Dear Fellow-Believers,
Greetings to all and welcome to our web-site for The
Unity of the Spirit.
June 8, 2009
Church and Churches Part II
In my last post I talked about my love for churches
- both the church buildings and the people of God in the local church
which meets in the church building. Just as my life revolved around
"church" growing up in the American South, so it has continued
to revolve around church life in my adult life. Over the last 35 years,
since the age of 19, I've participated in and helped found and establish
many different churches in many different places both here in the U.S.
and in Europe. There has never been a time in that 35 years that my
life did not revolve around helping to start, build, or establish some
type of church somewhere. Most of these were house churches - that is,
local groups of believers whose church life revolves around various
kinds of fellowships that take place in the homes of the believers of
those fellowships. In addition, I've helped start and build various
types of Christian fellowships on college campuses and, now also, at
the school where I teach. To me this is simply part and parcel of being
a committed Christian believer during the new covenant era of salvation.
This pattern for outreach and fellowship was begun by Jesus himself
as recorded in the Gospels and then became the norm of his followers
- based on Christ's commands to them - in the first century churches
that began at Jerusalem and then moved out throughout the Roman Empire
as recorded in the Book of Acts and NT Letters. As they preached the
gospel message they met first in the Jerusalem temple courtyards, then
local synagogues throughout the Roman Empire, and, ever increasingly,
in their own homes or other similar places (e.g. Acts 1:1-11; 5:42;
28:30-31).
Throughout Christian history alternatives to the religious
institutions of the day have often been necessary in order to accomplish
God's purposes of teaching the truth and caring for God's people. It
seems almost inevitable that almost all institutions will eventually
ossify and become in need of revitalization - institutional churches
are no exception. A few examples of this in history that come readily
to mind were the Lollards' who followed the leadership of John Wycliffe
in 14th century England, the many Reformation churches in Europe during
the 16th and 17th centuries, the Anabaptists of the same period, the
Great Awakening churches in America in the 18th century, and the corresponding
Weslyan movement in England during the same period of time of the 1700s.
In fact, the history of Christianity in America has been a continual
history of just that - revitalization upon revitalization - right from
its very beginnings in the Colonial era all the way down to the present
day. This has been greatly aided by the U.S. Constitutional principle
of separation of church and state - rightly understood. Of course, house
churches or other alternative churches have also flourished in countries
throughout history where persecution of Christianity existed, or exists,
such as in the first century church under the Roman Empire and in modern
China today.
The work of a church is a "noble work" in
God's eyes and those who desire to lead a church "desire a noble
task" (I Tim. 3:1ff). Arguably, good Christ-like leadership as
outlined in verses such as I Tim. 3, Titus 1, etc. is the single most
important factor in having a church that is truly representative of
"the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the
truth." Beyond that, it is obvious that the place where the assembled
people of God in a local area meet is relatively unimportant and a good
argument can be made for a central location together with various offshoots.
What matters most is that God is truly worshipped, that God's people
are spiritually built up, encouraged and strengthened, and that the
local church - wherever it principally meets - becomes God's alternative
to the world by teaching the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much has been
written and much has been discussed about what makes for an authentic
church. In my view, the best standard is that set famously by Jesus
Christ himself, "wherever two or three are gathered in my name,
there am I in their midst." That certainly sounds like a NT church
to me and I believe all authentic churches should be built on that simple
concept laid down by Christ himself.
The church in Cary, NC which Dorota and I are a part
of is Cary Christian Fellowship. We call it a "fellowship of fellowships."
We have a Board of Directors (Elders) which founded the church and oversees
it on a continual basis. We also have one person, Scot Hahn, who is
legally ordained according to NC law and who is responsible to lead,
oversee, and pastor Cary Christian Fellowship on a daily basis. We have
a variety of fellowships which take place at different times and places
for different purposes. First, we have one large monthly fellowship
meeting in which we all come together that meets at David and Pam Hahn's
homestead "out in the country" - complete with a pond and
other down home "southern amenities" (most importantly David
and Pam themselves!) - during the good weather months. During the cold
weather months of the year we meet at David and Mary Seed's home which
has a special detached addition behind their home which is a perfect
setting for our larger monthly fellowship. Both of these places are
wonderful places for God's people to meet exhibiting the loving and
godly hospitality of their own owners who are themselves faithful patrons
and pillars of our church community.
We also have two regular weekly fellowships that are,
perhaps, what the rest of our "fellowship of fellowships"
are built around. One of these is led by Scot in his and his wife Kristi's
home. The other is led by myself in Dorota's and my home. These provide
weekly continuity in teaching God's word and building up all of us within
our local "ekklesia" or church. We also have several other
types of fellowships that meet at various other times and places, e.g.
a children's fellowship, a women's fellowship, etc. We also stay in
touch with what we consider to be our "sister church" in Krakow,
Poland that is independently led by Leszek and Olga Druszkiewicz and
the Polish believers there. This is a house church that Dorota and I
helped to start and were privileged to be a part of back in the 1980s.
We consider ourselves to still be members of it - at least "in
spirit" - to this day. The believers in that fellowship are particularly
dear to us and because of this we particularly pray for, love, and dearly
look forward to spending time with them as often as possible. Thankfully,
we are often able to do this in a wonderful small Bible conference that
takes place in the Polish Tatra mountains in the summer of each year.
For me personally, this Polish summer conference that has been organized
and led by Leszek and Olga and the other Polish believers there now
for 15 years, is always one of the highlights of my year and I will
speak more about it in a later post.
I believe that each local church functions best when
it is self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing. It can
then draw on resources from, or cooperate with, other Christian groups,
sources of information, or individuals as it sees fit at any given time.
This local control also allows for the greatest flexibility and the
ability to meet the needs of a local fellowship with its own local situations.
This is our model for Cary Christian Fellowship. So while our focus
is on our own local church, all of us in Cary Christian Fellowship are
also involved in the outreach of God's word in many other ways in our
communities. Some of these involvements are in joint cooperation with
other churches or else in special situations such as school groups,
etc. In this way we seek to work with fellow Christians in a cooperative
way and yet to retain the unique distinctiveness of our own fellowship
- both in what we believe and in our method and organization. Finally,
we maintain a web-site for Cary Christian Fellowship and also help sponsor
this Unity of the Spirit web-site in which we seek to support both our
own fellowship as well as to play our part in supporting the church
of the body of Christ as a whole throughout the world.
