Telemarketers can be annoying, but they can also be a source of mild entertainment. Especially the ones who call the church hawking the latest Christian trinket. I particularly enjoy this type of conversation, which happens once a month or so:
"Hello, Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church."
"Yes, this is Christy from Teen Rage with an exciting offer that will help your youth love Jesus! May I speak to the director of your youth group, please?"
"We don't have a youth group."
"Oh," followed by the long pause of a telemarketer who doesn't have that response on her script. "Ok, well, thank you," spoken with the voice of one who has mistakenly dialed up a leper colony.
Our congregation really doesn't have a youth group, but this blog is not an anti-youth group rant. Rather, I wanted to tell you that I've just enjoyed a great summer hanging out with youth, be it my own youth group of six kids at my house, the young people in the congregation, or those at church camps and conferences. The highlights:
1) Monday through Wednesday of this week we had our second annual Youth Summer Service Project (YSSP) at the church. Fifteen teenagers attended. The three days started with devotions, ended with a fun time at Kokomo Raceway Park on Wednesday, and contained tons of hard work and laughs in the middle. What spectacular results were accomplished! They transformed from drab to classy two classrooms; either threw out or organized thousands of piles of stuff around the building, in the process finding many items lost for years; cleaned, waxed and polished everything in sight and even things that were not; weeded and trimmed hedges; changed a paint-peeling, uninviting nursery to a welcoming, bright environment (that wasn't even supposed to be on the list); and much, much more. And it was all done with nary a complaint or problem! I praise the Lord I was able to be with Hannah, Breanna, Emily, Megan, Luke, Rachel, Haley, Addie, Moriah, Chelsea, Kaitlyn, Melanie, Jamey, Lindsay and Trevor these days, and for all the others in the church who prepared for and supported their efforts. Thanks especially to Jason & Jenny!
2) I brought four messages to about 45 youth at our denomination's Youth Leadership Conference July 21-24 from Psalm 110 on the topic Bound to the Crown: Held Captive by Our Wills in Service to Christ. As this psalm speaks of the kingly power of Jesus Christ, verse 3 tells us one of the dramatic impacts that will occur: "Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; in holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew." That verse promises that Christ will bring forth the covenant young people to live holy lives and offer themselves in service to their King, bringing refreshment and life to the church. As we see serious-minded youth throughout the RPCNA giving themselves to such things as mission work home and abroad, spending three weeks at Theological Foundations for Youth learning at our seminary and serving in local churches, or being vital parts of their local congregations, we are witnessing Jesus fulfill this promise in our midst. Thanks especially to Will & Sarah!
3) We've been busy preparing and getting ready for our fifth year of Sycamore Covenant Academy (SCA), a supplemental educational and discipleship program for home educating families. We have more teachers (six) this year offering classes and more students (pushing 40) than ever, and beyond my regular classes of Beginning Greek and Algebra II I get to teach an Old Testament Survey Class. I'm looking forward to an exciting year.
4) With Jamey starting full-time at IUK, Lindsay entering her senior year and taking classes both in Marion and Indianapolis, Trevor being the first kid to get to play two sports in our family (on a soccer team in addition to basketball), Emory continuing to progress in violin and taking lessons on the north side of Indianapolis, Spencer incredibly entering the fourth grade (it does not seem possible), and Celia turning four with her latest trick being dragging a yo-yo behind her like a dog she calls "O-yo," Miriam and my cup runneth over with youth activities. (And no, Honey, Celia does not need a pet, despite what you said. See how busy we are? And she's got lizards, remember?)
5) Sitting on the window sill of my office is a card with a picture of three kids on a bike being followed by a dad on a small bike with training wheels. Inside it says, "Happy Father's Day to the Biggest Kid on the Block." With all this activity, our neighborhood "Cops & Robbers" games have been too few this summer. But the kids haven't forgotten - I just got asked this week by one of the little neighbors if I could come out and play. That's my plan this Friday night, Lord willing.
So we may not have a youth group, but I hope I am never too old to be a youth groupee.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Obedience: A Learned Behavior
Recently a friend going through a tough time asked me for a copy of the following that I wrote quite a number of years ago. The title makes it self-explanatory. Perhaps a thought or two may be helpful to you.
Learning Obedience through Suffering
What the Lord Taught a Pastor as the Congregation He Served Struggled through Division that Threatened Its Existence
- If my perfect Lord learned obedience through suffering, so must all who follow Him.
- Nothing helps like dry and thirsty times to bring out the sweet taste of the Psalms.
- The best prayers are often offered with a libation of tears.
- God provides an oasis in our deserts. They are called friends.
- If God destroyed a whole generation for grumbling and complaining before they entered the land of promise, what will He do to those who grumble who are in Christ and His church?
- In backyard basketball, we say, “No blood – no foul.” In other words, quit complaining about every infraction and just keep playing. That makes for a loose but good paraphrase of Hebrews 12:4-5, “If you have not started bleeding yet, then your trial isn’t nearly as bad as it could be. Accept the discipline of the Lord and press on.”
- Often silence is the answer.
- As Spurgeon said, those who slander your name would really have something to talk about if only they knew the truth about you. When others speak ill of you, be glad they do not see you as God does. Then take refuge in Christ your Advocate.
- Your foe is probably not as wicked as you make him out to be. Neither are you as righteous as you think you are.
- Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is not only pithy, it is Biblical. The Lord’s bondservant must learn to avoid entangling arguments while he trusts in Biblical discipline to run its course.
- As a shepherd, be tenacious in protecting the flock from those who sow stumbling blocks and dissension. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing you’re supposed to be watching out for.
- Keep written records and have witnesses to all interactions with parties under church discipline.
- The Proverbs state, “Drive out a mocker and out goes strife; quarrels and insults have ended.” The peace in our congregation following our struggles demonstrates the truthfulness of this statement.
- While struggling, find joy in serving others. There is always someone more miserable than you are.
- Often the fastest way to church growth is through subtraction, not addition.
- “Be angry, yet do not sin.” Take your frustrations out on pursuing the offenders, not your kids.
- “An excellent wife, who can find?” By God’s grace, I have.
- It is pride - not godliness - that refuses to ask for help.
- Finally, thanks be to the good Lord that I am a Presbyterian. I have a place to go when I need help.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Do What You Cannot Do
He came banging in through the church door last Saturday, calling out with his thick tongue, "Hel-wo! Pas-ta!" As this "pas-ta" came out of his study and walked down the hall toward him, I recognized the form swaying unsteadily inside the door. He is a local fixture in this neighborhood, a middle-aged man whose body is twisted with cerebral palsy that makes his words and steps jerky and disjointed. The only time he moves about fairly freely is when he is seated upon his three-wheeled bike with the basket as he tools along the streets. One looking upon him instantly feels sorry for him.
He asked for five bucks because he said he was hungry. Jason, who was with me, asked if he had gone to the Mission, which offers two free meals a day, every day. He said people there made fun of him and asked for five bucks again. We flat-out said no. He said he would come to church if we gave it to him. We told him to come to church the next day then we would start talking about it. Without another word he turned and stumbled out the door in disgust.
Were we cruel?
Well, before I tell you a bit more about this situation, meditate with me upon a truth about the gospel. Did you ever consider that when the gospel is preached, it is a call to the impossible? That you are asking the hearer to do something he is completely incapable of doing? In essence you are saying to him, "Do what you cannot do."
For recall how often the Lord made incredible demands on His hearers:
Calling people to faith and repentance is the same. We tell them to repent of their evil ways and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Yet God is the one who ultimately grants repentance (see Acts 5:31) and ultimately gives faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). When the gospel is preached, the hearer is powerless to obey just as the preacher is powerless to create obedience. Because the hearer is dead, blind and lame, we must rely on the Spirit of God to enable him to do what naturally he can neither understand nor accomplish (I Corinthians 2:14), which is entrust his life and soul to Christ. Seeing the impossible occur is how God receives all the glory in our evangelism.
So often, because we are overeager to get a response or to feel good about helping someone, we preach the gospel "lite." No sacrifice is called for and the truth about Christian discipleship is minimized. Yet Jesus preached the gospel "heavy." He demanded of people such things as "Go get your husband" when a woman at a well was not even married but shacking up; "I cannot give the children's bread to the dogs" when a foreign woman was begging Him for the life of her child; and "Go sell all you have and follow me" to a rich, young ruler to tell him what he needed to let go of in order to receive the eternal life he claimed he wanted.
Now back to our refusal to help the palsied man. I also know this man because several years ago he was in my study. On that night, as several of us tried to minister to him, we realized by the testimony of a neighbor and the smell that his speech was slurred and his pants were soaked in urine not because of his palsy but due to his drinking. He also spoke openly, even proudly, of his immorality. We called him then to quench his thirst in Christ alone, and he left us that evening in disgust as well. You see, he uses his palsy to play upon peoples' sympathies in order to subsidize his wicked lifestyle. Last week we reminded him he had been here before, and repeated the message that his hunger was due to his disregard for God's ways. We invited him to come to church to learn of Jesus. He left, for it is clear that was asking him to do something he could not do.
Exactly.
Far worse than physical palsy is the spiritual inability to walk with God. We must preach the gospel so that people realize they need to cry out to God to bring about what they cannot. Then how we must pray that God would attend the sowing of His word with His Spirit and power.
In the words of a Puritan, "Repentance with man is the changing of a will; repentance with God is the willing of a change."
Exactly.
He asked for five bucks because he said he was hungry. Jason, who was with me, asked if he had gone to the Mission, which offers two free meals a day, every day. He said people there made fun of him and asked for five bucks again. We flat-out said no. He said he would come to church if we gave it to him. We told him to come to church the next day then we would start talking about it. Without another word he turned and stumbled out the door in disgust.
Were we cruel?
Well, before I tell you a bit more about this situation, meditate with me upon a truth about the gospel. Did you ever consider that when the gospel is preached, it is a call to the impossible? That you are asking the hearer to do something he is completely incapable of doing? In essence you are saying to him, "Do what you cannot do."
For recall how often the Lord made incredible demands on His hearers:
- "Get up, pick up your pallet and walk." -Command to a man who had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years (John 5:8).
- "Go and sin no more." -Words spoken to woman caught in adultery (John 8:11).
- "Lazarus, come forth!" -Shouted to a man lying dead in a tomb for four days (John 11:43).
Calling people to faith and repentance is the same. We tell them to repent of their evil ways and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Yet God is the one who ultimately grants repentance (see Acts 5:31) and ultimately gives faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). When the gospel is preached, the hearer is powerless to obey just as the preacher is powerless to create obedience. Because the hearer is dead, blind and lame, we must rely on the Spirit of God to enable him to do what naturally he can neither understand nor accomplish (I Corinthians 2:14), which is entrust his life and soul to Christ. Seeing the impossible occur is how God receives all the glory in our evangelism.
So often, because we are overeager to get a response or to feel good about helping someone, we preach the gospel "lite." No sacrifice is called for and the truth about Christian discipleship is minimized. Yet Jesus preached the gospel "heavy." He demanded of people such things as "Go get your husband" when a woman at a well was not even married but shacking up; "I cannot give the children's bread to the dogs" when a foreign woman was begging Him for the life of her child; and "Go sell all you have and follow me" to a rich, young ruler to tell him what he needed to let go of in order to receive the eternal life he claimed he wanted.
Now back to our refusal to help the palsied man. I also know this man because several years ago he was in my study. On that night, as several of us tried to minister to him, we realized by the testimony of a neighbor and the smell that his speech was slurred and his pants were soaked in urine not because of his palsy but due to his drinking. He also spoke openly, even proudly, of his immorality. We called him then to quench his thirst in Christ alone, and he left us that evening in disgust as well. You see, he uses his palsy to play upon peoples' sympathies in order to subsidize his wicked lifestyle. Last week we reminded him he had been here before, and repeated the message that his hunger was due to his disregard for God's ways. We invited him to come to church to learn of Jesus. He left, for it is clear that was asking him to do something he could not do.
Exactly.
Far worse than physical palsy is the spiritual inability to walk with God. We must preach the gospel so that people realize they need to cry out to God to bring about what they cannot. Then how we must pray that God would attend the sowing of His word with His Spirit and power.
In the words of a Puritan, "Repentance with man is the changing of a will; repentance with God is the willing of a change."
Exactly.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
VBS for Pastors
Usually Vacation Bible Schools are held during the summer so squirmy little kids can learn what they did not know about the Bible.
Last month, this preacher felt like he went to VBS for Pastors, though my squirming was due to paying attention to the lesson rather than trying to escape it.
My family had the privilege of attending our presbytery's family conference called Covfamikoi (a name derived by combining the words "covenant" and "family" with the first letters of the states represented at the conference). I had the opportunity to sit under the mature, masterful preaching of Pastor Ted Donnelly from Ireland as he brought messages to us from the book of Jeremiah. As I listened to the warm, probing sermons, one lesson I learned is how much I am still learning about the Bible. To be honest, having never done an in-depth study of this book myself, I learned such things as:
Last month, this preacher felt like he went to VBS for Pastors, though my squirming was due to paying attention to the lesson rather than trying to escape it.
My family had the privilege of attending our presbytery's family conference called Covfamikoi (a name derived by combining the words "covenant" and "family" with the first letters of the states represented at the conference). I had the opportunity to sit under the mature, masterful preaching of Pastor Ted Donnelly from Ireland as he brought messages to us from the book of Jeremiah. As I listened to the warm, probing sermons, one lesson I learned is how much I am still learning about the Bible. To be honest, having never done an in-depth study of this book myself, I learned such things as:
- The theme God gave to Jeremiah's ministry is contained in the six verbs of Jer. 1:10, "to pluck up and break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant." This theme is repeated throughout the book (for instance, see Jeremiah 18:7-10 and 31:38).
- The phrase "a new covenant" is found in the Old Testament and used only in Jeremiah (31:31).
- Just as God promised to write the law of God on hearts in the new covenant, He also threatened to the people of Jeremiah's day to inscribe their sins on their hearts by an iron stylus with a diamond point (17:1).
- Jeremiah's life mirrored Christ's to the point many in Jesus' day wondered if He was Jeremiah reincarnated (Matthew 16:13-14). Both Jesus and Jeremiah were rejected in their hometown, hated by the religious establishment, charged with treason, wept over Jerusalem and killed by their own people.
I share some of the fascinating things I learned as an encouragement that even pastors need to go to VBS, i.e., being a disciple of Christ means being a learner of the Scriptures your whole lifetime. Every week I prepare messages I am amazed at the things I see new or for the first time in Scripture. Maybe you are tentative to jump into Bible study or reading because you do not think you know very much about the Bible. I say plunge in and join the crowd!
