vtmbottomline

MOVING CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

2012-02-15T10:48:00.002-06:00

There are a couple of reasons I'm doing this post. One is because of the number of e-mails I've receive from people moving to another church congregation and needing some direction about how to decide one way or the other. The second reason is as I read blogs I'm finding MOST of the people I read about who are changing churches are doing so because of problems.

I'm assuming we all know that one must seek the Lord on it and be open to solving whatever one's part of ANY interpersonal problems might be before we move, because of the truth of this old saying, "Wherever YOU go, there YOU are."

That said, I want to post a personal perspective that I ACTUALLY wrote to a friend seeking insight and, with his permission, will share with my blog readers. I realize, better than anyone, that what I say here is no big deal and I give no absolutes since there aren't any. These are just some personal ideas. What follows is my e-mail to my friend with some slight expansion and adaptation for removal of personal references and added thoughts.

Dear_____,

I don't have much insight into moving church membership at all. I'm even questioning the biblical basis for how membership is viewed in most SBC churches at present as well, so you can see why my disclaimer.

That said however, I will say that about five years ago Mary and I were feeling a need to do exactly what you've asked about while at Grace Fellowship in Norman. No particular reason other than we just needed a different direction for us personally, church wise and ministry wise.

Grace Fellowship is a wonderful and gracious group of people with whom we still share worship experiences and meals together once in a while.We talked, thought, prayed, and heard how Henderson Hills in Edmond Oklahoma, a 30 minute drive from us, was facing an issue that was close to our heart.

We went to a Sunday service and left knowing we wanted to join them, and did the next week. We may have that sense again and do it again in the future sometime. Who knows!

You can see I have a real belief that the body of Christ is larger than any one denomination or even a local congregation and I probably think of moving to a new congregation as nothing really THAT significant. I guess that's because I see building relationships is what Kingdom stuff is all about anyway.

So...if you guys as a family are for it, and you aren't creating any problems where you are that you're running from...go for it... if you would like to... is my view.

I know you are NOT looking for anything that is perfect or without problems, knowing you the way I know you. We all know when we move we are just really moving to experience new members of the body of Christ with a different set of issues and growth needs.

Sometimes we're a help to them and sometimes it's more for us, but we enjoy it along the way whichever it might be. Any healthy relationship has a reciprocity about it I believe. It is never ONLY one way.

[You can have a relationship with a surgeon where he/she is the only one giving, but that isn't what I call a healthy relationship in the sense of the word as I'm using it here. Thank goodness they know how to give what's needed... relationship or not...right?]

So my simple suggestions would be...

1..Leave in love with the people left behind so you can return and enjoy fellowship once in a while.

2..Go in grace and acceptance of any new people and love them where they are, warts and all.

3..Always view the church as an ORGANISM instead of as an organization so that you never cut off or isolate yourself from ANY other group, but will always be able to maintain relationships with God's people wherever you find them.

Let me know how things go.

Paul B.

OUR LORD'S VIEW OF WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP

2012-02-08T06:53:00.004-06:00

I read a major writer recently who based much of his position that women were NOT to be leaders of men on the fact that the gospels show that Jesus DID NOT call a woman to be one of the original twelve. He called only men. He's right. Jesus did not have a woman among the original twelve. But does that tell the whole story of our Lord's attitude toward women? I think not. You would need to be honest about the whole picture given in the gospels to fully understand our Lord's view of women in leadership I would think. That whole picture is rather telling.

To do just that, I'm going to share some insights that are not often thought about, or worse, are purposely not mentioned by those making a case against women being in leadership based on the original twelve. It might be wise to begin by reminding all of us that there IS NO recorded restriction in the gospels concerning women in leadership either. That in and of itself is not sufficient to draw a hard conclusion since building a biblical position from silence, on anything, is never wise, but it's worth mentioning.

You would think that with their culture the way it was in regards to women, as seen in the fact that women were not permitted to teach men in the Synagogue, [Or to testify in a court of law for that matter.] and they CERTAINLY were not permitted to travel around with a Rabbi in an itinerant ministry, it would have to be of great significant that women were permitted to do BOTH by our Lord. You do recall that it was to a woman that Jesus gave instructions at the tomb when He said, "Go to the brethren, and say to them, I'm ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." [John 20:11] That smacks of teaching to me, at least as some would define it in our day.

Then, Luke 8:1-2 also clearly states this, "And the twelve were with him AND certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, [several are named] and MANY OTHERS." This passage is reporting how Jesus went into cities and villages with His followers which included a list of women who ministered with their substance. This traveling ministry was certainly an "in your face" kind of thing in that day regarding the place of women.

Talk about a contradistinction, there you have it. Our Lord's view of the value of women in ministry was far removed from one that did not permit such things. To say otherwise may be giving too much weight to a simple fact that one was not named in the original twelve. Maybe He was keeping the beginning of His ministry [this is pure speculation of course] close to the Jewish illustration of the tribes of Israel! Who knows!! But to say that fact shows that women are NOT to minister or teach men is way beyond the pale I believe.

Then don't forget that the narrative in the gospels also includes the two incidents of Anna's proclamation of Christ to all present in Luke 2, which would have included men, as well as, the incident of the woman at the well in John 4 proclaiming to EVERYONE in her city the same Christ who knew all things about her. These two incidents evidence that what was transpiring in the message and ministry of Christ was also breaking down racial barriers as well as gender barriers. The woman at the well was giving her message to people outside Judaism remember. [Samaritans]

One other thing needs to be said. What I'm about to draw attention to is not the gospel material, obviously, but it is so close it bears mentioning. Remember the book of Acts opens [You recall Luke wrote the Acts narrative also] with the 120 disciples in the upper room and another list of women is said to be with them. [Acts 1:14] Then, the scriptures tell how "they" cast lots and appointed Matthias to take the place of Judas among the apostles.

There appears to be no reason to think the women didn't have a voice or say in that decision. I won't make the same mistake as do those who oppose women in leadership based on no women being among the twelve and advocate that because of silence. But to say they DIDN'T have a voice in the decision of Matthias is to reflect the culture around that young church rather than the practice of our Lord Himself, as has been pointed out. I think it safe to think they did.

If you think otherwise, you would need to also explain how in Acts chapter two when the Holy Spirit filled those members of that young church on the day of Pentecost and they began to speak in other tongues [languages] and the crowd thought them drunk, Peter stood to explain what they were seeing and he said "They are not drunk...this is what was spoken of Joel....that your sons AND DAUGHTERS will prophesy...." [Acts 2:14-17]

So the ladies could be present but not participate? I think the scriptures speak of a different thing entirely and this is JUST the gospels and two chapters of Acts.

