Rouge River Community Church

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Leadership in the Future Tense- An Emerging Journey

Three Approaches

Whenever leadership in churches approach the question of the future, many discordant voices can be raised. Planning and leading a church into the future can be a nightmare, just a chore, or a joy, depending on how one is wired, and what approach the church takes. Below are three contrasting approaches to future tense leadership. Each heading is accompanied by an appropriate image that symbolizes that approach.

Shape the Future.

I think this approach is borrowed from the business world. This is all about articulating a clear picture of the future, then making that future happen. this approach is all about resources- identifying them, building them, using them. There is usually a timeline set out to accomplish the manufacturing of the desired future. If this approach was a story, it would be linear and objective.

Wait for the Future.

This approach is not an abdication of leadership responsibility. Waiting for the future means that leadership has a fairly clear picture of where the church needs to be in the future, articulates that vision, then prayerfully waits for God to make it happen. When the future is realized, there is much celebration, and a re-articulation of what the next future should look like. In terms of a story, this approach would be passive and subjective.

Take Principled Direction into the Future.

The paddler in the picture is a good image for this approach. The heart of this approach is leadership knowing intimately the DNA of the church mission and the people. Flexibility in course correction is key. This approach does not paint a picture of the future down the most minute detail; rather it grabs hold of a few key principles and moves forward living those principles out according to the way God has wired the people, and what he has called the church to do. This type of leadership is free-flowing, not chaotic (although some may feel like it is). From story perspective, it is non-linear.

The River Approach.

At the River, we approach leadership in the future tense from the third perspective, taking principled direction into the future. Knowing who we are, and what God has called us to do has allowed us to take advantage of opportunities that would have been missed under the other two leadership approaches mentioned. Our involvement with the food bank has opened our eyes to other needs in our community. We have been able to respond to those needs in accordance to our DNA- The ReUse Store, The River Laundry, River Meals.

As we "paddle" forward into what God has for us, I am reminded of a line form Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk (paddle?) in them."- Ephesians 2:10.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 7:48 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

I Can See Clearly Now...

When I first started following Jesus, I was involved in a new-believer Bible study. It was meant to give participants a good grounding in the intellectual aspects of the faith. The make up and history of the Bible, skills like verse and passage memorization, and a little bit of doctrine were all included in the course. When I had completed the sessions, I felt more grounded in the faith, and better able to read the Bible with some understanding of what it was saying. It didn't take long for me to get lost! After a few years of ministry preparation, I figured out what my dilemma was. I describe it as a glasses problem, as in what set of glasses did I put on when I studied the Bible.

Inevitably, whenever I study the Bible, I have a set of built in filters- like reading glasses- that colour what I read. The filters of culture, language, personal knowledge and history, all distort what I read just a little (or a lot!). The other glasses are ones that I choose to put on. From what perspective will I understand the Bible? What filters will I choose to place between me and God's word?

How should we understand the Bible? Some people take the two main parts of the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, and use one section to interpret the other. Most protestant Christians would likely use the New Testament to understand the Old Testament. Others reverse this, filtering the New Testament through the glasses of the Old. Another way of understanding the Bible is to rely on the theology, or doctrine, developed by others as the main tool of interpretation. Those who describe themselves as "Calvinists" or "Arminianists" rely on the work done by scholars of previous generations to interpret the Bible. Still again, others filter the Bible according to their church traditions.

Two opposing approaches in Bible study are contextualism and literalism. Literalism is when people read the Bible and follow it as closely as possible, word for word to what it says. Contextualism is searching for the universal truth in a passage of scripture, based on a thorough understanding of the original socio-historical situation within which the passage was written, and a clear understanding of today. Let me show you what this means.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 says, "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." A literalist would look at that passage, and say there are certain expectations that the Bible places on women in regards to clothing, and personal appearance. There are Christian groups today that teach that women should not braid their hair, wear gold or pearls in their hair, and not wear clothes with high price tags. They take Paul's words in this passage to be applied equally to every culture throughout the world. A contextualist takes a different tack, however.

