It is a surprise to me that church visitors can poke their noses into a church without being invited by the council. It would likely be a great offense to do so. Be that as it may, church visitors in my experience often seem to lack the experience or training or motivation they need to be objective servants to a church in which they have no basic authority or involvement. In my experience, when situations are relatively smooth, and they come to assist with visioning or something like that, they can be of some help. But in volatile situations they seem to have their own prejudices and assumptions which do not allow them to be as helpful as they should be. In my experience, there was a lack of real listening by the visitors, a carelessness about the welfare of the church, and a lack of verification as to whether what they heard was real or merely a perception. There appeared to be a lack of desire for reconciliation on the part of the church visitors as well. They had access, but misused it. They made insulting recommendations because of the lack of verification, and did not use discernment. In the end, this led to people leaving the church, and to a lack of reconciliation. It seems that the church visitors made the situation worse. I say this to bring awareness to the need for special skills in volatile situations. Skills in mediation ought not to be taken for granted and assumed, but need to be learned and practiced. They also need to be able to step outside of their own frame of reference and realize that not all churches are the same, and do not all have the same culture or background or "history", and do not fit into neat little categories. I'm sure that some church visitors do better than others, but the dangers of this ought not to be underestimated.
Someone else will have to take this to Synod. But individual churches can implement this even without synod. Local councils can make this decision if they want to. At least they can make the decision for individual witness and testimony by new christians, or renewed christians, when a non-membership profession of faith is made. However, perhaps it would be advantageous for synod to recommend that councils do not just read the form for profession of membership, but instead, have a spoken or written testimony from the new members read or said for the church by the new member as their witness of their faith. I have seen a member with Down's syndrome do this... which would seem to make it clear that there is no reason or excuse for anyone not to be able to , and in fact, not to want to do this, if they are really sincere in their dedication to God. If they are unwilling or unable, then there is probably a spiritual illness that needs to be healed first, that is every bit as serious as a lack of understanding of the confessions, or a lack of willingness to live a christian lifestyle.
But the big advantage of a non-membership profession of faith,is that it can be encouraging, without being judgemental. We can rejoice in that.
We know things are either really really good, or really really bad, when we worry about handraising by leaders in church. Really really good because we have nothing serious to worry about, or really really bad when we make rules about such things as qualifications for raising hands by someone who has already been deemed qualified to lead a service. Compared to leading or reading or presenting a service/sermon, .... shouldn't we be blessing each other anyway? Does the raising of a hand or two make the blessing more legitimate? May God bless us all.
You may be right, Robin... this was a tv show after all, and 'set up' for maximum effect. The guy seems to be an idiot and heartless. There is no excuse for the profanity. But in reality, it is often not so simple. What kind of store were they going to? How did the prices compare to alternatives? How many clothes did the child have already? Were they wealthy, poor, or average in income? I know many average families who really spend a lot of time making sure they stretch the dollar by buying on sales, sharing clothes, passing down or receiving barely worn stuff from others. On the other hand, some people seem to need the latest, most expensive, most faddish stuff, even when they cannot really afford it. What is sometimes called financial abuse is often a result of the couple not being on the same page for priorities in spending. Sometimes the spender is the abuser (think of a compulsive gambler). This is why financial counselling before marriage is so important, just as important as counselling about sharing time, sexual needs, and priorities and methods for raising children, life goals for career or recreational activities, and how to handle disagreements. Finance is still the number one cause of marriage discordance, as far as I know, so it is important to be on the same page on that from the beginning.
Since the crc has lost a sizeable number of members since 1992, it would seem strange to pat its self on the back for its pride. The incompleteness of some evangelical theology for evangelicals will not help the crc for the incompleteness of its obedience. You can't make yourself look better by making someone else look worse. It is easy to say that one is more scriptural, if you yourself revise an understanding of scripture into incomprehensibility, or into relativity, or into irrelevance. The eternal issues of whether God chooses us or we choose Him cannot be legitimized by excuses for disobedience, nor will a correct theoretical understanding of the trinity compensate for a lack of faith and trust in the God who redeems and commands.
I appreciate that Roger has made these comments, because he has a reasonably good understanding of the impacts of major portions of christian thought. (Is that a judgemental statement?...) However, perhaps I could correct (unjudgementally) some of his ideas. While the bible does presuppose a sinful condition, this does not mean that God disregards the good that people do. God's demands are high. Very high. Much higher than we would like them to be. When we judge good and bad, we do it by our imperfect inadequate, barely passing grade standards.
