You ask a very good question, Al. We are going thru planning of the sunday school program, and it includes a bit of a struggle with where catechism classes should begin. Some say earlier and some say later. I'm inclined to think that if the youth only go through or cover the catechism material once, they will not learn it very well. Between missing a few classes, and missing out on the repetition at different ages, they will miss out also on the opportunity to grasp the concepts better. It seems to me that there are different ways of teaching by the catechism and about the catechism, which should be appropriate to different ages. The sunday school classes and bible stories seem to cover the stories of Jonah and the big fish, and David and Goliath, many times over. The repetition of that does not seem to be a problem.
As an elder I also agree that I have not monitored what has been taught, and particularly not the teaching of the catechism, very well. One of the ways of improving that perhaps is to have the elders teach some of the catechism classes; at least that will lead to a better understanding of what is taught and how it is learned. But teaching catechism classes must come from the heart, it must be not just a use of materials or going thru a program, but it must be a conviction of the faith, and a passing on of this faith as a lifeline of hope and trust.
And I think we should not underestimate the capacity or abilities of our young people when they are learning.
In the context of the song, untameable means that we do not control God. We cannot limit God to our specific desires, comforts, preconceptions. God is not our servant. God is not our trained pet. As we read in the book of Job, did we make creation? Did we make the horse, or leviathan, or the behemoth? Can we control everything that God made? Can we dictate how God should act? Can we limit God? No, but God is supreme over us, not the other way around.
Some of Louis Giglio's video presentations show this concept in a marvelous way.
Thanks Karl for your answer about who these regional people might be. I would just refine your point number 4 a bit, that it is not a regional leader who will necessarily define success, but that the congregation ought to do that, either at congregational level, or minimum at the council level, perhaps with facilitation by a classis person. Half of the success of "success" is ownership by the local congregation, and they need to create their definition of success in their own context.
Well, yes, words have different connotations for different people. This is what makes poetry and poetic prose interesting, and what also makes it a bit different from confessional and legal documents. For people in tune with nature, the zebra, the wild lion, and the hippopotamus are wild, untamed. Untamed nature like the Rocky mountains, or the Rain Forest, is majestic, natural, directly God-created. While some lions and hippos and elephants have been tamed in spite of their size and strength, the contrast is with the independance and majesty of the untamed. Untamed means beyond our control, beyond our beck and call. The essence of our relationship with God is that we cannot lead God around on a leash. God is not tamed by us. But, it is not the only word that the song uses to describe God, is it? I agree that it is only one of the attributes, one related to God's omnipotence, and that the other attributes of Love, omniscience, eternity, omnipresence, must be described with different adjectives.
Every church has its purpose, and distinguishing "flagship" churches does a disservice to the general mission of the church within classis. Larger churches obviously are meetings of larger numbers of people, and perhaps the preaching, organization or location is influencing that...praise the Lord for it. But some large churches are as likely to misrepresent the gospel as some small churches are likely to struggle...I think of Joel Osteen for example. And some large churches are a bit too much people(preacher) followers rather than God followers. However, the Lord will work with all of them.
In one way, a name change doesn't bother me. For example, I think the Calvinist Cadet Corps should be change to Christian Cadet Clubs. I think it is more pertinent and more understandable.
So I don't think it is wrong to change the CRWRC name necessarily, although it has a pretty respectable brand. The problem with a name change is whether it brings us back to the purpose, or takes us further away from it. The purpose of world relief has been or should be, to demonstrate the love of christ. The argument that CRWRC does much more than disaster relief, does not mean that the other things James listed are not relief efforts, such as improving education or agriculture or literacy or health care. They are what we would call helping ministries, making very bad situations somewhat better. We don't expect CRWRC to set up Christian schools in downtown GrandRapids for example, nor help South Dakota farmers to improve their farming methods. So whether it is an immediate disaster relief or a long term disaster relief, the objective is somewhat the same; in some cases to prevent probable future disasters.
The suggested name: "World Renew; Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ" is really the combination of a name and a slogan or motto. No reasonable person will assume that the entire so-called name will actually be used as a name in other than letterheads. Do you really think that the acronym WRLJLMSC will be used and on the lips and frontal lobes of the average semi-knowledgeable person? I don't think so. In fact, I will pretty well guarantee it will not. In fact, to me this is so obvious, that I will suggest some dissembling is going on here when people suggest that Christ is really in the name. I would suggest that if it is, it is like a tail easily caught in the barbed wire. It will only be used when people object, and otherwise will not be commonly used in the name.
The suggestion that because CRWRC works with so many other organizations means it must change its name, makes absolutely no sense to me. Are all these other organizations also changing their names? How will you know who is who?
