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.
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!
How do we teach these confessions? I think we assume too much sometimes. In my experience, I have seen children read scripture passages, or cadet lessons, or liturgical readings, but not have a clue about what they mean. I think sometimes/often that also applies to adults. We read stuff aloud and then promptly forget what we read, or maybe it never even really registered. Happens sometimes with singing hymns too. So we need to keep that in mind. How do we make it register? How does it become part of our thinking? Part of our instant recall, our frame of reference? This is particularly important when teaching children and youth, so that they will be able to fall back on what they have learned, when they need it.
Antonio, there are no contradictions in what Paul is saying, no more than in how Jesus treated people. If you understand what he is saying. Jesus selected twelve men (only men) as his special disciples, and as his apostles. They played a different role than the children who sat on his knee, and different than the roles of Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the other women who followed him. But Paul is saying that all of these people are just as important to Jesus. Just because someone is an apostle, does not ultimately make him more important than the child or the woman or the non-apostle or the non-deacon. From our earthly perspective, we always want to think that someone with more authority is more important than someone who has less authority. This is a very earthly perspective, very worldly. Only Christ himself is more important. Everyone else is equally valuable to God; God does not give more worth to the high priest in the temple than to the boy who brought the two fish and five loaves to Jesus.
The centurion, a non-Jew who had a sick servant had more faith than all the Israelites who were supposedly special, said Jesus. The samaritan woman who begged for scraps from the table(for her son to be healed) was treated with the same love of Christ that the woman at the well received, or the woman whose son had died, or Mary and Martha who lost Lazarus, or Peter when he repented of his denial of Christ.
Do not confuse authority or roles, with importance in the eyes of our Lord. Then you will understand those verses better.
Just one example of this type of interaction, is for churches who do services for seniors residences or nursing homes, to have young children come and sing songs or play instruments at those services. For the young kids, it builds an understanding of age, of infirmity, of the blessing of helping and service. And the older people generally really like to see the young kids; it brightens their day and gives them hope for the future too. Kids from age 6 to 12 generally like to do it, and when they are used to it, they will also participate at an older age.
In our church, we have aboriginal members: three children. Also we have one adult who has some american aboriginal ancestry. We welcome them all. The three children are adopted by different families. They are open adoptions so friendly relationships with bio-parents are maintained. In one case, relationships with bio-grandparents and aunts are also continued.
I think it is much more important for youth to be involved in their church, rather than in the denomination. If they see the church as living, believing, trusting, honest, and trustworthy, then they might see the church as an example of what the denomination is like. Their involvement in the church ought to include an understanding of where the church came from, what it believes, why it holds to its confessions, how the confessions influence the faith life of worship and the daily life of its members. While change in the church is evidence that the church is listening and compassionate and caring and relevant, it also highlights the possiblity of larger changes. For example, if lots of small changes are constantly possible within a church, then a young adult would begin to think that larger changes are not so dramatic or significant, one of those larger changes being membership in a church of another denomination. Being able to distinguish between insignificant small changes, and significant confessional changes, is something that would be important to youth. It would be something that provides a reason for youth to attach to and be loyal to their church, which they might then extend to the denomination because of its common confession.
A few youth might place a lot of significance in the denomination, and want to participate in denominational discussions. But most youth are looking for a hands on relationship with people who can live the gospel, and confess their faith. They are often at the stage of learning how Christ is lord of their life, not at looking at the intracacies of denominational policy discussions. They are usually looking for leadership, not wanting to be leaders, even though they may challenge assumptions and leaders from time to time.
"Youth" is also much too broad a term to be able to get at the essence of this. Youth encompasses people from age 10 to age 18, and there are dramatic differences in how they look at life, and what kind of things they want to get involved in. These changes and differences even carry on into the young adult category, from age 18 to 25 or so. There is no blanket age category that covers all scenarios. Those who might want to get involved in denominational issues and structures would be a very small minority.
I agree with Paul that the costs of youth delegates, as well as their assumed significance would suggest that there are better ways to get their input. What makes their input more significant than the input of all those others who have never been elders or deacons or classical or synodical delegates? And which group of youth? Young marrieds? twelve year olds? college kids? farm kids? unmarried twenty-somethings? homeschooled graduates? Youth are only united by age, and are as diverse as the families they come from. Anyway, things to think about.
Neil, excellent article. Your four points are great! And I would suggest that an active daily engagement with scripture makes the huge difference. Having done both random scripture selections, and a progressive bible reading - following chapters in sequence, that reading through the bible a chapter or two at a time is more effective. It gets you to see things otherwise missed. Reading as a family cannot replace reading personally and alone. Reading alone should not replace reading together as a family, especially when you have children. And a devotional book to accompany the bible reading is always a bonus, but should not replace actual discussion of the bible passage in the family setting.
