When Marriages are Sacrificed for the Church

Many of us over the years have seen marriages fail within the pastoral teams leading church plants; often it is the senior pastors’ marriages. This is a painful tragedy when it happens; no one wants this. Often there are children involved as well. Most of us here I imagine would agree that these marriages are as important as their church plant; Jesus taught that marriage was designed to be permanent – if a marriage falls apart due to pressures from a church plant, then some priorities must have gone wrong somewhere as it is the last thing that He wants for us.

In some church cultures, people are taught to make great personal sacrifices in the name of serving God. At times, it is right to choose to make these sacrifices. But when do these sacrifices become the sacrifice of a marriage, which is never God’s plan for us? This can only happen regularly if there are false beliefs or teachings prevalent that lead some people to take this path in this situation.

Perhaps this applies to other pressure situations as well – however in some churches there could be a difficulty in learning where to draw the boundary around one’s family life for its own health. Or possibly one partner may wish to give everything to the church plant, leaving the other to fend for the family on their own while feeling unable to share their difficulties with the other congregation members (’share up, not down’), with no nearby friends, having left them all in their previous distant locale, and at the same time, feeling that they have to keep up an image for the sake of the project. Not very easy. Particularly if the couple have no time left to support one another. God did not design us to be alone. Perhaps there are other couples who go through this and survive it with their marriages intact – but could their struggle have been avoided?

What are these teachings or beliefs that lead people into this? Is it teachings, or just pressure and the response to it? Are there any teachings that Jesus gave us which could help couples in these situations sort their priorities out and come through?

Perhaps I’m coming at this from the wrong angle, but I don’t think its just that the people were unsuited to one another. These are people very committed to the ideal of a marriage lasting, as well as very committed to personal sacrifice in the name of ‘building the kingdom’. I’m not suggesting it always happens this way, however it happens often enough to make the issue worth looking at.

**********************
RavingPente

Doing What Your Leader ‘Suggests’

I was reading a message by Simon McIntyre (a Senior Pastor at C3 Oxford Falls). I’ve often enjoyed his preaching in the past. At first, he made some reasonably good points on the subject of us saying ‘God told me’ – using this to justify doing things that we want to do even when it contradicts scripture. Ps McIntyre pointed out that often God doesn’t tell us – we tell us. Except that he didn’t use the word ‘often’. Reading his message, he seems to be teaching that God never tells us – we always do. There were no qualifying words to soften the blow!

I know that I hope I don’t do this, but its possible I’ve fallen into the trap. Hopefully, by applying scripture in my life, I do it less often. This shows the value of using scripture as a measure in our lives, as we’ve been discussing on several threads here recently. However, I’ve definitely come across the odd example of individuals doing what Ps McIntyre describes – for example, when God ‘tells’ them to get romantically involved with someone other than their current husband or wife.

So reading on in his article, I was disappointed, though not completely surprised, to see what followed, on the last page. Using the logic that we need to apply scriptural principles to our lives rather than rely on the idea that God tells us things directly, we should follow the principle of submitting to those who have the rule over you – in this case church leaders – when this contradicts or postpones what we think God has told us. That is, if we think that God told us to do something, this is overruled if a church leader ’suggests’ to us that we do something else.

This could sound innocuous to start with. However, Ps McIntyre seems to be insisting upon submission to those who ‘rule over us’ regardless of our own judgements about our circumstances. Is this how leadership in the church is to be? Do we ‘rule over’ one another at all? Of course Ps McIntyre insists that leaders are to suggest, rather than demand, but if we are to submit regardless, dismissing any reservations we may have, what is the difference? I’m sure Ps McIntyre would not turn his brain off upon demand! He’s too smart for that.

Matthew 20:25-28
25(U)But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
26″It is not this way among you, (V)but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
28just as (W)the Son of Man (X)did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Who is our head?

Who are we to submit to?

What form does submission take?

Does it involve doing what we are told, even when told very nicely, regardless of any other judgement we may have made upon the matter in line with our understanding of scripture, and in prayer?

Does this kind of teaching encourage the same culture of leadership that Jesus encouraged?

How to Survive Your Megachurch

Surviving is either remaining in or coming out of your megachurch/church with your faith and heart intact. How have you done it?

Here are some thoughts that Heretic and I have come up with.

1. Roll your eyes back and think of the Church of England. (Hmm – my motive for going initially was that I wasn’t going back to the Anglicans.)
2. Keep something back to live on – whether it be your money or your own time and energy.
3. Don’t be fooled into thinking that you can only access the Presence of God at church.
4. Maintain your friendships and love for people who do not go to your church – for the sake of the relationship, not just for evangelism.
5. Don’t believe your pastor is above temptation.
6. Don’t believe your pastor is God.
7. Is your church a corporation – then they probably want your money as much as any other corporation.
8. Do love the genuine believers around you and continue to value them as God does, not because of their position in a hierarchy or their external degree of success.
9. Ignore any pressure to look good for marketing purposes.
10.Only go to as many meetings as you can go to without putting pressure on your family life, genuine friendships or work life.
11. Don’t believe that serving God first means putting your family second to your church.
12. Don’t believe that tithing is more important than feeding your family and paying your bills.
13. Don’t put should on people.
14. Do think for yourself.
15. Test everything you hear and know that this is what we are meant to do.
16. Do nothing out of guilt.
17. Do just ask God when you or others need something – don’t think you have to do anything to earn his love or answers.
18. Be kind to your pastors and leaders – just don’t feel you need to take everything they say as gospel.
19. Know that your work is an important part of your life, not just a way to raise funds for God or to evangelise. God designed us to work in all kinds of ways.
20. Know that your key relationship is with God, not your church. Body life is vitally important – but we need Him to come first.

I could keep going, but I’m sure there are many more thoughts out there. What are yours?

Do you think any of this contradicts a Purpose Driven methodology, Prosperity Gospel, or any other current fashion?

******************************
RavingPente

Benny Tells Many

Do you now trust Benny Hinn after this ‘exclusive’ interview?

The Value of Discipline

Recently I was reading an article on the value of discipline in achieving end goals. The article pointed out that discipline is not the end in itself, but plays a valuable part in forming consistent habits which help us achieve whatever level of the activity that we deem helpful to our end objectives.

There are long traditions of various spiritual disciplines across the spectrum of Christian faith. Undoubtedly various disciplines can be very helpful to us at times, particularly when we are in season with whatever it is we are doing.

Does the practice of a discipline sometimes replace the end itself as a goal? Are people sometimes judged (or do we judge ourselves) for how consistently we perform particular disciplines, forgetting that the end goal is a deeper relationship with our Father and a growing ability to live in Him?

How many things do we do, or are we encouraged to do, where the commitment to the activity becomes the important thing, rather than our relationship with our Father and one another?

On the other hand, are there particular disciplines or regular practices which we’ve found particularly helpful over time?

****************
RavingPente

Judgement, Lessons or Life?

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday detailed the concerns and reactions of the Anglican church to their significant losses in the GFC, which have led to them needing to cut back signifcant ministry positions and activities. The question was raised about why they experienced those losses – were the losses they experienced God’s judgement in some fashion, or is God testing them? Has the Anglican church become too reliant upon ‘mammon’.

Well, I’m not wanting to point the finger at the Anglican church. They like many, were caught up in the bull market and all the accompanying advice prior to the GFC. For example, back then, a company that had low borrowing (low ‘gearing’), was criticised for having a ‘lazy balance sheet’. After the GFC, companies with little or no debt were praised for not succumbing to the mentality prior to the GFC, and ‘lazy’ balance sheets became very sought after. Instead of being lazy, they were now prudent and safe.

From my perspective, the Anglican church was trying to do something sensible prior to the GFC – in hindsight its clear that high gearing was not the way to go about it, but they appeared to be using investment to raise revenue rather than constantly appealing to the hip pockets of their members alone, reducing the need to pressure people to meet expensive program goals.

The Anglicans are looking at what they should do in the future to avoid these kinds of things happening again. One of their decisions appears to be to pray more.

Is it sensible for church organisations to invest to raise revenue? All investment involves some level of risk; higher returns inevitably involve higher risk – this is what was being ignored by most people before the GFC. What kind of financial goals should churches be willing to fund? What kind of financial commitments are wise for a church? Should churches borrow money for some goals, for example? Are any of these issues for us as individuals?

Personally, I don’t think they were being ‘judged’, although the GFC was an inevitable consequence of a system that had let greed and passing on of responsibility go too far. Many people suffered in the fallout from actions by some of the cowboys out there; many people trusted others with their finances and paid a high price. There are definitely lessons to be learnt. Most of us are probably reliant upon things other than God, and we get a real reminder of that when those things shatter. Should we be immune from disastrous mistakes due to our walk with God – should we expect that if we pray we won’t make mistakes, or is part of our walk to go through those hard things hand in hand with Jesus?

