A Sample Ministry Covenant

Some type of “contract” between Christian organizations and their volunteers is becoming a necessity in our times of legal vulnerability. The following is a sample of the type of thing you may want to do to set the boundaries for volunteers within your church or ministry. It protects your volunteers in that it clearly explains their relationship to the organization. It also provides a degree of protection for the ministry or church from misbehavior on the part of of those working within its ministries. This sample covenant can be used by churches which practice formal membership or by those which have none.

AClick edit above to add content to this empty capsule.

Ministry Covenant

Your Church

City, State

Having received the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and desiring to serve Him through specific ministry, I most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with the body of Christ at ________________Church of ________________, _________________.

I therefore promise, through the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit, to walk together with my fellow believers in Christian love; to strive for their advancement in knowledge and holiness; to make a place in my prayers for this church and its ministries; to uphold its doctrines; to serve faithfully in discharging my commitments; and to do my part in maintaining harmony and discipline.

In the case of a difference of opinion among believers ministering together in this place, I promise to avoid a contentious spirit, and if complete agreement cannot be achieved, I will recognize the calling of the leaders to govern this ministry as God may lead them and will submit to their decisions. I recognize that if I cannot in good conscience affirm the doctrinal statement or governing policies of the church, it is my duty to remove myself from any ministry, which may be affected by my views to the contrary.

I further promise to guard the reputation of my fellow believers and co-laborers and not to needlessly expose the details of their lives through my conversation with others. I promise to cultivate Christian courtesy in all my relationships; to be slow to give or take offense, and to always be ready for reconciliation, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. Moreover I purpose, through whatever life may bring, to strive to live for God’s glory.

I understand that this covenant is not a substitute for membership at ___________________________ Church and does not carry with it any member privileges for voting or service outlined in the church constitution.

Signature __________________________________________ Date _____________

(Attach a copy of your church doctrinal statement with signature line, to the covenant)

Composed by Michael Bogart, with acknowledgments to the Baptist Covenant.

Explaining Jesus’ Lack of Knowledge

Here’s a question that was put to me recently about the interaction of Jesus’ divine and human natures:

Question: Since Jesus, as the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity, is coequal with God the Father (and of course with the Holy Spirit as well) and since God is omniscient, how can the Son not know the timing of the future in Matthew 24:36? “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (ESV)

Answer: The conventional theological explanation is that because Jesus emptied himself of the right to use certain divine attributes (Philippians 2:6ff), he therefore voluntarily put himself in a position where he limited lots of things about his divine nature in order to be truly human.

For example, he was limited to being in one place at a time, he was limited in that he had to eat, sleep, etc. It is natural therefore for him to be limited in knowledge as well, though that seems to have been periodically overridden at times when he had special insight into people’s thinking, etc.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

Michael Bogart

A Quick Look at the Books of the New Testament

The New Testament Books by Category and Theme

Dealing With Difficult Christians

How to Diagnose and Resolve Christian Conflict

This article is dedicated to all the dear servants of Christ who have encountered difficult people in their churches and organizations. I have often thought that there might be some type of special recognition, among the rewards Jesus will bestow when his Kingdom comes in its fullness. Maybe a sort of ‘purple heart” will be given to his servants who have been wounded in the line of duty. Whether this is the case or not, Hebrews 4:13 promises that nothing will remain hidden. God knows all and will not fail to deal with every deed: good or evil.

The truth is that most interpersonal problems in churches result from misunderstanding and poor communication. Such problems can be solved by cutting other people some slack, taking the trouble to talk things out and affirming one another ‘s faith. However, there are those problems which are not caused by simple miscommunication. So, let me list a few basic categories of folks who typically cause confusion and hurt within the body of Christ. Before I do so, I must acknowledge that this list is a huge oversimplification of reality. However, its value lies in this very oversimplification. Understanding some basic things at work when people get hurt among groups of Christians can help Christ’s servants cope when they find themselves the target of attack or caught in the crossfire of controversy.

The Clueless Christian. Bless their hearts, there are those people in most churches who are not fully aware of the feelings of those around them. They may be unaware that their words and actions are having a negative effect on the people they associate with and hindering Christ’s work. Because of this, they often find themselves unintentionally offending the people they worship and fellowship with and quite surprised at the reaction they receive. People who have known these folks for awhile may often say things like, “Oh, that’s just the way he is.” or “She doesn’t mean any harm.” The best way to cope with such people is to develop a tough skin to their insensitive behavior.

