Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms

The idea of this blog is to express the implications of a Methodist discovering of the reformation, and one of the things we find very common in both Lutheran and Reformed churches is the extensive use of catechisms and creeds.  In the Methodist Church, at least in our day we see creeds going the way of the dodo bird, and I know of nobody using catechisms in the UMC, and I am unaware (I have not researched) if there is such thing as a Catechism approved by and readily used in United Methodism.  If there is, I have never seen or heard of it in my 20+ years as a United Methodist.  I, along with most other conservative United Methodists have insisted on scripture memorization as paramount for our confirmands and youth, yet have spent little time on creeds, and even less on catechisms.  Many fundamentalists would celebrate that "scripture only" focus, but I think it is horribly flawed.

Scripture memorization is an important discipline, but I would contend that it is a less important discipline than catechesis or the memorization of the creeds that accurately depict the faith.  Now I can hear my fundamentalist brethren getting really bent out of shape with that statement and I can certainly understand why.  What I am essentially saying is that you would be better off to memorize a creed which is not inspired, than to memorize portions of the inspired word of God.  At the outset it seems like an absurd argument for me to make, but it is not.

The simple reality is that verses individually taken outside of their context have no meaning.  A verse without its context is just a phrase dangling in space.  However a creed or a catechism that honestly deals with the entire cannon of scripture provides an overall context which an individual verse can be understood within.  This is incredibly important to see.  Confusion around many doctrines exist because the debates always seem to float around one isolated verse being quoted against another isolated verse.  How many times have you heard someone say “this verse presents a real problem to the insert particular theological view point here.”  Yet often times if you read the entire context that contains that particular verse you will see that it actually supports the view point being argued against.  My point is that you cannot make a biblical theology with a simple list of verses.

This is why creeds and confessions are so valuable, yes you should test them against the whole cannon of scripture, and yes you should not just assume the creed writers got it perfect, but at the same time you should realize that the historic creeds and confessions have been based off of scripture in its entirety and are not easily sunk by one verse here or there.

A quick scan of the evangelical landscape will show you a lot of people who know bits and pieces of Christian teaching, and most people know a few verses, and can tell you that God loves the world or that you should not judge others... yet  the sad reality is that it is a small percentage that can actually articulate what the entirety of scripture is about.  Few can look at the whole history of redemption with Christ at the center and just see it for what it is.  Everyone is so used to regurgitating particular new testament comfort verses that they cannot show how God’s goodness was displayed even in Israel’s slaughter of the people who dwelt in the promised land.

Preachers need to take heed here as well.  When I am expositing a passage of scripture to our congregation I am always directly quoting the scripture I am presenting, and continually coming back to it throughout the message.  Yet, as I preach and pull in different events from the biblical narrative, or pull in different teachings from other portions of scripture, I am not so concerned with direct quotation and giving a chapter and verse, instead I am concerned with pulling the common theme of the passage being exposited by pulling in examples from other places in scripture.  The point is that as preachers and teachers we need to be preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God, and that means to preach it as a whole.

Catechisms, and creeds are wonderful ways of teaching the whole counsel of God without having to memorize all 1100+ chapters of the scripture, and is more profitable than only taking bits and pieces of scripture to heart.  As I teach confirmation this year I will be using the Heidleberg Catechism, though I will omit a couple of sections near the end, but I trust that it will be more profitable to the students in the long run than if I had them memorize 50 isolated scriptures which I deemed were important.

Lutherans and The Lord's Supper

I have had a running conversation with a confessional Lutheran friend regarding the Lord’s supper for two or three weeks on twitter, and because so many rabbit trails have been chased in this conversation I sensed that it is time to take it to the blog.  The conversation is fitting for this blog as it falls within the context of a Methodist dealing with doctrines of the Reformation, specifically Luther’s view of ‘Real Presence’ in the Lord’s Supper.  I would highly recommend that you follow Dawn on twitter ‘@rumor99’ and visit her website here.  Moreover you can see the Lutheran view defended at here by Todd Wilken, of Issues Etc, or an interesting and seriously humorous defense of confessional Lutheranism against Calvinism at here by Rev Fisk.

