05.11.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 5:01 pm by Bryan Dunn
Rejection of the Pharisaic practices of the law (Matt. 6:1-7:6; Luke 6:37-42) [Part 1]
After Jesus rejected the Pharisaic interpretation of the law, He moves on to show that their practices that came about because of their interpretation was to be rejected as well. Let’s think about that for just a moment. You and I act on various things based on our beliefs. And the Bible is pretty clear on this from a very practical standpoint. For instance, take Luke 6:45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. I seem to constantly be amazed as ‘church folks’ say things that would seemingly be out of character as followers of Christ outside of church. You know, the off colored jokes, the cursing, the guys who talk less than glowingly of their wife or family. What this tells me is there is a heart condition that has not been addressed. And what is really contained in the heart – and mind – comes out of the mouth. Folks are acting on (or speaking of) things they truly believe. There are tons of examples in this area, and the one above is far from all encompassing or perfect, but it shouldn’t take any of us long to think of many examples of acting on our beliefs in very practical ways.
Among the beliefs of the Pharisees there was a ‘code’ (if you will) of teachings that revolved around certain acts of righteousness that should certainly be taught and followed. Among these were giving alms, praying and fasting. Jesus addresses each area, but realize that right up front (ref. Matt. 6:1 – Be careful…) these three items – designed by God to be a God-facing action – had been perverted to become man-facing actions so the Pharisees could build on their reputations of being pious. They were hypocrites! And none of us have heard believer and non believers call followers of Christ that same thing, have we?
You don’t have to look back far to see that Jesus gave blessings on those who were merciful (Matthew 5:7 - Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.) So…what’s this? Giving to those less fortunate, to those in need, is certainly an act of mercy. What an opportunity for followers of Christ to demonstrate the love of God by meeting needs. The Pharisees had perverted this in that they used it to impress men. This was something that was so widespread that the beggars – they may be poor, but they weren’t stupid – sought to stage themselves at the approaches to the temple so that they might receive these flashy gifts from the Pharisees as they entered.
It’s interesting to note that Christ says in the end over verse 2 that those that do this have received their reward in full. These folks were not really ‘giving’ in the sense that the law spoke of, in fact they were buying a service. That service was the praise of men! And that was all they would get for their purchase. God certainly couldn’t be bought in such a manner and He would not be heaping praise on them. They got what they paid for.
We talk about the blessings from God. You want them? Stop giving out loud! Why do we feel obligated to tell others? Is it to impress them? To make a show? Granted, we can gussy it up with our veil of religion and say it is to ‘encourage others to follow our example’. If I’m reading my Bible right, let me say this about the practice – it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. You may try to make it more appealing, but it’s still a pig. You want a true reward, one that won’t go anywhere or fade with the passing of time? Then get it from God – do your giving quietly, which is the right attitude taught by the Lord. He will reward those who follow His teaching in their practice, and He certainly repudiated the perversion the Pharisees had made of giving to the needy.
More parts of this lesson to follow…
Permalink
05.07.08
Posted in David Phillips at 4:37 pm by David Phillips
For fifteen years we experienced a strong leadership presence from our senior pastor, including as church business moderator. Now, while in transition, we have held five business meetings in less than three months, more than in an entire year previously, and voted to meet in such parlimentary forum monthly. Clearly, we have a need to talk, air concerns, frustrations, and offer good ideas; some have even returned from deserting or vacating the body for several years.
The inclusion of all member towards accomplishing the purpose and mission of this new testament church is appropraite, even essential. In I Corinthians chapters 13 and 14, the Apostle Paul instructs the believers at Corinth that all done in public forum should be for the glory of the Lord, framed in love and unity, and to edify the body. Specifically, in chapter 14 verses 29-33, Paul states all can prophesy or speak so that everyone is instructed and encouraged, but must be done orderly and with accountability. With some 250 families in our church body, this can only be accomplished through family forums, not parlimentary procedure.
Our pastors, with the training and more that forty years of combined experience, those we elect to serve on committees and as church officers, deserve our attention and support in leading this body orderly and with accountability. Following the lead of those minimally involved, invested or even familiar with the current vision, mission, and needs of the church is gravely dangerous.
I urge the body to support with your presence our family forum discussions. Show up ready to listen and share. Only then can we appropriatley and effectively meet in parlimentary forum and expect to move forward.
