Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Church Government’ Category

February 29th, 2012 by Joel L. Watts

I’m all about making babies, but I still believe in the Resurrection of the Dead @ivpress #rant

sacred pastoral

Click to Order

I saw this story this morning, about the splits in the Mainlines. A statement made in it has stuck in my crawl all day:

There’s a popular saying in church-planting circles: It’s easier to make babies than to raise the dead.

That principle applies to denominations as well, said the Rev. Paul Detterman, who helped found the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians in January.

“We thought it was easier in the long run to create something new rather than to keep on trying to modify existing forms,” he said…

On the IVP Facebook Page, they posted about this book and a quote from it:

“In these days when we are spending so much money, time and energy in the task of healing or growing the church, my hope is that we will see that our work is less about saving the church and more about proclaiming the presence of God to both the souls who compose it and those who dwell outside it.”  - from The Sacred Wilderness of Pastoral Ministry by David Rohrer

This was my response:

I read a statement today popular among church-planters (I’m not against Church Planters, but these Church Planters are of the type who see no hope in traditional Christianity, mainlines, etc… and are off to start their own) which goes something like, “It’s easier to make babies than to raise the dead.” While I’m all for making babies, as Christians, we are sorta supposed to be about raising the dead. I mean, look at Ephesians 5.14 and the many verses which show the connection proclaiming the Spirit with the life which it brings. We do not need to make babies to save the Church – we need to resurrect it by, in the Spirit, proclaiming life.

It was a rant… yup, but these two things sort of coincided in such a way that I finally realized why that statement in the article made me mad.  I haven’t read the book, but it looks interesting. I tend to think that we treat pastors as if they are the CEO, psychotherapist, life coach and Martin Luther. Further, we see the Church as some place we go to and the structures of the Church as a permanent thing. We see those who disagree with us as the enemies. As the pastor in the article said – it was easier to run away than to work within the Church to resurrect the dead. We are Christians. We are sort of founded on the whole idea of the dead can be raised. Proclaim the Gospel. Preach it. Pastor. Teach. Lead. Pray. Shut-up. Stop worrying about the Church as a scaffolding structure and remember what the Gospel is. Don’t run away from a fight, but raise the dead.

Okay. Sorry.

From the IVP site:

Pastors often find themselves struggling to survive in the wilderness of the contemporary church scene. How do they remain faithful in light of the marginalization of organized religion, denominational strife, rapid demographic change, falling numbers and a general malaise among church members? Many pastors feel helpless, others hopeless. Sociologists and pollsters diagnose the problem but can’t seem to come up with a solution. Is there hope?

Author and pastor David Rohrer believes there is. John the Baptist also lived in the wilderness, yet crowds journeyed there to hear him. Why? Because John “affirmed what people already knew: that they were in desperate need of something more than the mundane practices of a religion that had been cut off from its source of life.” John called people to remember their covenant relationship with God, which was established in the wilderness, and to let God guide them once again across the Jordan and into the Promised Land.

Pastors, says Rohrer, “don’t primarily exist to build and maintain the institution of the church. We exist to do a particular work through the church. In short, we don’t simply have an institution to create, refine or maintain; we have a gospel to preach.” John’s prophetic voice prepared hearts to be receptive to Christ’s work among them, to be transformed by the power of God. Herein lies hope!

Using illustrations from everyday church life and decades of ministry experience, Rohrer carefully crafts a lively and realistic pastoral theology for ministry in the sacred wilderness. If you are a new pastor you have a sure guide here. If you are a veteran preacher you’ll find just the refresher course you need to invigorate your ministry.

Tags: ,
Posted in Church Government | 8 Comments »

February 14th, 2012 by Joel L. Watts

Protestants needs Apostolic Succession

So what is the solution? After all, we are Protestants. We don’t have any formal structure or approval process to hold us accountable. There is no one who signs the checks for Evangelicals. Therefore, aren’t we sleeping in the bed we made? While I don’t have a one-size-fits-all solution, I don’t really think that the outlook needs to be so grim. I simply believe that we need to think deeply about these issues. There is a way that we can keep ordination “organic,” yet insure that we are not ordaining unqualified hounds.

via Rethinking Ordination and Apostolic Succession | Parchment and Pen.

You just have to read it, but I agree.

So often, people pick up the title “Rev” as if it is a grab bag at the local comic book shop…

Posted in Church Government | 4 Comments »

December 12th, 2011 by Joel L. Watts

A Woman Shouldn’t Read Scripture?

Saint Timothy (ortodox icon)

Image via Wikipedia

Tim Challies is currently in a firestorm over comments which he made about women in ministry, even to the point of reading Scripture in public. For him, and others in the Reformed Tradition, it is simply not allowed.

