Col. 3:23-24 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. (ESV)

This whole chapter has been building up what it means to live in Christ. It means to look to, have one’s hope in, the things above, and not to that which can be seen, which passes, which is transient (3:1-2). We are to look to he who is eternal life, Jesus Christ. This means letting the peace of Christ rule among us as Christians (3:15), in our local bodies, in our families, over coffee with a brother. It means letting the Word of Christ dwell in us richly (3:16), giving it authority to cut our heart open and to perform the miracle of turning stone into flesh. Above all, it means submitting to the ministry of reconciliation, to the proclamation of the Gospel, which is love. In love, pieces of the body which are themselves ill-fitting and imperfect become perfectly bound by that which is perfect, by Christ (3:14).

Thus, having explicated and unpacked what it means for Christ to be all in all (3:11), Paul give the reason, the motive power of this change within us, which is our hope in Christ and the beautiful inheritance we find in Him. We have received such a wonderful grace that we are now free to show grace to others. We can trust all things to God the Father, who judges justly. Thus, we can forgive; we can love; we can have unity. These things are humanly impossible, but with God all things are possible, and so we are free to hope all things.

This means that we are free to leverage our satisfaction in Christ, in our inheritance, against all the disappointments that attend life in these last days. This also means that we are motivated by compassionate hearts which bleed for the lost, which are willing to be all things to all men, to efface ourselves and our dreams in order to pursue Christ’s dream, which is the glorification of the Father in the presentation of a beautiful Church. This inheritance we find in Christ is spiritual, and our role as Christians is priestly.

When I set out to teach on 3:24, I asked the question, “What is the nature of this inheritance, and what is its value?” Having been meditating on Psalm 16 (which we are memorizing currently), I was chewing on vv. 5-6:

The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot.

The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.”

The language of “portion” goes along with the language of inheritance, and it has a meaning which is often linked to the inheritance of land, or the division of portions of land to inheritors. Here David is praising God, not for the inheritance he has as a son of Judah, but because he has preferred the inheritance of the Levites, which is the Lord himself.  In Ezekiel 44, among other places, we find that the Levites’ inheritance was the Lord himself, and that they were to be given no portion of the land of promise. Also, they were to eat the first-fruits of the sacrifices dedicated to God for the forgiveness of sin.

Here, I am struck by all of the parallels, which I had not noticed before, between the lot of the Church in the New Covenant, and the lot of the Levites in the old. Like them, our inheritance is not physical (land), but spiritual, in Christ. Like the Levites, we are called to be separate from the world, holy. This is true of all Israelites, but the Levites in particular were called to make sacrifices, and we are as well. We are now called to make spiritual sacrifices of our lives (Rom. 12) which are holy and pleasing to God. Obviously the purpose of our sacrifice is different, since we have justification in Christ alone, but our lives are still essentially priestly. Also, like the Levites, we eat of the offerings given to God for the remission of sins. Every Sunday at Converge, we take communion, in which we partake of the first-fruit of God, Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain for the sins of the world. He is our sacrifice, and we are his priests given the task of stewarding his grace and cooperating in the work of the Church.

All of this is positive, but there is also a negative element. The Levites were NOT given a portion of land. They were not given the task of building a kingdom on earth, but on being a temple of the living God which is of heaven. This task is the task of the Church today. We, likewise, are NOT given earthy kingdoms to work toward, to hope for and to welcome with our hearts, but rather one that is of heaven.

1 Peter 2:9-12: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (ESV)

We are called out of the world, and into heaven. Out of darkness, and into light. Out of the kingdom of man, and into the Kingdom of God. We are called to follow the example of Christ as Christ-ians.

1 Peter 2:21-23: For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (ESV)

To be more specific, Christ gave up his rights to God-ness, rather taking the form of a slave. Likewise, we are to follow, giving up our rights to man-ness, rather taking the form of a slave.

Phil. 2:5-9: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Likewise, as priests in the Kingdom of God, we are to be obedient to the cruciform love of God, which gave himself up for the salvation of others. Does this mean that love exists in a vacuum apart from justice? No, rather, the love of God is that which kills in order to give life. Therefore, we are called as priests in the fear of God to be holy and separate from defilement.

