"If we loved children, we would have a few. If we had them, we would want them as children, and would love the wonder with which they behold the world, and would hope that some of it might open our own eyes a little. We would love their games, and would want to play them once in a while, stirring in ourselves those memories of play that no one regrets, and that are almost the only things an old man can look back on with complete satisfaction. We would want our children tagging along after us, or if not, then only because we would understand that they had better things to do."
Anthony Esolen, Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, xii.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Loving Children
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Church and War
"If the church as a matter of habit tolerates the use of force and planning for warfare on the part of the state, then she will not even know when the exceptional time has come when it would be justified for her to say a Christian 'yes.'"
John Howard Yoder, summarizing Karl Barth's views, Karl Barth and the Problem of War, 39.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Parents and Elders
"... since what we teach in catechism is the Scriptures and the confessions, that should properly be considered the official teaching ministry of the church of Jesus Christ. Parents entrusted with the spiritual education of their children fulfill their responsibility under the care and guidance of the church's elders.
. . .
'Two parties,' said Matthew Henry, 'parents in their families and... ministers in more public assembles, are necessary, and do mutually assist each other, and neither will excuse the want of the other.'
We have to take care that the elders do not usurp the role of parents. In God's covenantal structuring of the church he has never set elders or catechism teachers between parents and children or in place of parents. Elders, therefore, may not shove parents aside, nor may parents vacate their position in favor of elders. Instead, by administering a good catechism program, the elders fulfill their role by insisting and ensuring that the parents of the church obey God's command to instruct their children in his ways (Dt. 6:6-9, Eph. 6:4)."
-Donald Van Dyken, Rediscoving Catechism, 91, 101.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Justification as Openness to God's Future
More from Jenson still on the theme of God's future:
"... it is in the situation attributed to the patriarchs that faith, 'the assurance of things hoped for ... and not seen,' emerges the decisive relation to God. Genesis' story of Abraham is the story of a man living by promises. He is called to go he knows not where, to become an unspecified blessing to unidentified future nations. In response to this dubious prospect, 'he believed the Lord,' and the Lord certified such drastic future-openness as 'righteousness,' that is, as the right relationship to himself and the human community. At the climax of Abraham's story, the Lord proposes to take from him even the historical possibility of the promise's fulfillment, so that he may live by faith and nothing else."
-Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology Vol. 1, 68.
The Dangerous God of the Future
"The biblical God is not eternally himself in that he persistently instantiates a beginning in which he already is all that he ever will be; he is eternally himself in that he unrestrictedly anticipates an end in which he will be all he ever could be.
. . .
Thus the revelatory content of the Exodus was not mere escape from the Egyptian past but the future that the escape opened: 'You have seen ... how I ... brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be ...' And this was a true, that is, risky, future: in Israel's memory, Exodus was inseparable from forty years' wandering in the desert, in which the Lord figures as the dangerous leader of a journey whose final end was geographically chancy and temporally unknown, and whose possibility depended every morning on the Lord's new mercy.
. . .
Gods who identity lies in the persistence of a beginning are cultivated because in them we are secure against the threatening future. The gods of the nations are guarantors of continuity and return, against the daily threat to fragile established order; indeed, they are Continuity and Return. The Lord's meaning for Israel is the opposite: the archetypically established order of Egypt was the very damnation from which the Lord released her into being, and what she thereby entered was the insecurity of the desert. Her God is not salvific because he defends against the future but because he poses it."
-Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology Vol. 1, 66-67.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Parenting isn't a Spectator Sport
"It is true that we cannot make believers of our children and it's good to be reminded that we are but men and that the blessing of God and the power of the Holy Spirit alone change hearts and lives. That should keep us humble and prayerful. However, if we know the apostle Paul, we will be convinced that he spared no amount of laboring and striving, preaching and teaching, pleading and argument if by any means he might save some.
An analogy from farming will clarify the point. When we walk in the field we confess that the Spirit alone gives life to our corn crop. But the Holy Spirit has been pleased to bind himself to means. We do not get 180 bushels of corn to the acre by pulling out a lawn chair. Instead we pray and plow, disc, fertilize, plant, irrigate, spray, and cultivate. Ora et labora, pray and work."
-Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism, 72.
Precocious Tribes of Pharisees
"In all of Bible teaching we must remember that we are catechizing in the Word, in the Truth. This must always be very personal, for we are not aiming to produce a tribe of precocious Pharisees who can list biblical facts and lay out the five points of Calvinism but never know their Savior. Rather, in the Word and Truth they meet and come to know the persons of their God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
-Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism, 57.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 5: The Nether Regions of Francis Turretin
Driscoll recounts at various points certain lessons he learned for preaching that I found helpful.
