Why Do We Do What We Do

I recently read an article entitled “10 Things the Church Has That the Bible Doesn’t“. It lists 10 things that the church does that do not have direct support in scripture. My question is, “why?” Why do we choose to “do church” in a way that is not supported in scripture?

One of the things that is not listed is the existence of professional clergy. While Judaism has its priest class, there is no provision for this in Christianity. While there were offices within the church, such as pastor, apostle, or prophet, there is no indication that, for the most part, they were full-time, paid positions. An itinerant prophet should expect to be paid in food, lodging, and perhaps some extra, but there is not biblical evidence that this was the case with offices within a local church.

I think that there are probably a few reasons. Feel free to add more of your own in the comments.

1. We, as humans, seem to have a desire for a priest. Many religious systems involve priesthood, which is an intermediary between God and man. In a way, it allows man to answer not to God, but to another person. It also allows us to second-guess the priest, since (s)he is only another person.
2. At some point we decided that “normal” people were not qualified to teach from the Bible. While the initial leaders were, for the most part, normal, uneducated men, we thought it would be better to have professional, educated men to teach the Bible. Saul/Paul was likely the only “qualified” person in the entire Bible.
3. Since we only want “professional” preachers, it only stands to reason that we need to pay them. We moved the office of teacher to the job of teacher (and called it pastor). Then, since we were paying him/her anyway, we added to the job. Administrator, counselor, accountant, etc.
4. If we have one full-time job within the church, we will soon have more paid employees, so we need a larger congregation to pay them. Because of this larger congregation, meeting in a person’s home is no longer viable. Most do not have room in their home for 10, 20, or more families to meet on a regular basis.
5. Related to #2 and #4, I have heard more than one pastor say that at pastor’s conferences two of the questions are:
   1. “How big is your church?”, and
   2. “Where did you go to school?”
6. If we are going to have congregations larger than will fit in a house, we need to meet somewhere. Some sort of room or building that has enough space to hold everyone who comes, and room for a few more. This necessitates a still larger congregation. If it takes 10-20 families to pay a full time preacher, it will take even more to pay for a room to meet, as well.
7. In Canada and the USA, there are tax breaks for churches. This may be the case in other areas, as well. I suspect this came about partly because the Catholic Church was at one time a major political entity. There may also have been a sense that the presence of a church was seen as a positive thing in a community because of the charitable works that were done by the church. Because of the tax status, a charitable non-profit society needed to be set up. In many jurisdictions such a society requires a membership.
8. Memberships could be seen as useful by the congregations, too. If you have members, then obviously many people will not be members. You could also have a test of some sort to only allow people who meet certain criteria. The existence of membership allows for the possibility of excommunication. Now we can kick people out of the church.
9. Once the congregation gets over a certain size, it is no longer really possible to have teaching with discussion. The only practical way to teach is to lecture.
10. While children may be able to engage in a give-and-take discussion, it is almost impossible for them to learn from lectures. Adults are a bit better at it. That means that in order to teach them, they need their own space.
11. We have been taught that professionals should be ministering to us. While most pastors are paid, the worship bands are often volunteer. Even so, many churches limit access to a few musicians. Even if you feel that you have been given a song for the congregation, most times you will not be allowed to share it. Depending on who and where you are, you may be allowed if you schedule it in advance.
12. Somehow we got the idea that worship=music=a professional or semi-professional band on a stage singing songs to god? To the congregation?  While music may be used as a means of worship, worship does not in any way require music. If worship=music, then worship must need its own place within a christian gathering. Right?
13. What about service times? I don’t know that the bible explicitly states a time for a meeting. It seems to be silent on the matter. People may very well have had regular meetings. Or they may not have. That said, daytime work is, and has always been, more common than evening or night work. It stands to reason that most meetings were in the evening, when people had more time. In a society that hated Christianity, it is unlikely that many employers or masters would allow workers or slaves time during the day to go to a Christian meeting. As far as a scheduled time to end, I understand, but this is the one thing on the list I believe is WRONG. “Let’s get together at sunset to hear from God. But he better be done before the end of the first watch. We can’t listen to Him any later than that.”
14. Offertories. Hmm. The church has always had opportunities to give. There are a number listed in the Book of Acts. Throughout history, Christians have been encouraged to give selflessly to the benefit of others. However, when there is a pastor, a mortgage, utilities, Sunday School supplies, and other miscellaneous things to pay, there is a real need to strongly encourage people to give. The offertory helps to encourage.

