CONVERSATIONS WITH NATHAN
By David Chilton
Note: This conversation, or a reasonably close version of it, took place one recent Sunday evening as my seven-year-old son Nathan and I visited an evangelical church for a special service. Although it actually took place in several stages (ending late that evening at home), for literary purposes I have reconstructed the conversation as if it all took place during the service. I confess that a good portion of it did go on then, as I tried to explain evangelical worship to an impressionable youngster.
Nathan: Papa, this sure is a funny liturgy.
Papa: Well, it isn’t exactly a liturgy. They don’t believe in liturgy at this church.
Nathan: How can you not believe in liturgy? Isn’t a liturgy just what you do in church?
Papa: Yes. But what I mean is that they don’t believe in having the service written down in advance.
Nathan: Why not?
Papa: They think that if they read something that’s written down, they won’t really mean it.
Nathan: But all they have to do is think about what it means, and agree with it, and then they’ll mean it, won’t they?
Papa: Sure. But they don’t believe that.
Nathan: But somebody around here must believe it, because we all sang from the same hymnbook. Don’t they mean it when they sing the hymns?
Papa: Sure they do. But they think prayers are different.
Nathan: You mean that they can agree with a song that they read, but they don’t know how to agree with a prayer that they read?
Papa: Something like that.
Nathan: Then why don’t they just memorize the prayers?
Papa: Because they think they wouldn’t mean those, either.
Nathan: Can they memorize songs and mean them?
Papa: Sure. But they think music is different. You can read or memorize a song and still mean it. But if you read or memorize words without music, you won’t mean them.
Nathan: So they don’t memorize Bible verses?
Papa: Of course they do.
Nathan: But they don’t mean them?
Papa: Yes, they do.
Nathan: Without music?
Papa: Sure.
Nathan: How?
Papa: Can we change the subject?
Nathan: OK. Why didn’t we confess our sins when we began the service?
Papa: This church doesn’t believe in it.
Nathan: WHAT?!
Papa: Shhh. Keep your voice down. I mean they don’t think the Church needs to do it.
Nathan: Don’t we need to be forgiven?
Papa: Sure. They just don’t think it should happen in Church.
Nathan: What about the Creed? Why didn’t we say the Creed?
Papa: Well, partly because it’s liturgical. They think they won’t mean it if they say it.
Nathan: We could sing it.
Papa: They don’t know how.
Nathan: Oh — they haven’t been Christians very long, huh? Let’s teach it to them.
Papa: Let’s not.
Nathan: Why not?
Papa: Because they won’t want to do it anyway. Because it’s liturgical.
Nathan: Why are they so afraid of liturgy? We could explain that it isn’t hard to mean it when you say it.
Papa: But they won’t want to do it anyway. They want to be different every week.
Nathan: Really? Different every week?
Papa: Yes.
Nathan: What do they do differently? Do they sometimes take the offering at the end of the service instead of in the middle?
Papa: No. That’s always at the same time.
Nathan: Do they sometimes have the preaching at the beginning?
Papa: No, that’s at the same time too.
Nathan: Then what do they do that’s different?
Papa: They sing different songs.
Nathan: So does our church.
Papa: Well, it really comes down to the fact that they don’t have prayers and responses for the congregation to read.
Nathan: Why not?
Papa: They think that reading prayers and responses keeps people from worshiping.
Nathan: Really? What do they think the people should do instead?
Papa: Just sit there and do nothing.
Nathan: That’s worship? Doesn’t it get boring?
Papa: Not if the elders keep things exciting enough on the stage.
Nathan: Elders? What elders? You mean those men up there on the platform are elders?
Papa: Sort of. But they don’t always call them that.
Nathan: Why aren’t they wearing robes and collars so you know what they are?
Papa: They say elders shouldn’t wear special clothes.
Nathan: Why not?
Papa: They think that there’s nothing special about clothing.
Nathan: Policemen and soldiers and judges wear special clothes.
