Bragging on Facebook

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul says, "the Lord said, 'My grace is all you need. Only when you are weak can everything be done completely by my Power.' So I will gladly boast about my weaknesses."

I was thinking about this and how it relates to Facebook. People tend to mainly post positive things on Facebook. They brag about their accomplishments and their kids. People don't generally post things that display their weaknesses.

Facebook is a good way for family members to keep up with each other's lives. That is certainly a positive benefit. However, most people have dozens, if not hundreds of "friends" on Facebook. If we only sent messages to family and close friends, we may be more willing to share our warts. We are very hesitant to do so when we know many people will read about our shortcomings.

Maybe this is the opposite of how we should be. What if, instead of always posting positive things, we posted about our weaknesses? What would people think? Would they think less of us? Would we be better able to do God's will in only His power?

I would love to post about my weaknesses but I am not sure how I can do that without negative consequences. For example, what if I put something on Facebook every time I do not handle a situation with my kids appropriately? I can see someone eventually calling social services out of concern. "He only posts about the times he is mean to his kids. Most people don't do that. He must do even worse things in private that he does not post."

So, for now, I don't post on Facebook very often. I'll keep looking for ways to share my weaknesses in a way that makes me less but makes God greater.

The purpose of the church

What is the purpose of the church?  People could write an entire book on this topic.  I don't have enough room in this blog entry to fully explore the subject but I at least need to get some thoughts out of my head.

First of all, I'd like to start with a story about the early church.  The first leaders of the church were faced with a small dilemma.  People were complaining about how food was being distributed.  When they realized that there was a lot of work to do that required boards and committees they said, "It would not be right for us to give up our work of teaching God’s word in order to be in charge of getting food to people" -- Acts 6:2.  They elected some people to handle the work that they considered trivial while the leaders focused on teaching.

What does this say about the purpose and organization of the church?  The main point is that preaching and teaching God's word is the most important work to do.  Feeding hungry people and (presumably) other social ministries are secondary to feeding people's souls.

The second interesting fact in this story is that the early church leaders did want godly and competent people to take care of meeting the physical needs of others.  "So, brothers and sisters, choose seven of your men who have a good reputation. They must be full of wisdom and the Spirit. We will give them this work to do." -- Acts 6:3.  The question is, how do we organize ourselves to accomplish both of these goals?

Does today's church (and I am thinking of my personal church first, then the synod my church belongs to) have the same priorities as the early church?  One way to answer that question is to look at what percentage of resources (both called workers and volunteers) is spent on teaching vs. "waiting on tables".  Verse 2 of chapter 6 in Acts says there were 12 apostles.  They appointed 7 people to handle the trivial work.  That works out to 63% of the workers focused on teaching and 37% on the other work. 

Today's churches have various boards and committees to keep the church running smoothly.  For example, Boards of Elders, Education, Evangelism, Trustees, as well as committees for Worship, Technology, etc.  Should any of these be considered part of the teaching ministry if the people in these groups do not directly teach but rather support those who do?  Or, are the people on these boards and committees part of the team that does the trivial work?

It might be splitting hairs somewhat to try to classify people this way but it is also easy to feel like we are doing what we are called to do when we do busy work.

Another consideration is to think about who is qualified to teach.  Should all members of a congregation take part in teaching or is that only the province of called Pastors and Teachers who also have some kind of formal degree?  Obviously, the Pastors need to lead the worship services, preach the sermons, administer the sacraments, etc.  Formally trained teachers should be in the school classrooms designing curriculum and being responsible for the education of the children.  

There is a place for the other members of the congregation to participate in the teaching ministry.  Lay members can assist the Pastors in the service, sing in the choir, and help teachers in the classroom.  Lay members can also lead bible classes or Sunday school, teach their own children about God's ways, or witness to their friends, neighbors, and co-workers with their words and actions.  The church leadership should focus on empowering the laity in these specific areas after ensuring that they can carry out the main ministry.

What about other groups like the Board of Trustees, Technology, greeters, ushers, the church librarian, parish nurses, etc?  They do not directly, nor indirectly teach.  Are they needed at all?  As the verses in Acts say, these people are needed and should be competent, but their work is not as important as the teaching ministry.  The number of people who do this work should be a percentage of the whole.

Finally, it is hopefully obvious by now that the church should not be heavily involved in "social ministry" like soup kitchens, coats for kids, and helping the poor.  These things have a place in the church but a small place.  

On the other hand, helping people meet their physical needs is definitely a calling of the individual Christian.  God gives us stuff so we can help others, Christians first, but anyone in need, ultimately.  This is another discussion for another post.

Who is My Customer?

Imagine that you go into a restaurant.  When the host comes to seat you, he asks, "Aren't you a member of St. Boniface by the Gas Station?".

"Yes.", you respond.

"I'm very sorry.", the host says a bit sheepishly.  "We don't agree with the teachings of that church and don't serve people who are members there.  I hope you understand."

How would you feel if this actually happened to you?  Should the owner of a restaurant be allowed to refuse you service because of your religious beliefs?

