skipping back a bit
Little did you all know that on Myspace, there is still discussion on one of my previous blog posts, don't tell me what i don't want to hear. Ben Cantwell commented first, then Paul posted his tonight. I figured it was substantial enough to keep you all updated. Feel free to elaborate on anything that's being said.
Ben Cantwell:
i would have to ask, "How do we learn?". Usually through repetition. So these points that the skits where making may seem repetitive and wearisome to you and others, but to some it may be what they need. If a speaker was to come to Alma and start getting into a deep theological speech, to you and a select number, it would probably be gripping, but to others it would be completey pointless. As 1 Corinthians 3:2 points out some people need "milk", or to be taught the basics, while others are ready to handle "solid food", or the meat of the Bible, the deeper questions. Be patient.
Ok i dont know anything about the Jonah guy, so i wont really touch that subject. But remember to not speak for the whole High School. Maybe im wrong and you did go around and talk to everyone or a survey was taken, but maybe someone was intrigued. Maybe it actually caused the story of Jonah to stick in someones head. Maybe it helped. It is the word of God, it is powerful. I would encourage you to balance your pessimism of sorts with some optimism. There might be good in something that may be childish to you.
Me:
Thanks for your comment, Ben, and I would like to apologize if I made it seem as if I believe their ministry to be totally ineffective and useless. Obviously, because they are still around, there is a marginal group of people who are affected on a deep spiritual level by that kind of performance. And I would not subtract from it at all by saying that they, as an organization, are dim-witted and careless. They were sincere believers who found joy in proclaiming "the gospel" (if you want to call the emphasis of their teaching the gospel, that is--which I believe is seriously lacking).
My question is, "What did we learn?"
Perhaps there were a few people in the audience who were deeply affected on Wednesday. But what were they affected by ? Do what God says? Be a good person? Keep trying hard? Trust God? Certainly, all of these are wonderful morals to treasure, but by no means should they express any life-altering truth. You can almost see it this way: the gospel--the story of Jesus--is life-changing. Morality and Christian growth is like a side effect (a good, natural side effect, that is). I've talked about this many times in other blog posts, about how grace and works mesh together when it comes to the teaching of the gospel, but the harmony between the two is never discussed. It's always one or the other.
The "solid food" and "milk" analogy is definitely applicable here, though I'm not sure in the same way you might be implying. I see no reason why the milk teachings and the solid food teachings must be separate. In fact, I believe that all Christian doctrinal teaching (i.e., sermons and our own school chapels, bible classes) MUST include both. Christians must constantly chew through the meat, while at the same time be reminded of and nourished by the milk. Just because a child develops teeth to eat meat doesn't mean the child should stop eating vegetables or drinking liquids.
Teachings like the ones we received this past Wednesday are certainly important, but I would actually consider them to be the "meat", which is where (I believe) you and I disagree. The milk, which I'm going to assume is the gospel, is something that must be applied to everything. ANY teaching without gospel application is not Christian, because there are plenty of religions that teach us how to be good people and follow God--in fact, I'm pretty sure all theistic religions (religions that hold some kind of divine authority--which would include atheism, but in a more nuanced, subtle sense) follow this concept in one way or another.
My main gripe about this past Wednesday was not necessarily that the style was cliched--and, if it was effective, on a purely emotional basis--but that the gospel was not applied, which made it seem like just another moral pep rally.
I'm fully in favor of raising up those who are new to the faith, and teaching them the basics of Christian living. But I'm also fully in favor of continuing that process, of continuing to apply the gospel to Christian living, for those who have just started, and for those who have had their faith for a large portion of their lives.
While it is true that God can use any tool for his glory, I don't think this gives us license to pick up whatever rusty, crappy tool we find lying around. I'm not charging people in Covenant Ministries with being lazy about their ministry and not caring enough to do their best. But I would definitely argue that there are much more effective ways to minister the gospel.
I haven't surveyed every student in the school to get their opinion, but I doubt you have either, so I wouldn't really consider that to be a valid argument in this case for either of us. I'm operating from my own experience, and by my general knowledge of how we highschoolers think; what is effective, and what isn't. I also have had credible sources of feedback, affirming my statements throughout the post. Mr. Quiring is one such example (he wasn't there, but he wasn't sad to miss it when he found out what it was--read his comment here).
Again, thank you for your comment Ben, and I'm glad to see that you're still concerned over the affairs of our puny little school :P. I hope God can make many changes for the better at Alma Heights, and that his ministry will more and more be shared effectively through those he loves.