[My wife and I just returned from an all day driving trip where we discussed this post a great deal. She reminded me that it seems to her that Pentecost may have very well been a dividing line where the Holy Spirit drew a clear line in the sand, with regards to women in ministry, that may not have been as clear in the gospels in the context of Israel. Though, of course, it was abundantly clear Jesus viewed them differently. But since Pentecost, boy, things have been quite different concerning God's purpose for women in the New Covenant. I think she may be on to something.]

All this said, I know there are two places [1 Tim 2:12/1 Corinthians 14] that could be seen as telling a different story. I have my view on what those two passages are saying and what they mean, but you CAN'T honestly look at those without holding what has just been said in mind. If you do you would not be letting scripture interpret scripture. But that's a post for another day.

Today, I simply want to register my thoughts that the narrative of the gospels will not permit me to think that the fact that there were no women among the original twelve is sufficient, by itself, to hold that Jesus believed that women could not teach, lead and minister, as can men. Jesus revealed Himself to have a totally different idea than that.

Paul B.

THE BAG LADY

2012-02-03T10:20:00.005-06:00

Several years ago I was going to a meeting in a city [Houston] where the church facility was located in an urban section that was not the best kind of residential area at all. I passed many people in need as you can imagine. As a result this thought took root in my mind and a couple of years ago I penned this poem from those thoughts.

I'm no poet and certainly don't believe that confrontational evangelism is the ONLY kind of method for true evangelism at all. BUT, I do believe that REAL evangelism WILL somehow impact these kinds of needy people. However, all too often, I believe, we wait for it to be through someone else. That conviction of the Spirit came to me and I wrote about it, for what it's worth. Today, I've revised the original slightly and this is what I came out with, as I say, for what it's worth.

THE BAG LADY

I saw a bag lady the other day and
thought how disgusting can a person be.

But gently, yet firmly, came a reminder
from His Spirit living in me.

He said to remember that she was once
someone's child, a thing now hard to see.

I realized it could be that she grew to womanhood

not knowing any love that was personal and pure.

Maybe along the way she felt terrible pain
for which there just seemed to be no cure.

Choices came and ugliness and emptiness
are the price that she has paid to be sure.

But His Spirit reminded me that our gospel
tells of a God-Man who can transform even her life.

He is the only One able to set a person free
and bring an end to all the obvious strife.

This God-Man has wonderfully proven all that
by loving and giving to me this eternal life.

I saw a bag-lady the other day and

realized she is every one in sin's dark night.

But Jesus came and endured the Cross that

through Him life could be made whole and right.

I knew were she to hear this gospel of grace
it would change even her twisted terrible plight.

So I asked Father to send someone to tell her
of His Son and how He brings cause to rejoice.

And Father, as she listens, I prayed,
may she hear Your love ring out in their voice.

Father wasn't long in answering my prayer for
someone to go as He gently, but clearly said that...

I was His choice.

Paul B.

FINAL RANDOM THOUGHTS....I PROMISE.

2012-01-27T17:33:00.004-06:00

Have you ever noticed that sometimes, not all the time by any means, but sometimes, the longer a person is a Christian and the more bible knowledge they accumulate, the more they tend to get cold, cranky, crabby, and even critical, which is the exact opposite of what one would think would happen?

On the other hand......

Have you ever noticed that some young believers, even brand new Christians, who don't know ANY bible really, have little or no experience in church life and have no clue as to what they believe doctrinally speaking, exhibit a life of graciousness, excitement, and love for people that is hard to believe much less describe?

What is all this?

Would it be wiser to just shoot Christians new in the faith and be done with them rather than allowing time to mess things up?

Just kidding!!

I think all of you would recognize, I'm not discounting knowing doctrine or experiencing church life at all. But something strange does seem to happen the longer some people go to church and the more bible knowledge they accumulate and the end result is, all too often, not appealing. Again, what is all this?

I've got a suggestion as to what happens or what goes wrong. This is just my observation of course, but it is birthed out of years of experience with Christians in a gathered church experience and a systematic approach to teaching/studying the bible and, unfortunately, reflecting somewhat on my own journey and struggles as a believer.

My suggestion is simply that I believe we often misinterpret that wonderful verse in John 8:32 that says, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." All too often this verse is read as if it is saying that when we study His word faithfully the knowledge we gain of that truth doctrinally will set us free.

But I've already stated that my conviction is too many who do just that very thing wind up cold and cranky, among a few other things like being unloving and judgmental.

I said that such a view of that verse IS a misinterpretation. Well, is it? And, if so, what IS the verse really saying?

IMHO the verse is really saying...

"You shall KNOW the truth..." That word 'know' means to have an INTIMATE relationship with or to know intimately." [As, physically, Adam KNEW his wife and she conceived.]

"You shall KNOW [have an intimate relationship with] THE TRUTH..." Jesus said "I AM the truth." So it is speaking of having an intimate ongoing relationship with the reality of Jesus Himself." And the truth [Jesus Himself] will set you FREE...

At this point it might be wise to get familiar with what Stephen Olford once said. In a chapel service at Wheaton College where he was speaking he made this statement,... "Freedom is not the right to do what you want, but it is the power to be what you ought."

Bill Gothard picked that definition up and made it famous but it was Olford who first said it. I think it translates quite well what the freedom mentioned in John 8:32 is all about. It is speaking of the power for BE not the right to DO.

So, to have an intimate and on-going relationship with the reality of who Jesus is as a person, will set us free to be the person we are to be with God, others, and even ourselves. That's a far cry from becoming crabby, cranky, unloving and judgmental because we know doctrine. And it can be a real thing early in your Christian experience OR, if willing, late in life. But, as you can see, it's clearly referring to something far different than many Christians understand it to mean.

It is THIS that I think gets lost along the way for many of us as we go to church, learn bible truth, and get older in the doing of it all. Sometimes young Christians have ONLY the reality of that kind of relationship albeit not accompanied at the moment with a lot of doctrinal knowledge.

But the answer is NOT in shooting young Christians, thus saving them from the kind of fate older Christians seem to often have. [Again, just kidding remember.] The answer may simply lie in reminding all of us older more mature Christians [biologically if nothing else] we are to major on regaining, if not retaining, the experience of that kind of ongoing grace relationship with Christ.

That, it seems to me, is the very basis for life and is far more essential than head knowledge about doctrine. That can come but must never replace the reality of our grace relationship. My how we then would/could experience growing old as a Christian... gracefully.

You think?

Paul B.

.

FROM THE RANDOM THOUGHTS CATEGORY....AGAIN

2012-01-23T09:57:00.000-06:00

When I concluded my thirty-eight year career of pastoring in 1996, [1958-1996] I did so by teaching through the book of Acts verse by verse for over a year on Wednesday nights to some Adults and young people who were ready to learn. I must say, it was an exciting biblical journey and no one learned as much as did I.

