Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jayhorne/public_html/index.php:4) in /home/jayhorne/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Individual Priorities http://hornes.org/2003/04/individual-priorities/ Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:14:12 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1 By: Greg http://hornes.org/2003/04/individual-priorities/#comment-426 Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:03:55 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/?p=171#comment-426 Tim Keller points out in a sermon of his I heard recently about the implications of so many admonitions in the NT as being addressed to “ya’ll” or “ye”. Thus, it is not you individually who must “rejoice always”, but the imperative is to *ye”, that is the church. I’ve always thought that faith in Christ itself is in many ways a corporate animal. I can go to church and worship in faith when my own personal faith is weak on a given Sunday.

On another note, it’s been awhile since I read this of Frame, but I have a couple of thoughts. There are a couple of implications that we would want to avoid while affirming what Frame is saying. One is to be aware that this idea could provide a trump card against *any* admonition of having “correct” priorities. There are indeed good directions to take in studying priorites in the Bible. The “greatest” of faith hope and love is love. For whatever reason, what Mary was doing seemed to be more appropriate that what Martha was doing. The doctrine of resurrection seems to have a high priority, for without it, Paul calls what he does pitiful. Taking care of family is higher priority than “mere” religious activity. I wouldn’t mind at all if a brother called into mind my “priorities.” (In fact, that might a good corporate realignment of gifts usage!) A second concern I have is that this idea can end up being individualism again. Say a preacher preaches on being merciful to the poor and how his church needs to focus more on that. An individual might easily write that off thinking, “that doesn’t really my individual gift profile.” The funny thing is, everyone could actually agree with the preacher without anyone being individually convicted. An odd result.

Still potential for abuse is no reason to nix the idea, which I appreciate. Thanks for passing it along.

]]>
By: Jay http://hornes.org/2003/04/individual-priorities/#comment-425 Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:57:57 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/?p=171#comment-425 I think your reference to socialism is very relevant. In my opinion, most of our world’s non or anti-Christian structures and ideas are attempting to gain the benefits of God’s reign while denying his lordship.

With that in mind, we can see that socialism, though wrong and damaging, is seeking to achieve a blessing of the kingdom, that of a united body where people look out for one another. The huge push for diversity in our culture is another such grab for kingdom blessing. We are a body, but we are diverse parts.

I really liked Frame’s explanation that everyone does not have to be the entire body in and of themselves. My comments were aimed, however, at keeping this notion in balance with the corporate/individual nature of the church. That is, even in the individual priorities that lead to the recognizing of the various body parts, the body probably has a role to play.

]]>
By: Andrew http://hornes.org/2003/04/individual-priorities/#comment-424 Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:23:41 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/?p=171#comment-424 Jay, the only alternative that follows from your setup seems to border on socialism; I know you’re not trying to categorize the church’s hierachy as simply a political structure, but there is that element that needs to be addressed. Personally I am not completely against socialism because of the system itself, but rather I am against socialism because of the state of fallen man — I wonder if the Kingdom in its perfection won’t resemble something close to a socialist societal structure.

So are we to mirror in the church body on earth the completed Kingdom to come? I believe so. It appears then that there is a need for a sort of “corporate dimension” for the setting of individual priorities (not that there isn’t individual participation, but the extreme of complete personal separation from the decision on what to prioritize wasn’t the direction that I believe you were going).

I dunno, maybe I’ve missed the boat completely.

]]>