12.22.05
Posted in faith, sunday school journal at 12:30 pm by brandon
So, where I left off last time, I was blabbering on about total depravity, truth, and reformed Christianity. I made the case that reformed Christianity’s tenent of total depravity made possible the idea that it’s impossible, due to sin, to as a human being ever ‘have’ the truth in an un marred form. Where that leaves us is a somewhat untenable position of never being able to tell the truth.
Now, the very label “reformed” implies that we can try to be something better than what we are. However, given our discussion about truth being ‘unaccomplishable’ as an individual puts us in an unfortunate position. Fortunately, we’re not charged with the task of reformation (a really packed word, which I hope to get into further soon) all on our own. As the Church–a community of Christians–we’re given the task of seeking right, truthful relationships with all the things (i.e. culture, politics, relationships, vocations, etc.) that surround us.
As a community–a group–we’re able to accomplish more than we would be able to do so individually. We’re held accountable and our ideas can be scrutinized and further reformed by that community. Now, I wouldn’t say that there’s anything particularly ‘reformed’ about the idea of community. I would say that community isn’t even a particularly Christian construct. Community happens. Groups happen. It’s human nature to relate to others within our own species. It is, however, a reformed spin on this age old part of human nature to use the community as the fundamental building block for accountablity in our search for truth.
We talked a little about this concept in Sunday school last Sunday. The basic idea of this somewhat hard to grasp concept is that groups that reflect an accurate diversity of temptations as well as reflect a diversity of strenghts are best equipped to hold its community accountable. For example, if I get into a group of people who are all hot-headed, liberal, and fame-seeking–I’d be among similar people. Those similar people aren’t likely to balance out my shortcomings. And, my strengths would probably be over-represented.
Heterogeneous groups, diverse communities are important. Fundamental to this notion of community is the idea that we’re going to butt heads with our community members from time to time. After all, if one of the most important features of community is that we’re not all the same, our differences are going to be a problem from time to time.
Oddly, this reformed perspective (which is my perspective as a person who broadly adheres to a tradition of from within the reformed tradition, rather than a popular reformed perspective) isn’t really very well done by many reformed Churches. In many cases churches in the Reformed tradition–though they’re getting better at this–often tend to be somewhat reticent to accept the idea that their theology, of change and progress toward a diverse community that accepts a wide variety of perspetives, is actually a socially progressive one.
It’s a shame, really, that lots of churches in the reformed tradition (okay, let’s be honest, I’m specifically talking about Christian Reformed Churches) are unwilling to challenge the status quo in this regard. Rather, I fear that many Christian Reformed Churches have coopted the theological tenents of Fundagelicalism in America. They’re not really interested in any progress that doesn’t include the work of convincing people to accept their version of the gospel. Of course, that’s a broad assertion which can’t be understood to apply to every church in the denomination, but it’s largely true.
I think this is one of the coolest tenents that can be applied to reformed Christianity. The idea that our callings, our vocations are realised as a community of Christians. We’re held accountable to accomplish the work of restoration of an imperfect world through these groups. Next time, I hope to get into some of the questions that Nicole asked elsewhere, and delve into some of the more troubling aspects (for me at least) of Reformed Christianity.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Community, Faith.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/12/22/reformed_christianity_and_community/trackback/
Posted in faith, sunday school journal at 12:30 pm by brandon
So, where I left off last time, I was blabbering on about total depravity, truth, and reformed Christianity. I made the case that reformed Christianity’s tenent of total depravity made possible the idea that it’s impossible, due to sin, to as a human being ever ‘have’ the truth in an un marred form. Where that leaves us is a somewhat untenable position of never being able to tell the truth.
Now, the very label “reformed” implies that we can try to be something better than what we are. However, given our discussion about truth being ‘unaccomplishable’ as an individual puts us in an unfortunate position. Fortunately, we’re not charged with the task of reformation (a really packed word, which I hope to get into further soon) all on our own. As the Church–a community of Christians–we’re given the task of seeking right, truthful relationships with all the things (i.e. culture, politics, relationships, vocations, etc.) that surround us.
As a community–a group–we’re able to accomplish more than we would be able to do so individually. We’re held accountable and our ideas can be scrutinized and further reformed by that community. Now, I wouldn’t say that there’s anything particularly ‘reformed’ about the idea of community. I would say that community isn’t even a particularly Christian construct. Community happens. Groups happen. It’s human nature to relate to others within our own species. It is, however, a reformed spin on this age old part of human nature to use the community as the fundamental building block for accountablity in our search for truth.
We talked a little about this concept in Sunday school last Sunday. The basic idea of this somewhat hard to grasp concept is that groups that reflect an accurate diversity of temptations as well as reflect a diversity of strenghts are best equipped to hold its community accountable. For example, if I get into a group of people who are all hot-headed, liberal, and fame-seeking–I’d be among similar people. Those similar people aren’t likely to balance out my shortcomings. And, my strengths would probably be over-represented.
