A PASTOR'S NEW YEAR RESOLUTION ABOUT PEDESTALS

I'm not into New Year's resolutions, in fact, I'm not even pastoring anymore. But were I to be, I think the number one resolution I would make for the New Year as a pastor would be to____

NOT PERMIT MYSELF TO BE PUT ON A PEDESTAL BY THE PEOPLE I PASTOR.

Pedestals create problems. There is no doubt about that. The dictionary definition for 'Pedestal" the way I'm using it is.."A position of high regard." Granted, there is a rather innocuous, even scriptural way [think double honor] a pastor may be thought of with high regard. But here I'm looking at a different sort of thing, even a lie, that people and pastor may believe that can effectively ruin a ministry if not addressed.

I became aware while pastoring that people in a church may put a pastor on a pedestal in a way that's very unfortunate and even dangerous. It is one of having it all together spiritually or being more committed to Christ than anyone else. But my issue is more with the pastor who tries to place himself there or tries to maintain that position, than with others who have put him there. 

Pedestals are not the best position for real people and to be on one takes too much hiding or being secret about one's self to effectively remain in that exalted position. When a fall comes, and it will, the pain is great and often disillusioning.

I know there are those who don't like knowing of the struggles of ministers because, their argument goes, if THEY [ministers] don't have it together how are we to trust ANYTHING they say? It's almost as if they [ministers] are that person's last bastion of hope for everything to be as it should be in some body's christian life. 

It might should be mentioned at this point that only our Lord deserves to be on a pedestal with that criteria anyway and that is because He is the only one who has it all together in terms of life. 

In fact, to look at a pastor in this manner could make an idol of him were one not careful. [Or maybe just the pulpit or position of pastor is the idol in that person's mind. Who knows!!]

Those who do wish preachers would remain silent about their own struggles sometimes use Ephesians 5:12 as a biblical basis for their objection. This is a verse that says it is a shame to speak of those things done in secret. So, their argument goes, preachers should keep their mouths shut about their own secret struggles or failures. It's a shame for them to mention them from the pulpit the bible says.

It would be good for those folks to actually understand that verse in context I would think. It's speaking of the secret things unbelievers [those in darkness] are presently [present tense] doing and how those things should not be spoken about with affirmation but confronted with light [as children of light] giving direction out of such things.

So unless you believe your pastor to be an unbeliever, the things he might share about his struggles and how God has given grace in them are not the subject of that passage at all.

I believe a major weakness of the modern pulpit is the LACK of identification of the one in the pulpit with those in the pew anyway. [This is that pedestal thing] This weakness may be the single greatest failure of the pulpit. The only greater failure would be to NOT preach the text of scripture itself.

So, how was this pedestal thing corrected in my own pulpit through forty years of pastoring? Whether I was successful in correcting it may be for others to say, of course, but I can give you what I used in my attempt to correct it. Several things were involved and this isn't a complete list at all.

One___I made a commitment within myself to be truthful and express what I really was, not what people wanted to think I was. An example is when I would preach/teach on having intimate time with the Lord, I would be honest about my own struggles and failures in doing so with any solid regularity. This was before I realized the truth that every moment of every day I'm in union and fellowship with Him and special times are good but not essential for fellowship. That is an atmosphere not an activity. 

In the same manner when teaching on not letting the sun go down on anger in James, I would honestly confess that anger was a problem area in my own life. My control struggles were in that category as well. So when I would teach about God being the blessed controller of every event, I would use my own struggle with a need to control as an illustration of the battle that often takes place in a believer.

Earlier in my ministry I was honest with struggles about impure thoughts or actions that were debilitation to my walk with the Lord and I shared how I learned, as a result, ways of focusing my attention on Him during those struggles that led to cleansing and even hope.

So you can see that, in my ministry at least, the people were aware that their pastor was, in reality, a fellow struggler, as evidenced by control issues, anger issues, impure thought issues and a general inability to practice ALL I preach about what a Christian should be and do.

You say, "But doesn't Paul say that the Corinthians should imitate him? Doesn't that mean Paul HAD to live what he preached if he said such a thing?" No__ it doesn't have to mean that at all. In fact, remember that Paul regularly told of his personal struggles, [Romans 7-8] but always found in the Lord what was needed and we ARE to imitate him in that. I say the same to those I pastor. Follow me as I deal with my issues of the flesh and learn to see the work of the Cross of Christ as it does it's true work in deliverance and victory. That's the ONLY way any person other than the Lord can ever recommend himself as one to be followed.

Remember, no one is speaking about details that are salacious in nature. I've found that is really more a matter of a choice of words and an overall willingness to recognize the nature of an audience. On the other hand some people think the word "sex" IS salacious and should never be spoken in public. You can have peculiar people both in the pulpit AND pew remember.

Two___I made a commitment to drop the pomposity and self-righteousness that can come from thinking I'm better or even different than the people served by using the personal pronoun "we" instead of "you." Too much preaching/teaching, IMHO, is crouched in words like___"God wants you to know you will have no victory over sin if you play games with it privately"___instead of__"God wants us to know we will have no victory over sin if we play games with it privately." [If you don't believe the first is often used listen to sermons on the Internet.] 

Let's face it, preachers are ordinary people and face ordinary problems and challenges that other people face. I haven’t “arrived”; I don’t have an exclusive path to God; I am a student of life and not a graduate of life, just like other ordinary people. To pretend otherwise by leaving myself out of the pulpit language used is unworthy and simply the height of spiritual arrogance it seems to me.

Three___I made a commitment to practice what I preached. It was my desire to convey to the people my own hope of BEING what was taught scripturally about behavior. This is NOT a retraction of what was previously stated, but a companion to it. I would often end messages with the prayer that God would deliver me from preaching to others what I refused to have built in my own life. 

The key here is "presently being built." No one of us has arrived at what the Christian life is all about and we're on that journey together. Let's just be honest about that and people will not likely be as tempted to place a minister on a pedestal or a minister will not be as likely to try to climb up there himself.

Besides..spiritual "Acrophobia" [ἄκρον φόβος meaning fear of heights] might be a good phobia to have for any Christian leader.

So with this New Years resolution in mind___I wish you a Happy 2014.

CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2013



Merry Christmas to all of you from Vital Truth Ministries and the Burlesons. I'm trusting this 2013 celebration of Christmas, the Incarnation of our Savior, will be the best yet. I'm also trusting that 2014 will see God's continued blessings on you and your family.

I'm celebrating with you the freedom in Christ that we have received by His Grace accomplished in His doing and dying on the Cross.

I'm ALSO celebrating at this Christmas time, as an American citizen, those who will miss being with their families as they serve in our military to sustain our freedoms as a nation.

I'm looking for the return of the King, whose advent 2000 years ago we celebrate at Christmas, to be in this year of our Lord, 2014.  Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

FINISHING THE SEVEN MYTHS OF CHRISTMAS

If you will recall, we're confronting seven of the things assumed by most people to be true about the birth of our Lord which may, in fact, be less than correct. Last time we dealt with three of them and I would suggest that you read that post if you have not already. As always, much of what I'm saying others have said first and even better than will I. I'm appreciative of what I've read and have been helped in forming my ideas by some of them. But as the proverbial story goes, having done the work of milking several cows, the finished product of any churned butter is all mine. So what you read are my conclusions, for better or for worse.

All that said, we will now address the fourth myth.

Myth number four___Angels sang as they announced His birth to the shepherds.

I must admit that this IS NOT of earth shattering significance. But the whole idea of angels singing is kind of fun to think about. So with no desire to "burst bubbles" in any one's mind about this, I will address whether angels can sing at all, but more specifically, even if they can, DID they sing when they appeared to the shepherds?

If you believe the text of most of the carols of Christmas you will certainly hold to the idea they can...and did..sing.  Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Oh Little Town of Bethlehem, It Came Upon a Midnight Clear, and even Silent Night, all declare the angels sang at the announcement to the shepherds, if not at the manger itself. This belief is especially helpful I would think since it enables larger churches to have more volunteers involved in Christmas cantatas, since you can always use more singing angels especially if they have a good voice.

I listened this past Sunday to the Christmas carols I joined our fellowship in singing and noticed that the word 'sing" was found to be repeatedly used in the lyrics. I began to wonder why and then I began to be aware that the reason may have been, as much as anything, because it rhymes so well with "king" and "wing."  Just kidding.

But I am thinking that an argument might be made from the scriptures that angels are not said to sing AT ALL. I know about the reference in Job to "sons of God" and the host around His throne singing in Revelation, but there may be some problems textually in making those passages speak of angels.

