Obviously much is lost when communication takes place only in print. Perhaps that is what has happened with your comment. Could you please clarify:
When you described the "less desiriable" "additional information" in response to each of Greg's points, were you intending to write from the perspective of someone who has misunderstood Calvinism? I noticed a few places where what you wrote is contradicted by our confessions - we expressly don't believe some of the things you wrote.
One example:
[quote] Roger: Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard.[/quote] Your words seem to suggest that our inability to meet God's standard is partly attributable to our created finitude -- our "not-being-God-ness" -- which is, of course, not what we believe (BC 14, HC Q&A 6).
A second example:
[quote] Roger: And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.[/quote] This is, perhaps, how people misunderstand Calvinism. But it is surely not what we believe or teach. [quote]Belgic Confession, Article 14: "But they subjected themselves willingly to sin... by their sin they separated themselves from God... they made themselves guilty and subject to physical and spiritual death..."[/quote] If human beings are in that dark corner, we have put ourselves there, not God. (see also Canons of Dort I.5, I.15)
I'm just confused. You suggest that what you wrote is some of the "additional information" that is needed to fully present the gospel -- but it is a distortion of what Calvinists believe, so surely shouldn't be added to a presentation of the gospel, at least not as you wrote it. Can you clarify, please? Thanks in advance.
There are places in scripture where the churches (and particularly the leaders, I assume) are warned that the church shouldn't share "meals" with unrepentant sinners. (I Cor 5:11 and Jude 12 at least refer to the Lord's Supper. Whether they refer to more general meal-sharing is debatable.) This is the basis for our shared belief in HC Q&As 81-82 and for the practice of fencing the table.
But the key word is "unrepentant", not "sinners." The big mistake is to think that fencing the table means preventing sinners from coming to the table. No, No, No! It is because we are sinners that we come to the table.
The best way for the elders to be responsible for the Supper is to find ways to make this very clear: we come to the table because we are sinners who need to consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ by faith. Only those who don't think they need Jesus Christ should be held back (according to I Corinthians and Jude). In fact, for that reason, Q&A 81 answers the question of who "may" come quite well. (Although perhaps the language shouldn't be who "may come," but who "needs to come." I'm glad that our translation of the HC at least uses the ambiguous "are to come.")
There are, of course, many themes that can be highlighted by the supper: fellowship (perhaps sitting around tables would emphasize this well), having your faith strengthened (perhaps sitting in the pews together quietly thinking of Christ is a good way to do this), the real presence of Christ (perhaps coming forward and dipping emphasizes this well), etc. But whatever we do, the Lord's Supper must be about the gospel: those who are dead in their sins being fed Jesus Christ in order to be nourished and given life. The Lord's Supper is nothing if it is not about the forgiveness of sins. And that is what the elders need to make sure we remember. All of our practices should direct our attention ultimately to that fact.
As Paul wrote more than once: the message of the cross is the power of God for salvation.
This is very good news. It will be great to have some serious competition to Google docs.
From my perspective in a rural church, it seems like moving the assemblies and committees of the church fully into the cloud is still several years away. It isn't worth moving agendas and minutes into the cloud if there will be a noticeable portion of the committee that won't use the new medium. I've noticed this even with email. At this point, I'm not even sure it is worth me emailing all of the council members the agenda because a noticeable number of them don't rely on email and don't check it daily. They would much prefer a paper agenda.
I'm eager to use the cloud for agendas and minutes because it would make the work of committees so much easier. But it would only do so if everybody is on board. For that reason, I'm glad Microsoft is going to be pushing Office users in that direction. The sooner the better!
Mark, in response to your tangent about why we don't think the summary of the commandments applies to songs, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that worship music, much less worship itself, should conform to that commandment. Communal worship is usually understood to be commanded by the first table of the law, which is summarized by the first half of what Jesus said -- love God -- not by the whole summary. Furthermore, the pattern for worship is usually derived from acts of covenant renewal found in places like the book of Deuteronomy or Joshua 24. Certainly our primary obligation in worship is to love God, but if worship is primarily covenant renewal, it wouldn't seem right to put the interests of those outside the covenant ahead of those inside. Obviously we shouldn't worship in ways that are unnecessarily off-putting to outsiders, but that doesn't mean that we should therefore worship in ways that are unnecessarily off-putting to those inside for the sake of those outside.
