This article by Ken Pagaard created quite a stir when uploaded to facebook. The issue was this, was Ken advocating political change or was he advocating personal, heart change. I will be discussing this for this and, at least, one other posting.
The problem was caused by the way Ken wrote the article. It was a good article, but he discussed the fallacy of Political change on page one, then on page two, while discussing the Magnificat, he mentions political revolution. This posting, and the one(s) to follow will be a commentary on this article. Since I was a part of the eldership at this time, I will also try to present some of the ideas on this issue that Ken discussed with us.
The article starts with a prophetic utterance presented by Tom McCulloch which called on the church to be different than the surrounding society. We should live by a different set of standards. This was the basis for Ken stating, "The quality of life in the Kingdom is clearly defined in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord seems to be directing our attention to this."
The Sermon on the Mount is seen as the key to Christian living by many down through the years. My favorite theologian is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who in "The Cost of Discipleship" sets out these basic principles. A more modern author is Dallas Willard who wrote a similar work "The Divine Conspiracy."
A key to understand where Ken was coming from in this article is given in paragraph two. "Liberals have tried to legislate the Kingdom into existence, imposing its standards upon unregenerate hearts and social structures." He also discusses those who follow other theological constructs. Ken was not a dispensationalist. He believed that scripture was normative. Of course this included the Sermon on the Mount. It was not for a future period. But, even though it was for today, it was not something that could be legislated. It could only come to those who had regenerated hearts. Ken was primarily looking toward a heart change. Therefore his words were primarily for the church -- not just First Baptist of Chula Vista -- the Church -- worldwide.
Ken believed that what we were learning at FBCCV was normative for Christianity. This included the Charismatic and Community. But this was not enough. Even though we had come a long way, we had to grow into a deeper life ourselves. This would lead to more submission -- which is another point of contention. For Ken, submission always started with submission to the Lord. Submission to one another or to the eldership was always based upon submission to the Lord first of all.
The problem was caused by the way Ken wrote the article. It was a good article, but he discussed the fallacy of Political change on page one, then on page two, while discussing the Magnificat, he mentions political revolution. This posting, and the one(s) to follow will be a commentary on this article. Since I was a part of the eldership at this time, I will also try to present some of the ideas on this issue that Ken discussed with us.
The article starts with a prophetic utterance presented by Tom McCulloch which called on the church to be different than the surrounding society. We should live by a different set of standards. This was the basis for Ken stating, "The quality of life in the Kingdom is clearly defined in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord seems to be directing our attention to this."
The Sermon on the Mount is seen as the key to Christian living by many down through the years. My favorite theologian is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who in "The Cost of Discipleship" sets out these basic principles. A more modern author is Dallas Willard who wrote a similar work "The Divine Conspiracy."
A key to understand where Ken was coming from in this article is given in paragraph two. "Liberals have tried to legislate the Kingdom into existence, imposing its standards upon unregenerate hearts and social structures." He also discusses those who follow other theological constructs. Ken was not a dispensationalist. He believed that scripture was normative. Of course this included the Sermon on the Mount. It was not for a future period. But, even though it was for today, it was not something that could be legislated. It could only come to those who had regenerated hearts. Ken was primarily looking toward a heart change. Therefore his words were primarily for the church -- not just First Baptist of Chula Vista -- the Church -- worldwide.
Ken believed that what we were learning at FBCCV was normative for Christianity. This included the Charismatic and Community. But this was not enough. Even though we had come a long way, we had to grow into a deeper life ourselves. This would lead to more submission -- which is another point of contention. For Ken, submission always started with submission to the Lord. Submission to one another or to the eldership was always based upon submission to the Lord first of all.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment