It's reassuring that at least you read what I had to say. It's confusing that of all the points I made, you were able to find only two small discrepancies, and thus avoid addressing all the rest, and avoiding the still legitimate points made even within the two supposed discrepancies.
Of your two points, to distinguish between the supplements and the church order, is diverting and technical. It does not address the real issue of churches being referred to as "vacant", which term the article 8 supplement uses. Most consider the supplement to be part of the order, since most of the supplement articles are written in a similar fashion and with a similar effect, and which is why the supplement has now been inserted in its relevant locations within the order. However, even if the order did not use it, the perception and common usage of the term still relates to my valid point, and even without using the word, the church order still seems to leave the impression (IMHO).
Your second discovery on my behalf, that the church order only prescribes three times per year for classis to meet is correct, my mistake, but still does not invalidate my main point; classes usually don't meet every four months in my experience.
In this vein, I'm surprised that you did not draw attention to my point number 7, about the 24 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined, since it is actually 18 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined (plus at least five for combined offices of deacons, elders, ministers). But even so, whether 18 or 24, the point of the huge difference is still the same.
You should be aware that in critiquing the church order, I am speaking the truth in love, and that we are all corporately responsible. The fact that I never really studied the church order seriously until 2008 does not make me less culpable, since I have been a serving elder at least five times.
My language is deliberately superlative, because that is how I feel. And it is not just a matter of some intellectual disagreement; it is to me a matter of a spiritual problem, and a lack of reliance on scripture and scriptural principles.
Most young people do not read the church order until they become old, and even then most have not read it, and particularly not the supplements.
Okay so we each think the other is in the small box, and we each think we see the larger picture..... Either way, you have not really addressed or answered anything on what I have raised, and my deal is still that if your book addresses all these issues, then I promise to buy it (and read it). You have not affirmed that yet, and so I am led to believe that your book does not address these issues.
But I do not want to be unkind. If you think I am missing part of the larger picture you may tell me what I am missing. It is possible that I am only seeing half of it. And of course it is possible that I have not missed the larger picture, but simply see it differently.
So I really appreciate what Henry DeMoor has written as quoted above. The intent of church order and the respect given to it deserve some serious attention. But at the same time perhaps a few statements or concepts that Henry expressed need to be examined a bit further.
First, the statement "some of the same old rules had to be smuggled back in through the back door in order to combat disorder and anarchy in the now-Protestant churches" is making an assumption that these old rules "had" to be smuggled back in, rather than that the leadership felt uncomfortable without some of them. To distinguish in this is not always easy. Perhaps some were necessary, and others were simply attractive. How do we distinguish? """How
Second, "Biblically based [church order] keeps us from repeating history's mistakes. " I would argue that this sounds good, but is not entirely true. It is not absolutely impossible to either ignore parts of the church order, or to change it from being biblically based, to a man-based church order. In other words, if our social and cultural desires make us uncomfortable with the church order, our inclination is often to change it, looking for obscure scriptural validation. The church order by itself is a guide, but our committment to it, and to making sure that it is indeed scriptural and necessary, and leading to edification, is really what will keep us from making history's mistakes. Our assumption that our church order is biblically based does not mean that it really is. The Roman Catholic church assumed that their order was biblically based, but it wasn't.
Third, "Without articles of church order as banks along the way, the waters of ministry flow chaotically. " An interesting analogy, that makes me smile.... Naturalists would suggest that it is important for rivers to overflow their banks occasionally to enhance the growth of riparian areas. Some have suggested that the church in Acts 2 was pretty chaotic, and was yet perhaps the greatest occasion of growth of the body of Christ at that time. River deltas are low areas where a river splits up and spreads out into many different streams, often flooding and fertilizing the land between these streams before reaching the ocean. It may be that river deltas where river banks are very low or non-existent are often the most productive part of the river. Maybe this also applies to the body of Christ as embodied in our various ecclesia.
A recent example of the inadequacies of the church order, is the deposition or release of a minister who had taken on another occupation. Besides being entirely unscriptural, it misses the point of what it means to be a minister. For example, the apostle Paul continued in his tent-making while he preached. And didn't he also take a three year hiatus in his ministry before he resumed his preaching after his conversion?
