11.30.2004
Parochial System
I have been feverishly interested in and looking up any resources regarding the parochial ecclesiastical system. i guess I should qualify that by adding in "Scottish" or "Celtic", as opposed to the more identifiable Roman Catholic parish system. It all started with one small chapter in Doug Wilson's "Mother Kirk" that mentioned the work of Thomas Chalmers. Since then I have been trying to find anything I can on the man and his ideas. George Grant seems to have done a lot of work in regards to Chalmers, and keeps promising to write a book about him, someday. The problem is that all of Chalmers works are out of print, and I am not an antiquarian collector. I have also stumbled upon Thomas Guthrie, who was a co-worker with Chalmers. Although I have not even seen the tip of this iceberg, I am so intrigued and encouraged by the idea of the parish system as it relates to covenant communities. I hope to be able to expand my understanding of the workings of the parish ministry very soon.
Some ministries that appear to be using this model are the Peru Mission, and Desire Street in New Orleans. I am interested to know how this would work in suburban Tampa as opposed to the Scottish countryside or tennement slums. I have a tendency to think of a parish as consisting of the families in the church, as opposed to families in a geographical area. And to confess my pride (or fear), I would rather think of just doing it within the church. Either way, this is something I am hoping that whatever church I am a part of in the near future will commit to.
I have been feverishly interested in and looking up any resources regarding the parochial ecclesiastical system. i guess I should qualify that by adding in "Scottish" or "Celtic", as opposed to the more identifiable Roman Catholic parish system. It all started with one small chapter in Doug Wilson's "Mother Kirk" that mentioned the work of Thomas Chalmers. Since then I have been trying to find anything I can on the man and his ideas. George Grant seems to have done a lot of work in regards to Chalmers, and keeps promising to write a book about him, someday. The problem is that all of Chalmers works are out of print, and I am not an antiquarian collector. I have also stumbled upon Thomas Guthrie, who was a co-worker with Chalmers. Although I have not even seen the tip of this iceberg, I am so intrigued and encouraged by the idea of the parish system as it relates to covenant communities. I hope to be able to expand my understanding of the workings of the parish ministry very soon.
Some ministries that appear to be using this model are the Peru Mission, and Desire Street in New Orleans. I am interested to know how this would work in suburban Tampa as opposed to the Scottish countryside or tennement slums. I have a tendency to think of a parish as consisting of the families in the church, as opposed to families in a geographical area. And to confess my pride (or fear), I would rather think of just doing it within the church. Either way, this is something I am hoping that whatever church I am a part of in the near future will commit to.
11.24.2004
Don't fund the federal education system. End it
This is a great article I found from 2001 about our Federal Education System. When are people going to realize how ridiculous this system is?
"Ordinary people send their children to get smart," said Gatto, "but what modern schooling teaches is dumbness."
Education Secretary, Rod Paige, said bluntly, "We can no longer use the social experiences or conditions of children as the excuse for the low performances of children. After spending $125 billion of Title I money over 25 years, we have little to show for it."
This is a great article I found from 2001 about our Federal Education System. When are people going to realize how ridiculous this system is?
11.22.2004
Purity
Some time ago, I was at a wedding. The bride and groom were both wonderful people that I knew, who are Christians, and the wedding was beautiful. There was alot of talk about the purity of these two individuals and their relationship. Purity is a word that Christians like to throw around to make themselves feel good. There is nothing pure about us, and we need to stop lowering God's standards. The standard of purity at this wedding was that the couple had not had sexual intercourse. Is that God's standard? What about modesty, speech, conduct, and physical touch. Is it really a great triumph of will and human spirit to refrain from laying together before you are married? A good friend of mine recently wrote to me talking about how he and his wife had dated. He was explaining how the Lord was gracious to them, as he know believes dating is a VERY bad idea. His chuch had held their dating relationship as a standard, how dating should be done. They were idealized as a pure relationship. Never mind the fact that they, like so many other "dating" relationships, had rampant hidden sexual sins of every kind, but as long as they didn't have sex, they were pure. This is what happens when you adopt the world's standards instead of God's, as long as you remain a virgin, you are pure. But we use the world's definition of a virgin, instead of the Lord's.
