Revamping the Great Tradition

I am part of a ministry dedicated to planting churches among America's unchurched urban poor. The church model we use here in Wichita is somewhat liturgical. The thinking is that liturgy with its regularity and repetition gives a person from the inner-city both a sense of comfort and a chance for real participation. As part of our weekly service we read the Nicene Creed together. In doing so we have run up against two major problems. First, the simple presence of the term catholic has been difficult for poor Hispanics who have struggled hard to leave Catholicism. No matter how many times we say "catholic just means universal" that word still seems to be a barrier for them. Second, the translation we use is elegant, but terse. It uses several theological terms that require some explanation. Explanation is fine, however, it seems that our translation of the Creed is causing more problems than we can solve.

Solution: A new translation of the Creed. I searched high and low for something like a 'New Living Translation' of the Nicene Creed. I found several translations, however, each one contained both the term catholic and several theological terms that required a great deal of explanation. So I made my own translation of the Nicene Creed. We have been using it our church for the past two weeks. I wanted to post it here and get any feedback you all may have on it. Please please please please tell me what you think.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of everything that exists, whether visible or invisible.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God, who was begotten of the Father before time. He is God as the Father is God, Light as the Father is Light, truly God as the Father is truly God, begotten, but not a created being. He and the Father are of the same substance. Everything was created through him.

Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and took on flesh through the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and thus became fully human. For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. He went up into heaven where he is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and life-giver. He comes from the Father [and the Son]. He is to be worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. He spoke through the prophets.

We believe in one holy worldwide apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin. We anticipate the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

Instruction

This week continued our series on ministry from a firm foundation. We talked about the use of the Bible as our source of truth. We were challenged from God's word to offer His solutions in a world of questions.

When it comes to using God's word to offer answers to peoples' questions, we are all guilty of using what my wife calls, "Bible Bullets". We take our point of view that is "biblical" and we find verses that support it, some out of context. We load up our guns with these verses and quickly fire at anyone who holds a different view. When we do this, people either fire back or they shut down and their stereotype of "close-minded evangelical" is reinforced.

How do you graciously offer God's truth in your ministry?

Emergent

This is an interesting post from a conversation happening on the emergent village blog. I think that emergent pastors and theology are getting a lot of press lately, but I agree with the writer of this blog - I haven't seen a lot of conversion growth. It seems like many young pastors have jumped on this emergent bandwagon and do quite a bit of conversing, thinking, and "theologizing" - but is there more fruit in their ministry than non-emergents?

Where do you stand on the whole emergent conversation?

I too am waiting for emergent ministry to explode, but I haven't seen much yet.

What are your thoughts?

Should Women Preach to Men?

Here is an interesting post from a Southern Baptist pastor about the latest controversy concerning Irving Bible Church's thinking about women in ministry:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/08/homsexuality-adultery-sexual-immorality.html

Personally, this is a difficult issue that requires much study. Let us be civil in our personal conclusions, upholding the love of Christ.

Worship

We started preaching a new series this week at Good News on the foundational elements of a healthy church. Over the course of the next month I plan on building a firm foundation (a VERY sturdy and very large table - thanks for the idea Adam!) It was a fun and effective visual to build the table on stage during the beginning of the sermon.

The first message was on worship. Worship seems to be one of those words that Christians throw around often but may not think about what it means. It seems as though a "good" worship service is not as much about recognizing God's greatness as it is about creating an experience of "feeling" good or singing songs that sound good. Many of our Sunday morning "worship" services are filled with human-focused songs (just look at the shift in language used in modern songs vs. old hymns) played by talented musicians with high tech equipment. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy contemporary sounding music and our feelings do play a part - but I wonder what our modern worship sounds like to God?

Do we fall into the trap of worshiping our feelings about God, or even what He does for us more than worshiping Him for who He is?