Pastor Galen's Preaching Blog

The Power of Confession

2012-02-19T06:06:00.000-05:00

I John 1:1 - 2:2 and James 5:16

This sermon leads into a healing service where people are encouraged to follow the simple directions of James 5:13-16. The sermon, however, focuses not so much on the anointing service and the promise of God to heal, as it does on the power of making confession to God and to each other.

A few weeks ago as the staff at church were working through the chapter on confession in Richard Foster's book, Celebration of Disciple, I was caught by his comment that sometimes we do not find freedom from habitual sin because we fail to confess our sins to each other. He was referring to James 5:16. Not long after that, our Leadership Team was away for a weekend retreat. We had asked Dave Witmer, a local church leader, to come and listen to us and share his evaluation. In the course of our time together, and sort of in passing, Dave mentioned that we "confess to God to be forgiven and to each other to be healed." He was referring to 1 John 1:9 and James 5:16.

I must confess, that even after my nearly 40 years in ministry and having done countless anointing services, this struck me as a new thought--or at least a new insight into an old thought. There is no doubt that as part of the Protestant Church, we have been a bit afraid of the "Confessional." In the Catholic Church, as you may know, times of confession are offered wherein you come to a priest and in the privacy of the confessional booth, share your confession and receive forgiveness. Protestants have reacted to this on a number of levels. One, we do not believe confession must be made to Priest, not that a Priest has any power to grant forgiveness. Secondly, we believe that to "require" confession leads to insincere and spurious confession, which lacks any spiritual benefit.

Unfortunately, by reacting to the formalized confession of the Catholic Church, we lost the power of confession our sins to each other. We emphasize confessing sin to God, but not confessing to each other. We Brethren have held on to this concept through the anointing service. When ever we practice this rite, we are taught to encourage the one receiving it to examine his or her life and make appropriate confession. But I must admit, in my own experience, I have seen so many shallow confessions that I sometimes gloss over this part of the service. I know, shame on me!

What would a Protestant confession look like, especially one in the Anabaptist vein of the church. Let me venture a guess. The power of confession to each other would be taught. People would freely seek out each other, trusted friends, and confess their sin to each other. The friend would pass along from God his promise forgiveness and then walk in relationship with the person as he or she continues to strive to live free from the sin. There would be relationship, friendship, discipleship and accountability in love. It is a beautiful thing.

I know this kind of confession happens more often in the Body of Christ than we realize. It happens in the midst of our groups of people who come together to pray and study; it happens between friends who are pursuing intentional spiritual friendships; and it happens in the home as couples pray for and love each other and as parents train up their children in the Lord.

But it could happen more, and the impact on the Body of Christ would be beautiful. Link here to a short section from the Inter-Varsity New Testament Commentary on James, written by George M. Stulac as he comments on the impact on the church, when people come together in confession and prayer. It is a good read and encouragement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfWHRzM0aOzBT2NFvVB2GMXMc1xOBVVrieOabqJwZBI/edit

Thanks for digging deeper.

When Hell Invades Earth

2012-02-12T06:32:00.000-05:00

Genesis 6:1-8 and 1 Peter 5:5-8

This is sort of a follow up sermon to last week's sermon, "When Heaven Invades Earth." In this sermon I talk about Satan, who he is, and his methodology in promoting evil throughout the world.

In the sermon, I do not discuss the difficult question of where Satan came from. I'll take a shot at that here.

When the Bible opens in Genesis, Satan is present and active, as seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. So we logically conclude he was here then and thus his origin lies before that event..

The origin of Satan and thus evil are somewhat cloaked in the mysteries of ancient times into which God's revelation of truth has not given clear insight. You can ask "why not?" but only God can answer that one.

Now that said, there may be some glimpses in Scripture. Two Old Testament texts have been seen by some scholars as perhaps giving some insight into the question of where Satan came from. Let me quote here from the Nelson's Bible Dictionary:

"Two Old Testament passages-Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:11-19-furnish a picture of Satan's original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, many scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself. They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God's creatures, who became proud and ambitious. He determined to take over the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position of great dignity and honor.

"Building upon this foundation, Rev 12 sketches the further stages in Satan's work of evil. In his fall from God's favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev 12:3-4)."
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Take the time to read the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, and their larger contexts. It does seem to me that the language of these verses "goes beyond" application to the earthly kings to which they are directly addressed. This is a normal way in which Old Testament prophecy works. Most of the passages that we understand as being messianic prophecies in the OT, have first of all an immediate reference and fulfillment, and then also a future and more far reaching one (e.g. the virgin of Isaiah 7:14).

This rebellion of angels in heaven may, in part, lie behind the comment in Jude 6. And in four OT accounts, Satan appears as an angel. Consider Numbers 22, Job 1-1, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21 (as it interprets the events of 2 Samuel 24). (The revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Satan which elaborates on these four texts).

