Positive Aspects of the Catholic Church:

Straight AheadDuring my first summer in Maine, the summer of 2002, I had a period of time when I wasn't feeling very well. I spent much of that time in bed in our guest room, watching EWTN, the Catholic cable channel, on TV. As a result, I became very interested in the Catholic Church, and started doing a lot of study and joining discussion groups on the Internet. There were a lot of things about the Catholic Church I had taken for granted, but never really examined. I had just left the EPC, but was also dissatisfied with the type of congregationalism I saw in the UCC. Then, when Pope John Paul II died and Pope Benedict XVI was installed, I again began watching EWTN regularly while here in Jackson, Alabama, and doing some more on-line reading about the Catholic Church. I also talked to my good friend who is a Catholic priest, and to some other people I know. It is highly unlikely that I would ever become a Catholic, so don't read me out of the Presbyterian ministry just yet! Seriously though, I can see why many Protestants all across the theological spectrum consider the Catholic Church and find it appealing; and some even convert to Catholicism. For one thing, there is a body of teaching that seems relatively stable. This may be somewhat questionable, since we know that the teachings of the Catholic Church have changed over the years; but certainly, the main body of teaching seems more settled than it does within most of the Protestant denominations. It is also authoritative. If you are a Catholic, there are certain things you are to believe. These are non-negotiable. In an era when most Protestant denominations seem willing even to negotiate the Trinity, this authoritative foundation is reassuring. Along this line, the Catholic Church is certainly more definite in its views on many of the social and moral issues of the day such as abortion, homosexuality, and sexual issues in general. It goes without saying that the history and ritual of the Catholic Church also are very meaningful and significant to many. Protestants are generally not nearly so aware of the writings of the church fathers and even many of the medieval thinkers as are the Roman Catholics--and I'm not thinking of the heretics here, but of theologians whose work has largely stood the test of time. It is interesting to note the discussions that have recently been occurring between Lutherans and Catholics regarding justification by faith. I was recently sent some information about this, and I intend to study it when I get the opportunity. I doubt that any of the major Protestant denominations will reunite with Rome any time soon, but I can understand why some Protestants feel that they are going "home to Rome" when they embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, the "only infallible rule of faith and practice." Believing this, I am firmly committed to the reformed view of justification by faith, total depravity, unconditional election, and the other points of Calvinism. As long as these are my firm convictions, it hardly seems possible that I would be at home in a Catholic parish. Still, I can hardly view my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters with the contempt of sixteenth-century reformers. Perhaps the Church of that day was everything they said it was, and perhaps they are in serious error on many points still today. Honesty compels me to acknowledge, however, that the Catholic Church is a vital force for virtue and Christ in the world today. EWTN once showed a young lady who had been a missionary of an evangelical Protestant denomination or agency in Latin America. She said that as she went through the villages in fulfilling her responsibilities, she realized that each of the different evangelical groups and denominations were saying that their interpretation of Scripture was right, and that they all seemed to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. She reasoned that if the Bible truly is the Word of God, all these competing interpretations could not possibly be right. On that point, she was correct. Her response was to examine more closely the Roman Catholic Church, since it seemed to represent a greater Christian unity or cohesion of teaching. She eventually gave her allegiance to Catholicism. While I wish she had chosen another path, that resolution of her anxiety was certainly more satisfying than the liberal response of simply affirming some vague definition of "what's true for you," or saying that somehow, it really doesn't matter what conclusion you reach, since God loves everybody, and we're all going to heaven, anyway! Yes, I can definitely see the appeal and some positive aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I would have preferred that the young woman become a committed Calvinist!

