I've found that it has helped some people when I point out that theology (literally "God-Words") is simply the choices we make when trying to communicate about our God. We are well aware that the reality of God far surpasses our knowledge of Him. We ought to also be aware that our relational knowledge of God often surpasses our own ability to express that knowledge through words, art, or otherwise. So we do our best to make choices that will best reveal what we can of God to the person(s) we're communicating with. Over time Christians have learned some very insightful ways of speaking of very deep things about God. We should respect that while recognizing that sometimes words that mean one thing to me might mean something very different to another person - especially those raised in significantly different cultures or circumstances. Also, God has chosen not to give every person the exact same experience of Him. So, for instance, the irresistible grace of TULIP speaks closely to my experience of God - for someone to deny that simply makes no sense to me, I have experienced it to be true. Moreover, I know that many others have had a similar experience, and that people passionate about it have dug deeply into the Scriptures to see if God has revealed Himself as acting that way (and He has!).
So, everyone has a theology. They have experiences and beliefs about God that they would talk about in a certain way - that is essentially what theology is. A wise person learns to broaden their own experiences of God by seeking out others as well, and their theology will grow.
Sometimes I think we need to back down a little from trying to assess between denominations what is "right" language versus "wrong" language, and deal instead with "is this Scripturally appropriate language?" There are other Christian theologies I admit to being Scripturally appropriate even though they don't jive nearly as well with my own experience and may therefore be hard to conceptually reconcile with Reformed theology (which does fit my experience!).
Thank you Karen! I agree with the article and the comments so far!
Two further thoughts...
1. What does it communicate when this is assumed to be information for pastors? How about elders? In my first church I was given almost no say about Sunday School curriculum, thankfully the second church I had did value my input. And, I hope that I'm not alone among pastors in placing a high value on the input of professional educators when it comes to the pedagogy of the curriculum.
2. I hope this is somewhat of an answer to Tim's thoughts. While the CRC curriculum is an improvement on the other, I still wouldn't say it picks up on the better aspects of Reformed theology. It reinforces a sense of assurance of our salvation (justification!), but fails to plant seeds of sanctification. I've found, sadly, that many adults who have grown up in our churches actually begin to feel less assured over time because a) they don't sense themselves becoming more godly and b) the preacher seems to believe we need to hear the message of justification again - maybe that's a sign we didn't understand it before!
In my own young adulthood I went from extreme boredom with my faith to fervent excitement when I began to understand a Reformed (emphasis on Reformed!) view of sanctification - a view that put God in the lead, yet gave me a role in watching His transforming work in my life and even being allowed to participate in exciting ways! And then I discovered many others who were experiencing the same thing and then we got to watch God work in each other and support each other through the ups and downs of all that!
I imagine the disease factored in a lot. But mostly he talked about how his son, Kent, had gone to Israel to study Hebrew and Ed was inspired by his son's passion. Dr. Williams gave Ed an opportunity to address our class about how much he felt he had missed by not paying more attention to the original languages. It was quite inspiring and contributed a lot to my passion for the Bible languages. Anyway, how inspiring to see his "Yogi Berra" Christianity still being lived out a decade later!
Lapsing someone means they are no longer a member of your congregation. So the simple answer is, no, it is not appropriate to send a letter of transfer. The appropriate thing is for the church receiving them to ask them to make a reaffirmation of their faith. It may be beneficial to review the rules for lapsing members - given in the Supplement to Church Order article 67. http://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/churchorder.pdf
If the pastor chairs the council, then it is appropriate that he doesn't vote. This is following the practices laid out in Robert's Rules of Order.