Let us never forget that when properly organized the
local church continues to be "the church of the living God, the
pillar and foundation of the truth." (I Tim. 3). This church should
be a people and a place where God's love is manifested, where God's
people are built up, and where God's truth is made known to the world.
Indeed, God's intent is "that now, through the
church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers
and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose
which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:10-11).
So, what's happening in the world today? The church
of the living God - wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
May 9, 2009
Church and Churches
I have always loved churches and every time I see one
today something sort of jumps in my heart. I suppose this began to a
great degree because of my growing up in the American South. The Presbyterian
church I grew up in was very much a part of my life. We attended church
service and Sunday school regularly each Sunday. On Wednesday evenings
we also often attended a pot luck supper with an informal service or
other activities afterwards. I also attended kindergarten at this same
church and later both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Many of my closest
friends also went to this same church while others attended other Protestant
churches such as Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist or another Presbyterian
church. I occasionally visited their churches with them as well. All
of these experiences were very typical of the Southern culture of those
times and still is, at least, to some degree. Perhaps more than any
other area of the United States, life in the South for a very large
number of people still revolves around their church.
Most of these churches are wooden structures and most
of them have a simple beauty about them. Many of them are also painted
white. Since they are Protestant churches they are also simply arranged
on the inside with pews facing a pulpit, often with pews behind the
pulpit for a choir, and at times adorned with a few stained glass windows.
As I've traveled around the United States and Europe in my adult life
I've encountered similar churches in some places; however, most areas
had much more ornate churches especially in the ascending order of Episcopal,
Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. When I lived in Wisconsin for a
year at the age of 19 to 20 the churches I encountered were almost all
Lutheran or Roman Catholic. Oddly enough, even those Lutheran churches
were more ornate than the usual Protestant churches - including Lutheran
ones - that I was used to in the South. Having only been in a Roman
Catholic church once by that time - for a funeral of the lone Catholic
in my Junior High class who died of an accident - I was stunned to see
the differences. It was a whole new world for me to see the ornate adornment
and size of many of those churches in Wisconsin. Of course, having now
studied, lived and traveled in Europe for almost thirty years I've come
to see a European continent of churches that possess an age, magnitude,
and adornment that most people in the American South could hardly imagine.
The great cathedrals and churches of Europe are simply astonishing in
comparison with the simple, though beautiful in their own way, churches
of the American South.
One of my favorite verses in the entire Bible is found
in Paul's First Letter to Timothy:
"Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing
to you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how
people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the
church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
(I Tim. 3:14 NIV/TNIV)."
I cannot think of many things more exciting and inspiring
than to be a part of "the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of the truth." In a world of multiculturalism, relative
beliefs and values, and with no sure certainty about anything, it is
nice to be a part of the true "counter-culture" of God's church
which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Of course, most of
us know that the Greek word "ekklesia" (church) in the New
Testament is never used of a "church building" as it is used
today. Instead, it refers to:
1. The local church consisting of Christians in a particular
area.
2. The assembled local church.
3. The church catholic or universal - that is, the
church of the body of Christ consisting of all Christian believers throughout
the world who are spiritually united "in Christ".
This "church of the living God" began as
a local church in Jerusalem and ultimately many thousands of local churches
throughout Judea and the ends of the earth (Acts 1). These churches
originally met primarily in homes and continued to do so for much of
the first few centuries after Christ's ministry on earth and his death,
resurrection and giving of the Spirit which began the church. Only later
did these churches begin to meet in buildings which they either built
themselves or else took over from pagan temples. Nevertheless, even
though they started to take on elements of the cultures and religions
with which they inter-mixed, most of these "churches" still
continued to represent the essential elements of the Christian faith
and the buildings where they met became known as "churches"
as well.
Wherever I am in the world I still love to gaze at,
visit, and learn about these churches - that is, the church buildings
and the people they represent. This includes churches that I see in
my own neighborhood and the region where I live in South or in any of
the places where I visit in the United States or world. One particular
highlight in relationship to this was to find that the small hotel in
which my wife Dorota and I were staying in Japan a year ago actually
had a small Christian church within it - a chapel that was used for
Christian weddings, services, etc. This was an unexpected and delightful
surprise and we immediately set out to investigate everything we could
about it. In short, it had a noble Christian heritage associated with
it just as is true of most churches however they may have changed through
the years.
It is certainly true that the history, culture and
traditions of a local community, city, region or nation are often found
in their churches. To understand and appreciate the people of that area
one needs to understand at least something about all that their churches
represent for them. A good starting place is to appreciate the good
that those churches have done and, hopefully, continue to do to whatever
large or small degree. Most of these churches - with some notable exceptions
- began with the noble purpose of truly trying to help God's people.
And, it is almost certain that all of our lives collectively as Christians
would be spiritually poorer without them. For most of the last two thousand
years these churches have been the most stable force in the societies
of their times, beginning in Europe and then carrying over to America
and much of the rest of the world. These churches were, and many continue
to be, the center around which life in all of its most important aspects
revolved. They were the spiritual, intellectual, educational, charitable,
social, and often, political centers of the lives of the local communities
that they represented. If for the last 35 years I have chosen to center
my own church life in what I consider to be the original New Testament
pattern of the earliest church - the house church - it does not in any
way mean that I do not appreciate what the more traditional churches
- centered in their own particular and often beautiful church buildings
- have done, and do, as well.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Resurrection Sunday (Easter), April 12, 2009
The Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
Dead
On this Easter Sunday millions of Christians around the world celebrate
the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead. This, however,
is not just an event to be taken “on faith” in the popular
sense of that phrase. Instead, it is an event that is also rooted and
grounded in history – a history that is open to be seen by any
honest observer of the historical record. In early Christian history
the NT believers began a tradition of meeting regularly in their local
house churches on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday. They called
this day “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) because it was
believed – based on eyewitness accounts from amongst their own
members - that the Lord Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead on
that day. Believing that Christ was the “firstborn from the dead”
and that his resurrection marked him out as “the Son of God in
power” this day came to be seen by many as a special day to meet
together for “all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
their Lord and ours.” (I Cor. 1:2; 16:1-2, Acts 20:7; See NIV
Study Bible notes on all of these verses).
