I saw a billboard along the highway today - "You Must Be Born Again - Jesus Christ". My instant reaction was that the Gospel doesn't fare too well when put on billboards. I was also asked a few days ago to summarize our faith community's essence in a succinct phrase, one that would fit on a t-shirt. I was stumped. Ask me to take an hour and talk, but not 10 seconds. Do I talk about God's dramatic and gracious rescue of us as miserable sinners? Do I talk about how our day-to-day emphasis is to seek the transformation that God does in changing us into the image of Christ? Do I mention that our identity is in a communal relationship with the Triune God rather than assent to any doctrinal formulations? What do I say about what God is doing, how we seek His leading, and our emphasis on "roaming about the Kingdom"? The possibilities are many and varied.

Now I know that having a mission statement or slogan is considered essential to having an identity, but all the ones I've heard are virtually the same even though the churches that create them are radically different. It seems to me that the slogans, then, are not very representative. No church says "we are here to make you feel good" or "it's all about appearances". No, the churches for whom those statements are true are going to say something like everyone else - "where we love God and people so they grow to love Jesus and their neighbors in doing good." Or maybe it's "We Worship a Worthy God who Works by His Spirit to Win the World." That is a church that likes w's.

I think the problem is reductionism - both with the billboards and the mission statements. If you want to know what the community is about, live with us for a while. Let me talk to you. But I can't give you that picture in any meaningful way in 15 words or less. My family doesn't have a mission statement, and don't ask me to summarize my relationship with my wife and children on a t-shirt. My relationship with God and my spiritual brothers and sisters doesn't fit on one either.

I do believe that despite what any mission statement says, if you live with a group for even a short time, you will discover what they are about.

And the Gospel . . . it's much more than "you must be born again."

In Matthew 21 two questions are asked - one of Jesus by the religious leaders, and the other of those leaders by Jesus. The leaders' question is about "authority". They want to know the nature of the authority that is behind what Jesus is teaching and doing. Jesus asks a question about the motivations of a person's heart that lie behind one's actions.

To me this exchange exemplifies the differences between the ways of God and the ways of humanity. The same tension arises constantly in Christian churches as human legalistic views fight against the work God is doing. When it comes to actions the human concern is about the authority and correctness of them, and God's concern is for the motivations of the heart that gave rise to the actions. While the religious leaders examine the legality of things, Jesus talks about faithfulness in the heart of people who are moved to repentance.

Jesus and these religious leaders are like ships passing in the night - headed in opposite directions and talking about completely different matters. Those who talk about authority will never understand the One who came to be servant of all. In the Christian world we need less talk about who has authority and more about what is in our hearts.

We've been talking about baptism in our community. One thing which has become exceedingly clear to me is that baptism is to be a unifying experience (1 Cor. 12:12-13) both bringing people to God and to a communal oneness with each other through the Spirit. Tragically, that has not been the case in the Christian world. Baptism has been a cause for much division and the non-acceptance of other believers. Something has gone wrong.

My own thoughts concerning the root of the problem is that we Christians tend to think that the one baptism of Ephesians 4 is defined by human understandings of the rite and human ways of practicing it. We believe that the one baptism is a doctrine that must be comprehended instead of a mystery that is God's grace in us. The one baptism must be that God performs one work in all - even when our understandings and practices differ. We are bound together by a common work administered by God. This is something we must accept by faith, even as we acknowledge that our thoughts and convictions regarding the rite differ.

So last Sunday we talked about Brother Lawrence and the notion of Practicing the Presence of God. Actually, we had several meditative quotes from the lay brother, and we were encouraged to stay more conscious of God . . . and to adore and love Him constantly. Want to know how I've been doing? Well it's Wednesday, and really no better than the week before. I can't say that I've been particularly more aware of God or increasingly focused on the imminence of the divine in my life and around me.

