Okay, so after weeks of delay, finishing it, and then discovering the server went down like a french border gate (Props to Eric for getting it back up, btw), I’ve now got the third part ready to go. I’ll also have vacation recap, that’ll be my next post.
One of the toughest tasks a church faces is choosing a good minister. A member of an official board undergoing this painful process finally lost patience. He’d just witnessed the pastoral search committee reject applicant after applicant for some minor flaw…”he didn’t wear the right clothes…his voice wasn’t right…her references weren’t what they wanted.” It was time for a bit of soul searching for the committee. So this board member stood up and read this letter supposedly to be from an applicant. Ladies and Gentlemen:
Understanding your pulpit is vacant, I should like to apply for the position. I have many qualifications. I’ve been a preacher with much success and also have had some successes as a writer. Some say I’m a good organizer. I’ve been a leader most places I’ve been. I’m over 50 years of age and have never preached in one place more than three years. In some places, I have left town after my work caused riots and disturbances. And I must admit that I have been in jail three or four times, but not because of any real wrong-doing. My health is not too good, though I still accomplish a great deal. The churches I have preached in have been small though located in several large cities. I’ve not gotten along well with religious leaders in the towns where I have preached. In fact, some have threatened me and even attacked me physically. I am not too good at keeping records. I have been known to forget who I have baptized. However, if you can use me, I promise to do my best for you.”
The board member then turned to the committee and said: “Well what do you think? Should we call him?”
The good church folks were appalled! Consider a sickly, trouble-making, absent-minded, ex-jailbird? Was the board member-crazy? Who signed the application? Who had such colossal nerve…to send them such an application? The board member looked at everyone in the eye and then said: “It’s signed…The Apostle Paul.”
That story seemed like a good lead-in to the third and final part of my two-turned-three part entry on my problem with the state of Christianity as it stands. For those who’ve stuck with me this far, I thank you, and promise, this is indeed the last part of the series. If I continue it any longer, you have my full permission to beat me around the head with a wet salmon.
Paul is the ultimate expression of a life changed by Christ. Remember, after all, Paul DID start out as one of Christianity’s biggest persecutors. He was known for his murdering of early Christians, so when God called him and he ultimately began to preach the gospel, there were some that were a little wary of him. How would you feel if, someone whose views were as completely counterpoint to your own suddenly started believing the same way you did? I’m sure you’d be suspicious as to when Ashton Ketcher was going to jump out and yell “YOU GOT PUNK’D!”, too.
In Galatians 5:13, Paul wrote “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” There are two potentially dangerous ideas that have propagated themselves in Christianity. The first is legalism, which is basically the belief that what rituals you do is what saves you ultimately, if you keep this tradition, that tradition, and this other tradition, you’re saved. That’s not how it works, though. God’s gift of Salvation is free, all we must do to be saved is admit that we are a sinner, that we realize the penalty for that sin is death physically, death spiritually, and hell ultimately, and that Christ paid the price for that sin when he shed his blood on Calvary. It’s that easy.
At the same time, though, the idea of being free and having liberty in Christ has brought about the opposite temptation of legalism, and that’s using that freedom selfishly by doing with it what you would’ve been doing without it anyway because Jesus dying for your sins basically gives you carte blanche to do what you want. This is also untrue, and it seems that Paul preached against it. In Ephesians 4:22 Paul wrote about putting off the former self and putting on the new self. That seems to be, in clearest terms, that we should be living changed lives.
Another interesting thing to note is in Romans 1. In verses 26 & 27, Paul was addressing the fact that the Roman church was allowing all manner of sexual perversions. He said:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
What struck me was that yes, the Romans in the church were still saved (you can’t, after all, lose your salvation), but God “gave them up unto their vile affections” and they began “receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which was meet”. In laymen’s terms, God allows us free will to do as we please, but should we choose to do things against his will, even those of us who are saved will have to deal with the consequences of our actions.
We are allowed choice because without choice, love is meaningless. I believe the way I’ve heard it put was from Hank Hanegraaff, which said “God is neither some cosmic rapist forcing his love on people, nor some cosmic puppeteer who forces us to love him”. We must, however, be wary of what that choice might cost us. Are we willing to go against God’s will in order to fill our own burning desires, knowing full well that it will cost us something? Maybe the cost won’t be immediate, maybe by having sex outside of marriage, for instance, you’re not going to contract an STD, or become pregnant, but what if the relationship ultimately doesn’t work out? Will you still feel good about it? When you finally do find that one person, and find that they’ve been waiting all their life for you and only you, what are you going to tell them? You didn’t want to wait for them because you wanted to be passionate about something? Don’t try debating me on it, just think about it for a minute.
We’re not called to be passionless Christians. We are, however, called to be passionate about something in particular – serving each other in love. We’re to have a passion to help one another; and a passion for the lost. If you need something to be passionate about, it should be something to help others. Volunteer to help with things at church, get involved with a prison ministry, help with a soup kitchen, build churches on a missions trip, whatever it takes. It’s dangerous to let your passions become about what you can do for you to make yourself feel good, instead let them be about what you can do to serve others and reflect Christ in your life to someone else.
When we are able to raise a generation of Christians that are able to live what they preach, be passionate for serving others out of love and consistently reflecting Christ to others, when we’re able to raise up a generation of Christians who aren’t out to blend in with the rest of the world, or out to live like the rest of the world six days a week, then, and only then, will we be able to break away from the thought that the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is where they spend their Sunday mornings.
Alright, I’m officially off the soapbox. Hope you took something away from this, since my intention was, if nothing else, to provoke thought. Thank you, and goodnight.
Tags: Religious, Writing by Andrew Laine
No Comments »