OK. I did absolutely no research for this post. However, it all seems to make sense. Almost everything on the list flows from the idea of a professional pastor. That said, in most cases other choices could be made even if you decide that a paid pastor is the way to go. For example, if you are paying a pastor full-time wages, there is no reason (s)he could not go to multiple house congregations a week. (S)he could have teaching sessions that were interactive. (S)he could have teaching that reaches all ages. If you don’t have a large building, you also don’t likely have a band.

Different churches already have different approaches to membership. However, doing away with a church building means the advantages of a non-profit society are diminished. An added benefit of not having a non-profit society is that it is harder for governments to control how your church operates.

In reading this, it may seem that I am against many or all of these practices. I am not, really. I am, however, against the ideas that:

1. This is how it should be done,
2. This is the only way to do church, or
3. This is how it has always been done.

None of these things are true. I would strongly encourage every church congregation to really think about WHY they operate a certain way and if it is truly the best way for them to operate. This question MUST be asked in particular before a property is purchased or a building built or expanded.

How Much is Enough?

This is something I have been thinking about for a while, and I know that others have, as well. In particular, governments and insurance companies. Unfortunately, the answer is not in this post.

How much is enough when it comes top health care spending? In Canada, as in many other countries, health care is paid for out of government funds (taxes). In the United States, health care is paid for (mostly) by individuals, often through insurance plans. In either case, there has to be a limit. If the individual is paying, the limit is how much (s)he has available in either assets or credit. This gives the individual the ability to decide how far they want to take a particular treatment, what tests to take, and to determine if the cost/benefit ratio makes sense. If an insurance company is paying on the individual’s behalf, they will have limits written into the insurance contract.

What about the situation in Canada, and in much of Europe, I believe, where treatment is paid for through tax dollars. How, then, do you set the limits. How do you say that a particular treatment will not be funded? Do you tell individuals that they have reached their limit? That if they want continued health services, they will need to change their lifestyle?

There are many treatments available for many diseases and conditions. Sometimes these treatments are very expensive. In Canada, we are rarely aware of the actual cost of our treatment, as it seems “free”. But healthcare spending is a huge portion of our federal budgets.

So, if there is a treatment available for your particular ailment that will add 10 years to your life, but will cost $10,000, is that “worth it?” What if it costs $100,000? $10,000,000? Where, if at all, do you draw the line? What if the treatment will increase the quality of life for the last 10 years of a life, but won’t really extend it? At some point, a line needs to be drawn, but where?

What about a loss of limb or organ? If my arm is amputated in an accident, and full or nearly full recovery is likely by surgery, how much is it reasonable to spend on the surgery? Does my age matter? Would we spend more for a twenty three year old than for a cough-ty-three year old?

In a user-pay system, the individual can decide. In a system like Canada, the decisions are made by other (provincial) entities. (In Canada, health care is managed by the provinces, but funded federally.) Is there room for a special case? If so, what is a special case?

We continue to demand that more procedures to be covered but we have a problem. Our population is aging. The number of older, retired people is growing while the number of people working and paying taxes is shrinking. At the same time, life expectancies are getting longer. Governments know that they can not continue funding even at current levels, to say nothing of increasing it.

I have no answers. Do you?

Goldilocks

It has been quite a while since I posted. I have in my mind a serious topic to tackle, but not today. This one is a bit lighter, and quite seasonal.

