Daniel Zylstra
Now into my second pastorate, but in my 42nd year of life, I have been doing the pastoral ministry thing for just over 7 and a half years now. I've been married for almost 20 years and have three beautiful children who (disobediently) keep growing like weeds. I love God and love His church.
When I first felt the call to head in to pastoral ministry, I initially thought that youth ministry would be the thing: "Then I can start with fresh, young minds and hearts who either don't have a lot of church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it to try new things." I thought.
But then God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people of all ages, right?"
So I said to myself, "Okay, I'll go in to church planting then. That way I can reach and disciple people of all ages and backgrounds, and we still will hopefully either have people who don't have much church baggage, or who are more than willing to shed it."
And God said to me, "Dan, you know I love people in established churches too, right?"
So I said, "Okay, okay, just not the CRC, okay God?"
And, wouldn't you know it, He said, "Dan, you DO know that I love the CRC too, right?"
And so, what else could I do but fall in love with young and old, of all nationalities and backgrounds, from all kinds of churches (yes, I love those in church plants too) and even CRC's?
Now I've been in love in this way for 8 or nine years and counting... God is good.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Good questions, Doug.
For Leviticus 18:22, I would deal with it by looking at the context. Verse 21 says "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." Verse 24 says "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled."
This seems to place these injunctions in the context of worshipping idols. It seems similar, to me, as what we read in Lev. 20:2-7, 22-23.
Also, the word "abomination" (Hebrew word is 'toevah') is associated strongly with idolatrous practices in at least 38 other passages, according to James V. Brownson in "Bible, Gender, Sexuality", pg. 270: (Deut. 7: 25-36; 12: 31; 13: 14; 17: 4; 18: 9, 12; 20: 18; 23: 18; 27: 15; 32: 16; 1 Kings 14: 24; 2 Kings 16: 3; 21: 2, 11; 23: 13; 28: 3; 33: 2; 34: 33; 36: 8, 14; Ezra 9: 1, 11, 13; Jer. 2: 7; 7: 10; 16: 18; 32: 35; 44: 4; Ezek. 6: 9; 7: 20; 8: 9; 14: 6; 16: 2; 16: 36, 47; 18: 12; 44: 7; Mal. 2: 11).
From the context, both immediately surrounding Lev. 18:22, and the broader linguistic context, it seems to me that this verse is dealing with purity, especially in terms of refraining from idol worship and it's practices (like temple prostitution).
In addition, these laws seem to me to be in the context of Levitical purity laws more generally. That is the overall theme of Leviticus, in a way--helping the people of Israel to live holy lives as a part of their life in the context of the Constitution Theocracy that God was calling them to. We seem to happily embrace Paul with regards to the ceremonial and purity laws when he talks about how "all things are permissible" (1 Cor. 6:12), and how "nothing is unclean in itself" (Rom. 14:14), and with Peter, when his vision of the "unclean animals" leads him (and us) to believe that we can not only be saved by Jesus as gentiles, but that we can also eat pigs, if we want (Acts 10:28). We also seem to be agree with Paul when he confronts Peter about no longer eating with gentiles (Gal. 2:11-13), even though Peter was concerned about being ceremonially unclean.
In short, it doesn't make sense to me really that we don't think that the following are literally and directly applicable to us:
- the laws regarding offerings (Lev. 1-7),
- the laws regarding Ordination and the priesthood (Lev. 8-10),
- the laws of cleanliness (Lev. 11-15),
- the laws concerning atonement and tabernacle worship (Lev. 16-17),
- the regulations concerning priests, offerings and feasts (Lev. 21:1-24:9),
- the punishments for blasphemy, murder, etc. (Lev. 24:10-23),
- the laws concerning the Sabbath year, Jubilee, Land Tenure, and slavery (Lev. 25),
- the blessings and curses for covenant obedience and disobedience (Lev. 26)
- and the regulations for offerings vowed to the Lord (Lev. 27)
In fact, it seems like the only chapters we think apply to us somewhat literally and directly are the laws found in chapters 18-20. And even there we are very selective. When's the last time you heard anyone preach that it was a "sin" to "have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."? Or how would we deal with Lev. 19:20-22 regarding a man sleeping with a slave girl who is promised to another man.
My point is that not only the context of Leviticus, but also our understanding of what Christ has done and what it means for us who are gentiles with regards to levitical law, and our behaviour regarding vast swaths of Leviticus indicates that we recognize that, though there is wisdom in the laws found in Leviticus, and though it is helpful for our instruction, we are not beholden to it in the same way as ancient Israel was. It doesn't apply in the same way to us as it did to them. And if it does then we are going to be like the "Judaizers" that Paul talks about. It either all applies exactly the same way as it did for them, or it all doesn't.
Does that mean we can ignore Leviticus? No! By no means. Just like Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:12 "'Everything is permissible for me'--but not everything is beneficial."
