Jeff wrote: "We have a particular emotional stamp" which had me chuckling and thinking "our stamp is missing, i.e. it is a lack of emotional expression." There seems, in my experience, to be a direct corelation to suspicion of emotion/feelings and level of theological and practical conservatism. My theory is that this is partially because in the previous centuries our main church leaders and especially theologians 'bought' rationalism as the one pure and unfallen part of humanity, and that had a "no-trickle" effect. Add to that two World wars and tough living that resulted, where having time and energy to have feelings was a luxury, and a culture where pain was not acknowlegable (no trickle) and using the language of psychology, a generation of emotionally stunted people emigrated to Canada in the 40's and 50's and to the US before that. The lack of means and permission to express any bit of this deeper trauma has had interesting effects on the church.
So that is part of how I respond to Jeff writing: "I think that we have struggled with the movement not only because of specific theological issues but more generally on this basic emotional/emotive level, as it plays itself out in worship, etc...that's all."
All that said, emotions and feelings are tricky. They can be false, or misguided. But I believe they need spiritual discernment just as much as any rationalization of the need for "going Spock" does.
The addiction treatment facility I worked at for 9 months was one place were I saw how forcefully or negligently supresed emotions in childhood are one key step toward addiction, and thus the value of the opposite: learning to identify and name and validate emotions validates the person. But now I'm the one bringing in topics not directly related to my own main question.
Thanks Rob, Bev, John and Jeff for your thoughts so far.
In some ways, the variety of responses prove the validity of the point that we do not have a common clear understanding of what the Preaching of the Word is. I smirkingly enjoy that validation of my concern!
Reviewing:
Rob starts things off by saying true preaching presents Christ in such a way that worship and obedience results in the recipients.
Bev cites a scripture which says human wisdom and persuasiveness in preaching is not the main thing. Demonstrations of the Spirit's power is, so that the result is faith in God's power not the human element. The evidence of this would be, for her, that individuals have a sense of individualized non-coincidental messages from God for them in the many things they experience in worship times. This is facilitated by some part of the preparation of the preacher/leaders, she implies, which includes a trusting that God is leading the shaping of the worship event/message so that those non-coincidences can occur, sometimes without the leader having any idea they are.
John also points to presenting Christ, and if Christ is absent it is not Word. Preaching that Word in Spirit and truth is more important than the response of the hearers. Some soak it up, some reject it. He then comes back and says you can tell some things from the results, implying that compliance with what the Word proclaimed calls for would be a valid sign.
Jeff then shares a great (and to me surprising) quote from the Insitutes. The surprise is that Calvin knows there is a connection between the head and the heart and makes very clear that the message needs to take root in the heart -- having it bouncing around the brain only does not good. How could we have developed such a cerebral set of denominations with foundational teaching like that from him? So Jeff then suggests that Orthopathy "right affect/passion" is the weak spot. He says the preacher's Orthopathy must be right to start with, and the messages should shape the spiritual affect of the hearers. Touched, moved and then changed hearts is the hoped for outcome. I loved the Ames quote and your restatement of it.
So where does that put us so far in trying to define the true Preaching of the Word?
It is interesting to me that so far we have put a lot of pixels into words about the results or outcome. We have not talked much about handling and presenting the Word itself. Again, I take that as proof I ponder a valid question.
Next, clearly, we say Christ is the main ingredient of the Word (though that bears further elaboration, one could preach a graceless Christ, for instance).
And then there is the layer of the Spirit's role.
To close, we still really have not clearly and specifically spoken to the question: "How do I know I've heard the Word?" or "What is the true preaching of the Word?" Why is bombast not appropriate?
I would say, obviously not for you going by your definitions. Yet I have heard preaching (years ago) where Christ was the one who died for me so I owed Christ my good behaviour.
Again, in trying to find out what people mean by "The preaching of the Word" your comments make clear that we cannot just say "Preach Christ" because a manipulative, coercive, pharisaical message might be touted as doing exactly that. And of course a moral example Christ fits as well. So, in the 'good' answer to my original question to start this conversation, we would need to include an explanation of the 'kind' of Christ we would need to hear about.
I'll jump ahead to reply to this Bev (I was planning to systematically respond to postings from the last few days, and I'll get back to that later d.v. Easter week being a busy one notwithstanding)
Service done to retroactively 'earn' the salvation that was a gift is misguided service to me. The Orthopathy of it is not right, even though the practise looks good. It is an easy way out for a preacher to use this kind of negative motivational technique. As soon as we 'owe' it, we are wandering. When we 'give' service we are closer to how I understand the HC.
In my always shifting Theology right now, part of our Kingdom citizen purpose is to echo and particpate in the "always on" wholebeing heavenly worship that we are given a glimpse of in John's vision. When we worship in resonance with that heavenly worship the Kingdom of God has come in us, and, guess what, service is given as a gift, not a duty.
