Emotions need to be expressed in sermons so that the listener does not conclude that the speaker is not really so sure about this text or teaching. Unemotional preaching leaves you with the feeling that the preacher really believes what he/she is preaching.
On the other hand there needs to be a delicate balance of the emotions of the heart and the thoughts of the mind. We need to embrace in our preaching.
To qualify for consideration does one have to be published in the traditional sense or does self publishing with such a company as "Inspiring Voices" count? If so, I have one such book called This Poison Called Depression. It is available on Amazon.
Thanks Doug for your thoughtful response much of which I appreciate and agree with. You did bring a question to mind about two things.
1. "This justice obligation is not to provide a comfortable life but rather the minimal means by which the poor will, essentially, avoid dying." Avoiding dying is truly a minimalist point. Is such a serious limitation truly necessary in your understanding of the role of government. I could understand other limiting measures such as not to exceed the cost of living for a family of four. Or not to exceed the poverty line. Buy only to prevent death seems unusually harsh and frankly something I have never ever heard before. I think even Ronald Regan would object to this limitation. I personally would/could never vote for someone running for office with such a view of government. I expect more of a government which writes into its constitution " to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." "To promote the general welfare of the United states".
I also think of the words in our pledge of allegiance "with liberty and justice for all."
2. One more thing, I think it is clear that Romans 13 not only establishes states with the power of the sword but also with the power to do good. Vs. 4 "For he is God's servant to do you good." The power of the sword does not even come up in Paul's language until after the phrase :"to do good." The first three verses are all about submitting to the authorities for there is no authority except that which God has established. Paul's primary concern in the first three verses is the proper recognition of governing authorities. He is not defining the function of the government so much as the legitimacy of the government.
Paul in 1Timothy 2: 1-7 appeals to Christians to pray for kings and all those in authority that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness." It is clear that Paul understood that one function of kings and all those in authority was to make it possible for people to lead peaceful and quiet lives. Additionally I cannot image being only minimally alive and at the same time living a peaceful and quiet life. It seems even here Paul has more than mere life in mind. Peter also sees a twofold function of the government in 1 Peter 2:13f. "To punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do good." He does not tell us how the government commends those who do good but he does it make it clear that it is not doing good by punishing, those who do wrong. These two are distinct.
Doug much of what you say is good common sense and some a laundry list of what governments may do in the interest of the common good. Butt here is not a single reference to a Bible passage in your article so I dispute the assertion that you were showing that Government is responsible to take care of the poor. What scripture are you referring to?
#1. I did not draw a straight line from the theocracy to modern governments. I only drew a line from the theocracy on the principle that the nation of Israel had to provide for the poor. The prophets understood the scriptures that way or they could not have said that Israel would go into captivity for their idolatry and neglect of the poor. This principle of accountability and responsibility is carried over into the New Testament. What part of care for the poor or provide for the poor do you not understand? We should not permit our modern differentiations of government responsibilities from excluding the governments responsibility for the poor.
I do not agree with your statement that he year of jubilee had anything to do with caring for the poor. It was a major redistribution of ownership of land to the way it was in the time prior to the 49 years. That is, in my opinion, major caring for the poor which was commanded by God and legislated through Moses. It stands not as law that needs to be replicated but as a principle to be honored. I think your understanding of Jubilee is not held by Calvin, Berkhof, or any other Reformed theologian.
Besides the year of Jubilee which took effect in the 50th year and staid in effect until the next 50th year, there is the legislation of leaving the corners of the field for the poor, still observed until the time of Ruth we know, the Sabbatical year, the third year tithe which as to go to the poor, (Deuteronomy 14:28-29), zero interest loans (Deut. 15:1-11). The principle of caring for the poor was deeply imbedded in the life of Israel.
I work part-time for World Renew. My recollection is that the majority world lives off of $2 a day. That is what is used to define extreme poverty, my understanding of World Renew's definition.
I think people who have to live off $2 a day or less need help. Where should that help come? It should come from their family, church, non-government agencies and yes the government too. That is the point of the law, the prophets and the New Testament when it speaks on social implications of the Word of God.
The government is a divinely appointed agency to do good. Romans 13, Matthew 25, Psalm 72. The ruler is a channel of God's authority.
Thank you for your review of my post, I appreciate it even though we may have misunderstood each other.
For starters I do not think you mean what you say in the first line of paragraph two of your review. You do not mean to say that you disagree that I am dumbing down what I think you meant to say is that you disagree because you think I am dumbing down. Correct?. I sometimes think faster than I can write as well and do not say it quite as I intended to. Not a problem. I do not think there is any need to dumb down our worship or in order to make it more accessible to untrained musical and theological members would involve dumbing down.
Actually, I am reflecting some feedback I have received from mature believers in the CRC. They are family members, college students who have worshipped during college at evangelical community churches and other non-muscians and non theologians. They think this form of muti-message worship is confusing and not edifying because it is dis-jointed. The college students I refer to have gone from their home CRC and experienced evangelical more seamless worship while at college. When they come back they do not appreciate Reformed Worship as we practice it. So they find a church home now which is more like what they had in college. Perhaps I'm the only CRC pastor with such experiences. I hope if there other pastors like me out there that they will speak up. If I'm alone or only a few agree with what I say I will be quiet and direct my time and energy elsewhere.
I keep hearing words like yours from our worship leaders but I also keep reading about how we are losing our young adults.
Thanks again for your feedback Ken. I would like to meet you sometime and discuss these thoughts further with you.
Thanks for writing about this. Being retired it does not affect me in the same way except to say that my 1600 /mo pension is considerably less than fellow Christian school teachers, RCA pastors,and the members of my church employed at Ibm, Savemart, and gov. Employees.
You raise a very good question and I have asked myself the same questions with regards to some incidents within the CRCNA. I recall the incident when Synod nominated someone for executive director of the CRCNA but after his nomination something was announced that it was no longer proper for him to serve in this capacity. I do not know if the reason was ever made public.
Thank you Kent. I am greatly encouraged by your comment. It also makes me aware of your books for which I am grateful. It seems that the church has a great deal of teaching to do on this topic, advocating for it in politics and other public arenas. Do we have Christian attorneys dealing with this?
Posted in: Does Expressing Emotion Make for Better Sermons?
Emotions need to be expressed in sermons so that the listener does not conclude that the speaker is not really so sure about this text or teaching. Unemotional preaching leaves you with the feeling that the preacher really believes what he/she is preaching.
On the other hand there needs to be a delicate balance of the emotions of the heart and the thoughts of the mind. We need to embrace in our preaching.
Posted in: Introducing a New Ministry Topic! Books by CRC & RCA Authors
To qualify for consideration does one have to be published in the traditional sense or does self publishing with such a company as "Inspiring Voices" count? If so, I have one such book called This Poison Called Depression. It is available on Amazon.
Posted in: Time for Non-Compete Clauses for Clergy?
Good conclusion.
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
Thanks Doug for your thoughtful response much of which I appreciate and agree with. You did bring a question to mind about two things.
1. "This justice obligation is not to provide a comfortable life but rather the minimal means by which the poor will, essentially, avoid dying." Avoiding dying is truly a minimalist point. Is such a serious limitation truly necessary in your understanding of the role of government. I could understand other limiting measures such as not to exceed the cost of living for a family of four. Or not to exceed the poverty line. Buy only to prevent death seems unusually harsh and frankly something I have never ever heard before. I think even Ronald Regan would object to this limitation. I personally would/could never vote for someone running for office with such a view of government. I expect more of a government which writes into its constitution " to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." "To promote the general welfare of the United states".
I also think of the words in our pledge of allegiance "with liberty and justice for all."
2. One more thing, I think it is clear that Romans 13 not only establishes states with the power of the sword but also with the power to do good. Vs. 4 "For he is God's servant to do you good." The power of the sword does not even come up in Paul's language until after the phrase :"to do good." The first three verses are all about submitting to the authorities for there is no authority except that which God has established. Paul's primary concern in the first three verses is the proper recognition of governing authorities. He is not defining the function of the government so much as the legitimacy of the government.
Paul in 1Timothy 2: 1-7 appeals to Christians to pray for kings and all those in authority that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness." It is clear that Paul understood that one function of kings and all those in authority was to make it possible for people to lead peaceful and quiet lives. Additionally I cannot image being only minimally alive and at the same time living a peaceful and quiet life. It seems even here Paul has more than mere life in mind. Peter also sees a twofold function of the government in 1 Peter 2:13f. "To punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do good." He does not tell us how the government commends those who do good but he does it make it clear that it is not doing good by punishing, those who do wrong. These two are distinct.
Thanks again for your reflections.