“It is too hot.” “No, it is too cold.” “Nope, just right.” Does this sound like a scene from Goldilocks? Not even close. It is the daily pattern around the office. Some people are continually too warm, while others are continually too cold.

In my experience it is almost always women who are complaining that it is too cold in the office. In the Summer, this is certainly no surprise. While business wear for men stays the same throughout the year, it can change drastically throughout the year for women. In the office, men typically wear long-sleeved shirts (that may have rolled-up sleeves), long pants, closed-toed shoes, with socks. A jacket and/or tie may also be included. Seriously. Ties. In 2014, the are still a thing. Women, on the other hand, are often in short-sleeved dresses or blouses, skirt or dress at or above the knee, open-toed shoes or sandals, and bare legs or stockings. The fabrics in women’s wear tend to be lighter, more flowing, and generally cooler than men’s wear.

Is it any wonder that there are discrepancies between the genders as to what is a “comfortable” temperature?

So, we see women with heaters at their desks. Or complaining how cold the office is. The reality is that, in most modern buildings, the temperature fluctuation is very minimal during the work day, as well as throughout the year.

So there is the problem. What is the solution? Obviously, dress for where you will spend your day. If that means to dress a bit warmer, so be it. Also, how about an update on men’s business wear? Since the early 1900s, about the only changes are the width of the lapel, the shape of the tie, and a hat is no longer expected. Seriously? A tie? Long sleeves in the summer? Why? Why are there no business casual shorts or sandals for men? They don’t have to look like beachwear. Why not a short-sleeved shirt to go with the shorts? I think that it is time for a makeover of the business wear department.

In the meantime, the temperature will be set at a comfortable temperature for the over-dressed men. If that is a problem, you better get a sweater.

Forgiveness? Why?

In Christian circles we hear a lot about forgiveness.  We talk about it all the time.  But what is it, really?  What is the purpose?  Why is it so important?

Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as revenge, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.⁽¹⁾

That makes sense.  Someone does something that hurts you.  You choose to banish negative thoughts towards the person, and choose to care for that person. Matthew 5:43-44 says, ““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”  The natural, normal, and often accepted way is to hate those who hurt you, and desire to hurt them in return.  Jesus commands us to forgive.  It looks exactly like the definition above.  It goes on in verse 45 to say, “so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”  Think on that for a bit.  We will come back to it.

That is a good definition of what forgiveness is.  Now for the why?  Why, in our Christian life, are we expected to forgive?  In our Christian walk we need to always look to the Father for guidance, to Jesus as an example, and to the Holy Spirit for the strength to follow that example.  Forgiveness is a huge topic.  I can not really talk about it without talking about over-arching themes in the Bible.  The Bible has a few themes that run through it from beginning to end.  As you read the Bible, interpreting the Old Testament through the New Testament, you will see some of these themes, such as Love, Forgiveness, Relationship, and Grace.  Back to the question.  What is forgiveness for?  Looking back at the Bible, we see progress of sin, and the restoration from sin.  When sin first entered the world, it broke the relationship between mankind and God.  Man was removed from the Garden of Eden, death became part of the human experience, our fellowship with God was ended.  Except for the occasional event, with certain people, God stopped walking and talking with us.  We were under the law, and could not measure up.  Then Jesus came on the scene.  Although there were many things He did while He walked on Earth, the main objective was the cross.  Jesus paid the penalty for all of our transgressions, past present and future, and paved the way for our forgiveness.  So what was the purpose of that forgiveness?  To allow us to have a restored relationship with God.  We have a part of this, to be sure.  So if the purpose of God’s forgiveness for us was to restore relationship with us, what do you think the purpose of our forgiveness of others is?  Maybe this fill in the blanks will help:

1. God forgives us in order to ___________ ___________with ____.
2. We forgive others in order to ____________ __________ with ____.

(Oh, oh.  I just realized that this 600-700 word post could easily expand to 6000-7000 words.)