He says that early on in the history of Mars Hill he gave theology lectures as sermons. While he was very interested in theology, he came to realize that his sermons needed to touch down on the ground right were the people were living. He realized that his sermons needed to speak into the world of sin and darkness of the people in Seattle. Around this time, he also started preaching through books of the Bible. He found this to be a helpful way to get off his theological hobby horses, explain what a text meant in general and then apply it specifically to his people.
Driscoll also says that somewhere along the line he stopped caring how long his sermons were. He would sometimes preach for over an hour, and he still does and does so unapologetically since for many people this is the only Bible they get in a given week. People routinely have the time and patience for an hour or longer in other venues. People who complain about long sermons are either complaining because the preacher is bad or because they don't think the Word of God is as important as football or movies or concerts or stand up comedians.
And speaking of comedians, Driscoll noticed that there are very few men in the world today who can hold the attention of large audiences apart from certain musical artists and comedians. So, even while Driscoll quit worrying about how long he was going, he also started taking homiletics courses from the likes of Chris Rock. And along the way, he started preaching straight through books of the Bible.
A couple of things that really resonated with what Driscoll relates here: First, I think it's a pretty sorry state for the church to be in when people complain if the pastor preaches for much longer than a half an hour. If God invites us to His house for dinner once a week and has a word for us, I daresay we ought to listen even if its running over into lunch time.
But there are several angles to this discussion:
First, there are some in the Reformed tradition who believe that Christians are large brains with arms and legs attached for some reason. Sanctification is largely the uploading of theological data on Sunday mornings in a lengthy theological discourse that might as well be delivered as a series of ones and zeros. The worship service in these churches is a hymn sandwhich with a big, whopping piece of theological minutiea in the middle. Favorite forms of this sermonic bloat are readings from the nether regions of Francis Turretin (Lord bless him) and diagrams of the glories of supralapsarianism. These services are marked with furrowed brows, solemn tones, morbid introspection, and an occasional Holy Ghost grunt between the "we affirm the latters..." and "we deny the formers..."
Obviously if preachers are begging for twenty more minutes of slogging through five syllable words while beating the drums of damnation and hellfire, then I'd much rather the twenty minute version. Make it five minutes for that matter and be done with it.
But related to all of this is the fact that the sermon is not the only way that God ministers His grace to His people. Hymns and Psalms, Scripture readings, prayers, creeds, fellowship, and the sacraments are also significant parts of worship that God promises to bless and fill with His presence and Spirit. People were made with bodies and passions and minds and senses, and God intends to remake this fallen and broken humanity in its entirety. This means that singing and hearing music is part of the ministry of the Spirit. Eating bread and drinking wine in faith is part of the ministry of the Spirit. Hearing the Scriptures read is God's Word to His people as empowered by the Spirit.
Sermons don't need to be long as though that's the only way God speaks to His people. That's sort of like a husband insisting that his wife kiss him for twenty minutes every time. That may make for a great marriage or it might make for lots of babies, but it's not necessary because that's not the only way a husband and wife express love for one another. Talking, meals together, taking walks while holding hands, gifts, poems, and countless words and expressions display loyalty, love, and care. And God does the same thing with His people.
At the same time, a husband and wife that still like long, passionate kissing are probably still in love after all those dirty diapers and frenzied moments of childer-chaos. It's probably a sign of a healthy marriage. And my point is that a congregation that is hungry for God's Word, hungry for the Word read and explained and applied, hungry to grow in Christ, and doesn't mind the preacher going on for another fifteen or twenty minutes is probably a healthy congregation.
But secondly, there are some who are concerned that church services just not go too long. An hour long service is long enough, and an hour and a half, is extreme. And two hours is just downright unreasonable.
But I just don't get this. We'll go to the movies and watch a freaking long piece of garbage and pay twenty bucks for them to let us in. And we call that having a good time. Or we'll go to a concert and pay fifty or eighty or a hundred bucks to get into a stadium filled with screaming teenage girls for two hours. Or we'll watch a game on television for several hours and call that relaxing and fun, but if the people of God are invited to get together, to sing, to fellowship, to hear God's word to them, everybody's all of sudden watching their clocks? Do you really have something better to do? Do you really have something more important than God? Then maybe you should just leave. Maybe you shouldn't bother with the whole church thing.