Arguing from silence however, is never the best method for establishing truth because with that method we could wind up arguing that the disciples NEVER bathed since the bible doesn't specifically say they did or did not. The scriptures only have a veiled reference to disciples bathing in John 13 when Jesus said the one who has been bathed doesn't need anything except his feet washed. So I would think a subject about which the bible is silent generally means we might as well be generally silent about it as well.

But the angels did not sing at the announcement to the shepherds of the birth of Jesus according to the text, and that's the myth I'm addressing. The passage used to say they did is Luke 2:10-14. Those verses say this, "Then the angel SAID to them, 'Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, for unto you is born this day...This shall be a sign to you: you will find the baby wrapped in swaddling clothes...and suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God and SAYING, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."

I've highlighted the word "saying" in both place it appears. It is the word legonton. [I'm using the English spelling of the Greek word for simplicity.] It is from the Greek word, lego. It is a very common word in the scriptures and it means,"to talk, to speak or to say." It also means to really focus upon the content of what is spoken. It DOESN'T mean SINGING at all.

So why do people assume the angels sang here? I'm guessing it's because of the phrase "praising God" is generally thought to be synonymous with "singing" by most people but that could be incorrect. While the two words, "praising and singing" are closely linked, "praise" is MORE than "singing." It can mean praying, proclaiming, or even shouting. But the general sense of praising is "to speak of the excellence of a person, object, or event." The text indicates whatever message the angels gave, they said or shouted it rather than sang it.

But that wouldn't go over too well in a Christmas cantata at all. So I'll bet, if I were a betting baptist, the angels won't mind at all our saying they sang even if when we get to heaven we find out they didn't sing after all.

Now on to the fifth myth.

Myth number five___There were the shepherds and three Kings at the manger on His birth night.

We've established that the manger may have been located in a private home, [see the last post] and it is pretty clear the shepherds were able to make it to that home the night of His birth, but the three Kings? I'm not so sure that there were in fact three of them and that they came that night. The scriptures may well indicate otherwise.

Matthew is the only gospel writer to tell of the Magi. His task was to write to the Jews about the birth of Jesus so there is much more of a Jewish flavor than say, Luke, whose emphasis was to the gentiles. I will not attempt to explain who and where they came from as that is too broad for my present purposes. You can read all about them on Wikipedia if you like further information on them

Matthew 2:1-2 simply says, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men [magi] from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” [ESV]

Notice that there is no number given by Matthew and it would be good to remember that most historians say they were from Persia and traveled in bands of a dozen or more, generally on horseback. The number three was settled on probably because of the three kinds of gifts mentioned. Also, they were not kings, but more likely Priests of the Persian religion who studied the stars. In some way they had read the stars and saw a new one and knew something of the Hebrew Prophets predicting the birth of a new King of the Jews and came to pay homage.

They came to Jerusalem  [Matt.2:1]  questioning about it all and word got to Herod who was understandably disturbed at the news. [2:3] He was told by his advisers that there was, in fact, some indication by the prophets of old that this would happen. [2:4-6]  So he promptly told the magi to go to Bethlehem and return to him with word about it all. [2:7-8] They did leave, but here's where it gets a bit dicey.

To assume they went to Bethlehem is to assume something not stated in the text. They did follow the re-appearing star [2:9] which took them to a house where they found the "young child" [not baby and is paidion in Greek which is different than brephos, baby, used in Luke 2:12 and 16.]] with His mother Mary alone. [2:10-11] The text is saying Jesus was NOT a baby but a young child when the magi arrived to offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. but it gets even dicy-er. [If there is such a word.]

It's important to note that Luke records after the shepherds left Jesus on the night of His birth that just some eight days later they circumcised the baby and announced the prearranged name given Him as Jesus. [Luke 2:21] Then, forty days later, the time of Mary's purification, according to Jewish law, Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem to dedicate Jesus according to that same Jewish law. [Luke 2:22-24] This is the time of the experience they had with Simeon and  and Anna. [Luke 2:25-38]

Now the hitch. Luke 2:39 says very clearly they went BACK TO NAZARETH IN GALILEE. But this seems to contradict what is said in Matthew when he records the Magi were warned to go home home another way and forget about Herod. Then Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt because, as happened, a furious Herod ordered all the children two and under killed which the scripture sadly records.

There is no problem if it is remembered that a couple of explanations could be understood. Joseph and Mary took Jesus to NAZARETH after Mary's purification and it could be it was to NAZARETH the star led the Magi around the time of his being several months old and it could be it was from NAZARETH that Joseph fled to Egypt for fear of the order to kill the children in Bethlehem and the AREAS AROUND. [Matthew 2:16-18] One hint this might be correct is the use of the name Rachel is used in Matthew 2:18 as she is connected to Galilee as well. Bethlehem was in Judah and considered to be the children of Leah.

But it also could be that Joseph had returned for a visit to Bethlehem when Jesus was several months old, and that it was to the home he was visiting to which the star led the magi and it's from there he was taken to Egypt. Whichever, after the death of Herod, Joseph was told to go back to NAZARETH, which he did. The point is simply that it was not likely that there were three kings who came to pay homage to Jesus and it was not to bethlehem on the night of the Savior's birth, no matter what the song writers say.

Myth number six and number seven are rather simple.

Was it an actual star that guided the Magi? Maybe or maybe not!  Some people believe the star was just a natural alignment of planets and others believe it was the forming of a new star. That would have certainly been a miracle which I have no problem with as this was a time of splendid miracles anyway.
But the timing and movement of the star dictates, to me at least, that something far more divine in nature than a natural alignment was transpiring.

It could have been a star of the kind we mean when speaking of stars, but it also could have been something more akin to the shekinah glory that accompanied the children of Israel in their wilderness wanderings. This could be the hint intended by Luke 2:9 where it is says the "glory of the Lord" was shining on the shepherds.

This would have meant the presence of God was being manifested during that time since the Shekinah or the "glory of the Lord" has always been associated with God's presence, No one can say with any certainty that it wasn't a star miraculously produced for the divine moment. But my choice is to think of it as that Shekinah fire [The Glory] that God travels in and may even be testifying to the Father being present at the birth of His Only Begotten Son. That's what a Father does.

Whatever the case may be, I ran out of time for my Sunday presentation last Sunday at this point and, frankly, it was just as well, since we could talk forever about these kinds of things. But for the same reasons I'll just leave it at that. at the present

Then, the seventh and final myth is that it's a sin to celebrate Christmas in any fashion.

Since "sin" is defined in scripture as "missing the mark," you would have to have either a condemnation OF celebrating Christmas stated in scripture, which would mean we should not, or a command TO celebrate it, which would mean we are to do just that. But when there is neither a condemnation nor a command present in the bible, each is free to live by his or her own conscience. Of course, there are times when other things come into play about whether there is freedom of decision about something, such as deferring for the sake of others, but none seems to be there as far as I can tell.

Since I have reason to believe the birth of Jesus was more likely to have been in September rather than in December, [That's a post for another time] and I believe it to be associated with the feast of the Tabernacles which was celebrated with the lighting of a candle during each of the seven days of the feast, Mary and I, through the years, would gather our kids around a seven-branched menorah, much like the one used in the ancient Temple, and would, six nights before Christmas, with all lights off, light one of the branches, read a prophecy, sing a carol, then put the light out. The next night two with another passage, song and the next night three...and so on.

Then, on Christmas morning we would light all seven branches, celebrating the full light of the world, read Luke 2, and while holding hands, we would sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Jesus. That's my kind of celebration. To then enjoy exchanging of gifts, trees, food, family time, are all possibilities, to be sure, but to make it truly a celebration of the birth of our Lord is essential, I would think.

I hope you and your family will enjoy the celebration of His birth, whatever the actual and factual circumstances that may or may not have surrounded that first Christmas morning, because the REAL celebration is all about the gift of His Son given on our behalf that first Christmas day.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL.

PB.

SEVEN MYTHS OF CHRISTMAS

It's Monday following the infamous Sunday. I mean the Sunday when I posited before a rather large group of senior adults that some of what we assume as Christmas facts may be more fiction than we realize. [My audience was quite complimentary by the way.]

 In reporting to my Face Book friends about what I intended to do, a request came that I write a blog giving the material presented on that Sunday. The words before you fulfill that request. For what it's worth. Remember, there are no clear conclusions about some of the things mentioned here, how many wise men there were for example, but the myths I'll be dealing with I've stated in the traditional statements given as fact, rather than assumptions, then I present my differing view.

With that, let's begin.

Myth number one___Jesus was born the night Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem.

The language of Luke 2 indicates that there is the possibility that Mary and Joseph had been in Bethlehem a little while before the actual birth of the Christ child. The phrase in verse 6 that says, "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered...." do not necessarily intend to mean the very same night they arrived. According to Lenski, it was not so.  "This, [the day Jesus was born] was NOT the day of the arrival of Mary and Joseph." [Emphasis mine]]

The Message picks up on this when it records verse 6 this way, "While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. The language is too ambiguous to state with certainty that it was upon the arrival of the couple that the child was born.

But what about the fact they could find no place to stay?

That leads us to the second myth.

Myth number two___There was no room for them in the public Inn.

Notice that the text of Luke, or any other gospel writer for that matter, makes no mention of an "Innkeeper." His presence is assumed since is stated that they received information that the place was full. The assumption being there HAD TO BE an Inn-keeper. But it is the place itself that is really in question here.

The English versions of the scripture, think KJV,  chose an unfortunate English word to translate "Kataluma" [I'll only give the English spelling of the Greek words for simplicity.] which was the Greek word Luke uses here for "Inn.". It gives a completely wrong impression to anyone in the West. An "Inn" to us is a motel of sorts, albeit, a kind that would be found in that day. But that isn't what the word meant back then at all, and Luke knew it.

You'll find it to be the same word he used in Luke 22:11 where he told us of Jesus telling His disciples that when they got to the city, they were to ask the Goodman of the HOUSE, where the GUEST-CHAMBER [kataluma] was, so He and His disciples could observe the passover. There is the word "Kataluma." [Guest-chamber] and notice that it is located in a home.

The fact is Luke knew this word well while writing about the birth of Jesus since he was going to use it in reference to Jesus and the passover later in his book anyway. Furthermore, there was another Greek word that did mean INN [pandocheion] which Luke would use in chapter 10 of his book when he told of the "Good Samaritan" being taken to an INN, and even the word for an INN-KEEPER [pandochei] was used there as well.

Was Luke confused? I don't think so. The probable answer to this is that when Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem there had been no room for them in the Kataluma or in English, "GUEST-ROOM" of the home of a relative with whom they intended to stay.

I think to be more in line with the language of the text of scripture for us one to believe that the birth of Jesus more than likely went this way.

Joseph and Mary returned to Joseph's ancestral home called Bethlehem because of the census that had been required for the Roman Empire and this means other members of his lineage had to gather in Bethlehem as well. The normal procedure would be to go to a relative's house and find a place in their guest room. But with all the other family members gathering as well, they found it to be, as we say in Oklahoma, plumb full.

So Mary and Joseph were forced to stay below in the lower level of the house which was, by the way, the cooking and living quarters of the home-owner. It was also the place where any animals that were valuable or delicate were brought in at night. It was in that situation, Mary brought forth a child and placed him in the "Manger." [phatné__Feeding trough__Strong's Concordance]  because the guest-room was full and they were relegated to staying in the area where the animals were kept at night.

[Remember the Judges 11 incident where Jephthah promised to sacrifice the first thing to meet him coming out of his house, expecting, I'm sure, it would be one of the better animals that required keeping indoors for safety. Unfortunately, it was his daughter who came out first.]

If all this is correct, it is worth noting that Jesus STARTED His journey on this earth in a house where the guest-room was full and he was born below with the animals, and ENDED His life in a guest-room on the eve of His crucifixion eating a meal with His disciples.

And now we'll take on the third myth in this study.

Myth number three_____Jesus did not cry as an infant. The song "Away in a manger." shows this to be true.  ;)

OK! The baby Jesus did not cry. May I ask? Did they ever have to change His diaper? Did they ever have to wipe his nose? Exactly what's wrong with crying?

I'm thinking that the earlier church fathers, or whomever it is that creates church traditions, were a bit concerned with keeping the baby Jesus divine and so they had to remove some of the vestiges of His humanity to maintain that divinity. At least in their mind! They certainly had the cooperation of the song writers as some Christmas carols include the idea of Him never crying, Away In A Manger being one. The problem with this is two-fold.

First, it is clearly stated in a couple of places in scripture that Jesus DID CRY. One is in John 11:35 where the shortest verse in the bible is recorded and it simply says, "Jesus wept." There may be disagreement as to WHY He wept, at the loss of Lazarus, His friend, or at the unbelief of the two remaining sisters. or both, but He did, in fact, shed some tears.

Second, it also states in Luke 19:41 that Jesus "wept over" the city of Jerusalem and her inhabitants for refusing to accept Him for Who He really was and is even now.

But Hebrews 5:7-8 also refers to Him offering up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears and that it was through suffering He learned obedience.

I think it unwise to think Jesus incapable of shedding tears, even as an infant. His conception was miraculous, to be sure, but the rest of the gestation period inside His mother and His moment of birth proved to be quite human, with blood, sweat, and a few tears to boot, I would imagine. He was, after all, fully GOD and fully MAN. We don't have to lose one to preserve the other in this miraculous person born that night in Bethlehem.

Myths 4-7 will come in part Two of this study.

Before I go however, remember this. No one is saying, especially understand that I'm not, that it is wrong to celebrate with nativity scenes or that you might should throw them away, as one jokingly said on Sunday morning. My answer to them was, and still is, that mine are too expensive to do that.  :)

To sing Christmas carols as they are written or to enjoy the things we normally do at Christmas time are not wrong. Quite the contrary. Most of these things I'm addressing are not completely clear in the scriptures themselves, so all I'm doing is presenting some things from the text that might help us get a truer picture of the events as they unfolded.

So, I would think it's OK to celebrate His birthday any way you want. Just remember two things.

One is that the early Church did not seem to make much of His birth, in terms of celebration, but they sure did celebrate His death, burial and resurrection. But the Christ event really is all about the fact that He came, did what He did, as Who He was and is, all on our behalf. Who wouldn't want to celebrate HIM FOR ALL OF THAT!

MERRY CHRISTMAS in this year of our Lord, 2013.

Paul B.

IS FULL TIME MINISTRY A GREATER CALLING THAN ANY OTHER CALLING?

In Ephesians 4:1 Paul says this....

"Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called...." [the New American Standard Bible (1995)] The King James version uses the word "vocation" but it is better understood as "calling." It is a reference to the general calling of grace that the first three chapters have described. So all Christians have a "calling" and we're to walk accordingly.

Roman Catholic writer Michael Novak wrote a book on 'Business as a Calling' in which he presented four aspects of a "calling." [His idea was in the context of business remember.] He said a calling will have ...

1) An understanding that it is a personal and unique calling to you....

2) A requirement for the talents needed for the task and a love for the drudgery that may be involved in the task to which you're called....

3) The presence of an enjoyment for and renewed energies from the doing of the task that is your calling....

4) A period of discernment and testing for [learning all about] the task to which you're called.

Not bad.

I would think, in the Ephesians 4 context, our calling, which is to the same "Lord" Paul said he was a prisoner of in verse one and that "Lordship" calling is for EVERY true believer, might have the same characteristics about it...

1) It IS personal and unique to each of us...

2) We HAVE been gifted for our Life in Him...

3) There IS joy unspeakable in our life in Him and strength provided for the living of life...

4) We then spend the rest of our lives learning what life is all about by "hearing Him" as commanded of the Father. As I said, not bad!

I would also add what someone else has called a "fifth aspect" of a true calling and it is..

5) An orientation away from self so our goal would be the glory of God and the good of others in all things. That makes it even better.

It is obvious from all this that I believe we as Christians have accepted the universal vocation [calling] of following Christ and Novak's ideas can be seen as relevant to that task/life.

But... is there in life a calling to a more specific vocation for all of us through which we make a living, provide for our families and, generally, live out our days on earth?

In other words, are we "called" to a career? And if we are, how do we know what we are to do for a career or livelihood? Add to that the question... is the "calling" to "full-time ministry" [career] a GREATER calling than the calling to other careers?

It is this that concept that I'm addressing today.

Since I believe ALL of life is sacred and there is NO division in scripture between the sacred and the secular [See 1 Corinthians 3:21-23.] I think we are to view ANYTHING we choose to do in life as a "calling." A better way of saying it is we are to see anything we choose to do as an opportunity to "life-out our Lordship calling." Choose anything you wish, but see it as a commitment to express His life in you and understand that what you do choose is a gift from Him to you.

