Verlyn Verbrugge

From what I remember hearing from years past, the song "The Old Ruggest Cross" is simply unbiblical. Where is there even in a hint in the Bible that we will each exchange the cross of Christ for a crown in heaven? If the song said we will put aside the cross we all must bear (Mark 8:34) because our sufferings will be over, that would be biblical. And, yes, we will receive a crown of glory. But according to the words of the song, it is the old rugged cross of Christ that we will exchange. I personally am not even sure what the theology of that is. (I do love the concept, however, of focusing on the cross of Christ and what he has done for us.

One thing seems clear from church history, namely, that more theology is taught by songs than by stuffy theology books. Think of the huge impact of the Wesley hymns. I am not sure we can ignore or downplay the potential doctrinal impact of the songs we sing. They bury themselves deep into our souls and shape the way we think about God, ourselves, and the world. Just a thought.

Interesting questions, John. Here are some things to think about (with respect to your first paragraph). You will note that "be hallowed" is passive voice, as is "be done." The verb "come" is intransitive. Without an expressed agent (i.e., "let your name be hallowed BY YOU... or BY YOUR PEOPLE"), we simply cannot say for sure who is the agent, the one doing the called-for action. In fact, I have read interpretations on both sides: in the Lord's Prayer we are calling on God to make his name and the kingship of Jesus Christ triumph in our society, or God's people ought to live in such a way that they manifest to people around them that God's name and kingdom means something to them. Maybe it is both. I can say the same things regarding God's will..

And, yes, most certainly, if our lives are such that they reflect the glory of God's name, we are thereby bringing praise to God. That would certainly be a RESULT of hallowing God's name and living out what it means the Jesus is King. So bringing praise to God is certainly a part of the total picture.

In my editing at Zondervan, I worked on a book entitled Should We Use Someone's Else's Sermon? by Scott Gibson. It is filled with lots of good information. One thing in particular I remember is that in some subcultures, it is almost honorable to use words and phrases of famous preachers of the past or even the present (and not necessarily with acknowledgment). But the author strongly speaks against wholesale adoption of the sermons of others. The last chapter is is entitled, "Preaching in a Cut-and-Paste World," where the author mentions websites out there that are intended to be resources for preachers (and many vignettes are unsigned).

I have been the part-time pastor of the Woodland Drive-In Church in Grand Rapids (an outreach ministry of Fifth Reformed Church in Grand Rapids) for over 25 years, and that church has been in existence for 41 years. In contrast to the Fennville ministry (which I believe is primarily a spring-summer-fall worship center), ours has been year-round. Our average attendance is between 50 and 60 vehicles each Sunday. Mark Stephenson is correct that it attracts people who do not fit into the traditional church: people with special needs, people with agoraphobia or allergies to perfumes, handicapped (Hope Network) people, and the like. I am ordained in the CRC, and it has been a blessing to be a part of that ministry. They are a special group of people who need God's word like the rest of us. Our website is www.driveinchurch.org.

To some extent, anyway, culture shapes the time, if not the content, of a second service. When I was in my first charge (Leighton, Iowa) many years ago, I was told that long before my time, farmers came to the morning service (many by horse and buggy), they had lunch after the service, then they had the second service from 2:00 to 3:00 or thereabouts, and were able to get home by chore time. There does not appear, historically anyway, to be anything sacrocant about a morning and an evening service. These are determined by the needs of the congregation. City congregations did things quite differently.

So what are the cultural needs of today's congregations? And how can we best meet them with the message of the gospel? Many (non-Reformed) churches meet them with a Sunday morning and a Wednesday evening service (which has never been a part of our tradition). It has seemed to work well for them. Would this be an adequate substitute for two services on Sunday? I don't know. But I applaud any church that seeks to take the cultural patterns of its congregation into account in seeking to meet their spiritual needs.

I appreciate what the others are writing, and especially the resources that you have found helpful in trying to get a handle on what effective leadership is and how to maneuver through conflict. I have been at Zondervan for over 25 years, though never in a supervisory position. But all employees were required to take a course in Covey's Seven Effective Habits, one of which was "Think Win-Win."

Unfortunately in the American culture, our entire thought patterns are Win-Lose. We see it, naturally, in sports; we see it in the legal profession; we see it politics (the other term for that is gridlock). And I think we see it in church conflict--there will be winners and there will be losers. I don't believe it has to be that way. It wasn't that way in the NT church, but it took time to build a consensus. We need to think win-win (that is perhaps the X that Ron Klimp talks about).