Permalink
05.06.08
Posted in Bible Study, Tom Gilson at 9:44 pm by Tom Gilson
In a past article I asked,
Is there any significant move of God in all of Scripture in which He did not work through a core of spiritual leaders?
I still haven’t been able to think of an example, unless you count Numbers 16. You could call this chapter a significant move of God, and in a way, it did not involve a core of spiritual leaders. The episode begins,
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”
This was a challenge against God’s appointed leader. Of course, God’s anointing on Moses was unique. No church that I know of today has a pastor who was called at a burning bush or parted a sea to lead his people across it. Therefore before we draw any application from this passage, we have to determine whether it has any real parallel in today’s church. We’ll look at that question first, then we’ll return to see just what the work of God was in this passage.
We’ll start with whether church leaders today are called by God. Most churches assume so, but does the Bible say? Ephesians 4:11-14 says pastors (shepherds) and teachers are given to the church by God:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
1 Corinthians 12:27-28 takes this idea of gifting and extends it to include others are involved in leading God’s people. The meaning of “apostles” and “prophets” is controversial in this post-apostolic era, but virtually all Bible students accept teaching and administrating as leadership gifts/roles for today’s church. Note that they are appointed by God.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
We don’t expect burning bushes to confirm such appointing, of course. God only did that once. Now, instead, he generally uses other qualified people to identify and appoint spiritual leaders. Paul told Titus to appoint elders, having first made sure he knew the proper qualifications:
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—-if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Once they have been properly recognized and appointed, God pronounces elders and teachers to be worthy of honor:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
And again,
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
And then, ten verses later in Hebrews, we see this strong affirmation of spiritual leaders:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Now, this hardly means that there is no accountability for our leaders. James 3:1-3 says their special honor comes with special responsibility:
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well.
Earlier I quoted from 1 Timothy 5. I need to return to it and add another couple of verses. That passage ends with:
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.
In addition, I could go into all the very strict, even dire warnings, about false teachers and false prophets throughout Scripture; but I don’t that is necessary to cover in detail. We know that leaders are accountable. Now, how does that accountability take place? Different churches have different answers. There are episcopal structures, where a bishop presides over a large number of churches. There are elder-oriented structures, where accountability comes primarily through an internal body of qualified spiritual leaders. Both of these have their pluses and minuses.
Can an entire church hold its leaders accountable? Certainly any person (or at least one who is spiritual) could initiate the accountability sequence of Matthew 18:15-17, approaching a leader privately, then bringing some along if necessary, and later (if needed) taking the issue before the whole church. The above admonition still holds, though: do not admit an accusation against an elder without definite evidence of their wrongdoing.
But can a church body together stand up and take over the appointed role of a leader? This brings us back to Numbers 16. I encourage you to read the whole chapter, but I’ll highlight the beginning and the end for you here. Remember what the people had said?
For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?
It’s easy to think that any one of us could do what our leaders do, that we’re all qualified for their work. That’s not the issue, though. Moses did not exalt himself above the assembly of the Lord; the Lord called him and placed him there. It was the Lord’s doing. Moses made it clear at the time that the issue was, whom has God sent? God did not call the whole congregation to run the whole. He called the qualified spiritual leaders (also including others to whom leadership was properly delegated–see Exodus 18 and Numbers 11).
So what happened to those who thought they could stand up in place of those leaders? Something we wouldn’t want to happen to anyone around us!
The ground under them split apart. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.
Of course just as no leader is called by means of a burning bush today, it’s also unlikely that the earth will open up and swallow a rebellious church, or part of a church. Nevertheless the lesson is clear: there are right ways to hold leaders accountable. And there is at least one way that Scripture tells us is a very, very bad idea.
What then does this mean regarding the purpose of our church business meetings? This blog post is getting long, so this is not time to try to answer that in detail. The business meetings certainly have their purpose, but whatever we do there, it should be consistent with following and giving honor to our teachers and leaders; and we dare not try to usurp them as Korah’s group did. We don’t want to end up the way they did.
Permalink
05.04.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 4:14 pm by Bryan Dunn
This is part 2 of the series…
4 – Oaths (vs. 33–37)
When I think of Pharisaism, I think of the deeply rooted practice of taking oaths. As noted by Pentecost, ‘A man took an oath to affirm the truth of the word that he spoke. The oath involved a curse that he placed on himself if his word were not true or his promise not confirmed.’