Someone may be saying "Wait a minute Brother Paul, it sounds like you're saying we can choose however we wish in matters of life instead of finding God's specific will in those matters." I am. The only WILL God has revealed to you and me specifically is that we are to live as what we are...'Sanctified people." [1 Thess. 4:3 the rest of the chapter shows what that looks like.]

When we are committed to Him as Lord we will reflect that in whatever we choose. Our life is not to be lived trying to find out what He wishes we would do in each decision but, rather, in celebrating who He is as our Lord and making ANY decision accordingly.

So, I say marry whomever you choose, go to whatever University you wish, get whatever degree you desire, and live doing wherever you long to live doing. But in EVERY CHOICE YOU MAKE, see it as that which allows you to be effective for God in this world and bring glory to Him and good for other people. Your vocation or marriage or career or whatever, will only allow you to establish God's order and virtue in your life and to assist other people to do the same. This is Christianity to me.

This isn't to say that there isn't an eternal and secret will that God is working out for us in His Divine Purposes. But it is to say that, by definition, that will is "secret" and we'll understand in all only in "eternity." Don't worry. You won't miss God in decisions. He really is in control. He's unique that way.


By the way, as to whether a "calling to full-time ministry" is more sacred than anyone else's, my answer is NO. It is different. It is unique to the one called. There are greater responsibilities for certain areas of life affected by that calling. But remember, all that is true of every christian's life, as well in their unique way of living that life in employment. It's ALL sacred and satisfying and spiritual when He is Lord.

So you obviously can see I believe every christian IS a full-time minister. Some are just placed as gifts to the Body as shepherds/pastors/elders/deacons, recognized by the body as gifts, but all Christians are gifts to and gifted for the Body of Christ in some fashion, [for ministry] and for the living of life however we live it. [Which is what ministry is.] "Whatsoever you do, do ALL to the glory of God."

By the way, if I'm out in left field with this, don't tell me. I'm having too much fun out here. ;)

Just kidding!


Paul B.

A CRAZY CONCEPT ABOUT CULTURE THAT'S CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION

I'm going to start off with a rather long sentence. Read it carefully, please.

I'm of the opinion that were Christians to be truly biblical in relational matters, especially in marriage and family life, it would upset the apple cart of our culture beyond measure and that's because the American culture DOES NOT equally respect the female gender, as evidenced by the inequality of pay between male and female employees when in the same positions, and, were true believers to magically begin to follow the bible and have true respect for women as equals with men, which present day Christianity doesn't do and is more like the American culture in this regard, it would be tantamount to the kind of turmoil Jesus caused when He brought about a radical change toward equality regardless of race, gender, or social background, to the life of His own religious and secular culture.

I told you it was long!

How transforming and disturbing Jesus was at the time of His first advent. Remember He lived in a hierarchical, racially biased, male-dominated culture and religion, whether pagan or Jewish. But, alas, it will take His second advent at the end of the ages for the American culture and culturally influenced Christianity to truly be transformed on that issue. That is unless one truly becomes a biblical Christian. [Meaning the biblical materials serve as a guide for life when properly understood.] Then it would be seen as a reality, albeit in a microcosm, in a marriage and family life where there is mutual respect, mutual value, mutual submission and love, all under Jesus as Lord. That sounds like the picture of a truly biblical local church as well, by the way.

Another thing, we must never forget that Jesus was identified as one who "ate with publicans [tax-collectors who were the dregs of society] and sinners." [Luke 15:1-2] May that same charge ever be laid at our feet as His followers and people of His Kingdom. Whatever one's definition of "dregs" of society [some would say religious people are] we are to recognize and embrace their value as a human being and be ready to express grace, mercy, and love to whomever fits your particular definition of that word "dregs."

I may hold to a different definition of "dregs" than do some. I don't mean to be cruel here, but I'm rapidly approaching a belief that the "real" dregs of society are, as in the day of Jesus as well, the religious people who think more of their belief system than they do of the mind boggling reality of God's revelation of Himself in His Son seen in His receiving of the "so-called" outcasts of His day. I'm not sure the same isn't happening today. That "They were first called Christians" event was in Antioch and was prompted because the people saw believers embracing people of every stripe some of whom were then broken by that love and the gospel that followed and came to know the love of God in Christ. "See how they love" was the testimony of that day for believers. That love is still the biblical standard for us I believe. it would transform this day as well.

Lest someone hear this as love with no doctrinal foundation or lest someone think this love will lower the scriptural standard for immoral behavior, let me say, I do not mean that at all. I DO mean that the same love, experienced in Christ and founded upon the truth of scripture WILL be shed abroad by the Holy Spirit to people who may be a bit unlovely. This is what surprises those in their theological cages they've built for themselves. In other words, it isn't any less important to love the elder brother of Luke 15 than it is to love the younger one. [The prodigal] My problem used to be not loving the younger guy of Luke 15. I learned better. Then I struggled loving the elder guy. But when God's love is REALLY shed abroad through me it will go to both the elder and younger bros. [The legalists and the immoral ones] just as the father did.

Finally, I'm afraid what I've said all says more about me than anyone else. I recognize I'm a work in progress and, as one of my favorite commenters Aussie John says, it comes with some "ego bruising" going on if real growth happens. It's happening and my ego is no longer in tact. Not that it has grounds to be intact and, after all, this is a "praise the lord" thing as you can see.

What I've attempted to describe here, I believe, is completely counter to culture. It's a different culture altogether and, frankly, it's not a religious thing at all. It's a Kingdom thing entirely.


Paul B.

THE FAILURE IN THE MAKING OF LISTS

Lists!!  I've never been a fan, but at my age and with my lack of memory capacity, they are almost indispensable. EXCEPT when that list is used to measure my commitment to God or things that add to my being spiritual or pleasing to God. That kind of list will rob me [or you] of my grace rest and what a relationship with God is all about. 

You've heard them I'm sure. Those people who list the way your attention, time, money and the like are to be prioritized. The list goes something like this, God first, wife, [or husband] family, church work, job, recreation, all in the order of importance. This is premised on the idea that God has to be first and you have an ever declining list of what is important for you to do each day. That list generally winds up being a measurement and picture of your commitment and spiritual growth for the day.

The only problem is that list fails in its idea of Christian living entirely. This is not because it's wrong to make a list of what you wish to do on any given day. That's quite often helpful. It's wrong because God isn't to be viewed as FIRST in your life as if He's something you've added and now you're to make Him priority in all things you do. God isn't something you DO period. He IS your life. Not a THING in your life, not even the first thing. 

Rather then thinking of God as the first on a list of things to do or even to hold as the first of important things to remember, think of God as the hub. [I got this from someone else and can't remember who or where.]  Remember that old bicycle you use to ride? The wheels had a hub. From it went the various spokes that enabled those wheels to create what was necessary for that bike to function according to it's purpose or intention. That is an inadequate but much better way of thinking about our relationship to God than is the list. It moves us from what we DO in life to who He IS as our LIFE. No illustration is adequate. But moving from "doing" to "being" when talking about the Christian life IS FUNDAMENTAL if we are to capture the relational aspect of the scriptures.

He is the hub [source] from which every other thing in my life finds the ability to function__ in tandem__ with NOTHING failing to have it's good and proper place when time, emphasis, money, needs, are all evaluated and done. Every spoke of my life is important and held together because of my resting in the Hub [God] who is my source for ALL of life. [Think Vine and branches.]

It's interesting that that the word, source, [Gk Kephale] is what is used in Eph. 5, 1 Corinth. 11, Col. 3, when Paul talked about our relationship to God, Christ, husband, wife, and even to the Church. God is the source [Beginnings] of it all. So to think of the hub as the source or beginnings of what is needed for the bike to fulfill it's purpose is how we're to view God. He is the source for ALL we need for life to be life abundant, even eternal! So, a couple of suggestions....

Suggestion one___see all things__including this world__ as gifts from God to you. This is what Paul believed and stated to the Corinthians. He told them in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 that they were to see all things, including this world, as gifts from God. He had just been saying that the Corinthians were to see all their former Pastors as God's gift to them, whether it was Paul, [himself] or Apollos, or Peter, but he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say that about the world [of all things to say] or life, or death, or the things present, [whatever those things or moments are in life] or things to come, [whatever those things or moments might be]  ALL ARE YOURS.

