I’m not a big one for increasing the bureaucracy (actually I hate the idea), but it seems to me that the oversight that makes us good enough to become eligible for a Call is still needed once we’ve settled into that Call. Yes, I know that the elders are responsible for overseeing the preaching in their own congregations, but sometimes (and maybe more regularly) an outside ear can offer some helpful perspective. So, what would happen if we formed a classical preaching review committee?
Regular and frequent review of preaching in each congregation;
Evaluations based on a universal set of criteria;
Review of evaluations by a meeting of pastors every 2 months (or so).
This is a basic idea, and in all honesty it means a lot more work for a lot of people. But, are our people worth better preaching? I’m open to suggestions and refinement (or scrapping altogether) of this plan.
Other than the time involved, I believe the biggest hurdle to this is a universal set of criteria that defines a ‘good sermon.’ We’ve all been helped (or been the victim of) the Calvin Sem. Sermon Evaluation Form. Is this a good set of criteria? Can it be made better? What is the thing we seem not to be getting right about preaching in the CRC? Let’s pin something down and move forward.
You’re right, Gerrit. I listened to an NPR story about non-Christians (agnostic, atheist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) celebrating “Christmas.” They had no problem with it, and in fact celebrated the commercialism of the season, because that seemed to be the common denominator – after you remove “Peace on earth to all men on whom his favor rests.” It seems crazy that Christians should rebel against ‘Christmas,’ but it may become more and more necessary as Christ is strained out of the celebration.
As much as peace is needed, I pray there are better ways of getting to the peace we desperately desire. Putting it plainly, “inter-faith services” are neither honest nor courageous – they are a spiritual lie. They deny the Lordship of Christ and only confuse those who outside of the grace of Allah in Jesus. Much of our scripture documents the failure of Israel to attain ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ at the expense of Yahweh’s sovereign glory – it didn’t work for them then, and it will not work for us now. Please pray for peace and understanding, but with God’s glory, not without.
I was in Marketing & Design before seminary, and I’ll a give you credit on the boy band/Church allegory –not on “transparency” but on “authenticity.” 1D makes NKOTB look cheap today because 1D can SING. True, kids today are mostly ‘over’ the hype of ‘80s/‘90s pre-programmed bands, but that doesn’t keep some promoters from still using the tactic to sell music & culture. It’s the genuine rooted musicianship of 1D that sells their music, and that will always connect with people more deeply than the plastic coating some groups (and congregations) adopt.
More important than Facebook posts and hashtags, the Church needs to operate in the joy of our calling as reconciled sinners telling other sinners about our Reconciler. Everything else the Church tries to do to “sell” herself and her Lord to the popular culture is costumes and fancy dancing.
I am probably more quick to see other gospel-believing congregations as brothers and sisters because I “married into” the CRC instead of being born here. But because of this, I have observed an ecclesiastical myopia in the CRC - a “if you ain't Dutch, you ain't much” sort of exclusivism that replaces “Dutch” with “CRC.” Yes, members leave CRC congregations, often not for the best reasons or with proper dialogue with their consistory (maybe that’s for another post...). But, is that a loss for The Church (Universal), or a loss for our CRC Yearbook numbers? - and which do we see as worse?
It’s true - the pain is real when one member says to another, “I can’t - and won’t - worship with you anymore.” Obviously, someone messed up somewhere in the love department (maybe even the person leaving). There’s a real sense of loss when our children get older and start attending So-and-So Nondenominational Church down the road. But, perhaps that’s a move that will result in a deeper spiritual maturity for the person who leaves “us” for “them” - because in Christ we are all “us” - just in different places. Does this truth clarify the problem in the CRC, or give us more questions to ask of ourselves?
This is a great post, Wendy. On one hand, I couldn't agree more. However, on the other hand, I really think that these issues have an effect on our work in the Great Commission. Whether that's really what all the debate about is questionable, but the concerns are still there.
As we try to live out the Great Commission, both locally and globally, as institution and organism, what message do we bring to people who experience economic, cultural and spiritual crises or oppression? What power of the good news do we really propose to aid people in their distress? What kind of a savior do we wish to introduce them to?
There are aspects of the Belhar that could be taken to mean that all poor/disadvantaged/oppressed people are really God's chosen (elected) people. Is that really the good news we're bringing to our communities and the world - or is the gospel someting more, or even completey different? As we try to teach people all that Jesus has commanded - with the context he commanded - are we now willing to say that homosexuality is no longer a broken aspect of fallen humanity that requires the blood of Christ for atonement? - Some are willing to change the good news of the atonement in just that way. And, how do we come to a conclusion over these issues when one paragraph of NT scripture may be deeply important for us to obey today, while the next paragraph can be said to have its meaning diluted - not because of the work of Christ, but because of the passage of time or the relative progress of western culture?