Heterogeneous groups, diverse communities are important. Fundamental to this notion of community is the idea that we’re going to butt heads with our community members from time to time. After all, if one of the most important features of community is that we’re not all the same, our differences are going to be a problem from time to time.
Oddly, this reformed perspective (which is my perspective as a person who broadly adheres to a tradition of from within the reformed tradition, rather than a popular reformed perspective) isn’t really very well done by many reformed Churches. In many cases churches in the Reformed tradition–though they’re getting better at this–often tend to be somewhat reticent to accept the idea that their theology, of change and progress toward a diverse community that accepts a wide variety of perspetives, is actually a socially progressive one.
It’s a shame, really, that lots of churches in the reformed tradition (okay, let’s be honest, I’m specifically talking about Christian Reformed Churches) are unwilling to challenge the status quo in this regard. Rather, I fear that many Christian Reformed Churches have coopted the theological tenents of Fundagelicalism in America. They’re not really interested in any progress that doesn’t include the work of convincing people to accept their version of the gospel. Of course, that’s a broad assertion which can’t be understood to apply to every church in the denomination, but it’s largely true.
I think this is one of the coolest tenents that can be applied to reformed Christianity. The idea that our callings, our vocations are realised as a community of Christians. We’re held accountable to accomplish the work of restoration of an imperfect world through these groups. Next time, I hope to get into some of the questions that Nicole asked elsewhere, and delve into some of the more troubling aspects (for me at least) of Reformed Christianity.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Community, Faith.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/12/22/reformed_christianity_and_community/trackback/
zalm said,
December 22, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Right on.
But just to clarify… when you talk about a diverse community, you mean a broad cross-section of Dutch folk, right?
grace said,
December 22, 2005 at 4:57 pm
“Heterogeneous groups, diverse communities are important.”
Hear! Hear! I’m not comfortable in argumentative situations and I’ve been participating in a bit of a discussion going on in another blog circle I frequent about the MCC. He (a straight, graduate student preacher type) hates the fact that a specific church has to exist based primarily on this one behavior. I, on the other hand, think it’s probably best that it exists since those who belong there don’t view homosexual acts as sin and don’t consider it a struggle to be gay. (which is fine…please no one jump on me for saying that…i’m all about being compassionate and loving my gay friends.) But, my point is, the diversity of those who STRUGGLE with same sex temptations should be WELCOME in our churches…but at some point you have to be willing to agree on some basics. I guess I’m just saying all this here because this post of yours makes me feel better somehow about the position I’ve taken with this guy on this issue. I’m sorry this is not coherent and probably not even on subject. But I feel better and I’m very much enjoying and being challenged by this series you’re writing.
grace
meg said,
December 22, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Yea Brandon! You sure you don’t want to join me at seminary? I’d love your company but of course, you’d have to curtail all this seditious blogging. . .
Think about it. . .
Brandon said,
December 23, 2005 at 5:31 am
Yeah, I saw that ’seditious blogging’ bit over at your place. Sounds like CTS is up to its usual tricks, eh?
I’m rather enamoured with my grad school as it is, so I’m going to have to take a big pass on the seminary route. I’m not sure I’d do so well there.
jvjannotti said,
December 23, 2005 at 8:36 pm
They’re not really interested in any progress that doesn’t include the work of convincing people to accept their version of the gospel
Heh. You definitely don’t need to specify, that makes a mighty nifty, nearly 100% generalizable truth when applied to churches of all stripes, as well as some Christian bloggers.
Present company excepted, of course.
mike said,
December 24, 2005 at 9:04 am
Surely you’re not such a Calvinist as to believe lock, stock and barrel in total depravity?!?! This is where Calvin really screwed up a fairly decent theology. Shoot, I don’t think even five-pointers believe in TD anymore….
Joshua Heath Claborn said,
January 4, 2006 at 5:28 pm
the only church that exsist are those that are saved from eternal damnation. The focus of the church has never changed only people and their idea of what the church is has changed. The church has only had one purpose and one purpose alone to serve Christ. One faith, one babtism, one Lord! The church was founded on the day of pentecost (ACTS CHAPTER 2)
The truth is in the word of God, regarding the function of the church. There is no such thing as community in the eyes of the Lord. ONE CHURCH! ONE MIND! ONE MOTIVE!
visit my blog I believe you may enjoy! The truth shall set you free!
Joshua Heath Claborn said,
January 4, 2006 at 5:33 pm
The bible makes it abundantly clear that division is wrong in the church, when we rely on our beliefs about the Gospel we fail to understand that the Gospel was given to us by God. The gospel has not changed men have changed. Salvation has not changed.
What Must I do to be Saved?
God’s Plan for Man’s Salvation
The most important question man will ever ask is: What must I do to be saved? The ramifications of the answer given are eternal. Therefore, it is imperative one allows the author of man’s salvation (Hebrews 5:9) to give the answer. God has provided man with everything he needs in relationship to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). This knowledge comes through the Bible, which is His inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:16). Since all Scripture is inspired, whether spoken by the prophets of the Old Testament (Hebrews 1:1), Jesus (Hebrews 1:2), or the apostles (John 16:13), one must use all of Scripture to find the answer. No new revelations from God have come since the Bible was completed (Jude 3; Revelation 22:18, 19). Therefore, the Bible is the only source of information qualified to tell man what he must do to be saved. Since the same inspired Word is to be the standard by which man is judged on the last day (John 12:48), it is the final word on man’s salvation.