Does that mean Sunday was a waste? No . . . because if I take a much longer view of where I am and where I have been, I would say that I am more conscious of God now than I was several years ago. But then again, last Sunday wasn't the first time I had been introduced to the practice of God's presence. Sunday was another nudge in the direction God's been leading me for a long time. Often the spiritual results aren't instantly apparent, though on rare occasions we humans are treated to an epiphany that does create dramatic change. We get more nudges than we do epiphanies.

Here I sit thinking about how I need to be more aware of God. Last week I wasn't thinking about this on Wednesday (at least I can't remember thinking this) . . . so last Sunday's meditation is having an effect.

"Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes" (1 Corinthians 4:5)

A long time ago I came to understand that pride is the root of our spiral into deepening separation from God. Satan's pride resulted in his fall, and serves as a warning for us. If pride has a child, it must be selfishness - and an awful child it is. How do we mentor those who are so consumed with themselves that all they can think about is their personal circumstances, how they can get what they want, or what is going on with them? How do we encourage dying to ourselves and destroy that devastating tendency to make "me" the center of everything?

One solution seems to be in a discipline of helping others (getting out of exclusive self interest) - but selfish people won't do that. "Sorry, I'm too busy with myself to practice that . . ." Even if the discipline is presented as a way for they themselves to be helped, the spirit of selfishness has too tight a grip. My experience is that all my attempts seem to fail. Selfishness continues to cause those caught up in it to destroy themselves. I can't break that hold in someone else no matter how I try.

Humbled by the power of sin, and have to turn back to faith in God. If the spirit of selfishness will be driven out it will be through the Spirit of God. May God do the work that I cannot do in myself nor in others. Sola Dei!

I just got back from a two-week trip to Honduras (June 3-18). As you might imagine, the experience was rich with God's presence. There is little that can equal spending a couple weeks just doing good for others. There were no distractions and since our basic needs were provided for by workers at the place we were staying, we could devote ourselves to simply serving the Hondurans. Every Christian finds such a trip appealing because it is an intense participation in the discipline of good works.

As much as we might like to live this way always, it is not possible. When I got home there was the grass to mow, errands to be run, and work (the kind that is the source of my paycheck) to be done. Though markedly different, this too is the will of God. The truth to be recognized is that the presence of God which we sense so clearly in concentrated service like through this Honduras trip, is equally available in our ordinary daily existence. Tasting God's goodness in a special circumstance should help us find Him in more typical activities.

May our experiences of holy presence in the ordinary things increase.

What do we make of the changes in our world? There is plenty to be in despair about - economic woes, moral issues, war in our world, and all the questions that these are raising. When watching these matters unfold it seems that the participants in the debate have a desire to win at all costs rather than to engage in meaningful dialogue and a search for truth. There is an intellectual tribalization occurring and a genocidal warfare being waged against opposing viewpoints. Whether is it gay marriage, Iraq, or some other subject, so much of the rhetoric on all sides is a "take no prisoners" approach to winning against the "enemy" (those with whom we share in human society, our neighbors, who think differently). That does not bode well for a culture.

However, what is God doing in the middle of all this . . . if we indeed believe that God is still acting in the human story? One stark lesson is that we should have no hope in this world. We are only in despair if we expected this world to offer anything lasting. If we are distressed over economic woes, were we depending on economic vibrancy for our happiness? If we are disillusioned by evidence of moral weakness, is it a sign that we believed too much in the evolutionary progress of fallen human society? Does world instability and terrorism reveal that we sought a peace offered by military power and political alliances?

My personal anxiety about any of these current problems reminds me that I have not found rest and peace in Christ alone. May God lead me to unrivaled security in His love.

As we seek to participate in our life in God, one given by grace and lived through grace, we often hear a debate surface about the emotional and rational aspects of that life. Many times the discussion devolves into a competition between proponents of one or the other of these eminently human expressions of being. On one hand, some seem to associate the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit with our emotions, while other see emotions as the greatest of pitfalls, and advocate a rational approach.