Our conversation has centered around the Lord’s Supper and whether the ‘real presence’ of the Lord is in the bread and the wine.  Now this is a friendly discussion, and I do not sense that Dawn doubts our union in Christian fellowship and as far as internet twitter dialog goes I would consider Dawn a friend who has sharpened me in many ways.  Nonetheless, as cordial as this may be, it is not a trivial issue, and in many respects the Gospel itself is a stake, especially from the Lutheran end of the argument, as they are apt to argue that “the Sacrament is the Gospel”, their verbiage not mine.  Also note that we are dealing with Confessional Lutheranism here i.e. LCMS, not ELCA, I imagine Luther himself would not recognize the ELCA as Lutheran by any stretch of the imagination.

I argue as would nearly all Protestants that the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper are not literally/physically the body and blood of our Lord, but instead are figures of his body and blood.  The Lutheran appeals to Matthew 26:26-28 and simply says “This is my body... This is my blood...” means exactly what it says in the very literal sense.  As you debate this with a Lutheran they will continually come back to the fact that Jesus said “this is...” and if you are not careful arguing from the other side you begin to sound like Bill Clinton asking ‘What is ‘is’?”  Nonetheless, the question “what is meant by is?” is indeed an appropriate question.  Yes, I can hear you Lutherans chuckling right now.

Jesus uses ‘is’ in other places in a figurative manner, I can think of Mark 3:34-35 off hand, when he affirms that his disciples are his mother and his brothers.  I would never hang an argument about the Lord’s Supper upon Mark 3:34-35, nonetheless that is a clear example of when “is” does not mean “is” in the literal sense.  There are other places as well.  Moreover we hear Lutherans appeal to the “how would a five year old understand it?” argument so as to prove that the simple reading is that Jesus is actually calling bread “His Body” in the most literal sense.  My three year old will often pick up a ‘little people’ toy and say this *is* my daddy, and this *is* my mommy and then proceed to act like they are Kristin and I, even 3 year old Joey understands the figurative sense of *is*.  Sure that is simple make believe and all kids do that, and I am not trying to use a profane argument, but the simple truth is that even a three year old knows how to use *is* figuratively.  There is ample precedent for *is* being figurative in language.  The traditional Passover Seder itself is filled with figures and metaphors, in fact the Passover meal itself is a metaphor.

The other, and maybe most silly argument you hear is: “When it comes to judgment day I would rather stand before Jesus saying I believed you when you said *is* than to stand there and be wrong and have to say to Jesus that you didn’t believe Him when he said *is*.”  That same argument can be turned completely around pretty easily.  I would not want to stand on judgment day and have to give an account for why I worshipped bread when I had a clear understanding of the different and obvious uses of the word is.

The thing is that this is not a trivial argument.  I am not willing to break fellowship with confessional Lutherans over this, and frankly I am very thankful for a lot of Lutheran’s and their theology.  At the same time given the stance I take that *is* indeed is figurative in Matt 26:26-28 I must say that confessional Lutherans are heretical with regard to the Lord’s Supper, and they too must, because of their belief, see me as heretical with regard to the Lord’s supper.  This is slightly more problematic for the Lutheran, because they believe that the sacrament indeed is the Gospel, so my stance is to say they get the Gospel wrong.  This is not to be harsh, but it is healthy for us to be honest.

The other argument that comes up is why would Paul use such grave language with regard to the Lord’s Supper if it were a mere figure?  The same question could be asked about why God was so specific in laying out various feasts, and the Passover meal, the temple, etc... if these things were all figures of the Christ to come.  They must be handled with gravity because the One that these figures represent is the Christ Himself.  Say Joey, my son, picks up a Lego man and says “this is my Daddy” and then proceeds to through it against the wall, bite its head off, or mistreat it, I would be upset.  The way he treats the figure is indicative of his regard for me.  The same is true with the Lord’s supper, the way the figure is treated evidences the disposition towards what the figure is of.  It makes perfect sense that Paul would speak with such gravity.