At the same time you should consider your role in making them aware of how their behavior affects you and others. Proverbs 12:15 provides some guidance when it says, “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.” You will soon know which type of person you are dealing with if you fairly and lovingly approach the person with how their words and actions are perceived. It may be that you will of great help to them in realizing what is happening and altering their way of dealing with people. If offending behavior persists, even after your loving efforts to deal with it, the person may need to be given opportunities to serve in way which minimize the damage caused by their words and actions.

The Mean Christian. It is sad to say, but there are people in churches who seem to derive some sort of satisfaction from demeaning others. Motives are always very difficult to discern, but it may be that at least some of these disagreeable people are attempting to bolster their own egos by tearing down people around them. They may be perpetually insecure or angry. They may have a grudge against a particular individual or a certain type of person. These folks will eventually build a reputation of being hard to work with, grumpy and just plain ornery. They may even have a handful of people around them who are impressed with their ability to achieve goals and who don’t seem to mind the difficulties of associating with them.

The remark often made about such people (out of earshot of course) is that someone ought to stand up to them. The reason people hesitate to do so is that most church folks desire to be agreeable and are intimidated by the prospect of a confrontation which almost certainly will not be received graciously by the difficult person. Indeed, if you are of the strong opinion that such a person should be lovingly confronted, it may be your privilege to do so. If so, be sure to spend time in prayer and confession of your own sins as well as receiving impartial (and confidential) counsel before proceeding. Matthew 18:15-17 gives the procedure for handling this type of thing. Again, if the personal interaction does not work, leadership may need to become involved. This will depend, of course, upon the magnitude and scope of the damage being caused by the individual in question.

The Divisive Christian. Some folks aren’t so much mean or clueless as they are intent on creating controversy. They may actually be quite charming and agreeable while fomenting confusion and creating parties within the church. I will mention doctrinal and stylistic divisions in later paragraphs. What I am thinking of here is the person who through comment and innuendo, fans the flames of hurt and jealousy between people for the very purpose of creating factions. This person thrives on the manipulation of people in order to divide the otherwise harmonious body of Christ.

I am reminded of James 3:5-6, which says,” Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.” In some ways the divisive person is far more dangerous than either the clueless or the obviously mean person. He or she can cause extensive damage to a church or organization through gossip and suspicion before anyone in leadership is aware that a situation exists. This type of person must be dealt with immediately by appropriate leaders .

The Agenda-Driven Christian. Unlike the person whose main motivation is the creating of factions, the agenda-driven person is bent on achieving a particular goal. In the process, he or she may gather followers, devise a plan and pursue a course of action in order to accomplish the desired objective. Goals can include issues related to church facilities, styles of music, controversy over current leadership and many other possible scenarios. Often this will mean that factions will arise based on their stance toward the agenda being pushed.

Agendas are not necessarily bad things. Sometimes these folks are of a visionary nature and feel strongly about a certain policy or direction for the church or organization. The problem comes when the normal, reasonable give-and-take within the body is replaced by a determination to achieve the goal without consideration for others. Philippians 2:3 puts it like this: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” The ideal would be to achieve some biblical and reasonable compromise which meets the needs of all concerned. Otherwise the situation quickly becomes divisive and counter-productive.

The Purist Christian. Ah, the righteous remnant! The truth is, I appreciate these dear people very much. Many of them are sincerely dedicated to the teachings of scripture and to the Kingdom of God. They love the Lord and want to please him in every area of their lives. I affirm their devotion and assume their motives are good. Yet, they can create tremendous havoc among God’s people through their uncompromising stand on what theologians call the second and third tiers of doctrine. Here I am not talking about the deity of Christ, the inspiration of scripture or the Trinity, etc. I am committed to what I believe are the clear teachings of scripture on these “first tier” doctrinal issues. I also have my views on second and third tier doctrines. My purist friends, however, don’t share the viewpoint that, while first tier doctrine is non-negotiable, the less central teachings of the Bible, and especially those for which biblical arguments can be made from several doctrinal positions, should not become issues for accusation and disrespect within the body (Romans 14:4-5).

What to do about the objections and commitments of the purists? I keep coming back to the word ‘reasonable’. One would hope that, even among those committed to having Christian truth taught correctly and in detail (as they understand it), there would still be some reasonability toward the legitimate views of others. Of course, some reasonable purists do exist. These folks are able to balance their personal convictions with the concern for the views of other sincere believers within the congregation.

In my experience, however, true purists come up short in the reasonability category. To them, holding fast to some interpretation of the timing of Jesus’ return or some point of view about how believers should relate to the wider culture is of equal importance with the doctrine of Christ’s deity. It seems to me that the best scriptural guide in situations like this is found in 1 Corinthians 10:28, which says in part, “…For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?”. It is ultimately unwise to allow someone whose conscience is weaker on a variety of issues to set the agenda for an entire body of believers and to insist that everyone else conform to their scruples. Giving into them for the sake of appeasement is, in effect, to hand them the agenda. It only encourages such folks to take a stand and force an issue every time something is said or done of which they don’t approve. In that situation, churches spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy dealing with matters of conscience, often with little remaining for constructive things.

The Annoying Christian. Then there are people who sort of rub you the wrong way. It is hard to say just why they do sometimes. It could be that your personality is opposite to theirs in many respects. They may come from a culturally different background from yours. You may think they talk too much, or that they are stuck up, or that they crave being the center of attention. As much as the behavior of certain people bothers you, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a substantial problem. It may just be that you don’t hit it off together. As far as I can tell, there is no place in scripture which commands that believers like one another. There are plenty of places where we are commanded to love one another, but love and liking are not the same thing at all. Consider the words of Ephesians 4:2, “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” The bottom line is that you just put up with some folks in Christian love.

It is my hope that this brief overview will be helpful to those facing difficult people in their churches and Christian organizations. There is no easy or fool-proof methodology, but perhaps knowing what may be driving various types of people will be a help. Then trusting God to work through us as we follow the mandates of scripture will be a bit easier.

Michael Bogart

A Brief Summary of the Middle Ages

Europe from Rome to the Renaissance

The Middle Ages are also sometimes called the Medieval Period of Western Civilization from medium (middle) + aevum (age). The Medieval Period extended from the late 400s to the late 1300s CE (around 900 years). Medieval civilization was created by a combining of three primary elements: Judeo- Christian religion and values, Classical (Greco-Roman) civilization and barbarian culture. To a lesser extent, the neighboring cultures of the Byzantine east and Islam also made contributions to Medieval Civilization.

The Fall of Rome. Roman Civilization began to deteriorate from about 200 CE onward, though in the Fourth Century (300s) there were several successful turnarounds of this trend. In the late 400s the weakness of the Empire, caused by corruption and various other stresses, combined with barbarian pressure from the northeast, culminated in a catastrophic collapse of the Roman government. The eastern portion of the Empire continued until the 1450s as the Byzantine Empire with its own Greek-based civilization.

The Dark Age. The collapse of Roman civilization in western Europe was followed by a Dark Age of barbarian invasion, settlement and supremacy, lasting around 300 years. The new barbarian kingdoms included Visigoths (Spain), Ostrogoths (Italy), Lombards (Italy), Franks (France) and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain. These Germanic kingdoms all eventually converted to Catholic Christianity and formed an alliance with the Church. The main civilizing factors during this dark period were the Christian Church and the manorial system.

• The Church preserved learning and the arts, mainly in the cathedral cities and in monastic houses, which began to form after the year 500. It also supplied strong leadership and organization during the dark years of chaos and deterioration.

• Manorialism was built around the nucleus of wealthy and powerful estates, called manors, which usually contained a fortified villa and surrounding lands with the associated industries. Together, these elements formed a unit which was virtually self-contained.

The Holy Roman Empire. The Frankish kingdom which replaced much of the former Roman province of Gaul, was at first ruled by a line of kings founded by the warlord Clovis and known as the Merovingian Dynasty.

Several centuries later, the Frankish kingdom became the model for the formation of medieval Europe through the leadership of Charles the Great. Charles conquered the nearby lands of the Lombards and Saxons as well as aiding the Christian rulers of northern Spain in pushing the Muslims further south. He was an able administrator and kept his diverse kingdom together through tight organization and supervision. Charles fostered a renewal of the arts and learning, known as the Carolingian Renaissance. For his successes and service to the Church, Charles was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in the year 800.

Charles’ success in reuniting a considerable portion of Rome’s former territory caused some people to hope that Rome could be revived permanently. Charles’ Holy Roman Empire began to weaken, however, during the final years of his reign and, in the time of his grandsons, was divided into three portions. In the late 800s the Carolingian attempt at reviving Rome’s empire was much reduced and fragmented, so that by the Tenth Century, Europe was again in survival mode as Magyars, Turks and Vikings raided, settled and spread havoc.

In this new situation, leadership was not provided by kings, but by local nobles who ruled their domains semi-independently. The exception to this rule was Tenth Century Germany, where Otto I dominated his nobles and recreated a version of the Holy Roman Empire for a time, until the nobility was able to re-assert control over their own domains.

The system under which order was established and maintained is known as feudalism. Lords awarded portions of land, called fiefs, to noblemen in exchange for oaths of loyalty and service. These men were called vassals and ruled their fiefs and the serfs (peasants and common people) living on them. Noblemen often served as heavy cavalry, or knights, in the service of a lord or vassal. In time, knights developed a code of warfare and behavior, called chivalry (the code of the horseman), in which the ideal Christian gentleman lived in courtesy, honor and religious devotion.

The High Middle Ages. By the Eleventh Century, strong leadership and stability began to re-emerge in several places, notably France and England. For example, in 1066 Duke William of Normandy invaded Britain and conquered the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, making himself king. He awarded fiefs to his Norman and French knights, largely replacing the Anglo-Saxon nobility. His strong central government made Norman England the most stable kingdom in Europe.

The time between 1000 and 1300 are often thought of as the High Middle Ages. During these years, kings and nobles provided enough stability so that people could think beyond simple survival. New land was reclaimed from swamps, forests (and in Holland, even from the sea). Agricultural production increased. Trade flourished. Trade guilds were formed to regulate commerce and ensure the rights of merchants and tradesmen. New products were introduced from the Middle East and beyond. Large annual trade fairs were established throughout Europe. Coinage began to replace barter as the means of exchange. Castle building made attacks on neighboring lands difficult and costly. Technology advanced, along with basic civic planning.

During this time, the Papacy and the Catholic Church rose to a height of power and prestige. Popes and clergy could enforce their will upon nobles through the threat of excommunication. From Rome, the Vatican administered a vast empire including most of Western Europe. Gothic architecture expressed worship through ambitious new designs and building techniques. Catholics from across Europe were able to unite around the common venture of the Crusades (1099 – 1297).

Scholasticism. Re-contact with the Byzantine East and the Muslim world during the Crusades, the writings of the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, were re-discovered, studied and debated. Scholars were attracted to the life of learning, centered around major cathedrals. This advance in scholarship developed into scholasticism, which attempted to understand and explore all subject areas under the guidance of theology. Jewish scholasticism (Maimonides) and Muslim scholasticism (Averroes) interacted and argued with Catholic scholastics, like Thomas Aquinas, over the meaning and application of Aristotelian thought to contemporary issues. Christian scholastics debated whether Aristotle and other Greek thinkers could be helpful (or even compatible) with Christian thought and teachings. Major universities, such as Oxford, Cambridge and Paris were founded through the work of the scholastics.

During the High Middle Ages, feudalism began to lose its important function as the basis for society. Cities were re-invigorated and began to expand. Peasants began to leave the land, moving to cities to find a new life. Strong kings and nobles could afford to raise standing armies through tax revenues. This allowed kings to be less dependent upon vassals for military support, enabling them to gain greater control over their domains.

The Late Middle Ages. The Fourteenth Century saw several setbacks to the progress of the High Middle Ages. The Hundred Years’ War between England and France (1337-1453) drained both countries of resources. The ravages of the Bubonic Plague (1347 – 1350) killed between a quarter and a third of Europe’s population. These things, along with series of serious natural disasters, caused the population of Europe to decrease and social progress to slow down drastically.

