Fellowship Monologue

Fellowship. Its a relatively common word among Christians, but I've pretty much never used it in any other context. The word itself has no functional meaning to most Americans. You never hear athletes talk about the "fellowship" they have with other guys in the locker room. Joe College Guy never uses fellowship to describe hanging out with the dudes on his floor. Its a strange word in our culture, and I wonder if there's another word or phrase that would communicate the idea more clearly.

But in spite of that, we do need to understand what it means. And I would argue that most Christians don't really know what the scriptures are saying when they talk about fellowship. And in addition to the question of what fellowship is, I would ask this: do we need it? The assumption in virtually every Christian circle is yes, but biblically I don't think that holds water. First, though, what is fellowship?

I don't really want to come up with a definition in the strict sense; I'd like to try a different way of defining it. But I will mention the Greek word most commonly translated as fellowship: koinonia. It appears 20 times in the NT, notably Acts 2:42, where the believers in Jerusalem have fellowship with one another and all things in common, and 1 John 1, where he speaks of our fellowship with Christ and with one another. Koinonia relates to participation and community, and I think those ideas are at the core of what it means.

Interestingly enough, those passages aren't the ones that tend to come up in the discussions I have with others about fellowship. For me the conversation about fellowship begins like this:

Person X: "Where do you go to church?"
Me: "We don't." (sometimes I give a longer response)
Person X: "Oh......then what do you do for fellowship?"
Me: "Well, we meet with some other believers in homes."
Person X: "Just as long as you aren't forsaking the gathering of the bretheren......"

The passage they often refer to is Hebrews 10:24-25:

"...let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." (NAS)

I appreciate the intent behind those questions. Its usually out of genuine concern for me and my family. But at the same time I'm not sure it comes from a full understanding of what fellowship is. Most folks stop reading in the first half of verse 25--"do not forsake assembling together." But the writer isn't just saying get together with other Christians; he elaborates: encourage one another....stimulate one another to love and good deeds. Its not getting together, its what happens when you do. There's 'one-anothering' that ought to go on when we come together.

But what happens in the majority of gatherings? One brother gets up in front and gives a lecture while everyone else sits and listens. Greetings are exchanged (sometimes only when dude up front tells you to.....), and everyone goes on their way. Don't get me wrong--lectures are fine. I've heard many great lectures. But that ain't fellowship. And yet, if I'd responded to the question by saying, "we go to da-ta-da-ta-da church," they probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. Of course, I know not every gathering is like that. This isn't at all about institution vs. non-institution. Gatherings in homes can be devoid of fellowship in the same way--I've been to some that are. It's very different than that.

Here's the thing: 'fellowship' is held over the heads of many Christians as something that we need. We're told we have to be in fellowship or we'll go off the deep end. And sometimes examples are cited of folks who left and now who knows what's happened to them. But do the scriptures say we need it? I would say no. In fact, there are numerous examples of folks who didn't have fellowship for long periods of time. Consider:

- Moses was in the desert for 40 years;
- John was exiled on Patmos, and he seemed to do just fine;
- John the Baptist lived alone in the wilderness for a long time;
- Paul spent more time alone in a prison cell than with other believers in the later years of his life.

These men didn't set out to be certain they had fellowship/community/another person who followed God with them in whatever they did. They followed Him, and that led them into times of great and deep fellowship, as well as times of being alone.

Another side of it is that fellowship may not happen in the way we would expect. Personally, I've been in a situation with less fellowship recently, and what we've had has looked very different than I thought it would. When we moved to Champaign we knew some believers that were already here, but a lot of the relationships never developed into a "meet together weekly or more frequently" sort of thing (for a variety of reasons....and not because we didn't want them to). The most significant fellowship I’ve had since moving here has been with Lisa. For some reason I feel that we are trained not to associate ‘fellowship’ with our family conversations, but in reality that’s a big part of why we got married. We have always had deep fellowship with one another; I’ve just grown to appreciate that more.

