Ryan, this morning I was reading from the passage in Matthew 7:21 that says there are many who will say "Lord, Lord" and yet will not enter heaven. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miracles, and yet God will say, "why were you not obedient? Get away from me!"
Productivity is an economic term, but obedience is what God is asking for. God makes us productive when we are obedient, not by the number of sermons, services, songs, miracles, conversions, healings, visits. Our productivity will never replace our disobedience or our lack of repentance.
However, I appreciate your practical suggestions about patience, hope, trusting in Jesus daily, sabbath, and focus, are very useful in the right context.
While sensitivity ought to be a characteristic of the christian, we ought also to remember that Christ himself used the term "the blind leading the blind" to describe the leaders of Israel. (Matthew 15). Or remember the phrase, "...hearing they do not hear"? I am old enough to wonder if sometimes I am losing my hearing slowly, due to a constant buzzing in the ear. I could refer to it as a "difficulty" or some other euphenism, but the truth is that if I am becoming deaf, that is what it is. Being almost blind without my glasses.... is what it is.
My value and worth to Christ is not based on the little hammer in my ear, nor in the cornea or retina of my eyes, nor on whether I am missing a fingernail or an arm, or have a hip replacement, or suffer arthritis, or need a cane or walker or wheelchair. As Christians we take each other the way we are, and not as someone we would like to be or imagine to be. Without minimizing it, whatever physical handicap we might have, is as nothing compared to the handicap of pride, or self pity, or lack of relationship with Christ. Sugar-coating our condtion will probably not help either in the physical or spiritual realm. Christ makes all things new. We are not different just because we use different words to describe our frailties, but we are new because we can see beyond our condition, because Christ loves us.
Daniel, you have hit on a very pertinent relevant point. And I totally agree.
Recently I have read a book called Silas Diaries, written about Paul and Barnabas in Galatia, establishing the four churches there. Although the book is an extrapolation, it is based on what we know about his trip there, and the thesis is that he left those churches without official leaders. Without appointed pastors. Yet those churches grew. People who were there filled those roles, and everyone participated in teaching, shepherding, evangelizing.
They were not worried about term appointments, nor were they sitting on their hands waiting for a "pastor" so that they would not be "vacant". Rather, they were being pastors and teachers and evangelists. We need to train and be trained not just in job descriptions, or techniques, but to change our attitudes. These gifts are not just given to a seminary trained doctor of divinity. These gifts are given to many ordinary people, who can put these gifts to immediate use.
Mark, acceptability perhaps ought not to be the primary criteria.... just sayin... Unless it is acceptable first of all to Christ. Jesus used the terms in a metaphorical way, even though, like you said, he clearly indicated that people were not maimed or blind or deaf because of their particular sin, nor even the sin of their parents. That's clear. When people say that some are physically blind because of lack of faith, they are not using a metaphor; they are simply speaking untruth. (Lying, or inaccurate) Only the blind can perhaps truly understand the metaphor, since how can one who sees really understand what it is to be blind? Thus the blind leading the blind.... but those blind think they can see, as Jesus said. "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say , We see... But you remain guilty because you claim you can see" (John 9:41).
Since as Brian says, these overtures do not ask to revisit the biblical grounds, nor the pastoral advice, then that leaves only the question of legal implications for refusing to marry homosex couples. I was under the impression that our policy was already not to marry couples under circumstances or conditions which are contrary to biblical principles, and that our facilities would not be used for that (relative to Jeff Brouwer's comment). If all we need to be covered legally is to state that in our bylaws or minutes, then it would not seem we would need a study committee for that. Correct me if I am missing something....
A couple of things, Al. First, although separation of churches from the denomination might be considered to be simply spawning another denomination as opposed to a loss in membership, we need to consider how that relates to the reformation itself. Did the Rom Cath then not really lose any members? Would the same thing apply to members leaving for other denominations such as the PRC, FRC, Baptist, Alliance, Pentecostal? While I realize that God does not lose any of his children who are His, is that the same thing as a denomination not losing any? Does that mean that any members from any of these other churches, or from United Church, Episcopal, African Reformed, or Rom Cath are not to be considered a gain in members either?
Anyway, I do agree that ministry reach is larger than simple membership numbers. Dead "members" who do not attend, or barely, do not give the same indication of ministry as non-member attenders who attend regularly, faithfully, and participate as volunteers with excitement and vigor.
