Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
Randy, you have mentioned some good stuff, but it might be useful if you discussed it as a council, rather than simply adopting someone else's policy. It will help you to focus on what is important and what is not, depending on the type of volunteer position or activity, of which there are many types. Some churches adopt a rule/guideline that to be a deacon, you may not drink alcohol or smoke. Many other churches do not. Some would say that divorced people and remarried ought not to serve as preachers or elders. Some would evaluate the inconsistency between behaviour and leading a bible study. In some cases the line of inconsistency is a bit gray, since how do we distinguish weakness from deliberate carelessness?
From a spiritual perspective, discussing this in instances where it may be a concern, will lead to confronting issues and perhaps a better context for spiritual admonition than a simple: "well that person doesn't qualify" type of environment. Hope this helps a bit.
Well, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that your council would not be involved. And of course your council should do whatever it thinks best in this regard; if it wants to look at what others have done, so be it. Only my suggestion to perhaps consider starting from scratch, might help to change the tenor of the discussion in a surprising way. They might take more ownership and might also give more thought to it. All the best.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
"
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:9
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Acts 8:4
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
Orthopathy - right attitude. .... born again?
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
Posted in: How Do We Handle a Domestic-Violence Husband Whose Restraining Order Is Expiring?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
Posted in: Where can I find a sample policy regarding ministry standards and expectations for volunteers?
Randy, you have mentioned some good stuff, but it might be useful if you discussed it as a council, rather than simply adopting someone else's policy. It will help you to focus on what is important and what is not, depending on the type of volunteer position or activity, of which there are many types. Some churches adopt a rule/guideline that to be a deacon, you may not drink alcohol or smoke. Many other churches do not. Some would say that divorced people and remarried ought not to serve as preachers or elders. Some would evaluate the inconsistency between behaviour and leading a bible study. In some cases the line of inconsistency is a bit gray, since how do we distinguish weakness from deliberate carelessness?
From a spiritual perspective, discussing this in instances where it may be a concern, will lead to confronting issues and perhaps a better context for spiritual admonition than a simple: "well that person doesn't qualify" type of environment. Hope this helps a bit.
Posted in: Where can I find a sample policy regarding ministry standards and expectations for volunteers?
Well, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that your council would not be involved. And of course your council should do whatever it thinks best in this regard; if it wants to look at what others have done, so be it. Only my suggestion to perhaps consider starting from scratch, might help to change the tenor of the discussion in a surprising way. They might take more ownership and might also give more thought to it. All the best.