Whenever tensions arise between certain interest groups in our local church and the church’s leadership, the leaders are often quick to point out that the church is not a democracy, where leadership reflects the will of the people, but a theocracy where leaders lead on behalf of Christ, the head of the church.
Naturally, this presupposes that church leaders are particularly in tune with Christ’s will for His church. When there are indications that such is not the case (usually not that difficult to document, and often admitted to by church leaders from the outset), the usual fall-back position is that while church leaders are fallen, and even broken human beings, their authority still stands, presumably based on the authority of the ecclesiastical office (ex-officio).
In sharp contrast to that is the reality that God indwells individual people with His Spirit, and that this results in spiritual gifts, including gifts of discernment, teaching, leadership, and even prophecy (here defined as speaking on behalf of God).
Historical examples of this tension between spiritual discernment and God-ordained leadership should include Nathan speaking to King David about his affair with Bathsheba, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about living according to the Law of Moses, and Luther speaking to the pope about creating a new path to heaven by way of purchasing indulgences.
It appears, then, that if ours is really Christ’s church, and Christ cares about what the church is and does, then the question of what kind of human leadership is needed, in order for Christ’s vision for the church to be realized here on earth, is still somewhat of an open question.
Even if we limit ourselves to examples from the Bible, does the preponderance of evidence point us towards the efficacy of divinely appointed offices (whether they be priests, kings, judges, etc)? Or to spiritual wisdom, as resulting from direct intervention by the Holy Spirit, at a particular moment in time in the life of a specific individual, leading that individual to speak truth to power, or to speak pastorally to God’s people in times of specific need?
And even if we resort to our usual strategy of equivocating, allowing for both/and to be operative in the church today, then how do they work in tandem? Do they work in their own unique realm? Divine office people doing divine office things, and spirit-led prophets speaking prophetically in their own little prophet world? And never the two shall meet?
I appreciate your concern about the seeming decline in "deep thinking". But I also noted with interest that you find it scary when you run into people who are able to hold two opposing views at the same time. Is it possible that by standing firmly in our confessional tradition we are often more inclined to provide the "right answers" than to ask the right questions? (I think that it what John Suk is trying to get at in "Not Sure") A wise mentor of mine, Fr. Richard Rohr said this in his daily blog today, under the title "Paradox": "I don’t think the important thing is to be certain about answers nearly as much as being serious about the questions. When we hold spiritual questions, we meet and reckon with our contradictions, with our own dilemmas; and we invariably arrive at a turning point where we either evade God or meet God. Mere answers close down the necessary struggle too quickly, too glibly, and too easily. When we hang on the horns of dilemmas with Christ—between perfect consistency and necessary contradictions—we find ourself in the unique place I call “liminal space.” Reality has a cruciform shape to it then—and we are taught best at the intersection of order and disorder, where God alone can make sense out of the situation and we must surrender. All real transformation of persons takes place when we’re inside of such liminal space—with plenty of questions that are open to God and grace and growth." Is this at all relevant to your concern about the decline of "deep thinking"?
I ordered the book. It sounds interesting. But already I wonder how much church member dissatisfaction is associated with a sense of powerlessness vs other groups or leaders in the church. Is it possible that we are really talking about the relative health of our congregations? My own tentative vision of a healthy church leaves room for a great deal more diversity of perspective than is common in many of our churches. A lot more opportunity for open communication, appreciation for the holy mosaic of God's people with all their many different experiences and ideas. Are there ways to measure church health? Are there ways to help people feel more empowered without undermining community allegiance to our Lord? Could a classis help make that happen, or would the involvement of classis merely shift the power from one segment of the community to another? Yes, I will be back after I read the Fly book. This could turn into a great discussion! Thanks for starting it!
