Ronald VanAuken

Said somewhat differently, we need to go back to square one. The essence of the first ecclesia/church was intimacy with Jesus (and later his teaching) and with one another. With the disciples this was experienced in boats, fields, homes, courtyards . . . just about any place if we are to believe the gospels. With the early church it was in homes. As I understand it, God does no reside in buildings made with human hands. Not only so, but all of our liturgies/orders of service, are made up. Jesus never dictated how his followers were to worship when they gathered. (Of course the first followers, being Jews, continued with temple worship. There was no thoughtof establishing a new religion.)

The question caught my attention and I both laughed and was captivated by it. Why? Well, in Jesus discourse on prayer he taught that we pray for daily bread, not weekly, or monthly, or yearly.  Of course this was a personal prayer, not an institutional one.

I once worshipped in small church that knew just how much they neded to make it from one Sunday to the next. In retrospect this was probably the equivalent of "daily bread." Anyway, they took the offering, the deacons counted it, and if it was not sufficient for the next 7 days, they would take the offering again. If my memory serves me, they passed it 3 times that Sunday.

Then there is the story of Channaka (Hanukkah). Oil for one day, it lasted 8. The challenge we have in walking in the footsteps of Jesus is balancing faith with common sense and prudent thinking and acting.

There is an interesting take on the 12 spies. As we know, two Joshua and Caleb, were ready to forge ahead while the other 10 spun the story of giants and recommended not crossing over. IKt is found in the Talmud. As the story goes the spies looked over and saw that the land was, indeed, one of milk and honey. They envisioned the people settling, building homes, planting crops, raising cattle, becoming prosperous and losing their dependence on the Lord. They envisioned them trusting their own strength, their own knowledge, their on wisdom. Fearing this, they instilled fear into the people with their narration. Interesting isn't it, they they were correct in their concern, though wrong in their action. Wealth can easily lead to self-reliance. Not surprisingly when Jesus gave his brief teaching on prayer, it was for daily bread, not for cupboards and refrigerators and freezers full. Some of us are so uncomfortable with this petition that we refuse to see it as it is and want "bread" to mean the "Word of God." But remember that Jesus himself was essentially jobless and homeless. Sobering thought.

One can be first through the wall and then, turn around and find they are the only one through the wall.

We are mistaken if we believe that all change is desirable and/or good. We are mistaken if we believe that everyone is equally open to change. Some come on board quickly and eagerly, other much more slowly and cautiously. We are mistaken if we believe we can leave the past behind. The future is nothing more than the past realized, the present is that infinitely fine line between what has been and what will be. We are mistaken if we believe we can initiate change and not be changed ourselves. We are mistaken if we place change ahead of healthy relationships, which translates into mutual respect for where each one of us are in our journey and a willingness to listen and understand. Every would be leader, when considering change, needs to ask, "Is this change for my good or for the good of the Body?" If the former, drop it. If the latter, then work with the Body, not against it.  

Great piece, Corey. Frankly I wish there were more people who had the courage to openly ask questions like this! I will not give you the answer; but I will give you my answer, the one that works for me.

To pray means to ask, so it is hardly surprising that for many, perhaps even most, this is precisely what it comes down to.

The most common word in the Hebrew that we translate "prayer" is teffilah which may be taken to mean, "connect." That is, what we call "prayer" is first and foremost a deliberate and conscious connecting with God, or engaging the Lord is a conversation, a dialogue. Fundamentally it has nothing to do with the actual content or nature of that conversation.

One form of the word actually means "to judge." In shirt, when we pray our very words judge our hearts. As do Jews, I always pray aloud and have many an instance where mid sentence I will stop because I realize that my words are outside of the petition, "Your will be done." or that my words reveal something that I personally need to deal with before I come to my Father to talk.

So it has come to pass that in my own spiritual life my conversations are much less about asking for things, than praising, thanking and trying to get my won life in order. When I do "pray" for others, whatever the situation may be, I see it primarily as a way of acknowledging that we are called to bear one another's burdens and to seek from the Lord to know what I am personally called to do. Said differently, I am asking, "Is this concern a call for me to act and, i so, what would you have me do?"

This is a sort answer that is personal and well would serve for a much longer dialogue.

I will end saying that for me the questions, and the struggles are much more rewarding than the answers as I always come away amazed at what a great God we serve.

ed

Allow me to offer another perspective. Andrew B. Newberg et.al authored a book, Why God will Not Go Away in which it is argued that our brains are hard-wired to believe in God.tis based on brain science and others have followed. If this is true, then there is an innate longing for God. And if it is true that in Jesus we have the "very image and likeness" of God, and if there is only one, true God, then, yes, people are actually hungering to know that God, hungering for Jesus. Why Jesus? Because we understand things physical much better than we understand things spiritual. It is the tangible world that is the most real to us, that impacts us the most. Come to know Jesus and you come to know--as best we mortals can--God and in so doing our hunger is satisfied. The hunger for meaning, for significance, for unconditional love is a hunger only God can satisfy.