But apart from that I think Father had a two and a half year period of less fellowship in store for us when we came here. We talked about attending a Sunday gathering, and even went to a couple of meetings. We had folks over to our place in hopes of something starting. We met in another family's home for a while. We have enjoyed the time with believers that we've had here, and we'll probably keep in touch with some of the folks. But none of it really became what I expected: a group of Christians we can share life with in a deeper way. A lot of it seemed like us trying to make something happen that the Lord didn't want.

Then, I walk off of the plane in San Antonio for my audition in January, and within 12 hours I've had deep, significant fellowship in Christ with a group of 20ish Christians I'd never met. I had a sense immediately that these were believers that we could live life with. It was to the point where I didn't really care about getting the job; I wanted to move and hang out with these people. It has been so easy since He has orchestrated it, and it was like banging my head against the wall when we tried to do it ourselves. As I've reflected on our time in Illinois, I think Father wanted us to have less fellowship. There were things that needed to be worked out in me, and chances are that wouldn't have happened if things had been different.

Would we have rather had more fellowship while we were here? Absolutely! Did we die spiritually because we didn't have it? Quite the opposite. Did we violate the scripture from Hebrews 10? I don't think so. All it says is "don't forsake." If there are believers God wants you to meet with, meet with them. Don't blow that off. Taking the verse beyond that is an exaggeration. I don't think it means you have to meet with whatever group of Christians is in your town. Even if you find a group, fellowship is deeper than just getting together with other Christians. He needs to lead us. And if there isn't anyone around that He wants you to meet with, He will sustain you, just like He sustained Paul and John. And they didn't just get by--they flourished.

So about fellowship I would say this: its deeper and different than just meeting together, it isn't a requirement, you won't go off the deep end if you don't have it, and God Himself will lead you into it.

On Creeds and Doctrinal Statements

Back in May I shared my comments on the Westminster Confession. It was an interesting exercise for me because while I agree with most of the points in the Confession, I'm actually not in favor of creeds and doctrinal statements, at least as they're used today. Historically they have been used as a means to maintain unity within the body, but I actually think they have worked against the unity they seek to achieve.

The main issue I have them is that they try to boil down truth to a list of statements. The fruit often is that if you agree you can hang around and if you don't you are told to go elsewhere (explicitly or implicitly). The problem is that truth isn't a list of statements or doctrines, it's a person. That person is Jesus (John 14:6). And the way that people are known is through relationship. I can tell you all about my wife, but if you don't actually spend time with her you won't really know her (and you probably wouldn't say you knew her). There has to be relationship for you to truly know her.

So if truth is fully expressed as a person, and known and understood in a relationship, a doctrinal statement falls woefully short in conveying it. Doctrinal statements and creeds aren't necessarily wrong, but usually they become the way that believers free themselves from having relationships with other folks. If someone disagrees, just ship them off to another meeting down the street. That doesn't build up the body in the way that discussion and dialogue does, and it also keeps the body from truly being the body. The reality is that our basis for fellowship with other believers isn't believing all of the same things. The basis is whether or not Jesus has received us (Rom. 15:7). If someone knows Jesus and has been received by Him, we are to received them just as He did. And in the context of the relationship that develops, we wrestle with the differences we have in how we read the scriptures, trusting Him to unify us in the process.

On Authority

One more from the last few months.....this was part of an email discussion I had with a couple of friends. A book on this topic that I have found helpful is Frank Viola's "Who Is Your Covering?"

So, regarding authority........I agree that it's going too far to say that there isn't any authority in the body. The question is one of where that authority rests. Obviously we would all agree that the ultimate authority in the body rests with Jesus. He's the head and He builds His church. He has all authority on heaven and earth (Mt. 28). He lives in us who believe, and we who believe receive gifts by His Spirit. The instruction in the scriptures is for us to be subject/submit to one another (Eph. 5:21, 1 Pet. 5:5--see below) because the Lord expresses Himself through all of us (lots of stuff in 1 Cor. 10-14 about that). He vests authority in the church as a whole (Mt. 18:15-20, Eph. 1:22-23), and so subjecting ourselves to the church as a whole is part of that. I appreciate the body passage in 1 Cor. 12 because it points to the need we have for one another. And a practical expression of the fulfillment of this is in 14:26, where each brings something for the building up of all. There should be an openness to hearing what the Lord would say through any believer. This is not without discernment, certainly, but the body as a whole does that, too (see the end of 1 Cor. 14).