The Israelites before captured and being exiled thought they had a passing grade. They offered sacrifices to God to pay for their sins; they kept some of the commandments and they looked after their families. It doesn't seem so bad, does it? But on the way to the temple, they offered sacrifices to Baal, some sacrificed their children, and they didn't keep the sabbath, nor did they care adequately for the widow and orphan. By human standards, they might pass... they were covering the bases so to speak. But since every good deed was filled with selfishness or pride, even their good deeds were inadequate.
A person who never murders anyone for 40 years... never murders his neighbors, nor even any enemies, nor even kills a dog, but then in his 41 st year, he kills his wife. Will his 40 years of innocence excuse his one year of violent hate ending in murder? No.
It is humans who judge unjustly. We make excuses where God does not. In doing so, we reduce the value of Christ's sacrifice, because we say we didn't need Christ and his sacrifice for us... that our sins were not quite that bad... we could earn our own way.
..................
As to the original question of being perceived as judgemental... have you ever thought that there are none so judgemental as those who call others judgemental? The world is often more judgemental even than christians. Think of how they judge those who condemn homosex, or pornography, or premarital sex, or premarital cohabitation. Think of how severely they judge the church when it makes mistakes in managing finances, or seems to become greedy in property, or when a leader condemns adultery.
However, as Christians we should be careful to put God's grace in front of every sin, even while condemning the sin. If Christians are perceived as being less judgemental, thus encouraging people to wallow in their sin, then our lack of judgement may cause more people to fall under the judgement of God.
Roger, you have eloquently presented your case. I agree with most of it.
I am remembering a quote that George MacDonald had in one of the characters in one of his novels, which said approximately , "your desire to do good, and your doing good, means you are on your way to knowing who Jesus is."
Some of the us and them mentality is also found in scriptures. "If they are not against us, they are for us." but also "they went out from us" "Being in the world, but not of the world." There is an antithesis between good and evil, between right and wrong, between God and Satan. In that way, the muslims are an example to Christians. Even Jesus said, "Love your enemies.", knowing Christians would have enemies, and Jesus did not say, "have no enemies". Jesus said that daughters would be set against mothers , and sons against fathers. That he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Again, Jesus highlighted the dramatic changes that would occur, which were life changing. Part of the struggle. The antithesis. Not peace at all costs, but surrender to God.
On the other hand, Jesus did say, "Love your enemies." Go the extra mile. Give the extra cloak. Forgive seventy times ( or more). Follow the example of the Good Samaritan. The sword Jesus talked about was not a sword of steel, but the sword of the word of God, the sword of the spirit working in men's hearts. The armor was the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation.
Muslim book, muslim faith, and muslim practice does not follow Jesus, but follows the sword carrying Mohammed, who has only one book, Quran, and did nothing more than many other leaders did who merely attempt to gain a following and gain earthly territory. At most, he was a king like Alexander the Great, or Julius Ceasar of Rome. At worst, he was a fraud and a charlatan, like the emperor Nero, or the leader of the Moonies, Sun Myung Moon. In no way could he be shown to have a legitimate revelation from God, or to be a true prophet in the order of Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Moses, Isaiah, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, the apostle John. By neglecting the writings of these prophets, and the writings of the gospels, and of history, he has even lost the title of scholar or preacher or teacher of God's truth.
That does not mean that everything that Mohammed has written or spoken is false. Some things are true no matter who says them. There are some truths in every faith and in every culture, and in every religion. But these truths should not obscure the fact that the underlying basis is shaky, unstable, or false. The bible clearly says that in the last days there will be false prophets and anti-christs.
It is no good to merely say that Jesus was a prophet, and then ignore the most credible witness accounts of what Jesus said. Ignoring those accounts (the gospels) is merely a way of making Jesus into the image of man, into a follower of other men such as Mohammed, rather than actually treating Jesus like a prophet. It would be more honest for Moslems to say that Jesus was not a prophet at all, than to give him a superficial lip service. It would be more honest to say that Jesus was not a prophet at all than to ignore the witness and testimony of those who lived with him for three years before his death, and talked with him for forty days after his resurrection. Those followers followed Jesus teachings, and followed Jesus example. Mohammed did not do so, and thus in practice disregards Jesus as a true prophet.
Just as many atheists attempt to discredit the scriptures (unsuccessfully), by attributing human failings to writing, transcribing and translating, so Muslims put themselves into the same camp as atheists by using the same reasons for discrediting scripture. So how are Muslims and atheists then different in this regard? Do they not both attempt to impose their own wishes and desires on who Jesus should be, and on what Jesus can do? Would this not be like attempting to say that Mohammed was actually Chinese, or Norweigan, instead of an Arab? It would be false, just as the Moslem portrayal of Jesus is entirely false.