Yes, elders play a role in encouraging quality preaching, and yes, it would help if the congregation could differentiate a good sermon from a bad one, and yes it would be great if additional resources would be available as part of seminary preparation for preaching ministry, but none of it would accomplish much without the preacher being willing and able to receive and utilize constructive criticism. Way too many preachers are too insecure to listen to, let alone respond to, evaluative statements, whether they come from supervising elders, knowledgeable peers, or average listeners. As preachers, we often have way too much emotional investment in our sermon construction to allow others to comment on possible weaknesses. Perhaps the best way elders can help improve sermon quality is to suggest their pastor become a member of a small, safe, group of peers with whom to compare notes on a regular basis. (see Eugene Peterson, The Pastor, especially chapter 18 The Company of Pastors)http://www.amazon.com/The-Pastor-Eugene-H-Peterson/dp/0061988200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340761659&sr=1-1&keywords=the+pastor+eugene+peterson
Discerning post. Thank you for sending that email. I am sure it led to considerable discussion at your students' dinner table that evening.
With my own children already grown and on their own, I nevertheless tried to imagine myself having that conversation around our dinner table. But in my imagination the tension point was not about where to draw the line, but about how to draw the line.
The easy part is to say: "If you feel led by God to go there, go there. If not, don't go there."
The hard part comes after you have decided not to go there, and someone asks: "Why would you not go there?" Again, the easy answer would be: "I did not feel led by God to go there". And it might even be true. Let's assume it is.
But then I imagined the next question: "What's so bad about those people that God would not want you to go there? Are those people beyond redemption? Does God not love those people? Are we too good to be around those people? Is that situation too dangerous for God to protect us?"
And then I imagined the conversation to quickly turn into a cesspool of comparing .. and judging ... and assuming ..... and labeling ......, and diminishing .......... and belittling ............ and disrespecting.............. and generalizing ................ and pretty soon we are all praying: "thank you Lord that you did not make me like so-and-so..." and asking God to "...please, protect us from the likes of so-and-so."
And pretty soon it is us, "the holy ones" vs "them", the evil ones. And if part of our calling is to fight evil, we may as well start by fighting "them", those wicked servants of the devil.
And one step further down the road, I hear myself urging my kids to vote Conservative, because, surely, we don't want to engage those infidels without adequate weapons to take them out.......
And then I imagined hearing God speaking through my kids, around the table, when they say: "Don't go there, Dad"
Yes, we need to have those conversations around the dinner table.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
Whenever tensions arise between certain interest groups in our local church and the church’s leadership, the leaders are often quick to point out that the church is not a democracy, where leadership reflects the will of the people, but a theocracy where leaders lead on behalf of Christ, the head of the church.
Naturally, this presupposes that church leaders are particularly in tune with Christ’s will for His church. When there are indications that such is not the case (usually not that difficult to document, and often admitted to by church leaders from the outset), the usual fall-back position is that while church leaders are fallen, and even broken human beings, their authority still stands, presumably based on the authority of the ecclesiastical office (ex-officio).
In sharp contrast to that is the reality that God indwells individual people with His Spirit, and that this results in spiritual gifts, including gifts of discernment, teaching, leadership, and even prophecy (here defined as speaking on behalf of God).
Historical examples of this tension between spiritual discernment and God-ordained leadership should include Nathan speaking to King David about his affair with Bathsheba, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about living according to the Law of Moses, and Luther speaking to the pope about creating a new path to heaven by way of purchasing indulgences.
It appears, then, that if ours is really Christ’s church, and Christ cares about what the church is and does, then the question of what kind of human leadership is needed, in order for Christ’s vision for the church to be realized here on earth, is still somewhat of an open question.
Even if we limit ourselves to examples from the Bible, does the preponderance of evidence point us towards the efficacy of divinely appointed offices (whether they be priests, kings, judges, etc)? Or to spiritual wisdom, as resulting from direct intervention by the Holy Spirit, at a particular moment in time in the life of a specific individual, leading that individual to speak truth to power, or to speak pastorally to God’s people in times of specific need?
And even if we resort to our usual strategy of equivocating, allowing for both/and to be operative in the church today, then how do they work in tandem? Do they work in their own unique realm? Divine office people doing divine office things, and spirit-led prophets speaking prophetically in their own little prophet world? And never the two shall meet?
Just asking….
