Selling fireworks at our church

[Jason McPherson]

The city that I live in in Missouri allows non-profits to apply for a license to sell fireworks on their property. Last year, our church applied for the license but we were not selected (About 200 groups apply and about 12 are chosen). This year our church was selected and we currently have a huge tent on the front lawn of the church. We will likely make $15,000 to $35,000 from this sale based on the amount of product we have.

This year, the 4th is on a Sunday (about 60% of all fireworks are sold on the 4th). At first, our church decided not to sell on the 4th but after speaking with another church with more experience, our church opted to sell on Sunday from 2pm to midnight. I have spoken to about 10 people from the congregation who are disappointed about the decision to sell on Sunday. When I asked for their reasoning, they responded, "If we begin slipping on our standards in regards to this issue, who knows what we will be 'ok' with next..."


So, I guess there are a few questions/issues here. Would you ever allow/vote for your church to sell fireworks (if it was legal)? What about selling on the 4th, which is a Sunday? Are you more of a bottle-rocket type person or a sparklers/smoke bomb person? kidding.

50% of the profits raised will go to building repair/maintinance. The other 50% will go to a ministry of the church that the worker chooses. For example, if I put in 15 hours of work, my wage would go to the youth ministry (if I chose it to). As one who has never received a budget payment in five years, I am somewhat excited about the sale because it could mean hundreds, if not thousands towards the youth and children's ministries... However, even as I type that last statement, I can't help but wonder if I have allowed my conscience/convictions to become dulled over the years by an easy way to raise funds for the church.

talk :)

[Shea Zellweger]

On the one hand, I can see how people would draw comparisons to the money changers in the temple, and be rather uncomfortable with the idea. On the other hand, those people who come in to buy fire works might just stick around to hear a sermon... it's a tossup for me.

[David Pettigrew]

My understanding has always been that no money from fundraisers could be applied to operations. In other words, money for building repairs must come through the offering plate (real or electronic). So, I guess my main question would be if (per Manual) you can really do what you are proposing. Again, this is just one of those things that I've always heard; I may be off here.

[Shea Zellweger]

My understanding has always been that no money from fundraisers could be applied to operations. In other words, money for building repairs must come through the offering plate (real or electronic). So, I guess my main question would be if (per Manual) you can really do what you are proposing. Again, this is just one of those things that I've always heard; I may be off here.

I know you're not supposed to have special offerings to pay your budgets, and yet I see it all the time, so...
What has been suggested to me by pastors and laypeople alike is that the district doesn't really care how you get your money, so long as they get a cut. I don't know that I'm willing to be that cynical about it, but I think it's rather difficult to determine what money goes where, and most people aren't willing to try. If fundraiser money "can't" go to operations, then it can go somewhere else, and the money budgeted for that other thing can then be moved to the operations/buildings and grounds budget.

[David Pettigrew]

Shea, only you and i have green lights by our names right now. I guess everyone else is at church. Oh, wait, I am too.

[David Parker]

I am not as informed as many of you on such matters, but I've always viewed these (don't sell on Sunday) attitudes as another example of a 'religious mindset' that isn't really part of our faith. Sunday is not a 'sabbath' and our church buildings are not a 'temple'. But it seems to be a common knee jerk reaction among many church folk.

I'd have that fireworks stand open all day Sunday, set up some complimentary refreshments, add a live band/music, and make a warm and welcoming impression on the many people that probably have had no prior contact with your church.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'd have that fireworks stand open all day Sunday, set up some complimentary refreshments, add a live band/music, and make a warm and welcoming impression on the many people that probably have had no prior contact with your church.

Sounds like a party to me.

[David Pettigrew]

Here is the relevant Manual passage:


38.2. Fund-raising and Distribution. In the light of the
scriptural teaching concerning the giving of tithes and offerings
for the support of the gospel, and for the erection of
church buildings, no Nazarene church should engage in any
method of fund-raising that would detract from these principles,
hinder the gospel message, sully the name of the
church, discriminate against the poor, or misdirect the people’s
energies from promoting the gospel.
In disbursing to meet the requirements of the local, district,
educational, and general programs of the Church of
the Nazarene, local churches are urged to adopt and practice
a financial apportionment plan, and to pay general, educational,
and district apportionments monthly. (130, 154, 155-
55.2, 413.21)

Now, the way I have always heard this interpreted and seen this practiced was that special fundraisers were good for auxiliary organizations or subgroups within the church to use for special events, projects, or trips (ie - youth group car wash for church camp, ladies ministry cook books for women's retreat, etc.) However, items that would fall under the normal operating budget of the church must come from tithes and offerings.

Again, this is how I have always seen this practiced, and I understand the principle behind it (we wouldn't want to become a business). But like all things I'm sure it's open to interpretation. And, like it or not "the Manual says not to do it that way" is becoming less and less a factor in local church decision making.

As far as sales on Sunday go, I'd be the first to vote for doing as little on Sunday as possible besides worship. However, our culture is available to us on weekends only, so I understand we have to engage them where they are. I guess?

By the way, we're having a "country pie supper" fundraiser tonight. My contribution? People will bid on the chance to put a pie in my face. Surely there's something in the Manual about that.

[Marsha Lynn]

(So does the big crash of 2010 mean I can say everything I've said before over again and everyone will pretend it's all new?)

We just finished up with the county fair yesterday. We inherited the "concession" of a food booth that was run by the "band boosters" from the local high school for many years. The county fair is fading away in this time of air conditioning and alternative entertainment (we're one of only a couple of counties in Indiana that have a stand-alone county fair apart from the 4H fair), but we do a decent business.

This week was just a warm-up for the much bigger event that covers the fairground plus a growing number of acres of adjacent land in September -- the White River Valley Antique Association's annual antique show (http://www.wrvaa.org/). That's the big deal. We've been asked to start on Wednesday this fall serving food to those preparing for the show. The show actually opens on Friday and last year we cleared over five times as much money in three days there as the entire week of the county fair. Both fundraisers together added up to something less than $10,000.

I started out with huge reservations about these fundraisers. The Antique Show is particularly bothersome because it comes with some rather inflexible guidelines, including an expectation that we will be open all day on Sunday. The first year, those organizing it pulled in some 'pagan' relatives to keep things going during church on Sunday morning, but more recently, we simply accept that we will have people missing on that Sunday because they're serving food at the fairgrounds.

My reservations had to do with how the church raises money -- is it contributions from members or do we expect the larger community to take us on as a charity and buy our over-priced candles and Christmas cards? Most other churches use their fundraisers to send kids on mission trips. We're putting a new roof on the building and air conditioning in the parsonage. Is that really something we should ask people outside the church to fund?

I've changed my mind. I like the fundraisers. I didn't work much this week because I have few skills to contribute and routinely invest substantial time in other church projects during the week, but I ate at the booth several nights and my husband and daughter spent hours there. Here's the deal:

1. I am always amazed at who pitches in to work the food booth. People who are barely connected to the church will show up and find a place to work and be more connected at the end of the week than they were at the beginning.

2. I have realized that there are more ways to contribute to the church than tithing on one's income. People who find it difficult to support the church by the usual means can convert time into money by working at the fairgrounds.

3. I am amused by the changing disposition toward the money. A major concern at the beginning was that the fundraisers would increase our official income and, thus, our budgets. That was going to be a deal-breaker. It doesn't work that way. However, those organizing it who are on the church board have voted to contribute an increasing percentage to "missions" through the local NMI and a special local benevolence fund. This year the board voted to also give a percentage of the proceeds to the NYI which contributes multiple willing workers to the food booth and has been struggling to pay their portion of the district budget.

4. Someone stood up and testified at church this morning about the wonderful spirit she saw in the food booth this week. What I once feared would separate us (and there's definitely ongoing potential for that to happen) has actually brought us closer together as people pitch in to do what needs to be done. That's primarily due to a couple of families who organize the whole thing and make the fair booth a pleasant place to work.

5. Although the food is overpriced, particularly at the Antique Show where the organizers control all pricing, the actual food sales are very much an exchange between willing buyers and willing sellers rather than charity on the part of the community.

6. As a church that someone once told me "keeps to itself," the fair booth is our best presence in the larger community. We have many repeat customers and have developed a good reputation with the organizers of both the fair and antique show. My daughter gave up her position as guardian of the cash box to become a server because what she really enjoys is interacting with the customers. There is much give-and-take, laughter and teasing, and friendly conversation as the orders are taken, transmitted back to the food preparation people, and delivered to the customers.

I know your situation is different, but I think some of the same principles may apply. I think there's room to see church people coming together to offer goods to people in the community at a price that precludes the buyers claiming a charitable contribution (because the goods are being sold at market value) as more of a group work project than a traditional fundraiser. It's the workers who are making a charitable contribution to the church rather than the community. Traditionally, church people work at individual jobs and bring the tithe from their income. In this case, church people are working together on their own time and contributing the entire proceeds to the church.

There's still the sticky question of Sunday sales, but even that becomes less of an issue if working the booth is pleasant enough to feel as much like fellowship as work and it's not done on a regular basis.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

I am not as informed as many of you on such matters, but I've always viewed these (don't sell on Sunday) attitudes as another example of a 'religious mindset' that isn't really part of our faith. Sunday is not a 'sabbath' and our church buildings are not a 'temple'. But it seems to be a common knee jerk reaction among many church folk.

Ah, another chance to repeat some BC observations.

My common way of conveying my "Sabbath" convictions is this: "God said I could have one day off a week and I try very hard to take it." You're right in saying that Sunday is not the Sabbath, but I have a lot better chance of keeping my Sundays work-free than any other day of the week. Most of my battle to carve out a few hours of true freedom and relaxation on Sundays are with the church. I gladly give the church the bulk of Sunday morning and a couple of hours on Sunday evening, but there's a constant drive to encroach on the rest of the day and whittle it down to nothing. If I can keep the church at bay on Sunday, the rest of the world is fairly content to let me have the day off. All it takes is the discipline to get what I need to get done in the six days I have to do it.

I find it interesting that Sabbath observance (one day of rest a week) is considered an outdated "religious mindset" by Christians who can't afford to let a day slip by without making it productive, yet the rest of the Ten Commandments are pressed on society as timeless principles. When I read the books of Jeremiah and Nehemiah, Sabbath observance is a major concern of Yahweh right up to the end of the Old Testament. When did it slip off the list of timeless principles? Jesus isn't recorded as breaking the Sabbath. He went to synagogue and then wandered aimlessly through fields of grain with his followers while doing simple acts of kindness. It's not as though they were out catching fish to sustain them for the next week.

I don't shop on Sundays unless something disrupts my regular routine -- such as being out of town for the weekend and hungry for Sunday dinner. Yes, I know the stores are always open and people have to work in them whether I go there or not, but I do what I can as an individual by making sure it's not my dollar that routinely makes it profitable to schedule people to work on the day our society most respects as the "Sabbath."

I know that many people have a different attitude toward Sunday and that's all right with me. But God still said I could have one day off a week and I sure do enjoy it when I can get it. Thankfully, I'm not required to work and shop on Sunday just because all the best Christians do it.

On the other hand, if I found pleasure in selling fireworks to people from the community as a way of supporting the church and it took only one Sunday afternoon a year, I wouldn't mind doing it. I'm more concerned about the principle of declaring myself (and my "servants" at various business establishments) dispensable to the survival of the world for one day a week and trusting God to keep things going without me and my commerce than following inflexible rules for Sabbath observance.

I could go on, but there's a meeting at church before tonight's NMI service and I feel pressured to be there. I'd run for office so I could lobby for meetings at other times, but the people who make these decisions meet on Sunday. :(

Marsha

[Wilson Deaton]

... I am somewhat excited about the sale because it could mean hundreds, if not thousands towards the youth and children's ministries...


In the light of the scriptural teaching concerning the giving of tithes and offerings for the support of the gospel, and for the erection of church buildings, no Nazarene church should engage in any method of fund-raising that would detract from these principles, ....

The Manual doesn't say that the gospel and erection of church buildings must be paid for EXCLUSIVELY by tithes and offerings. It says that tithes and offerings should be given to support those things. It says we shouldn't do fundraisers that would detract from such giving.

My interpration can be illustrated as follows:

Question: "How are we going to pay support our ministries and build our new facility?"
A1: "Let's pool our tithes and offerings and pay for it that way?"
A2: "That's a great idea. But I don't make much so my tithes aren't much. I could also bake some pies to sell and I'd also help wash cars. That way, we could raise even more funds."
A3: "I have a better idea: I know a sales opportunity by which we could make so much money we could support our ministries and build our building without having to ask for tithes and offerings."
My interpretation is that A1 is appropriate per Manual because tithes and offerings are given for the support of the gospel and the erection of church buildings.

My interpretation is that A2 is appropriate per Manual because tithes and offerings are still given for the support of the gospel and the erection of church buildings even though supplemental fundraising is taking place.

My interpretation is that A3 is not appropriate per Manual because in this case the fundraising has detracted from tithes and offerings being given for the support of the gospel and the erection of church buildings.

Is your fundraiser (in your case selling fireworks) going to supplement tithes and offerings or detract from the giving of tithes and offerings? If your answer is "supplement," proceed to the rest of the Manual fundraising filters.


.., no Nazarene church should engage in any method of fund-raising that would ... hinder the gospel message, ...

The gospel involves certain values and priorities... Fundraising that is exploitative or that feeds dysfunction or that devalues people, etc. would hinder the gospel message.


.., no Nazarene church should engage in any method of fund-raising that would ... sully the name of the church,

Will your fundraiser give the church a bad name? Selling a product that isn't up to stated quality, not delivered in a timely fashion, car washes where cars get scratched up but not clean, etc.


.., no Nazarene church should engage in any method of fund-raising that would ... discriminate against the poor, ...

Putting on a $50 per person family dinner theater could raise a lot of funds but would it exclude a poor family of six in your congregration or neighborhood?


.., no Nazarene church should engage in any method of fund-raising that would ... misdirect the people’s energies from promoting the gospel.

Is the fundraiser so much work that other, more direct ministries suffer as a result?

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

I know you're not supposed to have special offerings to pay your budgets...

I suppose there isn't a DS alive who would tell a church that their money, however acquired, 'is no good here'. My church has more than once taken out a bank loan to pay budgets on time.

[Billy Cox]

It says we shouldn't do fundraisers that would detract from such giving.

Let's say that the youth group is doing a fundraiser for a mission trip. The most logical place to focus that fundraising is within the church, but there is a monetary threshold beyond which the fundraising starts to cannibalize other giving. Where is that threshold? Who knows? Enter the Manual to save the day. Smart fundraisers find a way to tap other sources of money (hint: outside the local congregation)

There is also the fact that many fundraisers have a 'cost of goods sold' which reduces the net profit. Tithes and offerings have a very low overhead cost, so the church gets to keep a higher percentage of the proceeds.


Putting on a $50 per person family dinner theater could raise a lot of funds but would it exclude a poor family of six in your congregration or neighborhood?


Does this mean that the church-owned payday loan business is out of bounds??

But seriously, fundraisers of any sort 'exclude' people who have no funds, so at what point does excluding poor people from participating become problematic?

[David Pettigrew]

My church has more than once taken out a bank loan to pay budgets on time.

Are you serious?

[Shea Zellweger]

Are you serious?

His isn't the only one. This was common practice in one church I'm aware of. there was also the church that paid its budgets into a high-yield savings account for the year and sent them all in prior to District Assembly while pocketing the interest...

[Billy Cox]

Are you serious?

Did you see a smiley? (serious, yes)

[Gene Tatsch]

I guess I'm dense: how does this activity operationally relate to our stated mission (1. love God with our whole being, and 2. discipling)?

[Shea Zellweger]

I guess I'm dense: how does this activity operationally relate to our stated mission (1. love God with our whole being, and 2. discipling)?

In approximately the same manner as any number of other fundraising options, like those Krispy Kreme discount cards that were being sold by a church out in your neck of the woods, or the coffeehouses that are sprouting up in churches in many urban areas- they give us more resources for attempting to make more disciples.

[Ryan Scott]

How is this different, at least fundamentally, from a congregation renting steeple space to a cell phone provider? It seems like the same sort of revenue.

