Some Thoughts About Worship:

Straight AheadI believe it is very important to preserve our heritage of Christian hymnody and worship that is part of mainline Christianity. That does not mean that I oppose any and all forms of contemporary worship; and I know that it is important to be open to new forms of instrumentation and musical expression. If however we do not preserve the heritage of Christian hymns that have come down to us during the last several centuries, we make our theology less accessible to future generations and we lose much of our history. Someone in a worship discussion group I moderate on Ecunet has asked the question, though, of how to train new Christians and those who are returning to church after years of absence in the worship practices that many of us cherish. Some Christians have turned almost entirely to contemporary worship, seeing the old forms and patterns as irrelevant. Other Christians who did not have the advantage of growing up in church know nothing of the old and cherished ways. So how do we keep traditional worship alive while, at the same time, perhaps blending in some of the best of the newer styles of music and expression? Marva Dawn addresses this in some of her writing. The best way I know to inform and introduce people to traditional worship is simply to educate them. We have to make sure that people understand why we do the things we do in worship. We have to make sure that people realize that there are theological reasons for the forms we use in worship, for the words we use, for the hymns we sing, and even for the style of music we employ for these purposes. We do not carry out certain worship practices merely because of cultural norms or personal preference. Our worship must be grounded in biblical principles and solid theology. It should be an exciting challenge in the years ahead to introduce new generations to traditional worship. For many of us as well as for new or returning Christians, it can be a time when the old becomes new--all over again.

Family Ministry:

Straight AheadA great need in our churches today is family ministry. As I observe families in varying degrees of crisis, I become aware of the deterioration of the family unit--even among Christians. As I watch people dealing with all kinds of transitions, from grief to marriage, to all sorts of unique situations, I see the break-down of family systems and the inability or unwillingness of families to communicate with one another, to express their feelings, to share their concerns, to confide in each other. It's been in the back of my mind for a long time to establish a Family Ministry Center in a church where I have been pastor. I have never been in a church where that was feasible--though the church I served in southwest Virginia back in the early '80's could probably do that now. Churches spend a lot of time ministering to various groups--singles, children, youth, the elderly, even young adults. This kind of ministry can be very good; but it can also overlook one of the great needs of thecongregation. We need to minister to the family as a whole. We can help fix families that are broken, and help keep families healthy. I actually have some ideas on how to do it. By God's grace, perhaps this can be a vital part of my ministry in future years. *** Please don't forget to go back into the archives of this blog if you haven't read it in a while, or if you're a new reader. Over 110 entries have been written now, extending back to July, 2006. I hope you'll find something to interest, amuse, inform, inspire, or just something to make you think.

Fun First?

Straight AheadAccording to a news report, a new poll suggests that Americans value having fun at work more than they value making money! I guess that shouldn't surprise me. We started telling ourselves that school should be fun for kids. Then, we started trying to make sure people have fun in church. Now, adults want to have fun at work. Fun comes first! It's instant self-gratification. I've always said that if someone is doing a job they positively despise, they ought to change jobs. But having fun at work? That's not exactly what I meant! I enjoy most aspects of ministry; but I wouldn't necessarily say that ministry is fun! I didn't despise school when I was a kid. I viewed it as my job, like my father going to work; but I wouldn't say that I thought school was fun--except at recess. And church was never presented to me as something that should be fun. It was worshipful and reverent. It was God's house--but not fun! Whatever happened to the satisfaction that comes from accomplishment? What about the knowledge that you're taking part in the free enterprise system, contributing to the American economy? Some people are inspired, knowing that their job helps others--though the contempt some of these people have for profit and achievement is almost as disconcerting to me as the desire of others to have fun! And then, we come back to money. You can always have fun with the money--after you make it! Providing for our needs and those of our family, working so that over a period of time we can have a certain lifestyle--these things aren't fun, but they're important, long-term results of a life lived with responsible forethought. I'm preaching Sunday on 1 Corinthians 13. Near the end of that famous chapter on love, Paul says that when he was a child, he reasoned and spoke and thought as a child; but now that he is a man, he has put away childish things. I sometimes wonder if our society is simply in rebellion against adulthood and maturity. If enough people are putting fun first, I guess maybe the answer is obvious.

What Would Victory Look Like?

Monday, I suggested that we win the war in Iraq.  We need to ask the question, however, what that victory would look like.

 

Many in our country believe this military engagement was unnecessary in the first place.  Others believe that it was poorly planned and poorly executed.  Still others believe that it has been joined using halfway measures or with goals and objectives that have been ambiguous.

 

Whatever happens in the war in Iraq, it is highly doubtful that terrorism will be eradicated by this one effort.  We still must contend with Iran, various Palestinian cell groups, Syria, and North Korea.  And these enemies aren't just going to go away, even if we are successful in establishing a stable and largely democratic government in Iraq.

 

 

So what would victory in Iraq look like?  That's a question that nobody has yet clarified for the American people.

  

Straight ahead!  See my blog at:   www.noblindbluff.blogspot.com

Pastors as Leaders:

A survey I saw some years ago indicated that only %4 of pastors see themselves as leaders!  That explains a lot of what's wrong with our churches today.  If pastors don't see themselves as leaders, it makes me wonder how in heaven's name they do see themselves! I believe that most congregations do see the pastor as a leader, in some sense, though perhaps not in any sense that would traditionally be recognized in leadership models!

 

I hear a lot today about the pastor as "servant leader."  What's that supposed to mean?  Is the pastor to be the servant of God, or the servant of the congregation?  

 

The pastor of a congregation is its leader.  Several leadership models could apply without being unbiblical.  The pastor is the shepherd.  The pastor is certainly a servant, provided we understand that servanthood as being accountable to God.  (We dare not make the pastor simply an errand boy for whatever jobs are left undone by the congregation.)  Other biblical models could probably be cited.

 

The pastor is also the chief administrative officer of the church.  The pastor is, in a sense, the CEO--in many cases, the only full-time staff person there is who has the responsibility of running the operation on a daily basis.

 

The pastor is also the leader in the sense of formulating a vision, a direction in which the church should go.  I once met a pastor who said that he never put forward any ideas of his own to his main governing body within the church.  All the ideas came from his congregation.  I don't entirely believe him.  I think he planted seeds, made informal suggestions in casual situations, dropped hints.  He may not have formally dropped many new ideas for the first time when his board was in formal session; but his church was fairly successful; and I think he had something to do with setting the tone for that success.  If he didn't, he wasn't totally doing his job.

 

Too many pastors cannot effectively exercise leadership because they're not fully honest with their congregations about their beliefs and what they really want to do as pastor of that particular church.  This is deceptive and condescending; but it's also up to the officers, pastor nominating committee, and other church leaders to make sure they know what a pastor is thinking.  A pastor should accept a call to a church where the church officers and the pastor have a common vision, theological direction, and goals for the future--or where one or the other are open to modify those views and goals.   Otherwise, you have a recipe for a battle ground between congregational leaders and the pastor for the whole term of the pastorate.

 

The pastor of a congregation is the leader in a very real sense--not an authoritarian leader, but a co-operative, facilitating leader.  Still, at times, the pastor is required to set a firm direction, based on conviction and training.  The people who serve as pastors and pastoral staff of a church should be up-front about theological direction and their own priorities and abilities from the very beginning.  When the pastor is transparent from the start, the leadership that pastor brings to a church has a much better chance of being effective, positive, and respected.  That pastor will be a trusted leader.  I think that these same principles should be kept in mind by all denominational leaders at every level of every judicatory as well.

   

Straight ahead!  See my blog at:   www.noblindbluff.blogspot.com

Love and Life:

This is just a follow-up to what I wrote Sunday on 1 Corinthians 13.  As I was reading material and thinking through this coming Sunday's sermon, I was considering some of the characteristics of Christian love--kindness, patience, selflessness, trust, and others.

 

It occurred to me that many people who resist the Christian way of life do so not necessarily because they're opposed to that way of living, but because it has never been demonstrated to them in a loving way, with a loving spirit, by loving people.  Many churches seem judgmental.  Many parents were harsh in their discipline.  Many Christians were inconsiderate, cruel, or dismissive.

 

I realize that many people do oppose right living because we are, at bottom, sinners.  I readily, if unhappily, must affirm the total depravity of man.  Neither do I wish to paint all churches or parents who encourage righteous living with a broad brush of criticism.  I have, however, come to realize, through email contacts I've made and observations over a lifetime of ministry, that many people who are living outside the faith have not so much rejected Christian teachings as they have rejected those who claim to be Christian teachers.

 

We who are Christians   don't necessarily all share in this guilt; but before we form negative opinions of others or become hopelessly discouraged about some of those who are wavering in our midst, we need to realize that a lifetime of experiences cannot be swept away by a single conversation or one pleasant evening of "seeker-sensitive" worship!

  

Why not Try Winning the War?

