I agree that there are all kinds of ways to teach. And I agree that teaching does not mean being an expert science teacher, nor a theology prof. Teaching should mean sharing the gospel with anyone, whether it is in a discipling relationship, an evangelism relationship, or simply defending faith, or contending for the gospel. Every christian should be able to disciple another, and every parent to a child, but it seems the ability to teach means that they can explain and are eager to explain the gospel to others, whether friendly or foe.
Hmm. The difficulty with an analogy is that the desire to understand it is key. I understand your analogy of food for the body to food for the soul. But, you should understand my poor analogy of recipe and serving as well. I understand the Word is not a recipe book... its just an analogy. You don't have to be a master chef in order to bring some hot dogs, relish, roasting sticks, marshmallows to a picnic. Its not hard to add some corn and honey dew melons, and presto, you have a meal. Fairly nourishing, especially if you add some tomatoes and carrots from the garden. It might not be the only meal you would want, but you wouldn't starve.
Presentation matters? It probably helps. But maybe it doesn't. Presentation that clarifies for one person is a roadblock for another person. Moses thought he couldn't speak... so he got Aaron to help. But either way, presentation would not have changed the outcome for someone who had his own agenda.
The problem I sometimes see is that some people are only ever concerned about being fed. Feeding others is not their concern. They get spiritually fat and spiritually lazy as a result.
Now I know the Word is not a recipe book; perhaps more of a plan for building a house on a solid foundation. But no analogy is perfect. Our relationship with God is not a house, after all; yet Jesus used this analogy. Was it the apostle that wrote: leaving aside the milk of the gospel, the elementary things, for the meat is what we should be looking for? Being fed what? What's the milk? what's the meat? He seems to allude to the "recipe" being the meat... in other words, how do we live? How do we shape our lives in response to God's grace? Hebrews 5 and 6. How do we cook the "meat...?
Ironically, it is only in sharing the "recipe", that we learn more about it. And if we demonstrate the "recipe" (christian living) or forget certain items in the recipe, our actions speak louder than our words.
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).
To know that Christ died and suffered as a result of God's love, is to understand the depth and breadth of His love. But we often have a very shallow understanding of love. The epistles of John say much more about this.
Who loves more: the mother who says her son in prison for theft and vandalism is a "good boy", or the father who brings his son to the police because he has stolen a car, and trafficked in drugs? God's standards indicate that His love is not a nicey, nicey smiley feeling, but a steadfast faithfulness to his promises and demands. His love for the repentant sinner comes with the expectation of repentance and change. Our love for each other is tied to God's love for us. This is not an unconditional love, but it is a forgiving love. " 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin... 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." "2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world."
"II John 1: 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands."
God's love was shown in the Ten commandments (and some other commands) he gave, as well as in the promise of the Messiah. The commandments were the way people were to demonstrate love to each other. Our failures were covered by Messiah's payment. Our desire to follow these commands demonstrates our love for God and each other. Our lack of desire to follow these commands indicates our lack of desire to love one another. Let us walk in the light, and confess our sins, and be purified from unrighteousness, and have fellowship with one another.
You are to be commended for using the latest technology for your energy needs. Much of this technology is also presently being evaluated for use in large livestock barns and working shops on farms. I also had heard that the LED lights from China were almost one third the cost, and seemed to be as good. They needed to be direct ordered; I believe PayPal works for that.
Roger, I appreciate your comments, and I think I understand what you are saying. Many/most of your comments in the first two paragraphs I agree with... particularly the questions about how do we decide when the spirit was leading in understanding of scripture. That is a conundrum. I understand your comments about the seeming divergence between Jesus and Paul. I certainly see a difference in emphasis between the two dominant themes as you suggest. However, the two themes are brought together. They are brought together in James, and in the epistles of John. They are also brought together by remembering Jesus saying to the woman who annointed him, "Your faith has saved you" (not her action, not her works). Also Jesus said, that many would say, " 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ They prophecied, drove out demons and performed miracles. Are these not good works? Yes, they are somewhat rituals, and yet Jesus disciples did them too, and Jesus did not condemn them. In fact, he several times said to them, oh ye of little faith...
