Not that I would argue with your mother, but heathens would not be singing. They would not cling to the cross, and they will not be able to exchange it either.
Thanks for your response, Verlyn. Your reply makes sense to me. I suppose the follow up to that is who is the imperative addressed to then? who is the "third person"? would God be required to hallow his own name? to be enjoined to make his kingdom come? to make sure His will is done?
Wouldn't that be a bit like telling someone to call himself by his own name? It would seem redundant? So even though it is in the imperative, would it still not be possible to consider that these phrases are also a form of praise to God? Recognizing God's sovereignty, honoring his holiness, agreeing with his will. Maybe like expressing an "amen" during a sermon is both imperative, but also a form of agreement, of praise to God.
Ron, some great comments! However, your comment on someone involved in ministry work perhaps perceiving a 50% contribution since they could make twice as much somewhere else, ought to be taken with a grain of salt. I know a fellow who could make twice as much money working in the field in the oil patch, but deliberately took a different job because he wanted to be home every night and weekends with his children, since he feels being an available faither to his children is what God calls him to do. His ministry to his family is his ministry for God, so to speak. Should he then regard this lower paying job as a 50% contribution? Where does this "ministry" contribution begin and where does it end? A farmer who farms 500 acres less because of the time he needs for council work or christian school board, or the mechanic or carpenter who doesn't work overtime because he works with young people group and the deacon board. Etc. ??
Ron, I think giving should be voluntary and cheerful regardless, so I doubt I'd be hitting anyone too hard on it. I kind of agree with you, especially from a deacon's perspective. It's really the job of deacons to help others, not to grind on them. But from a personal perspective, if I was a teacher in that perspective, I would find it hard to say that I've given enough simply because of opportunity costs for my employment. Obviously, if you have no income, you can't give anything, and if you are paid less, you would likely give less. But it is not too hard to identify an opportunity cost no matter what job or occupation you might have, whether making financial sacrifices to minister to your family, or to provide time for other mission causes. If you spend two weeks of vacation on a diaconal project and spend your own money to get there and for lodging, would you subtract that time and money from your tithe, for example. I don't want to make a big deal of this; just provide another perspective.
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".
Doctrines are important, but sometimes we over doctrinalize, and that prevents us from appreciating the nuances of various expressions. In this song, I think it is simple... we presently cling to the cross as a symbol and reality of our need for forgiveness, and of God's love in forgiving. But we will exchange that thought, that memory, that need, for the reality of victory and new life with Christ, the crown of new life that doesn't fade away, and that will make our forgiven sin a distant, vague, perhaps unremembered past. As I see it, anyway.
There is more to be gained from actually looking at a particular song, than there is from making broad generalizations about song selection for hymnals. Some of the benefits of some songs depends on the attitude with which we sing them, and then realizing that some songs only express a small incomplete part of our theology. Balancing songs with each other is as important as selecting an individual song by itself, I believe. I always think of certain psalms of David for example, which if taken by themselves, would seem to directly contradict some of the statements and advice given to us by Christ himself. If they had been written by someone else, we would have considered them to be theologically incorrect. Yet, they are scripture, and true, in the right context.
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.
If you are going to use someone else's sermon wholesale, you might want to consider having an elder read it instead. The main problem with using or reading someone else's sermon is that people can dream up all kinds of reasons why the sermon probably doesn't apply to them. In addition, there is a good likelihood that it won't apply to their situation in a pertinent sense, either because it didn't come from the local situation needs, or because the method of delivery creates a distance. In some cases however, a reading sermon may be preferable to a locally written sermon, hopefully not too often.
I must say that the terminology is troublesome. It is troublesome to think that someone or something is going to mandate a congregation to contract with a professional supervisor for a pastor who they have already contracted with to be a spiritual teacher and leader. While they may decide from time to time to contract with someone to provide special services, such as professional advice for pastors and elders, it is troublesome to think that someone like synod or classis would mandate them to do so. Ultimately, synod and classis have no authority nor mandate to do so. It would be lording it over the churches.
While a new preacher or pastor should probably look for a mentor, someone to provide advice, to answer practical questions, thinking about a mentor as a supervisor is not a good thing, particularly when words like "having the power to convene the elders and pastors should an impasse arise..." are used. These words are landmines in themselves.
So, a good mentor, yes. A professional supervisor, not. Without open minds to accept and seek advice, supervisory power of a non-church member is not the answer. It would create more problems than it would solve, and would lead to exactly the type of hierarchy that we are trying to avoid.
I also think, in agreement with Bev, that it is a fantastic illustration of where our support really comes from. None of our appeals will have much impact if God does not bless the giving, either by the giving itself, or by the results of the giving in the life of the receiver. If we forget that, then all of this is nothing more than money passing from one hand to another.
Posted in: The Old Rugged Cross
Not that I would argue with your mother, but heathens would not be singing. They would not cling to the cross, and they will not be able to exchange it either.