In this period, the power of the nobility was reduced as kings imposed their will and made alliances with the merchants of the growing middle class. These strong central governments gave rise to the nations of modern Europe. At the same time, the power and prestige of the Papacy was damaged by popular reaction to the set-backs of the later crusades and by the refusal of kings to be intimidated by Vatican threats of excommunication. Movements like the one led by Francis of Assisi to criticize the wealth of the Catholic Church, began a rethinking of Christian practice and church allegiance. The revival of the classical viewpoint known as humanism began to take hold in the universities and other places as theological views were questioned and debated. This would give rise to the humanistic Renaissance beginning around 1400 in Italy.

The Middle Ages came to a close through the innovations of Renaissance, the discovery and exploration of the Americas and the drastic rethinking of Christianity in the Protestant Reformation. By the mid 1400s, with the Renaissance in full bloom, the Middle Ages would effectively come to an end.

Michael Bogart

Becoming a Winsome Christian in Post-modern Culture

Helpful Questions to Facilitate Church Change

Recently, the church where I serve as associate pastor went through a process of evaluation.  As I participated in the process, it reminded me of several times I did this sort of thing in my solo pastorate in years gone by.  So after some reflection, I have come up with a list of evaluative questions which I hope will be helpful for churches and ministries desiring positive change.

• What are some of our strengths which we can affirm and celebrate?
• What are the major weaknesses which we should admit and deal with?
• How can we legitimately minimize the possible negative effects of those areas of ministry which we cannot provide as effectively as other local churches (such as music, youth work, children programs, etc)?
• Are there sins we must confess as a congregation?
• If so, how should they be identified and discussed?
• What will true repentance look like in our congregation?
• Does the inner circle of our people desire to address core issues affecting change or are they content to do business as usual?
• Is it acceptable to those desiring change if the key leadership decides that status quo is desirable?
• What are the key “church health issues” we must address?
• Do the people have the moral will to see desired changes implemented?
• What will be the financial and personal costs as well as the impact on morale for necessary changes to be made?
• What tangible benefits can the congregation anticipate if changes are made?
• What are some reasonable goals we must begin to achieve within the next three months?  Six months?  Within the next year?
• How should these goals be prioritized?
• What is the overall timetable for the achievement of these goals?
• Who will see these goals through to completion?
• How will we know when we have achieved our goals satisfactorily?

I hope this is helpful.  Michael Bogart

The Disturbing Jesus

For many, the person and ministry of Jesus has become a very comfortable part of life– so comfortable in fact that we can almost function on automatic when it comes to thinking and talking about him.  One of my tried and true remedies against taking Jesus for granted has been to read the gospels more closely.  When I have done this, I have found a depiction of Christ, which at times, has both startled and troubled me.  Here are some examples of what I mean.

Jesus, the Friend of Outcasts. The religious establishment of the day regularly criticized Jesus for associating with the wrong people.  He spoke with, ate with and spent time with a variety of those labeled as “undesirable” by the religious establishment, including swindling tax collectors, prostitutes, the severely diseased, Roman officials, and Jews lapsed from religious practice.  Understood properly, this might disturb our view of Jesus for a couple of reasons:

First, it challenges the typical comfort zone of middle class people (like me) because we rarely come in contact with these types of people.  Many of us have been raised in a circle which largely excludes people whose lifestyles are considered unsavory or improper in some way.  We have come to consider ourselves as somehow a cut above those people and immune from their situations.  The fact that Jesus would deliberately invite Levi the tax collector (otherwise known as Matthew) to be one of his inner- circle disciples, is so outside of the way we choose associates that it almost seems incomprehensible.

Then there is the very mindset from which Jesus befriended these social misfits.  He cared about them, but he also expected that they would not remain in a lifestyle of selfishness, immorality, victimization or self-destruction.  It is noteworthy that though Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, he gave her permission to become something new by commanding her to “…go and sin no more.” (John chapter 8).  Change was both possible and required as proof of her repentance and faith.

It would seem in my own experience as one raised in the steady, consistent, hard-working and respectable middle class, that we are often willing to have compassion on outcasts as long as it costs us little.  When we are involved with those in what would seem to be destructive lifestyles, we expect very little from them in terms of the ability to be other than what they are.  A dishonest person is basically stuck in their dishonesty.  The same goes for an immoral or physically disabled person.  To many of us, a person who has a mindset of dependency will always be that way simply because they aren’t up to making the cut into our class—the respectable, stable, competent people.   Jesus’ treatment of people turns these notions upside down.

