Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Finding a replacement
I have nursery duty at church on Sunday but I’ll be out of town, so I took out the master list and started calling people who are up on Sundays close to mine to see if I could arrange a swap. The first person I called was a teen named E., but she wasn’t home so I ended up talking to her mother. Her mother, L., is in her umpteenth round of chemo for ovarian cancer and asked if I would pray with her, as she was feeling a bit stressed. Her mother and grandmother and aunt and cousin all succumbed to cancer, and L.’s hope is that she won’t die until her son and daughter graduate from high school (they are a senior and junior respectively).
We took turns praying, and L. thanked God that He had given her this special opportunity to show the powers of darkness His ability to glorify Himself. As she prayed that, I thought of the Indian fellow who long ago had said to Marylin Heavilin after her sons died: “What a privilege it is to meet a person to whom God has entrusted such suffering.”
But E. has already swapped nursery duty with someone, so I had to make another call. I dialed C.’s number, as she is also on the schedule for November, but ended up talking with her mother. C.’s father also has cancer and will be going to an orthopedic guy this afternoon to find out why there’s pain in the arm where his “pic” line is. We prayed, and K. thanked God for giving them grace day by day.
I had spent a lot of time on the phone so I tabled my mission for a while and went back to work. One of these days I will find a person to swap with for nursery duty.
back to top15 Comments to “Finding a replacement”
Any peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line that burns is definitely something to get checked out.
Report comment to moderator
Oswald Chambers the other day talked about how everything which crosses our path is ordained by God and we should embrace those divine opportunities (Michelle’s interpretation). You may have thought you were trying to find a sub, when in reality you were called to minister that day and the nursery was just an excuse.
Thanks be to God. Good job, faithful servant.
Report comment to moderator
i love it! thanks for sharing.
hazel, aka z
Report comment to moderator
I’m proud to say that no one can even be a volunteer helper fill-in at my church without the mandatory Child Protection Training. CPT isnt that difficult but it does fend off would be bad folks. How many of yall got similar training at your churches?
Report comment to moderator
None at church, everyone at Boy Scouts.
Note: church nursery always has two people and we all know each other.
Report comment to moderator
Andree,
Your brief article reveals 2 sad (Sad I think to Jesus) realities that are built into the institutionalized form of church life.
1. The normal gathering time of believers does not promote initimate, mutual, contact among believers regarding their trials and receiving support from the body of believers. Believers have been taught there are “more important matters” for the whole body.
Have you ever wondered why it took a nursery “duty” call to connect with these saints to participate with them in their trial? Why is it that this intimate connection had not taken place already in the natural course of your weekly “fellowship gathering”? These struggles have been around your church for a while. I’m sure your church is not a mega one, but doesn’t this indicate that the assumed system of this “fellowship” (probably an institutionalized one) is gravely lacking in what the Bible says believers are supposed to do when they “meet”?
2. The assumptions that require babies to be separated out, usually away from their parents and the rest of the saints.
I am aware of the assumption that a babies cry will “interupt” the worship aura of believers or the pastors “train of thought”. To me this is a perfect illustration of why the disciples were shooing away the children and Jesus rebuked them saying “Let the little children come to me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven. When children, even babies are sterilized out of the gathering of the saints, believers loose track of what the kingdom of God is all about.
These are “normal” realities for saints who are intoxicated with a form of church that is dominated by crowd sized gatherings dominated by hired expert expression of truth and ambiance control. I say “intoxicated” because they read their Bible but are completely unable to see how these “normal” behaviors “nulify the commands of God” written in their Bibles. Plus they will be insensed that I suggest there are severe problems with this form of church that they “enjoy” so much.
Report comment to moderator
When we are looking to be Jesus’ hands and feet, he’ll put us where he needs us–no matter the size, denomination, or worship practices of a given church.
Report comment to moderator
6-
Thank you! It is always refreshing to read your thoughts on these issues. Keep it up.
Report comment to moderator
Tima,
Gatherings of thousands are reported in the New Testament. Not regular Sunday services, no, but to specify a “holy” size of a church is speaking where Scripture doesn’t. I agree with you (at least what you say here) about nursery, and prefer not to see any age group separated out–but ironically I just edited a chapter about house churches in which the writer says the children can be taught by someone else during the teaching time!