The irony is that it is harder to love your enemies than it is to hate them. It is harder to surrender to God, than it is to commit suicide. It is harder to give your life for others, than it is to take the life of others. Unless you have the spirit of God in your heart. Unless you really know the Lord Jesus.
At an individual level, as Christians we can make our attitudes that of Christ, who ate with publicans and sinners, who walked the streets and talked with the Samaritan woman, and used a Samaritan (outcast 2nd class) as an example of how to be a neighbor. At the same time Christ said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. And it was exactly because of the requirements of the law, that Christ came to die in our place. Grace is not tolerance, but grace is also not condemnation. Help us God, and show us to love the sinner while detesting the sin.
But at a church level, institutional level, what can we do? What is a practical change we could make to be less judgemental, to put in perspective what Christ has done for us, and to allow the witness of those who are growing, following imperfectly...? My suggestion is this: That we do not restrict Lord's supper to members, and that we do not restrict profession of faith to membership. Profession of faith for membership is presently a very judgemental process in the way that agreement with specific confessions, teachings of the church ("this church"), and christian lifestyle, is required. Suppose we had a formal or semi-formal process that allowed new converts, or young christians, or any christian to witness to their faith, to proclaim their allegiance to Christ, without requiring a formal membership agreement. A profession that did not include the use of forms, but allowed the use of personal testimony and witness. A profession made by the person, rather than by the minister. A profession made in the context of individual life, rather than general principles. Would this not provide a way to reduce the appearance of judgementalism?
And then, if christians desired to become formal members of the church, they could sign an agreement, indicating their committment to the confessions, to christian living, to authority of the elders, to church attendance, and to church charitable giving. At that stage, some judgement would be required, both on the part of the individual, and on the part of the elders who approve the membership.
Separate the two things, and perhaps we could find a way to be less judgemental, while still demonstrating the value of increased committment. Just because one is not a formal member does not mean they are of less value, nor does being a formal member mean that you are closer to God. Let's find a way to demonstrate this concretely.
Having said this, I see difficulties also. If you have someone who confesses Christ, but lives an obvious unrepentant unchristian lifestyle, leading a worship team or playing the drums in front of church, or teaching sunday school, there will be a bad taste in the mouths of christians, converts, and seekers alike.
Here is a response from another blog on the Network by Larry Dornboos. The response was by Norman Sennema on May 10, 2014 I thought the whole thing was very relevant and spoke my thoughts well, so I'm including the whole thing.
"Thanks for sharing this, a great topic, one that I have been personally wrestling with. I would avoid the extremes (no need for shepherds at all, calling people only to be 'self-feeders'), but would encourage a rethink of how we think about shepherding. I would like to add to this discussion, and to hear what your responses to my 'rant' might be.
1) An important qualifier is that we are under-shepherds, working for the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4). My fear is that instead of helping the sheep hear His Voice (John 10:27), we are training people to know our voice. They come to rely on us to interpret scripture for them. Or if they don't like our voice, they look for a shepherd who's voice they prefer. The shepherds need to improve their voice to keep their audience, and compete with others in order to satisfy their sheep... or they look for greener pastures. Somehow we need to teach the sheep to hear His Voice whenever scripture is opened, whether the sermon is good or bad, the speaker is dynamic or bland, ordained or not ordained. For me, the Voice of God (Logos, Jesus) is more important than the mouthpiece (which we need too); whether the mouthpiece is a professor, pastor or pew-sitter, a sunday school teacher, a parent, a youth group leader, or a stranger on the street, God's Voice needs to be heard.
2) I would suggest adding another image to help us explain the shepherding image: a parent (1 Thessalonians 2:7-12). When children are young, they need to be fed. But eventually they need to learn to feed themselves, and eventually even feed others. This does not end the parents role, they still help them get the food, help them prepare it for a time, but the children eat for themselves. And soon they are able to prepare a meal, and maybe even surprise their parents with a meal prepared for them. And one day, they will have opportunity to feed their own children. By feeding themselves, I don't mean 'self-feeding' as you characterized it (independent, individualistic). Eating and feeding should always be communal affairs, but at some point the kids need to grow up and eat... with the support of the community. My experience is that we make 'food preparation' so complicated that you have to have a seminary degree to do it rightly. We not only lead our sheep to the table, we precut the food, we decide on what to eat, when and how, we even make them sit quiet and still while we spoon feed them. This makes sense for babies, but when do they grow up? See Hebrews 5:11-14, where eventually the babes become teachers, who by constant use they have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
3) How many of us have heard those dreaded words, 'I'm not being fed'. They make it sound as if they are deeper than we are, that their maturity level has grown beyond our shepherding skills. But that is not what I hear. I hear baby robbins squawking in the nest, demanding that we give them what they want - feed me, love me, help me, teach me, care for me, comfort me... This is the kind of SELF-feeding that I think we need to address. They have not grown up, they are still in their high chairs, with their clean bibs, waiting for us to spoon feed them. Is this cycnical... maybe? True of everyone... of course not. But it is I fear a common pattern, one that is related to our traditional shepherding/preaching ideas and practices.