****************
RavingPente

The Enemy Within

Around the turn of the century Australians became aware of a growing religious minority within their society which was not readily assimilating and did not share the same mainstream values.   Although professing loyalty to Australia, many questioned this as their ultimate loyalty was to clerics overseas.  This group also claimed to worship the same God but most people agreed that the religion was incompatible with Biblical Christianity.  Their isolation was enhanced by their tendency to build their own schools, where women in repressive neck-to-toe robes and head-coverings taught the religions traditions of their country of origin.  Many of this religion were involved in violent struggles overseas against our allies, and some were involved in terrorist acts.  This group also tended to have more children than mainstream Australian families, increasing the anxiety among Australians that their values would be overtaken.

Of course I am talking about the turn of the 20th century and the Irish Roman-Catholic minority.  With the benefit of hind-sight, most of those fears turned out to be unjustified and the Catholics have assimilated into society.  What was once a very firm distinction between Protestant and Catholic has increasingly turned into co-operation, as in the recent World Youth-Day events.

What then of the enemy within?  Could it be that our real struggle is within ourselves, and we externalise it at our peril?

M’Kayla’s Korner – A Site To Bookmark

Teddy e-mailed me this site. I finally had a chance to read some of them. Many of the article are fantastic and the one’s they post up are very insightful to ministry and understanding the bible and the times we are living in.

http://mkayla.wordpress.com/

A bit that I liked (out of the many articles and snippets) was this:

Caveat Emptor

“… I contacted the Christian bookseller to let them know this was not a Christian book. They did not care.

Here is their response:

It might be useful for you to understand our philosophy of product selection.  Because we attract and service a wide range of customers (from pastors to homemakers, and seminary students to parents) whose interests and theological tastes vary enormously, we sometimes carry products that contradict each other or that are written by people that not all of our customers agree with theologically.  It is this kind of diversity in selection that has become a trademark of our company.  We don’t want to become a theological or social ‘censor’ of the books we carry, but we also try to remain selective.  So we tend to carry most popular Christian titles unless there is a compelling reason not to…”

‘Rallying To Be Heard’ is a good article too (at the very bottom):

“So why these big displays of prayer and fasting rallies held in large stadiums with lots of advertising and cries for support- a large following of people and a large cash flow to go along with it?  Are the prayers of these people heard by God? Or, it is just a display to control and manipulate thousands at a time towards an agenda of man? Usually there is a reason behind these rallies – to end abortion, to end homosexuality, to honor marriage between one man and one woman, judicial rulings in the courts, etc.

…

But again, there is more to the story, I think. These rallies are done by those who think they can change the world with their words, speaking the right things at the right time in accordance to what is viewed as “God’s will” or what God is doing in “this hour” because we are at a “pivotal moment in history that can be missed”.  Someone has “received the prophetic word” or the “mandate” from God “for such a time as this”.”

May the site bless you with it’s articles!

Enjoy! (And thanks Teddy for this!)

Specks&Planks

Sola Scriptura – Is it Scriptural?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was a foundational principle of the Reformation and is a view held very strongly by most Protestants and especially evangelicals.  Put simply the doctrine states that the Bible is the only inerrant authority for Christian faith and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.  Evangelicals generally go further and state that scripture is clear to the rational reader, self-authenticating, “scripture interprets scripture” and that no doctrine is to be admitted that cannot be found in scripture.

This principle is ingrained in Evangelical thought, including Pentecostal theology.  It can be seen in the arguments on sites like this one, the constant question is “Is it Scriptural”.  If the idea, practice, doctrine etc. cannot be lined up with scripture then it is seen to be worthless, or indeed of the devil.  In general this is a very helpful way of critiquing many Christian doctrines and practices.

But are there problems with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?   What is the authority for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself?  It does not appear to me to be stated clearly anywhere in the Bible.  2 Timothy says that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for correction and teaching but there is no statement excluding other authorities.   If Sola Scriptura is not in itself scriptural does it not contain a contradiction as it states that we should not follow any doctrine that is not in the Bible?

Another major problem is in defining the books that make up Scripture.  The Bible we have now is a collection of books that have been accepted through the ages by Christian communities as being inspired by God and that comprise the canon of scripture.  We must accept this only by the authority of Christian tradition, there is no book in the Bible which says “These are the books which make up scripture … Genesis, … etc. etc”.  Even if there was, there would have to be some authority for this table of contents, presumably another book which authenticated it as scripture, and so on ad infinitum.

The Protestant reformation has made us all individuals when it comes to our faith.  We are to discern the voice of God through the scriptures, ourselves, and we are not to be swayed by the weight of institutions and traditions.   But does this exclude the fact that we come to faith within communities and we need the faith and authority of others in community if we are to grow?

Should Everything Change Like This?

Thanks Bull, for the following book review by Gary Gilley, discussing Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren:

Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren
Written by Gary Gilley

Everything Must Change is a large diverse work in which McLaren dabbles in everything from economics to politics to the eco-system to Jesus. The author believes our planet is facing a perfect storm (his words) involving crises of four kinds. He calls them:

• Prosperity crisis—an unsustainable global economy that is overwhelming the environmental resources.

• Equity crisis—caused by the growing gap between the rich and the poor with respective fear and resentment.

• Security crisis—War and violence is the inevitable outcome of the equity crisis.

• Spiritual crisis—World religions, including and especially Christianity, have failed to address these issues with Jesus’ “framing story,” i.e. worldview.

It is these four crises that McLaren believes desperately need to be addressed, but Christianity has misunderstood what Jesus wants us to say about these issues. We need to rescue Jesus from our false understanding about Him and what He taught (pp. 72-73). Jesus true “framing story” must be discovered and proclaimed. And what is this framing story? “The Bible is the story of the partnership between God and humanity to save and transform all of human society and avert global self-destruction”… “Jesus came to launch an insurgency to overthrow that occupying regime. Its goal is to resist the occupation, liberate the planet, and retrain and restore humanity to its original vocation and potential” (pp. 94, 129). These, and other similar descriptions, are what McLaren, here and elsewhere, calls the gospel of the kingdom of God which he believes Jesus initiated when He was on earth.

In order to promote his new emerging agenda it is necessary for McLaren to reject many, if not most, of the major doctrines held dear by the historic evangelical church, for it is these very doctrine, in his opinion, that have caused the global mess in which we find ourselves. McLaren claims:

• Christ’s cross work was not for the purpose of propitiating divine wrath or redemption from sin; it was a nonviolent example for us to follow (pp. 158-159).

• The second coming of Christ is without biblical warrant “for it leads us to believe that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion [therefore] no one should be surprised when those shaped by this theology behave accordingly” (p. 144). A new heaven and earth are unnecessary because “good will prevail by peace, love, truth, faithfulness, and courageous endurance of suffering” (p. 146).

• Original sin is not our problem; McLaren fully believes that unregenerate mankind will be able to change society to conform to God’s kingdom (pp. 223, 262, 265).

• The need for forgiveness and salvation from sin are not on the agenda because most, if not all, are already citizens of the kingdom by virtue of having been created in the image of God (p. 223). The greatest problems facing mankind have to do with physical concerns of the planet, not spiritual issues (p. 46).

• Hell is not a literal place of judgment for rebels against God but starts on earth now when we don’t live for the kingdom of God, as described by McLaren (p. 146).

When the author turns to Scripture in an attempt to support his views it is an exercise in distortion. McLaren resorts to several methods: changing the meaning of words to suit his preference (pp. 96, 99, 113), ignoring Scripture he does not like (e.g. concerning the second coming, pp. 144-146), or simply twisting the meaning beyond all recognition (pp. 97, 107, 111, 135, 137, 144-145, 177, 238-241). All of this would be laughable if it was not so serious. Without question, McLaren cannot reconstruct Jesus, the gospel and Christianity if he faithfully interprets the Scriptures with any sane method of hermeneutics. But if his readers are willing to ignore this fact then some will be taken in by the message of Everything Must Change.

From a social/political angle McLaren might be described as the Michael Moore (ultra-liberal film producer) of Christianity. Capitalism is “legalized greed,” Moore says and it would seem McLaren would agree. McLaren uses the same poor interpretive skills which he applied to Scripture to analyze the evils of society. His understanding of what is wrong with the planet is as pathetic as his solution. Here is his prescription for societal ills:

• First, we will seek to help the poor through generosity.

• Second, we will call the rich to generosity.

• Third, we will work to improve the system (p. 246).

If you are disappointed with this “revolutionary” solution to our global crisis you should be. Like many, McLaren is long on identifying problems but short on answers. What McLaren consistently misses is that the gospel of Christ (the true gospel as derived from proper interpretation of the Word) addresses man’s real need of alienation from God and sinful corruption through redemption and regeneration found through the blood of Christ. Regenerated lives will have true impact on societal problems, but the final solution awaits the return of Christ and the new heaven and earth. This is the good news that Christ came to offer and McLaren has rejected.

http://www.svchapel.org/resources/book-reviews/4-christian-living/635-everything-must-change-by-brian-mclaren

*****************

I’ve moved this from an earlier thread for discussion, and will add the first two responses in the comments below.

****************
RavingPente (per Bull)