Though not a Zondervan product, the New Testament Exegesis and Old Testament Exegesis, 3d eds, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, respectively, are the best books I've found that are geared toward the pastor's prep for sermons. Most of the book is in depth exegesis for sermon prep, but then at the end they have a quick guide for the busiest of weeks. They help the pastor maintain some exegetical integrity in sermon prep.
The most offensive part of this whole fiasco has been the promulgation of the idea that "if you're a 'good' Christian you will eat at Chick-Fil-A." The whole thing started as a socio-political statement, but because of the nature of the instigation, the 'Christian' machine started rolling. Though the event showed some Christians' appreciation for the restaurant it did little to promote the Christian message. In fact, the crowd I minister to, mostly saw it as a message of hate for homosexuals; using much more colorful metaphors than I would.
No one has addressed this fundamental ethical issue, or the inconsistency of this 'Christian' machine. They felt it necessary to defend CFA from the LGBTs, but where is the consistcy when Microsoft, Apple, Google, and so many other companies that are integral to our lives now, actively support the LGBT agenda? Where are the refusals to use those companies products in protest? Oh, wait a minute...you almost can't have any product anymore from any company that doesn't support something contrary to what you believe. So we make exceptions for them because, why? It's a necessary evil? I don't know, but I believe a consistent ethical system can be built that allows us to live by our standards and use products regardless of the social or ethical stance of the business.
This whole thing, to me, smacks of the meat (chicken?) sacrificed to idols. Paul didn't seem concerned that the meat had been sacrificed, nor that the money Christians spent on it went to support the Pagan temple. He was more concerned with offending the weak Christian, and by extension I think we could safely add the sinner. Jesus never went out of his way to offend the sinner, but he would confront them when necessary. There's a big difference.
We need to study how Christ loved the sinner and confronted the sin better, and perhaps we can be a more consistent ethical people.
I was a Ministry Associate and now, of course, a CP. I watched Synod over the web and was extremely surprised by the switch. I had not been alerted that there was even a debate about the name. I think MA was better than CP, but it got me thinking about what would be better. So here goes.
My suggestion is "Minister in Service." My main reasons for this title have to do with its similarity to "MInister of the Word and Sacrament," so it moves closer to equal honor, I think. In addition, when thinking about this category of ministers, we are all identified by the specific service we perform. I'm a Military Chaplain, others are Hospital Chaplains, others Evangelists or Missionaries, etc... We are all ministers within a more specific mission than the Ministers of the Word and Sacrament are identified by their general service. They do it all (in some sense).
To be honest, as much of an emotional response as it provoked, it doesn't matter much practically, because I am a Chaplain to anybody who asks, not a CP or MA. The title is a denominational identity that allows me to have my Army identity. On a practical level, the CRC could decide to call us all Jello Molds. I would still be known as Chaplain. No disrespect intended at all. I wouldn't be ordained through the CRC if I didn't respect it, but very few people have any idea who my endorser is. The largest Protestant supplier of Military Chaplains doesn't even have a separate ordination. If you're ordained, you're ordained. I'm not necessarily saying we should go this route, especially because of the categorical difference between mandatory education or possible education.
I have a friend, also a CRC Army Chaplain who is a MWS, while I am a CP. One day, when I have more time, I would like to go through the examination to earn the MWS because after retiring from the MIlitary, I'd like to pastor a CRC church, but I have at least 16 more years to go before I'm eligible. A lot can happen in that timeframe.
This, to me, is one of the most fascinating questions. My story begins in a traditional, liturgical church, which I attended from birth until late High School where I first understood the call of Christ on my life and changed from a passive observer of Christ to an active, adopted son of God. Admittedly, I was in a very non-reformed church, but I loved Jesus and that was all I knew. Eventually, I began attending a Bible College that was by no means close to the Reformation. In fact, I recall many of the Church-folk then commenting about those TULIP Calvinists are a bunch of legalistic people who don't understand the believer's freedom in Christ, or the grace of God. And so, I developed a distate for Reformed theology; Calvinism, yuck.