4) I am presently serving in a long time 'church plant' setting. We have lots of babes in Christ, and they do not know how to hear God's Voice. But they have learned enough of churchianity to know that some shepherds provide better sermons than others. I have felt the pressure to perform better, to compete with the mega-shepherds. But that is not the way I want to go. I am who I am, and I do the best I can. I need to instill in them a love for God's Voice in scripture, and an ability to feed themselves in community, to grow up and eventually become teachers, who by constant use of Scripture have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. My sermons are not all great, and some of them are pretty bad, but the scripture is always great, and God's Voice can always be heard.
5) So I am trying something, and praying that it will help. I've adopted a three year bible-reading schedule. I hand out the readings each week, and highlight which reading from that list I will be preaching on next Sunday. The handout has open space for them to answer the question beneath each reading, 'what do you hear God saying?'. I blog my own reflections for each reading, each day, and ask them to post their own thoughts. I email 5-10 members each week and ask them to share their responses to the upcoming Scripture passage, and incorporate their responses into the message (I would love to meet weekly with some, as I've heard other pastors do, but in my busy, commuter culture meeting time is at a premium). On Sunday morning, I attempt a partial 'lectio' by reading the scripture, pausing, then reading it again. Then I ask them to share what they hear God saying in the scripture. Finally, I share some of my own reflections, trying to model how we need to all hear God's Voice in scripture. I am letting them know that one day I may be asking them to publicly share their own reflections in a 'sermon'. So far only two have done so... but in time.
6) I have discouraged them from saying 'good sermon' to me after the service (that was easy, not too many did). Instead I've urged them to share with me if they heard God speaking to them - teaching, rebuking, correcting, training, comforting, blessing, etc. - in the service. Sometimes it was in a prayer, sometimes in a song, sometimes in message. One time a young girl shared with me what God said to her in the passage, and it had nothing to do with my 'sermon'. Thing is, after I heard what she said, I myself heard God differently, through her 'sermon'! I am often surprised and blessed by what others hear God saying in scripture. I realize that all my training and experience gives me tunnel vision, seeing things that others don't see, and missing (obvious) things that others do see. Reading scripture and hearing God is indeed a communal activity - we should stop restricting it to the educated and qualified few.
7) I fear that our emphasis on ordination and the formal 'preaching of the word' has held back the church. We stress the anointing of the pastor, but scripture also stresses the anointing of the disciples, so that they do not need anyone to teach them (1 John 2:26-27). It is the Spirit that teaches us, it is the scripture that is God-breathed and useful, a double-edged sword. Why is it that so many christians do not know how to proclaim (preach, share) Jesus in the marketplace? Because we've hired that task out to a limited few. When the early church was persecuted, the disciples that scattered preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:1-4); today they just look for another church to preach it to them. Think of the story of the church in China, when the communist government killed the pastors, burned the bibles and books, sent away the missionaries, scattered the churches, closed the seminaries. The west thought for sure the church was toast; but they (and the Chinese government) forgot about the Holy Spirit, the Chief Shepherd, and the power of God's Voice. When the walls in China finally opened a little, the west found a thriving church. Still to this day ordinary people (without seminary training) are being used by God to speak, and be heard. We need to learn from them!!!
Conclusion. Do we still need shepherds? Yes! But do we need to rethink what shepherds do, and how they do it? YES! Reading scripture for yourself is not the self-feeding that concerns me. I feel the bigger problem is the SELF-FEEDING of baby sheep that never seem to grow up and learn to feed others."
And I would add, that it seems sometimes the shepherds only feed, and do not teach others to feed. They give the flock a fish, but never a fishing rod. (mixed metaphor... but you get the idea).
This certainly resonates. I do get the impression that some people think being reformed means to do what the world does, and then color it christian. I don't think that's what the reformation was about.
