I like labels that tell me what is in a container: this allows me to effectively use what is in the container. Imagine, you need sugar for you coffee and the white granular stuff you grab is salt! Would surely mess up your cup of Starbucks coffee.

Labels assist us in the identifying the usage of something. For instance, most clothes have a care label inside. Identifies the material and how to care for it. I have made the mistake of washing a dry clean only item before – guess I did not trust the label!

There are many similar examples of the blessings of a label. These I like.

But where I hate labels in regards to spiritual things: in this realm, they are detrimental. We use labels in the spiritual arena in the following ways:

First – to identify
Listen in on spiritual conversations and you will here someone say something like: “Oh, they are ….(insert any name of an organization, denomination, or theological persuasion here).” The idea is, that now that person being talked about has been identified. Those involved in the conversation believe they now have an understanding of who that person is and what they believe.

I have had conversations with people and when they ask me what I am, I have either not answered, or said Christian. This frustrates them, they press for more info: why? Because I did not give them anything to identify me with.

The problem with labeling someone to identify them is that we all have a different idea of what that label means. Let me give you an example.

The term apostolic is being used a lot lately and depending upon what group you hang with, the definition is different. When you say apostolic there are those that believe:

• It refers to the catholic church
• It refers to the office of an apostle
• It refers to a particular doctrine of salvation
• It refers to a particular lifestyle
• It refers to the miraculous ministry of the first church
• It refers to the restoration of a sending and foundational ministries

So you see, using this word as identifying someone, still does not really ID them.
Just think of the other labels used in Christianity and how this also applies.

Second – to judge
Once we have identified someone with a label, we now use it to judge them. Oh, yes we do! We either judge them as acceptable (and probably continue our relationship) or we deem them as not measuring up to our level. Just imagine that statement “Oh, (slight pause – then continue in slightly lowered voice) they are…..” The implied judgment is there.

On of the greatest control methods of large groups are to label those who do not share all their same ideologies. By labeling them they create this social castigation, hoping they will succumb to peer pressure and “get back in the fold” so to speak.

Ultimately, using labels to judge, creates division within the body of Christ.

Third – to determine our interaction
I touched on this above. When I label someone, I judge, and then determine my level of interaction with them. There are individuals, because others disagree on one theological point, will have nothing to do with them. Organizations and groups have been formed around a few differing ideas. In fact, the level of interaction with the very people we are to impact has been severely limited by the labels we place on them.

Heathens, lost, sinners, druggies, prostitutes, drunkards and the “churches” terminology goes on and on for those that do not know Jesus in an intimate way. We identify these groups with labels, we judge them as below us (at least in spirituality) and we determine our limited interaction with them. Yes limited.

It seems that most churches speak of a separation from these people. Our interaction is relegated to the commando style outreach foray into their lives for the sole purpose of telling them they have a choice of heaven or hell. Then we retreat to the safety of our sanitized Christianity.

Jesus dealt with this mentality from the religious Pharisees in his day:

Mark 2:15 Later, Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along      with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. (There were many people of this kind among Jesus’ followers.) 16 But when the teachers of religious law who were Phariseesb saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?c” 17 When Jesus heard this, he told them, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor—sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.” NLT

The Pharisees labeled, judged and ignored these people. They took issue with Jesus because He did not think like they did.

So where am I going with my ranting? Labels are ok on food containers and clothes, not on people. We should view each other as Jesus does and go beyond the judgmental barriers of labels and minister the grace and power of Jesus Christ to all.

Just thinking out loud…

Tweet This Post

by Tullian Tchividjian

On April 26-27 I will have the privilege of joining men I admire and respect at the Advance the Church conference in Durham, North Carolina. My assignment is to speak on “contextualization without compromise.” I address this very issue at length in my book Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different. The organizers of the conference have asked me to share some of my thoughts on contextualization. So, for better or for worse, here they are (taken straight from Chapter 8 of Unfashionable).

