The man with 10 talents….gained 1 more!!!

on pg 173 it says that we are all part of the body and if one person isn’t doing there part then the body suffers. I defintley agree with that. on the drama team I’m on God has equipped each of us with gifts and talents. Its like when we all come together with our gifts and talents the pieces of the puzzle fit.  We have had alot of times when someone would backslide and not be able to bring there gifts and talents the drama team, which would effect us as a ministry emotionally more than anything, but we would also realize that our anointing was off or very dry. However when that person is sat down God always finds away to anoint us which just goes to show that our anointing is not controlled by just one person.  I say all this because i don’t totally believe the body will suffer  if one person is isn’t doing their part.  When one person isn’t doing there part on the drama team its our job to stand in the gap for them.  Which means God can and will equipp us to do there part as well as ours. It kind of reminds me of the parable of the one who had 1 talent and he hid it so the Lord gave his 1 talent to the one who had 10 talents. I think of that as the Lord equipping the one with 10 to handle his 10 talents plus the other mans 1 talent. He is feeling in the gap for him. So i guss my question is does this make sense to you? Do you agree? If I’m wrong please show me how.

Ashton and Davis

On page 102 Ashton mentions the garments worn by priests.  I was impressed by the fact that he did not simply bow to his tradition but rather questioned practices that are not biblical.  I appreciated hearing the Anglican priest’s historic explanation of priestly wear on Tuesday.  I agree, however, with this week’s author that a different dresscode for the leader of a ceremony and the laity can promote a mistaken notion: that an elite group exists which has easier access to the Father than the rest of the church.  This runs against the Biblical teaching that there is but one go between man when it comes to God and man, and that is the great high priest, Jesus Christ.  My question to you is this: what reasons can you think of for why a ceremony leader should or should not wear distinctive dress?

FAMILY ORIENTED SERVICES

So on page 106 Ashton talked about how during a family oriented service, all parts of it should be child friendly. He says thats its not fair to keep the children in and then to ignore him. I strongly agree with him on this one. Growing up i hated with a passion going into the services with all the adults because it was so BORING!!! everything the pastor said i felt was blah blah blah blah! I felt the pastor could have made the service a little more intresting on the fourth Sundays if all the children had to sit in there unwillingly. I feel that when children go into a church service, which in my case was once a month, they should seriously try to make it as child friendly as possible. I believe that if kids are intrested in the service, but at the same time get the message given then they won’t have the mindset that “BIG CHURCH IS BORING!” Also just because a service is child friendly doesn’t mean that it down plays the Adults or does lack of edification. Dr. Olshine told us in our communicating to youth class that if you can engage a child than you can engage an adult and your lesson will probaly have a strong impact on them.  children need simplicity and a creative approach through the sermon that will keep them locked into the service. if you ask me adults are the same way.

So i guess my question is what ways can we keep our family oriented services child friendly and adult friendly?

Variety of services

Its hard to write a blog this week, because i pretty much agreed with everything that Ashton said.  I do want to just get to the chase and talk about the part about the variety of services from pg 88-89. The discussion was on how some churches offer a variety of services throughout Sunday. This is good because it can operate in a culture that a specific group is most familar with. However if the number of services were cutted this will allow more preparation to be focused on one service and a higher quality can be achieved. I agree in a way. Growing up I was used to 3 services on a Sunday. One at 8.00 a.m one at 11:00 a.m. and then an evening service at 6:00 a.m. As i can recall the pastor was the one who taught at all three of these. Which could effect the higher quality of what one service can achieve.  Also sometime the first service would spill into the second service which could leave people comming into the second service a little behind what is trying to be communicated by the pastor. Then the third service comes around later in the evening, and if you ask me this leaves the pastor spiritual and physically drained right? I say this to ask. Although there might be a variety of services on a Sunday do you think the higher quality can still be achieved if a diffrent person spoke at each of the services?

Ashton

From p.68: “To concentrate on getting so absorbed with God that we cease to notice those around us during a church service is not perhaps as spiritual as it might seem . . . The more truly they focused on God, the more aware they would actually become of one another.”

I heartily concur.  It really does seem like the ideal of personal communion with God is upheld these days, where the worshipper zeroes his/her focus on God and mentally shuts out all other participants as distractions.  I am not angry with people who think like this, because it seems to make sense, but I would just put out there that it is good to be aware and even interacting with those around us when we are worshiping corporately, instead of getting “in the zone.”  A good example of this is when a little excited cheer ripples through the congregation at the words “all the powers of darkness tremble at what they’ve just heard, ’cause all the powers of darkness can’t drown out a single word!”  What do you all think?  Am I confused about what it means for us to worship together?

Principles for Music

Keller lists three principles that his church considers in its selection of music.

1) Musical form and style are not neutral

2) Musical style boundaries, however, are very elastic

3) Music styles have integrity (pp. 237-238)

Earlier I criticized Hughes for his overgeneralized (It’s bad) specific criteria (3/4 time).  Here I find a much more thoughtful approach to selecting music, one that seems to allow more room to treat each piece on its own merits.

