He described it as this: instead of just sending money to help someone, give of your time and physically be present in helping them.

He talked about it in the idea of missions and a couple of other contexts.

Does that help clarify it?

Kasey

Thanks bra!

That video was pretty amazing. Thanks for the link. We'll have to find a spot for that (or something like it) to work.

We\'ve put it on the back burner with Easter on the horizon, but that doesn\'t mean we\'ve forgot about it. Our music director and Speedway campus worship leaders have been intentional about engaging musicians in their element since then and have been building relationships with this community in the metro area.

They have had some great stories of being able to play with some great artists and have some healthy spiritual conversations. Jimmy, at Speedway, told me this week that one of the guys he\'s been helping with some studio work has been asking more and more about Christ.

This hasn\'t gone to the level of incorporating artists in our element, but we are beginning to identify and be involved with artists in their culture right now.

My interpretation is focussed around the word "Rest." God rested. We need to rest. That is defined differently and cannot be regulated as the Hebrew Rabbi's tried to do. Regulating rest is legalistic. Rest can only be defined by the individual. If you unwind in an activity that is a hobby, and it rejuvenates your spirit and body, then, by all means, get dirty in that garden.

For the person who ignores their family or relationship with God because they enjoy their work and they don't renew their mind, body and soul in rest, they are in danger of breaking the Sabbath.

Great Pic. Glad you are making use of the site!

Good post. The stat that 40% of those promoted will no longer be in that position in 18 mos is daunting. I'd love to get my hands on this book. Sounds like a great help for ministry management.

The difference I think is that the monies are given to Kingdom driven organizations. There are several soup kitchens that are meeting the needs of the people in their communities, but for me to take the 10% that belongs to God and give it to them knowing they are not interested in telling them about the gospel is where this heresy applies.

The Old Testament mentions bringing the tithe to the storehouse. I don't know of a definitive argument to say Big C over Little c is right or wrong. This is the strongest evidence I have for bringing the tithe to your local place of worship: Malachi 3:10 "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple." We are to give 10% so ministry can keep going. The temple was the place people would bring sacrifices and it was the place where the people heard from God.

It is up to interpretation and this is how interpret that verse.

A lot of people will reference that as an OT practice and not applicable today. However, in the NT there are references to the Little c church, that just began assembling, bringing their offerings (which was everything - not 10%!) to be given away to each other. NT living is about 100% giving.

Another argument worth mentioning, is that if you are going to a church that you don't believe you can give to, why are you going?

My take is that my responsibility is to obey and give. I want to be able to give more. My wife and I give way more than 10% away every year. The first 10% goes straight to my church. The rest is through missions, causes, gift cards, etc. We love to give. It isn't always economically easy, but we love doing it. When I obey and give that is all I'm responsible for to God. Then those I give my money to are responsible to God for what they do with that money.

Ha... I reread things a lot and hope people don't take it wrong.

And I didn't take it wrong. I see what your saying and I'm loving the idea it provokes.

One thing we've been discussing here at WFC - kind of spawned by this - is how do we involve artists missionally?

Can we do a Blues and BBQ for the homeless of Downtown KC and use our volunteer musicians?

Or we take some of our artists and ask the city if we can have them paint murals over the graffitied walls.

This has been a healthy discussion that has taken us to think beyond the walls of the church.

Instead of engaging the artist to attract, engage the artist to impact an area. If this becomes part of the DNA, would other artists be attracted to it and want to get involved?

They didn't define "artist" as much as they talked about it. I do agree with you, that there are more "artists" than who we typically identify by labeling them as musicians, painters, etc.

Going on your thought of giving freedom to originate and finding the middle ground... should it be a question of who can this reach as opposed to who does this offend?

Then would the question need to be: What art do we need to reach so & so? What speaks to this community? Or are there other questions to address before these?