Posted in: Hallowed Be Your Name
Thanks for your response, Verlyn. Your reply makes sense to me. I suppose the follow up to that is who is the imperative addressed to then? who is the "third person"? would God be required to hallow his own name? to be enjoined to make his kingdom come? to make sure His will is done?
Wouldn't that be a bit like telling someone to call himself by his own name? It would seem redundant? So even though it is in the imperative, would it still not be possible to consider that these phrases are also a form of praise to God? Recognizing God's sovereignty, honoring his holiness, agreeing with his will. Maybe like expressing an "amen" during a sermon is both imperative, but also a form of agreement, of praise to God.
Posted in: The Stewardship Series: How Much Should I Give?
Ron, some great comments! However, your comment on someone involved in ministry work perhaps perceiving a 50% contribution since they could make twice as much somewhere else, ought to be taken with a grain of salt. I know a fellow who could make twice as much money working in the field in the oil patch, but deliberately took a different job because he wanted to be home every night and weekends with his children, since he feels being an available faither to his children is what God calls him to do. His ministry to his family is his ministry for God, so to speak. Should he then regard this lower paying job as a 50% contribution? Where does this "ministry" contribution begin and where does it end? A farmer who farms 500 acres less because of the time he needs for council work or christian school board, or the mechanic or carpenter who doesn't work overtime because he works with young people group and the deacon board. Etc. ??
Posted in: The Stewardship Series: How Much Should I Give?
Ron, I think giving should be voluntary and cheerful regardless, so I doubt I'd be hitting anyone too hard on it. I kind of agree with you, especially from a deacon's perspective. It's really the job of deacons to help others, not to grind on them. But from a personal perspective, if I was a teacher in that perspective, I would find it hard to say that I've given enough simply because of opportunity costs for my employment. Obviously, if you have no income, you can't give anything, and if you are paid less, you would likely give less. But it is not too hard to identify an opportunity cost no matter what job or occupation you might have, whether making financial sacrifices to minister to your family, or to provide time for other mission causes. If you spend two weeks of vacation on a diaconal project and spend your own money to get there and for lodging, would you subtract that time and money from your tithe, for example. I don't want to make a big deal of this; just provide another perspective.
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".
Posted in: The Old Rugged Cross
Doctrines are important, but sometimes we over doctrinalize, and that prevents us from appreciating the nuances of various expressions. In this song, I think it is simple... we presently cling to the cross as a symbol and reality of our need for forgiveness, and of God's love in forgiving. But we will exchange that thought, that memory, that need, for the reality of victory and new life with Christ, the crown of new life that doesn't fade away, and that will make our forgiven sin a distant, vague, perhaps unremembered past. As I see it, anyway.
Posted in: The Old Rugged Cross
There is more to be gained from actually looking at a particular song, than there is from making broad generalizations about song selection for hymnals. Some of the benefits of some songs depends on the attitude with which we sing them, and then realizing that some songs only express a small incomplete part of our theology. Balancing songs with each other is as important as selecting an individual song by itself, I believe. I always think of certain psalms of David for example, which if taken by themselves, would seem to directly contradict some of the statements and advice given to us by Christ himself. If they had been written by someone else, we would have considered them to be theologically incorrect. Yet, they are scripture, and true, in the right context.
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: Preventive Maintenance against Sermon Stealing
If you are going to use someone else's sermon wholesale, you might want to consider having an elder read it instead. The main problem with using or reading someone else's sermon is that people can dream up all kinds of reasons why the sermon probably doesn't apply to them. In addition, there is a good likelihood that it won't apply to their situation in a pertinent sense, either because it didn't come from the local situation needs, or because the method of delivery creates a distance. In some cases however, a reading sermon may be preferable to a locally written sermon, hopefully not too often.
Posted in: Do Pastors Need Professional Supervision?
I must say that the terminology is troublesome. It is troublesome to think that someone or something is going to mandate a congregation to contract with a professional supervisor for a pastor who they have already contracted with to be a spiritual teacher and leader. While they may decide from time to time to contract with someone to provide special services, such as professional advice for pastors and elders, it is troublesome to think that someone like synod or classis would mandate them to do so. Ultimately, synod and classis have no authority nor mandate to do so. It would be lording it over the churches.
While a new preacher or pastor should probably look for a mentor, someone to provide advice, to answer practical questions, thinking about a mentor as a supervisor is not a good thing, particularly when words like "having the power to convene the elders and pastors should an impasse arise..." are used. These words are landmines in themselves.
So, a good mentor, yes. A professional supervisor, not. Without open minds to accept and seek advice, supervisory power of a non-church member is not the answer. It would create more problems than it would solve, and would lead to exactly the type of hierarchy that we are trying to avoid.
Posted in: Support Raising: Begging or Biblical
I also think, in agreement with Bev, that it is a fantastic illustration of where our support really comes from. None of our appeals will have much impact if God does not bless the giving, either by the giving itself, or by the results of the giving in the life of the receiver. If we forget that, then all of this is nothing more than money passing from one hand to another.