2 Cor. 6:14-7:1: Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,

and I will be their God,

and they shall be my people.

Therefore go out from their midst,

and be separate from them, says the Lord,

and touch no unclean thing;

then I will welcome you,

and I will be a father to you,

and you shall be sons and daughters to me,

says the Lord Almighty.”

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. (ESV)

Ex. 19:6 would add that we are to God “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

This kingdom of priests is the glory of Jesus, just as the wife is the glory of her husband. We will be presented to Him before the Father, a scene which is portrayed gloriously in Rev. 5: 6-12:

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll

and to open its seals,

for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation,

and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

and they shall reign on the earth.”

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (ESV)

Praise be to Jesus who was worthy, who was slain, and who is making us a kingdom of priests for the just worship of the Father. How eager we should all be to be there at the fulfillment of this vision, when we will all say “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”, falling down and worshipping (5:13, ESV)

Let us no longer sleep like children, but be awakened to the grace of God and the responsibility which attends it. Let us be obedient to renounce ourselves and to accept our destiny as a priesthood of believers. Let us be moved by compassion and not convenience. Let us fear God and not men. Let us not compromise our worship of God, who is worthy of all praise.

Here’s the quote from an authoritative libertarian, Robert Kane:

Those who are convinced that there is a conflict between free will and determinism…are called incompatibilists about free will. They believe free will and determinism are incompatible. If incompatibilists also believe that an incompatibilist free will exists, so that determinism is false, they are called libertarians about free will.

from Four Views on Free Will Blackwell, 2007.

So, there are two questions involved, one which has a dual consideration:
1) Hypothetically, is free will incompatible with determinism?
2) Does the world exhibit determinism? Do humans exhibit freedom?

It should be noted that according to Kane, one can answer “No” to 1) and “Yes” to both aspects of 2), and one would NOT be a libertarian. He would be a compatibilist. One is only a libertarian (on free will, not politics obviously), if one is BOTH an incompatibilist and a believer in freedom, (Yes to 1 and No/Yes to 2).

Also, it should be noted that question 1 is on a very different plane of reasoning that 2. It may be that we can philosophize about the interaction between hypotheticals without actually believing in the existence of either free will or determinism. However, question 2 is different, in that it asks us to actually claim the reality of these concepts. This question must answer to Scripture, if we are men of faith.

Thoughts? Obviously, this quote doesn’t define “freedom”, but if you’re interested here’s Kane’s criteria for freedom:

1) we could have chosen/acted otherwise
2) the ultimate sources of our actions lie in us, and not outside us in factor beyond our control

• The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong by William Placher
• Transforming Vision: Imagination and Will in Kierkegaardian Faith by M. Jamie Ferreira
• Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns
• Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays

Now, at conVerge Lynchburg we are returning, in our mid-week group and also our teaching on the Sermon on the Mount on Sundays, to some pretty deep ideas about what it is people are for, that is, not just what is our job, but what gives meaning to our lives. In our midweek groups we are going through Dallas Willard’s Spirit of the Disciplines, which is a pretty standard classic on the “why” of spirituality/discipline. I have had the blessing/curse of reading this book in groups a few times before (i’m especially thinking of the time we read it in RA groups at LU). The reason for the blessing/curse ambiguity is that for perhaps the first time I am being forced to really consider doing what Willard is calling us to do, echoing Christ. I’d, of course, wanted to want to try to attempt to get around to doing some of these things before, but what has been so revolutionary this time (and we are only on chapter 5) is that we’re reading it as a church. We now have the actual structure and posture to encourage each other to live this way, certainly more naturally/healthily than we did in that RA group.