Over the years there has been near-endless discussion and disagreement about 1 Timothy 2:11-12. There Paul writes to Timothy and says, “Let a woman learn quietly and with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” …. What we can all agree on is that these words, whatever they mean, are in the Bible and are, therefore, given by God for our instruction. These are not sexist words; they are God’s words.

No, that’s not God’s words. Those are actually, and ironically so, man’s words. What Scripture actually records is this:

Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ· διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. (1Ti 2:11-12 BGT)

Many times, we confuse the English, or other language, translation with what Scripture actually says. Let’s change Challies’ translation and see what might happen?

Over the years there has been near-endless discussion and disagreement about 1 Timothy 2:11-12. There Paul writes to Timothy and says, “They [women] must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God.  I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed.” …. What we can all agree on is that these words, whatever they mean, are in the Bible and are, therefore, given by God for our instruction. These are not sexist words; they are God’s words.

That is from N.T. Wright‘s personal translation.

Over the years there has been near-endless discussion and disagreement about 1 Timothy 2:11-12. There Paul writes to Timothy and says, “But to teach I permit not unto a woman, nor to have dominion over the man, but to be in silence.”…. What we can all agree on is that these words, whatever they mean, are in the Bible and are, therefore, given by God for our instruction. These are not sexist words; they are God’s words.

That is from the Latin Vulgate-into-17th-century-English.

The translation one uses makes a difference, no doubt, but the big difference is that when one appends the phrase “God’s words” to the translation – it enlivens the translation and adds weight to that particular translation, weight which is thrown around to drive home one agenda or another. As for me, I do believe that women can read Scripture in worship and be pastors….

I know, I’m going to a dark place, but….

BTW, click those links for a fuller discussion on the text and translation issues in question.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , ,
Posted in Church Government, Gender Issues | 17 Comments »

September 14th, 2011 by Joel L. Watts

Episcopacy and apostolic succession according to Hincmar of Reims

Charles the Bald

Image via Wikipedia

Introduction: Hincmar, a monk from the Abbey of St. Denys on the outskirts of Paris, was elected archbishop of Reims in 845 by the bishops of the province meeting at Beauvais. Since the conversion of Clovis (482-511), and more than ever since the Carolingians, with Pepin the Short (751- 768) and Charlemagne (768-814), initiated their reforming policy, the Frankish bishops were, for all practical purposes, selected by the king. Hincmar had in fact been known at the court of Louis the Pious (d. 840) since 822, and he was to remain loyal to the cause of Charles the Bald (d. 877) in the King’s conflicts with his half brothers. The son of Louis the Pious by a second marriage, Charles was made by his father King of the Western Franks despite the agreement of 817 on the division of the Empire: only the sons of the first queen were to inherit the crown. With the treaty of Strasbourg in 843, Charles’s position became, like that of Louis the German (d. 876), King of the Eastern Franks, fairly secure. On the contrary, Lothair (d. 855), whose imperial ambitions had provoked the coalition of his younger brothers, Louis and Charles, found himself on the defensive. Pepin, King of Aquitaine until 833, had died in 838 and his kingdom, never officially recognized, had been given to Charles the Bald.

Click here to read this article from Theological Studies

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: ,
Posted in Church Government | No Comments »

September 4th, 2011 by craigbenno

Should pastors be paid?

I have posted an article about the ongoing discussion whether pastors should be paid or not by the church and whether there is any real Scriptural basis to do so. …you can read it here. Tell me what you think?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Church Government, Debate/Discussion, Scholarship | 5 Comments »

August 14th, 2011 by Jeremy

Misunderstanding Roman Catholicism … Again

Well apparently someone else thinks he understands Roman Catholicism without reading Church documents. If he had taken time to read even this one document, he wouldn’t sound so off-base. It is on the Vatican website, no less. For another helpful interaction with this issue, see Raymond Brown’s (a pope appointed member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission more than once) wonderful book The Critical Meaning of the Bible. The document explains how theologians should handle matters in which they disagree with the Magisterium. For those who might not like to read the whole thing, I’ll summarize a few points:

1. Theologians who disagree with the Magisterium should not present their views as unarguable conclusions. In other words, they admit to the fact that they could possibly be wrong and the Magisterium right.

2. Disagreements must be based on argumentation that seems well-founded to the theologian. In other words, theologians cannot reject the teaching of the Magisterium simply because it doesn’t suit them.

3. Theologians should make sure that they truly understand the teaching of the Magisterium. In other words, they are not disagreeing with a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Magisterium.

4. Theologians should address disagreements in the proper context, i.e. within the Church and not within the mass media.

5. If the disagreement persists (and yes, the document does allow for the fact that a disagreement can genuinely persist), the theologian remains open to the teaching of the Magisterium, though they may not accept it.

