Conserving energy is something I am quite good at. Not in the sense of being "green" -- I'm as wasteful as the average American in that regard. But in the sense of not putting a lof of effort into physical tasks, I do an excellent job of conserving energy. I used to watch TV lying down in my bed ot sofa, but now I have a recliner, which takes much less effort to get up out of. Should I ever be inclined to do so.
Anyway, at work today I received an email from our facilities management team, letting us know about new measures being implemented to reduce energy consumption. Most of them were pretty insignificant gestures (such as asking people to turn of desk lamps), but maybe it all adds up -- it is a big company. I was inspired to join in the spirit and came up with my own list of new policies my office could estabilsh to save evern more energy:
(1) Refrigerators will be turned on only between the hours of 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM, when most people are likely to have lunch. Also, the refrigerator thermostats will be set to a constant 85 degrees.
(2) Microwave ovens will be set to heat for no more than 25 seconds at a time, after which they will be disabled for 30 minutes. Timers will be set on the microwaves’ power outlets to allow operation only between the hours of 10:30-11:00 AM and 1:00-1:30 PM, to avoid using power at the same time as the refrigerators.
(3) All men’s work chairs, and those of women more than 25 pounds overweight, will be equipped with thermal capture devices to channel heat from captured gasses back into the heating system. During summer months these devices will also function as a heat sink to draw excess energy out of the buildings.
(4) Men and women with more than 25% hair loss will be seated near windows and connected to high capacity lithium batteries (via jumper cables attached to their ears) so the sunlight reflected off their heads can be captured as solar energy.
(5) All toilets will be equipped with new detectors and set to flush only in the presence of “#2”.
(6) Overhead and desk florescent lighting will be replaced with black lights, which use 50% less energy. The lights will also be disconnected from any electrical source to further conserve energy.
(7) Computer monitors will be replaced with cardboard cutouts with a pretty picture of rolling green hills and blue sky with light fluffy clouds.
(8) All electrical outlets will be filled in with a silicon-based sealant.
(9) The cafeteria will serve only raw meat.
(10) Summer office dress code now includes wearing nothing but thong underwear to work. However, obese persons choosing this option should also keep in mind that workplace violence policy extends to any permanent damage done to co-workers’ eyes and digestion.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A Dying Testimony
From "Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved", Compiled By Solomon Benjamin Shaw (first published in 1898)
THE SAD DEATH OF A LOST MAN
Near the town of K___, in Texas, there lived and prospered, a wealthy farmer, the son of a Methodist preacher, with whom the writer was intimately acquainted. He was highly respected in the community in which he lived. He was a kind-hearted and benevolent man; but, however, had one great fault -- he was very profane. He would utter the most horrible oaths without, seemingly, the least provocation. On several occasions, I remember having seen him under deep conviction for salvation, during revival meetings. On one occasion, during a camp-meeting, he was brought under powerful conviction. He afterwards said he was suddenly frightened, and felt as if he wanted to run away from the place.
Just one year from that time, another camp-meeting was held at the same place, and he was again brought under conviction, but refused to yield; after which he was suddenly taken ill, and died in three days. I was with him in his last moments. He seemed to be utterly forsaken of the Lord from the beginning of his sickness. The most powerful medicines had no effect on him whatever.
Just as the sun of a beautiful Sabbath morning rose in its splendor over the eastern hills, he died -- in horrible agony. All through the night previous to his death, he suffered untold physical and mental torture. He offered the physicians all his earthly possessions if they would save his life. He was stubborn till the very last; and would not acknowledge his fear of death until a few moments before he died; then, suddenly he began to look, then to stare, horribly surprised and frightened, into the vacancy before him; then exclaimed, as if he beheld the king of terrors in all of his merciless wrath, "My God!"
The indescribable expression of his countenance, at this juncture, together with the despairing tones in which he uttered these last words, made every heart quake. His wife screamed, and begged a brother to pray for him; but he was so terror-stricken that he rushed out of the room. The dying man continued to stare in dreadful astonishment, his mouth wide open, and his eyes protruding out of their sockets, till at last with an awful groan,
"Like a flood with rapid force,
Death bore the wretch away."