This past group, we talked pretty abstractly about the idea of work. I think we all pretty much assume that we know what work is, and then make the perennial mistake of conflating that idea with what work OUGHT to be. I don’t wanna make this a 5,000 word post, but I do wanna just put it out there that doing some WORK and thinking about work will be a profitable experience for all. One thing that we’ve gradually been concluding at conVerge is that most “jobs” are not work, properly understood. I am arguing in imprecise and unsystematic terms for a higher view of work, one that even goes beyond the call to Mission. In these terms, I have been highly impacted by such cultural critics as Wendell Berry and Neil Postman. Berry especially, in his book of essays What Are People For?, gets the mental gears turning with respect to what is a the proper understanding of work. I don’t mean to here give my theology of work, but I think this would be an appropriate place to ask some questions and see what I get back in response:

Basic to this discussion is a biblical understanding of “dominion”, cf. Genesis 1.26. Are you comfortable with the equation of this “dominion” with “work”?

Postman comments that our generation is going to be mainly employed as symbol-analysts. Of the top of your head what are the problems with calling symbol-analysis work in any substantive sense? Are we willing to accept a, *gasp*, compartmentalization in our concept of work? (ie. the difference between biblical work and wage earning)

If we admit a growing crisis, a growing illiteracy with biblical categories of work, then how do we expect to:  1) speak relevantly to the secular, and 2) make biblical work practical?

I think it is our job as Christ-followers to in some sense pull a Jerry Maguire and abort the attempt to compromise with regard to work. We will be culpable for rationalizing this away, if indeed the radical call to Work is indeed biblical. I’ve already grabbed the fish, who’s coming with me?

You know I ran across an old box of letters
While I was bagging up some clothes for Goodwill
But you Know I had to laugh at the same old struggles
That plagued me then are plaguing me still
I know the road is long from the ground to glory
But a boy can hope he’s getting some place
But you see, I’m running from the very clothes I’m wearing
And dressed like this I’m fit for the chase

‘Cause no, there is none righteous
Not one who understands
There is none who seek God
No not one, I said no not one

So I am thankful that I’m incapable
Of doing any good on my own

‘Cause we’re all stillborn and dead in our transgressions
We’re shackled up to the sin we hold so dear
So what part can I play in the work of redemption
I can’t refuse, I cannot add a thing

‘Cause I am just like Lazarus and I can hear your voice
I stand and rub my eyes and walk to You
Because I have no choice

 
I am thankful that I’m incapable
Of doing any good on my own
I’m so thankful that I’m incapable
Of doing any good on my own

‘Cause by grace I have been saved
Through faith that’s not my own
It is a gift of God and not by works
Lest anyone should boast

Link to Piper

Here’s a link to a message by John Piper on holy vs. vain eloquence. Its a very important topic; on which I mentally wrestle with weekly. I particularly like the sentence by James Denney: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.” Piper goes on to distinguish a sophisticated turn of phrase from eloquently expounding the glory of God, using Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:17 as him impetus.

Highly recommended reading!

This got me thinking about how we ought all to be in this state of preparing offerings like this for God, throughout our lives. I think that even after I, God willing , finish my thesis/degree, I’ll still want to do big things like this for God. Now, I don’t mean ‘big things’ as in things that cost a lot of money, and much less things that make a lot of money.  Rather, I am thinking of offering as something which stretches us to be more of what God desires, which teaches us to desire that too, which expands our character and ability, and which forces us to depend on community, and celebrate in community.  I think after my thesis, I may learn to play a piece by Chopin on the piano.  Now, I can barely read music, much less piano music.  So this will present me with a daunting task which will take years, but when I think of offering it to God, perhaps on behalf of the church, then it feels right, like this is how we should spend our recreational lives.  This mindset gets me dreaming about things that I have always wanted to do or be, and it gives me a reason to do and be them.  It also gives me the blessed limit of community, in which I am not doing for myself, or even by myself.  You see, I’ll be doing for God (i’ll be sacrificing much time and even money if i need lessons, and not gaining anything but character and ability), and, this is crucial, i’ll be doing on behalf of the church.  This is what is really exciting to me, that I might play the piece for my small group, and then tell a testimony about how glad I am that I did it, and how much i’ve learned, and how much I love God.  How encouraging it will be to be in the audience of this event, to get to be encouraged and blessed as someone in my body glorifies God on my behalf.  How unifying this would be.  How happy we would be.