What we do know is that Satan is a being of super human powers, but not divine powers. In other words, he is stronger than us but not a strong as God. He is a spirit being who has corralled a host of other spirit being helpers who are subordinate to him. We call them demons. Just as good angels seem to have some kind of leadership structure (angels and archangels and seraphim and cherubim) so too demons have some kind of functional structure (thus Jesus refers to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.) They are given rather free reign to rule the world, as their domain, raking havoc as they will. But even so, they have their powers ultimately limited by God. This is especially true in reference to their affliction of God's people. (My sermon works at these concepts a bit.)

One might ask, "Why would God allow Satan to lead people astray and to afflict the world with so much suffering?" That is not a bad question, for which, unfortunately, we do not have a complete answer. But think about it, what joy would there be in your life if your spouse, or special friend, or kids, only loved you because there were no other options. Not much joy in that. However, when I realize that out of all the possible men my wife could have chosen (and believe me, she had options!), she chose me. Wow! And so it is; God wants us to choose him; not because there were no other options, but rather, to choose him in the midst of man of what appear to be very enticing options.

And that is really the purpose of these two sermons--to help us think about how our choices always reflect which kingdom we are living in--the kingdom of this world, or the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.

Choose wisely.

Thanks for digging deeper

When Heaven Invades Earth

2012-02-06T10:08:00.000-05:00

Matthew 6:10 and 33, Mark 1:14-15

I am struck by the fact that when Jesus began his ministry, as recorded in each Gospel, his message was "The Kingdom of God has come. Repent and believe the good news." He spent a great deal of time in the Gospels (especially Matthew) explaining what the kingdom of heaven was like (check out all those parables in Matthew 13). And yet, the modern church today says so little about the Kingdom.

First off, we should not get too hung up over the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven (used most often in Matthew) and the Kingdom of God (used mostly in the other Gospels). We are rather sure that Matthew was simply keeping to good Jewish form in not wanting to use the name of God and thus substituted Heaven. The concepts are the same for both phrases in all the Gospels. This can be seen in that the phrases--Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used interchangeably. Matthew does use Kingdom of God (4 times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43) and when Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, the other Gospels use Kingdom of God. For example, in Matthew Jesus begins preaching by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven has come (Matt 3:2) but Mark records him as saying that the Kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:15; and also Luke 8:1). So the terms seem to be interchangeable.

(I know it seems like I am making much of this, but a whole system of biblical interpretation has been built around the idea that the two are different.)

Secondly, it can be a bit hard wrapping our heads around this idea because it is rather meta-physical. Jesus was clear that we cannot see the kingdom (Luke 17:21) and John says to perceive of it, one needs to be "born again" (John 3:3). The Kingdom of God does not have geographical boundaries. There is no capitol, at least not here on earth. The Kingdom of God is a reality and exists whenever and wherever anyone crowns God in Christ as Lord and Sovereign of their lives. It is a spiritual reign, not a physical realm.

That said, one might be tempted to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God. The Church both is and is not the Kingdom. Let me try to explain. Scholars often talk about the true, invisible, Church and the physical church. The invisible Church is the collection of all genuine believers in Jesus and the physical church, or the visible one, includes a mixture of genuine believers and those who are attracted to the beauty and activity of the church, but fall short of true belief. Jesus spoke about this in the parable of the Drag Net in Matthew 13:47-52.

The Kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God when and where ever it exists. The true, invisible, Church is the group of individuals who respond to that rule. So the Kingdom includes the true Church, but is not limited to it. God's coverings rule extends beyond the church.

The real purpose of this sermon is to help us think about choosing to live in the Kingdom by choosing to live by kingdom values. We actually live on the front lines of a battle field in which two sides are warring against each other. This is happening 24/7. Next week I will speak about the converse idea to Heaven Invading Earth--When Hell Invades Earth--and will look a bit at this war. However, being on the front lines, as it were, it is far to easy for us to vacillate from one side to the other.

Lord, help me choose Your Kingdom, Your will, everyday in every way!

Thanks for digging deeper.

Servant Leadership, Part 2: How to follow well

2012-01-30T12:08:00.002-05:00

1 Timothy 5:17-24

As I mentioned in the sermon, when we are discussing what it means to follow well, we enter into some principles that have often been wrongly interpreted and painfully applied.

Basically, the primary principle that governs how we follow those who lead us is submission. On every level of life, the Bible calls us to submit to those who are over us, whether it be our government leaders (elected or otherwise--Romans 13), parents (Ex 20:12 and other places), masters or employers (Eph 6:5 and other places), in marriage (Eph 5:21-22), or to church leaders (Heb 13:7, among others).

This being the case, it is imperative that we understand what it means to submit. I work at that in the sermon, and also mention that submission does not necessarily equate to obedience. We honor God with our primary submission, and we must obey him before man (Acts 5:17-39).

Submission is first and foremost an attitude that governs our life in respect to how we relate to each other--in all human relations. The Greek word which is virtually always translated "submit" or "subject" is hupotasso and is formed from a prefix and main word. The prefix hupo is also a standard preposition in Greek and means under or beneath. The main word, tasso, means "to arrange something in an orderly manner", or "to appoint it to an proper position." As far as I have seen, the word hupostasso is always used in a passive voice, meaning the subject of the verb creates action that flows back on themselves. Thus the frequent translations "subject yourselves" (Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 16:16; Eph 5:21; Col 3:8, etc.)

So the first thing one might notice is that submission is a voluntary act that we do for ourselves. It is a choice we make, not one forced upon us. God asks us to submit ourselves to the powers that be. We do it, because it is the right thing to do and brings with it the fulfillment of God's promises, that flow from our obedience.

Antonyms of submission are concepts like rebellion, disrespect, and disobedience. In the sermon, I work a bit at the importance of living under the authority that God places over us and what happens when we do not. The warning of 1 Samuel 15:23 is chilling: "rebellion is like the sin of divination." How can that be? Divination (attempting to foretell the future via omens and the like) is one of many forms of Spiritualism that when practiced opens up our lives to deeper forms of Satanic involvement. Rebellion does the same thing. Rebellion occurs whenever we belligerently disobey a form of authority under which God calls us to live. This being true, disobedience to authority is a serious issue.

Ephesians 5:21 calls us to submit to one another and suggests that to do so is a part of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Submission, as I understand it, relates to my attitude, which then impacts my actions. To live in the attitude of submission, means I honor other people, see their importance and respect their value, treating them as I would want to be treated. Submission is the strength to view others as better than ourselves and to bless them and see them prosper. It is to understand that we are a called to serve each other, not to lord it over one another. Submission is the natural outgrowth of true love (1 Cor 13 kind of love).

So the question arises: What do I do when someone, especially someone who is in authority over me, asks me to do something that I believe violates biblical teaching and goes against my conscience? I must obey God rather than man, but I also am not supposed to disobey for fear of losing the protection that God gives me through those over me in authority.

I suggested in my sermon that there are ways to disobey submissively, and there are ways of disobeying rebelliously. It comes down to a matter of the heart. There are a few simple steps we should follow when we find ourselves in a position where we cannot blindly obey someone or some law.

First, we should appeal to the appropriate person/people calling on them to reconsider their decision.

Second, our appeal should be based on the harm that said decision will have on them (our boss, parents, company, church, or whatever). In other words, why is this a bad decision? What will be the consequences?

Third, we should present, if possible, a creative alternative. Sort of a "I cannot do that, but I would do this." During WWI there was no allowance for Conscientious Objectors (CO's) to War in our selective service system. After the war, and as war clouds were again gathering in Europe which eventually led to WWII, representatives from the historic peace churches when to Washington. They effectively said, "To not have some way of honoring CO's is to deny the principles upon which or Constitution is built. To keep on this way harms who we are as a people." They also presented an creative alternative. It is called, guess what, "Alternative Service." They basically said, "we cannot take human life for any reason, but we will serve our country in non-violent ways." The government heard their appeal, recognized the fundamental correctness of it, accepted their creative alternative, and thus many people have been able to save their conscience and serve their country.

Fourth, if all this is to no avail, we must be true to our understanding of what is right, even if it means we disobey those over us. If we need to disobey, we do so carefully, prayerfully and submissively. In other words, we do not rise up in rebellion, but rather firmly resist. We accept the consequences of our choice to obey God rather than man. We do not run from it. (Of course, we make use of every honorable way to escape pain and death. Paul was quick to call upon his rights as a Roman citizen. Acts 22:22-29) That means we may lose our job, our home or our lives. But we will not lose our honor.

As I write this, I see Martin Luther standing in the courtyard before the judges at his inquisition, declaring "Here I stand, I can stand nowhere else. God help me." I see Rosa Parks taking a seat in the front of the bus. I see Nelson Mandela writhing in jail for 20 odd years because he would not submit to the yoke of Apartheid. I see my wife's ancestor in the tower prison in Basel Switzerland because he chose adult baptism.

God grant to me and to you, the grace to be honorable in both our submission and, when necessary, our disobedience.

Thanks for digging deeper.

Servant Leadership

2012-01-22T06:39:00.002-05:00

1 Peter 5:1-11

When I initallly planned this sermon, I thought I would spend about half the time outlining leadership principles and the other half discussing "followership" (you like that word? I think I made it up!) principles. However, as I developed things,there was just too much to say about leadership to cover it adequately in one sermon. I will need to return to followership principles later.

In the sermon I discuss three biblical metaphors for leadership, One of them is a Bond-Slave.

As soon as we mention "slave" today, our mind goes back to slavery as we had experienced it here in the USA and in England, during the early days of our nation. The black slave trade involved removing people against their will from their home land, transporting them in inhuman conditions, selling them to masters who often, though not always, treated them worse than livestock and rarely, if ever, providing any opportunity to be set free. This was an evil practice that created a stain on the moral fabric of our nation.

The problem is that slavery in the Bible could often be very different. The Old Testament Law that guided the Israelites laid down very specific laws relating to slavery. In the context of the ancient Middle East, these laws were progressive, generous and aimed at recognizing the full humanity of slaves. During New Testament times in Greek society, though there were abusive owners, many treated their slaves very well. In both Jewish and Greek cultures, and opportunities to gain freedom were provided.

What I find very strange is that often in these ancient cultures, people would sell themselves into slavery. This was especially true for those who were poor. To serve as a slave for a period of years, meant a place to live with food and, often, education, or at least the opportunity to learn a trade. After a season of this, one could save up some money, be trained in a job, and then reenter society much better off than before. It was in this tone that Paul advises slaves to serve their master well, but if they have opportunity to gain their freedom, they should do so, and he admonishes masters to be kind and generous (1 Cor 7:21; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22 - 4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9). Peter also offer advice to slaves and masters in 1 Pet. 2:13-22.

In this context of slavery the possibility of entering into a bond-slave relationship existed. This idea is introduced as part of the Old Testament Law (Ex 21:2-6 and Deut 15:12-18). What if things were really good in the household where you served as a slave. Your master cared for you and treated you well. What if the idea of living out on your own and having to make all those ends meet really was not for you. In this case the Law allowed the creation of an interesting concept. Upon your manumission, you could turn to your master and say, "Thank you very much, but I want to remain your slave and continue to serve you." That point, the master took you to the entry door to his home, took an awl and drove it through your ear lobe into the door post of the house. Ouch! The idea was that you were now permanently attached to this household. Many scholars believed that the slave then wore a special earring in that ear, marking him as a bond-slave. You might say a love-slave (though today that word has other, not very positive, connotations).

It is this word for bond-slave (Greek, doulos) that the New Testament usually uses when it calls us to view ourselves as slaves of God (1 Pet 2:16) and when Paul and others call themselves slaves of Jesus (Phip 1:1). Often in English Bibles, doulos is translated "servant" which is misleading. It means bond-slave. (The English word "servant" is used to translate other Greek words like diakonos and huperetes, both meaning more of what we understand as a servant.)

All this to say that when we find freedom in Christ from a life of slavery to sin, we really are giving ourselves to God as slaves of righteousness. We are not our own, but have been bought with a price, and are now owned by God, the best Master anyone could ever have. As slaves of God, we are not free to live where we want and do what we want, but rather are obligated by love, to do what he asks of us.

This is true of all of us; but it is especially true of those of us who are called to give leadership to God's people, the Body of Christ. We are His and are honor-bond to do his will.

Thanks for digging deeper

Hope, the Remedy for Grief

2012-01-15T06:27:00.001-05:00

I Thessalonians 4:13 and 1 Peter 1:3-9

This sermon addresses the natural occurrence of grief that we feel when we experience losses in our lives, but more than that, it also encourages our congregation. My blog entry will not so much explore some biblical or theological truth as it will simply give some background as to why this sermon was important for us right now. And I will share a bit more of my own story.

Last year, 2011, held a significant number and variety of losses for our congregation and for various of our families. These losses ranged from the death of long time and more recent church members or attenders, to the loss of relationships due to various circumstances, to job losses and to some transitions made in ministries in the church.

These kind of things happen all the time in congregations, of course, but last year held an extraordinary number and variety of them. The result is that hardly a person in the church has not been impacted to some degree. I wrote about this in my November pastor's page in our Newsletter. Read it here http://www.ephratabrethren.org/newsletters/2011_november.pdf (scroll to page three). Since then, there have been even more losses, some of them of a tragic nature.

Part way through the year, I realized that I was grieving. One would think that since a pastor deals with this kind of thing all the time, that we would be immune to it. Quite untrue. Though we feel some losses in a greater way than others, we always feel them, but usually have learned to process them in healthy ways. What made this year different for me was that some of the losses we experienced hit me on a very personal level, and I found that I was feeling the loss on very deep levels. I was feeling alone, discouraged, lethargic and afraid. Yes, afraid. I had lost some people close to me, some by death others by a breach in relationship. I was not sure I wanted to trust anyone anymore, if all that would happen is that I would lose them someday.

One strange thing happened; I began to question my ability to lead. If you know me, you know how weird that is. That scared me even more.

Anyway, not to moan or complain, the sun did come up again, but it took some intentional work on my part. I sought out people to talk to about my feelings, including a fellow pastor who is a trained and gifted counselor. I got honest with my feelings, and shared them with others, and with God. I exercised faith and hope. In other words, I trusted God and began to look around me and to the future. And in the midst of all this, God showed up in my life in surprising and wonderful ways, and I am now on the healing side of grief. I say I am on the healing side of grief--I am not saying I do not still feel some losses in keen ways.

So if is was true for me, I knew that it was also true for many others in the congregation. The wide spread experience of grief had an impact on our corporate experience. For a while there was a heaviness upon us as we gathered. There is such a thing as corporate grief, but it has not been researched well. You can listen to church consultants Kris and Bill Tenny-Brittian discuss the topic here http://churchtalk.tv/on-demand/view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=778&cHash=38a9615850632b5a57253f72ec7f04ed.