His little three-year-old son, the idol of his father's heart, was convulsed with grief. This little boy, then so innocent, grew up to be a wicked young man, and died a horrible death. Oh how sad! When we reflect that in hell there are millions of fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, hopelessly lost, given over forever to the mad ravages of eternal, pitiless wrath, ever frightened by real ghosts, tortured by serpents and scorpions, gnawed by the worm that never dies; and when we reflect that this, the future state of the wicked, will never abate its fury but, according to the natural law of sin, degradation and wretchedness, will grow worse and more furious as the black ages of eternity roll up from darker realms, we turn for relief from the sad reverie to the Man of Sorrows, who tasted death for every man, then to the beautiful city. whose builder and maker is God, to the bliss of the glorified who will shine as the stars for ever and ever; then with renewed efforts we continue with gratitude to work out our own, and the salvation of others, with fear and trembling. -- The Ambassador
THE SAD DEATH OF A LOST MAN
Near the town of K___, in Texas, there lived and prospered, a wealthy farmer, the son of a Methodist preacher, with whom the writer was intimately acquainted. He was highly respected in the community in which he lived. He was a kind-hearted and benevolent man; but, however, had one great fault -- he was very profane. He would utter the most horrible oaths without, seemingly, the least provocation. On several occasions, I remember having seen him under deep conviction for salvation, during revival meetings. On one occasion, during a camp-meeting, he was brought under powerful conviction. He afterwards said he was suddenly frightened, and felt as if he wanted to run away from the place.
Just one year from that time, another camp-meeting was held at the same place, and he was again brought under conviction, but refused to yield; after which he was suddenly taken ill, and died in three days. I was with him in his last moments. He seemed to be utterly forsaken of the Lord from the beginning of his sickness. The most powerful medicines had no effect on him whatever.
Just as the sun of a beautiful Sabbath morning rose in its splendor over the eastern hills, he died -- in horrible agony. All through the night previous to his death, he suffered untold physical and mental torture. He offered the physicians all his earthly possessions if they would save his life. He was stubborn till the very last; and would not acknowledge his fear of death until a few moments before he died; then, suddenly he began to look, then to stare, horribly surprised and frightened, into the vacancy before him; then exclaimed, as if he beheld the king of terrors in all of his merciless wrath, "My God!"
The indescribable expression of his countenance, at this juncture, together with the despairing tones in which he uttered these last words, made every heart quake. His wife screamed, and begged a brother to pray for him; but he was so terror-stricken that he rushed out of the room. The dying man continued to stare in dreadful astonishment, his mouth wide open, and his eyes protruding out of their sockets, till at last with an awful groan,
"Like a flood with rapid force,
Death bore the wretch away."
His little three-year-old son, the idol of his father's heart, was convulsed with grief. This little boy, then so innocent, grew up to be a wicked young man, and died a horrible death. Oh how sad! When we reflect that in hell there are millions of fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, hopelessly lost, given over forever to the mad ravages of eternal, pitiless wrath, ever frightened by real ghosts, tortured by serpents and scorpions, gnawed by the worm that never dies; and when we reflect that this, the future state of the wicked, will never abate its fury but, according to the natural law of sin, degradation and wretchedness, will grow worse and more furious as the black ages of eternity roll up from darker realms, we turn for relief from the sad reverie to the Man of Sorrows, who tasted death for every man, then to the beautiful city. whose builder and maker is God, to the bliss of the glorified who will shine as the stars for ever and ever; then with renewed efforts we continue with gratitude to work out our own, and the salvation of others, with fear and trembling. -- The Ambassador
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Mankind
Another Deep Thought by Jack Handy:
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind." Basically, it's made up of two separate words -- "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind." Basically, it's made up of two separate words -- "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Abusive Power
Today I came across the following quote from John Maxwell:
Consider the "Path to Abusive Power" in leaders:
Stage One: Surprise -- "I get this?"
Stage Two: Self-Esteem -- "I need this."
Stage Three: Satisfaction -- "I deserve this."
Stage Four: Selfishness -- "I demand this."
The Junkster's thoughts on this quote:
Many, perhaps most, pastors start without any expectation of special privilege or personal gain as a result of their position, and are genuinely surprised at whatever blessings or benefits come their way from being a pastor. But over time they may become convinced that they need and deserve the perks that come with a position of power, and eventually expect and demand them as their right.
May God grant pastors who start out and remain humble servants.