I know everyone likes fireworks and all, but they do lead to some stupid behavior at times. I suppose my biggest question is on what degree you'd be potentially enabling harmful activity. Is this on the list with alcohol or with an all you can eat ice cream buffet?

[Ryan Scott]

It might also be a positive statement to make that you stop selling fireworks for the day of worship even if it means giving up some of the money you could have otherwise made. Isn't that the sort of sacrifice to which we call our people?

The money from Mon-Sat might be less than what you could have made on Sunday, but it's still better than where you started.

[John Kennedy]

How is this different, at least fundamentally, from a congregation renting steeple space to a cell phone provider? It seems like the same sort of revenue.

I know everyone likes fireworks and all, but they do lead to some stupid behavior at times. I suppose my biggest question is on what degree you'd be potentially enabling harmful activity. Is this on the list with alcohol or with an all you can eat ice cream buffet?

Well, my church doesn't rent steeple space for a cell phone tower, but we do have one of those funny looking 'pine trees' on another part of the property. Since the church's property is quite large, we also have a large community garden on the property.

The rental income from the cell tower goes into the operating/maintenance budget. Since it's a UCC congregation, we don't worry too much about what the Manual says. I know of a Free Methodist church a few miles down the road that has a cell tower on their property and they didn't seem too worried about the Discipline in their case.

Selling fireworks in 'green country' like the midwest or east might be ok. In tinder dry, apt-to-go-up-in-flames-anytime SoCal, selling even the 'safe and sane' kind would be a major PR blunder for a church. In San Bernardino civic organizations that sell them for fund raisers take a lot of flak from people who live in the fire-prone foothill areas.

[Glenda Harvey]

I live in the mountains. Fireworks aren't allowed. Fireworks are also illegal in the City of Highland. However the San Bernardino Wal Mart is in a Donut hole area that is surrounded by the City of Highland. By some technicality it is considered part of San Bernardino so organizations sell fireworks there. People in Highland buy the fireworks and shoot them off in their back yard until the Fire Dept comes around and stops them.

[George Wallace]

NAZ MANUAL
27.2. SECOND. By avoiding evil of every kind, including: ...
(2) Profaning of the Lord’s Day by participation in unnecessary
secular activities, thereby indulging in practices
that deny its sanctity (Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14;
Mark 2:27-28; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).

[Marsha Lynn]

NAZ MANUAL
27.2. SECOND. By avoiding evil of every kind, including: ...
(2) Profaning of the Lord’s Day by participation in unnecessary
secular activities, thereby indulging in practices
that deny its sanctity (Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14;
Mark 2:27-28; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).

Hi, George. Did you mean to post this here? Or did you think you were posting to this thread (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?882-What-do-you-think-is-the-least-followed-article-in-the-Manual&p=13035)?



(Hmm... to add a smiley or not? That is the question. Subtle humor is such a challenge here.)

[George Wallace]

I can't help but wonder if I have allowed my conscience/convictions to become dulled over the years by an easy way to raise funds for the church.

talk :)

Marsha,
From the above comment coupled with the questions contained in the post; I took it sort of as "Should we?" "Shouldn't we?" "Waddaya think?"

In that context one might think, 'Well we have here some competing ideas; what is our best course? Do we have a standard in place?'

The answer is yes we (that would be the church in question) do have a standard or a guideline. I think selling on church property on the Lord's Day is unambiguously something that qualifies as "participation in unnecessary secular activities"

... As for the fund raising by selling fireworks in general, I think at first blush that this would be classified as adiaphora ἀδιάφορα "indifferent things". I guess it would depend upon how the community viewed the fireworks sales.

But clearly, selling on the Lord's Day send the message that really it is no different than any other day.

Rev. Mack a retired Naz pastor that used to attend my first Naz church back in the 80's wouldn't even have the Sunday paper delivered!

The other thread you mentioned/linked is also interesting. One could re-title it as "Which article do you flagrantly disregard the most?"

I often wonder if the Naz Manual shouldn't be printed upon bathroom tissue stock, at least then it might actually be of some use.

What would a person or church actually have to do to fall under church discipline? How far would / could the violations proceed?

Maybe, just maybe, if Baal worship or Asherah pole were introduced that just might give someone pause.

George

[John Kennedy]

I live in the mountains. Fireworks aren't allowed. Fireworks are also illegal in the City of Highland. However the San Bernardino Wal Mart is in a Donut hole area that is surrounded by the City of Highland. By some technicality it is considered part of San Bernardino so organizations sell fireworks there. People in Highland buy the fireworks and shoot them off in their back yard until the Fire Dept comes around and stops them.

Oh, surely, no one in Highland would do that sort of thing. Actually, in spite of it being Highland Congregational, the church, or so I'm told, is in one of those San Bernardino islands that seem, along with pockets of county territory, to make the east side of town a jurisdictional nightmare.

Thankfully we've never had a fire - one hopes the entities involved will go ahead and fight the thing and work out whose fire it is later.

[David Troxler]

This issue has at least 4 different components to it to consider. Here are the four I came up with...
1. Fundraisers for the church/ministry use
2. Selling on Sunday
3. Selling fireworks in particular
4. Maintaining the integrity assumed in the Manual

Personally, I am finding problems at several levels here.

Let me stick to the issue of selling fireworks for the moment. Is the church insured to sell this? What are the potential ramifications of someone being hurt by their misuse? Is the church liable? (I liken this to the person who supplies alcoholic beverages to a minor who then goes out and has an accident. In some locations, the person at fault is the seller as well as the user.)
Is this the image the church wants to have in the community, as a seller of 4th of July fireworks? (I see this as different from the food stand at the county fair. Perhaps I am wrong to view it differently.)

Regarding the potential for income to the church, this is not a cell tower generating rental income. This is a choice to place potentially dangerous items in the hands of people who may not be qualified to handle them. Is that choice worth the income?

Regarding the slippery slope to which Jason initially alluded, what steps for discernment are being discussed to prevent the fund raiser from becoming overtly problematic? Are we dulled to the need for income that we take things out of God's hands? If we are taking risks, why not have a bingo night? (I know, it is a leap.)

This is not my decision thankfully, but I would be hesitant, even if another more experienced church nearby gave us their insight.

I have more questions than I have answers.

[Marsha Lynn]

What would a person or church actually have to do to fall under church discipline? How far would / could the violations proceed?

Maybe, just maybe, if Baal worship or Asherah pole were introduced that just might give someone pause.

Nah, not nearly that much. I'm pretty sure advocating a prayer language would still be sufficient in most places.

It does seem, however, that Sabbath observance at any level other than Sunday morning church attendance has to rest on personal conviction rather than outward discipline. My theory is that most church leaders would feel too convicted themselves to pass judgment on anyone else concerning the value of a weekly rhythm of six days of work and one of rest. I think there is room for exceptions in our life under grace such as would be the case for the fireworks stand. But for too many of us, it's the resting part that is an exception -- to our loss in my opinion.

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

Nah, not nearly that much. I'm pretty sure advocating a prayer language would still be sufficient in most places.

It does seem, however, that Sabbath observance at any level other than Sunday morning church attendance has to rest on personal conviction rather than outward discipline. My theory is that most church leaders would feel too convicted themselves to pass judgment on anyone else concerning the value of a weekly rhythm of six days of work and one of rest. I think there is room for exceptions in our life under grace such as would be the case for the fireworks stand. But for too many of us, it's the resting part that is an exception -- too our loss in my opinion.

Marsha

I would suggest (and have previously done so) that for many Christians, Sunday is not actually a day of rest. Given Jesus' words concerning the Sabbath, and how it was made for humankind and not the other way around, I think many people would be better served to observe personal Sabbaths on days other than Sunday.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Would it have been a problem if the Israelites set up shop to sell Asherah poles? :tongue:

[Marsha Lynn]

I would suggest (and have previously done so) that for many Christians, Sunday is not actually a day of rest. Given Jesus' words concerning the Sabbath, and how it was made for humankind and not the other way around, I think many people would be better served to observe personal Sabbaths on days other than Sunday.

Have I previously expressed strong disagreement? Because I will now.

I don't see how someone with a full-time job could possibly do what you suggest. For most people the only day available would be Saturday. How in the world could a person who works M-F take every Saturday as a "Sabbath" and fit all their weekend plans around a full Sunday church schedule?

If you're talking about taking portions of several other days to add up to a full day, why not make the biggest of those portions Sunday afternoon? After all, it's the day of the week that the "world" is most inclined to leave alone. If you can't keep Sunday afternoon free, I doubt you can keep Monday evening free.

It takes planning, but I'm convinced that Sunday really is the easiest day to set aside for rest. I'm not a pastor but I do teach Sunday School and play the piano and am the church treasurer, which sometimes prompts people to want to do "business" with me on Sundays. Still, I consider my Sunday routine restful -- up at the same time as every other day to spend a relaxing couple of hours in prayer and final lesson preparation. Off to the church to spend time with some of my favorite people in the world and participate in worship. Home to a simple lunch. This time of the year that includes a trip to the garden to collect up some produce. I might even pull some weeds while I'm out there or later in the afternoon, not because it has to be done but because I can take time to do it without worrying about what other tasks I'm neglecting while enjoying the garden. There's absolutely nothing on my "gotta get done today" list on the good days.

The hardest part is keeping the church from filling it with meetings, music practice, and other "non-restful" events. I continually fight that battle. No, I will not practice music at 9:00 a.m. I will practice any other day of the week, but my Sunday mornings are unavailable. No, I will not use Sunday afternoons for routine "fellowship" events. Let's look for another day. Yes, I will run through this one song with you this one time after the morning service because I know you're a harried single mother and it will cost me less to practice now than to force you to find another time. But next time you're scheduled to sing, I will try to see it coming and get together with you on another day.

The next hardest part is making Sunday rest a high enough priority to be proactive earlier in the week in making sure it's a low-stress day. Yesterday I messed up by not realizing there was a Sunday evening "afterglow" at the church for which I would need to contribute food. Definitely poor planning on my part that even resulted in one of those rare Sunday outings to the grocery store -- while in the midst of this thread, ironically enough.

The part that takes some humor and humility is sticking to my guns even after it's obvious that my Sunday standards are capricious and easily shot down as weak and hypocritical. Sure I made an exception yesterday that makes it obvious that my convictions against going to the grocery store aren't as strong as I might imply they are. That doesn't mean I'm throwing up my hands and giving up. It means I'm checking the July calendar now to make sure the monthly "afterglow" doesn't catch me by surprise again. I've been doing this a long time and just keep plugging away at it. God still told me that it was all right to take one day off a week and I believe that it's possible to do so even when it's obvious that I haven't totally mastered the technique yet. But if I can't make it work on Sunday, I don't have much hope of getting a grip on any other day of the week.

Marsha

[Wilson Deaton]

I think selling on church property on the Lord's Day is unambiguously something that qualifies as[I] "participation in unnecessary secular activities"

Sorry, George, but this isn't "unambiguous." If it was, we'd all agree.

A group of Christians sacrificially giving of their time and energy to raise funds to be able to carry out Christian ministries, (interacting with and providing a service to their community while their doing it) isn't a "secular activity."

Wilson

[Mike Schutz]

The city that I live in in Missouri allows non-profits to apply for a license to sell fireworks on their property. Last year, our church applied for the license but we were not selected (About 200 groups apply and about 12 are chosen). This year our church was selected and we currently have a huge tent on the front lawn of the church. We will likely make $15,000 to $35,000 from this sale based on the amount of product we have.

This year, the 4th is on a Sunday (about 60% of all fireworks are sold on the 4th). At first, our church decided not to sell on the 4th but after speaking with another church with more experience, our church opted to sell on Sunday from 2pm to midnight. I have spoken to about 10 people from the congregation who are disappointed about the decision to sell on Sunday. When I asked for their reasoning, they responded, "If we begin slipping on our standards in regards to this issue, who knows what we will be 'ok' with next..."


So, I guess there are a few questions/issues here. Would you ever allow/vote for your church to sell fireworks (if it was legal)? What about selling on the 4th, which is a Sunday? Are you more of a bottle-rocket type person or a sparklers/smoke bomb person? kidding.

50% of the profits raised will go to building repair/maintinance. The other 50% will go to a ministry of the church that the worker chooses. For example, if I put in 15 hours of work, my wage would go to the youth ministry (if I chose it to). As one who has never received a budget payment in five years, I am somewhat excited about the sale because it could mean hundreds, if not thousands towards the youth and children's ministries... However, even as I type that last statement, I can't help but wonder if I have allowed my conscience/convictions to become dulled over the years by an easy way to raise funds for the church.

talk :)

To specifically answer each of the questions (my own personal opinions):
1. I would have a problem with a church I pastor selling fireworks, because I do not want the community thinking of the church as just another business, or even just another non-profit. ("Bob, where did you buy the fireworks - at the stand across the street from Wal-Mart? No, I got them at the Nazarene church. They had cheaper prices on sparklers.") But Mike - doesn't your food and clothing ministry have several yard sales during the year as a way of helping folks who are too proud to come in for free clothing, but will come in for reduced prices? So, wouldn't folks in your community think of the church as just another yard sale place? - Yeah, but not the same for me.
2. I do have a problem with a church conducting commercial business on a Sunday, especially if it is not specifically related to ministry purposes. i don't have a problem with a church selling devotional books in the foyer. This is a convenience for folks - and is directly related to the ministry. Again, I don't want folks thinking of the church as just another commercial venture.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

First off, I believe in the ability of a local church to decide it's best understanding of the context in which she finds herself. I regard this ability higher and higher by the day. I think that more and more needs to be decided locally as missionally as possible. So, J-Mac, if Shaun and most of the rest of the church is comfortable with this, then go with it.

However, if it were my own context, I don't think I'd recommend it. I asked with a smiley above about the Israelites selling Asherah poles. I was only half-joking. I do not mean to imply that anyone who uses fireworks is worshiping the United States of America. However, there is an over-nationalistic fervor at times in our country that often crosses the border of idolatry. I'm not implying that a church who sells fireworks has crossed this syncretic border (as did the Israelites with Ba'al), but just that it would make me uncomfortable to join in on the fervor of the highest day of this civic nation by selling instruments of that celebration. For instance, I might feel differently about selling Christmas trees on Sundays during Advent & Christmas.

Lastly, if money is the only factor in doing something, it might be good to think long and hard about it. Our church indeed has cell antennae in our steeple. We went to certain lengths to make sure that we had written into the lease strong language that makes sure that this arrangement doesn't interfere whatsoever with our mission, worship, schedule, etc.

[Tim Bourland]

I appreciate Jeremy's comments regarding context.

If you were in my context, you wouldn't even be giving it a second thought...you would actually be considering canceling the day's worship services (GASP!!) so that the church would have a new opportunity to get outside the four walls and offer some creative ministry to the shoppers. "Need your car washed, oil changed, blood pressure checked, etc.....free?"

[Marsha Lynn]

So, I guess there are a few questions/issues here. Would you ever allow/vote for your church to sell fireworks (if it was legal)? What about selling on the 4th, which is a Sunday?


To specifically answer each of the questions (my own personal opinions):

Hmm... he did say "vote," didn't he? I am so seldom involved in any sort of church vote I brushed past that part.

Here's my take:

1. The fact that selling fireworks is even a consideration makes it obvious to me that this church is in a very different setting than I have ever encountered. I would have to understand the local culture better to make a decision on such an issue. Where I am, it would never be considered.

2. Where I am (as in much of the U.S. according to some outside observers who post here) it's not easy to isolate and vote on ideas and opinions apart from the people who hold them. A vote against the idea would be seen as a slap in the face to anyone with an emotional stake in seeing it implemented. I would have to take that into consideration in determining how to vote. I doubt that I would be in favor of the idea itself, but I might decide to stop short of voting against those who were running with it even if I felt like I couldn't participate in good conscience. I have often been comforted by the words of Gamaliel in Acts 5: "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

We have an enterprise going on right now -- with a "quicker path" to evangelism rather than financial profit as the motivation/goal. I see so many red flags I can't even wrap my mind around a scenario where it will flourish. Fortunately, no one has asked me to cast a vote on the matter and what little concern I have vocalized has been brushed aside without notice since those supporting it are certain it has God's full stamp of approval. I'm watching with interest to see how it comes out. If it is all it is promised to be then I will realize that God works in ways I can't comprehend and that I'm not always on the inside track for what He's doing right under my nose. If it fails, it will not be because I voted against those supporting it.