Attending a local church meeting, giving your money and reading your bible are some of the things that are your opportunities of things to do and are gifts from God for sure. But don't rule out the NBA finals, or enjoying a national championship run by your University of choice [just different spokes in your life] as things that are your opportunities for things to do and are to be seen as gifts from God that are just as real as well. So, see all things as yours to embrace and enjoy because they are given to you by God. 

Suggestion two____understand that life ISN'T divided into the SACRED and the SECULAR as if what you do is EITHER a sacred thing OR a secular thing, and if you really love God, the assumption is, you will not spend a great deal of time or money on the secular at all. Simply put, all the things that have some connection to a church institution ARE NOT to be seen as sacred and all things that have to do with baseball or a school concert or some other activity in which you participate, ARE NOT be seen as secular. Both kinds of things in life ARE YOURS AS A CHRISTIAN as gifts from God. Enjoy!

Remember, when viewed in this fashion, church attendance, offerings, things of that nature [spokes in your life] will NEVER SUFFER but will never CONTROL either. They will have a place in life that is good and reasonable and will ALWAYS be related to the Hub.

But they don't measure your commitment or spirituality as a believer. That measurement is based on who God is to you and who you are to Him because of the grace relationship you have based on the merit, work, sacrifice, and presence of Christ who is not only in your life, but is your life.

Paul B.

A ZEAL FOR SOMETHING IDEAL

There is a great danger that can be created by those who have a zeal for the ideal in whatever venue that zeal might show up. For an illustration of this take the Church. Some would desire to bring into reality, in the here and now, what they tend to think of as the "The Ideal Church." This Ideal Church would, of course, be made up of Ideal Christians as defined by their idealism.

That idealism may be stated in such terms as purity of doctrine, [Reformed, Southern Baptist, etc.] everyone tithing, being a regular attender, having marriage vows that have never been broken, or a litany of other standards that go into making an ideal for which they have a personal and profound zeal. As you would then expect, members of that particular congregation are expected to reach that pinnacle of idealism, and only then will they be counted as being genuine. So, "what's the problem?" you ask!

Apart from it being, as someone said, "An historically proven fact is that such utopianism in thinking tends to create tyrannical leadership gripped by a specific ideologue that they believe to be THE TRUTH which only they fully understand, and few others do, and their TRUTH is used, all too often, to control the members of that particular group,"  no problem at all.

Except, when you think about it, you may have a greater problem than that when you honestly examine the clear statements of scripture, at least clear to me, that indicate something totally different than that kind of idealism was found in most of the local expressions of the Body of Christ [local churches] found in those same scriptures.

You can't read passages like 1 Corinthians 12:22-27 or the pastoral epistles for that matter, and legitimately come away with a belief that any idealism could be found in reality in those churches, or in our churches today either, or was ever intended to be found in them. Even the Ephesian Church was seen leaving her first love eventually, as the Apostle John declared in the book of the Revelation.

It may very well be that the ability to lovingly, with grace, RELATE to those who ARE broken and flawed in some fashion and ARE far less than ANY ideal relating to humankind is more what God is about in growing the Church today than many seem to realize. 

The Church is NOT in the consummation stage at present. It's still in the construction stage and things tend to get dirty, broken, sweaty and painful often times in the construction of anything. Besides, the people being redeemed and brought in by the Holy Spirit who have been individually baptized [identified] by Him into the ever growing Body of Christ called the Church are people that ARE broken, dirty and in need of a whole lot of grace. 

Someone has said [I don't recall who that someone is] that we all are on a continuum of His construction in grace anyway.  [Consisting of a sequence of variations.]

That someone continued, "Think of a line starting with 0 and continuing to the end seen as 10. Some are just past the starting point of 0, some are well past 0, some are very close to 8 or 9, but no one is at 10. Few are seldom found to be at the same point as others." But, here's the deal, your point on the continuum does not measure your spirituality anyway. It only measures your experience and understanding of the relational grace you live in with the God of Grace. The EVIDENCE that you are AWARE of what true grace really is may very well be your ability and willingness to bestow grace rather than judgment upon people REGARDLESS of their place on the continuum. 

As you can probably tell by now, I'm convinced the last paragraph of this essay makes null and void the legitimacy of the first paragraph of this essay.

I rest my case.

Paul B. 

CHRISTIANS AND THE COURTS

I believe any thinking person will agree that the scriptures mean what they mean. It is incumbent upon each of us to investigate what they say, led by the Spirit, to get to that meaning. Since language itself is a fluid vehicle, we must carefully go to the original meaning of any text, when at all possible, led by that same Spirit, to correctly understand God's intention.

Some things are more readily understood than are others as well. Even Peter acknowledged that Paul the Apostle said some things difficult to understand. I'm with Peter on that.

Also, some things are more important than others. Any issue dealing with matters of salvation supercedes all others. Matters of discipleship and guidance for believer, for example, are important, just not to the level of salvation issues.

So then, we come to a Christian suing another Christian in a court of law and we would agree that it is of the latter category. You can miss this with correct understanding of the principle found in scripture and go to heaven. But you can't miss the nature of Christ, for example, and enjoy the assurance of that same place in eternity. You HAVE to be right there. No one is saying the former is not important in it's own right, just not one we separate over as brothers and sisters of the Kingdom.

Having said that, I would like for us to examine 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. Historically, it was written to a people whose court system was not the best. A.T. Robertson says that the Corinthians were basically a gentile church operating in a culture where civil courts were entertainment almost. They had civil litigation down to a science, if not art. The Judges were a known commodity, corrupt, and persuadable. There was no jury system at all.

In short, the court system was a joke. Paul was always ready to contrast with favor the wisdom of God with that of the Corinthian culture, as in chapters 1 @2, and does so here, as he makes it clear that the church can judge relational matters far better since they're going to assist in judgment at a later date anyway.

In fact, he may be saying sarcastically in v4 that the least person in the church can settle those issues if the leaders are too busy for such matters.

A further textual study would lead one to see that Paul is not condemning courts completely either since in v12 he says, "All things are lawful, [meaning not prohibited] but all things are not expedient." [meaning not the best]  It should also be noted that Paul saw no problem with him personally appealing to Caesar [the highest court of all] when he was held without trial and, as a Roman citizen, was not permitted his day in court.

Add to that the 1 Peter 2 passage where Peter indicates that the courts are "God ordained" since the word "ordinance" doesn't mean "law" as much as it means "institution", and is used in relation to God. So it is saying that the institutions of men are God's instruments for our lives. For a guiding institution [court-room] to be appealed to over a possible criminal matter is always correct and godly, as Paul himself proved with his appeal to Caesar, since they exist to punish and protect in legal problems.

However, in these minor relational matters that the Corinthian Christians were suing over, they should be able to appeal to the church and the church should give proper guidance. But that's a big should. It is important to see that Paul's disgust was as much with the whole of the church here as with the individuals who went to court. I think this shows if we are going to get upset with a person for going to court against another Christian, [the context is speaking only of brothers/sisters]  I think we should be just as upset with the church for not speaking out in these matters when the wrong that demands a verdict is being done.

But just as important, as in all things, is that a believer's purpose in settling disputes should not a matter of winning/losing or demanding personal rights, but lovingly rebuking a wrong done and speaking the truth about it whether in court or in church. Revenge, anger, and personal rights are not to be the motivating factor at all. As John Calvin said, "to not go against God, they [the wronged one] must take special care not to come to ANY court [secular or church] with ANY desire for revenge or ANY poisonous thing. In all this...love is to be the guide."

Another thought here. Matthew 18 is often appealed to as a guide for believers and rightfully so. But one may need to remember that when Jesus gave that instruction, there was no established functioning local church body as we know it today. The word "church" [ekklesia] in that Matthew passage was probably used in it's pristine meaning which was "a called out group with a specific purpose." So it could be saying it should be taken to ANY group that has been requested to adjudicate any issue.

Then, also remember that to try to personally do Matthew 18 in a matter, but to not not be willing to carry it to where Jesus took it, final arbitration by some group asked to make a judgment, [even the local church today] is short-sighted and unbiblical in my judgment. If you start something finish it.

In our day of convoluted intricate contracts and trusts and loans, we face lawsuits for injury, malpractice with damage, equal rights, and a myriad of other categories that I doubt even Paul would have wanted the church to try to settle. For example, suppose a Christian banker, has found a fellow church member in default on a massive loan with his bank. he may have to let the court settle the legalities of it all, as ordered by his board of directors, but that banker should certainly let the church work on the relationship between the banker and his church friend. [which may be the most important thing after all] The offender undoubtedly needs to repent, correction, forgiveness, guidance and recovery relationally.

In it all we should bear in mind that the principle of not going "against" [pros] "another" Christian in a court of law will NOT be violated if one is seeking a legal hearing to protect, for example, a child [or spouse] from abuse. Even if the abuser is a professing christian spouse/parent legally, and such an one is known by the other spouse/parent to be guilty of abuse, they are correct in using the courts for peronal protection. This it is NOT violating the "against" prohibition in my view.

Finally, some concluding thoughts. I found several on a website that triggered some of my own.

A__The legal system is a gift of God to Christians as well as all others in a society and is to be appreciated for it's ability to enact protection and punishment where appropriate.

B__Christians are free, maybe even responsible for the use of those courts in matters that clarify legalities and criminal matters that are beyond the reach of congregations.It speaks of a high submission to the powers ordained of God.

C__The motive for anything is more important than the action. If it is to bring out [speak] the truth in love, it can be right, but, if revenge, anger, self protection or other things motivate, it can be wrong.

D__While it is undoubtedly best to not make a blanket declaration that no Christian should EVER take another believer to court, the proliferation of lawsuits is deplorable and the church needs to step up to the plate when christians are having problems. Church membership, discipline, and congregational involvement must take on more significance than personal opinions about styles of worship and what goes in. It is what's coming out of us that has me concerned. I haven't found it said better than a pastor did in this statement...And I quote...

"Now it’s at this point that it’s very tempting for me as a pastor to say that this is an iron clad law, that a Christian should never—in any circumstances—take another Christian to civil court to resolve a difference. You see, if I say it’s an absolute law, then we’re more likely to take this teaching seriously. If I suggest that this is a principle, and that in some circumstances other biblical principles might allow exceptions to this principle, then I crack open the door to allow exceptions. And if I do that, knowing human nature, I know every Christian is going to think that their situation qualifies as an exception. So if we allow the possibility of exceptions, then this will end up being one of those biblical principles that all Christians agree with but that no Christians actually apply, because each Christian thinks that his or her situation is an exception. So it’s very tempting to be legalistic, to say that this is an iron clad law, end of story.

But I think this is a principle with the possibility of exceptions. And let me first say that in the vast, vast majority of cases I do think that it’s wrong for a Christian to resort to civil court to resolve a difference with another Christian. But I think in some circumstances other important biblical principles come into play, and in those cases, those other principles take priority over this principle. Let me give you one example: Imagine two Christians who are going through the tragedy of divorce. Imagine that the wife decides she doesn’t want her ex-husband to be involved in the lives of their kids, and the only way for the husband to ensure his ongoing involvement in his children’s lives is to go to court and sue for custody. In that case the welfare of the kids and God’s calling to be a father is a higher principle than avoiding civil action against another Christian. So I think a husband would be justified to go to court and fight for a fair custody arrangement as a last resort. That’s just one example.

So how do you know whether your situation might be an exception to this principle? All I can say is that you can’t know it for yourself, that you need wise, mature input from the spiritual leaders God has placed in your life. You see, this kind of discernment comes from the community of faith as it together seeks God’s direction, not just from yourself because you’re likely to be biased. So when we feel as if our rights have been violated we should look to God’s community for help."    Pastor Tim Peck

I say...Amen, Pastor Peck.

This is one of those..."glass darkly" situations perhaps. My hope is these thoughts will cause us all to tread softly graciously.

Paul B.

I BEG TO DIFFER

What do you do when there is disagreement in doctrine between people on the same staff?

I'm not speaking of disagreement over essentials that have to do with those things necessary for salvation or eternity life, be assured. Coming to know how much Jesus loves me and that He was willing to die in my place and believing that who He is, and what He did completed what was necessary to deal with my sin as evidenced by an empty tomb, [Faith] are essentials for redemption and eternity and are not up for rejection or denial.

I'm speaking of the non-essentials. By using 'non-essentials' I'm not saying un-important things, just things not necessary for salvation to be experienced.

Things like whether Adam was Federal head and I was present in him when the fall happened or whether I'm lost by my own choice or any combination thereof.

Whether Jesus was Impeccable or could have sinned when tempted.

Whether election or foreknowledge is God choosing me before time because He determined to for reasons known only to Him, or He saw before hand that I would somehow come to choose Him.

Whether repentance and faith are my non-meritorious responses alone and bring regeneration or whether I can repent and believe only because the Holy Spirit has worked regeneration already in me and repentance and faith are the evidences of new birth rather than the causes of new birth.

I have my own understanding of all these.

I lean toward [in fact I embrace] God having worked by His Grace to produce any abilities toward spiritual things and those abilities are the result of His Grace being experienced, not the cause. But I came to all this understanding after I became a believer and not before. An understanding of issues such as these are unrelated to salvation being real for me.

However, the unique situation of which I'm speaking is when there are two guys/gals, on the same staff, who might disagree over those kinds of non-essentials. How do you work together with integrity with differences like that?

It has happened_to me_several times_ on several staffs.

As a result, I developed a certain way [method] of handling it. My way is certainly not sacred and maybe not even the best way. But it is my way and I'll share it for what it's worth.

Two things, I believe, are important to remember. 

The first thing to remember___ is that each staff person must be free to investigate and research scripture to grow personally in their understanding of the nuances of doctrine without fear AND must be free to teach their understanding. 

An example...an Education minister on my staff had a different view of divorce and remarriage than mine. One day I asked him to preach in my absence. We happened to be at a particular place in Matthew where divorce was being addressed. So I asked him to deal with that passage, if he would.

He was perplexed and even concerned. He saw it differently than did I. "How can I do the that? " he asked. I said, "It's simple, you teach how you see it and be honest enough to mention that I [Bro. Paul] see it a bit differently, but that we respect each other as brothers in the Lord, in spite of our differences on this issue"

Then I suggested he encourage the people to search on their own.

He did and they did.

Interestingly, twenty-five years later, I now hold the position he held then, not because the text has changed, but because my understanding has changed as I've studied it. Our being free to search and share our understanding of truth without fear was a major factor in maintaining true liberty while on staff together.

The second thing to remember___is that sometimes as a staff, it might be beneficial to agree to take a position on a non-essential as a standard for the staff, knowing some staff member or members may have to adjust to something he or she doesn't hold to personally, but must be willing to adjust for practical reasons.

 An example...I pastored a church near a University where drinking was a problem on campus. We chose as a staff to agree that abstinence would be our [the staff] standard. This was not based on agreement on the text of scripture because there were differences of opinion about that.

While ALL staff members agreed that scriptures condemned drunkenness, some held that moderation instead of abstinence was the true biblical position, at least as they saw it. 

[I, for example, don't personally hold to the view that total abstinence is taught in the text of scripture as the biblical standard. However, I do believe that drunkenness IS forbidden in scripture.] 

But by mutual consent we, as a staff, felt it was best for us to practice abstinence, while on that staff, in order to more effectively minister to those students. [It was the Romans 14:13-15 principle.] A couple of people had to defer [myself included] and abstinence was our practical policy while on staff at that particular church.

This was shared with our church.

We had no established church policy in regards to abstinence as we had developed our own church covenant and that particular non-essential was a non-issue. It was shared for information only.

But the congregation was encouraged as they saw the method we followed to come to our agreement on what was best when good people stood on different sides of theological issues that are not essential to salvation and eternity.

I could give a multitude of other examples but post length will not permit.

My bottomline in all this is multiple...

1. People differ on non-essentials.

2. People who differ on non-essentials can work together.

3. No one should have to be quiet about their differences.

4. Respect for another's position is important.

5. When a policy is decided upon because it is best for the work... don't make the basis for it scriptural if there are good people on both sides of the issue theologically. Make it what it is in reality...practical and good for the work. Nothing else.

6. If there is a church policy on the non-essential, follow it or don't join that staff.

7. Real unity is based on at least these factors...
   a) Agreement on the essentials...
   b) A right spirit/attitude toward people who differ on everything else.
   c) A willingness to have ALL share their views and, when necessary, choose a path that is best for the work by mutual agreement with all being heard and respected.

I think this might be good for a family or a congregation as well as a staff.

I also do not believe this negates teaching the whole counsel of God authoritatively. I happen to believe authority comes from the anointing of the Holy Spirit rather than a position I might hold about some non-essential. But because I take seriously the command to not Lord it over the flock, I chose this method. 

As I said, this practical approach is not sacred, [though undergirded by biblical principles] nor perhaps even the best way.

But it is mine...and God has, by His grace, blessed it.

Paul B

WHAT IF JESUS DIDN'T DIE FOR ME?

Our message, called the gospel, is simply telling people what Jesus did at the Cross and what happens to anyone who receives the truth of that message. I've believed that all my converted life and have delivered the truth of it as a Southern Baptist pastor/teacher for fifty-eight years of ministry.

I'm also a___[boy, how I hate labels, but for the sake of clarity, I'll use one.]___five-point Calvinist and have been longer than most of you have been alive. But I was asked one time how I could believe in "Divine Election" and "Particular Redemption" [which I prefer over limited atonement] and then stand before people and say Jesus died for them! The questioner, following his logic on this issue, then said, "To be honest, you'd have to tell some that Jesus DID NOT die for them."

My response to that questioner and anyone who has the same thoughts is this. I'm committed to standing before every single human being I possibly can and saying to them that Jesus died for sinners. And if they are willing to recognize they are that and are willing to call upon Him, in brokenness and faith, as Lord and Savior, they will be saved.

You see, I do not believe anyone is saved because they are elected or is not saved because they are not elected. [And, as I said, I do believe in election.] But anyone who is ever saved will be so because of the finished work of Christ that is received as a broken, repentent sinner.

Where in the scripture does it say or proclaim that anyone has the right or even the responsibility to stand before anyone and say "Jesus DIDN'T die for you" OR to say or proclaim that "Jesus DID die for you?" Every textual reference I've ever read in the biblical materials that says "Jesus died for you" is said to people after they have experienced His grace.

But we do have both the right and the responsibility to stand before all peoples everywhere and tell them who Jesus is and that He did, in fact, die for sinners and that He has given the command to repent and call upon Him in faith to every person, promising that whoever does that will, in fact, be saved.

Whether they know why they were willing to repent and believe___because it was good thinking on their part or because God caused them to think about it in the first place___ or whether they believe they were chosen before the foundation of the world because God looked down through time and saw they would believe__ or whether God made the choice Himself for His own reasons before time__ or whether they know the faith they've exercised is a gift of God in and of itself__ or the natural ability of fallen people that is of itself without merit__ makes no difference in the presentation of the gospel to them.  [You might want to read that again__slowly.]

Those are all things we can study, debate and teach later being true to how we understand them scripturally. But no view one holds on any one of those issues alters the need for the gospel being presented and believed by the hearer. Also, that presentation of the gospel can be done cooperatively as Southern Baptists world-wide unless we start demanding uniformity of doctrines instead of the unity of the Spirit because of our Christ/Cross/Tomb agreement with each other. [To illustrate the point of the last post.]

Now, I could begin to show why I believe God chose of His own will, BEFORE the world began, who would be saved and why I believe faith IS a gift and why I believe regeneration brings about an ability to believe.....ad infinitum. But that is for the instruction and growth of those who are already believers. While it is the instruction of the saints in doctrine and legitimate and needed, it is not the gospel message.

Someone may say, "How do you reconcile the seeming contradiction between the words and point of the third paragraph with the words and statement of the ninth paragraph?"

Ummmmmm...I think I'll just be satisfied with the clear biblical "antinomy" [Two things in theology that appear to be contradictory.] that exists between those two things, and I emphasize only "appears" to our limited understanding to be contradictory.

One day the Father will have to make all our limited understanding of theology perfectly clear when we get home. Until then I'll trust His Word to be true and continue to grow in my understanding of that Word, while all the time, telling ALL the people, "Jesus died for sinners and if you will repent and trust Him you WILL be one of those sinners that will be saved."


Paul B.

WILL MY ASSOCIATION WITH THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION REMAIN?

This post will mean little to many of you and I know that. It is really a statement I believe I must make for some who've known me for years.


I am a simple person. And, since I'm a Baptist, that would make me a simple Baptist, would it not! It may be that in this day however, it is my simplicity which could cause my downfall, if there is one coming, in any relationship I have to present day Southern Baptist life.

I've always prided myself, in a non-sinful way I trust, in being a "non-creedal" Southern Baptist. I've always viewed the difference between a creed and a confession of faith, which we have utilized for years in the SBC life, as, simply put,  [there I go again with this simple thing]  in a creed you have declared what is INCUMBENT UPON YOU to believe to be a part of a particular group, while in a confession of faith you have declared what you hold to in basic agreement WITHOUT COERCION of any kind from other people in the group.

The popular way of saying it when a confession of faith is embraced is, "I have no creed but Christ and no ultimate document of authority but the Bible." [An over-simplification to be sure.]

This means that as a Baptist, I have believed the Bible as I have interpreted it, under what I believed to be the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and have attempted to guard the freedom of EVERY OTHER person to interpret scripture the same way. as they attempt to hear God's voice for themselves, and to obey what he/she believes they hear Him say. That's a rather long sentence but it declares what a simple Baptist does

But I'm wondering if there might not be a present day struggle more with what being a Southern Baptist entails, than there is with what being just a Baptist entails. Our Baptist identity has always been founded on an understanding of certain fundamentals of the faith. You can name them. So can I. But our Southern Baptist identity has been shaped by our cooperative efforts in evangelism and missions with a confession of faith approach to the fundamentals of the faith. It HAS BEEN this unique cooperative approach to missions that has defined us as a the Southern Baptist Convention.

We are Baptist because of the fundamentals of the faith. We are Southern Baptist because we cooperate with people who MAY NOT interpret the scriptures exactly as I do, but, since we are not creedal but confessional, they can join us in sharing a mission purpose for the world. In the past that difference was OK. Not so much today.

It is this Southern Baptist identity that is at risk at present it seems to me. It appears to me, I say again, appears, we are shifting into a creedal approach to identifying who Southern Baptists are. My simplicity is causing me to have a great deal of struggle within me as to where I will stand if that shift from a cooperative effort in missions to a theological creed being made out of a confession of faith is ultimately accomplished. As I said, I AM a simple Baptist.

I really like what a life-long friend recently said of himself. "I'm neither a creedal Baptist, nor a conventional Baptist, but I AM a convictional Baptist." That sounds descriptive of my journey as well, except I've been willing to claim the last two while not the first. My struggle is remaining the conventional baptist in the present day. Creedalism would not allow that.

I've just re-read what I've written and I've gotten dizzy-headed trying to figure out exactly what I've said. I did confess at the beginning that I'm a simple person remember. That makes me a simple Baptist and the bottom-line is that this simple Baptist blogger is struggling with where Southern Baptists are going and whether this Baptist blogger can remain a Southern Baptist. I guess we'll see, won't we!

Paul B.

WHERE THE RUBBER OF THEOLOGY HITS THE ROAD OF LIFE.

Who am I?___All I am in Christ by His Grace is my true identity. I "AM" [not will be or hope to be] a new creation in Christ Jesus. [That's not to say there isn't more to come.] It's as if God has created me anew and said "It's good." all over again. It's a wonderful work of Sovereign Grace and the Holy Spirit has taken up a dwelling place in my spirit as well. That's who I am.

How did it happen?___I heard and understood the gospel, believed it, [a gift of Grace in and of itself] and was redeemed. The Cross really did it's work, not only for me but in me. I "have been crucified with Christ." It is true that "nevertheless I live," but I now know that He is alive in me and the life I now live is totally identified with who He is and what He's done. It's an exchanged life.

What has He done?___My sin and self He took to the Cross and on the third day was raised for my justification and His Righteousness is now accredited to my account by the heavenly Father who accepted all that on my behalf.

Now I have a new relationship with God the Father. I am now a loved, accepted, forgiven and empowered person, and am free to reflect all of that to others as I relate to them in the living of life, all because of my Elder Brother, the Lord Jesus. Each believer must know this as a biblical accomplished fact for a life of faith to be lived out.

Will I still struggle?___There are some pre-conversion patterns of living I learned early on, [mostly for self preservation/protection I think.] that remain. Those particular feelings, beliefs, behaviors and the like, that I had developed to an art inside me,  [The flesh] have been hanging around long since my salvation experience began in time. They REALLY are so very familiar to me and even feel like they're actually me sometimes [though they're not] and I tend to believe them, frequently, when they whisper that to me in my dark moments. That IS a lie of course, but sometimes I forget that.

What's worse is, when I DO act on those whispers sometimes thinking that's who I am, it's sin. It's called living the "self" life, as Stuart Briscoe said one time while in a bible conference in a church I pastored, He said it this way, "The flesh in scripture is nothing more than 'flesh' spelled backward dropping the 'h'.... Self." As long as I'm in this mortal body, which is also flesh, though not the evil kind mentioned above, I will find a warfare going on between the Spirit and the flesh as mentioned in scripture. But one day, when this mortal flesh [body] will be raised and shall put on immortality, the war between the Spirit and the flesh will be over.