Consider the "Path to Abusive Power" in leaders:
Stage One: Surprise -- "I get this?"
Stage Two: Self-Esteem -- "I need this."
Stage Three: Satisfaction -- "I deserve this."
Stage Four: Selfishness -- "I demand this."
The Junkster's thoughts on this quote:
Many, perhaps most, pastors start without any expectation of special privilege or personal gain as a result of their position, and are genuinely surprised at whatever blessings or benefits come their way from being a pastor. But over time they may become convinced that they need and deserve the perks that come with a position of power, and eventually expect and demand them as their right.
May God grant pastors who start out and remain humble servants.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Deep Thought
And now, a Deep Thought, from Jack Handy:
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Mega Mania
It doesn't take much looking to notice how market-driven many churches have become these days. And it's getting harder and harder to find a church, particularly a large church, that doesn't give at least the appearance of being very focused on material things and being some kind of successful business enterprise.
Just my opinion (and one that won't be popular with some), but the more I think about all this, the more it strikes me as the natural progression of the whole mega-church concept. The existence of local churches composed of thousands or tens of thousands of members is a very recent phenomenon, unique to our modern age – something made possible by technology, easy and relatively inexpensive transportation, mass media communications, affluence, etc. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, and great resources have been made available by bringing so many believers together, united in a common fellowship and purpose. But along with success, popularity, and significant financial and other resources, whether of an individual or of an organization, comes influence and power. And with power and money come pride, greed, and corruption. It is just the nature of living in a fallen world, and Christians (pastors and congregations alike) are by no means immune. (That’s why we are warned in Scripture over and over about the deceit of riches, the love of money, and the need to be focused on service instead of positions of power.)
I’m sure that some who read this will dismiss what I’m saying, and claim that the problem isn’t with the size of the church, just with the character of its leaders and/or its members. But my point is not that big churches are inherently bad, but that truly godly men and women of character are fewer and fewer these days, and even those who start out good can too easily be corrupted – slowly, over time – so gradually sometimes that they can’t see what has happened.
Still not convinced? Check out how many times members or former members of Bellevue Baptist Church, FBC Jax, or FBC Dallas have written of their churches on blogs as being the “flagship church of the SBC” (which one is/was really the “flagship” anyway? – a fleet can only have one). It would be hard to think of another term that displayed a greater sense of inappropriate pride, even arrogance. If the members of a church think of their church as somehow better than other churches, it's no surprise that the pastors would think far too highly of themselves. And that sense of pride (“Look at me, look at what I am, what I have accomplished”) is what’s really at the root of the worldly focus in today's churches.
When will the churches be healed and restored, and receive godly leaders? When the members repent of their own arrogance, greed, apathy, self-reliance, and devotion to the things and values of this world more than to God. Not before. May God have mercy on us all.
Just my opinion (and one that won't be popular with some), but the more I think about all this, the more it strikes me as the natural progression of the whole mega-church concept. The existence of local churches composed of thousands or tens of thousands of members is a very recent phenomenon, unique to our modern age – something made possible by technology, easy and relatively inexpensive transportation, mass media communications, affluence, etc. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, and great resources have been made available by bringing so many believers together, united in a common fellowship and purpose. But along with success, popularity, and significant financial and other resources, whether of an individual or of an organization, comes influence and power. And with power and money come pride, greed, and corruption. It is just the nature of living in a fallen world, and Christians (pastors and congregations alike) are by no means immune. (That’s why we are warned in Scripture over and over about the deceit of riches, the love of money, and the need to be focused on service instead of positions of power.)
I’m sure that some who read this will dismiss what I’m saying, and claim that the problem isn’t with the size of the church, just with the character of its leaders and/or its members. But my point is not that big churches are inherently bad, but that truly godly men and women of character are fewer and fewer these days, and even those who start out good can too easily be corrupted – slowly, over time – so gradually sometimes that they can’t see what has happened.
Still not convinced? Check out how many times members or former members of Bellevue Baptist Church, FBC Jax, or FBC Dallas have written of their churches on blogs as being the “flagship church of the SBC” (which one is/was really the “flagship” anyway? – a fleet can only have one). It would be hard to think of another term that displayed a greater sense of inappropriate pride, even arrogance. If the members of a church think of their church as somehow better than other churches, it's no surprise that the pastors would think far too highly of themselves. And that sense of pride (“Look at me, look at what I am, what I have accomplished”) is what’s really at the root of the worldly focus in today's churches.