Perhaps most encouraging and challenging to me - and the source of my squirming - was to hear that Jeremiah spent over 40 years of ministry being rejected by the people of God even as he persistently told them to turn back to the Lord. VBS 2006 for this pastor means persistently telling hardhearted people of the need to repent of their sins and seek the Lord. Even this very day He gave me the hour and a half opportunity to do that with someone who has been excommunicated. Even as I hung up disappointed for his failure to listen, Jeremiah 7:27 has become my strange comfort, "You shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you; and you shall call to them, but they shall not answer you."
Friday, July 07, 2006
Summer Ramblings
Between attending denominational meetings, packing to leave for a family conference, sending a family to Scotland, caring for my mom and trying to do my necessary work, little time is left for the leisurely sport of blogging. So here are a few "bloggettes" rolling around in my mind:
1) Synod went well last week, as much wisdom and unity was displayed. The humorous comments made on the floor offered some very practical wisdom to us that I'll attempt to "proverbialize," such as...
2) A "tragedy" struck the York household this weekend, as Celia came wailing that a pet lizard had died. Seems that they wanted to see the lizard run along the chain of the exercise bike while the wheel was turning, and the lizard was not quick enough to avoid being caught between spokes and chain. Ugh - I had to take the bike apart to clean it out. The only laugh that was elicited from my young was that they realized that in addition to having the name Arwen, they also had a more common name for the lizard: Squishy. Quite prophetic. And for all you members of PETA who read this blog (I know you are out there), please understand this was an accident by kids who love their lizards. Celia now runs up to Mom every day and asks, "Mom, can I hold a lizard..., I mean, the lizard?"
3) Preaching through the flood account and noticed in Genesis 7:18-20 that in three consecutive verses God's Word says that the flood waters "prevailed" upon the earth. The Hebrew word translated "prevailed" means to "conquer or triumph," like one army prevailing over another. God was utterly conquering evil by covering the whole earth in flood waters, even to the point that the highest mountains under the heavens were covered with more than 22 feet of water (see the verses!). As it says in II Peter 3:5-6, the whole world was destroyed in the flood. Those who try to teach a localized flood account cannot really believe the Bible nor do they take seriously enough the judgment the flood teaches us is yet to come (see Matthew 24:37-38).
1) Synod went well last week, as much wisdom and unity was displayed. The humorous comments made on the floor offered some very practical wisdom to us that I'll attempt to "proverbialize," such as...
- "Some of our current tunes require going through four time zone changes to get to the end." -A deliberately humorous remark made to the Psalter Revision Committee. Proverb #1 - If a Covie-chord cannot sing it, do not put it in the Psalm book.
- "Sir, you do not need to respond to every comment on your report." -Spoken by the moderator to a zealous young man defending his report from criticisms. Proverb #2 - Moderate your own mouth or it shall be done for you.
- "Please, let us end this agony." -Made after a rather lengthy debate, immediately after which a vote was taken and the discussion was ended. Proverb #3 - Better say nothing than speak and say nothing.
2) A "tragedy" struck the York household this weekend, as Celia came wailing that a pet lizard had died. Seems that they wanted to see the lizard run along the chain of the exercise bike while the wheel was turning, and the lizard was not quick enough to avoid being caught between spokes and chain. Ugh - I had to take the bike apart to clean it out. The only laugh that was elicited from my young was that they realized that in addition to having the name Arwen, they also had a more common name for the lizard: Squishy. Quite prophetic. And for all you members of PETA who read this blog (I know you are out there), please understand this was an accident by kids who love their lizards. Celia now runs up to Mom every day and asks, "Mom, can I hold a lizard..., I mean, the lizard?"
3) Preaching through the flood account and noticed in Genesis 7:18-20 that in three consecutive verses God's Word says that the flood waters "prevailed" upon the earth. The Hebrew word translated "prevailed" means to "conquer or triumph," like one army prevailing over another. God was utterly conquering evil by covering the whole earth in flood waters, even to the point that the highest mountains under the heavens were covered with more than 22 feet of water (see the verses!). As it says in II Peter 3:5-6, the whole world was destroyed in the flood. Those who try to teach a localized flood account cannot really believe the Bible nor do they take seriously enough the judgment the flood teaches us is yet to come (see Matthew 24:37-38).
Monday, June 19, 2006
Crawlfish Caper
Sneaking up to the corner of the house, the scrawny eight year-old boy carefully peered around it into the carport. His lips, perpetually separated by buckteeth, broke into a grin as he saw the car was gone and the object of his desire was where he knew it would be. Sitting there on the step by the door, magnified into lobster-sized proportions by both the afternoon sun shining through the water in the mayonnaise jar and his own imagination, was the crawlfish. His barefeet slapped across the concrete as he hurried over to the jar, picked it up with its glorious contents, and replaced it with a jam jar bearing a crawlfish less than half its size. The guilty pangs that arose as he took off around the corner were surpressed by the thought of how Terry had practically stolen it from him in the first place.
The thin boy had caught the crawlfish earlier that day. He and his older friend by four years, Terry, had spent that morning as they often did, hunting for crawlfish in the two creeks that ran down the borders of the boy's yard and joined into a Y to form a larger creek as the water left his property. He had lifted a large rock and, after the few seconds it had taken for the silt from the creek bed to be carried away by the stream, had almost dropped the rock in amazement. Lying there, its claws raised menacingly, was the largest crawlfish he had ever seen. He had quickly thrown the rock aside on the bank, moved his hand behind the head of the crustacean, and quickly darted down and squeezed his fingers and thumb around its midsection. Like a fisherman who has finally landed the prize-winning catch, the boy had lifted the crawlfish triumphantly, the claws arching back toward his hand making him a bit nervous, and called excitedly to Terry to come and see.
Soon Terry and the other boys in the neighborhood had joined him at the picnic table in his backyard. As the boy held the four-inch crawlfish, again somewhat scared of its pincers waving erratically in the air, they confirmed that he had caught the granddaddy of them all. Terry, older and more wily, sensed the fear of the younger boy. Holding up a smaller, lighter crawlfish next to the boy's dark, large one, he angled in for the trade.
"Yers may be bigger, but yer pert 'nuf half-scared of that thang, and besides, mine could lick yers cause it's so much faster."
"Un-unh. Ain't either," said the boy, as he defended his champion crawlfish but did not deny the fear.
"Is too. Put it in this here bowl of water and see for yerself."
As the boys dropped their crawlfish in the bowl, it became clear to the boy Terry was correct. The larger crawlfish lumbered clumsily around the bottom while the small one, provoked by Terry sticking his finger in the water in front of its face, shot backwards with its tail, often banging into the larger crawlfish and knocking it sideways. With the other boys joining Terry's side, before long he had pulled a Tom Sawyer on the younger boy and made him see how good it would be to trade for a crawlfish "more suited for yer size."
After Terry had walked off with the crawlfish and the day had progressed, the other boys had continued to talk about how big "Terry's crawlfish" was. The boy had begun to regret the trade. This frustration led then to the crawlfish switch, and also brought on the inevitable confrontation.
That same evening, Terry returned to find the trick played on him by his young neighbor. Across the creek the following verbal volley ensued.
"You stole my crawlfish!"
"Ain't yers. I just was lettin' ya borrow it."
"You traded it, fair and square, for that little'un."
"Wuzn't no fair trade."
"Was too!"
"Was not!"
Funny how memories, like a dandelion seed on a summer breeze, can come floating across our minds. Though my buckteeth were corrected years ago by the pull of braces, and my thieving heart by the grace of God and restraint of His law, the above childhood memory came back to me recently. This in turn stirred other thoughts of how God actually used my stealing ways (my word to give the crawlfish to Terry should have been honored) to make me sick of sin and seek Christ:
But better yet, let me tell you about One who can take all our debts away - yours and mine - and promises treasures in heaven in return.
The thin boy had caught the crawlfish earlier that day. He and his older friend by four years, Terry, had spent that morning as they often did, hunting for crawlfish in the two creeks that ran down the borders of the boy's yard and joined into a Y to form a larger creek as the water left his property. He had lifted a large rock and, after the few seconds it had taken for the silt from the creek bed to be carried away by the stream, had almost dropped the rock in amazement. Lying there, its claws raised menacingly, was the largest crawlfish he had ever seen. He had quickly thrown the rock aside on the bank, moved his hand behind the head of the crustacean, and quickly darted down and squeezed his fingers and thumb around its midsection. Like a fisherman who has finally landed the prize-winning catch, the boy had lifted the crawlfish triumphantly, the claws arching back toward his hand making him a bit nervous, and called excitedly to Terry to come and see.
Soon Terry and the other boys in the neighborhood had joined him at the picnic table in his backyard. As the boy held the four-inch crawlfish, again somewhat scared of its pincers waving erratically in the air, they confirmed that he had caught the granddaddy of them all. Terry, older and more wily, sensed the fear of the younger boy. Holding up a smaller, lighter crawlfish next to the boy's dark, large one, he angled in for the trade.
"Yers may be bigger, but yer pert 'nuf half-scared of that thang, and besides, mine could lick yers cause it's so much faster."
"Un-unh. Ain't either," said the boy, as he defended his champion crawlfish but did not deny the fear.
"Is too. Put it in this here bowl of water and see for yerself."
As the boys dropped their crawlfish in the bowl, it became clear to the boy Terry was correct. The larger crawlfish lumbered clumsily around the bottom while the small one, provoked by Terry sticking his finger in the water in front of its face, shot backwards with its tail, often banging into the larger crawlfish and knocking it sideways. With the other boys joining Terry's side, before long he had pulled a Tom Sawyer on the younger boy and made him see how good it would be to trade for a crawlfish "more suited for yer size."
After Terry had walked off with the crawlfish and the day had progressed, the other boys had continued to talk about how big "Terry's crawlfish" was. The boy had begun to regret the trade. This frustration led then to the crawlfish switch, and also brought on the inevitable confrontation.
That same evening, Terry returned to find the trick played on him by his young neighbor. Across the creek the following verbal volley ensued.
"You stole my crawlfish!"
"Ain't yers. I just was lettin' ya borrow it."
"You traded it, fair and square, for that little'un."
"Wuzn't no fair trade."
"Was too!"
"Was not!"
Knowing the boy was too close to the door of the house and his parents within, Terry gave up the fight, dumped the little crawlfish into the creek, and marched angrily back to his house.
_______________________________________________
Funny how memories, like a dandelion seed on a summer breeze, can come floating across our minds. Though my buckteeth were corrected years ago by the pull of braces, and my thieving heart by the grace of God and restraint of His law, the above childhood memory came back to me recently. This in turn stirred other thoughts of how God actually used my stealing ways (my word to give the crawlfish to Terry should have been honored) to make me sick of sin and seek Christ:
- Like when I shoved the Hostess fruit pie down the front of my pants at Crawford's Corner Store after school one day. Just like the Proverb says, the stolen bread was sweet at first but then turned to gravel in my mouth because of the guilt. Years later, after our family had moved from North Carolina to Michigan, we were driving back to NC for a visit and had stopped on eastbound US 40 to help a motorist with a flat tire. Another car, going westbound, also pulled over to help. Who should the man be who crossed the highway and median to help but Mr. Crawford? Only God could orchestrate that! When he peeked into the car window to say hi to us kids, I just slunk down in the back seat like the guilty sinner I was.
- Or like when I stole the Gale Sayers football card from Tad when he went to use the bathroom during a trading session (I justified it then because Sayers was my favorite receiver, Tad had three of them after all, and he was being unfair not to trade). I kept that card for years, yet like Frodo's ring the weight of carrying it around seemed to increase over time. So one day I simply destroyed it to be relieved of the burden.
- Or like when I broke the dormitory window as a freshman at the University of Michigan while throwing snowballs at my friends, then lied about it when asked by the campus police. Jesus came to me in that same dormitory and saved me from my sin. It took some time (okay about five years!) but eventually my conscience would not let me go on without contacting them to apologize, determine the cost of replacement, then sending the money plus 20% (see Leviticus 6:1-5).
But better yet, let me tell you about One who can take all our debts away - yours and mine - and promises treasures in heaven in return.
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Question
Over the past several years I have run into "the question" ever so often, just infrequently enough to forget it is there. The experience is much like the one I have when I run into my mother-in-law's sliding glass door, her dedication to cleanliness causing me to forget that there is a piece of thick glass between me and the great outdoors. "So how is the controversy in your congregation going?" one pastor friend or another from across the nation asks me when I see them after a long period of time. WHAM! I stand there momentarily stunned, a dumb look on my face, rubbing my forehead, feeling remarkably similar to my encounters with the sliding door. "What controversy?" I'm thinking. Then just like I start to laugh when I see my face print on the glass, a knowing smile comes over me as I realize to what they are referring. Oh, yeah, the wine.
Several years ago some godly members of our church, their consciences bothering them, asked our elders to study whether wine should be used in communion or not. Their reasoning to us was that it seemed to be the temperance movement in the history of our church, rather than an exegetical study of Scripture, had more to do with our denomination's practice of replacing wine with grape juice in the Lord's Supper. Their studied commitment to the practice of having worship regulated by God's Word rather than the traditions of men, combined with a peaceful and forbearing spirit they had consistently displayed, caused us to seriously take up this request.
Over several months we studied, then brought our conclusions to the congregation. We came to believe that the Scriptures and church history do show that wine has been used through the ages in communion. In trying to figure out what to do with our convictions, the elders decided that we did not believe that this had to be a matter where we sought to change the mind of everyone else in the denomination by writing long papers and giving lengthy arguments on the floor of Presbytery or Synod. Since our catechisms and Book of Worship discuss wine in the administration of the Lord's Supper (Curious about that assertion? See the Westminster Confession of Faith here at Chapter 30, Paragraph 3; the Larger Catechism here in Questions 168-170; or the Directory for Worship here at Chapter 3, Paragraph 14.), we believed there was a freedom in our church's documents for the session to decide what would be the wisest course to pursue to maintain the sanctity of the sacrament and the peace of the church.
So we let the congregation know how we had arrived at our convictions, that we would now be using wine, but that we would also provide juice for conscience sake as we understood other beloved brethren in the church did not share our convictions. Though admittedly making a change of this sort has had its awkward moments, the transition in our congregation has been a peaceful one. As we sought to pursue this matter along the principles of conscience given to us in Romans 14, we have experienced the blessing promised there: "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). Our communion services are sweet times of fellowship and, to be honest, when the communion dish returns to the table with the glasses missing, I would not be able to tell you who has taken which except in the cases where members have talked with me personally about it.