What does the Bible say in answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” When the rich young ruler asked the question, the answer given by Jesus was: be obedient to God’s law and follow Me (Mark 10:19, 21). Even though the Old Law was fulfilled and taken out of the way (Ephesians 2:15), God still requires obedience as a step in salvation (Hebrews 5:9). Man’s part in salvation begins with a willingness to obey God’s new law, the law of liberty (James 1:25), and a willingness to seek and follow Jesus (Hebrews 11:6). When the Philippian jailer asked the same question, he was told to believe on the name of Jesus and he would be saved (Acts 16:30, 31). Since he was a Gentile and it was unlikely he had ever heard the Gospel, Paul and Silas taught him the Word (v 32), so he could believe (Romans 10:17). When he heard the Gospel and was able to believe in Jesus, he was baptized (vv 33, 34). His belief made him a candidate for the rest of God’s plan. In the same way, when the Jews on Pentecost posed the question, “What must we do?” they were commanded to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:37, 38). The Gospel message preached by Peter and the other apostles had convicted their hearts of the fact they had murdered the Messiah. They were convinced that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. Since they had already come to believe in Him, the next step was repentance. Repentance is a change of heart and mind, caused by godly sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:9, 10), which results in a change of life (Matthew 3:8). Until convicted by the message, they had been antagonistic towards Christ and his message. Therefore, the call to repentance was a call to leave their lives of sin and become obedient to the Gospel. The second condition given to them to save their souls was baptism for the forgiveness of their sins. Their belief and willingness to live right had no value as long as sin remained. Peter urged them to be saved (v 40), prompting 3,000 who had believed to be baptized. Notice, even though they believed and were willing to repent, Peter did not consider them saved before they were baptized. Saul of Tarsus received a similar command when he asked the same question on the road to Damascus (Acts 20:10). Jesus instructed him to go into Damascus, where he would learn the answer. The appearance of Jesus convinced him Jesus was indeed Lord. Three days of praying and fasting (Acts 9:9) showed him to be penitent. Nevertheless, when Ananias saw him, he recognized Saul had not been forgiven of his sins. Therefore, the answer to Saul’s question was: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). Saul’s belief, his time of prayer and fasting and his repentance had all left him in his sin. He would not be forgiven until he was baptized and he could not call on His name without the act of baptism. Notice, if anyone could be saved by saying a “sinner’s prayer” it would have been Saul. Yet, Ananias interrupted his prayers to tell him how to be washed of his sins.
Since God’s Word must be taken as a whole (Acts 20:27), one must take all of these examples together to come up with God’s complete plan of salvation. God’s plan for man’s salvation is the same today as it was in the days of the New Testament! God loves man (John 3:16) and it is His desire all men be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but not all men will be saved (Matthew 7:13, 14). Man must do his part and allow grace to make up the rest (Ephesians 2:8).
Therefore, man is saved by:
Grace – Ephesians 2:8
Faith – John 8:24
Repentance – Luke 13:3
Confession – Romans 10:10
Baptism – 1 Peter 3:21
Obedience – Hebrews 5:9
Work – James 2:24
To receive this salvation, man must hear the Gospel, so he can develop faith (Romans 10:17). He must then believe with all his heart that Jesus is the Son of God (John 3:16). He must repent of his sins (Acts 17:30) and confess Jesus before God and man (Matthew 10:32, 33). Finally, he must be baptized into Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins (Mark 16:16) and live faithfully unto death (Revelation 2:10). Living faithfully means he strives towards perfect obedience (Hebrews 5:9) and does the works of God (James 2:24), while relying on God’s grace to forgive him when he sins (1 John 1:7-9).
That, friends, is the answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?”
You are invited to come and worship God with us at the Moulton Church of Christ
Sunday services start in the morning at 10:30.
I put this sheet together so I could share with those in the world the saving power of Jesus. Many believe themselves to be a Christian yet; they do many things a Christian should not do. The truth is that God is the judge of right and wrong and he has told us how to live and to be saved from the everlasting death in sin. Many do not know that they are in danger of losing their souls; I just wanted you to know that Jesus cares about you. God is closer than many care to know. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things shall be added unto you. Life is to short not to be certain of your fate. If you have any questions I wish that you would give our Church a call and ask to speak to someone that can help you find what you are looking for.
J. Heath Claborn
Joshua Heath Claborn said,
January 4, 2006 at 5:34 pm
my blog is http://faithvslogic.blogspot.com/
nick said,
September 23, 2007 at 6:36 am
I think you guys are really overthinking the whole thing. We’re talking about an invisible man who lives in the sky, afterall… how ‘reformed’ can he possibly be?