Wesley Korir - Strength From The Lord

In college, Wesley Korir started running at Murray State before transferring to the Louisville Cardinals. He had a good but not stellar college career. He was Conference USA Freshman runner of the year in 2004 and earned All-Region honors in 2005 & 2006.

Growing up in Sudan, Korir would run twenty miles ever day for school. Five miles to school. Ten miles for lunch and back. And then five more home.

In 2007, Korir needed to renew his Visa. During his stay in Sudan, they had elections and things went crazy. Riots and killings. In one of the mobs Korir was caught up in, he saw one of Kenyans running Olympians, Lucas Sang, killed. He eventually fled to Uganda.

Back in the States, he worked as a maintenance man at the University of Louisville. His coach encouaraged him to run in the 2008 Chicago Marathon. In the Chicago marathon, like most major marathons, they have an official marathon with the elite runners (in this case twenty runners) and then they let everyone else who wants to participate run behind them. Korir had to run in the pack with all the normal runners, yet caught up with and passed fifteen of the elite runners finishing fourth overall and winning the non-elite marathon.

A few months later, he went to Los Angeles and ran in the Los Angeles marathon, which he won in the fastest time in Los Angeles marathon history. 2 hours 8 minutes 24 seconds. Then in 2010, he won again becoming the first back-to-back winner. And in 2012, Korir won the Boston Marathon.

How I love the story of Korir rising from the poverty of Sudan to an above average college runner to the best runner in the world. If only we could bottle whatever he drinks and consume that same thing in our life. Maybe we can.

Most of the elite runners have special laboratory made concoctions designed specifically for them to nourish their body during the run. Korir only drinks water. He claims, “I don’t want my strength to come from any concoction; I want it to come from the Lord.”

Oh, how we long for a magical concoction rather than continually striving every moment to be who God wants us to be. The Lord's Supper is a reminder that we want to survive on the Lord, but it isn't a magical potion.

Transformation isn’t that easy. We can’t just drink something and change; it takes time. The Lord’s Supper isn’t a magical serum that will make us more like Jesus. It’s like a reset button that puts our life back into perspective. Being like Jesus takes work. It takes dedication.  It’s not a quick fix.  We come and take the Lord’s Supper every week, but if we don’t mean it – if we are just going through the physical motions, then it is meaningless.

The Lord’s Supper is not relevant if we just partake on Sunday but then forget about Jesus on Monday.  We should stop taking it if that is the case.

Instead, let us always remember that when we come to the Lord’s table that Jesus is the source of our life.  When we are thinking whether we need to love that neighbor who is a jerk at times, remember that Jesus is our life. When we are frustrated with that person that makes all the wrong decisions, remember that Jesus is our life. When we are tempted to slack off at work and just slide by for a while, remember that Jesus is our life. Jesus, Our life. That is what we celebrate when we take the Lord’s Supper.

When we take the bread and the cup, it’s a commitment to let the source of our life be Jesus, to let him work in every area of our life with the help of the Holy Spirit. Every day. Every moment. Like the runner Wesley Korir, we need to let Jesus to be the source of our life.  We will fail, and that is the reason we need Jesus to be our Passover sacrifice.

My brief foray into the Nazarene Church and Reflection on the Changes at Riverside Christian Church

Someone wrote me an email about my time as a Nazarene, whether that was influencing me, and mentioned that some of the people who had left the Antwerp Church of Christ, before it became Riverside Christian Church, accused me of teaching things that are "way out there."  This was my reply.

I left the Nazarene Church because I was not Nazarene in the least bit.  Never was.  We never became members there.  I wanted to leave a month in, but Lindsay wanted to stick it out. I just tried to minister to the best of my ability through the opportunities given to me while we were there.  I realized through observing the inner workings of the Nazarene denomination that I could not minster there without compromising my conviction that we should not adamantly condemn things that the Scriptures appear to allow. 

I left in a peaceful way, not making any stink, and still remain friends with Scott Marsee and Tom Travis (it was sadly funny to hear the stories from the people that hated me and left the Antwerp Church of Christ on how I caused trouble and left the Nazarene church and the youth ministry I ministered at in Michigan).  Honestly, it was over the Nazarene teachings on drinking, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.  I would not say that people who speak in tongues should be excluded from the church or ministry positions because the Bible does not say that (see this thread on Naznet for a discussion of the Nazarene view on tongues as a prayer language and their response to it).  There are biblical rules to speaking in tongues as a prayer language and those should be adhered to.  I could not say that drinking was wrong because Jesus was a drinker and Paul recommended drinking (from the Doctrinal and Ethical Positions of the Church of the Nazarene 34.5. "we call our people to total abstinence from all intoxicants.").  I understand that there is discussion within the Nazarene church to change this, but the stance of the church at the present time is not one that I can agree with.  And I do not believe people are saved with a prayer and raising their hand because salvation is found by grace through faith when we surrender our whole heart to the Lord.  This will result in us dying to ourselves, becoming Jesus' disciples, and doing His will.  Not that the Nazarenes don't believe that, but the practice of raising one's hand drove me bonkers, probably more bonkers than it warranted.  These were just a few examples of teachings, albeit well-intentioned, that seemed to spring from some source other than Scripture, which drove me nuts week in and week out.  I am required to teach what I understand the Bible to teach, whether that goes against a teaching of the church or, as in the case at the Antwerp Church of Christ, the traditions of men.         

I'm not anti-denominational though.  Just non-denominational.  Bob Russell, the retired pastor at Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY, gave a great sermon at the men's meeting at Lake James on this just the other month.  At some point in the 1950s, some in the Church of Christ (especially those in this area) started focusing on the things that divide rather than just going after the mission of Christ in the world around us.  We started thinking we were right because of our doctrines rather than loving like Jesus and making disciples.  If there are copies of that sermon floating around, it would be a great one to listen to.  I'm willing to work with denominations where we have common ground, to build relationships, and to learn from them as I hope they learn from me through our relationships.    

And my teachings are "way out there" to some, but I think they are in line with the Bible and the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches throughout the rest of the country.  It was not my desire to do what I did at this church and hurt people's feelings and "take" their church from them.  I was just following Christ; I honestly believe He wanted to transform the church and bring it back to life.  The changes just started steamrolling as the leadership changed one thing after another knowing that we needed to change if we wanted to exist in ten years.  The changes took place much faster than I had planned, but I do believe God was in control.  I can see now that if we took my slower plan with a focus on educating the changes through, we would have had just as many headaches and lost as many people.  These losses would have occurred without the resultant growth we have seen.  Slow changing would have probably killed the church; fast changing nearly did.  I remember sending emails and making phone calls to my Church of Christ professors and friends in the ministry asking if I should be pursuing the changes we were making and teaching the things I was teaching because the struggle we were facing was something I had never experienced.  I was beginning to question whether I belonged in the Church of Christ, although I did not know where I would wind up if I did not.  But they encouraged me and told me to keep going after what God had called me to.  I know now that I rest firmly in the Restoration Movement and that there are like-minded churches in this area, but I did not have the relationships with them at that time.

I hope that the core of my teaching is what Jesus had at the core of his teaching, "Loving God and loving our neighbors."  It is our mission to be a community of people in real, authentic relationships with one another, to be passionate about Jesus and His work, and to love people in practical ways.  By doing that, we hope that God will transform people and add to our community.  This vision is a combination of the thoughts in Acts 2:42 and Matthew 22:37-40.  If people don't get that from what I teach, then I have not done a good job.  If my teachings aren't "way out there" to a dead church who should have the life of Christ exuding from them, then I am not doing my job. 

Just this last week, I taught a sermon that would have infuriated some of those who left on the Lord's Supper in which I touched on how it is not commanded to be done weekly (although they try to use bad Bible study methods on Acts 20:7 to make it say that), but that we choose to do it weekly because we want Jesus' death on the cross and the forgiveness and unity we have as a result of that to be central to our gathering.  The only sin associated with taking the Lord's Supper in Scripture is the sin of taking it in an unworthy manner, not discerning Christ's body, the church, when taking it.  The Lord's Supper is not something we should divide over, think it makes us better than others because of the frequency or way we do it, nor is it something that we take on Sunday and forget; it should be something that spurs us on toward living the life of love that Jesus wants us to live throughout the rest of the week.

Our church's beliefs and convictions can be found at our church's website.

Nearly Unified - The Marburg Colloquy

On October 3, 1529, the leaders of the Protestant movement gathered together to unify. They nearly did. Out of fifteen articles, they agreed on fourteen. And in the fifteenth, they had a disagreement on just one point, the nature of the presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. In attendance were John Oecolampadius (age 47 - theologian who was a professor at the University of Basel), Huldrych Zwingli (age 45 - Swiss Reformation leader), Martin Bucer (age 38 - a unity-minded reformer in Strasbourg and lead mediator between Luther and Zwingli), Caspar Hedio (age 35 - a forgotten reformer who ministered in Strasbourg), Martin Luther (age 46 - needs no introduction), Justus Jonas (age 36 - professor, translator of Luther and Melanchton's Latin works into German), Philip Melanchthon (age 32 - the first prominent theologian of the Reformation), Andreas Osiander (age 31 - a German/Lutheran preacher and eventual professor), Stephan Agricola (age 38 - German/Lutheran preacher), John Brenz (age 30 - professor made prominent for his writings on the topic of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper). If you are wondering where Calvin was, he was only twenty at the time of this meeting and had not yet broken from the Catholic Church.