Hopefully I have been thorough enough as to how “is” can be figurative.  However even if ‘is’ can possibly be figurative I still must be able to give solid reason that *is* is being used figuratively in Matt 26.  It is pretty obvious that in the Lord’s supper, Jesus says this is my Body while holding the bread.  His physical body was present, yet he held the bread as he made the announcement.  Nobody sitting around that table would have thought this to be a literal statement because obviously his real body was present.  Moreover each breaking of bread during the Passover meal had significant symbolic meaning.  I will not get into the Seder meal (I am not an expert) but regardless the disciples were already looking at this bread figuratively before Jesus even said *this is*.  Moreover Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father, not here in a loaf.

The only thing left to appeal to is paradox.  The Lutheran must simply say all these things are paradox, Jesus being both at the right hand of the Father and in the loaf is paradox.  Jesus being present with the disciples and yet also physically/literally present in the bread he handed to them is paradox.  To me it seems more like Luther was not ready to separate from Catholicism when it came to sacrament.

One thing I love about Lutherans is that they love to live in paradox and do not feel bound to reason everything together, whereas many a Calvinist try to systemize things so far as to subject all scripture to their reason, I do believe this is a strong point in Lutheranism.  At the same time some things are clear and shouldn’t be considered paradox, which is the case here.  We cannot subject God to our reasoning, yet He has communicated to us by His Word using language and it is reasonable that we would give some effort into knowing what the language is communicating and not rushing to put our fingers in our ears and yelling “paradox.”

I will leave this hear for now, and post a follow up, if there is significant interest in the comments.

Luther and Wesley - Strangely Warmed

In the United Methodist Church you will find many congregations named 'Aldersgate UMC' and likely if you have been around the UMC for a significant amount of time, or studied the life of John Wesley you have come across what has been deemed Wesley's 'Aldersgate Experience'.  Wesley records this in his journal:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans.  About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away mysins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I have began to ask a few pastors within the UMC if they had ever read, or been required to read 'Luther's Preface to the Romans' and have found that the vast majority have not.  Now certainly one does not have to read Luther's preface to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans, but being a 'Wesleyan' denomination that appeals frequently to Wesley for it's understanding of scripture, you would think it would be incumbent upon UMC pastors to read the document which finally gave Wesley assurance of sins forgiven.  The 'Aldersgate experience' gets mentioned frequently when talking about Wesley, yet few dare go to the source which precipitated the experience.

The emergent and missional movements have found a warm reception in the United Methodist Church, and one of the reasons they are so welcome there is because of how missional Wesley was.  The missional mindset has been in the UMC since day one, and continues in it today.  While I am not against all things missional, I do find it unfortunate that as a church we have failed to see that Wesley was missional, long before he was strangely warmed.  What I mean is this, Wesley took huge risks traveling as a missionary, setting up societies, fighting against slavery, building orphanages, among many things, before he ever happened upon someone reading Luther's preface to the Romans there on Aldersgate street.  Wesley did countless acts of piety and yet had no assurance of sin forgiven.  Wesley did countless good things but had come to the point where it all seemed meaningless and that he wondered if he was still lost.  This is where the missional movement leads its people, eventual despair.  'Missional' Christianity leads people to associate their status in the kingdom with their works in this world, and eventually when a person has a strong sense of their sin the goodness of their works is no longer a source of hope.  The missional movement thrives on Matthew 25 when Jesus speaks of sheep and goats, yet never reads the text carefully enough to see that the sheep were unconscious of their piety while the goats put their hope in theirs.  They miss the fact that the sheep and goats are separated in that passage prior to their works being evaluated, not on the basis of the work.  We could go on an on here.

Anyway, I plead with Methodists who may come across this post to pick up a copy of Luther's Preface to the Romans, or read it online here.  It is not long, and is well worth your time, and maybe you too could be strangely warmed.  Here is an excerpt.

You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law." From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

Peace Friends.