I know some families who spend fifteen minutes or a half-hour at night time before the young kids go to bed. Others who spend time first thing in the morning - they get up fifteen minutes or half-hour earlier so they can fit it in. It takes time and committment. It cannot just be squeezed in. It cannot be shortened up. It is not as effective or rewarding if it only happens once in awhile or sporadically. It needs to be consistent and deserves time, just like it takes time to eat a meal.
This practice provides a foundation and a context for your other three points. Without this, the other three things can still be done, but will lose their purpose.
Maybe part of the irony is that just following the church order, did not satisfy the reason for why article 65 was written? Family visits were not made to have "meaningful" contact, whatever that means. They were often done to fulfill a mere requirement; to mark a job off a list. But the real reason that they should be done, is to provide an opportunity for an evaluation of the faith growth of the family, a way of getting feedback on their participation in the church, and feedback on the activities, organization, leadership, and fellowship of the church (in the context of a message and guidance from scripture). By itself it may not have much impact on the family, other than letting them know that the "official" church cares about them. Maybe some gems of wisdom will pass on to help them in their daily life. But it is a way of finding out if they need a small group ministry, or can participate in a ministry, or whether their young people are being nourished and strengthened, etc. It establishes an initiation point of contact with elders, particularly when they may not know the elders well. It is never an ending, but only a beginning of contact. But a valuable beginning, hopefully resulting in more open communication in the future.
A small church where everyone knows everyone, may find it beneficial to do once in three years, while larger churches, where members do not know each other well, may find a benefit to do it more often.
Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll. What I found interesting was: 1. They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years. 2. They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers. (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.) 3. His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series. 4. Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34. 5. They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week. 6. They are intentionally "complementarian" in church and family .
I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4. But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious. I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others. I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars.
She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis. If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so. If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.
If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church. She should make that argument to Christ who selected 12 male apostles. She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons). She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel. If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse. She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven. She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.
Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men.
I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk. I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course. I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles. I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way. I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do.
I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before. Further, I am not even slightly interested in an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.
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.
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: Guard Against All Kinds of Greed - a Reflection on Luke 12
Well said, Eric. This is also indirectly very pertinent to any consideration of certain statements made in the Belhar.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
How do we teach these confessions? I think we assume too much sometimes. In my experience, I have seen children read scripture passages, or cadet lessons, or liturgical readings, but not have a clue about what they mean. I think sometimes/often that also applies to adults. We read stuff aloud and then promptly forget what we read, or maybe it never even really registered. Happens sometimes with singing hymns too. So we need to keep that in mind. How do we make it register? How does it become part of our thinking? Part of our instant recall, our frame of reference? This is particularly important when teaching children and youth, so that they will be able to fall back on what they have learned, when they need it.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio, there are no contradictions in what Paul is saying, no more than in how Jesus treated people. If you understand what he is saying. Jesus selected twelve men (only men) as his special disciples, and as his apostles. They played a different role than the children who sat on his knee, and different than the roles of Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and the other women who followed him. But Paul is saying that all of these people are just as important to Jesus. Just because someone is an apostle, does not ultimately make him more important than the child or the woman or the non-apostle or the non-deacon. From our earthly perspective, we always want to think that someone with more authority is more important than someone who has less authority. This is a very earthly perspective, very worldly. Only Christ himself is more important. Everyone else is equally valuable to God; God does not give more worth to the high priest in the temple than to the boy who brought the two fish and five loaves to Jesus.
The centurion, a non-Jew who had a sick servant had more faith than all the Israelites who were supposedly special, said Jesus. The samaritan woman who begged for scraps from the table(for her son to be healed) was treated with the same love of Christ that the woman at the well received, or the woman whose son had died, or Mary and Martha who lost Lazarus, or Peter when he repented of his denial of Christ.
Do not confuse authority or roles, with importance in the eyes of our Lord. Then you will understand those verses better.
Posted in: Breaking Down Silos
Just one example of this type of interaction, is for churches who do services for seniors residences or nursing homes, to have young children come and sing songs or play instruments at those services. For the young kids, it builds an understanding of age, of infirmity, of the blessing of helping and service. And the older people generally really like to see the young kids; it brightens their day and gives them hope for the future too. Kids from age 6 to 12 generally like to do it, and when they are used to it, they will also participate at an older age.
Posted in: Truth And Reconciliation
In our church, we have aboriginal members: three children. Also we have one adult who has some american aboriginal ancestry. We welcome them all. The three children are adopted by different families. They are open adoptions so friendly relationships with bio-parents are maintained. In one case, relationships with bio-grandparents and aunts are also continued.