Perhaps this is not pure unbridled freedom of Protestant scholarship (*chortle*), but at least for me as a Roman Catholic, I find it helpful that there is official Church teaching on how to handle disagreements, rather than approach I’ve seen some Protestants in my area use of simply starting a new church. There are other important points in this document. But, this may suffice to show that the person who wrote the post I linked to has a very weak and inaccurate understanding of the function of the Magisterium – “For example, if a Roman Catholic is interpreting the Scriptures, he must come to conclusions that are in line with what Rome has already said about the subject.” Well, not according to this document on the Vatican website (overseen by Joseph Ratzinger back in the 1990s).

PS – This is not even to mention the fact that the Church doesn’t emphatically define every single solitary doctrinal issue, e.g. priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite and married priests at the parish level in the Eastern Rite.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Church Government, Doctrine | 84 Comments »

August 8th, 2011 by Joel L. Watts

What Protestantism Needs to Save itself

Gregory I became pope in 590 and effected grea...

Image via Wikipedia

This past weekend, we saw a bunch of post-protestant/evangelicals who are more appropriately called the Third Wave, neo-pentecostal, dominionists, etc… hold a meeting called The Response. Recently, we have seen Evangelicals flock to people such as Glenn Beck who was given a national, prophetic, stage and heralded as ‘saved!’

On the horizon is the Kingdom Theology, in which we are coming to realize what it means to be apart of God’s Kingdom. So, that got me to thinking about what Protestants need in order to save itself from abhorrent and heretical theologies, neo-Messiahs, and the like wherein every wind of doctrine moves them to this or that point.

Christ is our King, but it seems that many of us live pretty close to the edges of that Kingdom, near the border areas which prevents us from attack by the monsters who hide in the Forests of Paganism, but allows us some measure of independence because, after all, the King is far, far away. So, this is what I am thinking. We need a representative of the King, on earth, where we are.

Now, this King needs to help us pull our theology out of the disease-causing muck and mire like Bishop Gregory the Great did for the City of Rome. He and the Church there saved the city, and indeed, one would argue, Western Civilization, from peril. He revitalized the priesthood and the drama of worship. He was well deserving of this title applied to him by history. We need a figure such as he would be willing to flush out the idols of bad theology, such as that which has given rise to the Response, and cause Protestants to realize that they are Christians first, and only divided by whatever potentate’s imaginary lines are drawn around their neighbor..that there is no such thing as a “Christian nation” who doesn’t have Christ as its King. I imagine that over time, this figure would become a great father figure, and one who is given charge for all the bad things that will happen in the church, but in the end, history will judge this “slow moving” person as worthy of honor due to his ability to stave off the ebbs and flows of history which has caused us get to this point in Protestant theology. No doubt, theology will change over time, with new scholarship and moves of the Spirit to increase our understanding, but this representative of Christ on Earth will be able to withstand it, fighting it as Jacob did, until just the last moment, when all things have been proved true, and all things of the past have been purged. That’s when change needs to occur, not like Protestant theology today, which seemingly changes with a new Christian book makes its way to the number one spot in book sales. And no doubt, that this representative could hold the various groups of Protestants, orders or schools we might call them then, together without the constant mudslinging and infighting currently in Protestantism.

I think that’s what Protestantism needs, an vicar of Christ the  King on Earth, sitting on the Chair of an Apostle… we can worry about the title later I guess. But, most importantly, like a shepherd and a father, he has to protect us from the inane theologies which spring up every other day.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: ,
Posted in Church Government | 14 Comments »

May 11th, 2011 by Joel L. Watts

Women should not Teach Men

religion01

Image by katieash via Flickr

Scott writes,

I’m not going to spell out all my biblical and theological reasons. Rather I’ll point you to my plethora of posts here.

Oh good, because the last thing I need to hear are facts and an honest discussion. Nope. I don’t care about context, or the original languages, or history or anything. I want to be able to read my bible and see what it tells me (which, ironically enough is everything that I believed already).

But, Scott does have an interesting story to tell:

Women Teaching Men | The Prodigal Thought.

I am not for experientionalism or whatever it is called that doesn’t put a red, squiggly line under the word that I am trying to use to mean that I don’t like doctrine by experience.

But in my own experience, I did not burst into flames or have a meltdown the first time I ‘sat under’ a woman teacher, which is odd given that ever other (theological-praxis) change brought that sort of meltdown

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Church Government, Gender Issues | 3 Comments »

April 19th, 2011 by Joel L. Watts

The Rock of My Existence

Greek icon of the Twelve Apostles (in the fron...