Again, I appeal to the marriage analogy: what healthy marriage has a husband or wife a few minutes into making love glancing at the clock and hoping it will all be over in a few minutes? Love isn't like that. But worship is a love song between Jesus and His bride. There ought to be other occasions like Sunday School and Bible studies for in depth study of the Word, but the Word preached comes at the people of God in a unique and powerful way. And the people of God should be hungry for that kind of food. And pastors should work hard to prepare a filling feast. Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He feeds His sheep in many other ways, but in so far as preachers are called to preach, they shouldn't shy away from the task.
Of course some worry about the kids. Adults can sit through a two hour service, but what about the kids? And some answer this objection by carting the little people off to special rooms where they can worship God in their own little way. But somehow that just seems wrong. When I eat dinner with my family at home, I don't send the two year old to her bedroom to eat her dinner so my wife and I can have some peace and quiet. And somehow I suspect that Jesus wouldn't do that either. In fact he probably hates the fact that so many churches do that to the little children of the kingdom.
But does that mean that sermons just need to be short and sweet and keep the services moving along so we can get in and out like a television sitcom? And what about the crying babies?
I would suggest at least three things here: First, if the pastors and elders are committed to having children in worship then that means that they must speak to them during the course of the service and invite their full participation in the service. This means that they should learn to shout their "Amens" and sing their parts of the liturgy. We should look for ways to include them in the choirs and helping in various capacities that are suited to their abilities. They should know that they have a full place at the table of Jesus, and they are quite welcome to partake of His meal. And parents need reminding and teaching on this. Secondly, It also means that we should be full of grace for their immaturity. If they fall asleep, that's OK. If they need snacks, that's OK. If they need to draw pictures, that's just grand. We obviously want to be teaching them to follow along as much as they are able, but we also remember their frames. We also bear with their squirms and giggles and squawks. And parents need to be reminded that their children do not have to leave all their childishness at the door when they come to meet with Jesus. Jesus doesn't despise them for being little. Jesus loves them, and He is glad they are there with us. And when the kids need instructing and discipline in the middle of the service, we should carry it out gladly and cheerfully, not with an embarrassed fury at the four year old for pulling his sister's hair. Of course they need teaching and correcting: they're kids. But that's nothing to be ashamed of, and it's certainly not a good reason to try to make church as short as possible. Lastly, pastors should work at preaching well. This means being conversational, straight forwardly explaining the Bible, and without being showy or sentimental, telling stories and jokes that make the points the text makes. The best preaching is always able to explain what a particular text means within the immediate context, show the congregation how it fits within the broader redemptive-historical context -- pointing to Jesus, and finally what it means for people who live in 2011 in America (or wherever).
Of course there's no magic or holy minimum or maximum with regard to time, and I'm not saying pastors should lay burdens on their people that are too heavy to bear. I'll I'm saying is that we should be growing hungry congregations, saints who are hungry for the word of God and pastors should be eager to serve up a gospel feast from the Word.
You can find the previous posts in this series here, here, here, and here.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sound Down
"The word 'catechism' derives from the Greek word katecheo which is found in several places in Scripture. The most familiar is Luke 1:4, where Luke explains why he wrote his Gospel: 'that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed [catechichized].' Like many Greek words katecheo is put together from two words, in this case kata, meaning 'down toward,' and echeo, meaning 'to sound.' Katecheo is 'sound down.'"
-Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism, 12-13.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The Grace of the Law
"By reclaiming Luther's grand discovery of justification by faith, Christians again embrace the law with David, Paul, and James. The law leads to Christ, plainly outlines the extent of Christ's payment, defines his righteousness, protects believers from sinning against God's love, and enables them to give concrete expression to their love for God by deeds of obedience."
Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism, 6.
The Good Old Days are Now
"... if we must go through what seems the worst of times, we are held in the best of all hands, inseparable from the best of all loves (Rom. 8:38-39)"
Donald Van Dyken, Rediscovering Catechism, 2.
Friday, January 21, 2011
More on Bonhoeffer
Jordan Ballor adds to the Bonhoeffer discussion over on the Touchstone blog this morning.
He writes:
"In response, I'll point out that part of the academic critique is simply what academics are wont to do when looking at a popular book. There isn't enough nuance here, this detail is wrong there, and so on. As I've said elsewhere, Metaxas' biography is not a substitute for a scholarly biography like Eberhard Bethge's. Still, it does show some surprising sensitivity for a popular biography. Metaxas rightly notes that Bonhoeffer was seeking to articulate a Protestant form of natural law in his Ethics, an aspect of Bonhoeffer's work that has largely escaped the notice of academics. Perhaps you don't get a modern political left/right dichotomy in scholarship all that often, but in Bonhoeffer's case you do get a Barthian/liberal theology divide."