So let me ask a question that takes this discussion in a different direction. Why do we have an article 17 in the first place? Why is it necessary to identify the leaving of a minister from a particular position if there are no reasons for discipline? We do not have an article 17 for elders or deacons.... Does the article 17 apply to evangelists?
Why not simply stipulate that the termination of a minister's position shall result in two weeks or one month salary for every year of having served with that church? Or simply make that a part of the original contract agreement? There are lots of reasons apparently for termination of an agreement. If some of those reasons make a preacher ineligible for call, then that could be identified. But the calling to ministry and the ability to minister is not limited to a paying occupation or to a readily definable position in all cases.
If a preacher/pastor left a particular job, why would it be so difficult for him to accept a call three or four years later just because he happened to want to be a volunteer carpenter in honduras for three years?
Why not get rid of Article 17 altogether? What would happen if we did?
Brian, you are asking practical questions which in a way have simple solutions which are difficult to follow sometimes. So, attending a homosex wedding? In general, I would say don't attend.(including and especially family). Be polite and considerate, and explain why, but don't attend. I'm reminded of where Jesus said if you think your family is more important, then you are not following Jesus... You have to ask the purpose for attending, and the main purpose is to celebrate the event, which seems directly contrary to any message you might have about why Christ came to die for us. If Christ died for sin, and you deliberately participate in or celebrate it, why do you need Christ?
Voting for laws should be obvious; why would you vote against your own principles and beliefs?
Unless churches are publicly funded community centers, it would seem obvious that they would not rent out facilities for activities or events that are contrary to the beliefs and teachings of the church. If they rent out the facilities, it will be obvious to all that they approve of homosex marriage.
Will society say it is bigotted and hateful? Perhaps. Likely some will. Will they be right? Do they have God's spirit as you do? Are they interested in being obedient to God our of faith in Christ? Are you going to let them control you and your message of salvation and godly living? Did Paul worry about the Athenians when they got upset with him? Was he not stoned and beaten and chased many times? Did it change his message? Did he say that maybe the goddess Diana was not so bad, or that homosex was okay, or did he not write I Cor. 6:9 and 10 and Romans 1? Does James 1 not say, "consider it pure joy brothers, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces perseverance/endurance."?
Love the sinner. Make sure you love the sinner. But true love would not attend a homosex marriage. We would call that "enabling", which is often more a matter of loving self rather than doing the good thing for the good of those we say we love.
When we say we have difficulty, it is because we are looking for answers outside of scripture, and maybe outside of God's will, I think. There is much literature on this; I suggest read it for various perspectives, and then go back to scripture to discern the truth and the wise way. When you think it is difficult, and you are experiencing difficulties, yes you will, we all will. But remember difficulties are not avoidable. And remember Paul's sufferings, and consider how yours compare.
The children in our church, along with children from some other churches, organized a twenty-four hour sing- a-thon to raise money for our community christian radio station. They set a target of $5000 and raised $5100! Singing non-stop for twenty four hours (in shifts of course) means you sing a lot of songs, perhaps over 700 songs, maybe more, although a few were sung more than once. It started with a concert by two children's choirs, and in the second day they had three guest musician groups singing different styles of music. Some of the kids learned praise songs they had not known before, while other kids who normally did not sing hymns, learned a lot of hymns. They began to enjoy all types of worship music.
Sam, not just ethnic cultures abound, but worship cultures also vary. The idea that people do not all relate to Christ in exactly the same way at all times, is an idea that can help to understand the benefit for variety in the music, in the words, in the order of worship, and in expressions of praise and thanksgiving. Not everyone will be happily flexible towards all kinds of music, but I think if a few principles are maintained, then a variety of music will be possible, and eventually upbuilding and rejuvenating for all. Variety is not for show, but to enlarge the beauty and variety of creation in our response to God.
First, when singing, the words need to be heard, and preferably, singable by all. ("Performances" should be infrequent, and rare, and perhaps participatory.) That means words for new songs on the overhead or in print. It also means that drums and organs and brass should not drown out the singing, but should have their volume adjusted downwards. It's interesting how many hymns can be accompanied by drums as well. Volume needs to be appropriate; damage to ear drums not allowed, but a sense of joyous praise encouraged. Sing more songs standing up! Second, the theology of the song must not be incorrect. (With allowances for poetic language!) Every song will not express the entirety of the gosple, but it certainly should not express something which contradicts scripture. Third, the majority of songs should be familiar with new songs introduced one or two at a time. If the congregation cannot sing the song after three tries, the song should probably be dropped. But repeating a new song or singing it two or three times in a row may be a good way to learn a new one.