I sense this heaviness is lifting. (Last week's celebration of Baptism and Communion was a wonderful upbeat time of celebration for us.) We are moving forward. It is still a part of who we are, but are recovering. I know some of us individually may be still be struggling and will be for a while (the natural grief cycle lasts about a year or so), but we all can move on, if we handle our grief well. Thus, the sermon today.

If you feel you or a friend is stuck in his or her grief, here is a good read by the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/complicated-grief/DS01023. It deals with complicated grief, a situation that occurs when we get stuck somewhere in the natural process and cannot move forward.

If you want to talk about your grief, give me a call and we can cry together.
Thanks for digging deeper.

Baptism and Communion

2012-01-08T06:30:00.001-05:00

This Sunday we have the joy of witnessing a baptism and also, on the brink of a new year, celebrating communion.

As I was working on this message I was reminded of how difficult it often is to hold a balance between two extremes when both hold elements of truth. For me, such is the case with these two ordinances, or sacraments, of the church. And right there you have it, should we call these ordinances or sacraments?

Much of the church at large calls them sacraments. A "sacrament" is often defined, as one dictionary does, as "a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it." Sounds good enough, but the difficulty comes in when one asks, "just how does it bring grace?" The struggle to answer that questions has at times split the church. The segments of the church that speak of sacraments, tend to see the acts themselves as conveying grace in some form are another. The role of the participant's faith is more or or less significant, depending on how one views the efficacious nature of the sacrament. These churches tend to baptize infants and to hold communion often.

Another wing of the church calls baptism and communion "ordinances." An ordinance in this sense is "something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony." These churches agree that since Jesus commanded these things, we do them, but rather than the acts bringing grace, they are viewed as symbols which remind us of what Jesus did for us and what he calls us to. The extreme of this view believes there is no spiritual value in the ordinance itself, but what a person receives by way of spiritual benefit is totally linked to the faith of the participant. These churches often withhold baptism until a person is old enough to make their own decision and to have communion less frequently. On the one extreme, baptism is not even a requirement for salvation and communion is not stressed as necessary.

Brethren have not been immune from this struggle. We have adamantly declared that baptism and communion are ordinances. We are not sacramental in our understanding of these elements--in other words, they do not convey grace in some automatic sense. And yet, we have always said they are important as a part of our discipleship. So much so that our actions have sometimes communicated that we actually do think there is some magical merit in simply doing the ordinances. For example, if you grew up Brethren and are my age, you know the pressure that adolescents felt to be baptized as we hit that magical age of 12. And communion, celebrated in the Love Feast, was so important that we would take a registration of everyone to was there (this long before any kind of Sunday morning worship attendance tracking was being done). If you made it to Love Feast, then your membership in the church was in good standing, no matter what else was, or was not, in place. So in theology we said one thing but in practice another. This suggests that we were trying in some way to hold a balance between the two positions outlined above.

So for me, I understand baptism does not save us; if it did, it would be a work we do to be saved and the Bible is clear (Eph 2) that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. However, it is hard for me to conceive of a person who seriously wanted to follow Jesus who would not desire baptism, in obedience to Jesus' command. Baptism, when entered into by ones own choice, is a first-step kind of thing in our obedience to Jesus. No act of obedience goes unnoticed by God.

Likewise, I do not believe the bread and cup of communion is, or becomes, anything other than bread and juice, but I acknowledge the mystery of Jesus saying, "This is my body" and understand that when a person takes communion, exercising personal faith in Jesus, something mystical does happen. Faith is strengthened and obedience is rewarded.

Thanks for thinking through this with me, and digging deeper.

No word from God will ever fail.

2011-12-25T08:04:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas everyone.

This amazing promise is made to Mary in Luke 1:37. It caught my attention this year as we were working through the Christmas accounts. Frankly, I did not remember it being there before! And for good reason. Ever since the King James Version came out a few years ago (like 400), most English translations rendered this verse like this: "for nothing is impossible with God."

For the last number of years I have been using the TNIV, which was an update of the hugely popular NIV, which you probably use. This year (2011), the NIV underwent a revision, now called NIV (2011), and they no longer print the TNIV or the older version NIV. Anyway, the TNIV, and now the NIV (2011) render this verse, not like the KJV did, but instead they say, "No word from God will ever fail."

So what does the verse really say, and more importantly,what does it mean?

OK, bear with me here. There are two things in question regarding the meaning of the verse.

First is how to read the word translated "word" and which seems not even to be present in the KJV translation, but it is. The Greek word lying behind our translation is rhema. Rhema is one of two primary words for "word" in Greek, the first one being logos. In John 1 when we read "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", it is logos. Logos means something like "expression" or "thought" or "reasoning." We get the English word "logic" from this word. But in Luke 1:37, when the angel speaks to Mary, she uses another Greek word for word: rhema. Rhema refers more so to a specific word or expression. It refers to something specific which is said, or even to a specific thing that is done. When the shepherds say, "let us go to Bethlehm and see this thing that has happened" (Luke 2:15), "thing" is a translation of rhema. Also when Mary pondered all these "things" it is rhema.

