On Interviews & Testimonies, Part VI
Continued from Part V
Q. Should these young children vote? If they are full communing members of the church, how can they be forbidden the right to vote? Should children admitted to the table become voting members as well?
No, young children should not vote. They can eat at the Table, but they don't participate in ruling the church. Surely one can discern the significant differences between eating at the Lord’s Table and passing judgments in the church’s council. What happens in your families? Children are invited to the family table to eat, but they are not invited to participate in the family’s decision-making process. Why? That duty belongs to the father and mother since they have the prerequisite wisdom and experience to make wise judgments about the family finances, plans, etc.
Therefore, we must make provision for a two-fold distinction within the membership of the church: 1) members that do not vote (baptized children or new Christians who partake of the Lord’s supper but are not old enough or mature enough to vote); and 3) the adult communing and voting members.
Maturity is needed for voting, not for eating; for making complicated decisions, not for feeding on Jesus. Jesus feeds all, but not everyone is qualified to make decisions that bear upon the doctrine and government of his church. Every baptized member of the church is part of the family of God, but not necessarily mature enough to pass judgment in the assembly. This means that the proper place for training and extensive examinations is at the time when the young man or woman prepares to take on the responsibilities and privileges of voting membership!
The distinction between communing and voting can be biblically sustained, even if the Bible does not really talk about “voting” as we practice it in America. In the Bible, every circumcised member of the community and his entire family ate at the Passover and participated in the festival meals (Ex. 12:48), but only those who had reached a certain age could go to war and be counted in the census (Num. 1:3). Oftentimes, modern Christians are more interested in avoiding any criticism of being “undemocratic” than genuinely thinking through the implications of nine-, ten-, or even 16-year-old children voting on pastoral calls, church by-laws, or building programs. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me,” not “Let the little children participate in the community's decision making process.”
In our homes we practice this distinction regularly. Small children are acknowledged by the parents as being part of the family, as having a right to participation in the full life of the family, especially when this is manifest at the family dinner table. Parents feed their children, they regularly provide them with all the tokens and symbols of their incorporation and membership in the family. At the same time, parents recognize that until the child grows in knowledge and experience he will not be capable of making judgments about the leadership and direction of the family. Children are not given responsibility for keeping the budget, nor do we call together the entire family and vote on the weightier matters that parents must consider in ruling the family. Maturity and experience are needed to make such decisions. Thus, we must make a fundamental and important distinction between communing and voting members, between partaking of the dinner with which Jesus feeds us and making informed judgments about the administration and direction of the church.
Nothing in the PCA Book of Church Order forbids the Session from establishing a voting age for communing members. One of the former stated clerks of the PCA once noted that it is, in fact, the prerogative of the Session to establish a voting age if it so desired. Members of the original committee that wrote the PCA BCO have expressed their desire to keep the language ambiguous so that each Session would have liberty in this area.
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Young Child Communion & the Westminster Standards
On Interviews & Testimonies, Part V
Continued from Part IV
Q. Doesn't admitting young children violate the Westminster Standards? Shouldn't we only admit mature believers who can understand what is happening at the Table?
Is young child communion consistent with the Westminster Standards? Yes, I believe so. First, consider the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF). No mention is made (wisely) of ages or intellectual capacity in either chapter 14 “On Saving Faith” or chapter 15 “Of Repentance unto Life.” Furthermore, paragraph 3 of chapter 14 shows that the Westminster divines were sensitive to the fact that mature faith ought not to be made the criteria for genuine faith since saving faith “is different in degrees, weak or strong, may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.” Surely it would be wrong to insist that a young covenant child give evidence of a mature faith before we count them as a genuine believer! Genuine faith may be present in covenant children, not having as yet grown up into “the attainment of a full assurance through Christ.” Why should such faith—weak and immature as it may be—serve as a barrier to the covenant child’s participation in the Lord’s communion meal?
The mention of assurance ought to remind us of another statement in the Confession which teaches that lack of the conviction of the assurance of faith is not necessarily evidence of the absence of saving faith. The Confession does indeed hold out to us the goal of attaining full assurance since those believers who “truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace” (18.1), but the divines are also quick to remind us that “This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it” (18.3).
Continued from Part IV
Q. Doesn't admitting young children violate the Westminster Standards? Shouldn't we only admit mature believers who can understand what is happening at the Table?
Is young child communion consistent with the Westminster Standards? Yes, I believe so. First, consider the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF). No mention is made (wisely) of ages or intellectual capacity in either chapter 14 “On Saving Faith” or chapter 15 “Of Repentance unto Life.” Furthermore, paragraph 3 of chapter 14 shows that the Westminster divines were sensitive to the fact that mature faith ought not to be made the criteria for genuine faith since saving faith “is different in degrees, weak or strong, may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.” Surely it would be wrong to insist that a young covenant child give evidence of a mature faith before we count them as a genuine believer! Genuine faith may be present in covenant children, not having as yet grown up into “the attainment of a full assurance through Christ.” Why should such faith—weak and immature as it may be—serve as a barrier to the covenant child’s participation in the Lord’s communion meal?
