In a recent post on The Resurgence by Mark Driscoll, he incorrectly claimed that Pentecostals believe that “only Christians who speak in tongues have the Holy Spirit.” Historically, Pentecostals have affirmed that although all Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues is the sign that distinguishes Christians who’ve received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism can be defined as the belief that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a post-conversion event, normally accompanied by speaking in tongues.
Driscoll would have been right to label his present defition as that of “Pentecostalmaniacs,” as he does with the Charismatic position.
When summer time comes around, most Americans tend to get away at least once for what is known as the camping experience. We get all excited about being “away from it all,” and most of us enjoy the bliss of peering up to the night sky when darkness hits for the first time. Big dipper. Little dipper. We start using “Milky Way” in sentences to refer to a galaxy instead of chocolate bars. The luminous stars quiet us (they also give us neck cramps should we become too enchanted).
I appreciate my world; God’s earth. It connects me to him. I meditate- thoughts, prayers, praise. Other times I just enjoy creation.
I wish that every time I looked to the sky at night, my breath would be taken away. But I’ve weighed the benefits, and I’d much rather enjoy the the whole package that (sub)urban living offers. City glows are just something I’ll have to live with.
All of that to say this: the latest conservation effort by environmentalists is DARKNESS. In November 2008 National Geographic made its feature article “The End of Night: Why We Need Darkness.” Four months later, readers are still writing to the editor clamoring about the injustice cities like Chicago are committing by lighting up the night sky. Confused birds smash into sky-scrapers. Baby turtles don’t know to head into the sea anymore. Darkness is beginning to be referred to as a “natural resource.” (consider that what is by definition the absence of light is being classified as a resource)
Darkness is valuable. We need sleep. It’s easier to sleep with the lights off (err…for those of who don’t believe monsters live in the closet). The night was created by God and it is good. But God didn’t created bed-times for people. We aren’t programmed to shut off at dusk. When we build civilizations we are celebrating our creative instinct; after all, we were made in the image of God. We can’t rival God’s glory, but cities and the beauty of the night life that they provide are often necessary, convenient, and not to mention fun. Furthermore, the bad guys don’t sleep at night. Lighted streets and buildings offer us a certain level of safety. Not everyone’s brave enough to go jogging in a dark park or walk their dog in a subdivision with no street lamps.
As in all things, we need to be responsible. There is a line we may be approaching that I don’t want to cross either. But for me right now, as long as I can see the stars up at Cheboygan State Park once a year, I’ll be fine.
If you look at the stats, many Evangelical Christians are beginning to swing left on the political spectrum. You’ll find articles in Christianity Today (“the magazine of evangelical conviction”) and professors at seminaries advocating that Christians need to start being more responsible by not defining our voting patterns based on a “single issue.” Even in conservative churches these days there are more and more democrats gaining enough courage to voice their opinion (and run the risk of social excommunication!).
Well, this post may have been more appropriate pre-November 2008, but the subject remains deserving of some attention. Maybe some post-election reflection is healthy, especially with some of the plans our current administration has.
Can you guess what the “single issue,” referred to by Christians hoping the church will swing its vote, is? That’s right- abortion. It’s not difficult to understand why we’re so adament about this issue. Any honest believer knows that Scripture is clear on what stance we’re supposed to take when it comes to abortion.
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 (NIV)
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” Jeremiah 1:5b (NIV)
“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11 (NIV)
Life begins at conception. Abortion is genocide. Christians should vote with this issue in mind.
But what about the other issues involved in a candidate’s platform? How GREEN a candidate is; how they feel about healthcare for the underprivileged; how they will handle the economy. Granted, all of these issues should inform your vote (and of course each should be analyzed biblically).
But are all issues equal? Did God provide the same punishment for all sin under the law? Doesn’t John even write that some sin “leads to death” while other sin does not (1 John 5:16)? The truth is, not all issues in a candidate’s platform are equal. If you’re attempting to get someone in office who best reflects God’s values, please be prepared to explain how killing an innocent life (a sinful act of COMMISSION) is on par with the economy, global involvement, our health care system or whatever else needs correction.
