| Join our mailing list |  |
       |
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Fine Prints: September,
2008 "Free for All" Philosophy . . . September 6 Needed: A Sense of Proportion─1 September 13 Needed: A Sense of Proportion─2 September 20 "Religious Test"─What It Is and Isn't September 27
"Free for All" Philosophy- Like, Radical, Man Last week we talked about the upcoming Church Retreat, noting that no one will be charged even one penny. Not for entrance into the park, not for food, not for staying in a cabin, not for any of the recreation, not for anything. Even though the event will cost something like $6,000. All we ask is that people continue the excellent support of the Church Budget that has been a hallmark of this congregation since its inception. A couple of weeks ago we had a games night in the Fellowship Hall. We provided veggie dogs and root-beer floats and a few other goodies for the entire crowd––and the crowd wasn’t small. But no one was charged anything. It was all given “free.” The latter part of August we had Pathfinder registration. More than one hundred and ten young people signed up for the club. But not one family was charged one penny. Everyone was simply encouraged to continue contributing generously to the Church Budget. You see, Markham Woods Church has a radical “free for all” philosophy. And it works like this: Many organizations "nickel and dime" their members nearly to death. Markham Woods Church seeks to be an exception. As part of our overall philosophy, the church doesn’t charge for most activities. For three reasons: First, it's a pain to always be collecting money at social and recreational events. Second, we don't want to exclude the “have nots” from participation. If we charged, some people wouldn't be able to join in. Third, it's more efficient just to give money to the Church Budget than to pay for the services provided by the church—because money given to the church is tax-deductible. Let me illustrate how it works: If a family in the 30-percent tax bracket pays $100 to participate in a church function, that's $100 gone. But if a family in the 30-percent tax bracket is allowed to participate for free, with absolutely no strings attached, yet chooses to donate $100, their gift is tax-deductible. And they’ve just saved $30 in tax. They can keep the $30 for themselves or use it for some other charity. Either way, the gift approach benefits them. But won't some people take advantage when we merely encourage giving but don't demand it? Won't they avoid their fair share of the burden? That may happen occasionally. And there are some people who simply can't afford to give. We understand that. Still others just don't give. But most people want to be supportive. So, overall, the positives of our approach far outweigh the negatives. And we’re talking about large sums of money! Like somewhere around $75,000 per year. Obviously, nothing ever comes without cost. Nothing is free. Someone always pays. At Markham Woods we simply try to do it in the most efficient, most inclusive and most community-building manner we can. Thanks to each of you for making such a radical philosophy so workable. And, I might, so impressive. It’s possible only because of each of you. Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
Needed: A Sense of Proportions-1 A couple of years ago I bought a book of lectures by Robert Ingersoll, a 19th-century public speaker who became famous for his scathing commentaries on religion. Unfortunately, too much of what he said is true. There’s a lot about religion—at least the way we typically practice it—that deserves to be skewered. I note that much of Ingersoll’s complaint had to do with our human inability to demonstrate a sense of proportion. As Christians, we too often act as if all rules and regulations are created equal. In reality, there are “gnats” and there are “camels” (see Matthew 23: 24). Jesus wasn’t categorically anti-gnat. He was just more into camels—the “weightier issues of the law,” is how He described it. In one of his lectures, Ingersoll pooh-poohed religion by telling about a man convicted of having killed a fellow human during a robbery—a robbery that netted him a mere 37 cents, if I remember correctly. Asked what he’d done with the money, the murderer said he’d bought a ham sandwich—but he threw out the ham because it was Friday, and Catholics weren’t supposed to eat meat on Friday. Ingersoll was less than impressed. What skewed priorities! Casually killing a fellow human, but meticulously obeying rules about not eating meat on certain days! It’s bad enough for humans not to have a sense of proportion. But too often we project a similar imbalance to God. Understandably, a God who has no sense of proportion is a God who’s hard to love. Yet that’s how too many Christians portray Him. Decades ago I remember reading a sermon by Peter Marshall. He told of a little boy who’d spied some prunes in the kitchen and asked his mother if he could have a couple. For whatever reason, she said No. When his mother wasn’t looking, the little boy took them anyway. And he got caught. His mother chastised him, emphasizing how upset God was going be. Then she sent him to his bedroom for a lengthy time-out in which to contemplate his sinfulness. As fate would have it, he scarcely had closed the door to his room than a summer storm swirled in. The wind blew. Lightning flashed. Thunder peeled. And it all seemed to be happening just outside his window. It was an impressive display. Granted what his mother had said about how angry God would be, and assuming that God was causing the storm to teach him a lesson, the little boy, audibly spoke his inner thoughts: “Come on, it was just two prunes.” God’s greatest failure to show proportion, from Ingersoll’s perspective, is the widely accepted teaching of an eternally burning hell—which, fortunately, Adventists don’t buy into. But think about it. Let’s say the kid in Peter Marshall’s illustration had died that night, never having repented of his misbehavior. So he goes to hell. As punishment, he’s roasted and toasted for ever and ever and ever and ever. And it would all have been caused by stealing just two prunes. I think I can understand Ingersoll’s refusal to believe in such a God—which we’ll talk about more next week. Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
Needed: A Sense of Proportions-2
Last week we talked about the need for a greater sense of proportion—particularly in our portrayals of God. Jesus said that we’re God’s witnesses. In other words, we’re the ones who speak and act on God’s behalf so the world can get an idea of what God is really like. It’s an awesome task, and I’m not sure we do it very well.
