Dan Allen brings us a post on his rather black and white blog, Some Church Stuff, about pastors being evil. Or not. He implicates all of us and none of us at the same time.
I don't know how many minutes or years Dan took to compile these zeroes and ones, but I think there is a whole lotta truth to his five short paragraphs. Truth hurts, and in many cases it is good for us. John Cougar - or was it John Cougar Mellencamp? - or was it John Mellencamp? - wrote that song we all like to sing along with in our cars as we drive, Hurts So Good. Can we sing along here?
He pretty much sums up a lot of what I think about the state of the church. What has taken me seven years of blogging to do, Dan did in five paragraphs.
Because theology is everybody's task
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Evangelicalism: Government Programs vs. Church Programs
It has been my observation in almost 20 years of exposure to conservative evangelicalism - and if your observation and experience are different, good for you and those you have observed - that there is a tendency to hold opposite practices in the church that one believes in for society. It's a strange phenomenon for which I don't have an explanation.
Example. Government programs. Many conservative evangelicals (CE's) are not only conservative in their theology, they are conservative in their political and civil beliefs. They will talk about the Christian values that made America great. Freedom. Freedom from civil tyranny. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, economic freedom, freedom of association, etc. They despise government programs. Red tape. Bureaucracy. Micromanagement, top-down nanny state. They don't like the power the politicians have. They hate socialism, communism and third world dictators. They want small government with little interference. They like private solutions to society's problems. And although they don't really have a problem with people who work for others, they do have a special place in their hearts for the entrepreneur. The innovative spirit.
But oddly enough, when it comes to the church, many of the things they despise about civil matters they adopt for the church. They hate government programs, but love church programs. Problem in society? Let people work things out for themselves. Problem in the church? Appoint a committee. They hate when politicians cry for a tax increase, but will love when the pastor calls for a tithe and offering increase. They don't like government red tape, but are just fine with numerous layers of church committees, micromanagement from leaders. They can't stand despots, but the pastor? He's da man and what he says goes. They always point out when a politician is an elite that has never worked a real day of work in his life, but are perfectly fine with a pastor who spent years in seminary and has never worked a real day of work in his life either, and holds a full time paid position behind a desk in an office. This kind of politician is "out of touch" with ordinary people, yet this kind of pastor is just what the church needs.
If the government were to engage in censorship, banning or burning of books, the CE would not only protest but call for getting those politicians out of office. But in the church? Well, the leadership needs to spend an extra amount of time reviewing all the books in our bookstore so nothing with questionable theology will be available to the congregation. And what about spiritual entrepreneurs? Freedom of speech in the church? Freedom of religion in the church? (I'm assuming all hold to the Christian religion here, of course) Do something out of the church program and you're a suspect. To dissent in regards to a politician is a divine right, but to dissent in regards to a pastor is being divisive.
Again, these are my general observations. Yours may vary, and I hope they do.
Example. Government programs. Many conservative evangelicals (CE's) are not only conservative in their theology, they are conservative in their political and civil beliefs. They will talk about the Christian values that made America great. Freedom. Freedom from civil tyranny. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, economic freedom, freedom of association, etc. They despise government programs. Red tape. Bureaucracy. Micromanagement, top-down nanny state. They don't like the power the politicians have. They hate socialism, communism and third world dictators. They want small government with little interference. They like private solutions to society's problems. And although they don't really have a problem with people who work for others, they do have a special place in their hearts for the entrepreneur. The innovative spirit.
But oddly enough, when it comes to the church, many of the things they despise about civil matters they adopt for the church. They hate government programs, but love church programs. Problem in society? Let people work things out for themselves. Problem in the church? Appoint a committee. They hate when politicians cry for a tax increase, but will love when the pastor calls for a tithe and offering increase. They don't like government red tape, but are just fine with numerous layers of church committees, micromanagement from leaders. They can't stand despots, but the pastor? He's da man and what he says goes. They always point out when a politician is an elite that has never worked a real day of work in his life, but are perfectly fine with a pastor who spent years in seminary and has never worked a real day of work in his life either, and holds a full time paid position behind a desk in an office. This kind of politician is "out of touch" with ordinary people, yet this kind of pastor is just what the church needs.
If the government were to engage in censorship, banning or burning of books, the CE would not only protest but call for getting those politicians out of office. But in the church? Well, the leadership needs to spend an extra amount of time reviewing all the books in our bookstore so nothing with questionable theology will be available to the congregation. And what about spiritual entrepreneurs? Freedom of speech in the church? Freedom of religion in the church? (I'm assuming all hold to the Christian religion here, of course) Do something out of the church program and you're a suspect. To dissent in regards to a politician is a divine right, but to dissent in regards to a pastor is being divisive.
Again, these are my general observations. Yours may vary, and I hope they do.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Elders Behaving Badly: Matthew 18 Isn't The Only Way To Deal With Sin
Amidst all the commotion over bloggers who have aired their complaints against so-called abusive leaders, there is the belief that those who have done so have failed to follow the prescription set down in Matthew 18 for confronting their offenders. This perceived failure to follow the black and white teachings of Jesus on the matter [or red and white as the case may be] have led many to dismiss out of hand any stories told. Nevermind whether those stories are true, it's that they are told in the first place that is the problem.
Well, there is a flaw in this line of thinking. The flaw is the assumption that Matthew 18 is the one and only way to deal with sin, even when - or especially when - church leaders are involved. A good look at Matthew 18 will reveal an important assumption that Jesus makes when he gives this method. Actually there are a number of assumptions - and I will look at these here - but the overarching assumption is one of accountability. The sinning offender will be accountable to you, to witnesses and to the church.
First, "If your brother sins, go and show him..." This first step assumes that the offender is approachable. Then, "...Show him his fault in private" This makes the assumption that the offender is willing to listen. Following, "If he listens to you [i.e. agrees with you and decides to repent], you have won your brother" makes the assumption the offender might just do so. This first step of confronting one who sins is a step of optimism. There is the hope that this will restore the sinner.
Next, the second step, "If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed." Again, there is the assumption that the offender is even now open to listening further to your argument - open enough to listen to witnesses that further your claim. The third step is key here. "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." This is a huge assumption. This assumes the church will be agreeing with you. Not with the sinner, but with you. Not only this, but "and if he refuses to listen even to the church..." makes the assumption that not only will the church take your side, but the church as a whole will be confronting the offender. Each step in the process, Jesus is making optimistic assumptions about the results.
This brings me back to the bloggers who tell the stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse. Their stories are completely different than the optimistic picture Jesus paints about confronting those who sin. In these cases - and the big stories come to mind; Mars Hill, CJ Mahaney and SGM, Beaverton Grace Bible Church; but there are many, many more small stories - in these cases the church leaders are outside of accountability. They are unapproachable. They won't listen, and they don't listen. In many of the cases of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse, the church leaders hold to systematic sins. Sins that are taught to their churches as a way of life. These churches have many people who lack discernment and swallow the teachings of these leaders. They've already drank the KoolAid. These churches can't recognize that the offended people realize that the offense really is sin. These churches won't confront their leaders because they don't see the sin. Or if they do, they are so afraid of what their leaders will do to them that they keep silent. This makes it difficult or even impossible to get two or three witnesses to confront somebody who is unavailable in the first place. In addition, these leaders have peers who have bought into the same system and have taught their churches the same things. Their peers will not hold them accountable either.
Then to make matters even worse, they use their power to attack the offended people in any way they can, to discredit them, to slander them, to call the church to shun them.
How is Matthew 18 even possible in situations such as these? I've already gone long here, so discussing other means to address sin - especially the sin of leaders - will have to be left for another post.
Well, there is a flaw in this line of thinking. The flaw is the assumption that Matthew 18 is the one and only way to deal with sin, even when - or especially when - church leaders are involved. A good look at Matthew 18 will reveal an important assumption that Jesus makes when he gives this method. Actually there are a number of assumptions - and I will look at these here - but the overarching assumption is one of accountability. The sinning offender will be accountable to you, to witnesses and to the church.
First, "If your brother sins, go and show him..." This first step assumes that the offender is approachable. Then, "...Show him his fault in private" This makes the assumption that the offender is willing to listen. Following, "If he listens to you [i.e. agrees with you and decides to repent], you have won your brother" makes the assumption the offender might just do so. This first step of confronting one who sins is a step of optimism. There is the hope that this will restore the sinner.
Next, the second step, "If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed." Again, there is the assumption that the offender is even now open to listening further to your argument - open enough to listen to witnesses that further your claim. The third step is key here. "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." This is a huge assumption. This assumes the church will be agreeing with you. Not with the sinner, but with you. Not only this, but "and if he refuses to listen even to the church..." makes the assumption that not only will the church take your side, but the church as a whole will be confronting the offender. Each step in the process, Jesus is making optimistic assumptions about the results.
This brings me back to the bloggers who tell the stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse. Their stories are completely different than the optimistic picture Jesus paints about confronting those who sin. In these cases - and the big stories come to mind; Mars Hill, CJ Mahaney and SGM, Beaverton Grace Bible Church; but there are many, many more small stories - in these cases the church leaders are outside of accountability. They are unapproachable. They won't listen, and they don't listen. In many of the cases of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse, the church leaders hold to systematic sins. Sins that are taught to their churches as a way of life. These churches have many people who lack discernment and swallow the teachings of these leaders. They've already drank the KoolAid. These churches can't recognize that the offended people realize that the offense really is sin. These churches won't confront their leaders because they don't see the sin. Or if they do, they are so afraid of what their leaders will do to them that they keep silent. This makes it difficult or even impossible to get two or three witnesses to confront somebody who is unavailable in the first place. In addition, these leaders have peers who have bought into the same system and have taught their churches the same things. Their peers will not hold them accountable either.
Then to make matters even worse, they use their power to attack the offended people in any way they can, to discredit them, to slander them, to call the church to shun them.
How is Matthew 18 even possible in situations such as these? I've already gone long here, so discussing other means to address sin - especially the sin of leaders - will have to be left for another post.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
A Divided Church: Wrong Applications of Theology
I've been thinking over the last few years about the differences between the "visible" church and the "invisible" church, as well as between the "universal" church and the "local" church. These distinctions have been made numerous times in various systems of theology for a long time. And these distinctions have some problems when we try to apply them to real life. Let me explain.
The word "church" (ekklesia in the Greek) has or has been given a number of meanings. Whether or not the use of each meaning has support from the bible, we try to reconcile the various meanings in our theology. For example, we know from the bible that not all church attenders/professing Christians will be true Christians. Most of us are also willing to concede that there will be those who are true believers that we never thought so! Man can only see the outside, while only God can see the heart. Thus the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church. The "visible" church is the visible assembly of people who claim to be believers. We can see them. The "invisible" church is the group of people who only God can see are His and who will be finally gathered together in the eternal kingdom.
But because we are man and only God is God, we must leave this point of theology as just that: theology. Trying to make an application of this distinction can only result in problems. If we try to determine who are God's true believers using the only means available to us - outward expressions and appearances - then we open up the door to abuse of those who don't fit our ideas of correct outward expressions. I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.
Similarly, the distinction between the "local" and "universal" church can cause problems when we try to apply it. The "local" church is the gathering of believers in one location, say Corinth or First Baptist Church in Houston. The "universal" church is, in one sense, all the believers in the entire world, and in another sense, all beleivers in the entire world who have ever lived. But we being men, we can be tempted to, say, apply a rigid distinction and decide that a local church is made up of only those who regularly attend that local church and doesn't include other believers who happen to be in town and attend only once. I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.
Then, there can be problems when all four distinctions - visible, invisible, local and universal - are mixed together and applied. An example would be a church that decides that its members (visible church, local church) are only those who meet certain man-made requirements and sign on a dotted line for membership, and those who don't but attend anyway, cannot be part of either the universal or invisible church distinctions either. They, according to this church, aren't true believers because of it. I will try to say more about this, too, in an upcoming post.
Hopefully I will try to make sense of the artificial, theological constructs in future posts. I also have an idea on how to deal in reality with the scope of the church.
The word "church" (ekklesia in the Greek) has or has been given a number of meanings. Whether or not the use of each meaning has support from the bible, we try to reconcile the various meanings in our theology. For example, we know from the bible that not all church attenders/professing Christians will be true Christians. Most of us are also willing to concede that there will be those who are true believers that we never thought so! Man can only see the outside, while only God can see the heart. Thus the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church. The "visible" church is the visible assembly of people who claim to be believers. We can see them. The "invisible" church is the group of people who only God can see are His and who will be finally gathered together in the eternal kingdom.
But because we are man and only God is God, we must leave this point of theology as just that: theology. Trying to make an application of this distinction can only result in problems. If we try to determine who are God's true believers using the only means available to us - outward expressions and appearances - then we open up the door to abuse of those who don't fit our ideas of correct outward expressions. I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.
