Skip to main content

I find discussions like these interesting as, for me, it brings our Church Order up against scripture.

What I mean by that is that scripture and even apostolic tradition, provides no real guidance for worship, even for the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper in terms of its administration. What this means is that everything has essentially been made up, unless we wish to become somewhat Jewish in our thinking and appeal to oral law,

So while I obviously concur with brother DeMoor, I am also of the  "cclesia semper reformanda est" ("the church must always be reformed") school and would dearly love to see us engage in rethinking some of our assumptions and practices.

While our people came from more than 25 different nations, our worship services were all in English. This said, there were a few things we did.

On one wall of the sanctuary we placed flags representing the various nations that our people came from.

We extended an invitation to individuals to make a 3 minute PowerPoint presentation on their native land and the faith community they came from there.

We invited these same people to put up a display in the fellowship hall and to provide refreshments reflective of their culture for the coffee hour.

We encourage individuals, if they felt comfortable doing so, to dress for worship as they would in their home country.

We allowed our worship to gradually evolve to where the prayers of the people could be offered in a variety of different ways, with some being sung. Similarly, we opened ourselves up to accept individuals voicing an "Amen!" or a "Praise the Lord!" in response to what might be said in the message/sermon.

We included music representative of other nations, singing some both in English and the native language. Beyond this we had a Sunday where all the music was spirituals, another where the elements were reflective of indigenous culture.

Communion would also take a variety of different forms.

These are a few of the things that we did. At heart was listening and asking, "How can we be more inclusive?" or better, "How would the Lord like us to be changed rather than insisting always that others must change?"

While I would not argue the points made, one of the things I always seek to point out with respect to both Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter is that everything we do is essentially made up. Most historians are in agreement that it was some 300 years before there was anything resembling Lent. That is likewise true of the church today. It bears little resemblance to the ecclesia of Jesus or of the apostles. It is a sobering but potentially liberating truth.

I think I am with Sean on this one. Jesus, of course, was face-to-face. Not sure what he would do with online conversations. So much is missed when you cannot see or hear the other and have only printed words to go by. More than a few times I have spoken to congregations about how we interpret words, using God's question to Adam as an example.  There are but 4 words: Adam, Where, Are, and You. You can vocalize them in at least 6 different ways and though the words remain the same, the meaning changes with the vocalization. Then add to this the body language.

I have also been part of too many online discussions that were less than respectful and courteous. I seems like the relative anonymity is taken as tacit permission to say whatever one wants. 

Then, again, I just happen to be a very opinionated guy and if I commented on everything I read, I would never leave my computer! :)

That said, I do thrive on a good discussion. I actually toyed with the idea of having a regular group entitled "Let's Talk" where nothing would be out-of-bounds and we would engaged in a respectful and hopefully intelligent discussion of whatever was on people's hearts and minds. Still may do it, but momentarily have set it aside for a group entitled "God Talk: Theology 101" that will introduce interested people to basic theology, theological terms and subjects.

But yes, lets converse,

 

ron vanauken

Will certainly agree with that statement. Council here did not renew our pastor's call/contract. I suggested that it would be good to do a "post mortem" to ask what we could have done better, how the situation might have turned out differently, what we were meant to learn from the experience. No interest. When Synod made its decision, and with the ordination of new office-bearers coming up, I suggested that it was important that all be aware of the decision and the implication for the covenant of office and that we needed to engage in a discussion. No interest. One individual suggested that we wait 5 years to talk about it.

I should say that when Council terminated the pastor's call/contract, there was a significant portion of the congregation that was unaware (or forgot) that the call was term and that there were specific evaluation criteria. So, in a sense, these people were blindsided. As I was chairing that year, we held a number of "town hall meetings" to listen and respond (confidentiality respected when appropriate) to issues and concerns. I would like to think that this actually contributed to healing/reconciliation of thoughts and opinions. Good listening, however, does not come easily.

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.

Hi John,

I am completed to make a couple of confessions here. First off, I am always somewhat hesitant to engage in discussions such as these unless it is face-to-face as that they can easily embrace so many perspectives and postings are far from actual dialog where one can a gracious freedom to interrupt to ask for clarification or to provide clarification for a statement made. My second confession is that I am not always a very good Calvinist, though educated as one. So my personal reflections are rarely linear and often can be viewed as less than orthodox. They are meant not so much to prove a point but to help me to reexamine and renew my own faith.

I recently posited with my own pastor (I “retired” from active ministry 2 years ago and am now serving as an Elder in the CRC) that psychology, sociology, and anthropology are the foundations of theology. This thought came quickly to me and have yet to reflect on it; but what I mean is this. It is clear from Genesis on that we were created to have a relationship with God and with one another. All scripture is an abbreviated record of the Lord’s interaction with us and our theology (thinking about God) speaks of his nature and how his nature is reflected in that interaction and, conversely, how our own nature is reflected in our interaction with the Lord. So I am in concert with the conviction that science, whether pure or social, cannot be in conflict with scripture (theology) but rather must itself be seen in dialogue . . . a dance of sorts.

I do not reject the notion of sin or “original sin;” but maintain that we are all created in the image of God and that, however clouded that image may be by our fallenness, it still remains within each and everyone of us. I would also maintain that we need to see and understand sin from not a singular; but rather a multitude of perspectives. Often what lies behind sin is a woundedness, a brokenness that needs to be healed. I think here of individuals with bi-polar disorder, those who have suffered abuse, schizophrenics, those with dementia or PTSD. Many have done those things which we would label “sin;” but it is not a deliberate act. Hence I take broadly “who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases.” I see them linked. Even our courts recognize some individuals as being NCR (not criminally responsible) and therefore threat their “crimes” differently. I would not wish to think that the “secular” laws are more understanding and gracious than is our God.

In a pause for a moment, I will also confess that it is easy for me to be linked with the Corinthians (15:19) that the afterlife for me is a bonus. My relationship with my Lord in the here and now, if it only be touching the hem of his garment, is eminently satisfying and I cannot imagine living a day without that intimacy, the sense of comfort (HC #1) knowing that I am being led through every valley where there is the shadow of death.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post