 

Infant Baptism

Acts 11:14 ESV  "...he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'

Acts 16:14-15 ESV  One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.  (15)  And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:30-31 ESV  Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  (31)  And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Acts 18:8 ESV  Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

One of the great divisive issues in the Church of Jesus Christ is the baptism of infants.  In the United Methodist Church we firmly believe in infant baptism, and I am thankful for that.  However, while growing up in the Methodist Church infant baptism was the one doctrine that I could not come to grips with.  Whenever I would bring infant baptism into question I was always met with the "Jesus loves children" response, or with the "you don't know whether or not infants were a part of the 'households' mentioned in acts." (You can see the passages above.)  Neither of these arguments ever satisfied me.  

The fact that Jesus loves children in no way necessitates their baptism and though Jesus called the little children to come to him, he never called them to come to him for baptism.  The "Jesus loves the children" argument just rings hollow.  I have never met a baptist that would deny the love of Christ towards children, and because Christ loves children we should do all in our power to assure that children are afforded the opportunity to hear the Gospel of redemption.  Nonetheless it is not adequate reason for infant baptism.

The other argument that "There may have been infants in the 'households' mentioned in acts" is an argument from silence.  There may have been... that is true... and there may not have been.  It seems absurd to base a doctrine as important as baptism on a "might have been" type of argument.  Arguments from silence are used constantly in liberal Christianity, because you can argue anything from silence.  For instance, Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, and homosexuals existed then, therefore because Jesus never said anything it is ok.  That is an argument from silence, yet you can make the argument then that everything which Jesus never spoke about is permissible, which is a foolish stance to take.  I bring this up, not to make a point against the homosexual, but to make a point against arguing from silence.

In the setting I grew up in, these two primary arguments for infant baptism were the only arguments I heard.  While listening to friends from believer baptizing churches speak I sensed that their arguments were far stronger than the ones I had heard, therefore it was settled in my mind that infant baptism was not biblical.  So how did I ever come to the understanding that infant baptism was indeed proper, and even biblically normative?  It was not through what I heard in the UMC.  I will say that the term 'infant baptism' is not really a term I like,  I prefer 'household baptism'.  The reason for baptizing infants is not because "there might have been infants in the household", the reason for baptizing infants is that it was and is biblically normative that entire households be baptized when the head of household comes to faith in Christ.  It is difficult to refute.  We have no instances of explicit infant baptism, yet household baptism is clearly a biblical norm.  Why do I baptize infants, because I baptize households, and the infant happens to be a part of that household.

This is completely consistent with the old testament as well, when a non-Jew converted, they and their household would be ceremonially washed (baptism) and circumcised.  You cannot get through either the Old or the New Testament avoiding th reality of the household as a single unit.  How many promises of God must we read that are for you and your offspring before you will begin to see that the physical family has spiritual covenant implications.  God makes promises not only to us, but to our children as well, which by that promise makes them a part of the covenant of promise.  Does that mean our children will be automatically redeemed, no, not at all, but it does mean they are a part of a covenant family because their heads of household believe.  Did all circumcised Jews follow the Lord?  Of course not, yet they were all a part of the covenant of circumcision.  Baptism is no different.  Baptism is all about a covenant relationship with God through Christ, families enter into this covenant together.  Is the entire baptized family secure, no, salvation is by faith, not baptism, yet baptism is entry into that covenant community.  Are all members of your church saved? Probably not, but they are all members of your covenant community.

Methodists, we have good reason to baptize households, including their infants, but the reason is not 'Jesus loves kids', and it is not that "there might have been infants in the household", our reason is because it establishes those in the household as members of the covenant community of faith.

A Methodist's Discovery of the Reformation

Well, I am dusting off the blog and beginning to post again, only now with a very specific purpose in mind that will hopefully at least intrigue a couple of people.  I have grown up in the United Methodist Church, and have been employed by the United Methodist Church for the last 4 years of my life, 3 in youth ministry, and now as a Sr. Pastor in a mid-sized congregation.  Over the course of these last four years I have experienced a drastic shift in my theology as I have discovered the doctrines of the reformation.

This blog's new intention is to document some of the things I wrestle with as my belief becomes increasingly reformed, yet while I also minister in the UMC, and how I minister in the UMC in a way that does not violate my core 'reformed' beliefs.  My goals are in no way to disparage the UMC, but to offer a unique viewpoint that might be intriguing both to my Methodist and 'reformed' (Lutheran and/or Calvinistic) brothers and sisters.