You can read the rest here.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Counterfeit Bonhoeffer?
Some interesting stuff on recent scholarship on Bonhoeffer from Tim Challies.
He writes: "I’ve made no secret of the fact that I enjoyed reading Eric Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Actually, it’s one of my all-time favorite biographies; it’s readable, engaging and it deals with a fascinating part of history. But lately I’ve come across a few articles by experts in Bonhoeffer who say that it’s just plain wrong—it’s a portrayal of the man that is geared toward evangelicals and, in seeking to make the reader happy, it succumbs to all sorts of errors.
Richard Weikart of California State University says that Metaxas “serves up a Bonhoeffer suited to the evangelical taste” and notes with disbelief that in “an interview with Christianity Today Metaxas even made the astonishing statement that Bonhoeffer was as orthodox theologically as the apostle Paul.”
As orthodox as Paul? Metaxas does not seem to know that in his Christology lectures in 1933 Bonhoeffer claimed, “The biblical witness is uncertain with regard to the virgin birth.” Bonhoeffer also rejected the notion of the verbal inspiration of scripture, and in a footnote to Cost of Discipleship he warned against viewing statements about Christ’s resurrection as ontological statements (i.e., statements about something that happened in real space and time). Bonhoeffer also rejected the entire enterprise of apologetics, which he thought was misguided.
You can read the rest of the post here.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 4
Driscoll notes that it is easy for leaders to be distracted by their own well meaning people. People call in the middle of the night with crises. People come into the office sobbing with stories of sin and struggle. People have interpersonal tangles that they would like you to dedicate several hours a week to. People want to be "good friends" with the pastor and spend time together regularly.
And the point isn't to be heartless or unfeeling or unavailable. Pastors are shepherds, and they must shepherd the sheep. And sheep wander off. Sheep get into trouble. Sheep need lots of care and love and time.
But every pastor must quickly learn that they cannot do everything. And if pastors cannot do everything for everyone in the church, then of necessity, they must quickly learn to prioritize. And just to be clear, this means saying "no" to some things, some people, some real needs, some hard cases. Sometimes it means not answering the phone, not responding to emails, requests, whatever.
Of course, pastors must remain dedicated to loving their people, must remain "given to hospitality," and must not be rude or unkind. But pastors cannot do everything, and pastors who try to do everything will fail and they will burn out and in the end will actually do their congregations more harm than good.
This principle is always true, even in small churches, but this principle gets more and more obvious and important the larger the church grows. A pastor can know his flock fairly well when it is fairly small. He can fairly routinely make his way around through the congregation, checking in with them, giving counsel, and spending time with them. I remember in the first church I pastored, a mission work, there were maybe 28 people in worship if everyone came. Even in a tiny mission work like that, pastors must not delusionally think that they can do everything, but they can get to know their people and visit with them regularly. But I also remember the last time we had the whole church over to our apartment. Thankfully the weather was nice, and the fifty plus people could spill out into the yard. My wife and I realized we wouldn't be able to do that anymore. And while our hospitality remained regular, the schedule got longer and longer. While we might have been able to cycle through everyone in a month or two when we first arrived, by the time we were preparing to leave, it would have taken three or four months to make it through everyone.
When we arrived back in Moscow at Trinity to serve as one of the pastors here, I believe the congregation was a little over two hundred at the time. I remember Jenny asking at one point (with some trepidation), "How are we going to be able to have everyone over?" She didn't mean all at once, just how could we schedule or plan to visit with everyone in the church? And I told her that we wouldn't because we couldn't. Over the course of the two and a half years since we've been at Trinity, the congregation has continued to grow, and with over three hundred people regularly in worship, it's just not possible to know everyone really well.
Driscoll recounts similar realizations as Mars Hill grew. He relates how at one point they even had close friends drop by one night to tell them that they were leaving the church. And the reason they were leaving was because the Driscolls hadn't been spending much time with them any more. Whatever questions we may have for them, the point is that particularly as congregations grow, pastors can't be best friends with everyone in the church. Just as a side note: Where God provides close friends for pastors and their wives and families within larger congregations, this is itself a particularly significant ministry to pastors and their families. And sometimes these relationships are crucial means of grace at specific times but can also providentially shift and change over time. This must be received with thankful hearts, commended, and people need to guard against any feelings of offense or bitterness or rivalry.
