I am reading "Mother Teresa, a Simple Life". I have mixed feelings about the book. Some of the theology is way off base, but here's a quote of hers that is worth repeating: "Whatever I do, I for Jesus. Otherwise it is worthless, useless. So when I know I am doing it for Him, I can do it more lovingly, more compassionately towards the people who are suffering. It gives a lot of meaning to my life to know I am doing it for Him, and day after day this meaning increases."
Motive is important. What drives us to do what we do? What we do is important, but why we do it is equally as important. I have met too many Christians who minister from a place of self-centeredness. They serve, but if they are not immediately and publically recognized they become offended. In one church I pastored, a lady in the church did something kind for me and my family and when I failed to send her a thank you card the word came back to me that she was offended. As soon as we found out that she was offended by this oversight we sent her a thank you card, but it made me realize just how easy it is to offend some people who don't understand what it means to serve others. We serve to please Jesus, not to receive "warm fuzzies".
Lord, do I minister for the purpose of receiving "at-a-boys" from men? "Search me, O God, and know my heart..." Psalm 139:23
Grace Comes Through the Word, Sacraments and Prayer!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Little Rock Network Meeting
Today is the last day of our Little Rock Network metting in Plano, TX. We've been meeting at Christ Church in Plano sitting under the teaching of Justyn Terry, the Dean and President of Trinity School of Ministry in the Pittsburg area.
The Rev. Dr. Terry has been teaching on Galatians and it has been wonderful! While Anglicans are not noted for their great preaching and teaching this is certainly not the case with Dr. Terry. The Lord used him to really open Paul's letter up to our group the past day or so.
This was my first meeting and I have been ministered to by the Holy Spirit through both the word and the sacrament. The fellowship has been rich as well.
The Rev. Dr. Terry has been teaching on Galatians and it has been wonderful! While Anglicans are not noted for their great preaching and teaching this is certainly not the case with Dr. Terry. The Lord used him to really open Paul's letter up to our group the past day or so.
This was my first meeting and I have been ministered to by the Holy Spirit through both the word and the sacrament. The fellowship has been rich as well.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Addendum to My Last Blog
My last blog on the Lord's Supper may have come across as a sledge hammer. That was not the intention. Of course there are times when it is not possible to use one loaf or one chalis, like in a large church setting. My point is- we should try to practice the Supper with the correct elements and with the correct actions, as much as possible. Shalom.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Practice of the Lord's Supper: What Would Jesus Do?
I have been a Christian since age 15. The Lord saved me in a nondenominational charismatic church, He discipled me in the Reformed section of His church, I have pastored in a nondenominational church, several Presbyterian churches, a Christian Reformed church and an Anglican church. In addition, I have worshipped in numerous churches and my experince has shown me that there is nothing more confusing than the practice of Lord's Supper in the body of Christ. I'm not even going to get into the various theologies undergirding the practice.
The Lord's Supper, among other things, is the sacrament of our unity, and yet we are completely divided when it comes to how we are to celebrate it and what, if anything, is happening when we celebrate it. There is NO unity in the sacrament of our unity. The multiple variations on the theme of the Supper is evidence of how far we have to go before the world will see a unified Church.
Here is what I mean. Some churches (Baptists, Pentecostals, independents) use real bread and fake wine (a.k.a. grape juice). Some churches (Roman Catholics, some Anglicans/Episcopalians)use real wine and fake bread (a.k.a. wafers). Some churches (Roman Catholics and Anglican/Episcopalians) use one cup and many (tiny) loaves. Some churches use one loaf and many (tiny) cups. Some churches use many (tiny) loaves (wafers or white bread bread cut into perfect little squares) and many (tiny) cups. Some churches use one loaf (real bread) and one cup (real wine). Some churches (Salvation Army) do not take the Supper at all. And now, you can actually mail order tiny cups and tiny wafers prepackaged and individually wrapped! It is sort of like fast food Jesus. I find it somewhat tacky. In addition to these variations there are local congregations that have developed their own local practices and traditions surrounding the administration of the Supper. So different that if you are a visitor you may not have a clue as to what you are supposed to do in order to partake, or even if you are allowed to partake.
So where is the unity? It certainly is not seen in the way we pratice the Supper. Look, I know that there are many things about the Supper regarding how we are to partake that Jesus did not tell us. But what He did tell us we should certainly strive to do. It seems to me, that using Scripture, we should be able to agree upon the following:
1. Jesus said to do it. So, we should do it. There is no scriptural warrant for not regularly serving the Supper. In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul says, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you....do this in remembrance of Me."
2. Jesus used bread. So, we should use real bread. The Bible says He took bread and He broke it. Just try to make a sandwich out of one of those tiny wafers. 1 Corinthians 11:23.
3. Jesus used one loaf. So, we should use one loaf. Jesus took the bread and He BROKE it. Have you ever, as a minister, tried to break one of those tiny wafers? I have. It really makes the fraction a somewhat meaningless action.