So why do friends ask me "the question"? One dear member of ours, believing this should be a matter decided by the broader church, worked to petition first Presbytery then Synod to rule on the change. Both higher courts, with words of admonition that we have sought to follow, ruled in agreement with our practice. Wine was allowable but juice should be made available. Yet along the way to these rulings, some pretty heated exchanges occurred on the floor that must have become associated in other’s minds with there being a controversy here.
During all those deliberations in the courts of the church, I never said a word as our intention was not and still is not to try to change everyone else’s mind. So why am I bringing this up here? I note that for consideration at this year’s Synod is a paper by a dear brother that I greatly respect but with whom I respectfully disagree seeking the overturning of this ruling. My hope is that Synod will choose to decline looking into this matter further and just allow its earlier ruling to stand. Without commenting on the paper itself, I believe that is the wisest course. Why?
1) Following the 2002 ruling of Synod, a presbytery petitioned Synod to have a study committee on the use of wine in communion. After a great deal of effort and time, this committee came back with an inconclusive report and was dismissed. I do not think further efforts in this area will yield better results.
2) Though we desire unity in our worship practices, complete uniformity is a different matter. For instance, I maintain that the very Word of God that we use in worship is of greater significance than the sacrament that seals that Word. The gospel can be preached without the sacrament, but not without the Word. Yet we trust sessions to decide what version of the Bible they believe to be best for their congregation. Within the parameters of our church documents and rulings, we should allow them the same freedom with the elements of communion.
3) Typically those who are upset with the introduction of wine into communion have been life-long Reformed Presbyterians with deep roots in the abstinence movement. Synod’s 2002 ruling allows those who believe in abstinence to continue its practice without mandating it for everyone else. This decision is consistent with Synod’s removal of abstinence as a requirement for both membership and ordination.
My only comment on the paper itself has only to do with a remark at its beginning that also hit me with a WHAM. I felt like I had run into that door again. The claim was made that some ministers are declining going to certain congregations because of the contents of the cup, and some elders would rather drop the tray than administer certain "fruit of the vine." Please tell me that this is not true. If it is, then maybe our problem is not with the content of the cup, but with the content of that greater vessel we are to use in our love for one another?
Several years ago some godly members of our church, their consciences bothering them, asked our elders to study whether wine should be used in communion or not. Their reasoning to us was that it seemed to be the temperance movement in the history of our church, rather than an exegetical study of Scripture, had more to do with our denomination's practice of replacing wine with grape juice in the Lord's Supper. Their studied commitment to the practice of having worship regulated by God's Word rather than the traditions of men, combined with a peaceful and forbearing spirit they had consistently displayed, caused us to seriously take up this request.
Over several months we studied, then brought our conclusions to the congregation. We came to believe that the Scriptures and church history do show that wine has been used through the ages in communion. In trying to figure out what to do with our convictions, the elders decided that we did not believe that this had to be a matter where we sought to change the mind of everyone else in the denomination by writing long papers and giving lengthy arguments on the floor of Presbytery or Synod. Since our catechisms and Book of Worship discuss wine in the administration of the Lord's Supper (Curious about that assertion? See the Westminster Confession of Faith here at Chapter 30, Paragraph 3; the Larger Catechism here in Questions 168-170; or the Directory for Worship here at Chapter 3, Paragraph 14.), we believed there was a freedom in our church's documents for the session to decide what would be the wisest course to pursue to maintain the sanctity of the sacrament and the peace of the church.
So we let the congregation know how we had arrived at our convictions, that we would now be using wine, but that we would also provide juice for conscience sake as we understood other beloved brethren in the church did not share our convictions. Though admittedly making a change of this sort has had its awkward moments, the transition in our congregation has been a peaceful one. As we sought to pursue this matter along the principles of conscience given to us in Romans 14, we have experienced the blessing promised there: "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). Our communion services are sweet times of fellowship and, to be honest, when the communion dish returns to the table with the glasses missing, I would not be able to tell you who has taken which except in the cases where members have talked with me personally about it.
So why do friends ask me "the question"? One dear member of ours, believing this should be a matter decided by the broader church, worked to petition first Presbytery then Synod to rule on the change. Both higher courts, with words of admonition that we have sought to follow, ruled in agreement with our practice. Wine was allowable but juice should be made available. Yet along the way to these rulings, some pretty heated exchanges occurred on the floor that must have become associated in other’s minds with there being a controversy here.
During all those deliberations in the courts of the church, I never said a word as our intention was not and still is not to try to change everyone else’s mind. So why am I bringing this up here? I note that for consideration at this year’s Synod is a paper by a dear brother that I greatly respect but with whom I respectfully disagree seeking the overturning of this ruling. My hope is that Synod will choose to decline looking into this matter further and just allow its earlier ruling to stand. Without commenting on the paper itself, I believe that is the wisest course. Why?
1) Following the 2002 ruling of Synod, a presbytery petitioned Synod to have a study committee on the use of wine in communion. After a great deal of effort and time, this committee came back with an inconclusive report and was dismissed. I do not think further efforts in this area will yield better results.
2) Though we desire unity in our worship practices, complete uniformity is a different matter. For instance, I maintain that the very Word of God that we use in worship is of greater significance than the sacrament that seals that Word. The gospel can be preached without the sacrament, but not without the Word. Yet we trust sessions to decide what version of the Bible they believe to be best for their congregation. Within the parameters of our church documents and rulings, we should allow them the same freedom with the elements of communion.
3) Typically those who are upset with the introduction of wine into communion have been life-long Reformed Presbyterians with deep roots in the abstinence movement. Synod’s 2002 ruling allows those who believe in abstinence to continue its practice without mandating it for everyone else. This decision is consistent with Synod’s removal of abstinence as a requirement for both membership and ordination.
My only comment on the paper itself has only to do with a remark at its beginning that also hit me with a WHAM. I felt like I had run into that door again. The claim was made that some ministers are declining going to certain congregations because of the contents of the cup, and some elders would rather drop the tray than administer certain "fruit of the vine." Please tell me that this is not true. If it is, then maybe our problem is not with the content of the cup, but with the content of that greater vessel we are to use in our love for one another?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Reformation Society of Men
Last night, June 7th, the first Reformation Society of Men's meeting in Kokomo was held in the Fellowship Hall of the Sycamore RPC. We had 17 men in attendance. The men were told that these type of meetings were held during the time of the Reformation, and in recent years, primarily through the ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Reformation Societies have been popping up around the nation. One of the strongest of these is located in Indianapolis which our "grandmother" congregation of Second RPC has been fundamental in founding and supporting. Our "mother" congregation in Lafayette was also instrumental in beginning one in their city two years ago. Good fruit has been developing from these ministries as a result.
The RSM here is slightly different in that it was designed to help us meet a need that exists in our own congregation of discipling the men. Thus, we are focusing currently on developing our men's ability to hear the Lord speaking to them through the studied and preached Word of God from our worship the Lord's Day prior to the meeting, as well as building mentoring and accountability relationships. We pray, however, that others will be led to join us eventually. The format we followed was:
The RSM here is slightly different in that it was designed to help us meet a need that exists in our own congregation of discipling the men. Thus, we are focusing currently on developing our men's ability to hear the Lord speaking to them through the studied and preached Word of God from our worship the Lord's Day prior to the meeting, as well as building mentoring and accountability relationships. We pray, however, that others will be led to join us eventually. The format we followed was:
- Historical Explanation of Exercises and Society Meetings by Jason Camery
- Our "Exercises" - Reciting our Scripture Memory Passage & Singing the Psalm of the Quarter
- First Presentation on the Study of Genesis 5:1-24 by Yours Truly
- Second Presentation by Jason Camery
- Question and Answer Period
- Accountability Groups where the Men Asked Each Other:
- What is one key application from our sermon and study you are making?
- What is one area you can use prayer in?
- What is one way that I can encourage you in your faithfulness?
7. Regathering for Closing Singing of Psalm 90C and Prayer
The night was a great success and immensely encouraging. The highlights:- The presence of many new and young believers wanting to grow and have mentoring relationships with other men.
- A vanload of men from Marion making the commitment to be there despite the distance.
- Men seeing how God speaks to us from the Scriptures, even from what some call the "Obituary Section" of the Bible.
- Easy and open flow of conversation in the accountability groups spread around the Fellowship Hall and adjacent rooms.
- Bob McKissick having a birthday, which had us end our meeting with one of the most manly renditions of the Happy Birthday song I have heard in a long time, and being topped off by strawberry shortcake and ice cream prepared by Sharon.
Bob, let's just declare it's your birthday every time we meet. That way, we get Sharon's dessert and you might reach Methuselah's age!
The Coming of Gowf
Well over four hundred shots rang out on the Deer Track Golf Course located near Frankfort, Indiana, on Tuesday as three other men ventured out on the golf course with moi for my semi-annual golfing outing. I call it semi-annual because I usually only go twice a year, once in late spring and another time in early fall. Golf is too expensive and my playing too erratic to give much more time to it than that, but I do relish it when I can play. What can be more therapeutic for a pastor who has to be in the study quite a bit than strolling along green fairways (in my case it is across them as I go side-to-side looking for balls with a mind of their own), seeing woods and water beautifully placed (and spending a great deal of time in both of them), and enjoying the wildlife (we did not see any deer tracks, but the deer flies kept biting our necks, leading us to consider a new name for this particular course)?
Anyway, my blog title comes from a story by the English humorist P.G. Wodehouse, who tells a funny tale of a king who has a strange new religion known as "gowf" invade his empire and eventually conquer the people. For those who are hackers like me, golf by its very nature should give a lot of laughs, for what could be more ridiculous that trying to hit a tiny ball with a stick over hundreds of yards into a way-too-small cup? Below are a few of the gowf anecdotes that occured Tuesday. Notice I have concealed the identities of my partners in an attempt to not further embarass them.
Anyway, my blog title comes from a story by the English humorist P.G. Wodehouse, who tells a funny tale of a king who has a strange new religion known as "gowf" invade his empire and eventually conquer the people. For those who are hackers like me, golf by its very nature should give a lot of laughs, for what could be more ridiculous that trying to hit a tiny ball with a stick over hundreds of yards into a way-too-small cup? Below are a few of the gowf anecdotes that occured Tuesday. Notice I have concealed the identities of my partners in an attempt to not further embarass them.
- At the first tee, one guy swung mightily and missed the ball completely - twice. In a case of sports mix-up, one of us tried to encourage him by calling out "Strike two!"
- Another time, the same guy, with his ball lying on the fairway, missed twice again, but successively removed several inches of turf both times. After praising him for his consistency, he prepared for his third go at it. One of us used the sun behind us to make the shadow of his hand appear on the ground next to the ball, pointing at it so he could see it.
- While searching for a lost ball in the rough, one of us came upon a dead sparrow. Lifting it up by the foot, he said, "Hey, I finally got a birdie."
- One man among us donned a towel on his head to cover his neck from the deer flies. Of course we then dubbed him Mohammed Al-Subpari. (Incidentally, the wicked man whose name we were playing off of really took it in the neck by our forces today.)
- A minor accomplishment of mine was that I actually hit a few straight drives for once with a five-wood. Yet toward the end of the time, on my second shot on a par 5, my satisfaction of the feel of another good smack turned to dismay as I looked up to see the head of my club had snapped of and was hurtling down the fairway. As I picked up the club head and mourned, we could not locate my ball for a while as we thought it might have landed in the woods. However, my joy returned as we found the ball at the end of the fairway not far from the green. Since I then went on to make par for the first time ever on a par 5, I now have that five-wood head displayed in my office.
Yet none of these tops my favorite gowf anecdote that happened several years ago. While playing with one of these same men, he hit a shot into a creek that cut across the fairway. The bank of the creek went down about six feet, so my friend pulled his extendable ball retriever out his golf bag, which was resting on the pull cart behind him and to his left. As I stood watching him from the other side of the creek, I saw the pull cart begin rolling down the hill to the bank. Before I could cry out the alarm, the cart and bag with all his clubs plunged with a splash into the creek below. As he went down the bank to fetch his sinking bag, he heard the sympathetic question, "You have a ball retriever, but I guess you left your bag retriever at home?"
Thursday, June 01, 2006
A Distaff Laugh
"She stretches out her hands to the distaff, and her hands grasp the spindle." -Proverbs 31:19
While having family worship at our table one morning this week with Miriam's parents (affectionately known as Papa and Hoo-Hoo, the latter tag bestowed upon Grandma by young grandchildren for her habit of calling "Hoo-Hoo!" when entering the house), we were reading the last chapter of Proverbs about the excellent wife and came upon the above verse. The question arose over "What is a distaff?" Given that the context is talking about the industrious nature of the wife and mother spoken of in this passage, and the obvious reference to weaving or sewing in the second part of the verse, we concluded that the distaff must have been a part of a loom for weaving and went on.
This morning Miriam's mother told us she had looked it up in the dictionary, and this is the interesting definition as given by Merriam-Webster:
distaff - "1 a : a staff for holding the flax, tow, or wool in spinning b : woman's work or domain 2 : the female branch or side of a family."
As we discussed especially the "1.b." and "2" definitions, we reasoned that so associated was the woman in her working with weaving cloth and clothing her family that the instrument used to hold the materials for spinning became synonymous with both the woman's work and even her side of the family. A Google search confirmed these suspicions:
A distaff is 'a staff with a cleft end for holding wool, flax, etc., from which the thread is drawn in spinning by hand'. It can also be a simliar attachment on a spinning wheel. A dis is a bunch of flax. The word distaff first appeared in English around the year 1000. We find it in Chaucer (e.g., in the "Nun's Priest's Tale": "And Malkyn with a dystaf in hir hand") and in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy ("Tradesmen left their shops, women their distaves"). There was also an expression "to have tow on one's distaff" meaning 'to have work in hand or trouble in store,' as in the "Miller's Tale": "He hadde moore tow on his distaf Than Gerueys knew." (Tow is the fiber of flax or jute prepared for spinning.)
Since women were the ones who did the spinning, the meaning of distaff was extended to mean 'woman's work'. This sense also goes back to the Canterbury Tales. In the "Monk's Prologue" we find, "She rampeth in my face And crieth...I wol haue thy knyf And thou shalt haue my distaf and go spynne." In King Lear Goneril says: "I must change names at home, and give the distaff into my husband's hands," i.e., 'I must become the soldier and leave my husband to do the spinning'. Shakespeare also used the word in Cymbeline: "Their owne noblenesse which could have turn'd a distaff to a lance." The distaff is contrasted with the sword, women's work of spinning contrasted with men's work of fighting.
The day after Twelfth Night was called distaff's day": that was the day on which women resumed their spinning and ordinary household tasks after the Christmas holidays. Herrick wrote a poem called "St. Distaff's Day."
