Pray Believing!

This thread at SCF was exactly what I needed to read tonight, especially Kevin's post. He said his new motto is “Pray Believing!” and that reminded me how often I fail to do just that.

When praying, I often find myself saying “Lord, if this is possible…” But wait a second, if I have faith, why am I saying if this is possible? So I correct myself, it is possible, after all, all things are possible for God.

Yet the problem is not over just yet. Then I resort to what Kevin called a “timid 'well, I guess if you want to do it, God, it would be okay, but I understand if you don't' prayer.” I have tried in the past to remind myself of Matthew 17:20, but all too often I find that I don't keep this verse's lesson in mind.

“For most assuredly I tell you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.”

Kevin quoted the similar verse Mark 11:22-23 and that too is worth marking in my brain. There are things I have been praying about that I am convinced are things God has led me to pursue. If I am convinced of this, why do I always prefix my requests with if's? If I am not even confident in asking, I certainly do not have the mustard seed faith to move a mountain; Jesus' example is one of confidently asking for that which one believes to be God's will. While I could certainly be wrong about where God is leading me, I should trust that God will show me that, if need be, and instead focus on praying with the confidence that He has led me to seek this path.

It is simple enough to say that. Now I must try to live it. I need to “Pray Believing!”

He is RISEN

Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb, and saw the stone taken away from the tomb. Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!”

Therefore Peter and the other disciple went out, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first. Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.

But Mary was standing outside at the tomb weeping. So, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. They told her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I don’t know where they have laid him.”

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and didn’t know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?”

She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned and said to him, “Rhabbouni!” which is to say, “Teacher!” Jesus said to her, “Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
He is risen indeed!

Were You There?

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?

Were you there when they pierced him in the side?
Were you there when they pierced him in the side?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they pierced him in the side?

Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?

A Good Friday Meditation

A gave a meditation on “word four” of the seven last words of Christ tonight at church; they asked different lay people from around church to give 3-4 minute meditations on each of the words (really phrases) of Christ while on the cross. This was interesting, it was my first experience at the pulpit (I've given prayers a few times and I did a testimony long ago, from the lectern, but never “pulpit material”). I was somewhat nervous before, went into autopilot during the actual four minutes up there and felt completely drained afterwards — I can't recall four minutes being more draining. I'm use to public speaking, but this was different. I have to say I rather liked it, it felt good to give a little meditation on the wondrous love of God.

At any rate, for anyone interested, you can find the meditation on SCF; it's essentially based on the quotes I posted here this morning.

Good Friday

In Him God makes Himself liable, at the point at which we are accursed and guilty and lost. He it is in His Son, who in the person of this crucified man bears on Golgotha all that ought to be laid on us. And in this way He makes an end of the curse. […] And God does this, not in spite of His righteousness, but it is God's very righteousness that He, the holy One, steps in for us the unholy, that He wills to save and does save us. […]

'His Son is not too dear to Him,
He gives Him up; for He
From fire eternal by His blood
Would rescue me.'

That is the mystery of Good Friday.

—Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 118.

Good Friday is truly the most amazing day of the year, it seems to me. Christmas is the stunning entry into this world of the very Son of God. Easter is His triumph over death. But Good Friday is the day that God gave up His son to the cursed death that belongs on me.

It was the third hour, and they crucified him. The superscription of his accusation was written over him, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.” With him they crucified two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left. The Scripture was fulfilled, which says, “He was numbered with transgressors.” […]

When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is, being interpreted, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

—Mark 15:25-28, 33, 34.

What wondrous love is this?

Church Polity

Kevin blogs on the problem of congregational church polity. As someone who has always been in a congregationalist polity-based church, I have somewhat of a tendency to disagree that that it is really a bad idea. But, I don't think it is a good idea either, mind you.