Since that journey through the book of Acts, I've said many times that one of the things that amazed me was how simple those early christians were in their grasp of the christian experience. There were no seminars, workshops, revivals, retreats, or bookstores to feed them information on how to study their bibles, pray, witness, grow a marriage, raise children, or effectively live the christian life. Yet they were characterized by the POWER of God in all they did even in the midst of struggles, failures, persecution, and the reaction of their culture around them because their message seemed so offensive to so many in that culture.

It could very well be that the problem with modern day christianity, when compared to that of the book of Acts, is not the LOSS of their POWER but the LOSS of their SIMPLICITY. They seemed to have such a simple confidence in who Jesus really is and in what He really did in His life and in His death for them that they viewed HIM as being genuinely sufficient for the living of life to its very fullest. In other words, they seemed to live believing Jesus was ENOUGH.

Did they know something we don't? Have we lost something they had?

It's almost as if they somehow saw Jesus as the SOURCE of what real life was all about. It would be good for us to remember that I'm using the word "source" as the word that refers to "A spring or fountainhead from which something comes or flows that is essential." The "source" differs from "resource" because the latter means "An asset that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function more effectively." I'm thinking the average person who calls themselves a christian in our present day really views Jesus Christ as a "resource" for making things better. He can help make a marriage, a family, a church, even a life, function more effectively.

But for those in Acts it was something more. It was true for them that He was the "source" OF life, He didn't make their lives BETTER. He WAS the fountain head of their life. He didn't make their marriage, family or even their church better. He made their marriage, family, church, even their life itself.. POSSIBLE. So for someone to threaten to take their life if they didn't recant their faith in Him was ridiculous. He was, in fact, their very LIFE. Who He was/is in His life and what he did at the cross in His death is the very thing needed for life to be life as God intended it. That was why it was called "gospel" or "good news."

So today we find ourselves with a bunch of religious resources for making things [life] function a bit better. Bible reading, church attendance, prayer, revivals, conferences, denominations, conventions, all of which can make us better people religiously if we would just do them faithfully. In fact, they have come to DEFINE our christianity.

Add to those the resources that should/could be ours if people would think and vote correctly, [sarcasm alert] prayer in school, freedom to read the bible in class, freedom to thank Jesus Christ for letting us win, [whatever we're competing in] and we would have what it takes for living life the very best way possible, especially in America. So we spend our time talking about the "resources" instead of the "source" and we find ourselves living life accordingly.

As I said..."Did they know something we don't? Have we lost something they had?"

Me thinks the answer might be.."Well, yes!"

Paul B.

FROM THE RANDOM THOUGHTS CATEGORY

2012-01-19T13:10:00.000-06:00

I've just concluded a bible conference where I taught the letter authored by Paul commonly called First Corinthians. It was interesting in my preparation to discover that, in fact, First Corinthians may have really been a second letter since a first one hinted at was probably lost. [1st Corinth. 5:9] Then there is perhaps evidence that a third letter was lost also, so a fourth one was written. If this is historically correct, then 1st Corinthians is really 2nd Corinthian and 2nd corinthians is really 4th Corinthians. Maybe I should have called this post "Inane Random Thoughts"...you think!

Well, I'll randomly continue.

Have you ever noticed that Paul NEVER mentions the Law of Moses in this letter we call 1st Corinthians? He's certainly having to deal with problems in the church that are grievous in nature such as drunkenness, arguing over who had been the greatest pastor, [ Paul, Peter, or Apollos] suing one another in courts of law and then there was that immoral situation they were not dealing with at all, and proud they were not as if it were a badge of honor that they were permissive.

In fact, the ONLY time Paul used the Law of Moses in his arguments for pure living was when he challenged the legalists who needed to be shown that even the law itself could not be kept in an effort to be holy. He NEVER used the law of Moses, even the ten commandments, as a standard to hold up for New Covenant behavior.

He did use the wisdom of God in the mystery of the gospel to show how shallow and foolish the wisdom of man was in dealing with real life. Paul seemed to have recognized that the Corinthians, who were basically Gentiles with only a few Jewish people, were more philosophers than anything else. Phileo means "love" and "Sophia" means wisdom in Greek, so he recognized they were lovers of wisdom in their culture and he moved right into their way of thinking to challenge them with the gospel which they considered to be foolish of course.

This shows me two things immediately.

One is that Paul was willing to engage the culture of his day and wasn't angry toward it or did not rail against it as if it were some kind of witchcraft at work against the gospel. He recognized its weaknesses and its inability to speak to the deepest problems and need of the human race, namely dealing with the fallen and hopeless nature of the human condition, but had no real answers. The wisdom of God seen in the gospel does have answers, however. Paul thought so at least. I do too.

The second thing I see is that Paul had a CONFIDENCE in the ability of the gospel to "cut to the heart" and to make true believers out of foolish and lost people without the law of Moses being the basis for bringing conviction. He thought there was something REALLY powerful in the gospel message itself.

Maybe we need to trust the Holy Spirit's power and ability to take in His hands the foolishness of sharing the true gospel of Christ as the tool for bringing conviction, light and understanding to the people of any culture who have no reference to the religious background of the Old Testament most of us have.

Do you suppose Paul had it right when he said, "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified....My speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power..." [The gospel]

May we go and do likewise. Just some random thoughts.

Paul B.

THIS ILLUSIVE, INCREDIBLE, THING CALLED UNITY

2012-01-14T05:50:00.005-06:00

First Corinthians is a great book to me. I kind of think Paul has read my mail in the writing of it. Different failures in my life to be sure, but my list of things that need to be confronted would find him writing the same way to me personally, no doubt about that. So I'm wide open to hearing what he said to the Corinthian believers.

For example, in chapter 1 verse 10 he says that we, as christians, are not to be "divided" or "separated" from one another. [That word "divided" is used of the veil in the Temple being ripped apart.] But, rather, he advocates, we are to think the same thing, even having the same opinion about things. Well, I don't know how that could be true of me and ANYBODY. That isn't even true in my marriage. What's going on here? I need some help with this. You think!!

I realize that when I became a christian, that I, who had been separated from God, have now entered into a real, personal and close relationship with Him that is both lasting and genuine. All by His grace. I also realize that when THAT happened, I ALSO entered into a a real, personal and close relationship with everyone else that ALSO knows Him. That's by His grace too. I had been separated from Him, but now am tight with Him. I had been fragmented from them, but now am tight with them. And that's a fact of His grace, not just wishful thinking.

So it is no surprise that in Ephesians 4:3 Paul tells us to "preserve" or "maintain" the unity that ALREADY exists with all other believers by virtue of our grace relationship with Him. We are not called upon to CREATE unity with other christians, but "preserve" what has already been created by His grace.

So, knowing this, how AM I to do it? How do I do my part in maintaining unity? How DO I learn to "Be of the same mind"? What's that all about?