Ben:
Are you saying that obeying what God commands, being a good person, persevering, and trusting God are not life altering truths?
Also i was not speaking for the high school as a whole. Just pointing out possibilities or 'maybes' since i really have no idea whats going on at Alma, haha.
Me:
Are you saying that obeying what God commands, being a good person, persevering, and trusting God are not life altering truths?
Without the gospel, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Ben
ah thanks for clarifying
Paul Sieger
I'd like to offer my two cents on this, although judging by the length and depth of your blog and also your reply to Ben, you're hard set on this and most likely won't be swayed. Anyway, it seems that the way your mind works, you need some hard truths, some challenging questions, or some criteria of intelligence to be moved or to be able to label something as "effective." I was in student council with you and I've read your other stuff and that's what I've seen. You're intelligent and so you associate with what you feel is intelligent. I don't know if Alma Heights is still the same, but from what I remember, not everyone there is like that. A lot of people's minds don't work the same way yours does. So if you weren't moved or impressed, that doesn't mean nobody else was. The way I see it, even if they didn't focus on the gospel and the truth of the resurrection, that doesn't lessen their message. You said that they emphasized good morals and trusting God and trying hard and all of that, and I wasn't there, but I don't see how there's any negative aspect to that. Like Ben said, the best way to learn is through repetition. You may have heard it a million times, but it's never bad to hear it again. You have to keep in mind that this is an entire school, no matter how small it may be. Just because you felt it was innefective does not mean it wasn't ineffective.
As far as the altar calls go, I was never a fan of that either. But it was only because of how people reacted to it. People will go up and give their lives to Christ on a complete emotional whim, and then go back to the exact same way things were in their lives. But I don't think that's a bad thing. You can never know what God is doing in someone's heart. The most you can do as a Christian is witness to them and pray for them and wait for God to move.
Anyway, I'm a little distracted right now and lost my train of thought, but I'm interested in hearing back from you and hopefully I'll be able to collect my thoughts better.
Me:
Thanks for the comment.
I fail to see the extreme depth and complexity to my arguments. When I talk about predestination, yes, that's when things get sticky:) But the topic of the post above is, I believe, quite elementary: apply the gospel.
I would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with teaching good morals and proper behavior. But without the gospel, these teachings are shallow, futile, and meaningless. You can hear good morals and fidelity being taught at any mosque or Bhuddist temple, but Christianity is unique because of the gospel.
What I mean by that is this: when we're told to do good things and try hard to be nice to other people (and when we fail, to simply be told to "try harder"), it may be effective for a little while. But eventually, we will all get burned out, and often give up/stumble and fall. The whole reason Jesus came and died was to not only "save us from the fires of hell", but to enable us to live a life pleasing to God. We cannnot believe that Jesus came simply as a megaphone so that God could shout his commands louder than before. Rather, we must be driven by the sole motivation of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Only out of a heart of gratefulness and thankfulness can we truly and commitedly pursue the life God wants us to live.
How do we keep ourselves in a thankful and grateful attitude? By constantly reminding ourselves of the gospel: that is, reiterating (on a daily basis) that all we have, all we are working for, and all we are able to do is a result of the sheer act of grace God gives us always. Repetition IS important, I definitely agree. But repetition without meaning (void of the gospel) is, to put it redundantly, meaningless.
If someone says that the above is "too theologically complex" for the masses, then I would argue that "the masses" have not fully grasped what the gospel really means, and that we are in some serious trouble. I honestly do believe that the above is understandable, simply because it is a theme repeated over and over and over again in the New Testament. It is absolutely vital to the daily life of every Christian.
I can tell you (from factual observation and knowledge) that those who are not saved at Alma Heights remain that way simply because the argument for Christianity is simply not convincing--assuming any argument for Christianity is actually ever given. We talk about how "deep down inside, we all want to have a relationship with God". That may be true, but the entire argument is staged on an emotional basis, along with the presumption that there is a God in the first place. There are plenty of intellectual arguments that can be made, and none too complex (Creationism, by the way, is NOT one of them and should be avoided as an argument for God at all costs).
I agree with you that altar calls are usually ineffective. So why have them? When people come to faith on their own, after working it out in their own heart and mind, and indpendently seeking to pray with others (who should always be open and available to do so) in order to act on it, I'd say they're making a fairly solid and serious commitment. It's very easy to make a commitment when you're emotionally pressured to do so. Altar calls should become a thing of the past, as well as all forms of hand-raising, standing/sitting, and whatever other "displays of faith" speakers decide to plague us with. These are well-meaning but ultimately corrupt methods of doing ministry.