I'm thinking that's not a bad place to be.

Marsha

[George Wallace]

Sorry, George, but this isn't "unambiguous." If it was, we'd all agree.

A group of Christians sacrificially giving of their time and energy to raise funds to be able to carry out Christian ministries, (interacting with and providing a service to their community while their doing it) isn't a "secular activity."

Wilson

Sorry, Wilson it is clear; very clear. If people choose to reject that then …whatever.

What you have here is really a question of Christian Ethics, and Witness. I can see it being discussed and debated by a Board. I can even see people believing that the Pros and the Cons could be considered roughly equal. At that point what do you do? Is there something that might be of guidance?


He hath put an honour upon it; it is holy to the Lord, and honourable; and he hath put blessings into it which he hath encouraged us to expect from him in the religious observation of that day. Let us not profane, dishonour, and level that with common time, which God's blessing hath thus dignified and distinguished. Wesley’s Notes on Exodus 20

Then again there is the Manual.


NAZ MANUAL
27.2. SECOND. By avoiding evil of every kind, including: ...
(2) Profaning of the Lord’s Day by participation in unnecessary
secular activities, thereby indulging in practices
that deny its sanctity (Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14;
Mark 2:27-28; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).


You are really left with only two questions here. Is the selling of fireworks or whatever a necessity?

That answer is clearly NO. (That is made clear by the very questions posed in the originating thread.)

So then you are left with; is selling a secular activity? Well I know folks can and do disagree over “Jesus Wept” but the mental gymnastics required to say that the sale of fireworks or what have you on the Lord’s Day on Church property is a sacred activity are frankly staggering.


We are to understand from this that the day is to be set apart for the worship of God and devoted to the spiritual interests of mankind. For this reason, all secular work is prohibited, except that which is commonly known as a work of necessity or mercy. This truth is brought out clearly by Isaiah also, as follows: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and 8halt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words (Isa. 58:13). Thus the Old Testament fixes the Sabbath day as a time of worship and communion with God. It is a cessation of labor, whether of the body or the mind, in order to permit time for spiritual things. Our Lord gives us in the New Testament, two principles also, which parallel the twofold aspect of the Sabbath as found in the Old Testament. The first has reference to the holiness of the day, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Here the true inwardness of the Sabbath is seen - a spiritual rest of the soul, from which flows that worship which is in Spirit and in truth. The second, concerns man's interests, And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (Mark 2:27, 28). Here it is clearly taught, that those things which pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests, are to be permitted on the sabbath day; and this is a true and sure test as to the kind and extent of secular labor on the Sabbath day.
Dr. H. ORTON WILEY Christian Theology CHAPTER XXXII THE CHURCH: ITS WORSHIP AND SACRAMENTS

So, there is the Church Manual; then there are Christian Ethics Texts; and there are the writings of Church Theologians, sorry but they all seem crystal clear here.

Of course there is also Scripture...

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25

“But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Jeremiah 18:12


So, in this context the selling must either be an act of (1) necessity; or an act of (2) mercy; or (3) "pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests.

And it's one, two, three strikes YOU''RE OUT! At the ole' ball game...

George

[Shea Zellweger]

Sorry, Wilson it is clear; very clear. If people choose to reject that then …whatever.

What you have here is really a question of Christian Ethics, and Witness. I can see it being discussed and debated by a Board. I can even see people believing that the Pros and the Cons could be considered roughly equal. At that point what do you do? Is there something that might be of guidance?


He hath put an honour upon it; it is holy to the Lord, and honourable; and he hath put blessings into it which he hath encouraged us to expect from him in the religious observation of that day. Let us not profane, dishonour, and level that with common time, which God's blessing hath thus dignified and distinguished. Wesley’s Notes on Exodus 20

Then again there is the Manual.




You are really left with only two questions here. Is the selling of fireworks or whatever a necessity?

That answer is clearly NO. (That is made clear by the very questions posed in the originating thread.)

So then you are left with; is selling a secular activity? Well I know folks can and do disagree over “Jesus Wept” but the mental gymnastics required to say that the sale of fireworks or what have you on the Lord’s Day on Church property is a sacred activity are frankly staggering.


We are to understand from this that the day is to be set apart for the worship of God and devoted to the spiritual interests of mankind. For this reason, all secular work is prohibited, except that which is commonly known as a work of necessity or mercy. This truth is brought out clearly by Isaiah also, as follows: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and 8halt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words (Isa. 58:13). Thus the Old Testament fixes the Sabbath day as a time of worship and communion with God. It is a cessation of labor, whether of the body or the mind, in order to permit time for spiritual things. Our Lord gives us in the New Testament, two principles also, which parallel the twofold aspect of the Sabbath as found in the Old Testament. The first has reference to the holiness of the day, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Here the true inwardness of the Sabbath is seen - a spiritual rest of the soul, from which flows that worship which is in Spirit and in truth. The second, concerns man's interests, And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath (Mark 2:27, 28). Here it is clearly taught, that those things which pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests, are to be permitted on the sabbath day; and this is a true and sure test as to the kind and extent of secular labor on the Sabbath day.
Dr. H. ORTON WILEY Christian Theology CHAPTER XXXII THE CHURCH: ITS WORSHIP AND SACRAMENTS

So, there is the Church Manual; then there are Christian Ethics Texts; and there are the writings of Church Theologians, sorry but they all seem crystal clear here.

Of course there is also Scripture...

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 17:6

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25

“But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ Jeremiah 18:12


So, in this context the selling must either be an act of (1) necessity; or an act of (2) mercy; or (3) "pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests.

And it's one, two, three strikes YOU''RE OUT! At the ole' ball game...

George

Okay, so all of that tells us why we shouldn't be selling fireworks from Friday Evening til Saturday evening... but what about Sunday? :D Again, I'll point to Jesus' words concerning the day in question: "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'"
The Sabbath was not designed for rules and regulations, but for rest. IMHO, church culture does not allow most to have a Sabbath, between Sunday School, Morning Services, committees and boards, and Evening activities, most "church families" I know would point to Sunday as their busiest day, not their most restful. This has been in the Nazarene DNA since Bresee decided to make it public knowledge just how busy he was on Sundays (I wonder if the man found time to eat!). If we really view Sunday as our Sabbath, then we're doing a terrible job of keeping it a Sabbath, and are instead making it into yet another day of work. If, on the other hand, we see Sunday as a day set aside for doing the Lord's work (which appears to be the prevailing thought among American Christians, including the Nazarene contingent), then we have to ask whether this sale of fireworks qualifies as the Lord's work. If the purpose of selling the fireworks is to make connections in the community while also raising money which will go to the mission of the church, then I would say that falls into a category which is more than open for discussion. If we view the work of the Church as sacred, then we must consider the possibility that each thing the church participates in could be viewed as contributing to the work of the church, and therefore sacred. I dislike the idea of saying that some of the work of the church is secular, as that would make it (IMHO) not the work of the church. So, does this sale contribute to the work of the church? I don't know, that's what's being discussed, but I do know that it's not a cut-and-dry situation, and it's certainly not comparable to the Judges situations which you highlighted so nonchalantly.

[George Wallace]

Okay, so all of that tells us why we shouldn't be selling fireworks from Friday Evening til Saturday evening... but what about Sunday? ... I don't know, that's what's being discussed, but I do know that it's not a cut-and-dry situation, and it's certainly not comparable to the Judges situations which you highlighted so nonchalantly.


It is exactly a cut-and-dry situation and it is exactly like the the situation in Judges with respect to God's people doing what is right in their own eyes.

The Methodist/Holiness/Nazarene tradition has always, and I do mean always believed in observing the Lord's Day. That is the Lord's Day not the Lords 1-2 hours on Sunday Morning, but the entire day. Wesley viewed the Christian Sabbath as the the Lord's Day or Sunday. Wiley viewed the Lord's Day or Sunday as a Christian Sabbath. I think you would be hard pressed to find any of the original groups present at Pilot Point that didn't support setting apart the Lord's Day.

The answer to Should we sell XYZ on the Church grounds upon the Lord's Day? Would have been I believe, a resounding and unequivocal NO as late as 35 years ago.

But Marsha is correct. This reverent observance is probably most often disregarded. But, as of yet no one, including at least three Naz Pastor's I have asked that I know that were raised observing the Lord's Day have ever been able to explain why. Other than "...erhh ahh we ah just don't ahh do that anymore...."


I believe Scripture is Clear
Wesley is Clear
Wiley is Clear
and the 2005-2009 Manual is Clear

There is A DAY it IS called the LORD'S DAY according to your own manual this is true. Just because almost no one actually follows it does not change that.

If everybody or almost everybody disagrees then, change the Manual. Until then the answer is clear.

It just proves that everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes.

Like I said.

George

[Dale Cozby]

NAZ MANUAL
27.2. SECOND. By avoiding evil of every kind, including: ...
(2) Profaning of the Lord’s Day by participation in unnecessary
secular activities, thereby indulging in practices
that deny its sanctity (Exodus 20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13-14;
Mark 2:27-28; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10). Oh yeah, well I see your 27.2 and raise you a 33.4! :)

33.4. In listing practices to be avoided we recognize that
no catalog, however inclusive, can hope to encompass all
forms of evil throughout the world. Therefore it is imperative
that our people earnestly seek the aid of the Spirit in
cultivating a sensitivity to evil that transcends the mere letter
of the law; remembering the admonition: “Test everything.
Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”

And now for some humor....
"Dear DS, we didn't have enough tithes and offering to run the church and pay our budgets so we decided to sell Raffle tickets and host a Bingo night at church to pay our budgets, but don't worry it wasn't on Sunday night!"

Dear DS, our church has decided to use the real sabbath(Saturday) so we won't be reporting Sunday AM worship numbers anymore as they would be "0" and it would make us look bad, so we hope you don't mind if we report Saturday afternoon as Sunday AM."

[Tim Bourland]

Wow....

OK, so the district advisory board had better have an interview with Jesus. I heard somewhere he was going around picking crops on the sabbath. That was certainly not necessary! The district had better review his ministerial license situation.

Seriously, my reading of scripture reveals a Sabbath celebrated by Jesus that focused more on the authentic relationship with His Father and His followers, than it did meeting every jot and tittle of the law. I mean, he would never be eligible to be a member, because he was always breaking the rules. In the context of this conversation, "the law" = "the manual."

BTW - have you noticed how many times the Manual and even Wesley is/are quoted more than the life of Christ is examined?

Which is more God-like? Listening to a rehashed SS lesson, singing songs that are so memorized one can write their to-do list for the entire week without missing a single syllable, dozing through another sermon, eating and sleeping behind closed doors, then basically doing the same thing all over again at 6:00 p.m...and all that done totally separated from the "evil world." OR Spending the day in practical ministry to those outside the walls of the clubhouse in creative, meaningful, helpful ways.

Would your church ever consider canceling the church services so that a house could be repaired, yards cleaned, or food and clothing taken to the homeless camps under the overpasses or on the banks for the local river? A day full of actual ministry instead of we've-always-done-it-this-way mediocritistic formality?

I know - this sounds really cynicle...I mean it to sound that way. Call it holy indignation, if you wish.

In my context, if you aren't willing to "sell fireworks" (or whatever "radical" thing you can come up with), you have no chance to be taken seriously by an unbelieving world.

Let me state this clearly for the record - I care far less what my church "boss" thinks than I do the searchers of truth I interact with.

OK, another rant over with. I feel beter now...I think.

[Wilson Deaton]

Sorry, Wilson it is clear; very clear. If people choose to reject that then..;whatever.

Your statement implies one or the other of two possibilities:
I'm stupid for not being able to clearly see something so clear.
I'm a rebellious sinner for clearly seeing the truth and pretending not to while actually blatantly choosing to reject the truth.

Perhaps it's just a psycholgocial defense mechanism kicking in but I still prefer my own assessment that the issus is not as clear as you think it is (even though it looks very clear to you).

Wilson

[Wilson Deaton]

Here it is clearly taught, that those things which pertain to man's highest welfare, that is, his spiritual interests, are to be permitted on the sabbath day; and this is a true and sure test as to the kind and extent of secular labor on the Sabbath day.
Dr. H. ORTON WILEY Christian Theology CHAPTER XXXII THE CHURCH: ITS WORSHIP AND SACRAMENTS[/indent]


Jesus straightened a withered hand and gave sight to the blind on the Sabbath. Those are not spiritual interests, but physical. Thus, either Wiley is correct and Jesus was wrong or Jesus was correct and Wiley is wrong.

Wilson

[John Kennedy]

Jesus straightened a withered hand and gave sight to the blind on the Sabbath. Those are not spiritual interests, but physical. Thus, either Wiley is correct and Jesus was wrong or Jesus was correct and Wiley is wrong.

Wilson

I'd try to sort out whether Jesus or Wiley is correct, but I'm still trying to deal with a Calvinist quoting Wesley.

[Shea Zellweger]

I believe Scripture is Clear

And I believe the only way for Scripture to be clear in this matter is for the individual to completely ignore the life of Christ, particularly his words and teachings considering the sabbath.



Wesley is Clear
Wiley is Clear
and the 2005-2009 Manual is Clear


Well gosh George, ya put me in a tough place... wait, no you didn't. I don't view any of the above sources as some inerrant revelation of what my theological position should be. This is not the first place I disagree with Wesley, nor will it be the last. Same goes for Wiley, and same goes for the Manual. But, as to that last one, since I've agreed to abide by it, I will again submit that this conversation precisely investigates whether selling fireworks (or anything else, for that matter) qualifies as a "secular activity" when the proceeds are benefitting the church. You may have made up your own mind in this matter, but it will continue to be debated regardless of your stance, as others still see through a glass darkly.

My problem with your Judges reference is that the context of the statement essentially describes Israel as a pagan nation, and so by quoting that verse at myself and others, you are painting us with the brush of infidelity toward God. Everyone always has and always will do what he or she believes is right, or "what is right in his [or her] own eyes," but you and I both know that is not the context or meaning of the quote, and it is very much an insult when leveled against your fellow Christians.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'd try to sort out whether Jesus or Wiley is correct, but I'm still trying to deal with a Calvinist quoting Wesley.

I think it's like Paul quoting the Greek philosophers...

[John Kennedy]

Here is the relevant Manual passage:





By the way, we're having a "country pie supper" fundraiser tonight. My contribution? People will bid on the chance to put a pie in my face. Surely there's something in the Manual about that.

Well, it depends on whether they still have that bit in there about makeup.

[Hans Deventer]

Your statement implies one or the other of two possibilities:
I'm stupid for not being able to clearly see something so clear.
I'm a rebellious sinner for clearly seeing the truth and pretending not to while actually blatantly choosing to reject the truth.

Perhaps it's just a psychological defense mechanism kicking in but I still prefer my own assessment that the issue is not as clear as you think it is (even though it looks very clear to you).

Wilson

I think tour own assessment is spot on. But of course I share your stupidity and sinful rejection of the truth.

[Randy Wise]

Wow this thread has turned into an explosive issue:)

No - my house is a house of worship
No - keep the sabbath
yes - its lawful to do good on the sabbath
no - its against the manual
yes - the hell with the manual/boss we are seeking truth!
yes - you are not reading the manual correctly

Is anybody fearful someone might get hurt by the fireworks? They do explode.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

If you sell the idea.

(1) It should be/will done in the parking lot and not in the building.
(2) It won't be done on a Sunday
(3) It will be limited to the least dangerous type of fireworks. (I cringe still)

Randy

Can we vote?

[Jim Chabot]

If you sell the idea.

(1) It should be/will done in the parking lot and not in the building.
(2) It won't be done on a Sunday
(3) It will be limited to the least dangerous type of fireworks. (I cringe still)

Randy

Can we vote?

Sure, I'll vote no. I'm thinking that I'm not really on board with much of any church fundraising outside of giving. Why do we need to fundraise in the first place, sure we can do more if we have more, so for me the question is this. Do we need or should we do more? I'm thinking that a quote from another thread is making some sense to me here, "Our job is not to grow a church, our job is to make Christlike disciples." Jesse Middendorf. It just seemed appropriate said here. So I guess for me it would be no fireworks, no carwashes, no trinket sales.