I have a keen interest in this topic, an interest which was in place before I had my own personal experience with Article 17.
George it is impossible to answer your questions objectively. My main summary statement of the general subject would be "we do not now how to have open, honest, loving, direct-feedback conversations about how ministry is going" and "when things don't go as hoped or expected, we resort to some of our most un-Christlike behaviours." That's about all it would be fair for me to say now.
I can answer Ken's first question quite specifically, as the Pastor-Church Relations office has compiled some statistics on the use of Article 17a and b since 1980, based on the "Routes to Ordained CRC Ministry Study Report of 2000) and the Yearbook data. Here are the numbers:
1980 to 1989: 24 Art 17a, 7 Art 17c
1990 to 1999: 25 Art 17a, 13 Art 17c
2000 to 2009: 146 Art 17a, 26 Art 17c
The description says Art 16c's are included in the 17a stats.
In general, my sense is that the increasing number is actually a sign of health. It is a sign both ministers and congregations are admitting there are problems, rather than just sending a problem on to another church or a new pastor coming into a problem congregation.
I'm pleased now to be working as a Specialized Transitonal Minister who is being trained to come in to transition a congregation to a new phase of it's life and maybe clear out some of the things that create difficulties.
Pete - Who had a few good weeks on Ken's brother's "ranch" duing an unplanned wait to cross the border this summer.
With Respect to Art 17, were there not other options to take in a "crash?"
Your words "This was the first I had heard of "self-care," which seems at first to be selfish, but in reality is a healthy awareness of our limitations as humans" ring true about a vacuum I learned I had in my life. The things I 'felt' like doing to take care of myself were all considered 'lazy' in my upbringing. I first learned about what I now think of as Sacred Selfishness from a book by that title by Bud Harris. Here's how it starts out, a beginning that immediately resonated with questions I'd had. He goes on to help make some psychological and theological sense of it:
Sacred Selfishness; A Guide to living a life of substance by Bud Harris, Ph. D.
INTRODUCTION
"There are two general kinds of selfishness in life. One is sickly, and we often refer to it as egotism or individualism. Its practitioners are emotionally hungry for power, starved for affirmation, and drive to use and impose on us for self-serving ends. They steal our energy and vitality. Our consumer-driven society fosters sickly selfishness because it thrives on teaching us that we always want or need more of some product to feel good about ourselves."
"Sacred selfishness is the second kind of selfishness. It means making the commitment to valuing ourselves and our lives enough to pursue the decision to become people of substance... what ... Ralph Waldo Emerson refers to as 'character--a reserved force which acts directly by presence, and without means... it works with most energy in the smallest companies and in private relationships.' Sacred selfishness teaches us to love life, and its practitioners give energy. vitality, and hope to the people around them.
Sacred selfishness causes us to step outside of the everyday... pressures of getting life "right." ... -- page 1 & 2
End of Quote
That book got me on the beginnings of a new way of doing things many years ago, and I'm still learning...
To the honourable High Priest of the most Holy Temple of the pure faith of Abraham and his descendants.
I, Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin, being discipled in the Pharsaical way at the esteemed feet of the learned Gamaliel, ardent servant of God, appeal to you my High Priest for letters of endorsement so I can go and deal with the corruption of our most true way of God by those revisionists who claim the heretic and blasphemer, Jesus of lowly Nazareth, who dined with the unclean, was actually the son of God and has risen from the grave. To allow this softening and corruption of God's plan for Israel to carry on unabated is an extreme offense to all that is righteous, and threatens to weaken the faith. You may be aware that I was the one who guarded the coats when the first action was taken to remove one of these corrupters. My zeal for our God calls me to take further such action and go to Damascus with a group of armed men to contain this contagion. Reliable reports say they are encouraging adherents to the way of the God of Israel who are not of Israeli blood to join with them. We all know of the disregard the fool they follow had for our precious law, and it is time we act to enforce that law against this movement that is calling for limp love instead of solid law.
I am prepared to leave immediately after sabbath, if you but grant me the desire of my heart to chase down and do away with these softies.
May our God bless you and your children and household, Praise be to his name!
Humbly submitted, in service to our Great God, with anticipation of serving him well in this endeavor,
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Jeff wrote: "We have a particular emotional stamp" which had me chuckling and thinking "our stamp is missing, i.e. it is a lack of emotional expression." There seems, in my experience, to be a direct corelation to suspicion of emotion/feelings and level of theological and practical conservatism. My theory is that this is partially because in the previous centuries our main church leaders and especially theologians 'bought' rationalism as the one pure and unfallen part of humanity, and that had a "no-trickle" effect. Add to that two World wars and tough living that resulted, where having time and energy to have feelings was a luxury, and a culture where pain was not acknowlegable (no trickle) and using the language of psychology, a generation of emotionally stunted people emigrated to Canada in the 40's and 50's and to the US before that. The lack of means and permission to express any bit of this deeper trauma has had interesting effects on the church.
