Reflection of the Heart

I know it's been a LONG time since I posted, and I'll try to get back in the habit, guys.

I want to talk about dress code in church based on a rather interesting discussion I was having with a pastor yesterday. Unfortunately, I had to take a phone call that necessitated the abrupt end to the conversation.

I had mentioned that I believe God would rather me be comfortable when attending church, rather than in a suit and tie that is not a natural outfit for me to wear. The pastor brought up an interesting point in that the Old Testament has some fairly clear guidelines of how one is to approach God. He did say that he wasn't sure what that looked like in today's culture and time, but I had responded that how we approach God is a reflection of our heart and God cares about the state of our hearts rather than the kind of clothes we wear.

Unfortunately, this is where the discussion was interrupted and so I will continue on here, in hopes of generating further discussion.

I was raised with the idea that going to church was a special occasion and that I should look my best for God. All through my childhood I would dutifully get dressed up so I could fulfill that teaching. In my teenage years, I began to go a little more casual, noticing that my peers were doing the same. Now, I dress so I will be comfortable and hardly ever wear a suit, except on occasions that it is required or when I feel like it.

One question that I always had is for those that work in office environments or workplaces that require the wearing of a suit all week...how are you dressing any differently when you go to church? This is where my childhood teaching breaks down. A suit is a suit, regardless of where it was purchased. And to say that God wants us looking our best for him is not saying a lot about the depth of God's character. Aren't we supposed to believe that he looks at the heart of a person? I'm not saying we should show up in jeans with holes all through them, but if that's all the person has, who are we to judge them?

I believe that Jesus focused more on people's hearts and that we should mirror that approach. Care for the heart and you care for the person. If you cannot get past outward appearances, then perhaps it is you who should do some self-reflection to find out what's going on beneath YOUR surface. I've heard too many stories of people who have been turned away because they did not measure up to some ridiculous rule or regulation...I even heard of an international church leader turned away from a church in his own denomination because he was carrying his guitar with him. And he was the guest speaker that day!

We must get away from a culture of judging (reality shows and programming like "American Idol" do NOT help) and move to an attitude of acceptance. If we can accept people where they are at, instead of asking them to come all the way to where we are at, then we will win many more hearts for Christ...after all, isn't that what it's all about?

The Journey or The Person

I saw a commercial recently that proffered the question, "Does the person make the journey or does the journey make the person?" It got me thinking because it's a really good question.

As we go through life, is it within ourselves to change the peaks and valleys, the twists and turns of our own personal journeys? I think there is in how we respond to those peaks and valleys, those twists and turns. And in that response, we actually shape our journeys in a way that could drastically change the course of where we are headed.

However, those same peaks and valleys, twists and turns also affect us in such a way that we feel we have to change, to adapt to a new reality that we are faced with. And in so doing, we are changed not by the journey that we are on but by ourselves.

This raises another interesting question, "Is our journey directly a result of the decisions that we have made, or is there some other force, some being or entity, influencing the events in out lives towards its own ends?"

Sorry to get philosophical and even metaphysical here, but let's go with it because I feel it's an important question. I think that there is most certainly a direct relationship between the choices that we make and the circumstances and situations we are faced with. However, I also believe that there are unseen forces actively working in all of our lives everyday that we are not aware of. Forces that keep us safe by altering situations slightly in order to help us avoid an accident, or encouraging certain thoughts to occur that will help us with a crisis or dilemma that we are facing.

I feel it's these forces, good and bad, that affect our lives in ways that ultimately change us into who we are now because we've LET them change us. Something to remember is that we are who we are today not so much because we were born that way, but because we have changed and adapted in response to the events of our lives and HOW we respond is, most of the time, our decision.

So to answer the original question, I will simply say, "Yes." But remember that ultimately, it's we who change ourselves.

What do you think?

A Moment of Reflection

This post will be a radical departure from my usual.

I just finished watching "Band of Brothers." I've already seen "The Pacific," and movies like "Windtalkers," and "Saving Private Ryan."

It strikes me here in the early morn that these men who were in battle in both the European and Pacific theaters have experienced things that no person should have to go through. And they did it with stoicism, valor, courage, and honor. The emotional and mental trauma they endured for months and years on end is something that today's modern man just cannot understand. They fought not because they had bloodlust, but because they had to; because sometimes that's the only way to stop evil.

World War II is called the "last great war." I think there's a lot of truth to this, but the way I've heard it talked about seems to invalidate the service and sacrifice of those who served in Korea, Vietnam, in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and all the places in between in the last 60 some years. I hope that is not the case because while the veterans of WWII do deserve a special place in the hallowed halls of time, our men and women who currently serve and who have served since then also deserve our appreciation and respect.

I am saddened when I think of myself next to a soldier and realize that I am the lesser man. I wish I could see myself in a uniform, but I know it's not the life for me; it's too honorable a calling, and I feel I am too much a coward.

We do not have the right to criticize, judge, ridicule, or belittle them. Those acts are best served for the governing bodies that send these people to war-they are the ones who make those decisions. Soldiering is an honorable profession and a person in uniform should be respected for their decision. Please join me in thanking those that serve whenever you come across them. As someone who has an older sibling in the Army, I can tell you that they appreciate it.

Will you join me in thanking those that give so much...and sometimes, give it all?

Why go to church...my take

Ok, a couple posts ago I asked the question "Why go to church?" No one responded, so maybe I should give you my take and you can respond to that.

Throughout the centuries, church, in its various forms, has served as a means of focusing our attention, at least for a brief while, on communing and experiencing God. And it's important to understand that church has not always been in the form that we experience it today. Remember, Christ said that "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I will be there." So, to me, the idea of church started with Adam and Eve.

Let's stop for just a second and allow our imaginations to flex a bit here. Can you imagine what it would have been like to walk and talk with God every day? To hear him speak of how he made you, that he enjoyed spending his time with you, and that he made all of this for you? How cool!

Now, let's move forward to the early Christian church. These were groups of believers that met in home churches and evangelized consistently which led to the widespread explosion of Christians in the first decades of after Christ's ascension. This model is still widely used in areas of religious persecution and is fairly effective.

Here in the States, I'm saddened to say that church has become more of a social club with a brief time spent in worship to God. My history in a denomination has shown me that there is an important social component to church, and for a lot of people, belonging to a church allows them an important social and spiritual support group, so don't get me wrong-that's important.

However, it's distressing to me to see people committed to a church, and not Jesus Christ. I've seen people shunned, disfellowshipped, and treated as garbage for not adhering to the strict policies of a church. And for those of us who come from denominationalism, how many times have you seen someone take heat for leaving the denomination? Especially a leader? What are we committed to, the church or to Christ? If the person is leaving in order to bring people to Christ in a more flexible and open environment, why do we judge them harshly?

People, we are not married to doctrine! Why can't we get over that? If someone leaves a particular denomination in order to reach the lost more effectively than they could within the confines of the structure of the denomination-praise God! They will likely reach people the denomination is missing! More souls won for the Kingdom! And leaving the denomination doesn't mean abandoning the belief system. Let's be honest-our structure is broken and needs revision to survive...but I think of the Pharisees in the days of Jesus. Their system was broken, too, and yet they would not fix it; it took Jesus coming to point out their shortcomings for people to see the truth of it all.

One of my favorite authors, John Eldredge, puts it this way, "Don't just stick with the old gang because it's the old gang. Your loyalty is not to a church or a movement, but to Jesus Christ." What this means is that we must be willing to follow Jesus Christ, even if it leads us away from what we've known all of our lives...and even if it runs contrary to what others believe we should do. In the Celtic tradition, the Holy Spirit is known as the "Wild Goose." Which is true-it's a tough thing to follow, but it's oh so rewarding.

What do you think?

Rich & Poor-We're All the Same

I was just reading James 2 and was blown away by the frankness of the author in addressing an apparent disconnect in how rich people are treated in comparison to poor people and James is basically calling people on it.

I look at today's modern church and I see the same thing going on. For those of you unfamiliar with the denominational structure, allow me to paint you a picture.