Rhema is often used, however, to record a specific word or command that God brought to someone for a specific task or need. In Ephesians 6, when we are told to put on the whole armor of God and to take up the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. It is rhema. In other words, we need the Bible all the time, but in the heat of battle we need the specific word (think the right ammunition) in order to be victorious in that moment, facing that specific situation. We need a rhema word from God.

These verses are examples of rhema as a specific word from God to a person: Matt 4:4, 26:75; Luke 1:38, 2:29; 3:2, 5:5, 24:6 (and more, but I do not have the time right now).

So the first question is whether or not to read rhema as "word" or "thing" The NIV (2011) chose "word" and the older NIV chose "thing," implied in "Nothing (no thing) is impossible with God." It seems most natural to read it as "word." The angel had just delivered an amazing prophetic word to Mary and she asked, "How can this be?" The angel explained about the agency of the Holy Spirit and then said, "no Word from God will ever fail."

Second is a decision whether or not to read the verb as present or future tense. The verb in the sentence is "impossible." The Greek word is future tense, active voice, indicative mood. There is really no reason not to read it as future. The translators who chose present tense (as in, Nothing is impossible) do so, I think from what I have read, simply because they think the context warrants it. In other words, the angel is speaking to Mary about her experience in that moment. However, it seems to me that the angel is also assuring Mary of events that will happen--she will conceive, give birth to the Messiah, etc.

So with these things in mind, we have a major shift in the way this verse is rendered: from the old translation; "Nothing is impossible with God" to the newer one "No word from God will ever fail." The meaning is not that much different; certainly the older rendition is true. However, the newer one is much more accurate, it seems to me, and opens up for us some new thoughts, which I explored in my Christmas morning meditation.

One of those thoughts for me is simply this: When God comes to me with a Word--a command, a promise, an encouragement--and I truly know it is God--that Word will never fail. It will happen, sooner or later. And, that Word, as hard as it may seem to me, will not be impossible for me to accomplish, or bear, or fulfill. I can do what God asks me to do. No doubt Mary wondered--am I up to this task, can I do this, will I be strong enough. Where God guides he provides. We can do the things God asks us to do.

Isn't God grand!

Thanks for digging deeper.

Jesus, Our Greatest Joy

2011-12-24T14:50:00.000-05:00

On Christmas Eve we end our Advent/Christmas series by looking at the song of Mary that she utters while visiting Elizabeth (Luke 1:46-56). I'm particularly interested in the idea of joy, which I develop somewhat in the message.

Luke's Gospel is the story of joy. He uses "joy" or "rejoice," or one of its forms, 21 times. Luke is a rather long book (the longest of all four Gospels) and so 21 might not seem like a lot unless one views it over against the other Gospels. Matthew uses joy (or one of its forms) 4 times, Mark only once and John 13 times. The word is scattered throughout the epistles with rather even regularity, except Philippians which has 12 occurrences. It is often considered the epistle of Joy.

Here are all the references for "joy" or its various forms in the Gospel of Luke: Luke 1:14 (2); 1:44; 1:47; 1:58; 2:10; 6:23 (2); 8:13; 10:17; 10:20 (2); 10:21; 15:5; 15:6; 15:7; 15:9; 15:10; 19:37; 24:41; 24:52.

Mary's song is often called the Magnificat (from the first word of the song in Latin), and it has inspired a huge amount of music, from Bach to contemporary singers. It is one of what I consider to be the five "songs" of Christmas, the others being: Zechariah's song in Luke 1:67-80; Elizabeth's praise in 1:39-45; the Angels' declaration to the shepherds in Luke 2:13-16; and Simeon's prophecy when Jesus was presented at the temple (Luke 2:28-35).

Joy permeates Mary's song, as it should. Jesus is our Greatest Joy. However, we should not mistake joy for happiness, or vise versa. Happiness is too often dependent upon circumstances. (Actually the word "happiness" is built on the Old English word "happenstance" which means "circumstance".) In other words, if your day goes well (meaning the circumstances of your day were what you like), then you are happy. If not, you are sad. Joy, on the other hand, is not a fleeting emotion dependent upon your day but rather a deep seated knowing that you are loved by God and that he always wills good for you and that he is willing and able to extract good from any and all circumstances (Romans 8:28).

In Jesus we have true Joy. Check out 1 Peter 1:3-9. Our joy is inexpressible and full of glory.

Thanks for digging deeper, and Merry Christmas.