Now, I do not think this is tied solely to music and writing.  Really, anything you might dream to accomplish, which is truly good, which seeks the good and beautiful, and pushes you on to seek and think these things, is something worth offering in this way.  It should be something that is appropriately hard for you, something that requires much time, practice, and sacrifice.  It should take you around a year to prepare, and it should have something to do with the mission. My guess is that pretty much everyone has something beautiful they want to do, and that if we all started living this way, we would create an irresistible culture of beauty and truth.  Our church would have such a magnificent history, one you could see in the offerings we’ve given over time, and in our joy-filled lives.

This is very embryonic for me, but I’m going to try to do this with my thesis.  What thinkest thou?  Stupid idea? Good idea?  Good idea, but not every one is artsy? Let me know.

The added benefit of this is that it colors my vision of spiritual reality so that God’s sovereignty is always visible.  When I think in terms of repentance instead of salvation, then I am aware of my need to constantly challenge myself with the impossible requirement of imitating Christ.  It’s not “I’m saved so let’s eat, drink, and be merry”, but it’s “I must repent because Christ’s love compels me.”  When we think of newcomers to conVerge, let’s call them “conVergins”, what is their need?  I am convicted and convinced that my need was seeing my sin as sin, and I think it is the same for them.  I titled this post “Works and Grace”, because the ability to see sin is a work of faith, which is from the Lord.  In faith we see God and hear the law proclaimed against us.  If not for faith, then the whole Gospel would be foolishness to us.  What I see in the lives of many LU students is that the Gospel is foolishness to them.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that their not sav…  STOP!

It means that they aren’t repentant.  I don’t really need to worry about their position, for that is in God’s hands.  I suppose it is possible that a person be saved but not yet have works as the fruit of that faith.  Not yet, but inevitable in time.  So in their immaturity, surely some LU students living as if there were no God are saved, but some just as surely are not.  The purpose of this post is to say:  For my work in the Kingdom, it doesn’t matter either way.  I shall call the unrepentant weak brother to the Cross of Christ just as I call the unrepentant unregenerate man to the Cross.  This is a relief and lessens some the the tension for me, especially when I think about speaking to large numbers of LU students.  What do you guys think?

in·do·lence
n. Habitual laziness; sloth.

1603, “insensitivity to pain,” from Fr. indolence (16c.), from L. indolentia “freedom from pain, insensibility,” noun of action from indolentem (nom. indolens) “insensitive to pain,” used by Jerome to render Gk. apelgekos in Ephesians; from L. in- “not” + dolentem (nom. dolens) “grieving,” prp. of dolere “suffer pain.” Sense of “laziness” (1710) is from notion of “avoiding trouble” (cf. taking pains).

noun inactivity resulting from a dislike of work

I find it interesting that the meaning of ‘indolence’ is derived from an inability to feel or be grieved by pain or suffering. This is precisely the root of the problem with the church today. We are seared to the suffering of the unsaved; we are numb to the suffering in our own souls, almost ignorant that the blessed life is something different. What results from this numbness? Sloth, laziness, inactivity. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’ thought that pain is God’s megaphone to us; it is God’s way of shouting to us his instructions. Pain is, after all, nature’s emergency alert system. When I touch a hot pan, pain tells me to move my hand. Similarly, the pain or suffering that I should experience when I think on an unsaved friend, or witness the plight of the poor and hungry around the world, this should move me to action. This is not a note on social action, but rather a note about ignorance. It is one thing to say that we aren’t doing enough with what we know is going on. It is another thing to say that we aren’t even seeing the whole picture. We know that there are hungry, there are poor, there are maimed, there are slaves. But one thing that I’m not sure we know is that we, you and I, are implicated in the suffering going on around the world. We are the one’s responsible for our own consumption, of our own waste, of our own lives.