Furthermore and even more importantly, pastors can't do all the work of ministry in the church because that is not how a healthy church will grow. But the point that Driscoll makes that is a really helpful reminder is that this is the way it's supposed to be anyway. Pastors can't and shouldn't do all the ministry because they aren't the only ministers.
In fact, Driscoll points to Ephesians 4 where Paul says that Jesus gave His Spirit to the Church in the form of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers to equip the saints to do the work of ministry (Eph. 4:11-12). In other words, the ministry of pastors and teachers is to equip the saints to do the work of ministry. And I'll just say it one more time to be clear: The saints are to be actively involved in the work of ministry. Of course pastors and teachers are saints too, and they have an important ministry also. But their ministry is to equip the rest of the saints to do ministry. Why? So that the body of Christ might be edified, built up. Literally, the word means to build a house. The way churches get built is by pastors equipping the saints to do the work of ministry. And Paul continues by explaining that this is how the body of Christ will grow up and grow together. If churches want to grow up and grow together, then the saints must be equipped.
Pastors must train and equip by doing and setting an example, but this means that faithful pastors must be training other men to be elders, deacons, and laymen who will then go out and do counseling and evangelism and mercy ministry in the church and outside the church (and likewise the women).
Driscoll fairly candidly admits that at various points in his ministry he was trying to do too much, and it had ramifications for his own health and family life. This is a good warning.
But overwhelmingly, I found this reminder to be freeing and liberating. When Jethro confronted Moses about this same problem, Jethro was a wise elder/father in-law and could see the burn out coming a mile away. Jethro's advice was good news. It was gospel wisdom. And the Jethro principle still stands as basic, essential wisdom for the body of Christ.
Now I'm a big fan of Richard Baxter style pastoral ministry, and I do think that Driscoll's advice should be balanced with Baxter's pastoral heart. It would seem a little strange to me for a pastor to never engage in counseling or pastoral care, though I know in some churches there are pastors who only preach and other pastors who only counsel. I would think that some interaction with the needs and challenges of the congregation remains important and strategic, but the principle of delegation and sharing the load and equipping the saints to do ministry stands. And this is exactly what the apostles did in Acts 6. Whether or not those seven men are "deacons" in the technical sense, they are certainly deacons in as much as they are alleviating the load of the apostles.
Someone might have objected that the apostles were heartless for neglecting the needs of the widows. Wasn't it the apostle James who insisted that pure and undefiled religion was the care of orphans and widows? And there may be some hyper-Baxters who would have a hard time letting go of the ministry to widows: what if it falls apart? What if they don't get cared for? But the apostles (James included) said it would not be right for them to worry about that ministry. They were called to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). That's a wonderful apostolic example set for many pastors.
Train other saints to do the work of ministry. Train other saints to counsel, to do mercy ministry, to help with pastoral care, to do administrative work, to organize events, whatever. And of course gifts and interests will vary from pastor to pastor and that will color this principle in different ways, but the pastor's job boiled down is to pray and preach.
The last thought on this is that pastors have to remember their own families as the first members of their congregation. The pastoral care must begin there. Pastors who have Richard Baxter as their hero must begin being Richard Baxter in their own homes, dating their wives, loving their children, and not neglecting their physical and spiritual wellbeing. The pastor's home is his first parish. Pastors can't do everything, but it shouldn't even be a question about which members of your congregation you should spend time with first. Love your wife so that she is not a de facto widow; love your children so that they are not de facto orphans. This is pure and undefiled religion.
Anyway, good stuff from Driscoll: Leaders, don't be distracted. You can't do everything. So equip the saints. Pray and preach and love your people. And trust Jesus to build His Church.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 3
I really appreciated Driscoll's take on spiritual gifts, particularly those that seem a bit more unusual or more miraculous than others. Driscoll notes that in the early days of the church, there were at least a few occasions where he believes demons were attacking the church plant. He recounts a few close calls in church where he had to do some fast thinking and preaching on his feet to deal with people apparently sent from the enemy or possessed by one of his spirits. Likewise, Driscoll talks about a number of strangely vivid dreams that were apparently prophetic in nature, and on at least one occasion the Spirit leading him to a woman whom he had never met before who was being abused by her boyfriend.
