Thanks for reflection. In answer to your question, my church follows this order of worship fairly closely. Our "mutual greeting" time is kept outside of the order of worship after announcements and before the official call to worship. Our offering is taken earlier in the service than listed here. Also, as with many, we do not have weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper.
You may want to make a correction. You say: "we must worship God in ways that God proscribes". I am sure that you mean "prescribes". (proscribe: to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful)
I've been to a number of large evangelical churches as I've visited different places, and I am always struck at the rootlessness of their liturgy, which really consists mainly of welcome, 3-4 song set, announcements, Word, dismissal. The dialogic nature of Reformed worship is sweet and renewing - they are missing out.
Hi Tim. When you say "beginning with confession" do you mean to say that confession might be before even the call to worship? It seems like the liturgy laid out above does have confession very near the beginning, so I'm curious about the idea of moving it even earlier. Where, exactly, might you slot it instead of where it sits above?
I do like how confession and assurance early in the service set our perspective of God, our place before God as sinful yet forgiven creatures, his welcome based on Christ's work, and our anticipation of Christ being further revealed and praised throughout the service. I do find that general order above accomplishes that, but I'm interested to hear more about how it might fit to move that even earlier.
For some reason it feels quite abrupt to me to have confession placed there. That is likely due to a lifetime of confession being early in the order, but not that early. The more traditional CRC liturgy allows us to begin with a bit of welcome/greeting/introduction that sets the stage (for me) for confession. I think this allows our hearts to "settle in" a bit before confession and assurance, perhaps allowing our time of confession be a bit more contemplated and purposeful as opposed to the abruptness of immediate confession. When we hear the call to worship and God's greeting we respond in prayer and praise it seems to me that this introductory dialogue re-introduces the dialogic partners and sets the stage for confession because we are ushered in and have already begun to acknowledge our dependence and God's worthiness of praise.
Anyway, it's interesting to think through these things and I think just the act of discussing the various elements and their order helps us be purposeful and engaged in our worship, no matter how we might tinker (or not) with the particular order.
I think in the interest of "getting the whole picture" we will do well to place this particular word of interest not just in its cultural context but consider it as it appears with the text around it. In verse 11, immediately preceding the use of authenteo in verse 12 we see Paul instructing women to learn in quiet submission. In verse 12 itself Paul restricts women from teaching (didasko) as well as exercising authority. And he ends verse 12 with a reiteration of his call for women to remain quiet.
None of the surrounding framing and restrictions indicate a theme of Paul thinking of murder or wanting to merely restrict violent or domineering control. It would also make no sense to simply restrict women from exercising violent or domineering control. Why would Paul direct that only to women? Should we conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising authority in such a way? And as Patrick points out, this reading would not justify the "for" language that Paul uses as he immediately grounds his instruction in the created order. You shall not exercise violent or domineering authority because (for) Adam was created first? What does that mean for women as those created from man? Such a reading would actually lead one to potentially conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising violent or domineering authority because women were not created first. Perish the thought! It seems to me that your reading or suggestion makes the text in its context have all sorts of problems or contradictions that need not be there.
Your explanation concerning murder if unconvincing. The fact that Paul mentions murderers in Chapter 1 does not lead to the conclusions you have made about what he is speaking about in Chapter 2. Paul is no longer addressing the presence of false teachers in Chapter 2 and there is no indication in the text that Paul is addressing a singular woman false teacher in Chapter 2.
I reject that idea that the historic church was somehow without special knowledge now widely available via the internet and was therefore somehow held back from realizing the full cultural context and the true meaning of this passage. That starts to sound gnostic in its insinuation of secret or special knowledge.
I would echo Patrick's call above while also affirming my appreciation for your desire to discuss.
Once again, your pastoral heart and wisdom are evident. Thank you for a poignant and timely call to eschew all ideological allegiances that place us in opposition to our ultimate allegiance. There is no love in degrading others. Our current climate contains far too much degradation and not nearly enough statesmanlike and neighborly love and respect.
Thanks David. I've been the troublesome kid that people didn't give up on. I didn't have pain, trauma, or neglect behind my penchant for trouble, just a rebellious heart that God penetrated and renewed.