Eventually distaff came to be used figuratively for the female sex, and the female branch of a family came to be known as the distaff side (as we might say "on my mother's side").
So the woman's side of the family was known as the distaff side, and the man's side was the sword side. Of course, many would take exception to this distinction today, for the article I quoted from above ends with this warning, "Be careful using distaff as a synonym for 'female'. Some women might find it offensive -- especially if they know the origin of the word." However, in the age when the Biblical roles of men and women were considered honorable, referring to the female as distaff would not have been seen as derogatory but as a symbol of her noble and caring work. A Biblical encyclopedia said that the woman held the distaff under her left arm as the fibers were pulled from it in the spinning process. Thus, to use distaff to refer to the woman would imply she was a source of constant supply to her husband and family, which is exactly the picture given in Proverbs 31.
Of course, with Miriam's parents there, we had some fun with this as well. You will understand why the older grandchildren and I will from now on always introduce Papa and Hoo-Hoo as our "distaff relatives." You will now know that it is not that they suffer from some disease or condition, nor that they are only related to us in some strange way. Rather, it will actually be a compliment, as in Miriam they have answered for me the question of Proverbs 31:10 and made me rejoice in the distaff by my side.
While having family worship at our table one morning this week with Miriam's parents (affectionately known as Papa and Hoo-Hoo, the latter tag bestowed upon Grandma by young grandchildren for her habit of calling "Hoo-Hoo!" when entering the house), we were reading the last chapter of Proverbs about the excellent wife and came upon the above verse. The question arose over "What is a distaff?" Given that the context is talking about the industrious nature of the wife and mother spoken of in this passage, and the obvious reference to weaving or sewing in the second part of the verse, we concluded that the distaff must have been a part of a loom for weaving and went on.
This morning Miriam's mother told us she had looked it up in the dictionary, and this is the interesting definition as given by Merriam-Webster:
distaff - "1 a : a staff for holding the flax, tow, or wool in spinning b : woman's work or domain 2 : the female branch or side of a family."
As we discussed especially the "1.b." and "2" definitions, we reasoned that so associated was the woman in her working with weaving cloth and clothing her family that the instrument used to hold the materials for spinning became synonymous with both the woman's work and even her side of the family. A Google search confirmed these suspicions:
A distaff is 'a staff with a cleft end for holding wool, flax, etc., from which the thread is drawn in spinning by hand'. It can also be a simliar attachment on a spinning wheel. A dis is a bunch of flax. The word distaff first appeared in English around the year 1000. We find it in Chaucer (e.g., in the "Nun's Priest's Tale": "And Malkyn with a dystaf in hir hand") and in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy ("Tradesmen left their shops, women their distaves"). There was also an expression "to have tow on one's distaff" meaning 'to have work in hand or trouble in store,' as in the "Miller's Tale": "He hadde moore tow on his distaf Than Gerueys knew." (Tow is the fiber of flax or jute prepared for spinning.)
Since women were the ones who did the spinning, the meaning of distaff was extended to mean 'woman's work'. This sense also goes back to the Canterbury Tales. In the "Monk's Prologue" we find, "She rampeth in my face And crieth...I wol haue thy knyf And thou shalt haue my distaf and go spynne." In King Lear Goneril says: "I must change names at home, and give the distaff into my husband's hands," i.e., 'I must become the soldier and leave my husband to do the spinning'. Shakespeare also used the word in Cymbeline: "Their owne noblenesse which could have turn'd a distaff to a lance." The distaff is contrasted with the sword, women's work of spinning contrasted with men's work of fighting.
The day after Twelfth Night was called distaff's day": that was the day on which women resumed their spinning and ordinary household tasks after the Christmas holidays. Herrick wrote a poem called "St. Distaff's Day."
Eventually distaff came to be used figuratively for the female sex, and the female branch of a family came to be known as the distaff side (as we might say "on my mother's side").
So the woman's side of the family was known as the distaff side, and the man's side was the sword side. Of course, many would take exception to this distinction today, for the article I quoted from above ends with this warning, "Be careful using distaff as a synonym for 'female'. Some women might find it offensive -- especially if they know the origin of the word." However, in the age when the Biblical roles of men and women were considered honorable, referring to the female as distaff would not have been seen as derogatory but as a symbol of her noble and caring work. A Biblical encyclopedia said that the woman held the distaff under her left arm as the fibers were pulled from it in the spinning process. Thus, to use distaff to refer to the woman would imply she was a source of constant supply to her husband and family, which is exactly the picture given in Proverbs 31.
Of course, with Miriam's parents there, we had some fun with this as well. You will understand why the older grandchildren and I will from now on always introduce Papa and Hoo-Hoo as our "distaff relatives." You will now know that it is not that they suffer from some disease or condition, nor that they are only related to us in some strange way. Rather, it will actually be a compliment, as in Miriam they have answered for me the question of Proverbs 31:10 and made me rejoice in the distaff by my side.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Announcing....MRS?
At our session meeting Wednesday night, our elders decided to begin a Men's Society at Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church. Having seen a need to help men grow in the grace of Christ, and becoming excited in what he is seeing in church history through his study with Dr. Roy Blackwood, Jason Camery gave a presentation of how the Reformation spread as men had rigorous studies and discussions with one another over the Scriptures. John Calvin referred to these meetings as "prophecying" and John Knox called them the "Exercises." They followed a certain format. Our particular meeting will have the following structure patterned after these Exercises:
The only hitch? Jason proposed that we call this the "Men's Reformation Society." Later that night when I got home I realized something. What will invariably happen is that this gathering will be acronymized and be referred to as MRS. Inviting men to come to the "Missus" will not work. So we still have to work a bit on the name, but we are excited about the potential.
Our first one is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7th, at 6:30 p.m. at Sycamore RPC. Hope to see you there!
- Have a twenty minute study on the passage preached in the previous Lord's Day sermon.
- Have an elder give a ten minute presentation on his own study of the passage, stressing application.
- Give time for questions and further discussion.
- Pray together in accountability pairs.
- Conclude with some robust psalm singing.
The only hitch? Jason proposed that we call this the "Men's Reformation Society." Later that night when I got home I realized something. What will invariably happen is that this gathering will be acronymized and be referred to as MRS. Inviting men to come to the "Missus" will not work. So we still have to work a bit on the name, but we are excited about the potential.
Our first one is scheduled for Wednesday, June 7th, at 6:30 p.m. at Sycamore RPC. Hope to see you there!
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
No Creed but Christ's Creed
Often people and even congregations boast of "No Creed but Christ" or "No Creed but the Bible," meaning they are downplaying the importance of having formulated doctrines of the Scriptures. A while back I wrote the following letter (edited slightly for the blogosphere) to a man named Tony living near the church to whom I had been witnessing. Tony had stated this belief to me and said he did not need to go to church. Perhaps some of the thoughts contained in this letter might be of help to you.
Dear Tony,
Thank you for the letter that you sent me at the beginning of the month. I thought about visiting you, but then decided to write back so you could think through my answers to your concerns. Then if you would like to talk personally about these things, I would be glad to meet with you.
A statement you made in your letter seems to be a good summary of your concern: “Having been associated with a legalistic church one thing I don’t need is much more doctrine.” You asked if the Reformed Presbyterian Church is big on doctrine. I can understand the concern you are expressing here.
What I would like to ask you to consider, Tony, is that the question you need to be asking at this point in your life is not “How much doctrine is necessary?” but “Whose doctrine am I going to follow?” Jesus warned the Pharisees (who we know were big on doctrine) in Matthew 15 that “Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” Jesus is stating that their problem was not that they had doctrines, but that the doctrines they had were men’s commandments rather than God’s. He told them the result was that, “You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” In this same story (Matthew 15:1-20), Jesus chastises them because they are more concerned about keeping their ceremonially cleansings (which were not commanded by God but came from the traditions of men) than they were about keeping the fifth commandment regarding honoring their parents.
What this means is that we must be very careful that what a church is teaching comes from the Scriptures and is not man’s false philosophies and traditions. That we must be diligent to do this is seen in the Lord Jesus’ warning to His disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:5-12). The way to be sure that we are not following cunning teachings and lies is to carefully study the word of God. That’s why God’s word must be like bread to us (Matthew 4:4) as we constantly eat from it so that we will be strong enough to avoid the devil’s temptations. Jesus says His disciples must abide or live in His word, for it is only then that they will be free (John 8:31-32).
That's why the Lord has given the church teachers so they can build up the saints, so they will not be like children tossed here and there by the crafty doctrines of men, but mature and stable in Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16). That’s why every Christian must diligently study the Bible, to make sure the teachers he has put himself under are speaking the truth of God’s Word (Acts 17:11). As a pastor, I take God’s commandment in I Timothy 4:13-16 very seriously, “Give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine….Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” How important true doctrine is, for it leads to Christ and salvation (John 5:39)! And false doctrine leads to damnation (Matthew 18:6-7)!
Tony, please be careful about going to a church that makes light of teaching and doctrine as a reaction against the legalism of your former church. It can sound pious to say things like “No creed but Christ.” Yet what someone has said is true, “Men trade in the Ten Commandments of God for the thousands of commandments of men.” If a church does not have a clearly written confession of faith that explains what they believe on essential issues, then people soon find themselves under the binding influence of man’s opinions and traditions rather than the freeing word of God.
I invite you to return or to speak further with me about this issue, for one final encouragement I would give you is to not give up on the church. Often people use a bad experience they have had as an excuse not to go to church at all. Remember, Christ is still Lord and has promised to build His church (Matthew 16:18), which is His body (I Corinthians 12:12-14) that He is the head over (Ephesians 1:22). One of His commands that we must keep is not to forsake worshipping Him and fellowshipping with His body (Hebrews 10:24-25).
Your motto should not be "No Creed but Christ." Rather, it should be "No Creed but Christ's Creed."
Sincerely in Christ’s Service,
Barry York
Dear Tony,
Thank you for the letter that you sent me at the beginning of the month. I thought about visiting you, but then decided to write back so you could think through my answers to your concerns. Then if you would like to talk personally about these things, I would be glad to meet with you.
A statement you made in your letter seems to be a good summary of your concern: “Having been associated with a legalistic church one thing I don’t need is much more doctrine.” You asked if the Reformed Presbyterian Church is big on doctrine. I can understand the concern you are expressing here.
What I would like to ask you to consider, Tony, is that the question you need to be asking at this point in your life is not “How much doctrine is necessary?” but “Whose doctrine am I going to follow?” Jesus warned the Pharisees (who we know were big on doctrine) in Matthew 15 that “Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” Jesus is stating that their problem was not that they had doctrines, but that the doctrines they had were men’s commandments rather than God’s. He told them the result was that, “You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” In this same story (Matthew 15:1-20), Jesus chastises them because they are more concerned about keeping their ceremonially cleansings (which were not commanded by God but came from the traditions of men) than they were about keeping the fifth commandment regarding honoring their parents.
What this means is that we must be very careful that what a church is teaching comes from the Scriptures and is not man’s false philosophies and traditions. That we must be diligent to do this is seen in the Lord Jesus’ warning to His disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:5-12). The way to be sure that we are not following cunning teachings and lies is to carefully study the word of God. That’s why God’s word must be like bread to us (Matthew 4:4) as we constantly eat from it so that we will be strong enough to avoid the devil’s temptations. Jesus says His disciples must abide or live in His word, for it is only then that they will be free (John 8:31-32).
That's why the Lord has given the church teachers so they can build up the saints, so they will not be like children tossed here and there by the crafty doctrines of men, but mature and stable in Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16). That’s why every Christian must diligently study the Bible, to make sure the teachers he has put himself under are speaking the truth of God’s Word (Acts 17:11). As a pastor, I take God’s commandment in I Timothy 4:13-16 very seriously, “Give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine….Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” How important true doctrine is, for it leads to Christ and salvation (John 5:39)! And false doctrine leads to damnation (Matthew 18:6-7)!
Tony, please be careful about going to a church that makes light of teaching and doctrine as a reaction against the legalism of your former church. It can sound pious to say things like “No creed but Christ.” Yet what someone has said is true, “Men trade in the Ten Commandments of God for the thousands of commandments of men.” If a church does not have a clearly written confession of faith that explains what they believe on essential issues, then people soon find themselves under the binding influence of man’s opinions and traditions rather than the freeing word of God.
I invite you to return or to speak further with me about this issue, for one final encouragement I would give you is to not give up on the church. Often people use a bad experience they have had as an excuse not to go to church at all. Remember, Christ is still Lord and has promised to build His church (Matthew 16:18), which is His body (I Corinthians 12:12-14) that He is the head over (Ephesians 1:22). One of His commands that we must keep is not to forsake worshipping Him and fellowshipping with His body (Hebrews 10:24-25).
Your motto should not be "No Creed but Christ." Rather, it should be "No Creed but Christ's Creed."
Sincerely in Christ’s Service,
Barry York
Thursday, May 18, 2006
A Doctrine to be Whispered
I do not often shout at my wife. If not for some foolish moments of indiscretion in my youth, I could even say I never shout at her. Why? Well, I would like to convince you of how noble I am, but that's not really the truth in this situation. The bottom line, I would have to say, is that it simply just does not work. I always lose, and I hate losing.
For some reason, every time I have shouted at Miriam it has failed to move her to see things my way. Can you believe that? The Proverbs say, "The anger of man does not accomplish the purposes of God." The few experiments where I have tried to prove the opposite hypothesis have ended in dismal failure. I have pulled a few Mount Merapis on her, which I think I could count on no more than my own fingers (though I am sure Miriam, being the sweet helpmeet she is, would lend me hers for the ones I have forgotten). At those times, I have only succeeded 1) in convincing her how utterly wrong I am anyway, 2) in making it nearly impossible to communicate further, and 3) in creating a stituation where only some serious confessing has reconciled the situation. So though I could offer piety as a reason I have learned to control my temper, I have to say losing has been the more powerful motivator for me. Like a dog that learns to stop barking to avoid the old swat across the snout, I have been trained.
(By the way, this may be off the point a bit, but I can say Miriam has never shouted at me. I certainly have given her ample reasons for doing so, but not once has she really yelled at me. She also does not have any cavities. Now you can understand even better why I think twice before opening my mouth wide in her direction.)
On the positive side of our marital harmony, which at twenty years plus is going strong, is that, at the times where our communication is most intimate, quiet talk and even whispering is taking place. Usually expressions of love and devotion mean more when spoken softly. I have also had to have a lot of training in this area as well.
So where does that leave us? Yelling ruins communication; speaking gently enhances it.