The shocking thing is that we don’t feel guilty anymore for being the ‘haves’; we don’t grieve at all for the ‘have-nots’. Perhaps it would help if I got more specific. I have absolutely no idea who is being exploited so that I can buy super-sized frozen chicken breasts in a bag. I don’t know for many reasons, some of which I can help, and some I cannot. This knowledge is necessary so that I am not indolent, so that I am sensitive to exactly what I am responsible for. For more than a century, Christians in America have been ‘victimized’ into this indolence because of the industrial market. People I don’t know are contracting out work from some place, I don’t know where, with certain methods, I know not what, to render me a cheap and luxurious good in and out of season. This is unnatural. This is costly, and the problem is, I don’t know exactly how costly. I am reminded of an anecdote from one of my first philosophy classes with Dr. Martin: A rich man charged a group of scholars with surveying all the wisdom and literature of the known world and summarize what they found in a single sentence. After months of hard work, they reported back a single, short sentence, “THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES.” Thus, when I buy a bag of frozen chicken from Wal-Mart, who is paying for my ‘free’ lunch? When I buy a pair of Nike’s, who is paying? I know one thing, although Nike’s are uber-expensive, the worker on the other end of that chain of trade isn’t getting his due.

I’ve been thinking about this problem, and I have concluded that by and large, Wendell Berry is correct when he says that the problem is reduced and made easier to solve by localizing your economy. This will be the subject of other posts, but in short, when what we buy is produced locally, of the local land, we are more able to see exactly what is taken when we buy something. You can’t create something out of nothing, unless you’re God, and so it is necessary to see and know. This can only be done by buying local.

Also, on the flip side of this issue is a Godly idea of WORK. What is work? It is something that is a part of the curse on mankind, right? We now have pain in our work. Working the land will be hard, done by the sweat of the brow. What I want to know is what does work look like in the Kingdom of God? Does it look like being a businessman? Does it look like being a part of the industrial complex? I submit that for me it does not. Work is an art, a virtue. It is now hard, but all things are good lessons for those who seek God. Instead of striving to get around work, we should realize that part of being happy, part of being obedient, part of being a man, a subduer of the earth, is work.

Here’s Wendell Berry on work:

And the real name of our connection to this everywhere different and differently named earth is “work.” We are connected by work even to the places where we don’t work, for all place are connected; it is clear by now that we cannot exempt one place from our ruin of another. The name of our proper connection to the earth is “good work,” for good work involves much giving of honor. It honors the source of its materials; it honors the place where it is done; it honors the art by which it is done; it honors the thing that it makes and the user of the made thing. Good work is always modestly scaled, for it cannot ignore either the nature of individual places or the differences between places, and it always involves a sort of religious humility, for not everything is known. Good work can be defined only in particularity, for it must be defined a little differently for every one of the places and every one of the workers on the earth.
The name of our present society’s connection to the earth is “bad work”–work that is only generally and crudely defined, that enacts a dependence that is ill understood, that enacts no affection and gives no honor. Every one of us is to some extent guilty of this bad work. This guilt does not mean that we must indulge in a lot of breast-beating and confession; it means only that there is much good work to be done by every one of us and that we must begin to do it. All of us are responsible for bad work, not so much because we do it ourselves (though we all do it) as because we have it done for us by other people.

cf. Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, “Conservation is Good Work”, 35-36.

Well, what then shall we say is good work? Are we doing any good work at conVerge? What should our principles of work be, or what principles should work revolve around? What say you?

Now you probably see why I called this post the Blame Game. When I make such general statements in my head, I imply many things. First, and this might have offended some of you, the fact that I said I don’t know anyone really “living” the Gospel, I imply that you, being somebody I know, aren’t living it. When I say that I want conVerge, or something like conVerge, to become a movement because there aren’t many/any churches who are encouraging missional living, I imply that your church is derelict in some way. This is the problem I’m seeing in my speech: I am basically indicting every Christian or church I know of for being in sin/disobedience. Now, we can go relative here and I can apologize for demonizing you or your church. You’re right, you are a better Christian than most people, and your church is proclaiming the Gospel with more purity than most. But does this really contradict or inoculate the offense of my previous statement.

My takeaway from this is not that we shouldn’t make such statements or think such thoughts. No, for these thoughts are useful and necessary for two reasons: one, they occur when we’re honest about ourselves, and honest about others, and two, they provide us with the sense of urgency that is needed when one really tries to live what he believes. It is only when we say that the way every Christian we know is living is wrong that we can hope to live differently than every Christian that we know. I mean, maybe you know some pretty good people, but at least you can agree that when you start acting on what you believe, you are a part of a pretty small group in relation to the church at large. If we don’t condemn nominal Christianity (Christianity in name only) honestly, brutally, in our conversations and thoughts, how can we hope to be any different.

