It seems that everything is in such a state of flux that there is very little we can be sure of anymore. What used to be so certain has either passed from the scene or is undergoing such radical change that it is barely recognizable.

In the midst of such instability, there is an ongoing quest to find something to lay hold of that is reliable, something we can be assured of that will enable us to stand in the midst of continual and even cataclysmic change. Even the ability to know truth, the one constant in a sea of uncertainty, is being questioned in this postmodern age.

However, Jesus refutes the whole notion of not being able to know the truth with his pronouncement that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Our ability to know the truth is directly related to our aggressiveness in seeking the truth. Jesus also declared if we seek, we will find. And that precisely is the problem. We don't seek truth. Instead, when our experience doesn't match what we profess to believe as truth and reality, we succumb to the lie that truth is unable to be known.

The other side of that coin is such an adamant stance on our limited understanding of the word of God as the whole truth that we cease to seek further understanding. The reality is that what we don't know of the truth far exceeds what we do know.

Too often we allow our shallow understanding of the word of God to be the final word, even when our experience at times seems to contradict our understanding of the word. God uses our experience as a doorway into greater understanding of the truth. It's sad when so many of us refuse to use the doorway of experience as a means of entering into greater understanding and knowledge of the truth. We fear that new illumination into the infinite truth of God will shatter what we have believed to be the whole truth.

Then there is the issue of pride. Pastors and teachers are especially vulnerable to this, being that new understanding of the truth will require them to retract and revamp what they have previously taught. Thus it is important that we hold our understanding of truth loosely, admitting that this is only what we presently understand as we look through this glass darkly.

Among the definitions Webster gives for the word "context" is "the circumstances surrounding an act or event." I'm becoming more and more aware how feeble our understanding of the Scriptures is, especially the historical portions like the gospels, because there is little or no understanding of the context of the acts and events we read about. I'm well aware, that according to documented studies, most Christians do not read and study the Scriptures. Even those who do study seem to do it in a vacuum, with little or no knowledge of the times of which they read.

Just in the ministry of Jesus alone, knowing the context of his actions and teachings would shatter any unscriptural traditions that have been embraced as gospel. Being acquainted with the culture, the values, customs and languages of the day enables us to perceive a realistic flesh and blood Jesus, and not some elusive ethereal figure that is difficult to relate to.

My sense is, based on my experience, that too often we read the Bible and miss the depth of truth that is there because we are ignorant of the context. We read it from a narrow and isolated spiritual perspective instead of a whole life perspective.

I have this sneaking suspicion that we live our lives the same way we read the Bible, out of context. Whatever spirituality is present is manifested in a vacuum, apart from the everyday circumstances, whether it's job, family, entertainment, finances, recreation, relationships, etc.

Could it be that if we were to start reading the Scriptures in context, we would start to live them more in context?

Len Hjalmarson refers to a selection from Leonard Sweet's book, Out of the Question...Into the Mystery: Getting Lost in the GodLife Relationship. Following is that excerpt from page 9 of the introduction.

"Western Christianity is largely belief based and church focused. It is concerned with landing on the right theology and doctrine and making sure everyone else toes the line. The Jesus trimtab, in contrast, is relationship based and world focused. It is concerned not so much with what you believe as with whom you are following. It is less invested in maintaining and growing an institution and more invested in Jesus's passion for saving the world.

"We have yanked ourselves from the soil of relationship with God so we can do the work of tidying things up. We are now sanitized and correct, factual and precise, but tragically bereft of relationship. We are disconnected from our source so that we have become sterile. We may be doctrinally correct, but we have become spiritual cadavers."

Sweet introduces this portion saying:

"Given the universal hunger for relationship, and the church's habit of pushing relationship to the back of the bus, we must answer this question: How did we lose the Jesus trimtab? The simple - but precise - answer is that it got lost in the shift of focus from relationship to object.

"The first Christians didn't proclaim a creed or a statement of faith; they didn't demand assent to a list of facts; they proclaimed the Cross; they proclaimed the Resurrection; they proclaimed the coming kingdom of Christ. They proclaimed Jesus. Faith is not invested in creeds, or invested in institutions, but vetted in relationships."

I was engaged in a conversation last weekend with someone I knew to be a dedicated Christian. In the course of the conversation, she said, "I reject Christianity!" I was taken aback by this statement, until she followed it up by saying, "I'm committed to following Jesus."
As we continued, she related how she was seriously considering dropping out of the local church she attends. She was displeased with some of the things she saw occurring, which were not immoral or fraudulent, but were just the norm for churches steeped in Christian tradition.

This is just one more person of the increasing number of people I'm encountering who are disillusioned with their "church" experience, resulting in their departure from a local church congregation. There is a growing restlessness among followers of Christ who have been relegated to a passive existence in the local church, except for whatever task they can do to perpetuate the status quo of the congregation.