[Shea Zellweger]

Sure, I'll vote no. I'm thinking that I'm not really on board with much of any church fundraising outside of giving. Why do we need to fundraise in the first place, sure we can do more if we have more, so for me the question is this. Do we need or should we do more? I'm thinking that a quote from another thread is making some sense to me here, "Our job is not to grow a church, our job is to make Christlike disciples." Jesse Middendorf. It just seemed appropriate said here. So I guess for me it would be no fireworks, no carwashes, no trinket sales.

No making and selling tents?

[Randy Wise]

Sure, I'll vote no. I'm thinking that I'm not really on board with much of any church fundraising outside of giving. Why do we need to fundraise in the first place, sure we can do more if we have more, so for me the question is this. Do we need or should we do more? I'm thinking that a quote from another thread is making some sense to me here, "Our job is not to grow a church, our job is to make Christlike disciples." Jesse Middendorf. It just seemed appropriate said here. So I guess for me it would be no fireworks, no carwashes, no trinket sales.

Perhaps my assumption was wrong in that I thought a group wanted to do this activity (freewill) and were seeking permission, that is a vote to its "ok to proceed" and not something that is dictated to others as a "must do"

Randy

[Jeremy D. Scott]

BTW - have you noticed how many times the Manual and even Wesley is/are quoted more than the life of Christ is examined?

You mean like the part of the life of Christ when he cleared the courts of the house of worship of those raising funds to support the work of said house of worship?

[Shea Zellweger]

You mean like the part of the life of Christ when he cleared the courts of the house of worship of those raising funds to support the work of said house of worship?

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter, and am wondering how much impact one's interpretation of this passage and Jesus' motives impacts one's views on selling things at church...

[Hans Deventer]

You mean like the part of the life of Christ when he cleared the courts of the house of worship of those raising funds to support the work of said house of worship?

Yeah! That's the only thing He did anyway, isn't it? The rest was mere talk. :smilies1390:

[Jim Chabot]

No making and selling tents?

Making and selling tents is not the same thing, not even close. Tents are made and sold with no connection to the church, one simply engages in an occupation or enterprise then directs funds to ministry as he or she chooses, we do not engage in tentmaking with the gimick that "it's for the church", or, "help send a needy kid to camp".

Although I would gladly purchase a well made tent, I will not purchase a tent from a "ministry" or because the tentmaker was a christian, such activities promote a negative witness.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter, and am wondering how much impact one's interpretation of this passage and Jesus' motives impacts one's views on selling things at church...

I'm not sure it's about selling things at all and rather is about the nature and purpose of selling things. I actually agree with most of what Tim said. I just don't think it's a clear as he thinks it is and saw his judgment of others as over-stepping the possibilities of the issue. From what Tim says in his post, "anything goes." I'm not sure that attitude is grace-full more than it is ignorant. There has to be some understanding of lines. The local church making a presence at the local 4th of July Parade or passing out bottles of water to the crowd may be one thing, selling the (dangerous!) instruments of that often idolatrous celebration may be another.

If the point is money alone and there are any questions as to detraction from the missio Dei, it's not so clear-cut.


Yeah! That's the only thing He did anyway, isn't it? The rest was mere talk. :smilies1390:

Hans, stop crying. :tongue: My point was that it's not nearly as clear-cut and dried as Tim thinks it is. His harsh judgment of anyone who deems that they would choose not to sell fireworks is missing out on the missio dei is just wrong. His assumption that people don't consider the life of Christ is wrong. I would think you'd understand this as one who wants the nonessentials of the faith to be grace-ened. I'm fine with you consuming alcohol (for real!). Can't you return the grace to someone(s) who might deem that selling the instruments of the celebration of a pagan nation's birth perhaps isn't the best understanding of local Kingdom mission?

It's one thing to say, "I might not do this." It's another to say, "You shouldn't either."

Just the same, it's one thing to say, "I would definitely do this," and another to say, "You definitely should too [or you're not Christ-like]."

[Randy Wise]

Well I believe, as I attempted, when dealing with each other we should listen to the objections of all and address those objections as valid and important. Then a compromise can be achieved in such matters. (hopefully) Jesus is the Lord and though He took care in some cases not to offend, such as paying a temple tax, Jesus is the Lord of even the sabbath. None of that speaks to me of this issue other than a way to deal with each other.

I vote "yes" for those who "want to" do the task. Assuming legal and liability issues have been addressed.

Randy

[Shea Zellweger]

Making and selling tents is not the same thing, not even close. Tents are made and sold with no connection to the church, one simply engages in an occupation or enterprise then directs funds to ministry as he or she chooses, we do not engage in tentmaking with the gimick that "it's for the church", or, "help send a needy kid to camp".

Although I would gladly purchase a well made tent, I will not purchase a tent from a "ministry" or because the tentmaker was a christian, such activities promote a negative witness.

So, to bring this back to the fireworks... If a person or group of people were to sell the fireworks on their own, and then give 100% of the proceeds to the church, you'd have no problem with it? But, since Jason has mentioned that these permits go to non-profits, they would have to do it in the name of the church- is that the point where it becomes a bad thing? Or is it not until they start offering them on the church property? I do understand your differentiation between the two, I'm just wondering where the line is in your mind. Since Paul was not ashamed of his ministry, and he was the one doing the selling, I imagine his customers knew precisely where the profits were going, and it was his own ministry he was supporting... At what point would Paul have been crossing the line?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

By the way, I appreciate how J-Mac began this thread: asked for our input as to what "we would do." This is such a non-essential that it's difficult for me to see how anyone could come down so hard on one side or the other. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Hans Deventer]

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter, and am wondering how much impact one's interpretation of this passage and Jesus' motives impacts one's views on selling things at church...

I think the main problem was that they did all this in the Court of the Gentiles, thus effectively showing how they could not care less about gentiles coming to the temple of God. So instead of being a light to the nations, they rather robbed their own countrymen and kept the nations out.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Fort Osage CotN is not alone. Just got this (http://www.kcby.com/news/local/97476104.html) in my email.

[Jason McPherson]

Thank you to everyone who has commented. It has been interesting hearing your voices on the matter (and feel free to continue the conversation).

After hearing some of the dialogue, I thought it would mention a few things that may contribute to the conversation.
1. Fireworks are a major part of the culture in the greater K.C. area. In Independence, MO alone, there are at least 12 firework tents that I can think of off the top of my head. So, the concept of selling fireworks, church or another non-profit, is quite common.
2. In terms of injuries, the church has passed all safety code and cannot be held responsible for injury (legally).
3. Personally, my greatest motivation for selling fireworks is to raise money for studets and youth staff to attend NYC 2011, which is close to $1100 per person.

My wife made an interesting comment to me over dinner the other night, "I refuse to support a fundraiser whose main focus is to make up for a lack of faithful giving."

[Jim Chabot]

Thank you to everyone who has commented. It has been interesting hearing your voices on the matter (and feel free to continue the conversation).

After hearing some of the dialogue, I thought it would mention a few things that may contribute to the conversation.
1. Fireworks are a major part of the culture in the greater K.C. area. In Independence, MO alone, there are at least 12 firework tents that I can think of off the top of my head. So, the concept of selling fireworks, church or another non-profit, is quite common.
2. In terms of injuries, the church has passed all safety code and cannot be held responsible for injury (legally).
3. Personally, my greatest motivation for selling fireworks is to raise money for studets and youth staff to attend NYC 2011, which is close to $1100 per person.

My wife made an interesting comment to me over dinner the other night, "I refuse to support a fundraiser whose main focus is to make up for a lack of faithful giving."

Your wife is a wise woman!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Personally, my greatest motivation for selling fireworks is to raise money for studets and youth staff to attend NYC 2011, which is close to $1100 per person.

And here, perhaps we see that it's not the sale in the Temple courts that's the problem, but the high cost of entrance for those who want to participate in the Temple system.

[Jim Chabot]

So, to bring this back to the fireworks... If a person or group of people were to sell the fireworks on their own, and then give 100% of the proceeds to the church, you'd have no problem with it? But, since Jason has mentioned that these permits go to non-profits, they would have to do it in the name of the church- is that the point where it becomes a bad thing? Or is it not until they start offering them on the church property? I do understand your differentiation between the two, I'm just wondering where the line is in your mind. Since Paul was not ashamed of his ministry, and he was the one doing the selling, I imagine his customers knew precisely where the profits were going, and it was his own ministry he was supporting... At what point would Paul have been crossing the line?

Correct, no problem for me with fireworks per se. They could give any portion they wished from .01 to 100% wouldn't bother me a bit. Now if the churches name was attached to this endeavor, then I'm out. Ok so the permits only go to non-profits, oh well, life isn't always fair and there are other tents that can be made.

I'm not sure where the line is in my mind, but I generally do not support church fundraisers and they make me quite uncomfortable. I'm thinking that Jesus driving out the money changers had nothing to do with either the court of te gentiles or their business practices. I'm thinking that it was rage directed at a people to whom nothing was sacred. That's just my opinion, but I want to be quite far from that kind of crowd. I believe strongly that the church should be supported by giving, and devoid of fundraising activities. Maybe it's just me but that stuff gives me the creeps, it's tawdry and demeaning to the cause of Christ, again just my opinion.

You bring up a good point with Paul. I'm reminded that he struggled with this a bit as he did say that he should be supported by the church. There are Pastor's who carry on this tradition today in much the same fashion, a friend of mine attends a church where the Pastor supplements his income with computer work, I once employed a sign painter who was also a Pastor. But these guys aren't exactly selling cookies on the church lawn.

[Billy Cox]

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter...

Me too, but that's an interpretive 'road less taken.'

[John Kennedy]

By the way, I appreciate how J-Mac began this thread: asked for our input as to what "we would do." This is such a non-essential that it's difficult for me to see how anyone could come down so hard on one side or the other. That's the point I'm trying to make.

The very non-essentiality of the issue is what so effectively fuels the intensity of the discussion. I mean you've been hanging around churches long enough to know that.

[Billy Cox]

You bring up a good point with Paul. I'm reminded that he struggled with this a bit as he did say that he should be supported by the church. There are Pastor's who carry on this tradition today in much the same fashion, a friend of mine attends a church where the Pastor supplements his income with computer work, I once employed a sign painter who was also a Pastor. But these guys aren't exactly selling cookies on the church lawn.

Actually, when Paul worked as a tentmaker, it was not his struggle but was due to the monetary hangups of the Corinthian church. The 'tentmaker spirit' is not about being bivocational, but is about foregoing financial gain in situations where it undermines the credibility of the Gospel message.

[George Wallace]

Would your church ever consider canceling the church services so that a house could be repaired, yards cleaned, or food and clothing taken to the homeless camps under the overpasses or on the banks for the local river? A day full of actual ministry instead of we've-always-done-it-this-way mediocritistic formality?

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why on earth would a group of Christians voluntarily trade their time of Meeting with His Special Presence, Worshiping a Holy God and participating in Covenant Renewal to perform diaconate functions that can be done at any time? No; waiting tables is not a substitute for Corporate Worship.

Tim,
I read your posts and from what I can tell you have had some really bad experiences with “Churchianity.” From my Naznet readings I would interpret that the worst experiences would probably have to be those of Todd E. Then I believe that you and Susan Unger are tied after that. I really feel bad that people who love the Lord have been so hurt and jaded by those who claim to be “THE CHURCH.” But, I believe there really is the worship or worshipful attitude that we have and are supposed to manifest throughout our lives AND a distinct and separated special time to gather as His people, for the unique purpose of Worshiping Him – Corporate Worship = His Word read and preached; His Praises sung; His Sacraments/ordinances and our offering taken.


I know - this sounds really cynicle...I mean it to sound that way….Let me state this clearly for the record - I care far less what my church "boss" thinks than I do the searchers of truth I interact with.

So, the Church; His sheep; which is the body of Christ; is secondary or tertiary or…. While these “searchers of truth” that is unbelievers, or non-Christians or Almost Christians or Goats are the ones who set your standard?

At best that seems to indicate that everything is done with a focus toward on the World. Some sort of a perverted (IMO) attempt at evangelism apart from or without discipleship. Where is the Worship for the Body? Part of the Great Commission is to train up, instruct, to feed the sheep. I see nothing but starving sheep in the above comment.

Why not buy a Harley and go on a Poker run on Sunday AM with the proceed going toward Habitat for Humanity? At worst I see absolutely no difference between you and the World.

Ultimately it is just a confirmation of everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.


Your statement implies one or the other of two possibilities:
I'm stupid for not being able to clearly see something so clear.
I'm a rebellious sinner for clearly seeing the truth and pretending not to while actually blatantly choosing to reject the truth.

Perhaps it's just a psycholgocial defense mechanism kicking in but I still prefer my own assessment that the issus is not as clear as you think it is (even though it looks very clear to you).

Wilson

There is a third possibility. You are not stupid, you are not a rebellious sinner; you just refuse to read the words in their historical context, and somewhat rebelliously impose your current, understanding, and use of language upon that which when read in context is clear.

Your church tradition has always believed in keeping the Lord’s Day set apart.

Once anyone starts to develop a list of do or don’t the danger of legalism becomes apparent.

Most statements on Lord’s Day observance attempt to be explicated w/o listing dos and don’ts.

Thus you have the statements in the Manual and Wiley’s statement.

I said 35 years ago no one would even have entertained this. I really think that that was a liberal estimate I believe that as early as 20-25 years ago no one in your tradition would have ever considered selling on the Lord’s Day as even remotely a “sacred activity” or something of import that should be done on the Lord’s Day. Apparently the church in question at least thought somewhat like this until they found out that 60% of the funds came from selling on that Day. Ethic’s are on sale. It’s a bad idea until we could loose a chuck of $$$ then it’s a good idea. Please!

If you think that culturally this is a good witness, then do like I said rephrase the Manual, but don’t pretend that the Manual statement isn’t a carry over from the days when people would/did observe the Lord’s Day. You know as well as I that you current interpretation is not the way the Holiness tradition interpreted the statement.


Jesus straightened a withered hand and gave sight to the blind on the Sabbath. Those are not spiritual interests, but physical. Thus, either Wiley is correct and Jesus was wrong or Jesus was correct and Wiley is wrong.

Wilson

Context is king.


And I believe the only way for Scripture to be clear in this matter is for the individual to completely ignore the life of Christ, particularly his words and teachings considering the sabbath.

Then you believe huge chunks of Christendom including the historical (and current on paper at least) position of your own denomination to be ignorant of Christ’s life and teaching. I guess that’s fine if it works for you.


Well gosh George, ya put me in a tough place... wait, no you didn't. I don't view any of the above sources as some inerrant revelation of what my theological position should be. This is not the first place I disagree with Wesley, nor will it be the last. Same goes for Wiley, and same goes for the Manual.

Every one did what was right in their own eyes.


My problem with your Judges reference is that the context of the statement essentially describes Israel as a pagan nation, and so by quoting that verse at myself and others, you are painting us with the brush of infidelity toward God.

That’s your interpretation not mine. Israel was certainly behaving badly but as far as I can tell they were still God’s Chosen People.



I'd try to sort out whether Jesus or Wiley is correct, but I'm still trying to deal with a Calvinist quoting Wesley.

Well, I once heard John MacArthur call Wesley “a messed up Calvinist” in a sermon years ago. I thought he was crazy, but the more I read Wesley especially from my current vantage point; I can really see that he was right. Wesley has far more in common with my tradition that any of this contemporary stuff that most are peddling here. I think that is why he and Whitefield were able to reconcile and remain friends. Certainly the divide was significant, impacted many areas of belief yet truly the core of the difference was simply the object of and operative nature of God’s Free Grace. Other than that the differences were so slight as to have been nearly negligible. That certainly is not the case between Wesleyan Arminianism and (Undiluted) Calvinism today. It could be that Wesleyanism today has nearly squat to do with what Wesley actually taught or believed. Just like it could also be that the Holiness of said churches today has nearly squat to do with what the historical Holiness Moment taught or believed.

Of course I could just be wrong; but, then why are so many disagreeing with Wesley and Wiley?


