Your Place in the Body of Christ

A guy mentioned to me the other day that he had spent the past few years "trying to find [his] place in the Body of Christ." And while I fully comprehend the angst that comes along with uncertainty about "where I belong," frankly, I think there are only two reasons why someone would wrestle with the "where do I belong in the Body of Christ" issue.

First, some people are paralyzed by fear of making a mistake. The logic goes something like this:

• Mistake = sin
• Sin = bad
• Bad <> good
• Good = what I'm supposed to be now that I'm a Christian
• So do good; ergo don't do bad; ergo don't sin; ergo don't make a mistake

These people seem to think that it's better to do nothing than it is to do something and risk sin. But that's just not the case.

Take the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25. The Parable of the Talents is one in a string of parables where Christ is attempting to convey what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. In this parable, the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a businessman going on a trip. The businessman leaves different people in charge of different things, each according to his potential. Upon returning, the businessman discovers that one of the people has done absolutely nothing with what he was given. The businessman is so infuriated with "the guy who did nothing" that the businessman has him forcibly removed from the premises. Actually, the businessman calls him as a wicked, lazy, worthless person - and then has him cast into outer darkness, that place where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It's interesting to note "the guy who did nothing"'s response. It's essentially, "Master, I know you well enough to know that you have high expectations. And I was so afraid of failing that I did the safest thing I possibly could - I buried the money." That line of thinking sounds like it comes from someone who thought doing nothing was safer than doing something - and risking sin in the process.

I'd say he thought wrong. To me, it looks like the risky (sinful) thing is to not take advantage of the opportunity we as Christians have been given: grace. The safer avenue seems to be to do something, even at the risk of sin.

And, frankly, what's the big deal with sin, anyway? It's not so much sin that's going to condemn someone to Hell as much as it is not accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Christ's death, burial and resurrection was far more than enough to cover any and all sin that the combined ages of humanity have and ever will commit. So really, in the grand scheme of things, what's one more? Don't hear what I'm not saying. Grace is not a license to sin. But it is a license to not be immobilized by fear of sin.

Are you one of those people who is looking for your place in the Body of Christ, but you're immobilized by the fear of doing the wrong thing? A bit of advice: stop being a wicked, lazy, worthless person. Your destiny ain't looking too good if you stick with your current strategery. Instead, follow the practical first step in James 1:27. (In the aforementioned parable, James 1:27 is akin to putting the money in the bank. It's obvious, and it's far less risky than doing nothing.) So here's a modern-day version of James 1:27:

• Take some homemade cookies to the elderly in a nursing home.
• Pick up a bunch of bouncy-balls and take them to the kids at a children's home.
• Bake a batch of brownies and take them to your local fire or police station.
• Go buy a mess of McDonald's gift certificates and give them to the down-and-out on the street corners.

So, for those of you who find yourself in that first group (newsflash: I've been there myself), you now have an actionable plan. Just do it.
And now for the second group of people. They're the ones who will have some seemingly viable reason for not doing what I just mentioned. Their justifications vary, but the ones I like best go something like this:

I've been trying hard the past [insert time period here] to find my place in the Body of Christ. Yes, I've made mistakes. And I've died a thousand deaths because of my sin. It seems Christians won't let me forget about it. What I went through, I wouldn't wish on anybody.

So let me tell you, Mr. or Ms. "Died a Thousand Deaths" why you're having trouble finding your place in the Body of Christ.

You don't belong. You're a wolf in sheep clothing wearing sheep cologne.

There's an easy fix, though. Repent; turn your life over to Christ. And start demonstrating your Christianity. Quit trying to attain some position within Christendom through incantations of Spiritual rhetoric. Stop trying to "live down" your past.

You know, Paul could have taken a similar route of "oh, woe is me." But he didn't. Why, I wonder? I think it's because he actually repented and turned his life over to Christ. That's one of the marks of a truly saved person. They don't "live down" their past. Instead, they understand that Christ gets excited about figuring out how to turn around all things for good, and they allow Him to leverage their past for the betterment of the Kingdom. It's personally humiliating to them. But then, again, it's no longer their life anymore anyway, is it?
The fact that you're "living down" your past is evidence that you're not a part of the Body of Christ. If you're truly forgiven, then start living the life of Christ toward everyone around you - Christians and non-Christians alike.