Straight AheadIn the '50's, it was Korea. In the '60's and '70's, it was Vietnam. Now, it's Iraq. What do these military conflicts have in common? They were all conflicts in which Americans were asked to give their lives for less than total victory. Why not try winning the war? Sincere and patriotic people can disagree on the question of whether our current involvement in Iraq was the best policy President Bush could have pursued. We may also be critical of the way in which the engagement has been carried out since the new government in Iraq has been in place. Mistakes were made. The President said as much himself. I personally am not sure that Iraq was the best place to fight terrorism on a grand scale. All that having been said, we now are faced with the unthinkable specter of a nation being torn apart by civil war among Islamic extremists which threatens to turn that entire region into another breeding ground of discontent, violence and poverty. Should we commit another 20,000 troops to the current involvement in Iraq? We should commit ten times that many if that's what it takes to bring stability to the region. Perhaps our objectives need to change along the lines suggested by some Democrats in Congress; but one thing is certain. The objectives need to be clear and the result needs to be one that favors the development of freedom and moderation in a new Iraq. When limited wars are fought with limited means and limited objectives, the results are almost never satisfactory. Gen. McArthur turned out to be right about the Korean peninsula. In Vietnam, 55,000 American soldiers died for a war our government was unwilling to win but afraid to lose. In Iraq, the cost in American lives has not yet been nearly so high as it was in Korea or Vietnam; but the loss of U.S. credibility could be irreversible. Let's also hope that our nation learns a lesson, and that we never again commit our troops to a war we're not prepared to win. The total commitment given by those men and women who have lost their lives in these limited military engagements must be matched by nothing less than a commitment to total victory by those who send them in harm's way. I favored the Vietnam war at a time when most of my friends opposed it. I was also in favor of the involvement in Iraq. Before I endorse or support another military engagement proposed by any Administration of either party, however, I will have to be convinced that the commitment of our government will honor the commitment they're asking our service personnel to make. Our nation has not yet been challenged to make the kinds of sacrifices that will inevitably be required if we are going to triumph over the terrorists of the 21st century.

1 Corinthians 13, January 28-February 3, Year C:

This chapter must be viewed in its proper context to be understood in all its richness and biblical significance.  It is set in the midst of a section of 1 Corinthians in which the apostle Paul is talking about the conduct and relationship of church members to one another.  It is not just a love poem, a political romance, or a piece of abstract idealism.  It has concrete application, especially within and among the church.

 

It describes what holy and perfect love should be.  It is essential for us to understand the kind of love for which we are to strive within the church.  This kind of love is not in conflict with God's character, His laws, or His truth.  It is the kind of love which only begins to exist as a Christian and a church grow toward spiritual maturity in Christ.

 

The kind of love mentioned here does not require Christians to condone wrongdoing in those they love; but it does require us to believe the best possible about those within the church until proven otherwise. 

 

I have been in church situations where church members would believe the gossip of a non-Christian before they'd believe  the statements of someone in their own congregation when a dispute arose.  This is not a demonstration of genuine Christian love in the fashion of 1 Corinthians 13. 

 

This passage does require us to put the interests of those we love ahead of our own.  It does suggest that a church can have all the advantages of wealth, reputation, activities, doctrine, and prominence in the community and still be a failure because it doesn't have love.

 

Most of the concrete applications and principles taught here are easy to discern.  This love is not just a fleeting passion or temporary emotion; it is an attitude, and an act of the will.  It is a state of mind and a force which masters the believer.  While this chapter is talking primarily about the love within and among the church members, it assumes first and foremost the love for God that is part of the Christian life.  We love those within the church whom we may not like in the natural sense.  A careful reading of the chapter will provide ample food for reflection as you seek to give clarity and exposition of the passage in you own words and your own situation.  Just remember that love is a fruit of the Spirit.

 

Proactive Presbyteries Enforcing the Constitution:

A number of presbyteries in the PC(USA) have passed resolutions stating their intent to enforce the Constitution of our denomination by refusing to ordain or receive anyone into the presbytery who cannot affirm the "Fidelity and chastity" clause in the Form of Government of the Book of Order.  Other presbyteries are still considering taking such a stand.

 

When the General Assembly approved the PUP report from the Task force last year, we were assured that nothing has really changed, that the General Assembly was simply giving back to the presbyteries the responsibility they should rightfully exercise.  However, now that some presbyteries are choosing to exercise this responsibility in a way not to the liking of some within the denomination, challenges are taking place.

 

The presbyteries simply want to state that they intend to abide by the Constitution and deny ordination to any who cannot affirm a requirement that is part of the Book of Order.  Of course, this does not promote the gay agenda, and it does not require a case-by-case analysis; so it doesn't sit too well with certain elements of the denomination.

So here we have the rather odd spectacle of the General Assembly encouraging presbyteries to enforce the Constitution on the one hand and yet being challenged when they try to do it on the other.  The General Assembly may have permitted presbyteries to grant more leeway to homosexuals and others not living in accord with the Book of Order; but they didn't require it.

 

  

Radio Nuggets:

As we were leaving Nashville yesterday morning after our brief weekend trip, I heard something on the radio that struck me as pleasantly odd.  A British girl was playing country music on WSM--FM, one of Nashville's leading country music stations.  Her name is Karen, and she was absolutely delightful.  Nothing like giving a little culture to the country.  I hope she likes country music.  She was quite charming.

 

I've also noticed quite a surge in Hispanic radio stations as we've been traveling around the South.  You can now receive Hispanic radio stations in Nashville, Atlanta, and other large cities in Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, etc.  Several things about this trend bother me; but somebody is seeing the chance to make some money.  You can't argue with that!