Similarly, the distinction between the "local" and "universal" church can cause problems when we try to apply it. The "local" church is the gathering of believers in one location, say Corinth or First Baptist Church in Houston. The "universal" church is, in one sense, all the believers in the entire world, and in another sense, all beleivers in the entire world who have ever lived. But we being men, we can be tempted to, say, apply a rigid distinction and decide that a local church is made up of only those who regularly attend that local church and doesn't include other believers who happen to be in town and attend only once. I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.
Then, there can be problems when all four distinctions - visible, invisible, local and universal - are mixed together and applied. An example would be a church that decides that its members (visible church, local church) are only those who meet certain man-made requirements and sign on a dotted line for membership, and those who don't but attend anyway, cannot be part of either the universal or invisible church distinctions either. They, according to this church, aren't true believers because of it. I will try to say more about this, too, in an upcoming post.
Hopefully I will try to make sense of the artificial, theological constructs in future posts. I also have an idea on how to deal in reality with the scope of the church.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Pastor Sues Woman Over Church Comments
A woman who made negative comments about her former church on Google Comments is being sued (along with several others) by the pastor for defamation. This woman, whose name is Julie Anne, found that her comment mysteriously disappeared from the site, and when repeated comments were erased, she started a blog (Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors) addressing the legalism and spiritual abuse present at the church in Beaverton, Oregon.
Now if this story wasn't interesting enough, the pastor met with an elder from John MacArthur's church to receive counsel. He then claimed that the elder advised him to go ahead with the lawsuit. Phil Johnson was dragged into the fray and Grace Community Church is denying they gave this advice, pointing to their wide and staunch teaching against Christians suing other Christians in civil court as proof they would not do such a thing. (I believe Phil Johnson, by the way)
Subsequent to all this, many more people who have attended BGBC have come out and backed Julie Anne in the matter. So here we have a pastor who denies being legalistic and abusive by suing those who think so?
There are many more bizarre details than what I have outlined here, so you could follow the story at Julie Anne's blog, or sort through the last several weeks of posts at The Wartburg Watch (site temporarily down for maintenance as of this post). This case will have some far reaching effects in how social media interacts with religion. It is also yet another example in an increasing number of internet stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse reported by people who have been harmed by churches and their leaders.
Now if this story wasn't interesting enough, the pastor met with an elder from John MacArthur's church to receive counsel. He then claimed that the elder advised him to go ahead with the lawsuit. Phil Johnson was dragged into the fray and Grace Community Church is denying they gave this advice, pointing to their wide and staunch teaching against Christians suing other Christians in civil court as proof they would not do such a thing. (I believe Phil Johnson, by the way)
Subsequent to all this, many more people who have attended BGBC have come out and backed Julie Anne in the matter. So here we have a pastor who denies being legalistic and abusive by suing those who think so?
There are many more bizarre details than what I have outlined here, so you could follow the story at Julie Anne's blog, or sort through the last several weeks of posts at The Wartburg Watch (site temporarily down for maintenance as of this post). This case will have some far reaching effects in how social media interacts with religion. It is also yet another example in an increasing number of internet stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse reported by people who have been harmed by churches and their leaders.
Friday, May 11, 2012
How Do Missionaries Plan for Retirement?
Abu Daoud at Islam and Christianity has asked a very good question. Well actually, he states a fear. In his post Missionary Secrets 1 -- Retirement worries us, Abu discusses how "retirement" in the [recent] Western tradition looks for missionaries.
Honestly, I haven't had too much contact with "missionaries" because, well, they're "over there" most of the time, and when they're home on furlough, it's expected that they will be fundraising in order to go back. They don't seem to have much rest. I once attended a church that suddenly had an elderly couple show up and attend regularly - a couple that were life long missionaries who had returned from the mission field. For me it raised a whole new set of questions about missions. Do you know missionaries that have returned? Were they treated well by their brothers and sisters?
Honestly, I haven't had too much contact with "missionaries" because, well, they're "over there" most of the time, and when they're home on furlough, it's expected that they will be fundraising in order to go back. They don't seem to have much rest. I once attended a church that suddenly had an elderly couple show up and attend regularly - a couple that were life long missionaries who had returned from the mission field. For me it raised a whole new set of questions about missions. Do you know missionaries that have returned? Were they treated well by their brothers and sisters?
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Be Faithful Until Death
Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. Revelation 2:10 (NASB) - Jesus Christ to the church at Smyrna
What if you received a letter from the Lord that said the same thing? Uh, things will pretty much suck for ten days, then you will die. But don't fear.
What would you do? Write your will? Eat as much of your favorite food as possible before it starts? Me? I'm sure that I wouldn't be perfectly calm, but if I knew this was directly from God, I could see how one could take this with an increase in faith. Here's where the rubber meets the road of faith.
I think many things in life are analogous to this. You learn or train for something, then you face it with much anticipation. Yet, when we are immersed in it and past the point of no return, we are quite able to handle the situation. Even when we face death.
What if you received a letter from the Lord that said the same thing? Uh, things will pretty much suck for ten days, then you will die. But don't fear.
What would you do? Write your will? Eat as much of your favorite food as possible before it starts? Me? I'm sure that I wouldn't be perfectly calm, but if I knew this was directly from God, I could see how one could take this with an increase in faith. Here's where the rubber meets the road of faith.
I think many things in life are analogous to this. You learn or train for something, then you face it with much anticipation. Yet, when we are immersed in it and past the point of no return, we are quite able to handle the situation. Even when we face death.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Elders Behaving Badly
The following is taken from a Facebook comment by Kevin Johnson, who blogs at ReformedCatholicism.com. Kevin responds to two FB commenters who state that speaking publicly of one's spirutual abuse stories amounts to the blemishing of the good name of Christ, soiling the reputation of the church, aiding the enemy, and other such things.
Johnson has a much different view and responds to the commenters in what I think is a reasonable fashion, and calls attention to some things not routinely addressed in the blogoshpere over such matters. I think his comment is valuable for us to read in the light of the many recent stories of authoritarianism and abuse coming out on the internet. Kevin graciously allowed me to post his comment here on From the Pew.
-------
It is a mistake of course to pretend that passages like 1 Timothy 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 6 woodenly apply to particular situations involving spiritual abuse when no real justice is available for the offended party via traditional means. Really, though, when does the Law of God ever woodenly apply without recourse to godly wisdom? While I agree that we should not go to secular law courts in general to solve Christian-only issues, there are times when such is required as a result of spiritual and/or physical abuse. In our society, aside from civil charges, criminal charges are brought by the State anyway and not by individuals. In the case of sexual and physical abuse on the part of ministers any such activity should be reported and brought to the authorities because that is generally required by law. So, we can't just quote 1 Cor. 6 and say that's the end of the story.
In America, freedom of religion makes real discipline in any Reformed environment absolutely voluntary and well beyond the sort of environment where all parties are able to receive justice at the hands of an ecclesial court. Denominational loyalties also generally preclude any sort of fair trial for laymen when brought against an elder and therefore one should think long and hard before going down that road. Sometimes the only right recourse is just to let people know what happened.
In the case of elders behaving badly and participating in spiritual and other abuse, the church needs to take care of the real widows and orphans caused by such men in the life of the church and not pretend that double honor is due only where an office exists and no real performer of that office is found except in the manifest ways he can display and model wickedness in the community of the faithful. The most severe punishment in the Scriptures is reserved for those who knew better yet still violated the term and intent of their office.
The warnings in Matthew 23 do not appear to be cushioned with the sort of statements wanting to preserve the good name of Jesus Christ, the reputation of the church, or the right of the local church to handle the problem contra making it so public. Rather, Christ matter-of-factly calls out men by name -- those sitting in the seat of Moses -- in a rather small community of people who undoubtedly knew who he was talking about. Furthermore, Christ makes clear to show the community that the system is broken and only prophetic rebuke and his coming is left to fix it. So, there is no need to think this could even be handled by local church discipline as John 9-10 make quite clear. And, the sort of descriptive terms our Lord used generally outweigh any sort of invective we've seen in the likes of testimony against people like Mark Driscoll in the links above.
The prophets of the Old Testament mirror similar concerns in passages like Ezekiel 34 where the messianic promise of Christ is wrapped up in freeing men and women from oppression at the hands of pastors and ministers behaving badly. In other words, the behavior displayed by those who practice spiritual abuse and ministerial malpractice is directly opposed to the mission and work of the gospel in and among the community of the people of God. Paul, too, has no problem excoriating certain men by name when found to be in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ even to the point of wishing them emasculated.
In Reformed circles, we are happy to eject men both out of the ministry and the church on what may seem the smallest of theological technicalities (cf. Frame, "Machen's Warrior Children") but we will not take similar action when similar men abuse their ministerial authority and use the leadership they have in ways that are unfaithful to God. This is a huge inconsistency that shows us where our real loyalties lie as Reformed church men and women. Often, we demonstrate that we care for our doctrines and our pet leaders more than we care for our fellow believers. And, that's just idolatry.
The Reformers of course had no problem speaking against ministerial corruption and naming names. Sometimes, they even used anonymous and very drastic means to do so in ways that would make even the strongest among us today wince. For example, I haven't seen anyone draw a cartoon where Mark Driscoll is ushering demons out of his posterior and other sorts of lambasting sixteenth-century divines had for those who supported the papacy. That's hardly an objective and fair rendering of the truth sufficient for us to make a qualified decision on the matter (as if the real reason for making things public is so we have the right to decide)! Somehow the Reformers knew they were telling the truth and had authority to speak prophetically in the community. Christians have not lost that today either in spite of what [commenter #1] or [commenter #2] might argue. For all their interesting methods, the Reformers valued transparency and consistency in calling a spade a spade and that was most certainly true in exposing ministerial corruption. Why we can't do the same is beyond me.
Telling the truth is not a scandal and does not hurt the name of Jesus Christ. If that were true, the Bible would be so much more bland than it is--filled with the details of corruption prophetically confronted even in the highest of sacred places in both the Old and New Testaments. It is only when we attempt to hide the truth that real scandal comes and continues to be enabled. Providing the truth on the Internet does not aid the enemy. The enemy is aided by works of darkness which elders behaving badly do in spades and under cover of their title and work because many congregants don't take their fellow believers seriously over and above their devotion to their pastoral leaders even when presented with irrefutable evidence from a variety of reliable sources or witnesses.
And, to tell people to be quiet when they speak against their leaders when you have no basis to judge the veracity of their comments can be just as damaging to the truth as not. Since you don't know what the truth is, speaking against outspoken voices can work to unduly silence those whom God has moved to make certain things public quite outside normal means. Rather, we should let anyone speak as they feel led and then the church and community can work to take action as required. After all, how many witnesses did Nathan bring to David? Or, Elijah to Jezebel? Yet, would it not be a mistake to have been there and spoken against God's prophets and his word to David or Jezebel? We have to realize that the call to silence a voice is as much a judgment as one that raises a concern in the larger community of the faithful -- and that's the hypocrisy of the position presented to us by [commenter #1] and [commenter #2] even if they haven't personally come to such conclusions.
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. - Rom 12:9-16 NASB
Johnson has a much different view and responds to the commenters in what I think is a reasonable fashion, and calls attention to some things not routinely addressed in the blogoshpere over such matters. I think his comment is valuable for us to read in the light of the many recent stories of authoritarianism and abuse coming out on the internet. Kevin graciously allowed me to post his comment here on From the Pew.
-------
It is a mistake of course to pretend that passages like 1 Timothy 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 6 woodenly apply to particular situations involving spiritual abuse when no real justice is available for the offended party via traditional means. Really, though, when does the Law of God ever woodenly apply without recourse to godly wisdom? While I agree that we should not go to secular law courts in general to solve Christian-only issues, there are times when such is required as a result of spiritual and/or physical abuse. In our society, aside from civil charges, criminal charges are brought by the State anyway and not by individuals. In the case of sexual and physical abuse on the part of ministers any such activity should be reported and brought to the authorities because that is generally required by law. So, we can't just quote 1 Cor. 6 and say that's the end of the story.
In America, freedom of religion makes real discipline in any Reformed environment absolutely voluntary and well beyond the sort of environment where all parties are able to receive justice at the hands of an ecclesial court. Denominational loyalties also generally preclude any sort of fair trial for laymen when brought against an elder and therefore one should think long and hard before going down that road. Sometimes the only right recourse is just to let people know what happened.
In the case of elders behaving badly and participating in spiritual and other abuse, the church needs to take care of the real widows and orphans caused by such men in the life of the church and not pretend that double honor is due only where an office exists and no real performer of that office is found except in the manifest ways he can display and model wickedness in the community of the faithful. The most severe punishment in the Scriptures is reserved for those who knew better yet still violated the term and intent of their office.
The warnings in Matthew 23 do not appear to be cushioned with the sort of statements wanting to preserve the good name of Jesus Christ, the reputation of the church, or the right of the local church to handle the problem contra making it so public. Rather, Christ matter-of-factly calls out men by name -- those sitting in the seat of Moses -- in a rather small community of people who undoubtedly knew who he was talking about. Furthermore, Christ makes clear to show the community that the system is broken and only prophetic rebuke and his coming is left to fix it. So, there is no need to think this could even be handled by local church discipline as John 9-10 make quite clear. And, the sort of descriptive terms our Lord used generally outweigh any sort of invective we've seen in the likes of testimony against people like Mark Driscoll in the links above.
The prophets of the Old Testament mirror similar concerns in passages like Ezekiel 34 where the messianic promise of Christ is wrapped up in freeing men and women from oppression at the hands of pastors and ministers behaving badly. In other words, the behavior displayed by those who practice spiritual abuse and ministerial malpractice is directly opposed to the mission and work of the gospel in and among the community of the people of God. Paul, too, has no problem excoriating certain men by name when found to be in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ even to the point of wishing them emasculated.
In Reformed circles, we are happy to eject men both out of the ministry and the church on what may seem the smallest of theological technicalities (cf. Frame, "Machen's Warrior Children") but we will not take similar action when similar men abuse their ministerial authority and use the leadership they have in ways that are unfaithful to God. This is a huge inconsistency that shows us where our real loyalties lie as Reformed church men and women. Often, we demonstrate that we care for our doctrines and our pet leaders more than we care for our fellow believers. And, that's just idolatry.
The Reformers of course had no problem speaking against ministerial corruption and naming names. Sometimes, they even used anonymous and very drastic means to do so in ways that would make even the strongest among us today wince. For example, I haven't seen anyone draw a cartoon where Mark Driscoll is ushering demons out of his posterior and other sorts of lambasting sixteenth-century divines had for those who supported the papacy. That's hardly an objective and fair rendering of the truth sufficient for us to make a qualified decision on the matter (as if the real reason for making things public is so we have the right to decide)! Somehow the Reformers knew they were telling the truth and had authority to speak prophetically in the community. Christians have not lost that today either in spite of what [commenter #1] or [commenter #2] might argue. For all their interesting methods, the Reformers valued transparency and consistency in calling a spade a spade and that was most certainly true in exposing ministerial corruption. Why we can't do the same is beyond me.
Telling the truth is not a scandal and does not hurt the name of Jesus Christ. If that were true, the Bible would be so much more bland than it is--filled with the details of corruption prophetically confronted even in the highest of sacred places in both the Old and New Testaments. It is only when we attempt to hide the truth that real scandal comes and continues to be enabled. Providing the truth on the Internet does not aid the enemy. The enemy is aided by works of darkness which elders behaving badly do in spades and under cover of their title and work because many congregants don't take their fellow believers seriously over and above their devotion to their pastoral leaders even when presented with irrefutable evidence from a variety of reliable sources or witnesses.
And, to tell people to be quiet when they speak against their leaders when you have no basis to judge the veracity of their comments can be just as damaging to the truth as not. Since you don't know what the truth is, speaking against outspoken voices can work to unduly silence those whom God has moved to make certain things public quite outside normal means. Rather, we should let anyone speak as they feel led and then the church and community can work to take action as required. After all, how many witnesses did Nathan bring to David? Or, Elijah to Jezebel? Yet, would it not be a mistake to have been there and spoken against God's prophets and his word to David or Jezebel? We have to realize that the call to silence a voice is as much a judgment as one that raises a concern in the larger community of the faithful -- and that's the hypocrisy of the position presented to us by [commenter #1] and [commenter #2] even if they haven't personally come to such conclusions.
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. - Rom 12:9-16 NASB
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Least of These
We have a blog link chain here. Alan Knox posts "The more least or the less least?" in response to Dan Allen's "Making the least the least" at his new blog Some Church Stuff. I read Dan's post before Alan linked to it, and as prompted as I was to write about Dan's post, Alan's kind of put it into action.
I admit, it's not been very often that I've heard the least speak, or play music, or be allowed to contribute in great ways. When that has occurred, the results have been amazing. Consequent encouragement to make this the norm, however, has fallen on deaf ears and normalcy returns. Getting to know the secrets of the least and to be blessed by them have been almost limited to private conversations.
So what's wrong with somebody born and raised in the projects playing "Amazing Grace" on his harmonica to a large church gathering? Or what's wrong with the "least theologically trained" among us being allowed to speak about what they've read in the bible? Well, nothing, actually.
I admit, it's not been very often that I've heard the least speak, or play music, or be allowed to contribute in great ways. When that has occurred, the results have been amazing. Consequent encouragement to make this the norm, however, has fallen on deaf ears and normalcy returns. Getting to know the secrets of the least and to be blessed by them have been almost limited to private conversations.
So what's wrong with somebody born and raised in the projects playing "Amazing Grace" on his harmonica to a large church gathering? Or what's wrong with the "least theologically trained" among us being allowed to speak about what they've read in the bible? Well, nothing, actually.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Blogger's Bottleneck?
Several months ago I wrote a short post titled, "Blogger's Cramp...and What To Do About It?" It occurred to me that one reason I may have been having blogger's cramp is due to "blogger's bottleneck." Blogger's bottleneck would be not being able to write because there is too much to write. It all gets stopped up at the very point of coming out. Maybe?
Friday, April 06, 2012
Why People Blog Their Spiritual Abuse Stories
I've noticed an increase in the number of people who have blogged about their experiences with spiritual abuse in the church and problems with authoritarian leadership. I think I know some reasons why.
Often, people who blog about such things are criticized for doing so, sometimes harshly. After all, if you have a problem with somebody, aren't you supposed to go directly to them to deal with it? Well, not exactly, and that's where an explanation can be useful.
You see, there is a big difference between one person sinning against another in ordinary things and people using positions and systems of power (with the supposed backing of God and the threatening of excommunication or hell for dissent) in accomplishing the sin. In the first case there is a much easier path of recourse; in the latter there may be none at all. Try confronting a friend who dealt you a minor insult. The whole thing might be solved and over with in a couple of minutes. Your friend may not want to insult you because he is your friend, and he will realize his pettiness and the greater value of God and friendship. Now try confronting a group of church leaders who view the confronting of church leaders as one of the most heinous things one can do. How far do you think you will go with that one?
With nowhere else to go, and with no real way of getting the problem solved, telling others about the story may be the only way to go. And this isn't merely the airing of dirty laundry. This is the exposing of evil deeds that are purposed in the heart of those who commit such things. Look to the example of Jesus and the bible to see how these types of problems are dealt with.
What did Jesus do with the ruling religious leaders of his day? Where are the examples of private, personal confrontation? Rather, Jesus spoke openly and publicly about the evil deeds of the religious leaders. His concern was for those who might be affected by their teachings and deeds. Where is the concern for "protecting their good names?" And what did the Holy Spirit think about all of this? Well, he decided to inspire four gospel writers and several apostles to write these things in a number of books and a church to collect those into one larger book! And what did Zondervan think about all of this? Zondervan, without consulting descendants of these religious leaders to see if exposing these deeds would tarnish family images, decided to print millions of copies of the book! And what did you and I think about all of this? We bought the book!
I hope in all the hoopla surrounding the stories that expose such things we remember that the pain and hurt caused by power and systems are a different animal and warrant a different response than that of personal offenses. More to come.
Often, people who blog about such things are criticized for doing so, sometimes harshly. After all, if you have a problem with somebody, aren't you supposed to go directly to them to deal with it? Well, not exactly, and that's where an explanation can be useful.
You see, there is a big difference between one person sinning against another in ordinary things and people using positions and systems of power (with the supposed backing of God and the threatening of excommunication or hell for dissent) in accomplishing the sin. In the first case there is a much easier path of recourse; in the latter there may be none at all. Try confronting a friend who dealt you a minor insult. The whole thing might be solved and over with in a couple of minutes. Your friend may not want to insult you because he is your friend, and he will realize his pettiness and the greater value of God and friendship. Now try confronting a group of church leaders who view the confronting of church leaders as one of the most heinous things one can do. How far do you think you will go with that one?
With nowhere else to go, and with no real way of getting the problem solved, telling others about the story may be the only way to go. And this isn't merely the airing of dirty laundry. This is the exposing of evil deeds that are purposed in the heart of those who commit such things. Look to the example of Jesus and the bible to see how these types of problems are dealt with.
What did Jesus do with the ruling religious leaders of his day? Where are the examples of private, personal confrontation? Rather, Jesus spoke openly and publicly about the evil deeds of the religious leaders. His concern was for those who might be affected by their teachings and deeds. Where is the concern for "protecting their good names?" And what did the Holy Spirit think about all of this? Well, he decided to inspire four gospel writers and several apostles to write these things in a number of books and a church to collect those into one larger book! And what did Zondervan think about all of this? Zondervan, without consulting descendants of these religious leaders to see if exposing these deeds would tarnish family images, decided to print millions of copies of the book! And what did you and I think about all of this? We bought the book!
I hope in all the hoopla surrounding the stories that expose such things we remember that the pain and hurt caused by power and systems are a different animal and warrant a different response than that of personal offenses. More to come.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Commenting Issues
Trying to comment here at From the Pew? Several commenters (myself included while trying to comment on my own blog!) have had a difficult time commenting. It seems that Blogger has made some people try to prove they aren't spambots before allowing a comment. Wordpress is having issues, too, as they apparently require logging in with an already existing Gravatar account. What is going on in the blogging world?
If any of my readers can try to comment on this post (or send me an email to fromthepew [at] yahoo [dot] com if you are unable to comment) I would appreciate it. Thanks!
If any of my readers can try to comment on this post (or send me an email to fromthepew [at] yahoo [dot] com if you are unable to comment) I would appreciate it. Thanks!
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Book of Revelation: A Very Different View
Kevin Johnson at Reformed Catholicism proposes a very different way of viewing the book of Revelation in his most recent post, The Meaning of Revelation for Today. He notes that many different ways of understanding this book have existed throughout history, and one's applications of its truths to the current day will vary accordingly. He dispenses with the common interpretations that Revelation is a condemnation of world empires, a blueprint for worship, or a wild eschatological ride consisting of rapture, tribulation and destruction. Johnson then counters with a simpler motive:
Rather, the main purpose of Revelation is wrapped up in its original witness to the first century church. In short, Revelation exists to encourage, comfort, and signal for believers that God is sovereign and in control and that all things will ultimately be transformed in and through Jesus Christ. Revelation then is a retelling of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a working out of its fulfillment through the ages. The church as a whole then is encouraged to be faithful in obedience to God’s Word in anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s reconciling work.
The most fascinating point to me is that he dispels the widespread notion that the great city Babylon is a reference to Rome, and offers in its place the idea that Babylon is a reference to - of all things - the city of Jerusalem. If you have an interest in the book of Revelation, please give Kevin's post a read.
Rather, the main purpose of Revelation is wrapped up in its original witness to the first century church. In short, Revelation exists to encourage, comfort, and signal for believers that God is sovereign and in control and that all things will ultimately be transformed in and through Jesus Christ. Revelation then is a retelling of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a working out of its fulfillment through the ages. The church as a whole then is encouraged to be faithful in obedience to God’s Word in anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s reconciling work.
The most fascinating point to me is that he dispels the widespread notion that the great city Babylon is a reference to Rome, and offers in its place the idea that Babylon is a reference to - of all things - the city of Jerusalem. If you have an interest in the book of Revelation, please give Kevin's post a read.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday Night Potpourri
Well, it's about time. Without further adieu:
- There's several sets of new tires in our family. Those couldn't have come at a better time. The thinning treads wouldn't have made it through the wet spell we're enduring.
- My first St. Patty's Day Guinness came in the wee hours. Working late swing shift certainly helps that.
- St. Patrick used the three leaf shamrock to teach the Irish people about the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I'll celebrate that!
- I'm at least part Irish, one eighth. My mother's grandmother was Irish and she married a Lithuanian man. I'm not sure how much Irish, if any, is in either of my grandfather's lineage.
- I wore a green shirt to work last night on the chance that I would work past midnight. Did it work?
- It was really nice to jog in the rain yesterday. It started sprinkling just as I left and by the time I got to the park, it was raining. Mrs. Scott always remarks that I bring a fresh smell back home with me.
- It all goes together very well.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Does Your Church Honor the Less Honorable?
But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 1 Corinthians 12:20-26
Paul is saying here that the weaker, the uncomely, the unseemly, the less honorable (or whatever other words used by the various English translations) are not only necessary in the body of Christ, but are given more honor than the rest. Not only is this to be the case with us, but this is the way God designed it to be. Do we really carry this out in reality?