Thanks again for your input, Paul. I hope you're doing well, and perhaps I'll see you soon! (?)
jm
Ben Cantwell:
i would have to ask, "How do we learn?". Usually through repetition. So these points that the skits where making may seem repetitive and wearisome to you and others, but to some it may be what they need. If a speaker was to come to Alma and start getting into a deep theological speech, to you and a select number, it would probably be gripping, but to others it would be completey pointless. As 1 Corinthians 3:2 points out some people need "milk", or to be taught the basics, while others are ready to handle "solid food", or the meat of the Bible, the deeper questions. Be patient.
Ok i dont know anything about the Jonah guy, so i wont really touch that subject. But remember to not speak for the whole High School. Maybe im wrong and you did go around and talk to everyone or a survey was taken, but maybe someone was intrigued. Maybe it actually caused the story of Jonah to stick in someones head. Maybe it helped. It is the word of God, it is powerful. I would encourage you to balance your pessimism of sorts with some optimism. There might be good in something that may be childish to you.
Me:
Thanks for your comment, Ben, and I would like to apologize if I made it seem as if I believe their ministry to be totally ineffective and useless. Obviously, because they are still around, there is a marginal group of people who are affected on a deep spiritual level by that kind of performance. And I would not subtract from it at all by saying that they, as an organization, are dim-witted and careless. They were sincere believers who found joy in proclaiming "the gospel" (if you want to call the emphasis of their teaching the gospel, that is--which I believe is seriously lacking).
My question is, "What did we learn?"
Perhaps there were a few people in the audience who were deeply affected on Wednesday. But what were they affected by ? Do what God says? Be a good person? Keep trying hard? Trust God? Certainly, all of these are wonderful morals to treasure, but by no means should they express any life-altering truth. You can almost see it this way: the gospel--the story of Jesus--is life-changing. Morality and Christian growth is like a side effect (a good, natural side effect, that is). I've talked about this many times in other blog posts, about how grace and works mesh together when it comes to the teaching of the gospel, but the harmony between the two is never discussed. It's always one or the other.
The "solid food" and "milk" analogy is definitely applicable here, though I'm not sure in the same way you might be implying. I see no reason why the milk teachings and the solid food teachings must be separate. In fact, I believe that all Christian doctrinal teaching (i.e., sermons and our own school chapels, bible classes) MUST include both. Christians must constantly chew through the meat, while at the same time be reminded of and nourished by the milk. Just because a child develops teeth to eat meat doesn't mean the child should stop eating vegetables or drinking liquids.
Teachings like the ones we received this past Wednesday are certainly important, but I would actually consider them to be the "meat", which is where (I believe) you and I disagree. The milk, which I'm going to assume is the gospel, is something that must be applied to everything. ANY teaching without gospel application is not Christian, because there are plenty of religions that teach us how to be good people and follow God--in fact, I'm pretty sure all theistic religions (religions that hold some kind of divine authority--which would include atheism, but in a more nuanced, subtle sense) follow this concept in one way or another.
My main gripe about this past Wednesday was not necessarily that the style was cliched--and, if it was effective, on a purely emotional basis--but that the gospel was not applied, which made it seem like just another moral pep rally.
I'm fully in favor of raising up those who are new to the faith, and teaching them the basics of Christian living. But I'm also fully in favor of continuing that process, of continuing to apply the gospel to Christian living, for those who have just started, and for those who have had their faith for a large portion of their lives.
While it is true that God can use any tool for his glory, I don't think this gives us license to pick up whatever rusty, crappy tool we find lying around. I'm not charging people in Covenant Ministries with being lazy about their ministry and not caring enough to do their best. But I would definitely argue that there are much more effective ways to minister the gospel.
I haven't surveyed every student in the school to get their opinion, but I doubt you have either, so I wouldn't really consider that to be a valid argument in this case for either of us. I'm operating from my own experience, and by my general knowledge of how we highschoolers think; what is effective, and what isn't. I also have had credible sources of feedback, affirming my statements throughout the post. Mr. Quiring is one such example (he wasn't there, but he wasn't sad to miss it when he found out what it was--read his comment here).
Again, thank you for your comment Ben, and I'm glad to see that you're still concerned over the affairs of our puny little school :P. I hope God can make many changes for the better at Alma Heights, and that his ministry will more and more be shared effectively through those he loves.
Ben:
Are you saying that obeying what God commands, being a good person, persevering, and trusting God are not life altering truths?
Also i was not speaking for the high school as a whole. Just pointing out possibilities or 'maybes' since i really have no idea whats going on at Alma, haha.