Some time ago, I was at a wedding. The bride and groom were both wonderful people that I knew, who are Christians, and the wedding was beautiful. There was alot of talk about the purity of these two individuals and their relationship. Purity is a word that Christians like to throw around to make themselves feel good. There is nothing pure about us, and we need to stop lowering God's standards. The standard of purity at this wedding was that the couple had not had sexual intercourse. Is that God's standard? What about modesty, speech, conduct, and physical touch. Is it really a great triumph of will and human spirit to refrain from laying together before you are married? A good friend of mine recently wrote to me talking about how he and his wife had dated. He was explaining how the Lord was gracious to them, as he know believes dating is a VERY bad idea. His chuch had held their dating relationship as a standard, how dating should be done. They were idealized as a pure relationship. Never mind the fact that they, like so many other "dating" relationships, had rampant hidden sexual sins of every kind, but as long as they didn't have sex, they were pure. This is what happens when you adopt the world's standards instead of God's, as long as you remain a virgin, you are pure. But we use the world's definition of a virgin, instead of the Lord's.
11.19.2004
Beauty...what's that?
NPR was discussing the opening of the new Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York and they pieces that it contains. They were interviewing the director or someone about which pieces they chose to buy or display. She discussed how it was more difficult to do nowadays because art is not definitive, but subjective. Ah, the beauty of postmodernism, a bunch of passive-aggressive people who can't make up there minds about anything. Thank you Lord for the beauty of your Holiness!
NPR was discussing the opening of the new Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York and they pieces that it contains. They were interviewing the director or someone about which pieces they chose to buy or display. She discussed how it was more difficult to do nowadays because art is not definitive, but subjective. Ah, the beauty of postmodernism, a bunch of passive-aggressive people who can't make up there minds about anything. Thank you Lord for the beauty of your Holiness!
11.17.2004
Mother Kirk
After losing the book, and then re-ordering it, I have finally finished "Mother Kirk" by Douglas Wilson. This is definitely the best book I have read in the past year, and possibly the best book I have ever read relating to the church. Mr. Wilson conveys so many ideas which are already dear and true to my heart, as well as bring up new subjects that I am now intent on studying. He lays a foundation of practical Christianity and community that is so essential to a healthy body of believers. His 30 years of experience in shepherding the people of God shines through in his practical advice amd insight. The book's chapters on elders and ministers add to an increasing chorus of voices calling for a return to biblical leadership and oversight, and is very helpful in that cause. Some of the issues raised in "Mother Kirk" were indeed stretching for this home-churching former rebel, but there was no need for any knee-jerk reactions. Rather, I felt comforted that there are people out there who know what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Wilson is not one to merely continue in the traditions of men, he wants to continue doing what our fathers did right, and seek to be even more pleasing to the Lord through our growth.
11.12.2004
Here's a little essay I have been working on regarding Homechurch and the idea of community. Its still a work in progress, but here's what I have.
THOUGHTS ON THE CHURCH AND COMMUNITY
False Community:
The model of meeting in homes is often put forward by it’s proponents as one that embraces a community or familial spirit, unlike it’s counterpart, the traditional church. The traditional church, in this sense, meaning a structured meeting, taking place in a building strictly used for the worship service or other meetings of the church. Homechurch, it is said, fosters a sense of family in the meeting of the brethren. These meetings are supposed to imitate the gatherings of believers in the book of Acts. It is often commented that two types of meetings can be observed from the New Testament, the first being the meeting of believers at Solomon’s Portico during the day (Acts 2:46; 5:12). The purpose of this meeting seems to be twofold: the public preaching of the word, and more specifically the teaching of God’s people by the Apostles. The second type of meetings that took place in the early days of the Church, were the informal gatherings of believers in their homes. Believers gathered in each other’s homes to break bread and fellowship with one another. Many homechurchers believe that the meeting at Solomon’s Portico was primarily an evangelistic meeting, while the gatherings at each other’s homes should be the precursor to our modern understanding of the Church meeting. They argue that the Church today should adopt a model whereby believers are gathered with one another in the comfort of their homes to discuss and teach the things of God. There are many advantages and disadvantages for the people of God in adopting this model. This paper will address only one of the disadvantages that poses a significant problem to the model and lifestyle of homechurching believers: the false sense of community and its effect on the lives of church members. It is not the purpose to discredit the practice of meeting in homes, which is thoroughly justified by scripture (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15 Phm 1:2), but rather to examine one of the attitudes that is often associated with doing so.
