Purpose

Thursday, 26 March 2015

The term of office of the Church



The term of office of the Church is to love God with all its heart, strength and mind and to love others like herself.

It is the mission of the Church to be a healthy church within the reach of all people,


•   by way of interpreting life through intentional reflection on the life of Christ,
•   in the course of deliberate living a life of hospitality and reconciliation,

•   through maturing congregations from first to last,
  • discipleship through intentional mentoring and teaching
•   commissioning prepared people to purposeful service,
  • within
  • outside
•   investing human and financial resources purposefully,
  • remembering that the church exist for the sake of others
•   communicate and celebrate through listening to and loving one another, and
•  finding continuously  new ways to connect unreached people with the gospel and us.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Persons
  • All persons are made uniquely in the image of God and possess intrinsic worth.
  • All persons have a need to know Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
  • All persons can be saved and begin a growing relationship with Jesus Christ.
  • All persons have unique gifts to contribute to the kingdom.

Church
  • The Church family is the foundation for the growth of the Kingdom of God on earth.
  • The Church family is the primary context for developing believers.
  • The Church family is to minister in Jesus' name to all people.
  • The Church family is to worship and serve God.
  • The Church is God’s primary instrument used to showcase His character of love and distribute His free grace to a dying world. 
    • You and I are living in that dying world while at the same time living in the kingdom of God.

Team
  • Teamwork demonstrates and necessitates the diversity of spiritual gifts and personal competencies within the family of God.
  • Teamwork recognizes our dependence on God and each other.
  • Teamwork maximizes the leadership resources of the church.
  • Teamwork builds healthy inter-congregational community.
  • Teamwork affirms the gift of one another.
  • Teamwork appreciates diverse approaches and expression to accomplish our common vision and mission.

Love
  • Unconditional love is grounded in the character of God.
  • Unconditional love establishes a framework for all relationships.
  • Unconditional love guides all strategies, actions and programs.
  • Unconditional love ensures the appropriate understanding of the other, of time, money, and energy.

Learning
  • Lifelong learning affirms the mystery of God
  • Lifelong learning happens only intentionally 
  • Lifelong learning prevents judgmentalism
  • Lifelong learning leads to growth.
  • Lifelong learning leads to creativity.
  • Lifelong learning leads to greater faithfulness to biblical essentials.
  • Lifelong learning increases competence.

Growth
  • Scripture calls for every church to grow.
  • Scripture calls for the evangelization of the unreached.
  • Scripture calls for loving others.
  • Scripture calls for every Christian to grow in grace and knowledge of Christ.
  • Scripture calls for every Christian to participate in the growth of the church.

Generosity
  • God is generous to all. Becoming more like Him, we extend God's love through generosity to others.
  • Generosity is grace-enabled as we trust God in all circumstances.
  • Generosity is a source of joy and blessing as we join God in His ministry.
  • Generosity glorifies God and affirms Him as creator of everything.

Friday, 13 March 2015

Unity of understanding to create unity of action.

The basic meaning for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.
Philip K. Dyck

An unsettling thought indeed and there are good reason for not dismissing this thought outright particularly when we look at the word tolerance.  


The greatest hermeneutic of the gospel is a community that seeks to live by it.
Lesslie Newbigin
 
The headlines presented to us through media are filled with ethical, moral, and social issues. They fill a wide spectrum from employment equity to the right to choose, sexual orientation, gender identity, physician assisted suicide or abortion. And in so doing they inform our thinking about these and more issues, and the courts in recent decisions reflecting these changes in thinking. One of these changes is the believe or unbelieve for that matter in ultimate and universal truth.

Society believes, or say it believes, that all people have a right to their own opinion -- and there are those who hold that some opinions are better than others. That is to be expected. For once, we have all different values, outlook of  life, cultural upbringing, to name just a few components that play a role in our development of opinions. However, we have often difficulties to listen honestly and carefully to each others point of view. The reason for that is in my view that we often arrived at an understanding without really understanding the why, why we hold that particular opinion. After all, rather than being rational we are emotional beings that arrive at lives decisions, values and opinions not after a lengthy time of reflection. And therefore, on both side of a debate about anything, we tend to want our cake and eat it too.