Though there is no New Testament requirement that Christian believers
are obligated to meet regularly on this day, there can be no doubt as
to this historical development of the local Christian church gatherings.
The beginnings of this practice are witnessed to in the New Testament
itself and it is also documented in many writings of the first few centuries
after Christ. In each case they point to the significance of the resurrection
of Christ in the early Christian churches. The late NT scholar Bruce
Metzger sets forth the historical record about the resurrection of Christ
and the beginnings of the Christian Church stemming from it in his comprehensive
and outstanding book The New Testament: its Background, Growth and Content:
“The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming.
Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed
that after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from
the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and
conversed with them. The most obvious proof that they believed this
is the existence of the Christian church. It is simply inconceivable
that the scattered and disheartened remnant could have found a rallying
point and a gospel in the memory of him who had been put to death as
a criminal had they not been convinced that God owned him and accredited
his mission by raising him from the dead.
“It is a commonplace that every event in history must have an
adequate cause. Never were hopes more desolate that when Jesus of Nazareth
was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. Stricken with grief
at the death of their Master, the disciples were dazed and bewildered.
Their mood was one of dejection and defeat, reflected in the spiritless
words of the Emmaus travelers, “ We had hoped that he was the
one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). A short time later the same
group of disciples was aglow with supreme confidence and fearless in
the face of persecution. Their message was one of joy and triumph. What
caused such a radical change in these men’s lives? The explanation
is that something unprecedented had occurred: Jesus Christ was raised
from the dead! Fifty-some days after Crucifixion the apostolic preaching
of Christ’s resurrection began in Jerusalem with such power and
persuasion that the evidence convinced thousands.” (Bruce Metzger,
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 150ff)
Metzger’s account goes right to the heart of the resurrection
of Christ and the formation of the Christian Church. This Church began
on Pentecost and the subsequent local Christian churches began at Jerusalem
and then spread out throughout much of the Roman Empire during the course
of the middle decades of the first century as recorded in the Book of
Acts. At first this “good news” or “gospel”
message of salvation was spread by word of mouth and presented as the
fulfillment of Old Testament themes and promises. Eventually, eyewitness
accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were collected,
organized and written down as “Gospels” and sent to either
individuals or local Christian churches for the further establishment
and propagation of the gospel message. Each of these accounts –
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – had their own original audience
and were written in a way so as to present the goods news about Jesus
Christ to that original audience in a way that would be best understood
by that audience. Only later were these four Gospels collected and presented
together in what became known as the New Testament. Given the original
individualized audiences of each Gospel it is impossible today to be
sure of the details as to why certain material was chosen to be presented
while other material in other Gospels was not and how that material
was specifically organized from the point of view of the writers. However,
there can be no doubt as to the collective historical testimony of these
Gospel writers nor about their collective overall purpose:
Luke, for example, states: “Many have undertaken to draw up an
account of the things that have bee fulfilled among us, just as they
were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses
and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly
account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).
John also is crystal clear: “Jesus did many other miraculous
signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this
book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you may life in his name.”
(John 20:30-31 NIV).
Speaking with respect to the individual, yet united, testimonies of
the four Gospels about the resurrection of Christ, Dr. Metzger states
the following:
“Divergences in detail are certainly to be found in the accounts
of the first Easter, but these are such as one would expect from independent
and excited witnesses. If the evangelists had fabricated the resurrection
narratives, they would not have left obvious difficulties and [apparent]
discrepancies – such as those involving the number of angels at
the tomb, the order of Jesus’ appearances, and similar details.
That the accounts have been left unreconciled, without any attempt to
produce a single stereotyped narrative, inspires confidence in the fundamental
honesty of those who transmitted the evidence.
“The evangelists [the Gospel writers], moreover, give the impression
of being unconcerned to provide all of the evidence on which the church
rested its belief. That is, they offer only a part of the proof by which
belief in the Resurrection was created and sustained.” (Metzger
p. 150-1)
Of course, the overall presentation of the resurrection of Christ in
the four Gospels is also supported by the united testimony of the rest
of the NT documents including the Book of Acts, The NT Letters of Paul,
Peter, John, and James, and the Book of Revelation. These each present
the testimony of eyewitnesses – each in his own way – of
the resurrected Christ and their writings set forth not only the historical
fact of Christ’s resurrection but also its theological, spiritual
and practical significance for Christian believers.
The subsequent history of the Christian church in the early centuries
after Christ also supports the same conclusions regarding the truthfulness
of the resurrection of Christ and the vitality of the Church of Christ
that followed. Christians should never be afraid of the attempts by
secular scholars to cast doubts upon the historicity of the events of
the Christian faith. Most of these attempts are based on the false assumption
that miracles cannot occur, or at least, that written accounts about
miracles cannot be trusted as part of the historical record. They, therefore,
predetermine and necessarily skew the outcome of their investigation
of the historical evidence. This does nothing but bolster their own
preconceived opinions – and often lifestyles – that are
based on their own biases and choice to not believe in God or in his
Son, Jesus Christ. The true historical record, however, is overwhelmingly
clear for those who desire to see it. And, it is the NT documents themselves
that are, and deserve to be, the most fundamental and reliable historical
witnesses of the truth that the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth,
is indeed the risen Christ, the Son of God. It is also this victorious
“good news” that is indeed “the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16)
Richie Temple
This article has been filed under "Articles".
For other articles and more detailed information on this topic see:
Articles:
“The
Resurrection of Christ” – the entire Vol. 6 Issue 1 of “The
Unity of the Spirit”
“The Lord’s
Day” – Wikipedia article
“Easter” –
Wikipedia article
Books:
The
New Testament Documents. Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce
The
New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content by Bruce Metzger
The
Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
April 3, 2009
One of the great ironies of life is that the political
right to "freedom of religion" does not of itself bring about
true "spiritual freedom" for the individual person. The Bible
makes it crystal clear that all of mankind is in bondage to sin, death
and the power of Satan's realm of darkness in this world (e.g. Rom.
3:9-20; Eph 2:1-2). Thus, freedom of religion is not an end in itself.