Going back to verse 45, above. “So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”  “So.”  You do the stuff (forgive) in verses 43-44 so you may be sons of God.  If Jesus is our example, as a son of God, we can look to him for clarity here.  Why did Jesus forgive?  To restore relationship between man and God.  Why do we forgive?    To restore relationship between man and God.

I have heard it said from the pulpit, in Bible studies, in conversation with others, and I have said it myself, that the primary purpose of forgiveness is to free ourselves from the chains of unforgiveness.  I no longer believe this to be true.  I believe that the primary purpose of forgiveness is restoration of relationship.  First a restoration between the other person and ourselves, and second, a restoration between that person and God.  And possibly ourselves and God.  Some have said that there are cases where we need to protect ourselves from people who would hurt us, and so sometimes there can be no restoration.  To that I say this:

1. There was a price to be paid for our forgiveness, in the form of Christ’s death on the cross.  When someone wrongs us, it may be reasonable to expect some sort of restitution.
2. In order to receive our forgiveness, we were required to ask for it, with sincerity, and to accept the price that Jesus paid.  I believe that it may be reasonable to expect others to ask for and accept our forgiveness.
3. No one told us the Christian life would be easy.  In fact we were warned that it would bring persecution, and perhaps death.  There is nothing I see in the scripture that says a Christian should make a decision based on what is safest for him/her. There is a strong case for protection of others, in particular your spouse and children.  I see NO reason to think that it is reasonable to put others in danger.

Essentially what 1 and 2 mean is that there is sometimes a price to pay before that forgiveness is fully granted and restoration can take place.  What 3 means is that if we forgive, and the forgiven person seeks forgiveness and we have reason to believe that they are being honest, this should clear the road for restoration of relationship.

So why is forgiveness important?

1. It is the natural order of things.  We were created for relationship, with each other and with God.
2. God desires all men to come to Him.  He has opened the door for all to come to Him, but people do not see the door.  Our relationship with others is how we can point people to God.

I expect a bit of flak about this post.  If you have a reasoned argument why you believe or disbelieve it, let me know.  Remember that this is only a Kilo of words in a post that could have gone to many thousand, so some thoughts are not really completed.

Are You a Slave? Am I?

First off, there are likely more people in physical bondage today than there ever have been in the history of man.  In North America, the majority are either involved in the sex trade or are migrant workers.  There are other areas where they are prevalent.  This post is not really about these people.

So what is a slave?  A slave is basically a person in bondage, who can not change their circumstances, or make decisions because of those bonds.

Slavery takes many forms.  In the most obvious case, a person is abducted from their home by someone more powerful than themselves in order to fulfill a role for that person, or be sold to another for that purpose.  In most cases they can not physically change their circumstances.  Others are in similar circumstances due to social, political or monetary reasons. They may be able to change their circumstances, at significant risk to themselves or others.

Many are in another category.  They are more self-enslaved.  Perhaps they have managed to accrue significant debt, and now are not able to make life or job choices because they need to maintain payments.  Or perhaps they have subscribed to what advertisers tell them about needing to have certain things.  Cars, homes, toys, etc.  They then need to work additional time, or get a second job, in order to c things. This often leads to debt slavery.

How about status and image.  Do we need to look or appear a certain way?  Is this putting limitations on what we can or can not do?  Perhaps this is a form of slavery, as well.

Addiction and substance abuse.  These can lead to an inability to work, or force us to work we do not want.  Common examples would be prostitution and dealing.  When we become addicted, it limits the things we are able to do.

Although those forms of slavery where the control over ones life has been forced from them by someone else, are the most evil, other forms can affect our lives in very similar ways.  We no longer have the freedom to do the things we want, or to go where we desire.

But, you may say, most of those bonds are self-imposed.  All you need to do is unbind yourself.  Is it really that easy?  If you have grown up knowing certain things, can you easily unknow them?  Are you even able to recognize the ties that bind you?  Does modern media actually have ways to change the way you think?