When will the churches be healed and restored, and receive godly leaders? When the members repent of their own arrogance, greed, apathy, self-reliance, and devotion to the things and values of this world more than to God. Not before. May God have mercy on us all.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Church For Sale
Here is an interesting article, called "Has the Church Sold Its Soul?"
(Ignore the fact that the author shares the name of an infamous former minister from Memphis -- it's not the same guy!)
Especially interesting is the part about how many churches have adopted a Carver Policy Governance model. I didn't know there was a name for it, but I Googled that term, and sure 'nuff, it is the very thing that I have been saying for the past 3 or 4 years is a major problem with how so many churches today view the elders/pastors as decision makers, business leaders and rulers rather than as spiritual shepherds and servants.
Also interesting is the correlation between personality type and church size, and how churches are using personality tests to identify and hire ministers with the profile of a successful corporate executive.
To all of which I say, "Maranatha!"
(Ignore the fact that the author shares the name of an infamous former minister from Memphis -- it's not the same guy!)
Especially interesting is the part about how many churches have adopted a Carver Policy Governance model. I didn't know there was a name for it, but I Googled that term, and sure 'nuff, it is the very thing that I have been saying for the past 3 or 4 years is a major problem with how so many churches today view the elders/pastors as decision makers, business leaders and rulers rather than as spiritual shepherds and servants.
Also interesting is the correlation between personality type and church size, and how churches are using personality tests to identify and hire ministers with the profile of a successful corporate executive.
To all of which I say, "Maranatha!"
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Love-less
Well, I had to tell Jennifer to stop sending me secret messages in license plates, after they started getting strange. Like this one: MQD 327. Yeah, I realize her meaning is obvious, but, still, I was thinking, "What's up with that??"
After I called her home repeatedly to tell her to leave me alone, she sent a very nice letter of apology via registered mail. She pretended to be her lawyer threatening me with a restraining order, but I could tell it was just her funny way of saying she was sorry for freaking me out.
Poor girl.
After I called her home repeatedly to tell her to leave me alone, she sent a very nice letter of apology via registered mail. She pretended to be her lawyer threatening me with a restraining order, but I could tell it was just her funny way of saying she was sorry for freaking me out.
Poor girl.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Love
Does it mean I am crazy if I have become convinced that Jennifer Love Hewitt is sending me secret encoded messages in other people's license plates?
Friday, August 29, 2008
MIA Friends
Do you have any friends who seem to be "Missing In Action" (MIA)? I mean true friends -- people whom you are genuinely close to, whom you feel a strong connection with, whom you've been through a lot with, who have supported you and whom you've supported, whose company you enjoy and who seem to feel the same way about you -- yet, it has been far too long since you've heard from them? The kind of friend you know would gladly do anything you ask, and for whom you would do the same -- yet, you never hear from them, unless you make the effort, take the initiative, pick up the phone, make an appointment or lunch date, or otherwise reach out to try to spend time with them. It makes you feel like maybe you value the friendship more than they do, since it if was left up the them, weeks or even months would go by without you hearing a word. (And you know this for sure, because you have tested it to see.) But then, if you do make the effort, they give every indication that they would love to see you or hear from you or spend time with you more often.
What's up with that?
What's up with that?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Elders & Authority
The more I study and think of the issue of church leadership and governance, the more convinced I become that the essence of the role of elders (or pastors, or overseers) in the New Testament is service, rather than ruling. The New Testament emphasis regarding governance is more on function than on form, and I believe that when the whole body is functioning in the giftings of the Holy Spirit, the functions of leadership will be performed primarily by those with those gifts and with the spiritual maturity to exercise them wisely and consistently. I do not believe that leadership authority in the church inheres in a position or title or "office".
Baptists have historically been congregationally governed and not ruled by elders not only because they were small congregations and it was functionally expedient, but also because of a firm commitment to the priesthood of all believers, which implies that each person is accountable before God, without need of an intermediary for any aspect of their relationship with God. As such, we are all equal in His service, and there is no special class or group within the body with any ruling power over others. Godly people will gladly and freely defer to the wisdom and spiritual leadership of those who have demonstrated deep commitment to Christ and His Word, those who have shown great care for their spiritual welfare by humble service.
I personally wouldn't mind if more churches intentionally focused more on experiencing and expressing the New Testament basics (community, mutual edification, interactive study, giving to meet the material needs of others, service to others, etc.), and focused less on today's programs and buildings and "church work" (keeping all the plates spinning). But I don't think doing the former (basic NT stuff) and the latter (modern-day stuff) are mutually exclusive, or that the NT forbids or eschews structure or organization (far from it -- God values administration enough to have made it a spiritual gift). My concern is more with the relatively recent move toward a focus on "pastoral authority" or "elder rule" in Baptist and like-minded churches -- I understand the pragmatic appeal, but I fear what is lost (in congregational involvement, commitment, and our equality before God in Christ) isn't worth it.
I realize that, for better or worse, churches today, particularly those of significant size, are also businesses, with budgets, payrolls, taxes, insurance, utilities, property, income, and expenses to manage. And certainly God would not have us be less than excellent in whatever business practices we are faced with. Someone (or more than one) needs to administer all of that. But it is important for those who do so to remember that the essence of being a leader in God's kingdom and in the church is to be a servant, not a master. The needs and will of the congregation should always be placed before the opinions and desires of those who serve the congregation. Unfortunately, too many in such positions of leadership have adopted the view that they stand between God and the congregation as those who receive divine direction and pass it along to the people. I believe the NT makes it clear that God hasn't worked that way with His people since the veil of the Temple was torn in two.
Again, we are all His priests, collectively, and Christ alone is our head, and He leads us all by His Spirit, not just a select few who pass along His will to others.
Baptists have historically been congregationally governed and not ruled by elders not only because they were small congregations and it was functionally expedient, but also because of a firm commitment to the priesthood of all believers, which implies that each person is accountable before God, without need of an intermediary for any aspect of their relationship with God. As such, we are all equal in His service, and there is no special class or group within the body with any ruling power over others. Godly people will gladly and freely defer to the wisdom and spiritual leadership of those who have demonstrated deep commitment to Christ and His Word, those who have shown great care for their spiritual welfare by humble service.
I personally wouldn't mind if more churches intentionally focused more on experiencing and expressing the New Testament basics (community, mutual edification, interactive study, giving to meet the material needs of others, service to others, etc.), and focused less on today's programs and buildings and "church work" (keeping all the plates spinning). But I don't think doing the former (basic NT stuff) and the latter (modern-day stuff) are mutually exclusive, or that the NT forbids or eschews structure or organization (far from it -- God values administration enough to have made it a spiritual gift). My concern is more with the relatively recent move toward a focus on "pastoral authority" or "elder rule" in Baptist and like-minded churches -- I understand the pragmatic appeal, but I fear what is lost (in congregational involvement, commitment, and our equality before God in Christ) isn't worth it.
I realize that, for better or worse, churches today, particularly those of significant size, are also businesses, with budgets, payrolls, taxes, insurance, utilities, property, income, and expenses to manage. And certainly God would not have us be less than excellent in whatever business practices we are faced with. Someone (or more than one) needs to administer all of that. But it is important for those who do so to remember that the essence of being a leader in God's kingdom and in the church is to be a servant, not a master. The needs and will of the congregation should always be placed before the opinions and desires of those who serve the congregation. Unfortunately, too many in such positions of leadership have adopted the view that they stand between God and the congregation as those who receive divine direction and pass it along to the people. I believe the NT makes it clear that God hasn't worked that way with His people since the veil of the Temple was torn in two.
Again, we are all His priests, collectively, and Christ alone is our head, and He leads us all by His Spirit, not just a select few who pass along His will to others.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Abusive Ministers & Autonomy
Something just occurred to me ... please bear with me as I try to put it into words...
Baptist leaders are quick to say that the SBC can't do anything about abusive ministers because of the doctrine of local church autonomy. This indicates that autonomy is such a highly prized doctrine that it over-rides pretty much everything, including concerns about protecting children. In essence they say, "Catholics can handle the problem differently than we can because their church government is structured differently; our hands are tied by our form of church government."
