George McQuire, I personally found this piece of yours very encouraging, and very appropriate. Thanks for this! We need evidence of God's faithfulness, especially when we are going through trials and difficult situations. We need this evidence as much as we need our vitamins and exercise. Sometimes we get it in obvious ways, and other times we just need our eyes opened to it.
As I remember it, the Belhar was accepted as an EFD as a compromise. If the choice was only as a confession, it would have been rejected. People had serious objections to having it under the form of subscription, because they disagreed with certain statements within it, or they felt it was not of the category of a basic confession of faith. If we discuss this further, and disregard why it was adopted as an EFD and not as a confession, there will be a feeling of betrayal and deceit. Instead of trying to discuss its significance, or trying to recategorize it, it would be more beneficial to use it as a guide whenever appropriate, even pointing out where it might be a bit unbalanced or not entirely strictly scripturally accurate, but still has some good points to make. We should not let this become another divisive issue simply because of the insistence of some that it needs to be placed on a higher pedestal.
Melissa, your song is great too! O Lord my God! In awesome wonder sings my soul! We sing this one often. Really nice when you can sing it "out of the church building" and spontaneously!
Stan, the main thing is what we cannot do without. The main thing is primary. But that doesn't mean that other things are not important or significant. What you call social justice, and others might call social mercy, is part of loving our neighbor. But it should be a result of the main thing, which is loving God as a result of His love for us. To me, Matthew 28 doesn't talk about earth-keeping, and obeying everything Jesus commanded is much broader than just making sure that poor "Lazarus" at the gate of the rich man, has a job and his wounds cared for, although it does include that. It also includes the commandments against idol worship, adultery, theft, etc., and includes the commandments from the Lord outlined by the apostle Paul against perversions. (Rom 1:25) Is earthkeeping bad? Of course not; the earth is the Lord's and He commanded us to care for it, but he gave it to us for our use and benefit as well. On the other hand, Jesus very clearly said that His kingdom is not of this world. So it's not about neglecting certain things; its about keeping the main thing the main thing. Outside of a correct context, earthkeeping can become an idol; it has been an idol for millenia... think gaia worship. The earth is the Lord's, and Christ's kingdom is not of this world. This is the balance.
Wondering out loud.... would it be useful for us to have a way of people testifying to their core beliefs in common with Christians, as a way of acknowledging that they belong to God? Children born in the covenant of believers would identify and feel a belonging even before they make an official profession of faith, but those who come in thru evangelism might not have a way of making their faith and committment known unless and until they understand the confessions they would need to agree to, and have dealt with life issues in a way that is in harmony with their faith. Yet they believe and are progressing and working on their discipleship. It would seem that a different type of profession/confession would be very useful in the lifepath of new believers or even young baptized members. In some cases, individuals may have difficulties with certain small aspects of the confessions, or difficulties with lifestyle that would prevent a formal official profession of faith; yet they believe and are children of God. And it is no answer to suggest that they find a different denomination or church, particularly since there is no guarantee that they will find one that there may not be a sticking point with.
Perhaps these individuals cannot be office bearers for now... but we ought to find a way to acknowledge their participation in the body of Christ. And we should not create another form, but rather facilitate a process where they are able to make their own testimony. (Even most weddings have personal vows individually written; surely we should do no less for a profession of faith, regardless whether it is an initial "core" profession, or a later "membership" profession).
Shawn Ferrie has made an eloquent case for his position, and I agree with it, to my own surprise. Those who have been abused, and abusers themselves, are a small percentage of the population - they are somewhat marginalized. To marginalize even further those who are not members of the expected gender in these situations is a subtle form of abuse or addtional victimization in itself. Shawn makes clear that it is not the gender that is at stake, but the hearts and actions of the perpetrators and the humanity of the victims, and the grace of God.
I will have to agree with b-ver on this. Jesus fulfilled prophecy while healing on earth, prophecies that can be also applied to our eternal life with Christ in the future, when our bodies are resurrected. The fact that Jesus had holes in his hands, was what made some of the disciples look more closely at his face, which they had never expected to see again on this earth. They were a sign of His voluntary obedient sacrifice for us, and not really to be compared to the sickness and blindness and other frailties and incompletenesses that we experience in our own lives. I don't think it would be right for us to compare our poor eyesight or lameness with the sacrifice that Jesus made for us, as if we had become blind or lame in order to be obedient to God in our service to others.
If our resurrected bodies were going to remain crippled and blind and lame and deaf, then it would not make much sense to rejoice in the healing that Jesus did while He was on earth, or even the healings that sometimes still occur today. Then we might as well just shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well. Whatever."
It is one thing entirely to "be content in whatever the circumstances". But it is another thing entirely to assume that all our circumstances today are divinely ordered permanent blessings in spite of their difficulties and trials. Even the book of Job suggests that his trials and troubles were temporary, and that God had something better in store for him in the future. In his case on earth; in our case perhaps not till heaven.
