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.
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.
Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
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.
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: 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'?
Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
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.