Our natural tendency is to honor the strong, the acceptable, the ones with the bible degrees, the rich, the good looking, the refined, the ones who have the best jobs. And we tend to neglect, ignore or marginalize the weaker. But note what Paul says about the result of bestowing more honor upon the weaker: "...our less presentable members become much more presentable." Much more presentable? If this is so, why not make it a point? When one is weaker and not presentable, being neglected sure is felt and a pattern of neglect can make weakness permanent. Who wouldn't want a more presentable body?
Paul is saying here that the weaker, the uncomely, the unseemly, the less honorable (or whatever other words used by the various English translations) are not only necessary in the body of Christ, but are given more honor than the rest. Not only is this to be the case with us, but this is the way God designed it to be. Do we really carry this out in reality?
Our natural tendency is to honor the strong, the acceptable, the ones with the bible degrees, the rich, the good looking, the refined, the ones who have the best jobs. And we tend to neglect, ignore or marginalize the weaker. But note what Paul says about the result of bestowing more honor upon the weaker: "...our less presentable members become much more presentable." Much more presentable? If this is so, why not make it a point? When one is weaker and not presentable, being neglected sure is felt and a pattern of neglect can make weakness permanent. Who wouldn't want a more presentable body?
Monday, February 20, 2012
Why Should I Trust You If I Don't Know You?
Alan Knox takes a stab at debunking the popular idea - yea, even lament - that "this generation" has a problem committing to church and a problem with respect for authority. He doesn't buy it. Instead, he simply makes a point that "this generation" has figured out that:
While I do think that "this generation" has some problems of its own, I also think Alan has a very good point about trust and commitment. I think the opposite can be at least as true, in that previous generations maybe had too much trust of authority and committed to church maybe a bit to a fault. Either way, Alan's post is thought provoking. And yes, I do trust the authorities that I know much more than those I don't.
"people are not trustworthy simply because of their position or because they say that they are trustworthy."
While I do think that "this generation" has some problems of its own, I also think Alan has a very good point about trust and commitment. I think the opposite can be at least as true, in that previous generations maybe had too much trust of authority and committed to church maybe a bit to a fault. Either way, Alan's post is thought provoking. And yes, I do trust the authorities that I know much more than those I don't.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Adding The Wartburg Watch
I am adding a new blog to my links. See The Wartburg Watch. The Wartburg Watch, to paraphrase their basic description, is a blog authored by two women who are dedicated to the discussion of disturbing trends in the realm of Christendom. This includes the topics of spiritual abuse within churches, authoritarianism, legalism and other such things.
I occasionally visited TWW upon finding a link there, but the recent news over the church discipline case at Mars Hill prompted me to add TWW to my links (it can be found under my "Notable and of Interest" section). The authors have personally experienced mistreatment from church leadership and have decided to write about their own experiences as well as the experiences of others. I would encourage anybody with an interest in such things to check out The Wartburg Watch.
I occasionally visited TWW upon finding a link there, but the recent news over the church discipline case at Mars Hill prompted me to add TWW to my links (it can be found under my "Notable and of Interest" section). The authors have personally experienced mistreatment from church leadership and have decided to write about their own experiences as well as the experiences of others. I would encourage anybody with an interest in such things to check out The Wartburg Watch.
Monday, February 13, 2012
On Authoritarian Church Leadership
Recently the disturbing story about "church discipline" at Mars Hill church broke. Mark Driscoll was in the spotlight again, and a new conversation about authoritarian church leadership started. (I will provide links in another post) Numerous other people commented and responded with blog posts of their own. All of this came on the heels of the less popular topic of problems with CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries not long before.
One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches. I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches. The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.
In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories. I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides. Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages. Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.
One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches. I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches. The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.
In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories. I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides. Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages. Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.
Monday, January 02, 2012
A Reformed Drinker Gets A Pub To Change Its Name
A reformed drinker named Jason Nota uses the internet to change the name of a pub! What may seem like a successful venture into social activism is merely a play on words here. You see, Jason Nota is a beer drinker who holds to Reformed theology, and he changed the name of his blog from PILGRIMS PUB to Reformed Drinker.
Jason has been on my blogroll for years and I will shortly change that name and web location in my margin. Jason writes about drinking beer in moderation, lists all the beers he drinks, rates all the beers he drinks, and often takes head on the false modernist American religious beliefs of prohibitionism and abstentionism. If you enjoy beer or care to know why it's okay for a Christian to drink it, check out Jason's blog, Reformed Drinker.
Jason has been on my blogroll for years and I will shortly change that name and web location in my margin. Jason writes about drinking beer in moderation, lists all the beers he drinks, rates all the beers he drinks, and often takes head on the false modernist American religious beliefs of prohibitionism and abstentionism. If you enjoy beer or care to know why it's okay for a Christian to drink it, check out Jason's blog, Reformed Drinker.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Conformist Non-Conformists
Hippies. You know those folks from the 60's and early 70's. They prided themselves on being non-conformists. They didn't conform to the established norms of society. Yet in their non-conformity they seemed to all wear the same hair, the same tie-dye t-shirts, same jewelry, same jeans, took the same drugs, protested against the same things, and listened to the same music. Despite their non-conformity they were conformists just like the rest of society, only on a smaller scale.
The same can be said of religious groups. They shun society itself, or at least certain forms and functions of society, and live and act the same together. I'm no sociologist, but I wonder if the concept of conformist non-conformism is what it means to be a subculture.
A subculture to which I might be most familiar is the evangelical subculture, however one wants to define it or describe it.
What of the person who is a non-conformist even amongst the non-conformists?
The same can be said of religious groups. They shun society itself, or at least certain forms and functions of society, and live and act the same together. I'm no sociologist, but I wonder if the concept of conformist non-conformism is what it means to be a subculture.
A subculture to which I might be most familiar is the evangelical subculture, however one wants to define it or describe it.
What of the person who is a non-conformist even amongst the non-conformists?
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to all the From the Pew regular readers! Also, Merry Christmas to all those who have never or will never even know my blog exists. In any case, Merry Christmas. And if I don't have a blog post lined up for next week's holiday, I wish you a Happy New Year too, even if I blog about other topics in the mean time. And Feliz Navidad to my Spanish speaking readers.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Blogger's Cramp...and What To Do About It?
Long time readers of my blog (if there are many of them left) know that I haven't written much in the last so many months. Because of my current job situation I have much less time to write. Even when I do have time, I simply don't write the way I used to. Lately I have had a string of great blog ideas, I start writing about those ideas, then I have to go to bed or something else. The next day, my ideas don't sound so great and I abandon the thought, being glad I didn't follow through.
I have a few ideas why I'm not writing much anymore when I do have the time, so maybe I'll share those in the coming weeks. Hey, now that's a good idea worth writing about! Write about why I'm not writing.
Does anybody have similar problems, and if so, what have you done/are doing about them? Oh, and if you're not reading my blog, nevermind.
I have a few ideas why I'm not writing much anymore when I do have the time, so maybe I'll share those in the coming weeks. Hey, now that's a good idea worth writing about! Write about why I'm not writing.
Does anybody have similar problems, and if so, what have you done/are doing about them? Oh, and if you're not reading my blog, nevermind.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Banned From The Lord's Table
Arthur Sido writes about the phone call he received from his church informing him that his family isn't allowed to commune with God. What is also interesting is that one of the commenters doesn't see a problem with equating the Sido's family situation with gross imorality. Let's call the fruit of man-made "formal church membership" doctrines what it is: rotten.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thanksgiving Moved To Today
Late night Wednesday/wee hours Thursday, Mrs. Scott and I both came down with the stomach flu, and were to host the family Thanksgiving meal this year. Needless to say, we ended up having 7-Up and a wee bit of chicken noodle soup later in the day. So, we've rescheduled for today. Most people are done, but we're just getting started. Mrs. Scott just did a basting round and the bird looks good in the oven. Hopefully we'll be able to eat well. Bon Apetit!
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Why Arthur and I Love Blogging
Arthur Sido at The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia writes about one of the major reasons I love blogging and reading other blogs:
Without a medium such as blogging I wonder what I would believe today. The same thing I believed in 1995? Maybe so. And I'm glad that didn't happen.
It is true that the blogging world can often be banal and silly, sometimes even scandalous and a stumbling block to the Gospel. It is also true that done properly it provides a heretofore nonexistent medium for worldwide discussion, taking important conversations out of the world of academia and theological journals and making them available to every Christian. It used to be that you wrote a book, published it and waited for the reviews but now the review process is interactive and alive, allowing readers to ask questions and authors to sharpen their thinking in ways that perhaps they didn’t think of before.
Without a medium such as blogging I wonder what I would believe today. The same thing I believed in 1995? Maybe so. And I'm glad that didn't happen.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Happy Anniversary, Mrs. Scott!
We didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out after we set our wedding date, as we simply wanted a Saturday in the fall. "Did you realize that your 11th anniversary will be on 11/11/11?"
Well, no, but we'll certainly be looking forward to it!
And today is here. So, I want to say happy anniversary to Mrs. Scott! I love you and the first 11 were wonderful.
Well, no, but we'll certainly be looking forward to it!
And today is here. So, I want to say happy anniversary to Mrs. Scott! I love you and the first 11 were wonderful.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Weekend Potpourri
Ending the FNP drought:
- Played football with my boys out in the street today. Nice chilly day, fall. My arm hurts a bit after throwing for just a short time. Must be getting old, but my boys are so full of energy because they're young.
- My cell phone apparently doesn't adjust automatically for Daylight Savings Time even though it is set to "automatic" for date and time. Mrs. Scott has the same phone model and discovered that the phone must be turned off then on again for it to switch between daylight time and standard time. Kinda defeats the purpose. My clock radio did just fine.
- Some friends brought dinner over a few nights ago because we were busy with an important matter. One of the dishes was a green bean casserole with onion rings on top. It was one of those childhood memories of mom's green bean casserole.
- Next Iron Chef is doing a competition in the bleachers at Petco Park in San Diego. We were there just last year!
- It's good to feel the rain and cool weather of the last week. That rain-on-the-pavement smell, too.
- My favorite pickings out of the leftover Halloween candy were the Hershey's chocolates and the Reece's peanut butter cups.
- obladioblada
Friday, November 04, 2011
Faith That Transcends Efficiency
So you're moving into a new place. You're also a good cook. You don't have the finances to hire professional movers, so you do what many others do: you get a dozen or so friends and maybe a U-Haul or bunch of pickup trucks and have a moving party. Once all the boxes and furniture are moved into your new place, you do what is culturally acceptable: you feed your help. So you prepare a nice home-cooked meal in your new kitchen. Right?
Of course not. All your kitchen stuff is still in boxes, yet to be unpacked. Your kitchen efficiency is zero. So you order pizza!
It is only after all the boxes are unpacked and things put away that any efficiency begins to take shape. Then you need to get used to your new place, where to store supplies, etc. So it is with the rest of life. The first and last days of work at a job are the least efficient. You're an important player that will make or break the company to the tune of millions, but your first day is a tour by an HR rep showing you where the paper clips and post-it notes are. Infants are notoriously inefficient on a family and don't start contributing until well later in life. A new software program contains an untold number of bugs until they are fished out by its users. A new pair of shoes hurts your feet until broken in. You get the picture I'm trying to paint here.
Our religion demands efficiency from us. Training our children, redeeming the time, practicing righteousness. Maturity vs. being tossed to and fro like children. But the world has been changing. People are having large portions of their lives torn down to be rebuilt from scratch. Many areas of their lives simultaneously. Major inefficiency is the result. For now. For these people, will there be a faith that transcends all the inefficiency? Will their lives result in a glorious rebuilding with a new efficiency, or will they result in failure? Time will tell, but I'm willing to wager that both will happen in large numbers.
Of course not. All your kitchen stuff is still in boxes, yet to be unpacked. Your kitchen efficiency is zero. So you order pizza!
It is only after all the boxes are unpacked and things put away that any efficiency begins to take shape. Then you need to get used to your new place, where to store supplies, etc. So it is with the rest of life. The first and last days of work at a job are the least efficient. You're an important player that will make or break the company to the tune of millions, but your first day is a tour by an HR rep showing you where the paper clips and post-it notes are. Infants are notoriously inefficient on a family and don't start contributing until well later in life. A new software program contains an untold number of bugs until they are fished out by its users. A new pair of shoes hurts your feet until broken in. You get the picture I'm trying to paint here.
Our religion demands efficiency from us. Training our children, redeeming the time, practicing righteousness. Maturity vs. being tossed to and fro like children. But the world has been changing. People are having large portions of their lives torn down to be rebuilt from scratch. Many areas of their lives simultaneously. Major inefficiency is the result. For now. For these people, will there be a faith that transcends all the inefficiency? Will their lives result in a glorious rebuilding with a new efficiency, or will they result in failure? Time will tell, but I'm willing to wager that both will happen in large numbers.