The local church collects tithe and offering every week. This is tallied and reported to a Conference (if you're in the Adventist world), which then keeps track of all the money that come into each church in the Conference. Nearly all the money that is given in the form of tithe in the churches is sent off to the Conference, who then returns some money in the form of salaries for pastoral leadership. They use a percentage of that money to pay their staff, but the rest goes on to the Union Conference, which is a regional organization, handling multiple Conferences. They do pretty much the same thing with the money before it goes on to the Division (e.g. North American Division), which then passes it on to the General Conference, the world headquarters of the church. The money then gets distributed using some formula and system that I know nothing about.

So now that we're familiar with how a denominational structure is setup, let's get back to the issue at hand. I have seen a situation develop time and time again in which someone with money to give makes a suggestion and they are listened to, respected, etc. Whereas someone who doesn't have the same financial resources offers a suggestion and they are handled in a completely different manner; something like "Well, that's a good idea, but we just don't have the resources to do that right now."

What angers me about this situation is that often the person without the resources has a suggestion that addresses a real need, whereas the person with money is wanting to take on a pet project that doesn't necessarily benefit the church as a whole.

I have a friend of mine who goes to a church near Seattle, Washington, and they have done away with earmarked giving completely. They have 3 funds that can be given to: General Fund, Evangelism, and Youth. I think it's a beautiful system simply because if you sit down and think about it, everything that a church spends money on can really be grouped together into basic funds like that. There's no reason to have a list of 20+ departments that are all vying for a larger piece of the pie. It should be up to the church body as to what is important to fund rather than offering a long laundry list of options for people to give money to.

I understand that by offering more choices, it's more likely someone will find something they want to support and thus will be more likely to give money; however, I think it's up to the church leadership to help focus that giving and indicate what the focus is on for time being. This allows projects to get funded faster, getting them completed, which makes the church feel good because things are getting done. The alternative option is to have projects that drag on and on due to too many options being offered so people don't know what to focus on.

Sorry, I keep getting off on tangents. The point here is that we need to treat people the same, whether they have money or not. If we are showing favor to those with financial resources, it needs to stop. That's not what God has called us to, and if the church continues to bend over backwards for those who have more to give than others, then the church is essentially telling everyone that they are an exclusive social club...and the cost of admission is a large sum of money. The church must be inclusive, and not exclusive. Period.

Thoughts?

Volunteers and Superheroes

I think that volunteers are superheroes. If you think about it, they share a lot of qualities. Superheroes nearly always serve from senses of duty and filling a perceived need. Volunteers may be asked to serve overtly, but their decision to serve is motivated by the same things; a desire to give back, and a desire to serve.

And like volunteers, superheroes are generally not thanked. They do not serve to be thanked, and at some point, verbal thanks are not as meaningful as they once were. Different people serve for the same reasons, but those who give more than others have a tendency to start feeling like they are under-appreciated, especially when they are relied on to carry a load that is more than they can bear.

Understandably, it's up to the individual person to establish boundaries that are healthy for them; however, how many leaders and pastors have pushed people past those boundaries by "guilt-tripping" them into carrying a load that is not fair for one person to carry? This attitude towards volunteers needs to change. It's not healthy, in any situation, to over-burden people who give their time to you for free just because you are unable to hire someone to fill that role.

Everyone is suffering financially at this point in time; however, if a particular function or set of functions is so important to you and/or your organization that you are asking your volunteers to burn themselves out in order to get things done...perhaps you need to get better at getting funding, or cut somewhere else so as to be able to pay for these things to get done. It's a matter of priorities and a church that tries to do too much, tries to fill too many needs, rather than be pointed and targeted with your mission...which also has the benefit of making your church more effective-simply by re-evaluating your priorities. If you can sit down and figure out what positions are key and need to be funded due to their importance in reaching that vision, you can have a vastly more effective church, rather than trying to be everything to everybody.

What do you think?

Why go to church?

I'm expecting a lot of feedback on this one, so don't disappoint me!

I pose the question, why do we feel we need to go to church? I understand the argument that believers have a fundamental need to share at least a part of their spiritual walk with fellow believers, but the can be done in a home environment just as easily as it can be at a church.

What are your thoughts?