Jesus, Our Greatest Encouragement

2011-12-18T06:42:00.001-05:00

One of the ideas we bump into with this passage, specifically from Luke 1:43, is the idea of Mary being the Mother of God. In her joy, Elizabeth cries out, "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters speak of Mary, Mother of God, though they mean slightly different things by it. This Wikipedia article does a rather good job of outlining the source of this idea and its various meanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_God

Of course the Bible never uses this language (Mother of God) and as you read in the wiki article, you learn it was not until the 3rd century of the Christian Era that the church began using it. The closest thing we get in the Bible is here in Luke 1:43; Mary is the Mother of our Lord.

Naturally there is no way we can speak of Mary as being the Mother of God meaning that she gave birth to God and thus brought him into being. That would be absurd, and is not part of the theology of any of the churches that use this phrase. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who was fully human and also fully divine. I would guess Mary's DNA shaped the physical life of Jesus, but she did not create God. Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus. In other words, God exists in three entities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He exists in all three of these entities throughout eternity. It was the Son who came into Mary and took up residence in the body of Jesus of Nazareth, from his very conception, rendering Him true God and true Man. So Jesus has the fullness of God residing in him; but God is more than Jesus.

Not sure that makes sense. The idea is that Mary was the "bearer of God" (which is the literal meaning of theotokos), not the originator or creator of God.

Mary has caught the attention and imagination of the Christian church ever since its inception on the Day of Pentecost (which Mary attended, by the way). It is very easy to either over venerate her (an error Protestants believe Catholics make) or to under appreciate her (an error Catholics believe Protestants make). Here is a good read that purports to give "just the facts" about Mary and what the church as believed, or at least, considered. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/mary.htm#theotokos

Since the canonical Gospels only give enough information about the infancy and early life of Jesus to wet our imagination, the early church (second and third centuries) saw a proliferation of writings full of speculations about the early years of Jesus. These pseudepigrapha are filled with wild imaginative stories that are clearly fanciful, but make for interesting reading and have in some ways led to spurious ideas about Mary. Here is one of them (written about a hundred years after the Gospel of Mark) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html

I have long since felt that while protesting some Catholic ideas about Mary (specifically her veneration) the Protestant churches sort of "threw out the baby with the bath water" and became as guilty of undervaluing Mary as they felt the Catholics were in overvaluing her. Anyway, as Anabaptists, who supposedly are neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are free to find our own way.

Thank for digging deeper.

The Valley of the Shadow

2011-12-18T05:52:00.003-05:00

This message is not part of our Advent series, but one I delivered at the memorial service for Mel, Patti and Rachel Rissler. It is based on Psalm 23.

I built the sermon around a new insight I had to verse 4; "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me." Maybe it is because I usually am working with this psalm during a time of death, but I always tended to think of the valley of the shadow as referring to the journey one makes from this life to the next. In other words it is a valley defined by death. Of course, that is true, this valley does refer to that.

My new thought--no doubt not a very original one, but giving me some deeper meaning to this verse--I think it also applies to any one of us who have the "shadow of death" cast across our lives because we have been led into a valley of death by the loss of someone we have known, or someone close to us has lost someone they have loved.

No doubt the very tragic nature of the death of the Risslers and the wide spread publicity it has brought to our community, served to open my eyes to this angle on the verse.

The promise of the Psalm is that whenever we experience the pain of death, God is with us to lead us through.

I know in a much larger sense, the words "Valley of the Shadow" can apply to any difficult experience we face in life. The Hebrew word translated "Valley of the Shadow" is a favorite of Job, being used in each of these verses his his book: 3:5; 10:21-22; 12:22; 16:16; 24:17 (twice); 28:3; 34:22; 38:17. It also occurs occasionally in other Psalms: 44:19; 107:10,14; and in Jer 2:6; 13:16; Isa 9:2; and Amos 5:8. Best to read these verses in the KJV or otherwise the word may be translated differently.

In many of those verses the word refers to a wide range of negative life experiences and not specifically death. So there is good reason for reading Psalm 23:4 as referring not just to experiences of death, but to other life situations which are difficult. Nevertheless, the verse does apply to valleys defined by death.

For me, I gained new insight into this promise as I thought about how the shadow of death is cast across our lives whenever we lose a loved one, and tried in this message to work out some encouragement from that perspective.

You can read my message here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tf70e1EnWBy1znDKmHmSzwNfj_hMhQ4IylyjGM3iRVk/edit?hl=en_US

Jesus, Our Greatest Promise

2011-12-11T10:13:00.002-05:00

There are two things about this message that capture my heart. The one is the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth. Here is a bit of info about how the priest hood was structured, with reference to source material for those interested:

Luke 1:8 -- The number 18,000 emerges from information in the Letter to Aristeas 95, which notes that about 750 priests were a part of each of the 24 divisions of the priesthood. So 24 times 750 is 18,000. On the 24 divisions in the priesthood, see 1 Chron 24:7-18. Zechariah belongs to the eighth division of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Details of how the daily offering proceeded are in m. Yoma 2:2-4 and m. Tamid 6—7. This offering took place at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. each day. Given the nature of the crowd, most scholars believe an evening offering is in view here (Josephus Antiquities 14.4 .3 §65; m. Pesaµim 5:1).
(from IVP New Testament Commentary Series © 1992-2004. All rights reserved.)

Just think about how long Zach and Liz may have been praying for a son, and the fact that they were no doubt simply praying for a child, for their own fulfillment, and not really thinking about how their child might be used of God to further the kingdom. They receive an answer, and one that far surpassed their request. Wow, what an awesome God.

One point I learn from this is the one I make in this sermon--the answers to our individual prayers are somehow linked with the bigger things God is doing to build his kingdom here on earth. Remember in the Lord's prayer, daily bread and thy kingdom come are connected.

So this leads me to a second thing to contemplate--why are some of our prayers not answered--or I should say, why do we get "no" as an answer to some, maybe most, of our prayers.

This past spring while attending a seminar in Chicago, I had the very unique privilege of hearing renowned teacher and writer, Dallas Willard, speak on the topic of spiritual formation. In the course of that talk, he said, sort of in passing, this: "The really good thing about prayer is that God does not answer most of them!" That sort of set me back on my can a bit.

In this sermon I quote James 4:3 where it says, "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." If our motives are wrong when we pray, and we are not really looking out for the Kingdom but rather concerned for ourselves, then it is a good thing that God says 'no."

Here is a decent read by David Wilkerson in which he discusses six reasons why prayers are not answered.
http://www.tscpulpitseries.org/english/undated/tssixrea.html

I would add one more reason to Wilkerson's six, based on 1 Peter 3:7. If our relationship at home, particularly spousal, is not solid, I should expect a negative impact on my relationship with God and in the area of effective prayer. That verse says this: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

Thanks for digging deeper

Jesus, Our Greatest Story

2011-12-02T10:58:00.000-05:00

When the angel appeared to the shepherds in Luke 2, he said his announcement would be "good news" to them. "Good news" translates the Greek word "euangelion" which we traditionally have translated "gospel." "Gospel" is an Old English word (remember the musical Godspell) meaning "to bring good news." Take a moment to look at this Greek word "euangelion." Do you see the word "angel" in it. An angel is essentially a messenger, and that is the root meaning of the word. Notice the prefix "eu." Think of "eulogy." A eulogy is a good word about someone, usually a deceased person. (Eulogy--"eu" meaning good, "logy" from the Greek word for "word", "logos.") (Now I'm sounding like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9whwwTK6I.)

So the Gospel is good news. But good news about what? In this sermon we explore two things: 1) what is the Gospel and 2) what should I do about it? In each case the shepherds from the Christmas story provide a backdrop for helping us understand the response to both these questions.

Link here to listen to two of today's leading Christian teachers, from vastly different church traditions, speak about the Gospel: John Piper http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/video/What-Is-The-Gospel---John-Piper
and Mark Driscoll http://marshill.com/about/the-gospel. I really like Piper's comment that "God is the Treasure." I will reference this in the sermon.

But this sermon is mostly about the urgency to share our faith. Many of us do not know how to do that, when it is as simple as telling our story--what does Jesus mean to me and what difference does God make in my life. Every believer in Jesus has a unique story of how they were loved by God into the kingdom and how this journey with God has changed their lives. It is our unique story. It is a story that someone else needs to hear.

"A hitchhiker's guide to evangelism" is a ministry dedicated to helping people share their faith in today's multi-cultural world. Link here http://hitchhikersguidetoevangelism.com/ and scroll down the page to review his six steps to faith sharing today. Step 3 addresses the focus of this second sermon in our Advent series.

Thanks for digging deeper.

Jesus, Our Greatest Treasure

2011-11-27T06:50:00.000-05:00

We begin this year's Advent series at the part of the story that we often tell last--the visit of the Wise Men. However, it may be that they were the first to hear about the birth of Jesus, if the "star" they saw appeared in advance of his birth, so that they could arrive in somewhat close proximity to his actual birth.

If you like astronomical stuff, go here http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/bethlehem-star.html to read some interesting information and speculation on what the star may have been.

People have always been fascinated with this story of the Wise Men, so much so that a host of traditions have developed around the account, especially trying to fill in the gaps in story. If you are interested in this kind of thing, click here http://ww2.netnitco.net/~legend01/wisemen.htm.

Also in this sermon I talk about the value we place on things. This year's Advent Theme is Seeking the Treasures of Christmas. We value things either because of their intrinsic worth (what they are worth in and of themselves, sort of on the open market) and/or because of their extrinsic worth (what something is worth to me, perhaps because of sentimental connection). In the case of Jesus, to sort of get a handle on his intrinsic worth, I walk us through Colossians 1:15-20. I do not have time in the sermon to dig into this passage in any depth, but if you have interest, I have posted a fine commentary on the passage, written by Robert W. Wall and published in the IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Link to it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DvrJJi4wKcelv0J7oFXgMDTOmTDBRkYz9xaZ2ZoYoCw/edit?hl=en_US.

Thanks for digging deeper.