Comments on: Two models of ministry

By: organshoes

organshoes — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:48:55 +0000

Good examples, S Bauer. Yes, the ‘old’, but certainly not the same-old-same-old.
But they were only new in the sense that they were new to us and to our experience, but not new or in addition to the Eternal Word.
The same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Indeed, re abortion: the ‘new’ things are our own invention: that aborting an unwanted, unloved baby is a charitable act, or a boon to an overburdened mother.

By: S Bauer

S Bauer — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:18:20 +0000

Thank you; I understand better where you are coming from now. I agree that one must be careful and clear when talking about ‘God doing something new,’ especially in this day and age. God has revealed everything we need in Christ and Christ has given it to us in His Word and Sacraments. We do not talk of God doing something new in the realm of justification, as it is distinguished from sanctification. At the same time, the mission of Christ Jesus and the purpose of the Sacraments is ‘a new heaven and a new earth.’ Jesus said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ In the realm of sanctification and from our personal perspective, God is doing ‘new’ things all the time. The elimination of abortion as acceptable behavior (until recently) from western culture was something ‘new’ that was done by the Gospel. The slow, painful repudiation of slavery was something ‘new’ done by the Gospel. The alteration of attitudes toward women in our society (even though distorted in many way by feminism) was something ‘new’ done by the Gospel. And yes, I recognize all this ‘new’ stuff was all part of God’s original creative plan and so really ‘old.’

By: organshoes

organshoes — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:58:41 +0000

Do we need to see the paralytic walk to confirm our own faith, or to confirm the object of our faith?
Is not our own faith enough of a testament?
To suggest God does not do anything new is not to suggest He doesn’t still perform miracles, and even those through His saints and servants here in time on earth. But that is nothing new, objectively speaking: it’s nothing other than what He’s promised, through the old means of His promise-making, to do. He’s made no new promises, and certainly not undone anything He’s already decreed and done, by saying anything new or different. He does not oppose Himself, change His mind, open things up to a new interpretation, etc.
Maybe part of Another Kerner’s reaction to the saying is that the Anglican bishop Gene Robinson has used these very words to justify his holding his office not only in spite of his active homosexuality, but, it could be argued, due to it. The Episcopal church in America has chosen to make a statement about homosexuality through making this man a bishop in the church. But, of course, it is the Episcopal church doing something new, and not God.
‘God doing something new’ is therefore something of a buzzword, but even without that backdrop, it’s not something to say carelessly, or without explaining what is meant. True, every day is new, and every moment of every day. But, also true that there is nothing new under the sun: no new promise, no new revelation about God or His promise or His plan or His nature. We don’t know everything there is to know about God, but The Great I Am has revealed himself sufficiently.

By: Another Kerner

Another Kerner — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:37:56 +0000

It is my understanding that……..

The canon of Scripture is closed.

From Genesis to Revelation, it is complete.

We are apostolic and confessional, trusting in Scripture Alone (one of the three Solas of the Reformation.)
And Scripture interprets Scripture.

However, there are not any more genuine “apostles” and or “prophets” who provide *direct* testimony of Jesus Christ today.

Hebrews 1:1-2

“God who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by who also he made the worlds…….”

Scripture alone, Faith Alone by Grace Alone through Christ Alone.

Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King.

By: S Bauer

S Bauer — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:39:42 +0000

I’d like to hear more about this idea that God isn’t doing anything new.

By: Another Kerner

Another Kerner — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:22:27 +0000

Perhaps. if one is a regular listener to The White Horse Inn and a reader of Horton’s books, one is not so misunderstanding of what he is driving at in his article.
Although it seems that the plain meaning of his words would be hard to misconstrue.

“The same ministry that leads us and our children to Christ, in an every deepening communion with Him and His Body often reaches strangers.”

It seems his contention is simple enough and well expressed.
He laments “Madison Avenue” techniques and methodology, a la the Charles Finney model of “enthusiastic revivalism” and proposes that, for our consideration, that the Scriptural model which sustains and supports the existing body of Christ is also the model which brings those who were once a far off into the Body of Christ.

He laments frantic “marketing” of Jesus and asks us to believe that God The Holy Ghost will always point to Christ Alone by Grace Alone through Faith Alone with Scripture Alone as we preach Him crucified, administer the sacraments and teach the young.

Simply, the Church is the creation of the Word.

In a forthcoming issue, Horton will address the “Worship Wars”. There *is* a connection.

As an adult Lutheran convert, once a stranger who was afar off, who fled Rome *and* “American evangelical revivalism” , given faith and joy in the three Solas in Wittenberg, I agree with Horton in “All Crossed Up”.

It is God The Holy Ghost builds faithful congregations, not the “enthusiasts” of infused grace.

As Luther suggests:
“They have swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all”.

By: WebMonk

WebMonk — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:01:07 +0000

Maintenance vs Mission is certainly a false dichotomy but it exists anyway.

I don’t know your synod, but I’ve been in many churches that have a definite “maintenance mode-only” going on. And, while most of the items listed are indeed false dichotomies, I know churches that still hold to the worst constructions of one of the sides, and declare it as the one and only way the Bible says to operate a church as opposed to the other side.

Suits REQUIRED (literally ask you not to come back unless you wear one) in the name of being “formal”.
Refusal of ANY restriction on behavior in church in the name of being “expressive”.

The list goes on. Depending on the connotation, sub-meaning, or extent of any of those terms, they could be a good or bad thing.

It was good that Horton put the immediate qualifier that the “contrasting” tendencies should not be simplistically identified with good and bad. Indeed, the rest of his article didn’t seem to really deal with the supposed dichotomies he set up, so I suspect that it was an off-the-cuff list, not intended for specific comparison and analysis.

By: Chryst

Chryst — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:49:17 +0000

Or in our synod’s borrowed parlance, “Maintenance vs. Mission”

Which is a false dichotomy and misleading characterization with perjorative undertones, IMHO.

By: Sarah in Maryland

Sarah in Maryland — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:02:16 +0000

Oh yeah, and paradox. I love the Lutheran embrace of paradox. simul justus et peccator…

By: Sarah in Maryland

Sarah in Maryland — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:00:16 +0000

I went back and read the article. That’s funny, I wrote out Acts 2:42 before reading the article. Neat. I liked the article very much. I think that the list is handy, but can create false dichotomies just by looking. I see where he is going better after having read it.

RE: “Sometimes God does something new” and what you mean by “Being open to the spirit”.

Well, God doesn’t do anything new, per se, but often “new to us” in this time at this place. When was the last time you saw some paralytic walk at a Lutheran church? It isn’t that Lutherans don’t believe that God can do that, we know that He did.

Please understand that I came from a very “spirit-filled, charismatic” background. Even as a child, I remember saying to the group that we needed to keep things in order, for God is not a God of chaos. Nonetheless, healings, prophecy, dreams, visions, etc. all of that is real and it still happens. (Sadly, there are pretenders out there, but it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t still do these things.)

I came to the Lutheran church for many reasons. The theology for one. The liturgy is beautiful and filled with scripture. Communion. The focus on the cross and being saved by grace. (I’m getting excited just thinking about it!!!!!) These were things that I learned as a child. We usually met in home churches, as our understanding of the early church. But when I moved to Maryland I wanted to find a church church. I wasn’t comfortable with Baptist grape-juice communion, Evangelical vaccuousness, and I couldn’t get past the pope-thing to become a Catholic. Where could I go that was solid theologically and Beatiful in practice? Lutheran.

BUT will we build an ark if someone hears from God? Will we shore up grain if someone has a dream? Will we heal the sick, raise the dead? That’s what I mean by “being open to the spirit.”