Image via Wikipedia

Both Dr. Barber and Fr. Chaplin have weighed in on my previous post dealing with examining Matthew 16.17-19 through the Catholic hermeneutic. This was a class assignment and I admit that I chose this because I thought it would be easy. It isn’t.

My struggles are varied, but I  begin here with John, where Christ meets the Apostles, all of them,

Again he said, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (Joh 20:21-23 NLT)

Here is John’s version of Matthew 16.17-19, but the power is given equally to all the Apostles. Yet, even in John, Peter is singled out to ‘feed my sheep.’ We cannot deny that in the Gospels, Peter has a certain role which others did not.

But, I look at Cyprian who, in his treatise On Church Unity maintains that Peter stands for the whole of the Episcopate, that all the Bishops of the Church are equal and act as one:

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mathew 16:18-19) And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power[2], and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (John 20:21) yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” (Song of Songs 6:9) Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?” (Ephesians 4:4)

One should note that had it not been for Rome in the West, then the West and Christianity in the West would have fallen during the Dark Ages.

I admit, my views on the early Christian voices have changed considerably, as have my views on the Roman Catholic Church – especially in the short time of the existence of this blog. I rather enjoy this fact. I enjoy the fact that I am no long an anti-Catholic bigot, but that I can admit that they in fact may be correct on the reading of Matthew 16.17-19. I encourage you to read the above linked posts and examine for yourselves if you are in the faith.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: ,
Posted in Church Government, Cyprian, Theology | 1 Comment »

March 20th, 2011 by craigbenno

Are you in the right vocation?

I have been called a Barnabas…I kind of like that nick name.

It’s my belief that if a pastor doesn’t have an encouraging bent to them – they are in the wrong calling and therefore need to do one of the following..

  1. Resign and do something else – for it is not your gifting and is not for you.
  2. Get down on your knees and ask the Lord to cause you to be an encourager.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , ,
Posted in Church Government, Devotional | 1 Comment »

March 15th, 2011 by craigbenno

What I have learnt from Roman Catholics – so shoot me!

Joel has been having an interesting conversation here and here about Rome Sweet Rome. Also it bears mentioning that Jeremy has joined accepted the invitation to contribute towards Unsettled Christianity with articles of his own.

I have some ties to the RC church. My Grandmother was a devoted Catholic, my mum was raised in the RC church and I was baptised in the church…though later on my mum renounced the RC church and was baptised as an adult in a Baptist church…and us kids were sent to Sunday School at the local Anglican Church.

Later on in life, my mum returned to the RC church to fellowship. The local priests were legendary in the local area. At one time I was the manager of a building supplies business, which was next door to the manse. One night at the local pub – the two priests were there and one called me over. He asked me – your the manager next door…and then seriously said – Its not the swearing that gets me…after all your all hard working men and just being men, its not the noise of the equipment that bothers me – for we get up earlier then that- nor is it the smoke from the BBQ you often have of a weekend or afternoon after work… then his eyes twinkled and he smiled and said… What does offend me is when every afternoon you crack open a slab of beer and don’t have the decency to offer one to me through the fence.

That was unexpected. Some years later I had a powerful conversion experience through the ministry of a Charismatic Anglican church and for 10 years stayed. During that time I become the co-ordinator of a quarterly interdenominational prayer meeting – in which most of the local churches would participate. Including the RC’s. One of the most powerful times was at the RC church. The format of the night would have a representative of each church lead a short devotion into each segment of the night. For this night the priest asked me what I wanted him to speak on – my reply was to seek the Lord and share what ever he thought was right. This was my standard advice to all who were invited to lead.

He shared about what the candles and lighting of the candles signified in regards to prayer and how they were a visual reminder of our prayers going up to God like a pleasant incense to him.  It was amazing to watch as each representative from the various denominations shared and built up on what the previous speaker said…

I learn’t a lot from this priest about the power of acceptance. Though I wasn’t ordained as a minister  and still fellow-shipped with the Anglicans – he would always invite my wife and I to the yearly pastors cerebration meal that he would host at the manse – telling me that my ministry was appreciated. – He would also hold a large bonfire night each year for the church – fireworks etc…. he taught me that Christians should celebrate the good news. That we should be able to have a good time and to celebrate life and to enjoy ourselves.

It was through this RC church that our church did the Alpha course. The local RC Bishop made a local ordinance that every parish had to implement the Alpha course and it was a blessed time to do it and share with others…

In saying this – I still have reservations about singing songs to the saints, relics, veneration of Mary etc…despite these differences and yes I believe they are big differences of opinion…we were able to fellowship around the cross of Christ and his resurrection as being the main thing.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Church Government, Devotional, Doctrine, Other Posts | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries