What To Do About The Past?

One of the more unexpected things I’ve learned about in revitalization efforts is the role of the past. Initially, it was merely the simple understanding that what happened in the past constituted the building blocks for the present. Understand what happened; understand the present better; gain insight into a likely future. All very straight forward and everybody gets it.

But wait, there’s more!

The next insight on the past is that it shapes us – both individually and in the groups and organizations we are part of. Both the traumas and successes of the past shape us and become the experiences that create the lessons of our lives, the values we live by, and the lens by which we perceive both the present and the future.

In the Bible, there is a concept of ‘generational sin.’ The notion goes somewhat like this: ancestor so-and-so commits a grave sin. That experience shapes him, distorts him, and creates new dysfunction. Having no appreciation for the consequences of that sin, those distortions and dysfunctions get subtly passed on to the next generation where those distortions can become amplified and further shaped. That second generation passes on the dysfunction to the third generation. And so forth. God, in Exodus 34:7, indicates that iniquity passes to the third and fourth generations. There are other passages.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this. Sin corrupts. Why would we think that sin would not corrupt between generations? The western church has believed that the very sin nature of humanity is passed between generations. It seems consistent that specific sin patterns would also be passed along.

But wait, there’s more.

Back about ten years, I was in a seminar with a guy named Kenneth Quick who’ written a book, Healing The Heart Of Your Church. In the book, he discusses one of the barriers to church vitality and that is an unconfessed corporate sin. Specifically, the sin of former leadership. Ken builds a case from scripture that leaders of high character take responsibility for the past sins of their groups – even if they individually had nothing to do with them and the events are separated by significant time.

This was a powerful concept and I later saw it in action. I was working with a church who seemed stuck. We’d tried various exercises and I had remembered that there was a significant church leadership failure several years prior. I asked the question of the current leadership, have you publically acknowledged the former leadership’s failures and communicated repentance to the rest of the church? Sadly, the leadership did not want to hear anything about this kind of leadership. ‘It was a long time ago. We’ll just be picking at old wounds. How do you expect me to be responsible for somebody else’s problem? There’s nothing to be done about any of those issues today.’ And so forth. What was sad for me was the denial of this Biblical concept of leadership.

In an article appearing in Christianity Today (Sep2017), D.L. Mayfield writes “In Memory Of These” about the same concept of corporate responsibility in the area of racial violence and reconciliation using many of the same Biblical sources. That is, that our current generation of believers should recognize, become convicted, confess, repent, and seek reconciliation for the sins of racism committed generations ago.

This message has been heard and acted upon in the last couple of decades in certain Protestant denominations. I applaud the even awkward attempts to express quality leadership in taking responsibility for past, unconfessed sin.

In any reformation movement, you need to go back before you can move forward. Usually, we acknowledge that idea in going back to the founding principles and clearing away the accumulated accommodations that have been reasonably made along the way – but which now do not serve the purpose intended. What also seems to be the case is that we must go back and clear out the ‘Sins Of The Fathers,’ as well.

Conviction.

Confession.

Repentance.

Reconciliation.

It is hard, but the direction is clear:

“Therefore, I [Paul], the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Ephesians 4:1-3.

Is "Love" Enough?

Last month, a dear brother in our church sent me a link about churches (within our very loose movement) who are closing. 

Here’s the link (hoping it still works):

http://assemblyhub.com/checking-the-pulse-of-dying-assemblies/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&utm_source=email

I read the article and appreciated the notions and sentiments expressed. But something nagged at me about how the article was thought through. I collected my thoughts and bounced them off my church member. Here’s the email I sent to my brother …

“Thanks for the article.

 “As nice as the conclusion was; that we should fuel the assembly with love, that is not the whole picture. Loving the saints in the assembly is exactly what has happened in all those assemblies that have closed. They loved their own deeply and well: great fellowship, shared life, deep connections. It is comfortable, agreeable, and safe to love one’s own. There is great comfort in ministering to other believers.

“But. 

"Love of the saints is not enough to fulfill the Great Commission. We must love our neighbor – the unsaved, the troubled, the difficult, the messed up, and the irritating. If we do not love the lost, we will fail with the task of preaching the gospel to those who need it. Believers – all believers – need to see themselves as missionaries.

“God will, in his mercy, allow a disobedient assembly to continue to live out its life, but then will let that body die. Many assemblies, who loved each other – but not the lost – have enjoyed 'rich fellowship' but have closed their doors.

“Churches that are thriving, 'assemblies' or not, are those who are faithful to speaking and being the gospel to those who are far from God. They have moved from, ‘every member a minister,’ to, ‘every member a Missionary.’

“The sister is not wrong that saints within an assembly must love and minister to each other, but she did not say enough. Loving each other is not enough for a church to thrive. Loving God and loving people – all people – is what Jesus told us to do. That’s when his people, doing what he commands, will see his blessing.

“Many Blessings, Bro –

-->

“-          Eric”

Any thoughts out there? Is love the only answer? What does that mean? Is it enough to love my church family - or is that insufficient?

Response To Sin and Offence

My theology professor, Gerry Breshears, posted this blog on "Restoration." It seemed like a good process to think through when responding to sin and offence. Wadda ya'all think?

http://breshears.net/?p=519

Restoration

I have a passion for restoring churches. No, that doesn't mean the "Extreme Makeover" or "Decorating on a Dime" types of restoration. Rather I mean working with a church that has experienced severe stress or stagnation that now threatens its survival. Christ-centered churches, when they are working right, can be a powerful force for God-energized good in our society as well as God's Kingdom.

I am always on the lookout for biblical accounts of restoration to see what they can teach me.

One of the Big Ideas of restoring a church to health and vitality is that the church's leaders need to be restored. In my studies, I came across a real interesting mini-biography that helped me understand this a little bit more. I'm indebted to Dr. Carl Laney for some of these insights.
The Biblical book of 2Kings is pretty depressing. The book records the rise of Solomon as the king over Israel. He is very smart, has a clear mandate to rule, and prospers as is fitting for a great man and a great nation. However, as the rest of the book reveals, even Solomon falls into idolatry and begins to forget Yahweh. From there, it is mostly downhill. Solomon's son takes bad advice, most of the tribes of the kingdom succeed, and thus begins the inevitable downward spiral that will lead to captivity, exile, and dispersion.

It has been pointed out that in the Northern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Israel"), there is not a single good King to be found. All of them forget God of the Exodus. They are conquered by the Assyrians and dispersed, never to return en-mass to the Promised Land.

Among the Southern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Judah"), there are occasional good Kings. However, there are more evil ones. A good King was Hezekiah. He got rid of the terrible and gruesome religious cults that had insiuated themselves into the people. BTW, there was nothing "earth friendly" or "noble" about these religions - they were wicked, murderous, oppressive, filled with hate and fear. Hezekiah got rid of their various "high places," phallic monuments, and other icons of creatures that were being worshipped rather than the Creator. Hezekiah was a good guy, a reformer, and he brought prosperity and success in his efforts because "he clung to the Lord" - like I said, a good guy.

However, his son was a different matter. Hezekiah died in battle due to an unwise action and his son, Manasseh, took the throne. He did evil - for reasons that escape me, after watching all that his father had been able to accomplish, Manasseh decides to go in exactly the opposite direction. He deliberately undoes all of the obvious progress that his father had worked to achieve and - is this predictable or what? - he suffers. I can't imagine the pain that must go through a person to reject the good, the faithful, the prosperous, the pragmatic, and embrace hopelessness, fear, death, and worthless sacrifice. I can't blame it on his dad - there's no indication that Hezekiah was anything but a good guy.

Manasseh continues down this road and "misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom" God had already punished! Manasseh is captured by the forces of Assyria and taken away in "hooks, bound in bronze chains" to exile. This wasn't a nice exile being kept in comfort - he was "in distress." 2Chron.33.

Yet, only then did Manasseh come to his senses. He finally did business with God and humbled himself "greatly." Manasseh had earned the reputation of being one of the most evil Kings in his country's history and after a lifetime of intentional wickedness comes to God - maybe for the first time - and repents. It is recorded that God heard Manasseh's prayer and then was moved to rescue Manasseh from captivity. Manasseh returned to his old Kingdom, his old capitol, and instituted several reforms that renounced his former ways.

So what this shows me is that God is very sensitive to a repentant heart.

What is sad is that while God allowed Manasseh to come back and try to put things back right, there were still consequences to Manasseh's former life. Manasseh apparently couldn't get through to his son, Ammon. Ammon turned out to be another evil king, carrying on in the ways of his dad's early career. Sadly, Ammon ruled for only two years and was assassinated when he was only 24 years old (2Chron. 33:21-24).

The happy ending to Manasseh's story is that while his son Ammon was a loss, it looks as though Manasseh got to his little grandson, Josiah. Josiah was only six when Manasseh died and Ammon became king, but the impressions that little Josiah got from listening to the stories from his grandpa must have been very powerful. For it was Josiah who became one of the most powerful reformers of the Northern Kingdom.

The lesson I learned from Manasseh was that while there may be painful consequences to a life poorly led, yet God can redeem and restore based merely on repentance. Churches and church leaders willing to repent can see restoration as God works through them.