As we research the context of Paul's letter to Timothy, we learn a few things. Paul is Timothy's 'spiritual' father, his mentor. We also learn that Timothy was a young pastor in the Ephesian church. Ephesus was the home of the Temple of Artemis (or Diana), one of the ancient wonders of the world. A widespread practice at the time Paul wrote to Timothy was temple prostitution. We learn that a temple prostitute would dress in provocative clothing, and would adorn her braided hair with gold or pearls. By context, Paul seems to be suggesting that women in the church (perhaps even some former temple prostitutes who converted to Christianity) should not be mistaken for Artemis' priestesses. The universal truth is "do not dress like a prostitute". How does that apply to our culture? Well, when you see braided hair, or hair with gold and pearls in it, or someone wearing expensive clothing, is your first thought, "That must be a prostitute!" ? No. (I spent a year volunteering with the Salvation Army in Regina, working with street people. Although I had never seen a prostitute before, I was able to recognize one straightaway.) Now, does that universal truth only apply to women? Of course not! Paul was applying the universal truth into Timothy's situation as pastor in Ephesus. We must apply it in our context.

Whether we want to or not, each of us have filters that colour our reading of the Bible. The first step in ensuring that we can get at God's truth is to recognise that these filters exist. After that, we must choose carefully what other glasses we put on to read the Bible. Will our doctrine filter the scriptures? The teachings of our Christian 'guru'? Our church traditions? Or will we let our lack of knowledge of the original context be our unchosen filter?

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 6:49 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Once Upon A Time...

I wrote this little story to illustrate a point from James 3:13-18; Our results will be affected by our motivation. Enjoy!

__________

Once upon a time there was a secluded monastery high in the hills. It was surrounded by a high and strong wall that could not be breached. Each day, all the monks, save one, would leave the monastery through the single large gate to work their crops in the fields. One monk would always stay back to care for the monastery; to clean and to cook and to make sure that all was in good order. It was a strict monastery- no visitors were allowed within its walls.

One day, the monks went out to work the fields as usual. The lone monk left behind on this day was a novice; it would be his first time staying back to care for the monastery. As the monks left, the abbot reminded the novice of his responsibilities. “Now, remember brother, you are to clean the buildings, cook the evening meal and give out charity as needed. You are not to leave the grounds or allow visitors through the gate. Open the gate only when we return from our day of work.” “Of course, abbot, I will not fail you.” said the novice. The abbot replied, “Fail not yourself, and fail not God.”

The novice watched the monks as they travelled to the fields for their day of work. How exciting! He had the monastery all to himself. He would show the abbot and the others how responsible he was. He would clean the monastery better than anyone ever had before! And he would cook the finest meal the monks ever tasted! They would be so impressed with him, and sing his praises that night when they returned. And so, the novice monk set about his task.

Soon, however, he heard the bell ring that indicated there was someone at the gate. He stopped his cleaning and went to see who was there. “I am sure it is just a pilgrim seeking a blessing, or someone in need, searching for food.” The novice thought to himself. When he opened the little window in the gate to see who was there, the novice was shocked! It was no pilgrim or beggar- it was himself! There he was- closer to him in looks than even a twin could be. The novice was so shocked by the appearance of this other “him” that he could not speak. Finally the duplicate spoke.

“Dear self, I am here to help you. You have a lot of cleaning and cooking to do today- and we can do a better job and do it more quickly if we work together. Let me in!” The novice pondered this for a moment. What should he do? The abbot was clear- he was to allow no one through the gate except his brother monks. The other self spoke up, as though he had heard the novice’s thoughts, “I am not really a visitor- I am you. I am sure the abbot would not be upset if you let me in- and think of how pleased he will be when he sees how clean the monastery is, and how tasty the meal is. Come now! Let me in, so we can do the work we need to do!”

And so, reluctantly, the novice monk opened the gate, letting in himself.

At day’s end, the monks returned from the fields singing. It had been a good day of work! But as they came over the hill that led to the monastery, they were shocked! The monastery was destroyed! The walls had been knocked down, the buildings were leveled, and there was smoke rising from the debris. All that was left was the novice monk, his robes ripped and burned, sitting on a large rock near the scene of destruction. He was weeping. The abbot and the other monks approached him, “Brother, has an army attacked? Who has wrought such destruction?”

