Harry, I have already replied to your allegation about Matthew 25. But I wish to respond to a couple other points you made as well. You wonder whether I have talked with Afro-americans, aboriginals, Koreans, etc. I have just come from a weekend retreat where staff and board members of christian radio stations come together to share experiences and trials and God's blessings. One of the ladies there was chinese born, married to a Swede who speaks many languages. Another couple was Indian (Hindu origin), the wife from a Christian family, the husband a born-again christian from a strong hindu family. Others there were of Ukranian origin, or low german ancestry, or English, or American background. It takes awhile to get used to different cultures, regardless of the color of skin. We have adopted an aboriginal girl, and my children have adopted a "black" child from Haiti, and three children from Russia. I work with people from the Sudan, Pakistan, South Africa, and other southern hemisphere people. I've met and admired strong native christians in Dominican Republic and Mexico. Our church could benefit greatly from the excitement and strong trusting faith exhibited by people of other cultures. But the belhar is not the answer nor the solution to a kind of natural inclination to seek out people who are similar to ourselves. The belhar merely states things that we already know about the equality of peoples, along with some things that are basically incorrect and unbiblical, mixing truth with falsehood.
At a theoretical level, people understand that people are equal. At a practical level, we also know as you said, that most people in prison in the USA are poor and black, and in Canada are aboriginal and poor. That culture and background influences our acceptance levels. But in a way, it is not really merely about race. The issue is fear, and our worship of our false gods of convenience and materialism. When we are more concerned about getting a scratch on our shiny new car, or about hearing non-classical music, or about a house-style that doesn't fit in the neighborhood, than we are about the eternal salvation of our aboriginal neighbor or our Indonesian waitress or mexican mechanic, then we have an indication of where our heart is at.
Good preaching, and a better understanding of scripture, and a better awareness that it was Jews and Greeks and Africans and Asians and Romans who were the original church, not Northern European caucasians, would go much further to helping our understanding of how God works with various peoples.
Mark, the path of dishonesty is not the FOS or its equivalent. The path of dishonesty is in failing to teach the confessions, failing to read them and understand them. The path of dishonesty is in disregarding them but signing the FOS or making the profession of faith in willful ignorance.
The confessions are the way of clarifying our common beliefs and understandings of scripture. Without having some understanding of the confessions, we don't know if we are united or not.
Two years ago, we had an adult bible study going through the Heidelberg again. All members of this class were professing members who had already agreed to the confessions, but a refresher is good from time to time.
When my daughter was eleven years old, she wondered about participating in the Lord's Supper. I said she could but she needed to read thru the Heidelberg first. So she did. She read aloud the entire Heidelberg in my presence over the course of about four days, and asked questions where she had questions. This was not a formal profession of faith in terms of membership but a sufficient understanding for participating in communion. I think we sometimes wait too long to get discussing these confessions with our children, and underestimate their potential to understand. And we worry about their potential to actually disagree with parts of the confessions if they begin to understand and know what they say. We ought to leave that part in God's almighty hands.
Harry, if I am a "hoot", then I am perhaps an owl.... considered by some to be "wise"... so thankyou.
Of course Jesus identified with the poor. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that he did not also identify with the rich. Such as Zacheus, the rich centurion, with King David, Joseph, Abraham, Job. He identified with people, not with a class of people. Absolutely I agree that an absence of service indicates an absence of faith and love. That is the real point of Matt 25, so you got that right. I don't think I really need to make a compelling case, since I am not proposing a new confession. The proponents need to make a compelling case, which they and you have not done. Your interpretations of the passage seem to be out of context of the rest of scripture. This seems to be a case of making a half-truth into an absolute, and in this case the absolute is false, as we have already demonstrated.
I can only demonstrate by my personal life that I oppose this being adopted as a north american confession not by prejudice, but on principle of scripture being understood in its fulness.
If this issue is so pertinent, and if this issue is not a political issue, and if this issue is not mere public relations, then you need to explain why we are picking on this issue rather than more significant and relevant issues such as the issue of abortion. If mistreatment of other races, ethnicities, nationalities is so important (I do think it is important...) then is not the issue of abortion even more important? Who is more poor, more helpless, more discriminated against than the unborn? Who is more hated, neglected and abused? In Canada alone, 100,000 unborn are not just relegated to the balcony in churches as you put it, but are stuffed into the garbage bins of society each year. Not just to be discriminated against in various subtle ways, but to have their lives snuffed out. Does this not deserve a confession?
What about the issues of serving other gods, worldly ideals? Is this not a much larger threat to the significance of the church? Has this not led to a much more significant diminishment of church participation and church membership? Where is our specific new confession on that issue?
Where is our confession on the evils of homosexuality, pornography, or divorce, or single parent families? Are these not at least equal if not greater threats to our profession of faith, to our christian lifestyles, to our christian witness?
What about the threat of Mormonism, Islam, or Bahai? Where is our confession to counter these three cults which threaten to swamp and persecute Christians of all races in all nations?
The Belhar mentions unity of peoples or races. But what of the unity among Christians? It says: "Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation; " ... does this mean that different denominations are not permitted, such as the distinction between CRC and ORC, or between CRC and Baptist churches? Is this statement well written?
Why is the issue of the Belhar so much more significant than these others that I mention? The onus is on you to demonstrate this also.