If we think of the church as God’s earth-based public-relations firm, I’m not sure that the strategy we employ is likely to result in the goodwill that either we or God would like to see. And much of it has to do with our inability to demonstrate a sense of proportion—either in how we live or in how we depict God.
A few years ago I listened as a speaker at a youth gathering told a story that aptly illustrates this point.
A little girl was battling leukemia. Several times it had flared up and then gone into remission. Life for her family, her friends and her church had been a roller-coaster as she seemed to make progress, only to relapse. Everyone prayed for her. She was anointed. The church had a few all-night prayer vigils, pleading with God on her behalf and that of her family. To no avail.
Throughout it all she remained cheerful and loving. But she lost her battle to live.
A couple of days after the funeral, a guest preached at the church. He told a story of how he’d been photocopying some material that he was going to use in a presentation in just a few minutes—when the copier shut down because it was low on toner.
He took out the toner cartridge and frantically searched for another—as the clock ticked and the time for the presentation drew nearer and nearer. Not finding a much-needed cartridge, he knelt beside the photocopier and asked God to deliver him from his dilemma. Then, slamming the cartridge back into the copier, he pushed the copy button, and . . . lo and behold, he was able to print the exact number of copies he needed. Then the machine shut down again because it was out of toner.
The speaker told the story with passion and enthusiasm, pointing out how intimately involved God is in each of our lives. He cares about every little detail. He provides for our every need. No concern we have is too small for His notice—even down to such mundane details as miraculously creating toner just when it’s needed most.
But his audience didn’t respond as he’d expected. They simply looked at him. Dumbstruck.
What kind of human would be more willing to miraculously make a few photocopies than to save a little girl from a debilitating disease? But more important, what kind of God would have such priorities.
Not only do believers too often present a God whose sense of proportion is suspect when it comes to how He punishes, we equally present a God whose proportion is suspect when it comes to handing out His blessing.
As God’s earthly public-relations agents, it might be to our advantage—and His—to fine-tune our approach.
Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
Seventh-day Adventists have long had an interest in church-state relationships. In fact, our end-time understandings depict a government-run-amok that ruthlessly forces religious conformity. So we’ve been more than a little interested in the implications of both legislative trends and legal determinations—and, at times, even certain specific candidates for office. Of course, we’re not alone. We just happen to have our own unique twist on the topic. Many run-of-the-mill Americans share our interest. It’s part of our nation’s history. When religious "refugees" came to the new world centuries ago, they wanted freedom of religion (the right to practice their own religion) and freedom from religion (the right not to have someone else’s religion crammed down their throats, which is of particular concern for atheists). Thus Article VI, Section 3, of the United States Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust." One doesn’t have to be Roman Catholic, Episcopalian or Methodist in order to hold office. State endorsement of a particular religion is forbidden. But forbidding a "religious test" for office doesn’t mean that citizens can’t and won’t consider a candidate’s religious viewpoints when voting. It merely means that no one can be barred from running for office for not subscribing to state-approved religious dogmas or for failure to be named on certain religious-membership roles. When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, his Catholicism was a legitimate concern—because at least some Catholics had made it clear that their allegiance to the pope trumped their national allegiance. Many Americans wanted to know that Kennedy didn’t subscribe to that form of Catholic thinking. More recently, Evangelical candidates have been scrutinized concerning how their faith might impact their formulation and enforcement of public policy. To what degree would they seek to impose their particular moral perspective on the populace as a whole. To ask such questions doesn’t violate the Constitution’s proscription of a "religious test." If someone were running for office whose religion called for all decisions to be made by reading tea leaves, the general populace should be concerned. Similarly, in a society where we value rationality, one might have to question the fitness for public office of someone whose religious practices include the ritualistic handling of poisonous snakes. Clearly, it’s appropriate to consider just how any candidate’s spiritual perceptions might affect his or her approach to governing. Might an adventist (lower case here, meaning everyone who believes in the second coming of Jesus) be less concerned about the environment because of believing that it’s all going to be destroyed soon anyway? Might a believer in a violent end to this world be more willing to commit our nation to war—maybe in the belief that it would help God bring on Armageddon? Might a candidate’s atheism give us pause if she or he stridently opposes religion and seeks to place greater restriction on its free exercise? Such questions, are, I would suggest, legitimate points to consider in making decisions about candidates. But, contrary to the arguments of some, such considerations don’t violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a "religious test." Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
| ||
|
|