Monday, October 24, 2011
How We View Each Other...and Ourselves
I've seen it around the internet a few times already, but here's a humorous pictorial grid of how the major Western denominations view each other...and themselves. Once there, click on the image for a larger view.
I think there are some fairly accurate stereotypes contained here. Having spent most of my Christian experience in churches and circles that claimed to be "Reformed", I can relate to the column and row labeled "Reformed" and "seen by Reformed" fairly well.
One of the best features of the grid is that each group is shown in how it views itself. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
(HT John Armstrong)
I think there are some fairly accurate stereotypes contained here. Having spent most of my Christian experience in churches and circles that claimed to be "Reformed", I can relate to the column and row labeled "Reformed" and "seen by Reformed" fairly well.
One of the best features of the grid is that each group is shown in how it views itself. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
(HT John Armstrong)
Sunday, October 23, 2011
You Only Have The "Gift of Singleness" if You Want to Be Single
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:9-12
Jennifer Vaughn at à la mode de les Muses posts about the unfortunate tendency of many Christians who advocate little else but waiting for those singles who would rather be married:
I not only agree with her, I would take it a step further and say that the repeated telling of single Christians that they have the "gift" of singleness, when in fact they have a strong desire to be married, can be a very damaging thing. It's like saying that to have sexual desires or the desire to marry is a slap in the face of God. Refuse a "gift" given you from God? That's like biting the hand of the one who feeds you.
But notice the words of Jesus above. He only lists three categories of eunuchs. Those who were eunuchs from birth (i.e. those without the correct plumbing, anatomy, hormones, etc.), those who were made eunuchs by men (i.e. male slaves who were castrated as part of being taken as prisoner of war, etc.) and those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (i.e. remaining single by personal decision). Those who are involuntarily celibate (i.e. haven't found the right match, a quirk of providence, etc.) aren't listed.
An additional problem is in limiting the application of Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 7 about it being better to marry than to burn (i.e. with passion) to the length of the engagement period for those who are already considering somebody for marriage. Having problems with lust before even meeting somebody? Tough. Get it under control before you start to consider marriage or you've got no business marrying in the first place. If this line of thinking doesn't place somebody in a difficult position, what does?
Jesus places a very light burden in his statement. Only those who can accept his statement should apply it to themselves. The rest are free to pursue marriage and shouldn't be judged by the rest of us.
Jennifer Vaughn at à la mode de les Muses posts about the unfortunate tendency of many Christians who advocate little else but waiting for those singles who would rather be married:
It’s very suspicious that the Christians advising this are, more often than not, either married (i.e., have a legitimate sexual outlet) or admittedly uninterested in sex (i.e., asexual, voluntarily celibate, or in possession of a naturally low sex drive). And they generally don’t even stop lecturing a moment to put themselves in others’ shoes. Rather than give up belief that fleeing and waiting is the only solution, many even accuse struggling singles of neither trusting God nor attempting to control themselves. The Apostle Paul was more sympathetic.
I not only agree with her, I would take it a step further and say that the repeated telling of single Christians that they have the "gift" of singleness, when in fact they have a strong desire to be married, can be a very damaging thing. It's like saying that to have sexual desires or the desire to marry is a slap in the face of God. Refuse a "gift" given you from God? That's like biting the hand of the one who feeds you.
But notice the words of Jesus above. He only lists three categories of eunuchs. Those who were eunuchs from birth (i.e. those without the correct plumbing, anatomy, hormones, etc.), those who were made eunuchs by men (i.e. male slaves who were castrated as part of being taken as prisoner of war, etc.) and those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (i.e. remaining single by personal decision). Those who are involuntarily celibate (i.e. haven't found the right match, a quirk of providence, etc.) aren't listed.
An additional problem is in limiting the application of Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 7 about it being better to marry than to burn (i.e. with passion) to the length of the engagement period for those who are already considering somebody for marriage. Having problems with lust before even meeting somebody? Tough. Get it under control before you start to consider marriage or you've got no business marrying in the first place. If this line of thinking doesn't place somebody in a difficult position, what does?
Jesus places a very light burden in his statement. Only those who can accept his statement should apply it to themselves. The rest are free to pursue marriage and shouldn't be judged by the rest of us.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Why Is One Covenant Not Enough?
Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church asks why if we already have the New Covenant - which is ratified by the blood of Christ himself - do we need a church covenant to determine who is a member of the church and whether we should love those people and how. Of course, I have asked the same thing numerous times on this blog.
Alan frames the question in a slightly different way than I mostly have. Yes, good question. Why do we need Christ plus a man-made document? Christ's blood plus our signature? Give his short post a read.
Alan frames the question in a slightly different way than I mostly have. Yes, good question. Why do we need Christ plus a man-made document? Christ's blood plus our signature? Give his short post a read.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Tall Skinny Suffering of Children
Andrew Jones, aka the Tall Skinny Kiwi, types a few short paragraphs about allowing children to be children in and about the church, including when it meets. It's very short so giving it a read will be easy as well as thought provoking. Many of us have learned to be family oriented in many ways, but not so much when the church joins together.
Monday, September 26, 2011
But The Midweek Group Is My Church
Every church I've attended that claims to be Reformed has taught that the Sunday church meeting (aka worship service) is the central and most important event of the week for Christians. If somebody had to decide to attend only one church activity during the week, the worship service should be it. It contains the central focus of worship - the preaching of, and thus the listening to - the sermon, and singing and praying to the Lord.
Some people have neglected to attend on Sunday, but make other meetings during the week their main focus. Inquiring leaders might get the reply, "But the midweek group is my church," and use the reply to warn against doing this.
But I'm wondering if those people aren't on to something. Maybe they sense that those other weekly gatherings have more fellowship, more one-anothers, more stimulating one another to love and good deeds, more encouraging of one another (Heb 10:23-25) that is supposed to go along with not neglecting to assemble together. And as Eric Carpenter writes at A Pilgrim's Progress, a former church of his had a built-in fellowship time that was very much enjoyed. Arthur Sido, in the comments, notes that a former church his family attended had a difficult time getting people to stop fellowshipping during a built-in time so they could attend the formal teaching. If more of the one-anothers that are listed in the New Testament occur in settings other than the Sunday meeting, why not allow somebody who realized this the benefit of the doubt in meeting during those other times?
Some people have neglected to attend on Sunday, but make other meetings during the week their main focus. Inquiring leaders might get the reply, "But the midweek group is my church," and use the reply to warn against doing this.
But I'm wondering if those people aren't on to something. Maybe they sense that those other weekly gatherings have more fellowship, more one-anothers, more stimulating one another to love and good deeds, more encouraging of one another (Heb 10:23-25) that is supposed to go along with not neglecting to assemble together. And as Eric Carpenter writes at A Pilgrim's Progress, a former church of his had a built-in fellowship time that was very much enjoyed. Arthur Sido, in the comments, notes that a former church his family attended had a difficult time getting people to stop fellowshipping during a built-in time so they could attend the formal teaching. If more of the one-anothers that are listed in the New Testament occur in settings other than the Sunday meeting, why not allow somebody who realized this the benefit of the doubt in meeting during those other times?
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
After a swing shift, Friday night at 11pm is my 5pm:
- I've been thinking lately about switching Friday Night Potpourri to Saturday Night. I'm working swings on Fridays and I usually crash immediately on Friday night after I get home. Like last night. I woke up on the couch in the wee hours with my blog editor still open and too tired to do anything other than go to bed.
- I've encountered so many black widow spiders in the back yard it's hard to count. I'm wondering why they only appear in the back yard. It's been that way the last several houses I've lived in.
- Leaves are beginning to drop in the back yard. That means getting out the rusty leaf rake and putting it to use in the next few months. Nothing like getting the rust worked out of a tool by using it.
- I love a good cup of coffee every afternoon. I'm not a morning coffee person, but usually have one after those post-lunch sleepy sessions kick in. Makes the afternoon go faster and more efficient.
- What is up with laptops and their bizarre keyboard mishaps? I type and right in the middle of what I'm doing, large chunks of text are cut and pasted to other parts of the document and the vertical scroll bar goes wildly up and down. I mentioned this to a co-worker the other day and he experiences the same things. Then Mrs. Scott agreed. Anybody have these woes and know what they are?
- Popcorn ceilings. Or what everybody used to call "cottage cheese" ceilings. The inventor never took into consideration that kids and popcorn ceilings don't mix. Or... Must have been invented by the devil himself. You've got to pick up all the little pieces...
- song.
Friday, September 23, 2011
What Would Jesus Drive?
Occasionally I hear or read the question, "What would Jesus drive?" as if there were a certain type of car he would drive if he were living in our society today. I think the answer is fairly simple. Jesus said, "Lo, I will be with you, even to the end of the age." He also said he would send us his spirit. He also said that those who did/didn't do things to the least of his were doing it to him. He told Saul of Tarsus that he was persecuting him.
So with all this, and the freedom we have in Christ, plus using wisdom in how we live, wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus would drive whatever any of his followers would drive? Except for an SUV, that is.
So with all this, and the freedom we have in Christ, plus using wisdom in how we live, wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus would drive whatever any of his followers would drive? Except for an SUV, that is.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Can You Reform Yourself Out of Being Reformed?
Bobby Grow at the newer version of The Evangelical Calvinist asks, "Who's Reformed, And Who Cares?" and discusses how we should define what it means to be included within the Reformed Faith of Protestant Christianity. A clip:
I'm in agreement with Bobby and his commenter. There seems to be a gatekeeper mentality within those who claim the Reformed tradition that includes a position as minister of definition. It's clear to me, and I've written about it numorous times over the blogging years, that semper reformanda is the forgotten sola of the Reformation. Maybe it's because it never was a sola to begin with. The word reformed is in the past tense, as in already figured out. If seeking to be reforming rather than already reformed means that some will strip a definition from you, then I'm fine with that. The ethic really is more important than the label.
[T]here are many classically Reformed proponents today who collapse what it means to be ‘Reformed’ into a fixed set of agreed upon Reformed Confessions (the so called Three Forms of Unity — viz. The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, and The Canons of Dort); if someone cannot sign off on even one of these ‘forms’ in toto, then their “Reformedness” is probably non-existent.He quotes a commenter on an old post of his that answers this idea:
What are the core principles of Reformed orthodoxy? Are these primarily doctrines (e.g. election and divine sovereignty construed in a particular way), or are they primarily ethics of the way in which theology is to be carried out (e.g. semper reformanda)?... [M]y sense of the tradition and its founding is that the latter ethics are decisive. That’s why there is no single confessional statement of Reformed orthodoxy (as with the Lutheran Formula of Concord), but rather a broad tradition of regional confessions that share a great deal of doctrinal similitude. Even where we would specify some doctrines as necessary to what it means to be in the Reformed tradition — such as election and the sovereignty of God — the ethic requires that these allow for a range of interpretive positions and not a fixed doctrinal expression. This gives Reformed thinkers the freedom to continually re-examine and re-express the truths that are encountered in Scripture.And in his commenter's conclusion:
The greatest value of classic Reformed orthodoxy, in my view, is that classic Reformed orthodoxy does not have the last word.
I'm in agreement with Bobby and his commenter. There seems to be a gatekeeper mentality within those who claim the Reformed tradition that includes a position as minister of definition. It's clear to me, and I've written about it numorous times over the blogging years, that semper reformanda is the forgotten sola of the Reformation. Maybe it's because it never was a sola to begin with. The word reformed is in the past tense, as in already figured out. If seeking to be reforming rather than already reformed means that some will strip a definition from you, then I'm fine with that. The ethic really is more important than the label.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
A week is a week is a week:
- Even if you don't write Friday Night Potpourri until Saturday afternoon.
- Even if the Beatles wrote a song titled, "Eight Days A Week."
- Especially when you think this FNP theme is cute then "This Week In Baseball" comes on.
- One of the things about my temp job that I haven't experienced in several decades is that I get paid once a week. This is so unusual that I don't quite know how to process it. But a paycheck shows up every seven days instead of twice per month, and we're all thankful for that.
- I've run out of "week" theme items so I'll switch to something random like breakfast cereals. So there's a cereal called Reece's Puffs, a take off of Cocoa Puffs. I guess some goof accidentally spilled some peanut butter in the Cocoa Puff recipe while in the General Mills laboratory. Accidents happen. Not that I would eat such a concoction. I grew up on Wheaties, Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Shredded Wheat, Cinnamon Life and a half dozen other lessers.
- The kids were bored late in the summer. I can tell by all the stuff accumulated on the roof. Cups, balls, newspapers, toys, rocks. Time to get the ladder out and do some fall cleaning.