I’ll try the real point I am trying to make again (we’ll see if it takes this time). I see a church board discussing this selling issue and coming to the end of discussions without a clear resolution. There are apparently differing beliefs and differing understandings of the Pros and the Cons. Here is the weird part; why is it so repugnant to so many to actually look at what others from within your tradition have believed?

It seems to me like the very LAST thing that comes to mind is to look at the Manual of the Church to which you are a part of for guidance? When the traditions of those who have gone before you are ignored and the very book that is written at least in part to help with situations like this is not consulted and often flat out demeaned and ridiculed by those who have avowed it as a standard of membership then frankly I find it asinine to say that you are actually “part” of that tradition.

Why not just admit that your history and tradition mean nothing to you; that you actually believe that most of it is bunk and you are just making it up as you see fit.

AKA Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

George

[Tim Bourland]

I'm not sure that attitude is grace-full more than it is ignorant.


There's nothin' like being spanked in third person! :)

[Shea Zellweger]

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why on earth would a group of Christians voluntarily trade their time of Meeting with His Special Presence, Worshiping a Holy God and participating in Covenant Renewal to perform diaconate functions that can be done at any time? No; waiting tables is not a substitute for Corporate Worship.

...perhaps because "Corporate Worship" is not found as a direct command in Scripture? Perhaps because serving others is itself an act of worship? Or perhaps because just as "diaconate functions" (really?) may be able to be done any time, so can "Corporate Worship"? Or maybe it's all three of these and more.


There is a third possibility. You are not stupid, you are not a rebellious sinner; you just refuse to read the words in their historical context, and somewhat rebelliously impose your current, understanding, and use of language upon that which when read in context is clear.

Your church tradition has always believed in keeping the Lord’s Day set apart.

Once anyone starts to develop a list of do or don’t the danger of legalism becomes apparent.

Most statements on Lord’s Day observance attempt to be explicated w/o listing dos and don’ts.

Thus you have the statements in the Manual and Wiley’s statement.

Which brings us back to wondering whether the sale of things for the sake of the church qualifies as a secular activity or not.



I said 35 years ago no one would even have entertained this. I really think that that was a liberal estimate I believe that as early as 20-25 years ago no one in your tradition would have ever considered selling on the Lord’s Day as even remotely a “sacred activity” or something of import that should be done on the Lord’s Day. Apparently the church in question at least thought somewhat like this until they found out that 60% of the funds came from selling on that Day. Ethic’s are on sale. It’s a bad idea until we could loose a chuck of $$$ then it’s a good idea. Please!

Or maybe, since July 4th is not always on a Sunday and this is a fairly new endeavor, it's not a problem they've yet encountered?



If you think that culturally this is a good witness, then do like I said rephrase the Manual, but don’t pretend that the Manual statement isn’t a carry over from the days when people would/did observe the Lord’s Day. You know as well as I that you current interpretation is not the way the Holiness tradition interpreted the statement.

I know that many current interpretations of the manual are not the way they were previously interpreted, and yet they continue to be interpreted and re-interpreted. If the interpretation has changed to a point where a previously rejected thing is now accepted, then there's not much need for a change in Manual wording.



Context is king.

Jesus is King, but context sure helps out from time to time.



Then you believe huge chunks of Christendom including the historical (and current on paper at least) position of your own denomination to be ignorant of Christ’s life and teaching. I guess that’s fine if it works for you.

Yup.



Every one did what was right in their own eyes.

Everyone always has.



That’s your interpretation not mine. Israel was certainly behaving badly but as far as I can tell they were still God’s Chosen People.

What does one have to do with the other? If I were to be doing something, and my parents told me I was acting like my older sibling was when he or she got caught smoking, it would not take too much interpretive work on my part to figure out they were telling me I was doing something wrong. At no point would I think they were suggesting that older sibling were somehow not their child. You've brought in a totally unrelated variable to support your argument, despite the fact that it does not.

The entire book of Judges is written from the stance that kings are good, and the lack of a king is bad. Every single time the phrase "there was no king, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes," it's understood that the author is referring to a time of evil, chaos, and disorder. That's not an interpretive leap, it's right there in the text, the tradition, the commentaries... take your pick. By quoting that verse, you are accusing those to whom you apply it of evil, chaos, and disorder. Feign innocence if you like, but you chose your words carefully, even giving Scripture references which bring the meaning to mind with just a cursory reading of the surrounding passages. For someone who believes context is king, you seem very ready to ignore it when it turns out the context doesn't fit what you would like it to say.



I’ll try the real point I am trying to make again (we’ll see if it takes this time). I see a church board discussing this selling issue and coming to the end of discussions without a clear resolution. There are apparently differing beliefs and differing understandings of the Pros and the Cons. Here is the weird part; why is it so repugnant to so many to actually look at what others from within your tradition have believed?

It's not. What's repugnant is when someone decides to look to those within the tradition before asking "what did Jesus have to say on this matter?"



It seems to me like the very LAST thing that comes to mind is to look at the Manual of the Church to which you are a part of for guidance?

And yet I've clearly demonstrated that the question is not "what does the manual say" or even "do we agree with what the manual says," but rather "does selling these fireworks on Sunday to support the church qualify as 'unnecessary secular activity on the Lord's Day." That is where this discussion needs to be held. You have made your opinion abundantly clear, but that does not make it the final word on the matter.


When the traditions of those who have gone before you are ignored and the very book that is written at least in part to help with situations like this is not consulted and often flat out demeaned and ridiculed by those who have avowed it as a standard of membership then frankly I find it asinine to say that you are actually “part” of that tradition.

Why not just admit that your history and tradition mean nothing to you; that you actually believe that most of it is bunk and you are just making it up as you see fit.


Perhaps because this is baloney. The world outside the ivory tower is much messier than it appears from within.



AKA Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

By all means, say it a few more times.

[Benjamin Burch]

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why on earth would a group of Christians voluntarily trade their time of Meeting with His Special Presence, Worshiping a Holy God and participating in Covenant Renewal to perform diaconate functions that can be done at any time? No; waiting tables is not a substitute for Corporate Worship.

Odd question. I think the better questions might be:

(1) Why can a group of Christians not Meet with His (sic!) Special Presence, Worship a Holy God, and participate in Covenant Renewal while helping those in need?

Seems Matthew 25 addresses this pretty well.

(2) Why did you choose an individual task (waiting tables) as your metaphor for a corporate activity (a church helping those in need together) so as to say that it was not a substitute for "Corporate Worship"?

Seems you stacked the deck in your favor, but it was far from honest.

[Marsha Lynn]

Jesus straightened a withered hand and gave sight to the blind on the Sabbath. Those are not spiritual interests, but physical. Thus, either Wiley is correct and Jesus was wrong or Jesus was correct and Wiley is wrong

I don't see Jesus' actions as being a contradiction to Wiley's statement. It doesn't take too much in the way of mental gymnastics to view physical healing as being good for one's spiritual health.

What I see is that Jesus' Sabbath to-do list appears to have been quite short -- attend the worship gathering at the synagogue, speak if invited to do so, relax, practice random acts of kindness as opportunities presented themselves within the normal course of a day of rest. I think it's quite safe to say he was not doing home repair or cleaning yards or taking food and clothing to the homeless. Such activities would have meant the end of his welcome in the synagogue!

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't see Jesus' actions as being a contradiction to Wiley's statement. It doesn't take too much in the way of mental gymnastics to view physical healing as being good for one's spiritual health.

What I see is that Jesus' Sabbath to-do list appears to have been quite short -- attend the worship gathering at the synagogue, speak if invited to do so, relax, practice random acts of kindness as opportunities presented themselves within the normal course of a day of rest. I think it's quite safe to say he was not doing home repair or cleaning yards or taking food and clothing to the homeless. Such activities would have meant the end of his welcome in the synagogue!

Marsha

And yet these activities are certainly within the scope of what Bresee would have done on a Sunday...

[Benjamin Burch]

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter, and am wondering how much impact one's interpretation of this passage and Jesus' motives impacts one's views on selling things at church...


I think the main problem was that they did all this in the Court of the Gentiles, thus effectively showing how they could not care less about gentiles coming to the temple of God. So instead of being a light to the nations, they rather robbed their own countrymen and kept the nations out.

Can I disagree with both of you?

[Shea Zellweger]

Can I disagree with both of you?

sure... go on...

[Todd Erickson]

I read your posts and from what I can tell you have had some really bad experiences with “Churchianity.” From my Naznet readings I would interpret that the worst experiences would probably have to be those of Todd E.

I'm sorry, but I can't snatch this title from Billy Cox; he's firmly invested in being the most bitter individual on Naznet.

2nd place would clearly be William Hunter and his pogrom on DS's. I'm not sure whether he reregistered after the crash.

[Benjamin Burch]

sure... go on...


There was absolutely nothing wrong with any of the buying, selling, or money-changing operations conducted in the outer courts of the temple. Nobody was stealing or defrauding or contaminating the temple's precincts. Those activities were the absolutely necessary concomitants of the fiscal basis and sacrificial purpose of the temple." (Crossan, J.D.Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p 131)

"Dens" were not where "robbing" took place. They were where robbers sought safety with their loot. Jesus was not upset with the selling that was going on, or how it was going on. He was prophetically calling destruction on the temple, like Jeremiah (which is why he quotes Jeremiah).


Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are safe!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the Lord. (Jeremiah 7:8-11)

The "robbery" refers to the systemic injustice being perpetrated by Rome and sponsored/carried out by the Temple Priests (sadducees). The poor were being trampled on in all of the society and those who were supposed to uphold YHWH's justice were the perpetrators. They then hid in the temple and assumed it would protect them and that they would be kept safe by observing sacrifices, worship, etc.

It has nothing to do with the actual money tables, or how business was being done in the temple. It had to do with what was being done outside the temple and how the temple was seen as a fortress of safety. The overturning of the money tables is a symbolic action by the prophet (Jesus) which symbolizes the destruction of the entire temple itself.

[Shea Zellweger]

"Dens" were not where "robbing" took place. They were where robbers sought safety with their loot. Jesus was not upset with the selling that was going on, or how it was going on. He was prophetically calling destruction on the temple, like Jeremiah (which is why he quotes Jeremiah).



The "robbery" refers to the systemic injustice being perpetrated by Rome and sponsored/carried out by the Temple Priests (sadducees). The poor were being trampled on in all of the society and those who were supposed to uphold YHWH's justice were the perpetrators. They then hid in the temple and assumed it would protect them and that they would be kept safe by observing sacrifices, worship, etc.

It has nothing to do with the actual money tables, or how business was being done in the temple. It had to do with what was being done outside the temple and how the temple was seen as a fortress of safety. The overturning of the money tables is a symbolic action by the prophet (Jesus) which symbolizes the destruction of the entire temple itself.

Okay. I see your point. It's an interesting one coming from a process theologian, but I do see it. Now... that works great for the Mark presentation, yet we still have to bring John 2:17 into play, which shows us that the Johannine tradition holds that the problem was in fact with the selling practices themselves (as does 2:16). Given that the specific salespeople mentioned in John are the sellers of Doves, which would have been used as offerings, one can understand the passage as Jesus being angered that they were selling things in general (I have a feeling George would) or that they were trying to make a profit from God. I have heard this specifica passage used as evidence by people who feel clergy should not be paid, and although I would not take it that far, I think the "selling grace" component is the problem. Earning a fair wage for their work would not upset anyone, but extorting people, especially the poor who would have been the most frequent buyers of doves, would certainly have angered Jesus.

[Benjamin Burch]

Okay. I see your point. It's an interesting one coming from a process theologian, but I do see it. Now... that works great for the Mark presentation, yet we still have to bring John 2:17 into play, which shows us that the Johannine tradition holds that the problem was in fact with the selling practices themselves (as does 2:16). Given that the specific salespeople mentioned in John are the sellers of Doves, which would have been used as offerings, one can understand the passage as Jesus being angered that they were selling things in general (I have a feeling George would) or that they were trying to make a profit from God. I have heard this specifica passage used as evidence by people who feel clergy should not be paid, and although I would not take it that far, I think the "selling grace" component is the problem. Earning a fair wage for their work would not upset anyone, but extorting people, especially the poor who would have been the most frequent buyers of doves, would certainly have angered Jesus.

Well, I didn't know we were talking about John. Of course the story means different things in the Synoptic and Johannine traditions.

Then again, John places it at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, so that doesn't seem very helpful!

[Benjamin Burch]

Okay. I see your point. It's an interesting one coming from a process theologian, but I do see it. Now... that works great for the Mark presentation, yet we still have to bring John 2:17 into play, which shows us that the Johannine tradition holds that the problem was in fact with the selling practices themselves (as does 2:16). Given that the specific salespeople mentioned in John are the sellers of Doves, which would have been used as offerings, one can understand the passage as Jesus being angered that they were selling things in general (I have a feeling George would) or that they were trying to make a profit from God. I have heard this specifica passage used as evidence by people who feel clergy should not be paid, and although I would not take it that far, I think the "selling grace" component is the problem. Earning a fair wage for their work would not upset anyone, but extorting people, especially the poor who would have been the most frequent buyers of doves, would certainly have angered Jesus.

Oh, wait. 90% of Christians are reading the story in John and don't even know it exists in the synoptics.

You win.

[Shea Zellweger]

Well, I didn't know we were talking about John. Of course the story means different things in the Synoptic and Johannine traditions.

Then again, John places it at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, so that doesn't seem very helpful!

Our discussion is not about Mark or John, but about selling things in church, so both versions of the story must be dealt with.

[George Wallace]

Odd question. I think the better questions might be:

(1) Why can a group of Christians not Meet with His (sic!) Special Presence, Worship a Holy God, and participate in Covenant Renewal while helping those in need?

Because while helping those in need is indeed mandated, just like Corporate Worship, you (that is; the same person or group at the same moment in time) just cannot do both simultaneously.

To quote Roger Miller "You can't roller skate in a Buffalo herd…”


(2) Why did you choose an individual task (waiting tables) as your metaphor for a corporate activity (a church helping those in need together) so as to say that it was not a substitute for "Corporate Worship"?

The simple answer is because that is NOT Corporate Worship. NOT at all. Never has been - Never will be - doesn’t smell like it - doesn’t look like it - and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with God’s people gathered at His (Intentional and in accord with Scripture as written so no Sic! necessary) His feet in exercise of Corporate Worship.

But, I may not understand your number (2).

Here is my shot at explanation on what I think you may mean. Waiting tables is used in Scripture as a metaphor for diaconate functions; that is functions of service to our fellow man, particularly our brothers and sister in need, that is those in the Body. This is a mandated function of the church as you, others and your Matt. 25 reference point out. But that is not Corporate Worship.

Could a person, group, or entire local body deem it necessary to forgo attending Corporate Worship to take care of their fellow mans needs? Certainly, that is part of the point of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s healing on the Sabbath, defying the Pharisaical interpretations of the law.

To answer when, where, and how, one determines when this may be necessary I refer you to the previous Wiley quote and your manual, Mercy and Necessity are always factors in observance.

To me it seems obvious that the premeditated selling fireworks or…XYZ as fund raising falls woefully short as an act of Mercy or Necessity.

George

[Todd Erickson]

No making and selling tents?

Paul is never seen making tents at church; but then, by the same token, Paul would probably be appalled at our focus on Sundays. It's a catch 22 to try to prove anything with this.

[Todd Erickson]

And said "It is written 'my house will be a house of prayer.' But you have made it a 'den of robbers.'"? Was Jesus condemning them for their selling of doves and changing of money, or for their dishonest and unscrupulous business practices? I have always understood it to be the latter, and am wondering how much impact one's interpretation of this passage and Jesus' motives impacts one's views on selling things at church...

They had set up exchange in the foreigner's court, essentially making it impossible for foreigners to do anything there, pushing people away. They were also taking advantage, by all accounts, of local needs...yes, you could get the animal you needed there, but most likely for a fairly exorbiant price. This wasn't an act of charity or goodwill.

[Benjamin Burch]

Because while helping those in need is indeed mandated, just like Corporate Worship, you (that is; the same person or group at the same moment in time) just cannot do both simultaneously.

To quote Roger Miller "You can't roller skate in a Buffalo herd…”

The simple answer is because that is NOT Corporate Worship. NOT at all. Never has been - Never will be - doesn’t smell like it - doesn’t look like it - and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with God’s people gathered at His (Intentional and in accord with Scripture as written so no Sic! necessary) His feet in exercise of Corporate Worship.