The principle behind Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 9:22 to “become all things to all men” is what Christian thinkers call “contextualization.” Contextualization is the idea that we need to be translating gospel truth into language understood by our culture. Cross-cultural missionaries and Bible translators have been doing this for centuries. They take the unchanging truth of the Gospel and put it into language that fits the context they are trying to reach. Contextualization simply means translating the Gospel—in both word and deed—into understandable terms appropriate to the audience. It’s Gospel translation that is context sensitive.

Genna, my eight-year-old daughter, loves going to her Sunday school class for various reasons. She loves seeing her friends and singing her favorite songs. But she also loves to learn from her capable and creative teacher. He works hard to use language, concepts, and illustrations that she and the other children in the class will understand as he faithfully teaches them the Bible. And as a result, Genna gets it. She walks away Sunday after Sunday excited about what she’s learned. This thrills Kim and me. We’re both grateful that her teacher understands the need to contextualize.

Similarly, every English Bible translation is an effort to contextualize the Scriptures (originally written in Hebrew and Greek for ancient peoples) for an English-speaking audience of today.

Contextualization also involves building relationships with people who don’t believe. We don’t expect them to come to us; we go to them. We meet them where they are. We enter into their world by seeking to identify with their struggles, their likes, their dislikes, their ideas. Chuck Colson speaks of it as entering into people’s “stories”:

We must enter into the stories of the surrounding culture, which takes real listening. We connect with the literature, music, theater, arts, and issues that express the existing culture’s hopes, dreams, and fears. This builds a bridge by which we can show how the Gospel can enter and transform those stories.

Edith Schaeffer, wife of the late Francis Schaeffer, wrote about a visit the two of them made to San Francisco in 1968. One night they went to Fillmore West to hang out with the druggies and hippies and take in a light show. She records how heartbroken they were as they witnessed on that night “the lostness of humanity in search of peace where there is no peace.” She concluded, “A time of listening is needed—listening to what the next generation is saying, listening to the words of the music they are listening to, listening to the meaning behind the words. If true communication is to continue, there is a language to be learned.”

Contextualization begins with a broken heart for the lost and a driving desire to help them understand God’s liberating truth. Only by real listening and learning can we hope to persuasively communicate God’s unchanging Word to our constantly changing world.

Sadly, some well-meaning Christians conclude otherwise. For these Christians, contextualization means the same thing as compromise. They believe it means giving people what they want and telling people what they want to hear. What they misunderstand, however, is that contextualization means giving people God’s answers (which they may not want) to the questions they’re really asking and in ways they can understand.

This misunderstanding of contextualization has led these people to argue that cultural reflection and contextualization are at best distractions, at worst sinful. They admonish us to abandon these things and focus simply on the Bible. While this sounds virtuous, it ends up being foolish for two reasons. First, as we’ve already seen, the Bible itself exhorts us to understand our times so that we can reach our changing world with God’s eternal truth. To not contextualize, therefore, is a sin. And second, we all live inescapably within a particular cultural framework that shapes the way we think about everything. So if we don’t work hard to understand our context, we’ll not only fail in our task to effectively communicate the gospel but we’ll also find it impossible to avoid being negatively shaped by a world we don’t understand.

In a recent interview, pastor Tim Keller put it this way: “to over-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of their culture, but to under-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of the culture you come from. So there’s no avoiding it.”

Whether translating the Bible or developing relationships with non-Christians, we’re to be missionary minded in everything we do. That takes work—the hard effort of maintaining the big picture and communicating comprehensibly and compellingly to those who don’t share our convictions and worldview. Therefore, every day and in every circumstance, we need to be consciously and rigorously translating our faith into the language of the culture we’re trying to reach.

This is the challenge: If you don’t contextualize enough, no one’s life will be transformed because they won’t understand you. But if you contextualize too much, no one’s life will be transformed because you won’t be challenging their deepest assumptions and calling them to change.

Becoming “all things to all people”, therefore, does not mean fitting in with the fallen patterns of this world so that there is no distinguishable difference between Christians and non-Christians. While rightly living “in the world,” we must avoid the extreme of accommodation—being “of the world.” It happens when Christians, in their attempt to make proper contact with the world, go out of their way to adopt worldly styles, standards, and strategies.