In addition, Jesus expresses His authority through a couple of different means. One is official authority. God gives authority in several relationships: husbands and wives, parents and children, king/rulers/government and the people of a nation. The authority in these relationships comes because of the position and doesn't change. If the person under authority is asked to do something against God's will, or if the authority is improperly expressed, disobedience may be appropriate, but the authority is still there as long as the same person is in the position, "in office." Bush has authority as long as he's president. We may not obey everything he says, but we should be subject to him--that is, treat him with respect, consider how he says the country should be run, etc. Folks in these "offices" are set over other people.

But that type of authority is actually discouraged by Jesus among the church (Mt. 20:25-28). A second type of authority, one that is organic and not official, comes from communion with Jesus. The Head signals the hand to move, and it moves. The hand doesn't have authority in and of itself, but it expresses the will and authority of the Head. Sometimes God uses the hand, other times He uses the knee, or the mouth, or the spleen. Those parts have authority when they express Christ, when they function as they ought to function, not because of what parts they are. No part is above another; they all need each other. And no part has the authority all of the time; authority is fluid based on the will of the Head who gives it. The focus is on the function, not the person or office.

Naturally the more mature brothers and sisters will more accurately express the will of God in what they say and do, and those that do express it should serve as a model for those who are younger. Also, God gives some brothers and sisters particular gifts that are to help the rest of the body function as it ought (Eph. 4). But those folks need the rest of the body in the same way that the rest of the body needs them. And God even shows a propensity to speak through the things which are lower/less. So to give the more mature/gifted folks the floor or to give them authority beyond the authority that comes from the Spirit moving in them undermines the authority of Jesus and limits the full function of the body.

It makes sense that the more mature believers would share more, offer insight to others, correct, etc., but if they monopolize the time as most pastor-types do they actually end up quenching the Spirit. You mention in your email that the Spirit is like a wind (pneuma). When believers come together they don't know exactly how God wants to speak. He will place things on the heart of just about everyone if they are filled in Spirit, and the body will grow as it should only if the full expression of this is allowed/realized. The authority of the Spirit is expressed in the entire body, not just through one or two brothers. And the only One who has authority over believers is Jesus. It isn't given in the scriptures to any man.

Note: 1 Peter 5:5 is interesting. In most of the translations I've read it says we should "clothe ourselves in humility," but if you look at the Greek it says something closer to the KJV: "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." The word for subjection/submission is used twice, once for younger to older, and once for all to each other. I'm certainly no Greek scholar, but it seems like the Greek is more extreme than most modern translations give credit.........score one for the KJV?

Thanks for prodding this. It's a relatively new idea for me, and I'd like to know if I'm off my rocker or not. Another place to look if you want someone to explain some of this better than I could is on Frank Viola's website (no, not the Cy Young Award winner....). That's at www.ptmin.org. He has a book on there called 'Straight Talk to Pastors' that is short and explains a lot.

On the WC

For those who don't know, the Westminster Confession is a lengthy document written in the 17th Century that outlines much of Reformed theology. There are 33 chapters, and I agree with most of them. I've listed the points on which I differ below, along with my reasons. This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of these topics--just a cursory statement about each of them. Feel free to ask for further thoughts.

A Critical Response to the Westminster Confession

I am in agreement with the vast majority of the Westminster Confession. Points with which I have scruples are listed and commented upon below:

CHAP. I. - Of the Holy Scripture.

I agree with everything written here, but I do think it is worth noting that because of the early date of this document, it does not specifically affirm the more contemporary doctrine of biblical inerrancy. There is little doubt that the writers of this confession would have done so had the controversies of the 17^th Century led them to express such a position. Please allow me to take this opportunity to say that I personally believe the scriptures to be inerrant in accordance with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

CHAP. XXI. - Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day

7. “As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.”