With this in mind, could this be one reason (certainly not the only or chief reason) that some of the great doctrines of the reformed faith are so despised? They are given to us by the Lover of our souls to speak gently and soothingly to hearts of His precious love for us. But what do we do with them? We take them, shout them at people, and then wonder why so few believe them. As one of my mentors in the faith likes to say, it is not the truthfulness but the tone that is under discussion here.
Take the doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, for instance. Reformed folk typically like to take this teaching and have endless debates about it, give a black & white, twenty-installment defense of its truthfulness, or, in the worst cases, use it like the Westboro Baptist Church to justify expressions of hatred. In so doing, they are yelling what needs to be whispered.
For limited atonement is about God's love. God's redemptive love is so special that He did not send His precious Son to die an ignoble death just to make salvation a possibility for anyone; God sent His Son to die on behalf of those He has loved for eternity to make salvation a reality for each particular one. Read this familiar verse softly to yourself and see if you cannot hear the quiet reverence in Paul's tone brought on by the knowledge of God's particular love: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). If you know Christ, do you not hear hear the Spirit of God testifying with these words in gentle tones of the love of Jesus for you in a way that leaves your spine tingling and your heart racing? Christ loves me.
As the Westminster Confession of Faith says about another of our doctrines, limited atonement is also to be "handled with special prudence and care, that men...may...be assured of their eternal election." We use some tools such as a hammer to pound and bang away to bring the point of the nail home, and certain doctrines need to be taught with some pounding and banging for that purpose. But using a hammer to drive in a wood screw can split and damage the wood, where instead the quiet, determined action of a screwdriver can draw the two pieces together. Should not the doctrine of limited atonement be used to draw hearts to the heart of Christ quietly rather than loudly driving them away?
As marriage teaches loud, crude men who are willing to learn, soft speech and gentle actions can go a long way. Yes, we can get people's attention by shouting, but a whisper can also do the same and actually prepare the hearer for the message they are about to be told. Believe that Christ died for you, and tell others of it - softly, humbly, reverently.
For the holier the ground, the quieter the worshipper.
For some reason, every time I have shouted at Miriam it has failed to move her to see things my way. Can you believe that? The Proverbs say, "The anger of man does not accomplish the purposes of God." The few experiments where I have tried to prove the opposite hypothesis have ended in dismal failure. I have pulled a few Mount Merapis on her, which I think I could count on no more than my own fingers (though I am sure Miriam, being the sweet helpmeet she is, would lend me hers for the ones I have forgotten). At those times, I have only succeeded 1) in convincing her how utterly wrong I am anyway, 2) in making it nearly impossible to communicate further, and 3) in creating a stituation where only some serious confessing has reconciled the situation. So though I could offer piety as a reason I have learned to control my temper, I have to say losing has been the more powerful motivator for me. Like a dog that learns to stop barking to avoid the old swat across the snout, I have been trained.
(By the way, this may be off the point a bit, but I can say Miriam has never shouted at me. I certainly have given her ample reasons for doing so, but not once has she really yelled at me. She also does not have any cavities. Now you can understand even better why I think twice before opening my mouth wide in her direction.)
On the positive side of our marital harmony, which at twenty years plus is going strong, is that, at the times where our communication is most intimate, quiet talk and even whispering is taking place. Usually expressions of love and devotion mean more when spoken softly. I have also had to have a lot of training in this area as well.
So where does that leave us? Yelling ruins communication; speaking gently enhances it.
With this in mind, could this be one reason (certainly not the only or chief reason) that some of the great doctrines of the reformed faith are so despised? They are given to us by the Lover of our souls to speak gently and soothingly to hearts of His precious love for us. But what do we do with them? We take them, shout them at people, and then wonder why so few believe them. As one of my mentors in the faith likes to say, it is not the truthfulness but the tone that is under discussion here.
Take the doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, for instance. Reformed folk typically like to take this teaching and have endless debates about it, give a black & white, twenty-installment defense of its truthfulness, or, in the worst cases, use it like the Westboro Baptist Church to justify expressions of hatred. In so doing, they are yelling what needs to be whispered.
For limited atonement is about God's love. God's redemptive love is so special that He did not send His precious Son to die an ignoble death just to make salvation a possibility for anyone; God sent His Son to die on behalf of those He has loved for eternity to make salvation a reality for each particular one. Read this familiar verse softly to yourself and see if you cannot hear the quiet reverence in Paul's tone brought on by the knowledge of God's particular love: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). If you know Christ, do you not hear hear the Spirit of God testifying with these words in gentle tones of the love of Jesus for you in a way that leaves your spine tingling and your heart racing? Christ loves me.
As the Westminster Confession of Faith says about another of our doctrines, limited atonement is also to be "handled with special prudence and care, that men...may...be assured of their eternal election." We use some tools such as a hammer to pound and bang away to bring the point of the nail home, and certain doctrines need to be taught with some pounding and banging for that purpose. But using a hammer to drive in a wood screw can split and damage the wood, where instead the quiet, determined action of a screwdriver can draw the two pieces together. Should not the doctrine of limited atonement be used to draw hearts to the heart of Christ quietly rather than loudly driving them away?
As marriage teaches loud, crude men who are willing to learn, soft speech and gentle actions can go a long way. Yes, we can get people's attention by shouting, but a whisper can also do the same and actually prepare the hearer for the message they are about to be told. Believe that Christ died for you, and tell others of it - softly, humbly, reverently.
For the holier the ground, the quieter the worshipper.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Glory of Old Men
Despite the fact that I re-sprained the arch of my left foot doing so, and had to hobble the rest of the way through it, I thoroughly enjoyed getting out on the basketball court with my two oldest sons last night at the spanking new YMCA in Flora. We played with dads and sons associated with our local home school team. When the local yoga class dismissed after the first hour, we were able to go full court. Someone had the idea of letting the young bucks on the team play together against the rest of us, which meant mainly us dads. I thought they would run us into the ground, but was surprised that, well, actually the opposite occured. As I scratched my head afterwards wondering how we pulled it off, it came to me when I remembered the ancient proverb:
The glory of young men is their strength, but the glory of old men is they know how to pass.
The glory of young men is their strength, but the glory of old men is they know how to pass.
Monday, May 08, 2006
A Reminder Outside My Window
While I was in the Philippines in 2004, Miriam orchestrated, with the help of several friends in the church, the redecoration of my office. I had worked in it for months with it looking like a bomb shelter that had taken a direct hit. Two walls, invaded by outside moisture, had to have the plaster knocked completely off, with the west wall having only lath left and the northern wall being a rough, ugly brick of several varieties. The gray indoor-outdoor carpet was worn through in spots, stained, and dust-ridden. The two windows were both stained glass, but the glass had been broken in spots, the wood was rotting around the frames, and the lack of light was depressing. On the very day I arrived, Miriam took me that afternoon to the church, where I was met by a surprise party of dear friends and family in my new office, whch had been utterly transformed. It had freshly dry walled and painted walls, all color-coordinated with the new carpet and office chairs that were recovered in a sharp royal blue. New bookshelves lined my walls, where my books could finally display themselves appropriately rather than being double-stacked or piled somewhere. And I had new vinyl windows. I was bone-tired from my journeys, but rejoiced then and still do today over my inspiring surroundings.
Many have spoken in admiration of my office, but then have also followed their compliments with laughing comments on my view out the window. From my desk I look out on an alley filled with trashcans, and an old house that has been turned into several apartments. The clientele living there can be somewhat sordid. My suspicions about drug activity were confirmed when I watched the police kick in the door to one of the apartments to bust a meth lab set up in there just a month or two ago. The rest of the day men in safety suits went in and out carrying paraphenalia around the yellow police tape. Even this morning the police were here again, as a long-haired, tattoed fellow seemed to be upset about something stolen from him. This afternoon some grungy, cussing folks moved out so that, if the past is any indication, some more grungy, cussing folks can move in. The view out my desk window could be seen as not very inspiring, especially compared to my comfy, studious-looking surroundings.
Yet I'm thankful for this reminder outside my window. For it does inspire me. I'm reminded by it that though we are not to be of this world, we are to be in it. I look at the riches I possess, represented in these books that surround me containing treasures of wisdom that my ancestors in the faith have handed down to me, and I see how poor those right outside my window are. I pray to my heavenly Father, who has blessed me with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, and ask that the gospel would be known by those I see outside my window. This view reminds me that the Lord did not save our building from the eminent domain issues earlier this year just so we can only worship in comfort in it, but also so we could use it to reach those who are lost.
And, almost everyday, I remember again that is only by His grace I'm looking out this window instead, as I once did and too many of my neighbors still do, of not even caring to look in.
Many have spoken in admiration of my office, but then have also followed their compliments with laughing comments on my view out the window. From my desk I look out on an alley filled with trashcans, and an old house that has been turned into several apartments. The clientele living there can be somewhat sordid. My suspicions about drug activity were confirmed when I watched the police kick in the door to one of the apartments to bust a meth lab set up in there just a month or two ago. The rest of the day men in safety suits went in and out carrying paraphenalia around the yellow police tape. Even this morning the police were here again, as a long-haired, tattoed fellow seemed to be upset about something stolen from him. This afternoon some grungy, cussing folks moved out so that, if the past is any indication, some more grungy, cussing folks can move in. The view out my desk window could be seen as not very inspiring, especially compared to my comfy, studious-looking surroundings.
Yet I'm thankful for this reminder outside my window. For it does inspire me. I'm reminded by it that though we are not to be of this world, we are to be in it. I look at the riches I possess, represented in these books that surround me containing treasures of wisdom that my ancestors in the faith have handed down to me, and I see how poor those right outside my window are. I pray to my heavenly Father, who has blessed me with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, and ask that the gospel would be known by those I see outside my window. This view reminds me that the Lord did not save our building from the eminent domain issues earlier this year just so we can only worship in comfort in it, but also so we could use it to reach those who are lost.
And, almost everyday, I remember again that is only by His grace I'm looking out this window instead, as I once did and too many of my neighbors still do, of not even caring to look in.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Caution: Men at Work
Every so often I don the role of Embarrasem Keillor and tell the congregation a story such as the one below about the saints of a church named Sycamore located near Lake Woes-Be-Gone. When asked about how he sculpted his works, Michelangelo used to say that the sculpture was already hidden in the rock. He just removed the rest of the stone to release it. In a similar vein I do not write these stories. They write themselves. I simply remove the irrelevant details and unveil what is already here.
If you have never been to Sycamore church on one of its Men's Work Days, it is a bit hard to explain to you what you are missing. The best way I can describe it is to ask you to imagine a series of outtakes of a now-defunct PBS program called "This Old Church" that somehow got mixed up with scenes from a Laurel and Hardy movie. Often the ladies of the church come to the building after one of these work days expecting to see great improvements rendered to the building, only to have their hopes dashed upon entering. They wander around the church building bewildered, asking one another such things as "Besides the tools scattered in the kitchen and the mess in the Fellowship Hall, can you see what they did?" or "I can see that they painted that wall, but why is there now a foot-wide hole in the middle of it?" or "Did your husband come home yesterday and greet you by saying , "I don't want to talk about it?'"
Adding to the irony of these attempts at architectural splendor by the Sycamore men, whose own "Honey-Do" lists at home were miles long and growing by the day, was the appointed Director of Men's Work Days, Jason Camery. Jason himself can be best described as a ten year-old boy with an active imagination trapped perpetually in the body of an offensive lineman. He had many titles at the church - Deacon, Assistant to the Pastor, Teacher, Congregational Chairman, Ex-Police Officer, Ex-Casket Salesman. These positions indicate the fondness the congregation had for him as well as explained why a flock of young boys always followed him around. Had he been asked by the church to do something that his background had prepared him for, such as be the Official Overseer of Tearing Apart and Reassembling Matchbox Cars, Jason would have shined. But being appointed Director of Men's Work Days was almost more than his wife, who was willing to testify under oath regarding his ineptness at household repairs, could handle. When Jenny received the news about this new position she had shrieked, "You are kidding! What is that church thinking!! You cannot even change a light bulb without reading the directions!!!"
So with that in mind, you can better understand what happened on this particular work day. As we play our scene of "Laurel & Hardy at This Old Church," Jason is on the phone with Tom Dinkledine, who is at Menards. For the fifth time that day. Tom is asking Jason a rather simple question. Could Jason check his (Tom's) toolbox and see if he had any plumbing tape in it, or did he need to buy some? Here now is a description of the rest of the scenes of this episode.
Tom was patient and understanding when he had to explain to Jason what plumbing tape was used for and what it looked like. But there was a noticeable silence on the phone when Jason asked Tom what a toolbox was. After recovering, Tom described it, and Jason went on a search, phone to his ear, through the church to see if he could locate the toolbox.
The first man he came upon was a certain pastoral intern from Texas named Robert Lee Jones. Robert was on a stepladder fixing a light in the Fellowship Hall. Jason asked Robert if he had seen Tom's toolbox, and Robert responded, "The last time I seen that thang it was by the pull-peeyit."
Now Jason was accustomed to Robert's twang. He had spent many hours in Greek class with Robert and heard him tell of all the different wild animals he had hunted down and eaten in Texas, everything from armadillos to woodchucks. So he usually did not need an interpreter to understand Robert. But after he decided that this three-syllable word he had heard could not be the "bullpen" or the "pool stick," he asked again.
"By the what?"
"By the pull-peeyit."
After several exchanges like this, with a description by Robert, "you know, that thang the pastor preaches behind up yonder," Jason finally understood that this word that took Robert five seconds to say was "pulpit." Smiling, Jason told Tom to hold on, and went up the stairs. As he went by the door, Jason pretended to shoot some bad guys out the window. Entering the sanctuary, he did not find the toolbox by the "pull-peeyit." Only Rob Brookshire was in the sanctuary, up on a ladder patching plaster walls.
"Hey, Rob," Jason called. "Have you seen Tom's toolbox?"
Rob looked down at Jason in bewilderment. "Are you still looking for that thing?" One can understand Rob's question. In the time Jason had been looking for the toolbox, Rob had plastered and painted ten spots in the sanctuary, helped install some emergency exit lighting, glued down a dozen loose tiles in the Fellowship Hall, caulked several windows, and done several other odd jobs. Probably if fewer men had showed up Rob could have gotten much more done. "I saw it down with Loren by the bathroom," he replied.
Undeterred with yet another setback, Jason turned and headed back down the stairs. As he did, he quoted outloud several of his favorite lines from the Nemo movie. This caused Tom to ask over the phone "Excuse me?" several times until Jason awakened again to his surroundings and told Tom to never mind.
Jason walked into the downstairs bathroom, whistling the theme song to the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and called out, "Hey Loren, what's up?"
