The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

timmopussycat · #15 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

We have too many people who say, ‘I support the church with my money, and I’m there on Sunday. What more do you want of me?’

Yep, that sounds pretty much like what I'd say if asked why I'm not involved in my own "ministry."

...though I might say it more like this: "I love being there on Sunday, fellowshipping with God's people, attending to the preaching of the Word and hiding it away in my heart, and receiving the Lord's Supper for my edification. I love praying together. I love the study of the WCF that we do once a month in the evening. I carry these things into the world with me during the week so that I can be a strong witness to my colleagues, friends, and family. Why must you so deceitfully describe with a statement such as "I support my chuch with my money, and I'm there on Sunday. What more do you want of me?" making me sound so trivial and impious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergie's quote

The answer of course is, ‘We want a great deal more of you! Have you awakened to the fact that you are in ministry? Are you trying to take responsibility to help someone else move forward spiritually?’ .... everyone has a spiritual ministry to and responsibility for other people.”"[/i]

Well, it's unfortunate that, in J.I. Packer's opinion, the Church wants a great deal more of me, because so does my secular calling that God has appointed me to do to the best of ability, and so does my apartment, which didn't come with an automatic upkeep system, and so do my two jobs, and so will my family in about 3 weeks. Work six days; rest one day.

I've got two points to make here. 1) I think this is a rare Packerian infelicity of expression. Knowing where he is coming from, (Anglican background and Regent College) I am willing to bet that JIP would say that "Christ wants a good deal more of you" more exactly expresses his intent. Keep in mind that the man has taught for over 20 years at Regent College where the teaching program is "every member ministry" in a sense I will define below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodas_Prodigy

I guess that I am a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. Every person who is a believer should be involved in some form of ministry whether it is evangelism, missionary work, apologetics, children's church, Gideons, Wycliff, small groups, etc etc etc.

I do wonder if our pews are just full of unbelievers hoping to get in by going to church and being good people? Or, do we have a bunch of spiritual babes who are fat and sassy?

Quote:

Or perhaps we have a bunch of pharisees who would put unscriptural burdens on other believers in order to enforce some false notion of piety and duty. How about lazy ministers? O, the possibilities!

Given the state of the Anglican church in North America, JIP is pointing out what many evangelicals in that church setting have for years identified as a real problem. Although it is mostly in the anglo-catholic and liberal wings, it is not unknown among the evangelicals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

As you have been wont to demand in other threads, where is your scriptural support for the assertion that "every believer should be involved in some for of ministry"?

2) Before the discussion gets too heated, please remember that, for evanglical Anglicans and many evangelicals and everybody in any way involved with Regent College, "ministry" is a word that has two meanings not just one. One meaning is the providing of teaching given in sermons, the other is serving "one another in love" (Gal 5.13) engaging in "works of service" in various ways," both inside and outside the church "so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph. 4:12). Regent College began on the premise that laymen could profit by training to be more effective Christians not only inside (e.g. Sunday School teachers, church adminstrators) but especially outside the church, working as Christians in the world. To this day it offers the Diploma of Christian Studies for such people and that Diploma systematically exposes the students to a very well thought out and practiced version of the Reformed doctrine of vocations. Consider whether or not Dr. P is using the word "minister" in this latter sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The logic of "everybody's a minister" is ... that there will be no "Minister."

Of course, we want everyone to have an opportunity for various forms of "involvement" in the communal life of the church. But what about THE Ministry? Is it a reality? If it is, then the "pew sitters" (as they have been termed) actually have a right to expect their Minister to give 100% to his task. And their elders to give 100% to theirs. And the deacons too.

But I don't recall the Word of God listing the job descriptions of anyone else. So, the creation of various "ministries" in the church is ... just man-made positions. Holding people accountable for spiritual negligence, when God hasn't, is a species of Phariseeism.

As was already pointed out, there is a doctrine of callings (or vocations). Some are called to the ministry. Everyone else is called to "work with their own hands," so that they might have something to give to others in need. Putting someone on guilt-trip for not "contributing" at church, instead of praying and waiting for the Spirit of God to move hearts to expand the church's reach, is the wrong tactic. Trying to turn the church into an activity center is foolish.

The people are supposed to come to the SERVICE. Whose service are we talking about? GOD'S. Yes, that's right, as a matter of fact, it IS all about coming to church and get get get get get. Receive Receive Receive Receive Receive. That is EXACTLY what salvation is all about. It is the job of THE Ministry to GIVE to the people in the pews, on behalf of God.

That the people respond dialogically (by speaking back to God) is perfectly reasonable. But that is the WORSHIP aspect of the "worship/service." Perhaps we would be better instructed by calling it a Service/worship.

That Paul seems to restrict the term to the teaching ministry does not mean that the bible as a whole does so. Biblically, we can't restrict the term "ministry" to the authoritative teaching function in the church. It is also used of service functions: we find it used when Martha was overworking (Luke 10:40), of daily food distribution (Acts 6:1) and charitable relief (Acts 11:29). Even though we don't have job descriptions of these ministries, it is clear that the word can be used to mean a non-teaching or non-authoritative action or actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

There are so many good points here that I'm not even going to attempt to italicize or bold them all.

I, as a layperson responsible for his studies, jobs, home, and soon-to-be-family am sick and tired of this kind of talk. I thought I was done with this when I left the charismatic church. During the Reformation we did away with this halfway monasticism and allowed those who aren't called to work in the Church feel like we're still doing something important to God. It is obvious that the laity is to have fellowship with believers, speak words of kindness, pray with and for others, etc., but that is NOT THE SAME THING as having an actual position or "ministry" within the Church. If you want more ministries in your church, elect more elders. Stop guilt-tripping the rest of us.

It concerns me that the propagation of unconfessional ideas has been disciplined and stifled so vigorously in other forums on this board, but when it comes to believers trying to unconfessionally yoke other believers on matters of music, alcohol, literature, and this sort of thing we have to tolerate it. Why should this discussion even be necessary here among Reformed Christians? Go read Luther. Go listen to the White Horse Inn.

Given the background from which he is coming, I don't believe for a second that JIP was trying to do anything of the sort. As noted above Regent is a college that trains both lay Christians as well as pastors in the Reformed doctrine of vocation. And having seen Dr. P operate in that environment, I know he has full sympathy with that doctrine.