Posted in: Classical Consultants
It is a surprise to me that church visitors can poke their noses into a church without being invited by the council. It would likely be a great offense to do so. Be that as it may, church visitors in my experience often seem to lack the experience or training or motivation they need to be objective servants to a church in which they have no basic authority or involvement. In my experience, when situations are relatively smooth, and they come to assist with visioning or something like that, they can be of some help. But in volatile situations they seem to have their own prejudices and assumptions which do not allow them to be as helpful as they should be. In my experience, there was a lack of real listening by the visitors, a carelessness about the welfare of the church, and a lack of verification as to whether what they heard was real or merely a perception. There appeared to be a lack of desire for reconciliation on the part of the church visitors as well. They had access, but misused it. They made insulting recommendations because of the lack of verification, and did not use discernment. In the end, this led to people leaving the church, and to a lack of reconciliation. It seems that the church visitors made the situation worse. I say this to bring awareness to the need for special skills in volatile situations. Skills in mediation ought not to be taken for granted and assumed, but need to be learned and practiced. They also need to be able to step outside of their own frame of reference and realize that not all churches are the same, and do not all have the same culture or background or "history", and do not fit into neat little categories. I'm sure that some church visitors do better than others, but the dangers of this ought not to be underestimated.
Posted in: Judgemental
Someone else will have to take this to Synod. But individual churches can implement this even without synod. Local councils can make this decision if they want to. At least they can make the decision for individual witness and testimony by new christians, or renewed christians, when a non-membership profession of faith is made. However, perhaps it would be advantageous for synod to recommend that councils do not just read the form for profession of membership, but instead, have a spoken or written testimony from the new members read or said for the church by the new member as their witness of their faith. I have seen a member with Down's syndrome do this... which would seem to make it clear that there is no reason or excuse for anyone not to be able to , and in fact, not to want to do this, if they are really sincere in their dedication to God. If they are unwilling or unable, then there is probably a spiritual illness that needs to be healed first, that is every bit as serious as a lack of understanding of the confessions, or a lack of willingness to live a christian lifestyle.
But the big advantage of a non-membership profession of faith,is that it can be encouraging, without being judgemental. We can rejoice in that.
Posted in: Non-CRC Pastor Raising Hands for Blessing and Benediction
We know things are either really really good, or really really bad, when we worry about handraising by leaders in church. Really really good because we have nothing serious to worry about, or really really bad when we make rules about such things as qualifications for raising hands by someone who has already been deemed qualified to lead a service. Compared to leading or reading or presenting a service/sermon, .... shouldn't we be blessing each other anyway? Does the raising of a hand or two make the blessing more legitimate? May God bless us all.
Posted in: Ties That Bind
You may be right, Robin... this was a tv show after all, and 'set up' for maximum effect. The guy seems to be an idiot and heartless. There is no excuse for the profanity. But in reality, it is often not so simple. What kind of store were they going to? How did the prices compare to alternatives? How many clothes did the child have already? Were they wealthy, poor, or average in income? I know many average families who really spend a lot of time making sure they stretch the dollar by buying on sales, sharing clothes, passing down or receiving barely worn stuff from others. On the other hand, some people seem to need the latest, most expensive, most faddish stuff, even when they cannot really afford it. What is sometimes called financial abuse is often a result of the couple not being on the same page for priorities in spending. Sometimes the spender is the abuser (think of a compulsive gambler). This is why financial counselling before marriage is so important, just as important as counselling about sharing time, sexual needs, and priorities and methods for raising children, life goals for career or recreational activities, and how to handle disagreements. Finance is still the number one cause of marriage discordance, as far as I know, so it is important to be on the same page on that from the beginning.
Posted in: Forming Faithful Heretics?
Since the crc has lost a sizeable number of members since 1992, it would seem strange to pat its self on the back for its pride. The incompleteness of some evangelical theology for evangelicals will not help the crc for the incompleteness of its obedience. You can't make yourself look better by making someone else look worse. It is easy to say that one is more scriptural, if you yourself revise an understanding of scripture into incomprehensibility, or into relativity, or into irrelevance. The eternal issues of whether God chooses us or we choose Him cannot be legitimized by excuses for disobedience, nor will a correct theoretical understanding of the trinity compensate for a lack of faith and trust in the God who redeems and commands.
Posted in: Judgemental
I appreciate that Roger has made these comments, because he has a reasonably good understanding of the impacts of major portions of christian thought. (Is that a judgemental statement?...) However, perhaps I could correct (unjudgementally) some of his ideas. While the bible does presuppose a sinful condition, this does not mean that God disregards the good that people do. God's demands are high. Very high. Much higher than we would like them to be. When we judge good and bad, we do it by our imperfect inadequate, barely passing grade standards.