Fortunately for me, the school did teach me how to analyze and think about theology. This independant analysis of Scripture and theology eventually led me to accept Reformed theology as the most accurate, systematic presentation of biblical truth available, and that if you truly understand the heart of Calvinism, you do understand the grace of God and develop a true appreciation for everything that God has done. For me, it is like Isaiah's experience in chapter 6 of his book. I feel at once the full glory of God and at the same time, the terror of understanding what I am in relation to his perfection.
As to attending a CRC Church, in my period of disgust for legalistic, dry Calvinists I continuously drove by a church down the street from my house. After having my eyes opened, I noticed that under the big letters of the Church's name was the small printed phrase, "A Christian Reformed Church." That prompted a visit for me and my family. Upon entering the Church, any fear that traditional Calvinists would be dry and stodgy were soon flushed away as we were greeted by the friendliest faces and most loving hosts. We were immmediately accepted and loved and shown, in true form, what it means to be Christlike to visitors. My wife and I fell in love with the Church and the family we found there, and it is now our home church. I am now a MInistry Associate operating as an Army Chaplain out of that Church.
To summarize, I attend a CRC church because of its faithful presentation of the Word of God, and because of the acceptance and love of the people at my local church. I am a proud member of the CRC, even if I too don't always agree with "official" decisions of the governing body.
Just recently, with the advent of Google+ (G+), this "friend"-only classification has changed. G+ pioneered the use of "circles" to identify your relationship to people, so now you can group people by how you know them and control more easily which social group of yours sees what. Facebook followed suit with its "lists" because G+ was getting all the buzz about being the next big thing. This allows a more "authentic" grouping of the people you know, and it allows you to post just to that self-defined social grouping, say, relatives, or old college buddies, or church members, or whatever "circles" you create. So the majority of your argument may go away. It will depend on FB users adopting the new system, which most will be reticent to do, in my opinion, because they are so used to posting publicly, and it's an inconvenience (no matter how small) to post to a list. G+ is a little less inconvenient because it's built around the circles architecture, rather than having it thrown in as an afterthought.
I share Holtvlüwer's trepidation about being friends with those in authority over me (though it's more rigidly delineated for me by the the US Army), but he failed to mention an important flip-side to this argument. What about "friending" young, single ladies college age) from my home church, for example? I'm married with two kids, and am a Ministry Associate operating as a US Army Chaplain. I have avoided the creation of a "fan page" for myself (I'm not THAT important) so that people can follow my ministry, and just use personal FB & G+ pages.
Now, from my early days as a young (I'm 37 now) Bible College student, it was hammered into my brain to never put myself in a situation that even hinted at sexual compromise, but on FB & G+ I have these "friends" who are young ladies from my home church that I have accepted as friends because I was acquainted with them and their families, they requested to be friends with me, and I make the assumption that they just want to keep up with the ministry that I'm doing. (For the record, I have never had any inappropriate requests or posts from any of them).
A few points on this; in real life, were I a local Pastor, I would never have relationships with young ladies in which I would be constantly privy to their daily social interactions because that would more than hint of inappropriateness, I think. I worked out my discomfort long ago, by assuring that my wife is my "friend" and always has full access to anything on my FB page. I have never requested a "friending" with a female unless my wife was aware of it, never with anyone who might appear to be a compromise (old girlfriends, say) or anyone else whose friendship might give even the appearance of inappropriateness. I have once or twice, unfriended other females (not from my church) who have written inappropriate(unchristian) posts, but all in all, I haven't had a bad experience with FB or G+.
Is there a transcript available to read? I'm in a place where bandwidth is an issue so downloading even an mp3 can be a problem. Thanks.
Along the lines of valuing the heritage of the Dutch Reformed community, I find Kuyper's "Lectures on Calvinism" to be standard. It helped me see past the 5 point TULIP to see the real point of Calvinism, as well as John Bolt's "Christian and Reformed Today." Both older works, but their value is not tied to their age. As a guy who came to the Reformation honestly (I grew up spiritually in a Calvin-hostile environment before breaking free) these and many other works have encouraged me.
Posted in: Using Your Hebrew and Greek
Though not a Zondervan product, the New Testament Exegesis and Old Testament Exegesis, 3d eds, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, respectively, are the best books I've found that are geared toward the pastor's prep for sermons. Most of the book is in depth exegesis for sermon prep, but then at the end they have a quick guide for the busiest of weeks. They help the pastor maintain some exegetical integrity in sermon prep.
Posted in: Are You Prejudiced and the Chick-fil-A Controversy
The most offensive part of this whole fiasco has been the promulgation of the idea that "if you're a 'good' Christian you will eat at Chick-Fil-A." The whole thing started as a socio-political statement, but because of the nature of the instigation, the 'Christian' machine started rolling. Though the event showed some Christians' appreciation for the restaurant it did little to promote the Christian message. In fact, the crowd I minister to, mostly saw it as a message of hate for homosexuals; using much more colorful metaphors than I would.
No one has addressed this fundamental ethical issue, or the inconsistency of this 'Christian' machine. They felt it necessary to defend CFA from the LGBTs, but where is the consistcy when Microsoft, Apple, Google, and so many other companies that are integral to our lives now, actively support the LGBT agenda? Where are the refusals to use those companies products in protest? Oh, wait a minute...you almost can't have any product anymore from any company that doesn't support something contrary to what you believe. So we make exceptions for them because, why? It's a necessary evil? I don't know, but I believe a consistent ethical system can be built that allows us to live by our standards and use products regardless of the social or ethical stance of the business.
This whole thing, to me, smacks of the meat (chicken?) sacrificed to idols. Paul didn't seem concerned that the meat had been sacrificed, nor that the money Christians spent on it went to support the Pagan temple. He was more concerned with offending the weak Christian, and by extension I think we could safely add the sinner. Jesus never went out of his way to offend the sinner, but he would confront them when necessary. There's a big difference.
We need to study how Christ loved the sinner and confronted the sin better, and perhaps we can be a more consistent ethical people.
Posted in: Commissioned Pastors: A Rose By Another Name?
I was a Ministry Associate and now, of course, a CP. I watched Synod over the web and was extremely surprised by the switch. I had not been alerted that there was even a debate about the name. I think MA was better than CP, but it got me thinking about what would be better. So here goes.
My suggestion is "Minister in Service." My main reasons for this title have to do with its similarity to "MInister of the Word and Sacrament," so it moves closer to equal honor, I think. In addition, when thinking about this category of ministers, we are all identified by the specific service we perform. I'm a Military Chaplain, others are Hospital Chaplains, others Evangelists or Missionaries, etc... We are all ministers within a more specific mission than the Ministers of the Word and Sacrament are identified by their general service. They do it all (in some sense).
To be honest, as much of an emotional response as it provoked, it doesn't matter much practically, because I am a Chaplain to anybody who asks, not a CP or MA. The title is a denominational identity that allows me to have my Army identity. On a practical level, the CRC could decide to call us all Jello Molds. I would still be known as Chaplain. No disrespect intended at all. I wouldn't be ordained through the CRC if I didn't respect it, but very few people have any idea who my endorser is. The largest Protestant supplier of Military Chaplains doesn't even have a separate ordination. If you're ordained, you're ordained. I'm not necessarily saying we should go this route, especially because of the categorical difference between mandatory education or possible education.
I have a friend, also a CRC Army Chaplain who is a MWS, while I am a CP. One day, when I have more time, I would like to go through the examination to earn the MWS because after retiring from the MIlitary, I'd like to pastor a CRC church, but I have at least 16 more years to go before I'm eligible. A lot can happen in that timeframe.
Godspeed.
Posted in: Why Do You Attend a CRC Church?
This, to me, is one of the most fascinating questions. My story begins in a traditional, liturgical church, which I attended from birth until late High School where I first understood the call of Christ on my life and changed from a passive observer of Christ to an active, adopted son of God. Admittedly, I was in a very non-reformed church, but I loved Jesus and that was all I knew. Eventually, I began attending a Bible College that was by no means close to the Reformation. In fact, I recall many of the Church-folk then commenting about those TULIP Calvinists are a bunch of legalistic people who don't understand the believer's freedom in Christ, or the grace of God. And so, I developed a distate for Reformed theology; Calvinism, yuck.
