Read more… »

Europe in general and England in particular had largely eliminated religious diversity within Christianity. Each part of Europe had its specific Christian identity, be it Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed, and England was almost entirely Anglican. These monopolies on religion had developed as Christianity became more and more tied to state functions. By eliminating rivalries both the church leaders and the state leaders could maintain their power.

Minority Christian groups viewed the Colonies as providing ample room for them to take their religion and worship as they chose. Over time English Puritans moved to the Massachusetts area in hope of creating a New England, that is, a society where church and state functioned in harmony to fulfill what God required of the people. Catholics settled in Maryland which was founded by a prominent Catholic. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn and became the home to many Quakers. Anglicans were especially abundant in Virginia. A large group of Lutherans from Austria were forced to leave their homeland about the time that the colony of Georgia was established, so Georgia had a substantial Lutheran population.

With this wide array of denominational beliefs came a wide range of opinions of how the other denominations should be treated. There were those, such as the Puritans in Massachusetts, who felt that they were recreating society in the way God would want it to be and therefore removed those individuals who did not share their religions beliefs. There were others, such as the Quakers of Pennsylvania or the colonies of New Jersey and Rhode Island, who felt that there was a strong need for religious liberty. There were still others, such as the Anglicans of Virginia, who attempted to import wholesale the denominational structure of their mother country.

William Penn wrote that there was liberty of conscience for each person to decide his or her religious obligations, and “worship toward God, must not be denied, even by those that are most scandalized at the ill use some seem to have made of such pretense.”[1] About the same time Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, felt outrage when Massachusetts hanged four Quakers and Williams sent a strong letter to the Massachusetts governor when three Baptists were arrested resulting in one being publicly whipped. Williams wrote, “Sir, I must be humbly bold to say that ‘tis impossible for any man or men to maintain their Christ by their sword”.[2]

The Puritan vision of a state structured by religion was in constant conflict with the vision of religious tolerance and freedom (at least within the boundaries of Christianity) that was held by colonies to the south of Massachusetts. The Puritans felt that Christianity overall had become corrupted; this corruption had affected European schools, the Catholic Church, and even the Church of England. The puritans felt that in order to recreate the true church Christ had planted, they needed to cut themselves off from these corrosive influences and from the untrue Christians who would try to infiltrate their society.

At the same time, the very diversity the Quakers of Pennsylvania and other Colonial Christians chose to embrace caused tension within their communities. Pastor Muhlenberg, a Lutheran minister in Pennsylvania, tells the story of a woman who had been baptized a Lutheran at the age of 9 who wished to be baptized into the Baptist church.[3] The Baptist minister had told her that she would not be a Baptist congregant if she was not baptized into the Baptist church. The woman’s husband objected to the minister’s reasoning, and so the couple called Pastor Muhlenberg in to confer with him. He stated that the woman should absolutely not be baptized again, but that he had no objection to the Baptist minister receiving her as a communicant. This is one example of the tension caused by the liberty of conscience again, wrong word.

Pennsylvania’s neighbor to the south, Virginia, never developed the same kind of conflict between differing Christian groups that developed in New England. Virginia, like Massachusetts, was founded with the idea of having an exclusive church-state relationship; the church of Virginia would be the Church of England. Virginia did not welcome in a plurality of beliefs as did Pennsylvania. In fact, in 1641 enacted a statute forbidding Catholics from holding any kind of political position[4]. However, Virginia avoided the kinds of religious conflicts encountered in Massachusetts because of its size. The Anglican Communion imported a parish model hierarchy; in a place as large and spread out as Virginia the parishes became so large that it was difficult for one priest to care for his parish. This inability to organize seemed to keep much conflict from erupting.

Ultimately, much of the tension between those who promoted and those who denigrated the idea of liberty of conscience was due to the traditions the different groups had brought with them from Europe. The Quakers had a tradition which allowed for God to speak to each individual; therefore, individuals could coexist even if there was disagreement over the details of Christianity. The Puritans of New England brought a tradition that combined a strict faith with a need to yoke together church and state; this tradition put them in conflict with many of their colonial neighbors. The Anglicans of Virginia had difficulties because of the parish organizational tradition they brought with them. Virginia was too big a land and the people were too spread out for there to be an effective parish network. Each of these groups had found their “Elbow Room” but their need to maintain their traditions was causing conflict.

Over time these traditions would change and some of these traditions would be cast aside; but as the colonists were entering a frightening new world to explore and settle there was something about repeating a familiar act, a tradition, that comforted them and helped them to rely on God.

« Hide it

Read more… »

Let’s pray:

Lord as we enter into a new chapter at your church here in Ridge Farm I would ask that you lead us in your will. Help us discern daily what your mission is here in this community. Please work through us so that you can add daily to the number saved here in Ridge Farm and in all of Vermillion County. Thank you good. Amen.

Today, I would like to take a closer look at the second chapter of Acts. Christ has died, been resurrected, and ascended to heaven after spending time with his disciples. These disciples have received the Holy Spirit and Paul has just preached the first Holy Spirit inspired sermon to the Jews in Jerusalem. Three thousand accepted Christ after that first message and started the first Christian churches in Jerusalem.

Then in verses 42-47, Luke (the author of Acts) gives a summary of the next two or three years of activity within the early church. Luke writes:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The early church grew through the direct presence of God facilitated by the churches focus on relationships, fellowship and worship. Assuming that we can still have the direct presence of God in our church (and I certainly believe we can), how can we focus on relationships, fellowship and worship to create a climate of growth in our church?

Why is it important that we grow? Why can’t our little community just love and respect God, and one another, and leave it at that? Why do we need to reach beyond our walls? It’s so much more comfortable to just hang out with the people we know. If we build each other up isn’t that good enough?

No. We must grow! Jesus instructed us to grow before he ascended to heaven. His entire ministry on earth was focused on expanding the group of people who could receive salvation and spend eternity with him. The most explicit command to grow comes in Matthew 28:18-20, commonly known as the great commission. Jesus says:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

To make disciples of all nations means that we must grow. We cannot merely give money to missionaries, sending them off to evangelize Africa while ignoring the nation that we live in. We must make disciples of our friends, and neighbors, and coworkers, and even our enemies, and bosses. If we as a church are not growing, then it suggests that we as a church are not living up to this commission.

How, then, do we grow? There is only one way to grow, and that is through the presence of the Lord. How did the early church grow? The early church was enveloped by God and cultivated a relationship with him. In verses 42 and 43 Luke writes:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

The early church learned about God. They praised God. They worshipped God. They fellowshipped with God. They stood in awe of God. They had faith in God’s miracles. On a daily basis the early church individually and corporately allowed God to infiltrate every aspect of their lives. The early church let God wrap his arms around them and hug them.

You’ll notice that verse 47 said, “The Lord added to their number daily.” It didn’t say that, “Peter brought in 30, and John baptized 16.” It says the Lord added to their number daily. We cannot save anyone only God can save and thereby add to our number. Paul addresses this idea in 1 Corinthians 3:1-7. Paul writes:

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

It is only the Lord, God, who can grow his church. In our efforts to cultivate a church that is ripe for growth our focus must always be on God. We do not grow so that we can become prestigious or respected. We do not grow so that we can be like the church down the street or in the next town over. Rather, we grow in order to follow Christ’s commissioning of us, his disciples.

In Acts 2:42-47 we are given three characteristics that facilitated the growth in the early church. These three characteristics are a focus on building relations, a focus on joining in fellowship, and a focus on worship. I do not want to suggest that this list is all inclusive and God only grows his church in these three ways. But, I believe that these are the three areas in which we can best facilitate the growth of God’s church here in Ridge Farm.