And even if this doesn't work, don't worry about what Christian's will or won't let you forget. In the end, it's not a Christian's opinion that counts, it's Christ's.

Cyber attacks and free speech: Is bombarding a government website with traffic a legitimate form of expression of free speech?

I heard someone ask that question a while back, and I had to ponder for a minute.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's the last part that makes me wonder – "the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

...If I organize 100,000 people to call the Congressional switchboard all within 10 seconds of each other, and continue doing so until every one of them gets through, is that a DDoS attack? This kind of thing has happened, and it's considered part of my (and the other 99,999's) rights as an American citizen to petition the government.

...If I organize a snail-mail campaign of 1,000,000 pieces to Congress, and send them so they arrive on/about the same day, is that a DDoS attack? Again, no; it's happened, and it's considered part of my right as an American citizen to petition the government.

So what's the difference when it comes to email or other internet traffic? Why is it suddenly "cyber warfare" if I flood a website or email server, but not if I flood the post office or phone bank?

The two most common arguments I've heard are:

• In the case of letters and phone calls, the sender bears the cost of the transaction, whereas with internet traffic, the cost is so insignificant to the sender that it's effectively zero – but the cost to the receiver is high
• Government provides valuable services, and if those services are interrupted, people suffer

I'll take on the second one first.

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America vehemently disagrees with the notion that the government provides anything but the common defense. Government promotes the general welfare, secures the blessings of liberty - those are things the government is ordained to do. So what if the grievance with the government is that it has crept into areas where it shouldn't be?

The people who crafted the constitution believed it was absolutely legitimate for "the people" to cause the government to delay the activities of the day in order that "the people" might air a grievance. They believed this because they believed the government shouldn't be doing anything that daily impacted people's lives. In other words, they believed that if the government shut down for a day or even several, there should be no impact to the daily lives of "the people." The fact that there is an impact is evidence that the government has encroached upon the freedoms of "the people."

As for the first argument, with the advent of cell phones and IP-based home phones, the incremental cost of a phone call is effectively zero. So why is a phone call that costs nothing legitimate, but internet traffic that also costs nothing is an attack?

The answer is quite simple, I think: it's the content that's at issue, not the medium. I don't have any case law to back this up, and I don't have access to WestLaw or LexisNexis, so I'll have to wing it. Here's what I think.

Bombarding a website with malformed (or even well-formed) IP packets is akin to the childish game of Ding-Dong-Dash (yes, WikiPedia actually has a rather extensive reference for it). The point in the game is to annoy, to pester, to irritate, to be mischievous. On the other hand, ringing a doorbell multiple times at 1:00 a.m. in order to repossess a car is a legitimate activity - even though it has the same effect (annoy, irritate) on the residents. It's not the medium (doorbell), it's the payload (nothing in Ding-Dong-Dash, something legitimate in the act of repossession). A DDoS attack doesn't have a legitimate message to be aired as a grievance.

DDoS attacks via botnets could also be viewed as an amplification of one, unruly voice. In a peacable assembly you don't have a person taking refuge in the crowd while spouting vitriol on a megaphone. If you do have that idiot on the megaphone, then you don't have a peacable assembly. No peacable assembly, no First Amendment coverage.

Bottom line: Cyber attacks aren't protected under the First Amendment for two reasons. One, they are not a legitimate expression of a petition to the government for redress of a grievance; and two, they do not exist in a peacable assembly - the legitimate forum for the petition.

Why I Really Can’t Stand Church

My wife and I have been blessed. We’re healthy. We come from good families. We have close, life-long friends. We’re financially stable, working toward financial independence. And we attend(ed) a great church.
A bit of background. I am a fourth generation true Pentecostal (and I have to caveat that with “true” Pentecostal to distinguish my heritage from those of the Charismatic ilk who’ve sullied the namesake). My wife comes from a Baptist heritage. We were both raised in church, and our lives are firmly grounded in Biblical principles.