The mention of assurance ought to remind us of another statement in the Confession which teaches that lack of the conviction of the assurance of faith is not necessarily evidence of the absence of saving faith. The Confession does indeed hold out to us the goal of attaining full assurance since those believers who “truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace” (18.1), but the divines are also quick to remind us that “This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it” (18.3).
Thursday, January 31, 2013
On Interviews & Testimonies, Part III
Continued from Part II.
It's been so long since I wrote the first two essays on this topic that I had to go back and read them again to remember what I had written. What I am trying to do here is work through some of the problems I have encountered when well-meaning Christian leaders conduct "interviews" designed to determine the spiritual condition of a candidate. The candidate might be a child being interviewed for a place at the Lord's Table or church membership or enrollment in a Christian school. Adults are also interviewed for the same reasons. There are any number of situations in which churches, schools, presbyteries, etc. seek to determine the spiritual status of another person.
I have observed that we tend to get stuck in a few well-worn ruts in these interview sessions. There seems to be a "tradition" of Christian interviewing that has developed over the years. Interviewers are looking for the right words and phrases. When we hear them, we relax and move on. If we don't hear them, we become very concerned. And not only are there distinctive phrases we are hoping to hear, there are also words that set off flashing red lights and alarms.
In Part II we saw that at the Last Judgment (the final interview) the authenticity of every professing Christian's faith will be judged based on his life and work. As I said last time, this does not mean we are saved by our works. Nor does it imply that somehow our good works will have to outweigh our sins. There will be no righteousness/sins balance sheet. What it does mean is that everyone who says, "I love Jesus" or "I love God" or "I was saved at age 16" or "Jesus died for my sins" or even "I'm saved by grace alone" will have the authenticity of his orthodox verbal profession either certified or invalidated by his life.
It's been so long since I wrote the first two essays on this topic that I had to go back and read them again to remember what I had written. What I am trying to do here is work through some of the problems I have encountered when well-meaning Christian leaders conduct "interviews" designed to determine the spiritual condition of a candidate. The candidate might be a child being interviewed for a place at the Lord's Table or church membership or enrollment in a Christian school. Adults are also interviewed for the same reasons. There are any number of situations in which churches, schools, presbyteries, etc. seek to determine the spiritual status of another person.
I have observed that we tend to get stuck in a few well-worn ruts in these interview sessions. There seems to be a "tradition" of Christian interviewing that has developed over the years. Interviewers are looking for the right words and phrases. When we hear them, we relax and move on. If we don't hear them, we become very concerned. And not only are there distinctive phrases we are hoping to hear, there are also words that set off flashing red lights and alarms.
In Part II we saw that at the Last Judgment (the final interview) the authenticity of every professing Christian's faith will be judged based on his life and work. As I said last time, this does not mean we are saved by our works. Nor does it imply that somehow our good works will have to outweigh our sins. There will be no righteousness/sins balance sheet. What it does mean is that everyone who says, "I love Jesus" or "I love God" or "I was saved at age 16" or "Jesus died for my sins" or even "I'm saved by grace alone" will have the authenticity of his orthodox verbal profession either certified or invalidated by his life.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
The Apostolic Succession of Suffering, Part III
Part II noted how Christ's vicarious suffering is a model for Christian behavior, especially for the ministry. Jesus suffered and died for us so that the kingdom might come. We suffer and die for others so that the fullness of the kingdom comes. Think about the book of Acts from this perspective. Peter, John, Stephen, James, Paul, and the entire church had to suffer so that the kingdom of Jesus could grow and advance. Every time someone suffers or dies in the story of Acts, the kingdom expands in some way or another.
And although this sounds odd to our ears, these sufferings are for the world. In other words, they are in some deep, mystical sense vicarious. According to Colossians 1:24, the kind of suffering that Paul rejoices in is substitutionary. Suffering on behalf of others, in exchange for others. Paul makes this very clear: “I rejoice in my suffering for you . . . for the sake of his body, the church." He suffers in exchange for the sufferings that the Colossians might have had. His suffering means that the Colossians do not have to suffer as much as they might have.
Now, we usually reserve that word “substitutionary” for the sufferings of Christ for us on the cross. He took the punishment we deserved. He suffered for our sins. But that's not the only way one can "substitute" for another.
And although this sounds odd to our ears, these sufferings are for the world. In other words, they are in some deep, mystical sense vicarious. According to Colossians 1:24, the kind of suffering that Paul rejoices in is substitutionary. Suffering on behalf of others, in exchange for others. Paul makes this very clear: “I rejoice in my suffering for you . . . for the sake of his body, the church." He suffers in exchange for the sufferings that the Colossians might have had. His suffering means that the Colossians do not have to suffer as much as they might have.
