I was on a mission trip to Mexico several years ago, and our church had partnered with a small Mexican church to lead worship services and children's Bible studies. The way we had identified this church as a potential partner was through denominational connections. In other words, their church had the same key word in their name as ours did. We worked with the church for a week, and they were nice people, but I had a problem with the way they consciously separated themselves from others in the village, emphasizing differences in doctrine and denominational labels over their common faith in Christ. I had another problem when the pastor of the church first asked for money, then when we were unwilling to give him anything, settled for the promise of additional clothing that we had brought for the poor in the area. Since that time I've had other, fortunately infrequent, encounters with people who try to use the name on their church to curry favor with others. Today's reading from Acts again brings this issue to mind. How do we recognize other Christians with whom we might want to cooperate on a mission or project? Do we rely heavily on denominational ties? Do we base our relationship on personal friendships among members of the respective congregations? Do we observe their work in the community so that we can partner with those whose ideals we share? At Cornelius's house, Peter and his companions were amazed to discover that Gentiles, too, were admitted into the family of God. Proof of their admittance was the fact that they observed them "speaking in tongues and extolling God." Is that enough, though? If we see a group of people worshiping God in the same way we do, does that necessarily mean that we share the same values, perspectives, and goals? It is a fact that the different types of worship that characterize different Christian denominations and congregations can also be found in other religious traditions, such as Islam, Judaism, or Native American traditions. The point of this discussion is not to limit those whom we identify as Christians, but, on the contrary, to expand our horizons. Many Christians today are proclaiming that we live in a post-denominational world, and I think that's becoming more and more true. In this new age we live in, we may find greater commonality in worship, theology, or perspective across denominational lines than within them. It's not that denominations are dead, it's just that they're becoming less and less important to the average churchgoer. If you still find yourself locked into old, uni-denominational ways of thinking, it's time to free yourself. One of the best experiences of my life was spending ten years working primarily with Christians who were members of different denominations than I was, not to mention Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and others. There are many more believers around you than you might have thought, and there are plenty who are very similar to you. No, they might not look the same, belong to the same denomination, or worship in exactly the same way, but you have brothers and sisters who can encourage you, teach you, and learn from you. Christianity is a diverse, sometimes raucous, and usually welcoming religion. Find your place in it, but don't limit yourselves to just one flavor!
For another discussion of this passage, click here.
One of the raging controversies in many quarters of Christianity today involves identifying acceptable types of music for worship services. One of my students this semester wrote a very impassioned paper defending a particular style of music, and I've heard many comments from other people on the same subject. When churches find themselves in the market for a new minister of music, they often hear from various groups within the church who express their specific likes and dislikes. For some people, music that is loud and boisterous is more appropriate for a sporting event than for a sacred time of worship. Others think that it is perfectly acceptable--some would even say mandatory--to worship God with the same enthusiasm with which we root for our favorite team. Some like the idea of a free-form, "Spirit led" worship service (the implication being that anything more structured is necessarily less Spirit-filled), while others find God more readily in traditional, or liturgical, types of worship. There is an explosion of different styles of worship: Celtic, traditional, blended, contemporary, and more. Which instruments are appropriate in worship? A few say singing without instruments is best, while others champion organs, pianos, electric pianos, guitars, drums, synthesizers, or orchestras. When the psalmist speaks of worship, he simply says, "O sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things." His focus is not on the type of music but rather on God's mighty deeds. I think we waste an inordinate amount of time arguing over what is acceptable in worship and what is not. Despite what some would have you believe, the Bible gives little practical guidance regarding specific instrumentation for worship, much less worship style. I personally like a variety of different types of music in worship, though my tastes have definitely changed over time. However, I don't think that the types of music I prefer are necessarily the best for all people. On the contrary, I know that some people would definitely be turned off by my preferred style of worship, just as their preferred style of worship might not do much for me. What we need is a variety of churches offering a variety of styles of music. It's not the music itself that is important, it's whether the music is conducive to worship that really matters. If you emerge from a worship service without having met God, then the music hasn't done its job. On the other hand, if you come out of the service feeling that you have encountered God, the music has done exactly what it should have done, pointed you to the one whose right hand and holy arm have gained the victory.