Thanks for joining in conversation with me. I appreciate your perspective. I did try to explain in the article how I came to believe as I do on this matter. I'm a little unsure what part of what I've written you disagree with. If we were to take my last paragraph as a bit of a summary, can you identify something in that paragraph that you disagree with and help me understand why you disagree (if you do)? Thanks.
Thanks for joining in conversation. No, I do not think that the question of the type of government we are living under impacts our moral imperative or changes the mission and focus of the church.
If you read my second-to-the-last paragraph again you will see that I am not standing in opposition to our Contemporary Testimony, nor arguing against Christians speaking against injustice.
You will note that my thrust has to do with compelling others to speak and act when, why, and how we might prefer when it comes to questions of injustice broadly speaking. I hope that you can join me in believing that this does not build unity in the church and is not defensible or practically attainable.
Hi again, Karl. I will assume since I asked you to consider what in my closing paragraph you might disagree with and you offered no disagreement, that you must be in agreement. You will note that nowhere in my OP did I say that the church should be silent.
You mischaracterize the HSR when you say it is a litmus test. It is a theological position or understanding, and nothing more. The church has doctrine - that is inescapable. And the leaders of that church must agree to that doctrine if they purport to lead - that is neither novel (new) nor inconsistent for the CRC.
Thanks for joining in conversation. I think you make very helpful points in your reply. In addition to what you say there I would add that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks directly to the question of drawing quick conclusions and speaking according to those hasty conclusions.
Q&A 112 Q. What is the aim of the ninth commandment? A. That I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone rashly or without a hearing. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are the very devices the devil uses, and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (emphases added)
Posted in: Worshipping Together: A Template of CRC Liturgy
Hi Trevor,
Thanks for reflection. In answer to your question, my church follows this order of worship fairly closely. Our "mutual greeting" time is kept outside of the order of worship after announcements and before the official call to worship. Our offering is taken earlier in the service than listed here. Also, as with many, we do not have weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper.
You may want to make a correction. You say: "we must worship God in ways that God proscribes". I am sure that you mean "prescribes". (proscribe: to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful)
I've been to a number of large evangelical churches as I've visited different places, and I am always struck at the rootlessness of their liturgy, which really consists mainly of welcome, 3-4 song set, announcements, Word, dismissal. The dialogic nature of Reformed worship is sweet and renewing - they are missing out.
Posted in: Worshipping Together: A Template of CRC Liturgy
Hi Tim. When you say "beginning with confession" do you mean to say that confession might be before even the call to worship? It seems like the liturgy laid out above does have confession very near the beginning, so I'm curious about the idea of moving it even earlier. Where, exactly, might you slot it instead of where it sits above?
I do like how confession and assurance early in the service set our perspective of God, our place before God as sinful yet forgiven creatures, his welcome based on Christ's work, and our anticipation of Christ being further revealed and praised throughout the service. I do find that general order above accomplishes that, but I'm interested to hear more about how it might fit to move that even earlier.
Posted in: Worshipping Together: A Template of CRC Liturgy
Interesting. Thanks for thinking together.
For some reason it feels quite abrupt to me to have confession placed there. That is likely due to a lifetime of confession being early in the order, but not that early. The more traditional CRC liturgy allows us to begin with a bit of welcome/greeting/introduction that sets the stage (for me) for confession. I think this allows our hearts to "settle in" a bit before confession and assurance, perhaps allowing our time of confession be a bit more contemplated and purposeful as opposed to the abruptness of immediate confession. When we hear the call to worship and God's greeting we respond in prayer and praise it seems to me that this introductory dialogue re-introduces the dialogic partners and sets the stage for confession because we are ushered in and have already begun to acknowledge our dependence and God's worthiness of praise.
Anyway, it's interesting to think through these things and I think just the act of discussing the various elements and their order helps us be purposeful and engaged in our worship, no matter how we might tinker (or not) with the particular order.
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture, Part 1: Women and Ministry in 1 Timothy
Hi Bev,
I think in the interest of "getting the whole picture" we will do well to place this particular word of interest not just in its cultural context but consider it as it appears with the text around it. In verse 11, immediately preceding the use of authenteo in verse 12 we see Paul instructing women to learn in quiet submission. In verse 12 itself Paul restricts women from teaching (didasko) as well as exercising authority. And he ends verse 12 with a reiteration of his call for women to remain quiet.