Given the nature of the biblical commands and models for worship, I am inclined to think that perhaps our worship priorities are, in fact, first to God, then to those in the covenant, and only third to those outside. Certainly this still means that the interests you have as an individual never come before the interests of others in the church in worship. And certainly the pattern would apply only to communal worship and not to other aspects of life as the body of Christ. But perhaps I'm missing something in this argument.
Having the church send tweets does indeed have a lot of potential, especially when it comes to making connections and keeping the church a presence in people's lives throughout the week. But institutional tweeting also requires a lot of care. I would venture to say that the most important task in institutional tweeting is choosing the right "tweeter."
The job requires ruthless consistency. My personal tweeting is very inconsistent: sometimes multiple times a day, sometimes once every few weeks, sometimes about important things, sometimes about trivial matters, sometimes specifically personal, sometimes very impersonal and general.
It seems that if someone is going to tweet on behalf of the church, such irregularity should be avoided. We want the church to be consistent in the integrity of preaching, and so we require trained preachers. We want the church to be consistent in the administration of pastoral care, and so we often divide the congregation into households under the care of specific elders. We want the church to be consistent in the presentation of the church's life in the bulletin announcements, and so we usually appoint one qualified person to be the final editor and printer of the bulletins. Similarly, we should aim for consistency by appointing someone who is careful and "professional" about their tweeting on behalf of the church.
In this regard, the CRC has found an excellent institutional tweeter (is it Tim Postuma?). Very consistent, professional, and impersonal/formal, but still warm and friendly. The inconsistent and overly personal tweeting by some tweeters for other organizations (I'll refrain from naming names) in my eyes damages the credibility of the institution. (I've seen institutional tweets directed at specific individuals who are friends of the tweeter and tweets that seem to be based on the tweeter's individual interests and opinions, rather than the institution's interests and official positions.)
All that is to say, if you do have your church start tweeting, appoint the tweeter carefully!
At Synod, I heard about a competing service being run by a relative of one of the delegates (if I remember right). It sounded like that service might have some advantages over theCommon.org and it would be nice to be able to compare them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the other site. Does anybody know what it might be?
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Roger,
Obviously much is lost when communication takes place only in print. Perhaps that is what has happened with your comment. Could you please clarify:
When you described the "less desiriable" "additional information" in response to each of Greg's points, were you intending to write from the perspective of someone who has misunderstood Calvinism? I noticed a few places where what you wrote is contradicted by our confessions - we expressly don't believe some of the things you wrote.
One example:
[quote] Roger: Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard.[/quote] Your words seem to suggest that our inability to meet God's standard is partly attributable to our created finitude -- our "not-being-God-ness" -- which is, of course, not what we believe (BC 14, HC Q&A 6).
A second example:
[quote] Roger: And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.[/quote] This is, perhaps, how people misunderstand Calvinism. But it is surely not what we believe or teach. [quote]Belgic Confession, Article 14: "But they subjected themselves willingly to sin... by their sin they separated themselves from God... they made themselves guilty and subject to physical and spiritual death..."[/quote] If human beings are in that dark corner, we have put ourselves there, not God. (see also Canons of Dort I.5, I.15)
I'm just confused. You suggest that what you wrote is some of the "additional information" that is needed to fully present the gospel -- but it is a distortion of what Calvinists believe, so surely shouldn't be added to a presentation of the gospel, at least not as you wrote it. Can you clarify, please? Thanks in advance.
Also, Greg, thanks for bringing this up!
Posted in: The Elder and Lord’s Supper
There are places in scripture where the churches (and particularly the leaders, I assume) are warned that the church shouldn't share "meals" with unrepentant sinners. (I Cor 5:11 and Jude 12 at least refer to the Lord's Supper. Whether they refer to more general meal-sharing is debatable.) This is the basis for our shared belief in HC Q&As 81-82 and for the practice of fencing the table.
But the key word is "unrepentant", not "sinners." The big mistake is to think that fencing the table means preventing sinners from coming to the table. No, No, No! It is because we are sinners that we come to the table.
The best way for the elders to be responsible for the Supper is to find ways to make this very clear: we come to the table because we are sinners who need to consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ by faith. Only those who don't think they need Jesus Christ should be held back (according to I Corinthians and Jude). In fact, for that reason, Q&A 81 answers the question of who "may" come quite well. (Although perhaps the language shouldn't be who "may come," but who "needs to come." I'm glad that our translation of the HC at least uses the ambiguous "are to come.")