Well, it will certainly take understanding the ground or basis of our unity. And that basis of unity isn't found in our system of beliefs or our particular set of doctrines. It isn't thinking the same thing about THOSE kinds of things. It is, rather, in what is found described by Paul in chapter 1 verse 17, "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize, [There has to be a doctrine in there somewhere.] but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, [There has to be a system of beliefs in there somewhere.] lest THE CROSS OF CHRIST should be made of none effect." There IS a REAL basis of unity already established in that alone. So we are to endeavor to keep HIM and the message of the cross as our ground or basis for unity.

The thing that makes me one with other christians is not anything other than the person of Christ Himself and His work on the Cross on our behalf.

Why is this so important? Because whatever unites us will ultimate divide us. If we're united around who baptized us, [or maybe even how] we will separate from those who were baptized by someone else. [That was the Corinthian problem that Paul was confronting you see.]

You name anything that people can unite around today.

Type of praise
Style of preaching
View of inerrancy
Women in ministry
Name of denomination
Gifts of the Spirit
Views on Eschatology
Wearing ties in the pulpit
Use of tobacco or alcohol
Being bald headed. [I just slipped that one in for fun.]

Take any single one of these and form a group around it and relate/fellowship ONLY with those who are in agreement with you about it and you will find unity destroyed.

But can we think differently about such things in the above list or believe differently and love each other even while disagreeing? Of Course we can!! My wife and I have been doing it for over fifty years. Even in matters theological. She is a theologian in her own right and we don't agree on all things theological. It's called being yourself and requiring nothing but loving respect and acceptance without judgment or condemnation about where you are in your thinking. All this is because of and based on how we are loved and accepted by the Father because of Christ. This, while in a covenant commitment called marriage. It's WONDERFUL.

The New Covenant relationship all true believers have to Christ and each other can be lived out with differences also. Maybe meeting differently, sharing differently, enjoying different styles of music, different kinds of preaching, whatever. Being different in so many areas, but REFUSING to CUT OFF relationally from any other christian BECAUSE we have our differences.

You know what "cutting off" looks like! Cutting off is EVIDENCED by disrespect, hatred, self centeredness, judgment, condemnation and shaming. [All the things NOT found present in the love that Christ has for us.]

Maybe we've forgotten what "Unity" looks like! [That's the point of this particular post remember.] Unity is EVIDENCED by genuine love where there is a lack of judgment or condemnation or hatefulness or shaming regardless of our differences and an acceptance of any believer as a valued person. [All of those negative things are obviously NOT FOUND present in the love that Christ has for us] It is THAT kind of love that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

OK...I admit...I'm a dreamer. But I'll dream on if you don't mind.

Paul B.

THIS GIRDLE IS NOT FOR GIRTH

2012-01-07T17:15:00.002-06:00

Exodus 28:8 has a strange reference in it. It refers to a girdle which is called the "curious" girdle. "Curious" is precisely the word to be used as it is difficult to know what the girdle is for as part of the High Priest's garments. It was attached [woven in] to the front and the back of the ephod and the breastplate worn by the High Priest during his ministry.

The ephod was a robe and not a coat. Were it simply a coat it would have been for a covering for protection. But a robe in scripture indicates dignity in character, even royalty. As we are familiar with a Judge being in a flowing black robe, just so the High Priest was robed with the ephod. You recall Matthew 27:28 says.."And they stripped Him, and put on Him [robed Him] a scarlet robe...and mocked Him, saying, Hail King of the Jews." The colors of the robe [ephod] for the High Priest explain the character or nature of the coming final High Priest, the Lord Jesus, but that's for another day.

The Breastplate had the twelves precious stones representing the twelve tribes of Israel attached to it and speaks of judgment as the High Priest was their stand in before Holy God on the day of Atonement while offering the blood sacrifice. The High Priest of the Old Covenant offered that sacrifice annually. His job was never done. There was no chair in the holy of holies in the tabernacle and none in the H of H in the Temple later.

Our Lord, however, is the final High Priest. He is the High Priest of the New Covenant and is truly the One who, with dignity and royalty, has become the sin bearer for the people of the New Covenant, having offered His blood as the blood of the New Covenant "once" according to Hebrews 10:10. Then He "sat down" on the right hand of God. His sacrificial work finished, He awaits the end of the age. [Hebrews 10:12-13]

But that girdle. It is truly "curious." The word 'girdle' comes from a word which means 'device.' It was often viewed as a device that somehow strengthened one for a task. You recall in Exodus 12:11 the people of Israel were told to eat with their loins 'girded' [there's that root word] and shoes on their feet. It was to give them strength for walking. Then there is the very familiar warring passage in Ephesians 6 where we are told to gird our loins with truth. That the girdle, in scripture, represents strength for walking and warfare, is obvious.

But this girdle business we're presently talking about is picturing the work of the High Priest. So we have to find the picture being fulfilled in our Lord Himself to be contextual consistent.

Jesus did the task of washing the disciples feet AFTER 'girding' himself with a towel. So there it is, a work of serving is being pictured. His final act of serving on this earth was, of course, at Calvary. It was there that His atonement work and His greatest act of service on our behalf was once and for all done as indicated earlier. The Father showed His approval and acceptance of it all with an empty tomb. Jesus was an acceptable and accepted stand in SERVANT. [On our behalf.]

The ancient High Priest of Israel is only a type of the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ we said repeatedly. But do please remember that the scriptures are also clear that there is none like the Son of God nor will there EVER be. He ALONE is the High Priest of the New covenant. So, as all of the robes, colors and articles of the High Priest are symbolic of our Lord's character, nature and work, it would not be a complete picture without the strength for the work of SERVANTHOOD being seen.

Thus, that "curious" girdle begins to make a little sense. Mark 10:45 says.."For even the Son of Man came NOT to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. It takes real strength to really serve.

All this from that "curious" girdle. What's even "curiouser" [I know there is no such word] is that if we truly reflect the life of Christ to a lost world, or even to the body of Christ, it will have to be as one girded [strengthened] for true service, NOT as one being the boss or in control of things as modern pastors are so prone to do. Otherwise it isn't His life we're reflecting. It would be our own ego. There is no other kind. He is our serving Lord. We are to be His serving body members regardless of race, gender, or age. That's Christ. That's Christianity.

Servanthood really is the badge of true Christianity.

Paul B.

FOREVER CHANGING FORMS

2012-01-04T05:23:00.009-06:00

I've mentioned the two words function and form before in a passing way, but in this post I want to consider them in a more complete fashion. The understanding of these two words and their impact on my belief system have been monumental to say the least. My desire here is to give a little bit of a handle that, when grasped, could help deliver someone from legalism as I have been.

Let's consider function first. By definition function, according to Webster's dictionary, means..."The particular purpose for which a thing exists." The illustration mentioned in Webster's is a hammer. But it also mentions another kind of illustration with this statement, "A natural or proper action of a bodily part as a living thing." I'll use the second illustration and use my hand as the body part to illustrate.

The function of my hand is to perform according to design whatever is requested by my brain. Suppose, for example, I have an itch somewhere on my body. My brain tells my hand to scratch it. It does. My hand goes to the location, takes an appropriate shape to itself perhaps using the nails and the job is done. That's function. That's the purpose for which the hand exists.

Now let's consider form. Its definition, according to the same dictionary, is "To give shape or structure" or "an established way of doing something." Take my hand again. Remember that itch? My brain says to my hand, "Scratch it." Only this time things have changed. The itch is so deep the nails won't do the job, so a new method is needed. It takes rubbing with the palm. Have you ever had a scratch that deep? That's form. That's the way something is done.

You can see that function has to do with the purpose for being and form has to with a pattern for doing. It is that critical difference that clarifies so much. I'm convinced the Bible is a book of purpose or function and is not a book that delivers the specific patterns or forms for doing.

Our purpose as the people of God, which is what the message of the New Testament is all about when it speaks of the Church, is usually stated as things we are to "be." We are to be..the body of Christ. We are to be..servants to one another. We are to be..a minister to the whole body according to our gifts. We are to be..forgiving, loving, faithful, and merciful. And on and on I could go. I could write dozens of pages and not list all the functions we have for being the created and redeemed people of God. Those functions remain the same through all of time for all of the body of Christ as the New Covenant is the final one.

The forms we use to fulfill those functions can and do change over the years as the culture we live in changes and our desire to reach that culture with the gospel continues. We are to be salt and light, but the delivery of that Salt and Light will take on different patterns as time goes on and things change.

An illustration might help. Take the early Ekklesia. [Called out Ones.] One could say that at least a portion of the purpose of the Church can be stated this way,"We are to be Christian in our living and sometimes we are to be that together."[ Hebrews 10:35] It's called, "Being the Church scattered and gathered." That purpose was true for the New Testament Church and is true for the Church of 2012. Whatever the Church was to be then, we are to be now. The function or purpose has not and will not ever change as I've mentioned. It is our reason for being in time and on this earth.

But the forms used by the early Ekklesia to fulfill that purpose have changed across the years. They used homes and upper rooms to meet in and we use buildings built for that purpose. They used people standing in their midst and we use people standing behind pulpits. They used water pots inside the door to wash the feet of those who came and we use greeters to shake the hands of those who come. Again, pages could be written to list the differing methods. But you see the point I'm sure.

Now here is the deal. How the Church is to be [function] is a sacred [biblical, holy, sanctified] thing. It never changes and should not. But the methods the Church uses for doing [form] things that enable Her to be what God intends are not sacred. It is the methodology of church life that causes us to stumble. We make our traditions and techniques sacred meaning biblical, holy, sanctified, in nature and they are not.

The greatest need of the modern Church may be the ability to know what is truly sacred and what is simply a way of doing things. This knowledge would lead one out of legalism [doing certain things a certain way] to a gracious way of living. [Being a certain kind of person to all people however they do things.]

Paul B.

THE HIATUS IS OVER AND I'M BACK TO BLOGGING IN 2012

2011-12-31T17:44:00.001-06:00

I'm returning to blogging. The hiatus has been profitable and restful and I appreciate those of you who have had a willingness to understand the need for it.

But honestly, I've had to rethink this whole idea of blogging during the time off. More specifically, blogging as it relates to gossip. Someone has recently said blogging is a new way of doing an old thing that has been sin from the beginning? Namely, "gossiping." Bloggers he said, "are gossips who sit around in their mother's basement, in their underwear, writing on their computers, saying nothing of any significant value." [What a horrible mental picture that would be if true. LOL]

Is blogging simply, as he claims, a new modus operandi for "gossip" in this age of communication? To begin blogging again, I would assume any thinking person would need to at least face the possibility of this criticism being valid. So I thought I'd have a personal look see with a new blogging post at the beginning of 2012.

"Gossip" by definition is, according to Wikipedia..."a casual or idle talk of any kind, sometimes slanderous and/or devoted to discussing others." Webster says it this way, "Gossip is... 1. A person who habitually reveals personal or sensational fact. [noun] 2. Rumor or report of an intimate nature. 3. An informal conversation."

To the surprise of no one I'm sure, I have a few personal observations about Webster's definitions. [I don't put a lot of stock in what Wikipedia says about anything actually so I'll disregard that.]

I wonder if Webster's number 1 is legitimate were it to be thought of as referencing a person who gives a personal or sensational fact... about themselves? Is that a negative thing? What's wrong with someone sharing a personal or even sensational fact about their own experience? Nothing I would think.

I also am wondering if Webster's number 2 is correct in using "rumor" and "report" together. "Rumor" I understand. "Report" of an intimate nature might not qualify [automatically] as gossip from my point of view. Autobiographies would have to be rethought were one to accept such a narrow definition.

Finally, I'm wondering if Webster's number 3 should be thought of as harmful or sinful as well! An informal conversation is what I desire on this blog, albeit, in written form, and were that to qualify as gossip there is no question that my blog would need to shut down. I guess we might ought to see if the scriptures can help us in this.

It seems to me that when scripture speaks of idle talk in a negative way, it isn't speaking necessarily of conversation that is intimate, personal, or even sensational in nature, except as such conversation would have a view to harm or tear down. Now if personal or intimate talk [writing] were to be of a salacious nature, of course it would qualify, not only as gossip, but sin as well. However, even there we would have to work through to an acceptable or agreed standard for defining salacious. [I have a friend who blushes when the phrase "sexual relationship" is used in any context that is public.] That's for another post however.

It is true that Romans 1:28-32, for example, does use "backbiting" to describe language which may be personal and intimate conversation in nature. But that passage is speaking of someone who talks about someone else and it is evil because of its intent. In the same passage "debate" is used as evil in the same way and for the same reason.

Blogging would qualify as gossip when defined in that manner without a doubt. So boiled down to its core definition, blogging would be "gossip"were it to be found having more to do with something that is of a personal and intimate nature [salaciously] or has a direct and obvious intent of harming a person if believed. This I accept.

But blogging, though seen as a conversation that is personal and intimate in nature about ones self and others about themselves as they respond, [comments] would not necessarily meet that definition of evil it seems to me. Intent has a lot more to do with what scripture regards as sin, if I'm reading the scriptural text correctly, than does the words themselves. [The writers of the Psalms got pretty intimate and personal on occasion did they not!]

Blogging may be more akin to giving information and opinion about issues [even life] and might be thought of as a processing and organizing of data conversationally that adds to the knowledge of the person receiving it. This is what blogs can be a great tool at doing. It is this that is my personal desire and purpose for blogging.

So, simply put, blogging is information and can generally be viewed as conversation when comments are permitted. When comments are not permitted, however, the blog is more apt to be for teaching or promoting a view and could even qualify as "propoganda." But even then "gossip" is not accurate in describing it I would think.

So, all of this is to simply answer the question, is blogging, or more accurately, can blogging be gossip? My answer is..."yes" and "no." You will have to decide, as will I, which blogs are or are not gossip, which blogs are or are not real conversation and thus are worthy of being read and responded to. I would hope this blog is one you will enjoy reading and commenting on in the new year of 2012.

So I've concluded for myself that blogging isn't necessarily gossip and is not a sin. I'll cautiously keep at it, then, for 2012. Be discerning as you read and communicate your opinion in the comment section as you wish [Do remember the guidelines] and I trust we'll all enjoy blogging together.

Welcome to you as readers... as I return to the blogging world. And thanks for being a part of it all.

By the way...HAPPY NEW YEAR as we begin 2012.

PAUL B.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM VTM AND PAUL BURLESON

2011-12-24T10:35:00.000-06:00

A suggested Christmas gift list for 2011.

To God who has loved and redeemed you__Gratitude.

To those who have wounded you__Forgiveness.

To those who are different than you__Acceptance.

To those who oppose you__Tolerance.

To yourself__Respect

To your spouse and children__Yourself

To your extended family members__Your heart.

To your friends__Your loyalty.

To waiters and waitresses and those who serve__Your kindness.

To strangers__Your example.

To those who are hurting__Your compassion.

To those who fail__Your mercy

To All____________Agape love

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2011

2011-12-19T11:59:00.002-06:00

IT'S CHRISTMAS TIME

It’s Christmas time in this mired land,
Bone chilling cold the season,
The Son of God became a man
Beyond all human reason.

It’s in the record of His Book,
In pages old and worn,
Announcing news for those who look,
A baby Savior born.

How could you, Lord, demean Yourself,
To this rebellious earth,
Put judgement power upon the shelf,
In ignominious birth.

Yet, You saved us lovingly
Beyond the scope of time,
With grace incomprehensive be
To a merely mortal mind.

From eternal to eternity,
You planned this to instill,
From predetermined destiny,
Accomplished perfect will.

Reacting, man predictably,
Received the news eschewed,
No faith, but doubt indubitably,
In crazed thoughts misconstrued.

So to this day the minds of men,
Are lead in grand deception,
Allowing many to descend
To utter desolation.

But for the remnant God did choose,
To save from dread despair,
He from the start deemed not to lose
Them to the Prince of Air.

It’s Christmas time in this mired land,
He came to save His own,
Great Sacrifice, He lives to stand,
Our sin He did atone.

In His Grace and Peace.

T.D. Webb

A WORD TOO IMPORTANT TO MISS

2011-11-29T08:09:00.000-06:00

I'm not breaking my announced "hiatus" but believe the title to this post says it correctly.

www.wadeburleson.org/

VINTAGE FRANK VIOLA VIA WADE BURLESON

2011-11-28T05:54:00.000-06:00

Recently I came across an excellent article by Frank Viola encouraging men called to pastor and shepherd people not to dominate, control, or exert "authority" over their flocks. The entire article can be read online, but I thought a pertinent section spoke biblically and directly against some of the practices of pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention. If we pastors could all catch the spirit of what Frank writes below, 95% of church problems would be resolved. Frank Viola writes:

"In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders, “Be on your guard for yourself and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Notice what he says: “You, elders, are among the flock, and the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Not over the flock; among the flock. Among the flock! Among the flock to do what? “To shepherd the church of God.” Not to control the flock, but to care for it. To serve it. The elders are overseers, not overlords! The word “overseer” means one who looks out for the good of the saints, not for his own personal interests. Yet because overseers care for the saints, they are called shepherds also. And a shepherd (pastor) is simply a metaphor, it is not a title nor an office. In the first-century churches, all the brothers and sisters take care of one another. All of them take care of one another! But the shepherds are the older, wiser ones that do it best. They are the examples for everyone else. Let me put it this way. Every brother and sister is to do what a true shepherd/elder does. The elders are but examples to all. Now hold on to your chair. Get ready. It’s going to be heavy, brothers. Look at Acts 20:33. I want you to read very slowly verses 33 to 35. Follow this: “I, Paul, have lusted after no one’s silver or gold or apparel. Yes, you elders know that my hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you, elders, must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Now, brothers, let’s get the scene. Paul, an apostle sent by God, spends three years raising up a church in Ephesus. Before he leaves, he acknowledges the older brothers, the elders. He says to them, “Take care of God’s people if there is a problem.” He did not say, “Lord over them. Control them. Do all the teaching and preaching.” Nor did he say, “You are their leaders. They must obey you.” He didn’t say that. Four years after the church in Ephesus is planted, Paul meets with the Ephesian elders at Miletus. He says them, “Brothers, the Holy Spirit has given you a gift to care for the Lord’s people. They are the flock of God; not your flock. It’s the flock of God, purchased with His own blood. You are among them, not over them. Brothers, when I was with you I worked with my hands. I paid for my own needs, and I also paid for the needs of the men I trained. By doing this, I gave you an example. Elders, shepherds of Ephesus, remember my example. That I did not take anything from God’s people! I gave to them! I did not take from them! Follow my example.” And that is what an elder is, brothers. He is a person that gives! He doesn’t receive! Brothers, think about this. Just think about it."

FOUR SHIFTS CONCLUDED

2011-11-12T08:56:00.000-06:00

3 The Shift from a Suffering Church to an Institution of Ease

The early church grew and prospered incredibly without having church buildings or being protected by the state. In fact, from apostolic times to the ascension of Constantine the church went through cycles of intense persecution spearheaded by the ruling powers. These times of persecution are well documented in such books as Persecution in the Early Church by H. B. Workman and Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church by W. H. C. Friend.5

However, the advent of the emperor Constantine in 312 A.D. brought great changes, most of them for the worse. Money from state funds was used to erect Christian church buildings and support Christian clergy. Ultimately, Christianity was declared to be the state religion.

From Constantine onwards the visible church became enmeshed in political intrigue, and the state mingled in the determination of church affairs. As Louis Berkhof notes regarding the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. [which Constantine convened and presided over]: "A settlement forced upon the Church by the strong hand of the emperor could not satisfy and was also of uncertain duration. It made the determination of the Christian faith dependent on imperial caprice and even on court intrigues." This is exactly what happened repeatedly in subsequent history.

Constantine set in motion the ideal of a territorial state religion with Christianity at the helm. This ideal was the death knell of all that the Gospel stood for. It signaled the end of believers gathering separately from the pagan culture as a counter-culture where the way of Christ was displayed in simplicity.

Now the church was conceived of as all the people in a nation who were born as citizens of the state and constituted as part of the visible church by infant baptism. Church and politics were fused together, creating immense confusion. Ron VanOverloop notes this phenomenon operation from the post-apostolic church to the Reformation: "As was the case in the early church when emperors called the great ecumenical councils together, so was the progress of the Reformation to a great extent determined by the political maneuvering taking place in each country."

In the early church the disciples banded together in homes and other places as communities "called out" from the world; but Constantinianism erased this distinction and defined "church" as all citizens in a given territory. This had the practical effect of watering down true discipleship and creating a worthless nominal Christianity.

Werner Elert contrasts the early days with the rise of Constantinianism: "[In the early church] the strength of their ties with one another is matched by the strength of the boundary they draw to the outside. In business dealings with one another they do not choose an unbeliever to arbitrate; they transact their business "before the saints" and between "brother and brother" (1 Cor. 6:1.5). One is to throw in one's lot with those who fear the Lord, consider their common good, and daily visit the saints face to face ...After Constantine things changed radically with the influx of the masses. This did not prosper the Christian brotherhood. If we can believe only half of what Salvian says, there was not much left of it a hundred years later in many parts of western Christendom."

The shift from a suffering church to an institution sanctioned and promoted by the state forces us to face a crucial question: Was the Constantinian change the rise or fall of the church? How you answer that question will greatly define your whole view of the church and its mission.

In light of New Testament revelation about the church Christ purposed to build, I submit that Constantinianism was a wretched stone thrown into the sea of church history, the ripples of which still lap on our shores today.

We must make a choice. Are we going to cast our lot in with the New Testament vision for the body of Christ [simplicity, suffering, servanthood], or in with the Constantinian model [powerful institution, clergy dominance, rule by political maneuvering]? Are we going to devote the energies of our short life-span to perpetuating the post-apostolic shifts that moved away from the simplicity of Christ, or to restoring the spirit of the New Testament vision?

4 The Shift from a Spirit-Dependent Church to a Letter-Dependent Institution

Twice in his epistles Paul refers to the fact that the church serves Christ "in [the] newness of the Spirit and not in [the] oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6). The church was a community of the Spirit from the Day of Pentecost. In light of this reality the early church did not trust in fixed forms to maintain and guard her existence. There was an openness of the body to be led by the Spirit in light of Christ's Gospel-word.

This can be seen, for example, in the glimpse of an early church service revealed in 1 Cor. 14. Edification was the goal which was to be reached by the Spirit-led participation of the body. The balance Paul desired can perhaps be summed up like this: no form of order in the service must be allowed to stifle the free expression of edifying gifts in the body; no expression of spontaneity in the body must be allowed to blossom into unprofitable disorder. William Barclay isolates these important points from 1 Cor. 14: "[Paul] is determined that anyone who possesses a gift should receive every chance to exercise that gift, but he is equally determined that the services of the Church should not thereby become a kind of competitive disorder. ...There must be liberty but there must be no disorder. ...There was obviously a freedom and an informality about [this service] which is completely strange to our ideas. ...Clearly the church had no professional ministry. ...It was open to anyone who had a gift to use that gift. ...There was obviously a flexibility about the order of service in the early church which is now totally lacking. There was clearly no settled order at all. Everything was informal enough to allow any man who felt that he had a message ...to give it. ...The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and the obligation of contribution something to it."

Unfortunately, as time went on this Spirit-dependence gave way to more and more fixed forms of worship, which phased out body participation and committed ministry only to an ever-growing web of ecclesiastical hierarchy. By 250 A.D. church order was set in concrete with one bishop ruling over various territories. The momentum of this church bureaucracy was accelerated when Constantine and his successors sanctioned the church and contributed moneys and resources to this increasingly powerful institution. What began as a Spirit-led organism ended up as a letter-dependent institution. The leaders no longer trusted in the Spirit to hold the body together; instead they leaned on intricate human contrivances and rules to feign outward unity.

One of the saddest features of this shift to letter-dependence, combined with the church's new collusion with the state, was the employment of coercion both to gain and maintain adherents. Simply trusting in the Spirit would have resulted in a spiritual reality too vulnerable to be controlled by human contrivances; the use of raw power backed by the weapons of the state seemed to promise greater stability.

Eric Hoffer makes this tragic observation which church history, unfortunately, verifies: "There is hardly an example of a mass movement achieving vast proportions and a durable organization solely by persuasion ...It was the temporal sword that made Christianity a world religion. Conquest and conversion went hand in hand. ...Where Christianity failed to gain or retain the backing of state power, it achieved neither a wide nor permanent hold. ...It also seems that, where a mass movement can either persuade or coerce, it usually chooses the letter. Persuasion is clumsy and its results uncertain."

Again we must ask ourselves, "Are we going to be a part of perpetuating this shift to trusting in outward carnal hedges to hold the church together, or are we going to purpose to contribute to a return of child-like trust in the Spirit of Christ to build and sustain His body?'

Concluding Remarks...

We have examined four clear shifts in early church history. These shifts are acknowledged by church historians of all theological persuasions. James D. G. Dunn, one of the foremost New Testament scholars of our time, summarizes the essence of these four shifts like this: "Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism - when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts."

We saw above that such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change. Such features were absent from first generation Christianity, that is, they are not found in the New Testament.

Does this concern you? Is your heart burdened by the chasm between the original work of the Spirit and the hardened institution that quickly emerged in the post-apostolic days? Does it bother you that most of what we associate with 'church' has little to do with the New Testament, and more to do with patterns that reflect a drift away from it?

Further, and this is the key question, were the shifts we have studied a faithful extension of New Testament ideals, or a tacit denial of all that they stand for? If the answer is the latter, then it is incumbent upon believers to work for the recovery of Christ's ways and to stop contributing to the perpetuation of non-edifying ecclesiastical patterns.

I commend my thoughts on the four shifts and the upcoming collaborating materials to your discerning conscience. May the Lord guide you into appropriate responses as 'the worthy walk' is set before us in the Gospel.

Jon Zens

FOUR SHIFTS....CON'T

2011-11-05T12:04:00.001-05:00

Two of the four shifts....by Jon Zens

1 The Shift From the Body of Christ as a Dynamic Organism to a Settled Institution

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul goes into some detail concerning the implications of the church being a living organism, a body with many parts. In the early chapters of Acts we see a vibrant, caring, sharing and witnessing body of believers created by the power of the Spirit who was poured out by the risen Christ.

This corporate 'new man' created by Jesus was not without leadership and organization, but there is no evidence of desire by the leaders to create a tightly-knit religious institution, with an elaborate hierarchy and intricate chain-of-command.

The leaders above all were to be servants to feed and build up the flock; the organization that came to expression was for the purpose of meeting people's needs, not to create a religious bureaucracy.The church Christ purposed to build is always described in terms of 'koinonia', a common sharing of life together in the bonds of Jesus Christ.

However, the reality is that as time went on after the apostles' death, the church gravitated increasingly toward finding its essential definition, not in a dynamic organism, but in a visible institution with a hierarchy of officers. The church came to be no longer identified as a body of believers bonded by love as members one of another, but as a religious organization whose officers gave it significance. Ultimately it was asserted that without the officers, there was no church. Organization usurped vital life as the hallmark of the church.