I personally find most genres of songs beautiful, whether hymns, southern gospel, vineyard, children's songs, spirituals, or whatever. But a few songs in all genres strain the meaning of praise. And harmony adds a huge beauty to the singing, so songs that can be harmonized should be included preferentially most of the time, although ocassionally a unison song can also be very beautiful in contrast. Also consider some acappella verses in some well known hymns.... its a beautiful contrast! Think of music like the landscapes in the world. Singing the mountains is grand, but the budgies, the streams, the canaries, the trees, the prairies, the seas, and even the desert has its own music, meant to praise and worship God. Sometimes the music is like a hurricane, and other times like the quiet wisper that spoke to Elijah. Sometimes the music is like the bellow of a bull, or the roar of lion, and other times like the rippling of a brook, or the honking of the migrating geese, and sometimes it is blended together in a melodious harmony. Sometimes the music makes you laugh, and sometimes it brings tears of joy and sadness. God made it all. It is our prayer to God, and His gift to us.
I'm thinking we should rethink this article. If a preacher is really called by a congregation at a point in time (remember he was not called prior to that, but at that specific point in time), then he can later decide he is uncalled, or rather, called by another church which takes priority. The church apparently can make no decisions about calling whatsoever; it apparently cannot normally uncall a preacher/pastor at any time, except for very "weighty" reasons, which may be considered weighty only by classis, apparently. This used to make sense to me. But I'm not sure it still makes sense to me.
As far as stigma is concerned, it may be in some cases that what appears as stigma, may be exactly what another church may desire or need for their situation. If the mere mention of an article 17 or a separation of congregation and preacher is what is keeping a church from investigating a preacher, then it is certainly not doing its homework. And if it does not do its homework, it probably deserves whatever it gets, a nice preacher without an article 17 who is very nice, and complacent, and friendly and politically savy. Probably not a prophet. (Of course, in some other cases, an article 17 greatly understates the problems that led to its being used.)
Underlying all of this, although it is not mentioned, I am guessing is a concern about eligibility for the pension fund. Eligibility for call can always be restored, but loss of access to the pension fund is a serious matter indeed. It's that unstated unmentionable, in my view.
The business of elders only being ordained during their term, and not otherwise, is somewhat contradicted by the fact that they are re-installed, not re-ordained for new terms. But in so far that they lose their ordination (for reasons that are not weighty at all), this would appear to have no biblical purpose whatsoever. The distinction between the treatment of elders and preachers in this regard is a contradiction of the equal honor the church order mandates for the offices. The establishment of this distinction in this way accomplishes three things: it encourages the depreciation of the office of elder, and it encourages the solicitation of unqualified people to be elders, and it encourages the people occupying office of elder to consider it a temporary task rather than a calling.
We shoud\ld imagine to ourselves what would be the effect if we were to eliminate article 17 altogether, and instead simply accept that congregations and pastors are always in a position to review their relationship. That a calling to be a preacher does not mean the calling is to be exercised only in one orginal church only at the whim or perogative of the pastor. That the potential release of service ought not to be seen as a depreciation of the preacher as pastor, but rather that the task of that preacher has accomplished its purpose in that situation. Or in some case, might appear to never actually be able to accomplish its purpose for various reasons. Either way, God is not finished yet with either the preacher or the church, and it is His puposes that must predominate, more so than the procedures and officialdom of our present practices.
This type of paradigm shift would also lift the stigma from the simple exercise of the release of a minister from a congregation, and would not change his actual educational credentials, nor his years of experience, which could be highly valued by a seeking congregation. The fact that such a release is not always convenient, nor pleasant, should not prevent the usefulness of it from happening.
The language of "calling" sounds quite pious, but the orientation towards job security and financial security brings it much closer to something entirely different.
Paul, you mentioned Paul Douthat's comment on the sexual ethic. Unfortunately, he doesn't relate it to a christian perspective. I guess I would say that from a christian perspective, the bible says much more about sexual morality, than it does about pot or gambling, and therefore it would seem right that sexual morality is a huge issue for christians. Always has been, always will be. When the christian ethic is also cultural, there seems to be less angst, but when the christian ethic is counter-cultural, some angst is natural, yes?
Posted in: Gospel-Driven Productivity
Ryan, this morning I was reading from the passage in Matthew 7:21 that says there are many who will say "Lord, Lord" and yet will not enter heaven. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miracles, and yet God will say, "why were you not obedient? Get away from me!"