Me:
Are you saying that obeying what God commands, being a good person, persevering, and trusting God are not life altering truths?
Without the gospel, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Ben
ah thanks for clarifying
Paul Sieger
I'd like to offer my two cents on this, although judging by the length and depth of your blog and also your reply to Ben, you're hard set on this and most likely won't be swayed. Anyway, it seems that the way your mind works, you need some hard truths, some challenging questions, or some criteria of intelligence to be moved or to be able to label something as "effective." I was in student council with you and I've read your other stuff and that's what I've seen. You're intelligent and so you associate with what you feel is intelligent. I don't know if Alma Heights is still the same, but from what I remember, not everyone there is like that. A lot of people's minds don't work the same way yours does. So if you weren't moved or impressed, that doesn't mean nobody else was. The way I see it, even if they didn't focus on the gospel and the truth of the resurrection, that doesn't lessen their message. You said that they emphasized good morals and trusting God and trying hard and all of that, and I wasn't there, but I don't see how there's any negative aspect to that. Like Ben said, the best way to learn is through repetition. You may have heard it a million times, but it's never bad to hear it again. You have to keep in mind that this is an entire school, no matter how small it may be. Just because you felt it was innefective does not mean it wasn't ineffective.
As far as the altar calls go, I was never a fan of that either. But it was only because of how people reacted to it. People will go up and give their lives to Christ on a complete emotional whim, and then go back to the exact same way things were in their lives. But I don't think that's a bad thing. You can never know what God is doing in someone's heart. The most you can do as a Christian is witness to them and pray for them and wait for God to move.
Anyway, I'm a little distracted right now and lost my train of thought, but I'm interested in hearing back from you and hopefully I'll be able to collect my thoughts better.
Me:
Thanks for the comment.
I fail to see the extreme depth and complexity to my arguments. When I talk about predestination, yes, that's when things get sticky:) But the topic of the post above is, I believe, quite elementary: apply the gospel.
I would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with teaching good morals and proper behavior. But without the gospel, these teachings are shallow, futile, and meaningless. You can hear good morals and fidelity being taught at any mosque or Bhuddist temple, but Christianity is unique because of the gospel.
What I mean by that is this: when we're told to do good things and try hard to be nice to other people (and when we fail, to simply be told to "try harder"), it may be effective for a little while. But eventually, we will all get burned out, and often give up/stumble and fall. The whole reason Jesus came and died was to not only "save us from the fires of hell", but to enable us to live a life pleasing to God. We cannnot believe that Jesus came simply as a megaphone so that God could shout his commands louder than before. Rather, we must be driven by the sole motivation of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Only out of a heart of gratefulness and thankfulness can we truly and commitedly pursue the life God wants us to live.
How do we keep ourselves in a thankful and grateful attitude? By constantly reminding ourselves of the gospel: that is, reiterating (on a daily basis) that all we have, all we are working for, and all we are able to do is a result of the sheer act of grace God gives us always. Repetition IS important, I definitely agree. But repetition without meaning (void of the gospel) is, to put it redundantly, meaningless.
If someone says that the above is "too theologically complex" for the masses, then I would argue that "the masses" have not fully grasped what the gospel really means, and that we are in some serious trouble. I honestly do believe that the above is understandable, simply because it is a theme repeated over and over and over again in the New Testament. It is absolutely vital to the daily life of every Christian.
I can tell you (from factual observation and knowledge) that those who are not saved at Alma Heights remain that way simply because the argument for Christianity is simply not convincing--assuming any argument for Christianity is actually ever given. We talk about how "deep down inside, we all want to have a relationship with God". That may be true, but the entire argument is staged on an emotional basis, along with the presumption that there is a God in the first place. There are plenty of intellectual arguments that can be made, and none too complex (Creationism, by the way, is NOT one of them and should be avoided as an argument for God at all costs).
I agree with you that altar calls are usually ineffective. So why have them? When people come to faith on their own, after working it out in their own heart and mind, and indpendently seeking to pray with others (who should always be open and available to do so) in order to act on it, I'd say they're making a fairly solid and serious commitment. It's very easy to make a commitment when you're emotionally pressured to do so. Altar calls should become a thing of the past, as well as all forms of hand-raising, standing/sitting, and whatever other "displays of faith" speakers decide to plague us with. These are well-meaning but ultimately corrupt methods of doing ministry.
Thanks again for your input, Paul. I hope you're doing well, and perhaps I'll see you soon! (?)
jm
posted by John Mark at 11:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home