My church is small (under 100). A number of people in my church know me intimately. Does everyone? No–but I’ll wager as many people in my church know me intimately as know you in your church, because my church has more people to begin with. My church is small enough that I have looked around on Sunday morning and realized I know some deep struggles of everyone in the congregation. (I think there was only one exception the week I did so.) That indeed isn’t the primary purpose of church, but it isn’t necessarily hindered by larger gatherings, because even in them you should know some people well. (My sister attends a church of several hundred, and she tells me she knows the names of about 300 of them, and knows several dozen well. I am not the least bit interested in a church that large, but any size church can work–and not be unbiblical–for those who are in it.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
How easy it is to rationalize our favorite traditions with bogus thoughts. Even though Catholics had their bogus traditions exposed 500 years ago, it doesn’t stop them from following them because they do not “examine them with the scriptures to see if they are true”. Acts 17:11. Protestants today are now “comfortable” with their traditions and will not “examine them with the scriptures to see of they are true.”
1. “Gatherings of thousands are reported in the N.T.”
This is so shallow. Jesus never tried to gather even one crowd. They just happened because they were enamored seeing his miracles and getting one them selves. Many times he left the crowds. He did try to disciple 12 men. How many people were in room on the day of pentecost that followed Him from his crowd times? There is no link to anyone.
2. “to specify a “holy” size of a church is speaking where Scripture doesn’t.”
Read what I said again. I did not specify a “holy size”. I specified holy function. This requires a small group of people spending much time together to accomplish one another expression of truth. Heb. 10:24,25; Col 3:16 and others. These are very specific instructions. They cannot be obeyed in a crowd. Do you have one instruction for crowd gatherings to obey? There is not one instruction such as “Let us consider how we can line up in pews and hear one man dominate the expression of truth in one-way communication – no participation or questions or anything from anyone else.” (Now read what Heb. 10:24, 25 really says)
The chapter you edited certainly is ironic. Meeting in a home is NOT merely a different location for meeting. It is a completely different paradigm for the meeting itself. The hard work of obeying Christ is found in doing all of what He says.
There are some intimate, mutually building relationships in institutionalized churches. But a very low percentage of people there do them – maybe 10 percent. I have been in that system for many years. I know the system. Changing the brand name on the church sign, or one pastors focus vs. another doesn’t alter the results of the system. As a former leader in the system, I know how much effort is made to help everyone “feel” they are relationally connected, but with no substantive parts of the church life designed to accomplish it where everyone will participate. When it is done, it is an optional part of church life that never has the same priority as the pulpit/pew time.
“..but any size church can work..”
Yes, because God’s grace is so big. However the saints don’t get all the rewards God has planned from them when they shortcut His design. Jesus told us no one God has chosen will be left out. But not credit for this comes from a bogus system – only God’s grace. His grace helps us to see what He has designed, but we excuse away this grace with tradition protection.
“…and not be unbiblical…”
No, everything in the Word counts. Check the great commission: “…teaching them to observe everything I commanded…” What kinds of mediocrity to you see and say “.. oh, it’s biblical”?
I don’t hand out the rewards on when we stand before Christ, but I am responsible to help believers get more rewards by bearing more fruit and demonstrating more love for Christ by obeying His commands. Be a Berean.
Report comment to moderator
Tima,
You come across as dogmatic, even harsh, on this topic. (Less so on this thread, but “mediocrity” and “excuse this” and “bogus system” suggest actual theological error.) Again I’ll say that nothing in Scripture insists that church size stay under a certain size (or demands that pews are unholy). In fact, some biblical concepts are hard to do with a house church, just as some are hard to do with a larger church. For instance, I brought up elders and deacons to the writer I worked with this week, and he more or less indicated they don’t really work that well in a house church. (That may not be a fair summary of what he said, but he basically said that the leader is usually an elder, and some in the church might more or less function as deacons, but basically that not every house church will have both elders and deacons, and some won’t have either.) And yet to me they seem like part of the biblical framework for the church.
And the local church as a cross-section of the Church–seems to me that works better if you have more than three or four families, too. Will house churches effectively minister to singles or widows or across cultures? It depends on the church, of course, but as a single I would be reluctant to join a house church. Keep in mind my closest friendships have always come from church, and I prefer that they do–and I don’t want my fellowship circle this limited. Larger churches can more effectively minister in “collective” ways–sending missionaries, doing city ministries. We vary in our giftedness, and in how we live it out.
God puts different parts in the body on purpose. Are large churches part of the same body? If so, then attacking them in the name of reforming them (correcting erroneous doctrine) is probably not the best approach. If you belong to Christ, then I am your sister–even if my church is larger than yours. We should rejoice in one another’s giftings and placement and not seek to bring disunity or prove that everyone else is doing it wrong. (Show us the benefits of the house church, not the horrors of the larger church.) I don’t see this as a black-and-white issue from Scripture (and remember, I have read on this issue from an advocate just this week); therefore, it’s one on which we should show unity. I may try to convince others of the blessings of having children in the service (I prefer that route to showing the negatives of nursery and children’s church), but it isn’t an issue on which I will divide from brothers and sisters. Nor should it be. (Ironically, within my biological family I have a sibling who has written books about children’s church–how-to, favorable books–and another sibling who’s trying to find a church that doesn’t have one.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – I recently finished reading Pagan Christianity, the book that Reg mentioned so often. (I read it so I could better understand her viewpoint.) What Tima wrote here & has written elsewhere is addressed in it.
It was very interesting & challenging. I looked around on the internet to find reviews, especially negative ones to compare to what I’d read. (As Prov. says, the first one to state his case seems right…)
The few negative reviews I’ve read so far haven’t been too specific about what is wrong in Viola & Barna’s research, merely stating that the reviewers disagree.
I’d love to read a longer review – or the opinion of someone I respect – that would be more specific, perhaps treating the various arguments one by one, so I could compare the pros & cons of the book’s research & statements.
I’d like to suggest to you & some others here to read the book & share your thoughts, but I also don’t want to be pushy about it.
So far, I’m trying to not make up my mind one way or the other, until I get more input.
Interestingly, Viola specifically tells his readers that his book is not an excuse to feel bitter or rebellious against one’s own church, & that if one decides to leave the church, to do so quietly & without sowing dissension.
And, BTW, I am happy at my current church, so my curiosity does not stem from wanting an excuse to leave it.
Report comment to moderator
From e-mails I’ve sent to a friend with whom I often ponder issues… (In other words, not written for this thread, but my honest thoughts on the issue.)
This week I’ve interacted with a couple people (one on the blog, one book contributor) who pretty much see house churches as the only biblically legitimate option. And I do see them as a potentially legitimate option, but one with at least as many downsides as a larger church. The biggest concern I have is cliquishness–how does one even know where churches meet (when visiting a new town, for instance) or feel connected to more than one’s own small group, and how does one keep from error and spiritual superiority? And how on earth does one do the ministries larger churches can do (for instance, the types of things churces do among the poor on Chicago’s West Side–big stuff like summer-long programs for the kids, opening schools, providing housing)? It seems to me we need all types, and Scripture nowhere says, “Thou shalt not sit in a pew for church.” Anyway, this morning I was consciously grateful to be in a church small enough that we do all know each other, but a church big enough that that “knowing” encompasses more than 10 or 15 people. [I then gave a story, too long to repeat here, about my church loving a young special-needs boy during the service.] Since church is nearly all my “social” network these days (or at least my local one), I simply can’t imagine limiting it to a few families–nor can I, as a single, imagine being part of a church where I was the only single or the only childless one, or a church with no seniors, or only one elder, or any of the rest of it. I wouldn’t want a church with a pastor with less theological education than I have [a bachelor's from a Bible college]. I’m glad there is room in the body for a mix. And of course my Sunday lunches and Wednesday night prayer, and Sunday school when I go, are “small groups.” Sunday school isn’t a satisfying small group for me or I’d get up on time to go to it–I’m glad that my church isn’t limited to such a group. I’ve been in wonderful Bible studies in my time, though mostly when I was a child and teen; I’ve been to an awful lot of weak ones.
