I spent my 20s as the youth pastor of three medium-sized churches (I did other things in my 20's, so don't feel sorry for me). I took groups of these high school students to church rallies, Christian-Rock shows, weekend retreats and the like. By the arena-full I've heard speakers tell the group of students that they were experiencing a 'revival' and that they were a special generation. Now that I'm in my 30's I feel let down by talks of revival that didn't materialize. I don't take groups to 'big events' anymore, but I still desire to see the revival. Facts are that we are seeing a secularization of the church, not a revival. Non-Religious people make up 14% of the earth's population now, a far cry from under 1% at the beginning of the last century. But what disappoints me more than the many statistics that show the declining church is the heart of the church. Churches that are becoming hour-long 'shows' for busy people have lost the purpose of the church to be a vibrant community of faith.
Jonathan Edwards pastored a New-England church in the 18th century that experienced revivals so significant that history now refers to them as 'the great awakening'. Edwards and others with him are helpful to us today in our desire to see a renewal of the church. Here is a helpful summary of their teaching
1. The problem is the church's dullness and deadness toward God. Open sin and 'going through the motions' are what Edwards thought needed be addressed. The problem is not that the church is powerless in society, but that it is bored with itself.
2. Being satisfied with God and his glory is the source of any revival. A revival is not increases attendance, giving or excitement, but the church's gladness in God alone. It can not be human-generated.
3. Heart-stirring preaching and persistent prayer are what we need to do. New techniques that simply 'push the right buttons' are condemned by Revelation 3:17.
4. Avoid any romantic ideas about revival. Edwards saw the enemies of revival as opposition and extremism. Revival will not solve all of our problems.
5. The essence of true revival is an awakened heart. Edwards put it this way: It's not that we know in our heads that honey is sweet, but that we have a sense of its sweetness.
6. The outcome of the above is evangelism. Therefore, we should not start with evangelism, but with the dullness that you and I experience in the church.
Whether we agree with Edwards and how we apply this will be our discussion. I also mentioned that I will show a video clip that may help us understand whether one church in particular has understood Edwards' work and is experiencing true revival.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Ulrich Zwingli
Ulrich Zwingli is considered to be the father of the Baptist tradition. During the 16th century reformation, people like Luther and Zwingli were correcting the errors that had crept into the church. They didn't all agree, in fact a disagreement between Luther and Zwingli over one of their 15 points caused Luther to say Zwingli was 'of the devil and nothing more than a wormy nut', and Zwingli to resent Luther for treating him 'like an ass'. While today Lutherans and Baptists have nicer things to say to each other, we will discuss what being baptist is all about. Here are some of Zwingli's key points and distinguishable characteristics. While not all of these are true across the board today, nor are they all 'essential' baptist belief, they should cause us to consider how we worship and what we believe about key issues.
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Jeremiah Burroughs
No doubt you have looked at the many denominations of churches in a critical way. In my life so far I went to a 'North American Baptist' college, pastored at a 'Baptist General Conference' church, then a 'Baptist Union' church, and now am at a 'Fellowship Baptist' church in Kimberley. And I've just rubbed shoulders with some of the Baptist denominations. In Kimberley alone there are Pentecostal, Four-Square, Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, United, Lutheran and Independent churches. During the reformation when some of these church denominations were being formed, a man named Jeremiah Burroughs argued in a gentle manner for denominations as a necessary part of the unity of the church. Could he be right, could all these denominations be helping church unity?
Burroughs grew up in England in the early 1600's when church government was decidedly hierarchical (the church leader was clearly in charge of all aspects). Disagreeing that this could be the only form of church government, Burroughs defended congregationalism (the congregation has authority) as a Biblical option. But because there was only one 'denomination' in England, his efforts found him 'kicked out' of the country. But instead of trying to change everyone's mind about his ideas for church government, he found ways to convince the English that having different denominations should be a part of the future of the church. He was not trying to cause a division, but taught that denominations were a natural part of the unity of the church. The criticism he took was over the nature of denominations to be a result of syncretism (when the church changes to be like its culture) or sectarianism (the idea that my denomination is the only true church). These critics kept Burroughs' ideas from being adopted until after his death. But his work led to a change that has paved the way for the many denominations we experience in Canada today.
