Daniel Zylstra

I think Chuck Adams' suggestion is a good one. We still have an Elder come to the front of the church after the blessing and during or after the doxology, and shake hands with the pastor. Then they both head to the back of the church for the hand-shaking line-up with the people in the congregation. Because there's always a line up to get out of the sanctuary with people shaking the pastor's hand, and the pastor then being able to greet (almost) everyone, no one wants to take the pastor's time right then. Then, after the hand-shaking is done, the pastor goes to the fellowship hall and gets a coffee, and if people still want to corner him, well, at least he's had a chance to say "hello" to almost everyone already.

Henry,

I'm sorry that I can't share "chapter and verse" about where you might find information about the handshake thing, but this is how it was explained to me: The Elders (of whom the Pastor is a specialized member) have been given authority by God, as testified by Jesus when he tells the disciples that what they bind on earth, will be bound in heaven, etc.. Therefore, when the Pastor and the Elder shake hands as they come to the front of the church, the Elder is saying on behalf of God (in his authority as Christ's representative), and on the people's behalf, "You have the authority and blessing to give God's Word to us this day. May you be blessed as you do so."

After the service (though not all churches do this anymore) the Elder would again shake hands with the Pastor saying, in effect, "Thank you for the blessing that God has given us through you. And we submit to His will and His Word as revealed through you today."

It's (to me) a very meaningful practice, and I'm glad you want to share it with people.

By the way, I did look it up a bit. The book "Guiding God's People in a Changing World: A Handbook for Elders" by Louis Tamminga, cites the church order, art. 52a "The consistory shall regulate the worship services." That's the closest I could find...

Dear Brett:

First, welcome to the Network! Good to hear from you! I hope you find much good spiritual food here. 

To your question, first let me say that I believe quite firmly that I don't know the details of HOW God created the world, EXCEPT that I know that a) He did it (it was NOT an accident), and b) that it was GOOD. 

I have read many, many articles, and theological works regarding creation and I can honestly say that, regardless of whether you want to argue for a "not-literal 6 "days" " of creation or for a "literal 6, 24-hour days", I can see nothing relevant to that argument in Hebrews 4, or the surrounding passage.

The whole context of the passage relates to perservering in doing the "good works" that God has given for us to do. The writer of Hebrews uses the positive example of how God did "good work" for six days and then entered His rest--a well-deserved break from all he had done. The author of Hebrews then goes on to give the negative example of how the people of Israel, after they were rescued from Egypt, did NOT do the faithful work that God had called them to, at first, and so that whole generation was denied entry into the "rest" of the promised land, and had to wander the desert for 40 years instead.

The writer then connects this to us, saying, in effect, "Follow God's pattern laid out in creation: do the good work laid out for you, then, when it is done, you will be called into His rest. Don't shirk that work like Israel did!"

To somehow take this passage and make it about how many days (or what kind of days) creation took would be to completely miss the point of the passage, and to throw an interpretation on there that really doesn't exist. 

Hope that is helpful. 

Blessings on you and your friend. May God draw you closer to him always.

We offer a gluten free option on the same plate with the bread. We have the bread around in a ring around the outside, and a kind of "donut-hole" spot for the gluten free rice cracker in the centre. We keep them separate with a little paper cup.

We do a similar thing to what Melissa's church does, except we're a little late on it (we actually end up approving the Jan-Dec. budget in Feb. of that same year, somewhat retroactively).

As far as "ownership" goes, one thing that we've done is we've encourage people to make ministry proposals that could be included as project based initiatives in the budget each year--this give people an opportunity to put something on their hearts into the budget and make it tangible.

Otherwise, I've heard of churches that do a totally pledge-based budget (and I think this is a great idea). They gather pledges in November or so, and then make their budget ONLY out of the money in the pledges. This way, if the people do not pledge "enough" then ministries get cut. If they pledge "extra" then the church can take on extra ministries. 

That kind of budget only works though if the church is serious about biting the bullet and will actually cut things if there's no money and/or add things if there is. This way the church membership sees a direct correlation between what they put in and what comes out. If you do it halfway, like some churches do, where they collect the pledges, but their budget is still based on what they "usually" do, then you'll just end up with people not making pledges and the whole thing will be a waste of time for everyone.

I'm not sure how to make the transition from our type of budget to the one I just talked about in an already established church, but I'm thinking about talking about it with the Council and seeing if we could head that way...any suggestions would be appreciated!

in His service,

Dan.

My former professor, Lloyd Arnett, from Trinity Western University in Langley, BC, has a few plays that are biblically based, and that are great for teens. Particularly "The Bethany Improvisation", which is an interview of Mary, Martha and Lazarus is impactful and deeply rooted in the scriptures.

Also, you may want to check out the organization "CITA" -- Christians in Theater Arts -- they have many, many connections for scripts, playwrights, actors, etc., etc.

I know it's been a while since you asked, but hopefully this will help you and/or others who may need to find this still.

Have you checked with Crown Financial Ministries? They're a Christian Canadian group teaching personal finance and stewardship, but maybe they could head you in the right direction? http://crowncanada.ca

Note: I am not affiliated with Crown Financial Ministries in any way, nor have I ever really used their curriculum. We currently use Financial Peace University, from Dave Ramsey to teach personal finance and stewardship in our church... from the U.S., but they do provide supplemental resources for Canadians.

I would like to agree with you that this is the "most important" section of the HSR. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you. Why? Because, when I was at Synod in 2016 exactly what you ask for here (or, rather, wish that churches and Classes would ask for), "practical, actionable resources for becoming congregations of true belonging", was presented to Synod, only to be soundly voted down, and replaced this committee. This committee which, in my opinion, negates to a significant degree what it says in section 13 by not honestly dealing with opposing viewpoints on same sex marriage and by stating things like sexual sins being a "risk" to someone's salvation. Not only are statements like that contrary to our beliefs, but they also do not convey "love", and certainly do not forward congregations being able to become "congregations of true belonging."

Lastly, I cannot agree that this is, effectively, the most important section of the HSR because the co-autthour whom you quote says that [they] know of no churches that are heeding the calling of earlier Synods regarding the acceptance and love we ought to be practicing for our LGBTQ+ siblings in Christ. This, again (and sadly) indicates that this authour's knowledge of what is and has been going on for a long time in the churches is lacking. I have to agree that there are not many churches that are doing this work succesfully, but there ARE many who are trying. Additionally, there are some--whether we agree with their theology on same sex marriage or not--who are indeed embracing and accepting and loving those who are in the LGBTQ+ community. Neeland Avenue CRC and First CRC, Toronto are two great examples. Even if someone doesn't agree with their affirming stance on same-sex marriage, one would have to agree, I think, that they are being very successful at loving their LGBTQ+ neighbours and members.

Wouldn't it be great if, instead of simply standing and condemning our sister congregations for their "liberal" and/or "heretical" stances, we could dive into what their actually doing and draw some good lessons for how we could learn from them, without comprimising what we hold to be our biblical beliefs?

I'm curious as to what the point of this article is. There are a lot of statements here that are problematic, but so what? What is the authour trying to say, beyond quizzing readers on how good they are at identifying logical errors (out of context too, unfortunately). Truth be told, the article doesn't even seem to be about "hermeneutics" at all--rather it seems to be about "spotting the logical errors"--which is not the same thing.