For several years, we stopped going to church. Why? Well, it’s not because we had no desire. In fact, we looked all over San Antonio, trying to find a good church where we felt at home. The church where we met was such a church – was. We were very active members. We taught a Sunday school class, were a part of the music programs, assisted with technology, and hosted “Food Forethought” – a monthly cooking show done at the church, designed to be a unique outreach program. We were happy, active, committed members.

So what happened? The same thing that’s happened at many places: the purpose of the church – little “c,” the Baptist church we attended – drifted away from the purpose of the Church – capital “C,” the body of Christ.
The purpose of the Church is, or ought to be, Christ’s purpose. First, Christ’s purpose was a people purpose. He looked for and found people who were lost. And he found them in every mental, physical, emotional and socio-economical condition possible – but they were all in the same spiritual condition: lost. Second, Jesus mentored those close to him. He had a cadre of apprentices into which He poured His life, effectively multiplying Himself (His purpose, His mission) into these other people. Third, Jesus spoke with authority and educated the masses about the Kingdom of Heaven. Everything else was incidental.

Contrast that with any of the twenty-something churches we visited over those two to three years. Their purpose wasn’t a people purpose, it was a “my church” purpose. Their practice wasn’t to raise up a cadre of apprentices to take the vision to the community, much less the world. Their myopic kingdom message (little “k”) was worthless, devoid of anything eschatological.

“How should we then live,” Frances Schaeffer would ask. And he’s right. There is a problem. In my experience, the typical American church, when measured against its purpose, is woefully ineffective. And that makes for a lousy church-going experience.

It’s like diet cookie bars. The reason I can’t stand going to church is the same reason I can’t stand diet cookie bars. I’ve tasted the real thing, and the fact that the imitation purports to be the real thing is just ridiculous.
I must give an aside here. For those of you who do not know what “diet cookie bars” are, you never had Thanksgiving dinner at Bob and Linda’s. (Aunt Linda, I truly do love you, but growing up, all the cousins made jokes about your strange “no sugar added” concoctions. In fact, we still do. :) ) My Aunt Linda had an anti-sugar fetish. Her idea of a chocolate chip cookie was vastly different from Mr. Hershey’s. Linda’s (infamous) chocolate chip cookies contained carob, oats, whole-wheat flour, and light imitation buttery spread. And whereas cookies are typically individual and round, Linda’s delicacies were pan seared and cut into rectangles. Hence, diet cookie bars.

As I said, I’ve tasted the real thing. I know the difference between “a church” and “the Church.” But what do you do when you can’t find a church that fits with the purpose of the Church? You do what the early church did – start one yourself: a Bible study in your home.

How do you go about starting a church? Google presents some interesting responses to that question. You’ll find many consultants for church planting, growth, etc., and you’ll find scads of turnkey solutions for incorporation and/or ordination. But ask yourself this question: “What do any of those have to do with the purpose of the Church?” What do incorporation, ordination, business cards, stationary, advertising, growth seminars and the like have to do with the real reason the Church exists?

Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying there’s no place for organization, marketing and strategy in the Church. I am saying that I’ve seen all too often good churches get sucked into and buried by things that are ancillary to what their purpose ought to be. I don’t want something I'm involved in to wind up like that. So how do you make sure a church sticks with the purpose, practice and message of the Church? I don’t know; but I have an idea.

I’ve come to realize something about myself over the years. The more I have, the more I have to lose, and the more paranoid I become about protecting what I’ve got. I’ve also come to realize that the antidote to that delusion is the realization that I don’t have anything. Christ has a minivan, an SUV, three dogs, a nice house in San Antonio, and some investments. My wife and I happen to be stewards over those things. We have a responsibility to take care of those things – and the people – that God has placed in our lives. Our responsibility is to use the things God has given us to be a blessing to the people He has placed in our lives. But if someone happens to come careening down the road, barrel through the fence and destroy the Suburban sitting in the driveway, my only response can be, “God, look what that crazy person just did to your fence, lawn and truck.” They’re not mine; they’re His. And you know what, if He wanted to, He could have had that crazy person run into someone else’s fence, lawn and SUV. But for whatever reason, He was okay with that person destroying His property.