What does that all mean in practice to us today? I must say, I am not really sure all that it means to the Church in practice at this moment. However, it should be clear that the changes in media and court decisions will further highlight the clear riff between the underlying foundation of society at large and the church. To begin, however, it clearly means this: We, the followers of Christ, have been utterly foolish in our concentration on trying to segregate from one another because of different opinions in our systematic theologies. That excluding behaviour has broken down the truth in bits and pieces and has taken away from the big picture. This inadvertently pointed to a problem in the theology of love, as some regard "Christianity" and their own denomination's name and particulars to be synonyms. This has not only taken our focus from making disciples of Christ but also to a complete failure to face the total world view that informs our daily life decisions. Rather than addressing the foundation that brings us together into conflict with the world, we have opt for the easy way out and are holding small inhouse debates, "trying" to convert one another. And in so doing we effectively failed to witness to the truth that Jesus was sent.

We have not understood that different world views, being accountable to someone other or not, will effect the totality of all bits and pieces and inevitably brings forth totally different results in life, cf. abortions. I don't think that is nowhere more obvious than in media and law -- where a different world view with its bits and pieces is almost forced into our thinking.    

Unfortunately, many believe or at least act today as if rational, emotionless discussions about different opinions, resulting from a different world view, have no place in the public realm since all answers are based on personal opinions.  We are increasingly taught, we are simply stuck with our different opinions and that all opinions are relative -- having no basis in any objective or unchanging moral truth. Therefore, anything which presents or argues from an absolute truth position is quite rightly seen to be a total denial of a relative position and can't be allowed. In some respect, both positions is an exclusivist one, and at least on an intellectual level intolerant when it presents itself exclusively through political or legal institutions. Tolerance, once expressed as respecting others' right to hold differing perspectives, has morphed into a pervasive insistence that no one should hold firm convictions.But we need to be honest, the history of the church is full of intolerance.

What is truth? 

"What is truth?" retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. The NIV translation, perhaps unintentionally, points to a believe of relativism of morality and truth by Pilate. And that should be expected, because the politic of Rom was if not to respect but at least to tolerate local religious believes, it kept the peace. Perhaps skeptical that any are true, he also observe that religions brought a sense of purpose, comfort, stability, and security to people's lives. He too might regard religious diversity as a positive force bringing social stability and cohesiveness within the realm of the empire. Thus, he might be religiously tolerant. In this sense we may want to accuse him to have a relative view of truth, a view that is so prevalent in our society today. What is truth? This today fundamental question was not meant to be answered. It was not an inquire from someone seeking after truth, but rather a rhetorical question. For Pilate was really saying, you have no basis or right to make moral judgements about individuals and their actions or about society at large. Who are you to judge? Who are you to judge me, Jesus or the procedure that will follow?

The question about the foundation of life is a serious one, and is raised in one form or the other by many people in our contemporary society. It is serious because Pilate suggest relativism, and here particularly moral relativism, whereas Jesus calls attention to himself; "I am the truth,..." With whom do we side? The view when it comes to moral issues there is no universally objective right or wrong in any given situation, or with Jesus? Are we going with; What is in the interest of the majority, what is in the interest of peace for the majority? A sentiment we find in Caiaphas; "it's better one man should die for the people." That is not to say than humankind is not intrinsically unselfish, corrupted only by outward circumstances and influences. No, we are fallen and not fully what we were created to be. The question simply is; who is going to be the judge on the bench?

It is true, we are all socialized from such an early age and to such an extend that it is very difficult to separate what is cultural from what is personal. We cannot deny it, we are to a large degree the product of our upbringing with its surrounding cultural influences. That position is not particularly easy for some people to take. However it is essential if religious peace is to be maintained in Canada where religious diversity is rapidly increasing. In some cases, tolerance can simply be a result of a lack of religious convictions -- i.e. lack of discipleship or a byproduct of indifference. Some Christians may have few or no strong religious convictions of their own. They will probably be quite tolerant of other people's beliefs in the sense that hey simply don't care what others or they themselves believe.  
There, therefore, can be neither inappropriate or appropriate judgement, and no reasonable or rational ways to make moral judgements that would apply in every time, in every place, in every culture, and to every person? Really?
At the same time, we need to admit that today's western societies have become largely areligious while coming from a Christian background which nonetheless informed their values.  