What baffles me in reading about these pillars of the Reformation is how there was so much controversy over completely theological yet extrascriptural ideas. Just because they were talking about the nature of God or Jesus, the nature of justification, or some other spiritual subject does not mean that it was worth dividing over. The reformers were experiencing the newly allowed ability to think for themselves but had yet to discover how to stand only on essentials while allowing freedom to disagree on other subjects. They were amiable and friendly in their disagreement in the fifteenth statement, but it kept them from being united.  Like us today, we still have not learned how to unify over essentials and not divide over every difference of doctrinal opinion, worship styles, or opinions on the color of the carpet.

From this side of the division, it seem pretty ridiculous. Luther's stance was one step removed from transubstantiation, the belief that the body and blood of Jesus are present in the sacrament. While Zwingli believed that the cup and bread are just symbols. This was the nature of the disagreement that kept the early Protestant church divided.  Luther was willing to concede, but Melancthon convinced him that if he were to do that, then reconciliation with the Catholic Church would be impossible.

Following is the Marburg that were agreed upon.

The Marburg Articles

The undersigned have agreed to the articles given below at Marburg on October 3, 1529.

First, that we on both sides unanimously believe and hold that there is only one true, natural God, Maker of all creatures, and that this same God is one in essence and nature and triune as to persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, exactly as was decided in the Council of Nicaea and as is sung and read in the Nicene Creed by the entire Christian church throughout the world.

Second, we believe that neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son of God the Father, true and natural God himself, became man through the working of the Holy Spirit without the agency of male seed, was born of the pure Virgin Mary, was altogether human with body and soul, like another man, but without sin.

Third, that this same Son of God and of Mary, undivided in person, Jesus Christ, was crucified for us, died and was buried, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, Lord over all creatures, and will come to judge the living and the dead, etc.

Fourth, we believe that original sin is innate and inherited by us from Adam and is the kind of sin which condemns all men. And if Jesus Christ had not come to our aid by his death and life, we would have had to die eternally as a result of it and could not have received God’s kingdom and salvation.

Fifth, we believe that we are saved from such sin and all other sins as well as from eternal death, if we believe in the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who died for us, etc., and that apart from such faith we cannot free ourselves of any sin through any kind of works, station in life, or [religious] order, etc.

Sixth, that such faith is a gift of God which we cannot earn with any works or merit that precede, nor can we achieve it by our own strength, but the Holy Spirit gives and creates this faith in our hearts as it pleases him, when we hear the gospel or the word of Christ.

Seventh, that such faith is our righteousness before God, for the sake of which God reckons and regards us as righteous, godly, and holy apart from all works and merit, and through which he delivers us from sin, death, and hell, receives us by grace and saves us, for the sake of his Son, in whom we thus believe, and thereby we enjoy and partake of his Son’s righteousness, life, and all blessings. [Therefore, all monastic life and vows, when regarded as an aid to salvation, are altogether condemned. (This last sentence of the seventh article is found only in the Zurich manuscript. See WA 30III, 164. Concerning the External Word2)]

Eighth, that the Holy Spirit, ordinarily, gives such faith or his gift to no one without preaching or the oral word or the gospel of Christ preceding, but that through and by means of such oral word he effects and creates faith where and in whom it pleases him (Romans 10 [:14 ff.] ).

Concerning Baptism
Ninth, that holy baptism is a sacrament which has been instituted by God as an aid to such a faith, and because God’s command, “Go, baptize” [cf. Matt. 28:19], and God’s promise, “He who believes” [Mark 16:16], are connected with it, it is therefore not merely an empty sign or watchword among Christians but, rather, a sign and work of God by which our faith grows (The various manuscripts have both gefordert and gefoddert, which can mean either “to promote, grow” or “to demand.” Zwingli understood the latter meaning. Luther used the word in both of its meanings. See the note to the ninth article in WA 30III, 165 f. Cf. Sasse, op. cit., p. 271) and through which we are regenerated to [eternal] life.

Concerning Good Works
Tenth, that such faith, through the working of the Holy Spirit, and by which we are reckoned and have become righteous and holy, performs good works through us, namely, love toward the neighbor, prayer to God, and the suffering of persecution of every kind.

Concerning Confession
Eleventh, that confession or the seeking of counsel from one’s pastor or neighbor should indeed be without constraint and free. Nevertheless, it is very helpful to consciences that are afflicted, troubled, or burdened with sins, or have fallen into error, most especially on account of the absolution or consolation afforded by the gospel, which is the true absolution.

Concerning Governing Authorities
Twelfth, that all governing authorities and secular laws, courts, and ordinances, wherever they exist, are a truly good estate and are not forbidden, as some papists and Anabaptists teach and hold. On the contrary, [we believe] that a Christian, called or born thereto, can indeed be saved through faith in Christ, just as in the estate of father or mother, husband or wife, etc.