If we are to use the text of Acts as the foundation of how we participate in the meeting and organization of a church, as most homechurchers request, we must look at the early believers lives in a general sense. While homechurch proponents are inclined to think of the house gatherings, opposed to temple meetings, as the dominant type meeting of for early believers, or the one that should frame our understanding of Lord’s Day meetings, they may actually have their order of importance all wrong. This misunderstanding actually leads to a diminished view of community. Their common inclination is to place a higher importance on the meetings in homes, assuming the meetings at the temple were for evangelistic reasons. The meeting of believers at the temple and in their homes however, is given equal weight and significance in the book of Acts (2:46; 5:42). The gatherings of believers in each others houses shown in the book of Acts should not be seen as a formula for how the meeting of the church should be held, but rather as an example of how the Christian life should be lead. These believers were excited to hear the teaching of the Apostles daily at the temple, and so they went. They were eager to hear of their Lord from those who knew Him better than anyone else. Their gathering from house to house to break bread together was a manifestation of their inherent belief in the covenant community. They existed as a body of believers, thoroughly entwined in each other’s lives.
It is common for believers participating in a homechurch model to substitute what should be a lifestyle of community during the week for a lifestyle of community on Sunday. In championing the Acts model of meeting in the home, they take what should be a common occurrence of believers during the week and make it a grand once-a-week event. This does not mean that anyone who participates in a homechurch never meets with others during the week, but it is a common flaw. It is easy for people gathering in each other’s homes on Sunday to feel a false sense of community with one another. Since their meeting time is seemingly more intimate in those few hours than with any other relationships they have outside the church, it can be easy to feel a sense of accomplishment. They talk with each other of their struggles throughout the week, their battles with the broken AC unit, or problems at work. Homechurch members tend to think that because they have shared in the fellowship of the saints, while at a brother’s house, they have somehow fulfilled their duty of community for the rest of the week. But just because a brother has seen another believer’s bathroom, it does not mean that they are living out the covenant community.
Our obligation to commune with one another does not stop after the Sunday meeting. We are encouraged to gather together in order to uplift and teach one another. We are commanded to participate in the corporate gathering and worshipping of the Lord on Sunday, and then to go and manifest our love for another, gathering together throughout the week. So many homechurch participants feel so justified by their high and lofty act of meeting in a brother’s home, that they assume they are ahead of the game community wise. They do not recognize that they are forsaking the fellowship of the saints during the other six days. In traditional churches that have chosen to pursue a biblical example of covenant community, the members sacrifice the comfort and intimacy of their homes in order to gather on Sunday for worship together. In their sacrificing, they realize the sweetness of Christian fellowship every other day of the week, as well as Sunday after church. They desire to have the people of God fellowshipping in their house on Monday, because they did not get to talk about everything on Sunday. They devote their Sunday to God, and find out about their sister’s broken AC unit while fellowshipping on Tuesday. The community that homechurchers praise themselves for having on Sunday, is actually the community that should be taking place outside the meeting of the Church during the rest of the week. It could be noted that this supposed flaw with the homechurch model might really just be a flaw in the people who would fall under the condemnation of this argument. If this is the case, it could also easily be said that the kind of person who might have this flaw, is commonly the kind of person who prefers homechurch.
If homechurchers are to thoroughly adopt the model put forth in the book of Acts, then they must begin to break bread with one another daily, go from house to house, meet together in the public square for worship, and then think about selling all they have. But nobody really wants to be that literal, they just want to be comfortable.
THOUGHTS ON THE CHURCH AND COMMUNITY
False Community:
The model of meeting in homes is often put forward by it’s proponents as one that embraces a community or familial spirit, unlike it’s counterpart, the traditional church. The traditional church, in this sense, meaning a structured meeting, taking place in a building strictly used for the worship service or other meetings of the church. Homechurch, it is said, fosters a sense of family in the meeting of the brethren. These meetings are supposed to imitate the gatherings of believers in the book of Acts. It is often commented that two types of meetings can be observed from the New Testament, the first being the meeting of believers at Solomon’s Portico during the day (Acts 2:46; 5:12). The purpose of this meeting seems to be twofold: the public preaching of the word, and more specifically the teaching of God’s people by the Apostles. The second type of meetings that took place in the early days of the Church, were the informal gatherings of believers in their homes. Believers gathered in each other’s homes to break bread and fellowship with one another. Many homechurchers believe that the meeting at Solomon’s Portico was primarily an evangelistic meeting, while the gatherings at each other’s homes should be the precursor to our modern understanding of the Church meeting. They argue that the Church today should adopt a model whereby believers are gathered with one another in the comfort of their homes to discuss and teach the things of God. There are many advantages and disadvantages for the people of God in adopting this model. This paper will address only one of the disadvantages that poses a significant problem to the model and lifestyle of homechurching believers: the false sense of community and its effect on the lives of church members. It is not the purpose to discredit the practice of meeting in homes, which is thoroughly justified by scripture (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15 Phm 1:2), but rather to examine one of the attitudes that is often associated with doing so.
