Give Yourselves First to the Lord

INTRODUCTION:

1.   Today we want to have somewhat of an in-depth study on the subject of giving financial to God’s work.

2.   Our special contribution opportunity is coming up soon, and this seems a very good time to study a very important subject.

3.   Frankly, the subject may be a sensitive one for a number of us.

4.   Our sensitivity may be due to what we have observed on TV about money raisers (televangelists); it may be due to what we have heard about possible inappropriate uses of money within our own movement; it may be due to a lack of biblical understanding of the subject; or it may be due to something amiss in our heart that needs changing.  (As is often stated, our heart strings and purse strings seem very connected!)

5.   While giving may be a sensitive subject to some of us, when we see what God’s Word has to say about it, we can rest assured that it is not a sensitive subject to God! 

6.   More is said about giving than about a whole host of other important topics, and while this lesson cannot be an exhaustive study, we will attempt to cover some of the key concepts in the Bible.

BODY:

I.      Tithing in the Old Testament

A.   Tithing (giving a tenth of one’s income) was a very important part of the Mosiac system in the OT – dating from about 1500 BC.

1.   Leviticus 27:30-32.

2.   Note the reason for the tithe in Numbers 18:20-21 – to support the priesthood (and we have a similar need to support ministry staff today).

3.   A careful study of tithing under the Law of Moses will show that the basic tithe was the base amount of their giving, but that additional specified offerings raised their giving level beyond that figure.

B.   The practice of tithing was much older than Moses’ Law, being apparently a part of God’s plan from the beginning.

1.   In Genesis 14:17-20, we see that the father of the faithful, Abraham, paid tithes from the spoils of battle.

2.   In Genesis 28:20-22, we find the Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes, vowing to pay tithes of everything that he received from the hand of God.

C.   Therefore, although we are not under the Mosaic system, we can see that tithing has long been a part of God’s plan.

1.   It was a subject that God took very seriously – read Malachi 3:8-12 carefully.

2.   One way to look at how the concept could have application even to our day is to reason that since the New Covenant under which we live is a far superior covenant (as the whole book of Hebrews argues), then we certainly would not want to give less than any good Jew in the OT.

3.   However, while giving 1/10^th of our income might be a good starting place, it may not be the right ending place, for the Bible has much more to say about the subject.

II.    Giving To Meet Needs In the Book of Acts

A.   Look at Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-35.

1.   Note the context of these two passages:  thousands of disciples were baptized from every nation on earth, and needed to stay in Jerusalem in order to be grounded in their new faith before returning to their own lands to spread the good news.

a.    Our needs today are similar in this respect:  supporting ministry staff to take care of present needs in our congregation, and in the future, spreading out to other parts of Phoenix and to Arizona.

b.    The support and training of ministry staff is always going to be a very important reason for our giving (though certainly not the only one).

B.   However, meeting needs must go far beyond the training of staff.

1.   It is focused on meeting evangelistic needs is a number of ways.

2.   It is also aimed at meeting the physical and emotional needs of those of our own number, and additionally at meeting these same needs of the poor and less fortunate than ourselves outside the church.

C.   Giving to meet various sorts of needs is common in the New Testament, and therefore is a very valid consideration – but the NT has much more to say about our giving.

III.   Giving As a Demonstration of Spirituality

A.   2 Corinthians 8 & 9 provide some of the best in-depth teaching about the connection between giving and spirituality to be found in the whole Bible.

B.   Giving money is an extension of first giving ourselves to God (2 Corinthians 8:1-5). 

1.   Note also that the people gave themselves to the leaders (verse 5) – this requires both an appreciation and trust of our leaders.

2.   Recently, the subject of restricted giving to specified areas came up in our church, and the Board of Directors has formulated a policy to guide us in that matter.

a.    Restricted giving means that we as individual givers would designate exactly where and how our contribution would be used.

b.    The essence of the policy of the Board is that our regular weekly contributions will go into our general operations budget.

c.    However, special contributions beyond our regular giving may on occasion be directed toward specified areas, based on the criteria in this policy and under the approval and oversight of the elders.

d.    The upcoming special contribution is an example of our opportunity to choose between several works and to direct our contributions into those specific areas.

3.   Biblically, leaders of the church determined the exact distribution of the contributions.

a.    Read Acts 4:34-5:2.

b.    Also in Acts 11:29-30 we read:  “The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. [30] This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.”

c.    Paul’s reassurance about how the funds would be administered is the same assurance that we offer you as leaders:  “We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. [21] For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men” (2 Corinthians 8:20-21).

C.   Giving is an act of grace on our part, and therefore giving is called a grace (2 Corinthians 8:6-7).

D.   Our giving tests the sincerity of our love and shows our imitation of Christ (2 Corinthians 8:8-9).

E.    Our willingness and desire to give is more important than the amount we actually give (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).