On the positive side, a congregational model is ideal for insuring against the larger bureaucracy of a domination destroying the life of an individual church. Consider what is presently going on here in St. Louis with St. Stanislaus Kostka Polish Catholic Church; they are one of the few (only?) parishes that owns its own land and therefore has something like a congregational system; the board members have received interdicts from the Archbishop and the priests have been revoked. Supposedly this is so that the church will agree to act like an normal Catholic church, but the fact that the archdiocese has been selling a lot of propertie,s and St. Stans has $9 million in property, makes me wonder of Archbishop Burke has an ulterior motive for reversing a 120-year old church polity arrangement. This type of problem can occur in any non-democratic form of church polity, unless the church is independent. When considering non-denominational, non-democratic churches, on the other hand, we face a problem wherein those types of churches often move towards “personality cults” focused on the charisma of the founding pastor/benevolent dictator.

Another good example of the benefits of the congregational method is that of my own church. I've talked about this before. Our denomination was headed far away from Biblical principles, so we were able to jump ship. This is a uniquely congregational benefit; with congregational churches, the churches are in something more like a federation than a unified organization, and therefore Biblically based churches are far less likely to be sunk by heretical denominational trends. Had we been in a denomination with a different type of polity, this could not have happened.

On the other hand, I see problems with the congregational system as well. First off, I'm not aware of any one who actually uses a pure form of it. Typically, congregational churches don't have the congregation vote on everything, but have representatives on a church council or similar. This lowers accountability, since there aren't any strong oversight bodies above the church level and the congregation typically does not have a true vote on even the representatives chosen. Moreover, true congregationalism can't last, since the individuals must either create a higher level organization to keep the denomination together or the member churches will diverge too far from each other.

If you can guess, however, I'm not a big fan of episcopal polity, especially. Its not that I have anything against churches that use it, but personally, I think leads to the most corruption. Now, then, what is the ideal form of polity, in my opinion? I don't think I know of an ideal form, but I've come to the conclusion that presbyterian polity is the best mix. Despite John Milton's accusation that the “episcopal arts bud again” when presbyterianism was implemented in England during Cromwell's rule, I think it makes the most sense. Incidentally, it also mirrors our government's system of representation too.

I think the idea of having a body that is a mix of clergy and church representatives on various levels, from the session to the presbytery to the general assembly, is a wise arrangement. As with our own secular government, it makes sense to recognize that pure democracy doesn't work, but a republic works as a balance against the greater corruption of totalitarian systems.

Seeking God's Direction

Okay, so I'm dense. One problem I have in seeking God's direction is that God often seems to open up a door, but I don't know where to go once I'm in that door. Today was one of those days. Two different things I have prayed about what to do on started to be resolved today (within a few hours of each other, in fact!). But, I emphasize they started to be resolved. Going back to how I mentioned I'm somewhat dense at times, I haven't figured out if this means I should try to jump in with both feet and move forward or if I'm suppose to take a more passive role and watch what happens. I'd lean toward the former, but first I think I need to consider what's happening a bit more.

For now, I won't worry about that, though. I know I have been seeing God at work and I'm just thankful to see what He has done today. Presuming it is His will for things to move forward, I hope to be able to post about both events in detail soon. If not, I'm still sure I will in do time, because while I may question this later, while the experiences are fresh, I know these were not just coincidences.

To Stay or To Leave

Mark asks an interesting question in one of his recent posts. If the U.S. government made Christianity illegal, would you leave the country? Where would you go?

At first, it seems like a no-brainer, but would any place else be freer if that dreadful time should come? As I wrote in a comment on Mark's site:

I'd leave if I had to, but I'm not sure where I'd go. My guess would be that if the U.S. outlawed Christianity, countries such as Canada, the U.K. and Australia would already have done so as well.

Presuming South America didn't follow suit, I guess I would go there as well [as Mark says he would]. Perhaps Eastern Europe [I'm thinking Romania or Poland, perhaps] might be a good choice as well… If I found a country with a good Calvinist-Reformed Church tradition, so much the better, but I'd live with whatever I had to, so long as there was some kind of Christian church there that would either agree with my views or be willing to allow me to dissent on non-essentials.