Keller’s first principle basically says that there is some music that is altogether inappropriate to be used in worship.  In the second principle Keller bolsters his ‘midway’ position by claiming that the “anti-contemporary-music party” cannot establish “definitive and unambiguous boundaries” (p. 238, par. 1).  I agree with this, and this is really the point I was trying to get at by asking some specific, definitive-type questions earlier.  Keller’s third principle shows respect for different kinds of music.  Perhaps by adopting this approach, we could be more careful before putting another “Indescribable” kind of song to a choral arrangement with piano accompaniment (Does anyone actually think that works?).

I was actually challenged by Keller’s inclusion of jazz in worship (derived from his second principle).  Before reading his chapter, I probably wouldn’t have seriously thought of jazz as an option for worship music, and I would still hesitate to use it in my church.  Did these principles challenge any ideas you have?

Equal Leadership

So reading “keller” this week not “Carson” The thing that stuck out to me was the topic on Leading and corporate worship.  Keller stated “Leaders in corporate include all those who will be up in front – reading the scripture, praying, singing, preaching, praising, and even giving “notices or “announcements. Then he goes on to say ” Their attitude of heart and demeanor is as important as what they say.  I don’t really have much to say about this but a question did catch my attention.  Leaders are required to prepare and give there excellence for whatever they are in corporate worship. So my question is Do you think that the one that gives the announcement should spiritually prepare as much as the Pastor does. Though the pastor probally has alot more to say then one that reads the scripture or reads the announcement? are they looked upon as equal leadership positions?

Keller’s outlook

I love the way Keller takes a balanced view between those who fiercly advocate contemporary music and those who adamately hold to traditional worship forms.  I think it is sad that so much conflict occurs in our churches over music.  It seems like this is not a hill to die on.  We should be able to offer our lives in worship no matter what the music sounds like, and while the quality of the music and its style and lyrical quality do matter, the fact that remains that when we sit down (or stand up) on Sunday morning and those factors are beyond our control, we need to be able to say “God, I’m Yours–please take me” whether or not the music meets our standards.  I experienced immense peace and joy when I finally stopped fighting modern praise band music in my mind.  How much time and effort should we be putting into influencing the kind of music and lyrics that are used in our corporate services?  Why?

Footnotes

Footnotes are nice.  Unlike endnotes, the reader can quickly access the “subimformation” that relates to a certain point in the chapter and then easily reenter the chapter.  With endnotes, whether the notes are at the end of the chapter or the end of the book, the reader has to thumb back and forth to read the notes, with the result that some readers do not exert the energy and miss the insights contained in them.

That said, I especially liked footnote number 12 in Timothy J. Keller’s chapter on Reformed Worship.  In it Keller relays John M. Frame’s interaction with the “Regulative Principle,” and the logic is compelling.  Frame compares areas in which principles of worship have perhaps been applied inconsistently, such as prayer, preaching, music, and dance.  While some may have answers for the questions he poses, Frame makes a commendable effort to exclude prejudices toward certain expressions by forcing us to look at how we apply our principles [i.e. "If we are allowed to pray or to preach using our own words (based on Scripture), why can we not sing using our own words (based on Scripture)?"].

This kind of approach to an examination of our practices is helpful, but I have one question.  Is it possible that there is a qualitative difference between song and preaching (or other expressions) that would supply a reason for regulating them differently?

Sentimental Worship

Regarding Carson this week I agreed with some of the things he talked about at the same time in some areas it took me a few moments to follow him.  So regarding Sentimentality Carson said “Worship Leaders” speak completely “off the cuff,” sharing spontaneous thoughts”( p 209) As a result of this he also basically goes on to saying this is mediocrity and informality, because there is no sense of awe, no sense of being in his presence of the Holy.”  Then Carson goes on to talking about sentimental worship which is wrong because it works directly on people’s emotions rather than trusting on God’s spirit to bring truth home. He disagree with authors telling us things such as “God is good instead of why he’s good, because then there telling the readers how they must feel instead of letting the subject work on them in the same way it did for the author. Part of me is with him there and part of me is not.

Regarding leaders I think when they began a selection of a song and they say something to the congregation like God is good and then they read a scripture that goes along with that or they play a song that shows the goodness of God than I don’t think that’s telling the readers how they must feel. That’s them expressing there personal appreciation of the Lord and hoping that the congregation will feel the same way.  I was thinking about how sometimes before a pastor begins his sermon he says out loud to the congregation “ GOD IS GOOD, and the congregation says “All The Time, I don’t think that’s telling the congregation how there suppose to feel. I think it’s just again our appreciation to God, but I don’t think someone could fully understand that if there worship is only active on Sundays.  So I guess my question is do you agree with me? Or did I totally miss what Carson was saying?