Instead, true spiritual freedom for the individual person is only available
through God's redemptive work in Christ. It is received by any individual
person through personal faith in Jesus Christ and then, at a practical
level, through the corresponding obedience that comes from that faith
as a set-free believer learns to serve others in love. Thus, a person
can be politically free and and yet in spiritual bondage at the very
same time. On the other hand, a person can be in political or social
bondage and yet be spiritually free at the very same time. As the apostle
Paul made clear:
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't
let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom do so. For
those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's
freed people; similarly those who were free when called are the Christ's
slaves." (I Cor. 7:21-22 TNIV).
This paradox is of paramount importance in the New
Testament and it has the effect of relativising all political, social,
and economic life situations in this "present evil age" for
the Christian believer in the light of the far greater "life of
the age to come" which believers in Christ will receive in full
after Christ's return. Thus, believers are already "free in Christ"
(Rom. 8:1-17) and yet still live in the light of their future hope of
the "glorious freedom of the children of God" which is still
to be received in full after Christ's return (Rom. 8:18-25). Political,
economic, and social freedoms - as important as they can be in the alleviation
of misery and suffering in this present world - are simply overwhelmed
by both the present and future freedom that is accomplished in and through
Christ. This, of course, is the "good news" of the "gospel"
- and it is a good news that cannot ultimately be bound by any political
power of this present evil age (II Tim. 2:8-10).
The apostle Paul - himself a free-born Roman citizen
with all the rights implied therein - lived his entire Christian life
in the light of his "dual citizenship". First and foremost,
he was a citizen of God's kingdom with its seat of government in heaven
(Phil. 3:20). To his mind the Christian house churches that he established
were nothing less than colonies of that kingdom of God in the midst
of the darkness of the world. However, he also took seriously his rights
as a Roman citizen and, above all, used those rights to help him accomplish
God's purposes in spreading the "good news" of the redemption,
salvation and freedom that was now freely available to all in Christ.
His words to his fellow citizens in God's kingdom were bold and clear:
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke
of slavery."
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to
be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather,
serve one another humbly in love." (Gal. 5:1, 13).
Let these words guide us as well!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
March 23, 2009
One of the interesting and far-reaching results of
the progression of freedom of religion is the autonomy which local churches
and/or individual denominations now have in determining their own beliefs,
structures, and modes of worship. To use the language of many denominations
and churches, they are each in their own way self-supporting, self-propagating
and self-governing. No governmental body tells them what to believe,
how to support themselves, or how to govern themselves so long as they
do not break laws set up for the general good of society. This situation
is taken for granted by most people in America and, to a lesser extent,
in other Western nations. However, it is really simply an extension
of the principle about which I spoke in my previous post of "Cuius
regio, eius religio" - that is, "whose the region, his the
religion."
My European history and American history students usually
look at me with a bit of hesitancy when I first tell them this. However,
in the progression of religious freedom the "whose the region"
has now progressed from the rulership of princes over principalities
in the Holy Roman Empire, to individual nation-states with national
established Churches, to finally, the autonomy of individual religious
organizations such as denominations or local churches - including traditional
churches and house-churches - in truly free societies. So in America,
for instance, it is no longer the prince who determines the religion
of his region. Nor does the government of either the United States,
or even individual states within the United States, determine the religion
of the nation or individual states. Instead, each individual denomination
or local church makes that determination and they are autonomous within
the property (church building, home, etc.) and religious sphere (church
affairs) of that denomination or church. This is an historically incredible
advance in freedom of religion and should be recognized and appreciated
as such by all of those who live in such a situation. It should also
be jealously guarded within the political sphere of any country who
has such a situation. It is specifically this type of freedom of religion
which makes for the vitality of religious life that flourishes in the
United States and in other nations where this freedom exists. It is
also the very freedom upon which the great advances in biblical studies
and biblical understanding - now available on a massive scale - has
taken place over the last couple of centuries. On the other hand, in
those nations where there is an "established national church"
- either officially or unofficially -religious vitality has eroded through
the centuries because that established church has attempted to maintain
itself, not by superiority of religious belief and practice, but by
imposition of its own dogmatism in the face of competing threats to
its dogmatism from without, whether religious or secular. This situation
is true, amongst other places, in much of Western Europe today.
Now it is certainly true that true Christian vitality
often is strengthened and enlivened in difficult situations even including
persecution. However, the same effect is often produced when each autonomous
religious institution must continue to uphold, defend, and refine its
own beliefs and practices in the face of competing ideas in a free society.
I have lived in both the former and latter situations. All things considered,
I am glad at this point in my life to be able to continue to grow with
God both as an individual, within my own local church, and together
with the wider Church of the body of Christ in the midst of all the
religious and spiritual variations, competition, and complications of
a free and open society. But I am also in spiritual unity with those
who don't have these opportunities and my prayers are certainly with
fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as they also endeavor to live
for our God in more perilous situations (Eph. 6:18!).
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Feb. 28, 2009
As a person who grew up in the United States of America
I also grew up with the concept of freedom of religion imbedded in my
life and thinking. Few Americans realize just how unique we are in this
respect. The desire for freedom of religion was one of the prime factors
in founding and establishing the different colonies of North America.
It was also one of the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution
as expressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Ever since
it has been a "given" of American life. Visitors from Europe
such as Alexis de Toqueville in the 1830s marveled at it. And, it remains
as vibrant today as at any time in our history. For most of the history
of the Western World, however, this freedom has not existed.
Christian churches began as house-churches during New
Testament times. They spread in this form for most the next three centuries
sometimes enduring persecution in a very fierce form. These churches
began with minimal structure outside of their own local leadership but
increasingly grew to become more institutionalized. This institutional
Church eventually became the state church of the Roman Empire in the
4th century and thus came to be called the Roman Catholic Church. From
the time of the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century
A.D. until its split in 1053 A.D. there was only one institutional Church
that one could be a member of in Europe. In fact "membership"
was expected, demanded, and initiated through infant baptism to almost
the entire population of Europe. Europe, therefore, became known as
"Christendom" -that is, the land of the Christians.