So that is part of how I respond to Jeff writing: "I think that we have struggled with the movement not only because of specific theological issues but more generally on this basic emotional/emotive level, as it plays itself out in worship, etc...that's all."
All that said, emotions and feelings are tricky. They can be false, or misguided. But I believe they need spiritual discernment just as much as any rationalization of the need for "going Spock" does.
The addiction treatment facility I worked at for 9 months was one place were I saw how forcefully or negligently supresed emotions in childhood are one key step toward addiction, and thus the value of the opposite: learning to identify and name and validate emotions validates the person. But now I'm the one bringing in topics not directly related to my own main question.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Thanks Rob, Bev, John and Jeff for your thoughts so far.
In some ways, the variety of responses prove the validity of the point that we do not have a common clear understanding of what the Preaching of the Word is. I smirkingly enjoy that validation of my concern!
Reviewing:
Rob starts things off by saying true preaching presents Christ in such a way that worship and obedience results in the recipients.
Bev cites a scripture which says human wisdom and persuasiveness in preaching is not the main thing. Demonstrations of the Spirit's power is, so that the result is faith in God's power not the human element. The evidence of this would be, for her, that individuals have a sense of individualized non-coincidental messages from God for them in the many things they experience in worship times. This is facilitated by some part of the preparation of the preacher/leaders, she implies, which includes a trusting that God is leading the shaping of the worship event/message so that those non-coincidences can occur, sometimes without the leader having any idea they are.
John also points to presenting Christ, and if Christ is absent it is not Word. Preaching that Word in Spirit and truth is more important than the response of the hearers. Some soak it up, some reject it. He then comes back and says you can tell some things from the results, implying that compliance with what the Word proclaimed calls for would be a valid sign.
Jeff then shares a great (and to me surprising) quote from the Insitutes. The surprise is that Calvin knows there is a connection between the head and the heart and makes very clear that the message needs to take root in the heart -- having it bouncing around the brain only does not good. How could we have developed such a cerebral set of denominations with foundational teaching like that from him? So Jeff then suggests that Orthopathy "right affect/passion" is the weak spot. He says the preacher's Orthopathy must be right to start with, and the messages should shape the spiritual affect of the hearers. Touched, moved and then changed hearts is the hoped for outcome. I loved the Ames quote and your restatement of it.
So where does that put us so far in trying to define the true Preaching of the Word?
It is interesting to me that so far we have put a lot of pixels into words about the results or outcome. We have not talked much about handling and presenting the Word itself. Again, I take that as proof I ponder a valid question.
Next, clearly, we say Christ is the main ingredient of the Word (though that bears further elaboration, one could preach a graceless Christ, for instance).
And then there is the layer of the Spirit's role.
To close, we still really have not clearly and specifically spoken to the question: "How do I know I've heard the Word?" or "What is the true preaching of the Word?" Why is bombast not appropriate?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
John asks: "Is a graceless Christ still Christ?"
I would say, obviously not for you going by your definitions. Yet I have heard preaching (years ago) where Christ was the one who died for me so I owed Christ my good behaviour.
Again, in trying to find out what people mean by "The preaching of the Word" your comments make clear that we cannot just say "Preach Christ" because a manipulative, coercive, pharisaical message might be touted as doing exactly that. And of course a moral example Christ fits as well. So, in the 'good' answer to my original question to start this conversation, we would need to include an explanation of the 'kind' of Christ we would need to hear about.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I'll jump ahead to reply to this Bev (I was planning to systematically respond to postings from the last few days, and I'll get back to that later d.v. Easter week being a busy one notwithstanding)
Service done to retroactively 'earn' the salvation that was a gift is misguided service to me. The Orthopathy of it is not right, even though the practise looks good. It is an easy way out for a preacher to use this kind of negative motivational technique. As soon as we 'owe' it, we are wandering. When we 'give' service we are closer to how I understand the HC.
In my always shifting Theology right now, part of our Kingdom citizen purpose is to echo and particpate in the "always on" wholebeing heavenly worship that we are given a glimpse of in John's vision. When we worship in resonance with that heavenly worship the Kingdom of God has come in us, and, guess what, service is given as a gift, not a duty.
Posted in: What has been your experience with Article 17 A?
Hi George and Ken!
I have a keen interest in this topic, an interest which was in place before I had my own personal experience with Article 17.