To me all of this means that we can't just take isolated passages like Lev. 18:22 and apply them blindly and universally to life today in our context. Instead we need to honestly wrestle with scripture and with wisdom and discernment given to us through the Spirit, and through thorough theology, exegesis and hermeneutics to try to discern the true underlying principles and how they might apply to us today.
The truth is that I wrestle at least as much with people who seem to believe that "happiness" and "fulfillment" are the highest goals of this life, and that being sexually active is an inalienable part of that happiness and fulfillment. To me that also is contrary to scripture. Our highest goals are to love God, in loving & grateful response to how he loves us, to love ourselves and other humans in his name and to care for the creation that he has given us to steward. As far as I can see, "happiness" has very little to do with anything. I am not called to be "happy", I am called to something much higher than myself.
The truth is also that I WISH we could just talk it all through based solely on scripture and have a realistic chance of actually coming to agreement. But, though scripture is useful for all that 1 Tim. mentions, nowhere do we read that scripture will always be easy to interpret, or that we'll always agree on what it means. I believe that the issue of human sexuality and what the Bible says about it has some legitimately debatable aspects to it. Some things are clear to me, and some things, I believe, are not as cut and dried (one way or another) as some would have us believe.
Posted in: #CRClistens: Why We Need Robert's Rules
Amen, Darren. Though I wonder sometimes (many times, these days) if those Robert's Rules need to be stretched a bit in new ways considering the multiplicity of backgrounds with which we are faced. I know, for example, that even among those of us who are used to Robert's Rules and the sort of euro-centric parliamentary procedure there are those who are just too shy to voice their opinions, feelings and concerns. Those same people invariably have, just as often as any of the rest of us, valuable things to say. Thus, sadly, their voices are often not heard.
Also, for those who do not come from our cultural context, the "Robert's Rules" way of doing things can still seem very aggressive, and it can be the case that those who come from a background where "consensus building" is the name of the game feel unwelcome to share. And, my experience has been that, Robert's Rules or not, it is still often the case that a few dominant voices are heard repeatedly, while others are not heard at all. In fact, I know that I have, on many an occasion, been one of those who is "heard" a little too often!
What I have been experiencing in the past number of years that has been a refreshing light in the midst of our meetings has been a kind of blending of "Robert's Rules" with some of the methods of Restorative Practices. In this way of doing things, on many significant issues, the chair will, for a few moments, prayerfully "pause" the normal function of Robert's Rules and will solicit the views of the entire body one-at-a-time going around a circle. Also, the chair may pause the conversation for a time of prayer. The body itself may explicitly declare that there are certain additional rules of respectful, safe dialog, using reflective listening techniques and direct communication between members on a particular topic....
I very much hear and agree that, for the most part, Robert's Rules are a Godsend to us as a church! However, I think there are times and places where a different set of "rules and procedures" need to be put in place--both to encourage those who are more shy, and those who are of differing cultural backgrounds, and to provide the time for a more contemplative, less adversarial and more consensus building model for our deliberations.
Posted in: Liturgical Forms Committee and the Problem With Public Profession of Faith
Thanks so much for your encouragement and comments, Len. I would certainly agree that it would be good to focus more on baptism and what it means in our theological understanding. It is a beautiful and powerful understanding of what God does in/through/for/with us in the life, death and resurrection of Christ in our lives.
I should have stated that this is all a "work in progress", and I really appreciate the feedback...maybe what you're saying here will make it into the v. 2.0 of this presentation/blog posting!
Posted in: Thanks to Kim for Starting and Finishing Well
Bye Kim! We'll miss you very much!
Posted in: Think Globally, Push Back Locally
Absolutely true, Scott. Excellent thoughts. Our culture has been shifted to a real "experiential" focus, which I think is great in a lot of ways, but it has also led us in part to the idea that anyone who has not actually experienced something directly should not comment--sometimes true, sometimes not, IMHO. Additionally, we have a strong tendency to be unteachable--we think that our own opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. When we get together, and someone is speaking on a topic (whether it be a pastor or someone else) we often feel free to take what we already agree with, and dismiss what we don't agree with, assuming that the person speaking has no particular authority, and that therefore we don't need to pause and deeply, humbly consider. It's unfortunate. My wife and I often say that we are better together, but we wouldn't be, if we didn't listen to one another, and take one another's views into serious, humble consideration. To me, this should be our posture towards all people. Let's learn to humbly, conscientiously listen and consider what others bring to the table!
Posted in: Listening Is a Skill We Need to Grow In. How Do We Listen Well?
We haven't specifically done this, Scott. However, it seems to me that a lot of the principles and structure provided by "restorative justice" http://www.realjustice.org/, would possibly be really helpful for what you're talking about doing.
Posted in: Hiring: A Practice in Spiritual Discernment
Thanks for your comment, Bev. The original book was written for just the kind of scenario you suggest: elders, deacons, and other church volunteers. I think it'd be really good to implement in our churches, but what do you think about trying this kind of strategy in the workplace?
Posted in: Hiring: A Practice in Spiritual Discernment
Great to hear from you, Keith! I'm really glad for the experiences that you've had with Christian business owners. I think that yes, indeed, the Church could learn a lot from these businesses that you mention. I think that too many times we treat finding church volunteers and staff as either "just business" and utilize a very "secular" model for hiring/recruiting, OR we use the "warm body" procedure of just putting in place whomever we can find who is willing, regardless of qualifications, job description, fit with the rest of the team of even regardless of God's will!
Posted in: Hiring: A Practice in Spiritual Discernment
I think this too is a really valuable comment, Keith. Though I don't know any millionaires or billionaires myself (that I'm aware of), I've heard the same thing about the loneliness. I wonder, with regards to church-volunteerism and the wealthy, whether there's an assumption that if you're wealthy, you must be extremely busy (else how could you have gotten wealthy, perhaps?).
While perhaps not an always true assumption, it does point to a mistake that we often make when recruiting staff/volunteers: we either decide for the people whom we might ask that they are too busy before we even ask ("Oh, she's a single-mom. She would be too busy to do this.), OR we recklessly pressure people who may actually be too busy into doing stuff that they really would rather not.
If we were to engage in the kind of process outlined above, perhaps that would be another pitfall we could avoid (at least to a greater degree). The more we allow the Spirit to speak into these decisions through all of us, the more likely we are to "get it right."
Posted in: Is Your Church Breaking Copyright Law?
This is really useful information, Gayla. I can't count the number of times that I have run into people who are not only oblivious to the copyright issues with regards to LUYH, but also with copyright information in general: praise team leaders who simply download chordsheets from random pages on the Internet without even considering whether their download is covered by CCLI, or any other licensing for that matter, for example.
Unfortunately, once you dive into the copyright question things get murky and difficult once you get even a little beyond what you've covered here:
If you, as a church, wanted to be really scrupulous about all of this (which we should, after all), you could either be stuck not using anything, for fear of breaking copyright, or spending more than $1000.00/yr for even a small church, not to mention all the work researching the whole thing--it's a real pain in the rear, and heartbreakingly complex most of the time!
Posted in: Grateful for What...or Whom?
EXCELLENT point, John! However, I think you're mistaken identifying Deists as being people who just worship who God is as opposed to what He has done. The true definition of a deist (as I understand it) is someone who believes that God set stuff in motion in the beginning, but now allows things to progress on their own without interfering. If I am correct in that, then there are two more problems that arise: 1) A Deist could (theoretically) worship God for "what Has done" just as easily as a person worshipping Yahweh--it just so happens that the "things" that God has done have occurred much further in the past and have ceased occurring. 2) The issue of whether it is difficult to talk about someone without thinking about what they have done is very different from whether it is right to love/worship (in the case of God) that person/being for who they are vs. what they have done.
I guess I just feel that sometimes we exclude who God is from our consideration when we're thinking about our gratitude and/or our love for Him. God certainly does not love us for what we have done: He loved/loves us "even while we were still enemies." This is the model: God loves us "just as we are" (not "just as we have done"). In a like manner, I think we are called, ultimately, to love Him not for what He has done, but for who He is.
Again, don't get me wrong: what God has done/is doing/will do for us is beyond comprehension, and we should be infinitely thankful for it. But, as Timothy Keller points out in "The Prodigal God"--both sons don't love the father for who he is, but rather only want to get stuff (aka what the father can do for them). We, if we are to fulfill the question left hanging at the end of the parable of the Two Lost Sons, must learn to love the Father simply for who he is.
Lastly, John, some speculative questions for you. I ask myself: would God be worthy of our Love even if we didn't know Him, or what He had done for us? Of course! Silly question: it ultimately doesn't matter (theologically speaking) whether we know about what God has done, or even if we know Him at all--He's still worthy of our praise/worship/love/adoration, etc. Further, then, should those who are condemned eternally love and worship Him? Of course! Even those who are condemned will "bow the knee" and worship Him--and they should love Him too. What about if Jesus had not come to save us? Should we love God still? Of course: all the people of the Old Testament who loved Him, loved Him before they had seen Jesus face-to-face, and many of them seem to have had no idea about Jesus, and they loved Him still. You can go back and back in this question, until (I believe) you are left with the underlying truth that even if God had done nothing for you and I, He would still be worthy of our love simply because of who He is. If that is the case, then shouldn't we embrace that reality a bit more in our worship, devotion, words and deeds?
I don't think we should stop praising God for what He has done! By no means! I just think we need to be a bit more proactive in recognizing that ultimately healthy love between people and other beings is not based on what they have done, but simply on who they are.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John,
You have such an interesting idea of what "core" doctrines are. A core doctrine is our belief in the Trinity. A core doctrine is our belief in Jesus as the only way to salvation. A core doctrine is our acknowledgment that God is sovereign Lord over all things, and that Christ will return as triumphant King of Kings. A core doctrine is THAT God created all things. The mechanics of how God created the world (as opposed to the question of whether He created the world or not) is NOT a core doctrine. You conflate these things. THAT God created the world is not equal to HOW God created the world.