But, what does it really mean to be a "minister"? A servant, right? diakono, right? The point is not whether they have taken on another occupation. Does that mean they are no longer qualified to baptise or lead communion, or to preach? Or even to revert back their occupation to that of a pastor or preaching elder? What does another occupation have to do with that?
So to me in this case the church order is spiritually disfunctional. And the proclamations of a classis in this regard are after the fact. They don't "release". They simply "acknowledge" what has already happened. And illegitimately suppose that someone who was previously qualified to preach, is now unqualified? someone who previously performed baptisms is now unqualified? simply on the basis of taking on another occupation? Not on the basis of some actual dereliction of duty, or moral failure, or theological heresy? to me this is absurd and meaningless. or perhaps beaurocratic "double-speak".
David raises some very good points. What is word and deed ministry? The Word says that true religion is to look after the orphans and widows (the poor), those who are less fortunate. But why is this? It is because we are to "love those of the household of faith", and to "love our neighbor as ourself". Jesus asked us to even love our enemies. How do we know that we love God?
"11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. "
Changing administration will not necessarily improve the connecttion between word and deed. It might, but it is mostly about an attitude. The same attitude that causes us to share material possessions also causes us to share the good news of salvation. Jesus even asked us to use our worldly possessions and goods to reap treasures in heaven.... how? by opening doors to the gospel of Christ, by leading others to the love of God. Be wise as serpents.... but for the good of our neighbor. And for the honor of God's name.
That attitude will cause those in home missions to talk to those in the Back to God hour. That attitude will cause those in CRWRC to talk to those in foreign missions and home missions, and vice versa. Pick up the phone. Have a video conference. Cooperate. Seek better solutions. Seek the welfare of the other agency or group, to help them achieve their task. In so doing, you will achieve your own vision. Because ultimately everyone has the same vision. Bringing people to the love of Christ.
I don't know what Dan is going to say to respond, but my thoughts are that a lack of innovation and independance from various angles and opportunities to carry out different approaches will stunt and inhibit the ability of people to try different things, in essence, will stop them or hinder them from being able to follow the leading of the spirit. As Dan's example showed happened as a result of a stamp of approval or lack of it from CRWM. If the idea of concentrating 90% of funding on church planting is valid, it should be encouraged, persuaded, and agreed to rather than hierarchically forced, and then the spirit will lead people in that direction to serve and minister and support that type of service. But I'm sure they will have more well-thought responses.
We have had an individual who attends our church for more than two years, who when asked if he wanted to become a member, said that he thought he was already a member. In his case, just asking him seemed to diminish him somewhat, taking the wind out of his sails. So I didn't push the official membership too much. I may bring it up again later sometime....
In another case, we have the wife of a baptized member and the baptized member himself who participate in many ways, including leading song services and teaching sunday school. While they should be ineligible for official office, does that mean that consistory does not have the right to let them vote when they feel it is appropriate?
While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
"Certain demons could not come out except by prayer and fasting".
I agree with Mitogo that it is God who heals, not us. God answers our prayers, if our desire is God's will. That means we must understand God's will and pray in accordance with God's will. We must pray for his glory, not for our glory. We must see and understand God;s purpose in the healing, not just our own wishes and desires. The anointing with oil is the same as anointing with oil for ordination or "setting apart". The oil does nothing, but it is like the water of baptism in that it signifies something. Something from outside is healing, just as it is Jesus who died, and the Spirit who sanctifies.
The difference between real unity and artificial institutional unity is obvious. One leads to the exercise of the Christian virtues, to increased witness, to living the love of Christ, following Christ and the guidance of scripture. The other leads to (or is the result of) idolization of forms, buildings, institution, hierarchy, money, structure and efficiency. "
"Attempts at union between the churches (UPCUSA and PCUS) were renewed in the 1970s, culminating in the merger of the two churches to form the Presbyterian Church (USA) on June 10, 1983. At the time of the merger, the churches had a combined membership of 3,121,238.[6] Many of the efforts were spearheaded by the financial and outspoken activism of retired businessman Thomas Clinton who died two years before the merger.[citation needed] A new national headquarters was established in Louisville, Kentucky in 1988 replacing the headquarters of the UPCUSA in New York City and the PCUS located in Atlanta, Georgia." Wikipedia
This quote shows the numbers at the merger. Today the PCUSA has about 2 million members, a 33% reduction from 1983, only 28 years ago. Compared to if numbers had kept pace with general population, the reduction would be much greater; membership should have been at 4 million, so the assumed reduction is close to 50%. Of course, we always think we are different (different than the PCUSA or anyone who shows these trends). But we cannot prove we are different, and the evidence to date indicates we are similar.