Papa: Well, they think clothing isn’t special for elders. They think elders should look like everybody else.
Nathan: Then why is that elder wearing a maroon suit with a blue shirt, a green tie, and a white belt?
Papa: Well, it’s still a suit. The point is, he can wear anything he wants.
Nathan: You mean an elder could wear a robe and a collar if he wanted?
Papa: No. He can wear anything but a robe and a collar.
Nathan: So they do think clothing is special!
Papa: Well. . . .
Nathan: There! Someone did it again!
Papa: Did what?
Nathan: He said “Amen.” See? That’s why this place needs a liturgy book. Half the people don’t know when to say things.
Papa: I told you. They don’t do a liturgy here.
Nathan: Some people do. Hear that? Somebody just did it again. If we had a book, we could all say it together. That would keep some people from getting it wrong and saying it while somebody else is talking.
Papa: But Nathan, I’m telling you. There’s no liturgy. People just say “Amen” whenever they feel like it.
Nathan: WHAT? Where does the Bible say to do that?
Papa: It doesn’t.
Nathan: Then why do they do it? Aren’t they afraid?
Papa: Why should they be afraid?
Nathan: Because it’s a vow, a covenant promise. Doesn’t it mean that we agree with God, and that if we don’t keep this promise we are asking God to destroy us? Isn’t it even a special covenant name for Jesus?
Papa: Sure. But they don’t know that. They think it means something else.
Nathan: What do they think “Amen” means?
Papa: They think it means “I feel good.”
Nathan: Look at that!
Papa: What?
Nathan: There are people raising their hands!
Papa: So?
Nathan: In our church, the elders raise their hands to God when they pray. But in this church, everybody else does it, whenever they feel like it. And they make up their own liturgy as they go along. You know what I think?
Papa: What?
Nathan: I think that in this church everybody is an elder — except the elders.
Papa: That may be the best description I’ve heard yet.
Nathan: You know, Pa, those elders are tricking us.
Papa: How’s that?
Nathan: They really do have a liturgy for their prayers. They keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Papa: Really?
Nathan: Sure. I don’t know what they mean, but there are two special words they keep using in all their prayers.
Papa: What words?
Nathan: Well, the first one is “just.” They keep saying it. “Lord we just thank you for just being so just special.” Stuff like that. They must have it written down, because they all do it.
Papa: What’s the other word?
Nathan: It’s not really a word. It’s a special sound, like a little clucking noise: “Tsk.”
Papa: What?
Nathan: Tsk. Tsk.
Papa: What are you talking about?
Nathan: Listen. It goes like this: “Lord, tsk, we just, tsk, we just, tsk, we want to, tsk, thank you, tsk, Lord, for, tsk, for just, tsk, being just so, tsk, special, tsk.” Right?
Papa: OK, quiet down and listen to the special music.
Nathan: Wait. What’s that guy doing? He looks weird.
Papa: Shhh. He’s just singing.
Nathan: Yeah, but he’s shaking all over the place. He looks like he’s going to fall down.
Papa: Well, that’s the way the “special music” singers do it in this church. He’s just trying to rock to the beat.
Nathan: Why? It looks dumb.
Papa: Let’s figure it out. Why do we have a choir in our church? What do you think they’re doing there?
Nathan: It’s part of our worship. They help us worship God.
Papa: OK. Now, why do you think this church has people sing?
Nathan: Well, I guess they’re trying to worship too. But it seems more like they’re trying to look like they’re on television.
Papa: Sort of like MTV?
Nathan: Not that bad. It just looks like they want people to notice them instead of praying. Unless — Do you think maybe he’s just kind of sick?
Papa: We’ll talk about it later. It’s time for communion now.
Nathan: What’s this?
Papa: Shhh! It’s bread.
Nathan: Come on, Pa. What is it really?
Papa: It’s bread, honest. It’s a little, tiny cube of bread.
