God’s people, but never exactly the same at every time or place.

By Acts 6, the church had grown by the thousands, and the apostles were beginning to bend under the weight of the practical needs that came with such a large flock.  Offerings were being given, and needed to be redistributed fairly – particularly to the widows among them.  The church had become culturally diverse since Pentecost, and conflict emerged between Hellenist and Hebraic Jews.  Note that at this point, the church is still basically Jewish – those are the people who had come to the Pentecost celebration, and that is the nation who had been awaiting the Messiah, Jesus.  But some Jews, especially those who were dispersed around the Roman Empire, had adopted some Greek customs and certainly spoke the Greek language.  It was these newcomers who were feeling neglected by the widow-relief program that had begun.

People complaining in a church about favouritism …sound familiar?  What to do?
This is a point where we see the church grow and mature as an organisation.  The apostles create a new level of leadership – a sort of middle-management.  The congregation nominates Hellenistic “deacons” or “ministers” to oversee this practical need, and the apostles affirm them, so that they can be freed up to focus on prayer and Scripture (remember how it all began?)  So the apostles keep the main thing the main thing, and the church is beginning to run its own ministries.  Finally we have a healthy, fruitful church…

…And then Acts 7-8 happens.  Stephen, one of the new ministers, is martyred.  The church scatters.
All is lost…or is it?

Just as we can overly-idealise the organic, pristine, ideal fellowship of Acts 2, we can also fall into thinking that when you get to Acts 6, you’ve arrived – big numbers, functioning programs, appointing leaders – this is the dream of every church leader, right?

But what was their mission, again? 
Why did the Spirit come, again?
Acts 1:8 tells it pretty plainly:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Just when the church was getting comfy, enjoying growth, stability, and favour among the people, it gets scattered.  But as the believers scatter, they begin to fulfil the mission to which they were called in the first place:

Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. (Acts 8:4)

And as the story continues, we see the gospel spread from Judea to Samaria, and the ends of the earth – embracing all peoples into God’s family.  We see that God saves people to send them; He calls people to commission them; He blesses people to make them a blessing.

In light of the whole story, we see the purpose of each step along the way.  The church begins with a gathering of worshippers; that grows into a thriving community; that develops into an organised ministry; and that multiplies into a global movement.
I believe we can see this process in individual people’s lives, as well as in the development of churches (see how Rick Warren described church ministry in The Purpose Driven Life, below).

Does it relate to you and your church?
If so, what stage might you be at? 
What step might God be leading you to take?

 

 

Is Your Church is Too Safe?

Just over a year ago, I was called by Parkdale Evangelical Free Church to join their family and serve as Pastor.  God had led me through a searching year of letting go of where I was and what I was doing – and now He had shown me the next step.  God provided us with a ministry calling, a home, and a loving community to join.  We moved on September 1, 2016.

Since then, people have often asked me, “How’s it going at Parkdale?”  I tell them that I am very grateful to be part of such a healthy, loving family of believers.  I appreciate that our gatherings can provide a time and place for people of various generations and backgrounds to unite in worship and warm fellowship.  It is a family that likes being together – whether it be cheering on their softball team, building homes in Mexico, or enjoying a barbecue lunch.  Parkdale is a community that I am glad to share about with others, and when they visit, they speak of it’s warm atmosphere.

Not long into my time as pastor here, a senior member of the church showed me a photo directory of Parkdale, from the early 1980’s – before the time that I was born.  What struck me most was not the odd hairdos, or the lack of ethnic diversity that are characteristic of that decade – it was simply this: that less than a handful of the people in this directory still attended the church!

This is not to say that there are no seniors at Parkdale.  Thankfully, we have a good cohort from that generation.  While some from the 1980’s directory have passed on to glory, there are many who have not.
So, where are they?

Some people leave.  It can be connected to a pastor’s departure – three have left since the early ’80’s.  It can also be for personal reasons – a crisis of faith, a personal conflict, or a new chapter in their life journey.  But, for every “leaver,” there is usually a “comer” – someone leaving elsewhere and coming our way for a similar reason.  So, what do we do when they come?