Yet Baptists believe in (cling to) the doctrine of autonomy not just out of tradition, but because they believe it is right. They believe it is what the Bible teaches, and that other forms of church government (like the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church) are unbiblical. Put another way, Baptist believe that the way Catholics are organized is wrong, just as they believe Catholics are wrong on their doctrines of justification, sanctification, purgatory, saints, Mary, etc.
All that said, wouldn't if follow that when the Catholic church as an organization removes a Priest's ordination and refuses him a place of service in any Catholic church, according to Baptist doctrine, the Catholic church is wrong for doing so? I mean, if Baptists believe they are right about church government (autonomy) and Catholics are wrong (hierarchy), then doesn't that mean that the Catholic church is wrong when they act according to their wrong doctrine?
But I have yet to hear a Baptist leader say that. They simply throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, Catholics do things differently than we do; we can't do what they do."
This raises the question ... if autonomy is really the primary concern, and if it is so strongly believed to be true Bible doctrine, why do Baptist preachers not have the courage of their convictions to come right out and say, "What we are doing [leaving it to local churches] is right and what the Catholics are doing [handling it as an organization as a whole] is wrong"?
I will answer my own question ... because they know how bad it would sound. It would be plain for all to see that they are saying that it is preferable to allow abuse to continue in order to protect autonomy.
And that is one reason I believe autonomy to be just a smokescreen, a convenient excuse to do nothing. There may be many reasons the SBC has chosen not to address this issue as it should (fear of lawsuits, pride, potential loss of esteem and power, laziness, apathy, etc.) but autonomy is not the reason; it is just an excuse.
Baptist leaders are quick to say that the SBC can't do anything about abusive ministers because of the doctrine of local church autonomy. This indicates that autonomy is such a highly prized doctrine that it over-rides pretty much everything, including concerns about protecting children. In essence they say, "Catholics can handle the problem differently than we can because their church government is structured differently; our hands are tied by our form of church government."
Yet Baptists believe in (cling to) the doctrine of autonomy not just out of tradition, but because they believe it is right. They believe it is what the Bible teaches, and that other forms of church government (like the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church) are unbiblical. Put another way, Baptist believe that the way Catholics are organized is wrong, just as they believe Catholics are wrong on their doctrines of justification, sanctification, purgatory, saints, Mary, etc.
All that said, wouldn't if follow that when the Catholic church as an organization removes a Priest's ordination and refuses him a place of service in any Catholic church, according to Baptist doctrine, the Catholic church is wrong for doing so? I mean, if Baptists believe they are right about church government (autonomy) and Catholics are wrong (hierarchy), then doesn't that mean that the Catholic church is wrong when they act according to their wrong doctrine?
But I have yet to hear a Baptist leader say that. They simply throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, Catholics do things differently than we do; we can't do what they do."
This raises the question ... if autonomy is really the primary concern, and if it is so strongly believed to be true Bible doctrine, why do Baptist preachers not have the courage of their convictions to come right out and say, "What we are doing [leaving it to local churches] is right and what the Catholics are doing [handling it as an organization as a whole] is wrong"?
I will answer my own question ... because they know how bad it would sound. It would be plain for all to see that they are saying that it is preferable to allow abuse to continue in order to protect autonomy.
And that is one reason I believe autonomy to be just a smokescreen, a convenient excuse to do nothing. There may be many reasons the SBC has chosen not to address this issue as it should (fear of lawsuits, pride, potential loss of esteem and power, laziness, apathy, etc.) but autonomy is not the reason; it is just an excuse.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Huck
In a recent post on his blog, Wade Burleson quoted an article written in 1990 by Mike Huckabee (Southern Baptist minister, former pastor, former President of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, former Arkansas Governor, and current candidate for the President of the United States). I thought Huckbee's words were worth sharing here:
“The ‘L’ word that may characterize our greatest threat is not liberalism but legalism. If all the liberals in Arkansas Baptist churches held a meeting, they could meet in the corner booth of a Waffle House and still have room for guests.
Legalism is the reduction of the whole of the Bible to a rather limited system of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ that the one espousing already lives. By carefully limiting ‘right and wrong’ to those beliefs or practices one already adheres to, the legalist is able to always be right and never wrong. Convenient system to be sure. It requires no struggle of conscience, no agonizing soul-searching, no brokenness. Others aren’t judged by the character of Christ, but by the behavior of the legalist.