Let’s talk a bit about oaths. I find this in a well noted Bible Encyclopedia:
Oaths Permissible: That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of Our Lord (Matt 26:63 f), and of Paul (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20) and even of God Himself (Heb 6:13-18). Consequently when Christ said, “Swear not at all” (Matt 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where that principle holds sway, oaths become unnecessary.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
The conclusion reached by Pentecost is that, since Christ allowed Himself to be put under an oath (as seen in Matt. 26:63-64) one can conclude that He did not forbid His hearers to put themselves under an oath. He also agrees with the annotation above that their character, their reputation of honesty, and their word should be so true that no one would suspect or question their integrity in what they said. Why? When the Pharisees took an oath, they affirmed something that could be understood in more than one way. Let your yes be what you said it was! Believers should affirm only what is true because Christ demands trustworthiness in speech.
I will share that this isn’t a hill that I want to plant my flag on, but it is one that many love to argue about. In fact, I may be immature in this area, because I don’t find myself in agreement with the writers of the material I have studied. I do mean, I agree that we should let our speech be truthful and there should not be any need for swearing of oaths. However, there are many things I will not swear an oath to – things like commitment to give cards or drives that many churches conduct where you sign cards or some such oath to give a particular amount. I find those items (personally) in violation of what I believe to be sound biblical principals and a simple notion of letting your yes be yes – or your no being no. Again, color me immature, legalistic, or shallow – but I find such things to be either a throw towards clubs, the business world, or a lack of faith (while others frame this as planning, shows of faith, etc.).
This is an area that could take some substantial study time to get through, but in reflection it is an area each of us needs to look at in prayerful consideration for ourselves and others. How is my speech? Do I say what I mean and mean what I say? Do I keep my word and can others depend on my word? Is what I say truthful? Ponder those things…
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Posted in Audio & Podcasts (Sermons) 2008, Media at 3:52 pm by Bryan Dunn
May 4, 2008 - Sermon Title: Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia missionary - Don Cockes
Permalink
05.02.08
Posted in Tom Gilson at 4:22 pm by Tom Gilson
Do we really know our faith is true? Can we really be confident of it? How can we know?
The April 23 talk on “Do We Really Know It’s True” was an example of a field of Christian study known as apologetics. Apologetics is not (as it may sound) about being sorry you’re a Christian. And if you’re in a debate with someone, it’s not about making the other guy sorry you’re a Christian!*
The term comes from the Greek word apologia, translated as “defense” in 1 Peter 3:15:
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect
Apologetics, then is the study and practice of how we can know Christianity’s truth can be trusted.
Now, what good does that do us?
Two things:
- It strengthens our faith as believers. Faith is not (as some have mistakenly said) believing what you can’t know to be true, or believing without evidence. Faith is a personal trust relationship with God, based on what we know about him. The more we learn about him–including how we can be confident about him–the more we’ll trust him. That confidence can grow in many ways, of course; apologetics is just one piece of it. But it can be a very helpful piece.
- It can help us persuade nonbelievers that Christianity is plausible. Apologetics alone will not persuade anybody to follow Christ, for that depends on a spiritual work done in them by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, we can see in this 1 Peter passage, and in all the travels and messages of Paul in the book of Acts, that giving reasonable answers is a good thing. It won’t force anyone to believe, but it can break down barriers through showing them that Christianity is reasonable and plausible. This can certainly open the door to belief.
There are two general categories of apologetics, and their names are possibly as misleading as “apologetics” itself: offensive and defensive. Neither one of them is about our mood, or about how we treat the other person. Rather, offensive apologetics includes reasons for faith: how we know the New Testament is reliable and trustworthy, philosophical reasons to believe there must be a God, and so on. Defensive apologetics has to do with answering attacks on the faith, for example, does the existence of evil in the world prove God cannot really exist?
What if I’m not really interested in apologetics?
There are different ways to be convinced of God’s truth. He reveals it to our hearts directly through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and in many senses that should be (and is) sufficient. The study of apologetics is for situations where more is called for: when others try to show that Christianity is false; when we have difficult questions of our own (which we ought to face squarely), or when we’re trying to help a non-Christian overcome doubts and lead him or her to faith.
Every Christian is gifted in different ways, and our interests usually reflect our gifts. Not everyone is equally interested in providing hospitality, not everyone is equally drawn toward ministries of mercy, not everyone is equally as good at sharing their faith. All Christians are called to some measure of hospitality, compassion, and witness, but not equally so. Every church, however, ought to display a wide range of ministries and gifts.