What is truth? This question unanswered leads to the danger of moral relativism at which end only subjective opinions and personal preferences exist, no different from one's feeling about capital punishment, female circumcision or the preferred ice-cream flavour, or hockey player.
We are all socialized from such an early age and to such a great extent that it can be very hard to separate what is cultural from what is - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/#sthash.6CGkF9ho.dpuf

When we look into the development, the unfolding of the story, relativism simply doesn't carry enough bit to save tolerance, or the individual. What we rather detect is a kind of ambiguity or different self-interests that lead to injustice. The authority of power to judge (Pilate) was no exercised because of situational self-interests, but also the want of the majority. Therefore, although Jesus was pronounced innocent according to the opinion of Pilate, he got executed in a method that was otherwise chiefly inflicted on slaves or the worst kind of criminals. On one hand the by the Jewish law required stoning for blasphemy did not take place yet consideration was given to the Sabbath law. We see and find ourselves in a climate of inconsistency, contradiction, cohesion and self-interests, little has changed. And around and around we go in this regressive spiral where we find ourselves sacrificing today not Christ but tolerance in the name of exclusivity be it relativism or absolutism.

The problem we face than and today is that moral relativism doesn't protect tolerance since anyone can choose to value mutual tolerance or not. After all, there can't be any reasons for preferring one set of values over another, except mine because they suite me best. But tolerance or to tolerate proper understood is nothing more than to put up with, conditionally, with a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own. But that requires that we actually have strong convictions ourselves, rather than lose opinions.

Tolerance, I believe is the underlying current in what the New Testament presents to us. However, neither tolerance nor permissiveness toward an action frees us from providing an alternative response in love. Tolerance is not indifference. True tolerance means taking our deeply held convictions seriously because understanding and sharing our differences actually makes a difference. Disagreements matter. True tolerance means engaging one another with love and respect despite our differences. We need a recovery of a biblical expression of tolerance, insisting that the existence of disparate views even and perhaps more important among Christians is vastly different from the acceptance of all views being equally valid. Tolerance understood in this way is not really an abstract, personified ideal, but has always been, although in a subtle way a dominant part of the early witness of the church. Intolerance, if we want to call it that way, was exercised within the small confinement of a local church addressing sin rather than differences of religious opinions and values. Tolerance in love, however, is vital to the life of the church even if only for the weaker brothers and sisters.

"I would like to speak up for the tolerance which arises from respect for the inherent worth of people -- tolerance which is not indifferent to the choices people make, the principles they live by, but accepts their right to make their own choices. This tolerance is not an easy indifference but a difficult balance between a passionate conviction in the worth of one's own cause, a compelling necessity to convert others, and the fearsome risk of being converted oneself. It is sustained not by an arrogant indifference to how life is lived but by a humble assertion of the worth and dignity of every person." 
We are all socialized from such an early age and to such a great extent that it can be very hard to separate what is cultural from what is - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/#sthash.6CGkF9ho.dpuf
Richard R. Rathbone
Moral relativism doesn’t require any sort of policy on tolerance since anyone can simply chose to value tolerance or not and furthermore there can’t be any reasons for preferring one set of value claims to another (except maybe “my value claims are better because they are mine”) - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/moral-relativism-vs-cultural-relativism/#sthash.cezak8Jk.dpuf

Moral relativism doesn’t require any sort of policy on tolerance since anyone can simply chose to value tolerance or not and furthermore there can’t be any reasons for preferring one set of value claims to another (except maybe “my value claims are better because they are mine”). - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/moral-relativism-vs-cultural-relativism/#sthash.cezak8Jk.dpuf
.

Moral relativism doesn’t require any sort of policy on tolerance since anyone can simply chose to value tolerance or not and furthermore there can’t be any reasons for preferring one set of value claims to another (except maybe “my value claims are better because they are mine”) - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/moral-relativism-vs-cultural-relativism/#sthash.cezak8Jk.dpuf

Monday, 2 March 2015

Crosswalk VI -- Our trouble with seeing

One of the commonly performed miracles recorded for us in the Gospels was the restoring of sight, moving from blindness to sight. Perhaps the reason for this particular emphasis is the fact that people in their natural fallen stage are spiritually blind. Like literal blindness, seeing nothing, spiritual blindness hinders us to see God anywhere. In fact, the spiritual journey of discipleship perhaps can best be understood as moving from God seeing nowhere, to a place where we expect to see him, to seeing God everywhere. Something we had not taken into account, had not seen explained everything in a different way. When we begin to see more fully many thing will change. When we see differently, we interpret differently, we react differently, intend differently, and finally live differently.

An Eye for an Eye will leave the world Blind. -Ghandi
One of the most unsettling passage for Christians is certainly found in John 9; normally described;

 "A Man Born Blind Receives Sight"

But I think that to be a rather unfortunate headline. Because it helps us to overlook the otherwise obvious question; to which group of people do we belong? Is it the one that is pushing its agenda and therefore not asking the right question; to which group do I belong? After all, the story is about several groups of people and their various level and forms of blindness; first the blind man, than the very religious people [disciples as well as Pharisees], the neighbours and finally the parents of the man.

As much as John 9 is about a physical blind man receiving sight, the wonder that had been done to him on the surface, on a deeper level it is about spiritual blindness, it is about the spiritual darkness he comes out of while other remain. And therefor the story is about us who address Jesus as; "Lord, Lord." David Benner to our dislike points out, even though we may desire to be more discerning,
"egocentricity and self-control are fundamental dynamics of the human condition. We know we are suppose to surrender to God's will [and work] and may genuinely want to, but most of us continue to face the almost irresistible tendency to assert our own will [and work]. We overhear Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane --"Not my will but thine be done"-- but have trouble making it our own." 

Asking the wrong question because of a wrong foundation

What should have been a day of celebration for the community, after all, one among them was restored, was healed, deteriorated into a day of accusation, controversy, fear, and expulsion. Unfortunately, what prevented his parents, friends, neighbours, religious leaders and disciples from recognizing and responding to God's loving nature among them is not all that different what prevents us from recognizing God's work for us today.

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth.  Being seen by Jesus opens up all kinds of possibilities.
His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
What an interesting theological and philosophical questions the disciples raise, worthy of much debate and many books, yet a question totally out of touch with the situation and the suffering of the man. The disciples who should have been seeing spiritually more clearly were the once who were most blind and out in touch with Jesus' heart for this man. "...who sinned, this man or his parents"? is certainly not a very compassionate and caring question, it does not show concern for the well-being of this man. Rather, he becomes an object lesson for their intellectual curiosity that allows them to remain passive in light of suffering. They place their questions between this man and them, between his situation and their calling as Christ followers. Instead of going to the man, seeing this as an occasion to care for this man they want to pass on blame; "Rabbi,who sinned, this man or his parents?" Rabbi, teacher!

The disciples, for all their closeness to Jesus, had not arrived to see Jesus for who he truly was and did not understand his mission. They, like all the people around them were caught in a kind of blindness that was more hindering than the debilitating blindness of this man. It was holding them back because, unlike the blind man, they did not recognized their spiritual blindness. It was a "structural blindness" brought about through a belief system they grow up in. Their thinking and therefor the question who sinned, this man or his parents, was shaped by what would be called today outdated and religious superstitions. And this man made structure framed the situation so narrowly that God had almost no space in it, but the space of judgement. This was the accepted system of cause and effect and the limit of a generally shared way of thinking (cf. Job). This systemic way of thinking had eventually produced a sub-floor of sort over the foundation, leading to wrong assumptions and questions, who sinned, this man or his parents?
And this is the way the man saw himself, his blindness was caused by either his sin, a sin he would not able to name, or a sin done by his parents. Can we see the effect that must have had on his self-image, his relationship to his parents? But then the lights went on, and he saw God and he knew that God saw him in his suffering and brokenness. Healing of relationships could happen because God was in the picture. He was set free from the external world around him but also from his internal world of his own making.