The life provided by the typical church is a far cry from that which Jesus described for those who follow him. He required a denial of self for those who chose to become his disciples. To live sacrificially is a foreign message to western Christianity. If one is to be engaged in God's mission of advancing his kingdom in the earth, it will not be a sedentary lifestyle in a church pew with an occasional two-week mission trip, but will be a lifestyle of being sent out continually.

Jesus chose the twelve that they might be with him that he would send them out to preach. However, the conventional mindset in the church is to have people with us indefinately, giving little or no thought at all of sending them out. Instead of growing our churches, our desire should be to expand God's kingdom. This can only be done by sending out, not hoarding unto ourselves.

Following is an excerpt from Len Hjalmarson's post of 7/1 on Next Reformation.

"In the closing chapters of the Forgotten Ways Alan Hirsch uses a number of word-pictures to describe the challenge of a changing environment, including the "fish bowl" analogy (a closed system). Picture "Finding Nemo" where the safety and stability (living death) of aquarium life is contrasted with the expanse and adaptive challenge of the untamed ocean.
    A fish bowl or aquarium is a stable environment. It is safe and predictable (and relatively boring) and requires constant maintenance in order to survive. Food and oxygen must be supplied from external sources. The system is stable but stability hangs by a thread (turn off the air pump or quit supplying food or change the temperature) and there are no natural stressors.
    The ocean is a somewhat different environment! It is always changing, and always dangerous.
    In the industrial age we had relative stability and predictability and our churches became fish-bowls. We could drop a new fish in from time to time and pretend we were having exciting times, but for the most part there was little change and no perceived need to change. Suddenly the fish bowl has been dropped into the ocean - the boundaries and rules have changed, and we now face all kinds of adaptive challenges to our own survival. These stressors will either make us stronger - or destroy us - depending on our ability to respond."

After reading this post, I thought of Jesus' words as he sent out his disciples, "Go your ways; behold I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves." He sends us out into the dangerous environment of the ocean to advance his kingdom. The safety of the fish bowl is not the place to advance the kingdom. Yet that has been the norm for most of my life. The major effort and activity has gone on within the fish bowl.

The full dynamics of life and vitality only take place in the ocean. The limitations of the fish bowl deprive its inhabitants of the full orb of life - the abundant life they have been created to experience.     
    

Lindsay's comment to the 6/20 post, "Which Spirit", reveals the difference between the ministries of life and death. His response to his friend, who apparently functions as one of the doctrinal police, was a gem. It vividly illustrates the difference between the ministry of the letter and the ministry of the Spirit. The first is death while that of the Spirit is life. The ministry of death is that of the Old Covenant while the ministry of life is that of the New Covenant.

The ministry of the doctrinal police is defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:9 as the "ministry of condemnation." Personally, I've never seen anyone edified or receive new life through this kind of ministry - the ministry of the letter.

It's obvious that in reading The Shack, Lindsay's focus was toward the Father while that of his friend may have been concerned with correct doctrine. Because of his focus, Lindsay experienced the love of the Father in a new and deeper way. I don't know what his friend experienced from the book other than finding fault with doctrine that he didn't agree with. It's apparent who was edified and strengthened.

There is yet another contrast which I see between Lindsay and his friend. It's seen in the message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2. The Lord has seen their zeal for that which is true and not false, which is good. However, what he has against them is the fact that they have left their first love. Their love for correct doctrine resulting in the exposure of that which is false had replaced their love for the Lord.

We all need to take heed lest the good things we are engaged in replace our love for Father God. It happens so gradually and subtly that we're not aware of it. We think we are engaged in God's mission when we are actually giving ourselves to our own interest. Seeking the love of the Father and dwelling in that love makes all else dim by comparison.

This morning I was reflecting on yesterday's experience of joining with others in planting a community flower garden in our neighborhood. I can't say that I've ever experienced a sense of oneness and community more than I did yesterday. There was a camaraderie that was present that I have seldom experienced, within or outside of "Christian" circles. Both of these "circles" were as equally represented as possible among the fifteen people that worked together to bring this garden, which was a vacant lot, into reality.

In considering the implications of all that took place in this effort, the prevailing thought is that this endeavor far exceeded the mere planting of a flower garden. The physical labor that was expended contributed toward the advancement of the kingdom of God. It was the restoration of a tiny portion of God's creation, bringing forth beauty that had been absent for so long on this particular property.

But it wasn't just the flowers and the bulbs that were planted, but seeds of the kingdom of God were planted at the same time in the soil of human hearts. The ambience was evidence of the Spirit of God hovering over the whole scene. Statements and conversations testified to the Spirit's leading and guidance. The greater yield out of yesterday's experience, I believe, will be spiritual more than physical. But the physical precedes the spiritual, as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 15:46, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual."