Posted in: R.I.P. Deep Thinking
I appreciate your concern about the seeming decline in "deep thinking". But I also noted with interest that you find it scary when you run into people who are able to hold two opposing views at the same time. Is it possible that by standing firmly in our confessional tradition we are often more inclined to provide the "right answers" than to ask the right questions? (I think that it what John Suk is trying to get at in "Not Sure") A wise mentor of mine, Fr. Richard Rohr said this in his daily blog today, under the title "Paradox": "I don’t think the important thing is to be certain about answers nearly as much as being serious about the questions. When we hold spiritual questions, we meet and reckon with our contradictions, with our own dilemmas; and we invariably arrive at a turning point where we either evade God or meet God. Mere answers close down the necessary struggle too quickly, too glibly, and too easily. When we hang on the horns of dilemmas with Christ—between perfect consistency and necessary contradictions—we find ourself in the unique place I call “liminal space.” Reality has a cruciform shape to it then—and we are taught best at the intersection of order and disorder, where God alone can make sense out of the situation and we must surrender. All real transformation of persons takes place when we’re inside of such liminal space—with plenty of questions that are open to God and grace and growth." Is this at all relevant to your concern about the decline of "deep thinking"?
Posted in: The Church as a Community of Dissatisfaction?
I ordered the book. It sounds interesting. But already I wonder how much church member dissatisfaction is associated with a sense of powerlessness vs other groups or leaders in the church. Is it possible that we are really talking about the relative health of our congregations? My own tentative vision of a healthy church leaves room for a great deal more diversity of perspective than is common in many of our churches. A lot more opportunity for open communication, appreciation for the holy mosaic of God's people with all their many different experiences and ideas. Are there ways to measure church health? Are there ways to help people feel more empowered without undermining community allegiance to our Lord? Could a classis help make that happen, or would the involvement of classis merely shift the power from one segment of the community to another? Yes, I will be back after I read the Fly book. This could turn into a great discussion! Thanks for starting it!
Posted in: So How Good are the Sermons in the CRC?
Yes, elders play a role in encouraging quality preaching, and yes, it would help if the congregation could differentiate a good sermon from a bad one, and yes it would be great if additional resources would be available as part of seminary preparation for preaching ministry, but none of it would accomplish much without the preacher being willing and able to receive and utilize constructive criticism. Way too many preachers are too insecure to listen to, let alone respond to, evaluative statements, whether they come from supervising elders, knowledgeable peers, or average listeners. As preachers, we often have way too much emotional investment in our sermon construction to allow others to comment on possible weaknesses. Perhaps the best way elders can help improve sermon quality is to suggest their pastor become a member of a small, safe, group of peers with whom to compare notes on a regular basis. (see Eugene Peterson, The Pastor, especially chapter 18 The Company of Pastors)http://www.amazon.com/The-Pastor-Eugene-H-Peterson/dp/0061988200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340761659&sr=1-1&keywords=the+pastor+eugene+peterson
Posted in: Engaging Culture – Where Do You Draw the Line?
Discerning post. Thank you for sending that email. I am sure it led to considerable discussion at your students' dinner table that evening.
With my own children already grown and on their own, I nevertheless tried to imagine myself having that conversation around our dinner table. But in my imagination the tension point was not about where to draw the line, but about how to draw the line.
The easy part is to say: "If you feel led by God to go there, go there. If not, don't go there."
The hard part comes after you have decided not to go there, and someone asks: "Why would you not go there?" Again, the easy answer would be: "I did not feel led by God to go there". And it might even be true. Let's assume it is.
But then I imagined the next question: "What's so bad about those people that God would not want you to go there? Are those people beyond redemption? Does God not love those people? Are we too good to be around those people? Is that situation too dangerous for God to protect us?"
And then I imagined the conversation to quickly turn into a cesspool of comparing .. and judging ... and assuming ..... and labeling ......, and diminishing .......... and belittling ............ and disrespecting.............. and generalizing ................ and pretty soon we are all praying: "thank you Lord that you did not make me like so-and-so..." and asking God to "...please, protect us from the likes of so-and-so."
And pretty soon it is us, "the holy ones" vs "them", the evil ones. And if part of our calling is to fight evil, we may as well start by fighting "them", those wicked servants of the devil.
And one step further down the road, I hear myself urging my kids to vote Conservative, because, surely, we don't want to engage those infidels without adequate weapons to take them out.......
And then I imagined hearing God speaking through my kids, around the table, when they say: "Don't go there, Dad"
Yes, we need to have those conversations around the dinner table.