Jason was oblivious to the tension in the bathroom, for Loren Artherhults was, shall we say, slightly agitated. Earlier that morning he had been drilling a hole for a gas line through a wall so a new oven could be put in the kitchen, but five minutes into the drilling water squirting out of the hole at him indicated that his plans for the day had changed. When Jason entered upon him, Loren had been spending his day cutting an access hole into the wall to reach the punctured water line, chipping it out of the concrete in which it was buried, capping the old line, and then replumbing the other lines that had run into it. Numerous interruptions and setbacks had made Loren, who spent his weekdays as a construction supervisor bidding on multi-million dollar contracts, conclude that was a much easier line of work than spending a Saturday with the Sycamore crew.
Jason, with his usual cheery, cartoonish disposition, did not value fully the frustration of a true working man. So with a voice that made Loren feel like the drill had gone into his spine rather than the water line, Jason said, "Tom's at the store trying to," and at this Jason broke out into the commerical jingle, "save big money at Menards." Jason went on, "Heh-heh. He's trying to buy plumbing tape. Do you know where his toolbox is?"
To his credit, Loren kept his cool though he used his "I'm-gonna-get-this-job-done-if-it-kills-me" construction voice with Jason. "I know Tom's at Menards. He's been there all day. His toolbox is in the kitchen. Now, could you get out of my light? I thought an eclipse occurred when you walked in here."
Jason laughed, not at Loren's lunar humor, but at the irony that he had answered the original phone call in the kitchen where the toolbox had been all along. He went in there and sure enough, after mistaking the microwave for it, he located Tom's toolbox. After ten minutes of rummaging through it to no avail, and repeatedly telling Tom to hold on, he took the toolbox back to Loren to see if he could find any tape. Loren glanced at the box and said, "Tell him he doesn't have any and to buy the 69 cent tape roll and get back here pronto. I've remodeled an H.H. Gregg store in less time."
The next day was the Lord's Day. The men had scattered like whimpering pups when they had seen Sharon McKissick, the matron of Sycamore, enter the kitchen to see the new oven and then not find it there. The look she gave Jason when he told her the men had not gotten the oven put it but had replumbed the toilet would have made an army general wilt. Yet something happened that day that not only erased the men's frustration but gave them immense satisfaction.
You see, when they had replumbed the toilet, they had mistakenly run the hot water line into it. The saints were all enjoying the lunch in the Fellowship Hall when who else but Sharon made the discovery. The excited conversation and general buzz of noise and activity were brought to a sudden halt and silence when out of the bathroom came a loud "WHOOO-HOOO-HEE-HOOOOO!" For a moment, everyone froze. Then, out of respect and proper decorum, the conversations picked up where they had left off and the buzz of joy returned. But all across the Fellowship Hall the men exchanged knowing glances and nods, and little smirks brought on by a job well-done popped out on their faces.
So ends another tale of the saints of Sycamore located near Lake Woes-Be -Gone, where the men are all good looking, the women are mean cooks, and the children all above average in Scripture memory.
P.S. Don't forget to check the date.
If you have never been to Sycamore church on one of its Men's Work Days, it is a bit hard to explain to you what you are missing. The best way I can describe it is to ask you to imagine a series of outtakes of a now-defunct PBS program called "This Old Church" that somehow got mixed up with scenes from a Laurel and Hardy movie. Often the ladies of the church come to the building after one of these work days expecting to see great improvements rendered to the building, only to have their hopes dashed upon entering. They wander around the church building bewildered, asking one another such things as "Besides the tools scattered in the kitchen and the mess in the Fellowship Hall, can you see what they did?" or "I can see that they painted that wall, but why is there now a foot-wide hole in the middle of it?" or "Did your husband come home yesterday and greet you by saying , "I don't want to talk about it?'"
Adding to the irony of these attempts at architectural splendor by the Sycamore men, whose own "Honey-Do" lists at home were miles long and growing by the day, was the appointed Director of Men's Work Days, Jason Camery. Jason himself can be best described as a ten year-old boy with an active imagination trapped perpetually in the body of an offensive lineman. He had many titles at the church - Deacon, Assistant to the Pastor, Teacher, Congregational Chairman, Ex-Police Officer, Ex-Casket Salesman. These positions indicate the fondness the congregation had for him as well as explained why a flock of young boys always followed him around. Had he been asked by the church to do something that his background had prepared him for, such as be the Official Overseer of Tearing Apart and Reassembling Matchbox Cars, Jason would have shined. But being appointed Director of Men's Work Days was almost more than his wife, who was willing to testify under oath regarding his ineptness at household repairs, could handle. When Jenny received the news about this new position she had shrieked, "You are kidding! What is that church thinking!! You cannot even change a light bulb without reading the directions!!!"
So with that in mind, you can better understand what happened on this particular work day. As we play our scene of "Laurel & Hardy at This Old Church," Jason is on the phone with Tom Dinkledine, who is at Menards. For the fifth time that day. Tom is asking Jason a rather simple question. Could Jason check his (Tom's) toolbox and see if he had any plumbing tape in it, or did he need to buy some? Here now is a description of the rest of the scenes of this episode.
Tom was patient and understanding when he had to explain to Jason what plumbing tape was used for and what it looked like. But there was a noticeable silence on the phone when Jason asked Tom what a toolbox was. After recovering, Tom described it, and Jason went on a search, phone to his ear, through the church to see if he could locate the toolbox.
The first man he came upon was a certain pastoral intern from Texas named Robert Lee Jones. Robert was on a stepladder fixing a light in the Fellowship Hall. Jason asked Robert if he had seen Tom's toolbox, and Robert responded, "The last time I seen that thang it was by the pull-peeyit."
Now Jason was accustomed to Robert's twang. He had spent many hours in Greek class with Robert and heard him tell of all the different wild animals he had hunted down and eaten in Texas, everything from armadillos to woodchucks. So he usually did not need an interpreter to understand Robert. But after he decided that this three-syllable word he had heard could not be the "bullpen" or the "pool stick," he asked again.
"By the what?"
"By the pull-peeyit."
After several exchanges like this, with a description by Robert, "you know, that thang the pastor preaches behind up yonder," Jason finally understood that this word that took Robert five seconds to say was "pulpit." Smiling, Jason told Tom to hold on, and went up the stairs. As he went by the door, Jason pretended to shoot some bad guys out the window. Entering the sanctuary, he did not find the toolbox by the "pull-peeyit." Only Rob Brookshire was in the sanctuary, up on a ladder patching plaster walls.
"Hey, Rob," Jason called. "Have you seen Tom's toolbox?"
Rob looked down at Jason in bewilderment. "Are you still looking for that thing?" One can understand Rob's question. In the time Jason had been looking for the toolbox, Rob had plastered and painted ten spots in the sanctuary, helped install some emergency exit lighting, glued down a dozen loose tiles in the Fellowship Hall, caulked several windows, and done several other odd jobs. Probably if fewer men had showed up Rob could have gotten much more done. "I saw it down with Loren by the bathroom," he replied.
Undeterred with yet another setback, Jason turned and headed back down the stairs. As he did, he quoted outloud several of his favorite lines from the Nemo movie. This caused Tom to ask over the phone "Excuse me?" several times until Jason awakened again to his surroundings and told Tom to never mind.
Jason walked into the downstairs bathroom, whistling the theme song to the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and called out, "Hey Loren, what's up?"
Jason was oblivious to the tension in the bathroom, for Loren Artherhults was, shall we say, slightly agitated. Earlier that morning he had been drilling a hole for a gas line through a wall so a new oven could be put in the kitchen, but five minutes into the drilling water squirting out of the hole at him indicated that his plans for the day had changed. When Jason entered upon him, Loren had been spending his day cutting an access hole into the wall to reach the punctured water line, chipping it out of the concrete in which it was buried, capping the old line, and then replumbing the other lines that had run into it. Numerous interruptions and setbacks had made Loren, who spent his weekdays as a construction supervisor bidding on multi-million dollar contracts, conclude that was a much easier line of work than spending a Saturday with the Sycamore crew.
Jason, with his usual cheery, cartoonish disposition, did not value fully the frustration of a true working man. So with a voice that made Loren feel like the drill had gone into his spine rather than the water line, Jason said, "Tom's at the store trying to," and at this Jason broke out into the commerical jingle, "save big money at Menards." Jason went on, "Heh-heh. He's trying to buy plumbing tape. Do you know where his toolbox is?"
To his credit, Loren kept his cool though he used his "I'm-gonna-get-this-job-done-if-it-kills-me" construction voice with Jason. "I know Tom's at Menards. He's been there all day. His toolbox is in the kitchen. Now, could you get out of my light? I thought an eclipse occurred when you walked in here."
Jason laughed, not at Loren's lunar humor, but at the irony that he had answered the original phone call in the kitchen where the toolbox had been all along. He went in there and sure enough, after mistaking the microwave for it, he located Tom's toolbox. After ten minutes of rummaging through it to no avail, and repeatedly telling Tom to hold on, he took the toolbox back to Loren to see if he could find any tape. Loren glanced at the box and said, "Tell him he doesn't have any and to buy the 69 cent tape roll and get back here pronto. I've remodeled an H.H. Gregg store in less time."
The next day was the Lord's Day. The men had scattered like whimpering pups when they had seen Sharon McKissick, the matron of Sycamore, enter the kitchen to see the new oven and then not find it there. The look she gave Jason when he told her the men had not gotten the oven put it but had replumbed the toilet would have made an army general wilt. Yet something happened that day that not only erased the men's frustration but gave them immense satisfaction.
You see, when they had replumbed the toilet, they had mistakenly run the hot water line into it. The saints were all enjoying the lunch in the Fellowship Hall when who else but Sharon made the discovery. The excited conversation and general buzz of noise and activity were brought to a sudden halt and silence when out of the bathroom came a loud "WHOOO-HOOO-HEE-HOOOOO!" For a moment, everyone froze. Then, out of respect and proper decorum, the conversations picked up where they had left off and the buzz of joy returned. But all across the Fellowship Hall the men exchanged knowing glances and nods, and little smirks brought on by a job well-done popped out on their faces.
So ends another tale of the saints of Sycamore located near Lake Woes-Be -Gone, where the men are all good looking, the women are mean cooks, and the children all above average in Scripture memory.
P.S. Don't forget to check the date.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
A College Course Option
When it comes to college education, perhaps you should not listen to me.
Our mobile culture, where 60% of Americans move every five years, does not foster strong ties between parents and children anyway. Whereas a century ago as a rule of thumb grown children would often be located near their parents, today that seems rarely to be the case. Much of this can be attributed to economic factors. At the turn into the twentieth century, parent-controlled education, family farms and small businesses created an environment that kept many children near home to continue in their parents' footsteps. Today such things as our technological advances, state-run schooling, formation of large companies and factories, and women entering the workforce mean many venture far from home to pursue education and a career. Though the geographic distance between parents and their offspring is by no means a measure of how close familial bonds are, this modern day tendency to not be located near parents is symptomatic of our individualistic versus family-oriented society. Young people hardly think about whether they should try to stay closer to home, for it is just assumed they have to go where the job takes them. Contributing to this tendency for the generations to be disconnected is the artificially-enforced rule that youth must leave their homes to go to college just because they have turned eighteen.
Waiting another year or two when a young person has become an adult rather than sending him off to college as a child would seem to help deepen generational bonds. The young person, now working and paying more his way through life (versus being at school for two years on loans where he does not really "feel the pain" of how much things cost) will appreciate more what his parents have done for him and the heritage he enjoys. The parent will not only know his son or daughter as a child but will have seen him or her walk through daily decisions and difficulties into adulthood, and will be able to send with more confidence. Siblings would get to spend more time with one another and hopefully strengthen bonds between themselves as well. In our case, my oldest leaving now would mean our youngest child will have only had three years with him in the house. Of course she would not then know him as well or even remember him living here.
Again, I know this approach is not for everybody. An eighteen year-old may be perfectly ready for college and he and his parents can righteously choose for him to stay home or go to college. This blog is merely giving a suggestion. And okay, I will make a confession. I am having a hard time letting go of my firstborn. But with God as my witness, it is not because, full of sentimentality, I do not want to see him grow up. It is simply because I am enjoying watching him do so. As I sat eating lunch with him today while he was on break from a job he has with a local business, I rejoiced at this privilege. When it's time, we'll shoot our arrow. As we draw back the bowstring, we are just trying to be sure that, by God's grace, it will be a straight shot that misses avoidable obstacles, is not weighed down, and remembers the bow from which it was propelled.
- My oldest son is only a senior in high school, so I cannot yet claim to speak from family experience.
- Those friends of mine who have children away at college or are involved in college ministry may not like my suggestion below.
- If you are a college student already living away at college, you may consider the thoughts in this blog out-of-touch and shake your head in sympathy at this uncool, middle-aged guy who just doesn't get it.
Nonetheless, I would like to suggest another option for college rather than the typical sending of an eighteen year-old off to university. Why not consider keeping your son or daughter home for at least another year or two and have them attend a local college? Please realize I am not condemning those who choose to send their high school graduate off to college the next fall. Rather, I'm offering another "course option" for doing college that I have been observing others doing with success. I have three reasons for suggesting this: giving additional time for maturity, avoiding huge costs and debt, and deepening the generational ties.
Additional time for maturity - My history of teaching mathematics at four different colleges or universities over the years has exposed me to a great number of college freshman. Over these years I have found that many underclassmen were simply unprepared for the academic and social pressures one faces at a typical university. Perhaps your child will not fail to the degree that the students in this article did (note that the author then suggests what I am proposing, especially for the financial reasons addressed below). However, I have counseled or heard of many young people in the church who wandered aimlessly through their first year or two of college, wasting much time and resources, or had a major fall into sin or immorality.
A great deal of even natural maturing typically occurs between the ages of eighteen to twenty. A year or two of taking classes from home allows young people time to have their interests cemented, gradually tests their faithfulness and grants them greater independence versus the "all-at-once" approach of sending them away at 18, and gives parents a greater knowledge of what they are learning and the influences upon them at college. Having a young person work before going off to college or while taking classes at home often not only provides financial resources but training and direction. The Lord would only allow those twenty years old and upward to go out to war (see Numbers 1). Perhaps before sending our arrows out into the gates of the enemy (Psalm 127) we should consider more fully if they are sufficiently ready for the battle they will face?
Avoiding huge costs and debts - The cost of higher education has increased so dramatically in the past decade and a half -- up by 63% at public schools and 47% at private -- that more students have to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to attend, ensuring that many of them are paying off those loans for years to come. Many finish college with this enormous debt and/or limited job opportunities, and guess where many of them end up after college graduation? That's right - back home with their parents!