The Jesus Who Loves His Church. During his ministry, Jesus gathered a group of followers and forged them into a community which was to be sacrificially devoted to one another.  Upon his departure from the earth, this community became the Church.  The book of Acts records the fact that as new people heard the good news about Jesus and believed, they became members of the community.  Jesus taught them that his good news would only be demonstrated powerfully as the truth when his people are devoted to one another: “People will be convinced that you are my disciples through your love for one another.”   This was no social club, no casual fraternity.  This was a profound change of allegiance.

Many people in the Twenty-first Century are highly individualistic.  Such a sacrificial community doesn’t suit either our personal sensibilities or our cultural patterns.  Even when we do belong to a congregation of Christians, many of us are almost as likely to change our affiliations as we are to seek different employment.  We complain about how the church doesn’t meet our needs.  We seldom volunteer to help in any meaningful way.  We are unconcerned when fellow Christians suffer.  It is little wonder that outsiders aren’t terribly excited about the Christian faith.  Why would they be intrigued about Christ’s Church when they see us behaving with such apathy towards something Jesus loves?

The Non-Materialistic Jesus. It has been correctly said that Jesus had more to say about money and possessions than about heaven and hell combined.  He once advised a wealthy and very religious young man to sell everything he had and give the proceeds to the poor before being eligible for entrance into the Kingdom of God.  He warned that it is impossible to serve both God and material wealth because one will always win out over the other.  There isn’t enough room in a person’s heart for devotion to both.

Jesus was known personally as one who frequently had nowhere to lay his head at night.  He was supported during much of his ministry through the generosity of wealthy patrons.  At the end of his life he literally was left with the clothes on his back, and even these were confiscated by his executioners.

How do we square all this with our obsession over money, possessions, comfort and even luxury?   Obviously some people are going to end up wealthy because of hard work, smart investments or fortunate birth, but never does the New Testament condemn wealth or possessions themselves.  It is, however, decidedly against the kind of devotion to these things which makes them the central focus of one’s life and the keeping of them at all costs.  Need I explain how uncomfortable this makes most of us?

The Non-Political Jesus. Everyone likes to find in Jesus an ally for their particular political and social views.  Marxist guerillas in Latin America claim Jesus as a fellow revolutionary and liberator of the poor.  Capitalists claim Jesus as a friend of free enterprise.  Homosexual activists point out that Jesus never married and theorize a gay Christ in an effort to support their social agenda.  Yet it is dangerous to read such foreign concepts into the Jesus of the New Testament.

If Jesus is examined impartially in the gospels, his teachings are strictly non-political.  When asked if Jews should pay taxes imposed by their Roman conquerors, Jesus’ enigmatic reply was , “..give Caesar what is due him, but be sure you give God what is rightfully his.”  Jesus was careful to pay his own tax to the Romans, yet he refused to acknowledge Rome’s ultimate authority over his life when facing Pontius Pilate.

This is not to say that his teachings have no political implications: they most certainly do.  However, Jesus’ goal was never to transform governments or the social order, but to transform people from the inside out.  Jesus acknowledged that he was indeed a king (in fact, rightful heir to the throne of David) yet he stated clearly that his kingdom was not of this world.  It was something that people brought into their lives by choosing allegiance to him.  It would spread from life to life until all nations would be represented and then it would come fully on earth.   No armies would bring it by conquest; no governing bodies would enact it by law; no violent revolution would establish it by force.  Although at times, Christians have attempted all of these methods to establish or enhance Christ’s Kingdom, in every case the result has been less than satisfactory.

It is an inner kingdom.  It is a kingdom taking form through a brotherhood, a sisterhood, a family of faith.  It is a kingdom growing despite (or even because of) persecution and hardship.  Christ’s  kingdom is coming with such certainty that no army, no law, no natural disaster can postpone it by a single minute.  This is a radically foreign idea to most modern people.

Jesus as a First Century Jew. Twenty-first Century people can easily forget that, like the rest of us, Jesus was born and raised in a particular ethnic context.  Like all Jewish boys throughout history, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day according to the commandment in Moses’ Law.  At age thirteen, he became a son of the covenant (bar mitzvah).  He attended synagogue, kept the sabbath, ate kosher and observed the numerous laws of Torah.  The gospels show Jesus as very careful to make the journey to Jerusalem to attend mandatory feasts and participate in temple rites.  Even his humor is Jewish (“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter heaven.”)