Now, we usually reserve that word “substitutionary” for the sufferings of Christ for us on the cross. He took the punishment we deserved. He suffered for our sins. But that's not the only way one can "substitute" for another.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
The Apostolic Succession of Suffering, Part II
I ended Part I wondering why books on the pastoral ministry typically don't include a chapter with a title like "Pastoral Care Through Vicarious Suffering." After all, that is an accurate description of a crucial dimension of the ministry. And this neglected feature of the pastor's vocation flows from the Apostles' foundational example and teaching, especially the Apostle Paul. But, of course, it is grounded ultimately in the Jesus' service for us. Oh wait, Jesus' service was the fulfillment of Israel's calling and vocation. And even deeper, Israel was a new Adam. So this is all about authentic human living, especially as social creatures. But let's not get too far ahead here. Back to Col. 1:24-26:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints (Col. 1:24-26).You see, what Paul's words here mean is that the fullness of the kingdom comes when ministers fill out the sufferings of Christ in service to the church and world. Paul suffers so that the fullness of the kingdom might be experienced by the Colossian Christians. That is why Paul can "rejoice" in his sufferings. Because he knows What his tribulations will produce. As he says in Romans 5:3, ". . . we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces. . . "
Monday, November 26, 2012
Is Christmas Christian? Redux
Every year I repost these essays because every year I keep hearing the same old tired anti-Christmas rhetoric from a vocal minority of well-meaning Christians. I really don't want to return to this issue each year and rework everything. So here it is again. I hope it helps.Christmas Time is Here Again - An introduction to the issues.
The Reformation and The Celebration of Christmas - Have Protestant churches regularly observed Advent and Christmas?
What did John Calvin Think about Christmas?
Isn't Christmas Really A Roman Catholic Holiday? - Why should Protestants observe it?
Isn't Christmas really just a Roman Catholic Mass? - More on the supposed Roman Catholic origins of Christmas
But Christmas is a Roman Catholic HOLY DAY. - Even more on the supposed Roman Catholic character of Christmas.
Isn't Christmas rooted in a pagan holiday?- A critique of the idea that Christmas was pagan holiday incorporated into the church year.
What about all of the pagan symbolism and ceremony associated with Christmas?
Surely you have to admit that the Christmas tree was originally a pagan symbol.
Doesn't Christmas violate the regulative principle of worship? - The Bible doesn't talk about Christmas!
What about the whole "Church Year" thing? - How can we follow a calendar that's not biblical?
But when the Church celebrates Christmas it's an imposition on my conscience. - Why should I be forced to observe Christmas?
Wait! Observing "days and years" is all Old Testament Religion! - We've been freed from all those festivals and observances, right?
Is there any warrant from the Bible for commemorative annual festivals?
But what difference does it really make? - Does the church need to have a church year calendar of annual feasts?
I can't shake the feeling that all of this is too pagan – Isn't all of this symbolic stuff (trees, seasons, etc.) just nature worship?
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Holiday Feasting!
Everyone knows, of course, that the pilgrims established a feast, invited the Indians and the whole community, and all for the purpose of giving thanks to God for his gracious provisions. But did you know that in decreeing a feast, they were acting according to a long tradition among the people of God?A tradition that gives priority to feasts—joyous communal eating and drinking—over against fasting and penitential self-affliction?
When the church is healthy she multiplies feasts, when she is sick and wayward she increases fasting and turns the feasting Table of the Lord’s Supper into a somber Tomb. This is what happened in the late Middle Ages, before Calvin and Luther restored weekly communion, feasting, singing, and gave Christian people a reason for giving thanks. Knowing that Jesus died to set us from from sin, death, and the devil leads to thankful feasting.
This tradition of giving precedence to feasting is not merely a tradition, it’s mandated by God in the Bible—Old and New Testaments. God multiplied feasts and commanded his people to eat and drink and rejoice regularly, repeatedly. Here is just one example:
When the church is healthy she multiplies feasts, when she is sick and wayward she increases fasting and turns the feasting Table of the Lord’s Supper into a somber Tomb. This is what happened in the late Middle Ages, before Calvin and Luther restored weekly communion, feasting, singing, and gave Christian people a reason for giving thanks. Knowing that Jesus died to set us from from sin, death, and the devil leads to thankful feasting.
This tradition of giving precedence to feasting is not merely a tradition, it’s mandated by God in the Bible—Old and New Testaments. God multiplied feasts and commanded his people to eat and drink and rejoice regularly, repeatedly. Here is just one example:
And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household (Deut. 14:23-26).So why does God command us to feast?
Friday, November 16, 2012
On Interviews & Testimonies, Part I
I've often been uncomfortable with the way we interview people to discover if they are believers. My concern goes back many years. It probably began decades ago as I was sitting with my young children as they were being interviewed by elders for the Lord's Table. But it includes my participation in countless membership interviews conducted by church sessions and school boards. So the problems I see are not endemic to interviewing children, but include the process of ascertaining the status of adults as well.
Part of the problem is that we easily settle for questions and answers that use simplistic slogans. If we hear the interviewed adults or children say the right words, we accept their "testimony" without much more inquiry. There are any number of evangelical code words and phrases that we learn so that we can communicate to one another that we are part of the same tribe. Which phrases and terms we use depends on the branch of the church with which we are associated. Some of the more common ones are:
Asking Jesus into my heart
Praying to receive Jesus
Personal relationship with God and/or Jesus
I was saved when. . .
I got saved. . .
My personal Lord and Savior
There are more, of course. But you get the idea. It's not so much that these phrases are wrong or dangerous in themselves. They can indeed helpfully summarize a Christian's experience and present commitment. My problem is not that people use these catch words to give testimony to their faith. My problem is that when these words are phrases are absent many interviewers are very likely to question the authenticity of that person's faith. What often happens in interviews is that we fish for these terms and phrases, asking question after question hoping to hear something familiar. Once we hear our favorite expression we breath a sigh of relieve and move on. Here is a real life example.