For another discussion of this passage, click here.
When the great humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus was preparing the first Greek New Testament for publication in 1516, he collected several Greek manuscripts, which he compared with one another and used as the basis for his Greek text. He also had a copy of the Latin Vulgate, to which he referred frequently. When he came to 1 John 5:6-8, he noticed a distinctly different text in the Vulgate from what he found in his Greek manuscripts. Whereas the Vulgate included an explicitly Trinitarian formula in verse 7 ("There are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"), he found no such reading in the Greek manuscripts, so he omitted it. Several church leaders were outraged that he would omit so important a Trinitarian text--perhaps the most important in the entire New Testament--and they insisted that he include the sentence in his next edition. Erasmus replied that he would, if he could be shown a single Greek manuscript that contained it. "Miraculously," such a manuscript was found, and Erasmus dutifully included the sentence in subsequent editions, one of which was used by the King James translators a century later. The sentence is still printed in both the traditional King James Version and in the New King James Version, as well as in the most popular Spanish Bible, the Reina-Valera version, revised in 1960 but originally published in 1569. The Trinitarian formula was no doubt inserted in the fifth century to combat Arian forms of Christianity, and its inclusion was insisted upon in the sixteenth century to combat Socinianism and similar Unitarian movements within Christianity. Controversy over the obviously secondary Trinitarian reading has diverted people from paying attention to the more original reading: "This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood." Water and blood may both refer to Jesus' death (cf. John 19:34) or to his birth (by water) and death (by blood) (cf. John 3:5-6); secondarily, it refers to baptism and Eucharist (cf. John 1:32-33; 6:52-58). Scholars debate the exact meaning of water and blood in this passage, but it seems likely that the passage is intentionally multivalent, referring to the totality of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The thrust of the passage seems to be that the life of Jesus bears a peerless testimony to God's work among humankind. That is a sentiment with which all Christians can agree.
For another discussion of this passage, click here.
As the total number of American soldiers to die in Iraq approaches 2,500, Jesus' statement regarding the ultimate demonstration of love has become tragically real to many families across the country. "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." Despite my consistent opposition to the war, I can certainly acknowledge the bravery of our soldiers, who have put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their fellow citizens, and many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives for their friends and comrades in arms. The American media is good at keeping the public informed about the number of American soldiers killed or wounded (the latter is now about 17,650), but they're nowhere near as good at publicizing the number of Iraqis, soldiers or citizens, who have been killed in the conflict, let alone wounded. Even though I did quote John 15:13 above in reference to soldiers who are willing to sacrifice themselves for others, the context of the verse in John is really completely different. In the first century, Christians were a distinct minority, often a persecuted minority. They would never have been called upon to lay down their lives in battle to save a regiment of other Christians. Where they might have had to lay down their lives for others was in the arena facing lions, like Ignatius, or in the arena being burned at the stake, like Polycarp, or at the hand of the executioner, like Peter and Paul. Countless others, both men and women, and sometimes even teenagers, similarly faced death for their witness to Christ, and out of their blood the church spread and grew strong. Today, while we can acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of those who have taken up arms against another country, we should also remember the sacrifices of many on the other side, people who are just as committed to their cause and just as devoted to God. I'm not talking, of course, about people (on either side) who kill innocent civilians. We might not like to think about people who target American soldiers with roadside bombs as patriots, but that's certainly how they think of themselves, and if the situation were reversed and it was the United States that was occupied by a foreign nation, would we behave any differently? It's not enough to acknowledge the sacrifice of our own soldiers in a war, but we must recognize the sacrifice of those on the other side, too. And that's really the problem with war, any war. Although we talk about a brave soldier laying down his life for his fellow soldiers, we really want him to take someone else's life rather than lay down his own (a la General George Patton). As Christians, we need to take a step back and recognize that our commitment to our nation too often crowds out our commitment to Christ. Christ called us to lay down our lives, not take the lives of others. For that reason, the people who are really putting this teaching of Jesus into practice are the doctors and nurses, the employees of relief agencies and the U.N., and the Christian peacemaker groups whose members are on the ground trying to prevent further bloodshed.
For another discussion of this passage, click here.