Productivity is an economic term, but obedience is what God is asking for. God makes us productive when we are obedient, not by the number of sermons, services, songs, miracles, conversions, healings, visits. Our productivity will never replace our disobedience or our lack of repentance.
However, I appreciate your practical suggestions about patience, hope, trusting in Jesus daily, sabbath, and focus, are very useful in the right context.
Posted in: When Abled People Don't Know They're Being Abled
While sensitivity ought to be a characteristic of the christian, we ought also to remember that Christ himself used the term "the blind leading the blind" to describe the leaders of Israel. (Matthew 15). Or remember the phrase, "...hearing they do not hear"? I am old enough to wonder if sometimes I am losing my hearing slowly, due to a constant buzzing in the ear. I could refer to it as a "difficulty" or some other euphenism, but the truth is that if I am becoming deaf, that is what it is. Being almost blind without my glasses.... is what it is.
My value and worth to Christ is not based on the little hammer in my ear, nor in the cornea or retina of my eyes, nor on whether I am missing a fingernail or an arm, or have a hip replacement, or suffer arthritis, or need a cane or walker or wheelchair. As Christians we take each other the way we are, and not as someone we would like to be or imagine to be. Without minimizing it, whatever physical handicap we might have, is as nothing compared to the handicap of pride, or self pity, or lack of relationship with Christ. Sugar-coating our condtion will probably not help either in the physical or spiritual realm. Christ makes all things new. We are not different just because we use different words to describe our frailties, but we are new because we can see beyond our condition, because Christ loves us.
Posted in: Developing Christian Leaders - Necessity or Afterthought?
Daniel, you have hit on a very pertinent relevant point. And I totally agree.
Recently I have read a book called Silas Diaries, written about Paul and Barnabas in Galatia, establishing the four churches there. Although the book is an extrapolation, it is based on what we know about his trip there, and the thesis is that he left those churches without official leaders. Without appointed pastors. Yet those churches grew. People who were there filled those roles, and everyone participated in teaching, shepherding, evangelizing.
They were not worried about term appointments, nor were they sitting on their hands waiting for a "pastor" so that they would not be "vacant". Rather, they were being pastors and teachers and evangelists. We need to train and be trained not just in job descriptions, or techniques, but to change our attitudes. These gifts are not just given to a seminary trained doctor of divinity. These gifts are given to many ordinary people, who can put these gifts to immediate use.
Posted in: Developing Christian Leaders - Necessity or Afterthought?
The article by Alan Hirsch is a good one. Thought provoking and well written.
Posted in: When Abled People Don't Know They're Being Abled
Mark, acceptability perhaps ought not to be the primary criteria.... just sayin... Unless it is acceptable first of all to Christ. Jesus used the terms in a metaphorical way, even though, like you said, he clearly indicated that people were not maimed or blind or deaf because of their particular sin, nor even the sin of their parents. That's clear. When people say that some are physically blind because of lack of faith, they are not using a metaphor; they are simply speaking untruth. (Lying, or inaccurate) Only the blind can perhaps truly understand the metaphor, since how can one who sees really understand what it is to be blind? Thus the blind leading the blind.... but those blind think they can see, as Jesus said. "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say , We see... But you remain guilty because you claim you can see" (John 9:41).
Posted in: Are We Fully Equipped?
Since as Brian says, these overtures do not ask to revisit the biblical grounds, nor the pastoral advice, then that leaves only the question of legal implications for refusing to marry homosex couples. I was under the impression that our policy was already not to marry couples under circumstances or conditions which are contrary to biblical principles, and that our facilities would not be used for that (relative to Jeff Brouwer's comment). If all we need to be covered legally is to state that in our bylaws or minutes, then it would not seem we would need a study committee for that. Correct me if I am missing something....
Posted in: How Effective Is Your Church's Ministry?
A couple of things, Al. First, although separation of churches from the denomination might be considered to be simply spawning another denomination as opposed to a loss in membership, we need to consider how that relates to the reformation itself. Did the Rom Cath then not really lose any members? Would the same thing apply to members leaving for other denominations such as the PRC, FRC, Baptist, Alliance, Pentecostal? While I realize that God does not lose any of his children who are His, is that the same thing as a denomination not losing any? Does that mean that any members from any of these other churches, or from United Church, Episcopal, African Reformed, or Rom Cath are not to be considered a gain in members either?