Here again, don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying it’s appropriate to let someone walk all over me, that I should not care what happens, and not make a concerted effort to recover the damages from the crazy driver. I am saying that I’m not going to get so wound up in worrying about what might happen that Vicks NyQuil stock soars because that’s the only way I can get any sleep. My wife and I are resolved that we will not be distracted by the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of the accumulation of stuff.
And that’s what people need in a church. People don’t need a church that’s stressed out over things that, in the end, will not amount to anything. People need a church that’s stressed out over portraying Christ to the world around them.

The world around us is stressed out over getting what they want and keeping what they’ve got. Why would they want to add to that stress by joining an organization that’s in the same lousy condition they are? The Body of Christ, the Church, is supposed to be different. We are not of this world. Why is the American church living like the temporal things of this world amount to something more than diddlysquat?

Because it can.

The first thing you might think to do when considering starting a church is research the various legal entities for a non-profit, tax exempt organization. (Google is a wonderful thing.) But wait a second. Did it ever occur to you that the American church, at its core, is nothing more than a financially lucrative, non-profit, tax exempt organization - a business?

I had always assumed that to be tax deductible, charitable contributions must be made to a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, typically a 26USC§501(c)3. I was surprised to learn that churches are de-facto tax exempt, and contributions are tax deductible, period (IRS Publication 526, “Organizations That Qualify To Receive Deductible Contributions,” available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf).

So why are so many churches 501(c)3’s? Because they’ve lost sight of the purpose of the Church. No, 501(c)3’s aren’t evil. But being a 501(c)3 enables churches to do things churches shouldn’t be in the business of doing. In fact, churches shouldn't be in "business" at all. But that's exactly what a 501(c)3 is - a business.
Go back to that Google search. The American church is big business. And that’s the problem. The American church is a large, willing market. It’s willing and eager to grab the latest thing-a-ma-jig in order to increase revenue to meet the budget.

Try that in the Philippines. My parents were missionaries in the Philippines for a while. I know enough about the Philippines to know that nobody is doing church growth seminars, conferences with well-known speakers on the agenda, and radio and television evangelism in the bush. Why not?

You: Well, those things won’t work there.

Me: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! Congratulations, you’ve won the prize!

Why won't those things work elsewhere? They're all built upon the premise that potential patrons have wads of disposable income. That's not the case in the rest of the world.

Here’s the rule: If it won’t work anywhere in the world, it’s not part of the purpose of the church.
None of those things are evil, and I’m not opposed to any of them – given their proper place. What I am opposed to is the notion that those things are vital to the survival of the Church. They’re not. The Church was orchestrated and designed by God to work without those things, and curiously enough, has survived for millennia without them.

A Practical God

Deuteronomy 23:13 is a wonderful example of just how practical God is.

Think about it. Here you've got Israel, the nation, coming out of Egypt, headed for the Promised Land. Two to three million people - slaves - now free, migrating en-mass through the Sinai peninsula. That's like the whole city of San Antonio, Texas (and then some) picking up and moving to Midland, Texas. What a logistics nightmare - even for today's "advanced civilations." (Recall that it took several weeks to get everyone out of New Orleans after Hurricane's Katrina and Rita back in 2005. That was only 1.4 million people, not the 2-3 million in Egypt. And we have the best in ultra-modern, fast-moving, large capacity military and civilian equipment, not the onsie-twosie horse, donkey and camel commotion they had back then.)

And don't forget God's purpose - to make them a great and mighty nation. So how do you take 2-3 million slaves, who've been slaves for 400 years, physically relocate them over 300+ miles, through rivers and deserts, without having the whole bunch die of cholera?

Part of the answer lies in the above verse in Deuteronomy. We take it for granted today that when you're out in the woods and you gotta go, get away from the camp, do your business, and bury it. But nobody knew to do that back then. And it wasn't just because they were slaves that they didn't know. Moses was raised in the palace that controlled the mightiest military of the time. They didn't know it either. But God did.

Which brings me to the point. God isn't some mystical, nebulous notion. God is real, He's conversant, and He's actually quite brilliant. And, like Israel, God has a plan for my life and yours. And it's more than some ethereal, mystical haze of feelgood- and playniceynice-ism that far too many modern American churches have conjured up in place of an actual encounter with God. God's plan is certain, it's relevant, and it's practical.