4. Jesus used one cup. In the Scriptures He takes the cup, blesses it and offers THAT cup to His disciples. He could have poured them some from His cup into theirs, but He did not. He offered them His cup.
5. Jesus used wine. Not grape juice, but wine. In 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for abusing the Supper by using it for an opportunity to get wasted he could have suggested they use something other than wine. That would have eliminated the problem. But he did not. He told them they needed to change their behavior, not put a fence around the Table by changing the drink.
These are all simple things that are clearly taught in the Bible and we would go a long way toward external unity of practice if we came to the Supper and asked, "What would Jesus do"?
The Lord's Supper, among other things, is the sacrament of our unity, and yet we are completely divided when it comes to how we are to celebrate it and what, if anything, is happening when we celebrate it. There is NO unity in the sacrament of our unity. The multiple variations on the theme of the Supper is evidence of how far we have to go before the world will see a unified Church.
Here is what I mean. Some churches (Baptists, Pentecostals, independents) use real bread and fake wine (a.k.a. grape juice). Some churches (Roman Catholics, some Anglicans/Episcopalians)use real wine and fake bread (a.k.a. wafers). Some churches (Roman Catholics and Anglican/Episcopalians) use one cup and many (tiny) loaves. Some churches use one loaf and many (tiny) cups. Some churches use many (tiny) loaves (wafers or white bread bread cut into perfect little squares) and many (tiny) cups. Some churches use one loaf (real bread) and one cup (real wine). Some churches (Salvation Army) do not take the Supper at all. And now, you can actually mail order tiny cups and tiny wafers prepackaged and individually wrapped! It is sort of like fast food Jesus. I find it somewhat tacky. In addition to these variations there are local congregations that have developed their own local practices and traditions surrounding the administration of the Supper. So different that if you are a visitor you may not have a clue as to what you are supposed to do in order to partake, or even if you are allowed to partake.
So where is the unity? It certainly is not seen in the way we pratice the Supper. Look, I know that there are many things about the Supper regarding how we are to partake that Jesus did not tell us. But what He did tell us we should certainly strive to do. It seems to me, that using Scripture, we should be able to agree upon the following:
1. Jesus said to do it. So, we should do it. There is no scriptural warrant for not regularly serving the Supper. In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul says, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you....do this in remembrance of Me."
2. Jesus used bread. So, we should use real bread. The Bible says He took bread and He broke it. Just try to make a sandwich out of one of those tiny wafers. 1 Corinthians 11:23.
3. Jesus used one loaf. So, we should use one loaf. Jesus took the bread and He BROKE it. Have you ever, as a minister, tried to break one of those tiny wafers? I have. It really makes the fraction a somewhat meaningless action.
4. Jesus used one cup. In the Scriptures He takes the cup, blesses it and offers THAT cup to His disciples. He could have poured them some from His cup into theirs, but He did not. He offered them His cup.
5. Jesus used wine. Not grape juice, but wine. In 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for abusing the Supper by using it for an opportunity to get wasted he could have suggested they use something other than wine. That would have eliminated the problem. But he did not. He told them they needed to change their behavior, not put a fence around the Table by changing the drink.
These are all simple things that are clearly taught in the Bible and we would go a long way toward external unity of practice if we came to the Supper and asked, "What would Jesus do"?
Monday, November 2, 2009
How to Get the Most Out of the Bible
The Bible is the word of God, and yet many who profess Christ find it dull, boring. E. Stanley Jones has some idas about how one should come to the Scriptures.
1. Come to the Bible expectantly.
2. Come surrendering to the truths there revealed.
3. Come expecting to use the truths there revealed.
4. Come unhurriedly.
5. Come to it even if nothing apparently comes from your coming.
- E. Stanley Jones
1. Come to the Bible expectantly.
2. Come surrendering to the truths there revealed.
3. Come expecting to use the truths there revealed.
4. Come unhurriedly.
5. Come to it even if nothing apparently comes from your coming.
- E. Stanley Jones
Friday, October 30, 2009
My Anglican Status
As some of you know I have been going through the process of persuing holy orders in the Anglican Mission in America. It is a long and detailed process. Much more involved than my ordination into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Well, praise God, I've had a wonderful breakthrough! In 1998 I was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop John Erbeldlng, currently of the Anglican Church in Georgia. At the time he was serving the United Anglican Church in south Florida, and at the request of the Rector I was working with, he agreed to ordain me as the Assistant Rector of a small church in Melbourne, FL., which eventually folded. The church was affiliated with the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches.
When the church folded, I returned to ministry in the PCA, having spent 5 years prior to that in a nondenominational setting. Last year the Lord made it clear to us that we needed to be serving in an Anglican context, so we acted on that leading.
Initially, I was told, anecdotally, by someone in authority with AMiA, that my previous ordination would not be accepted by AMiA for reasons I will not mention (none having to do with me). Almost a year later, I have been assured that my previous ordination is indeed in order! That means that instead of requiring I be ordained, I need only be received by AMiA.
