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.
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.
I think question 97 explains the purpose of this Lord's Day. We are not to worship images or substitutes of or for God. Jesus was a man also, fully human, as another Lord's Day explains. So people saw him, touched him. Representing the Jesus they saw, admittedly we don't know what he looked like, is in one sense having an actor represent Julius Ceasar or the apostle Peter in the telling of a visual story. However, if you find yourself worshipping such an actor, or thinking that the actor represents God, rather than the human suffering aspect of Jesus, then you probably should not participate in the watching.
A.God can not and may not be visibly portrayed in any way.
Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one's intention is to worship them or to serve God through them.1
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. ??
In my experience with professional organizations, mentors are sometimes appointed for a time for new initiates into the professional organization, although this is not a hard and fast rule. But this only relates to the general conditions of qualifying as a member of the professional organization, not to the supervision of daily work.
Supervisors of daily work and workers, almost always have the responsibility of providing and overseeing and changing workloads, of developing and managing evaluations and appraisals, as well as recommending salary changes or promotions or new job descriptions. Ultimately supervisors have the ability to hire and fire, although they may require the approval of their own supervisor for these actions. So I would be very, very careful about using that type of terminology. It is the wrong term in this case.
My warning is that we will lose the spiritual leadership of these positions and callings if we make too many analogies to careers and professional organizations. It is quite different and important to realize that scripture itself is your best mentor and supervisor, and prayer and bible reading your best discussion with your supervisor. Losing the scriptural focus in any group mentoring or personal leadership mentoring will run the risk of gaining smooth operations with a loss of spiritual impact.
I wonder if we should be thinking about this a bit differently. Wouldn't an organism (people of God) be what builds the instititute? Of course, there is another meaning to institute, such as in "God's institutes his Church". God builds His church, both the organism and the organization. But the church as an institute seems to be the formal trappings, the ceremony, the order, the procedure and facilities, the organization. The church as organism (as simply the people of God) must exist first in order to impliment all of this, to start it or initiate it, to write confessions and songs, to organize services, to provide facilities or locations, before it can become an organization or an institute.
Then there is this: that an institute or organization is more or less dead without the organism. The organism is what lives.
I listened last night to a speaker (on video), a psychologist, a christian who talked about christians having "authority", referring to power in general, but specifically to casting out demons, to shutting up the demons and sending them away. I thought it was a good speech, very biblical, but I have no idea what institute he belonged to, nor what denomination, or even what city. To me he was part of the organism more than part of the institute, if that makes sense. He was more concerned about Christ and about the battle between heaven and hell, between God and Satan, than about what organization anyone belonged to.
The institute or organization as we look at it is mostly earthly, while the organism is the body of Christ, and is eternal.
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: 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.
Posted in: The BIBLE on the History Channel
I think question 97 explains the purpose of this Lord's Day. We are not to worship images or substitutes of or for God. Jesus was a man also, fully human, as another Lord's Day explains. So people saw him, touched him. Representing the Jesus they saw, admittedly we don't know what he looked like, is in one sense having an actor represent Julius Ceasar or the apostle Peter in the telling of a visual story. However, if you find yourself worshipping such an actor, or thinking that the actor represents God, rather than the human suffering aspect of Jesus, then you probably should not participate in the watching.
A.God can not and may not
be visibly portrayed in any way.
Although creatures may be portrayed,
yet God forbids making or having such images
if one's intention is to worship them
or to serve God through them.1
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: Do Pastors Need Professional Supervision?
In my experience with professional organizations, mentors are sometimes appointed for a time for new initiates into the professional organization, although this is not a hard and fast rule. But this only relates to the general conditions of qualifying as a member of the professional organization, not to the supervision of daily work.
Supervisors of daily work and workers, almost always have the responsibility of providing and overseeing and changing workloads, of developing and managing evaluations and appraisals, as well as recommending salary changes or promotions or new job descriptions. Ultimately supervisors have the ability to hire and fire, although they may require the approval of their own supervisor for these actions. So I would be very, very careful about using that type of terminology. It is the wrong term in this case.
My warning is that we will lose the spiritual leadership of these positions and callings if we make too many analogies to careers and professional organizations. It is quite different and important to realize that scripture itself is your best mentor and supervisor, and prayer and bible reading your best discussion with your supervisor. Losing the scriptural focus in any group mentoring or personal leadership mentoring will run the risk of gaining smooth operations with a loss of spiritual impact.
Posted in: Church: Institute, Organism, or Something Else?
I wonder if we should be thinking about this a bit differently. Wouldn't an organism (people of God) be what builds the instititute? Of course, there is another meaning to institute, such as in "God's institutes his Church". God builds His church, both the organism and the organization. But the church as an institute seems to be the formal trappings, the ceremony, the order, the procedure and facilities, the organization. The church as organism (as simply the people of God) must exist first in order to impliment all of this, to start it or initiate it, to write confessions and songs, to organize services, to provide facilities or locations, before it can become an organization or an institute.
Then there is this: that an institute or organization is more or less dead without the organism. The organism is what lives.
I listened last night to a speaker (on video), a psychologist, a christian who talked about christians having "authority", referring to power in general, but specifically to casting out demons, to shutting up the demons and sending them away. I thought it was a good speech, very biblical, but I have no idea what institute he belonged to, nor what denomination, or even what city. To me he was part of the organism more than part of the institute, if that makes sense. He was more concerned about Christ and about the battle between heaven and hell, between God and Satan, than about what organization anyone belonged to.
The institute or organization as we look at it is mostly earthly, while the organism is the body of Christ, and is eternal.
Posted in: Church: Institute, Organism, or Something Else?
Good comment and good article by Van Reken, Steve.