In [the case of a relative who's a homeschooling mother of five], I think theologically she might gladly go for a house church. And I don’t think house church is wrong, as long as it has the right motives. (Separating from the misguided church and hiding from the world are not good motives.) But one of their “needs” in a church is a community for their children. Since they homeschool, and live in a day when neighborhoods aren’t full of children, they intentionally want a church that has plenty of kids their children’s ages. This author of mine said community begins at six and ends at 15 people. When I questioned him, and said that two large families would reach the upper limit, he said he means the number of older, participating children and teens and adults. Still, that’s six or seven families at the most. If several of the families have several children, it’s literally impossible for each child to have even one same-age peer. And if you look for a church that “specializes” in elementary-age boys (for example), then don’t you miss the opportunity to give your kids older teens to mentor them and babies they can care for? Not even to mention elderly people and singles, and ideally people of other races…. You basically have to choose between subdividing the church family based on your own family’s needs or attending a church where your kids might not have anyone within two or three years of their own age.
If this was biblically mandated, fine–but once again, an overly legalistic reading of Scripture ends up presenting more problems than it solves. [The problem I mean is requiring a small church, not allowing that option.] A small neighborhood church might sometimes be more apt to meet the needs of its members…but it might also lack the resources to meet those needs, and it might easily become cliquish, so that members must toe the line and new attendees understand the body language to mean, “We’re full; we don’t need you or want you.” Such a church would also be inclined to cluster around people like themselves (people with all the same spiritual gifts) and have the danger of turning into a cult. Again, I won’t protest another’s right to join such a church, but this idea that I must do so or I’ll be in error is itself an error. (As a single woman, am I really called to start a church or to divide my own church? Didn’t think so! Practically speaking, I don’t have a choice anyway, besides the fact that this isn’t a good enough reason to “leave” a church.)
Why can’t the church simply recognize that different bodies look different, and that ideally each church will have as much a mix as possible (different ages, races, classes, and singles and couples and families together), but that the primary thing that makes such a body a church is that it worships Jesus Christ? Not whether it uses hymnals, or pews, or kneeling benches, or French horns? The church where our church was invited for election eve reminded me what I don’t miss about [my Chicago church]. We in my church here have a drummer, and guitars, and a bit of brass, and a piano (and an organ we don’t use much). But this church had a drummer and three plugged-in, ramped-up electric guitars, and they competed to see who could be heard the best. That kind of stuff hurts my ears and distracts me from worship; it doesn’t lead me to worship. Didn’t do so even at [my Chicago church] (where admittedly we weren’t quite that bad). I think it’s ideal if a church doesn’t have music that’s so obnoxious that some portion of its worshipers simply cannot feel comfortable there, and never has any silence before God. But are they part of the body? Sure. So is the church with the little old lady who plays the piano too slowly. And yeah, there are times that I could wish for a little less formality in worship–but for crying out loud, the apostle Paul preached too (preached so long he ended up killing young a parishioner with boredom); he didn’t merely lead small-group studies in which no one person was the leader.
Oh well. You didn’t ask for a sermon. But I see this new “trend” in worship coming in and intentionally undercutting “institutionalized” churches, and while house churches don’t necessarily bother me, the holier-than-thou divisiveness does.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
I went to amazon to see the reviews. Quite frankly, a book recommendation is only as good as its source, to me; I have way too many books to read to pick up a new one with an insulting title recommended by someone who’s bitter against the church. Your own recommendation steps it up a notch, but the fact that George Barna is one of its writers does not. (His prior books have basically caused me not to have much respect for him. Too often they “find out what the unbelieving community wants and give it to them.” I’m familiar with several of his books, not just one or two.)
One used to be able to focus on one-star reviews on amazon; my usual policy is to read some five-star reviews and then some one- and two-star reviews. And quite frankly, the one-star reviews give excellent rebuttals of this book, in my opinion. I trust Jan Dennis, for instance (a literary editor) more than I trust George Barna. And here’s an excellent line from another review: “It never occurs to the authors the same church they accuse of importing paganism is the one that was laying down its lives in martyrdom for its refusal to compromise with paganism.”
Quite frankly, the concept of throwing out church councils, the work of scholars, the remarkable Westminster Standards, and so forth…based on the work of George Barna…is a rather risky proposal. I may read this book someday, if I can get a free copy. But what I have seen recently from this movement seems more “trendy” than biblical, more reactionary than scholarly.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you so much for your reply, Cheryl. You are one of those on this blog whom I especially respect.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!