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.
I appreciate some of your points about diversity etc., David. But I wonder about a couple of assumptions that you identified in your second paragraph.
"Are we keeping covenant with those who go through our seminary process when we allow our pulpits to be filled with those who come in through the “alternate route” I am not aware of a covenant process in this regard. And I am also wondering about who the "we" is. When a church looks for a preacher, it does not feel a covenant process with any particular seminarian, as far as I know. There may be a covenant process after it extends a call to someone, but not before.
" Couldn’t we service our waiting candidates immediately if we simply told these 17 newcomers that we have enough pastors already? """""" "
I'm confused about 'servicing candidates". What is that about? I thought that candidates were in ministry to service the churches. I'm not aware that churches exist or have a primary purpose of servicing or providing a place for seminarians to serve?
Good points, Neil, but I take issue with one statement you made: "A good liturgy clearly puts the person in the embrace of Christ and his work and blessing. "
I think this is a mis-nomer, or not a good way to say it. Maybe I am becoming a bit disenamoured with the emphasis on 'liturgy" as I find it too formulaic, too prosaic. Clearly liturgy will never put anyone in the embrace of Christ. It is God's grace that puts us in Christ's embrace, and nothing we say or do will make that happen. A liturgy may make us aware of God's grace and Christ's love. It may encourage us in the work and blessing that God has given us.
But even a good liturgy used poorly may dull our senses to God's grace and love; in healing we ought to seek God's will, and sometimes we can sense God's will through our reading of scripture and our understanding of God's purposes and the desire of our heart to follow God. We can ask boldly, but we must receive God's will humbly.
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
While on vacation, we often attend non-crc churches. A few weeks ago, we attended a "community" church where the pastor was attending a conference during the week, and they had a pancake breakfast on Saturday, which we attended. It was organized completely by men, although a few women attended to partake of the bounty. While discussing with them the service for the next day, the men were not absolutely certain that the preacher would be there the next day on the Sunday. But one of them said, "we think he will be there, but if he isn't, I will lead the service myself". This was a small church, denomination not identified, probably less than 80 attended on sunday morning, with about 16 at the bible study just previous. As it turned out, the preacher did make it, I believe a six hour trip from the conference location, and they invited us to join the choir that morning. We were quite reluctant, not having practiced with the choir, and not knowing one of the songs at all, but eventually they persuaded us.
A small church, but in my opinion, very mature. A church is mature when it continues regardless of circumstances, and regardless of who is there to lead or preach. And it is mature when the spirit of worship and welcome especially for strangers, is obvious.
Another church we attended a week later was Assembley of God, in a different town. We discovered it was pentecostal, and we were somewhat uncomfortable, but it was our vacation, a time when God opens up new discoveries to us. In his sermon, the preacher highlighted the strengths of this church, in being welcoming, and in being discipling (entering and applying the word to life, and leading others to christian living). He suggested that a weakness was evangelism, by asking how often the members had asked someone to come to church with them? Perhaps a self-centered church can never be mature, no matter how old it is, or how financially secure.
We ought to ask ourselves also how these three aspects of maturity (self-sustaining, governing and propagating) relate to the "marks of the true church" as we know them , which are identified as the pure preaching of the word, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the administration of discipline.
As a practical matter, I would suggest that a church would be mature if it is evangelistic either through growing in numbers or through planting another church, or both. Possibly a church is not mature merely because it is old. And possibly a previously mature church could regress to immaturity. Food for thought.
Having experienced various church settings and experiences, your comments make me wonder about the relevance of coming to meetings, whether deacons, elders, sunday school planning, building, bible studies, etc., without our bibles in hand, and what that says about where our focus is. Is that a symbol of our calling?
Should elders be chairing classis meetings? It should be a possibility. I can remember at least once when a pastor, who had been a pastor for only a year, maybe two, ended up on the rotation for chairing classis, since it was the turn of his church. He struggled, although he tried hard and did his best. How many times had he previously attended classis, maybe three? I know other pastors who were not too interested in the protocols and procedures of classis, and I know others who were too interested in the 'legal" details and niceties of procedure in order to achieve their results, or to reduce discussion.
There is always assistance for the chair from others, such as the stated clerk, the previous chair, experienced people, etc. The main issue is not just who chairs, but how involved the non-preaching elders can be. I have found the elders more involved lately than they were thirty years ago. But all of this starts at the local council. It also starts with the idea that just because an elder is not on council, doesn't mean he doesn't have responsibilities for staying informed, and remaining to be a spiritual influence and leader in the church. His term on council may be temporary, but his calling as a spiritual leader is not ended unless he is deposed or disciplined in some way.
We should also realize that not all elders go to classis, while some go more often. In some cases, some elders might even go once a year, since certain elders have more time, ability and desire than others. So we should be careful about overgeneralizing.
While elders will not know everyone's name, neither do the pastors, since they often don't know all the elders attending. I highly recommend all classis meetings to produce a list of attenders to classis at the beginning of the meeting to be handed out with the agenda or any other meeting materials. Name tags are good, but a list of attenders would be most helpful as well, since sometimes people are known by their names more than by their face.
"Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Quereshi is a very good book written by a former Muslim who came to Christ in his twenties. The theological, cultural, family and philosophical struggles he had to go through are well explained and narrated in an easy to read story format. Even the intellectual knowledge about the poverty of the koran, the contradictions of the prophet Mohammed, and the truth of Jesus, could not initially overcome his reluctance to accept it. This reluctance was mostly because of the cost... the cost of family relationships, and the built in fear of eternal death for believing in Jesus as God. It is a very interesting and revealing book.
Shane, I appreciate the attitude in your writing. However, some of what you have said, troubles me (so you might consider your words a success in "fighting for the kingdom"...). What troubles me is not "skirting the edges of heresy...". But what you said about "secular culture pointing Church back to her own Gospel message: grace; forgiveness; inclusion; and most of all a love for God and each other" does trouble me. The secular culture is not pointing towards grace and forgiveness, but rather towards tolerance and acceptance. The secular culture does not point towards a love for God, but rather towards a love for self-actualization and materialism and gaia. We also must be careful about how we assume a discussion about "inclusion". Jesus was very inclusive, yes, but he also told many parables about separating wheat from weeds, bad fish from good fish, sheep from goats. The statement to the rich man about selling all he had and then following Jesus... why did not Jesus just accept the rich man exactly the way he was? Why did the prodigal son have to come back to his father? Why did the woman accused of adultery have to stop sinning? Why did Jesus select twelve disciples (all male)? I think the term "inclusion" does not address Jesus message because it is an oversimplification of what Jesus taught. Using it as a simple mantra or substitute doctrine misses Jesus mission, and avoids truth. In today's context it is particularly inappropriate it would seem.
Shane, I apologize for missing your meaning in "keys behind a screen" analogy. I'm with you on reducing complacency. But maybe complacency means different things to different people sometimes too. " Living out your journey" sounds like worldly self-actualization to me. It could be similar to living for Jesus, but at first glance doesn't sound like it; it sounds like a way of disguising it. Living out your faith on the other hand as you mention, does mean real living for Jesus. Of course, children of alcoholics, and alcoholics themselves, people in poverty, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, drug addicts are in the end sinners (like us) in need of a saviour . And a saviour changes lives. Faith without works is dead, both for us, and for those we are attempting to help(James 2). Those who love Jesus know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God (James 4:4) "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning" ( I John3:6 and other verses in I John). I would argue that this is not grey, but a mix of black and white; in other words the black remains clearly black and the white remains clearly white, but they are intermingled in a struggle with each other. In normal worldly terms, the struggling white would become destroyed by the black, and everything would be a dull dark foggy grey. But Christ changes that around so that the white light eliminates the darkness and removes it, so that everything becomes white by the power of HIs spirit. Complacency is satisfied with a dull grey; sometimes complacency is satisfied by zebra stripes of black and white. Christ is not satisfied with that.
So inclusion is the wrong word. It leaves the wrong impression. We witness to everyone. But we recognize the battle against principalities and powers of darkness and spiritual forces of evil. We do not include the evil. And we cannot "include" those who promote evil or condone it. However, God's grace is magnificent and marvelous, and we should not forget that either. Forgiveness should never be far away from our response. No one is beyond God's grace, should God choose to call (perhaps through us) and they receive.
I agree it means action, and the action includes food, help, "being there", and conversation and witness and adoption.
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.
Posted in: Waiting Pastors, Counting Sheep and Counting Shepherds
I appreciate some of your points about diversity etc., David. But I wonder about a couple of assumptions that you identified in your second paragraph.