The Israelites before captured and being exiled thought they had a passing grade. They offered sacrifices to God to pay for their sins; they kept some of the commandments and they looked after their families. It doesn't seem so bad, does it? But on the way to the temple, they offered sacrifices to Baal, some sacrificed their children, and they didn't keep the sabbath, nor did they care adequately for the widow and orphan. By human standards, they might pass... they were covering the bases so to speak. But since every good deed was filled with selfishness or pride, even their good deeds were inadequate.
A person who never murders anyone for 40 years... never murders his neighbors, nor even any enemies, nor even kills a dog, but then in his 41 st year, he kills his wife. Will his 40 years of innocence excuse his one year of violent hate ending in murder? No.
It is humans who judge unjustly. We make excuses where God does not. In doing so, we reduce the value of Christ's sacrifice, because we say we didn't need Christ and his sacrifice for us... that our sins were not quite that bad... we could earn our own way.
..................
As to the original question of being perceived as judgemental... have you ever thought that there are none so judgemental as those who call others judgemental? The world is often more judgemental even than christians. Think of how they judge those who condemn homosex, or pornography, or premarital sex, or premarital cohabitation. Think of how severely they judge the church when it makes mistakes in managing finances, or seems to become greedy in property, or when a leader condemns adultery.
However, as Christians we should be careful to put God's grace in front of every sin, even while condemning the sin. If Christians are perceived as being less judgemental, thus encouraging people to wallow in their sin, then our lack of judgement may cause more people to fall under the judgement of God.
Posted in: Judgemental
Roger, you have eloquently presented your case. I agree with most of it.
I am remembering a quote that George MacDonald had in one of the characters in one of his novels, which said approximately , "your desire to do good, and your doing good, means you are on your way to knowing who Jesus is."
Posted in: Why Only the Gospel Can Rise Above the Islamic Al-Walāʾ Wa-L-Barāʾ
Some of the us and them mentality is also found in scriptures. "If they are not against us, they are for us." but also "they went out from us" "Being in the world, but not of the world." There is an antithesis between good and evil, between right and wrong, between God and Satan. In that way, the muslims are an example to Christians. Even Jesus said, "Love your enemies.", knowing Christians would have enemies, and Jesus did not say, "have no enemies". Jesus said that daughters would be set against mothers , and sons against fathers. That he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Again, Jesus highlighted the dramatic changes that would occur, which were life changing. Part of the struggle. The antithesis. Not peace at all costs, but surrender to God.
On the other hand, Jesus did say, "Love your enemies." Go the extra mile. Give the extra cloak. Forgive seventy times ( or more). Follow the example of the Good Samaritan. The sword Jesus talked about was not a sword of steel, but the sword of the word of God, the sword of the spirit working in men's hearts. The armor was the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation.
Muslim book, muslim faith, and muslim practice does not follow Jesus, but follows the sword carrying Mohammed, who has only one book, Quran, and did nothing more than many other leaders did who merely attempt to gain a following and gain earthly territory. At most, he was a king like Alexander the Great, or Julius Ceasar of Rome. At worst, he was a fraud and a charlatan, like the emperor Nero, or the leader of the Moonies, Sun Myung Moon. In no way could he be shown to have a legitimate revelation from God, or to be a true prophet in the order of Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Moses, Isaiah, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, the apostle John. By neglecting the writings of these prophets, and the writings of the gospels, and of history, he has even lost the title of scholar or preacher or teacher of God's truth.
That does not mean that everything that Mohammed has written or spoken is false. Some things are true no matter who says them. There are some truths in every faith and in every culture, and in every religion. But these truths should not obscure the fact that the underlying basis is shaky, unstable, or false. The bible clearly says that in the last days there will be false prophets and anti-christs.
It is no good to merely say that Jesus was a prophet, and then ignore the most credible witness accounts of what Jesus said. Ignoring those accounts (the gospels) is merely a way of making Jesus into the image of man, into a follower of other men such as Mohammed, rather than actually treating Jesus like a prophet. It would be more honest for Moslems to say that Jesus was not a prophet at all, than to give him a superficial lip service. It would be more honest to say that Jesus was not a prophet at all than to ignore the witness and testimony of those who lived with him for three years before his death, and talked with him for forty days after his resurrection. Those followers followed Jesus teachings, and followed Jesus example. Mohammed did not do so, and thus in practice disregards Jesus as a true prophet.
Just as many atheists attempt to discredit the scriptures (unsuccessfully), by attributing human failings to writing, transcribing and translating, so Muslims put themselves into the same camp as atheists by using the same reasons for discrediting scripture. So how are Muslims and atheists then different in this regard? Do they not both attempt to impose their own wishes and desires on who Jesus should be, and on what Jesus can do? Would this not be like attempting to say that Mohammed was actually Chinese, or Norweigan, instead of an Arab? It would be false, just as the Moslem portrayal of Jesus is entirely false.