George it is impossible to answer your questions objectively. My main summary statement of the general subject would be "we do not now how to have open, honest, loving, direct-feedback conversations about how ministry is going" and "when things don't go as hoped or expected, we resort to some of our most un-Christlike behaviours." That's about all it would be fair for me to say now.
I can answer Ken's first question quite specifically, as the Pastor-Church Relations office has compiled some statistics on the use of Article 17a and b since 1980, based on the "Routes to Ordained CRC Ministry Study Report of 2000) and the Yearbook data. Here are the numbers:
1980 to 1989: 24 Art 17a, 7 Art 17c
1990 to 1999: 25 Art 17a, 13 Art 17c
2000 to 2009: 146 Art 17a, 26 Art 17c
The description says Art 16c's are included in the 17a stats.
In general, my sense is that the increasing number is actually a sign of health. It is a sign both ministers and congregations are admitting there are problems, rather than just sending a problem on to another church or a new pastor coming into a problem congregation.
I'm pleased now to be working as a Specialized Transitonal Minister who is being trained to come in to transition a congregation to a new phase of it's life and maybe clear out some of the things that create difficulties.
Pete - Who had a few good weeks on Ken's brother's "ranch" duing an unplanned wait to cross the border this summer.
Posted in: What has been your experience with Article 17 A?
Hey Walt! Thanks for sharing your experience.
With Respect to Art 17, were there not other options to take in a "crash?"
Your words "This was the first I had heard of "self-care," which seems at first to be selfish, but in reality is a healthy awareness of our limitations as humans" ring true about a vacuum I learned I had in my life. The things I 'felt' like doing to take care of myself were all considered 'lazy' in my upbringing. I first learned about what I now think of as Sacred Selfishness from a book by that title by Bud Harris. Here's how it starts out, a beginning that immediately resonated with questions I'd had. He goes on to help make some psychological and theological sense of it:
Sacred Selfishness; A Guide to living a life of substance by Bud Harris, Ph. D.
INTRODUCTION
"There are two general kinds of selfishness in life. One is sickly, and we often refer to it as egotism or individualism. Its practitioners are emotionally hungry for power, starved for affirmation, and drive to use and impose on us for self-serving ends. They steal our energy and vitality. Our consumer-driven society fosters sickly selfishness because it thrives on teaching us that we always want or need more of some product to feel good about ourselves."
"Sacred selfishness is the second kind of selfishness. It means making the commitment to valuing ourselves and our lives enough to pursue the decision to become people of substance... what ... Ralph Waldo Emerson refers to as 'character--a reserved force which acts directly by presence, and without means... it works with most energy in the smallest companies and in private relationships.' Sacred selfishness teaches us to love life, and its practitioners give energy. vitality, and hope to the people around them.
Sacred selfishness causes us to step outside of the everyday... pressures of getting life "right." ... -- page 1 & 2
End of Quote
That book got me on the beginnings of a new way of doing things many years ago, and I'm still learning...
I'll share a few other books another time.
Pete
Posted in: No Such Thing as "Loveless Orthodoxy"
To the honourable High Priest of the most Holy Temple of the pure faith of Abraham and his descendants.
I, Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin, being discipled in the Pharsaical way at the esteemed feet of the learned Gamaliel, ardent servant of God, appeal to you my High Priest for letters of endorsement so I can go and deal with the corruption of our most true way of God by those revisionists who claim the heretic and blasphemer, Jesus of lowly Nazareth, who dined with the unclean, was actually the son of God and has risen from the grave. To allow this softening and corruption of God's plan for Israel to carry on unabated is an extreme offense to all that is righteous, and threatens to weaken the faith. You may be aware that I was the one who guarded the coats when the first action was taken to remove one of these corrupters. My zeal for our God calls me to take further such action and go to Damascus with a group of armed men to contain this contagion. Reliable reports say they are encouraging adherents to the way of the God of Israel who are not of Israeli blood to join with them. We all know of the disregard the fool they follow had for our precious law, and it is time we act to enforce that law against this movement that is calling for limp love instead of solid law.
I am prepared to leave immediately after sabbath, if you but grant me the desire of my heart to chase down and do away with these softies.
May our God bless you and your children and household, Praise be to his name!
Humbly submitted, in service to our Great God, with anticipation of serving him well in this endeavor,
Saul of Tarsus.
Posted in: What Followers Should Expect from Spiritual Leaders
Good stuff Mark!
Posted in: The Pastor's Marriage and the Satanist's Prayer
Achingly accurate.
Posted in: Difficult Pastor-Church Partings and Fire Alarms
Further note: I plan to take any comments and combine them with my own thoughts and post a compilation in about a month.
Posted in: You Write the Caption!
Three Preachsketeers.
Posted in: You Write the Caption!
Testing 1, 2, 3 Hi Mom!