We often have the children's story before the service dealing with a similar passage or topic that the sermon will deal with later. This is great in one way, but sometimes takes away the element of surprise or "newness". Perhaps this might also happen sometimes with pre-sermon songs in the service sometimes, and that's why some preachers are not to worried about correlating the two so much.
I wonder.... do we equate sacraments with theology, or do they merely reflect theology? And why has our practice of sacraments often become a point of division, while we ignore the very real deleterious effects of disobedience in daily living? I'm reminded that no one in the new testament died for how they celebrated lord's supper or practiced baptism, yet Annanias and Sapphira died for lying in a desire to be accepted. So which is worse then? Which is the most significant aspect of our theology? Jesus offered the Lord's Supper to Judas who would deny and betray him, and to Peter who Jesus knew would betray him. Yet we would deny Lord's supper to those who only baptize adults? Where are our priorities?
Why is it that we choose to permit two opinions on women in office, against all the clear indications in scripture, and yet refuse to permit two opinions on infant baptism, a doctrine which requires a fairly convoluted argument (one I understand and hold to) to sustain, and on which scripture directly is relatively silent, neither directly for or against. Where are our priorities?
Does our confession of the covenant of believers depend on our practice of baptism? And conversely, is there the real danger that the practice of infant baptism can minimize the significance of living obediently in that covenant? Do we acknowledge that danger or do we minimize it? But even further to that, do we allow that some who hold to God's covenant promises still see infant baptism as a potential temptation to complacency rather than as an instruction of God's pre-eminent choice for us? I personally have often seen it used in the wrong way. I don't have a clear answer on this, but it just strikes me as odd as to how and when we accept diversity, and when we do not. I know I am treading on tricky ground, but the bible is much more clear on the sin of homosexuality, than it is on the necessity of infant baptism, yet we deny membership on the basis of one, and not on the other... or do we? how do we choose our priorities?
Often yes, it is a good idea to try to link things. But occassionally not linking things still results in very uplifting and encouraging worship. Often things will be linked without any planning taking place; that is the most amazing of all! An amusing kind of amazing... knowing that God works us and uses us for his glory, in spite of our limitations.
Posted in: Vindication Praying: The Missing Petition on Most Pastors' Prayer Lists?
George McQuire, I personally found this piece of yours very encouraging, and very appropriate. Thanks for this! We need evidence of God's faithfulness, especially when we are going through trials and difficult situations. We need this evidence as much as we need our vitamins and exercise. Sometimes we get it in obvious ways, and other times we just need our eyes opened to it.
Posted in: “Well, That’s a Thought”
As I remember it, the Belhar was accepted as an EFD as a compromise. If the choice was only as a confession, it would have been rejected. People had serious objections to having it under the form of subscription, because they disagreed with certain statements within it, or they felt it was not of the category of a basic confession of faith. If we discuss this further, and disregard why it was adopted as an EFD and not as a confession, there will be a feeling of betrayal and deceit. Instead of trying to discuss its significance, or trying to recategorize it, it would be more beneficial to use it as a guide whenever appropriate, even pointing out where it might be a bit unbalanced or not entirely strictly scripturally accurate, but still has some good points to make. We should not let this become another divisive issue simply because of the insistence of some that it needs to be placed on a higher pedestal.
Posted in: Faith, Unbelief, and Growing in Grace
Greg, I will just say amen to your words here!
Posted in: The Inbreaking Kingdom
Melissa, your song is great too! O Lord my God! In awesome wonder sings my soul! We sing this one often. Really nice when you can sing it "out of the church building" and spontaneously!
Posted in: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing
Stan, the main thing is what we cannot do without. The main thing is primary. But that doesn't mean that other things are not important or significant. What you call social justice, and others might call social mercy, is part of loving our neighbor. But it should be a result of the main thing, which is loving God as a result of His love for us. To me, Matthew 28 doesn't talk about earth-keeping, and obeying everything Jesus commanded is much broader than just making sure that poor "Lazarus" at the gate of the rich man, has a job and his wounds cared for, although it does include that. It also includes the commandments against idol worship, adultery, theft, etc., and includes the commandments from the Lord outlined by the apostle Paul against perversions. (Rom 1:25) Is earthkeeping bad? Of course not; the earth is the Lord's and He commanded us to care for it, but he gave it to us for our use and benefit as well. On the other hand, Jesus very clearly said that His kingdom is not of this world. So it's not about neglecting certain things; its about keeping the main thing the main thing. Outside of a correct context, earthkeeping can become an idol; it has been an idol for millenia... think gaia worship. The earth is the Lord's, and Christ's kingdom is not of this world. This is the balance.
Posted in: One Faith, Many Answers
Wondering out loud.... would it be useful for us to have a way of people testifying to their core beliefs in common with Christians, as a way of acknowledging that they belong to God? Children born in the covenant of believers would identify and feel a belonging even before they make an official profession of faith, but those who come in thru evangelism might not have a way of making their faith and committment known unless and until they understand the confessions they would need to agree to, and have dealt with life issues in a way that is in harmony with their faith. Yet they believe and are progressing and working on their discipleship. It would seem that a different type of profession/confession would be very useful in the lifepath of new believers or even young baptized members. In some cases, individuals may have difficulties with certain small aspects of the confessions, or difficulties with lifestyle that would prevent a formal official profession of faith; yet they believe and are children of God. And it is no answer to suggest that they find a different denomination or church, particularly since there is no guarantee that they will find one that there may not be a sticking point with.
Perhaps these individuals cannot be office bearers for now... but we ought to find a way to acknowledge their participation in the body of Christ. And we should not create another form, but rather facilitate a process where they are able to make their own testimony. (Even most weddings have personal vows individually written; surely we should do no less for a profession of faith, regardless whether it is an initial "core" profession, or a later "membership" profession).
Posted in: Is Your Teen Safe?
Shawn Ferrie has made an eloquent case for his position, and I agree with it, to my own surprise. Those who have been abused, and abusers themselves, are a small percentage of the population - they are somewhat marginalized. To marginalize even further those who are not members of the expected gender in these situations is a subtle form of abuse or addtional victimization in itself. Shawn makes clear that it is not the gender that is at stake, but the hearts and actions of the perpetrators and the humanity of the victims, and the grace of God.
Posted in: The Inbreaking Kingdom
Great story David!! Music coming not as performance for the group, but from within the group, from within the person!
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
I will have to agree with b-ver on this. Jesus fulfilled prophecy while healing on earth, prophecies that can be also applied to our eternal life with Christ in the future, when our bodies are resurrected. The fact that Jesus had holes in his hands, was what made some of the disciples look more closely at his face, which they had never expected to see again on this earth. They were a sign of His voluntary obedient sacrifice for us, and not really to be compared to the sickness and blindness and other frailties and incompletenesses that we experience in our own lives. I don't think it would be right for us to compare our poor eyesight or lameness with the sacrifice that Jesus made for us, as if we had become blind or lame in order to be obedient to God in our service to others.
If our resurrected bodies were going to remain crippled and blind and lame and deaf, then it would not make much sense to rejoice in the healing that Jesus did while He was on earth, or even the healings that sometimes still occur today. Then we might as well just shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well. Whatever."
It is one thing entirely to "be content in whatever the circumstances". But it is another thing entirely to assume that all our circumstances today are divinely ordered permanent blessings in spite of their difficulties and trials. Even the book of Job suggests that his trials and troubles were temporary, and that God had something better in store for him in the future. In his case on earth; in our case perhaps not till heaven.
Posted in: Worship Glue: Sticking the Pieces Together
We often have the children's story before the service dealing with a similar passage or topic that the sermon will deal with later. This is great in one way, but sometimes takes away the element of surprise or "newness". Perhaps this might also happen sometimes with pre-sermon songs in the service sometimes, and that's why some preachers are not to worried about correlating the two so much.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
I wonder.... do we equate sacraments with theology, or do they merely reflect theology? And why has our practice of sacraments often become a point of division, while we ignore the very real deleterious effects of disobedience in daily living? I'm reminded that no one in the new testament died for how they celebrated lord's supper or practiced baptism, yet Annanias and Sapphira died for lying in a desire to be accepted. So which is worse then? Which is the most significant aspect of our theology? Jesus offered the Lord's Supper to Judas who would deny and betray him, and to Peter who Jesus knew would betray him. Yet we would deny Lord's supper to those who only baptize adults? Where are our priorities?
Why is it that we choose to permit two opinions on women in office, against all the clear indications in scripture, and yet refuse to permit two opinions on infant baptism, a doctrine which requires a fairly convoluted argument (one I understand and hold to) to sustain, and on which scripture directly is relatively silent, neither directly for or against. Where are our priorities?
Does our confession of the covenant of believers depend on our practice of baptism? And conversely, is there the real danger that the practice of infant baptism can minimize the significance of living obediently in that covenant? Do we acknowledge that danger or do we minimize it? But even further to that, do we allow that some who hold to God's covenant promises still see infant baptism as a potential temptation to complacency rather than as an instruction of God's pre-eminent choice for us? I personally have often seen it used in the wrong way. I don't have a clear answer on this, but it just strikes me as odd as to how and when we accept diversity, and when we do not. I know I am treading on tricky ground, but the bible is much more clear on the sin of homosexuality, than it is on the necessity of infant baptism, yet we deny membership on the basis of one, and not on the other... or do we? how do we choose our priorities?
Just asking.
Posted in: Worship Glue: Sticking the Pieces Together
Often yes, it is a good idea to try to link things. But occassionally not linking things still results in very uplifting and encouraging worship. Often things will be linked without any planning taking place; that is the most amazing of all! An amusing kind of amazing... knowing that God works us and uses us for his glory, in spite of our limitations.