Mark Shaw in his book "10 Great ideas from church history" provides the following 6 points from Burroughs' teaching that can help us discuss the worth of denominations.
1. Doctrinal differences are Inevitable
2. Doctrinal differences in secondary matters are still important
3. Differences Can be Useful
4. No single structure can fully represent the church of Christ
5. True unity is based on the common gospel and should be expressed through cooperation between denominations
6. Denominational separation is not schism
On Wednesday we will talk about denominations, how we should relate to other churches, and the like. Consider if denominations really are to the shame of the church, or if Burroughs is on to something. Could it be that we all represent a fraction of the larger picture of God's church?
Burroughs grew up in England in the early 1600's when church government was decidedly hierarchical (the church leader was clearly in charge of all aspects). Disagreeing that this could be the only form of church government, Burroughs defended congregationalism (the congregation has authority) as a Biblical option. But because there was only one 'denomination' in England, his efforts found him 'kicked out' of the country. But instead of trying to change everyone's mind about his ideas for church government, he found ways to convince the English that having different denominations should be a part of the future of the church. He was not trying to cause a division, but taught that denominations were a natural part of the unity of the church. The criticism he took was over the nature of denominations to be a result of syncretism (when the church changes to be like its culture) or sectarianism (the idea that my denomination is the only true church). These critics kept Burroughs' ideas from being adopted until after his death. But his work led to a change that has paved the way for the many denominations we experience in Canada today.
Mark Shaw in his book "10 Great ideas from church history" provides the following 6 points from Burroughs' teaching that can help us discuss the worth of denominations.
1. Doctrinal differences are Inevitable
2. Doctrinal differences in secondary matters are still important
3. Differences Can be Useful
4. No single structure can fully represent the church of Christ
5. True unity is based on the common gospel and should be expressed through cooperation between denominations
6. Denominational separation is not schism
On Wednesday we will talk about denominations, how we should relate to other churches, and the like. Consider if denominations really are to the shame of the church, or if Burroughs is on to something. Could it be that we all represent a fraction of the larger picture of God's church?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
John Wycliffe and the Lollards
This post is for the wonderful people who attend the Bible Study at my house on Wednesday Nights. We are taking a closer look at 6 people from history who have become well-known for how they applied scripture. Since the time of Ignatius of Antioch, his idea of a 'catholic (or universal)' church has been split, his idea of a 'Bishop' has been turned into a Pope, and his ideas about communion have been turned into a magic act where the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood.
The Catholic church at the time of John Wycliffe was taking money from people at every possible opportunity and spending was out of control. The Bible was not available in a translation that the people could read and people. The Pope was heavily involved in politics, yet his popularity was low.
John Wycliffe resisted these teachings and was a pioneer for change that didn't materialize until hundreds of years after his death. The following short biography of his life is from the Wycliffe Bible Translators website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wycliffe lived almost 200 years before the Reformation, but his beliefs and teachings closely match those of Luther, Calvin and other reformers. As a man ahead of his time, historians have called Wycliffe the "Morning star of the Reformation."
Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible—the first complete European translation done in nearly 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution.
But the Lollardy movement was short-lived. The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed.
The Catholic church at the time of John Wycliffe was taking money from people at every possible opportunity and spending was out of control. The Bible was not available in a translation that the people could read and people. The Pope was heavily involved in politics, yet his popularity was low.
John Wycliffe resisted these teachings and was a pioneer for change that didn't materialize until hundreds of years after his death. The following short biography of his life is from the Wycliffe Bible Translators website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wycliffe lived almost 200 years before the Reformation, but his beliefs and teachings closely match those of Luther, Calvin and other reformers. As a man ahead of his time, historians have called Wycliffe the "Morning star of the Reformation."
Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible—the first complete European translation done in nearly 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution.
But the Lollardy movement was short-lived. The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)