"Are we keeping covenant with those who go through our seminary process when we allow our pulpits to be filled with those who come in through the “alternate route” I am not aware of a covenant process in this regard. And I am also wondering about who the "we" is. When a church looks for a preacher, it does not feel a covenant process with any particular seminarian, as far as I know. There may be a covenant process after it extends a call to someone, but not before.
" Couldn’t we service our waiting candidates immediately if we simply told these 17 newcomers that we have enough pastors already? """""" "
I'm confused about 'servicing candidates". What is that about? I thought that candidates were in ministry to service the churches. I'm not aware that churches exist or have a primary purpose of servicing or providing a place for seminarians to serve?
Posted in: The Ministry of Healing and the Work of Elder
Good points, Neil, but I take issue with one statement you made: "A good liturgy clearly puts the person in the embrace of Christ and his work and blessing. "
I think this is a mis-nomer, or not a good way to say it. Maybe I am becoming a bit disenamoured with the emphasis on 'liturgy" as I find it too formulaic, too prosaic. Clearly liturgy will never put anyone in the embrace of Christ. It is God's grace that puts us in Christ's embrace, and nothing we say or do will make that happen. A liturgy may make us aware of God's grace and Christ's love. It may encourage us in the work and blessing that God has given us.
But even a good liturgy used poorly may dull our senses to God's grace and love; in healing we ought to seek God's will, and sometimes we can sense God's will through our reading of scripture and our understanding of God's purposes and the desire of our heart to follow God. We can ask boldly, but we must receive God's will humbly.
Posted in: Dealing with Death and Dying
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
Posted in: Three Marks of a Mature Church?
While on vacation, we often attend non-crc churches. A few weeks ago, we attended a "community" church where the pastor was attending a conference during the week, and they had a pancake breakfast on Saturday, which we attended. It was organized completely by men, although a few women attended to partake of the bounty. While discussing with them the service for the next day, the men were not absolutely certain that the preacher would be there the next day on the Sunday. But one of them said, "we think he will be there, but if he isn't, I will lead the service myself". This was a small church, denomination not identified, probably less than 80 attended on sunday morning, with about 16 at the bible study just previous. As it turned out, the preacher did make it, I believe a six hour trip from the conference location, and they invited us to join the choir that morning. We were quite reluctant, not having practiced with the choir, and not knowing one of the songs at all, but eventually they persuaded us.
A small church, but in my opinion, very mature. A church is mature when it continues regardless of circumstances, and regardless of who is there to lead or preach. And it is mature when the spirit of worship and welcome especially for strangers, is obvious.
Another church we attended a week later was Assembley of God, in a different town. We discovered it was pentecostal, and we were somewhat uncomfortable, but it was our vacation, a time when God opens up new discoveries to us. In his sermon, the preacher highlighted the strengths of this church, in being welcoming, and in being discipling (entering and applying the word to life, and leading others to christian living). He suggested that a weakness was evangelism, by asking how often the members had asked someone to come to church with them? Perhaps a self-centered church can never be mature, no matter how old it is, or how financially secure.
We ought to ask ourselves also how these three aspects of maturity (self-sustaining, governing and propagating) relate to the "marks of the true church" as we know them , which are identified as the pure preaching of the word, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the administration of discipline.
As a practical matter, I would suggest that a church would be mature if it is evangelistic either through growing in numbers or through planting another church, or both. Possibly a church is not mature merely because it is old. And possibly a previously mature church could regress to immaturity. Food for thought.
Posted in: All I Learned From Church Is How To Do Administration
Having experienced various church settings and experiences, your comments make me wonder about the relevance of coming to meetings, whether deacons, elders, sunday school planning, building, bible studies, etc., without our bibles in hand, and what that says about where our focus is. Is that a symbol of our calling?
Posted in: Are We ignoring Elders at Synod?
Should elders be chairing classis meetings? It should be a possibility. I can remember at least once when a pastor, who had been a pastor for only a year, maybe two, ended up on the rotation for chairing classis, since it was the turn of his church. He struggled, although he tried hard and did his best. How many times had he previously attended classis, maybe three? I know other pastors who were not too interested in the protocols and procedures of classis, and I know others who were too interested in the 'legal" details and niceties of procedure in order to achieve their results, or to reduce discussion.