F.    Equality in giving means that as a family, we each do our part to the best of our ability (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

G.   Our giving determines the amount and types of blessings that God is able to give us (2 Corinthians 9:6-15).

1.   Giving sparingly limits God’s blessings in your life, and giving generously increases his blessings in your life (verse 6).  (Note the Malachi 3:8-12 passage that we looked at earlier on this point.)

2.   Giving is a spiritual decision, and giving must be done cheerfully (verse 7).

3.   Giving generously enables God to bless us both financially and spiritually (verses 8-11).

4.   Our giving results in more and more people, inside and outside the church, giving overflowing praise to God (verses 9-15).

IV.The Ultimate Goal of Giving Is Stewardship and Sacrifice

A.   Stewardship is our safeguard again materialism and greed (Luke 14:25-33).

1.   In verse 33, the NASV translates it “all of your possessions.”

2.   It shows us the concept of everything belonging to God, with us being only managers of what God has given us.

3.   The “sharecropper” concept is exactly what the NT teaches us about the way that we view and use money. 

a.    The sharecropper lives on another’s land and farms it, taking for himself only what is required to live and sustain his life. 

b.    Obviously, such an arrangement would never allow for materialism and possessiveness.

c.    It is vital to understand that our view of use and money is not just a nice ideal to shoot for – the text does say “cannot be my disciple.”

4.   This approach makes some important lessons very obvious:

a.    Giving a tenth may or may not approach what a disciple ought to be doing.

(1)Giving $20 of a weekly income of $200 would likely be quite a sacrifice and might well represent the concept of stewardship.

(2)Giving $200 of a weekly income of $2,000 would not necessarily constitute a sacrifice or good stewardship, and could indicate that we have already fallen prey to a materialistic lifestyle.

b.    Our lifestyles should be legitimate and reasonable, rather than giving out of our abundance and then spending the rest on our luxuries.

(1)Many of us have some soul-searching to do, and some radical changing in both our attitudes and our lifestyles may be God’s call to us right now.

(2)One word of warning at this point:  deal with yourself, and fight the temptation to be the judge of everyone else – envy and jealousy can strike quickly and seriously in this area if we become judges of one another!

B.   Sacrifice in giving is determined not by how much we give, but by how much we haveleft after we give.

1.   Mark 12:41-44 – this one is full of lessons for us.

a.    One such lesson is that the widow gave her money to God and was commended for doing so, yet from a human perspective, the money was going into a corrupt Jewish system.

b.    Study the passage and meditate about this and other lessons.

2.   Where have you drawn the line in your giving?  What are you not willing to do?

CONCLUSION:

1.   Review – giving that pleases God begins with the tithe principle, progresses to meeting needs, is a demonstration of our spirituality, and must conform to Jesus’ teaching about discipleship.

2.   We have the opportunity to grow in the grace of giving, to accomplish more than ever before, and to become increasingly sacrificial and thus more like Jesus.

3.   May God help all of us to be disciples in the fullest sense of the word, especially as it relates to our giving. 

4.   Let’s give in a way that allows the church to be strengthened, the world to be evangelized, the poor to be helped, and our God to be glorified!

—Gordon Ferguson (April 2005)

Do You Want to Get Well?

Introduction

This article is a written form of a spoken message delivered on March 28, 2004 to the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ.  As with the previous sermon, “What Do We Now Believe?,” I wanted our members to be able to study out this material in more depth, and the written format will again allow that possibility.  As mentioned in that previous article, I am taking the liberty to edit my own material by adding some things that were not included in the oral presentation of the lesson, and perhaps leave out a few other items.  The question reflected in the title comes from Jesus’ question of the invalid recorded in John 5:1-9.  Often this man is seen as not wanting to get well badly enough to put forth his best effort, and hence Jesus’ question of him.  Perhaps that is true, but the point that stands out to me is that no matter what our condition, Jesus wants to help and stands ready to help.  He did heal the man after all, didn’t he?

However, the question Jesus asked nearly two thousand years ago resounds in our age as well.  Especially is it appropriate when we may not be doing great spiritually.  Note that the question is not “Do you want to be well,” but “Do you want to get well.”   One thing that can be said for the guy mentioned in John 5:  he gets a “P” for perseverance—he didn’t give up, and ended up with the blessing.  Although my points will not revolve around that idea, it is a classic principle that those who hang in long enough usually find the higher ground spiritually that they are looking for.  But let’s talk about the need and the path of getting well (which includes persevering).

What Is It To Be Well?

Physically, after an illness, it is great when we wake up one morning and feel so differently!  Even after a good night’s sleep, it is wonderful to awake rested and then enjoy a brisk prayer walk (especially on the cool mornings we have been having recently).  It just feels good – really good.  Spiritually, feeling well is directly connected with being full of the Holy Spirit.  A good indicator of our wellness quotient is Galatians 5:22-23, which reads:  “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”  For me, the first three of these are the best indicators – love, joy, peace.  In fact, just the definition of love found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 pretty well does it in my case.  Do these words describe your present spiritual attitudes and actions?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Peter’s comments in 1 Peter 4:8 may be the acid test of our spiritual wellness, as he states:  “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”  Grace and forgiveness of our fellow humans, and fellow Christians, are inseparably connected to our spiritual health.  When I’m well, I just feel God’s love and in turn, I feel love for about everyone.  And when I’m not well, critical, unloving thoughts lie near the surface of my heart.  How about you?