Nathan: Looks like a piece of cracker to me.
Papa: Well, sure. It is a piece of cracker.
Nathan: Should we give them some money so they can afford bread?
Papa: They can afford it. But they want to do it this way.
Nathan: Why would anybody want to eat this? Do they like the taste?
Papa: Probably not.
Nathan: Then why would they eat something they don’t enjoy — especially at Communion? We’re supposed to be happy when we eat with God.
Papa: Be quiet. It’s time to drink the cup.
Nathan: OK. Yuck! What is this stuff?
Papa: Um, it’s. . . .
Nathan: Tastes like grape-flavored Kool-Aid.
Papa: Grape juice, probably.
Nathan: Doesn’t taste very good. Did they forget to buy some wine?
Papa: No. They don’t drink wine here.
Nathan: WHAT?!
Papa: SHHH!
Nathan: Why don’t they drink wine?
Papa: They don’t believe in it. They think it’s wrong.
Nathan: But it tastes good.
Papa: Well, tasting good isn’t everything.
Nathan: But God made it for us to drink, especially at Communion. It makes us happy, and it makes God happy too.
Papa: That’s right.
Nathan: Does the Bible say it’s wrong?
Papa: No.
Nathan: Then why do they say it is? And why do they drink this yucky juice? And eat those crummy little cracker pieces? No wonder they’re so sad!
Papa: What?
Nathan: Well, look at them. Look how sad they all are. They don’t look like they’re enjoying this, do they?
Papa: Well, no. . . .
Nathan: Well, they aren’t enjoying it a bit. But didn’t you tell me that Communion is a special dinner with Jesus?
Papa: Yes.
Nathan: And when we come to Communion, the whole Church is coming up to heaven, right?
Papa: Right.
Nathan: And when we go to heaven to be with Jesus and have dinner with Him, we’re supposed to be happy, aren’t we?
Papa: Sure.
Nathan: Well, why aren’t these people happy? Do they think heaven is a sad place to be?
Papa: I think they’re sad because they’re thinking about their sins.
Nathan: But they’ve been forgiven, and now they’re in heaven! They’re supposed to be thinking about Jesus!
Papa: Oh, they’re thinking of Him, too. They’re sad because they’re thinking about Him dying on the cross.
Nathan: But He’s not dying anymore. The whole reason we’re doing this is that He came alive, right?
Papa: Right.
Nathan: Well, I don’t think they could be sad about Jesus. I think they’re sad ’cause they had to eat those icky crackers and drink that dumb old Kool-Aid.
Papa: Grape juice.
Nathan: Kool-Aid. Hey, Papa. Why are those people looking at me funny?
Papa: Um . . . it’s because you took Communion.
Nathan: So? Everybody else did.
Papa: Not the kids.
Nathan: Why not?
Papa: Because they aren’t allowed to.
Nathan: WHAT?!
Papa: SHHH! They only let grownups take Communion at this church.
Nathan: Why? If you’ve been baptized you can take Communion, right? Even babies can take Communion, because Jesus feeds them, too. Children need Communion as much as grownups.
Papa: But these children haven’t been baptized.
Nathan: WHAT?!
Papa: Shhh. It’s true.
Nathan: Why don’t they want their children to come into the Covenant?
Papa: Well, they do. They just don’t believe that children can be Christians until they get older.
Nathan: That’s dumb. God can make anybody a Christian.
Papa: Well, I mean that they don’t think He will make their children Christians. Until they get older.
Nathan: But Jesus wants little children to come to Him. Even babies. He said so, didn’t He?
Papa: Yes.
Nathan: Look. These people have families, right? Don’t they feed their babies? They don’t make their kids sit in a corner and wait till they’re grownups before they can eat. So why shouldn’t God feed His children, too? It must be sad for the kids to watch the rest of the family eating without them.
Papa: But they don’t think their children really are God’s children.
Nathan: But they teach their children to pray, don’t they?
Papa: Sure.
Nathan: Who do they pray to?
Papa: “Whom.” Objective case. And don’t end your sentences with prepositions unless you have to.
Nathan: Do their kids call God “Father”? Like in the Lord’s Prayer? Wait a minute. You aren’t going to tell me they don’t believe in the Lord’s Prayer, are you?
Papa: Sure, they believe in it. And many of them teach it to their children.
Nathan: Well then. If they teach their children to say “Our Father,” then that means they think their children are God’s children, too. Right?
Papa: Uh . . . sort of. But –
Nathan: But they don’t baptize them into Jesus. So how can they be God’s children unless they’re in the Covenant?
Papa: Right. That’s why they don’t give them Communion.
Nathan: Is this as confusing to them as it is to me?
Papa: It might be if they thought about it much.
Nathan: Well, how are their kids supposed to become Christians, if their parents don’t bring them to be baptized?
Papa: When they get older, they’re supposed to make up their own minds.
Nathan: About whether or not to obey God? That’s pretty dumb. Do they have to wait till they’re older to decide if they want to obey their parents, too?
Papa: Not usually. But they want their children to wait until they’re old enough to love God.
Nathan: But I love God. I always have. And the Bible says that people can know God even when they’re in their mama’s tummy, doesn’t it?
Papa: Well, these people think you have to wait until you are older and smarter, so that you understand what it’s all about.
Nathan: You mean you can’t have dinner with Jesus until you understand what it means?
Papa: That’s the idea.
Nathan: Papa, do grownups understand everything about what Communion means?
Papa: Some people probably think they do.
Nathan: I don’t think these people understand much about it. If they did, they’d bring their children into the Covenant and let them have dinner in heaven with them. And anyway, how are the kids supposed to learn what it means without doing it? That’s like trying to get nutrition from reading a recipe, instead of eating the food!
Papa: Not bad. I’ll have to remember that one.
Nathan: OK, so how can a kid get Communion in this church?
Papa: Well, when he gets older — say, around twelve or so — he asks Jesus into his heart.
Nathan: Papa, don’t be silly. This is serious.
Papa: I’m not being silly. They tell you to ask Jesus to come into your heart.
Nathan: I’ve never heard that. Is that in the Bible?
Papa: No. But they think it is. It’s just an expression someone made up that means becoming a Christian. They also call it “receiving Christ,” which is a little more Biblical.
Nathan: But Jesus is in heaven. And we receive Him every Sunday — every time we eat His body and drink His blood.
Papa: Uh, keep your voice down, willya? They don’t talk like that around here.
Nathan: But Jesus talked like that.
Papa: I know. But they don’t know that.
Nathan: Let’s tell them.
Papa: Let’s not, OK? Not right now.
Nathan: All right. Let’s get back to how kids can become Christians and have Communion. When they get older they ask Jesus “into their hearts,” right? So do they just go ahead and do it when they get to be twelve?
Papa: Not exactly. The grownups have to be sure the kids really mean it.
Nathan: How can they know that?
Papa: The kids have to cry when they do it.
Nathan: Cry? Real tears? How do they make themselves cry?
Papa: Well, some churches spend lots of time practicing. But, basically, they just have a preacher get up and tell real sad stories, so sad that they make people cry. So then the kids cry, and they walk up to the front of the church and ask Jesus to come into their hearts. Sometimes this happens during the summer. The kids go to a special camp where they listen to people preach at
them. Then, on the last night, they all stand around a campfire and –
Nathan: And listen to scary stories?
Papa: No. Sad stories.
Nathan: Aw, shoot.
Papa: Then they cry, and throw little twigs on the fire, and ask Jesus into their hearts.
Nathan: Why do they throw twigs on the fire? Do they think they have to do that to come into the Covenant?
Papa: They think that’s how you have to do it if you’re in the mountains. It’s part of their Summer Camp Liturgy. But if you’re home you don’t need to.
Nathan: Then do they get Communion?
Papa: No. They usually have to wait, and go through a class to learn what it means to be a Christian.
Nathan: Wait. What have they been doing while growing up? Haven’t they already had plenty of classes? Does a kid ever get Communion around here?
Papa: Sure, eventually. After he gets out of the class he can have it whenever everybody else does.
Nathan: Every Sunday.
Papa: No. Every month or so.
Nathan: Why not every Sunday? Don’t they go to church every Sunday?
Papa: Yes. But they don’t have Communion every Sunday.
Nathan: But what do they do, if they don’t have Communion? Isn’t that why we go to Church — so we can go to heaven and have dinner in Jesus’ House?
Papa: Well, they sing songs and listen to a sermon.
Nathan: But that’s part of the Liturgy of Communion. Communion is what the Church service is all about, isn’t it? We’re supposed to worship God, and then He feeds us with His food. Why do they go to church? Don’t they go to meet God?
Papa: Sure. But they think they meet him by just listening to a sermon and getting excited about what the preacher says, if he’s interesting enough to listen to. If he isn’t a good speaker, then they think they haven’t met with God.
Nathan: Look. Don’t these people know that Communion makes them strong for living the rest of the week? How is anyone supposed to go without food for a month and still have any energy to do his work?
Papa: Well, they think that if they have Communion every week it won’t seem special.
Nathan: It doesn’t seem like it’s very special to them anyway. I think it would be lots more special if they had it every week and gave it to their children. Maybe then even the grownups
would understand what it means.
Papa: You’re probably right.
Nathan: Wait a minute, Papa. I think I just figured out the real reason why they don’t have Communion very often.
Papa: Why’s that?
Nathan: ‘Cause it’s crackers and Kool-Aid.
Where did you find this? I haven’t read this in years.
I still remember having this conversation with my father (22 years ago)
Did you know that this is the “abridged” version? I have a slightly longer version from my father’s archives.
Hi Nathan! Nice to hear from you. I don’t remember where I first found this, actually. I think it might have been from an email someone sent me. Its been a favorite read for some time.
No, I didn’t realise this was an “abridged” version. I would like to read the longer version if you wouldn’t mind sharing it.
I would love to see it, too, Nathan! I ran into Abby this summer and found she lives just down the road from us. I need to call her soon to get together. One thing your dad taught us is the amazing working of God’s providence in orchestrating events, and meeting each other in some amazing places is one evidence of that
.
Brother Chilton,
I read this abridged version years ago. The simple logic had a great impact on me. I too would love to see the “original” version. We are having a family camp in May – this would be a great addition to actually act out!
Chad – thanks for posting this! By the way, are y’all coming to our Reformation Day Faire this weekend?
Grace and peace,
James McDonald
The version posted above is now the “unabridged” version — thanks Nathan!
Hello Mrs. Friedrich,
Wow.
Meeting in strange places is an understatement. I just posted that message yesterday! I’m amazed that you happened upon it so quickly. I have a blog to which I rarely post anything. I might put it up there…
I just compared what I have to what is on this page and found that they match, but I was sure that they didn’t match yesterday.
I sent the full version to this blog’s author, so either he updated the page, or I was mistaken about this being the abridged version.
The original title of the article was “Conversations with Nathan”. The abridged version was published as “Crackers and Kool-Aid”. The text currently on this page appears to be the full version.
You mentioned seeing Abbi recently. We were all up at the High Hill ranch in Apple Hill just a few weekends ago and was able to make a few nice photos of Abbi and her daughter. If you click on my name, it will take you to my Flickr stream where you will see some of them. They are currently at the top, but that will change as more photos are added.
God bless you,
–Nathan David Chilton
You guys are so quick!
There were two postings while I was typing up mine.
Ok, so this *is* the full version now.
Reformation parties?! That’s wonderful! We used to have them every year, in celebration of All Saints’ Day and my father would tell all the kids the story of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.