Let me suggest that the debate is not between these two aspects of human personhood, but between man and God. Those who would put their trust in rationality seem to miss the declaration of God that human understanding is corrupt - they are darkened in their understanding (Eph. 4:18) and their thinking became futile (Rom. 1:21) - just to point out two passages. Those who fail to recognize that every feeling is not from God, also fail to discern adequately that fundamental sins such as pride have hefty emotional components. With so many sins being emotive in nature, no wonder rational solutions meet with failure. Knowing the right one should do is little defense against a desire to do wrong.

I believe that the true situation is that both human emotion and rational thought are corrupted and untrustworthy. The debate is not between either being emotionally centered or intellectually guided - but being human centered or divinely guided. Both human emotion and rationality are redeemable and both may be used by God to guide. We must be aware not of the dangers of either one, but of both. We must seek how God leads and guides through both. Being confident in either feelings or thoughts is flawed, but trusting in God and Him through both is a journey to being transformed.

A truly formative part of my spiritual journey has been the eight years I spent in Tanzania, East Africa. The formation came in many different ways, but one of the greatest blessings was to see the spirituality of a non-secularized people who put their faith in Jesus. I say "non-secularized" because the Africans I was blessed to know had not adopted a western worldview that elevated human capability and relegated the spiritual to the realm of superstition. Once someone asked me if those Tanzanians believed the spiritual was just as "real" as the physical - but that question betrays our bias. In my response I avoided the whole question of "real" and using the physical as the standard, but stated that they related equally to both what is seen and unseen without thinking in terms of what is "real" and what is not. For those Africans everything is a seamless whole. For this reason, there is a robustness to their faith that shows the weakness of the faith of a thoroughly modern person whose belief is formed within the boundaries of modernity's parameters.

This last Sunday I was truly blessed to help welcome a new family that last week moved here from Africa. In spending time with them and seeing and hearing their powerful faith in God expressed in everything, I was reminded again why I learned so much from those Tanzanians. I might have gone as a missionary to share with them the Good News, but they accepted and believed it in a way surpassed my own belief.

Our African friends here have come as missionaries whose mission is to be a part of a mobilization effort. They are here to earn money to send back to support Kingdom work in Africa. As one said, God provides us three meals a day and the rest is Kingdom work.

Praise God that we have some missionaries among us whose sense of calling will undoubtedly challenge us all. God may have sent them for another reason as well - to feed a revival among American churches which have become too comfortable!

Well, my long absence from this blog has ended. It is amazing to me that it has been a month already.

The reason for the sabbatical was that our faith community moved to a new leased facility. It has been a good time of seeing God provide - the renovation of the building that took only two weeks with everything happening ahead of schedule (whoever heard of that!) and new opportunities for ministry becoming evident. The other aspect that I've thought about through this month is the need to keep our focus on God.

Probably the biggest temptation during this time is letting blessings move us away from God. We could easily become exactly what we resolved not to become - that is, a church focused on itself. Maybe it is just a sign of our sinful nature that we can so quickly be distracted even when God's hand is so evident. The reassuring thought is that since God Himself is moving us into this new period in the life of this church, then we know that that there is a purpose which will be realized by Divine Grace. Our faithfulness to the directing of God and openness to unexpected possibilities must be our congregational lingua franca. When God moves, there are tremendous possibilities both for faithfulness and apostacy. May we humbly choose the former and avoid the pride that would feed the latter.

Good Discussions Become Stale Positions
Vigorous and timely Christian dialogue that leads to an incarnational practice of faith daily is essential to having a relevant message. I might even characterize that discussion as argument or debate, as long as the spirit is irenic. There is nothing ungodly about believers engaged in a desperate search for the meaning of faith in our cultural context, and in a lively discussion of the possibilities as long as grace and love pervade the exchange. But, of course, such is so rarely witnessed that many will likely doubt that it could even exist.