When Christians try to eliminate the counter-cultural, unfashionable features of the biblical message because those features are unpopular in the wider culture—for example, when we reduce sin to a lack of self-esteem, deny the exclusivity of Christ, or downplay the reality of knowable absolute truth—we’ve moved from contextualization to compromise. When we accommodate our culture by jettisoning key themes of the gospel, such as suffering, humility, persecution, service, and self-sacrifice, we actually do our world more harm than good. For love’s sake, compromise is to be avoided at all costs.

As the Bible teaches, the Lordship of Christ has a sense of totality: Christ’s truth covers everything, not just “spiritual” or “religious” things. But it also has a sense of tension. As Lord, Jesus not only calls us to himself, he also calls us to break with everything which conflicts with his Lordship.

Contextualization without compromise is the goal!

Tweet This Post

It seems like it is a law somewhere, if I want to go up I must give up. To be different I have to do different. So if my goals challenge me to change, will I?
• If my goal is to lose weight: I must change how I eat.
• If it is to get in better physical shape: I must start exercising.
• If it is to pay off bills: I must change how I spend my money.
• If it is to have improved friendships: I must be friendly.
True progress requires change.

Just as our personal goals are based on change, so are spiritual goals. So many of the people I communicate with: pastors, missionaries, spiritual leaders, and especially those under the age of 35, have a desire to see a greater manifestation of Jesus and his kingdom. The challenge is to do so, we have to change.

Many of us have heard the definition of insanity: it is doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results! Unfortunately, this describes the new years goals of many churches and ministries. Numerical growth goals have been established and then the calendar is filled with “new” events that are supposed to bring about these goals. In reality, these new events are just the same modus operandi with different wrappings.

If we truly desire a greater manifestation of Jesus, we must be willing to change.

This year, instead of just putting goals on the same old things: attendance, giving, buildings, etc. maybe we should make transformational and quality goals? Maybe we should have a goal de-construct and to re-think & re-image church?

Some possible goals to consider:
• Transferring the focus of ministry from a Sunday event, to daily lives.
• Empowering the born again believer to minister their giftings.
• Less focus on liturgy and more waiting on Jesus.
• Simplify worship, creating an environment for intimacy.
• Focus less on external and more on internal transformation.
• Discipleship development based on relationship, not conformity.

There is a dual challenge to achieving these goals. First, they are not measured quantitatively but qualitatively. Second, they are opposite of traditional church. Both however, require a change in our mindset about who we are as the church and how we do church.

Twenty Ten can be a powerful year for the believer and church who is willing to stop, evaluate and change. The world is ready for something different this could be the year we give them something different!

till next time
martin

Tweet This Post

30 Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back.
31 Do for others as you would like them to do for you.

32 “Do you think you deserve credit merely for loving those who love you? Even the sinners do that!
33 And if you do good only to those who do good to you, is that so wonderful? Even sinners do that much!
34 And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, what good is that? Even sinners will lend to their own kind for a full return.

35 “Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don’t be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked. 36 You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate.

Don’t Condemn Others

37 “Stop judging others, and you will not be judged. Stop criticizing others, or it will all come back on you. If you forgive others, you will be forgiven.
NLT

Tweet This Post

I have been doing some research and studying lately: looking at various experts’ material regarding business, marketing and the web. I am searching to see if there are common principles in each presentation.  So far there is a few. One of them is the idea of risk.

Let me put it in my words:
Those that are successful are willing to take risks.
Those who play it safe will be average.

We remember the risk takers: the Wright bothers, Neil Armstrong, Chuck Yeager (I know, these are some older examples). In football, the play we talk about is the risk taking one, the long pass on the fourth down or the Hail Mary play, not the average run up the middle. When is the last time you heard of the “average Joe” making it big? Who remembers the average? (Not talking baseball stats here).

The big motivators for people are pain and pleasure. Unfortunately, we will do more to avoid pain than we will do for pleasure (why I do not exercise consistently!). Think about it: if we desire something pleasurable, but it requires the pain of change, how many times do we rationalize why we do not make the change? We play it safe, not taking risks, so we stay right where we are – average.

The fear of the pain of change is what keeps us stuck in our averageness (yes this is a word, noun form of average, based on three online dictionaries).

Now think about the average church – they are average because they are pretty much like every other church (even if they think their not). In any average church you will find a similar organizational structure and format of doing church.  I can get specific here if I need to, but will pass for the moment. Where average churches think they are different is when they put a different wrapping on the way of doing church. Let me give you an example.

Years ago when I was pastoring in Missouri, the big thing was to have a cool youth room. So we did that: we spent over $2000 on decorating. We received numerous compliments. Our youth attendance even when up – some. But you know what? We were still average. Why? We still did the youth meeting the same way. We still did youth outreach the same AND we still received the same response we always had.

Just doing the same thing with different glitz or glamour is not being different.

One reason churches stay average is they fear the repercussions of the others. This is especially true for many who are part of an organization that has its history of traditions (see what tradition really is – biblically). The ministry that truly steps out and takes risks to be different will be talked about. To many they will become liberals or compromisers. So we stay in our comfort zone of doing average church: getting our average results.

How to be average? Play it safe and do what you have always done.

Till next time – Martin

Tweet This Post

Who’s Apostle Are You?
Gal.1:1.Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

• ‘By Men’=The word ‘BY’,Grk dia, is a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):

• ‘Of Men’=The word ‘OF’, Grk apo, is a primary particle; “off,” i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation)

By implication, since an Apostle is a sent one by another authority, it means if you are an “Apostle of men” you will teach that which is the will or mind of men but far away from that of the Lord. If you are an “ Apostle by men” then you become an instrument to reveal the will of men, the very ones who probably licensed you by ordination. But if you be the “Apostle by Jesus Christ” Then you become the Channel of distribution of the mind and will of Christ to creation.

Paul gave us a clear picture of what I am saying in Gal.1:11-12, when he said, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”

It goes to show that, if we where to have more of the Apostles by Jesus Christ teaching the word today, we would have had more of the mind of God revealed to creation than it is.

The question then follows, now that every one seems to be an Apostle, who is the source of our information, Christ or men? Who’s Apostle are we? Are we all now Apostles by signing in into a Network, by membership or ordination? In other words, are we more of licensed Apostles than Christ commissioned Apostles or just a mere Religious Title wave bearers of another season?

Again, hear this; Gal 1:1-2. I, Paul, and my companions in faith here, send greetings to the Galatian churches. My authority for writing to you does not come from any popular vote of the people, nor does it come through the appointment of some human higher-up. It comes directly from Jesus the Messiah and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. I’m God-commissioned……

11 Know this — I am most emphatic here, friends — this great Message I delivered to you is not mere human optimism. 12 I didn’t receive it through the traditions, and I wasn’t taught it in some school. I got it straight from God, received the Message directly from Jesus Christ. (THE MESSAGE

Oh Lord! Send in more of your Apostles. Amen!

Ogaga David is an International Bible Teacher and the Set Man of Divine Encounter Ministries Warri and Gods Kingdom Advancement Initiative, a registered charity in South Africa. He is currently based in Nigeria.
www.gkai.net pstomadave@yahoo.co.uk

Tweet This Post

This makes me wonder, how do I smell? No I do not mean my cologne (in fact, I have had many compliments on my cologne). Paul tells us “we are the sweet fragrance of Christ,” that is evident in the lives of those around us, both “saved” and those “perishing.” We have a spiritual perfume or cologne that is noticed by those around us.

I remember, years ago, we were traveling through Tennessee and we stopped at a rest area by the Tennessee River. When we opened our car doors, immediately we were engulfed by this sweet aroma of the blooming lilac bushes. This fragrance permeated the entire rest area; there was nowhere you could go that it was not noticeable. It was such a wonderful, almost fairy tale like, place. It was hard to not want to sit, relax and just breathe in the wonderful aroma.

How do we smell to this world? Is my spiritual fragrance one that when individuals come near me, they immediately inhale the fragrance of Jesus? Does my attitude and actions permeate my environment with the sweet smell of grace, mercy and compassion? Do I create for them an almost unbelievable place, which they want to stop, relax and breathe in something that is so unlike this world?

Yes, maybe I need to go and check my spiritual cologne today.

Tweet This Post

If you have read any amount of my writings, you will see that I challenge the status quo of man’s religious traditions (The Barrier To The Apostolic). There are many ways that we do church that are based on these traditions that have been handed down over the years. Now, before I go too far, I am not against all traditions: I am against the traditions that conflict with the commandments of God (making them of none effect).

In my opinion, these religious traditions of men have created a rigid or almost sacred paradigm of thought that has resulted in a church that cannot reach the soul of the younger generation, those that are around 35 and under. They have seen so many things in there short lives that they have developed a healthy skepticism.

This skepticism has resulted in two significant things:
First – They challenge the status quo. Instead of blindly swallowing what has always been, they want to know why. I do not believe this is bad, in fact I think it is healthy. If the word of God cannot stand up to honest questions, how can it sustain us? The challenge is when man’s traditions are questioned, their foundation begins to crumble and it becomes uncomfortable to others.

Second – because these individuals have seen such hypocrisy and failure in the world and lives of leaders, they are aware of their own frailty. This makes them hungry. They desire to be connected – just don’t know whom they can trust or relate too. The big question swirling around in core being is “What am I all about?” They long to be a part of something they feel makes a difference. I see this as they are looking for Connection, Purpose & Mission.

Jesus states that you cannot put new wine into an old wineskin. Without going into a deep exegesis of this text, the word for new used in relationship to the wine skin means “unused, unworn, as respects substance; of a new kind; unprecedented, uncommon, unheard of” (Thayer’s). I believe the principle here can be applied to the church in this day; to reach a new generation, we need to us a new wineskin.

This new wineskin is what I am seeing spring up if you will among these young church planters. Their ways of doing church are radically different than the traditional. They focus more on people than buildings. They look to the needs of others. They are establishing a community of believers that desire an intimacy with Jesus that goes beyond a Sunday and Wednesday and transcends every aspect of their life. Their methods may not fit in the traditional paradigm of church, they may not look like the church on Sunday, and they do not sit idly by and accept with out challenge what they are taught. They are hungry for more. They are willing to connect and commit, just explain how and why. They desire to be used and give, just show them how and where. In my opinion, they are the church that will usher in the next great harvest!

Tweet This Post

Perception is a powerful thing. Two individuals can look at the same thing, each seeing something different based on their experiences and belief’s  – or the fancy word is paradigm.  It is this uniqueness of individual perception that can lead to incomplete communications or misunderstandings. For instance, two individuals can be using the same terminology, yet they each have a different point they are attempting to communicate based on their meaning of the particular word. In my opinion, this is common in the church world: we use various words that are defined based on our backgrounds and traditions, which obviously may not be the same from group to group. (more  details – AN Vol 3 No 3 What’s In A Name?).

One reason we may have this challenge in the church could be the idea that we tend to focus on certain terminology solely from a church perspective, forgetting that many words had a common usage prior to the biblical usage. An example of this includes the word ekklesia, which is translated church (more details -AN Vol 3 No 1 The Real Church) and what I want to focus on for this Apostolic Note – the terminology of apostolic or apostle.

Now I use these two words together because apostolic is actually not in scripture. However, it is a modern adjective used by many regarding the office of an apostle. It is from their defining paradigm of an apostle, they transfer and assume a definition for apostolic.  Thus, they limit themselves from truly experiencing the liberating power that all born again believers are apostolic.

What am I saying here? Many in today’s church realm view the term apostle as an individual in an authoritative position. This person is one who appears to be in a high-ranking bureaucratic position: their responsibility is to take charge and “run” things. With this in mind, many transfer this understanding to the general usage of the term apostolic, referring to the ministry of this individual*. This has produced a very limited understanding of the original word, thus limiting its applications to the body of Christ.