It need not be a deep interest for every person–but it is a ministry for every church.
Not every person needs to be involved in apologetics as a focused area of interest. But just as each church ought to have ministries of giving, missions, visitation, and so on, each church ought also to have a place where people can go for answers to questions about the truth of the faith. Not only that, but it makes great sense for the church to open its doors wide for people to come with these questions, to discuss them and learn from them together.
After all, many of us really do have these questions, and a burning interest in the answers.
*Not my original line–I got it from William Lane Craig.
Permalink
04.29.08
Posted in Tom Gilson at 10:34 am by Tom Gilson
You can stay updated on Seaford’s Blog a whole lot more easily than you thought!
If you read even one blog regularly, RSS is for you. It will save you time, I promise.
Some of you may be wondering, “Doesn’t everyone use RSS?” The answer is no; less than 6% of internet users take advantage of this extraordinarily helpful technology.
I’ve read lots of posts on what RSS is and how to use it, but they’re limited in their helpfulness. There are just too many options out there to fully explain any one of them in a post that tackles RSS as a whole. So I am going to use the majority of this article to help non-RSS-users get started on Google Reader.
If you follow these instructions, you will be subscribed to your favorite sites and already saving time by the end of this article.
[From What Is RSS? A Step-by-Step Guide to Google Reader « The Pipers]
If you follow the directions there, there will come a step where you’ll need to know the “feed address” for this blog. Here it is:
feed://blog.sbc-va.org/feed
Does this help? If you have any questions, or if the instructions don’t turn out to work for you, please leave a comment here and let me know.
Permalink
04.23.08
Posted in Tom Gilson at 9:53 pm by Tom Gilson
Research from Lifeway and Barna shows that 70% to 80% of young people in solid Christian churches walk away from the faith when they move into young adulthood. Further research, reported by Josh McDowell, says that when those young adults are asked why they left the faith, the number one set of responses had to do with intellectual difficulties with the faith. They’re just not sure it’s true.
Christianity is under continual attack from atheists and skeptics who insist that the faith just isn’t true. They’re becoming more vocal. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Brown, Phillip Pullman, and Bart Ehrman are all New York Times bestselling authors who argue that religion is false and (most of them would say) positively dangerous. They include all religions in that accusation.
Meanwhile over the past 50 years or so, Western culture has adopted a relativistic view of knowledge regarding religion and ethics. Relativism says there is no objective truth that can be known regarding God or morality. If “objective truth” is defined as truth that can be known through science, this is a correct assessment; and for many people, science is the only trustworthy route to knowledge. (We’ll deal with that issue in a later blog posting. For now, let it be sufficient to say that science is not, and cannot be the only route to knowledge. After all, even the statement, “science is the only reliable route to knowledge,” is not a scientific statement–what lab did it come from?)
Here is better definition of objective truth: truth that would be true even if nobody believed; truth that is true in the mind of God, or in the world as it really is. Francis Schaeffer called it True Truth to distinguish it from relativists’ “truth.”
Here’s what relativists consider “truth:” since there is no True Truth out there regarding religion or ethics, but we need meaning and morality anyway, then we all have the freedom to create our own truth. And since every one of us is equally qualified to create our own truth, then every person’s truth about religion or morality is equal. Everybody’s truth is true for him or her, even if it contradicts others’ truth.
Relativists’ great challenge toward Christianity is that we Christians are terribly arrogant and awfully discourteous for saying Christ is the only way to God, that we know this to be true and we know that contradictory beliefs are wrong, and that we desire others to come to this same belief. This breaks all their rules!
But then, what’s wrong with relativism? I can outline only a few things here. For one thing, nobody is a relativist about everything. I picture myself in the doctor’s office asking the nurse, “Is that flu vaccine in that syringe?” She answers, “It is in my truth, what is it in yours?” You get the picture. I suppose there aren’t many relativists who leave the supermarket checkout line without counting their change–they are realists, not relativists, about their money.
Relativism is hopeless self-contradictory. It says there is absolutely no absolute truth regarding ethics and morality; but that’s an absolute statement that purports to be true about ethics and morality. It says that nothing another person holds as true should be treated as wrong, since all truths are on an equal footing, but it won’t hold “Christ is the only way to God” on an equal footing. As I already said, relativism considers Christianity to be incredibly arrogant and rude, even evil, while all the time saying there is no such thing as evil.