Part of the problem is that we easily settle for questions and answers that use simplistic slogans. If we hear the interviewed adults or children say the right words, we accept their "testimony" without much more inquiry. There are any number of evangelical code words and phrases that we learn so that we can communicate to one another that we are part of the same tribe. Which phrases and terms we use depends on the branch of the church with which we are associated. Some of the more common ones are:
Asking Jesus into my heart
Praying to receive Jesus
Personal relationship with God and/or Jesus
I was saved when. . .
I got saved. . .
My personal Lord and Savior
There are more, of course. But you get the idea. It's not so much that these phrases are wrong or dangerous in themselves. They can indeed helpfully summarize a Christian's experience and present commitment. My problem is not that people use these catch words to give testimony to their faith. My problem is that when these words are phrases are absent many interviewers are very likely to question the authenticity of that person's faith. What often happens in interviews is that we fish for these terms and phrases, asking question after question hoping to hear something familiar. Once we hear our favorite expression we breath a sigh of relieve and move on. Here is a real life example.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Letting it Settle in
So Barack Obama won. He won pretty handily if you count the electoral votes (303-206). The popular vote was a little closer (61 to 58 million), and some of the contested State votes that gave him the electoral advantage were very close. Even so, take a moment to compare this to the 2008 election. Back then Obama got almost 70 million votes and McCain about 60 million. 11 million less people voted this time around. And what is a more surprising, Romney got 2 million less votes than McCain did back in 2008.
Okay. So three days after the election, what do I think about all of this? First, whatever the numbers may be, I will be amazed if President Obama is able to do much of anything this term. He's not a leader. He's a campaigner. He's been campaigning for the last 5 years. He's got professionals that advise him well. He knows what people want. He's got a knack for appealing to certain kinds of people, which as this election has shown, turns out to be the majority of the voting public. But he hasn't done anything in the past four years worthy of the name "leadership." He's "led from behind" on every issue, even the big ones like the stimulus and Obama care. He's not a leader. He's a campaigner.
Okay. So three days after the election, what do I think about all of this? First, whatever the numbers may be, I will be amazed if President Obama is able to do much of anything this term. He's not a leader. He's a campaigner. He's been campaigning for the last 5 years. He's got professionals that advise him well. He knows what people want. He's got a knack for appealing to certain kinds of people, which as this election has shown, turns out to be the majority of the voting public. But he hasn't done anything in the past four years worthy of the name "leadership." He's "led from behind" on every issue, even the big ones like the stimulus and Obama care. He's not a leader. He's a campaigner.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Salus extra ecclesiam non est
When Augustine was contemplating becoming a Christian Simplicianus, Ambrose's tudor and assistant, told him a story about Victorinus. Victorinus was a Roman rhetorician and translator of neo-Platonic philosophical works. He had begun to read the Scriptures and study the Christian faith, encouraged by Simplicianus. Simplicianus told Augustine that Victorinus once came to him in private saying, "I should like you to know that I am now a Christian." Simplicianus replied, "That I will not believe, and I shall not count you as a Christian until I see you in the church of Christ." That was wise advice from Simplicianus to Augustine, the young man for whom contemplation was everything.
The Latin in the title to this post means "There is no salvation outside of the church." Typically, we add "ordinarily" to that slogan just to be sure that everyone understands that there are extraordinary situations where people do trust Jesus but are not able to join with a local congregation. The point is, however, that becoming a Christian is not simply something that happens in one's head.
The Latin in the title to this post means "There is no salvation outside of the church." Typically, we add "ordinarily" to that slogan just to be sure that everyone understands that there are extraordinary situations where people do trust Jesus but are not able to join with a local congregation. The point is, however, that becoming a Christian is not simply something that happens in one's head.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Advent & Christmas
Today is the first Sunday in Advent. Not everyone understands what to think about and do during Advent. There are still plenty of Presbyterians who think Christmas is pagan or some sort of compromise with Roman Catholicism.
Here's a simple catechism I wrote last year (for children) explaining the Church Year and Advent.
The Church Year
Q 1. Why do we have different seasons of the year?
A. God created the seasons for man’s use and enjoyment.
Q 2. What do Fall and Winter remind us of?
A. Fall and Winter remind us of sin and death because it is dark and cold.
Q 3. What do Spring and Summer teach us?
A. Spring teaches us that God brings light and life to the world through Jesus Christ.
Q 4. What does the church calendar chiefly celebrate?
A. The church calendar celebrates the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Q 5. Why does the church have her own seasons?
A. The church has her own seasons to teach the world that true life is found in Jesus Christ and to resist reducing life to politics and economics.
Q 6. How are we to sanctify the seasons that God created for our benefit?
A. According to 1 Timothy 4:5, we are to set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer.
Q 7. How has the church set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer?
A. The church has chosen readings from the Old and New Testaments for each season and has ordered the prayer life of the church to match the life of Jesus.
Advent & Christmas
Q 8. What does the word “Advent” mean?
A. The word “advent” means “to come” and has to do with the coming of Jesus.
Q 9. What portion of the life of Jesus does Advent celebrate?
A. Advent celebrates the times leading up to the birth of Jesus as well as his coming again at the last day.
Q 10. How many Sundays are there in Advent?