No evidence in the scriptures has been sufficient to convince me that Jesus intended for the Sabbath to move from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath is distinguished from the first day of the week in each of the gospels (Mt. 28, Mk. 16, Lk. 24, Jn. 20) and in Acts (13:14-15, 42-44; 16:12-15; 20:7). Christians certainly seemed to meet on the first day of the week in the scriptures, but this does not mean that the Sabbath was “moved.” History indicates that this may have developed later and been cemented as common practice upon the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire under Constantine. This is my opinion, but I do not see this as a particularly important point (relative to others in this Confession, at any rate). I have no trouble worshipping with believers who feel differently, whether that happens on Saturday or Sunday.

8. “This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”

While observance of the Sabbath is a blessing if one feels led to keep it (Mark 2:27-28), doing so is not required of Christians (Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16-17).

CHAP. XXIV. - Of Marriage and Divorce

5. “Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce. and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

While divorce in the case of adultery is allowed in the scriptures, remarriage while the spouse is still alive is not (Rom. 7:2-3).

CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism

1. “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.”

Admission to the visible church occurs once a person repents, believes, and receives the Holy Spirit; this occurs before baptism (Acts 10:44-48).

3. “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.”

Much of the significance of baptism is lost in sprinkling; when a believer is baptized by immersion there is a more literal picture of our burial and resurrection in Jesus (Romans 6:4). Therefore immersion is a more correct interpretation of the act of baptism; there may still be room for sprinkling if there is no feasible alternative.

4. “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.”

I see no solid evidence of the practice of infant baptism in the scriptures, nor do I see evidence of its practice in church history before the 3^rd Century. Baptism accompanies repentance at every mention in the New Testament, and infants are not capable of understanding their sinful nature, their need for Jesus, and repenting in response. Therefore they are not to be baptized.

7. “The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.”

Baptism should only be administered one time once a person is saved. If a person was baptized as an infant, they may be baptized again later in life once they begin to follow Jesus, since their infant baptism was not accompanied by saving faith and repentance.

CHAP. XXIX. - Of the Lord's Supper

3. “The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.”

Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that only a special class of “clergy” can administer/lead the Lord’s Supper. Also, in the scriptures, the Lord’s Supper was not a special ceremony; it was part of a meal, the “love feast” (Jude 12). Jesus instituted this practice during a meal, and the Corinthians also practiced it as part of a meal (1 Cor. 11:17-32). So the most accurate observance of the Lord’s Supper is as part of a meal, not as a ceremony. The shift to a more ceremonial form occurred around the time of Tertullian, and was complete by the late second century.

CHAP. XXX. - Of Church Censures

1. “The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.”

The governing of the church is not in the hands of officers, but in the hands of the church itself. All of the letters written by the writers of the New Testament were written to the churches themselves, not to the elders or some kind of officers. The instructions given by Jesus do not leave governing/confronting sin in the hands of the church as a whole (Mt. 18:15-17). The discussion of circumcision in Acts 15 was not left to only the elders, but to the whole church (15:22).

2. “To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require”

“Officers” did not exist in the New Testament church. All authority (exousia in Greek) was given to Jesus (Mt. 28:18); nowhere in the New Testament is exousia given to one believer over another. And the Greek vocabulary used for official leadership is noticeably absent from the scriptures (such as arche—ruler, time—officer, and hazzan—worship leader, just to mention a few). Rather than being named, selected, or appointed as an “officer,” men who functioned in the roles of elders were recognized by the travelling workers (Paul, Timothy, Titus) so that others would know to consider what they had to say. Nowhere in the New Testament is there mention of a static office which someone must fill. Therefore, again, the power to do things like censure is vested in the church as a whole, not in an official.

4. “For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.”

Suspension from the Lord’s Supper as a punishment for sin does not appear in the New Testament.

CHAP. XXXI. - Of Synods and Councils

1. “For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils; and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.”

Churches as a whole, not officers, should decide who takes part in Councils.

Back again.....