A better question, in fact a question that almost always is better; What does God want to do in this situation, and how can I get involved, in light of the brokenness and impossibility of the human condition but also God's goodness? But in order to ask that question we need a deep belief in the goodness of God apart form the circumstances and even our negative experiences with "the church." Many of us got hurt in life and have become "self-made people," we relay on ourselves as long as possible. Truth be told, we don't really want to trust other people with our fears, doubts, limitations, failures but ourselves. This attitude is present in the blaming and deflective question; "who sinned?"

How can we give ourselves to someone we are not sure will be good to us? What made David a man after God's own heart was not his murderous past, sex addiction and tendencies to idolatry, but that he ultimately trusted God's judgement and His goodness.

God's word is not sugarcoating the reality of failure and yet growth of the disciples. Yes, there is evil in the world, but do not be theoretical about it. Yes, there is sin in the world with all the tragic consequences, but what good comes from the blame game? Yes there is a complex web of cause-and-effect in the human experiences, but that does not excuse us from loving.

And so we don't need beside a deep believe in the goodness of God that love is our ultimate destiny, and to love our ultimate calling -- love for God, love for self, love for others [including our enemies] and love for creation. I think there is no other true measure of authenticity for us as disciples of Christ than love. 

That we are to love God and others is the one thing we can be sure is the will of God in all circumstances and for all people. And we see that, rather than simply seeing the suffering, Jesus goes to the man and takes direct and immediate action no matter what the personal consequences.

Great Wall of China by zeushadesposeidon
Great Wall of China by zeushadeposeidon
The structural blindness of the disciples that lead to inaction and the wrong question, in spite of their closeness to Jesus, is sobering because it demonstrates that even those who are on a spiritual journey for some time can still miss the point, -- especially if they are living and breathing the same belief system and cultural influences together.

The next group are the well-minded neighbors who for some reason had difficulties to see the now seeing man as their neighbour. The neighbours, like we all are, were afflicted with cognitive filters. These filters help us to categorize and to make sense of what we see, of reality. The problem is that these filters have been developed over many years of interacting with life in the same way. And because these filters are something we are not fully aware of they prevent us from seeing anything new or of entering any new data into our consciousness without being filtered, viewed with a level of suspicion. Just like William Barclay in his commentary on the New Testament, we talk ourselves out of new possibilities by questioning whether that ever happened.

"We only see what we are ready to see, expect to see, and even desire to see. We are even more stuck when we are with others who share the same paradigm" (Ruth H. Barton). There is the danger that we too like the people in this story are colluding and protect the comfortable status quo and to avoid to confront what is beyond the accepted knowledge and experience. In fact, the very religious and powerful group of the Pharisees were most guilty of eventually dismissing the work of God altogether. Any deviation from the status quo, any challenges, any doubts, any question, any non-conformity to the established paradigm of cause and effect, of judgement was answered with expulsion. The power to drive someone out, to dismiss, to denigrate and undermine what a person,particularly a new person, brings, in one way or the other is a power leaders have. The Pharisees had surrounded themselves with those who are blind in the same way they were. They were so caught up in the power of groupthink that they couldn't see things differently. Here, anyone who challenge what was already thought would be put out of the synagogue, and so the fear of no longer belonging, "keeping peace," kept even the parents quite. They too were not to be part of the prophetic witness.

This is how paradigms, system of thoughts (structural blindness, groupthink), rigidly held categories of black and white, and unquestioning loyalty to tradition function. On the one hand, they give as a sense of security and belonging to something bigger than ourselves, they make sense of our lives so that we can function within that sphere. But on the other hand, they have the power to filter out the unexplainable, the new, the unwanted new thought. In John 9 they filtered out God himself!

Therefore, a better heading would be "a man on his costly journey to seeing who Jesus truly is."

9:11 Jesus a man
9:17 Jesus is called a prophet
9:33 Jesus is called a man from God
9:38 Jesus is called Kupios, Lord and is being worshiped.

The healed man was on his own spiritual journey. While everyone around him was asking all the wrong questions, arguing and trying to trip the other person up, while holding tied to the party line, the healed man was on a journey of increased insight and understanding into who Jesus actually is.

But this came at a high price. Although he can see now, he no longer has a belonging. It would have been easier to fit in a group, after all he could see now, than it is to fit in with the truth. When we encounter God in ways that do not fit the accepted paradigm, we might find ourselves at the outside. That look like bad news, and is certainly not easy, but it there that Jesus looks for him and finds him.