In 1053 A.D. this Church split into the Roman Catholic
Church which continued to be dominant in Western Europe and the Eastern
Orthodox Church which became dominant in the East. Thus from 1053 to
the 16th century there were two institutional Churches - the Roman Catholic
Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. However;
there was still generally only one option for the Church to which one
belonged; it simply depended on whether one lived in the West or the
East. With the coming of Martin Luther and the Reformation beginning
in1517 that began to change. First, after the Peace of Augsburg in 1555
it became possible to be either an "Evangelical" (Lutheran
Protestant) or a Roman Catholic. This still, however, was not determined
by one's choice but rather by the choice of one's local ruling prince.
The Latin phrase to describe this situation was "Cuius regio, eius
religio" that is, "whose the region, his the religion."
This "choice" of Churches was further extended about 100 years
later in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years'
War. Rulers could also choose Calvinism, thus making for three legal
Churches in Western Europe. If one did not like the religion that the
ruler chose one could always move to a different region; however, this
was more easily said than done given the realities of the living conditions
of those times.
Fortunately, from that point to the present Western
and Central Europe have slowly - very slowly - moved towards a continent
where freedom of religion became first "tolerated" and, more
recently, a "right" - even in countries that have "established"
or "official" national Churches - because of the European
Union. During most of the history of Europe even up until fairly recent
times, however, "dissenters" - of whatever shape, form or
variety - were officially persecuted. Therefore, they were often forced
to meet, just like the churches of the first three centuries, in the
homes of their participants.
As a teacher of both European and U.S. history I have
a great love for the traditional churches mentioned above because I
know of the truth that they preserved through the centuries and the
many social and humanitarian services that they provided to their communities
during those times. I also grew up in a tradition Presbyterian church
and I am thankful for what I learned there and for the people who provided
Christian examples for my own life. However, I also have a great love
for the freedom, flexibility and simplicity of the house-church concept
that has existed since New Testament times. For most of the past thirty-five
years - since I was eighteen years old - I have been a leader of some
type of house church no matter where I lived. During this time-span
the house-church movement has become a world-wide phenomena to the point
that it is now estimated to make up 10% of all churches. The movement
began as an attempt to return to the simplicity of first-century Christianity
as presented in the New Testament Letters and Book of Acts. It has been
relatively successful in accomplishing that goal and, at the very least,
has provided a grassroots impetus for Christian outreach and renewal
to the world-wide church of the body of Christ that never would have
been accomplished through traditional Churches alone. Though I have
no desire to see house-churches replace the more traditional churches,
I do think that almost all churches benefit by at least having home-based
Bible study fellowships, prayer groups, etc. as part of their ministry.
I also think that house-churches benefit by having larger gatherings
with other churches - either other house churches or traditional churches
- on a regular basis. In short, I think that there are benefits in having
both regular large meetings for common fellowship and worship as well
as regular small meetings for more personal fellowship, prayer and in-depth
study of the Bible.
Certainly, the New Testament makes it clear that where
the church meets is relatively unimportant. What matters is what
takes place when the church meets - that is, that God is truly worshipped
and that God's people are truly built-up so as to be able to better
live in a Christ-like manner. I am very thankful, however, that I have
the freedom to choose which forums in which I can most effectively participate
- and, to let others have that same freedom of choice as well!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
Feb. 14, 2009
Today is Valentine's Day in the United States as well
as in various other parts of the world. As usual with such "holidays"
the history of Valentine's Day is a combination of ancient paganism,
Medieval Christian traditions, and modern commercialism. Apparently,
it was during the time of Chaucer in the High Middle Ages that Valentine's
Day took on its more amorous connotations of love between men and women.
So how should a Christian view such days and what are
Christians responsibilities in regards to them? Paul's Letter to the
Romans provides a pattern that we can apply to our own situations:
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome
him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat
anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one
who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains
pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are
you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own
master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord
is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems
all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The
one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God,
while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives
thanks to God." (Romans 14:1-6 ESV).
As a Christian who does not regard any particular day
as any more important than any other day, I simply use a "holiday"
as an occasion to join in the spirit of the day in the best sense of
what it purports to signify. But I also try to point out the reality
of its historical beginnings and to what degree it accords with biblical
truth. This is also what I do for Christmas, Easter, etc. - all of which
have similar backgrounds based on a mixture of pagan, Christian, and
finally, modern commercial notions.
As for Valentine's Day, I mainly focus on this, the
25th year of marriage with my wife, Dorota. It is very meaningful for
me because I take the time to be especially thankful for the life we
have together. Dorota's name is derived from the Greek "Dorothea"
which means "gift from God". No name could be more appropriate
as far as I'm concerned, for she has truly been a "gift from God"
for me. The unlikelihood that our lives would one day intersect and
that we would be married makes our marriage all the more "of God".
I'm thankful for every year and every day we've had to give to each
other, to share with each other, and to serve our God together.
May God bless us with many, many more!
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
January 31, 2009
January has been an interesting time in American politics
with the inauguration of the first black American President of the United
States, Barak Obama. I was fortunate to be able to watch the entire
inauguration ceremony on television since my school was called off due
to snow. Irrespective of one's political views it is certainly remarkable
to see the United States progress as a society to the point where a
black man can be elected to the highest office in the U.S. government.
Growing up in the American South near the end of the so-called Jim Crow
era when legal discrimination in the South was the norm it would have
been difficult then to have predicted such an occurrence in my lifetime.
But the South and, America in general, have changed dramatically since
that period of time. Racism still exists, of course, but there is far
less of it than even a couple of decades ago. In fact, I would say that
ironically racism is much more prevalent in large northern American
cities and in many other countries than it is in the American South
today.
Biblically, the concept of race falls short on two
counts as having any intrinsic significance . First, all people are
descended from one man and one woman - Adam and Eve. As the Apostle
Paul stated,
"From one man he made every nation of men, that
they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set
for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26
NIV)
Thus, the only real "race" is the human race
and in that sense all people are equal before God. All other so-called
"races" are sub-categories of this larger one and are, on
the whole, bogus because of our common ancestry from Adam and because
of intermarriage through the centuries. In fact, much of what is thought
of as "race" is really "ethnicity" - that is, commonality
on the basis of common history, culture, language, etc. There is certainly
no "pure race" in terms of blood-lines and there are no races
that are more intrinsically more worthy than others before God. Instead,
as human beings who are created in the image of God all people have
the same intrinsic value to God as all others and are, on that basis,
to receive the same respect and dignity due to all. They should be judged
by their fellowman - and will one day be judged by God - "not by
the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
- as Martin Luther King Jr. famously said. (cf. Rom. 2:5-11).