I miss those…
Nathan,
This is Gabriel Rench. I am not sure if you remember me from the Tyler, Tx days but I would love to here from you. Here is my email address: gabe@economicmodeling.com. Shoot me an email. God bless!
What a great post! As one who has come out of 25 years in the “evangelical” subculture into a strongly liturgical PCA church (weekly communion, but no paedo-), Nathan’s comments rang true. I was surprised by the comments at the end to find it was an accurate recollection of a real conversation, since his objections to what was going on were so perceptive.
“Nathan: OK. Why didn’t we confess our sins when we began the service?
Papa: This church doesn’t believe in it.
Nathan: WHAT?!”
Hahahaha…
this is fantastic. I am thinking of translating it into Spanish so I can use it with my students. Absolutely outstanding
Hello Mr. Palmer,
Please let me know if you do end up translating this into Spanish. I would love to have a copy.
Amazing to see Mr. Chilton’s little boy posting on this site, and then giving the ‘full’ URTEXT version of an article that was the final cog in the wheel to lead me back to a ‘catholic, liturgical, sacerdotal priesthood high-church’ expression of Apostolic Christianity, after wallowing for over six years in a Calvinist ‘slough of despond,’ wondering why these dear people I knew, understood Augustine’s doctrines of grace, but did not see that without Augustine’s doctrines of the the Church, the prior was unavailable/unachievable to them, or that Augustine was only ONE of a myriad of church fathers, and not the ‘summum bonum’ of that lot in the first place!?
Nathan, your father influenced far more people than you will ever know. Right before his death, he wrote two letters to me that I cherish, as much as the visit to RJ Rushdoony my wife and I made, before he died. God bless your family, and the memory of your dear dad.
I think this a stereotypical misrepresentation and it is insulting to our Christian brothers. I’m sorry to see it get so many laughs.
Wade, are you the same Wade I know from Houston? If so, give me a call brother!
309-389-3316
I agree with Wade. This is a grossly exaggerated caricature and it does not represent most churches I have attended.
Hi Wade,
It was great speaking with you! It has been too long. Please come up and see us some time! We would love to see you and Camille again.
On this article, the Lord took David Chilton to glory over a decade ago, so he cannot speak for himself. Yet, if we look at much of his works, you can see clearly he had a heart of the truth of God’s Word and the purity of the church.
We do not know the church Pastor Chilton and Nathan visited. We do not know the denomination. We do not know the pastor. But, having visited a number of churches in my travels, both domestically and internationally, I can say I have seen some of the elements Pastor Chilton references passed off as worship. While we can argue whether or not parody is appropriate in discussing worship practices, the fact is there is indeed a shallowness in a number of churches in our day. I could mention a few large churches near you that would “fit the bill.”
Wade, I know the church you attend. And it is certainly not shallow. I remember my days as a Baptist as well. In those days, we were not shallow in heart either. But if I thought we had it all right, I would still be a Baptist.
While I agree this article can rub a few folks the wrong way, I am certain it was not written with a spirit of malice. My encouragement to you would be to look see if there is any truth in these words between a father and son.
Please tell Elizabeth the girls are excited to hear from her!
Corrie – if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
Please don’t assume that those of us that find it humorous are laughing at others. Please don’t impute an “us vs. them” bunker mentality to Nathan or to me or to anyone that might find it funny and intriguing. That would also be a grossly exaggerated caricature, and you can throw in the rest of the thesaurus as well.
I think most of us that find it humorous are laughing at ourselves for the most part. I wish more people could do that. As someone that used to be anti-liturgical, I know with certaintly that this is a pretty fair representation of how I used to think/act. That doesn’t mean I view everyone else as living in a little box that I used to dwell in.
There are a few points that I disagree with in the conversation. But who agrees on every point? I don’t let it ruin my day. Seems its just about impossible to actually believe in something without offending somebody.