But, if a name change was absolutely necessary, then I would suggest this: Christian World Relief. Simple. Pertinent. Descriptive. Accurate.
The other one could be adjusted slightly and turned into the motto and descriptor that it really is: "Renewing the World, Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ".
I agree with indypastor. The whole name change seems to be done for very pragmatic reasons, while ignoring the spiritual implications. Ironically, pragmatic reasons will eventually not sustain themselves, and the spiritual foundations of CRWRC will decline. The example of "Salvation Army" is a very good one, to show how maintaining a visible connection to the original purpose does not harm the impact of the cause or the organization. The real fact is that "World Renew" is somewhat a pompous unrealistic name. To think that one organization will renew the world... what does this mean? new political systems? new national borders? World government? No more deserts, no more hurricances, no more volcanoes? no more wars? The name is so broad it has almost become meaningless. However, I suppose it will not harm relief efforts too much in the near future, even if it does lose its christian witness, which it seems to be doing.
Very well said, Al. We cannot come to Christ if we are not willing to confess. Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous who think they do not need salvation. The other side of the coin is that sometimes I hear people being so willing to confess they are sinners (in general, on principle), that they forget that we are made new in Christ, that we can no longer continue to live in sin, since it is the spirit of God that lives in us now. The assurance of pardon is not a license to continue to sin, but an assurance that we are no longer slaves to sin. A reminder of this is as important as anything else in the worship service.
Recently, I was at a debate forum at the University; the debate was on abortion...it was called the Great Abortion Debate. Most of the people there perhaps 70 or 80?, were young people. There were perhaps a half dozen seniors or semi-seniors. Most of the young people there, some married, some not, were supporting the pro-life side of the debate. Young people will get involved in things if they believe they are relevant, important, and vital. There are many issues today that are relevant, important and vital to our lives as Christians, that will attract the attention of young people, if the older people stop taking these issues for granted.
For example, the abortion issue is one. Another example is spending more than five minutes a day in prayer. Another example is avoiding, and promoting the avoidance of pre-marital sexual activity. Another example is giving God the honor in our treatment of creation, including giving 10% of our income back to the Lord.
There are other issues, for which we need to pray, and for which we need to claim God's dominion, and our response. And these issues are all connected to our confessions, to our theology, and to scripture. That is the learning opportunity, and the opportunity for action that we have.
Jim, it seems you do not understand the seriousness of Steve's remarks, and the significance of what he is saying. I tend to agree that the main idea of the covenenant or form of subscription is that the confessions define the denomination, and that one must agree with them in order to be an officebearer. That language is important to Steve and most others, while you are concentrating on process and effort and discussion. People who dig themselves into a hole, are also working very hard, but to no apparent good purpose, so merely the amount of work done, time spent, and effort expended is not by itself the defining moment of the outcome. The impression for many was that the form of subscription was becoming rather useless, since it would have very little binding effect in any case. Your comments seem to continue to leave that impression, at least to me. On the other hand, the revised wording leads to a binding effect, which is most significant.
Any duplicity in playing games and holding onto cards, is surely not appreciated, other than by politicians.
It seems that the issue of being true to What God Wants is pertinent to the discussion of prophecy and cessationism. The reason the creeds and confessions are relevant is that it gives us a way of deciding whether the book of mormon is prophecy or false. It gives us a way of deciding whether Ellen White is prophecy or false.
I think the point of cessationism is not that God does not speak to us by means other than His Written Word. The real point is that in regard to the miraculous nature of His revelations , we don't today find any apostle Peters saying to someone that they would die because they lied, nor an apostle John who revealed the battles and victories of the endtimes as well as deatils about the celebration of God's judgement in the kingdom of heaven. I had thought that cessationism related to the lack of need for miracles and speaking in tongues as a sign of God's Spirit, since the growth and witness of the people of God now provided that sign. And that in some cases in certain new mission fields, those miracles and signs would again sometimes show up as a way of God speaking directly about his power and majesty.
Jesus himself said that they have Moses and the prophets; if they will not listen to those then miracles won't help. Perhaps in the same way, a new prophecy will also not help because they do not listen to the original word of God. But on the other hand, prophecy garnered through prayer, can still speak truth to people. For that reason, prophecy can indicate to us that as long as we follow the direction, the fads, the current popular trends of the world, we will continue to lose our witness, not gain it. For that reason, when the church concentrates on the latest fads about gender equality, color based affirmative action, inevitability of climate change, bathing suit styles, tattoos, belly rings, haircuts, poverty eradication, family planning, physical "safety", primarily because that is what the world is doing, then we can all prophecy that the true church will begin to die a slow death. Whenever we follow the trend of the world, rather than witness to that trend, then we are definately not prophecying, but we are slipping into following, which is the opposite of leading (in case you were wondering), and is also the opposite of witnessing.