I describe the practice of faith which we seek as "incarnational" because it must be the authentic presence of the Divine within historical circumstances. We are concerned with our historical circumstance, and should be. This pursuit of the incarnation of faith in the "flesh of our time" will be an attempt to interpret the nature of God in normative ways for our behavior, priorities, relationships, and congregational life. When done well, these discussions result in teachings about the truth of God's own revelation of Himself which frankly and perceptively address our context. The debate is vital and necessary for Christians of a specific time and place to proclaim a relevant message of hope and conviction, and for their working out of faith daily to be true salt and light.

The problem is that when the fleshly context, the historical reference of a discussion ceases to exist, or changes either dramatically or slowly over time, often the doctrines remain. Those untethered teachings which once had immediate relevance to the daily life of certain group of God's people often take on a life of their own. They are no longer incarnational teachings, but ethereal statements of belief. Once a fleshly context no longer anchors the teaching to a specific daily practice which has a immediate relevance, they become stale positions and intellectual posturing. Often, these morph into tests of orthodoxy, now in a theoretical way - far different from the circumstances of their formation.

Undoubtedly we all carry with us the baggage of some of these stale beliefs. We cling to these in the false notion that thinking the right thoughts on these subjects, which have little or no bearing on our daily attempts to live like Jesus, is somehow important to God. What would be the change if we resolve to discuss, debate, pursue, and teach no thing but that which directly involves our daily walk of faith? How many subjects would languish undiscussed for lack of any immediate relevance? How many questions would not be pursued because how we live to love God and our neighbor on Monday is not affected? Think of the Christian unity that would result.

I believe that our sense of being related to one another as Christians in the world should consist of being conscious of two things. First, we should have a sense of belonging that is based on the daily, face-to-face relationships we have with other believers. These fellow travelers share our journey, and we enjoy an intimate and immediate fellowship in love which is the joy of a spiritual relationship. Our relationship is based on our daily walks together.

The other consciousness I believe we should have is an awareness that there is a universal, invisible church that spans all places and time. My relatedness to that vast body of fellow travelers include that 'great cloud of witness' from history and the millions of other contemporary believers in Jesus. I don't have face-to-face relationships with this numerous congregation, but I have a sense of belonging that I am in the midst of that God-led, Spirit-filled throng. I should be conscious of a relationship with them by faith, if not by the personal experience of interaction.

There is a third consciousness that I once had, but don't have now, and which I believe I never should have had. That was a sense of belonging to a numerous group of believers with whom I didn't have immediate or intimate relationships, who included more than those Christians with whom I regularly shared life, but a group smaller than the church universal. My relationship with those people was only theoretical, based on the impression that we shared certain practices and beliefs in common. That group was my denomination - a group encompassing less than God's church, but more than those with whom I walked daily. With my denomination I felt a special bond. Very long ago, that denomination was synonymous with what I thought was the church universal.

When I came to see that God was doing more in this world and had children beyond my denomination, I nonetheless held onto my denomination as people with whom I felt a special affinity. I esteemed them over other believers. Being in a group of them was better than being in a group of "other believers." The real test was when I was driving on long trips. Invariably I would pass numerous places of worship. Whenever I saw a building with "our name" on it I felt a certain closeness to the people who gathered there, even though they were completely unknown to me. On that same trip I would drive past other places of worship with other names, and though I would acknowledge in my mind that believers met there, that they were people saved by grace, I would nevertheless think of them as "of other groups." I acknowledged that they could be children of my Father, but I didn't feel as close to them as those who had "our name" on their building. I was denominationally minded. My mind divided the Christian church into denominational camps.

I had no reason to think those with "our name" would somehow be warmer, more loving, more accepting, more godly, or more anything else good than those under "other names." But I had a predisposition to those with "our name" - my sense of belonging was not in God's universal church, but in my own denomination.