So why not stay home a little while longer rather than possibly having to return later? For it is possible to graduate from college debt-free. Living at home avoids the huge costs of room and board. The tuition from taking classes at a local community college or regional campus of a university often can be significantly lower than a full-fledged university. Working while you are taking classes not only helps you to keep from borrowing money but provides you with valuable work experience and can give ready application for what it being learned in the classroom.
Deepening generational ties - This rationale is more speculative and idealistic than the other two and thus harder to give statistics for or even explain. It certainly is open for discussion, and I am sure some will disagree with me. But here is what I mean.Our mobile culture, where 60% of Americans move every five years, does not foster strong ties between parents and children anyway. Whereas a century ago as a rule of thumb grown children would often be located near their parents, today that seems rarely to be the case. Much of this can be attributed to economic factors. At the turn into the twentieth century, parent-controlled education, family farms and small businesses created an environment that kept many children near home to continue in their parents' footsteps. Today such things as our technological advances, state-run schooling, formation of large companies and factories, and women entering the workforce mean many venture far from home to pursue education and a career. Though the geographic distance between parents and their offspring is by no means a measure of how close familial bonds are, this modern day tendency to not be located near parents is symptomatic of our individualistic versus family-oriented society. Young people hardly think about whether they should try to stay closer to home, for it is just assumed they have to go where the job takes them. Contributing to this tendency for the generations to be disconnected is the artificially-enforced rule that youth must leave their homes to go to college just because they have turned eighteen.
Waiting another year or two when a young person has become an adult rather than sending him off to college as a child would seem to help deepen generational bonds. The young person, now working and paying more his way through life (versus being at school for two years on loans where he does not really "feel the pain" of how much things cost) will appreciate more what his parents have done for him and the heritage he enjoys. The parent will not only know his son or daughter as a child but will have seen him or her walk through daily decisions and difficulties into adulthood, and will be able to send with more confidence. Siblings would get to spend more time with one another and hopefully strengthen bonds between themselves as well. In our case, my oldest leaving now would mean our youngest child will have only had three years with him in the house. Of course she would not then know him as well or even remember him living here.
Again, I know this approach is not for everybody. An eighteen year-old may be perfectly ready for college and he and his parents can righteously choose for him to stay home or go to college. This blog is merely giving a suggestion. And okay, I will make a confession. I am having a hard time letting go of my firstborn. But with God as my witness, it is not because, full of sentimentality, I do not want to see him grow up. It is simply because I am enjoying watching him do so. As I sat eating lunch with him today while he was on break from a job he has with a local business, I rejoiced at this privilege. When it's time, we'll shoot our arrow. As we draw back the bowstring, we are just trying to be sure that, by God's grace, it will be a straight shot that misses avoidable obstacles, is not weighed down, and remembers the bow from which it was propelled.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Blogpology
Now look carefully at the title. This is not entitled blogology, which would be the study of the history of weblogs and their societal impact.
Neither is it blogistics, which would measure the statistics of weblog sites, such as the percentage of certain types of blogs, number of hits per day, etc.
No, this is a blogpology. This is where the blogger apologizes for the appalling lack of blogging he has done lately to anyone who might care.
A while back I promised to blog more frequently, and not always to make my blogs into articles. Yet I have not kept that promise, so for that I ask your patience and forgiveness. I was trying to get at least one out a week, and thought I was succeeding for a time. Yet when I made that claim recently, a blogging buddy of mine whose regularity and interesting blog I admire challenged me (before I dropped out of the blogosphere like a plane with engines failing), and he was right. I have not even kept that one per week pace. Oops - I have slipped into blogistics. Anyway, to him (you know who you are and with this hyperlink now so does everyone else!) I humbly offer my blogpology.
I could offer excuses. (Be careful here, for I'm actually offering some excuses under the pretext that I am not. Blogpology is a fine art, you know.) For one, I have a hard time writing my blog like a diary. Though on occasion I write about my family or personal experiences, I struggle doing too much of that. I know how I feel when listening to someone who talks incessantly about himself. Maybe I could be convinced that the rules of polite discourse do not transfer directly to blogging, but they still give me pause at the ole keyboard.
Another excuse I could offer is that much of my extra time has been spent lately caring for the affairs of my mother, who spent another four weeks in the psychiatric wing of a hospital and was just recently released. And so although this is on my mind a great deal and I have had some interesting experiences, the private and painful nature of this means I do not want to blog anymore about this than I already have.
Another issue is my pastoral charge. Recently I read of a giant of the faith (I won't even mention who he is so as not to embarass myself by invoking his name in my defense) who spoke of how difficult it is for men fully engaged in the direct shepherding of people to be able to write extensively. He left the pastorate in order to write, and left many books behind as a result. Though certainly some great pastors seem to be able to do it all, writing included, I find my spirit is willing but my flesh is weak in this area. Having an "open study door" policy often cuts short my writing attempts.
But enough with the excuses I could offer :). I blogpologize and move on. Maybe I'll get to the point where I can just write everyday about silly things (like the banana sticker I found on my backside this morning sneakingly placed there by one of my children that read "Perfectly Fat Free!") or realize not every post has to be an article (see how even this attempt just to apologize resulted in one, albeit a poor example?). So for now, I'll just try to get back to some semi-regular blogging at least, and be content with not "falling off the blog" altogether.
Oooh, what a bad pun and ending that I'm sure has already been overused. But hey, what do you expect from a blogpologist?
Neither is it blogistics, which would measure the statistics of weblog sites, such as the percentage of certain types of blogs, number of hits per day, etc.
No, this is a blogpology. This is where the blogger apologizes for the appalling lack of blogging he has done lately to anyone who might care.
A while back I promised to blog more frequently, and not always to make my blogs into articles. Yet I have not kept that promise, so for that I ask your patience and forgiveness. I was trying to get at least one out a week, and thought I was succeeding for a time. Yet when I made that claim recently, a blogging buddy of mine whose regularity and interesting blog I admire challenged me (before I dropped out of the blogosphere like a plane with engines failing), and he was right. I have not even kept that one per week pace. Oops - I have slipped into blogistics. Anyway, to him (you know who you are and with this hyperlink now so does everyone else!) I humbly offer my blogpology.
I could offer excuses. (Be careful here, for I'm actually offering some excuses under the pretext that I am not. Blogpology is a fine art, you know.) For one, I have a hard time writing my blog like a diary. Though on occasion I write about my family or personal experiences, I struggle doing too much of that. I know how I feel when listening to someone who talks incessantly about himself. Maybe I could be convinced that the rules of polite discourse do not transfer directly to blogging, but they still give me pause at the ole keyboard.
Another excuse I could offer is that much of my extra time has been spent lately caring for the affairs of my mother, who spent another four weeks in the psychiatric wing of a hospital and was just recently released. And so although this is on my mind a great deal and I have had some interesting experiences, the private and painful nature of this means I do not want to blog anymore about this than I already have.
Another issue is my pastoral charge. Recently I read of a giant of the faith (I won't even mention who he is so as not to embarass myself by invoking his name in my defense) who spoke of how difficult it is for men fully engaged in the direct shepherding of people to be able to write extensively. He left the pastorate in order to write, and left many books behind as a result. Though certainly some great pastors seem to be able to do it all, writing included, I find my spirit is willing but my flesh is weak in this area. Having an "open study door" policy often cuts short my writing attempts.
But enough with the excuses I could offer :). I blogpologize and move on. Maybe I'll get to the point where I can just write everyday about silly things (like the banana sticker I found on my backside this morning sneakingly placed there by one of my children that read "Perfectly Fat Free!") or realize not every post has to be an article (see how even this attempt just to apologize resulted in one, albeit a poor example?). So for now, I'll just try to get back to some semi-regular blogging at least, and be content with not "falling off the blog" altogether.
Oooh, what a bad pun and ending that I'm sure has already been overused. But hey, what do you expect from a blogpologist?
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Supper of the Lord
Recently a friend who attends our church asked me:
"Would you give me some scripture that supports the church's decision to be so selective in who partakes in communion?...As you know, I attended a church were the sacraments were offered to anyone who wanted to partake."
This is a great question. Should the Lord's Supper be offered to anyone who wants to take it, or are there certain conditions that should be met before one is given the privilege to come? I thought others might be interested in the answer. Here's a few of the things, slightly altered and edited for the blogworld, I shared with her...
We can read about Jesus first instituting the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26:17-29 (it is also in the other gospels). To answer this question, we must recognize that this first communion took place at the time of the Passover (note verses 17-19). The Passover was the meal the Jews ate to commemorate God's deliverance of them out of Egypt through the blood of the lamb. As you might recall, only those who had this blood on their doorpost were saved from the angel of death. In God's plan, Jesus was put to death at this Passover time to show He was the true lamb of God who can take away people's sins. Just as the Jews had to believe God by putting the blood on their doorposts to be saved, so we must trust in Christ's shed blood to be saved. That is why He lifted the cup and said "Drink from it, all of you, for this is the blood of My covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Verses 27-28). So the first condition we find in Scripture is this: Just as only Jews could eat of the Passover meal, so only those who are Christians (i.e disciples of Jesus) are to eat of the Lord's Supper.
This is seen in that Jesus only had the 12 disciples with Him in the upper room. Very clearly the Scriptures say that He broke the bread and "gave it to the disciples" (verse 26) and took the cup and "gave it to them (i.e the disciples)" (verse 27). He did not offer this meal out in public indiscriminantly to all in the streets of Jerusalem; instead He gave it to His followers. This same pattern is seen in the rest of the New Testament. In Acts 2:41-42 we are told it is those who were baptized that were devoted to the "breaking of bread." In I Corinthians 11:23-33, where Paul gives instructions about the Lord's Supper, he is obviously writing to the church at Corinth (those that had professed faith and been baptized) on how to practice it. The second condition then is: Only baptized members of the church are allowed to partake. A Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist should not be able to walk into a church service and just take of the Lord's Supper if they so choose. To have a person who does not believe Jesus is the Son of God take of His body and blood would be to desecrate the meal. Having unbelievers eat and drink of the body and blood of the Lord would be to say that the gospel does not have any true power or meaning. Communion is a meal of fellowship with Christ and His people.
A third condition we find is this: Taking of the Lord's Supper is to be done carefully and in a holy manner. Paul makes this point in I Corinthians 11:27-32. If we do not come to this meal by true faith or we come while living in sin, Paul says we will be judged with weakness, sickness or even death. The Jews who mishandled the blood of the lamb in Egypt would have died; the Bible warns that mishandling the blood of Christ is even more severe (Hebrews 10:28-29) because eternity is at stake. So we must come to the table, where His blood is represented, in a worthy manner. That is why we are called to examine ourselves before we come.
Now the question arises, "Who is to be sure that the people who come to the table are 1) Christians who are 2) members of the church and 3) living holy lives?" A final aspect to answer the question is this: Christ has appointed elders to shepherd the flock of His people. They are called to teach and manage the church (I Timothy 3:1-7), exercise oversight and be be examples to the church (I Peter 5:1-5), and guard against harmful influences (Titus 1:7-11). The people in the church are to choose godly men to that office and then submit to them (Hebrews 13:17). Jesus gave "the keys of His kingdom" (see Matthew 16:19), i.e. the responsibility to bring in or release from membership, to the leadership of the church. One of the ways that we are to shepherd God's people is to be sure that these three conditions listed above are being met by those coming to the Lord's Table. That is why if people are not members of our particular congregation we ask that they meet with us so we can hear of their faith in Christ, be sure they are members of a true church somewhere, and are walking rightly before the Lord.
Some could see our practice of watching over the communion table as a prohibitive, legalistic, power-grabbing move. However, our desire is to honor Christ and His table, and that is the reason for this practice. Please understand that we are not seeking to exclude anyone; rather, we are inviting people to come in the right manner. Communion is the supper of the Lord, who has given the church the privilege of hosting it. The Lord Jesus told a story of a man being thrown out of a wedding feast for coming improperly clothed (see Matthew 22:1-14, especially verse 12). Our practice is simply His way of reminding people to come properly prepared. Afterall, if I Corinthians 11:29 is true, then taking communion is one of the most dangerous things you can do. It is only right for the church to help those wanting to come to see that.
"Would you give me some scripture that supports the church's decision to be so selective in who partakes in communion?...As you know, I attended a church were the sacraments were offered to anyone who wanted to partake."
This is a great question. Should the Lord's Supper be offered to anyone who wants to take it, or are there certain conditions that should be met before one is given the privilege to come? I thought others might be interested in the answer. Here's a few of the things, slightly altered and edited for the blogworld, I shared with her...
We can read about Jesus first instituting the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26:17-29 (it is also in the other gospels). To answer this question, we must recognize that this first communion took place at the time of the Passover (note verses 17-19). The Passover was the meal the Jews ate to commemorate God's deliverance of them out of Egypt through the blood of the lamb. As you might recall, only those who had this blood on their doorpost were saved from the angel of death. In God's plan, Jesus was put to death at this Passover time to show He was the true lamb of God who can take away people's sins. Just as the Jews had to believe God by putting the blood on their doorposts to be saved, so we must trust in Christ's shed blood to be saved. That is why He lifted the cup and said "Drink from it, all of you, for this is the blood of My covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Verses 27-28). So the first condition we find in Scripture is this: Just as only Jews could eat of the Passover meal, so only those who are Christians (i.e disciples of Jesus) are to eat of the Lord's Supper.
This is seen in that Jesus only had the 12 disciples with Him in the upper room. Very clearly the Scriptures say that He broke the bread and "gave it to the disciples" (verse 26) and took the cup and "gave it to them (i.e the disciples)" (verse 27). He did not offer this meal out in public indiscriminantly to all in the streets of Jerusalem; instead He gave it to His followers. This same pattern is seen in the rest of the New Testament. In Acts 2:41-42 we are told it is those who were baptized that were devoted to the "breaking of bread." In I Corinthians 11:23-33, where Paul gives instructions about the Lord's Supper, he is obviously writing to the church at Corinth (those that had professed faith and been baptized) on how to practice it. The second condition then is: Only baptized members of the church are allowed to partake. A Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist should not be able to walk into a church service and just take of the Lord's Supper if they so choose. To have a person who does not believe Jesus is the Son of God take of His body and blood would be to desecrate the meal. Having unbelievers eat and drink of the body and blood of the Lord would be to say that the gospel does not have any true power or meaning. Communion is a meal of fellowship with Christ and His people.
A third condition we find is this: Taking of the Lord's Supper is to be done carefully and in a holy manner. Paul makes this point in I Corinthians 11:27-32. If we do not come to this meal by true faith or we come while living in sin, Paul says we will be judged with weakness, sickness or even death. The Jews who mishandled the blood of the lamb in Egypt would have died; the Bible warns that mishandling the blood of Christ is even more severe (Hebrews 10:28-29) because eternity is at stake. So we must come to the table, where His blood is represented, in a worthy manner. That is why we are called to examine ourselves before we come.