Some people move.  People don’t keep jobs and careers like they used to.  And when one member of the family moves, it can start a chain reaction, as others follow to support or be supported by living closer together.  And yet, Victoria is not de-populating.  On the contrary, Victoria’s population has grown from 64,000 in 1981 to 85,000 in 2016.  Over the same time, Saanich has grown from 78,000 to 109,000.  People leave and people come.  Are we reaching those newcomers?

This is where the conversation gets a little uncomfortable.  It is wonderful to enjoy and participate in a loving church family.  But times change, and people don’t always stay forever.  Therefore, unless new people are welcomed into the fold, it’s only a matter of time before every church will go extinct.  Fortunately, in Parkdale’s case, the departure of 90% of the people from the early 1980’s has not resulted in the extinction of the church.  It lives on!

What does this mean for us, today?

Well, for one, the church is not all about us – nor is it all about the people who are in it.  Just like a family, there is an understanding that we are living, gathering, and serving for others – for the lost who will be found, for the next generation, who will rise to take our place.

Second – safety, stability, and even unity are not our goal.  They are wonderful to have, but are fruits of something else, something deeper: a common mission of following Jesus Christ.  In church, there can develop a “Noah’s Ark” mentality, of creating a safe place to gather and visit – safe from the world and its evils.  But, pursuing safety leads to exclusivity, and stagnation.  We fear people who are different, who might hurt us or influence our kids badly.  We hesitate to try new things, or to be too generous.  We shrink back from doing anything together outside of the walls of our building – for fear of being seen, tested, and rejected.  And, as a result, the life is drained from the fellowship.

If, however, our goal is to follow Jesus, and to invite His transformation of our lives, then safety takes a back seat.  Jesus calls us to give up our lives and trust that He will give us a better, truer, eternal one.  Paul tells us that God’s will is our sanctification and wholeness.  He is working through all the challenges of our lives, to make us more like Christ.  As we give up our old lives, our new lives are being restored back into the likeness of our Creator.

This transformative journey can involve discomfort.  We may experience turbulence.  But, strangely, there is nowhere where we will find a deeper sense of safety than in our Heavenly Father’s arms; there is no more stability than in being part of God’s eternal plan; there is no truer unity than the fellowship of following Christ together, being one in Spirit and purpose.

Where have you experienced these things?  For me, it is when I know that I am in the centre of God’s will for me, exactly where he wants me, doing what He has created and called me to do.  Whether that be on an overseas mission trip, or feeding the downtown homeless, playing with my children, or praying with church members, there is safety, stability, and unity in following Jesus together.

What is He calling us to do?

Not long after I began serving at Parkdale, I invited the church to read a book together: Your Church is too Safe.  Perhaps the title turned some people off; but, evidently, the title attracted some – before long a group was gathering to discuss it.  The author, Mark Buchanan, had pastored on the Island for 17 years, and this was his 7th and final book – a last word, before he moved on to teach at a Seminary.  The book was full of stories – funny stories, inspiring stories, challenging stories.  Together, our group caught a vision for what church could be:

In the world:

  • Venturing into middle ground to meet people
  • Offering compassionate presence, not just money
  • Being hospitable guests, not just hosts
  • A fellowship of travellers, not tourists
  • Break down walls: free the captives

Not of the world:

  • Both attractive and relevant, by loving well
  • Utterly dependent on God, embodying faith
  • Full of grace and truth
  • Attractive and magnetic, unified community
  • Build walls: distinguish selves

Overcoming evil with good:

  • Transforming, not avoiding what is unclean
  • Reflecting God’s risky generosity
  • Turning the world upside down

Over the past year, it has been encouraging to see God at work among us at Parkdale, in some of these ways.

  • When an AA group asked to use our building, they were welcomed and accommodated.  We opened our doors, knowing that hospitality also means vulnerability.  What will come of this?  I hope and pray that our new friends will discover Jesus as the Higher Power.
  • When COBS Bread asked for charities to distribute their leftover bread, our people jumped at the opportunity.  Each week, bread is gathered, bagged, and given to those in need (even of just some cheer).  Gathering and bagging takes time and energy.  Distributing it takes courage.  What will come of this?  I hope and pray that it will create common ground with others and facilitate fruitful conversations
  • When I asked if there’d be an interest in beginning Freedom Session at our church, again, the response was positive.  This ministry will involve confession.  It will involve openness.  It will involve accountability.  But, I trust, it will open the door to healing and spiritual growth in our lives, and the lives of others who we reach.