There were several things impressive and refreshing about Driscoll's take on this stuff. First, he isn't sensational at all. He comes off as the first skeptic, and because he's skeptical of his own take on this kind of stuff, he readily gets advice, feedback and accountability from his fellow elders, pastors, and wife. Secondly, he says he grew up in the Roman Catholic church and was converted in college, and has never really been a "pentecostal" sort. He wasn't out looking for something weird or supernatural, but in the last analysis concludes that these gifts are given by God to various people at various times in His Church and they should be received and used. So obviously, as he notes, he isn't a "cessationist" although he is clear that he believes that the Bible is the final authority on everything, the canon is closed, and that these gifts should be exercised within and under the accountability of godly elders and friends.
When I was ordained and when I was interviewed for pastoral ministry at Trinity, I registered my stance on "cessationism" as strongly qualified. While I recognized that certain manifestations of miraculous gifts were unique to the first generation of apostles (writing the New Testament, for example, and perhaps some of the healing and prophetic gifts to confirm their authority to do so), I nevertheless was and continue to be uncomfortable insisting that all miraculous gifts have ceased from the Church. Church history is just too plum full of odd stories and miraculous interventions. Just read a missionary biography for instance. Lastly, this isn't a central theme of the book by any stretch, but just as it assumes a subtle but authentic role in Driscoll's story, it apparently remains a subtle but significant part of life at Mars Hill. And there's something about that subtlety that seems, again, refreshing and biblical. The error of the "pentecostals" is to make these sign gifts the center of Christian life and experience, but the error of cessationists is to reject them entirely and pretend they don't exist. We need a biblical balance between these two extremes.
People have and do abuse and misuse the gifts of the Spirit, and others lie and oppress and divide the body through gimmicks and shows. But this doesn't mean that God isn't free to do what He wants. He isn't bound by our tidy little theological boxes. But the standard is always love, and this means that love sees the dangers and potential challenges of strange and miraculous interventions and love sees how and when to receive the gifts of God for the blessing of His Church. And because the love of Christ is always manifested in love for His Bride, authentic spiritual gifts will always delight in real accountability and submission to pastors and elders and the communion of the saints. People who view miraculous gifts as a license to disregard godly elders have already proven their gifts to be a sham.
You can read parts 1 and 2 here and here.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 2
In the early days, Driscoll recounts how some of their biggest challenges seemed to surround finding a good music leader. He recounts various musicians, drummers, and guitarists who filled the positions at various points in the history of Mars Hill. While I grew up in a fairly contemporary Christian worship music scene (true confessions: I played bass guitar for our church's worship team for a few years), I have over the years become more and more convinced that most of what is offered under that name is less than helpful, even though I am always open to finding good, new worship music (and I think the church should be committed to producing quality, new worship music/songs).
I have some familiarity with the worship music scene at Mars Hill -- I've listened to a few of the recordings posted on the Resurgence website -- (so I wasn't really surprised), but my initial reaction was honestly still that these "struggles" seemed trivial, sort of part of the immaturity of the early days of the church plant. Sort of like a young high school punk complaining that his garage band hasn't gotten any gigs. I'm tempted to tell the kid to grow up and get a job. Get married, have some kids, and join the *real* world. I admit that I was *tempted* to feel the same away about the Mars Hill music leader struggles. Grow up and find a hymnal, I sort of wanted to say. But on second thought, it's just a fact that music and worship is really important to God, and even though I would quibble with the electric guitars and garage band style of worship music, it dawned on me that this concern and trial was actually in some ways a really good sign that the church was on the right track.
Worship is central; God loves music. God loves when His people sing to Him with joy and love in their hearts. This doesn't dismiss the quality and culture issues, but the fact of the matter is that there are many believers who worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth with guitars and drums who will entire the Kingdom before the proud antics of Christians with high brow organs and violins. And furthermore, in so far as these struggles were borne out of a heartfelt love for Jesus and a desire to worship Him, Jesus was pleased with their baby steps and believers who walk in the obsessed love of Christ grow up into maturity. And this goes for all of us, whether we're plinking out old hymns on a piano or making a glorious ruckus on a Fender.
You can read the first part of this review here.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Cycle of Generations
In his new book The Four, Peter Leithart notes that the gospel of Matthew begins with a number of similarities to Genesis. Matthew begins with a "book of generations" which is one of the organizing principles of the book of Genesis (cf. 2:4, 5:1, etc.). He also notes some resemblances between Matthew's gospel and the epistle of James.
One similarity, which he doesn't explicitly mention (but which I suspect he's alluding to), is the fact that the word "generations" is used only five times in the NT, twice in Matthew and twice in James (once in Luke).