In other words, I think James does not indicate that we are saved by a faith in works. Nor does Jesus indicate this. Rather the faith must be evidenced in works, but the faith is in Jesus, in God, not in the works themselves. An analogy: someone who cooks, may provide food for many people in a restaurant, so that he can get paid. does he do it for love of the people in the restaurant? Yet, he cooks for love of his wife and children, so that he can buy food for them, and perhaps cooks it. Works done to earn salvation, and not done for love will in fact not earn salvation. And works done for love will also not earn salvation, but do prove the love which Jesus seeks. That is what the gospel of Christ says.
Luther was mainly irritated by James because of the context in which he lived. He had been trying to earn his salvation by being good, being a priest, visiting the relics, suffering, doing penance, obeying all the commands. When he realized the magnificence of grace, the reminders of his former life were difficult for him.
As far as the evolution discussion is concerned, for me the issue is not the six day thing. It is the issue of evolution. The six day thing is only pertinent in terms of how it affects evolution. Even though the way scripture talks about days as having a morning and evening, and the sense of the word seems to mean a literal not figurative day, even so, if a day was longer, having millions of hours, or if it somehow consisted of eons of time, that does not really change how God says he made man from the dust of the earth, and woman from man's rib. It does not change the fact of creating each species or kind separately from similar building blocks of carbon and proteins and amino acids and DNA. It does not automatically require that evolution must have happened just because of long periods of time.
In this video, Juby also explains how evolutionary thought has hindered true science in the understanding of vestigial organs. You seem to keep repeating that there is no evidence. But evidence not seen, does not mean that there is no evidence. The eyes need to be open to see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4 Season 4, Episode 2. of Genesis Week.
You are right it is primary to consider what God is saying to us. But it is debatable that what you are looking at is from God. It is debatable what is "moving ahead" and what is moving backwards, or regressing. The world today often thinks that homosex is a completely natural activity, for example. I would characterize that not as moving ahead, but as regressing to a more primitive state. The world often wants to promote that all religions and values are equal in value; this is not "moving ahead" but moving sideways into an absurdity.
During the rennaissance, many enlightened philosophers were heralded as leaders and "lights" of the day. Many were atheists, agnostics or mere spiritualists. They were thought to be moving ahead, but in fact were often moving backwards to greek philsophy or semblances of it, and side stepping God's authority of creation and redemption of our daily lives. Some of them planted seeds that led to eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and to racial superiority. Racial superiority is a direct natural consequence of the theory of evolution. Is this what we are moving forward to?
Psychologists consider themselves scientists as well, and have in the past often promoted certain behavioural and psychological theories which have done great harm to individuals as well as to society as a whole.
I'm a scientist too. I have some understanding of what kinds of evidence are required for a theory to stand up against challenges. I have a reasonably good understanding of C14 half lifes, and understand how similar principles apply to K-Ar, and other rock-dating methods, etc. I have seen fossils of pachyrhinosaurus being excavated. I understand genetics enough to understand selection of characteristics through heredity, and I have some cursory understanding of various types of GMO and GEO. I understand technological progress and development in the areas of direct seeding, GPS plant protection and nutrient management, robotic milkers, real-time moisture monitoring, 4-R method of crop nutrient management. I understand that some soils have declined in quality, while other soils have improved in quality in the last fifty years due to improved understanding and management. To suggest that I want to close my ears is ludicrous. Might I ask if you have really checked out and come to grips with the scientific objections to the "grand theory of evolution"? I mean scientific objections, not scriptural objections. Or perhaps it is you who wants to close your ears?