A. There are four Sundays in Advent.
Q 11. What are the colors for Advent and what do they mean?
A. The colors for Advent are purple and royal blue. They remind us that Jesus is a glorious King.
Q 12. What do we pray for during Advent season?
A. During Advent we pray that Jesus our King would continue to come to us and serve us as he has promised.
Q 13. In our Advent prayers are we pretending that Jesus has not yet been born?
A. No. During Advent we are praying for him to come to us again and again as he has promised.
Q. 14. How did God fulfill his promises to his people in the Hebrew Scriptures?
A. God fulfilled his promises by uniting himself to our human nature in his Son, who faithfully lived a perfect life of service, died the death we deserve, and was raised to life again as the new man, and all this for our salvation.
Q 15. How has Jesus promised to come to us today?
A. In many different ways—to be with us on Sunday for worship, to help us daily when we are in trouble, and at the end of the world to establish the new heavens and earth.
Here's a simple catechism I wrote last year (for children) explaining the Church Year and Advent.
The Church Year
Q 1. Why do we have different seasons of the year?
A. God created the seasons for man’s use and enjoyment.
Q 2. What do Fall and Winter remind us of?
A. Fall and Winter remind us of sin and death because it is dark and cold.
Q 3. What do Spring and Summer teach us?
A. Spring teaches us that God brings light and life to the world through Jesus Christ.
Q 4. What does the church calendar chiefly celebrate?
A. The church calendar celebrates the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Q 5. Why does the church have her own seasons?
A. The church has her own seasons to teach the world that true life is found in Jesus Christ and to resist reducing life to politics and economics.
Q 6. How are we to sanctify the seasons that God created for our benefit?
A. According to 1 Timothy 4:5, we are to set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer.
Q 7. How has the church set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer?
A. The church has chosen readings from the Old and New Testaments for each season and has ordered the prayer life of the church to match the life of Jesus.
Advent & Christmas
Q 8. What does the word “Advent” mean?
A. The word “advent” means “to come” and has to do with the coming of Jesus.
Q 9. What portion of the life of Jesus does Advent celebrate?
A. Advent celebrates the times leading up to the birth of Jesus as well as his coming again at the last day.
Q 10. How many Sundays are there in Advent?
A. There are four Sundays in Advent.
Q 11. What are the colors for Advent and what do they mean?
A. The colors for Advent are purple and royal blue. They remind us that Jesus is a glorious King.
Q 12. What do we pray for during Advent season?
A. During Advent we pray that Jesus our King would continue to come to us and serve us as he has promised.
Q 13. In our Advent prayers are we pretending that Jesus has not yet been born?
A. No. During Advent we are praying for him to come to us again and again as he has promised.
Q. 14. How did God fulfill his promises to his people in the Hebrew Scriptures?
A. God fulfilled his promises by uniting himself to our human nature in his Son, who faithfully lived a perfect life of service, died the death we deserve, and was raised to life again as the new man, and all this for our salvation.
Q 15. How has Jesus promised to come to us today?
A. In many different ways—to be with us on Sunday for worship, to help us daily when we are in trouble, and at the end of the world to establish the new heavens and earth.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Providence Sanctuary
Here's a QTVR of the inside of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Use your mouse to look around. Zoom in and out with the shift and control keys.
Use your mouse to look around. Zoom in and out with the shift and control keys.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Golden Gilead
So I had to read Gilead again because Robinson's new book arrived from Amazon a few weeks ago. I read through Gilead twice four years ago (has it been that long?), but since her new book Home is something of prequel (so I hear, anyway) I figured I needed to reacquaint myself with the story of John Ames first.
Well, once again I am amazed at how good Gilead is. I'm afraid Home is not going to measure up. I haven't read any reviews yet, so I'll just wait and see.
Last night I remembered this gem from Pastor Ames (writing in the 50's). He's talking about a Bible study at the church that he was leading.
Well, once again I am amazed at how good Gilead is. I'm afraid Home is not going to measure up. I haven't read any reviews yet, so I'll just wait and see.
Last night I remembered this gem from Pastor Ames (writing in the 50's). He's talking about a Bible study at the church that he was leading.
Two or three of the ladies had pronounced views on points of doctrine, particularly sin and damnation, which they never learned from me. I blame the radio for sowing a good deal of confusion where theology is concerned. And television is worse. You can spend forty years teaching people to be awake to the fact of mystery and then some fellow with no more theological sense than a jackrabbit gets himself a radio ministry and all of your work is forgotten. I do wonder where it will end.It will never end. Some things never change.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Children of Providence
Here are a few more images from Providences Service of Lessons & Carols this past Sunday evening. You can view over 100 images from the service here.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
This is what passes for a church service in America
Pastor gets into motorcycle crash during church service
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS KOKOMO, Ind.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS KOKOMO, Ind.
A pastor in Indiana decided to bring out a dirt bike during a church service to demonstrate the concept of unity.I guess this is the latest stunt to attract new members. This YouTube video is from a separate incident:
Now he's demonstrating the concept of healing. Jeff Harlow, the senior pastor at Crossroads Community Church, broke his wrist when he lost control of the motorcycle at the start of Sunday's second service. He ended up driving off a 1.5-metre platform and into the vacant first row of seats.