Legalism is not limited to the theological camp of the conservatives, moderates or anyone in between or beyond. Like a worthless weed, it grows in whatever soil it is planted and is capable of choking out anything that gets in its way without ever producing fruit of value.
Biblical faith is sure about God, but never so sure about self. Legalistic faith is sure of self, and may or may not be as sure of God and His Word. A legalist questions everyone else’s motives and mission, but never sees a need to question his own. A strong Christian is not only interested in believing right, but living right. A strong Christian should want others to be more like Jesus, not more ‘like me.’
We do not live under ‘Lord Law,’ ‘Lord Tradition,’ ‘Lord Religion’ or even ‘Lord Belief.’ We are saved when we confess ‘Lord Jesus.’ When He is Lord, we learn a new ‘L’ word – love. Jesus said that the world would know we belonged to Him not because we worship the same, believe the same or even live the same, but because we love one another.”
“The ‘L’ word that may characterize our greatest threat is not liberalism but legalism. If all the liberals in Arkansas Baptist churches held a meeting, they could meet in the corner booth of a Waffle House and still have room for guests.
Legalism is the reduction of the whole of the Bible to a rather limited system of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ that the one espousing already lives. By carefully limiting ‘right and wrong’ to those beliefs or practices one already adheres to, the legalist is able to always be right and never wrong. Convenient system to be sure. It requires no struggle of conscience, no agonizing soul-searching, no brokenness. Others aren’t judged by the character of Christ, but by the behavior of the legalist.
Legalism is not limited to the theological camp of the conservatives, moderates or anyone in between or beyond. Like a worthless weed, it grows in whatever soil it is planted and is capable of choking out anything that gets in its way without ever producing fruit of value.
Biblical faith is sure about God, but never so sure about self. Legalistic faith is sure of self, and may or may not be as sure of God and His Word. A legalist questions everyone else’s motives and mission, but never sees a need to question his own. A strong Christian is not only interested in believing right, but living right. A strong Christian should want others to be more like Jesus, not more ‘like me.’
We do not live under ‘Lord Law,’ ‘Lord Tradition,’ ‘Lord Religion’ or even ‘Lord Belief.’ We are saved when we confess ‘Lord Jesus.’ When He is Lord, we learn a new ‘L’ word – love. Jesus said that the world would know we belonged to Him not because we worship the same, believe the same or even live the same, but because we love one another.”
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Perseverence & Sin
From the 1689 London Baptist Confession:
Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)
This is what I understand to be the classical Calvinist position on perseverance. The third item says that the elect can commit grievous sins but will eventually repent. This is also in keeping with the doctrine of depravity ... that every part of our nature has been corrupted by sin. Although God's grace in his effectual calling brings us to repentance and faith, which we could never have prior to regeneration, He does not remove sin's corruption from us in this world.
Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)
This is what I understand to be the classical Calvinist position on perseverance. The third item says that the elect can commit grievous sins but will eventually repent. This is also in keeping with the doctrine of depravity ... that every part of our nature has been corrupted by sin. Although God's grace in his effectual calling brings us to repentance and faith, which we could never have prior to regeneration, He does not remove sin's corruption from us in this world.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
ADHC -- Attention Deficit Hyper Calvinism
Sometimes I've seen the term "hyper-Calvinist" used to refer to someone who is strongly Calvinistic, or who holds to all 5 points of Calvinism, or who holds to traditional Calvinistic positions regarding election, free will, etc. But those are not technically correct uses of the term.
"Hyper-Calvinism" is a distinct theological position that states that only the elect are obligated to repent and believe, and thus unbelievers should not all be exhorted to believe in Christ or turn in repentance to God. The practical application of this for the true hyper-Calvinist is that gospel preaching to the lost or evangelistic witness are not needed.
More on what constitues true hyper-Calvinism and what distiguishes it from Calvinism is here.
"Hyper-Calvinism" is a distinct theological position that states that only the elect are obligated to repent and believe, and thus unbelievers should not all be exhorted to believe in Christ or turn in repentance to God. The practical application of this for the true hyper-Calvinist is that gospel preaching to the lost or evangelistic witness are not needed.
More on what constitues true hyper-Calvinism and what distiguishes it from Calvinism is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)