I wonder if we have too often overlooked the natural in our zeal to minister for the purpose of manifesting the kingdom of God in our midst. The process that culminates in the realization of God's righteous reign in life, be it individual or corporate, includes both the natural and the spiritual. Yesterday I saw people who make no profession of a personal faith in Jesus Christ, demonstrate an enthusiasm for the kingdom activity of restoration. Might we see a greater response to our message if it was the full gospel of the kingdom, which Jesus preached, rather than just the tiny tidbit of being forgiven of sin so that our eternal destiny is heaven instead of hell?

Is there a distinction between church and community? Are they one and the same or two different entities? Your answer ultimately will depend on your observations and experiences.

The answers to the opening questions can be both yes and no with both answers being correct. Looking at the church in the first century as recorded in the pages of Scripture, we would surmise that the church was a community. Therefore it is one and the same thing. However, much of our personal experience would disagree with that assessment.

Obviously, there has been a dramatic shift over the centuries that would cause us to answer the question differently today than we would in the first century. The word "community" is called fellowship in Scripture, which means sharing in common. With this definition in mind, we can begin to see why there is a difference between church and community.

The experience in the conventional 21st century church is not one of sharing in common. Only a handful of the members share, while the great majority sit passively, doing only what they are told to do when they're told to do it. This is the norm for the weekly gatherings. For most, the weekly gathering is the only time they are together with others in the church. This obviously does not fit the definition of community.

True community is a life shared in all respects. It is not limited to the spiritual dimension. In the everyday ordinariness of life, those who dwell in community with one another participate together in the circumstances and activities of life throughout the week, not just in a once-a-week meeting.

Can church and community become one and the same? Absolutely! However, it will take a paradigm shift and intentional effort to change the individualistic lifestyle to one of community. Can it be done? Yes! Will it be done? That can only be answered by each person when confronted with the challenge.

I read with interest both an article and comments on a website concerning the Christian fiction bestseller, The Shack. It should come as no surprise that this book would stir up controversy within the Christian camp. The doctrinal police are out in full force on this one, making accusations that the author has an agenda that is nothing short of heresy. So they pan the book as a piece of Christian fiction laced with heretical doctrine.

Instead of considering the book as a whole, these critics have isolated statements that they point to as evidence of heretical doctrine being advanced by the author. If we would do with the Bible what these critics do with The Shack, we would come to the same conclusion - the Bible is filled with heresy. In fact, critics of the Bible continue to reject it as the word of God because of the contradictions and inconsistencies they find in it. Isn't it interesting that the Christian critics of The Shack denounce the very same methods of the Bible critics that they themselves use in critiquing The Shack?

However, what concerns me most about this is the attitude that seems to emanate from these critics. The fact that great numbers of people have experienced emotional healing and freedom, being drawn closer to the Lord, doesn't really count for anything. All that matters is that their doctrine is violated (at least in their own eyes). It smacks of the same spirit of the religious leaders at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. They ignored the fact that people were being healed and set free because they perceived Jesus was violating their doctrine in delivering people out of bondage.

When doctrine  takes precedence over people and their welfare, we have fallen from grace into the same jaded mindset as those who opposed Jesus in his day. This kind of hardened heart will not attract people to Jesus and his kingdom. On the contrary, they will be repulsed by the lack of love exhibited in their behalf.

It's not that we don't stand for what is truth, but it always has to be through love. Truth and love cannot be separated if we're to be ministers of wholeness and reconciliation. The truth of Scripture is that love covers a multitude of sins, it doesn't excoriate, as critics are so prone to do. Jesus modeled this blend of truth and love in the encounter with his critics and the woman taken in adultery. He didn't compromise truth, yet at the same time, his love protected and covered the woman from the destruction that her critics were about to bring on her through their doctrine.

Transition is an unsettling experience for most everyone, and the transition that is occurring in the Church is no exception. Traditions are being shaken as everything is being called into question from structures to practice to theology. The assurance and security derived from Christianity's established traditions are being shaken to their core.

This is not a bad thing, but sorely needed to help shake us out of an ecclesiastical complacency that has resulted in the stagnation of that which was once fresh with life-producing dynamics. The process, however, is disconcerting to many as the ancient ways are dusted off and uncovered. Coupled with new ideas and ways that are being introduced, a montage of the old and the new is being fashioned by the Holy Spirit through the conversation that is taking place.

Though it seems like utter chaos, keep in mind the words of Genesis 1:2: "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." As it was then, so it is now. God is not absent from the process, but has in fact, not only initiated, but is also intricately involved in it from beginning to end.

Many of us are discovering that we need to let go of some cherished doctrines as the Spirit enlightens to bring greater understanding. To resist is to be left behind as the Spirit moves ahead with God's mission. The question we need to answer is, "Whose mission are we going to commit to, ours or God's?"

Personally, I believe that for too long we have been engaged in our mission, building our churches. Now along comes God, renewing his invitation to get involved in his mission of advancing his kingdom. It's a different mission than what we've been committed to. Therefore it requires change from our thoughts to his thoughts, from our ways to his ways. It is nothing less than a paradigm shift resulting from our changed thinking.