Now the question arises, "Who is to be sure that the people who come to the table are 1) Christians who are 2) members of the church and 3) living holy lives?" A final aspect to answer the question is this: Christ has appointed elders to shepherd the flock of His people. They are called to teach and manage the church (I Timothy 3:1-7), exercise oversight and be be examples to the church (I Peter 5:1-5), and guard against harmful influences (Titus 1:7-11). The people in the church are to choose godly men to that office and then submit to them (Hebrews 13:17). Jesus gave "the keys of His kingdom" (see Matthew 16:19), i.e. the responsibility to bring in or release from membership, to the leadership of the church. One of the ways that we are to shepherd God's people is to be sure that these three conditions listed above are being met by those coming to the Lord's Table. That is why if people are not members of our particular congregation we ask that they meet with us so we can hear of their faith in Christ, be sure they are members of a true church somewhere, and are walking rightly before the Lord.
Some could see our practice of watching over the communion table as a prohibitive, legalistic, power-grabbing move. However, our desire is to honor Christ and His table, and that is the reason for this practice. Please understand that we are not seeking to exclude anyone; rather, we are inviting people to come in the right manner. Communion is the supper of the Lord, who has given the church the privilege of hosting it. The Lord Jesus told a story of a man being thrown out of a wedding feast for coming improperly clothed (see Matthew 22:1-14, especially verse 12). Our practice is simply His way of reminding people to come properly prepared. Afterall, if I Corinthians 11:29 is true, then taking communion is one of the most dangerous things you can do. It is only right for the church to help those wanting to come to see that.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
A Reminder to the Youth
“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever."
-I John 2:15-17
When speaking a year ago to a youth conference regarding guarding against the world's influence, numerous questions arose about how to know whether you should or should not watch a movie, buy a CD, or visit certain internet sites. Christians cannot simply apply stickers to certain movies or music that claim they are "God-approved." However, certain Biblical principles such as the ten that follow can guide us into applying wisdom in making these decisions.
1. If it cannot bring glory to God, it will not bring joy to you. “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (I Corinthians 10:31)
2. If you cannot honor your parents by participating in it, it is forbidden. “Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her rejoice who gave birth to you.” (Proverbs 23:25)
3. If it is not the right thing for you to do, don’t. “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)
4. If it keeps you from obedience to a clear command, it is illegal. “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)
5. If it will make you stumble, forsake it. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:29)
6. If it will make others stumble, forsake it. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
7. If it lacks redemptive qualities, give it up. “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” (Philippians 4:8)
8. If it is produced by a non-Christian, be careful. “Walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind.” (Ephesians 4:17)
9. If it is produced by a Christian, check it for leaven. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Matthew 16:11
10. If you can do something better, do it. “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.” (Matthew 22:37)
Remember, young people, you are to live in God's economy, where:
-I John 2:15-17
When speaking a year ago to a youth conference regarding guarding against the world's influence, numerous questions arose about how to know whether you should or should not watch a movie, buy a CD, or visit certain internet sites. Christians cannot simply apply stickers to certain movies or music that claim they are "God-approved." However, certain Biblical principles such as the ten that follow can guide us into applying wisdom in making these decisions.
1. If it cannot bring glory to God, it will not bring joy to you. “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (I Corinthians 10:31)
2. If you cannot honor your parents by participating in it, it is forbidden. “Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her rejoice who gave birth to you.” (Proverbs 23:25)
3. If it is not the right thing for you to do, don’t. “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)
4. If it keeps you from obedience to a clear command, it is illegal. “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)
5. If it will make you stumble, forsake it. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:29)
6. If it will make others stumble, forsake it. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)
7. If it lacks redemptive qualities, give it up. “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” (Philippians 4:8)
8. If it is produced by a non-Christian, be careful. “Walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind.” (Ephesians 4:17)
9. If it is produced by a Christian, check it for leaven. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Matthew 16:11
10. If you can do something better, do it. “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.” (Matthew 22:37)
Remember, young people, you are to live in God's economy, where:
- honoring a parent is more valuable than honoring a movie star.
- seeking God is commanded more than seeking leisure.
- caring how your actions will affects a friend's walk is more important than caring about what you want to do.
- where dying is living and living is dying.
In other words, don't let love for the things usurp love for the Maker and Ruler of the things.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Media by Us
Almost every newspaper or news magazine likes to tout that they are unbias and objective in their reporting. Yet all of us, when retelling events we have witnessed or researched (which is at the heart of news reporting), shape the account for our readers or listeners by the way we report it. We cannot help doing so, for our hearts and minds, indeed our very being, are involved in the process of writing. We will always have "media bias" because media is done by us. One reason I appreciate World magazine is they honestly admit right up front the perspective they use in reporting the news.
I thought of this recently as I found myself being quoted in a local paper regarding our church's struggle with the library board and what transpired at their last meeting (you can read the article here). In large measure, I appreciate the Kokomo Perspective for bringing this issue to the public's attention as the library's decision will affect not only our congregation but the entire community. I sense the columnist may be somewhat sympathetic to our plight. Where he quotes me, he is using the words I uttered.
However, the columnist's own perspective cannot help but influence his piece. In this particular article he packaged the information in a way that could confuse those reading about what has truly happened. So for the sake of journalistic accuracy, I offer these three clarifications:
I thought of this recently as I found myself being quoted in a local paper regarding our church's struggle with the library board and what transpired at their last meeting (you can read the article here). In large measure, I appreciate the Kokomo Perspective for bringing this issue to the public's attention as the library's decision will affect not only our congregation but the entire community. I sense the columnist may be somewhat sympathetic to our plight. Where he quotes me, he is using the words I uttered.
However, the columnist's own perspective cannot help but influence his piece. In this particular article he packaged the information in a way that could confuse those reading about what has truly happened. So for the sake of journalistic accuracy, I offer these three clarifications:
1) The subtitle of the article, which is likely from an editor and not the journalist, says "Church pastor asks that his property be removed from consideration" (emphasis mine). Since the church property does not belong to me, I would never refer to it as mine and did not at the meeting. I merely represented the church, to whom the building belongs. Statements like this can make it look like this is an issue between the board and an individual.
2) The article states that "York said if the library decides to build on the church's ground, it would be 'very unsettling.'” That statement is too obvious to make, as of course we would already be unsettled if we were without a building. What I actually remember saying is that the way the library board has handled this situation thus far has already been "very unsettling" from our perspective. I had already made that statement in a letter written to the library board prior to the meeting and reiterated it that evening.
3) Later on a paragraph reads "York had earlier declined to be interviewed, and said he did not want to add to the library's controversy. But he made his plea in the board's open meeting." Perhaps I'm misreading this, but the way it is worded sounds like the reporter thinks I am being hypocritical by declining to be interviewed but then going public in an "open meeting." Please note the following:
- This reporter should remember our earlier phone conversation. When he himself requested an interview in early December, I asked to defer getting together until after the elders had spoken to representatives of the board directly on December 7. I thought he might contact me after that time to see what had transpired, but he never did. After the meeting on December 19, I was introduced to the reporter by a board member but he never asked me any questions about what has happened. Why did he write it like he did above?
- My point in even raising the issue that I had declined an interview before meeting with the library is not that I am above or against doing so. Rather, I am trying to stress in this situation that the righteous way to handle conflict between neighbors is to go directly to them. Our frustration is that we were never approached about these plans before they were made public, and then the initial contacts by library representatives had threatening overtones. Neighbors are to approach one another directly and honestly.
- Finally, what other option did our church have but to state our concern at their open meeting? The board deals with the expansion issue primarily in executive session, and I obviously was not invited. The elders of the church believed that it was important that the board hear from us face-to-face and not just in letter form.
Did the Perspective article contain honest mistakes or pokes at me? Regardless, just remember whether you read a newspaper article or this blog, a perspective or bias is already present. For media, by its very nature, is by us.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Now You Know Why
Last post (see below) I explained how I suffer from Celiaism. I know how annoying people can be who insist on telling you about every ache and pain of their condition, but bear with me as I offer an anecdote from yesterday that will help you sympathize with me better.
Yesterday in our church service I had the privilege of baptizing a big bear of a man named Greg. As he testified to before the congregation, Greg was formerly a bouncer who loved to fight and was afraid of nothing, until God brought the fear of the Lord upon him and led him to where he heard the gospel. As I was about to apply the water to this man who must weigh 300 pounds or more, my wife said to Celia, "Look, Daddy is about to baptize Greg." Celia, obviously thinking of the many babies she had seen baptized, looked up at her mom and asked, "How is Daddy going to hold him?"
I'll try to refrain from now on saying anything more about my condition, but then again remember I can't help it. It's my Celiaism kicking in.
Yesterday in our church service I had the privilege of baptizing a big bear of a man named Greg. As he testified to before the congregation, Greg was formerly a bouncer who loved to fight and was afraid of nothing, until God brought the fear of the Lord upon him and led him to where he heard the gospel. As I was about to apply the water to this man who must weigh 300 pounds or more, my wife said to Celia, "Look, Daddy is about to baptize Greg." Celia, obviously thinking of the many babies she had seen baptized, looked up at her mom and asked, "How is Daddy going to hold him?"
I'll try to refrain from now on saying anything more about my condition, but then again remember I can't help it. It's my Celiaism kicking in.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Celiaism
I thought I would use this blog site to announce that recently I have been diagnosed with a condition known as "Celiaism." Perhaps I should have called each of you personally to break the news more gently, but then again if you have observed me lately you already knew. Celiaism is a disorder that takes an otherwise sane, healthy man in his early 40's and renders him googly-eyed, weak-kneed and unable to say "no" without severe stuttering. They tell me it's a genetic issue caused by being the father of an adorable, precocious, attention-grabbing three year-old girl who (ironically come to think of it) is named Celia. They also tell me remission can occur over time but usually only lasts until grandchildren arrive, where "Celiaism Relapse" is probable.
Anyway, as hard as I have tried to overcome my Celiaism, I struggle and fail. I pledged that I would treat all of my six children the same as I raised them, and I know they were all just as cute at this age. Yet there's something about being over 40 and living in the same house with this chattering doll with curls that just makes it impossible to fight. So please don't laugh at me when you observe me sneaking into the church kitchen trying not to be seen by her mother and then giving her another "lem-o-lade in a big girl's cup" (that's just how she says it). Remember, I cannot help it. For consider some of the other symptoms of my Celiaism.
Blabbering speech - I go around saying such things as "hip-po-PO-MA-ta-mus," "cheer-chos", "pot-chick" and "purple-E" to describe the African water animal, common breakfast cereal, stuff you put on your chapped lips and her toothbrush (so named for teaching her to say "eee" in order to brush her teeth). I have developed almost a strange dialect, putting the ending "ey" on way too many words. I say such things as "birdey," "doggey," "huggey," "kissey," "lappey," "nappey," and "sockey," when one syllable would be just fine.
Uncontrollable fixation patterns - I wave and blow kisses at my front door EVERY time I drive away because she's standing there, which has caused more than one neighbor to wonder about me. EVERY time we brush teeth I play "Dentist Chair," where she gets on my lap as I sit on the floor and my nose button is pushed, automatically causing my legs to draw up behind her so she can recline while we brush. When done, she pushes the nose button and the legs proceed to dump her sideways. EVERY time I play "Go Fish" I cheat so she can win. EVERY Sunday I struggle whether to raise my hands while singing, not because of some deep charismatic urge but what do you do when that golden-haired beauty is standing on the back of the pew in her mother's arms smiling and waving at you?
Infantile behavior reversions- I play with dolls. I ask grown men if they need to go potty. I crawl around on the floor acting like a horse (my favorite part is bucking). Today I'm wearing a little kitty, giraffe and lion stickers on my dress shirt pocket so "we can match," for she has the same ones. I get under the blankets on her bed and hide because I imagine dinosaurs are coming. I enjoy watching Madeline and Goofy cartoons.
Is there any hope for me? The bad news is that my wife says it's incurable (actually, she says I'm impossible but I know what she means). The good news is that I have found many others suffer from Celiasm as well, though it is often called by other names. And, fortunately for me, the Lord has helped me to adapt to my situation so well I cannot remember life any other way.
Anyway, as hard as I have tried to overcome my Celiaism, I struggle and fail. I pledged that I would treat all of my six children the same as I raised them, and I know they were all just as cute at this age. Yet there's something about being over 40 and living in the same house with this chattering doll with curls that just makes it impossible to fight. So please don't laugh at me when you observe me sneaking into the church kitchen trying not to be seen by her mother and then giving her another "lem-o-lade in a big girl's cup" (that's just how she says it). Remember, I cannot help it. For consider some of the other symptoms of my Celiaism.
Blabbering speech - I go around saying such things as "hip-po-PO-MA-ta-mus," "cheer-chos", "pot-chick" and "purple-E" to describe the African water animal, common breakfast cereal, stuff you put on your chapped lips and her toothbrush (so named for teaching her to say "eee" in order to brush her teeth). I have developed almost a strange dialect, putting the ending "ey" on way too many words. I say such things as "birdey," "doggey," "huggey," "kissey," "lappey," "nappey," and "sockey," when one syllable would be just fine.
Uncontrollable fixation patterns - I wave and blow kisses at my front door EVERY time I drive away because she's standing there, which has caused more than one neighbor to wonder about me. EVERY time we brush teeth I play "Dentist Chair," where she gets on my lap as I sit on the floor and my nose button is pushed, automatically causing my legs to draw up behind her so she can recline while we brush. When done, she pushes the nose button and the legs proceed to dump her sideways. EVERY time I play "Go Fish" I cheat so she can win. EVERY Sunday I struggle whether to raise my hands while singing, not because of some deep charismatic urge but what do you do when that golden-haired beauty is standing on the back of the pew in her mother's arms smiling and waving at you?
Infantile behavior reversions- I play with dolls. I ask grown men if they need to go potty. I crawl around on the floor acting like a horse (my favorite part is bucking). Today I'm wearing a little kitty, giraffe and lion stickers on my dress shirt pocket so "we can match," for she has the same ones. I get under the blankets on her bed and hide because I imagine dinosaurs are coming. I enjoy watching Madeline and Goofy cartoons.
Is there any hope for me? The bad news is that my wife says it's incurable (actually, she says I'm impossible but I know what she means). The good news is that I have found many others suffer from Celiasm as well, though it is often called by other names. And, fortunately for me, the Lord has helped me to adapt to my situation so well I cannot remember life any other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)