I appreciated this article. However, it seems there's a key element that the author does not seem aware of - and that is that racism, racial oppression, and white supremacy are linked, systemic and ongoing problems that continue to affect millions of people of color around the country, including above the Mason-Dixon line. He writes that we must try to right this wrong, "without keeping records." The problem is that racism is not fully acknowledged and its impact not appreciated. Sin that is unnamed can't be repented of. Way too many Americans do not recognize the systemic nature of racism, and many truly racist people deny that they are racist. Rather than ignoring our history of slavery and racial oppression, we should bring it to light so that people can experience the conviction of sin and recognize that their continued ignorance only paves the way for further oppression.
I just started a Huddle this past week! I had a little anxiety as I started the huddle as it is a much more directive form of discipleship than what I've done in the past. But the four guys in my huddle responded well and seem excited to grow. I think Breen and co. are totally correct that there is a discipleship crisis in our church. It is one of our primary callings as pastors (along with preaching the word and administering the sacraments), but we tend to put all our eggs in the Sunday morning basket, and spend the rest of our energy on programs, while actually doing very little discipleship. I also think its clear that Sunday school and Christian school (even Christian college) are no substitute for the kind of discipleship that Jesus had in mind for us to be doing. You can go to Christian schools your whole life and not really be a disciple. I'm an example of that. I don't think I really learned how the gospel applied to my life in a practical way until a mentor discipled my wife and me during my first year in full time ministry (after seminary). This is not to say I didn't know my theology or know the Bible. Discipleship is more than learning information, right? It's walking with Jesus, obeying him, and becoming more like him as you enter into relationship with the Triune God.
We sing that song in our church in New York City. From the World English Dictionary (@ www.dictionary.com), the word means "not capable of being tamed, subdued, or made obedient." I'd say this is an apt way to describe God. God cannot be tamed, that is, no person can subdue or control God. He is not accountable to us and acts in his own way, as he pleases. He's like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia: "he's not safe, but he's good." The word is not in the Bible per se, but lots of words we use to correctly describe God fail to appear in scripture. Does that mean we are not allowed to use them? For example, God is "triune." God is "spectacular" - also not found in the Bible. God is "immense," but that word is not used in the Bible to describe God. And so on and so forth.
To your other issue, whether or not councils should be doing "quality control" when it comes to the music we sing, I totally agree. The issue is not whether or not a song "comes out of our tradition" as you say. A congregationalist or pentacostalist could write a perfectly legitimate worship song. (In fact, Balaam, a renowned pagan sorcerer sang inspired lyrics in Numbers 24). The issue is whether or not the music is true and appropriate for Christian worship or captures a legitimate part of the worship experience.
Great article. The slippery slope argument is generally not convincing to most. But the devil really is in the details. When you really think about it, what is the difference between an infant in the womb and one newly birthed? Could we say that the one is physically tied to the mother and is an extension of her life while the newborn has an independent life? The newborn is still completely tied to the mother, if not physically, then in every other way. The infant is as dependent on the mother for food, protection and nurture as it ever was. If the mother doesn't have the right to withhold these necessities to the baby after (we'd call that neglect or child abuse), why should she be encouraged to consider doing so before? Whether in the womb or out, the child's consciousness or sense of self-awareness is not really that different either. Yet kill a newborn baby and most will agree you've done something agregious. Kill an unborn child and we call it choice. If we acknowledge that the difference between born and unborn child is not significant, then maybe people can see that abortion is not that different from killing a newborn.
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
I appreciated this article. However, it seems there's a key element that the author does not seem aware of - and that is that racism, racial oppression, and white supremacy are linked, systemic and ongoing problems that continue to affect millions of people of color around the country, including above the Mason-Dixon line. He writes that we must try to right this wrong, "without keeping records." The problem is that racism is not fully acknowledged and its impact not appreciated. Sin that is unnamed can't be repented of. Way too many Americans do not recognize the systemic nature of racism, and many truly racist people deny that they are racist. Rather than ignoring our history of slavery and racial oppression, we should bring it to light so that people can experience the conviction of sin and recognize that their continued ignorance only paves the way for further oppression.
Posted in: Building a Discipling Culture
I just started a Huddle this past week! I had a little anxiety as I started the huddle as it is a much more directive form of discipleship than what I've done in the past. But the four guys in my huddle responded well and seem excited to grow. I think Breen and co. are totally correct that there is a discipleship crisis in our church. It is one of our primary callings as pastors (along with preaching the word and administering the sacraments), but we tend to put all our eggs in the Sunday morning basket, and spend the rest of our energy on programs, while actually doing very little discipleship. I also think its clear that Sunday school and Christian school (even Christian college) are no substitute for the kind of discipleship that Jesus had in mind for us to be doing. You can go to Christian schools your whole life and not really be a disciple. I'm an example of that. I don't think I really learned how the gospel applied to my life in a practical way until a mentor discipled my wife and me during my first year in full time ministry (after seminary). This is not to say I didn't know my theology or know the Bible. Discipleship is more than learning information, right? It's walking with Jesus, obeying him, and becoming more like him as you enter into relationship with the Triune God.
Posted in: Check Out the Music
We sing that song in our church in New York City. From the World English Dictionary (@ www.dictionary.com), the word means "not capable of being tamed, subdued, or made obedient." I'd say this is an apt way to describe God. God cannot be tamed, that is, no person can subdue or control God. He is not accountable to us and acts in his own way, as he pleases. He's like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia: "he's not safe, but he's good." The word is not in the Bible per se, but lots of words we use to correctly describe God fail to appear in scripture. Does that mean we are not allowed to use them? For example, God is "triune." God is "spectacular" - also not found in the Bible. God is "immense," but that word is not used in the Bible to describe God. And so on and so forth.
To your other issue, whether or not councils should be doing "quality control" when it comes to the music we sing, I totally agree. The issue is not whether or not a song "comes out of our tradition" as you say. A congregationalist or pentacostalist could write a perfectly legitimate worship song. (In fact, Balaam, a renowned pagan sorcerer sang inspired lyrics in Numbers 24). The issue is whether or not the music is true and appropriate for Christian worship or captures a legitimate part of the worship experience.
Posted in: Should Infanticide be Legal?
Great article. The slippery slope argument is generally not convincing to most. But the devil really is in the details. When you really think about it, what is the difference between an infant in the womb and one newly birthed? Could we say that the one is physically tied to the mother and is an extension of her life while the newborn has an independent life? The newborn is still completely tied to the mother, if not physically, then in every other way. The infant is as dependent on the mother for food, protection and nurture as it ever was. If the mother doesn't have the right to withhold these necessities to the baby after (we'd call that neglect or child abuse), why should she be encouraged to consider doing so before? Whether in the womb or out, the child's consciousness or sense of self-awareness is not really that different either. Yet kill a newborn baby and most will agree you've done something agregious. Kill an unborn child and we call it choice. If we acknowledge that the difference between born and unborn child is not significant, then maybe people can see that abortion is not that different from killing a newborn.