If the pastor is not chair of the council, he is a voting member. This is in accordance with CO art. 35. B. a. mentioned in Tom Van Engen's post. Leaving the pastor off of council, or making him/her an "ex-officio" member or some other kind of non-voting member, would create a power imbalance in the leadership of the church whereby, at least on paper, the elders and deacons are over the pastor. It is important that we realize that no branch of the council is supposed to be over another, only the council as a whole (all pastors, all elders, all deacons) can be over any one ordained office bearer. This effectively gives each officebearer a share in his/her own oversight - providing the freedom necessary for each officebearer to follow what they believe is God's call for them. The council stands as the highest earthly authority under God, and each officebearer has a share in that responsibility, even while submitting him/herself to the authority of the whole when intervention is necessary.
I think today we take the "paperwork" worth a grain of salt until things go wrong - then we scramble to understand and often further complicate things because we had things confused on paper the whole while. I've found that getting the details correct on paper is tremendously helpful when problems occur.
Thanks Lubbert, for the quote of the new proposed Model Articles of Incorporation.
In my previous church we did not have anything about a quorum in the articles of incorporation. Thus, because the CRC Church Order (also quoted by Lubbert) gives final authority to the council in all manners, a congregational meeting is technically advisory and a quorum is not needed. In my former church, and perhaps my present one as well, I have a hard time imagining anything motivating 50% of the confessing members to attend a congregational meeting. I think that's a sad commentary both on member commitment and on the fact that our congregational meetings are too frequently handled as business transactions rather than opportunities to reflect together on what God is calling our congregations to do for HIm.
I don't folks. If the word is truly as powerful and convicting as we say it is, maybe we should be sitting down to hear that? I'm being facetious of course, but the point is that standing or sitting can be symbolic and/or practical either way. Perhaps standing for the reading was always symbolic of respect, or perhaps it was just a practical way to get people closer to the speaker because sitting takes more room. Obviously in Nehemiah the symbol of respect came primarily from the length of time that the people stood. If our churches are being intentionally symbolic with sitting or standing, I think very few people would argue in favor of giving the Creed a place of highest honor. But if we are using this as a standard to try and judge other congregations, this is a silly display of insecurity, and besides, we should be careful not to assume that a symbol understood one way in one congregation will carry the same meaning in another congregation.
Thanks Dave - great reflection. I have had very similar feelings since leaving the role of regular preaching.
Another part of it for me has been the realization that one of the "unfortunate" realities of preaching is that the preacher doesn't get to choose when to preach and to whom. Even when I was in a co-pastorate it wasn 't like I could just tell my co- pastor one week - "hey, I've got a sermon burning in me, can I go on instead of you?" (He probably would have been fine with it, but the rest of the service would have been upended!) And I certainly couldn't get to Friday night on my week to preach and tell him that I really wasn't "feeling it" this week, would he mind filling in? And what about all of the week days when I was just burning to gather my congregation with some new element of God's great news that I had discovered? By Sunday that same news was several days old for me and at least a little of the passion had worn off.
Which is all just to say that sometimes preaching is work, and even though it's wonderful work, it can be exhausting. It's a relief sometimes to allow others to do that work, and yet I jump at the chance to pick up that work again for a week or two and give another preacher time to rest.
I agree that thinking of committees as "small groups" is very helpful - sets a tone of being there for edification (of self and others) rather than for business.
And I love that you're dedicating more time to prayer. That was a change we had begun in one of my churches - though my approach was to build in prayer time in the middle of the meeting. I put the significant discussions at the beginning and then we would pray over them. After several months of stopping in the middle of our meetings to pray I felt it was still awkward, so I asked my council if I should stop forcing that on them. They agreed it was awkward, but told me not to stop - it was important enough that they wanted to stick with it until it became natural.
Posted in: Why Does Theology Matter?
I've found that it has helped some people when I point out that theology (literally "God-Words") is simply the choices we make when trying to communicate about our God. We are well aware that the reality of God far surpasses our knowledge of Him. We ought to also be aware that our relational knowledge of God often surpasses our own ability to express that knowledge through words, art, or otherwise. So we do our best to make choices that will best reveal what we can of God to the person(s) we're communicating with. Over time Christians have learned some very insightful ways of speaking of very deep things about God. We should respect that while recognizing that sometimes words that mean one thing to me might mean something very different to another person - especially those raised in significantly different cultures or circumstances. Also, God has chosen not to give every person the exact same experience of Him. So, for instance, the irresistible grace of TULIP speaks closely to my experience of God - for someone to deny that simply makes no sense to me, I have experienced it to be true. Moreover, I know that many others have had a similar experience, and that people passionate about it have dug deeply into the Scriptures to see if God has revealed Himself as acting that way (and He has!).