What Is It To Not Be Well?

To begin with, lots of gradations are possible—both physically and spiritually.  For example, we can be physically under the weather only slightly, being tired, listless, or having a headache.  Obviously, these are not good ways to feel, but the problem is not serious enough to put us in bed. Moving into the more serious physical maladies, we can be debilitated with a virus or similar illness to the point that we simply cannot even get out of bed.  At the end of that spectrum, our physical condition may be terminal.  However, at the outset of a terminal illness, we may not even know that we have the disease. 

Spiritual illnesses can be found in much the same gradations.  On the milder end of the possibilities, we can be having a down day, a poor week, or a bad month.  (Actually, I’ve had some bad years!)  Although we are not at our best, we are not in terrible shape and are still relatively functional.  However, if we remain in this state too long and don’t seriously attempt to change it, being listless and unmotivated can lead to being seen by God as “lukewarm” or “having lost one’s first love” (Revelation 2 & 3).  We may keep going through the motions outwardly, but inwardly the situation is more serious than we may imagine.  We can move across the line and become terminal, unless urgent intervention ensues.  We can only wonder how many times God has found a way to intervene, and to nurse us back to spiritual health. 

How do you know if you are really not well?  If being well means that we are characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, being unwell would be the opposite – being characterized by the acts of the sinful nature.  Listen carefully to Paul’s words in Galatians 5:19-21:

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Relational challenges that are not being resolved, sinful behavior, being negative about ourselves, others and life in general are a dead giveaway that we are unhealthy spiritually.

What Will It Take To Get Well? 

If our problem is fairly minor, it may be simply a matter of conditioning – getting back into condition.  If we make sure that we are praying consistently, reading our Bibles and spiritual books regularly, we will improve our condition, perhaps quickly.  Additionally, getting time with other Christians to bare our hearts is another essential part of getting back into a healthy spiritual state.  I have heard so many comments from disciples about how they did so much better with a regularly scheduled discipling partner and discipling time. During the last year as our ministry structure was being re-evaluated, many stopped having discipling times. We must remember that we are the one whom made that choice.  It is unreasonable to criticize the structural control being exerted in our lives and then decry the lack of structure being provided.  What this boils down to is simply this:  take responsibility for yourself and get the help you need from others.  “One another” responsibilities come from God anyway, not from leaders.  I recall at times being absolutely shocked at the difference in myself after one time of unloading my heart and burdens with someone else.  Let’s not allow Satan to keep us from availing ourselves of all the resources that God provides for our healthiness. 

If our spiritual malady is more serious, more serious measures will be needed to offset it.  Perhaps a time of fasting and prayer, a spiritual getaway; obtaining some in-depth counseling, or working out relational challenges are other ingredients in our prescription for getting well.  But what if our condition is potentially terminal?  We must pull out all of the stops and get help—fast!  The longer you wait to get treatment, the more the disease progresses, just like cancer.

I know that the events of last year took a toll on just about all of us, and it has taken some time to get healthy again.  Some of us are still not healthy.  It’s like having an accident or surgery – time to recover is needed, but also needed is the right treatment to heal and to heal correctly.  As a leader, I have tried to be wise about this process (compared to the way I think some other leaders may have approached it).  Some have tried to short-circuit the healing process and said, in effect, “We’ve all been hurt and will all be hurt again.  Just get over it.”  (Try that approach on your wife after hurting her!)  Of course we all have to get over it, but ascertaining the process of proper healing is the issue at hand.  When told to move on before they are healed, some in response have said, “Wait, I can’t walk yet, much less run!”  I understand that response, for time is needed to heal from big emotional hits, as well as taking the proper approach for, well, healthy healing. 

What causes us to remain stuck and unable to move forward?  Bottom line, a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged – and relational blows are the most damaging of all.  When all of the “systemic sins” of our movement were forced out into the light almost overnight, some were appalled that their own idealistic views were not really accurate.  Others, already quite in touch with our movement sins, said “I told you so,” and their frustrations, anger and bitterness leapt out of their hearts and mouths.  It was a trying time to all of us, and a time from which some have yet to recover.

Could the Damage Have Been Lessened?

Looking back on what happened in the past year brings much to my mind—what did happen, what could have happened and what I think should have happened.  However, I understand that hindsight is always much closer to 20/20, which hopefully keeps me from being overly critical.  With that in mind, I do have some observations about what might have been done to reduce the amount of collateral damage in the upheaval of 2003.  We have to try and learn all that we can from past mistakes, for history has a way of repeating itself.  Let me begin by saying that I don’t think an upheaval could have been avoided.  I believe it was needed and brought about by God – a case of divine discipline right in our face (and hopefully it made it down to our hearts!). 