I'm Dreaming of a New Church:

Straight AheadWith the increasing chaos of so-called mainline Protestantism, I'm dreaming of a new reformation, a new church. Actually, the dream began back in 2002, when I attended a conference of the Association for Church Renewal, under the auspices of the Institute for Religion and Democracy. The conference was held in Indianapolis, Indiana, and brought together more than 700 church leaders from a dozen different denominations in the United States and Canada. At the time, I was a minister in the United Church of Christ. The idea that began to form in my head at that time, the church that began to take shape, was a church that would definitely have to be the product of a new reformation. It would bring together evangelical elements from the several mainline Protestant denominations as we now know them. The theology would be centered around the authority of Scripture, the Deity and efficacy of Christ as the only way of salvation, traditional orthodoxy regarding sexual morality, and other basic views of historic Christianity. The ministers of this new church would not all be Calvinists, but the denomination would be solidly Trinitarian. Local churches would have a good deal of flexibility as to their own governing structure, but there would be a denominational connectionalism. Obviously, many points would have to be negotiated, mainly in areas of polity. Another important aspect of this new church would be a conscious decision not to feel obligated to speak out on every divisive social issue facing society. The primary efforts of this new church would be directed toward evangelism, worship, Christian education and nurture, and missions at home and abroad. If you think that such a new church, a new reformation, could never happen in the United States, I disagree. I think it could happen, and I think it will. I may not be around to see it--at least, not as an active minister--but I believe it will happen. We already have some models of church polity in Europe and Canada to observe for guidance in forming such a church. I fully expect that for the rest of my ministry, I will be serving within the PC(USA.) I have niether the opportunity nor the resources to advocate or initiate such a church and reformation as I envision. But some time, it will happen; and I suggest that it may be sooner than many suppose. Bob Henderson, a long-time evangelical minister in the mainline Presbyterian Church, indicated several years ago in a little book that he wrote, that the days of mainline denominations as we know them are probably numbered. As we look at recent events in the PC(USA), the Episcopal Church in the USA, and other major denominations, can anyone doubt that Henderson is probably correct?

Proving Myself:

Straight AheadMost of you know by now that I am totally blind. Because of this, I think I have felt during most of my life that I had to prove myself. My parents set high standards for me, and I have had high expectations of myself. I attended school with sighted kids. I graduated from Davidson College and from Princeton Theological Seminary. I think I felt that I had to prove that I could keep up with sighted people in my chosen calling of the ministry. This probably even influenced my vocational objectives at times. I have always known that my parents love me. I have always been sure that my wife loves me and believes in me completely. In other words, most of the pressure I have felt has probably been pressure I put on myself. I'm thankful that my parents always tried to make sure that my social skills, general appearance, and over-all conduct were acceptable in the sighted world. I feel that for the most part, I have been accepted in sighted relationships and activities rather well. Still, I couldn't completely get away from this idea of having to prove myself--until Monday morning! Somehow, on Monday morning this week, three days ago at just after 6:00, something clicked. I don't know why at that particular time, but something made me realize that this idea of feeling like I have to prove myself is no longer valid, if it ever was. If I can do something well, the glory shouldn't go to me, anyway, but to my Father which is in heaven! If I don't do some things very well, I'm in good company. I will make mistakes. There will always be some people who do some things better than I do. Still, I am unique. I have certain abilities and tasks, as we all do. My hopes and dreams need to match the hopes and dreams and tasks that God has for me--not some artificial list of designs and desires that I may have concocted over the years. I will still write and preach and be a pastor and do the best I can. When I make decisions, I'll try to do the very best I know at the time, as I've always tried to do. At times, people will treat me unfairly--just as they will many other people. All of that is in God's hands--and that's the best place for it to be. As for me, I don't have to put up any false fronts. I don't have to pretend. I don't have to prove that I'm worthy. By God's grace, I am what I am. I have what I have. I've done what I've done. I'm 56 years old. I am thankful for God's blessings and His guidance. I can bear witness to His grace and His love; but I don't have to prove that I am worthy. I just have to give thanks, acknowledge my dependence on Him, and rejoice in His care. And my friends, the same is true for all of us if we are resting in the love of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Speaking of God:

Straight AheadThis Sunday, I will be preaching to my congregation regarding the study document relating to the Trinity which was recently accepted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, (USA.) I believe there are still some significant points which need to be made regarding this paper which have not yet been widely expressed; so I will make them here. Let us consider the term "Father." Jesus Himself refers to God as "Father." Not only does He do this in the Lord's Prayer, but as He calls to God as "Abba!" Father, the term Paul later uses in the eighth chapter of Romans. God is the Father of those who believe in Jesus Christ. This is a particular relationship. God is personal. As such He has a particular relationship to His children. God is not just some vague energy or force. This is not a symbol of patriarchy, but of reality! If some have trouble with the image of "Father," because of their own difficult past or a dysfunctional family life, then let us celebrate the Good Father, the loving Father that many never had on earth. It is neither necessary nor desirable to exploit the Trinity as a means of introducing feminist theology. Let us also remember that the Scriptures give us names for God, as several commentators and theologians remind us. In the Old Testament, God is referred to as Our Peace, Our Banner, Our Righteousness, the Eternal, and many more. These are names that God gave Himself. We do not need to create more names for God. Suppose instead of calling my wife by the name she was given as a child, I decided that I would call her something else? Instead of Lydia, I will call her Kathy or Joanne! She would rightly conclude that I had snapped under the strain of my pastoral activities and would strongly suggest an extended period of rest! Yet, this is exactly what we're doing if we decide to call God by some name of our own invention! As one ministerial colleague of mine asks, "Is Christianity something we just invent ourselves, or is it something that God has given to us?" Charles Wiley, the main writer of this paper, insists that these new triads describing the Trinity were not intended as alternatives to traditional language or as replacements for "father, Son, and Holy Spirit." He does not say, however, for what purposes these new triads were intended. In fact, in a recent interview, he indicated that another study paper would soon be forthcoming to tell us the precise intention of the committee that wrote this paper on the Trinity, "God's Love Overflowing." Just what we need--a study paper on a study paper! Even if these new terms were helpful--and I contend that for the most part, they are not--we still have the problem of the relationship between the persons of the Godhead--a point which this paper completely ignores. There is no obvious relationship between the newly conceived terms given as descriptions of the various persons in the Trinity in this document. This paper should not have been received. It should have been rejected outright or referred for additional work. It is not helpful or biblical to attempt to make the Trinity politically correct. The Trinity is correct as it is stated in Holy Scripture. I do not choose to pray in the name of "Overflowing Font, Living Water, and Flowing River." Our Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us that the Trinity defines "three persons in the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." God is the Father--not the Sun. (The Egyptians worshipped the sun god. I do not find that description particularly helpful." I do not need a modernized version of the Trinity--and neither does anybody else!

Ephesians 3:14-21, July 24-30, Year B:

This passage is another of Paul's wonderful pastoral prayers.  This prayer hearkens back to the beginning of the chapter and the thought of love.  Paul prays for Others, though a prisoner himself.  Prayer is powerful--sometimes especially so amid restrictions and adversity.  Prayer is as necessary and as vital to the life of the church as is sound teaching.  Prayer is a chosen tool of God, and must be a deliberate act of all God's people.  It is an act of worship, a means of building spiritual strength to resist evil.  Let's look specifically at the Requests Paul makes of God in this prayer.

 

He prays that the Ephesians would be strengthened in the inner man.  (See Romans 7:22.)  Paul recognizes that there are stages of growth in the Christian life.  He desires that these Ephesians would be strengthened and enabled to overcome the temptations around them--temptations of daily living, of false doctrine, of compromise with the secular powers.  In order to do this, Christ must be at home within us.  We must be strengthened by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.  We must always be, in a sense, ascending with Christ, in communion with Him.  We should be always eager to respond to Christ.  The church should be supporting us in this.  In fact, for the Christian, the church should be the most unthreatening place to be.  

 

Paul prays that these Christians would be apprehending the love of Christ in all its dimensions.  Consider the length of His love--it is eternal.  Consider the breadth of it--for every age and culture.  Consider the height of it--as Christ ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.  Consider the depth of it--as Christ descended into hell and died for our sins.  Christ's love is infinite in all its dimensions.  We cannot possibly understand or exhaust that imagery.  Yet, Paul desires that we grasp this "according to the riches of His glory," a concept we can only contemplate in wonder.