Now, think about this.  Say you are an Evangelical Christian and you own a photography business.  You take pictures of weddings and other special events in people's lives.  One day, a woman comes in and asks if you will take pictures at the upcoming wedding ceremony for her and her female partner.  Would it be okay for you to deny the request because you disagree with the woman's views on marriage?  Would it make it better if you were polite with your comments.

Is there a difference between these two scenarios?  Is it wrong to deny someone service in a restaurant because they are a Christian but okay to refuse to take pictures of a life choice that you disagree with?

If the answer is that someone who owns a business must provide their goods or services to anyone who asks, are there any limits?  Don't business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone?

Here are some more examples for the photography business.  What if someone wanted to hire you to take pictures of them butchering a cow for food?  Their intention was to publish a book about butchering.  Could you say no because it would gross you out?  Is that a violation of the requestor's rights?

Now that I have asked a bunch of questions, here is a link to a page that has some factual cases about this topic.  Basically, businesses can refuse business to people who will negatively affect the services they provide to others.  For example, obnoxious people who would like to enter a formal dining restaurant.

On a personal note, I think that people who have a business, including Christians, should not deny service to people whose views are not Christian.  I know its not that simple but I think God makes allowance for this.  See 2 Kings 5:18-19.  Naaman was allowed to serve his master when he went to worship a false God.  Maybe we can serve God and others even when we disagree with them.

Who am I, really?

Yesterday my son was telling me that he did not get on the Student Council at school. The teacher who made the decision told him that the essay he submitted was not what they were looking for. That got me thinking about how people try to present themselves.

My son said that in his essay he talked about how the Student Council should have a Prime Minister instead of a President. He also thinks they should be tougher on rule breakers. Some of the things he was telling me were a bit out there but everything he said was purely who he is. He wrote the essay with his honest opinions about how the Council should work. I assume that the teacher thought Dima would be more trouble than help. Maybe so.

I am not saying that the teacher made the wrong decision. Dima can be exasperating at times. I wonder how many other kids were as honest in their essays. If everyone was completely honest with their thoughts about what they would do if elected would they have been selected?

The purpose of writing the essay is to give the teacher a basis to judge the character of the individual. However, some people may be tempted to write what they think the teacher wants to hear. The goal may be to get selected as opposed to answering the questions honestly.

How many politicians in our country are like this? It feels like we never really know what a politician will do until after they are elected. "I will not raise taxes.", said George Bush. He did anyway. "I will close Gitmo.", said Obama. It's still open. Granted, keeping some of these promises may be impossible after the election for various legitimate reasons but we tend to not believe people after awhile.

What about the rest of us? According to Statistics Brain, 78% of resumes are misleading. Are people being honest or just trying to tell people what they want to hear to get a job? Sounds more like the latter then the former.

What about honesty and integrity? We seem to have little of it from top to bottom in this country. Even in schools. We encourage people to conform rather than be real. Does that conformity benefit society? Do politicians do the right thing after getting elected? Do job seekers rise up to the company's expectations after getting hired. Do the Student Council members learn anything about leadership? I hope so, but it does not appear to be that way.

Maybe we would be better off with honest people who did the right things for the right reasons. John Kennedy's "Profiles In Courage" has several examples of people who did just that. What if we all started living according to our convictions? Would we have a better society or anarchy? Would we get rid of partisan politics and start making real change or become hopelessly mired in indecision?

One thing I know for sure is that if Christians always acted with conviction the world would be a better place. Let's all do our part to act with it integrity. Let's all have the courage to do the right thing despite the cost. Let's be real.

High Achievers and God

<disclaimer>: I do not know God's mind. These comments are my own and are meant to stimulate thoughtful reflection.</disclaimer>

God's will is that all people are saved. He wants everyone to know the truth. What is the best way to accomplish that goal? If you were going to build a core team of people to go all over the world, and communicate a message that was meant to fundamentally change people's hearts and minds, who would you recruit. Most people would look for the best communicators and motivators they could find.

That was not what Jesus did. He gathered together 12 mostly uneducated men who did not seem to have the high performance qualities we look for today. They were self-centered--arguing about which of them was the greatest. They were arrogant--thinking they could do the miracles Jesus did. They were not focused--sleeping when they should have been helping Jesus prepare for the biggest challenge any human would ever face. When things got really bad, they all ran away, abandoning their mission at a critical time. Worst of all, despite being around Jesus almost every day for three years, they did not understand his mission. On the day Jesus went back to heaven, they asked Jesus if he was going to restore His kingdom, meaning, was it time to take down the Romans. Doh! Messiah. Lamb of God. Sacrifice. Resurrection. Get with the program.

Despite all of this, these guys were Jesus ministry team. They would have been fired at modern companies, but Jesus kept them. They went on to be wildly successful. One rally they held converted about three thousand people in one day. They went all around their area recruiting new members. They even witnessed to foreign dignitaries. Their organization got so big they had to delegate responsibilities. They held a convention and drafted a belief statement.

How did these under achievers manage to accomplish all that they did? Overnight, they went from slackers to charismatic leaders. The answer is simple: Pentecost. After the Holy Spirit came on the disciples, they were changed. God did not abandon them to their ministry, He took it over. God did not hope that these guys would get it right, He actively worked with them to accomplish what He wanted. God turned the disciples into apostles. The disciples can take no credit for what they did. They were simply willing workers who emptied themselves to let God work through them.

So, if we need people to help with God's work today, what kind of people do we look for? High Achievers? People with a track record of accomplishments? Good-looking, charismatic folks? Team leaders? Maybe. Those are all good qualities to have. But maybe the best quality is to have a heart for God. The best candidates for working in God's kingdom may be those who have a passion for serving Him. Those people may not have the outward qualities of high achievers, but they have Jesus working inside of them. How can they fail to accomplish God's will and be successful in God's sight if God is with them? Two thousand years ago, God used a bunch of misfits to change the world. He can still do that today.

<aside>The other side of this coin is that leaders in God's kingdom need to look to God for a vision of the future. This may mean letting things go in a direction they did not originally intend. More on that in a different post. </aside>

Faith-based Fanaticism Forbidden

I recently had to take an on-line ethics course at work. Most of the information was pretty standard -- no unwanted sexual talk, no bullying, etc. In each type of harassment, the summary message was to not do anything that could even be construed as harassment. Stay away from anything that might make people uncomfortable. If in doubt, don't go there. In addition to the standard types of harassment, there was also a screen about "religious harassment".

The message is that religion can be a form of harassment. What are the conditions that make some event religious harassment?

1. frequently speaking about your religion
   
2. speaking negatively about other religions
   
3. criticizing a person's lifestyle with the intention of changing it
   
4. causing depression in others by sharing a pessimistic worldview
   

This is a bit scary. It means that people who are deeply religious can not express that part of their personality. We are supposed to keep our religion to ourselves. This contradicts what Jesus said about being "the light of the world". Next, it seems like proselyzing is forbidden if it makes people feel bad. Jesus calls us to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). That's not really a passive command. It can be forward. It can be "in your face". It can be offensive. If we truly obey Jesus, will we harass people? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe we need to know when to "shake the dust off your feet" and move on.

What about criticizing people's lifestyles? It is impossible to know exactly what happened in this case. Maybe the religious person was making derogatory comments about a woman who liked to wear plunging necklines or had short hair. That sounds like something the average person would not appreciate. On the other hand, what if the religious person offered wise and loving advice to a person who was engaging in self-destructive behavior. Just because the advice was sprinkled with religious terminology makes it wrong? Again, it depends on what really happened. Hopefully, the religious person was truly over-zealous and pharasaical. Otherwise, this country will lose the curbe that keeps it from going completely godless.

Finally, the last point could be another example of spin. Why was the religious person's worldview described as "pessimistic"? Did the religious person consider him or herself pessimistic? Did other people or just the "victim" of the harassment? Is a Christian worldview pessimistic? Of course, Christians believe that their worldview is the only true optimistic viewpoint.

If the world can redefine Christianity as a pessimistic worldview that is depressing, critical, and negative, more and more Christians will be criticized for living their faith. Will we have to choose between living our lives the way Jesus told us and keeping our job? Will we be persecuted for our love for others? If so, I hope and pray that I can keep my faith and be strong in the Lord.

What Motivates a Christian?

I saw a video the other day where they said that Muslims (and all non-Christians) are motivated by fear to practice their religion. I can see the point. Anyone who does not know Christ cannot possibly be motivated by love. So, Muslims (and all non-Christians) must be motivated by fear.

My question is, do they believe that? If I asked ten Muslims what motivates them spiritually, would all ten say fear? I wonder if even one would. Even though it may be their true motivation, do they really see it that way? That is what I am questioning. If most Muslims do not see Allah as someone to be feared and their works as a desperate attempt to tip the scales in their favor, then talking about grace vs. works with them wouldn't get us very far.

In the spiritual sense, we are all sick. When referring to the Pharisees, Jesus once said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." The pharisees were just as sick as everyone else, but they thought they were healthy. I would argue that so do most people including Muslims. Sometimes, when we talk about false religions, we imply that the adherents either know they are sick or would realize it right away if we simply tell them. I wonder.

Once when I was going door-to-door passing out tracts or something, I talked to a 55-65 year old man who was not a Christian. I asked him if he thought he would go to heaven. He said yes because he was basically a good person. Most people think that God, being the loving sort, will only send REALLY bad folks to hell. Most cults teach that the only people who will a) go to hell; b) live in outer darkness or c) cease to exist are those who reject the cult's teachings. Insiders will make it to some level of heaven.

People of other faiths do not have some way to get right with God. Also, if they are true to their teachings, they must live in fear and uncertainty concerning their fate. However, I think human beings always find a way to ignore the facts, rationalize their situation and hope for the best.

Perhaps our best plan for dealing with unbelievers is to pray that God would first bring calamity on them to force them to see the hopelessness of their situation without him. Then, pray that the Holy Spirit would work true repentance and faith in their hearts.