When my parents first got married, they lived in a trailer.  Not a trailer that you might see in a modern trailer park, but a tiny tow-behind trailer.  They were able to hook it up to a truck and move it when Dad was transferred.  How many people in North America would even consider that type of home today?  Not many.  Why, because we are bound to our ideas of what a home looks like.

In order to break our bonds, we need to do a number of things.

1. We need to realize we are bound.  If we don’t realize that there is a possibility of change for us, we will never change.
2. We need to desire to change.  Many people do not have this desire.  For some, they honestly like their life.  Nothing wrong with that.  Other’s can not imagine a life of freedom.  Many of the Africans who were brought to the Americas as slaves had opportunity for escape, but choose not to, simply because they could not imagine another life.
3. We need a plan to change.  What is there that I am able to do, with what I have, that can help me break these bonds?
4. We often need help.  Friends, family, counselors, police and the courts, whatever.  We usually can not do it all on our own.
5. We need stamina.  To keep going when it is difficult.  To keep trying when others mock us.  To suffer the repurcussions of failed attempts and continue on.
6. We need a way to stay free once we are out of bondage.  This may mean different thinking, different location, perhaps different friends, etc.

Thoughts, anyone?  Steps I missed?

 

Intro-extroverted

OK.  Here goes.

I was recently looking on an “answers” website.  Not the Woohoo! one, but one I use occasionally that actually sometimes has useful answers.  I sometimes give answers that I hope are useful, and sometimes look for answers to certain questions, usually technology related.

Anyway, I was looking on the site and I saw the question “What does it feel like to be an introvert?”  Since I match many, if not most of, the criteria to be considered an extrovert, I was intrigued.  I took a closer look.  The first answer was quite long, and consisted of mainly how this person deals with perceived negativity from others.  This got me thinking.

First, while I may be introverted, or have an introverted personality, or whatever, I do not consider myself an introvert.  It is not what I am, but rather part of what makes me who I am.  If you want to know who I am, go to the first post in this blog.

Second, in all my <cough-cough> years, I have had very little negative feedback about this facet of my personality.  Maybe because I have too many other quirks to my personality.  Maybe because I don’t care enough and did not notice.  Or maybe because most people realize that everyone is different.

I think that these hold true for most personality traits.  Individual traits do not define us.  Most people do not react negatively to individual traits.

I think that if you are hearing negative comments, or even excessive positive ones, about one facet of your personality, or if people tend to be defining you by a single facet, perhaps you are spending too much time with the wrong people.

In case you are wondering, this is my broad definition of being introverted and extroverted:
An introverted person recharges by spending time alone.
An extroverted person recharges by spending time with others.

We all fall along the scale between being very introverted and being very extroverted.
You can not tell where someone is on that scale unless you spend quite a bit of time with them, or they tell you (and they are being honest).  A well charged person who is introverted can be very outgoing.  A well charged extrovert can thoroughly enjoy alone time.

Thanks for listening.

Welcome here!

Who am I?
My name is Ken.  I am a married man with two grown children.  I work in the Information Technology business.  I am a Christian, and have been for over 20 years.  I guess you will learn more the longer you are here.  I was once described as an “M&M.”  If you stick around, I may explain.

What should you expect?
My thoughts and ideas about various subjects.  Don’t let that “Christian” thing up there drive you away.  Don’t let it draw you in, either.  While my views will be coloured by my Christianity, this will not be a preaching platform.  That does not mean that I will not speak on Biblical themes, or that I will not talk about Christian life.

Why am I here?
To share some of what I know.  Hopefully to receive, as well.  To that end, I will be accepting comments, although they will be moderated.  If you disagree with me, I will still allow the comment.  If you are nasty about it, I will not.  There is no room for meanness or bullying here.

Why are you here?
That is for you to answer.  Feel free to let us know through the comments.

Thanks for being here.