Posted in: A Question of Governance and Scripture Teaching
Doug much of what you say is good common sense and some a laundry list of what governments may do in the interest of the common good. Butt here is not a single reference to a Bible passage in your article so I dispute the assertion that you were showing that Government is responsible to take care of the poor. What scripture are you referring to?
Posted in: The Role of the Government as Taught by the Bible
Hi Doug,
#1. I did not draw a straight line from the theocracy to modern governments. I only drew a line from the theocracy on the principle that the nation of Israel had to provide for the poor. The prophets understood the scriptures that way or they could not have said that Israel would go into captivity for their idolatry and neglect of the poor. This principle of accountability and responsibility is carried over into the New Testament. What part of care for the poor or provide for the poor do you not understand? We should not permit our modern differentiations of government responsibilities from excluding the governments responsibility for the poor.
I do not agree with your statement that he year of jubilee had anything to do with caring for the poor. It was a major redistribution of ownership of land to the way it was in the time prior to the 49 years. That is, in my opinion, major caring for the poor which was commanded by God and legislated through Moses. It stands not as law that needs to be replicated but as a principle to be honored. I think your understanding of Jubilee is not held by Calvin, Berkhof, or any other Reformed theologian.
Besides the year of Jubilee which took effect in the 50th year and staid in effect until the next 50th year, there is the legislation of leaving the corners of the field for the poor, still observed until the time of Ruth we know, the Sabbatical year, the third year tithe which as to go to the poor, (Deuteronomy 14:28-29), zero interest loans (Deut. 15:1-11). The principle of caring for the poor was deeply imbedded in the life of Israel.
Posted in: The Role of the Government as Taught by the Bible
I work part-time for World Renew. My recollection is that the majority world lives off of $2 a day. That is what is used to define extreme poverty, my understanding of World Renew's definition.
I think people who have to live off $2 a day or less need help. Where should that help come? It should come from their family, church, non-government agencies and yes the government too. That is the point of the law, the prophets and the New Testament when it speaks on social implications of the Word of God.
The government is a divinely appointed agency to do good. Romans 13, Matthew 25, Psalm 72. The ruler is a channel of God's authority.
Posted in: A Single Thematic Approach to Reformed Worship
What is the question about Robert Schuller?
Posted in: A Single Thematic Approach to Reformed Worship
Thank you for your review of my post, I appreciate it even though we may have misunderstood each other.
For starters I do not think you mean what you say in the first line of paragraph two of your review. You do not mean to say that you disagree that I am dumbing down what I think you meant to say is that you disagree because you think I am dumbing down. Correct?. I sometimes think faster than I can write as well and do not say it quite as I intended to. Not a problem. I do not think there is any need to dumb down our worship or in order to make it more accessible to untrained musical and theological members would involve dumbing down.
Actually, I am reflecting some feedback I have received from mature believers in the CRC. They are family members, college students who have worshipped during college at evangelical community churches and other non-muscians and non theologians. They think this form of muti-message worship is confusing and not edifying because it is dis-jointed. The college students I refer to have gone from their home CRC and experienced evangelical more seamless worship while at college. When they come back they do not appreciate Reformed Worship as we practice it. So they find a church home now which is more like what they had in college. Perhaps I'm the only CRC pastor with such experiences. I hope if there other pastors like me out there that they will speak up. If I'm alone or only a few agree with what I say I will be quiet and direct my time and energy elsewhere.
I keep hearing words like yours from our worship leaders but I also keep reading about how we are losing our young adults.
Thanks again for your feedback Ken. I would like to meet you sometime and discuss these thoughts further with you.
Until then,
Respectfully,
Larry
Posted in: Annual Compensation Review: Support for Pastors?
//
Randy
Thanks for writing about this. Being retired it does not affect me in the same way except to say that my 1600 /mo pension is considerably less than fellow Christian school teachers, RCA pastors,and the members of my church employed at Ibm, Savemart, and gov. Employees.
Posted in: Counting Voices
You raise a very good question and I have asked myself the same questions with regards to some incidents within the CRCNA. I recall the incident when Synod nominated someone for executive director of the CRCNA but after his nomination something was announced that it was no longer proper for him to serve in this capacity. I do not know if the reason was ever made public.
Posted in: Our Reformed Engagement in Ethical Business Practices
Thank you Kent. I am greatly encouraged by your comment. It also makes me aware of your books for which I am grateful. It seems that the church has a great deal of teaching to do on this topic, advocating for it in politics and other public arenas. Do we have Christian attorneys dealing with this?