Commissioned pastor sounds okay to me. All pastors are commissioned essentially, after all.
I think that the problem we have with "official" roles, and the unofficial giftings, is that they do not always correspond exactly to each other. So we have pastors who are evangelists, and apostles who are teachers, and commissioned pastors who are preachers. What does this all mean then? What is it that we are really getting hung up on? Where do the elders and deacons fit in to all of this? Why is it that the primary mention of a particular office has to do with offices of elder and deacon, and not with qualifications of teachers and pastors(commissioned or otherwise)?
I once attended a service at a church in Florida, where they did not have official pastors or ministers as such, but only elders, who functioned as preachers and pastors.
How can we separate our desire for education and a learned approach to preaching and teaching and pastoral care, from our innate human desire for categories, titles, and earthly honor? How can we honor theological learning and education appropriately, without honoring them above the necessary respect due to the gifting of the spirit within the heart of a person. How do we honor a particular office of authority, without supposing that formal education is sufficient to grant that authority?
The song "Indescribable", written by Chris Tomlin, available on the internet to read and/or listen to. Untameable is kind of the opposite of "best buddy"... Untameable is also the opposite of treating God like a pet. It's theopposite of "tameable".
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.
Bev, the confessions describe the significance of scripture. Heidelberg 19 and 98, Belgic 2,3,4,5,6,7, address the basic authority and sufficiency of scripture. Therefore whatever scripture says about prophecy, the work of the spirit, miracles, prayer, is affirmed indirectly by the confessions, even when these confessions do not speak specifically about these things. But I agree with your implied conclusion that it is ironic we would try to make a confession on racial equality(Belhar), while not making a specific confessional statement on the place of prophecy and prayer, or other things such as divorce and abortion.
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.
We ought to also think a bit about the purpose of confessions in terms of providing emphasis. For example, the Canons of Dordt teach some basic truths that scripture teaches us. But yet, our focus and emphasis on some of these truths of election and the salvation of covenant children, has sometimes negated the very thing scripture teaches. For example, this can be the result of spending too much time on articles 10 and 11 and not enough time on articles 12 and 13 of the Canons. And while the confessions provide a basis for understanding scripture wholistically, we need to understand that there are different aspects to these doctrines such that there are different ways of expressing them. There are times when it seems that we might condemn people for quoting scriptures simply because those particular scriptures do not exactly say what the confessions say. For example: the phrase Jesus used when he said, "Your faith has saved you." Mark 5, Mark 10, Luke 17. Our Lord has given power to our faith and to our prayer. We should not discount that power on the basis of a confessional understanding of election and predestination. The mystery of this is great, but we should not attempt to destroy a mystery which scripture has not eliminated for us.
Mutual comments to each other in the council room ought to include thanks to God for the work that others are doing. Yes, sometimes there are things lacking, things undone, words that should not have been said, wrong attitudes portrayed, but, God still also uses the faith and work of those who honestly strive to serve him. The prayers, visits, leadership, and support of council members for the work of God's people should also be appreciated. Elders and deacons including pastors then ought to be eager to hear what can be improved, or how they can build on their gifts, and use the opportunities provided to them by God. In that spirit, the point is not mainly one of censure, but one of growth, of learning the will of God in their lives. In that way, it is God's name that will be praised!
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.
Rob, I think the confessions have been de-emphasized to some extent because of the idea that it is not so much what you believe, but how you live that really counts. In other words, faith without works is dead(book of James), and you know you follow Christ by your obedience (epistles of John). While there is some validity to that, the need for us to understand Christ's teachings about grace and about who He is, and the apostle Paul's teachings about law and grace, demonstrates the need for us to have an understanding of the theology expressed in the confessions. That is the understanding that grounds our living for Christ, that places our "works" into the correct context. Without that understanding the social gospel will kill the church, since the connection to Christ's saving work will be lost.
But the full-orbed confessions also highlight that faith without works is dead, and that God does require obedience. Sometimes without a good understanding of the confessions, we also lose sight of obedience. Ironically, sometimes it happens at the same time as the church emphasizes its social gospel activities. One the one hand, a church will emphasize caring for creation and caring for the poor, while at the same time downplaying faithfulness in marriage, or downplaying the significance of abortion, or making room for homosex, or for pagan culture, or for worldly accomodation in lifestyle.
Whether we teach the confessions specifically, or merely teach scripture in a way that duplicates or replicates the statements of the confessions, the important point is really the concepts within the confessions, that they impact our lives. The way to make sure that happens is to use the confessions as a way of guaging what we know, what we emphasize, and what we de-emphasize. I'm reminded of the stories of the Israelites and Judaites in the old testament, who built the high places to worship false gods. Even those "good" kings who worshipped God, still often failed to remove the "high places" (in spite of God's specific command to destroy them) and thus left the possibility for some of the people to worship false gods, and for future generations to begin to worship falsely again. In the same way, neglecting the confessions, and neglecting certain scriptural teachings, can leave us vulnerable to worshipping false gods, or to serving both God and man.
Posted in: Commissioned Pastors: A Rose By Another Name?
Commissioned pastor sounds okay to me. All pastors are commissioned essentially, after all.