He's now recovering from surgery on the wrist.
His wife, Becky, says the pastor is OK but "his pride was bruised."
Becky Harlow said her husband had recently attended a motorcycle race in Buchanan, Michigan.
"He had this idea that he would bring this bike out onstage and show people how the rider would become one with the bike," she told the Kokomo Tribune. "He was going to just sit on it and drive it out. He was just walking the dirt bike out onstage and somehow it got away from him. It was not intended."
No one else was hurt.
Jeff Harlow had performed the demonstration at earlier services Saturday night and Sunday morning without incident.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Foolish Expectations
We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
We wailed, and you did not weep (Luke 7:32)
I regularly receive phone calls from other men in the pastorate, asking my advice when there is trouble in their congregations. I don’t say this to make you think that I'm some kind of ecclesiastical guru or that I have all the answers to these kinds of church problems. I'm not and I don't. Most of these appeals come from friends or former seminary students with which I have maintained friendly relations.
Many of the problems arise when people in these congregations air their grievances with letters or emails to the pastor or session.
And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or that you should never address your elders or pastors with corrections and suggestions. That process can be quite healthy. I welcome genuine criticism. My leadership, and our church, is always in need of reformation and development. And, just to be balanced, there are times when Pastors and sessions do things that are very wrong or don't do things that are quite necessary. In situations like these, people in the congregation are justified in addressing their leaders.
Even so, I have a sizable collection of examples of these complaints and written accusations as they are passed on to me. And there's a disturbing pattern. Everybody has certain expectations about what the church is supposed to be doing, especially for them. And, to be honest with you, often these complaints sound like whining from spoiled children. The church isn't doing this enough or that enough. Or it's doing too much of something and not enough of something else.
I should also confess here that I myself am not free from this problem. As I grow older I have to repent of the way that I once criticized former churches and pastors and sessions and even my own presbytery and denomination. This is just to say that I am not only pointing my finger, I am reflecting on my own sinful foolishness as well.
The reoccurring, disturbing pattern is to demand that the church meet all of your own personal expectations. Which is often simply another way of saying: God needs to give me this and do that, or serve me this way and that, or I'm not gonna be happy with his church. You know how it goes. The pastor talks about sin and judgment too much. Then in the next paragraph; there's too much feasting and joking and partying in this church. The details of these grievances are often quite petty, even when they are dressed up with spiritual, pious talk and accented with biblical proof texts.
Each of us is that proverbial child in the market place that is never satisfied, whose expectations are never met. This is at the heart of our sinful condition. We think we know what we want and need and therefore sit down with our arms folded and wait for God to meet our expectations. Like spoiled children. Adult babies. Brats, I think is the proper word.
What you have in the Gospel stories is the Lord of heaven and earth, appearing in the flesh to serve his people, to serve the world, and nobody is satisfied with what he is doing. Everybody thinks that it's not enough or it's too much. Confounded, we know what we need and want, and this is not it.
And we know how it ends. Where it ends. It ends with the cross. Humanity doesn't get what it thinks it needs, what it expects from God, and and so we crucify the Lord of heaven and earth.
You and I must read the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as if they were mirrors. Not just windows on the foolishness of the Jews or the arrogance of the Romans, but mirrors. If the Spirit of God is at work in your heart and mind, you will see yourself in these stories.
As I have said so often, you have to learn to identify yourself, your behavior, your motives, with the sinful foolishness of the people of God when they are face to face with their Lord. You cannot say, "I would never do that. I'm not like that. I'm better than that. If I were there, I would have followed and defended Jesus." No, you wouldn't have. No, we don't. We would have done exactly what they did.
The questions Jesus puts to the crowds in passages like Luke 7:31-35 are questions put to us. They are not merely history, but the Word of God written for us. We stand before Jesus and our expectations are challenged, and by God's grace transformed and redefined so that we are able to receive and follow Jesus as he is, to receive the ministry of Jesus as he in fact works—whether he meets with our bratty, childish expectations or not.
We wailed, and you did not weep (Luke 7:32)
I regularly receive phone calls from other men in the pastorate, asking my advice when there is trouble in their congregations. I don’t say this to make you think that I'm some kind of ecclesiastical guru or that I have all the answers to these kinds of church problems. I'm not and I don't. Most of these appeals come from friends or former seminary students with which I have maintained friendly relations.
Many of the problems arise when people in these congregations air their grievances with letters or emails to the pastor or session.
And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or that you should never address your elders or pastors with corrections and suggestions. That process can be quite healthy. I welcome genuine criticism. My leadership, and our church, is always in need of reformation and development. And, just to be balanced, there are times when Pastors and sessions do things that are very wrong or don't do things that are quite necessary. In situations like these, people in the congregation are justified in addressing their leaders.Even so, I have a sizable collection of examples of these complaints and written accusations as they are passed on to me. And there's a disturbing pattern. Everybody has certain expectations about what the church is supposed to be doing, especially for them. And, to be honest with you, often these complaints sound like whining from spoiled children. The church isn't doing this enough or that enough. Or it's doing too much of something and not enough of something else.