These issues that seem to take up a lot of ink (or bytes) are definitely important for the Great Commission we are called to - especially in our contemporary context. I only hope that the glory of Christ and the power of his Gospel the level we're choosing to work out these issues on. If it's out of a lesser desire, and to a lesser glory, then we really can't blame people for choosing to leave the argument for clearer air.
What about the Judgment of God against sin? If we view Ender through a typology lens, then the anointed figure’s decisive victory over those who oppose him foreshadows the coming of Christ in judgment [Rev. 18-19]. Not all will “kiss the Son” [Ps. 2] and sing that the LORD “has become my salvation” [Isa. 12].
While Berkhof’s proposal that “the heart is the seat of religion” may be too theologically sterile for today’s Church, it speaks the same truth that Piper has proposed: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” The question will always be, “What satisfies us?” or, “What do we love?” It is a testament to our sinful nature that we must continually reevaluate religion in the dimension of what we love – and to what degree. These are all restatements of Jesus’ words, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” “whoever has been forgiven little loves little” and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” And, they all convict us about why we do – or do not – evangelize. Why do we not “delight” in Jesus and therefore ‘good news-ify’ others? It may simply be that our heart’s love is not satisfied with the good news. If true, that is a very scary place for the Church to be.
Henry, I have to go with Bev on this one. I'm not “charismatic” enough to hang out in the same room with a Pentacostal believer, but the idea that we don't “experience” the spiritual reality of Christ’s resurrection is simply impossible. We are flesh and spirit humans – not positronic machines ineracting with data. Humans experience truth even when we deny it – the truth of the cross, the resurrection, the Spirit’s calling, regeneration and sanctification – all of it. From what I believe by reading the same Word of God you read, I know that I must experience God’s work – not merely affirm or deny it. From the Word, I alsow know that I am not “superior” to any other Chrsitian, because we all “experience” God’s work in some way. In this continual experiencing, we know what is of God and what is of our self (or the devil) because the Word tells us. God’s Word does not end our experiencing truth – he norms our experiencies. All praise and glory to the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
The photo of a red wall with a Christian cross and Muslim moon in equal halves of a cupula is a curious choice for a graphic to accompany this article. Maybe something had to be placed there that would represent both Christians and Muslims, because that’s what you're writing about. Or, maybe it's a section of some local wall painting in Egypt that fit the open space needed for a visual in this article. However, as someone who spent almost 20 years as a graphic designer before graduating from seminary, this graphic speaks the words, “different faiths, equal religions.”
Now, because of my previous training and vocation, I can be rightly accused of reading waaayyy too much into this graphic. However, I wonder what would happen if we repaint the wall with the cross on top of the moon? Would the interfaith dialogue have gone as smoothly? Would changing the painting in that way offend someone? As one who has been redeemed from the false religion of Islam by Jesus’ work on that cross, I suggest that a symbol representing the mode of true redemption has no businesss sharing a separate-but-equal space with an icon of deception.
Like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into the graphic. But, if the essence of the interfaith talks would be lost by painting the cross over the moon (a position of superiority, or even "victory"), then the dialogue may have already sacrificed the glory of Christ for something much less redemptive. I pray that this is only an instance of my over-active imagination reading an unintended message.
I admire your willingness to address the current events from this angle. Peck used a language of psychology that is uncomfortable for many (as he integrates acknowledgement of “soul’ while dealing with illness of the ‘mind’), but it seems to be gaining traction after the events in Conneticut and the recent years.
What was Peck’s strength in adopting much of the language he uses is a downfall for many in the community of psycological health professionals – Peck was an admitted and practiced Christian. I believe that, to diagnose and treat “evil” without the blessing of the Holy Spirit is to practice moral medicine from your own grave. Honestly, according to Peck’s list (from Wikipedia), I am closer to being an “evil” person than I would like be (with adverbs like “consistently” and “commonly” my only saving grace). I have engaged in these behaviors at some time. Some more than once, and some more continually than I like to admit. Mark, you’re right that we’re getting nowhere in our current evaluations. However, will the professionals we pay to diagnose our society have the sensitivity of the Spirit to admit their own “evil” (be it in Paul’s “flesh” or Peck’s “mind”)? I pray they do.
As to Karl’s comment, I don’t believe we have simply lost an understanding of “evil.” We have silently embraced ways to ignore the conviction of the Spirit as he reveals the ideas and attitudes we must be dying to each sunrise as we take up our cross in persuit of Christ. I believe Paul calls it “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” [Romans 1.18]
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Well, let’s take a stab at really fixing it.