Second, as a result of God's redemptive work in Christ
all differences amongst God's people - political, economic, racial,
ethnic, gender, etc. - are done away with "in Christ". As
Paul's Letter to the Galatians puts it so beautifully:
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves
with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26-28).
God has, therefore, created in Christ Jesus one "new
man (humanity)" (Eph. 2:10ff NIV, TNIV). This makes for a new people
of God who are "heirs together, members together, and sharers together"
in all that God has promised to his people (Eph. 3:6). In the fellowship
of God's people, then, there should never ever be any type of prejudice,
bigotry, or discrimination on the basis of race. Instead, all are equally
members of the body of Christ and all stand equally as children before
God their Father.
What then about governmental discrimination on the
basis of race? The Bible, science and history all demonstrate the fallacy
of the concept of superior and inferior races. And, unfortunately, the
last two centuries have shown just how harmful this type of racial misunderstanding
can be. Therefore, just as before God, so it should be before governmental
authorities: a citizen, a resident alien, a visiting foreigner, or indeed,
an illegal alien, should all be judged, not by the color of their skin,
but by the same laws that are common to all.
Richie Temple
For a very good overview of the concept of "race"
see here
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
January 18, 2009
It has now been three weeks since my father died and
I've been pretty busy going through his papers, etc. and putting things
in order together with my mother. It has been a time of quiet reflection
for myself about the life of a man whom I loved and whom I believe that
I will see again at the resurrection of the just on the day of Christ's
second coming and with whom I will share an inheritance in the future
kingdom of God. On the Sunday night Dec. 28 that he died I remember
looking at him lifeless on his bed. The stark reality of the words of
James 2:26 rang through my mind over and over:
"For just as the body without the spirit is dead,
so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:26 HCSB).
No verse could have been a better summary of both my
father's entire life and his present state in death. His life was built
on the simple truth of a "faith expressing itself through love"
(Gal. 5:6 NIV, TNIV). But at the end of his life when he no longer had
any strength to give he expired, gave up his spirit, and died. My mother
was at pains that her minister not use the common language of "passed"
or "passed on" at his burial or funeral service but rather
"died". Her minister was glad to accommodate her since, I
believe, this also more closely followed his own beliefs.
So what do I believe about death? First, I believe
that death is real and not the "passing" from one stage of
"life" to another stage of "life". Such ideas are
completely unbiblical and have come into Biblical theology and the beliefs
of people in churches through Greco-Roman, pagan, and new-age thought
over the centuries. In the Bible, however, death is a "foe"
and is specifically called "the last enemy" which is yet to
be destroyed. Simply put, death is death and not life. And, it is not
good, but evil. And yet, the New Testament also promises Christians
that not even "death" can "separate us from the love
of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8). And so, those
who are dead "in Christ" are not forgotten by God; instead,
they "rest" in Christ and "await" the resurrection
because "whether we are awake or asleep we will live together with
him" at his return (1 Thess. 5:10 NIV, cf. NLT).
This has actually been the principle belief of Christianity
since its very beginning. The question, however, arose long ago as to
what happens between death and resurrection. This period of time eventually
came to be called "the intermediate state" - that is, intermediate
between death and resurrection. Despite many varied and often opposing
opinions through the centuries as to what happens during this time,
the Biblical answer is simple and, at least for the most part, clear.
For the believer in Christ, at death, the "spirit" - life
principle - is committed to God and Christ in heaven and the believer
"falls asleep" in Christ until the day of Christ's return
(Acts 7:54-60, I Thess. 4:13-18, I Cor. 15, etc.). The dominant Old
Testament and New Testament picture presents death as a state of unconsciousness
for the believer in "Sheol" - the realm, or state, of the
dead. For OT and NT believers alike death was real, not the passing
from one stage of life to another. Death was death and not life. It
was only the promise of the justice of God and a future resurrection
of the just and the unjust, when God's people would finally be vindicated
and evil be destroyed, that gave believers hope and comfort. As the
apostle Paul, in accordance with his ancestral faith, stated,
"But this I confess to you, that according to
the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing
everything laid down in the Law and written in the Prophets, having
a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be
a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains
to have a clear conscience toward both God and man." (Acts 24:14-16).
However, it was only Christ's resurrection from the
dead that made this hope vivid and real for the NT people of God (II
Timothy 1:8-10). God's promised resurrection began with him and he is
the prototype for all believers who will also one day follow after him
in being raised to life and immortality. He is "the firstborn from
the dead" and "the firstfruits of those who will rise from
the dead." It is because he lives that we can now live "in
him" - in faith, hope and love. And, it is also because he now
lives, that though we may one day die, we will also live again "through
him" and "with him" forever. This is my comfort and hope
for my father. He is now dead, asleep in Christ, and will one day rise
to receive the gift of eternal life - life of the age to come - in the
future kingdom of God after Christ's second coming. Let this be the
comfort and hope for us all. As the apostle Paul said so well,
"Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant
about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who
have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe
that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still
alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not
precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come
down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel
and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together
with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will
be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these
words." (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
Richie Temple
See also: The
Biblical Hope and
The Hope of Glory
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
December 31, 2008
My father, Landis McNeill Temple, died on Sunday night
Dec. 28. He was one of the greatest men - indeed, Christian men - I've
ever known. The following is my Eulogy of him which I presented at his
funeral service or, more properly, a "Celebration of the Life of
Landis McNeill Temple" on Wed. December 31 at West Raleigh Presbyterian
Church in Raleigh, N.C.:
A Eulogy of the Christian Life of My Father, Landis
McNeill Temple
By his Third and Youngest Son, Allen Richard (Richie) Temple
December 31, 2008
“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”
(Proverbs 25:11 NRSV, ESV)
My father was, very simply, one of the greatest men I have ever known.
