Perhaps also marriages often fall apart because of a lack of understanding of sacrifice and love in general. If sacrifice and committment are not modelled by parents and the church, then we should not be surprised that children will not learn what those things are. Our society, including christian society is often more influenced by a humanistic (self-directed) attitude towards marriage, as towards life in general. In fact, this humanistic philosophy tells us that sacrifice is absurd and ridiculous, and that self-fulfillment is the answer. We demand to be happy; it is our right, or so we say. If we are not "happy" then we start to look for a way out. A way towards happiness of our own making. Self-fulfillment. Which at a certain level is not much different than selfishness. The irony is that in our search for happiness, we usually lose it. Even if we were to sacrifice for others, merely to make ourselves happy, we would still not find happiness. Only our pleasure in serving the God who made us, the God who redeemed us, can really be lasting and whole.
The other influence or accompanying factor with so many failed marriages is the lack of respect for "marital relations". By stealing these relations from the institution of marriage, and treating them as mere experiments and trials and testing periods, we have created an atmosphere of trialling that carries over into marriage itself. Here the irony is that premarital sex is a really good indicator of failed marriages (although there are exceptions). Premarital sex, including cohabitation prior to marriage was supposed to reduce divorce, but it seems to actually increase the level of divorce and marital insecurity. Of course, it does not do this by itself; it is really the attitude that permits stealing sexual activity out of marriage, which continues its battle against marriage later for those who do get married.
God is greater than the mistakes we make before marriage, and in our time of marriage. Therefore these trends and our mistakes do not have to determine our future behaviour, provided we understand forgiveness, sacrifice, and committment.
While it is true that we are not perfect as our Father in Heaven, yet God asks us to be holy (every Christian), and so we are to try to model our marriages after the love and grace that God shows to us sinners through his mercy, love and forgiveness through Christ. If we did that, our rate of successful marriages would be much higher than the present rate. And it starts with us, with me, not with the "other". And when we pursue obedience, we will often find unexpected happiness.
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.
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?
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.
" 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.
(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.
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.
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.
Last night we were at an event which celebrated "friends" who are people with special needs, four in wheel chairs, and others with severe communication problems, cerebral palsy, brain damage, etc. They all participated in putting on a Palm Sunday program, along with their mentors, who are their friends. At the beginning, one individual not necessarily special needs, indicated he had been born again 15 years ago, but had been walking with one foot in Christ's will and one foot in the "world". Six months ago, he had a renewal, which I would call a sanctification awakening. And he was pretty happy! It changed his perspective! He now believed in healing. In the overwhelming work of the Spirit!
Posted in: Supporting Marriages
Perhaps also marriages often fall apart because of a lack of understanding of sacrifice and love in general. If sacrifice and committment are not modelled by parents and the church, then we should not be surprised that children will not learn what those things are. Our society, including christian society is often more influenced by a humanistic (self-directed) attitude towards marriage, as towards life in general. In fact, this humanistic philosophy tells us that sacrifice is absurd and ridiculous, and that self-fulfillment is the answer. We demand to be happy; it is our right, or so we say. If we are not "happy" then we start to look for a way out. A way towards happiness of our own making. Self-fulfillment. Which at a certain level is not much different than selfishness. The irony is that in our search for happiness, we usually lose it. Even if we were to sacrifice for others, merely to make ourselves happy, we would still not find happiness. Only our pleasure in serving the God who made us, the God who redeemed us, can really be lasting and whole.
The other influence or accompanying factor with so many failed marriages is the lack of respect for "marital relations". By stealing these relations from the institution of marriage, and treating them as mere experiments and trials and testing periods, we have created an atmosphere of trialling that carries over into marriage itself. Here the irony is that premarital sex is a really good indicator of failed marriages (although there are exceptions). Premarital sex, including cohabitation prior to marriage was supposed to reduce divorce, but it seems to actually increase the level of divorce and marital insecurity. Of course, it does not do this by itself; it is really the attitude that permits stealing sexual activity out of marriage, which continues its battle against marriage later for those who do get married.
God is greater than the mistakes we make before marriage, and in our time of marriage. Therefore these trends and our mistakes do not have to determine our future behaviour, provided we understand forgiveness, sacrifice, and committment.
While it is true that we are not perfect as our Father in Heaven, yet God asks us to be holy (every Christian), and so we are to try to model our marriages after the love and grace that God shows to us sinners through his mercy, love and forgiveness through Christ. If we did that, our rate of successful marriages would be much higher than the present rate. And it starts with us, with me, not with the "other". And when we pursue obedience, we will often find unexpected happiness.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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'?
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Last night we were at an event which celebrated "friends" who are people with special needs, four in wheel chairs, and others with severe communication problems, cerebral palsy, brain damage, etc. They all participated in putting on a Palm Sunday program, along with their mentors, who are their friends. At the beginning, one individual not necessarily special needs, indicated he had been born again 15 years ago, but had been walking with one foot in Christ's will and one foot in the "world". Six months ago, he had a renewal, which I would call a sanctification awakening. And he was pretty happy! It changed his perspective! He now believed in healing. In the overwhelming work of the Spirit!