George, this is clearly wrong. If you choose to reject that, then whatever.

(removing tongue from cheek)

What is this ambiguous "corporate worship" of which you speak? You mean loving God and loving others together as a community? Celebrating His life, death, and resurrection together as a community? Practicing the Eucharist together as a community? Being shaped by God's Scriptures together as a community?

Seems like you can do all of these while doing "diaconate functions." Maybe I'm just better at multi-tasking than you or others are. It might be the table-waiter in me.

In a very serious way, I think you are terribly, dreadfully wrong here.



But, I may not understand your number (2).

Here is my shot at explanation on what I think you may mean. Waiting tables is used in Scripture as a metaphor for diaconate functions; that is functions of service to our fellow man, particularly our brothers and sister in need, that is those in the Body. This is a mandated function of the church as you, others and your Matt. 25 reference point out. But that is not Corporate Worship.

My point with number (2) is that "waiting tables" is an incredibly individual task. There is nothing corporate about it. It can hardly be done "corporately." You might be able to enlist help from a fellow server from time to time, but in all reality it is one of the most individual tasks of service I've ever engaged in. Sure, there's the team element of cooking the food, etc. However, my job is done on my own.

Any task the church chooses to engage in is corporate. The body participates together. The two aren't fair comparisons.



Could a person, group, or entire local body deem it necessary to forgo attending Corporate Worship to take care of their fellow mans needs? Certainly, that is part of the point of the Good Samaritan and Christ’s healing on the Sabbath, defying the Pharisaical interpretations of the law.

To answer when, where, and how, one determines when this may be necessary I refer you to the previous Wiley quote and your manual, Mercy and Necessity are always factors in observance.

Anyone who can create a difference and distinction between "Mercy" and "Worship"... misunderstands the Gospel, IMHO.

[Tim Bourland]

Anyone who can create a difference and distinction between "Mercy" and "Worship"... misunderstands the Gospel, IMHO.

Worship in action? (Romans 12:1) (http://www.wesleyanlifeonline.com/article?id=118&src=0)

[Todd Erickson]

Odd question. I think the better questions might be:

(1) Why can a group of Christians not Meet with His (sic!) Special Presence, Worship a Holy God, and participate in Covenant Renewal while helping those in need?



Brother Lawrence, anybody?

[Todd Erickson]

Because while helping those in need is indeed mandated, just like Corporate Worship, you (that is; the same person or group at the same moment in time) just cannot do both simultaneously.



The problem here with your reach is that you're choosing to define worship as "stuff we do on sunday", when classically it was "public acts performed in worship of God", which would definitely include things like meals, charity, service, etc.

[Shea Zellweger]

The problem here with your reach is that you're choosing to define worship as "stuff we do on sunday", when classically it was "public acts performed in worship of God", which would definitely include things like meals, charity, service, etc.

Like Romans 12 or something...

[Marsha Lynn]

And yet these activities are certainly within the scope of what Bresee would have done on a Sunday...

So whose example are we to follow?

[Shea Zellweger]

So whose example are we to follow?

Well, I personally vote Jesus, but that's just me.

[Marsha Lynn]

Well, I personally vote Jesus, but that's just me.

Me too. So what does Bresee's workaholism have to do with anything?

[Shea Zellweger]

Me too. So what does Bresee's workaholism have to do with anything?

Others on the thread have suggested we should look to those in our tradition for proper observance of "the Lord's Day," and that not doing so shows that we have no respect for our tradition, so I thought it was worth noting.

[Marsha Lynn]

Others on the thread have suggested we should look to those in our tradition for proper observance of "the Lord's Day," and that not doing so shows that we have no respect for our tradition, so I thought it was worth noting.

OK, I guess I lost the thread of conversation. I'm also seeing those who are advocating filling our Sundays with "good deeds." Apparently, if we use Bresee as our model, that's the camp we end up in -- non-stop activity 24/7.

If God could create the entire universe in "six days" (however those days are defined) and consecrate the seventh day for rest, it seems as though maybe, just maybe, we can trust him to keep things going without us for one day a week. Or at least the Ten Commandments seem to give that impression. Maybe if we make it a point to do acts of mercy on other days we can still take one day a week off for worship and rest?

Which brings us back to the fireworks question. I personally would be highly unlikely to participate in a Sunday fundraiser, but I certainly wouldn't condemn those who make different choices. Sabbath observance (weekly day of rest) is so rare that it's mostly viewed as an eccentricity. (I get a lot of teasing about it, and that's not because I preach it -- I don't in "real life" beyond explaining my reluctance to allow extras into my schedule by noting with a smile that I have God's "permission" to take the day off -- but just because it's impossible to do it without notice.) Working the fundraiser would likely be no more work than those participating generally do on Sunday.

Marsha

[Jim Chabot]

In a very serious way, I think you are terribly, dreadfully wrong here.

Are you sure? Seriously, I'm thinking that George has been hitting this thing right out of the park, I'm thinking maybe that you two are speaking two different languages here.

It's not one or the other we are called to do, it is both. Both, both, both, do we cancel "that stuff that we do on sundays" so that we can engage in "that other stuff that we are supposed to do"? Well yeah we could, then again if we don't have the elements of mercy and or necessity, then what are we really doing other than playing games. It's called marketing, just do something different to attract attention, then sell them a bill of goods.

So I'll disagree with you, and with Shea and Han's regarding the cleansing of the temple. I'm thinking that He was simply and powerfully ticked off, and I'm thinking that gimic Christianity really isn't a whole lot different than the money changers in the temple. So yeah, lets sell some fireworks, cookies, maybe wash a few cars and give away some holy water soaked prayer cloths.

Please forgive my sarcasm, but this fundraising stuff is a real turn off for me. We are not called to grow an organization, we are called to make Christ like disciples.

Sorry I didn't come to your aid earlier George, you have been quite correct throughout this thread.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I appreciate Jeremy's comments regarding context.

If you were in my context, you wouldn't even be giving it a second thought...you would actually be considering canceling the day's worship services (GASP!!) so that the church would have a new opportunity to get outside the four walls and offer some creative ministry to the shoppers. "Need your car washed, oil changed, blood pressure checked, etc.....free?"

OK, this is off topic but this thread has wandered everywhere already.

I know this is an increasingly popular idea. And I would acknowledge that it comes from good motives. But I think it is a bad idea, for a variety of reasons (I'll just mention two).

1) This subtly assumes that worship is something dispensable or optional for a Christian, and that other activities can be equal or better substitutes (as long as we call them "ministry"). This makes a decision about human spirituality that runs counter to biblical perspectives and a very long history of the people of God. I honestly don't think that after 2,000 (or 3,000) years we finally found a better way to help other people.

2) This "new opportunity" might be viable if all the other opportunities for ministry were already being utilized or exhausted. However, in no instance of which I am aware has this been the case. It was just that the Sunday worship time was the only time of the week that was "free" to be used because every other time of the week was already filled up with other activities, very few or none of which were ministry related. It is much easier to give up God's time rather than encroach on our personal time.

Now honestly, I don't know about the fireworks. Personally, I would not participate nor would I support it in a church I attended. But others have to make their own decisions.

But I am opposed to canceling worship for "ministry" projects. They simply cannot be interchanged.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Todd Erickson]

We've made all sorts of things holy that have nothing to do with Love, or following Christ.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was for man, not for God.

Church on Sundays is something that we've picked up, something we've created a tradition of as Holy. But really, church is anything we do, 24/7, that we do with God, that we do together. It isn't a building, it isn't a time of week.

Worship has become singing and preaching, but it used to be any work done for God. Brother Lawrence talks about how even washing pots and cleaning the kitchen came to be an act of worship and holiness, because he performed these actions in the constant presence of God, and how antithetical to Christ it was to make some actions holier than others, whether or not they were performed with God.

There are local churches that have pie auctions. This is a good natured way to give money and get something neat in return. There's nothing particularly wrong with that...if a congregation is honest about what they're doing and why they're doing, then so be it. As a culture, we like to know what we're getting for our money, and this fills that hole. Please be patient, God's not done with us yet.

So much of this, over and over, comes down to what one person considers more holy than another. It's not unity in love, it's not community. It's "There's a weed in my yard, and I'm going to yank it rather than give it a chance to bloom as a wild flower, because nothing wild grows in my yard. I know precisely how God works."

And so we tell God where He can work, and what church can look like. And then try to be happy with our tiny, empty, holy corner.

[Kevin Rector]

"Love, and do what you will." -Augustine of Hippo (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170207.htm)

[Shea Zellweger]

So I'll disagree with you, and with Shea and Han's regarding the cleansing of the temple. I'm thinking that He was simply and powerfully ticked off,

Then why the statement about the den of robbers? Are people who sell things automatically robbers? If not, I don't know how you can justify this claim other than saying you like the John 2 version better.



and I'm thinking that gimic Christianity really isn't a whole lot different than the money changers in the temple. So yeah, lets sell some fireworks, cookies, maybe wash a few cars and give away some holy water soaked prayer cloths.

Please forgive my sarcasm, but this fundraising stuff is a real turn off for me. We are not called to grow an organization, we are called to make Christ like disciples.



Did you really just compare a car wash (providing a service in exchange for compensation) with the sale of talismans (profiting from the superstitions of others)? Even sarcastically, that's a pretty weak comparison. These things may get on your nerves, but they're not unbiblical. David Crowder gets on my nerves, but I see no Scriptural condemnation against his music. Trying to institute church policy according to personal preference is just a bad move in general. The fact is that in order to make disciples, there are real monetary costs involved. Raising money to support the work of the church does not oppose Scripture, that much I can say with certainty. The only leg George has to stand on is that he has classified fundraising as a "secular activity." You may join him in that classification, but clearly there are those who disagree, and their reasoning has merit, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Now, all of that has very little to do with Ben's statement you quoted, which was about how serving others is in fact a facet of corporate worship. In order to even make his point, George first referred to such activities as "diaconate" (an extra-biblical concept), and then used the term "waiting tables," which he asserted as a biblical term. If we look to the biblical story, we find the Apostles saying that others would have to see to the practical matters of the church while they were devoted to the study of Scripture and prayer. And yet, they did not say anything about certain days when these actions could not be performed, nor did they denounce them as lesser or unimportant. In fact, they appointed seven of the very best to see to the important matter of helping the poor, because it mattered to them deeply, they just didn't have the time to do everything themselves.

[Hans Deventer]

Can I disagree with both of you?

Always :)

And thanks for explaining. Good food for thought.

[George Wallace]

The only leg George has to stand on is that he has classified fundraising as a "secular activity."

Interesting reading thus far. I have to get some sleep, but that is truly the question.

Does fund-raising, on the Lord's Day, on the Church grounds constitute a "secular activity"? (Since fireworks for some can carry a negative influence, let's just say its pies and cakes - a bake sale)


In order to even make his point, George first referred to such activities as "diaconate" (an extra-biblical concept), and then used the term "waiting tables," which he asserted as a biblical term.

Many, many ideas are being conflated within this thread so I really don't want to go off even more tangential so could please PM me with how you determined that "diaconate" is an extra biblical concept. That certainly intrigues me in light of the pastoral epistles charge. Maybe we are defining it differently.

Thanks
George

PS
Ben
I know I left you hangin' in another thread. I will get back to you asap. Baby girl turns 4 Friday, so very busy for a few days. I still hope to drop in but... Daddy Duty Calls!

Blessings
George

[Shea Zellweger]

Many, many ideas are being conflated within this thread so I really don't want to go off even more tangential so could please PM me with how you determined that "diaconate" is an extra biblical concept. That certainly intrigues me in light of the pastoral epistles charge. Maybe we are defining it differently.


Your apparent definition of "diaconate" is what I was stating as extra-biblical. We have from Paul qualifications for deacons (qualifications which include "keep[ing] hold of the deep truths of the faith), but no job description. The terms have been used as justification for the Bishop-priest model, for boards of Elders and Deacons, and for the Nazarene ordination classes, among various other interpretations. To equate "waiting tables" to a "diaconate" responsibility, and then to dismiss both of these things as relatively unimportant in comparison to corporate worship is making multiple leaps in definitions which are not found within Scripture.

[Steven Martinez]

It seems to me the best answer is to make the pastoral staff run the firework stand since s/he-they are working anyways. Everyone else can go out to lunch and continue to judge those serving them for working on the Sabbath/Lord's Day. As for me, I plan on preachin', grillin' and setting off small, legal explosives as a way to enjoy time with family and friends.
But in all seriousness, the real issue here is that communication between leadership and laity was missed somewhere down the road and it is better to discuss these issues before the become issues. Perhaps the year that July 4th was on a Sunday was not the best time to have a stand. At the same time, I have also come to the conclusion that anytime some one is willing to come onto church grounds, there is an opportunity to preach the Gospel through words and deeds.

[Marsha Lynn]

We've made all sorts of things holy that have nothing to do with Love, or following Christ.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was for man, not for God.

Actually, he said that the Sabbath was created for the benefit of man rather than man being created for the purpose of glorifying the Sabbath. The "R & R" of the Sabbath is rest and re-creation, not ritual and regulation.


Church on Sundays is something that we've picked up, something we've created a tradition of as Holy. But really, church is anything we do, 24/7, that we do with God, that we do together. It isn't a building, it isn't a time of week.

Huh? I'm confused. Both Jesus and Paul habituated the local synagogue for Sabbath worship. If we "picked [it] up" for no good reason, it was a "we" that predated Christianity that did the picking, and the pioneers of Christianity seemed quite content with the idea of Sabbath gatherings. I know that Sunday is not the Sabbath and today's church services aren't exactly like 1st-century synagogue gatherings, but is the difference so substantial as to view "church services" as an entirely new idea?


Worship has become singing and preaching, but it used to be any work done for God. Brother Lawrence talks about how even washing pots and cleaning the kitchen came to be an act of worship and holiness, because he performed these actions in the constant presence of God, and how antithetical to Christ it was to make some actions holier than others, whether or not they were performed with God.

I don't know that we have made singing and preaching holier or more worshipful than washing pots and pans; we have simply set aside time during the day on which we rest from our pot- and pan-washing for the rest and re-creation that comes with spending time together in God's presence doing worship as a deliberate act. I think where we went wrong was when singing and preaching somehow became "work" for those who lead them. I don't preach, but I do teach and make music. The preparation for those times is sometimes work -- the execution of them is pure joy when I am well prepared and not distracted by other stresses. What a difference it would make if we could take the "work" out of "worship" and regard our Sunday gatherings as part of our "Sabbath rest."

Marsha

[Dennis Bratcher]

Anyone who can create a difference and distinction between "Mercy" and "Worship"... misunderstands the Gospel, IMHO.

I'm not siding with George here, because I think the away he is arguing this is mistaken. But then I think arguing that "ministry" can replace worship, because they are essentially the same thing is also mistaken. As I pointed out in another post ( http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?1040-Selling-fireworks-at-our-church&p=15835) they are not the same, are not "equal" so that they can be interchanged, and are not so mutually exclusive that we can say that when we have done one we have no need to do the other (not that anyone said all these things).

I think Jesus touched on this in principle (although on a slightly different topic), when he said "these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others" (Matt 23:23). In other words the "weightier maters" like "justice and mercy and faith" are too often neglected by those who are preoccupied with religious observance as the fulfillment of obligation to God. Yet these "weightier maters" are crucial for people of God. Still, doing those things, while important, indeed even essential for God's people (as evidenced in Old Testament torah), does not allow "neglecting the others," that is, other religious practices. While Jesus was talking specifically about tithing in this verse, the context also ranges to a wider menu of religious practices. So it seems that tithing is a specific example of a larger issue that I think would easily include, in modern contexts, "corporate worship" (without really needing to parse what that means).

And it might be relevant to observe that this comment from Jesus (directed at self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees) comes closely after Jesus' summary in Matthew of what responsibility to God entails:


Matt 22:37 He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 22:38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 22:39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

Since what follows in most of the next chapter relates to religious observances, it certainly seems to call for, or at least to allow, expression of love of God without replacing it with love for others. In other words, they are corollaries with the second dependant on the first (love of others flows from love of God).