It is interesting (and disturbing) to think about this. Where would I go? I could just stay here and practice faith in private and that might be almost a better option. If the U.S. ever outlawed Christianity or religion in general, I just can't imagine it being before many other countries (particularly the ones I might fit into the best). If I was a Catholic, it'd probably be a bit easier too — there's a whole lot more Catholics internationally than Protestants…

Update (2005.03.23): Mark pointed out to me that he said Portugal. For some reason I read Paraguay. Don't ask me why, I'm not sure, but clearly I had a Freudian slip.

Seizing Joy

I feel joyful tonight. While I'm no way like Jacque, I've quoted him the last two days on here, and I felt like I was feeling somewhat melancholy. I'm rarely depressed, but I do have a melancholy streak (I'd make a distinction between those moods). Now, I'm feeling joyful. I feel like today I've seen some things more clearly than I have for awhile and that's exciting.

The thing with joy is that it doesn't last, but the things that joy brings about do last. Some things I saw today might normally lead me to be depressed, but instead brought joy because they all fit together. Joy isn't having everything go right, it's something much more than that. True joy is coming closer to seeing God's purpose for you, and I feel like I got a glance at that today from some of the least likely places.

---

The Question of God: Sunday School Edition
In other news, the C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud discussions have been going great. If I ever get some free time, I should like to consider how it can be reformatted for a Sunday School class. After the first time I saw this material, I thought the videos would be perfect in such a setting, and I'm even more convinced now. It would be a class for people who want to discuss things — perhaps it would not draw a large crowd, but I think it would be a healthy thing to do. Faith needs to be pushed to become stronger. Looking at the arguments and counter-arguments of these two men works for that purpose, I think.

Challenges to faith ought to be dealt with in the church. Not by insulting the opposition, but understanding it. Freud's views are popular and powerful today, and the only way for the church to properly apologize against it is to make members informed about the challenges in an objective way. These are serious challenges that can be given by perfectly rational people, and it is only by presenting the arguments as such, and then dealing with them appropriately, that the church can move to a firm foundation in the information age.

How would I present it? I'd cut out the panel (which isn't that good anyway) and focus on the portions that delve into the beliefs of the two famous men. Perhaps you could play two segments (one from each) per week, which would take about twenty minutes, and then discuss for the remaining 40 minutes of an hour long adult Sunday school.

Pondering on Free Will

Those who follow SCF know I've been musing a lot about free will lately. A good portion of me is solidly in the Reformed camp, because it seems to make the most sense. Yet I continue to find it impractical to reject the notion of free will, as the strictest in Reformed theology will do. Reading Mere Christianity tonight, I reencountered Lewis's argument for the creation of free will:

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness of joy worth having. (48)

Now, Lewis doesn't suggest that we are able on our own to establish a right relationship with God. Specifically, he argues a case of God being like someone reaching down to save a person drowning in a river. That drowning person has a choice to refuse the help or accept it, but the actual process of being saved from the watery depths is entirely dealt with by the rescuer.

This sounds Arminian, and to the extent that it is, I perhaps should consider myself Arminian. On the other hand, I remain convinced of the perseverance of the saints and believe that God must reach out the hand of Grace for one to be able to accept it; perhaps He does so arbitrarily, more likely, I believe because he foreknows whom will accept Grace of their own accord having been offered that Grace. I believe the latter proposition can still qualify as election, although perhaps in a four-point Calvinist way rather than five point. In the future, I plan on considering Karl Barth's alternative thoughts on the subject of election, but that's too much to handle tonight.

Therefore, I have a foot in both camps, but remain convinced I should consider myself a member of the Calvinist/Reformed tradition. I do believe there is a divine mystery concerning the relationship of the sovereignty of God and free will in which both are allowed to coexist for the greatest good possible.