When we desire not to be mocked by the world, we have probably lost the effectiveness of our witness, and prophecy will disappear.
The confessions speak to this in various ways. One example:
"Question 32. But why are you called a Christian? (a)
Answer: Because I am a member of Christ by faith, (b) and thus am partaker of his anointing; (c) that so I may confess his name, (d) and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: (e) and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life (f) and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over all creatures."
The greatest and most common sin of the Christian is to want to do what the world does, in the way the world does it. Often we even use "christian" excuses to do it. David's sin of adultery, the Israelites worship of false gods, Israel's desire for a "king", Peter's disagreement that Jesus would die, Judas betrayal of Jesus, Annanias and Sapphira's attempt to get extra credit, all fall into this trap, this sin. Satan loves it. God hates it.
As someone who has been an elder for the last thirty years, and who has been writing sermons for the last five years, I evaluate sermons differently at different times. What do I look for? I look for an emphasis on scripture, as opposed to personal opinions or social fluff. I look for theological soundness, and a holistic approach. I look for the gospel message to be included. A sermon that does not proclaim the gospel may end up being a lecture or a seminar, rather than a sermon proclamation. While looking for theological soundness, I look for relevance, courage, and leadership. A theologically sound sermon can still be fluffy, or lacking in scriptural context and content, so theological soundness by itself is not sufficient. The apostle Paul said there is a time to go from the milk to the meat. (even though both the milk and the meat may be scripturally sound and theologically sound).
A better evaluation process would be good, however. I know I would appreciate it myself from both ends. A more structured process might take away a bit from the ability to simply absorb and react to the message, but on the other hand it could definately play a role in improving the message for the benefit of the rest of the hearers. Some type of balance between evaluating and simply listening and hearing, might have to be found.
Posted in: How Do We Know Which Story is True?
You ask a very good question, Al. We are going thru planning of the sunday school program, and it includes a bit of a struggle with where catechism classes should begin. Some say earlier and some say later. I'm inclined to think that if the youth only go through or cover the catechism material once, they will not learn it very well. Between missing a few classes, and missing out on the repetition at different ages, they will miss out also on the opportunity to grasp the concepts better. It seems to me that there are different ways of teaching by the catechism and about the catechism, which should be appropriate to different ages. The sunday school classes and bible stories seem to cover the stories of Jonah and the big fish, and David and Goliath, many times over. The repetition of that does not seem to be a problem.
As an elder I also agree that I have not monitored what has been taught, and particularly not the teaching of the catechism, very well. One of the ways of improving that perhaps is to have the elders teach some of the catechism classes; at least that will lead to a better understanding of what is taught and how it is learned. But teaching catechism classes must come from the heart, it must be not just a use of materials or going thru a program, but it must be a conviction of the faith, and a passing on of this faith as a lifeline of hope and trust.
And I think we should not underestimate the capacity or abilities of our young people when they are learning.
Posted in: Check Out the Music
In the context of the song, untameable means that we do not control God. We cannot limit God to our specific desires, comforts, preconceptions. God is not our servant. God is not our trained pet. As we read in the book of Job, did we make creation? Did we make the horse, or leviathan, or the behemoth? Can we control everything that God made? Can we dictate how God should act? Can we limit God? No, but God is supreme over us, not the other way around.
Some of Louis Giglio's video presentations show this concept in a marvelous way.
Posted in: Six Skills Needed for Leadership at Classis Level
Thanks Karl for your answer about who these regional people might be. I would just refine your point number 4 a bit, that it is not a regional leader who will necessarily define success, but that the congregation ought to do that, either at congregational level, or minimum at the council level, perhaps with facilitation by a classis person. Half of the success of "success" is ownership by the local congregation, and they need to create their definition of success in their own context.
Posted in: Check Out the Music
Well, yes, words have different connotations for different people. This is what makes poetry and poetic prose interesting, and what also makes it a bit different from confessional and legal documents. For people in tune with nature, the zebra, the wild lion, and the hippopotamus are wild, untamed. Untamed nature like the Rocky mountains, or the Rain Forest, is majestic, natural, directly God-created. While some lions and hippos and elephants have been tamed in spite of their size and strength, the contrast is with the independance and majesty of the untamed. Untamed means beyond our control, beyond our beck and call. The essence of our relationship with God is that we cannot lead God around on a leash. God is not tamed by us. But, it is not the only word that the song uses to describe God, is it? I agree that it is only one of the attributes, one related to God's omnipotence, and that the other attributes of Love, omniscience, eternity, omnipresence, must be described with different adjectives.