I have heard some leaders say that our movement was already making changes (that part’s true), and would have gone on to make all other needed changes.  Personally, I don’t come even close to buying into that brand of thinking, which to me seems unrealistically optimistic.  The biggest changes needed were and are in the realm of how we view, treat and motivate people, and we still have much to unlearn and learn in this area.  Our sins were serious and deep-rooted, and it took a direct hit from God to force the depth and breadth of changes needed.  We haven’t yet implemented all of them, but on the other hand, we have made tremendous progress in a short time.  In fact, I am aware of only one other movement in recent history that has made the amount of changes that we have in such a short period of time.  To those who remain impatient (and critical) with the changes that have been made, I would simply encourage them to make a list of what has already changed.  That should give you hope for the future, and increase your patience! 

But if we had it all to do over again, what could have been done differently to reduce the collateral damage (in war terminology, the “friendly fire”)?  Since the Kriete letter pretty much lit the fuse, let’s start there.  To begin with, I think the letter could have (should have) been written in a less incendiary manner.  I think that God stirred Henry up to write it, but I wish it had been written in a way that forced us to face the issues and deal with them, howbeit in a more discerning manner.  In the minds of many, all leaders were judged guilty of all that any leader did anywhere, and all churches or ministry groups were judged guilty of all that any group had done.  Good intentions, benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, grace and forgiveness were forgotten principles in far too many cases.  The letter started both a holy revolution and an unholy revolution at the same time. 

But rest assured that I think something drastic had to be done to force change.  One mature leader in Boston put it something like this:  “God used the approach of kindness in trying to get leaders to repent through the writing of the book, Golden Rule Leadership.”  When leaders in high places were resistant to that approach, God sent Henry.”  (As one of the co-authors of the book, with my accompanying biases, I agree with his analysis!)  As I have often said in the past year, in our movement we have done many right things in many wrong ways.  I think Henry’s letter falls in that category—a right thing done in a wrong way.  Once Henry’s letter was made public, I wished that a second letter would have followed pretty quickly, urging people to continue to push (even demand) change, but in ways that were more godly.  We can’t run the clock back now, but we all have to learn from our hindsight experiences, for “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Another thing that could have reduced collateral damage in 2003 was the right kind of apologies from leaders.  What is the right kind of apology?  One, it is specific.  By the way, much of what I say about apologies are lessons I have learned (often the hard way!) in my marriage and family.  Saying to my wife, “I’m sorry I messed up yesterday” just doesn’t get it done!  She wants to know the specifics of what I am apologizing for—at least all of them that I see.  The clamor last year about whether a given leader “got it” or not is reflective of this point.  Some leaders apparently were afraid if they said too much, people would become even more critical.  Humility is the only judge needed of that concept!  When other leaders were painfully specific, people’s minds were relieved that leaders did in fact “get it” and thus were less likely to repeat the same sins.  I understand the lack of trust when leaders were unwilling to apologize specifically.  Frankly, I share it.

Two, apologies should have been humble and heartfelt.  Again, when I say “I’m sorry” to Theresa in a terse, begrudging manner, even after being specific, it doesn’t free her up.  She wants me to feel the right kind of pain at having caused her pain by my sin.  Bottom line, she expects true humility from me, and since God settles for no less, her expectations are totally reasonable and righteous.  Our people expected humble responses from us, and so did God.  Leaders who were specific and humble fared much, much better than those who were not.

Three (and this is often overlooked), appropriate apologies should have been made by the appropriate people.  In the Boston church leaders’ apology letter, a very important sentence read thus:  “The higher the level of leadership, the greater the responsibility.”  Higher-level leaders were the ones who made policies and were most influential in determining what we would do and how we would do it.  To me, one of the saddest parts of the collateral damage during our upheaval was in how younger leaders were viewed and treated.  Little discernment was practiced on this point, and those least responsible were judged to be about as guilty as those who were in reality most responsible.  The end result was that many highly promising young leaders resigned and will likely never return to ministry staff leadership again.  They did not deserve the harsh judgment and treatment they received. 

I commend Steve Johnson, former World Sector Leader, for understanding this principle and taking responsibility for what went on under his direction.  He also recognized that his apology had to be made on as broad a scale as his realm of influence had been felt.  Apologies in more private settings are great, but if not as broadly directed as the influence wielded, those hurt are left unsatisfied and perhaps unhealed.  Regarding young leaders in the NYC church, he wrote the following in his public apology letter: 

They were trying to do as they were taught and still often would be conflicted between what I said and what they saw going on in the church. It was my mistake to put so many of you under such young leadership. Blame me, not them. They did work hard for you. I don’t know how to deal with the pain I feel for having hurt such young hearts or for having placed all of you in a position where you felt so disregarded and disrespected. It was all my fault. I am so sorry.       