Are we still too safe?  Perhaps.  Who knows what steps of faith Jesus will call us to take, as we follow Him?  How can our worship, our fellowship, our Daycare/Preschool, our homes, our jobs, and our social lives become instruments for His glory?

But I am grateful for the steps we’ve already taken together on this journey together.  Let’s be listening for His voice as we proceed.

 

Seeing People with God’s Eyes

I remember the fascinating and ground-breaking 1999 movie, The Matrix.  Neo, the protagonist, is living in an artificial reality – a dream-world created by robots who’ve conquered the earth.  Most humans have been reduced to dormant power-generators for their mechanical masters.  At some point, Neo is awakened from his slumber, and comes into contact with a few humans who have been liberated from the blindness to reality.  Their leader, Morpheus, enlightens him, beginning with the now-famous question:

“What if I told you everything you knew was a lie?”

Actually, no, he didn’t say that.  That line summarizes the main idea of the story, but much ink has been spilled in discussing and clarifying that this now-popular meme did not exactly originate in the matrix.  See discussions here and here and the movie clip here.

But this just strengthens the point.  Neo was deceived into believing in a false reality, and so were many of us.  I was one of many who, before writing this post, would have agreed that the quote above was spoken by Morpheus.  But it turns out to be a fairly common phenomenon – we often fail to see things as they truly are.

If there’s one thing I could say about Jesus’s teachings, it would be this:
More thank correcting our doctrine, deeper than cleaning up our behavior, Jesus is interested in completely transforming our entire worldview.

Jesus calls for repentance.  In Greek, the term metanoia literally means to change one’s mind.  We need to understand things differently.  When He says that He is the Light of the World, He means that He is the Source of truth, the embodiment of Truth, the One Who can reveal how things really are.  C. S. Lewis put it this way:

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Many of Jesus’s teachings were difficult to accept.  He repeatedly turned people’s world upside down, affirming returning prodigals over self-righteous servants (Luke 15), affirming repentant sinners over prideful religious leaders (Luke 18:9-14), and assuring all that our reward from God is a result of His grace, not our work (Matthew 20:1-16).  He affirmed attentiveness over busyness (Luke 10:38-42) and indicated that earthy fortunes may be reversed in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-30).  In light of this different worldview, He began His Sermon on the Mount this way:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3-10)

Wow, what a different way of viewing the world!

Perhaps it should not be surprising, then, that Jesus’s earthly brother, James, should teach along a similar vein.  In a previous post, I’ve already shared how James seeks to give us perspective in the midst of trials.  In 1:9-11, he reminds us that the current state of both rich and poor is transient.  Therefore, we should learn what we can from present trials, and realize that God is the solution, not the cause, of our problems.

Now, in chapter 2:1-13, James addresses a practical issue: showing partiality.  For those who hold faith in Jesus Christ, there should be no partiality shown.  Then, just as Jesus illustrates a deeper point by giving practical instructions on how to throw a party, James illustrates his point with instructions for seating at an assembly: do not distinguish between rich and poor when you gather to worship.

Why not?  

Because showing partiality does not correspond with the new reality that we see in Jesus Christ.  No doubt remembering Jesus’s words from Matthew 5 quoted above, James reasons:

5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

The truth of the matter is that the poor may actually be rich, and the rich might actually be poor.  As became quite evident in Jesus’s ministry, it is the “poor in spirit” who tend to receive the kingdom of God (His reign in their lives).  It was the Rich Ruler who rejected Jesus’s invitation, prompting Jesus to remark,

“How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! (Luke 18:24)

It is difficult because the rich are tempted to trust in their things, rather than God.  Their things might be financial savings, educational credentials, social reputation, dwellings, life insurance, etc.  To the extent that they give in, they are cheated from experiencing the joy of growing in faith through trials (1:2-4), and knowing God as the Giver of everything good (1:16-17).  in chapter 2, James is even harsher, claiming that it is the rich who oppress you and blaspheme the Name by which you were called (2:6-7).