Anyway, I do agree that ministry reach is larger than simple membership numbers. Dead "members" who do not attend, or barely, do not give the same indication of ministry as non-member attenders who attend regularly, faithfully, and participate as volunteers with excitement and vigor.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
So let me ask a question that takes this discussion in a different direction. Why do we have an article 17 in the first place? Why is it necessary to identify the leaving of a minister from a particular position if there are no reasons for discipline? We do not have an article 17 for elders or deacons.... Does the article 17 apply to evangelists?
Why not simply stipulate that the termination of a minister's position shall result in two weeks or one month salary for every year of having served with that church? Or simply make that a part of the original contract agreement? There are lots of reasons apparently for termination of an agreement. If some of those reasons make a preacher ineligible for call, then that could be identified. But the calling to ministry and the ability to minister is not limited to a paying occupation or to a readily definable position in all cases.
If a preacher/pastor left a particular job, why would it be so difficult for him to accept a call three or four years later just because he happened to want to be a volunteer carpenter in honduras for three years?
Why not get rid of Article 17 altogether? What would happen if we did?
Posted in: Are We Fully Equipped?
Brian, you are asking practical questions which in a way have simple solutions which are difficult to follow sometimes. So, attending a homosex wedding? In general, I would say don't attend.(including and especially family). Be polite and considerate, and explain why, but don't attend. I'm reminded of where Jesus said if you think your family is more important, then you are not following Jesus... You have to ask the purpose for attending, and the main purpose is to celebrate the event, which seems directly contrary to any message you might have about why Christ came to die for us. If Christ died for sin, and you deliberately participate in or celebrate it, why do you need Christ?
Voting for laws should be obvious; why would you vote against your own principles and beliefs?
Unless churches are publicly funded community centers, it would seem obvious that they would not rent out facilities for activities or events that are contrary to the beliefs and teachings of the church. If they rent out the facilities, it will be obvious to all that they approve of homosex marriage.
Will society say it is bigotted and hateful? Perhaps. Likely some will. Will they be right? Do they have God's spirit as you do? Are they interested in being obedient to God our of faith in Christ? Are you going to let them control you and your message of salvation and godly living? Did Paul worry about the Athenians when they got upset with him? Was he not stoned and beaten and chased many times? Did it change his message? Did he say that maybe the goddess Diana was not so bad, or that homosex was okay, or did he not write I Cor. 6:9 and 10 and Romans 1? Does James 1 not say, "consider it pure joy brothers, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces perseverance/endurance."?
Love the sinner. Make sure you love the sinner. But true love would not attend a homosex marriage. We would call that "enabling", which is often more a matter of loving self rather than doing the good thing for the good of those we say we love.
When we say we have difficulty, it is because we are looking for answers outside of scripture, and maybe outside of God's will, I think. There is much literature on this; I suggest read it for various perspectives, and then go back to scripture to discern the truth and the wise way. When you think it is difficult, and you are experiencing difficulties, yes you will, we all will. But remember difficulties are not avoidable. And remember Paul's sufferings, and consider how yours compare.
Posted in: Multicultural Worship: It’s Not Just About Style
The children in our church, along with children from some other churches, organized a twenty-four hour sing- a-thon to raise money for our community christian radio station. They set a target of $5000 and raised $5100! Singing non-stop for twenty four hours (in shifts of course) means you sing a lot of songs, perhaps over 700 songs, maybe more, although a few were sung more than once. It started with a concert by two children's choirs, and in the second day they had three guest musician groups singing different styles of music. Some of the kids learned praise songs they had not known before, while other kids who normally did not sing hymns, learned a lot of hymns. They began to enjoy all types of worship music.
Sam, not just ethnic cultures abound, but worship cultures also vary. The idea that people do not all relate to Christ in exactly the same way at all times, is an idea that can help to understand the benefit for variety in the music, in the words, in the order of worship, and in expressions of praise and thanksgiving. Not everyone will be happily flexible towards all kinds of music, but I think if a few principles are maintained, then a variety of music will be possible, and eventually upbuilding and rejuvenating for all. Variety is not for show, but to enlarge the beauty and variety of creation in our response to God.
First, when singing, the words need to be heard, and preferably, singable by all. ("Performances" should be infrequent, and rare, and perhaps participatory.) That means words for new songs on the overhead or in print. It also means that drums and organs and brass should not drown out the singing, but should have their volume adjusted downwards. It's interesting how many hymns can be accompanied by drums as well. Volume needs to be appropriate; damage to ear drums not allowed, but a sense of joyous praise encouraged. Sing more songs standing up! Second, the theology of the song must not be incorrect. (With allowances for poetic language!) Every song will not express the entirety of the gosple, but it certainly should not express something which contradicts scripture. Third, the majority of songs should be familiar with new songs introduced one or two at a time. If the congregation cannot sing the song after three tries, the song should probably be dropped. But repeating a new song or singing it two or three times in a row may be a good way to learn a new one.