Now, brutality, when in relation to persons, individuals, who are living nominal Christianity, must be mixed with encouragement, prayer, and a certain distance. Encouragement, because the realization of what Jesus really demands of us, and the accompanying realization of how far off we are from the mark, is certainly a thing of despair. Here is where community becomes so vital, for we are ambassadors of Christ in his ministry of reconciliation. Prayer and distance, because we cannot make or architect someone else’s sanctification or spiritual renewal anymore than we could for ourselves. God is alone the teacher, the guide of our spirituality, and we need to give him opportunity in these situation by heeding his voice in prayer and distancing ourselves from the responsibility of results. It is hard for me to pin down exactly what I mean by distance, but I mean at least to say that we must be speaking the truth in love, brutal love. This will open the door for the offense of the Gospel, which will make some, indeed many, turn away and curse us. If we are closely tied, or intimate, with the person so that we identify our effort with success, then we put ourselves in jeopardy. We must let God have the glory, for it is only He who can handle it. Indeed, it is only God who can handle the true despair of watching a son slowly kill himself in rebellion. We must give God the good and the bad that results from obedience; this is what I mean by distance.

Brutality is a different thing when it comes to organizations, churches for all intents and purposes. I have had some conversations with Matt, and made a comment online on Roger’s facebook note, in which I say that the church should not be treated like a person. People are intrinsically valuable, and as such cannot loose their value. A group of people, while able to achieve more perhaps, is not anymore valuable than the sum of the parts. What I’m really saying here is that we cannot let our sentimentality keep us from radically changing the church or church culture. Basically, I think that either churches can repent, or they can die. What really matters are the Christians, the people who go to that building to worship. If a church dies because all of its members start to go to conVerge instead, then what has been lost? Nothing in my opinion. But what about those people who depended on that church, who weren’t strong enough to spiritually survive their church’s repentance/destruction? Well, first, they are in God’s hands just like we are. We cannot have a discussion in false piety over whether or not we’re going to be obedient. The mere hesitation to obedience is a dishonor to God and is, I think, one of the main things we need to repent of as a Church. Also, we need to stop thinking of the church, and start thinking about the Church. Notice which one’s capitalized. The Church is the universal body of believers, the Bride of Christ. This should be protected, but often the Church needs to be protected from churches. Thus, when a church dies, what happens. People who were just attending will probably stop going to church for a while, perhaps forever. Those where were committed to Christ will find other communities, usually ones that are more aligned with the Gospel. It is interesting that “sheep-swapping” is a key element that is presupposed in the concept of conVerge. We expect people to hear about what we’re doing, leave their churches, and follow Christ to conVerge. But are there any casualties of this war? No, for those who merely attend dead/dying churches aren’t coming any closer to membership in the Church. If you compare this marginally to the gain of committed Christians that will be made by being radically, brutally obedient, there is no question as to which course of action is more God honoring and beneficial to the Church at large.

I want to make a note about hypocrisy here as well, since in the mean time, we, the people of conVerge, will be caught in the tension between the radical and brutal nature of our proclamation (not “our”, but God’s) and the sinful humanity that characterizes our actual lives. This tension, this hypocrisy cannot, must not, cause us to hesitate to proclaim the Gospel and to call people to repentance, reconciliation, and salvation, even as we are repenting, reconciling, and working out our own salvation. It is this proclamation that is the realization that we are not Christians by merit, but by grace. This grace is what bridges the gap between who we are and who we should be. I have faith that God is building me up to the full observance of Christ’s teaching, and in this faith I will not hesitate to be obedient, even to an offense, while I am yet a wretched sinner. To do so is not haughty or arrogant, but it is to truly love the other more than myself. For if I were to limit the Gospel to what I am right now, to my own abilities, I might save myself, my reputation, from hypocrisy, but at the cost of that person possibly hearing the Gospel in power and in truth.