For those outside Judaism, there is much in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life which can seem puzzling or culturally unintelligible.  It is not unheard of, on the other hand, for Jews to investigate the gospels and find immediate common ground with Jesus, even after twenty centuries of Jewish adaptation and cultural change!  So it should be no surprise that Jesus’ way of interacting with people, his concerns and his teachings are all very Jewish in character.  A bit of reading up on Jewish custom and religious practice can make a huge improvement in one’s comprehension and insight into the story of Jesus as told in the gospel accounts.

But as a Jew, Jesus’ most severe criticism was aimed, not at Gentiles or even at Jews who weren’t taking seriously their obligations to the Law of Moses.  He reserved his condemnation for the religious elites of the day, the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Why?  Because Jesus saw them as missing the point of the very scriptures they claimed to live by.  He saw them obsessing over the minutia of the religious code, using it to elevate themselves in relation to others and manipulating people through guilt and intimidation.  That is why his message to those oppressed by the power of the religious elite and despairing of any share in God’s Kingdom, was such truly good news.

The More-Than-Human Jesus. Certainly Jesus was born in a particular time and place (during the reign of Caesar Augustus in Bethlehem).   He was entirely human as is shown in his human traits (hunger, thirst, anger, sorrow, death).  But then there is that other side of Jesus, which may make us uncomfortable, such as his claim to be the Messiah of Israel.  The New Testament spends a great deal of space showing how this claim is validated by the many prophecies concerning Messiah in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, etc.)  Yet the scriptural experts of his day couldn’t believe that a carpenter’s son, the circumstances of whose birth was dubious to say the least, from a backwater town like Nazareth, who had never attended any of the respectable rabbinic academies, could possibly be God’s answer to centuries of prophetic utterance.

More than this, Jesus claimed to be God in human form.  In John chapter 8, we encounter Jesus saying to these very religious leaders that Abraham, some two thousand years before, had personally acknowledged him and had forseen his day coming.  Jesus claimed that to see him, was in fact to see God.  He claimed that he and God the Father were one: that is, somehow unified in nature and being.  So incensed were the religious elites by all these claims that they plotted to kill him.  Even today these claims, if taken seriously, must surely shake the conventional viewpoints of many.

The Living Jesus. The gospels assert that Jesus is literally, physically alive.  Contrast this with the notion that Jesus was simply a tragic figure whose life was cut short before his calling was fulfilled.  His disciples then were so lost without his magnetic personality that they began to talk about him as though he were still living.  So after several generations, the belief that the deceased teacher from Nazareth was still alive somehow became solidified as Christian doctrine.

Of course, this line of thinking is pure nonsense.  From what the gospels record about the circumstances of the resurrection it just doesn’t add up.  Neither can this “wishful thinking view”  possibly be right when the incredible spread of the early Christian message is considered realistically.  The early Christians proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection from a very confident factual position.  The location of Jesus’ tomb was common knowledge.  No one could deny that it was empty.  The likelihood of Jesus being mistakenly buried before he was actually dead makes no sense since the Romans were experts at the process of crucifixion.   Even if that could be believed, the idea that a severely wounded Jesus could revive, roll away the huge stone and then escape the detection of those who were determined to eliminate him, is far fetched (to say the least).

More likely would be a conspiracy by his friends to steal the body and fake a resurrection.  Yet even this doesn’t add up.  The disciples were as sure as anyone that Jesus was dead.  They were demoralized and afraid.   Even if they had planned such a daring theft of Jesus’ body, they had proved their incompetence in such a mission when some of them unsuccessfully attacked a group of soldiers only days before at Jesus’ arrest.  So the body-snatching theory falls apart as well.  No, the best explanation, given the facts, is that Jesus rose bodily from the grave.

Conclusion: My advice is that if you think you know all there is to know about Jesus, maybe a serious and informed look at the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) might upset your comfortable views.  Jesus isn’t someone you can easily categorize and put on a shelf.  He still has the ability after all these centuries and across cultures, to make people squirm a bit.  He also has the ability to call forth our deepest admiration and even devotion, just as he did twenty centuries ago.  If you are content with some kind of dumbed-down Jesus, then you needn’t read the gospels with any kind of searching eye.  But if you are brave enough to do so, brace yourself for some discomfort and perhaps a whole new life!