So, everyone has a theology. They have experiences and beliefs about God that they would talk about in a certain way - that is essentially what theology is. A wise person learns to broaden their own experiences of God by seeking out others as well, and their theology will grow.
Sometimes I think we need to back down a little from trying to assess between denominations what is "right" language versus "wrong" language, and deal instead with "is this Scripturally appropriate language?" There are other Christian theologies I admit to being Scripturally appropriate even though they don't jive nearly as well with my own experience and may therefore be hard to conceptually reconcile with Reformed theology (which does fit my experience!).
Posted in: Every Pastor in the CRC Should Hear This
Thank you Karen! I agree with the article and the comments so far!
Two further thoughts...
1. What does it communicate when this is assumed to be information for pastors? How about elders? In my first church I was given almost no say about Sunday School curriculum, thankfully the second church I had did value my input. And, I hope that I'm not alone among pastors in placing a high value on the input of professional educators when it comes to the pedagogy of the curriculum.
2. I hope this is somewhat of an answer to Tim's thoughts. While the CRC curriculum is an improvement on the other, I still wouldn't say it picks up on the better aspects of Reformed theology. It reinforces a sense of assurance of our salvation (justification!), but fails to plant seeds of sanctification. I've found, sadly, that many adults who have grown up in our churches actually begin to feel less assured over time because a) they don't sense themselves becoming more godly and b) the preacher seems to believe we need to hear the message of justification again - maybe that's a sign we didn't understand it before!
In my own young adulthood I went from extreme boredom with my faith to fervent excitement when I began to understand a Reformed (emphasis on Reformed!) view of sanctification - a view that put God in the lead, yet gave me a role in watching His transforming work in my life and even being allowed to participate in exciting ways! And then I discovered many others who were experiencing the same thing and then we got to watch God work in each other and support each other through the ups and downs of all that!
Posted in: Ed Dobson: It Ain't Over
Thanks for sharing this Mark. Ed took (re-took, really) Hebrew with me and others at CTS in 2004 - not so long after he had been diagnosed with ALS.
Posted in: Ed Dobson: It Ain't Over
I imagine the disease factored in a lot. But mostly he talked about how his son, Kent, had gone to Israel to study Hebrew and Ed was inspired by his son's passion. Dr. Williams gave Ed an opportunity to address our class about how much he felt he had missed by not paying more attention to the original languages. It was quite inspiring and contributed a lot to my passion for the Bible languages. Anyway, how inspiring to see his "Yogi Berra" Christianity still being lived out a decade later!
Posted in: Transfer Lapsed Members?
Good question!
Lapsing someone means they are no longer a member of your congregation. So the simple answer is, no, it is not appropriate to send a letter of transfer. The appropriate thing is for the church receiving them to ask them to make a reaffirmation of their faith. It may be beneficial to review the rules for lapsing members - given in the Supplement to Church Order article 67. http://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/churchorder.pdf
Posted in: Do Ministers Vote in Council Meetings?
If the pastor chairs the council, then it is appropriate that he doesn't vote. This is following the practices laid out in Robert's Rules of Order.
If the pastor is not chair of the council, he is a voting member. This is in accordance with CO art. 35. B. a. mentioned in Tom Van Engen's post. Leaving the pastor off of council, or making him/her an "ex-officio" member or some other kind of non-voting member, would create a power imbalance in the leadership of the church whereby, at least on paper, the elders and deacons are over the pastor. It is important that we realize that no branch of the council is supposed to be over another, only the council as a whole (all pastors, all elders, all deacons) can be over any one ordained office bearer. This effectively gives each officebearer a share in his/her own oversight - providing the freedom necessary for each officebearer to follow what they believe is God's call for them. The council stands as the highest earthly authority under God, and each officebearer has a share in that responsibility, even while submitting him/herself to the authority of the whole when intervention is necessary.