I’m not a big one for increasing the bureaucracy (actually I hate the idea), but it seems to me that the oversight that makes us good enough to become eligible for a Call is still needed once we’ve settled into that Call. Yes, I know that the elders are responsible for overseeing the preaching in their own congregations, but sometimes (and maybe more regularly) an outside ear can offer some helpful perspective. So, what would happen if we formed a classical preaching review committee?
This is a basic idea, and in all honesty it means a lot more work for a lot of people. But, are our people worth better preaching? I’m open to suggestions and refinement (or scrapping altogether) of this plan.
Other than the time involved, I believe the biggest hurdle to this is a universal set of criteria that defines a ‘good sermon.’ We’ve all been helped (or been the victim of) the Calvin Sem. Sermon Evaluation Form. Is this a good set of criteria? Can it be made better? What is the thing we seem not to be getting right about preaching in the CRC? Let’s pin something down and move forward.
Comments?
Posted in: Time to Reform Christmas by Unblending or Disentangling?
You’re right, Gerrit. I listened to an NPR story about non-Christians (agnostic, atheist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) celebrating “Christmas.” They had no problem with it, and in fact celebrated the commercialism of the season, because that seemed to be the common denominator – after you remove “Peace on earth to all men on whom his favor rests.” It seems crazy that Christians should rebel against ‘Christmas,’ but it may become more and more necessary as Christ is strained out of the celebration.
Posted in: A Serious Call for Change
As much as peace is needed, I pray there are better ways of getting to the peace we desperately desire. Putting it plainly, “inter-faith services” are neither honest nor courageous – they are a spiritual lie. They deny the Lordship of Christ and only confuse those who outside of the grace of Allah in Jesus. Much of our scripture documents the failure of Israel to attain ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ at the expense of Yahweh’s sovereign glory – it didn’t work for them then, and it will not work for us now. Please pray for peace and understanding, but with God’s glory, not without.
Posted in: One Direction in Faith Formation
I was in Marketing & Design before seminary, and I’ll a give you credit on the boy band/Church allegory –not on “transparency” but on “authenticity.” 1D makes NKOTB look cheap today because 1D can SING. True, kids today are mostly ‘over’ the hype of ‘80s/‘90s pre-programmed bands, but that doesn’t keep some promoters from still using the tactic to sell music & culture. It’s the genuine rooted musicianship of 1D that sells their music, and that will always connect with people more deeply than the plastic coating some groups (and congregations) adopt.
More important than Facebook posts and hashtags, the Church needs to operate in the joy of our calling as reconciled sinners telling other sinners about our Reconciler. Everything else the Church tries to do to “sell” herself and her Lord to the popular culture is costumes and fancy dancing.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
I am probably more quick to see other gospel-believing congregations as brothers and sisters because I “married into” the CRC instead of being born here. But because of this, I have observed an ecclesiastical myopia in the CRC - a “if you ain't Dutch, you ain't much” sort of exclusivism that replaces “Dutch” with “CRC.” Yes, members leave CRC congregations, often not for the best reasons or with proper dialogue with their consistory (maybe that’s for another post...). But, is that a loss for The Church (Universal), or a loss for our CRC Yearbook numbers? - and which do we see as worse?
It’s true - the pain is real when one member says to another, “I can’t - and won’t - worship with you anymore.” Obviously, someone messed up somewhere in the love department (maybe even the person leaving). There’s a real sense of loss when our children get older and start attending So-and-So Nondenominational Church down the road. But, perhaps that’s a move that will result in a deeper spiritual maturity for the person who leaves “us” for “them” - because in Christ we are all “us” - just in different places. Does this truth clarify the problem in the CRC, or give us more questions to ask of ourselves?
Posted in: Global Missions and The Belhar, Genesis, Homosexuality, and Women in Office
This is a great post, Wendy. On one hand, I couldn't agree more. However, on the other hand, I really think that these issues have an effect on our work in the Great Commission. Whether that's really what all the debate about is questionable, but the concerns are still there.
As we try to live out the Great Commission, both locally and globally, as institution and organism, what message do we bring to people who experience economic, cultural and spiritual crises or oppression? What power of the good news do we really propose to aid people in their distress? What kind of a savior do we wish to introduce them to?
There are aspects of the Belhar that could be taken to mean that all poor/disadvantaged/oppressed people are really God's chosen (elected) people. Is that really the good news we're bringing to our communities and the world - or is the gospel someting more, or even completey different? As we try to teach people all that Jesus has commanded - with the context he commanded - are we now willing to say that homosexuality is no longer a broken aspect of fallen humanity that requires the blood of Christ for atonement? - Some are willing to change the good news of the atonement in just that way. And, how do we come to a conclusion over these issues when one paragraph of NT scripture may be deeply important for us to obey today, while the next paragraph can be said to have its meaning diluted - not because of the work of Christ, but because of the passage of time or the relative progress of western culture?