I am not advocating a particular party or candidate. But I do challenge you to stop “straining the gnat while swallowing the camel.” (Matthew 23:24) Christians who vote based on important “single issues” are being responsible. I solemnly believe there is a trump card in today’s politics: it’s abortion. And until something bigger comes around, I will vote accordingly.
I like African art. I like European architecture. I like the timbre of a guitar. I like cherry hardwood. I like earth tones in fashion. I like mint chocolate chip ice cream. What do you like?
These are simple examples, but I hope the point carries over. My point is this—we shouldn’t try to moralize what is by nature arbitrary. Preferences like those listed above are private. And so are the following: what area of a region you choose to live, what material the pants you wear to church are made of, what instruments are used in your preferred music genre etc. These subjects tend to be more sensitive. But a strong person practices distinguishing between what is part of the Law of Christ and that which is allowed to vary from culture to culture, individual to individual.
“In essentials unity, in non essentials diversity, and in all things charity.”
Conflict in community happens when the arbitrary is made into the absolute. Learn to celebrate diversity when appropriate, and pray for wisdom to know the difference.
Ethnicity in local churches is a beautiful thing. A multi-racial blend of people groups assembling together to worship is powerful. It speaks of God’s sovereignty. It reveals his accessibility, his relationality…his love.
We know that many churches are limited to only reaching people in a particular demographic. The music, teaching style, and ministries all reflect the preferences of a certain group of people. It happens a lot in the suburbs. Critics tend to be overly hostile of this phenomenon- evangelists and church planters were called to reach those in their particular proximity, and usually culture in the burbs tends to be pretty homogeneous. But what happens when a local church specifically denotes what group of people “it’s for?” You know, the Chinese, Polish, Korean, Romanian etc. churches you come across ever so often.
They tend to include their particular ethnicity in the name. First generation immigrants usually founded the church in hope of worshiping in a language and culture they carried with them from their land of origin. Assimilation to first generation immigrants can be a struggle, even a fear. But what started out as a purpose with good intentions can lead to complacency and, dare I say it, discrimination.
It’s a social dynamic worth being written about and studied. By the time immigrants have natural-born children who reach adolescence, they begin to recognize the tension between cultures. What is practiced at home clashes with what is being experienced in the schools. But for some reason many communities choose to insist that the church is a place to promote or preserve their language and culture. In doing so, they are prone to becoming inward focused. The Great Commission stops being a purpose of the church- and one’s neighbor, co-worker, friends, are no longer those whom he/she has in mind to reach with the Gospel. And so the local church slips into routine and goes into survival mode.
Maybe not all ethnic churches fit ino this category. I heard of a Spanish church in downtown Detroit who is growing intensely and becoming diverse. But honestly, when I drive past ethnic churches I never think “Oh, that could be a place for me.” And I’m sure the unbeliever doesn’t either.
That being said, I want to feature a particular church community that recently underwent some major changes. Upon launching a new location, the decision was made to drop “Romanian” from its name. What was “Philadelphia Romanian Church” is now simply “Philadelphia Church”, of Cambridge, Ontario. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first Romanian congregation in North America to undergo such progress.
Their leaders are under the conviction that they need to be a church for anybody. They believe that taking a broader approach to ministry is helping them be more obedient to God’s calling on their lives as individuals and as a community. Reaching Romanians and non-Romanians alike is closer to their heart’s cry. What do you think? Should other ethnic churches learn from Philadelphia’s example? I don’t want to let you do all the thinking; I pray for the day when my church drops “Romanian” from its name too.
My name is Andrew Dragos and I am a high school youth worker in the Detroit area. Right now youth ministry is where the Lord would have me be, but besides being "In Christ" I have other identity markers that when jumbled together create a diverse group of things that fancy my interests. One day I hope to teach, write, or lead in a way that draws on all aspects of my life story to impact God's kingdom. In the process, I am struggling to become a minimalist of sorts so that "to live is Christ" may become more true of me every day. Read more on my ABOUT page.
Twitter Feeds