There are, of course, many themes that can be highlighted by the supper: fellowship (perhaps sitting around tables would emphasize this well), having your faith strengthened (perhaps sitting in the pews together quietly thinking of Christ is a good way to do this), the real presence of Christ (perhaps coming forward and dipping emphasizes this well), etc. But whatever we do, the Lord's Supper must be about the gospel: those who are dead in their sins being fed Jesus Christ in order to be nourished and given life. The Lord's Supper is nothing if it is not about the forgiveness of sins. And that is what the elders need to make sure we remember. All of our practices should direct our attention ultimately to that fact.
As Paul wrote more than once: the message of the cross is the power of God for salvation.
Posted in: Technical Preview of Office Web Apps
This is very good news. It will be great to have some serious competition to Google docs.
From my perspective in a rural church, it seems like moving the assemblies and committees of the church fully into the cloud is still several years away. It isn't worth moving agendas and minutes into the cloud if there will be a noticeable portion of the committee that won't use the new medium. I've noticed this even with email. At this point, I'm not even sure it is worth me emailing all of the council members the agenda because a noticeable number of them don't rely on email and don't check it daily. They would much prefer a paper agenda.
I'm eager to use the cloud for agendas and minutes because it would make the work of committees so much easier. But it would only do so if everybody is on board. For that reason, I'm glad Microsoft is going to be pushing Office users in that direction. The sooner the better!
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
Mark, in response to your tangent about why we don't think the summary of the commandments applies to songs, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that worship music, much less worship itself, should conform to that commandment. Communal worship is usually understood to be commanded by the first table of the law, which is summarized by the first half of what Jesus said -- love God -- not by the whole summary. Furthermore, the pattern for worship is usually derived from acts of covenant renewal found in places like the book of Deuteronomy or Joshua 24. Certainly our primary obligation in worship is to love God, but if worship is primarily covenant renewal, it wouldn't seem right to put the interests of those outside the covenant ahead of those inside. Obviously we shouldn't worship in ways that are unnecessarily off-putting to outsiders, but that doesn't mean that we should therefore worship in ways that are unnecessarily off-putting to those inside for the sake of those outside.
Given the nature of the biblical commands and models for worship, I am inclined to think that perhaps our worship priorities are, in fact, first to God, then to those in the covenant, and only third to those outside. Certainly this still means that the interests you have as an individual never come before the interests of others in the church in worship. And certainly the pattern would apply only to communal worship and not to other aspects of life as the body of Christ. But perhaps I'm missing something in this argument.
Posted in: Twitter Possibilities
Having the church send tweets does indeed have a lot of potential, especially when it comes to making connections and keeping the church a presence in people's lives throughout the week. But institutional tweeting also requires a lot of care. I would venture to say that the most important task in institutional tweeting is choosing the right "tweeter."
The job requires ruthless consistency. My personal tweeting is very inconsistent: sometimes multiple times a day, sometimes once every few weeks, sometimes about important things, sometimes about trivial matters, sometimes specifically personal, sometimes very impersonal and general.
It seems that if someone is going to tweet on behalf of the church, such irregularity should be avoided. We want the church to be consistent in the integrity of preaching, and so we require trained preachers. We want the church to be consistent in the administration of pastoral care, and so we often divide the congregation into households under the care of specific elders. We want the church to be consistent in the presentation of the church's life in the bulletin announcements, and so we usually appoint one qualified person to be the final editor and printer of the bulletins. Similarly, we should aim for consistency by appointing someone who is careful and "professional" about their tweeting on behalf of the church.
In this regard, the CRC has found an excellent institutional tweeter (is it Tim Postuma?). Very consistent, professional, and impersonal/formal, but still warm and friendly. The inconsistent and overly personal tweeting by some tweeters for other organizations (I'll refrain from naming names) in my eyes damages the credibility of the institution. (I've seen institutional tweets directed at specific individuals who are friends of the tweeter and tweets that seem to be based on the tweeter's individual interests and opinions, rather than the institution's interests and official positions.)
All that is to say, if you do have your church start tweeting, appoint the tweeter carefully!
Posted in: Using TheCommon.org to Connect Needs and Abilities in Your Church
At Synod, I heard about a competing service being run by a relative of one of the delegates (if I remember right). It sounded like that service might have some advantages over theCommon.org and it would be nice to be able to compare them. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the other site. Does anybody know what it might be?