Michael Bogart

Work and Prayer

Recipe for Recruitment

(Written by Ken Johnson) I once received the compliment, “You are the best recruiter we have ever had.”  I honestly was pretty surprised about that statement.  I didn’t believe I did anything particularly revolutionary…or do I?  As I thought about it, perhaps I do things a little differently.  To begin, remember the three R’s of recruiting: Relationships, Right fit, and Rhythm.

Relationship. I always seek to recruit out of relationship.  Truly, all of ministry is relationship, but recruiting especially so.  I know that in order to have an effective ministry I need to be in relationship with every person who works directly under me.  This will vary for each person and each ministry dependent upon size and structure.  Large programs (over 200 volunteers) will require leaders to be in relationship with key leaders.  Small programs (under 100 volunteers) will allow the leader to be in contact with every person.

In my current setting, my program is just the right size to be able to have an adequate relationship with each person who serves in my ministry.  I know each person’s name, family background, and ministry area.  For some I even know hobbies, joys, and past experiences.  This is invaluable as I seek to either affirm what they are doing or recruit them to move into a new area of ministry.  Without that relationship, I am either a voice on the phone or a face up front making an announcement.  With that relationship, I am a person who cares about them and their real felt needs.

As my program expands, the direct relationships will be strained.  My focus will have to shift from my direct volunteers (i.e. Sunday School teachers) to my immediate volunteers (i.e. service coordinators).  These people will then pass on the relationship to those who serve under them.  They will be required to know every person in the same capacity I currently do.  The relationships that they develop will empower them in recruiting their current volunteers.

This works great for those who already work underneath you, but what do you do when you are seeking to recruit a new volunteer?  The key again is relationship.  The more you know about the person you are seeking to recruit, the more effective you’ll be.  Getting to know that person’s dreams, excitements, joys, family, etc. will help you because then they feel like they are being recruited by a friend, rather than a position or an office.  The closer the relationship, the easier it can be to recruit.

Right Fit. The second factor in recruiting is the “Right Fit.”  As you recruit the person, always recruit to their strengths.  Out of the relationship you have developed with this person, remember what their joys and excitements are.  Find a spot that excites them.  The more excited they are about what they are doing, the more they will fit into the right spot and the more they will stay for a long time.

One of the biggest fallacies of recruitment is recruiting to the wrong position.  Wonderful Christ-like servants will volunteer because of a need but not because they are passionate about what they are doing.  They become band-aids for a hole instead of a committed volunteer.

Whenever you recruit have clear expectations and job descriptions so that the volunteer will know what they are getting into prior to getting into it.  This will also help to insure the right fit because they’ll know that they are getting into something designed for them that they’ll enjoy.

Rhythm. The final aspect of recruiting is to give the volunteers a good pace to work with as they move into this new ministry.  Don’t throw the volunteers to the lions!  Whenever I am trying to recruit a new volunteer, I will give them some time to try things out prior to putting them in leadership.  This might consist of learning under someone for some time, it might consist of just visiting the program, or it might consist of spending time praying about becoming a volunteer prior to jumping in.

This slow process will help a volunteer to know that they have time to move into the role that they are assuming rather than just being thrown in the first week they say they are interested.  This is a very respectful way of recruiting which will help the volunteers to know that they are loved and cared for.  The easier the transition, the more likely they are to stick around in the long run and make a real commitment to long-term ministry.

Once you have recruited some key volunteers, do not forget to find ways to sustain their hearts and spirits.  Encourage them constantly!  Write notes, make phone calls, and remember birthdates.  Anything you can do to continue to build the relationship you have with the volunteer will help them to want to stay.  They’ll know that they are loved and cared for.  The better the volunteer feels about what he or she is doing, the more that person will want to stick around (and even do recruiting for you).

I was once told I was a good recruiter, perhaps that is so.  Truly, I am good at building relationships, finding the right spot for the volunteer, slowly working them into the program, and continue to encourage that person in what they are doing.  It results in good recruiting because people will want to work in a place where they know that their leader knows them and wants to be with them.

Ken Johnson is currently Director of Children’s Ministries at Campus Bible Church of Fresno, California.

Next Page »