Don't worry too much about the insults. I can handle them (dish them out too, if necessary), but be gentle.... I just pointed out the effect of your comment.
Questions: We have membership numbers; do we also have attendance numbers? What if we have a bunch of members who are not Christians or do not attend, or Christians who attend, but are not members?
There are churches which are growing. Most of them have many more attenders than members.
In north America the crc has grown in the past on large families and immigration. Church has often been our social and cultural gathering. But it never should have been that primarily. It should have been the body of Christ first.
We should realize that sometimes the reasons people give for leaving the church, are not actually the real reasons they leave. Often the immediate reason at the time of leaving, is only the final straw, and the real underlying reasons almost become forgotten. However, here is a list of causes of decline as I see it, mostly put under the general category of not putting Christ first.
Potential Causes of decline:
Traditionalism.
Lack of spiritual purity.
Lack of personal prayer.
Lack of commitment to God, too much commitment to the organization.
Lack of sacrificial attitude.
Increasing worldliness of members. Cultural relativity. Worldly conformity.
Becoming wimpy; being lovey dovey without speaking the entire God’s truth.
Limiting the Kuyperian vision of “every square inch belongs to God”, to only institutions, instead of to our daily life… who we date or who our children date and marry, what kind of entertainment we tolerate, how we celebrate Sabbath days, how we spend our money, not tithing first fruits, what type of work we do, how we speak to one another, and what we spend our spare time doing.
Lack of daily devotional reading and prayer.
Lack of communal prayer.
Lack of difference in living between so-called Christians and the world.
Using “being all things to all men” as the apostle Paul said, as an excuse for not putting on the robe of righteousness that is given by Christ at the banquet of life.
Lack of encouragement to witness.
Using “being good” as an excuse for not wearing Christ on our sleeve.
Lack of courage in sermons and bible studies.
Lack of bible studies. Lack of knowledge of scripture.
Forgiveness translated as “tolerance”.
Not understanding or remembering how God punished Annanias and Sapphira in the new testament church for not speaking truth.
Not understanding that our desire to protect Christ and to protect Christians might be only giving in to temptation just like Peter did when he said that He would not allow Christ to be hurt or killed, and Jesus said to him, “Get behind me Satan.”
Not taking Christ seriously when He said that we would suffer for His sake.
Rewriting many scripture passages to suit us: Eg. The parable of the wedding feast. Matthew 22. The re-write: “The king invites a big bunch of people to come to the wedding feast which he prepared. They give excuses, and the king understands and commiserates with them, and asks for suggestions for a better date. He changes the date, but they still can’t come because it is too far, they have business, and birthdays, and the king understands, and sends them gifts and flowers. Then he invites others to come, who have nothing else to do. They come and enjoy the food and wine and new clothes he provides, except for one who prefers his old rags. The king says to him, “I understand that your old clothes are more comfortable, and I wouldn’t want to offend you by suggesting you put on these new more pretentious new wedding clothes. So don’t worry about it, just enjoy yourself, eat drink and celebrate with us, just however you want.” For many are called and all are chosen.”
Asking less of ourselves and others in service to Christ.
Putting family ahead of Christ, instead of Christ at the head of the family.
Substituting worldly cares such as environmentalism and altruism for celebration and worship and pure unadulterated adoration.
Advocating for belief without obedience.
Advocating for faith without works.
Advocating for works without faith.
Conforming to the world.
Not providing true spiritual leadership. Superficiality.
Condemning without judging, and judging without discernment.
Misinterpreting I John 4:18 and II Timothy 1:7.
Using the phrase, “We are all sinners.” as an excuse for disobedience.
Letting Satan work in our lives through half-truths.
Religiousity at the expense of true obedience. There are many who will say, “Did we not cast out demons, and heal the sick and preach in your name?” to whom Jesus will say, “I never knew you.”
I John 5:2…” by this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments…. And his commandments are not burdensome.”
In addition to the above potential causes, several things that might help, is to take the role of elder much more seriously. Elders should be spiritual, not administrative leaders, because if they are not, then how can one ever expect spiritually mature members? And if there are not spiritually mature members, how can they witness to their children or to others? Elders should practice their witness during worship, and model it to others. They should be spiritually strong before being chosen, and should be trained to be stronger after they are ordained. Weak elders make for a weak church.
The separation of a profession of faith from membership should be considered, so that a faith witness can take place without the stringent conditions required for a membership profession. The actual individual profession of faith, not just saying yes or no to some questions, is absolutely necessary for growing in faith and mutual accountability.
While a membership profession needs to agree to standards and confessions and scripture, mere agreement is not the essential revealing characteristic of faith. Faith transcends mere written statements, and goes directly to acknowledging a sincere relationship with God, with Jesus who died and rose, and with the spirit who lives in your heart. A simple “yes” to a written statement should not be asked for nor permitted (except maybe in exceptional circumstances). In my opinion, this is religiousity at the expense of faith, protocol at the expense of spiritual maturity.