Of course, one could easily argue that love for God can be expressed in contexts other than worship, which is why this is not a biblical "proof." But I think it would require much more careful argumentation, from both Scripture and Church history, to establish that acts of compassion are a valid replacement for the community of faith gathered in worship.

Again, I don't know what that means for fireworks sales. But it seems to me to suggest that "ministry" (referring to acts of mercy, compassion, or whatever label we give it) cannot and should not replace corporate worship.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

We've made all sorts of things holy that have nothing to do with Love, or following Christ.

This is a popular notion today but I think is misguided, at least in terms of how it is applied by many. Certainly, Jesus had plenty of criticism for empty religious ritual, insincere worship, and acts of charity as currency to obtain righteousness. But it also requires dismissal of a large portion of Scripture, as well as much of Jesus' own practice and teaching, to declare that loving God and neighbor or following Christ means to reject much of what two thousand years of Christian practice and much of Scripture considers "holy." Honestly, I don't think we are that smart yet.

Of course, the issue is to sort out pretentious religious practice, which is actually profane, from that which is genuinely holy. That is no small task, since it is far too easy to view the world through our own set of lenses, and thereby to see ourselves as holy and others as profane (interesting that the problem of phariseeism can work in reverse just as easily!). At the very least I think that calls for caution in how far we go in "profaning" what other people, and the historic Church, have for centuries considered holy.


Church on Sundays is something that we've picked up, something we've created a tradition of as Holy. But really, church is anything we do, 24/7, that we do with God, that we do together. It isn't a building, it isn't a time of week.

We can parse details here. But the idea of a seventh day rest, a time of corporate worship, the idea of sacred space and sacred time, are most certainly not modern creations. Also, the idea that "church" (as the physical embodiment of that sacred time and sacred space) is in reality no more than a nebulous idea that is "anything we do, 24/7" is to totally redefine the whole idea of "church" as well as eliminating any concept of the holy or sacred.


Worship has become singing and preaching, but it used to be any work done for God. Brother Lawrence talks about how even washing pots and cleaning the kitchen came to be an act of worship and holiness, because he performed these actions in the constant presence of God, and how antithetical to Christ it was to make some actions holier than others, whether or not they were performed with God.

With all respect to Brother Lawrence, this confuses personal piety with worship. I would argue that worship is primarily a corporate or communal activity (yes I know about passages like Gen 24:26, 48, which require further discussion). And I would still point out the biblical concepts of sacred time and sacred space, which do, indeed, make some times and some places holier than others. Even Paul in Romans or Galatians does not eliminate this principle, only rejects religious practices as a means to righteousness (which torah never was anyway).


So much of this, over and over, comes down to what one person considers more holy than another. It's not unity in love, it's not community. It's "There's a weed in my yard, and I'm going to yank it rather than give it a chance to bloom as a wild flower, because nothing wild grows in my yard. I know precisely how God works."

I don't think this is quite as personal an issue as this implies, at least not in the way it is implied. Apart from fireworks and pie suppers, the idea of community worship along with the ideas of sacred time and sacred space, are not just personal opinions, but are long established and confirmed across three millennia. I think it is far more personal opinion that wants to discard those things as irrelevant in favor of new definitions of things like church and what is sacred. Again, I simply think that we are not that smart, and probably need more guidance from the historic church and Scripture than we tend to allow.


And so we tell God where He can work, and what church can look like. And then try to be happy with our tiny, empty, holy corner.

Ok, I understand the rhetoric. But personally I have consistently found it far more empty in those areas that have eliminated the notion of the sacred than I have in a Catholic Mass (as much as I disagree with the Catholic theology of Mass). In other words, this is not a universal truth, either way, but a personal one.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I have also come to the conclusion that anytime some one is willing to come onto church grounds, there is an opportunity to preach the Gospel through words and deeds.

This is certainly true. But then, it is true whether or not they are on the church grounds.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Todd Erickson]

Actually, he said that the Sabbath was created for the benefit of man rather than man being created for the purpose of glorifying the Sabbath. The "R & R" of the Sabbath is rest and re-creation, not ritual and regulation.


Sure. Essentially what I meant; Sabbath isn't something we have to do to be alright with God. Though by the same token, if we are not treating ourselves like we were designed to, we won't be alright with God anyway.




Huh? I'm confused. Both Jesus and Paul habituated the local synagogue for Sabbath worship. If we "picked [it] up" for no good reason, it was a "we" that predated Christianity that did the picking, and the pioneers of Christianity seemed quite content with the idea of Sabbath gatherings. I know that Sunday is not the Sabbath and today's church services aren't exactly like 1st-century synagogue gatherings, but is the difference so substantial as to view "church services" as an entirely new idea?



So...what we see them doing the rest of the time in Acts wasn't church, and acts outside of Sunday morning (or what would have been Saturday in Jewish practice) isn't church? I don't think this is what you mean, but you're taking an all-or-nothing stance so far in your reaction.




I don't know that we have made singing and preaching holier or more worshipful than washing pots and pans; we have simply set aside time during the day on which we rest from our pot- and pan-washing for the rest and re-creation that comes with spending time together in God's presence doing worship as a deliberate act. I think where we went wrong was when singing and preaching somehow became "work" for those who lead them. I don't preach, but I do teach and make music. The preparation for those times is sometimes work -- the execution of them is pure joy when I am well prepared and not distracted by other stresses. What a difference it would make if we could take the "work" out of "worship" and regard our Sunday gatherings as part of our "Sabbath rest."

Marsha

1. Most folks don't rest at all on Sunday. They cram it full of "church stuff" and lawn work, or laundry. As a culture, we are really bad at relaxing, and we feel guilty when we do.

2. My point is that church is everything we do with God, which should, at some level, be all of life. We are "being" church, not "doing" church.

[Todd Erickson]

It's always "either/or". No other options. *sigh*

I wouldn't say "let's dispense with sundays entirely, as they have no worth". But we should go out from sunday to who and what we are the rest of the week, and in many cases, the 'rest' of the week is simply taken up with everything else, leaving little room for God. So we who "are" the church, the holy priesthood...mostly aren't.

I think that sacred spaces are very powerful...but most of our churches aren't very sacred. They certainly have a lot of spaces, and we pack a lot into them, but on the whole...many of those spaces wind up being far more "holy" than the people in them, or the needs of those around them. Which is a side track that we've traveled down many times before.

We can argue all day about what Christians "should" do. They "should" give more money. They "should" give more freely. They "should" live more actively with God in the daily world.

Rather than arguing about how they don't, can we perhaps figure out how they can? And, in the process, we may find some new defintions or ways to work out holiness that weren't there before.

So long as we keep saying "we've been doing it this way since Breese/Wiley/Wesley and there's no need to move", then we're following a new tradition that may have nothing to do with where we are, and everything to do with where we were.

[Billy Cox]

There's nothin' like being spanked in third person! :)

'Tis better to give than to receive. (at least that's the way *I* roll)

[Marsha Lynn]

1. Most folks don't rest at all on Sunday. They cram it full of "church stuff" and lawn work, or laundry. As a culture, we are really bad at relaxing, and we feel guilty when we do.

Well, hallelujah! Praise the Lord that we don't all have to be like "most folks." As members of God's kingdom we are called to a pattern of work, work, work, work, work, work, rest, work, work, work, work, work, work, rest. The fact that "most folks" don't follow that pattern doesn't change the calling. "Most folks" get a lot of things wrong. We all get things wrong. But we don't have to do what everyone else does when they're obviously getting it wrong just because everyone else is doing it.


2. My point is that church is everything we do with God, which should, at some level, be all of life. We are "being" church, not "doing" church.

No disagreement here. The church does the work of God six days a week and comes together to celebrate in praise, worship, fellowship, and relaxation on the seventh day. They set their work aside for a day and relax in the faith that the universe is balanced in such a way that no person is unable to complete the work they need to do in six days. God can keep things going without us.

The fact that we don't see it happening certainly doesn't mean that it's no longer the pattern God prescribes for us. Just as we all know that Americans consistently fail to love their neighbors as we consume far more than our share of the earth's resources and yet can fall on God's grace and find acceptance into the kingdom, we can also accept that today's church has lost the rhythm of work and rest given to us at the dawn of creation and yet can fall on God's grace and find acceptance into the kingdom. Working seven days a week doesn't preclude us from salvation but it does put us out of rhythm -- to our loss. Just as some of us struggle to find our way to a more responsible use of the earth's resources, I pray that more of us will take on the challenge of incorporating a true "Sabbath" into the rhythm of our lives.

Marsha

[Craig Laughlin]

In my church in KC we decided to sell Christmas trees on the very large lawn in front of the church. The proceeds went out of the church to benefit others. Most years that meant a Nazarene ministry in Brazil that worked with street children but a year or two we did it for a kid in our church that needed a liver transplant and once to a family in the community whose 5th grader had a devastating stroke. We sold trees on Sundays after the morning service. Some observation for good or evil...

1. Selling trees to give the money away to true needs gave us huge creditability in our community. We had people drive from nearby communities to purchase a tree from us and would ask from year to year about previous sales and how the kids were doing.

2. Because the nature of Christmas Tree sales was that you spent a little time with people we were able to build a lot of redemptive relationships including some that lead to people becoming followers of Jesus.

3. Selling on Sunday was controversial for the older crowd. We didn't get caught in the either/or debate as we did it after morning service but some still struggled with it.

4. Personally, I considered the tree sales an act of worship as it was a completely unselfish act that we did as a faith community.

5. Like Marsha, we discovered that the time together selling helped to bring us closer together. We had a heated trailer that we used between sales. We shared treats, played games and bonded in a joint cause.

6. Ultimately the amount of work involved and folks desire to not give up their entire December led us to stop but I still think it was one of the most transformational things our church ever did. This was especially true for the children who spent many hours every Advent watching their parents give time and energy to serving people who could never pay them back. Seemed like the Kingdom of God to me.

Just my thoughts.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It's always "either/or". No other options. *sigh*

That is not what I said, not what I meant, nor what I implied. I simply pointed out that redefining worship or church to fit with (post-modern) notions of what it should be may not be the best option against three millennia of precedent to the contrary. Even with all the mistakes that the people of God have made across all that time, I don't believe we got it that wrong for that long, or that finally we have discovered something that "works" better.


I wouldn't say "let's dispense with sundays entirely, as they have no worth". But we should go out from sunday to who and what we are the rest of the week, and in many cases, the 'rest' of the week is simply taken up with everything else, leaving little room for God. So we who "are" the church, the holy priesthood...mostly aren't.

I agree totally, and have often said something very similar. But that is a different topic. (FWIW, I think you are using "church" broadly to mean the same thing that I mean by "the people of God." In the context of this thread, I am using "church" as the equivalent of "worship." The complication is that the thread started out talking about church as the activities that people do and where they worship, not who they are.)


I think that sacred spaces are very powerful...but most of our churches aren't very sacred.

Whether they are or are not is beside the point. The general issue in the context of this thread and other posts (at least the issue to which I am responding) is the notion of replacing Sunday worship with "ministry" activities, not whether or not people who attend church are righteous or live that way.


They certainly have a lot of spaces, and we pack a lot into them, but on the whole many of those spaces wind up being far more "holy" than the people in them, or the needs of those around them. Which is a side track that we've traveled down many times before.

Again, there is a great deal of truth is this observation. But also again, that is not the point. Because sacred space and sacred time are not lived out in any particular congregation, or by any particular person, does not warrant abandoning the ideas or replacing them with a new definition that so totally changes their character that there is no longer any way to distinguish them from the "profane." Saying everything is holy, or that everything we do is "church," has that effect.

And perhaps we need to remind ourselves that people being holy or being the "church" (people of God) is not a function of the environment, or technique, or style, or location, or activities, as if we could just tweak any or all of those a little and produce holy people. I would suggest that people who skip church on Sunday to do ministry activities, even with good motives, are no more holy because they do that than those who go to church. Yet I would go further and suggest that they have missed an important element of personal and corporate spirituality (however we define that) that comes from worshipping together as the Body of Christ.


We can argue all day about what Christians "should" do. They "should" give more money. They "should" give more freely. They "should" live more actively with God in the daily world.

Rather than arguing about how they don't, can we perhaps figure out how they can? And, in the process, we may find some new defintions or ways to work out holiness that weren't there before.

Once again, I totally agree. The question then becomes whether replacing worship with "ministry" activities does that. I am suggesting, from both Scripture and a long history of the people of God, that it does not.


So long as we keep saying "we've been doing it this way since Breese/Wiley/Wesley and there's no need to move" . . .

OK, I've lost track of what we’re talking about. I made no reference to any of those people, but rather referenced Scripture and how the people of God have observed sacred time and sacred space since the time of Moses. My sense is that you’re talking about something different than I am, but are using generalizations that are unrelated. I'm still talking about replacing worship with "ministry" activities, which has been mentioned several times in this thread.


. . then we're following a new tradition that may have nothing to do with where we are, and everything to do with where we were.

If we're talking about worship, this is not true (except most certainly in contemporary worship as well as revivalist styles of worship). Beyond that, we'll have to more carefully define a new topic to respond.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dale Cozby]

Wow, you guys are really something to behold!

Pick one of the positions below:

A. Selling fireworks is a great idea(IMHO) to make some money for one of the groups in the church, go for it and don't worry about what people will think anymore.

B. Selling fireworks is a good idea(IMHO) to make some money but not exactly the best way spend a Sunday afternoon. But hey, we need to get our donkey out of the ditch so go for it.

C. Selling fireworks is a bad idea(IMHO) and it isn't an activity the church should be involved in as a group, lets pass on it.
;)

[Todd Erickson]

1. Dennis, I wasn't only responding to you, but to you and the thread at large. Which meant that things got caught in there that weren't soley from you as a source. Appologies for any confusion.

2. Marsha, I consider Sunday to be one of my 6 days of work. If I want to get rest in, and freedom to explore God and his relationship with me in peace, I have to do it on Saturday, and guard that time fiercely. Sunday is a day of duty, not a day of rest. This may be different for you.

3. I am not arguing that we shouldn't have Sunday morning service, but rather than I don't think that Sunday is particularly holy, in terms of, "we can't do anything other than church on this day, and trying to, or attaching other activities to church, is wrong". Nor am I saying that we should replace worship/preaching/equipping with public service activities. Just that public service activites are often dismissed as secular, as are fund raising activities, and this divide between piety and "worship" is precisely at the heart of this discussion. Piety seems to be "stuff we do while in a secular environment" and thus "not fitting for church".

4. Dennis, thanks for the clarification about "church = worship" vs. "church = body of Christ". I tend to group them, but I see how it's useful not to for the purpose of this discussion.

[John Reilly]

Wow! Reading this thread, we have come along way since 18th century Wesleyan Methodism.

[George Wallace]

Well, hallelujah! Praise the Lord that we don't all have to be like "most folks." As members of God's kingdom we are called to a pattern of work, work, work, work, work, work, rest, work, work, work, work, work, work, rest. The fact that "most folks" don't follow that pattern doesn't change the calling. "Most folks" get a lot of things wrong. We all get things wrong. But we don't have to do what everyone else does when they're obviously getting it wrong just because everyone else is doing it.

No disagreement here. The church does the work of God six days a week and comes together to celebrate in praise, worship, fellowship, and relaxation on the seventh day. They set their work aside for a day and relax in the faith that the universe is balanced in such a way that no person is unable to complete the work they need to do in six days. God can keep things going without us.

The fact that we don't see it happening certainly doesn't mean that it's no longer the pattern God prescribes for us.
Marsha

Yeah what she said! :tongue:

Truly Marsha you have communicated much of my thoughts and heart so much more graciously than it seems I am able. Thank you for this!

Some of the Puritans, likened Sabbath observance to a beautiful and precious, gift from God; reiterated that it is supposed to be a delight and called it a sacred Garden and the marketplace of the soul.

That's what it should be IMO.

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Dennis,
Thank you.

I am usually quite verbose when I often disagree with you and as of late I guess I have been 'bombastic', so I realize you may not relish in my thanks or agreement; but I believe integrity requires that I say thank you for post.