Thirteenth, that what is called tradition or human ordinances in spiritual or ecclesiastical matters, provided they do not plainly contradict the word of God, may be freely kept or abolished in accordance with the needs of the people with whom we are dealing, in order to avoid unnecessary offense in every way and to serve the weak and the peace of all, etc.

[Also, that the doctrine forbidding clerical marriage is a teaching of the devil. (This sentence of the thirteenth article is found only in the Zurich manuscript. See WA 30III, 168.)]

Fourteenth, that baptism of infants is right, and that they are thereby received into God’s grace and into Christendom.

Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ
Fifteenth, we all believe and hold concerning the Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ that both kinds should be used according to the institution by Christ; [also that the mass is not a work with which one can secure grace for someone else, whether he is dead or alive; (The Zurich manuscript contains this additional statement. See WA 30III, 169.)] also that the Sacrament of the Altar is a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and that the spiritual partaking of the same body and blood is especially necessary for every Christian. Similarly, that the use of the sacrament, like the word, has been given and ordained by God Almighty in order that weak consciences may thereby be excited to faith by the Holy Spirit. And although at this time, we have not reached an agreement as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine, nevertheless, each side should show Christian love to the other side insofar as conscience will permit, and both sides should diligently pray to Almighty God that through his Spirit he might confirm us in the right understanding. Amen.

Martin Luther
Justus Jonas
Philip Melanchthon
Andreas Osiander
Stephan Agricola
John Brenz
John Oecolampadius
Huldrych Zwingli
Martin Bucer
Caspar Hedio

The Zurich manuscript lists the signatures in this order: John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Caspar Hedio, Martin Luther, Justus Jonas, Philip Melanchthon, Andreas Osiander, Stephan Agricola, John Brenz.

The Disappearance of the Fellowship Meal

When we gather together for the Lord's Supper, it is a proclamation of the fellowship we have with one another. In 1 Corinthians 11, we see the fellowship meal and the Lord's Supper intimately linked. If I were to just read "Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?" (1 Corinthians 11:22a) or "If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home" (1 Corinthians 11:34a), we might conclude that the church is not supposed to share a meal together. Those verses if read in isolation could be seen as a proclamation supporting the modern church practice of not frequently eating together as a church, but when read in the context of the whole passage, Paul was giving instruction on how to participate in the fellowship meal. This meal, at least for the early church, was the context in which the Lord's Supper was remembered.

We see this fellowship meal throughout the New Testament. In Acts 2:46-47, we see that the early church shared meals together. This practice was still in practice 20 years later.  We can see it being addressed in 1 Corinthians 11. Jude also mentions the love feast in his letter which was written 30 years after the beginning of the church. The practice of sharing a meal together was practiced throughout the New Testament church; it is something that we would benefit from today if we practiced it more regularly. So let us read together Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church in regards to how they should share their meal together.

In an examination of 1 Corinthians, we see that Corinthian church had a major problem with the divisions within the body. Throughout the book, these issues of division were revealed. From the very first chapter where in verse 12 Paul wrote, “One of you says, “I follow Paul'; another 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.' All sorts of divisions manifested themselves in the Corinthian church.

In chapter 11, the divisions seemed to manifest themselves among economic lines and were exposed during the fellowship meal.

“For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothings?”

Verse 21 shows that some people were getting drunk while others remained hungry. Verse 22 mentions that those who were hungry were those “who have nothing”.

In order to properly understand chapter 11 and the struggle with the abuse of the Lord's Supper, we have to picture the fellowship meal as it was at that time of the early church because it is an almost forgotten practice in our time. For the early church, the fellowship meal was the intimate time of family gathering in which the sacrifice of Jesus was remembered and the unity of the church was proclaimed. Prior to the crucifixion, Jesus implemented the Lord's Supper during a meal with his disciples. This shared meal continued to be practiced throughout the early church. In I Corinthians 5:11, where Paul commanded the church not to eat with the immoral brother, Paul was telling them to not allow that guy into the fellowship meal. The fellowship meal was supposed to be the sacred time in which the eternal fellowship of believers actually peeked through the veil of eternity and manifested itself in our physical reality. The fellowship meal was the church gathering. It should not have been violated by a self-proclaimed believer who refused to stop living in an intentional and flagrant sin.

We find ourselves on the other side of history. At some point from the time of the early church to now, the important fellowship meal and its proclamation have been discarded and the meal transformed into a token piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine or grape juice. This happened to the detriment of the church because a result of the meal being thrown out was the eventual watering down of fellowship and a loss of its true meaning. No longer was the church a family that shared a meal together. They were just a collection of individuals who gathered together to worship and be educated. With the disappearance of the meal we see the eventual disappearance of fellowship.