“I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.”...“If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

The punch line! In what light do we want to be seen and see ourselves in; for only those who admit their blindness see!? Those who are convinced that they know already everything that can be known, that they see everything that can be seen, and stubbornly refuse to learn will remain stand still. This event shows that understanding has a humble beginning. It starts with an admission, with the admission that we are not all that good at seeing something new. It begins with remembering that we are capable of being short-sighted (cf. 2 Pet 1:8f), and we are ourselves are an obstacle we need to overcome. Humility begins when we acknowledge the fact that we lack the wisdom we need and that without divine intervention, without Jesus actually looking for us, finding us outside a soul-numbing clamor of a "religious" community we will know not enough.

Jesus' words reveal simple beauty, God's goodness and generosity. Yet this simplicity also lays bare evil without numbers, anxiety or presumption, inferiority or superiority, manipulation or withholding, miserliness or indulgence. Jesus words should make us stop, inform our interior world of self-thought and see ourselves in the gaze of God. His words invite us to further thoughts and observation. Simple, in fifty words or less, Jesus captures truth and lies, human hope and its misery, true hope and false hope in whatever configuration or combination possible. He judges every illusory way, every pretender of truth, every claim of wisdom that eventually chokes out the very life it claims to love. Yet all the personal application, details need to be discovered and be named by us. That is what it means to pick up our cross daily and to follow the Truth.

Jesus' words does nor ignore, erase or normalizes our human condition but speaks them back to us for us to hear. With hearing, seeing and accepting in humility begins growth, when we begin to get in touch with our blindness and are willing to cry out from a place of brokenness our eyes are opened.
  
It takes humility, a great willingness to have a healthy openness to ask questions, spiritual insight, self-awareness and a helping hand to see Jesus for who he is otherwise we end up with nothing more than the god of our own small minds.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Crosswalk V -- moving forward in Making Peace


In a Christian Community everything depends upon whether each individual is an indispensable part in the puzzle. Only when even the smallest piece is securely interlocked the puzzle is complete. Awareness of the other is a good first step. Reflection, the second step. Acceptance, the third step. Confession (surely!) follows as the next step. Seeking and extending forgiveness -- right here is the sequence that can genuinely change the one another, the church, the world and us. But all that requires love, love of the other. 

 "by this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (Jh 13:35)

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/ef/f5/aeeff511271b6cf0a1e77126323f5d77.jpgI can't help it but to conclude from this verse, but also others, that the present wold has a right, certainly the ability, to judge whether our Christian faith is authentic, and therefore relevant. Because love, unlike everything else will have relevance even in eternity. Although we will judge the present world in the future, presently we are being judged by the world. Christians have not always presented an inviting or loving your neighbour as yourself picture to the world. Too often we have failed to show the beauty of authentic Christian love. Just like society around us, we are pervaded by the inclination to obstinate self-determination, the tendency to present what is one's own as the only thing that counts -- one's own person, one's own nation, one's own culture, tradition, church, one's own family or community -- or at least, one's own way of thinking. That does not mean that we have no convictions, but too often this has lead to self-isolation and an unawareness of the struggle of others.
One of the purposes for the church is to be a kind of rendezvous point between God and the world, where God through us declares concretely His love for all the people. Through us, God meets a struggling world, congregation and individual. But his happens only when we read the Scriptures together and pray together and being church together and break bread and share wine together. It is in those moments that God affirms to us that things between Him and us are made very good. And when we live in the stage of "very good" we become attractive. Moreover, when we are being church together we are no longer under the natural delusion that keeping rules makes us more lovable to God. If we fail to be church in this spirit, we will turn even the law --good things!-- into self-salvation projects. In fact we have turned many into self-salvation projects anyway, and therefore the world of today has disregarded our message of sacrificial love as unconnected to what they witness. God does not need our good works or sacrifices, but we do and so do our neighbours. God looks for obedience, or perhaps better stated acts of love. Unless our love to one another and others is qualitatively different to what of the world, we cannot expect the world either to listen or to seek us out when in need. In our era of global violence and sectarian religious intolerance, the church needs to respond compassionately to a needy and understandably confused world. In this sense, our mutual and unconditional love to one another has an apologetic purpose authenticating that we have been sent, but even more that Jesus had been sent by the Father. 