After denouncing what is wrong, James points us to what is right: the “royal law” of loving our neighbour as ourselves.  Showing partiality is antithetical to this simple and all-inclusive law to love.  A person who keeps the whole law, but fails at this point is as guilty as someone who broke the whole thing (2:9-11).

So, what should we do?  James concludes with this exhortation:

12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Verse 12 summarizes how we are to operate in this world.  If we view the world through worldly eyes, we will operate under worldly laws of how the world works.  We will pragmatically show partiality, in order to win the favor of powerful friends.  We will judge others to raise our own profile.  But if we view the world through God’s eyes, we will operate under the “law of liberty” that sets us free from the trappings of backstabbing competition, working for everyone’s approval and grasping for security.

When we realize that “every good and perfect gift is from above,” and we receive His “word of truth,” we are “brought forth” as “firstfruits of his creatures” (1:17-18).  Born again.  New Creation.  Believing and receiving the truth makes us children of God – adopted into a new family, with a new identity.  Old lines of division are wiped away, and we are united together as we are united to Him.

When we operate under the “law of liberty,” we are putting our faith in Jesus Christ, who set us free from the guilt and power of our sin.  We are believing that “mercy triumphs over judgement.”

So, James says, if you view the world this way, then “so speak and so act” like it!  Show the mercy to others, that you’re counting on receiving from God!

 

Two Ears, Two Eyes, Two Hands, Two Feet, One Mouth

As a teenager, I took a trip to some northern First Nations reserves, where my youth group planned to work with a local missionary and serve the community there.  During a training session, our instructor shared with us a proverb from the local tribes:

You have two eyes, two ears, and only one mouth.

The point was obvious – we should approach the people as humble learners, earning the privilege to speak.  Jesus, in coming to earth as a baby, took His time to relate to humanity before beginning His ministry.  In fact, 90% of His life could be considered to be preparation!

As our Bible sharing & prayer group read through James 1:19-27, it seemed that James seemed to be describing us in a similar way, to make a slightly different point.  To James, the present concern is living a righteous life, or practising “pure religion” – and the way to accomplish this may be surprising.

19-21 – First, we are to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”  Here, we’re reminded of how many ears and mouths we have.  Speaking quickly is associated with anger, which “does not produce the righteousness of God.”  What an understatement!  What a gentle, Canadian way of telling us what a bad idea it is to speak quickly, in anger.  Rather, we should put away evil, and “receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”

This “word” is the Good News of Christ, Who lived to show us God’s love, Who died for our sins, and rose to reign over His followers, dwelling in them and working through them by the Holy Spirit.  In 1:18, James calls this the “word of truth,” which essentially makes believers reborn as a new creation, and a foreshadow of the great renewal to come.

While speaking in anger does not produce God’s righteousness, hearing the Word can save our souls, and make us a new creation – making us righteous in heart, and increasingly in deed.  But the word must not just be heard, but we must “receive with meekness the implanted word.”  The Word must be humbly received, with a silent mouth, open ears, and open hands.

22-25 – But, having heard the word, which saves us, we must also be “doers of the word.”  Using our two ears should lead us to activate our two feet.  For James, this involves using our two eyes.  We are called to “look into the perfect law, the law of liberty,” and not just hear and forget, but respond with action, and be blessed.

James offers an analogy – if you hear without acting, you’re like a person who looks in the mirror, and forgets his own appearance.  This analogy is appropriate, because the law functions like a mirror – its purpose is to show us our sin, and our need for Christ.  But, James doesn’t just say “law;” he says “perfect law, the law of liberty.”

What’s the difference?  While the Old Testament Law showed us our sin and pointed forward to our Savior, James is here referring to God’s “perfect” law – in Greek, that word is teleios – meaning finished and complete.  Jesus fulfilled the law, just as He said He would.  In His life, He interpreted the heart of the law – that it is all about loving God and one another – and then He fulfilled it perfectly.  In His death, He paid for our sins, freeing us from the law which condemns, to serve in His grace. And having  resurrected, He reigns over all, living in us by His Spirit – to fulfil the law through us.  By faith, we receive Christ’s righteousness, and become “instruments of righteousness.”

