Might I suggest that perhaps instead of just giving our own thoughts, whether we are deaf or hearing, we go first to scripture and ask what God says about this. What indication does Jesus give about this? Whether deaf or hearing, our own thoughts will just be that: our own thoughts. Our own thoughts may have little bearing on the reality of what God has actually intended for us.
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.
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.
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?
I think we need to be careful not to confuse giving, with stewardship. Giving 10% or 20% of your income to the wrong causes could be very poor stewardship. Giving 10% to the church is allowing the church to be stewards of that money. If the church is a good steward, then the money will be used effectively and efficiently in causes that honor and glorify Christ, and which promote the gifts which God has given us.
In terms of encouraging others to give a "stewardly" amount to the church, I think this should be done holistically. First of all, it needs to be seen and felt to be voluntary, the results of cheerful and thankful giving. For those who want to be cheerful givers, they should consider "giving back to God" as their first priority, not just checking whether there is something left over to give after buying the fancy boat or cottage or vacation or big screen TV. Giving is always a sign of spiritual health, a sign of thankfulness and contentment with God's blessings, and a sign of willingness to trust God for our daily needs. A lack of giving is sometimes a sign of idolization of money or financial security, and sometimes a sign of poverty.
And Jesus was very clear that "giving to God"(church) can never be a substitute for obedience to God, which includes obeying God, loving your neighbor and looking after the needs of those placed in your care.
The movie "The Second Chance" with Michael W. Smith as one of the lead actors, raises this question of identification with the community in a very interesting way. Issues of white/black, inner city/suburbs, poverty/wealth, crime/development. I enjoyed the video, and you might too, if you are interested in "how far is too far".
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Might I suggest that perhaps instead of just giving our own thoughts, whether we are deaf or hearing, we go first to scripture and ask what God says about this. What indication does Jesus give about this? Whether deaf or hearing, our own thoughts will just be that: our own thoughts. Our own thoughts may have little bearing on the reality of what God has actually intended for us.
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.
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: 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: The Stewardship Series
I think we need to be careful not to confuse giving, with stewardship. Giving 10% or 20% of your income to the wrong causes could be very poor stewardship. Giving 10% to the church is allowing the church to be stewards of that money. If the church is a good steward, then the money will be used effectively and efficiently in causes that honor and glorify Christ, and which promote the gifts which God has given us.
In terms of encouraging others to give a "stewardly" amount to the church, I think this should be done holistically. First of all, it needs to be seen and felt to be voluntary, the results of cheerful and thankful giving. For those who want to be cheerful givers, they should consider "giving back to God" as their first priority, not just checking whether there is something left over to give after buying the fancy boat or cottage or vacation or big screen TV. Giving is always a sign of spiritual health, a sign of thankfulness and contentment with God's blessings, and a sign of willingness to trust God for our daily needs. A lack of giving is sometimes a sign of idolization of money or financial security, and sometimes a sign of poverty.
And Jesus was very clear that "giving to God"(church) can never be a substitute for obedience to God, which includes obeying God, loving your neighbor and looking after the needs of those placed in your care.
Posted in: "How Far is Too Far?"
The movie "The Second Chance" with Michael W. Smith as one of the lead actors, raises this question of identification with the community in a very interesting way. Issues of white/black, inner city/suburbs, poverty/wealth, crime/development. I enjoyed the video, and you might too, if you are interested in "how far is too far".