 

And Paul wants us to be established together in this love--not taking this fellowship for granted.    His final ascription in this chapter reminds us that God fills all in all.

 

In his pastoral prayers, Paul does not pray for the physical welfare of the believers, or the financial prosperity of those early Christians.  Those things are not of primary significance to the spiritual welfare of the body; and it is the spiritual welfare of the church for which Paul is mainly concerned.  He recognized that it is not always possible for the Christian community to eliminate physical woes or financial deprivation.  It is true today as well.  The church cannot always take away the hurt and the pain or the effects of sin.  What we can do is pray for the strength to cope with those conditions.  What we can do is pray to bear witness to that incomprehensible love of God--the God who fills all in all.

 

If I Were the Baseball Commissioner:

I thought about writing an entry on the meaning of sin, but I couldn't quite bring myself to do that on a Monday morning.   We'll get to that later.

 

If I were baseball commissioner, I've already said that I'd give home field advantage in the World Series to the team with the best regular season record.

 

If I were baseball commissioner, I'd do away with the designated hitter.

 

If I were baseball commissioner, I'd do away with the wild card--even though I realize that's the only way my Braves will get in the play-offs this year.  I'd divide the leagues into four four-team divisions like the NFL has done.  (Yes, I know, that would necessitate adding two more teams, but that will happen sooner or later, anyway.)  I'd probably keep the schedule slightly unbalanced, so that a team would still play more games with teams in its division.  And if I were baseball commissioner, in order to facilitate the new divisions, I'd probably do away with inter-league play.

 

What do you think so far?  Are you ready to let me replace Bud Selig?

 

Tiger Woods:

Tiger Woods won the British Open today, another major championship in his illustrious golfing career.  I'm a Tiger Woods fan, no doubt about it.  Tiger Woods handles himself well with the press.  He's intelligent and articulate.  And I appreciate all that.  But those qualities are not primarily what make me a fan of Tiger Woods.  I'm a fan of Tiger Woods because he pursues and personifies excellence--consistently, persistently, and continually.   A person who does that in his chosen field is worth admiring.

 

When Tiger speaks, I listen.  I figure any man who has achieved what he has achieved is worth hearing.   What's his mindset?  How does he go about approaching the tournaments in which he plays? How does he keep his performance level at such a consistently high rate?  Any secrets he has are worth knowing.

 

Some people wonder if it's good for the game of gold to have one player that is so dominant.  Who are you kidding?  Would you prefer mediocrity?  I have no doubt that Tiger Woods' consistently high level of play has motivated a number of players to improve.  How can that be bad? 

 

Yes, Americans often like to be for the underdog; but we're also drawn to dynasties, too--the Boston Celtics, the New York Yankees, the UCLA Bruins--all these dynasties have had their appeal for different groups of sports fans in different eras.  Tiger Woods is good for golf.  He's good for America.  He's great for young people who are learning how to achieve.  He's the athlete of his era, and we can all learn a lot from him about doing our best in our chosen endeavors.

   

 

 

More on Rural and Small Churches; Faithfulness in Giving:

Straight AheadOne of the comments made on my previous entry reminded me of something else I wanted to say about rural and small churches. Arthur Pink, in writing about tithing, notes how a congregation of ten families who faithfully tithed their income could support a pastor. Theoretically, at least, this is true. Of course, even if this could pay for the housing, medical insurance, and other costs of a pastor and his family, it would leave nothing for maintaining a church building, evangelism, Christian education, or other missions work of a church. Still, Pink has a point. (And some question the necessity of church buildings, though I think they are rather important.) If, however, a congregation of even fifty households were committed to faithfulness in giving, there is no doubt they could pay a reasonable salary to a pastor and still have an impact in terms of missions and evangelism. My present congregation, though very small, has been consistently faithful in giving over the years. Many ministers despise preaching stewardship sermons. Personally, it thrills me to encourage people to give to the Lord's work; but this encouragement has to be done from a biblical perspective. Our denominations still have a great responsibility in this area which I feel they have largely ignored; but ministers and local church leaders have too often abrogated their responsibility to encourage biblical stewardship and tithing to the local church.