Extreme caution should be exercised in having the church becoming “established”. Churches grow best when they are not too established, when they are not too cosy with government or with societal norms. Established churches, whether mainline or evangelical, seem to tend to decline or not grow when their missional focus becomes subject to societal standards or norms. For example, could we document in our church the number of hours and articles and paper we dedicate to making “safe churches” for children and handicapped or elderly, which is highly lauded by society, compared to the hours and articles dedicated to keeping our youth pure and protecting them from one another’s sexual advances. (which is not necessarily so highly praised by society, and yet sexual impurity is a greater cause of decline of faith and church, and eventually leads to unsafe churches as well).
Always ask, are we with scripture transforming the world, or are we being transformed by the world? The more we are transformed by the world, the less and less need or purpose there will be for the church. Christ is the head of the church; put Him first! And He will bless it!!
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Norman, you do not indicate whether the Presbyterian church was PCUSA or PCA. I have heard of big differences between them. That aside, calling a church vacant, when presumably there are several elders likely present, and there is a congregation present, seems presumptuous. Precisecly because the church is not vacant, but merely has a pastoral vacancy, is why each church needs to determine its own need for a counselor or advisor. The assumption that the only relationship or significance is between a pastor and a congregation is harmful, and does not recognize that there are significant relationships between various parts of the congregation, as well as between members and elders, and deacons, etc. It is not as simple as you make it sound. An overbearing counselor or interim moderator leads to an immature body of believers, never able to take on the tasks God has given them.
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Shaun Doyle has written an interesting article on how christian evolutionists are sometimes simply erring brothers, rather than raging heretics or Christ deniers. The article is found on creation.com. Some others disagree with him, but he makes the point well, especially in his responses to some outside commenters. Following is one quote: "Shaun Doyle responds http://creation.com/genesis-gospel
Please also see Common ground with old-earth creationists?, which provides a counterbalancing perspective to the one offered in this article. I agree that the secular view of origins is the opposite of what the Bible says, but this does not mean that everyone who believes it has rejected the gospel. Please also see the related articles section, which expands on the issues briefly discussed in this article.
Let me also add that I empathize with you. I came from a non-Christian home, and the major stumbling block stopping me from becoming a Christian was Genesis 1–11. Basically, I thought that the Bible was so obviously wrong on basic history that anything else it had to say was utterly irrelevant. So, God made me a biblical creationist before He made me a Christian because that's the way it had to be for me. As such, I have always been perplexed at why Christians would bother trying to marry the Bible with deep time; it seems so obviously fruitless to me that it would be a waste of time. Nevertheless, I can see that many genuine Christians do just that."
Yes, sediments need to have a source. But our guesstimation of what the source was is suspect.
Salt beds are assumed to come from the sea, while the salt in the sea is assumed to come from the land. Are we certain of our estimation of sources? Why would we assume that ingredients for salt are legitimate if embedded originally among other soil particles, but not legitimate if in a pool or salt bed. The originality of one vs the other is as much a philosophical as it is a scientific question.
\it's not about suspending the laws of nature. \it's about understanding the circumstances of nature at a time when no one was there to observe them. and its about the possibility of discontinuities, dissimilarities, of an environment that we cannot imagine, or have great difficulty imagining.
Last week I saw the excavation of a pachyrhinosaurus. I had always thought fossils would be buried under layers of rock. This one was basically buried under fourty feet of clay, and originally probably under several hundred feet of clay before the creek eroded to expose it. Unsolidified clay in this region can be virtually 700 feet thick with perhaps a few lenses of soft sandstone within. I am finding that interesting.
Or the petrified forest in northern arizona, where the trees have become rock, while the the sand around it has much remained as sand or relatively soft sandstone.
I have also learned that under certain nutrient rich conditions, coral reefs can form much much quicker than the rates we usually see today. I have been informed of instances of stalacites and stalagmites being formed in a fraction of the time that is presently considered to be an average formation time. These are things that intrigue me.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Don't worry too much about the insults. I can handle them (dish them out too, if necessary), but be gentle.... I just pointed out the effect of your comment.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Causes for Decline in CRC membership.
Questions: We have membership numbers; do we also have attendance numbers? What if we have a bunch of members who are not Christians or do not attend, or Christians who attend, but are not members?
There are churches which are growing. Most of them have many more attenders than members.
In north America the crc has grown in the past on large families and immigration. Church has often been our social and cultural gathering. But it never should have been that primarily. It should have been the body of Christ first.
We should realize that sometimes the reasons people give for leaving the church, are not actually the real reasons they leave. Often the immediate reason at the time of leaving, is only the final straw, and the real underlying reasons almost become forgotten. However, here is a list of causes of decline as I see it, mostly put under the general category of not putting Christ first.
Potential Causes of decline:
In addition to the above potential causes, several things that might help, is to take the role of elder much more seriously. Elders should be spiritual, not administrative leaders, because if they are not, then how can one ever expect spiritually mature members? And if there are not spiritually mature members, how can they witness to their children or to others? Elders should practice their witness during worship, and model it to others. They should be spiritually strong before being chosen, and should be trained to be stronger after they are ordained. Weak elders make for a weak church.