If we are to use the text of Acts as the foundation of how we participate in the meeting and organization of a church, as most homechurchers request, we must look at the early believers lives in a general sense. While homechurch proponents are inclined to think of the house gatherings, opposed to temple meetings, as the dominant type meeting of for early believers, or the one that should frame our understanding of Lord’s Day meetings, they may actually have their order of importance all wrong. This misunderstanding actually leads to a diminished view of community. Their common inclination is to place a higher importance on the meetings in homes, assuming the meetings at the temple were for evangelistic reasons. The meeting of believers at the temple and in their homes however, is given equal weight and significance in the book of Acts (2:46; 5:42). The gatherings of believers in each others houses shown in the book of Acts should not be seen as a formula for how the meeting of the church should be held, but rather as an example of how the Christian life should be lead. These believers were excited to hear the teaching of the Apostles daily at the temple, and so they went. They were eager to hear of their Lord from those who knew Him better than anyone else. Their gathering from house to house to break bread together was a manifestation of their inherent belief in the covenant community. They existed as a body of believers, thoroughly entwined in each other’s lives.
It is common for believers participating in a homechurch model to substitute what should be a lifestyle of community during the week for a lifestyle of community on Sunday. In championing the Acts model of meeting in the home, they take what should be a common occurrence of believers during the week and make it a grand once-a-week event. This does not mean that anyone who participates in a homechurch never meets with others during the week, but it is a common flaw. It is easy for people gathering in each other’s homes on Sunday to feel a false sense of community with one another. Since their meeting time is seemingly more intimate in those few hours than with any other relationships they have outside the church, it can be easy to feel a sense of accomplishment. They talk with each other of their struggles throughout the week, their battles with the broken AC unit, or problems at work. Homechurch members tend to think that because they have shared in the fellowship of the saints, while at a brother’s house, they have somehow fulfilled their duty of community for the rest of the week. But just because a brother has seen another believer’s bathroom, it does not mean that they are living out the covenant community.
Our obligation to commune with one another does not stop after the Sunday meeting. We are encouraged to gather together in order to uplift and teach one another. We are commanded to participate in the corporate gathering and worshipping of the Lord on Sunday, and then to go and manifest our love for another, gathering together throughout the week. So many homechurch participants feel so justified by their high and lofty act of meeting in a brother’s home, that they assume they are ahead of the game community wise. They do not recognize that they are forsaking the fellowship of the saints during the other six days. In traditional churches that have chosen to pursue a biblical example of covenant community, the members sacrifice the comfort and intimacy of their homes in order to gather on Sunday for worship together. In their sacrificing, they realize the sweetness of Christian fellowship every other day of the week, as well as Sunday after church. They desire to have the people of God fellowshipping in their house on Monday, because they did not get to talk about everything on Sunday. They devote their Sunday to God, and find out about their sister’s broken AC unit while fellowshipping on Tuesday. The community that homechurchers praise themselves for having on Sunday, is actually the community that should be taking place outside the meeting of the Church during the rest of the week. It could be noted that this supposed flaw with the homechurch model might really just be a flaw in the people who would fall under the condemnation of this argument. If this is the case, it could also easily be said that the kind of person who might have this flaw, is commonly the kind of person who prefers homechurch.
If homechurchers are to thoroughly adopt the model put forth in the book of Acts, then they must begin to break bread with one another daily, go from house to house, meet together in the public square for worship, and then think about selling all they have. But nobody really wants to be that literal, they just want to be comfortable.
11.01.2004
Everyone make sure you vote tomorrow... because if you don't, the world will go to hell in a handbasket (don't you know God can't control American politics, Bush is our only savior). And make sure you vote for someone who can win, even if he is almost a carbon copy of John Kerry with an (R) after his name...and thinks the God of Muslims is the same as Christians...and that's it's Okay to kill some babies...and that sodomites should be respected....and they should be allowed to have the same rights as married couples...Just make sure you vote, OK?
www.peroutka2004.com
www.peroutka2004.com
<