Peace,

Jay Miklovic

Cultural Context

Context is everything.  Culture is not necessarily immoral, but it is also not necessarily amoral either, for instance, the goofy large sunglasses that girls are wearing now and the aviator glasses that the guys wear, these styles are culturally driven, and are completely amoral.  You would have to be a legalist of the worst sort to pronounce condemnation on someone for the type of sunglasses they wear.  This is a cultural fad with no moral implications.  At the same time, we must also recognize that not all cultural issues are amoral, for instance the cultural tendency to mock father figures in popular television shows is immoral.  The issue is not a mere issue of cultural preference but is an attack on God’s created order, and an undermining of the systems of authority He has set up.  So it is never safe to say that something is acceptable because culture accepts it, and at the same time it is never acceptable to condemn a cultural fad solely on the basis that it is a culture issue.  Acceptable practice must be determined by the word of God, and not culture.

The legalist screams ‘separate’ with regards to all culture... and if they decide to be completely consistent in their separation they will eventually be Amish (few dare to endeavor to be that consistent.)  At the same time those who try to contextualize everything to the culture will begin using material that is clearly immoral in their presentation of the Gospel, ie certain movie clips, tv shows, music... etc.  The point is that culture is merely the accepted practice of the populous, that’s it.  Sometimes it is perfectly legitimate, other times it is sin, and all of the time we must be wise in our discernment of culture.

 What is said above is pretty obvious, but there is a much more insidious danger caused by culture that goes largely unnoticed.  The effect of culture on the population whether it is immoral or amoral can and does cause deception beyond what we can imagine.  The effect that culture has on every one of us is beyond our own comprehension, and if we do not consider it while reading the scriptures we will misunderstand nearly everything we read.

For instance a common verse used in youth ministry is 1 Tim 4:12

Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. (1 Timothy 4:12 ESV)

In our American ‘don’t tread on me’ thinking this verse takes on a meaning that has been accepted as orthodox by almost all of the professing church in America.  The verse is understood to mean that our youth should not let people look down on them, and that they are equal parts of the kingdom, and that they need to be empowered, and they have a say... etc.  Our culture of ‘nobody walks on me’ thinking has led us to see this verse as a youth empowerment verse.  However that is nearly the opposite of the actual meaning of the verse.  Paul is warning Timothy to give the Church no reason to despise His youthfulness.  He is commanding Timothy to so order His life that He would be an example of maturity that the older congregation would be able to pattern themselves after.  This verse is not an affirmation of the value of youthfulness, instead it is a command to leave youthfulness and to live as a mature man before the Church.  The actual meaning of this verse is the opposite of what is for the most part taught, and it is because we have viewed this passage through our context and not its original context.

The whole of John 3:1-21 we do the very same thing.  In America born-againism is a cultural norm.  We have preached ‘ye must be born again’ to the point where many Christians identify themselves as ‘born-again Christians’, as though ‘born-again Christian’ is the standard term for an orthodox believer.  This discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21 also includes the famed John 3:16 which in and of itself is a verse that is engrained in our culture.

But what is happening in this discourse?  Jesus is affirming that all people must come into the New Covenant in order to be saved, specifically that Nicodemus’ Jewish ancestry was not sufficient to save, but that He must be born of water and spirit... that is He must be born again because His first birth into Israel is not sufficient.  Do you see what is happening here?  This verse John 3:3 which says ‘you must be born again’ is specifically laid forth to establish that the Jew cannot rely on His lineage to save Him.  This was not some universal call out to the world, this was a midnight discourse between Jesus and a Pharisee.  Context is everything.  Now must everyone be born again to be saved?  Well what to do you mean?  It is a bad term to use with regard to “everybody”.   This discourse was not a blanket command to everybody.  We may also look at John 3:16.  What is the purpose of this verse... again it is Jesus saying that God’s love and salvation is not limited to the Jews, but that He so loved the world, that whosoever (Jew or Gentile) believed shall not perish.  The thrust of John 3:16 is similar to the thrust of John 3:3, and that is that the Gospel is effective and necessary for the Jew, and is also inclusive of the Gentiles.  Moreover in John 3:17-18 we see that Jesus is showing that not only gentiles, but Jews also will be condemned for unbelief.