I personally find most genres of songs beautiful, whether hymns, southern gospel, vineyard, children's songs, spirituals, or whatever. But a few songs in all genres strain the meaning of praise. And harmony adds a huge beauty to the singing, so songs that can be harmonized should be included preferentially most of the time, although ocassionally a unison song can also be very beautiful in contrast. Also consider some acappella verses in some well known hymns.... its a beautiful contrast! Think of music like the landscapes in the world. Singing the mountains is grand, but the budgies, the streams, the canaries, the trees, the prairies, the seas, and even the desert has its own music, meant to praise and worship God. Sometimes the music is like a hurricane, and other times like the quiet wisper that spoke to Elijah. Sometimes the music is like the bellow of a bull, or the roar of lion, and other times like the rippling of a brook, or the honking of the migrating geese, and sometimes it is blended together in a melodious harmony. Sometimes the music makes you laugh, and sometimes it brings tears of joy and sadness. God made it all. It is our prayer to God, and His gift to us.
Posted in: The Article 17 Flag
I'm thinking we should rethink this article. If a preacher is really called by a congregation at a point in time (remember he was not called prior to that, but at that specific point in time), then he can later decide he is uncalled, or rather, called by another church which takes priority. The church apparently can make no decisions about calling whatsoever; it apparently cannot normally uncall a preacher/pastor at any time, except for very "weighty" reasons, which may be considered weighty only by classis, apparently. This used to make sense to me. But I'm not sure it still makes sense to me.
As far as stigma is concerned, it may be in some cases that what appears as stigma, may be exactly what another church may desire or need for their situation. If the mere mention of an article 17 or a separation of congregation and preacher is what is keeping a church from investigating a preacher, then it is certainly not doing its homework. And if it does not do its homework, it probably deserves whatever it gets, a nice preacher without an article 17 who is very nice, and complacent, and friendly and politically savy. Probably not a prophet. (Of course, in some other cases, an article 17 greatly understates the problems that led to its being used.)
Underlying all of this, although it is not mentioned, I am guessing is a concern about eligibility for the pension fund. Eligibility for call can always be restored, but loss of access to the pension fund is a serious matter indeed. It's that unstated unmentionable, in my view.
The business of elders only being ordained during their term, and not otherwise, is somewhat contradicted by the fact that they are re-installed, not re-ordained for new terms. But in so far that they lose their ordination (for reasons that are not weighty at all), this would appear to have no biblical purpose whatsoever. The distinction between the treatment of elders and preachers in this regard is a contradiction of the equal honor the church order mandates for the offices. The establishment of this distinction in this way accomplishes three things: it encourages the depreciation of the office of elder, and it encourages the solicitation of unqualified people to be elders, and it encourages the people occupying office of elder to consider it a temporary task rather than a calling.
We shoud\ld imagine to ourselves what would be the effect if we were to eliminate article 17 altogether, and instead simply accept that congregations and pastors are always in a position to review their relationship. That a calling to be a preacher does not mean the calling is to be exercised only in one orginal church only at the whim or perogative of the pastor. That the potential release of service ought not to be seen as a depreciation of the preacher as pastor, but rather that the task of that preacher has accomplished its purpose in that situation. Or in some case, might appear to never actually be able to accomplish its purpose for various reasons. Either way, God is not finished yet with either the preacher or the church, and it is His puposes that must predominate, more so than the procedures and officialdom of our present practices.
This type of paradigm shift would also lift the stigma from the simple exercise of the release of a minister from a congregation, and would not change his actual educational credentials, nor his years of experience, which could be highly valued by a seeking congregation. The fact that such a release is not always convenient, nor pleasant, should not prevent the usefulness of it from happening.
The language of "calling" sounds quite pious, but the orientation towards job security and financial security brings it much closer to something entirely different.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (with evidence).
Posted in: Angst
Paul, you mentioned Paul Douthat's comment on the sexual ethic. Unfortunately, he doesn't relate it to a christian perspective. I guess I would say that from a christian perspective, the bible says much more about sexual morality, than it does about pot or gambling, and therefore it would seem right that sexual morality is a huge issue for christians. Always has been, always will be. When the christian ethic is also cultural, there seems to be less angst, but when the christian ethic is counter-cultural, some angst is natural, yes?