I should also confess here that I myself am not free from this problem. As I grow older I have to repent of the way that I once criticized former churches and pastors and sessions and even my own presbytery and denomination. This is just to say that I am not only pointing my finger, I am reflecting on my own sinful foolishness as well.
The reoccurring, disturbing pattern is to demand that the church meet all of your own personal expectations. Which is often simply another way of saying: God needs to give me this and do that, or serve me this way and that, or I'm not gonna be happy with his church. You know how it goes. The pastor talks about sin and judgment too much. Then in the next paragraph; there's too much feasting and joking and partying in this church. The details of these grievances are often quite petty, even when they are dressed up with spiritual, pious talk and accented with biblical proof texts.
Each of us is that proverbial child in the market place that is never satisfied, whose expectations are never met. This is at the heart of our sinful condition. We think we know what we want and need and therefore sit down with our arms folded and wait for God to meet our expectations. Like spoiled children. Adult babies. Brats, I think is the proper word.
What you have in the Gospel stories is the Lord of heaven and earth, appearing in the flesh to serve his people, to serve the world, and nobody is satisfied with what he is doing. Everybody thinks that it's not enough or it's too much. Confounded, we know what we need and want, and this is not it.
And we know how it ends. Where it ends. It ends with the cross. Humanity doesn't get what it thinks it needs, what it expects from God, and and so we crucify the Lord of heaven and earth.
You and I must read the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as if they were mirrors. Not just windows on the foolishness of the Jews or the arrogance of the Romans, but mirrors. If the Spirit of God is at work in your heart and mind, you will see yourself in these stories.
As I have said so often, you have to learn to identify yourself, your behavior, your motives, with the sinful foolishness of the people of God when they are face to face with their Lord. You cannot say, "I would never do that. I'm not like that. I'm better than that. If I were there, I would have followed and defended Jesus." No, you wouldn't have. No, we don't. We would have done exactly what they did.
The questions Jesus puts to the crowds in passages like Luke 7:31-35 are questions put to us. They are not merely history, but the Word of God written for us. We stand before Jesus and our expectations are challenged, and by God's grace transformed and redefined so that we are able to receive and follow Jesus as he is, to receive the ministry of Jesus as he in fact works—whether he meets with our bratty, childish expectations or not.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Inside the Ark
In lamenting the sorry state of the church in modern times, many Christians tend to idealize the church. There is this enormous temptation for conservative Christians when they survey the state of the contemporary church to put before people an idealized, utterly unrealistic vision of the church.
It is very easy to tick off a long list of problems in the churches of our time - doctrinal, moral, organization, theological, relational, whatever. It is almost just as easy to put forward a perfectionistic vision of what the church ought to be and be doing.
Consequently many people run here and there looking for the ideal church. If it's theology you want, you will never be satisfied with any of the actual churches available to you. If it's mission and mercy ministries, then you will always be severely disappointed. Maybe it's friendship and genuine, deep, real fellowship (small groups or accountability groups). But alas, what local body of believers really practices the ideal. Whatever the ecclesiasteical utopia you have idealistically constructed in your mind, you are going to be severely disappointed with the church as she actually exists in time and space, and in your neighborhood. There really is no greener grass; it's all pretty brown and weedy.
Many people, therefore, are deeply alienated from and are frustrated by the church. They bounce from one church to another or from one leader to another in search of the elusive ideal community.
When he had occasion, in his commentaries and sermons, to say something about Noah and the ark, John Calvin observed that it would have been stupefying for "Noah and his household to live for ten months in a fetid heap of animal droppings, in which humans could hardly breath." Noah and his family were shut up in the claustrophobic ark living "in filth that would suffocate the strongest man in half an hour. So the ark became a kind of grave for the living Noah.”
Given that the ark is a prophetic image of the church in the world. I have often recalled Calvin's comments and been comforted and reoriented about life in the church. It's realistic, not idealistic. It's brutally honest. The church often feels and smells like the ark must have. And yet, outside of the ark? The flood. The wrath of God. Death.
Traditionally, the architecture of the church has embodied this vision. Because it looks like the inside of a boat, the area of the church where we worship is referred to as the "nave", from whence we get our word "navy."
At any rate, I spent the week in Dallas at the 36th General Assembly of the PCA with 840 ministers and 291 ruling elders. Inside the ark, if you will.
And it would be quite natural for me to comeback and report on the stench. We could run down a list of all the disappointing aspects of the assembly, our denomination, and our fellow leaders. Some pastors will do just that.
Or, conversely, I could simply hold my nose and make a cheerful, upbeat report on how great our denomination is, how excited I am about our ministries, pretending there are no foul odors in our wonderful, beloved PCA. Many pastors will make such reports. Indeed, a few years ago one commissioner to the GA, as we debated about a new sanctioned denominational logo, suggested that an appropriate one might be that of a cleaning lady sweeping the dirt under the rug.
But both of these approaches would be wrong. And, surprisingly, both of these extremes are the result of thinking about the church is such idealistic terms that one must either keep the reality from people to make them think that the church is much better than she really is or be constantly complaining that the church fails so miserably that we need to form a new denomination so we can be pure.
Instead, the ancient wisdom of the Spirit contained in one of the church's oldest creeds ought to recaptured. "I belive in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." I believe. Whatever I see, whatever I smell, I believe, I trust that the church is one, is holy, is catholic and apostolic. This church, my church, my regional and local church (PCA). Not some romantized church of the past or some imaginary church of the future. No. The only church there is. The one we belong to, the one that is assembled every Sunday and in countless places around the world in Jesus' name.