The novice could only shake his head no, through his tears. The abbot pressed, “Then what has happened brother? We must know! Did you let someone through the gate?” The novice shook his head yes. “Who was it?” the abbot demanded. Choking back tears, the novice squawked out, “Myself. “ Then calming, he continued, “ I let myself through the gate. He rang the bell. I saw that it was me- one closer than a twin. So I let him in. I thought with two of us to do the cleaning and the cooking, surely I would receive your praise, abbot, for the wonderful work I would do.

The abbot was silent for a moment, nodding in understanding. “I see. You thought to impress all the brothers of the monastery with your fine cleaning and tasty cooking. My young novice, you did not want to serve others in humility. You sought to lift up yourself. Your selfish ambition led you, not purity of heart, nor humbleness of spirit. That is why all your work came to nothing. You allowed in disorder- and only evil comes from that visitor! You have learned a valuable lesson here today, my young novice. Come, let us begin to rebuild what has been destroyed.”

And the abbot, along with the other monks, lifted up the novice as they moved to begin their work of rebuilding.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 6:31 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Was John The Baptist a Jerk?

A conversation I had this week took me back to my copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Actually it is "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English ", translated by Geza Vermes. Fascinating stuff! In that volume is a translation of a scroll called The Community Rule (see picture). It is essentially the user's manual for the Essene community living out in the desert of western Israel before and during Jesus' day.

The Essenes were a monkish (not monkeyish!) group that lived an austere life. They followed a strict hierarchy where novices were not allowed to speak unless spoken to. They baptized each other a lot (daily) as a symbol of washed away sin. They practiced weekly meals that resembled the passover feast, but also looked like a precursor to the Christian love feasts of the early church. Some of their writings contain large lists of beatitudes that would not look out of place alongside the Beatitudes of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. They were an apocalyptic group that foretold and foresaw the end of days like we look forward to our next vacation. Their end-times writings use such a similar vocabulary and structure to John's Revelation, one has to wonder if perhaps the apostle had been influenced by the Essenic literature. All in all, a truly remarkable group!

From the description of John the Baptist in the Matthew's gospel, we get the idea that John was an Essene. I used to wonder why Matthew, a gospel written largely for a Jewish audience, contained such detail about John's clothing and diet. I can understand details about John's approach to ministry- but why mention the camel hair coat, locusts, and wild honey? Just to paint a picture that he was a wild man? A fulfillment of the return of Elijah the prophet? After reading The Community Rule, however, I think I have some new insights into John.

It seems that a novice in the Essenes had to turn all of his material possessions over to the order. If he passed the trial period, about two years, then all of his possessions would permanently become collective property of the group. If he washed out of novice school, all his stuff would be returned to him. Novices swore a list of oaths that covered speaking, dietary regulations, submissiveness, and so on. A novice had to dress in a certain manner- basically a clean white sheet all the time. They were not allowed to speak unless spoken to by a more senior member of the order. Theirs were the menial tasks of the community. The Community Rule also outlines some pretty severe penalties for novices who over-stepped their bounds.

If a novice spoke out of turn, he would be rebuked and given extra chores, as well as required to apologize to the community. If his outspokenness became a real problem, the order would make him wear a camel hair outfit meant to teach him what his tongue was like- a constant irritation. Also, if the novice was really mouthy, the order could go as far as banishing the brash young man to the live in the desert for a time. He would be expected to maintain all his vows, including the rather strict dietary ones. See a connection forming?

Matthew was so detailed in his description of John the Baptist, in a book meant for a first century Jewish culture, to communicate that John was a fallen Essene novice, likely sent out of the community for not being able to keep his mouth shut. The first thing I notice is that John was keeping his vows to the community. They told him to wear the camel hair suit for a certain time period as punishment; he did it. He kept his strict dietary vows, which meant that living in the desert limited him to eating nothing more that a few kind of locusts, and some wild honey. He kept baptizing, just like the Essenes did. And he kept an apocalyptic tone in his preaching, which lined up with the Essene worldview.

"So what?" you may ask. I think it is significant that John kept his vows even though he had been exiled from the community. His promise to God meant something to him. Also, I think of the irony that a whole group set aside to prepare for the return of messiah, missed the messiah's prophet, even while he was in their midst, probably because he violated community norms. The application just keeps on going!