“Corrie – if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”
Of course. I am not wearing it and neither do most solid, evangelical churches.
“Please don’t assume that those of us that find it humorous are laughing at others. Please don’t impute an “us vs. them” bunker mentality to Nathan or to me or to anyone that might find it funny and intriguing. That would also be a grossly exaggerated caricature, and you can throw in the rest of the thesaurus as well.”
Hmmm? I am not sure how you got that out of my few words in
agreement with Wade. Wade said the part about laughing, not me. I was agreeing with Wade’s point about the misrepresentation.
Please don’t put words or thoughts into my mouth because you are now doing to me what you rebuked me for doing (which I didn’t do). I have no idea what “bunker mentality” you are talking about but now that you have brought the subject up…….
I still stand by my original statement. This is a gross (bloated/large) and exaggerated (to represent something as greater or worse than it really is) caricature (picture/imitation) of what goes on in churches who do not do weekly communion complete with wine (vs. grape juice) and matzo/crackers (vs. bread).
I am not anti-liturgical. I think you would be very surprised to actually know what I think about the whole issue. I would probably agree with you on many of the points concerning wine, bread and the liturgy.
I don’t let it ruin my day, either. Just thought that you would like to know that there are people who read this and who also are in agreement with many of the points concerning liturgy and communion but who see this conversation as derogatory and something that doesn’t at all accurately portray what goes on in many churches.
I am the first one to speak up against flippantly celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Just as I am the first one to defend the Catholics when people totally misrepresent what they believe even though I am no longer Catholic.
“Seems its just about impossible to actually believe in something without offending somebody.”
LOL!! Exactly!!! Oh, the irony!
I especially find it funny because I am not offended by the belief that we should have liturgy, bread and wine and celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly because I too believe those things!
Corrie. Thank you for taking the time to explain. In addition to your few words here, I also took into consideration your comments elsewhere, such as:
I simply want to make a disclaimer about this specific article and I am asking you not to make assumptions regarding how we view our friends who disagree with us. If you want to email this piece around, then God be praised, regardless of your motives. However, emailing this around a community to imply that we view everyone a certain way would be a mischaracterisation. I don’t know whether you were speaking of this article or referring to another in your last statement, but either way that’s the type of thing I’d be sorry to see resulting.
I find shoes most valuable when I use them to stick my foot in my mouth.
I was very disappointed to realize a day or so ago that David was not with us (in the flesh) any more. The last thing in the world I want to do is be critical of him not only because he can’t defend himself but also because it would probably be an injury to you Nathan. So for that I am sorry. I notice I seem to be apologizing a lot these days. Hmmm, oh, well. I will keep my comments generic and full of as much grace as I can get from the Lord.
James, it was great talking with you too. If we ever got out of town it would be fun to impose on you sometime. Alas, we never do get out of town so the possiblity is remote. I agree with most of your last post. Does what he says happen in some churches, sure. There is always some goofball who heads off into the wilderness with those who will follow him. While most of my large extended family (grandma had 13 kids) are devout Southern Baptists I too have had a fairly ecumenical record of church attendence during certain periods if for no other reason than to “check them out”. My issue is: does it happen in MOST evangelical or other churches. Here I would have to say no. I’m sure David Chilton had this conversation, thought it was cute and made some good points therefore he typed it up and posted it. He probably never intended for it to come under this kind of scrutiny. In the end this probably comes down to where I’ve been and what I’ve seen versus where you’ve been and what you’ve seen. Someday when we stand before the throne we too will have one of those conversations like the disciples “who was the greatest”.
The reason this touched a sore spot with me is because I feel a very definite attitude in our “reformed, paedo-communion, liturgical circles” to think that the rest of the Church has wandered off the true path and we have or are bringing her back around to the right course. In some areas I’d say we might be doing that and in other areas I think we……well, I do not think I will finish that sentence. In any case I’m sorry to see the attitude in any church or denomination that says “I bet God is glad he has us because look at those clowns down the street”. I constantly fight the tendancy within myself to think that I am the bright and shining example of a christian on planet earth. The very realization of that thought in my head brings me down a notch or two (Jesus have mercy).