While the word "works" sometimes seems to imply something we do as separate from our faith, the book of James also makes clear that faith without works is dead. I wonder if faith itself might even be considered a "work"? Somewhere it even mentions that faith is a gift, in the context of gifts of he spirit, as if some have more faith than others. Or while all believers have faith, some have a particular gift of faith.
I'm pretty well with Bev on this one, that I'm quite glad if works are rewarded in some manner, as when Jesus gave the parable of the talents, for example. But if I was only motivated for works because of the rewards, then it seems to me that other sins of pride and selfishness and self-centeredness would creep in. Maybe at that point we would then be close to those of whom the Lord said that there will be some who say, "Lord, Lord", at the last day, but shall not enter. I'm at the point therefore that if there are rewards I am quite happy if others are rewarded more than I, or I will be happy to receive whatever rewards God grants, since if we should be content in this world, how could we not be content in the world to come?
While feedback from spiritually sensitive people is very valuable, and while the spirit in which the feedback is given is also much appreciated, preachers should not be averse to receiving feedback from others who are not so "sensitive". Feedback is a two-way street: sometimes it helps the preaching due to constructive input, while other times it reveals the receptivity, awareness and context of the listener, which also provides insight into how the message is getting accross. Understanding the feedback sometimes takes a great deal of prayer, and a little bit of time.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
It's reassuring that at least you read what I had to say. It's confusing that of all the points I made, you were able to find only two small discrepancies, and thus avoid addressing all the rest, and avoiding the still legitimate points made even within the two supposed discrepancies.
Of your two points, to distinguish between the supplements and the church order, is diverting and technical. It does not address the real issue of churches being referred to as "vacant", which term the article 8 supplement uses. Most consider the supplement to be part of the order, since most of the supplement articles are written in a similar fashion and with a similar effect, and which is why the supplement has now been inserted in its relevant locations within the order. However, even if the order did not use it, the perception and common usage of the term still relates to my valid point, and even without using the word, the church order still seems to leave the impression (IMHO).
Your second discovery on my behalf, that the church order only prescribes three times per year for classis to meet is correct, my mistake, but still does not invalidate my main point; classes usually don't meet every four months in my experience.
In this vein, I'm surprised that you did not draw attention to my point number 7, about the 24 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined, since it is actually 18 articles for ministers vs one for elders and deacons combined (plus at least five for combined offices of deacons, elders, ministers). But even so, whether 18 or 24, the point of the huge difference is still the same.
You should be aware that in critiquing the church order, I am speaking the truth in love, and that we are all corporately responsible. The fact that I never really studied the church order seriously until 2008 does not make me less culpable, since I have been a serving elder at least five times.
My language is deliberately superlative, because that is how I feel. And it is not just a matter of some intellectual disagreement; it is to me a matter of a spiritual problem, and a lack of reliance on scripture and scriptural principles.
Most young people do not read the church order until they become old, and even then most have not read it, and particularly not the supplements.
Okay so we each think the other is in the small box, and we each think we see the larger picture..... Either way, you have not really addressed or answered anything on what I have raised, and my deal is still that if your book addresses all these issues, then I promise to buy it (and read it). You have not affirmed that yet, and so I am led to believe that your book does not address these issues.
But I do not want to be unkind. If you think I am missing part of the larger picture you may tell me what I am missing. It is possible that I am only seeing half of it. And of course it is possible that I have not missed the larger picture, but simply see it differently.
In any case, thankyou kindly for your response.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
So I really appreciate what Henry DeMoor has written as quoted above. The intent of church order and the respect given to it deserve some serious attention. But at the same time perhaps a few statements or concepts that Henry expressed need to be examined a bit further.
First, the statement "some of the same old rules had to be smuggled back in through the back door in order to combat disorder and anarchy in the now-Protestant churches" is making an assumption that these old rules "had" to be smuggled back in, rather than that the leadership felt uncomfortable without some of them. To distinguish in this is not always easy. Perhaps some were necessary, and others were simply attractive. How do we distinguish? """How
Second, "Biblically based [church order] keeps us from repeating history's mistakes. " I would argue that this sounds good, but is not entirely true. It is not absolutely impossible to either ignore parts of the church order, or to change it from being biblically based, to a man-based church order. In other words, if our social and cultural desires make us uncomfortable with the church order, our inclination is often to change it, looking for obscure scriptural validation. The church order by itself is a guide, but our committment to it, and to making sure that it is indeed scriptural and necessary, and leading to edification, is really what will keep us from making history's mistakes. Our assumption that our church order is biblically based does not mean that it really is. The Roman Catholic church assumed that their order was biblically based, but it wasn't.
Third, "Without articles of church order as banks along the way, the waters of ministry flow chaotically. " An interesting analogy, that makes me smile.... Naturalists would suggest that it is important for rivers to overflow their banks occasionally to enhance the growth of riparian areas. Some have suggested that the church in Acts 2 was pretty chaotic, and was yet perhaps the greatest occasion of growth of the body of Christ at that time. River deltas are low areas where a river splits up and spreads out into many different streams, often flooding and fertilizing the land between these streams before reaching the ocean. It may be that river deltas where river banks are very low or non-existent are often the most productive part of the river. Maybe this also applies to the body of Christ as embodied in our various ecclesia.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
A recent example of the inadequacies of the church order, is the deposition or release of a minister who had taken on another occupation. Besides being entirely unscriptural, it misses the point of what it means to be a minister. For example, the apostle Paul continued in his tent-making while he preached. And didn't he also take a three year hiatus in his ministry before he resumed his preaching after his conversion?
But, what does it really mean to be a "minister"? A servant, right? diakono, right? The point is not whether they have taken on another occupation. Does that mean they are no longer qualified to baptise or lead communion, or to preach? Or even to revert back their occupation to that of a pastor or preaching elder? What does another occupation have to do with that?
So to me in this case the church order is spiritually disfunctional. And the proclamations of a classis in this regard are after the fact. They don't "release". They simply "acknowledge" what has already happened. And illegitimately suppose that someone who was previously qualified to preach, is now unqualified? someone who previously performed baptisms is now unqualified? simply on the basis of taking on another occupation? Not on the basis of some actual dereliction of duty, or moral failure, or theological heresy? to me this is absurd and meaningless. or perhaps beaurocratic "double-speak".
I would love for someone to explain this to me.
Posted in: Together Again? Word and Deed
David raises some very good points. What is word and deed ministry? The Word says that true religion is to look after the orphans and widows (the poor), those who are less fortunate. But why is this? It is because we are to "love those of the household of faith", and to "love our neighbor as ourself". Jesus asked us to even love our enemies. How do we know that we love God?
"11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[b] if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. "
Changing administration will not necessarily improve the connecttion between word and deed. It might, but it is mostly about an attitude. The same attitude that causes us to share material possessions also causes us to share the good news of salvation. Jesus even asked us to use our worldly possessions and goods to reap treasures in heaven.... how? by opening doors to the gospel of Christ, by leading others to the love of God. Be wise as serpents.... but for the good of our neighbor. And for the honor of God's name.
That attitude will cause those in home missions to talk to those in the Back to God hour. That attitude will cause those in CRWRC to talk to those in foreign missions and home missions, and vice versa. Pick up the phone. Have a video conference. Cooperate. Seek better solutions. Seek the welfare of the other agency or group, to help them achieve their task. In so doing, you will achieve your own vision. Because ultimately everyone has the same vision. Bringing people to the love of Christ.
Posted in: Together Again? Word and Deed
I don't know what Dan is going to say to respond, but my thoughts are that a lack of innovation and independance from various angles and opportunities to carry out different approaches will stunt and inhibit the ability of people to try different things, in essence, will stop them or hinder them from being able to follow the leading of the spirit. As Dan's example showed happened as a result of a stamp of approval or lack of it from CRWM. If the idea of concentrating 90% of funding on church planting is valid, it should be encouraged, persuaded, and agreed to rather than hierarchically forced, and then the spirit will lead people in that direction to serve and minister and support that type of service. But I'm sure they will have more well-thought responses.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
I see that some questions are difficult to answer. Hmmnn....