The Essenes did not survive the Roman clamp down of 70AD. They perished, leaving behind little more than some buried scrolls in desert caves. But what those scrolls tell us! About life then; about the splintered and tense spiritual life of Israel in Jesus' day; of Jews starting to reconsider their faith without the temple, even before it was destroyed by the Roman general Titus.

How much did the Essenes influence Jesus? Paul? The other apostles? While they are not mentioned directly in the Bible, their fingerprints can be found on many pages of the the scripture.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 12:22 PM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Friday, October 10, 2008

I've Seen Fire and I've Seen Rain...

Note: This is part two of a series on original languages and words from the Bible.

oil rig fire.jpg

Years ago, shortly after the first Gulf War, I went to an Imax presentation called "The Fires of Kuwait." The film was a documentary about the oil well fires set off by retreating Iraqi soldiers. The first estimates said it would take years to put out all the fires. The Kuwaiti government called in experts from all over the world to extinguish the fires. The various solutions were fascinating. One group from the Czech Republic mounted an old Soviet Mig jet engine onto a tank, and just rolled up to the fire and "blew" it out. My favorite approach came from a Texas company filled with a bunch of "good ol' boys". The foreman of this team lit the fuse of a large pack of dynamite with his cigar, tossed the explosive into the fire, then ran like heck. The explosion from the dynamite robbed the oil fire of oxygen for just long enough for the flame to go out, leaving only a gusher of pure crude oil to be capped. Cool!

In this second part of our series on original languages and words of the Bible, we are considering a word that is just as powerful as that dynamite- dunamis.. Dunamis means inherent power. It refers to something that is powerful just because it exists. In fact, the English word 'dynamite' comes from the Greek word dunamis. Perhaps the best use of the word comes from Paul's letter to the Romans:

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes... - Romans 1:16.

The word dunamis is a descriptor word. It describes something as being inherently powerful. In this case, and in almost every use of the word in the New Testament, dunamis describes the inherent power of the gospel.

The word gospel simply means 'good news'. It refers to the message of Jesus to the whole world about having a relationship with God. The very thing that separates us from God is the hot fire of sin. Sin is spiritual sabotage to our souls, perpetrated upon us by Adam (as in Adam and Eve), but primarily by ourselves. We vandalize our own souls- that pure cool oil that runs through the deepest part of who we are. That oil rig, designed to connect what is deeply buried inside us to God, is derailed from its purpose because of our self-destructive choices. Without help from outside, eventually our well runs dry, and we are lost. God sends in his rescue team to save us before that can happen.

Jesus came to earth to put out the fire of sin. Much like the teams putting out the Kuwaiti oil rig fires, Jesus came in power- in dunamis- to reclaim what was his. He did this through living a life without sin, teaching the way to God, then proving what he taught by dying on the cross. But the real dunamis- the power- comes in Jesus' resurrection. Just like dynamite thrown into an oil rig fire, the death and resurrection of Jesus powerfully explodes sin, restoring our souls to the cool pure stream of relationship with God.

Dunamis. Power. Some people say that there is nothing powerful about the message and story of Jesus. I think they say that because they never get close to him. Even those oil rig fires would seem small if looked at from orbit. When we get close to Jesus, we begin to experience the heat of our own sabotaged souls. Asking Jesus for help to put the fire out brings in an explosion that changes us forever. That is real power. That is the good news of the gospel. That is dunamis.

Officials in Kuwait thought it would take years to put out the hundreds of oil rig fires left alight in the wake of war. It only took months. Some may think, "I can never get right with God. I have done too many terrible things.". The power of Jesus' resurrection can be realized in each life, and it does not take years or even months to receive it. A simple prayer (talking to God) acknowledging the brokenness of our souls due to sin, and a request to Jesus for help to rebuild what has been damaged is all that it takes. Then faith. A real belief that God can and will do it, will bring into any life the power of God to change our fire of sin to the cool oil of forgiveness and restoration. Dunamis. The power of God to change us, to heal us, to renew our purpose in life, and to give us a new future with Him.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 11:41 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

The Poem of Our Lives

I remember a beloved professor at Bible College telling my homiletics (preaching) class, "Never use the original language when you preach. Never. Greek and Hebrew will turn off your listeners." So, with that in mind, we begin to today a blog series that is all about the original languages. Sorry sir!