My church, shallow or deep? It depends on your definitions but I’m not touching that here!
Elizabeth says she will write soon.
May God bless you, your family and church,
Wade
Hi Wade,
As always, I respect your heart. Too few of us have the courage to say we are sorry. And while I was not offended, it might be good for Nathan to read your post. I pray he will.
As to your other points, again, well said! Yet, remember, if it was not for God’s guidance, we would not be in the churches and denominations we are! I have a number of dear pastor friends who serve in different denominations, yet we are able to come together in a spirit of unity. My Methodist friend must think his denomination is “better,” or else he would serve in a different denomination! Trust me; I have been the butt of a few jokes from my friends who are Charismatic pastors. I guess we all need to learn to have thick skin.
But we also need to beware of the sins of presumption and pride. We presume we are right, and take pride in that presumption! And if someone dares disagree, off to the stocks with the offender! Yet notice, Paul himself said he had not attained (Phil 3:12). If this is the case, why should we think we have?
How I look forward to the day when we will all see Christ face to face – this awesome day will be filled with shame for all as we look back to those we intentionally or unintentionally offended. I am sure there will be plenty of apologies to go around.
Also, can you imagine the pain the Lord must feel when He sees His children striving to puff themselves up, ignoring His command that we love one another? (John 13:14-35)
I think Paul had this in mind when I called for Euodia and Syntyche to stop their striving against one another and be united “in the Lord.” (Phil 4:2-3). Wouldn’t it be grand, and ever so convicting, to see our name in the Book of Life, and just below the name of one against whom we harbored ill will while on this short earthly sojourn?
May the Church be a people of unity, yet always lovingly encouraging each other to embrace more of Him, in doctrine, practice and love.
Quick correction to the first sentence in the second to last paragraph above – it should read, “I think Paul had this in mind when he called for Euodia and Syntyche to stop their striving against one another and be united “in the Lord.” (Phil 4:2-3).
I would hate to see a blog entry somewhere stating I thought myself the Apostle Paul. But I am sure no one would do that.
Well, you were right James about your assumption of the blog articles. I didn’t find one claiming that you thought you were the apostle Paul. But I did see one entitled: “Blog proves Pastor McDonald believes in reincarnation!”
I write on this Lutheran blog as an elder in a Baptist church. This was not the first time I read the article “Conversations with Nathan”, but I enjoyed reading the article as much as I did the first time, even though I knew I might hear a few of those remarks in my own church!
There was a time when satire and hyperbole was difficult for me to read. Oh, I enjoyed it well enough when it was obvious the shoe was several sizes oversized, but when the match was close I tended to feel a little agitated! Then there came a time when I discovered that I could glean a good bit from reading the criticisms of those that were in a different environment than I. When we get mired in our own cultural and theological ruts, sometimes we get so comfortable it takes a jolt from “outside” to get us to think outside of our comfortable confinement.
While we do not wish to be a like an autumn leaf being blown about by every wind of doctrine, reading a little satire or hyperbolic expression can sometimes be helpful in dislodging us from a place of error. We should also recongnize that satire, even the witty stuff, can be written by well intended individuals who simply wish to get people to stop and think.
When I think of where I have been compared to where I am at, pondering where I might one day find myself, I find that I must sometimes laugh at my folly while admiring my intent. Then there are the times I just feel like weeping.
Well said, Bob.
Thanks Paul, I mean, James and Bob,
You are full of wisdom and grace.
As Tigger says, “Tata for now”
Wade
This is actually from a book called “Christianity & Civilization 4: The Reconstruction of the Church” which was edited by James B. Jordan and published in 1985 by Geneva Ministries.
Here is a PDF copy: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/pdf/cc_4.pdf