Sorry for the long delay. It's not that I don't have things to say........it's making the time to put them here.

This is an interesting video I found that the folks at Willow Creek put together:
http://revealnow.com/story.asp?storyid=48

I highly recommend watching it for yourself (it's about 13 minutes), but in a nutshell Greg Hawkins says that the things they have been doing and refining for about thirty years, the "Willow Creek model" of doing church, hasn't achieved the things they wanted it to, so they are conducting research on how to change things. Here are some questions I have after watching it:

- What is the proper goal for a church to have? He points to making folks "far for God" into "disciples of Christ," that is, people who are characterized by their increasing love for God and their increasing love for other people. The things that the church does are the means to that end, and much of what they're doing now involves figuring out how to better make that happen. The basic idea is that if you "do the stuff" you'll love as you ought to love.

The thing is that the scriptures point to something important that is left out of that equation. Jesus tells the disciples that they are to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34). And John reiterates that point: "We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19) The life of God is lived as a result of experiencing the love of God. I don't think that Greg or Bill Hybels would disagree, but the model that they have set up is not predicated on that experience. It's very possible for folks to go through the motions without having that experience. I don't think we can set a goal of having people experience God; that only comes by Him. So what goals ought to be set? Can they be set?

- How significant are the changes they are making? Are they significant enough to bring about a different outcome in another thirty years? It seems to me like they're only re-working the same model that they said isn't working. Now they're asking the congregations what works instead of just the leaders. After thirty years and millions (billions?) of dollars, that doesn't seem like enough of a change to warrant following what they're saying again. In my opinion, anyway.......

- What does God think they should do? I know the brothers and sisters behind this at Willow Creek are sincere, that they love Jesus. That's why I find it strange that He is rarely mentioned. At the end Greg says that this research is (hopefully) the means to discover what God is doing and how He is transforming the planet. Where is He in the rest of the process? Is it possible that they're going down a different road than wants somewhere farther back down the line. He regrets that the "centered" folks are leaving, but is it that they are looking for a better church? What if they sense God leading something else in their lives? Or what if they're simply mature enough to seek Him apart from a structure of that sort?

Just a few ideas......anyone else have thoughts? Anyone still look at this after almost four months? :)

Problems solved!

Well, probably not, but I am curious how many of the problems in the church are the result of an improper understanding of authority in the body of Christ. If Frank Viola (see the previous post) is correct in his understanding of the New Testament, and a hierarchical leadership structure is not what was practiced by the early church, then that could cause a great many difficulties. For instance:

- Gender roles would be handled very differently. It would be inappropriate for ANYONE, not just women, to function in a pastoral/preaching/elder role like those in most Western churches today because NO ONE should have that sort of authority. This isn't to say that there aren't differences between men and women, of course. But the authority set up by God does not run the risk of being compromised in the same way that it does when one person stands in front all the time.

- False teaching might not spread as easily because heresy would be confined to one local church or a smaller group of churches instead of being passed around the country in a denomination.

- Believers in general might be more mature because they would have to play a more active role in building up the body. No longer would one brother with a particular set of gifts do the majority of the ministry to the saints. Brothers and sisters with very different portions from the Lord would play a part in the equipping. The body in this country is dominated by pastor-teacher input, which is very different from that of a prophet or apostle, and those gifts have much to offer. And all believers would likely grow if they had the mindset that they should be prepared to build up others when they are together.

These are just a few ideas..........

Backlog

I find that I'm very good at thinking of things, not writing them down, and then not meditating on them as long as I ought. There are several ideas that I have been pondering in the last month, but I haven't gotten around to jotting them down.......so here's a bit of it, probably with more to come. I enjoy not being in school because my mind is more free to think on such things.