The older I have become the more he has stood out for me as the single
most important example amongst those whom I personally know of how to
live my own life in relationship to others. Indeed, more and more I
see him in me. Although we rightly honor him today for the many, many
good works of service that he performed on behalf of others, the father
I knew was, above all else, a man of principled Christian character
– a character which manifested itself in many different ways throughout
his life, depending on the times and situation. Like so many others
of his generation – which, if not the greatest, was certainly
one of the greatest – his life and values were shaped in the midst
of the world in which he grew-up and lived. He was born and raised in
a large Christian family on a farm in Lee County, North Carolina. He
grew up during the Great Depression and fought and was wounded in World
War II. He finished college on the GI Bill and after graduating from
North Carolina State University spent his entire professional life helping
develop North Carolina’s road and bridge system into one of the
nation’s best. He also lived his adult life as a dedicated Christian
layman, a devoted husband, a strong and providing father, and, finally,
as a progressive Democrat and Christian volunteer.
All of this took place in the midst of the tensions of the Cold War,
the tumults of the racial tensions of the Civil Rights movement that
so divided the South, and finally, in the midst of the more recent decline
in Christian values and the sweeping social changes of modern America.
Through all of these times the principled Christian character of Landis
McNeill Temple, the father whom I knew, did not change. Never once in
my entire life did I ever see him compromise on what he would consider
to be his bedrock principles, beliefs, and values – irrespective
of the cost. He was, however, wise enough to grow and adapt in accordance
to his own personal situation, age, and the times in which he lived
– while still holding to those bedrock principles, beliefs and
values.
The Landis McNeill Temple whose life we celebrate today is for most
of us the Landis McNeill Temple of more recent memory. That was, in
a sense, the kinder, gentler version whose life was known to many –
including his daughters-in-law, his grandchildren, his great grandchildren,
and the many, many other people whose lives he touched. This was a man
who in his retirement was freed from the daily pressures of working
for a living and was able to devote himself fully to serving others.
This man was not only my father but also my friend and I will always
remember this more recent time of his life with great endearment.
There was, however, another aspect of my father’s life that
was, for me, even more important because it helped form in me the character
that I have carried throughout my own life in the many varied and challenging
endeavors that I’ve undertaken or faced personally. This was the
sterner father of my childhood and teenage years. It was the same Landis
McNeill Temple of principled Christian character. However, that character
manifested itself at that time in a more no-nonsense and straightforward
manner. After all, my father whose character was formed during the times
of the Great Depression and World War II wasn’t raising daughters;
he was raising sons to become men. Simply put, my father expected us,
his sons, to know what was right and to do it. When we did there was
not praise but simply the acknowledgement that duty had been fulfilled,
as should be expected. At most, there might be a little nod of the head
in our direction. On the other hand, when we did not do what was expected
there were consequences – very direct – and without discussion.
After all, we knew what was expected.
My mother has at times mentioned to my brothers and me how my father
softened in his later life, hoping that we her sons would understand
that. Indeed, my father himself has at times said that he was perhaps
too stern with us in our childhood. Well, maybe and maybe not. The older
I get the more I think that that kind of attitude, which is so against
the grain of modern Western society, is just what is needed, though
perhaps leavened somewhat with a mixture of tenderness. Personally,
I cherish the memories of all that I learned during those days. And,
I do not think the lessons I learned would have been as effective for
me personally had they been delivered in any other way. Let me share
with you some of the most precious of those memories and the lessons
I have learned from them. We are all familiar with my father’s
sterling example in deeds. But these memories have to do with words
that he, my father, spoke to me, as a son, while I was growing up; and,
the profound impact that those words have had on my life in so many
ways ever since. That is why I have sub-titled this eulogy:
“A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”
1. Race Relations: When I was very young – around eight years
old – in the early 1960s racial tensions were at a fever pitch
in the South. One day I was out playing with my brother Steve and some
of our neighborhood friends. Somebody – I don’t remember
who – made a racial slur and ……….. my father
heard it. Immediately, he told us to come into the house. He then sat
us down and very directly and sternly told us, “ We are all equally
important to God, irrespective of the color of our skin – I never,
ever want to hear a racial slur coming from your mouths again.”
He never did, because his point was made – very directly –
and, because we observed that very same belief, principle and value
in his own life through his own actions during those years. He was far
ahead of his times in that belief because such an attitude was very
much against the grain of the segregationist South in which we lived.
But those words that were so “fitly spoken” were embedded
in my heart from that day onward and they have always enabled me –
whether here in America or in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
where I have lived, worked and traveled – to look at people without
any racial or national prejudice whatsoever; but rather, to deal with
each person as an individual human being who, like me, was created in
the image of God and was, therefore, intrinsically worthy of dignity
and respect.
2. Baseball: In my childhood and teenage years sports dominated much
of the life of my family. Both of my older brothers were athletes and
so was I. We constantly practiced, played together and played in school
and community leagues. When I was fourteen I was playing in Junior League
baseball and my father was my coach. During that year I was tearing
up the league with my hitting and by near the end of the year I gotten
at least one hit in every game. In one of the last games I got a base
hit and while rounding first base slipped, fell, and dislocated my left
thumb. Our assistant coach, Ken Creech, came out and grabbed my hand,
looked at it, and then popped my thumb back into place. Nevertheless,
I was still in a lot of pain. I continued to play, however, and the
next time I came to bat I had to hold the bat with my right hand a few
inches above my left hand so as not to put any pressure on my left thumb.
I was, however, afraid to swing at the ball for fear of the pain and,
of course, for fear of how ridiculous I might look. Therefore, I took
five straight pitches without swinging so that the count became three
balls and two strikes. As I stepped out of the batter’s box to
calm myself for a moment a voice - a booming stern voice - broke the
tense silence throughout the ballpark. “Richard!” - not,
mind you, “Richie”; but …. “Richard!”
….. “if you’re not going to swing at the ball, I’ll
put somebody in there who will!” That voice was, of course, my
father’s voice and everyone in the ballpark could hear it. He
didn’t say, “Richie, are you o.k.?” or “Richie,
take a little time to get in touch with your inner feelings.”
Instead, he was stern, direct and to the point. And so, I knew what
was expected. On the next pitch – I don’t remember if it
was a strike or a ball; it didn’t matter to me at that time because
from the moment I had heard that voice I was set in my mind to swing
irregardless – I swung and hit a hard ground ball that bounced
over the third baseman’s head for a single. After that I continued
to play every game until the end of season getting at least one hit
in every game – while, of course, holding the bat with my right
hand a few inches above my left to relieve the pain in my left thumb.