Both of the uses in James need some elucidating, but just on the surface, Js. 3:6 is one of the instances and James is warning particularly about the dangers of the tongue (see my earlier post). James says that the tongue is set among our members so that it can defile the whole body and set "on fire the whole course of nature." Literally, James says that it can set on fire the "cycle of generations." With the emphasis at the beginning of the chapter on "teachers," it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to see James addressing specifically generational challenges. He seems to be warning teachers in particular about the use of their tongues and the kind of impact it has on their students, children, congregations, etc. Their words have the potential to send their hearers to hell. Jesus has similar warnings for people who cause little ones to stumble.
An Evangelist
"An evangelist is a man who, by speaking of Jesus, changes his own mind; by being in process, he leads others into the same process."
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of the Lips, 22-23.
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 1: Prayer and Calling
Another book review for you. I just recently read Mark Driscoll's Confessions of a Reformission Rev. And it was really good. There are some obvious areas in theology and church life that we differ on, but Driscoll's passion to love and obey Jesus through planting and leading a church is a fun and encouraging story to read. This particular book is just that, a sort of autobiography of his life planting Mars Hill in Seattle. Driscoll is an engaging writer, story teller, and thoughtful theologian.
Over the next few days, I'll post some of what I found to be the highlights of the book:
Part 1
At some point in the early days of church planting, Driscoll realized that he needed to submit to the will of Jesus for Mars Hill. And this meant that he (Driscoll) needed to find out what Jesus wanted Mars Hill to be, to do, etc. Driscoll recounts how he began spending extended periods of time in prayer and bible study on the one hand and then lots of time hanging out in coffee shops and various public places in Seattle, trying to get to know the people, and their needs and interests. Through this process, Driscoll became convinced that Mars Hill needed to grow up from a graduated high school youth group meeting into a full-fledged church that would make a significant impact on the city of Seattle. I really appreciated Driscoll's realization that he needed to spend a lot of time studying the Bible and praying. He notes somewhere in there, that this is still a regular part of his schedule, and this is something that pastors have to come to peace with. An important part of the pastoral call is *praying*. Hours should be spent each week *praying*. And this is different than preparing for a Bible studies, sermon preparation, reading theological journals, or blogging. Praying is talking to Jesus about what He wants from you, from your people, and what He wants for your city. If Jesus is Lord of His Church, and King of every one of our cities, then we need to speak to Him and hear from Him. While Driscoll has been called to minister to many different sectors of Seattle society, he began with and continues to focus on young men and the college/young singles crowd (though the church has grown up to include families of all ages). When pastors pray for direction from the Spirit of Christ, they should not expect to know already where they will be sent. Some need to be sent to the trailer parks, some need to be sent to India, some need to be sent to the homeless shelter, and some need to be sent to the coffee shops. But it's awfully easy to think that Jesus wants all the hip, young seminary graduates hanging out at Starbucks and listening to Sufjan Stevens. But we need to listen to our Heavenly General very carefully, and this means spending lots of time in prayer every week.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Chan and Crazy Love
Just finished Francis Chan's book Crazy Love, and I really thought it was overwhelmingly another great call to faithful discipleship. However, like Radical by David Platt, I thought it also raised a number of questions.
I agree with these men that it is far too easy for the "American Dream" to become equated with discipleship. Chan asks what would be substantively different about our lifestyles if we suddenly stopped believing. And for so many, very little would change. Agreed. And I think Chan walks a really careful line of insisting on the grace and love of God while challenging Christians to really examine their commitments. He's startling and disconcerting in good ways. Everyone recognizes that discipleship must include sacrifices in time and energy, relationships and evangelism, mercy and prayer, and one of the big issues is money. But Chan is good about seeking to ground that sacrifice in grateful, overflowing love.
Here are several questions for these guys and others raising similar concerns:
1. First, to their credit, these brothers are being careful about not laying out many specific guidelines or rules. Searching the Scriptures, searching our hearts, praying eagerly for direction and opportunities, seeking counsel, and then looking for ways to bless -- all of these things will combine together in God's providence to lead God's people in faithfulness. But this means that it will necessarily look different for different people. It's easy to point to Zacchaeus who gave away half of his income and restored all that he had stolen, or to point to the rich young ruler who is asked to sell everything and follow Jesus. But is there room in these visions of radical sacrifice and radical discipleship for radical obedience that includes large houses, several cars, large tracks of property, and big savings accounts (for some)? We know that there were some in the early church who provided for Christ and the apostles and the early church out of their abundance. They shared money, food, and houses with the needs of the saints. And this means that they didn't give it all away at once. Every disciple must lose their life if they ever want to find them, but not every disciple is called to lose their life in the same way. Everyone must give away everything ultimately, the only questions are when, how, and to whom.
