Ronald VanAuken

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.

Church names are interesting in and of themselves. Often denominations will have historic preferences. They may be named after the community, after  saint or historical figure important to the tradition, a biblical place name. Some simply number them. In recent decades there has been a move in some protestant quarters to shy away from naming after saints and biblical places as they have little or no meaning. So names are chosen that are seen to be more “friendly.”

Here at Hebron CRC here has been some talk about changing the name. There are mixed reactions. At a planning retreat is was suggested that the name remain but that “A place of refuge” be added to it to make it a bit more meaningful. The problem, of course, is threefold. First, “place of refuge” is not what Hebron means. Second, while ancient Hebron was one of original cities of refuge, it was refuge for those guilty of unintentional homicide. It protected them from any blood revenge. Third, were the phrase to be added, what would we be saying? Refuge from what? Would the congregation live that phrase out in any significant way? Would it have any real meaning or simply be a catchy phrase.

I have been involved in two name selection processes, one for a new congregation and one for a congregation that had another amalgamate with it. The first name chosen after several submissions, discussions and voting was “Celebration.” It was, at the time unique. It also reflected what we wanted to be: a place of celebrating our faith. It contrasted with the more somber religious expressions around. The second the name change, after a similar process chose Fellowship. It reflected fort our desire to work hard to create a single congregation from two, to seek to embrace one another’s practices and honor one another traditions. It also reflected the congregations welcoming programs and desire to interact with the community in an intentional and consistent way and to create relationships.

As with any change I would ask and clarify why a name change is being considered, what benefit is being perceived. In choosing a name I would want to ask what the name says or will say about the congregation. Will the life and ministry of the church live up to what is on the sign? I would also be sensitive to longtime members and listen to them. They often will have a sentimental attachment to the present name. It may have meaning for them that it does not have for others. So listening, empathizing, explaining carefully the rationale is essential to preserving the unity of the body. Allow time for the decision making process to work itself out before actually deciding and changing. Some people will be on board quickly. The majority are likely to take some time. Patience is a virtue.

While appreciating the article, a question that I would pose is, "Do we let the bad overshadow the good?" As I recall, we are all sinners. While some sins do greater harm to others, to ourselves, and to society at large, sin is sin. It is missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God. I can appreciate and give thanks to the Lord for worshipful music and acknowledge the giftedness of the composer without condoning or dismissing her or his sin(s). I do not wish to be part of a body of believers that always seeks out and calls attention to the worst in individuals. The scriptures provide guidance to the church on how to respond to sin. I shall leave it up to the body to which they are accountable. Meanwhile, I'm still working to vacuum up the dust that soils my own house.