This Sunday, All Saints Day, I will be celebrating the Eucharist at Trinity in the Fields Anglican Church in Marion, AR., for the first time since 1998. I am looking forward to it!
When the church folded, I returned to ministry in the PCA, having spent 5 years prior to that in a nondenominational setting. Last year the Lord made it clear to us that we needed to be serving in an Anglican context, so we acted on that leading.
Initially, I was told, anecdotally, by someone in authority with AMiA, that my previous ordination would not be accepted by AMiA for reasons I will not mention (none having to do with me). Almost a year later, I have been assured that my previous ordination is indeed in order! That means that instead of requiring I be ordained, I need only be received by AMiA.
This Sunday, All Saints Day, I will be celebrating the Eucharist at Trinity in the Fields Anglican Church in Marion, AR., for the first time since 1998. I am looking forward to it!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
10 Reasons for Believing Male Headship is in the Created Order
One of the casualties of the sexual revolution of the sixties has been the biblical doctrine of male headship. The idea that God placed the man in the position of leadership in the marriage. This is a topic that only the most brave of preachers is willing to broach at this stage of the twenty first century. The cultural damage that is being perpetrated upon western civilization is mounting as we abandon this crucial doctrine.
Recently, I heard a recorded sermon by Bruce Ware, a professor at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY., titled, "Ten Reasons for Believing Male Headship is in the Creation Mandate." Ware's position, and I think he is right, is that male headship isn't simply a religious truth (nothing is ever simply a religious truth!), but that it is God's design from creation. It was built into the very DNA of humanity from creation itself. With the advent of the fall however, men have abandoned their positions and women have rebelled against it.
Without going into great detail regarding his points, here are the ten reasons he gives. Think about them.
1. The order of creation. God created man first, 1 Timothy 2.
2. The means of the woman's creation. She was taken "out of man". 1 Cor.11:8ff
3. The woman's humanity as image of God is established in relationship to the fact that she comes from the man. 1Cor. 11:1ff; Genesis 5:3
4. The woman was created for the man's sake, or as Adam's helper. 1 Corinthians 11:9
5. Man, not the woman, was given God's moral commandment. The woman learned of God's expectations for humanity from the man (Genesis 2). The fact that the woman answered Satan shows that she had been taught God's expectations by the man. The man was given the responsibility to teach his wife.
6. Man named the woman, both before and after the entrance of sin. Before sin he called her "Woman", after sin he goes further and names her "Eve". To name something or someone indicates one has authority over the one named.
7. Satan approached the woman, not the man, thus usurping God's design for headship. Satan rejected God's authority and God's design by approaching the woman (1 Timothy 2:12-14).
8. Although the woman sinned first God comes to the man first, thus holding him responsible for the sin.
9. The curses on the man and the woman indicate the purposes for which the man and woman were created (1 Timothy 2:15; Genesis 3:14).
10. The Trinity's equality and distinction of persons is mirrored in the male female relationship.
It is my view, that within another generation, there will be so few denominations that hold to the doctrine of male headship that the traditional marriage (one man and one woman) will be in the minority and churches who only ordain men will be laughed at and ridiculed as irrelevant.
Recently, I heard a recorded sermon by Bruce Ware, a professor at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY., titled, "Ten Reasons for Believing Male Headship is in the Creation Mandate." Ware's position, and I think he is right, is that male headship isn't simply a religious truth (nothing is ever simply a religious truth!), but that it is God's design from creation. It was built into the very DNA of humanity from creation itself. With the advent of the fall however, men have abandoned their positions and women have rebelled against it.
Without going into great detail regarding his points, here are the ten reasons he gives. Think about them.
1. The order of creation. God created man first, 1 Timothy 2.
2. The means of the woman's creation. She was taken "out of man". 1 Cor.11:8ff
3. The woman's humanity as image of God is established in relationship to the fact that she comes from the man. 1Cor. 11:1ff; Genesis 5:3
4. The woman was created for the man's sake, or as Adam's helper. 1 Corinthians 11:9
5. Man, not the woman, was given God's moral commandment. The woman learned of God's expectations for humanity from the man (Genesis 2). The fact that the woman answered Satan shows that she had been taught God's expectations by the man. The man was given the responsibility to teach his wife.
6. Man named the woman, both before and after the entrance of sin. Before sin he called her "Woman", after sin he goes further and names her "Eve". To name something or someone indicates one has authority over the one named.
7. Satan approached the woman, not the man, thus usurping God's design for headship. Satan rejected God's authority and God's design by approaching the woman (1 Timothy 2:12-14).
8. Although the woman sinned first God comes to the man first, thus holding him responsible for the sin.
9. The curses on the man and the woman indicate the purposes for which the man and woman were created (1 Timothy 2:15; Genesis 3:14).
10. The Trinity's equality and distinction of persons is mirrored in the male female relationship.
It is my view, that within another generation, there will be so few denominations that hold to the doctrine of male headship that the traditional marriage (one man and one woman) will be in the minority and churches who only ordain men will be laughed at and ridiculed as irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