This “perfect law, the law of liberty: (25) is the same as the “implanted word, which can save your souls” (21).  It is the good news of Jesus Christ which, when believed and received, brings us new birth (18) as a sort of firstfruits of the coming harvest – a redeemed creation, reconciled with God!  As John says in 1:12 of his Gospel account:

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

And what is life, as a child of God, like?  Here, we go full-circle – having heard God’s word of truth, having looked into God’s perfect law of liberty, we are called to put the words into action.  For James, belief necessarily leads to action.  If belief results in a new birth, a new beginning, and a new identity, then a new way of life should follow: pure religion.

26-27 – Religion has become a dirty word in our language and culture.  It is often associated with rigid, restrictive rules that suffocate our lives and leave us feeling inadequate or worse, condemned.  But, strictly speaking, religion simply refers to one’s order, system, or way of life that flows from their beliefs.  In other words, it is faith applied.

James begins by asserting that anyone who cannot bridle their tongue, but rather deceives their heart – their religion is worthless.  Being “quick to speak” is associated with anger, and not with God’s righteousness.  Rather, righteousness comes through hearing and receiving God’s word of truth.

Then James delivers one of the most memorable phrases in his entire letter: That, in God’s eyes, pure and undefiled religion looks like this:

  • visiting orphans and widows in their affliction
  • and keeping oneself unstained from the world

Visiting orphans and widows – do you know any?  You may or may not.  But, it might be more likely than you think.  In Biblical times, when there was no old age pension or social welfare system in place, people would rely on family  when in need.  Those who lacked family would hope that there’d be help in their community – especially their religious community.  Today, do you know anyone who has lost a spouse or their family?  This can happen through death, divorce, estrangement, abuse, etc.
How many people do you know, who’ve been through the foster care system, or through divorce?  They may lack a lot of the relational support that others may take for granted.  Pure religion calls us to give to others what we have received from our generous Father.

Remaining unstained from the world.  Here’s where it begins to sound really difficult.  Usually people tend to succeed at either the former requirement, or the latter.  It’s hard to do both!  While offering great compassion and understanding to those in need, we run the risk of falling into temptation – to conform to the lifestyle of others, or enable their unhealthy behavior.  On the flip side, by focusing on remaining “unstained,” we run the risk of being cold-hearted, aloof, and neglectful toward those in need.  We are saved to be sent; we are blessed to bless.  Pure religion involves holding your tongue, and offering a helping hand – while “keeping them clean”.

What could this wholistic religion look like?  Look to Jesus for an example.  And continue with me in this Letter by the Apostle James!

 

C. S. Lewis and “The Four Loves”

C.S. Lewis has written many books on many subjects, in many genres.  Often, people find his non-fiction writing to be too complex to navigate, or its context too distant to understand.  His examples from his contemporary world don’t always relate to today’s reader, and so they require a sort of translation.   Many great writers have undertaken this task – of studying and interpreting Lewis’ works, and applying them to the issues of today.  In many cases, this proves worthwhile, as Lewis’s writings are often quite applicable to issues that arise in postmodernity.

But, even for those who have not read Lewis or looked into his ideas with any great depth, the name Lewis carries an authority, perhaps unlike any other writer in contemporary Christianity.  If one can attach a Lewis quote to any claim, it provides instant validation.  Lewis is one of those few people who, after finding success in his given academic field (literature), became an authority in almost any other field – at least in the eyes of his followers.  Something similar could be said of Einstein (just look up what the famous physicist says about marriage, philosophy, etc.).

I grew up having the Chronicles of Narnia read to me and my siblings every summer vacation.  Their overall narrative allegorised the great meta-narrative of which we are all part; the plot and characters accomplished something similar to what the Bible’s narrative can do.  As a young adult, I worked through Mere Christianity, finding well-reasoned treatments of classic philosophical problems – especially concerning the existence of God.  Since then, I’ve tried to chip away, little by little, at his other writings.  I’m glad to say that, finally, I’ve finished The Four Loves.

