Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
This past semester, I have not been able to participate in the kids group ministry at my church due to obligations that came up this semester. However, I am now taking the time to think through “why?” we expend so much energy into these kids. Over the past couple years we as a leadership team have thought though both the why and how of the kids group. One of the things that I must constantly remind myself is that These kids are created in God’s image and our purpose is not to simply control behavior: our goal is to present them to Christ!
The gospel must be the central theme for the kids group. Everything must revolve around opportunities to live out the gospel before the kids and point the kids to Christ. Looking back over my childhood when I was going through kids group, my generation had a significant impact from our parents. This is something that I see missing in the particular generation to which I minister. However, in spite of this, I believe we can have effective ministry because the Spirit is really the most important factor.
Fully recognizing the role and work of the Spirit, we also try to organize the time with the kids to present the raw material (e.g. Scripture) which the Spirit uses. My generation was generally submissive to authority (especially our parents) and thus we were under control by the leaders with little effort – relatively speaking. The current generation does not recognize authority and the methods of control used on my generation really do not work. We try to overcome this difficulty by purposefully structuring our time.
We also give incentives to the kids for good behavior, but at the end of the day we have concluded that investing our lives one-on-one, as much as possible, is what God has called us to do. We can spend our entire time trying to teach good manners, obedience, Bible verses, or silly/serious songs, which are good things in their own right, but without that personal influence on the kids we do not feel our efforts will matter in light of eternity.
One of my favorite New-Testament passages is Colossians 1:15-20. In this section of the letter, Paul emphasizes the place Christ has within God’s plan. My friend asked me a question about the phrase “that in all things, He [Jesus] might have the preeminence.” Some translations use the phrase “first place” to describe the position of Christ in this section. The question boils down to this: should Christ just be the first place in a list of many other priorities? or does this passage seem to indicate something else?
The only other time this word “preeminence” is used in the New Testament is in the third letter of John. There, Diotrephes apparently refused to accept some letters from John and did not recognize John’s apostolic authority. On top of all this, he refused to “welcome the brothers” and excommunicates those who would accept them. This man was verbally abusive against John and his cohort. The primary description that John uses for this man is that he “likes to put himself first” which is sometimes translated “loves the first place.”
Diotrephes was consumed with himself. The only priority he had was making himself prominent in the church to which he ministered.
In contrast, what Paul argues is that Christ is the all consuming focus of the Christian. Since God made Christ the central focus of His plan to reconcile all things to Himself it stands to reason that Christians would do well to make God’s priorities their own. So, instead of Christ being the first of many priorities, Christ actually provides the foundation for all other priorities. The question I can ask myself related to this are:
- How does a priority in my life fit with God’s priority?
- How do my priorities find their resolution in Christ?
- Do I conduct my life consistent to what God has revealed about Jesus?
I pray that I make Jesus my focus or the lens through which I filter every aspect of my life in contrast to seeing Jesus as only one part of it.
Though Wednesday nights are typically assigned as a prayer meeting in certain “Baptist” churches, the Sunday morning gathering may contain very little substantial corporate prayer. As a personal observation, there was a time when I dreaded being called on to pray at random by the preacher. The fear did not come because I did not want to pray, but that I was not prepared to pray at that moment. In search for a coherent thought, I would stammer and give the most general of prayers: “Lord, thank you for the message. Help us to obey it. Amen.”
I do think there is a simple way in order to press upon a congregation the importance and power of prayer. One way is to elevate prayer to a key part of the worship service. This can be first exemplified by the pastor since he often has opportunity to pray. Simply taking the time before hand and plan out the opening prayer in stead of allowing it to be an impromptu exercise can go a long way to teaching others to pray. Church history is full of men who wrote prayers: the contemporary church can learn a lot from those prayers and perhaps even write its own.
A second way to encourage good corporate prayer is by taking out the element of surprise. Some churches call on men and women of the church to offer up prayers. Often this is done impromptu and the person who is called on to pray may not have been prepared to pray at that time and offer up a well meaning but distracted prayer. Perhaps the worship leader can let the person who will be offering the prayer know a week ahead of time. One practice that was helpful in one church I attended as a teenager was that the scripture reading for that service was assigned prior to the actual reading. The negative side was that the assignment was only about 10 minutes before the reading, but it’s a good step none the less.
If churches are serious about the place of prayer – a proposition that I believe and accept but have not articulated here – they will take the time to think ahead and plan out the place of prayer in the service. We know that Sunday is just around the corner and that prayers will be made – should’t we be prepared for them?
Each theological tradition deals with adiaphora in their own way, but each individual must also work through dealing with issues that people often disagree over. The basic concept of indifferent things is areas of life which are neither moral or immoral, but may be enjoyed or not enjoyed by an individual. Though I do not attempt in this post to speak authoritatively on the issue, I desire to lay out the framework I use to work though the issues of life that may not be directly addressed by scripture.
So, how do I work through the issues? First, I must determine if the issue I am working through truly is an indifferent thing. My initial questions are these:
- Is the issue I am working through directly condemned or commended in scripture? This is the easy part: if it is condemned then I have the obligation to avoid it and if it is commended (commanded) then I have the obligation to follow through on scripture’s precepts.