2. Another way to ask the previous question but in a different direction: How does the Dominion Mandate given to Adam and Eve and the gospel's intention to renew all of life and creation fit into "radical discipleship"? While evangelism is obviously central to the Great Commission, so is "discipling" the nations. And presumably, this includes teaching new believers the entire Bible, which includes instructions to pursue artistic endeavors, musical vocations, scientific and medical investigations, etc. In other words, radical discipleship for some will/ought to include going to college and studying hard and spending lots of money to become an excellent doctor and for someone else it might mean becoming a cellist, and for someone else it might mean foregoing college and going on the mission field. The point, similar to the previous one, is that the love of Christ drives the body of Christ into a wonderful diversity of callings and vocations that can and must be used for the building up of the Kingdom. Some people should not send all their money to starving children in the third world; some people should take up their cross and study horticulture at the local university. And other people should send large portions of their income to missionaries or go on the mission field themselves. Crazy love is as broad and diverse as Christ's Kingdom and God's world.
3. What about those who wrongly object to extravagance in the name of mercy? Judas objected to pouring a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus' feet because it might have been given to the poor. In other words, Paul says that there may be some who give their bodies to be burned or give all their belongings away in order to feed the poor, but without love God is not pleased with their actions. Here is where Chan is exactly right in insisting on love, but I do wonder about some who will read his book and start downsizing because they are insecure instead of out of love. And this can result in false assurance. What they really need to do is get right with the Lord, but now they're living off half their incomes and telling themselves that they are obeying.
4. This is an extension of the previous question, but what about the Ananiases of the world? Peter says that for some people who are getting caught up in a radical discipleship movement, it would be better for them not to sell off a bunch of their stocks and bonds and put it in the offering on Sunday. It would have been better for Ananias and Sapphira not to sell that field. It would have been better for them to have studied their hearts and motives and looked to Christ and His word and His Spirit for direction in all honesty. Or in a similar vein: the generous widow who gave her last mite in the temple treasury appears to have been a great saint full of love for God, but Jesus had just finished talking about the way the scribes were devouring widows' houses. When Jesus sees this widow's house devoured, He leaves the temple and orders its demolition. God may be pleased with some peoples' sacrifice, and at the same time He may be very displeased with the fellow who convinced them to give it all away.
5. This is all another way saying that "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" applies to the people turning mercy into sacrifice as much as it applies to people who think God actually prefers sacrifice. Mercy is grace, lovingkindness, joyful love. These are the people who think they need to give more to missions because they think God will be more pleased with them if they have less to spend on themselves. These are the people who volunteer to lead various ministries because they think God will be pleased with their sacrifice of time and energy. We even use the phrase "labor of love" sometimes to describe people who do jobs that they would really rather not do. Of course sometimes we have a duty that we must perform (obedience), and we need to pray for the grace to do it well, do it cheerfully. But if you're heading up the Sunday School program because it's just the right thing to do (*snarl*), and if you don't do it no one else will (*growl*), then you need to tender your cheerful resignation at the earliest opportunity.
6. Do these brothers adequately account for the faithful and radical sacrifice that occurs daily in godly, Christian families? I described this to a friend recently as something of an individualistic streak in some of these conversations which (ironically) are concerned with unity and love in the body of Christ. For example, I was watching a video clip the other day of an interview with Shane Claiborne who was describing his life in the inner city living in a communal house with all sorts of different people from different backgrounds with different priorities, and he was describing the blessing of sanctification that occurs in that context. But then it dawned on me that I experience something very similar to what he's talking about every day. There are four (soon to be five!) other people living in my house with me, and they are all very different from me. Another way of getting at this is pointing out that a faithful, sacrificial disciple of Christ may be giving a good bit of his income away by providing a Christian education for his kids, not to mention food and clothing and a warm house.
Now I fully grant that some Christians hide behind these clarifying statements. Some Christians refuse to take up their crosses to follow Jesus, and they make excuses about their comfort, about what is reasonable, and how they could never do something like that. And Jesus says that such cowardice will be judged. Jesus didn't call us to comfort; He called us to resurrection life. He didn't call us to a comfortable middle class lifestyle; He called us to give up our lives for the sake of the gospel.
But the point here is simply that some people run away from their duties to their families in the name of discipleship and missions. But when the Spirit is at work, when the George Muellers and Jim Elliots and Dietrich Bonhoeffers of the world lay their lives down, it's still crazy and insane, but it's full of crazy love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