Rather than formally reviewing it, and rather than picking out juicy quotes to share, I’d like to share what I got from it: a framework for understanding love.  Lewis did not provide a chart, like I have below; he followed his typical essay-format, progressively working through the topics in sequence.  Yet, as I worked through it, my systematic mind began noticing relationships between the Four Loves – how they were similar or different in various ways.  Below, I’ve attempted to express a few findings that have proved helpful for me:

Survival, Need
Involuntary Feeling
Possessive		 Civilisation, Enrichment
Voluntary Decision
Disinterested
Indiscriminate
Not Exclusive
Giving
Unmerited
Unconditional		 “Affection” = Storge
-“Need Love”
– Natural sentiment, loyalty, familiarity
– Family care
“Care for”		 “Charity” = Agape
-“Gift-Love”
– Giving without self-interest; sacrificial without self-protection
– Divine source
“Love”
Discriminate
Exclusive
Pleasure
Merited
Conditional		 “Eros” = Eros
– Desire to possess
– Romantic attraction
“Want”		 “Friendship” = Philos
– Approval, appreciation
– Culture, camaraderie
“Like”

To me, the advantage of a chart like this is that it doesn’t rank them; like many personality tests, it simply expresses them as a combination of binary choices.  The Myers-Briggs test offers four binary choices, resulting in sixteen possible personality types; similarly, Lewis presents us with four possible Love-types, and I have attempted to identify the two binary choices.

Lewis begins with a discussion of Affection, coming from the Greek word, Storge.  In many ways, he rehabilitates this word, showing how essential it is for the survival and stability of humanity.  It refers to a mother’s care for an infant, and any person’s pity for someone in need.  Moreover, it can apply to any sentimental feeling, toward something familiar – a place, a taste, an old friend.  The difference between this and Friendship is it’s indiscriminate, involuntary nature; while friendship comes from approval, affection reflects a deeper loyalty.  For me, I can think of a few friends who have become like brothers – through our common experience, especially in my younger years, they have become like brothers to me; because of our common past, there is a sense of loyalty.  Though I may find others with whom I have more in common, or even for whom I have more respect, no one can share my past.  What about for you – what happens when you meet someone new, who has had a similar past, or who is from the same hometown?  Perhaps that feeling, that sense of brotherhood, is Storge.

Lewis proceeds to describe Friendship, coming from the Greek word, Philos.  Unlike Affection, it is discriminate, or selective.  It occurs where there is commonality – of opinions, values, and preferences.  A bond forms when people, who have identified themselves with certain interests and characteristics, find the same in each other.  Yet, also unlike Affection, it is not needy.  Lewis warns of how familial affection can become a “need-love,” when the lover desires to continue being needed.  In contrast, Friendship respects the individuality of the other, appreciating and reinforcing his or her unique qualities that make him or her worthy of appreciation.  I can think of classmates, teammates, roommates, and co-workers who have stood out from the pack because of their unique qualities.  A mutual appreciation formed, where we did not try to change or control the other.  Yet, Friendship can also move beyond this to become needy – to become Eros…

Eros, a Greek word referring to romantic, possessive desire, is fairly straightforward.  Like Friendship, it is conditional, and discriminate.  But, beyond appreciation, Eros involves attraction; like Affection, it is needy and possessive.  Family affection can involve an unconditional, but possessive care.  Friendship involves appreciation from a healthy distance.  Eros combines elements of both – a conditional attraction with a desire to possess.  Obviously, this can sound rather negative; indeed, conditional and possessive love can become ugly.  But, in light of its similarity to the other loves, Eros can have a positive outcome.  Essentially, it involves a desire to move someone from “friend” to “family.”  In my own life, I’m glad to have Eros in this assigned place.

Charity, (based on the Greek word, Agape) similarly, combines elements of Affection and Friendship – only they might be considered to be the positive ones.   Like Affection, Charity is indiscriminate.  The objects of Affection and Charity are not selected – and so the love must be unconditional.  Yet, rather than being based on the un-chosen factors of family and background, Charity is based on the un-chosen, un-merited love of God.  Charity is given to us by our Creator, because we are His creation.  This is often referred to as “common grace;” God shines the sun and drops the rain on everyone (Matthew 5:44-45).  Charity is also shown preeminently in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Who died for the sins of humanity (1 John 2:2), so that we can be forgiven, and reconciled with God.  It is from receiving this love that we can love (1 John 4:19).  While sharing the non-selective nature of Affection, Charity also shares the disinterested nature of Friendship.  It is not needy, but enriching to the other.  While Eros and Affection desire to possess and be needed, Charity gives unconditionally.  Rather than arising from a felt need, Charity, like Friendship, is a voluntary decision.  Yet, unlike Friendship, Charity is not exclusive; Charity gives to all, equally.