Preaching should be about bringing the truth, repentance, salvation, and renewal into daily life. It is not about saying something "nice". Without condemning sin, there is no need for a Saviour. Whether obedience is presented from a positive or negative perspective, the implication of disobedience is the same. And certainly Peter condemned Annanias and Sapphira as deceivers and liars with dire consequences. Paul certainly told the Corinthians (I Cor 5) to cast out the sexually immoral person (and to forgive based on repentance). Revelations makes several judgements about the churches. But, be careful. Every elder, every christian needs to be careful about judging, because everyone can and will be judged. Judge with compassion and forgiveness. But do not think you are more compassionate or forgiving than the apostle Peter or Paul. Or more compassionate than Jesus, who condemned hypocrisy and impure hearts. Who told many parables about bearing fruit, or of using talents or minas given by God, who explained what would happen to the weeds, to the bad fish, and to the seed that fell on hard ground or was swallowed by weeds.
Warnings about sin, or about false teaching, are love gifts to God's people, to keep them close to God.
And I should also have added what does Paul say on the other side of grace? He says, "Shall we sin more, so that grace may abound? By no means. " He often said that murderers, adulterers, sexually immoral, perjurers, thieves and lovers of money and others, would not inherit the kingdom of God. This seems to be works. But again, it needs to be put into context, and it is obvious to me that Paul and James are saying exactly the same thing.
Tonight our family went to a Baptist church to listen to a speaker from Australia explain how evolution was a faith, and how evolution contradicted the scientific evidence. At this presentation, there were members from a Gospel Chapel, two Baptist churches, Mennonite churches, CRC, Pentecostal churches, Alliance church, Lighthouse church, Rom Catholic, and probably some others. That kind of answers your comments on differences between denominations. Similarities between christians from different denominations are ocassionally stronger than similarities within a particular denomination. Neither the similarities nor the differences prove anything about the truth of scripture.
The speaker mentioned that Jesus was a young earth creationist. He quoted the verse where Jesus said, "In the beginning, God made them male and female..." If people were only created/evolved in the last few 100,000 years according to evol theory, then they certainly were not created "in the beginning". So changing the interpretation of Genesis also leads to changing the truth of what Jesus said.
But for me the interesting things were the evidences against the necessity of evolution. He gave the example of how the Carlsbad limestone caves were originally dated as 260 million years old. Then that was changed in the 1950s to 7 million years old. Later it was changed to 2 million years old. Finally the sign was removed completely. .... Same cave. Same evidence. Different ages. Why? well different assumptions and different interpretation. Science in this is not so straightforward as non-scientists seem to think.
How about formation of stalactites? Supposedly it takes thousands or millions of years to form... 0.13mm per year... but, there are man-made mine caves less than 100 years old which have sprouted Stalactites which are almost twenty feet long... which at the average rate would make them 24000 years old. Obviously, some of the estimates and assumptions do not match the known evidence.
He pointed out that Darwin said the number of transition fossils should vastly outnumber the endpoint fossils. To date it is still difficult to prove that any one fossil is a transition fossil, never mind that there should be countless undeniable numbers of them, not just one or two scattered possibilities. Both Jay Gould and ___ Patterson experts in paleontology have apparently agreed on this point, and yet they are evolutionists.
The speaker himself has a degree in science (biology/paleontology) and diploma in Education and was an atheist until the age of 19. At that time he became a Christian when shown the poverty of evolution theory. He claims to be an exception to the rule that apologetics do not convert people, since it was directly the evidence against evolution that converted him to follow Christ. He has been speaking against evolution for the last 40 years, and as a travelling ministry for the last 17 years.
Now I'm off to read a book called, "Evolution's Achilles Heels", written by 9 PhD scientists from Australia, New Zealand, USA, Romania, and Canada with forward written by another PhD and the book edited by yet one more PhD. I personally don't think you have to be a PhD to understand all this evidence, but for those impressed by titles... It is only 260 pages, and should be an interesting read.
Roger, since according to natural laws, genetic difficulties, and lack of intermediaries, evolution does not seem to be scientifically possible, then for evolution to work, it would have to be intelligently directed, and virtually miraculous. Which you admit. So then if it happened, it did not happen thru the normal means and laws he created. So, how did God do it then?