Relationships are a rather broad topic; let’s narrow it down a little. Verses 44 and 45 read:

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

In following this example I am not suggesting that we start a commune as many did in the 1960’s (although I would suggest that maybe you don’t need everything you think you need). What contemporary social structure is similar to that presented in these two verses? What social grouping holds their goods in common and cares for one another? The family does.

Families can be the base unit from which our church can grow. How do we build strong, health family relationships? Much of our energy must be focused on ministering to families. This includes more than just teaching their children and youth about Jesus for one hour on Sunday morning. Building up families involves helping parents learn how to parent. It involves caring for Grandparents and giving them a space to reach out to the generation twice removed from them. It involves all of us taking time and mentoring children, youth, adults, couples, singles, and parents. We must build up strong families. God will use these families to reach out to our community and grow his church.

Fellowship is a tricky concept. It is more than just sitting around and eating or jabbering away with someone about the Colts game last Sunday. These could both be aspects of fellowship, but fellowship is more than that. In verse 46 Luke writes:

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts

The early church met in large groups in the temple courts. They also met in small groups at each others’ homes. In the same way I think that it is important for us to meet all together here on Sunday morning, in this short three hour window we fellowship with one another. We are able to strengthen and encourage one another. We are able to build one another up through teaching and discipleship.

However, I think that it is also important for us to be actively involved with a smaller group of Christians. In this small group, outside of our Sunday morning time together, we are able to develop deeper friendships and bonds, which allow us to have a stronger church that is more able to be used by God in growing his church. The growth that is possible in small group fellowship is not possible through only large group fellowship.

In verse 46 it also says, “they broke bread”. I would suggest that this refers to both eating together and the physical act of communion. Communion at it’s heart is fellowship with God. It is important that we spend time communing with God, not only corporately, as a body, here on Sunday morning, but also individually every day. It is important that we spend time in individual communion with God were we can privately fellowship with him.

Worship is an activity that Quakers have a speckled tradition on which to build. Our tradition is very good at private worship of God and even public individual worship of God. We are not very good at corporately coming together and praising God. There are no Quaker hymns. Why? Because we had only silent worship for several hundred years. Verse 47 says:

praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

To praise God can be calm and quiet. But I believe that the praise of God can be loud and boisterous; even chaotic at times. It is okay to break out of our Quaker shells and let God know how we really feel about him. If we truly understand God and we truly wish to say how we feel about God; then there is no way we can do so in anything but a great exclamatory shout.

Many forms of worship exist, but I would suggest that in our current time and place the form of worship that best reaches our culture is musical. We live in a musical society. I have a habit of breaking into the lyrics of a song at the slightest provocation. We all have songs that when they come on the radio they make us feel better. I must look like a lunatic to the people driving by me when certain songs come on the radio.

If a non-spiritual song can touch us as we drive down the highway in our car then doesn’t it seem that Holy Spirit inspired lyrics can touch us in our church. The problem with music is that different people are inspired by different styles. It is important to respect al the variations we may incorporate into our worship. The music is meant to be a means of facilitating the growth of our church.

I am new at this church. I don’t know you or how you work. I don’t know your history or really how you came to be here today. But I do know that if God used relationships, fellowship and worship to grow his first church, then those are areas we can focus on to help God grow this church.

From the start my focus as pastor here is going to be of relationships, fellowship and worship. How can I minister to families? How can I help you develop and grow through small groups? How can I help you express yourself to God through music? Those are the questions I am asking as we start this journey together.

I must finish this message with a warning. We can put all of our energy into something, we can even put all of our energy into something good, but ultimately we can not grow the church. Only the Lord can add to our number daily those who are being saved.