Instead of taking these texts in their original context, we have put them in our own and it has distorted the whole thing.  We think that John 3:3 is a universal call to all to be born again and we miss that it is more about the establishment of a new covenant between God and all people.  Moreover we misread John 3:16 when we take it to be God loving this whole world just waiting for people to believe in Him so that they may be saved.  This is not the case, what the text is saying is that salvation has gone out beyond the Jews only, but even into the world.  It is as though Jesus is saying “For God so loves the world, Nicodemus, not only the Jews that whoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life.”  Moreover Jesus goes on “And those who have not believed, well they are condemned already, whether you are Jew or not doesn’t matter”.

Can you see how our culture causes distortion?

The scriptures certainly speak to us today, but they speak to us from their original context.  The scriptures still communicate the same truth they always have and in order to understand the original truth they spoke you must be willing to look at the original context they were spoken in.

a great word from JC Ryle

Writing on John 1:29 from ‘Expository Thoughts on the Gospels’

“Let us take heed that in all our thoughts of Christ, we first think of Him as John the Baptist here represents Him.  Let us serve him faithfully as our Master.  Let us obey him loyally as our King.  Let us study His teaching as our Prophet.  Let us walk diligently after him as our Example.  Let us look anxiously for him as our coming Redeemer of body as well as soul.  But above all, let us prize him as our Sacrifice, and rest our whole weight on his death as an atonement for sin.” – JC Ryle

I am finding JC Ryle’s expository thoughts to be indispensible in sermon prep when preaching out of the Gospels.  What a blessing... plus you can get all 4 vols for under $40 on amazon.  Would recommend Ryle to anyone in ministry, from the 4^th grade Sunday school teacher to the nursing home chaplain, really a tremendous resource.

Jay

Posted via email from jmiklovic's posterous

This might be it for the tenth letter

I think the tenth letter may be finished...

I think this is my 206th post at this blog, which began a few years back at SermonAudio, and then migrated here, and I think it might be the last post as well.

I am currently serving as the Pastor of a rural Church outside of Fostoria, as well as being the Youth Pastor of a Church here in Maumee full time, of greater importance than those two vocations I am a husband (my primary ministry), a father (my secondary ministry).

Blogging has been a great outlet for me to work through things theologically in a public venue.  This has served its purpose but really is not the venue I feel called to work things out in anymore.  Underlying my blogging has been a desire to heard, and respected.  I'm done with that, and am seeking contentment in laboring in obscurity trusting the Father to illumine His Son through me outside of this, and other venues that could lead to self glorification.  I'll still tweet @yfmumc but that is as close to blogging as I plan on getting for awhile.  If the Lord impels me again to publicly blog I will.  I am grateful to faithful bloggers who provide me much encouragement.

What my wife needs is a husband who seeks hard after God to know him intimately even when the rest of the world thinks he is going to deep to be practical.  What my son and daughter need is a father who seeks hard after God to know him intimately.  What the youth ministry at Maumee UMC needs is leadership that seeks hard after God to know him intimately.  What the congregation at Rehoboth UMC needs is a Pastor who seeks hard after God to know him intimately.  Currently, blogging does not fit into the 'seeking to know Him more intimately' mission for me.  Someday blogging may again serve that purpose but not now.

Currently I am laboring over a number of classic books on the 'Attributes of God' (right now I am bouncing between Stephen Charnock and Pink) and will continue with others.  I also have a couple systematic theologies I desire to be looking at.  Of course underlying a lot of this is attempting to understand my direction in ministry (both family, and institution) which must be rooted in nothing less than the character of God.  (thus the study of attributes and systematic theology.)  Of course undergirding all of this is meditation upon the scriptures and reading and also listening through the entire cannon repeatedly on the iPod.

I guess what I am saying is... see ya it's been real.

So for anyone who happens to stop by, read the archives if you want... but you would do better to pick up some of the classics written by men and women far wiser than me.