Hades has a frost warning.;) (My attempt at some positive 'bombast')

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

In my church in KC we decided to sell Christmas trees on the very large lawn in front of the church. The proceeds went out of the church to benefit others. Most years that meant a Nazarene ministry in Brazil that worked with street children but a year or two we did it for a kid in our church that needed a liver transplant and once to a family in the community whose 5th grader had a devastating stroke. We sold trees on Sundays after the morning service. Some observation for good or evil...

1. Selling trees to give the money away to true needs gave us huge creditability in our community. We had people drive from nearby communities to purchase a tree from us and would ask from year to year about previous sales and how the kids were doing.

2. Because the nature of Christmas Tree sales was that you spent a little time with people we were able to build a lot of redemptive relationships including some that lead to people becoming followers of Jesus.

3. Selling on Sunday was controversial for the older crowd. We didn't get caught in the either/or debate as we did it after morning service but some still struggled with it.

4. Personally, I considered the tree sales an act of worship as it was a completely unselfish act that we did as a faith community.

5. Like Marsha, we discovered that the time together selling helped to bring us closer together. We had a heated trailer that we used between sales. We shared treats, played games and bonded in a joint cause.

6. Ultimately the amount of work involved and folks desire to not give up their entire December led us to stop but I still think it was one of the most transformational things our church ever did. This was especially true for the children who spent many hours every Advent watching their parents give time and energy to serving people who could never pay them back. Seemed like the Kingdom of God to me.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks Craig.
Could the same results have been achieved without the Lord's Day sales?

[Hans Deventer]

Wow, you guys are really something to behold!

Pick one of the positions below:

A. Selling fireworks is a great idea(IMHO) to make some money for one of the groups in the church, go for it and don't worry about what people will think anymore.

B. Selling fireworks is a good idea(IMHO) to make some money but not exactly the best way spend a Sunday afternoon. But hey, we need to get our donkey out of the ditch so go for it.

C. Selling fireworks is a bad idea(IMHO) and it isn't an activity the church should be involved in as a group, lets pass on it.
;)

Sometimes I can't help but smile at the idea that when you get to heaven and ask the Lord: "Lord, I've never been able to figure ........... (fill in the blanks) out. What would have been Your will in this?"
And the Lord smiles and answers: "Pick one of the positions below ............" :smilies1722:

[Randy Wise]

Related article:
http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=82220

[Craig Laughlin]

Thanks Craig.
Could the same results have been achieved without the Lord's Day sales?

Financially probably not. For some reason Sunday was far and away the big sales day. (Probably church folks getting out of service and wanting to go pick up a tree- It was the Bible belt) However, for me personally what happened on the lot, raising money for the truly needy, building redemptive relationship with the lost and connecting at a heart level with the local body of Christ made the event an act of worship (Not to be confused with public corporate worship service) and therefore well within the bounds of Sabbath observance. To me this falls under the example of Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

- Free observation to stir the pot - I spent 15 years in retail most of that in two of the most churched areas of the country. I have no patience for folks that want a narrow understanding of what one can do on Sunday but who themselves go out to dinner, stop by the grocery store, fill their car with gas, etc on that day. I was the guy that wanted to be in church with you but because you did those things I spent many many many Sundays getting the store ready and servicing your needs. In both Idaho and Missouri/Kansas the biggest time of the day on Sunday was right after church let out and everyone stopped by to pick up a few things. The biggest time of the day for restaurants was right after church when everyone went out to eat. -- Just say'n

[Marsha Lynn]

- Free observation to stir the pot - I spent 15 years in retail most of that in two of the most churched areas of the country. I have no patience for folks that want a narrow understanding of what one can do on Sunday but who themselves go out to dinner, stop by the grocery store, fill their car with gas, etc on that day. I was the guy that wanted to be in church with you but because you did those things I spent many many many Sundays getting the store ready and servicing your needs. In both Idaho and Missouri/Kansas the biggest time of the day on Sunday was right after church let out and everyone stopped by to pick up a few things. The biggest time of the day for restaurants was right after church when everyone went out to eat. -- Just say'n

Yes, even more difficult than committing oneself to a day of rest is committing to do one's part in giving the shared "maidservants and manservants" of our society a day of rest. After all, one person can't make a difference, can they? Won't that person have to be out there working anyway for all the rest of the "masters"? If society as a whole demands services on Sunday why not become part of the "everyone" who uses those services?

Which is one of the problems with Christians choosing a "Sabbath" other than Sunday simply because the church gives us no rest and we don't have the conviction necessary to say "no" to church busyness on Sunday. Even what little Sabbath observance we're doing doesn't have any collective power to lessen the load of our collective "manservants and maidservants" and promote a weekly "family day" if we spread our "Sabbaths" throughout the week.

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

Which is one of the problems with Christians choosing a "Sabbath" other than Sunday simply because the church gives us no rest and we don't have the conviction necessary to say "no" to church busyness on Sunday. Even what little Sabbath observance we're doing doesn't have any collective power to lessen the load of our collective "manservants and maidservants" and promote a weekly "family day" if we spread our "Sabbaths" throughout the week.


Why not? If every family in the church were taking one of the other 6 days of the week to have a family sabbath/day of rest, then they could very much encourage others to do the same, and not have it be hypocritical in any way. I would think that waitress who cannot feed her family if she doesn't work the Sunday brunch and lunch (when all the church people are going out to eat), and wishes she could go to church more often but knows realistically she can't would be thrilled if we stopped the mentality that causes our whole church life to revolve around Sunday morning. Nobody speaks up when a regular Sunday morning churchgoer doesn't "plug in" to church the rest of the week, yet the person who only comes on Sunday or Wednesday evening, or to the Monday morning prayer, or Thursday Bible study, or any other number of periods of corporate worship, but is not there Sunday Morning, is for some reason not considered to "really" be a part of the church. IMHO, a de-centralized sabbath practice could be precisely what we need to reach out to those "manservants and maidservants."

[Dennis Bratcher]

. . . a de-centralized sabbath practice could be precisely what we need to reach out to those "manservants and maidservants."

Just thinking.

1) What would a "decentralized sabbath practice" look like in relation to the biblical ideas of a "seventh day" sabbath (or for Christians a "first day")?

2) On what basis do we redefine Sabbath/Sunday? That is, what is the biblical, historical, or theological rationale for a "de-centralized sabbath practice"?

3) What would a "decentralized sabbath practice" do to the idea of a gathered worshipping community?

4) Why, or on what basis, do we change a "centralized sabbath practice" (Sunday worship) for the sake of reaching out to others? Is this not just another form of "seeker sensitive worship" driving how the Community of Faith worships?

5) I've asked this before. Why should "outreach" affect worship at all, unless we assume that worship is something different than it has historically been in both Judaism and Christianity, that is, worship for the people of God?

6) Also as I have asked before: Is it at all possible that we are scrambling to find ways to do "outreach" on Sundays, even as a substitute for worship (not that you suggested that here), because we are not willing to find ways to do it at other times during the week that we consider not as dispensable? Is it possible that our lives are so filled with other activities (which may be good in themselves) that we have no time to do ministry except on Sunday?

7) I realize the complications of modern culture in all this. But that raises yet other questions. Such as, to what extent do we merely react to culture rather than help shape culture or live in alternate ways (in the world yet not of the world)?

There are other thoughts, but I have to go get ready for the family reunion this weekend. Perhaps more on Monday.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

Just thinking.

1) What would a "decentralized sabbath practice" look like in relation to the biblical ideas of a "seventh day" sabbath (or for Christians a "first day")?

The Christian church already moved its day of worship once, but based on the Scriptural text, I would conclude that the once-a-week practice was actually a later development. Acts talks about the church meeting "daily." It's logical to assume that all members of the church had other obligations, and did not join in the gathering every single day (though some may have done so), so I'd say it would ideally end up looking something like that...



2) On what basis do we redefine Sabbath/Sunday? That is, what is the biblical, historical, or theological rationale for a "de-centralized sabbath practice"?

Off the top of my head...
Biblical: Colossions 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day needs to be balanced with Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. So... we do need to meet together regularly, but which day we meet is not of the utmost importance.
Historical- I've already pointed to the Acts church, I would also suggest that medieval and Rennaissance Christians' practice of offering daily masses, and alternative holy days to those who had to serve some sort of duty on the "real" day are valid precedents.



3) What would a "decentralized sabbath practice" do to the idea of a gathered worshipping community?

Nothing that offering multiple services on a single Sunday has not already done.



4) Why, or on what basis, do we change a "centralized sabbath practice" (Sunday worship) for the sake of reaching out to others? Is this not just another form of "seeker sensitive worship" driving how the Community of Faith worships?

I have no problem identifying it as "seeker sensitive," but I don't think it is only for the benefit of the "seeker." If you've ever been the Christian who was offered a job that required Sunday AM work, you know very well the struggle that comes from not having another option for a day to worship. If it's a choice between that or nothing, I'm pretty sure most will choose the job, especially if they need to provide for a family. Why should a person have to choose between providing for their family and worshiping God?



5) I've asked this before. Why should "outreach" affect worship at all, unless we assume that worship is something different than it has historically been in both Judaism and Christianity, that is, worship for the people of God?

1 Cor 14:22-25
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understandcomes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
Paul seems interested in how or worship impacts those who enter our midst...


6) Also as I have asked before: Is it at all possible that we are scrambling to find ways to do "outreach" on Sundays, even as a substitute for worship (not that you suggested that here), because we are not willing to find ways to do it at other times during the week that we consider not as dispensable? Is it possible that our lives are so filled with other activities (which may be good in themselves) that we have no time to do ministry except on Sunday?

It's very possible, and you're right, I did not suggest that here. I was rather suggesting that we should offer worship on a more regular basis (daily, even). That would benefit attempts at outreach, but it would also benefit the existing body.



7) I realize the complications of modern culture in all this. But that raises yet other questions. Such as, to what extent do we merely react to culture rather than help shape culture or live in alternate ways (in the world yet not of the world)?

Inasmuch as we can, we should attempt to shape the culture, but we should also acknowledge this is not always as easy as we'd like it to be. It's one thing for all the good business people of the church to close their doors on Sunday (yes, all of Sunday), it's quite another to expect everyone in the church to find employment that occurs only on the other 6 days of the week.

[Marsha Lynn]

Inasmuch as we can, we should attempt to shape the culture, but we should also acknowledge this is not always as easy as we'd like it to be. It's one thing for all the good business people of the church to close their doors on Sunday (yes, all of Sunday), it's quite another to expect everyone in the church to find employment that occurs only on the other 6 days of the week.

Shea, I appreciate many of the insights you share around here, but, to be honest, I think yours is a weak position in this case. Adjusting the church schedule so that people are ABLE to enjoy a Sabbath rest on Sunday -- few or, better, no committee meetings, practices, or expectation that everyone "will do their part" for a Sunday fundraiser -- is very different from expecting everyone to find a job that doesn't involve Sunday hours.

If our main concern is leaving out people who have to work on Sundays, there's certainly no benefit to scheduling our meetings and practices on Sunday. Doing so just guarantees that the people working will not only miss out on the worship service but also the opportunity for being part of other ministries in the church.

Example: A nurse in our church works every other Sunday and volunteered to be on a particular committee. The committee scheduled its first two meeting for Sundays she was working. When I mentioned it, I was reminded with a hint of defensiveness that all it takes is a 5th Sunday to move her week off to the week of the meeting. However, the committee lost steam and quit meeting by the time that 5th Sunday came along. Would it have been so hard to accommodate her schedule in the beginning? I know she was disappointed to be left out (again) and my heart grieved for her.

Those whose jobs require Sunday hours do need to find another day to enjoy rest in the presence of God. And we need to look for opportunities to include them in church life on other days. But giving up our own Sabbath rest or doing worship in a way that makes it more work than rest for those leading it has no benefit for those Sunday workers.

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, I appreciate many of the insights you share around here, but, to be honest, I think yours is a weak position in this case. Adjusting the church schedule so that people are ABLE to enjoy a Sabbath rest on Sunday -- few or, better, no committee meetings, practices, or expectation that everyone "will do their part" for a Sunday fundraiser -- is very different from expecting everyone to find a job that doesn't involve Sunday hours.

If our main concern is leaving out people who have to work on Sundays, there's certainly no benefit to scheduling our meetings and practices on Sunday. Doing so just guarantees that the people working will not only miss out on the worship service but also the opportunity for being part of other ministries in the church.

Example: A nurse in our church works every other Sunday and volunteered to be on a particular committee. The committee scheduled its first two meeting for Sundays she was working. When I mentioned it, I was reminded with a hint of defensiveness that all it takes is a 5th Sunday to move her week off to the week of the meeting. However, the committee lost steam and quit meeting by the time that 5th Sunday came along. Would it have been so hard to accommodate her schedule in the beginning? I know she was disappointed to be left out (again) and my heart grieved for her.

Those whose jobs require Sunday hours do need to find another day to enjoy rest in the presence of God. And we need to look for opportunities to include them in church life on other days. But giving up our own Sabbath rest or doing worship in a way that makes it more work than rest for those leading it has no benefit for those Sunday workers.

Marsha

I don't understand how any of this makes my position "weak." I agree with all of this, including that those unable to rest on Sunday need to find another day to enjoy rest in the presence of God. My whole point was that we as a church should try to make it possible for people to have corporate worship as a part of that day, regardless of when that day is. I'm not talking about giving up anything on our own Sabbath rest, but making that Sabbath rest and worship available to those who are unable to join us on the more "traditional" day.

[Billy Cox]

Which is one of the problems with Christians choosing a "Sabbath" other than Sunday simply because the church gives us no rest and we don't have the conviction necessary to say "no" to church busyness on Sunday.

I play for worship every Sunday. Song lyrics coming to mind: "That ain't working, that's the way you do it." At the end of the average Sunday, I'm not exhausted or even winded.

[Jim Chabot]

I play for worship every Sunday. Song lyrics coming to mind: "That ain't working, that's the way you do it." At the end of the average Sunday, I'm not exhausted or even winded.

Same here, I lead worship every Sunday two services, I usually write the screen media on Saturdays and we have a practice between services. Many times we are invited out to someones home to eat and hang out. It is still a day of rest as far as I'm concerned, old old song lyrics come to mind "I'm feelin mighty fine, I've got heaven on my mind."

Somehow I don't see worship as something that we were intended to rest from. Pretty sure that the Levites were hard at it on Saturdays.

[Marsha Lynn]

I play for worship every Sunday. Song lyrics coming to mind: "That ain't working, that's the way you do it." At the end of the average Sunday, I'm not exhausted or even winded.

Yea. I play for worship and teach Sunday School every Sunday. I love it. It annoys me greatly when I'm given a Sunday off from teaching for whatever reason. Other than so I can leave town now and then because of other commitments, I don't need breaks from teaching.

Apparently, that's not the way it works for everyone, particularly pastors. I think we need to accept that Sundays are "working days" for at least some of them or maybe even the vast majority of them. However, I still think most of us can be actively involved in worship and still make Sunday a day of "Sabbath rest."

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't understand how any of this makes my position "weak." I agree with all of this, including that those unable to rest on Sunday need to find another day to enjoy rest in the presence of God. My whole point was that we as a church should try to make it possible for people to have corporate worship as a part of that day, regardless of when that day is. I'm not talking about giving up anything on our own Sabbath rest, but making that Sabbath rest and worship available to those who are unable to join us on the more "traditional" day.

Sorry if I misrepresented your position. Things are crazy around here right now and I haven't had time to sift back through the thread. Apparently, I misremembered you suggesting that we consider Sunday a "working day" for active church members and have everyone choose a "Sabbath" day from the rest of the week -- and maybe even provide worship opportunities for those other days?

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

Sorry if I misrepresented your position. Things are crazy around here right now and I haven't had time to sift back through the thread. Apparently, I misremembered you suggesting that we consider Sunday a "working day" for active church members and have everyone choose a "Sabbath" day from the rest of the week -- and maybe even provide worship opportunities for those other days?

Marsha

I did previously point out for many that Sunday does end up being a working day, but that is a problem for me as well. What I was more getting at is that for those who genuinely ARE working on Sundays (like my waitress sister who hates working Sunday lunch because Church people like to write "God Bless" in the tip line), the church should make another sabbath worship available... and if there are those who take issue with the waitress thing, I'll point to the police officers, emergency care providers, and firefighters as examples of folks who may be scheduled on Sundays.