These issues that seem to take up a lot of ink (or bytes) are definitely important for the Great Commission we are called to - especially in our contemporary context. I only hope that the glory of Christ and the power of his Gospel the level we're choosing to work out these issues on. If it's out of a lesser desire, and to a lesser glory, then we really can't blame people for choosing to leave the argument for clearer air.
Posted in: Diakonia Remix
This report does a LOT more than suggest that deacons be seated at Classis and Synod.
Posted in: Ender's Theology
What about the Judgment of God against sin? If we view Ender through a typology lens, then the anointed figure’s decisive victory over those who oppose him foreshadows the coming of Christ in judgment [Rev. 18-19]. Not all will “kiss the Son” [Ps. 2] and sing that the LORD “has become my salvation” [Isa. 12].
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
While Berkhof’s proposal that “the heart is the seat of religion” may be too theologically sterile for today’s Church, it speaks the same truth that Piper has proposed: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” The question will always be, “What satisfies us?” or, “What do we love?” It is a testament to our sinful nature that we must continually reevaluate religion in the dimension of what we love – and to what degree. These are all restatements of Jesus’ words, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” “whoever has been forgiven little loves little” and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” And, they all convict us about why we do – or do not – evangelize. Why do we not “delight” in Jesus and therefore ‘good news-ify’ others? It may simply be that our heart’s love is not satisfied with the good news. If true, that is a very scary place for the Church to be.
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
Henry, I have to go with Bev on this one. I'm not “charismatic” enough to hang out in the same room with a Pentacostal believer, but the idea that we don't “experience” the spiritual reality of Christ’s resurrection is simply impossible. We are flesh and spirit humans – not positronic machines ineracting with data. Humans experience truth even when we deny it – the truth of the cross, the resurrection, the Spirit’s calling, regeneration and sanctification – all of it. From what I believe by reading the same Word of God you read, I know that I must experience God’s work – not merely affirm or deny it. From the Word, I alsow know that I am not “superior” to any other Chrsitian, because we all “experience” God’s work in some way. In this continual experiencing, we know what is of God and what is of our self (or the devil) because the Word tells us. God’s Word does not end our experiencing truth – he norms our experiencies. All praise and glory to the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
Posted in: Christian - Muslim Dialogue
The photo of a red wall with a Christian cross and Muslim moon in equal halves of a cupula is a curious choice for a graphic to accompany this article. Maybe something had to be placed there that would represent both Christians and Muslims, because that’s what you're writing about. Or, maybe it's a section of some local wall painting in Egypt that fit the open space needed for a visual in this article. However, as someone who spent almost 20 years as a graphic designer before graduating from seminary, this graphic speaks the words, “different faiths, equal religions.”
Now, because of my previous training and vocation, I can be rightly accused of reading waaayyy too much into this graphic. However, I wonder what would happen if we repaint the wall with the cross on top of the moon? Would the interfaith dialogue have gone as smoothly? Would changing the painting in that way offend someone? As one who has been redeemed from the false religion of Islam by Jesus’ work on that cross, I suggest that a symbol representing the mode of true redemption has no businesss sharing a separate-but-equal space with an icon of deception.
Like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into the graphic. But, if the essence of the interfaith talks would be lost by painting the cross over the moon (a position of superiority, or even "victory"), then the dialogue may have already sacrificed the glory of Christ for something much less redemptive. I pray that this is only an instance of my over-active imagination reading an unintended message.
Posted in: Diagnosing Evil
I admire your willingness to address the current events from this angle. Peck used a language of psychology that is uncomfortable for many (as he integrates acknowledgement of “soul’ while dealing with illness of the ‘mind’), but it seems to be gaining traction after the events in Conneticut and the recent years.
What was Peck’s strength in adopting much of the language he uses is a downfall for many in the community of psycological health professionals – Peck was an admitted and practiced Christian. I believe that, to diagnose and treat “evil” without the blessing of the Holy Spirit is to practice moral medicine from your own grave. Honestly, according to Peck’s list (from Wikipedia), I am closer to being an “evil” person than I would like be (with adverbs like “consistently” and “commonly” my only saving grace). I have engaged in these behaviors at some time. Some more than once, and some more continually than I like to admit. Mark, you’re right that we’re getting nowhere in our current evaluations. However, will the professionals we pay to diagnose our society have the sensitivity of the Spirit to admit their own “evil” (be it in Paul’s “flesh” or Peck’s “mind”)? I pray they do.
As to Karl’s comment, I don’t believe we have simply lost an understanding of “evil.” We have silently embraced ways to ignore the conviction of the Spirit as he reveals the ideas and attitudes we must be dying to each sunrise as we take up our cross in persuit of Christ. I believe Paul calls it “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” [Romans 1.18]