Posted in: A Bar Too High: Unrealistic Expectations of Church Leaders
I agree that there are all kinds of ways to teach. And I agree that teaching does not mean being an expert science teacher, nor a theology prof. Teaching should mean sharing the gospel with anyone, whether it is in a discipling relationship, an evangelism relationship, or simply defending faith, or contending for the gospel. Every christian should be able to disciple another, and every parent to a child, but it seems the ability to teach means that they can explain and are eager to explain the gospel to others, whether friendly or foe.
Posted in: Gracious Residue
Hmm. The difficulty with an analogy is that the desire to understand it is key. I understand your analogy of food for the body to food for the soul. But, you should understand my poor analogy of recipe and serving as well. I understand the Word is not a recipe book... its just an analogy. You don't have to be a master chef in order to bring some hot dogs, relish, roasting sticks, marshmallows to a picnic. Its not hard to add some corn and honey dew melons, and presto, you have a meal. Fairly nourishing, especially if you add some tomatoes and carrots from the garden. It might not be the only meal you would want, but you wouldn't starve.
Presentation matters? It probably helps. But maybe it doesn't. Presentation that clarifies for one person is a roadblock for another person. Moses thought he couldn't speak... so he got Aaron to help. But either way, presentation would not have changed the outcome for someone who had his own agenda.
The problem I sometimes see is that some people are only ever concerned about being fed. Feeding others is not their concern. They get spiritually fat and spiritually lazy as a result.
Now I know the Word is not a recipe book; perhaps more of a plan for building a house on a solid foundation. But no analogy is perfect. Our relationship with God is not a house, after all; yet Jesus used this analogy. Was it the apostle that wrote: leaving aside the milk of the gospel, the elementary things, for the meat is what we should be looking for? Being fed what? What's the milk? what's the meat? He seems to allude to the "recipe" being the meat... in other words, how do we live? How do we shape our lives in response to God's grace? Hebrews 5 and 6. How do we cook the "meat...?
Ironically, it is only in sharing the "recipe", that we learn more about it. And if we demonstrate the "recipe" (christian living) or forget certain items in the recipe, our actions speak louder than our words.
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: God Is Love
To know that Christ died and suffered as a result of God's love, is to understand the depth and breadth of His love. But we often have a very shallow understanding of love. The epistles of John say much more about this.
Who loves more: the mother who says her son in prison for theft and vandalism is a "good boy", or the father who brings his son to the police because he has stolen a car, and trafficked in drugs? God's standards indicate that His love is not a nicey, nicey smiley feeling, but a steadfast faithfulness to his promises and demands. His love for the repentant sinner comes with the expectation of repentance and change. Our love for each other is tied to God's love for us. This is not an unconditional love, but it is a forgiving love. " 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin... 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." "2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world."
"II John 1: 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands."
God's love was shown in the Ten commandments (and some other commands) he gave, as well as in the promise of the Messiah. The commandments were the way people were to demonstrate love to each other. Our failures were covered by Messiah's payment. Our desire to follow these commands demonstrates our love for God and each other. Our lack of desire to follow these commands indicates our lack of desire to love one another. Let us walk in the light, and confess our sins, and be purified from unrighteousness, and have fellowship with one another.
Posted in: Creation Care at Meadowlands Fellowship CRC (Ancaster, ON)
You are to be commended for using the latest technology for your energy needs. Much of this technology is also presently being evaluated for use in large livestock barns and working shops on farms. I also had heard that the LED lights from China were almost one third the cost, and seemed to be as good. They needed to be direct ordered; I believe PayPal works for that.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, I appreciate your comments, and I think I understand what you are saying. Many/most of your comments in the first two paragraphs I agree with... particularly the questions about how do we decide when the spirit was leading in understanding of scripture. That is a conundrum. I understand your comments about the seeming divergence between Jesus and Paul. I certainly see a difference in emphasis between the two dominant themes as you suggest. However, the two themes are brought together. They are brought together in James, and in the epistles of John. They are also brought together by remembering Jesus saying to the woman who annointed him, "Your faith has saved you" (not her action, not her works). Also Jesus said, that many would say, " 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ They prophecied, drove out demons and performed miracles. Are these not good works? Yes, they are somewhat rituals, and yet Jesus disciples did them too, and Jesus did not condemn them. In fact, he several times said to them, oh ye of little faith...
In other words, I think James does not indicate that we are saved by a faith in works. Nor does Jesus indicate this. Rather the faith must be evidenced in works, but the faith is in Jesus, in God, not in the works themselves. An analogy: someone who cooks, may provide food for many people in a restaurant, so that he can get paid. does he do it for love of the people in the restaurant? Yet, he cooks for love of his wife and children, so that he can buy food for them, and perhaps cooks it. Works done to earn salvation, and not done for love will in fact not earn salvation. And works done for love will also not earn salvation, but do prove the love which Jesus seeks. That is what the gospel of Christ says.
Luther was mainly irritated by James because of the context in which he lived. He had been trying to earn his salvation by being good, being a priest, visiting the relics, suffering, doing penance, obeying all the commands. When he realized the magnificence of grace, the reminders of his former life were difficult for him.
As far as the evolution discussion is concerned, for me the issue is not the six day thing. It is the issue of evolution. The six day thing is only pertinent in terms of how it affects evolution. Even though the way scripture talks about days as having a morning and evening, and the sense of the word seems to mean a literal not figurative day, even so, if a day was longer, having millions of hours, or if it somehow consisted of eons of time, that does not really change how God says he made man from the dust of the earth, and woman from man's rib. It does not change the fact of creating each species or kind separately from similar building blocks of carbon and proteins and amino acids and DNA. It does not automatically require that evolution must have happened just because of long periods of time.
In this video, Juby also explains how evolutionary thought has hindered true science in the understanding of vestigial organs. You seem to keep repeating that there is no evidence. But evidence not seen, does not mean that there is no evidence. The eyes need to be open to see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFchbdbQEA4 Season 4, Episode 2. of Genesis Week.
Enjoying your questions and comments.
Posted in: My Banner Article
You are right it is primary to consider what God is saying to us. But it is debatable that what you are looking at is from God. It is debatable what is "moving ahead" and what is moving backwards, or regressing. The world today often thinks that homosex is a completely natural activity, for example. I would characterize that not as moving ahead, but as regressing to a more primitive state. The world often wants to promote that all religions and values are equal in value; this is not "moving ahead" but moving sideways into an absurdity.
During the rennaissance, many enlightened philosophers were heralded as leaders and "lights" of the day. Many were atheists, agnostics or mere spiritualists. They were thought to be moving ahead, but in fact were often moving backwards to greek philsophy or semblances of it, and side stepping God's authority of creation and redemption of our daily lives. Some of them planted seeds that led to eugenics, and ethnic cleansing, and to racial superiority. Racial superiority is a direct natural consequence of the theory of evolution. Is this what we are moving forward to?
Psychologists consider themselves scientists as well, and have in the past often promoted certain behavioural and psychological theories which have done great harm to individuals as well as to society as a whole.
I'm a scientist too. I have some understanding of what kinds of evidence are required for a theory to stand up against challenges. I have a reasonably good understanding of C14 half lifes, and understand how similar principles apply to K-Ar, and other rock-dating methods, etc. I have seen fossils of pachyrhinosaurus being excavated. I understand genetics enough to understand selection of characteristics through heredity, and I have some cursory understanding of various types of GMO and GEO. I understand technological progress and development in the areas of direct seeding, GPS plant protection and nutrient management, robotic milkers, real-time moisture monitoring, 4-R method of crop nutrient management. I understand that some soils have declined in quality, while other soils have improved in quality in the last fifty years due to improved understanding and management. To suggest that I want to close my ears is ludicrous. Might I ask if you have really checked out and come to grips with the scientific objections to the "grand theory of evolution"? I mean scientific objections, not scriptural objections. Or perhaps it is you who wants to close your ears?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, what is your scientific evidence for God directed evolution?
What is your scriptural evidence for God directed evolution?
Posted in: Only Something Nice?