There’s an interesting story about this coming out of the 9/11 attacks. This was originally published in the Los Angeles Times just one week after the attacks:
The campuses, once citadels of opposition to military action, generally are quiet, in part, said author and commentator David Rieff, because this generation of students is hamstrung by the “politically correct” education it has received since kindergarten. “The nice kids have been taught that all differences are to be celebrated,” said Rieff, currently a visiting professor at UC Berkeley, “and they’re in full cognitive meltdown. Their homeroom teachers and guidance counselors never told them that there are people in the world who mean them harm.”
“Differences are to be celebrated,” says the relativist, “for all beliefs are equal.” Then came 9/11, and “full cognitive meltdown.” What a descriptive phrase! And what does relativism do with Islamic fundamentalism? It’s a terribly intolerant system, isn’t it? So do we tolerate that intolerance? Mark Steyn concluded, in regard to someone trying to figure out the puzzle that poses,
Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable.
I can’t read that without grinning. (The whole article is well worthwhile.) Relativism is also absurd in what it will allow as possibly being moral–like the Holocaust. On my Thinking Christian blog, an atheistic/relativistic commenter named Paul said,
I missed one of your questions, Tom. Just to be clear, I think the Holocaust was wrong. From my culture’s morality, from many cultures’ morality, but not from Hitler’s. I would fight against it no less.
Hitler’s morality was not wrong from Hitler’s perspective, he says. That, to me, is just absurd. And why and how would he fight against it? He doesn’t have any higher morality he can appeal to. For Paul, the only available approach is through power:
A relativistic moral law is made when a group of people (family, tribe, culture, country, etc.) decide to do so. There is no absolute or objective foundation for doing so: as I’ve said before, it is merely a question of power what laws are made…. When differing moral cultures clash, it’s up to power to decide the difference. Doesn’t look pretty, but that’s the way it is, assuming there’s no God.
That’s absurd, too: do we really want to agree that power decides morality? Do we really think that the nation with the most guns gets to decide what’s right and wrong for the rest of the world? Or that the gang with the most knives gets to decide for the whole city?
Finally, at least one relativist is unsure it’s really wrong to say that 2+2=5. Jacob thinks that’s illegitimate, but not wrong. It’s purely a cultural convention, he thinks. This is the depths of absurdity.
Do we really know the Christian faith is true? This blog post only gives a very quick answer to just one attack. But it illustrates that there are answers. This illustration could be extended on and on. On ThinkingChristian.net, atheists have been attacking Christianity’s truth for three years now, and I have yet to see one objection raised that could not be met with a sound answer based on an appropriate combination of Biblical revelation, reasoning, and evidences.
But I would not want that answer to have the wrong result. It could cause some people to hold back on asking their questions about the truth of the faith–they might think questions are bad, evil, or embarrassing. No–questions are one of the best things in the world (outside of good, solid answers, of course). Here at Seaford we’re trying to open up the door for good questions, as a route toward figuring out good answers. Do we really know the faith is true? As time goes on, let’s look at the questions together, and see what answers we find!
Permalink
04.22.08
Posted in Gene Cornett at 6:21 pm by Gene Cornett
Unless you have not attended Seaford in the past three months then you know that we have had a lot more business meetings of late. Some of this is normal because there is a lot to discuss in this time of transition. For some years, we have operated with a business meeting once every quarter. However, at the business meeting at the end of March the church voted to conduct monthly business meetings.
It is my opinion that having more business meetings is not necessarily good or bad. What we do in these business meetings (or kingdom strategy sessions as I called them at our last meeting) will determine whether they hurt or help the church fulfill its mission. I have some concerns about how we are proceeding up to this point that I would like to share with you. Seaford follows a congregational system of church government, as do most Baptist churches, though there are some Southern Baptist Churches that use different models. A congregational system of church government means two things typically. One, such churches are autonomous—meaning there is no hierarchy that has authority over the local body. Second, every member has a vote in congregational decisions, as opposed to a group of elders making many of the decisions on behalf of the body.
However, as churches grow larger, they tend to move toward a more representative form of church government. It becomes impossible for such a church to discuss intelligibly all decisions that need making in an open business session. There are simply too many of them. This partially describes what has happened over the last fifteen years at Seaford. As the church grew, committees, elected by the church, made more of the decisions.