Posted in: How Do We Get Youth Interested in Our Denominations?
I think it is much more important for youth to be involved in their church, rather than in the denomination. If they see the church as living, believing, trusting, honest, and trustworthy, then they might see the church as an example of what the denomination is like. Their involvement in the church ought to include an understanding of where the church came from, what it believes, why it holds to its confessions, how the confessions influence the faith life of worship and the daily life of its members. While change in the church is evidence that the church is listening and compassionate and caring and relevant, it also highlights the possiblity of larger changes. For example, if lots of small changes are constantly possible within a church, then a young adult would begin to think that larger changes are not so dramatic or significant, one of those larger changes being membership in a church of another denomination. Being able to distinguish between insignificant small changes, and significant confessional changes, is something that would be important to youth. It would be something that provides a reason for youth to attach to and be loyal to their church, which they might then extend to the denomination because of its common confession.
A few youth might place a lot of significance in the denomination, and want to participate in denominational discussions. But most youth are looking for a hands on relationship with people who can live the gospel, and confess their faith. They are often at the stage of learning how Christ is lord of their life, not at looking at the intracacies of denominational policy discussions. They are usually looking for leadership, not wanting to be leaders, even though they may challenge assumptions and leaders from time to time.
"Youth" is also much too broad a term to be able to get at the essence of this. Youth encompasses people from age 10 to age 18, and there are dramatic differences in how they look at life, and what kind of things they want to get involved in. These changes and differences even carry on into the young adult category, from age 18 to 25 or so. There is no blanket age category that covers all scenarios. Those who might want to get involved in denominational issues and structures would be a very small minority.
I agree with Paul that the costs of youth delegates, as well as their assumed significance would suggest that there are better ways to get their input. What makes their input more significant than the input of all those others who have never been elders or deacons or classical or synodical delegates? And which group of youth? Young marrieds? twelve year olds? college kids? farm kids? unmarried twenty-somethings? homeschooled graduates? Youth are only united by age, and are as diverse as the families they come from. Anyway, things to think about.
Posted in: Habits in a Disruptive Culture
Neil, excellent article. Your four points are great! And I would suggest that an active daily engagement with scripture makes the huge difference. Having done both random scripture selections, and a progressive bible reading - following chapters in sequence, that reading through the bible a chapter or two at a time is more effective. It gets you to see things otherwise missed. Reading as a family cannot replace reading personally and alone. Reading alone should not replace reading together as a family, especially when you have children. And a devotional book to accompany the bible reading is always a bonus, but should not replace actual discussion of the bible passage in the family setting.
I know some families who spend fifteen minutes or a half-hour at night time before the young kids go to bed. Others who spend time first thing in the morning - they get up fifteen minutes or half-hour earlier so they can fit it in. It takes time and committment. It cannot just be squeezed in. It cannot be shortened up. It is not as effective or rewarding if it only happens once in awhile or sporadically. It needs to be consistent and deserves time, just like it takes time to eat a meal.
This practice provides a foundation and a context for your other three points. Without this, the other three things can still be done, but will lose their purpose.
Posted in: Whatever Happened to Family/Household Visits?
Maybe part of the irony is that just following the church order, did not satisfy the reason for why article 65 was written? Family visits were not made to have "meaningful" contact, whatever that means. They were often done to fulfill a mere requirement; to mark a job off a list. But the real reason that they should be done, is to provide an opportunity for an evaluation of the faith growth of the family, a way of getting feedback on their participation in the church, and feedback on the activities, organization, leadership, and fellowship of the church (in the context of a message and guidance from scripture). By itself it may not have much impact on the family, other than letting them know that the "official" church cares about them. Maybe some gems of wisdom will pass on to help them in their daily life. But it is a way of finding out if they need a small group ministry, or can participate in a ministry, or whether their young people are being nourished and strengthened, etc. It establishes an initiation point of contact with elders, particularly when they may not know the elders well. It is never an ending, but only a beginning of contact. But a valuable beginning, hopefully resulting in more open communication in the future.
A small church where everyone knows everyone, may find it beneficial to do once in three years, while larger churches, where members do not know each other well, may find a benefit to do it more often.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll. What I found interesting was: 1. They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years. 2. They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers. (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.) 3. His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series. 4. Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34. 5. They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week. 6. They are intentionally "complementarian" in church and family .
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4. But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious. I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others. I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars.
She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis. If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so. If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.
If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church. She should make that argument to Christ who selected 12 male apostles. She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons). She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel. If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse. She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven. She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.
Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men.
I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk. I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course. I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles. I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way. I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do.
I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before. Further, I am not even slightly interested in an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.