Fortunately for me, the school did teach me how to analyze and think about theology. This independant analysis of Scripture and theology eventually led me to accept Reformed theology as the most accurate, systematic presentation of biblical truth available, and that if you truly understand the heart of Calvinism, you do understand the grace of God and develop a true appreciation for everything that God has done. For me, it is like Isaiah's experience in chapter 6 of his book. I feel at once the full glory of God and at the same time, the terror of understanding what I am in relation to his perfection.
As to attending a CRC Church, in my period of disgust for legalistic, dry Calvinists I continuously drove by a church down the street from my house. After having my eyes opened, I noticed that under the big letters of the Church's name was the small printed phrase, "A Christian Reformed Church." That prompted a visit for me and my family. Upon entering the Church, any fear that traditional Calvinists would be dry and stodgy were soon flushed away as we were greeted by the friendliest faces and most loving hosts. We were immmediately accepted and loved and shown, in true form, what it means to be Christlike to visitors. My wife and I fell in love with the Church and the family we found there, and it is now our home church. I am now a MInistry Associate operating as an Army Chaplain out of that Church.
To summarize, I attend a CRC church because of its faithful presentation of the Word of God, and because of the acceptance and love of the people at my local church. I am a proud member of the CRC, even if I too don't always agree with "official" decisions of the governing body.
Posted in: Redefining Friendship
Just recently, with the advent of Google+ (G+), this "friend"-only classification has changed. G+ pioneered the use of "circles" to identify your relationship to people, so now you can group people by how you know them and control more easily which social group of yours sees what. Facebook followed suit with its "lists" because G+ was getting all the buzz about being the next big thing. This allows a more "authentic" grouping of the people you know, and it allows you to post just to that self-defined social grouping, say, relatives, or old college buddies, or church members, or whatever "circles" you create. So the majority of your argument may go away. It will depend on FB users adopting the new system, which most will be reticent to do, in my opinion, because they are so used to posting publicly, and it's an inconvenience (no matter how small) to post to a list. G+ is a little less inconvenient because it's built around the circles architecture, rather than having it thrown in as an afterthought.
I share Holtvlüwer's trepidation about being friends with those in authority over me (though it's more rigidly delineated for me by the the US Army), but he failed to mention an important flip-side to this argument. What about "friending" young, single ladies college age) from my home church, for example? I'm married with two kids, and am a Ministry Associate operating as a US Army Chaplain. I have avoided the creation of a "fan page" for myself (I'm not THAT important) so that people can follow my ministry, and just use personal FB & G+ pages.
Now, from my early days as a young (I'm 37 now) Bible College student, it was hammered into my brain to never put myself in a situation that even hinted at sexual compromise, but on FB & G+ I have these "friends" who are young ladies from my home church that I have accepted as friends because I was acquainted with them and their families, they requested to be friends with me, and I make the assumption that they just want to keep up with the ministry that I'm doing. (For the record, I have never had any inappropriate requests or posts from any of them).
A few points on this; in real life, were I a local Pastor, I would never have relationships with young ladies in which I would be constantly privy to their daily social interactions because that would more than hint of inappropriateness, I think. I worked out my discomfort long ago, by assuring that my wife is my "friend" and always has full access to anything on my FB page. I have never requested a "friending" with a female unless my wife was aware of it, never with anyone who might appear to be a compromise (old girlfriends, say) or anyone else whose friendship might give even the appearance of inappropriateness. I have once or twice, unfriended other females (not from my church) who have written inappropriate(unchristian) posts, but all in all, I haven't had a bad experience with FB or G+.
As a Pastor, what is your view on this?
Posted in: James Smith on "Buried Treasure? Reformed Tradition and the Future of the CRC"
Is there a transcript available to read? I'm in a place where bandwidth is an issue so downloading even an mp3 can be a problem. Thanks.
Along the lines of valuing the heritage of the Dutch Reformed community, I find Kuyper's "Lectures on Calvinism" to be standard. It helped me see past the 5 point TULIP to see the real point of Calvinism, as well as John Bolt's "Christian and Reformed Today." Both older works, but their value is not tied to their age. As a guy who came to the Reformation honestly (I grew up spiritually in a Calvin-hostile environment before breaking free) these and many other works have encouraged me.
Posted in: James Smith on "Buried Treasure? Reformed Tradition and the Future of the CRC"
Thanks! I appreciate it.