Some now feel that this development shifted too much authority into the hands of a few. I cannot address whether or not that is true in a newsletter article. However, if it is true, the healthy solution cannot be that all decisions now need full discussion in business session. One problem (there are others) is that if we continue on that path, it is difficult to see where it will end. There is a danger of moving to silly extremes, what constitutes “silly extremes” would differ from person to person. For instance, we could find ourselves debating the merits of leasing or purchasing office equipment, a discussion I witnessed in a business meeting in my earlier years at Seaford. It is my sense that many members at Seaford have little interest or tolerance for such discussions. A large majority of the now active membership at Seaford came to the church within the last fifteen years, during which time the church was not discussing such things openly. Theoretically, these church members trusted those given responsibility and authority to carry out those decisions to do so. It is my sense that many of these members are now growing uneasy with much of the discussion now taking place in our business meetings. To many of these church members these feel like a distraction from the real work of the church.
What is the solution? There is an interim nominating committee, elected by the church, and now working which will recommend a slate of officers and committee members in our August business meeting. We have a responsibility as a body to pray for them as they work and to come to that meeting prayed up and prepared to elect those we feel God has called into these positions. If church members have concerns about their choices then those members have a responsibility to share them at that time. However, once we elect these officers and committee members then we must trust them to do their work and should not in my opinion overturn their recommendations except in extreme cases. Otherwise, we will find ourselves mired in discussions that are divisive and driven by those who have the courage to make arguments in emotionally charged situations in front of many other people. Such a process largely eliminates the church hearing from our more quiet members.
We can effectively hear from a broader cross section of the church within family forums. Organizing such family forums into small discussion groups, which then choose a table captain to report to the large group, will generate far more opportunity for the body to hear from many church members. As we pray together and talk together, we should be able to more quickly reach consensus or be able to better define the big decisions we need to make as an entire body.
That said, our first family forum will be held Thursday evening, May 14th at 6:30 PM in the Family Life Center. We will then plan to hold a second on Wednesday evening, June 11.
Permalink
04.06.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 6:06 pm by Bryan Dunn
Rejection of traditional interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21-48) - Part 1
This is where we get an illustration from Jesus that shows that the Pharisees did not understand the intent of the law. So the choice was keeping the traditions (which were not fulfilling the righteousness demanded by the law) or listen to God in the flesh and be obedient. Six times He said ‘You have heard that it was said…But I tell you…’ (vs. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).
Note what Jesus said, He doesn’t say things for no reason. He said ‘you have heard that it was said’; He did not say ‘you have seen that it was written’. Keep in mind the crowd Jesus was addressing – these were not the literate folks. They didn’t have books/scrolls sitting on coffee tables near their TiVo’s. Most could not read or write. Because of this, their knowledge of the law came from public instruction directly from the synagogues. The law was faithfully read, but the spirit or intent of the law was frequently missed or obscured by those expounding on it.
In each of these 6 ‘cases’ to follow, Jesus refers to the law that governs the conduct of people toward others. Why? If the righteousness espoused by the Pharisees did not fulfill what the conduct of the law demanded (as people interact with one another) then it certainly failed to fulfill what God demanded – a righteousness that concerned our conduct towards a Holy and righteous God.
The law is pretty specific - Do not murder. Hard to explain that one away, most everyone could quote it! This was a demand of God’s holiness, however, the Pharisees interpreted the law to mean that as long as one did not take another man’s life, the person was innocent of breaking the law (and consequently they were acceptable to God). The Pharisees were only concerned with the physical act of murder.
Jesus brings in the intent of the law, because it was more than just checking the box to make sure you had not personally taken another man’s life. He said the law required one to refrain from anger. Jesus knew that the act of murder was a symptom of things like hatred, anger and malice. So if someone is full of those things, the law had been violated even though the fruit of murder had not taken place.
And that is the rub for us isn’t it? We may not have killed anyone, but we have relished the thought of it a time or two…and that reveals some nasty stuff in us that perhaps no one else is aware of. And the Word of God is full of what we should do – repent, go to our brother and ask for forgiveness, make peace with them. The Pharisaic interpretation of the law of murder does not fulfill the righteousness of God. And our attempts to live to the letter of the law fall short when we hide the nastiness of anger, malice, and hatred in our hearts. Sometimes it comes out in starting (or continuing) rumors, making assumptions based on minimal facts, and a host of other things. How can we stop this? A point to ponder for all of us.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
« Previous entries