I think that the problem we have with "official" roles, and the unofficial giftings, is that they do not always correspond exactly to each other. So we have pastors who are evangelists, and apostles who are teachers, and commissioned pastors who are preachers. What does this all mean then? What is it that we are really getting hung up on? Where do the elders and deacons fit in to all of this? Why is it that the primary mention of a particular office has to do with offices of elder and deacon, and not with qualifications of teachers and pastors(commissioned or otherwise)?
I once attended a service at a church in Florida, where they did not have official pastors or ministers as such, but only elders, who functioned as preachers and pastors.
How can we separate our desire for education and a learned approach to preaching and teaching and pastoral care, from our innate human desire for categories, titles, and earthly honor? How can we honor theological learning and education appropriately, without honoring them above the necessary respect due to the gifting of the spirit within the heart of a person. How do we honor a particular office of authority, without supposing that formal education is sufficient to grant that authority?
Posted in: Check Out the Music
The song "Indescribable", written by Chris Tomlin, available on the internet to read and/or listen to. Untameable is kind of the opposite of "best buddy"... Untameable is also the opposite of treating God like a pet. It's theopposite of "tameable".
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: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Bev, the confessions describe the significance of scripture. Heidelberg 19 and 98, Belgic 2,3,4,5,6,7, address the basic authority and sufficiency of scripture. Therefore whatever scripture says about prophecy, the work of the spirit, miracles, prayer, is affirmed indirectly by the confessions, even when these confessions do not speak specifically about these things. But I agree with your implied conclusion that it is ironic we would try to make a confession on racial equality(Belhar), while not making a specific confessional statement on the place of prophecy and prayer, or other things such as divorce and abortion.
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.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
We ought to also think a bit about the purpose of confessions in terms of providing emphasis. For example, the Canons of Dordt teach some basic truths that scripture teaches us. But yet, our focus and emphasis on some of these truths of election and the salvation of covenant children, has sometimes negated the very thing scripture teaches. For example, this can be the result of spending too much time on articles 10 and 11 and not enough time on articles 12 and 13 of the Canons. And while the confessions provide a basis for understanding scripture wholistically, we need to understand that there are different aspects to these doctrines such that there are different ways of expressing them. There are times when it seems that we might condemn people for quoting scriptures simply because those particular scriptures do not exactly say what the confessions say. For example: the phrase Jesus used when he said, "Your faith has saved you." Mark 5, Mark 10, Luke 17. Our Lord has given power to our faith and to our prayer. We should not discount that power on the basis of a confessional understanding of election and predestination. The mystery of this is great, but we should not attempt to destroy a mystery which scripture has not eliminated for us.
Posted in: Cruelty or Evil, Which is Better?
You did the best you could! God bless you!
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Serving Christ under His promise, the way He wants us to.
Posted in: Is Everyone a Missionary?
A man with a mission: a missionary?
Mission-ary - someone sent ,
Missionem - act of sending.
A Christian missionary can be defined as "one who is to witness across cultures."
Maybe it doesn't matter what you are called. Maybe it just matters what you do?
Posted in: How Do You Keep Peace in the Council Room?
Mutual comments to each other in the council room ought to include thanks to God for the work that others are doing. Yes, sometimes there are things lacking, things undone, words that should not have been said, wrong attitudes portrayed, but, God still also uses the faith and work of those who honestly strive to serve him. The prayers, visits, leadership, and support of council members for the work of God's people should also be appreciated. Elders and deacons including pastors then ought to be eager to hear what can be improved, or how they can build on their gifts, and use the opportunities provided to them by God. In that spirit, the point is not mainly one of censure, but one of growth, of learning the will of God in their lives. In that way, it is God's name that will be praised!
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Rob, I think the confessions have been de-emphasized to some extent because of the idea that it is not so much what you believe, but how you live that really counts. In other words, faith without works is dead(book of James), and you know you follow Christ by your obedience (epistles of John). While there is some validity to that, the need for us to understand Christ's teachings about grace and about who He is, and the apostle Paul's teachings about law and grace, demonstrates the need for us to have an understanding of the theology expressed in the confessions. That is the understanding that grounds our living for Christ, that places our "works" into the correct context. Without that understanding the social gospel will kill the church, since the connection to Christ's saving work will be lost.
But the full-orbed confessions also highlight that faith without works is dead, and that God does require obedience. Sometimes without a good understanding of the confessions, we also lose sight of obedience. Ironically, sometimes it happens at the same time as the church emphasizes its social gospel activities. One the one hand, a church will emphasize caring for creation and caring for the poor, while at the same time downplaying faithfulness in marriage, or downplaying the significance of abortion, or making room for homosex, or for pagan culture, or for worldly accomodation in lifestyle.
Whether we teach the confessions specifically, or merely teach scripture in a way that duplicates or replicates the statements of the confessions, the important point is really the concepts within the confessions, that they impact our lives. The way to make sure that happens is to use the confessions as a way of guaging what we know, what we emphasize, and what we de-emphasize. I'm reminded of the stories of the Israelites and Judaites in the old testament, who built the high places to worship false gods. Even those "good" kings who worshipped God, still often failed to remove the "high places" (in spite of God's specific command to destroy them) and thus left the possibility for some of the people to worship false gods, and for future generations to begin to worship falsely again. In the same way, neglecting the confessions, and neglecting certain scriptural teachings, can leave us vulnerable to worshipping false gods, or to serving both God and man.