The irony is that it is harder to love your enemies than it is to hate them. It is harder to surrender to God, than it is to commit suicide. It is harder to give your life for others, than it is to take the life of others. Unless you have the spirit of God in your heart. Unless you really know the Lord Jesus.
Posted in: Judgemental
At an individual level, as Christians we can make our attitudes that of Christ, who ate with publicans and sinners, who walked the streets and talked with the Samaritan woman, and used a Samaritan (outcast 2nd class) as an example of how to be a neighbor. At the same time Christ said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. And it was exactly because of the requirements of the law, that Christ came to die in our place. Grace is not tolerance, but grace is also not condemnation. Help us God, and show us to love the sinner while detesting the sin.
But at a church level, institutional level, what can we do? What is a practical change we could make to be less judgemental, to put in perspective what Christ has done for us, and to allow the witness of those who are growing, following imperfectly...? My suggestion is this: That we do not restrict Lord's supper to members, and that we do not restrict profession of faith to membership. Profession of faith for membership is presently a very judgemental process in the way that agreement with specific confessions, teachings of the church ("this church"), and christian lifestyle, is required. Suppose we had a formal or semi-formal process that allowed new converts, or young christians, or any christian to witness to their faith, to proclaim their allegiance to Christ, without requiring a formal membership agreement. A profession that did not include the use of forms, but allowed the use of personal testimony and witness. A profession made by the person, rather than by the minister. A profession made in the context of individual life, rather than general principles. Would this not provide a way to reduce the appearance of judgementalism?
And then, if christians desired to become formal members of the church, they could sign an agreement, indicating their committment to the confessions, to christian living, to authority of the elders, to church attendance, and to church charitable giving. At that stage, some judgement would be required, both on the part of the individual, and on the part of the elders who approve the membership.
Separate the two things, and perhaps we could find a way to be less judgemental, while still demonstrating the value of increased committment. Just because one is not a formal member does not mean they are of less value, nor does being a formal member mean that you are closer to God. Let's find a way to demonstrate this concretely.
Having said this, I see difficulties also. If you have someone who confesses Christ, but lives an obvious unrepentant unchristian lifestyle, leading a worship team or playing the drums in front of church, or teaching sunday school, there will be a bad taste in the mouths of christians, converts, and seekers alike.
Posted in: Gracious Residue
Here is a response from another blog on the Network by Larry Dornboos. The response was by Norman Sennema on May 10, 2014 I thought the whole thing was very relevant and spoke my thoughts well, so I'm including the whole thing.
"Thanks for sharing this, a great topic, one that I have been personally wrestling with. I would avoid the extremes (no need for shepherds at all, calling people only to be 'self-feeders'), but would encourage a rethink of how we think about shepherding. I would like to add to this discussion, and to hear what your responses to my 'rant' might be.
1) An important qualifier is that we are under-shepherds, working for the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4). My fear is that instead of helping the sheep hear His Voice (John 10:27), we are training people to know our voice. They come to rely on us to interpret scripture for them. Or if they don't like our voice, they look for a shepherd who's voice they prefer. The shepherds need to improve their voice to keep their audience, and compete with others in order to satisfy their sheep... or they look for greener pastures. Somehow we need to teach the sheep to hear His Voice whenever scripture is opened, whether the sermon is good or bad, the speaker is dynamic or bland, ordained or not ordained. For me, the Voice of God (Logos, Jesus) is more important than the mouthpiece (which we need too); whether the mouthpiece is a professor, pastor or pew-sitter, a sunday school teacher, a parent, a youth group leader, or a stranger on the street, God's Voice needs to be heard.
2) I would suggest adding another image to help us explain the shepherding image: a parent (1 Thessalonians 2:7-12). When children are young, they need to be fed. But eventually they need to learn to feed themselves, and eventually even feed others. This does not end the parents role, they still help them get the food, help them prepare it for a time, but the children eat for themselves. And soon they are able to prepare a meal, and maybe even surprise their parents with a meal prepared for them. And one day, they will have opportunity to feed their own children. By feeding themselves, I don't mean 'self-feeding' as you characterized it (independent, individualistic). Eating and feeding should always be communal affairs, but at some point the kids need to grow up and eat... with the support of the community. My experience is that we make 'food preparation' so complicated that you have to have a seminary degree to do it rightly. We not only lead our sheep to the table, we precut the food, we decide on what to eat, when and how, we even make them sit quiet and still while we spoon feed them. This makes sense for babies, but when do they grow up? See Hebrews 5:11-14, where eventually the babes become teachers, who by constant use they have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
3) How many of us have heard those dreaded words, 'I'm not being fed'. They make it sound as if they are deeper than we are, that their maturity level has grown beyond our shepherding skills. But that is not what I hear. I hear baby robbins squawking in the nest, demanding that we give them what they want - feed me, love me, help me, teach me, care for me, comfort me... This is the kind of SELF-feeding that I think we need to address. They have not grown up, they are still in their high chairs, with their clean bibs, waiting for us to spoon feed them. Is this cycnical... maybe? True of everyone... of course not. But it is I fear a common pattern, one that is related to our traditional shepherding/preaching ideas and practices.
4) I am presently serving in a long time 'church plant' setting. We have lots of babes in Christ, and they do not know how to hear God's Voice. But they have learned enough of churchianity to know that some shepherds provide better sermons than others. I have felt the pressure to perform better, to compete with the mega-shepherds. But that is not the way I want to go. I am who I am, and I do the best I can. I need to instill in them a love for God's Voice in scripture, and an ability to feed themselves in community, to grow up and eventually become teachers, who by constant use of Scripture have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. My sermons are not all great, and some of them are pretty bad, but the scripture is always great, and God's Voice can always be heard.
5) So I am trying something, and praying that it will help. I've adopted a three year bible-reading schedule. I hand out the readings each week, and highlight which reading from that list I will be preaching on next Sunday. The handout has open space for them to answer the question beneath each reading, 'what do you hear God saying?'. I blog my own reflections for each reading, each day, and ask them to post their own thoughts. I email 5-10 members each week and ask them to share their responses to the upcoming Scripture passage, and incorporate their responses into the message (I would love to meet weekly with some, as I've heard other pastors do, but in my busy, commuter culture meeting time is at a premium). On Sunday morning, I attempt a partial 'lectio' by reading the scripture, pausing, then reading it again. Then I ask them to share what they hear God saying in the scripture. Finally, I share some of my own reflections, trying to model how we need to all hear God's Voice in scripture. I am letting them know that one day I may be asking them to publicly share their own reflections in a 'sermon'. So far only two have done so... but in time.
6) I have discouraged them from saying 'good sermon' to me after the service (that was easy, not too many did). Instead I've urged them to share with me if they heard God speaking to them - teaching, rebuking, correcting, training, comforting, blessing, etc. - in the service. Sometimes it was in a prayer, sometimes in a song, sometimes in message. One time a young girl shared with me what God said to her in the passage, and it had nothing to do with my 'sermon'. Thing is, after I heard what she said, I myself heard God differently, through her 'sermon'! I am often surprised and blessed by what others hear God saying in scripture. I realize that all my training and experience gives me tunnel vision, seeing things that others don't see, and missing (obvious) things that others do see. Reading scripture and hearing God is indeed a communal activity - we should stop restricting it to the educated and qualified few.
7) I fear that our emphasis on ordination and the formal 'preaching of the word' has held back the church. We stress the anointing of the pastor, but scripture also stresses the anointing of the disciples, so that they do not need anyone to teach them (1 John 2:26-27). It is the Spirit that teaches us, it is the scripture that is God-breathed and useful, a double-edged sword. Why is it that so many christians do not know how to proclaim (preach, share) Jesus in the marketplace? Because we've hired that task out to a limited few. When the early church was persecuted, the disciples that scattered preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:1-4); today they just look for another church to preach it to them. Think of the story of the church in China, when the communist government killed the pastors, burned the bibles and books, sent away the missionaries, scattered the churches, closed the seminaries. The west thought for sure the church was toast; but they (and the Chinese government) forgot about the Holy Spirit, the Chief Shepherd, and the power of God's Voice. When the walls in China finally opened a little, the west found a thriving church. Still to this day ordinary people (without seminary training) are being used by God to speak, and be heard. We need to learn from them!!!
Conclusion. Do we still need shepherds? Yes! But do we need to rethink what shepherds do, and how they do it? YES! Reading scripture for yourself is not the self-feeding that concerns me. I feel the bigger problem is the SELF-FEEDING of baby sheep that never seem to grow up and learn to feed others."
And I would add, that it seems sometimes the shepherds only feed, and do not teach others to feed. They give the flock a fish, but never a fishing rod. (mixed metaphor... but you get the idea).
Posted in: The Front Door Field
Great points! For some of us, its too bad we were not encouraged nor taught how to do that from the time we were children. Never too late to start.
Posted in: Seduction by the 'Spirit of the Age'? Are Reformed People Immune?
This certainly resonates. I do get the impression that some people think being reformed means to do what the world does, and then color it christian. I don't think that's what the reformation was about.