I think today we take the "paperwork" worth a grain of salt until things go wrong - then we scramble to understand and often further complicate things because we had things confused on paper the whole while. I've found that getting the details correct on paper is tremendously helpful when problems occur.
Posted in: Is There a Quorum for Confessing Members to Be Present at a Congregational Meeting to Make the Decisions Made Legal?
Thanks Lubbert, for the quote of the new proposed Model Articles of Incorporation.
In my previous church we did not have anything about a quorum in the articles of incorporation. Thus, because the CRC Church Order (also quoted by Lubbert) gives final authority to the council in all manners, a congregational meeting is technically advisory and a quorum is not needed. In my former church, and perhaps my present one as well, I have a hard time imagining anything motivating 50% of the confessing members to attend a congregational meeting. I think that's a sad commentary both on member commitment and on the fact that our congregational meetings are too frequently handled as business transactions rather than opportunities to reflect together on what God is calling our congregations to do for HIm.
Posted in: What Are Your Feelings Regarding Standing for the Church's Creeds and Confessions but Not for God's Word During Worship Service?
I don't folks. If the word is truly as powerful and convicting as we say it is, maybe we should be sitting down to hear that? I'm being facetious of course, but the point is that standing or sitting can be symbolic and/or practical either way. Perhaps standing for the reading was always symbolic of respect, or perhaps it was just a practical way to get people closer to the speaker because sitting takes more room. Obviously in Nehemiah the symbol of respect came primarily from the length of time that the people stood. If our churches are being intentionally symbolic with sitting or standing, I think very few people would argue in favor of giving the Creed a place of highest honor. But if we are using this as a standard to try and judge other congregations, this is a silly display of insecurity, and besides, we should be careful not to assume that a symbol understood one way in one congregation will carry the same meaning in another congregation.
Posted in: I Loved Preaching...Or So I Had Been Telling Myself
Thanks Dave - great reflection. I have had very similar feelings since leaving the role of regular preaching.
Another part of it for me has been the realization that one of the "unfortunate" realities of preaching is that the preacher doesn't get to choose when to preach and to whom. Even when I was in a co-pastorate it wasn 't like I could just tell my co- pastor one week - "hey, I've got a sermon burning in me, can I go on instead of you?" (He probably would have been fine with it, but the rest of the service would have been upended!) And I certainly couldn't get to Friday night on my week to preach and tell him that I really wasn't "feeling it" this week, would he mind filling in? And what about all of the week days when I was just burning to gather my congregation with some new element of God's great news that I had discovered? By Sunday that same news was several days old for me and at least a little of the passion had worn off.
Which is all just to say that sometimes preaching is work, and even though it's wonderful work, it can be exhausting. It's a relief sometimes to allow others to do that work, and yet I jump at the chance to pick up that work again for a week or two and give another preacher time to rest.
Posted in: Escaping the "Death by Committee" Trap
Thanks for the comments David!
I agree that thinking of committees as "small groups" is very helpful - sets a tone of being there for edification (of self and others) rather than for business.
And I love that you're dedicating more time to prayer. That was a change we had begun in one of my churches - though my approach was to build in prayer time in the middle of the meeting. I put the significant discussions at the beginning and then we would pray over them. After several months of stopping in the middle of our meetings to pray I felt it was still awkward, so I asked my council if I should stop forcing that on them. They agreed it was awkward, but told me not to stop - it was important enough that they wanted to stick with it until it became natural.
Posted in: The Circle is Being Completed
Thanks Diane! What a great reflection.
Posted in: What Comes to Mind When You Think of the Reformation?
Liberty