After several weeks of hemming and hawing about it, I finally purchased and read Who Is Your Covering? by Frank Viola. The topic is authority in the church. His assessment is that questions such as the one in the title or "to whom are you accountable?" are really asking the question "who controls you?" It's a question that comes up for those believers who are outside of the institutional church setting as they meet other believers, and often the answer they're looking for is a person (pastor, elder, etc.), a denomination, or something similar. Very much in a nutshell, Viola suggests that the top-down hierarchical leadership structure practiced by the vast majority of Christians in the West is actually quite different from the picture of the church presented in the scriptures. He also says that the offices of pastor, elder, etc., wrongly place authority with man instead of with God Himself. (For related verses, see Mt. 20:25-28, 23:8-12, and Lk. 22:25-26)

Viola then presents a picture of the first-century church characterized by brotherhood and the involvement of every member of the body of Christ in building up, mutual subjection (that is, believers subjecting themselves to one another and authority coming from the Holy Spirit instead of authority coming to a person or persons through an office and demanding obedience), and confidence that the churches can seek the Lord on their own without a single dynamic leader. (Paul had this confidence in the churches he planted--2 Cor. 2:3, Gal. 5:10.) You can't judge a book by its summary :), but that gives you some idea of what he has to say. Feel free to ask questions if you like. Viola has clarified and developed some ideas I have had over the last several years, so I greatly enjoyed the book.

I've started reading another of his books (Covering is #2 of 5 in a series) called So You Want To Start a House Church? So far its a study of church planting as it was done in the scriptures--interesting stuff. I'm sure I'll write something on it soon, as well as something on the things stirring in my heart as a result of reading.

Other things on the backlog: Job, Philemon, how the Holy Spirit speaks

Yeah.......

It's been a while........I read The Treasure Principle by Randy Alcorn last month, and I think it's one of the best I've read on the proper biblical use of money. His main point is that our money is God's (Ps. 24:1, Dt. 8:18) and we ought to use it as such. I'm a little foggy since I read it a month ago, but it was very timely. My funding for next fall is a bit up in the air (I found this out while reading the book), and the Lord used the things written here to remind me of how He is in control of those things. I highly recommend the book; Alcorn has one that's a bit more comprehensive that Lisa is reading right now, and I'm guessing that's good, too.

Also, a question I'm pondering: what does it mean to not forsake the gathering of the bretheren (Heb. 10:25)? I suppose the ensuing words help clear that up--"but encouraging one another..." Not meeting together is contrasted with encouraging. So being in the same room with other believers doesn't cut it. And it isn't that we are to simply receive encouragement; we are to be encouraging. So it seems that fulfilling this command involves being around and encouraging other followers of Christ. So, when you are around other believers, do you seek to build them up and encourage them?

I don't think the American model of Christianity always encourages that, at least not in the typical Sunday AM gathering. One brother shares, and the rest sit and listen to what he has to say. That is a good thing, but for the body of Christ to operate as it ought, for the gathering of the brothers and sisters to not be forsaken, everyone needs to encourage each other when we come together. If that never happens, the body does not grow in the proper way.

It's interesting that that question arose for me tonight. I went running the other night (outside!) and was burdened with a desire to pour my life into believers in a more significant way than I do currently. Perhaps the Lord is pushing me harder than I thought. :)

I won't give a specific date, just so I don't break my word, but I hope to post in a more timely fashion next time. The busiest time of the semester has almost passed, so that should make it easier. May His grace and peace fill you with joy.

Quick thought

I've been thankful for the people Lisa and I have come in contact with in the last couple of weeks. We have been praying for deeper and more frequent fellowship with the believers we know around here, and God seems to be beginning to answer those petitions. We are hoping to spend more time with a couple that we know in passing. I met a brother on the bus the other day, and I hope we can get together sometime soon. And I spoke today with a professor who follows Jesus. I remain unsure of just how we should gather with our brothers and sisters, but the more folk we know that love the Lord, the more potential opportunities there are to seek Him together.

I've been in school for just over a semester now, and I already find myself pondering what's next. We are asking the Lord how He wants us to get overseas, and if I need to pursue another degree (doctoral) for that to happen. Lisa and I talked last night about it, that while our future is a bit uncertain, we have the peace of Christ ruling in our hearts. Thank you Lord for freeing me from the worries I could have regarding my "career" and what lies ahead. Please pray with us as we seek His face and His will.