Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Posted in: I See Dead Groups
Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
John Z
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
Posted in: From Profession of Faith to Multiple Milestones of Faith
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
Posted in: We Are What We Sing: Searching for a Balanced Diet
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
Posted in: Some Thoughts About Pastoring the Pastor
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
Posted in: Who Is in Charge of an Ordination Service?
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
Posted in: Membership Transfer From Protestant Reformed Church?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
"
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:9
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Acts 8:4
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.