The lessons that I learned from these words that were so “fitly
spoken” were many. First, my father taught me that as his son
on a team he coached I was not only to receive no special treatment;
but, if anything, that more was expected of me than others (he would
not, of course, have said those words to anyone else on the team). Second,
I learned that if I was to undertake any endeavor in life that shrinking
from the task or feeling sorry for myself or complaining would do me
no good at all; instead, if I was to compete – in a game or in
life – I needed to do my best irrespective of the obstacles in
my way. I cannot adequately express how deeply those words and the lessons
learned from them were embedded in my heart from that moment on. I have
carried them with me in all that I’ve done ever since.
3. Learning English: When I was a junior in high school I constantly
complained to my parents about having to take English. I – at
the age of 17 - felt it was worthless, boring and a waste of my time.
In the last discussion about this that I had with my father I demanded
to know “Why do I need to take English?” His reply was short,
stern, and to the point: “Because you do!!” That was the
end of that discussion and we never discussed it again. But what I didn’t
understand – or refused to acknowledge - at that time was that
I did not, at that age, know what I needed to learn to help me in my
future life. I was simply too young and did not know the usefulness
of mastering English for my future life. My father, of course, did and
he expected me to simply acknowledge and trust that adults simply knew
more about what I needed to learn than I did. Mine was a generation
where “father (and other adults) knew best” – not,
the other way around. Ten years later I was to teach English for five
years to doctoral students and college professors at one of finest universities
in Poland. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life. In my
first semester I also had the joy of teaching a young doctoral student
in physics named Dorota Sendorek. She was the best English student I’ve
ever taught and one of the greatest lovers of the English language I’ve
ever known. Today, her name is Dorota Sendorek Temple, my wonderful
wife of twenty-four years.
4. Going to College: My first attempts at going to college were less
than successful. I was involved in many other things that I thought
were more important and was dismayed with the general attitudes prevalent
on college campuses during the 1970s. My parents, especially my mother,
believed I had the ability to do well in college and believed that it
would benefit my life greatly. In our last discussion about it my mother
told me of all the benefits of getting a college education. She was
right, of course, but I had a counter argument for everything she said.
My father, however, after listening for a while simply said to my mother,
“He doesn’t need to go to college. He can be a good citizen
without going to college.” Those words went straight to my heart
and there is probably nothing he could have said that would have more
inspired me to go to college. Not because I was rebellious and wanted
to do the opposite of what my father said. Instead, his saying those
words made me realize that they were not encouraging me to go to college
just because it was thing that everyone else was doing at the time and,
thus, it was expected of me as well. They really did want what was best
for me and they really did believe that a person’s worth had nothing
whatsoever to do with one’s education or academic achievements.
And so, I did, in fact, complete my college education, doing quite well
and achieving a fair amount of distinction in doing so. More than that,
however, it opened up doors for me for the rest of my life that never
would have been possible without a college education and college degree.
Indeed, for the last ten years I have taught high school history at
Woods Charter School in Chatham County – a college preparatory
school. During that entire ten year period I have also been responsible
for college preparation for the school, an area in which we have achieved
a great deal of success. What are the first words I say to my students
in preparing them for college? They are, “You don’t need
to go to college to be a success in life. College will never make you
any better than anyone else and you can be just as good of a citizen
by not going to college as by going to college. However, we are a college
preparatory school; so if you’re here, this is what we expect
of you ……” And so, my father’s words “fitly
spoken” motivated not only me, but have also, through me, motivated
many of my own students as well.
It is this father whom I will always remember and cherish. A father
who taught me by both words and deeds. Not by deeds alone, but by words
also - words “fitly spoken like apples of gold in a setting of
silver”.
In one of the last conversations I had with my father – just
a few weeks ago – he told me that he was fearful of the world
that the next generations including his sons and their wives, and his
grandchildren and great grandchildren would be living and growing up
in. My response was to remind him of the world that he himself grew
up in - the world of the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War
and the tumultuous changes of life in the South. I told him that he
had set an example for others to follow - an example that would not
be forgotten - and that those who followed could, by living with the
same principled Christian character that he had lived, deal with challenges
of their own generation as well – however great they might be.
And that, I believe, will prove to be true. Surely, no greater statement
could be made about any man’s life.
Richie Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
December 25, 2008
May God bless you all on this day when we especially
commemorate the significance of the birth of our savior, Christ Jesus
our Lord! Following is a beautiful rendition of the birth of Christ
in the New Living Translation from Luke 2:
"At that time the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed
that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. ( This was
the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) Everyone
went to register in the cities where their ancestors had lived. And
because Joseph was a descendant of King David, he had to go to Bethlehem
in Judea, David’s ancient home. He traveled there from the village
of Nazareth in Galilee. Joseph went there to register with Mary. She
had been promised to him in marriage and was pregnant. While they were
in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her baby. She gave birth
to her first child, a son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid
him in a manger because there wasn’t any room for them in the
inn. That night in the fields near Bethlehem there were some shepherds
guarding their sheep. All at once an angel came down to them from the
Lord, and the Lord’s glory flashed brightly around them. The shepherds
were frightened. The angel said to them:
“Don’t be afraid! I have good news for
you, a message that will fill everyone with joy. The Savior—yes,
the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, King David’s
hometown! You will know who he is, because you will find him wrapped
in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.”
Suddenly a great army of heaven’s angels appeared
with the first angel, singing praises to God:
“Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone
who pleases God.”
Then the angels left the shepherds and went back to
heaven. The shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem
and see what the Lord has told us about.” They hurried off and
found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger!
After seeing him, the shepherds told everyone what had happened and
what the angel had said to them about this baby. Everyone who heard
the shepherds’ story was amazed, but Mary kept all these things
in her heart and thought about them often. As the shepherds returned
to their sheep, they were praising God and thanking him for everything
they had seen and heard. It had been just as the angel had told them."
(Luke 2:1-20 NLT).
This is certainly a beautiful translation of this life-changing historical
event. What a great day that was for those involved and for those of
us who, ever since, have received the benefits of "the grace and
truth" which came to us through God's beloved Son, Jesus Christ.our
Lord (John 1:1-18)..
With much love in Christ,
Richie and Dorota Temple
richie@unity-of-spirit.org