- This last item has nothing whatsoever to do with a week. Or so I've heard.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Still Yet Another Additional Anniversary of the World Not Ending
It's almost getting boring writing about this every September 6th, but today is the 17th anniversary of the sun not ceasing to shine, the moon not turning to blood and the stars not falling from the sky. It is the 17th anniversary of Harold Camping's first of many, many failed eschatological predictions. Having established a perfect record in his predictions, many of his followers ignore his prediction outcomes and believe in them anyway. Even after every calendar in the world proves him wrong.
In one way, I wish his 1994 prediction had come true. You see, Major League Baseball was in the middle of a player's strike, and the last game played before the strike was on a Thursday night, the only night game in the majors that night. It was in Oakland and I was there sitting in the bleachers! Had the world ended in September like Camping predicted, I would have had a ticket stub to the last game ever played in all of history! Now how much would that ticket stub be worth today? But as it was, the world didn't end and baseball played again in 1995. Darn! Or, should I say "damn!"?
In one way, I wish his 1994 prediction had come true. You see, Major League Baseball was in the middle of a player's strike, and the last game played before the strike was on a Thursday night, the only night game in the majors that night. It was in Oakland and I was there sitting in the bleachers! Had the world ended in September like Camping predicted, I would have had a ticket stub to the last game ever played in all of history! Now how much would that ticket stub be worth today? But as it was, the world didn't end and baseball played again in 1995. Darn! Or, should I say "damn!"?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Is it really Friday?
- Family Scott has attained basketball hoop. A Facebook post by some friends resulted in the kids using the driveway for more than throwing or hitting rocks. Score!
- It seems like Tuesday for whatever reason. Working a continually changing schedule for the last three months makes it difficult to know what day it is. I usually know the date because so much of the work I do is tied to it, but not the day. I turned on the game and the Giants were wearing their orange jerseys which means Friday.
- There's no there there. I'm working in a city I used to live in for a number of years. Everything I did I had to drive over the hill to central county. The downtown had been blighted for decades, and numerous attempts at redevelopment were unsuccessful. But there are a few good places downtown that have come about in recent years. Now I need to find out more.
- Hey, my car is dirty. Maybe I can get my kids to wash it next week. Playing in the soap and water? Hmmm.
- Upon further review, I found a post from last month that says my kids washed their mother's car. Life isn't fair, but I guess it can be next week.
- I just found two dictionaries in the computer armoir. Two. I haven't read a dictionary in book form in quite a few years.
- The summer sound...
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Startup Mania
Work is very intense right now, and is the big reason for me not blogging much. I worked 16 days straight (fifteen with overtime), had a day off, and then worked another seven overtime shifts. But as much work as there is, it is very enjoyable. A very complex plant trying to start up is very exciting and full of surprises. Sometimes learning what shifts everybody will work is hour to hour and not day to day. Unique problems arise, and problem solving is the order of the day.
Church is also in startup mode. We've been occasionally meeting with a group that is "planting" a church, and the much desired fellowship is picking up. There's a much greater emphasis on people than programs and we're enjoying that too. I miss blogging and I believe my writing has suffered a good deal over the last year or so. Even Friday Night Potpourri isn't regular anymore. Until the startup at work is successful and things smooth out into normal routine, it looks like I'll be a working fool. And that is welcome after so long without gainful productivity. I'd love to drop some more theological posts here in the near future, but life things may be more the speed in the foreseeable future.
Church is also in startup mode. We've been occasionally meeting with a group that is "planting" a church, and the much desired fellowship is picking up. There's a much greater emphasis on people than programs and we're enjoying that too. I miss blogging and I believe my writing has suffered a good deal over the last year or so. Even Friday Night Potpourri isn't regular anymore. Until the startup at work is successful and things smooth out into normal routine, it looks like I'll be a working fool. And that is welcome after so long without gainful productivity. I'd love to drop some more theological posts here in the near future, but life things may be more the speed in the foreseeable future.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Questions About The Sabbath
Eric Carpenter (who blogs at A Pilgrim's Progress) mowed his lawn this Sunday. Eric asked some questions about the Sabbath and what it means to keep it and break it, as well as whether there is a Sunday Sabbath to begin with. I left a comment, but at the time I typed this post it hadn't yet been approved by the blog owner, so I'll paste it here:
This is a question that Sabbatarians have never given a reasonable answer to for me. Does anybody have any additional observations on the Sabbath question?
Eric,
In the book of Acts, there are 8 different references to the seventh day as being the Sabbath, and what the apostles did on that day (13:14, 27, 42, 44, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2 and 18:4). The church and its first day meeting had already been well established by the apostles.
Now, why, if Sunday were the "Christian" or "New Testament" Sabbath, does THE BIBLE ITSELF still recognize the seventh day as the Sabbath after the Sabbath had already supposedly changed to Sunday?
This is a question that Sabbatarians have never given a reasonable answer to for me. Does anybody have any additional observations on the Sabbath question?
Friday, August 05, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Worked week:
- I had an encounter with a skunk at 5am today. Still dark, and perfectly still out, the skunk was startled by me and crossed the street and headed down. Whew. I had to get my gear in the car, and it crossed back and headed up the sidewalk toward me. I was stuck with the car open, so I shook my keys at it. It swerved around into the front yard and past the side of the house. Our skunks are regulars, as they cut through our property, under the fence, and out to wherever they go in the middle of the night.
- Well, we had plums and apricots already. Now we get the fallout from our neighbor's fig tree. Yummy, but a littered yard.
- I was thinking about grease monkeys recently and what they used to do. A friend put a 327 small block into a Vega wagon. The torque almost wrenched the frame for good. You could feel it as the car picked up. A roll to one side. And 140mph was a huge deal when we were kids.
- It was very windy the last few days. Out driving it was mostly garbage and pine needles flying around.
- I saw a Google Street car out driving around last year. I still haven't seen the latest and greatest up on the internet.
- It's too late and I'm too tired to think about something to put on this 6th bullet point. Some times I get not just writer's block...
- Hmmm, I think it's time for a haircut.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Theological Comfort
"My job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." - Anon
Well, whether or not affliction is ever involved, I think there is the trap of becoming theologically comfortable. This theological comfort is like other comforts. We are at peace with our knowledge of God. We understand him. He becomes predictable. My favorite show is on channel 40 at 7pm every night. Sometimes it comes on at 4pm, but the schedule tells me so in advance. His ways are routine. I sit with a cold beverage in my easy chair and watch every night. God comes home for dinner at the same time every night, takes His shoes off and relaxes. We sit on the sofa across the room from Him.
When God becomes predictable to us, when He becomes comfortable to us, those who are not so comfortable can become predictably wrong. Always. Or at least as long as we ourselves are comfortable. Those people are in the other room worrying about cooking and cleaning or maybe where their next meal will come from. Why can't they relax like me? Can't they see God in my living room?
Something I've come to realize in my own life is that each time I think I've got God - or the study of God - figured out, he changes it. He throws a monkey wrench into my system. Sometimes that wrench really messes things up. Biblical theology messes with systematic theology. There's that verse again. Can I really get away with forcing an interpretation again? Oh, well, I'm comfortable with doing so, so I'll do it again. And tell you all about it.
Well, whether or not affliction is ever involved, I think there is the trap of becoming theologically comfortable. This theological comfort is like other comforts. We are at peace with our knowledge of God. We understand him. He becomes predictable. My favorite show is on channel 40 at 7pm every night. Sometimes it comes on at 4pm, but the schedule tells me so in advance. His ways are routine. I sit with a cold beverage in my easy chair and watch every night. God comes home for dinner at the same time every night, takes His shoes off and relaxes. We sit on the sofa across the room from Him.
When God becomes predictable to us, when He becomes comfortable to us, those who are not so comfortable can become predictably wrong. Always. Or at least as long as we ourselves are comfortable. Those people are in the other room worrying about cooking and cleaning or maybe where their next meal will come from. Why can't they relax like me? Can't they see God in my living room?
Something I've come to realize in my own life is that each time I think I've got God - or the study of God - figured out, he changes it. He throws a monkey wrench into my system. Sometimes that wrench really messes things up. Biblical theology messes with systematic theology. There's that verse again. Can I really get away with forcing an interpretation again? Oh, well, I'm comfortable with doing so, so I'll do it again. And tell you all about it.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Well, it's back. A fortnight in the rear view mirror:
- Home from working overtime on swing shift. Was tonight Friday Night? It doesn't feel like it one way or another, but just like it's late at night, which it is.
- In my lab work, there's lots of call for what is known as de-ionized water (or "deionized" as one word, DI for short). Anyway, Microsoft Word's spell checker doesn't recognize the word "deionized". So, in its suggestion box it lists "demonized" as an alternate. Demonized water? I guess that's different than holy water, no?
- Visited a new friend's house. The friend is new, but the house is old. There's a concrete pouring in the back yard with the footprints of a young child imprinted in it and a name and date scratched in. The date: 1952.
- One thing about swing shift is that staying up late (or early as the case may be) allows viewing opportunities of the "paperboy" tossing the paper on the driveway as the car flies by.
- Summer is in full bloom and autumn is just around the corner. My favorite season of the year. The trees have, what, two months of totally green leaves left?
- The roof has accumulated a number of small toys. Many of them were batted up there by our middle boy. When I find the red volcanic rock in the back yard, I know it's been hit over the house by a little slugger.
- There's no other word to describe it than classic.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
It's Not So Much About "Institutional" vs. "Organic"
I've been following for several years now websites that have to do with ecclesiology, namely with the differences between the traditional/institutional church model and the house/simple/organic church model. Supporters of each idea have their own warnings about the other and their own bible proof texts, etc., and argue for their own way of "doing church." I appreciate the dialog, monologue and exchange. Even the flames and sarcasm.
But even though I do see the house/simple/organic folks' ideas and arguments in the bible and I don't see the traditional/institutional folks' ideas and arguments in the bible, I don't see the ultimate argument as one of institutional vs. organic. What I do believe is foremost is whether a church accomplishes what churches are supposed to do. For example, the "one-anothers" of the bible. Even though I see one-anothers being employed in the church assembly (i.e. 1 Cor. 11-14 and Heb. 10), they certainly aren't limited to when the church assembles together. And even though I don't see passivity in listening to sermons during a "worship service" without any one-anothers during the assembly in the pages of the bible, I would rather attend a traditional/institutional church that has the one-anothers right in all other areas of church than attend a house/simple/organic church that doesn't.
But even though I do see the house/simple/organic folks' ideas and arguments in the bible and I don't see the traditional/institutional folks' ideas and arguments in the bible, I don't see the ultimate argument as one of institutional vs. organic. What I do believe is foremost is whether a church accomplishes what churches are supposed to do. For example, the "one-anothers" of the bible. Even though I see one-anothers being employed in the church assembly (i.e. 1 Cor. 11-14 and Heb. 10), they certainly aren't limited to when the church assembles together. And even though I don't see passivity in listening to sermons during a "worship service" without any one-anothers during the assembly in the pages of the bible, I would rather attend a traditional/institutional church that has the one-anothers right in all other areas of church than attend a house/simple/organic church that doesn't.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Blog Spotlight Monday - A Pilgrim's Progress
Eric Carpenter blogs at his A Pilgrim's Progress site. Eric is a former "institutional" church pastor who felt convicted over a period of time that his paid pastorate in the specific corporate structure of his church didn't line up with the bible. So, he has blogged about his journey; hence a pilgrim's progress. He stepped down from his position, becoming unemployed. His family started assembling with a group of other people in homes, or if you like, a simple or organic church life. After a while of part time work, Eric got a full time job as a working man and continues to write about his life journey.
I came across Eric in the comment sections of Alan Knox'sThe Assembling of the Church blog and other blogs friendly to Alan (they attended the same seminary if I'm not mistaken). Eric writes quite a bit about ecclesiology - or study of the church - but also about many other topics as well. He isn't afraid to take on church theology head on and I find his writing stimulating and authentic. Despite living in the South (Savannah, GA), Eric is a Phillies fan and we had a bit of fun last fall when they played my Giants, and he's looking forward to a rematch that I would gladly welcome. Eric is in my "ecclesiology" links box as a result of his continual desire to examine the church in the light of the scriptures. Check out Eric's A Pilgrim's Progress.
I came across Eric in the comment sections of Alan Knox'sThe Assembling of the Church blog and other blogs friendly to Alan (they attended the same seminary if I'm not mistaken). Eric writes quite a bit about ecclesiology - or study of the church - but also about many other topics as well. He isn't afraid to take on church theology head on and I find his writing stimulating and authentic. Despite living in the South (Savannah, GA), Eric is a Phillies fan and we had a bit of fun last fall when they played my Giants, and he's looking forward to a rematch that I would gladly welcome. Eric is in my "ecclesiology" links box as a result of his continual desire to examine the church in the light of the scriptures. Check out Eric's A Pilgrim's Progress.
Starting Up and Not Blogging Much
It's odd. Mrs. Scott and I were talking this evening and I mentioned that I was involved in three start-ups right now. I'm working during a startup at a new plant for a startup company. It's their first plant. And we've started meeting with a group that is doing a startup phase of a new church. And if you wanted to push the issue even further, you could rightly say I'm in the startup phase of a new career.
I've been absent from the blogosphere lately as I've been working a lot, and working opposite schedules with Mrs. Scott. I could purposefully engage in another startup (creating a new blog), but I won't do that. I've kind of thought about our lives over the last few years as starting over in so many areas. I might as well be involved in so many startups, doesn't it seem? Is this how God works, starting people over in everything at once?
I've been absent from the blogosphere lately as I've been working a lot, and working opposite schedules with Mrs. Scott. I could purposefully engage in another startup (creating a new blog), but I won't do that. I've kind of thought about our lives over the last few years as starting over in so many areas. I might as well be involved in so many startups, doesn't it seem? Is this how God works, starting people over in everything at once?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Blog Spotlight Monday - Wilderness Fandango
Bob Spencer blogs at a musical place on the internet called Wilderness Fandango. I forget where I came across Bob, but I think it was on the Internet Monk site. There are several things that make Bob's site a good read for me. One is that he has a church history that I can relate to in terms of what church is and how people are supposed to fit into existing ideas. He's not a fan of the "institutional" church model, and writes often about his visits to various churches and his ideas about what does and doesn't work in church. Another is that he likes baseball. I hope I've got this right when I say he's a Red Sox fan. It's the team that most people in Maine worship, uhhh, I mean follow.
Bob is a big bluegrass music fan and often puts up clips of various pieces of music, many outside of the bluegrass genre. Either way, they're always tasteful and a good listen. But one of the things I enjoy most about Wilderness Fandango is that Bob is a good writer. No matter what he writes about and no matter if I agree, he writes about it well. So, there you go for a Monday. Check out Bob's Wilderness Fandango.
Bob is a big bluegrass music fan and often puts up clips of various pieces of music, many outside of the bluegrass genre. Either way, they're always tasteful and a good listen. But one of the things I enjoy most about Wilderness Fandango is that Bob is a good writer. No matter what he writes about and no matter if I agree, he writes about it well. So, there you go for a Monday. Check out Bob's Wilderness Fandango.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Cautiously Optimistic...Again
There are some rumblings for our family and possible connection with a church. A colleague of Mrs. Scott is involved with a group that is planting a church and is in pre-startup phase. We've started hanging out. Hopefully things will click overall, as it has with just a small few so far. We haven't jumped in head first yet, as we're again cautiously optimistic. The last time we were cautiously optimistic it didn't turn out so well. So we're hoping that something sticks this time. If you care to pray, pray for the love of the brethren.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Late again. In the habit?
- We got plenty of plums off the plum tree this year, and the apricots just ripened to the point of picking this last week. We beat the squirrels this year. There didn't seem to be many. Sill some pits lying on the top of the back fence.
- True to form, it hasn't rained here in the San Fran area for a few weeks. We had tons of rain this winter, and now that summer is here, none. That means extra special care in watering things.
- Hopefully I'll get to be back on the normal Friday night routine for FNP. Because of my job, I've been getting up a lot earlier and we've been trying to do family things at night. Sometimes I just crash at the computer.
- Why is it that the bbq potato chips always go faster than the regular potato chips?
- Looking out the window, there's a huge fog bank to the south. Bright and white. It was overcast this morning and not all of it has burned off. It's cool today with a breeze. So somebody down there has no sun.
- Saw Chronicles of Narnia 2 last night in the parking lot of a church in the downtown of a small town. It used to have about 300 people in the 70's when I was growing up and the housing boom started in the 80's. It still has a small town feel to it. We brought our chairs and blankets, yet were still cold. The kids liked the movie, and so did we.
- Speaking of such towns...
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Stuck
I was unemployed for 27 months and between all the job seminars, job fairs, "networking," attending vocational school with numerous other unemployed or underemployed people, I got a fairly good idea of what was happening in other people's lives. The stories, the difficulties, the situations. I've done quite a bit of observing and thinking about it.
One theme to many people's lives is that they seem to be "stuck." Stuck in the position they're in. Stuck in the house they're in, stuck in the lease they're in. Just plain stuck. One example is of a man I know who had a great family and a great career making great money. Now he's lost a lot of those things, but he's still paying the rent he paid when he could afford it. Well, why not move into a less expensive apartment? Because he can't qualify. You see, his life doesn't match the status quo for moving into another place, regardless of how cheap it is. But because he can make the payments in his current house - just barely with very little left over - that's the only place he can live. In other words, entrance requirements are much more difficult than requirements to stay once you're in. He already got in and now it's the only place he can stay even though he can't really afford it.
If once you're in something bad happens, you can't get out to somewhere else. You're stuck. The status quo is forcing a lot of people to be stuck and remain stuck. What can be done for this?
One theme to many people's lives is that they seem to be "stuck." Stuck in the position they're in. Stuck in the house they're in, stuck in the lease they're in. Just plain stuck. One example is of a man I know who had a great family and a great career making great money. Now he's lost a lot of those things, but he's still paying the rent he paid when he could afford it. Well, why not move into a less expensive apartment? Because he can't qualify. You see, his life doesn't match the status quo for moving into another place, regardless of how cheap it is. But because he can make the payments in his current house - just barely with very little left over - that's the only place he can live. In other words, entrance requirements are much more difficult than requirements to stay once you're in. He already got in and now it's the only place he can stay even though he can't really afford it.
If once you're in something bad happens, you can't get out to somewhere else. You're stuck. The status quo is forcing a lot of people to be stuck and remain stuck. What can be done for this?
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
A day late and a dollar short:
- Yeah, yeah, late again. But, what else can a man do?
- The youngest kids got dish soap out and washed mom's car with it and the garden hose. Two days in a row.
- I wonder if "extra dough" really means extra dough. So many ways of interpreting this, and... wait a minute. If this applies to chocolate chip cookie dough, then it becomes easy.
- The back lawn has been temporarily shut down for fertilization. After reading the label on the back of the bag, it says that I'm supposed to wear long sleeves, pants, shoes, and to wash my clothes separately from the others. Serious stuff.
- There's a brightness difference between copy papers. Yup. Some whites are whiter. It makes it weird when the plain paper drawer of the printer has multiple whitenesses of paper mixed in.
- Despite living in the same house for over 50 years, my parents have had three different area codes and three different zip codes during that same time.
- So I'm at the gas station this evening, and the guy at the pump in front of me is pumping gas with his door open and stereo up, grooving to and singing this song out loud. I couldn't help but join in.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Hymns vs. Choruses/CCM
Music in the context of the church has been debated for centuries. Music has changed and it has its own history that would benefit most of those doing any arguing. But what I want to write about here is using music and/or singing in the context of a church gathering, whether a Sunday meeting or a small group during the week.
I've been in churches that sung mainly hymns from a hymnal to a piano, and then in smaller settings in homes during the week, the piano might have been absent and the hymns sung a Capella. I've also been in churches where modern choruses were sung with worship bands up front. Also I've experiences a few churches that had a mix of both. In the churches where there was a mix, some of the people had opposite reactions. Once my pastor told me that occasionally he was hit up by people after the service, in succession, that the church was boring and stuffy because of all the hymns, then alternatively that the church had jumped right into rock 'n' roll and was loud and disrespectful.
But as far as my personal tastes go, I prefer hymns to modern choruses or praise and worship music. It's not because hymns are better, and it's not because hymns are better because they're older. There have been multitudes of hymns that were bad, and time and discretion have weeded them out from the pool. There are bad choruses today that will be weeded out in due time, leaving the best to last for several more generations. The reason I like hymns is because of their "singability."
For the most part, hymns are easier to sing precisely because they were designed to be sung by a group of people. The melody is there and a simple instrument might be the perfect accompaniment. People who are more talented at singing can sing harmony. On the other hand, many of the newer choruses were designed to be performed in a recording studio by recording artists with many instruments and special electronic effects, then put out as professionally recorded CD's, etc. The songs aren't as much sung as they are vocalized. Then these pieces are adapted to be used in church settings. I find these types of songs much more difficult to sing in groups, and the result is often less than desirable. There are some modern choruses that are perfectly singable in groups, and I like them as well. All this is not to say that hymns are good and choruses bad, it's just to say that I prefer music that is singable by a group to music that is not.
I've been in churches that sung mainly hymns from a hymnal to a piano, and then in smaller settings in homes during the week, the piano might have been absent and the hymns sung a Capella. I've also been in churches where modern choruses were sung with worship bands up front. Also I've experiences a few churches that had a mix of both. In the churches where there was a mix, some of the people had opposite reactions. Once my pastor told me that occasionally he was hit up by people after the service, in succession, that the church was boring and stuffy because of all the hymns, then alternatively that the church had jumped right into rock 'n' roll and was loud and disrespectful.
But as far as my personal tastes go, I prefer hymns to modern choruses or praise and worship music. It's not because hymns are better, and it's not because hymns are better because they're older. There have been multitudes of hymns that were bad, and time and discretion have weeded them out from the pool. There are bad choruses today that will be weeded out in due time, leaving the best to last for several more generations. The reason I like hymns is because of their "singability."
For the most part, hymns are easier to sing precisely because they were designed to be sung by a group of people. The melody is there and a simple instrument might be the perfect accompaniment. People who are more talented at singing can sing harmony. On the other hand, many of the newer choruses were designed to be performed in a recording studio by recording artists with many instruments and special electronic effects, then put out as professionally recorded CD's, etc. The songs aren't as much sung as they are vocalized. Then these pieces are adapted to be used in church settings. I find these types of songs much more difficult to sing in groups, and the result is often less than desirable. There are some modern choruses that are perfectly singable in groups, and I like them as well. All this is not to say that hymns are good and choruses bad, it's just to say that I prefer music that is singable by a group to music that is not.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Toward the weekend ahead:
- Friday, July 1st is one of the worst days to go to the bank. The last time I went on a Friday, July 1st, it was insane. Friday is payday for many people. The 1st is payday for many people. And since the 4th of July is on a Monday, Friday July 1st is a three-day weekend getaway day. I hope none of you got stuck in a long line.
- In the last town we lived in we established a tradition for the 4th. There are fireworks over the water and the marina park is the gathering place for thousands of people. From our vantage point, we can see four different shows from the various waterfront towns and nearby theme park.
- This year we're determined to gather all the ripe plums and apricots off the trees before the squirrels get them all. This year's yield looks to be several times what last year's was.
- It promises to be a gardening weekend around the house. Weeks to pull and plants to water and cultivate. A house full of black thumbs don't make things any easier. It's good that there isn't too much to care for.
- Mrs. Scott just pulled into the driveway. Sometimes that means a car full of stuff the kids will help bring in the house. Let's see what's in store...
- Okay, yes I sat down last night to do FNP, but fell asleep at the mouse wheel. I'm getting up way earlier than I used to so the night owl in me is at a disadvantage.
- They had then more hair than I have now.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Mui Overtime
I've been working a bunch of overtime at my new job, as it is a startup company opening their first plant. So, my blogging time has been limited to sleep walking time which I guess isn't happening. Hope to post something again soon. Like tonight's Friday Night Potpourri!
Monday, June 27, 2011
Blog Spotlight Monday - Evangelical Calvinist
Bobby Grow blogs at The Evangelical Calvinist. Bobby's blog is unashamedly theological in nature - and relatively heavy theology at that - but some of the fun in it for him and some of the fun in reading it for me is found in his many challenges to the rigid structures of classic or federal Calvinism.
I found Bobby frequently frequenting the comments sections of some major Calvinist blogs, several of which were already on my "don't agree so much with" list. So, it only seems natural that somebody who makes the same challenges that I like to see people make would be somebody I connect with on a blog level. Bobby has this sneaky way of inserting some subtleties into his comments, and as a result we had to correspond often in private rather than in the comments sections because it might get too thick.
Bobby holds to a particular brand of theology known as Evangelical Calvinism, or Scottish Theology, and writes extensively on the subject, hence his blog title. EC has its basis in the person of Christ as He exists in the Trinity as over against the rigid theological constructs of federal Calvinism. It would be best to read his blog to get a better idea of what that entails. Bobby is a recent cancer survivor and his zest for life is evident in his writing. I have done my best to not hold his being a Lakers fan against him, but on occasion I simply cannot contain myself and counter with a feeble "Go Warriors," which really means nothing to anybody. Check out Bobby's Evangelical Calvinist blog.
I found Bobby frequently frequenting the comments sections of some major Calvinist blogs, several of which were already on my "don't agree so much with" list. So, it only seems natural that somebody who makes the same challenges that I like to see people make would be somebody I connect with on a blog level. Bobby has this sneaky way of inserting some subtleties into his comments, and as a result we had to correspond often in private rather than in the comments sections because it might get too thick.
Bobby holds to a particular brand of theology known as Evangelical Calvinism, or Scottish Theology, and writes extensively on the subject, hence his blog title. EC has its basis in the person of Christ as He exists in the Trinity as over against the rigid theological constructs of federal Calvinism. It would be best to read his blog to get a better idea of what that entails. Bobby is a recent cancer survivor and his zest for life is evident in his writing. I have done my best to not hold his being a Lakers fan against him, but on occasion I simply cannot contain myself and counter with a feeble "Go Warriors," which really means nothing to anybody. Check out Bobby's Evangelical Calvinist blog.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Martin Luther Plus Semper Reformanda Equals More Martin Luthers
This is a re-post of something I wrote about a year ago.
________________________________
Martin Luther was a hero of the Protestant faith. His beliefs that the church was engaged in theology and practice that was not biblical led to its reforming; hence the Protestant Reformation. One of the rallying cries of the Reformation was "Semper Reformanda," or "always reforming."
Today in "Reformed" circles, this slogan is not given near the weight that the five solas are. Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone) are champions of the day. In my opinion there seems to be a line of thinking in Reformed circles that the Reformation was a one-time thing that solidified everything to be believed for all time. All reformation stopped at The Reformation.
Of course, reforming for the sake of reforming isn't in mind, as Michael Horton points out in this piece about the real meaning of the slogan. The original phrase was, “The church is reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God,” indicating that the reformation in view is passive; the Holy Spirit working in reforming the church. Horton also points out:
________________________________
Martin Luther was a hero of the Protestant faith. His beliefs that the church was engaged in theology and practice that was not biblical led to its reforming; hence the Protestant Reformation. One of the rallying cries of the Reformation was "Semper Reformanda," or "always reforming."
Today in "Reformed" circles, this slogan is not given near the weight that the five solas are. Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone) are champions of the day. In my opinion there seems to be a line of thinking in Reformed circles that the Reformation was a one-time thing that solidified everything to be believed for all time. All reformation stopped at The Reformation.
Of course, reforming for the sake of reforming isn't in mind, as Michael Horton points out in this piece about the real meaning of the slogan. The original phrase was, “The church is reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God,” indicating that the reformation in view is passive; the Holy Spirit working in reforming the church. Horton also points out:
As Calvin argued in his treatise “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” the Reformers were charged with innovation when in fact it was the medieval church’s innovative distortions of Christian faith and worship that required a recovery of apostolic Christianity. Rome pretended to be “always the same,” but it had accumulated a host of doctrines and practices that were unknown to the ancient church, much less to the New Testament.Now for some questions. Could the same thing be said, at least in some things, about the Reformed church? Did the Reformation deal with every single problem with Rome? And if Martin Luther led the way for the church to be reformed, couldn't we say that along with the slogan of Semper Reformanda there should arise even more Martin Luthers?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
The one-minute to go on Friday Friday Night Potpourri:
- I've got to fix the side gate again. The latch broke and the kids are now trying to push the gate open from the back yard. Won't work, guys. I know it can't open in that direction, and that's why there's a big rock lying there, to prop it open.
- I remember several years ago hearing about how the internet was going to run out of space in 2010. There wouldn't be enough storage, etc., to keep up with the growing demand. That was supposed to happen last year. Did it happen and I missed it? Was the problem solved? Was it another scare?
- I got my main-gate badge at work today that allows me to take a shortcut on paved roads to the parking lot instead of going all the way down the side road and backtracking down a bumpy gravel road. I should save several hours per day and thousands in car washings. Not to mention damage to the suspension.
- They don't make my socks anymore. Or at least they came up with new packaging and are charging more. Are socks really that critical? Are they worth the price?
- Reflecting on my best car ever. A Honda Accord, 1990. I got 18 years and over 300,000 miles out of it. It was a rare 4-door/5-speed. I miss my clutch!
- There's a comedian on TV who is actually funny. Mrs. Scott is laughing hysterically. Yes, he really is that funny. I used to watch some of those stand up comedy shows. Not many comedians or comediennes really were that funny. Only a few. Some comedians say funny things and some are funny.
- Old.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Needing Each Other During Church
Eric Carpenter at A Pilgrim's Progress writes a short post about how we need each other when we assemble with the church. We can all speak to each other during the church meeting for mutual edification. I really don't have any experience with churches that do this, but after so many years of not having it, I certainly know what can happen when there is no mutual edification during the meeting. Mutual edification is pushed back into a place where people need to scramble to look for other ways for it to happen. So much so that it's possible for mutual edification to not happen at all. I wonder what it would be like to have a church that engaged with each other the way that is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11-14. I hope to find out someday.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
Qwerty weekly:
- I did a Google Images search on "Frank Viola." The two of them are pretty evenly matched in the number of photos department. Are they the same man?
- I don't know if it's like this where you live, but a good percentage of radio commercials here are for mattress companies trying to make the best deal for you.
- This week marks the first time our three year old takes any interest in baseball whatsoever. He played catch with me, wanted his older brother to give him his all-star uniform top and ran around the house yelling "Buster Posey!"
- My oldest son was fishing in the pond and accidentally caught a wild turtle. The poor thing had a hook stuck in its mouth, so we brought it to a nearby museum animal hospital to have it removed. Hopefully they let it go in the same pond.
- In a bizarre episode, the store bakery had no cheesecakes in its cake case today. The baker couldn't locate any either. I was planning on picking one up for our Father's Day dinner. So I settled on a chocolate cream cake Friday special for five bucks.
- Lit up the barbecue tonight for the first time in quite a while. Used the last of the briquettes, smoked up a good chunk of dinner, and later the kids tried creating some s'mores with marshmallows over the dim and dying coals.
- I'm not sure how the movie clips fit in here, but it's the song I was after.
Work Is Working Somewhat
Well, this is my third week of being gainfully employed after two plus years without. It's good to work with my hands in a way that brings in a paycheck. And doing something that I'm good at is helpful, too. Although I wasn't even qualified for the job in the usual "academics plus experience" way, the intangibles added up in a "greater than the sum of the parts" way.
A recent classmate of mine got a job in her former field that happens to be in a plant in the type of field I want to get into. She told the boss that although I had no experience, she knew from my background and how I performed in a lab class that I would be able to do the job well. And after my interview, he hired me. I could sense in my interview that when his words changed from "you would be doing" to "you will be doing" that I would be offered the position. Such stories aren't much told these days, but I'm thankful somebody is willing to take a chance and trust somebody, like me. I've been given a fairly large amount of responsibility for some important things right off the bat, and I'm finding that I'm up for the challenge.
It's a temporary position that is initially a three month assignment through a temp service, but I hope that my dream full-time job will be coming soon. I've been involved in hiring processes for that type of job that take quite some time to complete, so I'll have to wait a while before I know. But right now is a small step in a good direction.
A recent classmate of mine got a job in her former field that happens to be in a plant in the type of field I want to get into. She told the boss that although I had no experience, she knew from my background and how I performed in a lab class that I would be able to do the job well. And after my interview, he hired me. I could sense in my interview that when his words changed from "you would be doing" to "you will be doing" that I would be offered the position. Such stories aren't much told these days, but I'm thankful somebody is willing to take a chance and trust somebody, like me. I've been given a fairly large amount of responsibility for some important things right off the bat, and I'm finding that I'm up for the challenge.
It's a temporary position that is initially a three month assignment through a temp service, but I hope that my dream full-time job will be coming soon. I've been involved in hiring processes for that type of job that take quite some time to complete, so I'll have to wait a while before I know. But right now is a small step in a good direction.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
No Blog Spotlight and Other Trivia
I missed posting Blog Spotlight Monday last night. We had some bug go through our family and it was hit-the-wall time. I hope to be back next week. Also, I'm trying to think where to go next in part of my writing on this blog. I think it's time to change some of the content, but not all. I may re-post my previous series on church membership. In any case, I hope to introduce at least one new direction in what I will write about.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Friday Night Potpourri
A full week of work, including tomorrow:
- It's odd to be commuting again. But, thankfully, it has been a counter-commute that is earlier than the heavy traffic time. The one big potential delay is having to wait 10 minutes for a train to pass. A co-worker has that happen yesterday. After work today, the crossing arm malfunctioned - with bells and lights - and I was detoured into the next city in a long runaround.
- Many bosses. It's quite interesting. I'm working for a plant that is still under construction, and we're doing prep work in the lab for when it starts up. Since it's still under construction, we're technically in a construction zone, and the construction company has rules and procedures that have to be followed because it controls the site. Meanwhile the plant is on leased property of another plant, so there are rules and procedures of that plant, since we all access their right of way to get to ours. Finally, I'm working for a temp agency that has its own guidelines for my employment. Whew! Got all that?
- Our six year old says that mom's grilled cheese sandwiches come in third. Grandma's are first. Then Mrs. Scott's work's are second. Hers are only third. But... she's the one that makes the grilled cheese sandwiches at work, so she comes in both second and third.
- School's out for the kids and their cousins and neighbors. What does summer have in store? Let's see... boredom? Can I go to...? Summer camps? When is school going to start?
- Chocolate chip cookie dough. Who needs an oven?
- We've had a bit of warming in our weather, so the neighborhood kids have taken to the garden hose.
- At my previous job, I used to play this CD every Friday at 3:30, and this is my favorite tune on the CD.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Secondary Issues
What constitutes a "secondary" issue within Christianity is not a difficult thing to determine. I don't think, anyway. There is constant debate about so-called secondary issues - those issues that are not essential to the Christian faith as far as salvation. Recently I have read a number of things about this, and quite a few people seem to think that secondary issues are made primary depending on who it is doing the deciding, and we'll never come to agreement. So, it's a hopeless topic. But, hey folks, I think it is easier than most people think.
The essentials of the Christian faith are not difficult to identify. The virgin birth, the real and actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Lordship of Christ. The gospel. The second coming, and so on. These things have been held throughout history by the majority of the church, and they continue to be core beliefs. The early creeds are an example. Whether somebody drinks beer or wears certain clothes or allows their daughter to go to college or has a certain form of church government or whether women wear pants or even whether somebody sprinkles or dunks during baptism simply aren't essential doctrines. People make them out to be, and that's the problem. Denying that Jesus came in the flesh is a major problem, but denying that every last Christian child must be homeschooled isn't.
And there's a big difference between having convictions that you un-hypocritically hold to and judging other people based on those convictions. The list of trivial things that are used to judge and condemn people - even to an eternity in hell - doesn't end. Think about it. God is going to cast a professing Christian into the lake of fire on judgment day to spend an eternity in hell because they drank a beer now and then? Because they wear the latest fashions and dress well? God is going to let you into heaven but stick you in a golden corner with a jewel laden dunce cap on because you baptized people the wrong way? Think about what that means. We would be willing to wish the worst on our brothers and sisters because of our personal preferences and pet doctrines? What kind of Christian attitude is that? It's the kind of attitude that Jesus says will condemn the Pharisees.
I'm not claiming innocence on this, as I spent a good amount of time in legalistic churches and groups, and learned how to judge people harshly on secondary issues. But once God shows you the ugliness of it all, it is refreshing to not waste so much energy on condemning others. It's a freeing thing. And that's one of the things that Jesus came for.
The essentials of the Christian faith are not difficult to identify. The virgin birth, the real and actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Lordship of Christ. The gospel. The second coming, and so on. These things have been held throughout history by the majority of the church, and they continue to be core beliefs. The early creeds are an example. Whether somebody drinks beer or wears certain clothes or allows their daughter to go to college or has a certain form of church government or whether women wear pants or even whether somebody sprinkles or dunks during baptism simply aren't essential doctrines. People make them out to be, and that's the problem. Denying that Jesus came in the flesh is a major problem, but denying that every last Christian child must be homeschooled isn't.
And there's a big difference between having convictions that you un-hypocritically hold to and judging other people based on those convictions. The list of trivial things that are used to judge and condemn people - even to an eternity in hell - doesn't end. Think about it. God is going to cast a professing Christian into the lake of fire on judgment day to spend an eternity in hell because they drank a beer now and then? Because they wear the latest fashions and dress well? God is going to let you into heaven but stick you in a golden corner with a jewel laden dunce cap on because you baptized people the wrong way? Think about what that means. We would be willing to wish the worst on our brothers and sisters because of our personal preferences and pet doctrines? What kind of Christian attitude is that? It's the kind of attitude that Jesus says will condemn the Pharisees.
I'm not claiming innocence on this, as I spent a good amount of time in legalistic churches and groups, and learned how to judge people harshly on secondary issues. But once God shows you the ugliness of it all, it is refreshing to not waste so much energy on condemning others. It's a freeing thing. And that's one of the things that Jesus came for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)