I have heard people justify the existence of denominations, but I no longer can. For me the journey has been long, but I am convicted that I should only be conscious of two ways of being related to other Christians in this world: 1) the Christians with whom I share my daily walk and 2) all other Christians in equality. I am repenting of there ever being a third group - larger than those who love me personally and daily, and yet smaller than all believers who are accepted by God.

It Takes Faith To Attend A Lectureship
I went to Texas last Sunday afternoon, and stayed a couple of days to participate in a "lectureship" at a Christian University. I taught a class and got to attend a few others, but mainly hung out with some friends. I also made some new friends.

The whole trip was ostensibly about the "lectureship" but it was really about relationships. I think that "lectureships" in general, as modern mindfests, will be going the way of the dinosaurs unless something is done quickly - not to update them, but to totally rethink them. Having a lecture-fest is not even remotely appealing to many people. It sounds like what it is - lots of lectures. If we haven't noticed, lectures are not what many people are seeking. They are looking for something where there is more dialogue than for speeches full of answers. They want to participate, not just listen. They want to experience, more than become better informed intellectually.

Of course, true to the form, my class offered better answers than I really have. Well, I 'm sure it sounded that way even though I didn't mean to convey that. Classes are supposed to offer answers, that's why people go to classes. My confidence was not in the act of teaching, but in the Holy Spirit who can lay a message on our hearts.

It takes faith to go to a lectureship.

As usual, certain elements of our American Christian subculture seem to be "gospelizing" something that shouldn't be. In other words, making some thing a test of orthodoxy, an matter of conscience, treating it as if it were the Gospel itself, and then portraying anyone who disagrees as a persecutor of Christianity. For sure, there are persecutors, but not everyone who has a different take on some matter is necessarily anti-Christian.

No, I'm not talking about Judge Moore and his granite monument which one must endorse or be labeled anti-God. It is my impression, just me talking here, that a little of this is taking place over Mel Gibson's movie The Passion. Mel Gibson isn't inspired and doesn't claim to be. Neither was the movie script, camera angles, cinematography, the actors, or anything else. It is great that he wanted to make the movie. But this is not a holy struggle between light and darkness to have the movie released, how the movie is reviewed, or what people think of it. I'm sure that the movie will be very impactful. I also think of several matters to remember.

The inspired writers of the New Testament said little about the gore, violence, and physical suffering of Jesus. The Gospel writers do not dramatize the events for us, but speak rather sparsely of the crucifixion. No preacher worth his salt today would pass up the opportunity to wring more out of the story than they do. But still they don't.

The writers of the epistles say little of the agonies of Christ's death, giving only brief allusions and certainly not graphic portrayals. Our examples of the early kerugma, or preaching of the apostles, clearly centers on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ - but not on the actual violence of Christ's death. Of course, one could say, they knew what crucifixion meant. Yes they did, and it would have been ridiculous for the apostles to argue that the manner of death was significant, because it was a common form of execution. The rebel slave Spartacus was crucified but that meant nothing for me.

The meaning of Christ's death is not in the physical manner of it, nor the cruelties associated with it. Thousands of others died in the same manner, many suffering more prolonged and painful deaths than Jesus - take the two thieves who died that same day, for instance. The meaning is not the torturous manner of death, which is why I think the inspired writers did not dramatize that for us. If Jesus had been beheaded, electrocuted, strangled, poisoned, thrown to lions, or anything else, he would still be my Savior. We just wouldn't wear crosses. Interestingly enough, the early Christians didn't use a cross as a symbol for their faith - they used a fish.

See the movie. Jesus suffered greatly in his death. The extremity of his suffering is not what saves, but the atoning life of a righteous man paying the death-penalty for sin. May God use the movie to His glory.

I've been getting over a disappointment with God. No, it's got nothing to do with yesterday's blog - as if you follow my blog that closely. We've not been talking too much lately. It's been my problem, not His. But His faithfulness is getting through my selfishness, and that's good. It has been like two good friends who've had a fight and don't know how to start talking again. Of course, it's been me who hasn't known how to start talking again. I've been very aware of God's presence, and his patience, but now I guess I'm giving in and letting go of my stubbornness.

In fact God has been speaking to me, which is what I just realized. No, I didn't just realize it, because I've known that all along. I guess I've just been moved by that kindness to repentance (Rom 2:4). I also want to learn from my disappointment. There is a lesson in there somewhere that will reshape me.

BTW- why does the spellcheck on this blog website not know the word "blog"???? Duh!

There is a disappointment that comes when we long to help those who do not desire help. When we realize the limits of what can be done with the unwilling and self-defeating, even self-contradicting actions of those who say they want peace, hope, joy and love, but stoutly refuse it. God is God. Jesus is the Savior. In our arrogance we postulate what we would do if we were God . . . but to let God work in the lives of others - that takes faith.

I good friend sent me the following quote from Nicholas Wolterstorff, which I've been keeping on my desk and which continues to speak to me:

God is love. That is why he suffers. To love our suffering sinful world is to suffer. God so suffered for the world that he gave up his only Son to suffering. The one who does not see God's suffering does not see his love. God is suffering love.

So suffering is down at the center of things, deep down where the meaning is. Suffering is the meaning of our world. For Love is the meaning. And Love suffers. The tears of God are the meaning of history.
But mystery remains. Why isn't Love-without-suffering the meaning of things? Why is suffering-Love the meaning? Why does God endure his suffering? Why does he not at once relieve his agony by relieving ours?

Collective Discernment and Individual Freedom
We are still growing into a new practice of community which is different from what many of us have experienced in the past. I think that it can be described as Collective Discernment and Individual Freedom. In many churches, the reality is that a few people make decisions which everyone in the larger group is expected to adopt. These are usually program-driven organizations which tend to want everyone doing the same things at the same time and in the same way. People are told to support the programs. Regimented activity is seen as helpful. It might be for some, but probably not for everyone.

The way we are trying to live as a community is with the recognition that the Spirit works in different ways in each Christian. There is no “everyone-must-be-doing-this” type of program structure. In a general way we talk about everyone growing up into the image of Christ, but we realize that there are many paths to that goal. Therefore, we have the freedom for anyone to do whatever God is calling that individual to do. If someone wants to have a Bible study with people in their neighborhood on Wednesday nights, there is no program that says “no, you must do what the others are doing on Wednesday nights.” Talking about not having “membership” does not mean that we are uncommitted to Christ or His Church, or sharing our lives together, but rather that a person does not “join” Disciples’ Fellowship as if joining an institution. A person does not join and then have to participate in required programs or duties to the organization. We share a common life in Christ in which we encourage and help one another without quenching the Spirit’s work in each believer.

For the really large directional matters, we do act collectively – and we do that through collective discernment of the God’s leading. We discuss and listen, and in our group discussion try to hear what God is saying to His people. We acknowledge the direction God is leading, but we allow individual freedom for each to be a slave to Christ - rather than being slaves to the programs of a church.

Some times it is easier to allow a church to do our spiritual thinking for us - don’t make me discern what God’s Spirit wants me to do, just give me a system of programs to follow. Organizing some ministry is not a bad thing, but making participation in that program the definitive mark of faithfulness is mistakenly thinking that God’s Spirit does the same work in each one of us, in the same way and at the same time. If I have an idea of what “we should be doing”, maybe it is actually an idea of what I should be doing. If others join with me that will be great, but maybe God is telling me what I need to be doing.

Sometimes we fall into the trap of wanting to control others. I might say I have an idea about what everyone needs to do to serve the poor. The reality is that I can do that and invite others to join me. I can’t say that everyone must serve the poor according to my plan. I can’t even say that everyone has to serve these poor. What I can say is that we all need to serve others and bring glory to God. Some may do that by serving the poor, others might serve unwed mothers, others the people in their apartment building, others mothers of pre-school children, others college students away from home, and on and on. I can say we all need to be involved in Christian relationships, but I cannot say everyone must be involved in our program of small groups. Even as we organize small groups, we should not say that believers must participate, but that these groups provide one way to grow up into Christ. We may recommend, but can never require.

Every Christian who is part of the Disciples’ Fellowship community is free to do anything to serve God. We simply recognize that God may be working in other ways in the lives of our brothers and sisters. We will not impose anything except the rule to love another. Our practice of Collective Discernment and Individual Freedom is based on a recognition of how God’s Spirit works collectively and individually.

At our worship gatherings we don't take up a collection . . which sometimes raises questions. Here is my reply to an individual who was wondering why:

. . . I want to address the concerns you raise about giving, because I agree with what you say. Perhaps I can clarify our intentions and actions.

The main reason we chose to stop taking up a collection (not to stop giving!) was because visitors, especially some of the people we are trying to reach, often have a view that churches are all out to get your money. These individuals are turned off by extravagant buildings, inflated salaries, preachers who drive expensive cars and wear expensive jewelry, and have a skeptical outlook on churches in general. We want these visitors to see that we are not simply trying to fleece the flock. This is not a church that thinks constantly about money. Money is not that important. It seems that Jesus says the pagans are the ones who have material things foremost on their minds (Matt. 6:32-33).

I also believe that too many churches teach that you must give to that particular congregation. I believe that a more biblically correct teaching would be that we give, but I will require no one, not even one who regularly worships with us, to have to put their giving into "our" work. That is the “institutional” focus of church that I want to get away from, and develop a more “Jesus focus”. We want to make it clear that we preach commitment and discipleship to Jesus, not to our church. I want no one to make loyalty commitments to Disciples' Fellowship – but to Christ and the church which is universal and spiritual. I’ve seen too many people confuse supporting their congregation with being true to Christ. That seems to me to be dangerous. I could use harsher language . . .

Our choice had to do with visitors primarily. Visitors who are poor and have little, and who do not yet understand a Christian view of giving, would not understand about our giving. Rather than make those visitors feel uncomfortable before they have learned, I would rather teach them about giving and not let the collection plate get between them and coming to worship with us. Because we are concerned with teaching about a proper view toward our possessions, we made the decision to incorporate a prayer of thankfulness in each worship time to express our conviction that everything comes from God and that we are to be thankful. We are simply trying to make giving truly a “free-will offering”.

Passing the plate helps teach our children about giving, but not passing it won’t mean that our children don’t learn about giving. Real teaching about giving is going to have to take place more than when the plate comes around. So I don’t think that not passing a plate each week means giving is unimportant to us or that teaching it is unimportant. I believe there are simply other ways to give and teach about giving.

When it comes to giving, I do not believe that I should teach any of the following:

1) If one gives one will always receive back, especially in terms of what was given (Sometimes the blessing is treasure in heaven when the gift was some thing or action on earth).

2) The reason we give is so that we will receive (this is only greed and treating God as the best investment).

3) God’s blessings are contingent or dependent on our actions – that God only blesses after we give or do what is right, etc.

4) God promises anything more than daily bread – which is a lot less than any of us enjoy.

5) If one is a good Christian then one will prosper in this world.

My theology of giving can be simply stated as “we give because God gives.” God gives without receiving or expecting to receive. To be like God, we are not only givers but those who give without hoping for repayment, from God or anyone else. That God does often lavish us with blessings, not because we gave so well but even when our best giving is so poor, is a testimony to his grace.

Okay . . . everyone seems as stumped as I am. While I don't have an easy answer, I think the question I posed has something to do with knowing ourselves, and being brutally honest about our motives. If I do that . . and have a good grip on what faith is, maybe I can tell the difference.

When is it faith, and when is it recklessness? That is a question a good friend asked recently in a group where we were talking about opportunities. That is a very good question. How do we determine when we are acting in apparent recklessness because of faith, and when we are simply being reckless and excusing it as faith?