Charity, of course, is impossible – humanly speaking.  I just performed a wedding where the couple chose 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as their theme verses.  It gives a perfect, beautiful picture of what Charity/agape is.  Yet, as we read this inspiring vision of the perfect love of God, we are also made aware of how much we fall short of it.  These verses serve as a double-edged sword, serving as both an inspiring ideal and a condemning comparison.  

I actually once heard someone tell another person to insert their name in place of the word “love” in 1 Corinthians 13, and to use it as instructions for life.  Imagine reading that – while at first it may sound flattering or inspiring, deep down you’ll know it’s a lie.  At the wedding I recently officiated, I didn’t want to just leave the poor newlyweds with a set of instructions.  I wanted to assure them that there is good news.  Look what the apostle John, “whom Jesus loved,” says about love:

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:7-11)

In light of John’s words, how should we treat 1 Corinthians 13?
Try inserting “God” in place of the word “love.”  God is love.  Therefore, God is patient, God is kind…etc.

How does that change things?
We are made for love.  Loving God and our neighbor sums up all of God’s commandments, and Jesus’s special commandment to His followers is to “love one another.”  Pretty simple.  Yet, we are completely unable to do this, until we begin receiving His love.  We are not only made to love, but to be loved by God.  Only God satisfies the need that we feel, and once we find it in Him, we find ourselves loving others!

Augustine famously said in his Confessions,

“You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless, until they can find rest in You.”

Similarly, Jesus said,

“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)

If we are ever to love in the best way, we’d better get good at being loved.  We’d better get used to the fact that Christianity is not about what we can do, but what God has done, is doing, and will do for us and through us.  Jesus said that you cannot enter His kingdom unless you humble yourself like a child.  And this is how you become His child:

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).

Believe in Who Jesus is, receive His love, and it will transform you.
It will reverse the order of everything in your life, when you find that His love is actually the source of everything else you need to do.
It will re-orient your thinking, and make you a new person – a child of God, growing up to resemble your Father!

Easter Week: Remembering with God’s People

Has God done some great things in your life?
Does this have an enduring effect on your life, or is it too easy to forget?

Over the years, God’s people were called to “remember the wondrous works that he has done” (Psalm 105:5).  Entire Psalms (105-107) were written to help them with this endeavor, as they sought to “tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might, and the wonders that he has done…that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God (Psalm 78:4-7).

Israel was called to always look back and remember their salvation from Egypt and entrance into the promised land – when they passed through the waters of the Red Sea and River Jordan.  The work was complete, and they were called to live in light of this new reality.  Likewise, a Christian is given the experience of baptism – as a milestone to mark the death of their old self and rebirth as a Christian.  The work is complete, and we are called to live out the new life that we’ve been given.

On Sundays at Parkdale, we learn from the stories of God’s people in the Bible – but we also invite people to share testimonies – to help us remember what God has done.  There are always parallels between our stories!  Yesterday, as the AA group met in our church building, I observed a similar dynamic – people being encouraged as others take time to look back and see how far they’ve come.

This Sunday, we enter the week of Easter.  I look forward to kicking it off with a celebration of the Lord’s Supper – followed by a Potluck!  Jesus instituted this special meal among His followers as a way to remember His body and blood – given as a sacrifice for our sins.  Just as Israel would slay a lamb at Passover (Exodus 12) to remember how God spared them from the plagues in Egypt, so Christians celebrate with the bread and cup to remember how God spared us from our sins – through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:15-20).  But that’s not all – the meal is also a time to look forward to the Great Banquet that we will again enjoy with Him when He returns, to complete His kingdom! (Luke 14:15-24; 22:28-30)

May your Easter season be a time of both solemn remembrance, and joyful anticipation, in light of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Online messages available here.