We start the series today with a word that comes from Ephesians 2:10; "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." The word we're focusing on today is the word workmanship. Workmanship is defined as, "the result of skilled craftsmanship; a masterpiece." Paul, writing to the Ephesian church is communicating that followers of Jesus are God's masterpieces, created (re-created) unto a purpose, laid out by God. It is clear from the context of the passage that Paul is not saying that we must do these good works, planned out for us by God, to earn His acceptance, or our salvation. It is because of our salvation, that God considers us His masterpieces. It is because of this unearned acceptance through Jesus, that God gives us work to do. To what purpose? So that the universe itself can be amazed at God's goodness and grace.

However, even the word workmanship does not communicate all the nuances of the Greek word that Paul used when he was inspired to write his letter to the Ephesian church. That word is poiema. That does not mean much to us in English, until we learn that our word poem comes from the Greek word poiema. This brings the whole world of art, literature and theater into our discussion. Imagine some of the great masterpieces of history- the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, Hemingway's "A Farewell To Arms", Robertson Davies' "Deptford Trilogy", or Shakespeare's "Hamlet". Paul says the followers of Jesus are at the top of the list. We are the crowning glory of creation. We are the artist's very signature on what He has made.

God now puts us on display, much like a great work hanging in a museum or gallery. He invites the universe to come look at us and the deeds that we perform. When we are faithful, the universe itself recognizes God's brushstrokes in our lives, and our creator is praised.

I think the implications of this word, poiema, are manifold. Three that come to immediate attention are God's character, the purpose of salvation, and our dual lives in the temporary and the eternal.

We get a glimpse of God's character through the word poiema. God is the creator, the source of all things real. He is the original Cause; all else is effect. He is not like the amateur, botching a bird house project on the week-end. Rather, He is the archetypal master, at the height of his art. He used no palette, no tools, no materials of any kind, however. When He set about to create, nothing material existed! He simply spoke the words of creation, and creation sprang into existence. His media are time, space, eternity and the soul. And the greatest aspect of this ultimate creation is us- followers of Jesus. Wow. This leads us to the next implication of poiema.

A previous blog entry looked at, in part, the nature of salvation. We, the created, rebelled against the creator (sin), resulting in a broken relationship with God. God overcame this brokenness by seeding a part of Himself into creation through the birth and life of Jesus. Jesus, both man and God, lived an unbroken life (sinless), taught the way to have restored relationship with the Creator, and then paved that way through his substitutionary death, for us, on a cross. His subsequent resurrection sealed the promise of God for restored relationship with Him, and now Jesus is that part of God continually interceding for us in eternity. The eternal implication of this salvation is clear- forever with God. It is when we discuss the temporary implications that some Christian groups go off the rails. This is where poiema asserts itself. We are saved unto purposes in the here and now. Purposes that God has laid out for us to perform. Again, not for salvation, but because of salvation.

Part of God's plan in salvation is the duality of separated creation from the realm of creator. The painting does not reside solely in the master's workshop. Neither do we simply live in the same realm as God. God inhabits all of His creation, but we do not live in eternity exclusively. The resurrection is the process that takes us through physical death to a restored existence on an eternal plane. In the here and now, we must live out our raison d'etre, our purpose for being. Too often Christians turn the church into death's waiting room. Many followers of Jesus use their salvation as an excuse to withdraw by degrees from reality, attempting to live in the eternal context prematurely. The old phrase, "He is so heavenly minded, he is of no earthly good." comes to mind. Poiema means purpose now with a promise for eternity.

Imagine your life as a great poem, being recited, or chanted as the ancient Greeks did. Every clever turn of phrase, every lyrical note, existing with purpose not only now, but into forever. This picture raises one's spirits; it gives additional and extended joy to the journey. I choose to inhabit the moment, the temporary, and not rush to eternity ahead of my time (pun intended). Our living is the poem of our lives. That is the essence of poiema.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 6:28 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Monday, October 06, 2008