While there is much I could say respecting the ending of the post, I will simply offer up a thought on the premise of Jesus as a rebel. It really does depend upon how one sees or defines rebel.

If he opposed the Pharisees and by implication the scribes, yes. He seems to have rejected the "traditions of men" which I take to mean what Jews would refer to as the Oral Torah . . or at least the rigidity of it and placing it on a par with Torah itself. His words that "the Shabbat was made for man and not man for the Shabbat" speaks volumes about how the whole of Torah is to be seen and approached. At the ame time, by all accounts he was a conformist in the sense that he was an observant Jew who sought only to do the will of the Father. That is about as far away from a rebel as one can get. He was not a Zealot, as noted, advocating the overthrow of the Roman government. He was not a religious recluse as were the Essenes and/or the people of Qumran. He was thoroughly engaged with people in the world in which they lived. He spoke the word in their language and spoke iot with clarity and understanding and compassion and for this he was highly regarded.

'nough said. . . for now

My disappointment with most CRC congregations is that we have limited Lent to Sunday worship, with the possible exception of Good Friday and perhaps Maundy Thursday.

Before coming into the CRC as an Elder (post "retirement" after 45 years of pastoring in other denominations) we had Mid-week services throughout the season, beginning with Shrove Tuesday. They were distinctly different from Sunday morning worship and bore some resemblance to an Anglican spoken service. Gregorian chants playing softly in the background, it was quiet and meditative with prayer, confession, Psalms, etc.. While each year a theme was followed, as reflected in the readings and prayers , the usual sermon was replaced by a free-verse poem that was meditative/reflective in nature.

I originally introduced the series as trial balloon. Enough people people turned up that the Elders thought it worth doing the following year. Each year it grew in attendance and I suspect because it touched on a different aspect of Christian spirituality than most were accustomed to.

Two comments.

I joined the CRC 5 years ago and was immediately elected Elder, a position which, despite having been a minister/pastor (Reformed Church, Presbyterian Church, Anglican Church) for 45 years I was not qualified for. Why? While I knew the creeds and confessions, and catechism and canon, I ws unfamiliar with Church Order, with the CRC as a denomination, and with the role and expectations of the office within the CRC context, and there ws not orientation or training. Thankfully, having been called to a number of different positions in different denominations, I knew how to learn and how to ask questions and so survived 4 years, the last 2 as chair. I find it disconcerting that many office-bearers come to be ordained with little awareness of our Church Order and now days even of our theology. This is in part because we no longer seem to teach doctrine and are experiencing a growing number of people coming from outside the CRC. That's comment #1.

Comment #2, we took the step 3 years ago of creating a Board of Administration consisting of 3 Elders and 3 Deacons. They are responsible for the organizational/structural matters, leaving the pastoral Elders and Deacons free to do their ministry,. The congregation's bylaws provided for the Board, it was just a matter of working with Council to assign responsibilities to it. The Board remains accountable to Council for it work.

I have always believed that if an anniversary is to be celebrated, it should be not simply a looking back, but a looking forward as well. Perhaps a vision and goals for the next 10 years and a call to renew one's commitment to Christ and the Body.

This is both on and off topic. Scripturally speaking, there is no precedent for an "ordained" person to officiate. If the origin of the supper was the Passover meal, the one officiating would have been the male host. No requirement that he be a priest or a "rabbi." Indeed, the meal (and it was a meal) was generally held in private homes. This is not even to draw attention to the words, "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup..." which would mean annually at the Passover, not quarterly, or monthly, or weekly. If it was not the Passover, then, as well, it would have simply been the host who asked the blessing. The Reformation did not go far enough to divest clergy of their unscriptural privileges. I have argued in more than one circle that as we are not even blessing the elements, let alone believing that some transformation is taking place via the words spoken, there really should be no reason to confine the celebration to clergy. 

Being really heretical, one could simply not call it communion/the Lord's Supper/Eucharist. Bless the bread and cup and pass them out, saying nothing more. 

To be proper and not stir up controversy, however, permission would be advised. If you were Anglican, the priest would consecrate the elements during worship and then the "reserved" would be given to deacons and others to share with those not present at worship due to being hospitalized, etc. 

We have already reduced communion from a full meal to a wee piece of bread and a sip of juice. Time we did an assessment of the whole affair. 

Claoing off by saying that while I "play by the rules" I am more concerned with being biblical than denominational.