There is always assistance for the chair from others, such as the stated clerk, the previous chair, experienced people, etc. The main issue is not just who chairs, but how involved the non-preaching elders can be. I have found the elders more involved lately than they were thirty years ago. But all of this starts at the local council. It also starts with the idea that just because an elder is not on council, doesn't mean he doesn't have responsibilities for staying informed, and remaining to be a spiritual influence and leader in the church. His term on council may be temporary, but his calling as a spiritual leader is not ended unless he is deposed or disciplined in some way.
We should also realize that not all elders go to classis, while some go more often. In some cases, some elders might even go once a year, since certain elders have more time, ability and desire than others. So we should be careful about overgeneralizing.
While elders will not know everyone's name, neither do the pastors, since they often don't know all the elders attending. I highly recommend all classis meetings to produce a list of attenders to classis at the beginning of the meeting to be handed out with the agenda or any other meeting materials. Name tags are good, but a list of attenders would be most helpful as well, since sometimes people are known by their names more than by their face.
Posted in: Christian - Muslim Dialogue
"Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Quereshi is a very good book written by a former Muslim who came to Christ in his twenties. The theological, cultural, family and philosophical struggles he had to go through are well explained and narrated in an easy to read story format. Even the intellectual knowledge about the poverty of the koran, the contradictions of the prophet Mohammed, and the truth of Jesus, could not initially overcome his reluctance to accept it. This reluctance was mostly because of the cost... the cost of family relationships, and the built in fear of eternal death for believing in Jesus as God. It is a very interesting and revealing book.
Posted in: Why Translations Matter
Good article, Larry.
Posted in: The Edge of This Wilderness
Shane, I appreciate the attitude in your writing. However, some of what you have said, troubles me (so you might consider your words a success in "fighting for the kingdom"...). What troubles me is not "skirting the edges of heresy...". But what you said about "secular culture pointing Church back to her own Gospel message: grace; forgiveness; inclusion; and most of all a love for God and each other" does trouble me. The secular culture is not pointing towards grace and forgiveness, but rather towards tolerance and acceptance. The secular culture does not point towards a love for God, but rather towards a love for self-actualization and materialism and gaia. We also must be careful about how we assume a discussion about "inclusion". Jesus was very inclusive, yes, but he also told many parables about separating wheat from weeds, bad fish from good fish, sheep from goats. The statement to the rich man about selling all he had and then following Jesus... why did not Jesus just accept the rich man exactly the way he was? Why did the prodigal son have to come back to his father? Why did the woman accused of adultery have to stop sinning? Why did Jesus select twelve disciples (all male)? I think the term "inclusion" does not address Jesus message because it is an oversimplification of what Jesus taught. Using it as a simple mantra or substitute doctrine misses Jesus mission, and avoids truth. In today's context it is particularly inappropriate it would seem.
Posted in: The Edge of This Wilderness
Shane, I apologize for missing your meaning in "keys behind a screen" analogy. I'm with you on reducing complacency. But maybe complacency means different things to different people sometimes too. " Living out your journey" sounds like worldly self-actualization to me. It could be similar to living for Jesus, but at first glance doesn't sound like it; it sounds like a way of disguising it. Living out your faith on the other hand as you mention, does mean real living for Jesus. Of course, children of alcoholics, and alcoholics themselves, people in poverty, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, drug addicts are in the end sinners (like us) in need of a saviour . And a saviour changes lives. Faith without works is dead, both for us, and for those we are attempting to help(James 2). Those who love Jesus know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God (James 4:4) "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning" ( I John3:6 and other verses in I John). I would argue that this is not grey, but a mix of black and white; in other words the black remains clearly black and the white remains clearly white, but they are intermingled in a struggle with each other. In normal worldly terms, the struggling white would become destroyed by the black, and everything would be a dull dark foggy grey. But Christ changes that around so that the white light eliminates the darkness and removes it, so that everything becomes white by the power of HIs spirit. Complacency is satisfied with a dull grey; sometimes complacency is satisfied by zebra stripes of black and white. Christ is not satisfied with that.
So inclusion is the wrong word. It leaves the wrong impression. We witness to everyone. But we recognize the battle against principalities and powers of darkness and spiritual forces of evil. We do not include the evil. And we cannot "include" those who promote evil or condone it. However, God's grace is magnificent and marvelous, and we should not forget that either. Forgiveness should never be far away from our response. No one is beyond God's grace, should God choose to call (perhaps through us) and they receive.
I agree it means action, and the action includes food, help, "being there", and conversation and witness and adoption.