If leaders with greater influence had taken this approach early on, much of the negative impact on young leaders might have been avoided and we as a movement would have been better off for it.  If all leaders had quickly followed all three of these principles of righteous apologies, the damage would have been reduced significantly.

What Will It Take To Get Unstuck?

Well, enough of looking at what might have been.  Let’s learn the lessons from what could or should have been, and then get on with being healed.  While I understand why some people are still stuck, my concern is that at some point if we don’t begin walking, we may never walk again – we may lose the ability to bounce back.  When we experience major emotional hits, such as the death of a loved one or a divorce, it takes time to heal.  It often takes a year to start coming out of the fog.  I have been patient with those who were still in the fog after the events of 2003, but now I am becoming more and more alarmed when their healing process is making no progress.  Perhaps the most apt analogy I can use to describe the condition of those who can’t seem to get past the past is that they have spiritual hypothermia.  A person with physical hypothermia has experienced a shock to his system to the point that his system starts shutting down.  His shock is exposure to cold that is beyond his body’s ability to cope.  For example, think of someone who fell through the ice of a frozen lake in the wilderness.  Assume that he crawled out of the lake and started walking toward his car two miles away.  After the icy shock subsides, his body begins to shut down and he starts to feel warm, and then he feels very sleepy.  Thinking that the walking has warmed up his body, he has a strong desire to sit down and rest or even take a quick nap.  If he gives in to that desire, he will be found as a frozen clump sometime later.  What he has mistaken as warmth is his physical system shutting down.  He must force himself to keep going until he is able to find real warmth in a protected environment. 

We can reach a similar point spiritually, in that we can be stuck to the point that we all but lose our ability to bounce back.  Unless we keep moving, we will die, and our moving has to be in harmony with God’s directions.  If I could choose only one passage to describe this direction, it would unquestionably be 1 Peter 2:18-3:9.  Earlier in this lesson I said that our being stuck spiritually results from experiencing a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged.  This passage in 1 Peter is shocking to our sensibilities in several respects, but it describes how Jesus dealt with such situations.  Read these words carefully:

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. [19] For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. [20] But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  [22] “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”  [23] When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:18-23).

My sensibilities are shocked immediately by reading the word “slaves.”  The very idea that one human would own another human is repugnant.  Yet, it was reality in the first century, and God insisted on his people responding righteously in what would appear to be ungodly situations.  Slaves were to be submissive and respectful—always, and to every slave master, whether gentle and kind, or harsh and overbearing.  Why?  Not because of who the master was but because of who they were.  Better yet, because of whose they were!  They were children of the King, and the King had already shown the way of the cross to them.  Just what is the way of the cross?  Doing what is right and righteous no matter how badly and unfairly you are being treated.  Isn’t that part and parcel of what following Jesus is all about in the first place?  The first decision to make in becoming a true Christian is the hardest one of all:  “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).  This step is not optional.  We cannot be saved without taking it and then continuing to take it all of our lives.

Note the wording in 1 Peter 3, as the “way of the cross” principle is applied in other situations.  “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (verse 1).  What is “the same way” but the way of the cross just described?  Read verses 1-6 to see what the response of the wife to her husband is to be, regardless of his treatment of her.  My sensibilities are in shock once more!  “Husbands, in the same way…” (verse 7).  Again, the way of the cross is applied to the husband’s treatment of his wife – regardless of what her treatment of him might be.  Peter just won’t let up in applying this principle!  But the most challenging application of all is yet to come.  Our sensibilities are going to be hit, and hit hard, one last time.

In verses 8-9, we read:  “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. [9] Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”  The word “finally” shows that Peter is making his final application of the principle, and this time it is to the church as a whole.  Verse 8 describes life in the kingdom the way it should be.  But verse 9 describes life in the kingdom the way it shouldn’t be and yet sometimes is.  The way of the cross is most difficult when those we love most and think should love us most do not treat us lovingly.  Yet, God calls us to imitate Jesus and refuse to repay evil with evil and insult with insult.  Our love must respond to a lack of love in the same way that Jesus responded to ill treatment, even when from the hands of brothers and sisters in Christ.

One of the most challenging books I have read in the past year is all about this subject.  It is entitled Exquisite Agony and is written by Gene Edwards (author also of The Tale of Three Kings).  I cannot take the space to quote the excerpts I read in the oral presentation of this lesson, but you would do well to read it, for it helps the principles of 1 Peter 2 & 3 come alive.  The book is brief and can be quickly read, but it will convict you mightily if you read it with an open heart.  Essentially, the writer avows that all crucifixions are from God, and unless we accept our ill treatment at the hands of men as being ultimately from God, we will not get well.  Without that acceptance, we will have suffered only mistreatment and not crucifixion, and will be damaged as a result.  Many are stuck right here.  They blame men for their suffering and do not surrender to God as the author of their suffering.  Jesus deserved nothing of his crucifixion, for it was ill intentioned treatment at the hands of his own people.  They hated him and they killed him, and that was the cause of his death – or so it would seem.  What does God say about all of that?  Just this:  “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10).