- Does scripture speak to similar issues and what is the reasoning behind why scripture speaks to a situation? For example, scripture has much to say about the body and before I simply relegate something the the category of “indifferent,” I want to at least look at it’s effect on my body. This is only an example area as I will also look at the mental and emotional effects of the situation as well. This is also a double edged sword since obedience to a moral imperative can lead to physical, mental, and emotional harm.
- Does this issue enhance or erode my Spiritual walk with Christ? If participating in this issue is harmful to my relationship with Christ then it is immoral for me. While this is somewhat subjective since what may hinder one believer may not hinder another, I would put this as a matter of faith:
If the issue truly is an indifferent thing, then I have determined that it is neither moral or moral for me to participate in; however, this is not the final determiner of weather or not I will participate in something. Once I have determined a thing indifferent, there is a different set of questions I must ask. The first set dealt with the morality vs. immorality of something. The second set deals with its effect on the people around me.
- Am I under authority where this matter is determined by the higher authority? Employer dress codes or standard of personal grooming, rental agreements, or any other area in which one is under authority of another are indifferent things, but since employment and contacts are authorities over me then I should not have a problem submitting to their guidelines.
- How does this affect my relationships around me? I would love for people to have the same freedoms in Christ that I do to enjoy the world around me, but I cannot allow a thing indifferent to break a relationship in Christ. Again, the issue is an indifferent issue for me – but may not be for another brother. Christian charity seems to put me in a position to not cause another to stumble over something that I do not stumble over.
If I can honestly answer the question that the issue I am working through is indifferent and that is will not affect the relationships around me, then I can participate and do all to the glory of God!
There is one caveat that I would like to address. In certain *fundamentalist* circles, there are some who try to pull the “that offends me” card on a lot of these issues – weather it is on music styles, tattoos, clothing styles, or any other non-essential issue. One must discern between those who have thought through the issues arriving at a different conclusion than I have and those who are simply acting on poorly reasoned, reactionary, and/or manipulative motives. The former are those who I would “not eat the meat” for because they are in danger of acting in unbelief because of my boldness. The latter, however, do not really care about being obedient to God but rather desire to subject other people under their authority.
I will try to deal with the passages dealing with “indifferent things” next week.
Bryan Chapel in his book Christ Centered Worship give a good overview of the philosophy of worship, but he concludes with historical models of worship liturgy used by ancient and contemporary Christianity. One of the values of studying the liturgy of the past is that knowing the reason behind a liturgy actually aids in the worship of the believer. This does not necessarily need to be done didactically through a class on liturgy. Rather, a body can teach the reasons for its own liturgy by using the liturgy as its own self-documenting service.
For example, one can walk through the Luthern liturgy and explain each element of the service, but a Luthern service is typically laid out so that each element describes what is happening.
One missing aspect in the liturgy of some conservative churches is a well thought out and logical liturgy that does more than just lead up to the “preaching” time. Thoughtful liturgy is an incredible teaching tool for the edification of the body if churches will take the time to think though it.
The churches I have in mind which have a weak liturgy are minimalist in regards to worship: only those things explicitly demanded by scripture are suitable for corporate worship. Though not a bad starting point, these churches tend to downplay some aspects of worship since how explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it is acceptable?
Corporate pray, as an example, is a lost art in many conservative congregations. I actually cannot remember the last time a prepared prayer was read before the congregation that thoughtfully praised God for all his worth in clear, concise, and understandably deep language. Paul, wrote out his prayers to the churches he corresponded with: reading Paul’s letters is perhaps the closest some get to a corporate prayer!
My point is not about prayer – perhaps I’ll write a post about that later. My point is that a good liturgy teaches while it leads the congregation into fellowship with God. Prayers, music, songs, readings, and sermons are all elements of liturgy, but they way they are stung together to lead to a fuller understanding of God’s revelation of Himself is the practical value of a liturgy.
Perhaps we need to rethink through how three songs, a couple prayers, and a sermon leads us into fellowship with our Savior.
The annual Northland Heart Conference began this week on Tuesday and has been a huge encouragement thus far. The theme for this year, The Sufficiency of the Gospel, focuses on the two aspects of salvation: justification and sanctification. You can view the general session from the streaming site here.
If you get a chance, visit the site and watch the messages from some great speakers whom God has used to declare his word in simple and clear ways.
Tuesday’s message was a great sermon from Dan Davey on the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. As I listened to the text I was reminded of how great a task Christ had in purchasing salvation for us. I stood in awe of the awesome suffering servant. Praise God my sin was placed on Christ who is the sufficient one for my relationship with God.
Great humor from The Sacred Sandwich. I’ll have to remember this for Reformation Day 2013.
The Reforming Baptist has an excellent post about how theology affects the mood of Christian music. Read about it here. His categories and descriptions are spot on and actually mirror what I have been trying to communicate myself for a couple years.
One of the biggest reasons this discussion is necessary is the distinction he makes between “mainstream” Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) and new CCM. This difference is not only significant, but crucial to understand especially for those interested in planing and leading a worship service. It is this same distinction which makes John Frame use the term “Contemporary Worship Music” to differentiate between these two general realms of Christian music. I would recommend his book on worship here and his book focused on music here.
Benny Hinn rebukes Joel Osteen. Interesting and ironic that Hinn is defending the exclusivity of the gospel as well as attacking the folly of the seeker sensitive movement. Apparently Joel Osteen can’t cast out demons because he himself is demon possessed. It’s an interesting 10 minutes.
[youtube width=480 height=360]azqoBksweZA[/youtube]