Defining Apostolic
Apostle is translated from apostolos, meaning sent one. It is derived from apostello, which means to send. Thus, the apostolos is the one who has been apostello, really quite simple. According to Holman’s Bible Dictionary, “An apostle represents the one sending and has authority to represent the sender in business, political, or educational situations.” The idea of apostolos, being sent (apsotello), was common in the bible days and really did not have a unique spiritual application.

The following is a list of non-spiritual examples of those who were apostelloe as apostolos
•    Herod “sent forth” and slew the children (Matt 2:16)
•    While Jesus was at Gennesaret, they “sent out” for the diseased (Matt 14:35)
•    The Pharisees “sent out” their disciples to “entangle him in his words” (Matt 22:15)
•    Pilate’s wife “sent” to him advising to have nothing to do with Jesus (Matt 27:19)
•    John “sent” his disciples to Jesus (Lk 7:20)
•    Chief priests and scribes “sent” spies to trap Jesus (Lk 20:20)
•    Herod “sent” forth and laid hold of John (Mk 6:17)
•    Herod “sent” the executioner and beheaded John (Mk 6:27)

In all these instances, the individuals were apostello – sent: They were commissioned to act as representatives of the one sending

As you can see, the above instances did not include some supernatural demonstration of spiritual authority or dominion. They were simply someone carrying out the orders or commission from a higher authority. The key point to being apostello is the inherent power of the entity doing the sending, the greater their power, the greater the potential authority of the one sent.

Kingdom Application
Demystifying and correctly using apostolic and apostle should empower us to demonstrate His kingdom. This understanding should first and foremost, refocus us back on the One sending and not the one sent. Second, it should free us from the fear of some supernatural bureaucrat that will attempt to dictate to the local assembly. Third, it should empower each and every believer that they have been sent by Jesus as his representative to this world. Grasping that each of us has been sent to transact business in His name will propel our faith to new levels of demonstration.

Tweet This Post

One of the major topics today among church leaders it how to be relevant. This can translate into the idea that we should have an understanding of our current culture so that we can attract their attention, enticing them to come to the place we define as church. Be that a typical building, storefront, theater or coffee shop: the idea is that we desire to become appealing to the world culture by becoming like them.

A recent Google of “relevant + church” produced over 10M sites, each presenting some idea of being relevant. In an attempt to become relevant, there are those who are changing their dress code (you can now come casual), style of music (contemporary), lighting (dimmed or special effects), seating arraignment (tables & chairs), place of meeting, how they do announcements, how they give, or their leadership structure. Each is claiming to present themselves in a way that their culture can relate to. So with so many ideas and applications, what does it mean to be relevant?

Let’s look at the word relevant; according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary it has two components:
1. Relieving; lending aid or support.
2. Bearing upon, or properly applying to, the case in hand; pertinent; applicable.

Jesus’ teaching was relevant because it challenged the traditional religious paradigm of the Pharisees: and gave hope to the drunkard, the harlot, social outcasts and the common man. His ministry resonated with the people because it touched them where they were living.

So being relevant is more than non-traditional decorations, methods or structure: it is even more than being about an individual’s eternal destiny. It is presenting the message of our King and His kingdom is such a way that we show how it can have a direct impact upon the present situations of an individual’s life.

Regardless where we meet, structure, seating, lighting, music, decorations or any other “thing” we do: A relevant church, it’s message and life, is to have significant and demonstrable bearing on the world/culture/community in which it is placed.

• What is the church? It is the body of Christ, which consists of born again individuals.
• So… a relevant church is when we (YOU & I) begin having a significant and demonstrable bearing on OUR communities (personal, school, work, neighbors), culture and world
• IF we are sons of God – exhibiting His nature, we will act or do the things He did. Jesus came preaching teaching and performing signs, wonders, healing all manner of disease and sicknesses.

Relevant is not about doing church different, it is about being different.

Food for thought
Am I being a relevant message to my community?

Tweet This Post