The separation of a profession of faith from membership should be considered, so that a faith witness can take place without the stringent conditions required for a membership profession. The actual individual profession of faith, not just saying yes or no to some questions, is absolutely necessary for growing in faith and mutual accountability.
While a membership profession needs to agree to standards and confessions and scripture, mere agreement is not the essential revealing characteristic of faith. Faith transcends mere written statements, and goes directly to acknowledging a sincere relationship with God, with Jesus who died and rose, and with the spirit who lives in your heart. A simple “yes” to a written statement should not be asked for nor permitted (except maybe in exceptional circumstances). In my opinion, this is religiousity at the expense of faith, protocol at the expense of spiritual maturity.
Extreme caution should be exercised in having the church becoming “established”. Churches grow best when they are not too established, when they are not too cosy with government or with societal norms. Established churches, whether mainline or evangelical, seem to tend to decline or not grow when their missional focus becomes subject to societal standards or norms. For example, could we document in our church the number of hours and articles and paper we dedicate to making “safe churches” for children and handicapped or elderly, which is highly lauded by society, compared to the hours and articles dedicated to keeping our youth pure and protecting them from one another’s sexual advances. (which is not necessarily so highly praised by society, and yet sexual impurity is a greater cause of decline of faith and church, and eventually leads to unsafe churches as well).
Always ask, are we with scripture transforming the world, or are we being transformed by the world? The more we are transformed by the world, the less and less need or purpose there will be for the church. Christ is the head of the church; put Him first! And He will bless it!!
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Thanks for your comment, George. It is appreciated.
Posted in: Classical Counsellors
Norman, you do not indicate whether the Presbyterian church was PCUSA or PCA. I have heard of big differences between them. That aside, calling a church vacant, when presumably there are several elders likely present, and there is a congregation present, seems presumptuous. Precisecly because the church is not vacant, but merely has a pastoral vacancy, is why each church needs to determine its own need for a counselor or advisor. The assumption that the only relationship or significance is between a pastor and a congregation is harmful, and does not recognize that there are significant relationships between various parts of the congregation, as well as between members and elders, and deacons, etc. It is not as simple as you make it sound. An overbearing counselor or interim moderator leads to an immature body of believers, never able to take on the tasks God has given them.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For information on supposed "out of place" fossils, you can check out :
youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
This will give you an understanding of these fossils from an alternative perspective.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
I find it very sad that the one who started this discussion thread is still missing. I hope he will be found, and pray that he may find hope again.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Shaun Doyle has written an interesting article on how christian evolutionists are sometimes simply erring brothers, rather than raging heretics or Christ deniers. The article is found on creation.com. Some others disagree with him, but he makes the point well, especially in his responses to some outside commenters. Following is one quote: "Shaun Doyle responds http://creation.com/genesis-gospel
Please also see Common ground with old-earth creationists?, which provides a counterbalancing perspective to the one offered in this article. I agree that the secular view of origins is the opposite of what the Bible says, but this does not mean that everyone who believes it has rejected the gospel. Please also see the related articles section, which expands on the issues briefly discussed in this article.
Let me also add that I empathize with you. I came from a non-Christian home, and the major stumbling block stopping me from becoming a Christian was Genesis 1–11. Basically, I thought that the Bible was so obviously wrong on basic history that anything else it had to say was utterly irrelevant. So, God made me a biblical creationist before He made me a Christian because that's the way it had to be for me. As such, I have always been perplexed at why Christians would bother trying to marry the Bible with deep time; it seems so obviously fruitless to me that it would be a waste of time. Nevertheless, I can see that many genuine Christians do just that."
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Todd, I told you that Ian Juby was mild compared to this type of comment from sevandyk and people like her.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Yes, sediments need to have a source. But our guesstimation of what the source was is suspect.
Salt beds are assumed to come from the sea, while the salt in the sea is assumed to come from the land. Are we certain of our estimation of sources? Why would we assume that ingredients for salt are legitimate if embedded originally among other soil particles, but not legitimate if in a pool or salt bed. The originality of one vs the other is as much a philosophical as it is a scientific question.
\it's not about suspending the laws of nature. \it's about understanding the circumstances of nature at a time when no one was there to observe them. and its about the possibility of discontinuities, dissimilarities, of an environment that we cannot imagine, or have great difficulty imagining.
Last week I saw the excavation of a pachyrhinosaurus. I had always thought fossils would be buried under layers of rock. This one was basically buried under fourty feet of clay, and originally probably under several hundred feet of clay before the creek eroded to expose it. Unsolidified clay in this region can be virtually 700 feet thick with perhaps a few lenses of soft sandstone within. I am finding that interesting.
Or the petrified forest in northern arizona, where the trees have become rock, while the the sand around it has much remained as sand or relatively soft sandstone.
I have also learned that under certain nutrient rich conditions, coral reefs can form much much quicker than the rates we usually see today. I have been informed of instances of stalacites and stalagmites being formed in a fraction of the time that is presently considered to be an average formation time. These are things that intrigue me.