Preaching should be about bringing the truth, repentance, salvation, and renewal into daily life. It is not about saying something "nice". Without condemning sin, there is no need for a Saviour. Whether obedience is presented from a positive or negative perspective, the implication of disobedience is the same. And certainly Peter condemned Annanias and Sapphira as deceivers and liars with dire consequences. Paul certainly told the Corinthians (I Cor 5) to cast out the sexually immoral person (and to forgive based on repentance). Revelations makes several judgements about the churches. But, be careful. Every elder, every christian needs to be careful about judging, because everyone can and will be judged. Judge with compassion and forgiveness. But do not think you are more compassionate or forgiving than the apostle Peter or Paul. Or more compassionate than Jesus, who condemned hypocrisy and impure hearts. Who told many parables about bearing fruit, or of using talents or minas given by God, who explained what would happen to the weeds, to the bad fish, and to the seed that fell on hard ground or was swallowed by weeds.
Warnings about sin, or about false teaching, are love gifts to God's people, to keep them close to God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
And I should also have added what does Paul say on the other side of grace? He says, "Shall we sin more, so that grace may abound? By no means. " He often said that murderers, adulterers, sexually immoral, perjurers, thieves and lovers of money and others, would not inherit the kingdom of God. This seems to be works. But again, it needs to be put into context, and it is obvious to me that Paul and James are saying exactly the same thing.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Tonight our family went to a Baptist church to listen to a speaker from Australia explain how evolution was a faith, and how evolution contradicted the scientific evidence. At this presentation, there were members from a Gospel Chapel, two Baptist churches, Mennonite churches, CRC, Pentecostal churches, Alliance church, Lighthouse church, Rom Catholic, and probably some others. That kind of answers your comments on differences between denominations. Similarities between christians from different denominations are ocassionally stronger than similarities within a particular denomination. Neither the similarities nor the differences prove anything about the truth of scripture.
The speaker mentioned that Jesus was a young earth creationist. He quoted the verse where Jesus said, "In the beginning, God made them male and female..." If people were only created/evolved in the last few 100,000 years according to evol theory, then they certainly were not created "in the beginning". So changing the interpretation of Genesis also leads to changing the truth of what Jesus said.
But for me the interesting things were the evidences against the necessity of evolution. He gave the example of how the Carlsbad limestone caves were originally dated as 260 million years old. Then that was changed in the 1950s to 7 million years old. Later it was changed to 2 million years old. Finally the sign was removed completely. .... Same cave. Same evidence. Different ages. Why? well different assumptions and different interpretation. Science in this is not so straightforward as non-scientists seem to think.
How about formation of stalactites? Supposedly it takes thousands or millions of years to form... 0.13mm per year... but, there are man-made mine caves less than 100 years old which have sprouted Stalactites which are almost twenty feet long... which at the average rate would make them 24000 years old. Obviously, some of the estimates and assumptions do not match the known evidence.
He pointed out that Darwin said the number of transition fossils should vastly outnumber the endpoint fossils. To date it is still difficult to prove that any one fossil is a transition fossil, never mind that there should be countless undeniable numbers of them, not just one or two scattered possibilities. Both Jay Gould and ___ Patterson experts in paleontology have apparently agreed on this point, and yet they are evolutionists.
The speaker himself has a degree in science (biology/paleontology) and diploma in Education and was an atheist until the age of 19. At that time he became a Christian when shown the poverty of evolution theory. He claims to be an exception to the rule that apologetics do not convert people, since it was directly the evidence against evolution that converted him to follow Christ. He has been speaking against evolution for the last 40 years, and as a travelling ministry for the last 17 years.
Now I'm off to read a book called, "Evolution's Achilles Heels", written by 9 PhD scientists from Australia, New Zealand, USA, Romania, and Canada with forward written by another PhD and the book edited by yet one more PhD. I personally don't think you have to be a PhD to understand all this evidence, but for those impressed by titles... It is only 260 pages, and should be an interesting read.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, since according to natural laws, genetic difficulties, and lack of intermediaries, evolution does not seem to be scientifically possible, then for evolution to work, it would have to be intelligently directed, and virtually miraculous. Which you admit. So then if it happened, it did not happen thru the normal means and laws he created. So, how did God do it then?