None of the surrounding framing and restrictions indicate a theme of Paul thinking of murder or wanting to merely restrict violent or domineering control. It would also make no sense to simply restrict women from exercising violent or domineering control. Why would Paul direct that only to women? Should we conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising authority in such a way? And as Patrick points out, this reading would not justify the "for" language that Paul uses as he immediately grounds his instruction in the created order. You shall not exercise violent or domineering authority because (for) Adam was created first? What does that mean for women as those created from man? Such a reading would actually lead one to potentially conclude that Paul was ok with men exercising violent or domineering authority because women were not created first. Perish the thought! It seems to me that your reading or suggestion makes the text in its context have all sorts of problems or contradictions that need not be there.
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture, Part 1: Women and Ministry in 1 Timothy
Hi Bev,
Your explanation concerning murder if unconvincing. The fact that Paul mentions murderers in Chapter 1 does not lead to the conclusions you have made about what he is speaking about in Chapter 2. Paul is no longer addressing the presence of false teachers in Chapter 2 and there is no indication in the text that Paul is addressing a singular woman false teacher in Chapter 2.
I reject that idea that the historic church was somehow without special knowledge now widely available via the internet and was therefore somehow held back from realizing the full cultural context and the true meaning of this passage. That starts to sound gnostic in its insinuation of secret or special knowledge.
I would echo Patrick's call above while also affirming my appreciation for your desire to discuss.
In Christian love,
Eric
Posted in: Political Dehumanization as a Strategy of Power: A Theological and Pastoral Reading
Christian,
Once again, your pastoral heart and wisdom are evident. Thank you for a poignant and timely call to eschew all ideological allegiances that place us in opposition to our ultimate allegiance. There is no love in degrading others. Our current climate contains far too much degradation and not nearly enough statesmanlike and neighborly love and respect.
Posted in: I Don't Believe in New Year's Resolutions
Kennedy, this is a helpful reflection. Thanks for sharing.
Posted in: Changing Things
Thanks David. I've been the troublesome kid that people didn't give up on. I didn't have pain, trauma, or neglect behind my penchant for trouble, just a rebellious heart that God penetrated and renewed.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Karl,
Thanks for joining in conversation with me. I appreciate your perspective.
I did try to explain in the article how I came to believe as I do on this matter. I'm a little unsure what part of what I've written you disagree with. If we were to take my last paragraph as a bit of a summary, can you identify something in that paragraph that you disagree with and help me understand why you disagree (if you do)? Thanks.
Eric
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for joining in conversation. No, I do not think that the question of the type of government we are living under impacts our moral imperative or changes the mission and focus of the church.
If you read my second-to-the-last paragraph again you will see that I am not standing in opposition to our Contemporary Testimony, nor arguing against Christians speaking against injustice.
You will note that my thrust has to do with compelling others to speak and act when, why, and how we might prefer when it comes to questions of injustice broadly speaking. I hope that you can join me in believing that this does not build unity in the church and is not defensible or practically attainable.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi again, Karl. I will assume since I asked you to consider what in my closing paragraph you might disagree with and you offered no disagreement, that you must be in agreement. You will note that nowhere in my OP did I say that the church should be silent.
You mischaracterize the HSR when you say it is a litmus test. It is a theological position or understanding, and nothing more. The church has doctrine - that is inescapable. And the leaders of that church must agree to that doctrine if they purport to lead - that is neither novel (new) nor inconsistent for the CRC.
Posted in: What If I Remain Silent?
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for joining in conversation. I think you make very helpful points in your reply. In addition to what you say there I would add that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks directly to the question of drawing quick conclusions and speaking according to those hasty conclusions.
Q&A 112
Q. What is the aim of the ninth commandment?
A. That I never give false testimony against anyone,
twist no one’s words,
not gossip or slander,
nor join in condemning anyone
rashly or without a hearing.
Rather, in court and everywhere else,
I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind;
these are the very devices the devil uses,
and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath.
I should love the truth,
speak it candidly,
and openly acknowledge it.
And I should do what I can
to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (emphases added)