Posted in: Membership - Again
We have had an individual who attends our church for more than two years, who when asked if he wanted to become a member, said that he thought he was already a member. In his case, just asking him seemed to diminish him somewhat, taking the wind out of his sails. So I didn't push the official membership too much. I may bring it up again later sometime....
In another case, we have the wife of a baptized member and the baptized member himself who participate in many ways, including leading song services and teaching sunday school. While they should be ineligible for official office, does that mean that consistory does not have the right to let them vote when they feel it is appropriate?
Posted in: We Can Answer Jesus' Prayer — and Article 3 of the Belhar
While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
Posted in: James 5:13-15: Elders Healing With Prayer and Oil
"Certain demons could not come out except by prayer and fasting".
I agree with Mitogo that it is God who heals, not us. God answers our prayers, if our desire is God's will. That means we must understand God's will and pray in accordance with God's will. We must pray for his glory, not for our glory. We must see and understand God;s purpose in the healing, not just our own wishes and desires. The anointing with oil is the same as anointing with oil for ordination or "setting apart". The oil does nothing, but it is like the water of baptism in that it signifies something. Something from outside is healing, just as it is Jesus who died, and the Spirit who sanctifies.
Posted in: We Can Answer Jesus' Prayer — and Article 3 of the Belhar
The difference between real unity and artificial institutional unity is obvious. One leads to the exercise of the Christian virtues, to increased witness, to living the love of Christ, following Christ and the guidance of scripture. The other leads to (or is the result of) idolization of forms, buildings, institution, hierarchy, money, structure and efficiency. "
"Attempts at union between the churches (UPCUSA and PCUS) were renewed in the 1970s, culminating in the merger of the two churches to form the Presbyterian Church (USA) on June 10, 1983. At the time of the merger, the churches had a combined membership of 3,121,238.[6] Many of the efforts were spearheaded by the financial and outspoken activism of retired businessman Thomas Clinton who died two years before the merger.[citation needed] A new national headquarters was established in Louisville, Kentucky in 1988 replacing the headquarters of the UPCUSA in New York City and the PCUS located in Atlanta, Georgia." Wikipedia
This quote shows the numbers at the merger. Today the PCUSA has about 2 million members, a 33% reduction from 1983, only 28 years ago. Compared to if numbers had kept pace with general population, the reduction would be much greater; membership should have been at 4 million, so the assumed reduction is close to 50%. Of course, we always think we are different (different than the PCUSA or anyone who shows these trends). But we cannot prove we are different, and the evidence to date indicates we are similar.
Posted in: The 2 Judgements
While the word "works" sometimes seems to imply something we do as separate from our faith, the book of James also makes clear that faith without works is dead. I wonder if faith itself might even be considered a "work"? Somewhere it even mentions that faith is a gift, in the context of gifts of he spirit, as if some have more faith than others. Or while all believers have faith, some have a particular gift of faith.
I'm pretty well with Bev on this one, that I'm quite glad if works are rewarded in some manner, as when Jesus gave the parable of the talents, for example. But if I was only motivated for works because of the rewards, then it seems to me that other sins of pride and selfishness and self-centeredness would creep in. Maybe at that point we would then be close to those of whom the Lord said that there will be some who say, "Lord, Lord", at the last day, but shall not enter. I'm at the point therefore that if there are rewards I am quite happy if others are rewarded more than I, or I will be happy to receive whatever rewards God grants, since if we should be content in this world, how could we not be content in the world to come?
Posted in: Routine Feedback to Pastors on Preaching
While feedback from spiritually sensitive people is very valuable, and while the spirit in which the feedback is given is also much appreciated, preachers should not be averse to receiving feedback from others who are not so "sensitive". Feedback is a two-way street: sometimes it helps the preaching due to constructive input, while other times it reveals the receptivity, awareness and context of the listener, which also provides insight into how the message is getting accross. Understanding the feedback sometimes takes a great deal of prayer, and a little bit of time.