I must remember that this behavior that is called "the flesh" is ANY and ALL the activity I do, even the GOOD activity, when I do it hoping others will notice and appreciation me as a person. This is even my religious behavior that is motivated by a desire to get God to like/notice me as well. It's still.. the "I/ME"  [flesh] in me raising its ugly head. That's the continuing struggle for me and all believers while still in this flesh [body] and this natural world.

Can I make right choices?___Of course! I am now responsible to choose to live by the Spirit. But I mess this up sometimes because I can choose to believe and act according to the flesh. So, all too often, the Spirit life [see above] isn't lived and and the flesh life [see above] is lived out. This is where the rubber of human performance [flesh] or Grace living [faith] really meets the road. When it happens I'm to pick myself up, agree with God about what just happened, [confession] get back into choosing to walk by the Spirit knowing ALL MY SIN has already been forgiven in Christ. This is the war raging between the flesh and the Spirit. It's the battleground for any healthy life or relationships to be lived as believers.

I've written this in personal testimony form, but I do believe it is the track-record of EVERY SINGLE believer. What also has just been described in this brief post from a relational viewpoint are some of the fantastic bible doctrines like Salvation, Justification, Resurrection, Sanctification, spiritual warfare, Spirit-filled living, Sin, Flesh, Confession, The Crucified life, and all are the inheritance and experience of EVERY SINGLE believer as well. These biblical truths must never grow old and must ALWAYS be the basis of our understanding of how to live life as God intended from the beginning.

Paul B.

TO HUNGER AND THIRST FOR THE THINGS OF GOD MAY CAUSE YOU TO MISS GOD

I'm going to say something that may not be immediately understood. Bear with me and read on, if you will. To hunger for the things God may keep you from experiencing God. I'm not saying that to hunger for Him is wrong, obviously. Quite the contrary. It says in Matthew 5:6,  "Blessed are those who DO hunger and thirst after THE Righteousness for they and they alone, will be filled." Notice, the definite article is in the original. When Righteousness is used that way, with the definite article before the word, it is a reference to Christ Himself, who is our Righteousness. So to hunger for more of Christ is essential, and a good thing, to say the least.

But it isn't just any kind of hunger.  It is a right now [as opposed to later] continual hunger  as shown by it being in the present tense in the Greek text. Also, don't ever fail to see that the verse is saying that the people who really do hunger for Him will be continuously filled. And THAT is in the present tense as well. How can you be both "continually hungry and continually filled" at the same time? You can see this is not your ordinary hunger OR your ordinary filling is it! It really is a special kind of both hunger and filling. Permit me to explain.

I want to demonstrate this really rich truth by showing what is meant in scripture when we're told to hungry for and thirst for Christ. Let me show this by explaining some of the very little bit I know of the original language of scripture. In the Greek language verbs like hunger and thirst are normally followed with what's called a genitive case which is expressed simply with our word "of." In fact, it's called the "partitive genitive" or the genitive of "the part." So, a Greek person who might be talking about being hungry or thirsty would use the genitive case when requesting food or drink. He or she would say, "I hunger for of [genitive] bread." That doesn't make sense to us, but to him it makes perfect sense. He means he wants some bread or a piece of bead, but not the whole loaf. He would also say, "I thirst for of [genitive] water," meaning a drink of water but not all the water in the lake.

So Matthew 5:6, were it to be written with the genitive case, which is normal when talking about hungering and thirsting, in the Greek language, would read this way, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst of [genitive] righteousness, for they shall be filled."

But__here's the deal__Matthew 5:6 doesn't have the normal genitive case at all. It has the accusative case. When the accusative is used with verbs like hungering and thirsting after bread or water, instead of the genitive, it means, hungering and thirsting after the whole loaf or the whole lake of water.

In other words, Matthew 5:6 doesn't mean we are to hunger and thirst for a little bit more of righteousness at all. It isn't that we're just seeking bits and pieces of righteousness. We are seeking all of righteousness there is. Did you get that? We are seeking the totality of righteousness and that only means  Christ Himself or all of Him there is. That's why the definite article is in the original language just before the word 'righteousness.'

What a tremendous truth. In the here and now, we have Christ living in us, to be sure, and so, we are to be [present tense] continually hungering and thirsting for all of Him to be experienced in our lives. Not little bits and pieces of Him, but the whole of who He is in us. We are to continually hunger for HIM.

But we don't experience all of Him there really as of yet at all, do we! It is said in scripture that in the here and now, [present tense] we only see through a glass darkly. This is true in spite of the fact that the Spirit of God has been given to us to show us, in the here and now, [present tense again] things that the eye can't see, the ear hasn't heard and the things that haven't even entered the human mind.  [1 Corinthians 2:9-10]  With all that we now have in Christ, there is yet even more to come. He will be coming back to this earth one day and we shall know then, when He does return, even as we're known. So much now and so much more then. WOW!

This means to experience fully the present blessedness for Christians, according to Matthew 5:6, the key lies in the realm of a continual hunger and thirst to experience all of Christ that we now can know. So it isn't a hunger or thirst to get more, be better, or do more, to be successful, or do great things, or even a desire to go to church, read the bible more, pray more, or witness more, as good as ALL those things are.

Those are the things of God, but hungering ONLY for those may cause you to miss God. [Thus, the title] It is a hunger to simply experience the totality of the One who is Himself our righteousness__ our Lord and life__right here in the here and now. That is what Jesus is speaking about. [Doing all those other good things will come but they are really only a by-product and result of experiencing Him personally.]

And so the 'hungering and thirsting" goes on. And we cry out with David, "I will be satisfied only when I awake in thy likeness and I will not be satisfied until I do."

By the way, did you notice that Jesus is commending the on-going hunger and thirst for the experiencing of the whole of Him who is our righteousness__as opposed to__ the  possession of that righteousness. We DO possess Him as our righteousness, to be sure. But in Matthew 5:6 Jesus is commending the hunger and thirst to experience all of Him whom we now possess.

Remember the Pharisees were thrilled by the singular thought that they possessed righteousness because of being the physical seed of Abraham. They didn't of course. But it was enough for them to even think they did possess righteousness. That thought, the possession of something, false though it was for them, doesn't necessarily produce hunger. It can produce pride as it did in the Pharisees.

But what Matthew is recording Jesus to be saying is that we're to see our blessedness to be in the continual hungering and thirsting for an experiencing of the One who is Himself our righteousness. Someone I read once called this a Christian's "Divine Discontent" that results in being filled. And the filling experienced is something just as strange, to the natural mind at least, as is the continual hunger. To us it's phenomenal. Let me explain this in conclusion.

At the beginning of this verse Jesus said "Blessed." ["Oh the blessedness of.."]  But at the end of the verse he says "filled." There isn't time to say everything about that word 'filled,' but basically, it's a word used to speak of feeding an animal to the point of it being absolutely and completely satisfied. It is no longer hungry. It's like you eating your favorite food until you can't eat another bite. Totally satisfied.

Here is an amazing, fabulous, totally incomprehensible paradox?  You hunger and thirst continually for an experiencing of all of Christ, and you're satisfied totally and completely as if you're no longer hungry or thirsty at all...ever.

The word here is Chortazo and t's a word that means to be really filled and needing nothing else. It's so great to be around people who are like this, is it not!  People who really are satisfied and seem to be content with things AS THEY ARE. Things don't seem to shake them, whether good or bad. They aren't always looking for things to get better or be different either. Contentment really does seem to be the order of the day for them.

But what is incomprehensible is that those very people, while really satisfied and content with the reality of whatever life holds, are at the same time people who are constantly hungry and thirsty to experience the reality of the Christ Who is their very life. Always hungry and yet always satisfied.

Scripture says it this way.

Psalm 107:9, "He satisfies the longing soul and fills the hungry soul with goodness."  

 Psalm 34:10, "But they that seek the Lord shall not be lacking any good thing." 

Psalm 23:1, "I shall not want." [That's because the Shepherd is all they need.]

Jesus said it this way, "Oh the blessedness of those who are continually hungry and thirsty to experience all of Me, [Christ is our righteousness remember] for they, and they alone, are being constantly filled to overflowing."  [Matthew 5:6]

I know this is not easy reading. So, may I suggest you read it again...and again...and...

Paul B.