Think through the principle suggested in the following verses carefully. 

We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. [11] For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body (2 Corinthians 4:10-11). 

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24). 

If Jesus drew the world to himself through suffering unjustly in a godly, almost “other worldly” manner, can we do it in a different way?  Any of us can respond reasonably well to just treatment—there is no test involved in that.  But who of us can respond righteously to unrighteous treatment (even from our brothers)?  The simple answer:  only those of us determined to go the way of the cross.  The challenging answer:  only those of us determined to be Christians (which demands that we go the way of the cross)!

Edwards dedicates a later chapter in this book to Jesus’ reactions after his resurrection.  With tongue in cheek, he describes the bitter responses that might have been forthcoming from Jesus, but shows that a true resurrection following a true crucifixion (one accepted as from God) leaves no bitterness at all.  Resurrections make everything new, especially the past.  The author goes on to mention that so many of us in the aftermath of our crucifixion cannot leave the past behind, and insist on recounting the details of our ill treatment.  When we won’t let it go, the reason is clear.  We have not accepted our crucifixion as from God.  Period.  Therefore, we have been damaged and not healed; hurt and not helped; crippled and not strengthened.  Listen to God’s words on this matter:  “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.  Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed” (Hebrews 12:11-13).

In preaching about the resurrection recently in the NE Region, I recalled these words of an old hymn:  “Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free?  No, there’s a cross for everyone, and there’s a cross for me.”  Do you believe this, and will you embrace yours?  Peter rebuked Jesus for saying that he was going to take the way of the cross (Mark 8:31-38).  Jesus then rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” and saying in Mark 8:33 that Peter did “not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”  What were the “things of men?”  Answer:  a cross-less Christianity.  Is that what you are after?  If you refuse to endure your crosses as being from the hand of God, you are in essence requesting a cross-less Christianity.  The sad ending to that request is that Christianity without crosses – Jesus and ours – is no Christianity at all.

Conclusion

Spiritually, how healthy are you right now?  If unhealthy, do you want to get well?  As with the invalid of John 5, Jesus stands ready to help.  But he will not help us in a way contrary to the cross – in fact, he simply cannot.  The spiritual laws of the universe do not allow other solutions than those from God.  Please, let’s all get well, and let’s surrender to the cure that Jesus provides!  If I had the past year to do over, I would have responded more wisely and more righteously in a number of situations.  However, I don’t have the opportunity to relive last year.  I do have the opportunity to repent, learn from my mistakes and begin anew by the grace of God – and so do you.  Let’s do it now and let’s do it together.  Our future individually and as a church is as bright as the promises of God.  May he heal us all, and may we bring him more glory in the future than we ever did or even dreamed of doing in the past!

—Gordon Ferguson (May 2004)

Appreciating Our History

NOTE:  This article was written back in 2002, prior to the startling changes in what we have called in ICOC.  In some ways, therefore, it is somewhat dated.  However, the biblical and practical lessons found in it are worth sharing in our present day.  In some ways, they may be even more significant.  See what you think!

As members of the International Churches of Christ, we are well aware of our emphasis on the brief development of our history as a movement.  We remember all about the Gempel’s living room on that fateful night in June of 1979.  The details of those first church plantings in Chicago and New York City, followed by the first foreign planting in London, and then the first planting in a foreign language in Paris are all a part of our memory treasures.  We could go on and on, recalling the glories of such historic plantings as those in Johannesburg, Cairo, and Moscow.  We do glory in our history, because we are convinced that God was the one writing history by using our feeble but heroic human efforts to accomplish his divine purposes.  Who could ever forget the Jubilee celebration at the completion of the six year plan as those 170 flags were proudly borne high, each representing a nation in which a church was now established!

In our emphasis on our history, we are imitating our Jewish forefathers.  Anyone even vaguely acquainted with the Bible is aware of their appreciation of God’s hand in their lives as a movement.  The sermons recorded in Acts are clear examples of this consistent historical emphasis.  Stephen’s audience in Acts 7 may have hated the latter part of his sermon, but they were all ears during the earlier part as he traced their history through renown leaders such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Solomon.  The Jews loved recounting their past, for it demonstrated their tie with God above all other nations of the earth.  Our love for the history of God’s modern day movement is but an extension of what his people have always reveled in.  Indeed, God has done great things among us!

It is important to note that every part of sacred history has been glorious, but the glory of each has not been the same.  Certainly in the Old Testament both high points and low points were all included, and to some extent, all appreciated.  The low points taught lessons, which led to higher ground as God blessed repentance.  2 Corinthians 3:7-11 says that the old covenant was glorious, but not nearly as glorious as the new covenant of Jesus Christ.  The fact that the later was more glorious should not be used to dismiss the glory and appreciation of the former.  Whenever God uses his people to accomplish his purposes, it is cause for rejoicing.  The accomplishments of our children when they are in elementary school may not compare to their accomplishments in college, but they are precious memories to us nonetheless.