Posted in: How will Classis Respond to the Change in Church Leadership Flow?
Every church has its purpose, and distinguishing "flagship" churches does a disservice to the general mission of the church within classis. Larger churches obviously are meetings of larger numbers of people, and perhaps the preaching, organization or location is influencing that...praise the Lord for it. But some large churches are as likely to misrepresent the gospel as some small churches are likely to struggle...I think of Joel Osteen for example. And some large churches are a bit too much people(preacher) followers rather than God followers. However, the Lord will work with all of them.
Posted in: Name Change: Will It Be a Relief to Be “Renew?”
In one way, a name change doesn't bother me. For example, I think the Calvinist Cadet Corps should be change to Christian Cadet Clubs. I think it is more pertinent and more understandable.
So I don't think it is wrong to change the CRWRC name necessarily, although it has a pretty respectable brand. The problem with a name change is whether it brings us back to the purpose, or takes us further away from it. The purpose of world relief has been or should be, to demonstrate the love of christ. The argument that CRWRC does much more than disaster relief, does not mean that the other things James listed are not relief efforts, such as improving education or agriculture or literacy or health care. They are what we would call helping ministries, making very bad situations somewhat better. We don't expect CRWRC to set up Christian schools in downtown GrandRapids for example, nor help South Dakota farmers to improve their farming methods. So whether it is an immediate disaster relief or a long term disaster relief, the objective is somewhat the same; in some cases to prevent probable future disasters.
The suggested name: "World Renew; Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ" is really the combination of a name and a slogan or motto. No reasonable person will assume that the entire so-called name will actually be used as a name in other than letterheads. Do you really think that the acronym WRLJLMSC will be used and on the lips and frontal lobes of the average semi-knowledgeable person? I don't think so. In fact, I will pretty well guarantee it will not. In fact, to me this is so obvious, that I will suggest some dissembling is going on here when people suggest that Christ is really in the name. I would suggest that if it is, it is like a tail easily caught in the barbed wire. It will only be used when people object, and otherwise will not be commonly used in the name.
The suggestion that because CRWRC works with so many other organizations means it must change its name, makes absolutely no sense to me. Are all these other organizations also changing their names? How will you know who is who?
But, if a name change was absolutely necessary, then I would suggest this: Christian World Relief. Simple. Pertinent. Descriptive. Accurate.
The other one could be adjusted slightly and turned into the motto and descriptor that it really is: "Renewing the World, Living Justice, Loving Mercy, Serving Christ".
Posted in: Name Change: Will It Be a Relief to Be “Renew?”
I agree with indypastor. The whole name change seems to be done for very pragmatic reasons, while ignoring the spiritual implications. Ironically, pragmatic reasons will eventually not sustain themselves, and the spiritual foundations of CRWRC will decline. The example of "Salvation Army" is a very good one, to show how maintaining a visible connection to the original purpose does not harm the impact of the cause or the organization. The real fact is that "World Renew" is somewhat a pompous unrealistic name. To think that one organization will renew the world... what does this mean? new political systems? new national borders? World government? No more deserts, no more hurricances, no more volcanoes? no more wars? The name is so broad it has almost become meaningless. However, I suppose it will not harm relief efforts too much in the near future, even if it does lose its christian witness, which it seems to be doing.
Posted in: Is Confession Still Good for the Soul?
Very well said, Al. We cannot come to Christ if we are not willing to confess. Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous who think they do not need salvation. The other side of the coin is that sometimes I hear people being so willing to confess they are sinners (in general, on principle), that they forget that we are made new in Christ, that we can no longer continue to live in sin, since it is the spirit of God that lives in us now. The assurance of pardon is not a license to continue to sin, but an assurance that we are no longer slaves to sin. A reminder of this is as important as anything else in the worship service.
Posted in: Why Theology and Youth Ministry Seldom Mix
Recently, I was at a debate forum at the University; the debate was on abortion...it was called the Great Abortion Debate. Most of the people there perhaps 70 or 80?, were young people. There were perhaps a half dozen seniors or semi-seniors. Most of the young people there, some married, some not, were supporting the pro-life side of the debate. Young people will get involved in things if they believe they are relevant, important, and vital. There are many issues today that are relevant, important and vital to our lives as Christians, that will attract the attention of young people, if the older people stop taking these issues for granted.
For example, the abortion issue is one. Another example is spending more than five minutes a day in prayer. Another example is avoiding, and promoting the avoidance of pre-marital sexual activity. Another example is giving God the honor in our treatment of creation, including giving 10% of our income back to the Lord.
There are other issues, for which we need to pray, and for which we need to claim God's dominion, and our response. And these issues are all connected to our confessions, to our theology, and to scripture. That is the learning opportunity, and the opportunity for action that we have.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Jim, it seems you do not understand the seriousness of Steve's remarks, and the significance of what he is saying. I tend to agree that the main idea of the covenenant or form of subscription is that the confessions define the denomination, and that one must agree with them in order to be an officebearer. That language is important to Steve and most others, while you are concentrating on process and effort and discussion. People who dig themselves into a hole, are also working very hard, but to no apparent good purpose, so merely the amount of work done, time spent, and effort expended is not by itself the defining moment of the outcome. The impression for many was that the form of subscription was becoming rather useless, since it would have very little binding effect in any case. Your comments seem to continue to leave that impression, at least to me. On the other hand, the revised wording leads to a binding effect, which is most significant.
Any duplicity in playing games and holding onto cards, is surely not appreciated, other than by politicians.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
It seems that the issue of being true to What God Wants is pertinent to the discussion of prophecy and cessationism. The reason the creeds and confessions are relevant is that it gives us a way of deciding whether the book of mormon is prophecy or false. It gives us a way of deciding whether Ellen White is prophecy or false.
I think the point of cessationism is not that God does not speak to us by means other than His Written Word. The real point is that in regard to the miraculous nature of His revelations , we don't today find any apostle Peters saying to someone that they would die because they lied, nor an apostle John who revealed the battles and victories of the endtimes as well as deatils about the celebration of God's judgement in the kingdom of heaven. I had thought that cessationism related to the lack of need for miracles and speaking in tongues as a sign of God's Spirit, since the growth and witness of the people of God now provided that sign. And that in some cases in certain new mission fields, those miracles and signs would again sometimes show up as a way of God speaking directly about his power and majesty.
Jesus himself said that they have Moses and the prophets; if they will not listen to those then miracles won't help. Perhaps in the same way, a new prophecy will also not help because they do not listen to the original word of God. But on the other hand, prophecy garnered through prayer, can still speak truth to people. For that reason, prophecy can indicate to us that as long as we follow the direction, the fads, the current popular trends of the world, we will continue to lose our witness, not gain it. For that reason, when the church concentrates on the latest fads about gender equality, color based affirmative action, inevitability of climate change, bathing suit styles, tattoos, belly rings, haircuts, poverty eradication, family planning, physical "safety", primarily because that is what the world is doing, then we can all prophecy that the true church will begin to die a slow death. Whenever we follow the trend of the world, rather than witness to that trend, then we are definately not prophecying, but we are slipping into following, which is the opposite of leading (in case you were wondering), and is also the opposite of witnessing.
When we desire not to be mocked by the world, we have probably lost the effectiveness of our witness, and prophecy will disappear.
The confessions speak to this in various ways. One example:
"Question 32. But why are you called a Christian? (a)
Answer: Because I am a member of Christ by faith, (b) and thus am partaker of his anointing; (c) that so I may confess his name, (d) and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: (e) and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life (f) and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over all creatures."
The greatest and most common sin of the Christian is to want to do what the world does, in the way the world does it. Often we even use "christian" excuses to do it. David's sin of adultery, the Israelites worship of false gods, Israel's desire for a "king", Peter's disagreement that Jesus would die, Judas betrayal of Jesus, Annanias and Sapphira's attempt to get extra credit, all fall into this trap, this sin. Satan loves it. God hates it.
Posted in: So How Good are the Sermons in the CRC?
As someone who has been an elder for the last thirty years, and who has been writing sermons for the last five years, I evaluate sermons differently at different times. What do I look for? I look for an emphasis on scripture, as opposed to personal opinions or social fluff. I look for theological soundness, and a holistic approach. I look for the gospel message to be included. A sermon that does not proclaim the gospel may end up being a lecture or a seminar, rather than a sermon proclamation. While looking for theological soundness, I look for relevance, courage, and leadership. A theologically sound sermon can still be fluffy, or lacking in scriptural context and content, so theological soundness by itself is not sufficient. The apostle Paul said there is a time to go from the milk to the meat. (even though both the milk and the meat may be scripturally sound and theologically sound).
A better evaluation process would be good, however. I know I would appreciate it myself from both ends. A more structured process might take away a bit from the ability to simply absorb and react to the message, but on the other hand it could definately play a role in improving the message for the benefit of the rest of the hearers. Some type of balance between evaluating and simply listening and hearing, might have to be found.