Displaying intro.jpg
The only way we as community to live a life of "producing much fruit" is when we maintain a taste of God's radical, unconditional acceptance of sinners, including the brother who has sinned against us. But this is not without struggle in which the world is an independent witness. What is the world observing when it looks at us?

Furthermore, observable love includes words like; I am sorry and than together to move on. This indeed a very difficult move. I may involve the arduous move to reestablish contact with people or groups we have hurt, or offended and seeking reconciliation. But the same is true when we have been hurt, or offended. Following the example of the incarnation, we the offended party has to seek reconciliation as well. This is the more difficult in that doctrine is not the only thing or the actual thing involved, relationships are not falling apart over technicalities. They are falling apart because of what gives us meaning. There is a scene in Arthur Miller's play Incident at Vichy in which an upper-middle-class man appears before an official of the Nazi-authority showing his credentials; a degree form a university, letters of references, and so on. The official asks him; "Is this everything you have?" The man affirms this only to witness that everything is being thrown into the wastebasket by the official; "Good, now you have nothing." The man is emotionally destroyed, because like so many of us his self-esteem depended on the respect of others. His achievement mattered, his opinions mattered and therefore he mattered because they gave him identity and meaning. Unfortunately, too often Christians find meaning and fulfillment in a temporal identity, rather than in the eternal belonging to God as Father. If the congregation no longer provides this eternal belonging but  substitutes it through activities or tradition, "you have to conform first or again," this affects genuine community and therefore our witness. Belonging involves reconciliation, forgiveness, repentance, trust and love. Belonging is not technical in nature but is deeply personal and effect us emotionally. If Christians no longer belong deeply we will find meaning elsewhere, be it work (doing something significant), in charity (caring for others), in tradition (bigger than oneself), in pleasure (as Freud suggest and the entertainment industry certainly seams to validate his perspective on the meaning of life), or in power (climbing the cooperate ladder, cf. Alfred Adler). But than our difference to that of the world is of little value to them.

There is no better observable difference than observable love, by "saying we are sorry." By continually sharing a belonging within a eternal family we are different. This at times arduous relationship is particularly important within leadership and congregation because failing to do so reduces trust and connectivity between both. Consequently the observable difference, a difference that truly matters would be fainting. But, it is a very difficult move. Pride, fear, incomprehension that something was done wrong and more could stop the necessary move toward reconciliation and therefore the restoration of belonging and witness. But there is one thing more difficult than saying; I am sorry, please forgive me, and that is to forgive. Forgiveness is a very deep matter. True forgiveness, just like love, is observable. It changes the way we interact in times of disagreements. It is an attitude the world is looking for in us. The world is looking on, and thus can make the judgement whether or not we exhibit unconditional love and therefor belonging. Church is more than sharing in common issues, which may change over time, or tradition, because each new person brings with it a new past, or even theology, because we are all in different stages in our journey. Church is about belonging. 

Several practical aspects derive from the motive of love leading to belonging.
  • Each sibling should be of help to the others, regardless of nationality, race, language, culture, and so on. 
  • Each should be of material help to one another, not so much as individual but as part of the whole. Hospitality, and by that sharing of a significant amount of time with one another, material goods, money -- all these are there to be shared with one another because of love.
  • Fellowship, companionship and friendship should be share within the family of God.
  • Love is observable and includes ongoing seeking each others best. 
  • Seeking and extending forgiveness and working toward reconciliation
  • Purpose of existence
All people are being made in the image of God, and being loved by God, therefore we need to love them us our neighbours. And it is natural, at least in the past, that we want to get to know them as best as possible. Yet, there is a special kind of love and understanding between Christians that unites us. In Life together, Bonhoeffer reminds us, "Only he who lives by the forgiveness of his sin in Jesus Christ will rightly think little of himself. He will know that his own wisdom reached the end of its tether when Jesus forgave him." Unfortunately, forgiveness is underrated and under-practiced. After all, we do not always get it right. And when we get it wrong, we tend to safe face or to justify our action. We revert to the mechanism of our old nature of fight or flight. We have extraordinary practice in both and often we do not even realize that we practice them. It either takes great humility, or an extraordinary friend to help us to recognize a wrong or a fault, to be repentant, to seek forgiveness, to make restitution, and to long for reconciliation. It takes time, sensibility and effort. It is much easier to be content with the time saving but worldly wisdom of "irreconcilable."    
Christ's grace makes true community, makes belonging possible and Christ's forgiveness sustains life together. Off course, we can think glowingly of the church community, as if it is some utopian commune, like we see in Star Trek or alike. 
The utopian view is painted something like this. The church is made up of Christian, who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, have a new life in Christ, a new heart of flesh, and have been given grace upon grace. Consequently, naturally everybody loves everybody to the fullest extend possible. This is a gift and not of works. 
But an ever increasing number of us realize and are honest with themselves that this is not the case, they are too clearly at the outside of the fellowship. In many churches people cope with their disillusionment, with a strategy of low expectation. Some are simply confused, others resent the reality of the human nature of the church and leave.

Church is not a dream world,at least not if we give full weight to the witness of scripture. The sooner we allow scripture to inform us about reality, the sooner we come face-to-face with a healthy level of disillusionment of others and a realistic disillusionment with ourselves, the better off the church as a whole is. Coming to grips with all of our own limitations and weaknesses and besetting sins that so easily entangle us goes a long way in developing and sustaining true and genuine community. Unfortunately we cover up, but children grow up and will ask, "Why is that blanket there?" And if we don't tell them the truth, they will uncover it themselves. We have to be truthful so that we can pass on truth to our children. If we continue to play things down, tell lies, avoid the issue, let the past rest we will pass on a false picture of us who are the church. And our children will pass them on to our grandchildren. However, some believe that what they were doing was right, but this only shows the depth of our denial. It has gone deep into our consciences and our minds, and for that reason Paul calls for a renewal of our mind. Awareness of our complicitous nature to avoid responsibility and suffering the arduous work of reconciliation is important for moving forward. Yet denial has become an accepted way of living, and the more we cover up our guilt, the pain we caused, the more damaging it is. If they are not deal with, these repressed truth will burst forth eventually and healing will be more difficult. Accepting responsibility is a form of suffering as it calls for the removal of an unhealthy self-image and fear. It is better for us to suffer a little more now, so that we can heal the broken relationships within our body. Yet often we substitute true belonging through shared interests or ministry activities in the church or simply denial and avoidance. 

When we have also come to grips with the same struggle of shortcomings including that of denial and avoidance in others -- including our leaders and heroes like David the murder, Abraham the liar, or Peter the backslider we live in a real and not idolized community. All three needed an outside voice to fully understand their sins, and so do we. It is in this real community friends who are also brothers and sisters that real belonging happens. Church is not a honeymoon but family life. That does not mean that we settle for a mediocrity, but that we give full weight to our humanness and the witness of scripture for our constant need of a highpriest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peacemaking is not an evolutionary process happening through the passing of time or by looking in from the sideline. Peace is being created and recreated.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. (John 14:27)

Of course then there’s the classic statement of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount which is perhaps one of the lesser understood and hence practiced one among Christians:
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matt 5:9)
The questions remains, how are we being peacemakers without simply succumbing to what we consider wrong?

Schaeffer outlines five principles that I believe are indeed very helpful in us moving toward making peace.
  • When we have significant differences we should never come to them without tears and regret. If we have tears there can be beauty in the midst of differences.
  • We must measure the seriousness of the differences and act accordingly with a concern for the holiness of God, refusing to back down, but seeking a way that shows the greatest love. We always need feel close to people, even if we do not like them (liking people is anyhow more of a self-serving emotion).
  • Real, concrete love will require at times great sacrifice, we must be able to suffer loss for the sake of keeping the relationship viable.
  • There should be a deep desire to solve the problem rather than a desire to win or the desire to avoid the arduous work.
  • Our call is to uphold both the holiness of God and the requirements of unconditional love. 
It is equally wrong to compromise about what is right and our oneness in Christ, especially when what is right is more about me. Without this tension held in balance the world will not know that the Father has sent his Son.