Hockey Without Skates is Dead

The following is a reworking of James 2:14-26 to bring it into a Canadian context. We had a little fun with this at the River; I hope it gives you a smile, too. For you edification, here is the actual passage from James, for context and clarity. Enjoy!
___
14 ¶ What good is it, my teammates, if a man claims to be a hockey player but has no skates? Can such hockey get him to the playoffs?
15 Suppose a teammate is without a cup and a hockey stick.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep safe and score often," but does nothing about his equipment needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, hockey by itself, if it is not accompanied by skating, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have hockey; I have skates." Show me your hockey without skates, and I will show you my hockey by how I skate.
19 You believe that there is one Stanley Cup. Good! Even the Maple Leafs believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish teammate, do you want evidence that hockey without skates is useless?
21 Was not our predecessor, Wayne, considered skilled in hockey when he lifted up the Stanley Cup?
22 You see that his hockey and his skating were working together, and his hockey was made complete by how he skated.
23 And the predictions of Hockey Night in Canada were fulfilled when, "Wayne believed there was only 1 Stanley Cup, and it was credited to him as skill," and he was called Don Cherry’s friend.
24 You see that a person is accepted by how he plays and not by the uniform alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Ty Domi considered skilled for what he did when he dropped his gloves and sent the opposition in different directions.
26 As the arena without the fans is dead, so hockey without skates is dead.
__

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 8:17 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Homogeny and Heresy

Note: This is part three of a three part series on church foundations.

Earlier in my career, I was called upon to mediate a conflict between two groups within the church I pastored. The conflict centered around a difference in opinion on a matter of doctrine. One group believed one thing, the other group believed the opposite, and conflict ensued. What I discovered as I 'peeled' the onion of their fight disturbed me. The actions of each group showed less Christ-likeness, and more pettiness as the argument grew. Gossip, slander, verbal abuse, unkindness and lack of grace characterized the behaviour and attitude of both groups.

As I tried to help resolve the problem, I noticed that increasingly, both groups replaced the Bible as their authority in the matter with something else. One group appealed to the church's statement of faith, the other to their own reason in regards to certain Biblical passages. In the end, each group was so entrenched in their own position, that a workable compromise was not possible. It is hard for a church to function when there are two groups each thinking the other is wrong, or worse, thinking the other is evil. This experience really got me thinking about what defines our orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is is defined as "right belief". This right belief is expressed through the actions of a community. This is called orthopraxy, or orthopraxis. From my study of the Bible, the authoritative book for Christianity, I see clear commands, beliefs and attitudes prescribed for followers of God. However, there are also teachings that are not 100% clear, meaning there are issues that can be legitimately debated. So what is orthodoxy? Is it the non-negotiables of the faith, plus my opinion of the debatable issues? Or how about my church's opinion? My denomination's view? Do I adopt as orthodox the beliefs of a Christian writer that I enjoy or agree with? And once I have defined orthodoxy for myself, do I then refuse fellowship with those who do not share that orthodoxy? It becomes quite a can of worms!

Increasingly in the 21st century, churches in the western world will be less centered around denominational distinctives, but will find more community around practices. Look at what Willow Creek and Saddleback have done to bring churches together across denominational lines. When I pastored a Willow Creek style church, the congregation identified more with that association that with the denomination to which we belonged. We also see now many Christians pursuing style of music, teaching approach, available programs, rather than doctrine when 'church shopping'. Practice seems to trump belief.

More and more, local churches will see a diversity in beliefs among their members. This loss of homogeny will cause some churches great pain if they try to keep to a narrow, over defined view of orthodoxy. However, churches that focus on the essentials of the faith, coupled with clearly defined practices, will enjoy less community friction. But what are the essentials of the faith?

I think a more creedal approach to orthodoxy gives the room needed for grace and unity to be expressed. One suggestion is the Apostles' creed. This definition of orthodoxy comes from much earlier in Christianity. Here it is:

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word catholic refers not to the Roman Catholic church, but to the church universal.

One of the joys of serving here at the River is the grace each one shows the other in terms of orthodoxy. I know there are people in the congregation who do not believe exactly what I believe, but that does not prevent us from working together to feed the hungry, clothe those in need, and introduce others to Jesus. Conflict is replaced with effectiveness. Distrust is set aside for mission. Superfluous walls are knocked down in light of grace. That is the church Jesus foresaw when he said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35)

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 7:30 AM • Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Andre's Blog