The Israelite movement of God was absolutely essential as a foundation for the new Israel, the church of God.  Praise God for the faithful who awaited the coming of the Messiah and his greater kingdom.  We thrill as we read of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, Mary and Joseph, who were graced with seeing God enter the world wrapped in the human flesh of a crying child, Simeon and Anna, whose presence graced the temple and whose prayers of thanksgiving were laced with prophecies about this child who would rule the nations.  While it is quite true that most of Israel did not later accept the crucified Christ, they had been pursuing a law of righteousness which should have led them to him (Romans 9:31-32).  A significant minority did follow the OT prophesies right into the church, beginning with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, and continuing with daily conversions in those first days in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41-47).

We often see that early beginning in Jerusalem as one of the most glorious pieces in the history of the first century church, but in some ways it had its limitations.  For one thing, the church was filled with racial bigots for a number of years.  It took God using a pretty nominal Jew, Peter, who could only be convinced that Gentiles were worthy of salvation through the rebuke of a series of visions.  Even then, he later struggled with the application of those divinely revealed truths (Galatians 2:11-21).  Toward the end of the New Testament revelation, the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem were amazingly still attached to their Judaic history (Acts 21).  Until the destruction of the outward aspects of Judaism in 70 AD at the hands of the Roman army, the intermingling of the less glorious with the more glorious was still a reality.  As the writer of Hebrews stated, the old glory that was “obsolete and aging” was soon to disappear (Hebrews 8:13), which it did at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

What are we saying in all of this?  Simply that in spite of the weaknesses in that early church, we still rejoice in all of its glorious history, for it all was the work of Almighty God, from start to finish.  What needs to be said further is that we have a very similar lesson to learn regarding our modern day movement.  At best, we are failing to recognize and appreciate some of our own history, and at worst, we are guilty of the sins of ingratitude and arrogance.  Let’s begin this line of thought by looking at a very relevant but often overlooked passage in Romans 11:11-20.

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.  17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.

By the time Paul wrote Romans, the church was becoming more and more Gentile in composition.  The Gentiles were failing to see either themselves or the Jews in a realistic light, out of their own pride.  Paul shows them that their inclusion in the kingdom was designed to provoke the Jews to jealousy in hopes of causing them to reconsider their own decisions about Jesus as Messiah.  He further tells the Gentiles that they actually stood on the foundation of the Jewish religion, and that they stood on the basis of faith, not on their own merits.  Instead of being arrogant and critical, they should have been appreciative of their Jewish heritage. 

What is the application to us?  Actually, there are several.  Our movement has a history that goes far back before 1979 in Boston.  We are built upon the foundation of what we now call the mainline Church of Christ, or by the more descriptive term, the Restoration Movement.  The early days of this group were actually pretty glorious.  Ministers from many different denominations banded together with the lofty intent of rejecting creeds in favor of following the Bible only.  Surely we would all agree that this was, and remains, a noble goal.  Many stories could be recounted from the 1800’s that are impressive and thrilling.  Thousands of people were baptized at the preaching of men who were sold out for their cause, to the point that some of them actually gave their lives for it as martyrs.  One of the best known leaders, Alexander Campbell, developed the convictions that led to his leaving both the Presbyterian church and later the Baptist church, and through this process, he became the leading religious debater of his age, widely known and respected in and out of his movement. 

Whatever else may be said about this period, it clearly had its glory and formed the foundation for what we enjoy today.  Even in the mid-20^th century, the churches of Christ were said to be the fastest growing indigenous religious group in America.  Although legalism eventually choked out the growth of many congregations, and thus led many of them to a position of being fairly non-evangelistic, lukewarm, and doctrinally compromised, we grew up as a movement out of that root system.  Virtually every doctrinal argument I used in my book, Prepared to Answer, I learned in that particular group.  I appreciate all that I learned, although I did struggle with the persecution I received at the hands of some in that group.  However, Paul had received more persecution from the Jews in his day than any of us in our day have received from our persecutors, and we have to keep that in mind.  We must be diligent about keeping our hearts humble and appreciative. 

Actually, the reason for writing this article is not primarily to help us be less critical and more grateful toward the mainline Church of Christ (although I hope it accomplishes that too).  We have another part of our historical root system that is in many ways more important to us as a movement than the mainline background.  Of course, I refer to the Campus Ministry segment of our history, which we often call the Crossroads movement.  I think that this era was glorious in many, many ways, and yet the comments I sometimes hear regarding it vary from dismissive to derogatory.  The claim that we have had a revisionist history regarding the Crossroads days is unquestionably true.  The contribution of that era is larger than many among us admit, and the overall lack of gratitude toward it, combined with what seems to be purposeful avoidance of even discussing that period (by some), is very hurtful to those who came from that background.  We simply must address this issue in an upfront manner and rectify our shortcomings regarding it.

Sadly, the end of that period was brought about by the sin of the Crossroads pulpit minister, which led to his dismissal by the elders.  (Let me add the note that he and his family have done well in the years that followed, and I still consider them to be special friends to whom I owe much.)  This unfortunate turn of events led to the demise of the influence of the Crossroads church, and subsequently, of those most closely associated with it.  At the same time, the Boston church was growing in influence, and in a good way, Kip and the elders exerted a noble effort to unify the then current movement by bringing key leaders into Boston for more training and to unify the key leaders into one movement from their various sources.  Certainly the movement tracing back to Boston days is the more glorious, but the campus ministry movement blazed some trails without which none of us would be what we now are.  Period.  Anything bordering on disdain toward that era on the part of any of us who sit upon that foundation is nothing short of sinful, and I strongly encourage repentance on the parts of those who need it.

I have plenty of sins of which to repent, but being critical of the Crossroads days is not one of them.  I first visited the Crossroads church in 1981, and my life was radically changed as a result of that one week visit and the later trips to speak on the Florida Evangelism Seminar.  How that group was spawned out of the tradition-bound mainline Church of Christ of that day still amazes and thrills me.  We may have taken things further in many ways (and we have, by God’s grace), but their coming out of their labyrinth is, in my considered opinion, about as remarkable as what we have done since. My purpose is not to create some kind of prideful competitive comparison, but only to cause us to look back at all segments of our history in a way that is both realistic and spiritual.

I glory in the many positive qualities and achievements of the mainline Church of Christ, although my frustration with its shortcomings led to my leaving it, burning bridges in a way that necessarily left scars in my soul.  I cannot defend everything I did in that process, by the way.  I am grateful to be where I am, and during those many years since I came into our present movement, I have never wished to be back in that old root system.  But I appreciate my history as I searched for that more excellent way.  Similarly, I glory in the many positive contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, for without it, we would certainly not be where we are today.  Yes, they did some things wrong, but they did far more right than wrong, and my prediction is that we will actually reinstate some of their practices that we have typically deemed wrong in the past.  I am grateful that we have all been delivered from that “church within a church” setting that was the case with many former campus ministry congregations, but I do not make light of all that we learned from it, especially the campus ministry part of it, which was not significantly different from what we do today – unless it be noted that their growth in campus baptisms often eclipsed our present growth on most campuses.

As to the specific contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, many could be noted with but little thought, even by an “outsider” such as me.  The insistence of total commitment as an essential component of repentance preceding baptism was a novel idea and sorely needed.  The viewing the Bible as a standard for the attitudes and behavior of Christians, instead of simply being an idealistic standard, was likewise so needed.  This mindset led to the kind of straightforward authoritative preaching that was all but absent from the pulpits of traditional churches.  Discipleship in both its vertical aspect (commitment to Christ) and horizontal aspect (close, open spiritual relationships) was admirably stressed.  The later focus on “discipleship partners” at all levels rather than the “prayer partner” arrangement of those days initially looked far better in theory than the practice has ended up, because of the tendency of over/under relationships to be mishandled.  The emphasis on relational evangelism, with ample practical teaching about how to develop such relationships, stood out like a beacon for those not thus trained in other settings.  Last, but certainly not least, an impressively large percentage of elders and evangelists in the most influential leadership roles in the movement today trace their roots back to Crossroads or to campus ministries led by those who were trained at Crossroads.

One mistake I often make in generalizing about the Campus Ministry Movement is failing to distinguish between the different commitment levels of churches who had campus ministries.  The “church within a church” weakness often noted was generally true, in that the demands of discipleship were not equally applied to members of all ages.  However, some churches were much more even handed in calling for and expecting such commitment from its membership, with congregations like Crossroads and San Diego (Poway) being among this number.  The amount of persecution each received is a pretty good testimony to that fact.  The handling of said persecution by such churches paved the way for responding to later persecution after 1979, for many lessons were learned (positively and negatively).  I do not believe that the commitment levels in congregations like these was where it should have been overall, but it should be noted that they were light years ahead of others within the more traditional Churches of Christ.  I appreciate their determination and advances as they strove to emerge out of the denominational darkness from whence they came.  They came further in many ways from their root system than we have since, for philosophically and practically, they had further to go.  I would not want to return to where the better Campus Ministry churches were, to be sure, but I am both amazed and grateful for the progress that has enabled us to build upon their earlier foundation.  

I pray that those who read these thoughts are both challenged and helped by them.  I am concerned that our present slowdown of growth in the movement is directly related to the sins that are in our camp, one of which is described herein.  God blesses righteousness and blocks unrighteousness; he exalts the humble and resists the proud; he rewards the spiritual and confuses the worldly.  Let’s be willing to examine our hearts individually and collectively as we seek to become more like the God who loves us.  Let’s absolutely and unequivocally appreciate our history, but let’s not leave out any of it.  The presence of the more glorious cannot be allowed to invalidate the less glorious, for both are glorious before God, and the greater would not be present without the lesser.

—Gordon Ferguson (2002)