The lack of the Belhar is not stopping you from telling the Hebrews 11 story or stories. It certainly has not stopped me from doing that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry, I have already replied to your allegation about Matthew 25. But I wish to respond to a couple other points you made as well. You wonder whether I have talked with Afro-americans, aboriginals, Koreans, etc. I have just come from a weekend retreat where staff and board members of christian radio stations come together to share experiences and trials and God's blessings. One of the ladies there was chinese born, married to a Swede who speaks many languages. Another couple was Indian (Hindu origin), the wife from a Christian family, the husband a born-again christian from a strong hindu family. Others there were of Ukranian origin, or low german ancestry, or English, or American background. It takes awhile to get used to different cultures, regardless of the color of skin. We have adopted an aboriginal girl, and my children have adopted a "black" child from Haiti, and three children from Russia. I work with people from the Sudan, Pakistan, South Africa, and other southern hemisphere people. I've met and admired strong native christians in Dominican Republic and Mexico. Our church could benefit greatly from the excitement and strong trusting faith exhibited by people of other cultures. But the belhar is not the answer nor the solution to a kind of natural inclination to seek out people who are similar to ourselves. The belhar merely states things that we already know about the equality of peoples, along with some things that are basically incorrect and unbiblical, mixing truth with falsehood.
At a theoretical level, people understand that people are equal. At a practical level, we also know as you said, that most people in prison in the USA are poor and black, and in Canada are aboriginal and poor. That culture and background influences our acceptance levels. But in a way, it is not really merely about race. The issue is fear, and our worship of our false gods of convenience and materialism. When we are more concerned about getting a scratch on our shiny new car, or about hearing non-classical music, or about a house-style that doesn't fit in the neighborhood, than we are about the eternal salvation of our aboriginal neighbor or our Indonesian waitress or mexican mechanic, then we have an indication of where our heart is at.
Good preaching, and a better understanding of scripture, and a better awareness that it was Jews and Greeks and Africans and Asians and Romans who were the original church, not Northern European caucasians, would go much further to helping our understanding of how God works with various peoples.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Mark, the path of dishonesty is not the FOS or its equivalent. The path of dishonesty is in failing to teach the confessions, failing to read them and understand them. The path of dishonesty is in disregarding them but signing the FOS or making the profession of faith in willful ignorance.
The confessions are the way of clarifying our common beliefs and understandings of scripture. Without having some understanding of the confessions, we don't know if we are united or not.
Two years ago, we had an adult bible study going through the Heidelberg again. All members of this class were professing members who had already agreed to the confessions, but a refresher is good from time to time.
When my daughter was eleven years old, she wondered about participating in the Lord's Supper. I said she could but she needed to read thru the Heidelberg first. So she did. She read aloud the entire Heidelberg in my presence over the course of about four days, and asked questions where she had questions. This was not a formal profession of faith in terms of membership but a sufficient understanding for participating in communion. I think we sometimes wait too long to get discussing these confessions with our children, and underestimate their potential to understand. And we worry about their potential to actually disagree with parts of the confessions if they begin to understand and know what they say. We ought to leave that part in God's almighty hands.
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Harry, if I am a "hoot", then I am perhaps an owl.... considered by some to be "wise"... so thankyou.
Of course Jesus identified with the poor. No question about that. But that doesn't mean that he did not also identify with the rich. Such as Zacheus, the rich centurion, with King David, Joseph, Abraham, Job. He identified with people, not with a class of people. Absolutely I agree that an absence of service indicates an absence of faith and love. That is the real point of Matt 25, so you got that right. I don't think I really need to make a compelling case, since I am not proposing a new confession. The proponents need to make a compelling case, which they and you have not done. Your interpretations of the passage seem to be out of context of the rest of scripture. This seems to be a case of making a half-truth into an absolute, and in this case the absolute is false, as we have already demonstrated.
I can only demonstrate by my personal life that I oppose this being adopted as a north american confession not by prejudice, but on principle of scripture being understood in its fulness.
If this issue is so pertinent, and if this issue is not a political issue, and if this issue is not mere public relations, then you need to explain why we are picking on this issue rather than more significant and relevant issues such as the issue of abortion. If mistreatment of other races, ethnicities, nationalities is so important (I do think it is important...) then is not the issue of abortion even more important? Who is more poor, more helpless, more discriminated against than the unborn? Who is more hated, neglected and abused? In Canada alone, 100,000 unborn are not just relegated to the balcony in churches as you put it, but are stuffed into the garbage bins of society each year. Not just to be discriminated against in various subtle ways, but to have their lives snuffed out. Does this not deserve a confession?
What about the issues of serving other gods, worldly ideals? Is this not a much larger threat to the significance of the church? Has this not led to a much more significant diminishment of church participation and church membership? Where is our specific new confession on that issue?
Where is our confession on the evils of homosexuality, pornography, or divorce, or single parent families? Are these not at least equal if not greater threats to our profession of faith, to our christian lifestyles, to our christian witness?
What about the threat of Mormonism, Islam, or Bahai? Where is our confession to counter these three cults which threaten to swamp and persecute Christians of all races in all nations?
The Belhar mentions unity of peoples or races. But what of the unity among Christians? It says: "Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation; " ... does this mean that different denominations are not permitted, such as the distinction between CRC and ORC, or between CRC and Baptist churches? Is this statement well written?
Why is the issue of the Belhar so much more significant than these others that I mention? The onus is on you to demonstrate this also.
The lack of the Belhar is not stopping you from telling the Hebrews 11 story or stories. It certainly has not stopped me from doing that.
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: 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: 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
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.