The creed does not say that the church is perfect. There is no hint of ecclesiastical utopianism here. It doesn't make us claim that the church is infallible. We do not confess that we will be best friends with everyone sitting next to us. Or that we will experience open and dangerously honest intimacy with every other member of the church. We are not told that the church will fix all our problems. Or that the ministry of the church will be able to solve all our troubles or heal all our maladies. Moreover, we are not promised that everyone's sanctification will progress with the same speed and upward improvement.
Rather, we believe, we trust in what God has told us about his church in his Word: that she is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Bottom line: we must believe that our particular branch of the church, the Presbyterian church in America, is a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We believe. We trust. Faith, not sight.
Of course, we should strive to manifest the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of our particular church. But that's on on-going project. It will never end short of the new heavens and earth.
The ancient saying is true: one cannot have God for his Father unless he has the church for his mother. The church, like Noah’s ark, may stink on the inside, but it sure beats drowning in the wrath of God on the outside.
Lord, I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.
It is very easy to tick off a long list of problems in the churches of our time - doctrinal, moral, organization, theological, relational, whatever. It is almost just as easy to put forward a perfectionistic vision of what the church ought to be and be doing.
Consequently many people run here and there looking for the ideal church. If it's theology you want, you will never be satisfied with any of the actual churches available to you. If it's mission and mercy ministries, then you will always be severely disappointed. Maybe it's friendship and genuine, deep, real fellowship (small groups or accountability groups). But alas, what local body of believers really practices the ideal. Whatever the ecclesiasteical utopia you have idealistically constructed in your mind, you are going to be severely disappointed with the church as she actually exists in time and space, and in your neighborhood. There really is no greener grass; it's all pretty brown and weedy.Many people, therefore, are deeply alienated from and are frustrated by the church. They bounce from one church to another or from one leader to another in search of the elusive ideal community.
When he had occasion, in his commentaries and sermons, to say something about Noah and the ark, John Calvin observed that it would have been stupefying for "Noah and his household to live for ten months in a fetid heap of animal droppings, in which humans could hardly breath." Noah and his family were shut up in the claustrophobic ark living "in filth that would suffocate the strongest man in half an hour. So the ark became a kind of grave for the living Noah.”
Given that the ark is a prophetic image of the church in the world. I have often recalled Calvin's comments and been comforted and reoriented about life in the church. It's realistic, not idealistic. It's brutally honest. The church often feels and smells like the ark must have. And yet, outside of the ark? The flood. The wrath of God. Death.
Traditionally, the architecture of the church has embodied this vision. Because it looks like the inside of a boat, the area of the church where we worship is referred to as the "nave", from whence we get our word "navy."
At any rate, I spent the week in Dallas at the 36th General Assembly of the PCA with 840 ministers and 291 ruling elders. Inside the ark, if you will.
And it would be quite natural for me to comeback and report on the stench. We could run down a list of all the disappointing aspects of the assembly, our denomination, and our fellow leaders. Some pastors will do just that.
Or, conversely, I could simply hold my nose and make a cheerful, upbeat report on how great our denomination is, how excited I am about our ministries, pretending there are no foul odors in our wonderful, beloved PCA. Many pastors will make such reports. Indeed, a few years ago one commissioner to the GA, as we debated about a new sanctioned denominational logo, suggested that an appropriate one might be that of a cleaning lady sweeping the dirt under the rug.
But both of these approaches would be wrong. And, surprisingly, both of these extremes are the result of thinking about the church is such idealistic terms that one must either keep the reality from people to make them think that the church is much better than she really is or be constantly complaining that the church fails so miserably that we need to form a new denomination so we can be pure.
Instead, the ancient wisdom of the Spirit contained in one of the church's oldest creeds ought to recaptured. "I belive in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." I believe. Whatever I see, whatever I smell, I believe, I trust that the church is one, is holy, is catholic and apostolic. This church, my church, my regional and local church (PCA). Not some romantized church of the past or some imaginary church of the future. No. The only church there is. The one we belong to, the one that is assembled every Sunday and in countless places around the world in Jesus' name.
The creed does not say that the church is perfect. There is no hint of ecclesiastical utopianism here. It doesn't make us claim that the church is infallible. We do not confess that we will be best friends with everyone sitting next to us. Or that we will experience open and dangerously honest intimacy with every other member of the church. We are not told that the church will fix all our problems. Or that the ministry of the church will be able to solve all our troubles or heal all our maladies. Moreover, we are not promised that everyone's sanctification will progress with the same speed and upward improvement.
Rather, we believe, we trust in what God has told us about his church in his Word: that she is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Bottom line: we must believe that our particular branch of the church, the Presbyterian church in America, is a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We believe. We trust. Faith, not sight.
Of course, we should strive to manifest the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of our particular church. But that's on on-going project. It will never end short of the new heavens and earth.
The ancient saying is true: one cannot have God for his Father unless he has the church for his mother. The church, like Noah’s ark, may stink on the inside, but it sure beats drowning in the wrath of God on the outside.
Lord, I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)