« Hide it

Read more… »

It is surprising that any African slave could experience the Protestantism practiced in pre-Civil War America and still have come to a faith in the Christian God. Henry Bibb, a former slave from Kentucky, laments how there is “no one to preach the gospel who is competent to expound the Scriptures, except slaveholders. And the slaves, with but few exceptions, have no confidence at all in their preaching, because they preach a pro-slavery doctrine.”[1] In the same manner William Thomson, a Scottish weaver visiting South Carolina remarks that even though the African slaves were allowed to attend the church (or at least the upper galleries of the church) it was as if they did not even exist, “I was sorry to observe that the minister never turned his eye to the galleries…one would not have known there was an ignorant negro in the house, although there were five or six times as many black skins as white.”[2]

Fredrick Douglass spoke on several occasions of how white preachers would twist any gospel passage in order to condone slavery and to throw out any passage that seems to oppose slavery. At one speech in Boston Douglass said, “It has been said here at the North, that the slaves have the gospel preached to them. But you will see what sort of a gospel it is: – a gospel which more than chains, or whips, or thumbscrews, gives perpetuity to this horrible system.”[3]

In contrast, however, there were many advocates of slavery who believed that even slaves needed to be treated humanely. James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina was one such believer. Thornwell notes that the apostle Paul recognized that slaves possess conscience, reason and will and therefore have a moral character just as any slave owner has a moral character. However Thornwell does not draw this to conclude that slavery is immoral; on the contrary Thornwell notes that Paul also viewed slavery as normative. The thing which needed to be focused on, according to Thornwell, was the treatment of slaves by their masters. Though, by the providence of God, a man is born into slavery, that man still deserves to be treated with certain rights as a human. However, Thornwell would go on to say, that God places specific and unique duties on different individuals, if God chooses to place the duties of a slave on someone then that person should be the best slave they can be and their master should treat them as one of God’s children.[4]

As can be seen from these examples churches had gone from shaping the culture to being shaped by the culture. The Bible was not the resource to which one went when trying to determine if slavery was right or wrong; rather, the Bible was the resource used (by both sides) to confirm previously held opinions.

On the abolitionist front a young printer from New England named William Lloyd Garrison was so opposed to slavery that he was willing to give up certain aspects of the Christianity if they could be construed as supporting slavery. Garrison believed that an individual should search out the scriptures and discard any parts which were judged to be untrue. He held truth to be the highest virtue when he wrote, “To discard a portion of scripture is not necessarily to reject the truth, but may be the highest evidence that one can give of his love of truth.”[5]

This view that scripture could be subjectively divided into the portions that are true and the portions that are false was ultimately self-defeating. If a person can decided for him or her self what parts of scripture to follow, then that person can construct an argument to support practically anything. Those who supported slavery could choose which scriptures to accept as true just as easily as those who opposed slavery.

Ultimately, the disagreement over slavery resulted in the American Civil War (1860-1865). The result of this war was the end of slavery in the United States; although it must be noted that the end of slavery did not mark the beginning of equal rights to persons of all colors. The Civil War was not wholly driven by the moral issues of slavery and the question of its morality. To a certain extent the Civil War can be seen as the natural growing pains of a young nation. Horace Bushnell, a Connecticut pastor spoke the following words at the Yale commencement exercises of 1865:

“in this blood our unity is cemented and forever sanctified. Something was gained for us here, at the beginning, by our sacrifices in the fields of our Revolution, – something, but not all. Had it not been for this common bleeding of the States in their common cause, it is doubtful whether our Constitution could ever have been carried…[yet we] had not bled enough , as yet, to merge our colonial distinctions and make us a proper nation.”[6]

Bushnell believed that the nation could not have survived as a United body had it not been for this shedding of blood to bind her together.

Regardless of whether the war was necessary to bind the nation together it is disturbing to note how commonly both abolitionists and slavery advocates attempted to make religion heel to their social agenda. Each side sought to shape the religious morals of the day to match their agenda. Perhaps no statement so eloquently captured the futility of these actions than did Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address.

“Both [parties] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered – that of neither has been answered fully.”[7]

Ultimately one wonders whether Protestantism had a greater influence on the American culture or American culture had a greater influence on Protestantism. In any era culture and religion will pull on one another trying to shape the world at large. It seems that in pre-Civil War America that tug-of-war ended in a draw with neither force overcoming the other.

« Hide it

Read more… »

It does not appear that we can easily define social justice in any broader context. To this end, I will take a moment to define the author. I am a 21st century white protestant male living in the rural Midwest of the United States.

The theme of social justice first occurs in the preamble of the Gospel of John. John 1:12-13 makes it readily apparent that the gospel message of Jesus Christ is an inclusive message. By inclusive I mean that it was meant for all people at all times who are willing to receive “the word” (Christ). Within my Quaker context there has been an ongoing debate about what it means for the gospel to be inclusive. Many have argued that the inclusive nature of the gospel message means that God is working through Jesus to redeem every human regardless of whether that human has rejected or accepted the gospel message. This introductory statement in John 1 seems to suggest that the gospel message is inclusive because it is available to all who choose to receive Christ; those who receive Christ become the children of God.

It seems that we are not all “equal” before God; rather, there are two kinds of people: those who have become God’s children and those who have not. The church is to be inclusive to all who have become a child of God and work to reveal God to all those who have not yet received the word.
Jesus exemplifies this calling in John 4:7-30 when he speaks with a Samaritan woman. The woman appears to be well versed in theology and is seeking out the truth of God. Jesus recognizes that this woman is spiritually seeking and initiates a conversation with her.

There are many people that I would rather not be in heaven. There are many people that I feel do not deserve the opportunity to know and worship God. However, it is not my choice who God calls. I do not get to choose who I share Jesus with. It is my responsibility to listen to God’s leading and be aware of the spiritual needs of the individuals and the community around me. Who was the last person that my friends were “amazed” that I was speaking with them about God?

Jesus placed the needs of people ahead of religious piety. In John 5:8-16 and John 9:14-16, Jesus heals individuals on the Sabbath. The religious elite are outraged by this behavior, but it appears that Jesus felt that people were more important than piety. However, Jesus does not just randomly dismiss religious tradition; rather Jesus breaks the traditional Sabbath rest because an opportunity existed for people to have faith and believe. The act of healing was not just to heal, but to bring the individuals to a point of becoming children of God.

As a church community we do not engage in social justice merely for the sake of social justice. Rather, there is a motivation to reveal the gospel of Christ to all people. This can create conflict in the lives of those reaching out to the downtrodden; are we reaching out because we care or are we reaching out with some ulterior motive? Did Jesus reach out to these people just because they were in need or because he felt that they were ready to turn to God? It would seem to me that the latter is more clearly evident in the texts.

Between these two Sabbath healing accounts Jesus says to his followers, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

Jesus recognizes that people turn to God not out of thoughtful philosophy, but out of met needs. We as a church need to reach out to those in need because that is how they will most easily experience the love of God. If the church fills a void in someone’s life than the church has brought that person closer to God. It is not the job of the church to choose whose needs it meets, rather it should seek to meet as many of it’s communities needs as is possible, and let God work as God chooses in that community.

Some of the last recorded words of Jesus (in John 21:15-17) are his instructions to Peter to feed his sheep. Who are Jesus sheep? Often times Christians interpret Jesus sheep to be the church, those who have already become children of God. But throughout the Gospel the sheep does not seem to be an allusion to just those who have found God, but rather to all of humanity. In John 10:15, Jesus says that he lays down his life for his sheep; a reference to his eventual crucifixion. It would seem that this is a reference to all humanity. Jesus is commanding Peter to take over as shepherd and feed the world in the absence of Christ. It would seem that this command extends beyond Peter to all believers. We are called to feed Christ’s sheep. We are called to care for the poor, the naked, the weak, the downtrodden. We are not called to build temples, or clubs, or palaces, but to feed Christ’s sheep.

« Hide it