This legacy still remains with us today. The needs of people are subordinated to the maintenance of religious bureaucracy. Patterns of church government often have nothing to do with the ethos of the New Testament. Many define the 'true' church in terms of outward marks such as "the proper preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and practice of discipline". But these characteristics have been outwardly present in dead churches.

The New Testament defines the church dynamically in terms of functioning together as a body. If church was defined, for example, in the organic terminology of Acts 2:42-47, how many churches would you find? Why is it that even today when somebody asks "What church do you attend?:, the next query after you tell them is usually, "Who is the pastor there?" We still tend to define church in terms of leadership instead of by loving relationships among the brethren.

2 The Shift From Polyform Ministry to Uniform Ministry

In the early church ministry was conceived of in terms of Ephesians 4:16, "From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." Ministry was seen as committed to the whole body by Christ its Lord. As Paul put it, "Now the body is not made up of one part but of many ... As it is, there are many parts, but one body" (1 Cor. 12:14,20). To every person in the body of Christ is given a manifestation of the Spirit for the benefit of all (1 Cor. 12:7). Universal giftedness in the church, which is secured by the resurrected Christ leading captivity captive (Eph. 4:7-8), included such important leadership gifts as apostles and administration.

The great tragedy is that from about 180 A. D. onwards the increasingly institutionalized church began to assign ministry more and more to the officers (the "clergy"), and less and less to the common people. (the "laity")

George W. Forell astutely summarizes the shift from body-ministry to bishop-ministry: "Ethical guidance for people recently converted to Christianity and likely to bring a pervasive pagan attitude to his new life was offered at first by a polyform ministry of grace, reflected in the New Testament. But, as time went by, moral authority was increasingly focused on an ordered ministry of bishops and deacons ...The institution most effective in containing the threats to the unity of the nascent Christian movement was the gradually evolving office of the bishop ...Through the office of the bishop the shape of the Christian life is determined and the masses recently brought into the Christian movement are conformed to Christ."

No emphasis on one person who occupies the office of bishop (pastor) can be found in the New Testament. While it certainly contemplates a plurality of leaders as part of life in Christ's body, the overwhelming emphasis falls upon exhortations that involve all the members of the body. At least 58 times in the New Testament believers are commanded to fulfill responsibilities relating to "one another". We have turned the tables and viewed ministry as essentially resting upon "the minister" and forgotten that ministry as unfolded in the New Testament is spread around to everyone.

If ministry is not seen as focused in one office in the New Testament, where was precedent for a separate caste found? It was found in the exclusive priesthood under the Old Covenant. William Bausch observes: "Our survey has shown us that no cultic priesthood is to be found in the New Testament. Yet we wound up importing Old Testament Levitical forms and imposing them on Christian ministry."

The negative implications that arose from the shift from polyform to uniform ministry are myriad. The mutual care so basic to the fabric of early church life was virtually lost. Why? Because mutuality - "you are all brethren" - was buried underneath the superstructure of institutionalized officers.

William Bausch crystallizes this point by saying,.."Nevertheless in practice there is no denying that there has historically been a gathering into one person and his office what were formerly the gifts of many. ...[This practice] goes astray, of course, when it translates to mean that only ordination gives competence, authority, and the right of professional governance. It goes further astray when eventually all jurisdictional and administrative powers in the church come to be seen as an extension of the sacramental powers conferred at ordination. In short, there is a movement here away from the more pristine collaborative and mutual ministries of the New Testament."

We must face the fact that the traditions regarding church government and order which we have inherited are cast in very suspicious garb. They are clergy-centered and generally stifle and suppress the "one another" perspectives of the New Testament. Servant leadership should be a natural part of body-life by which the people of God are encouraged toward, facilitated in and equipped for various ministries.

Unfortunately, however, the shift from polyform to uniform ministry has created the deplorable situation in which the church forever remains as a dependent, helpless, non-maturing infant for the sake of the officers who watch over the crib. We have inherited traditions in which the tail wags the dog. It is my conviction that because of the deep-seated nature of this awful shift in perspective, the greatest practical need facing the church today is the reincarnation of "a polyform ministry of grace".

Jon Zens

2011-10-31T11:15:00.000-05:00

I'm still off writing for awhile. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy someone who is on target with his writing. Jon Zens, my friend, is one of those. I'll post the four shifts fully explained next time.

Four Tragic Shifts In The Visible Church
180-400 A. D.

by Jon Zens

Most professing Christians do not realize that the central concepts and practices associated with what we call 'church' are not rooted in the New Testament, but in patterns established in the post-apostolic age. While there are a legion of disagreements among serious students of church history concerning various issues and details during the period of 50 A.D. to 325 A.D., they all speak as one voice in affirming the four undeniable shifts that will be examined in this article. Church historians of all theological and ecclesiastical backgrounds observe in their writings the following four shifts:

1. The church portrayed in the New Testament was a dynamic organism, a living body with many parts. The church from around 180 A.D. onwards became an increasingly hardened institution with a fixed and complex hierarchy.

2. The early church was marked by; the manifestation of a polyform ministry by which edification and the meeting of needs were accomplished through the gifts of all the brethren. The post-apostolic church moved more and more toward a uniform conception of church offices which separated ministry from the 'laity' and limited significant ministry to the 'clergy'.

3. The church of the first and most of the second centuries was characterized by cycles of intense difficulty and persecution - it was a suffering body. With the advent of Constantine the church became protected, favored and ultimately sanctioned as the state religion by the Roman state, and thus became an institution at ease.

4. In the New Testament the church, with no small measure of vulnerability, depended on the Holy Spirit to hold the brethren together and to lead them in ministry. Later, the church trusted in itself as a very powerful institution, along with its many rules, rites and offices to secure visible unity among its adherents.

These four shifts are indisputable. They did not come about in a day. They were the result of many factors working together as time elapsed. There are many implications to ponder in light of these significant changes that occurred. I would like to explore each of these shifts in order to highlight certain key issues that each of us needs to face.

We claim to take Christ's revelation about the church in the New Testament seriously, yet the reality is that too often we are more attached to the 'received order' which is based on human traditions. What does it mean to be faithful to the New Testament's teaching about the church? In what sense are the examples of the church life 'binding' on us?

For instance, some assert that since the early church met primarily in homes, we are obliged to emulate this example. I think the primary theological point of the New Testament in this regard is that under the New Covenant there are no holy places. Contemporary Christianity has almost no grasp of this significant point. Taking the cue from the Old Covenant, people are still led to believe that a church building is 'the house of God'. Believers are free to meet, anywhere in which they can foster, cultivate and attain the goals set before them by Christ. The problem today is that many church structures neither promote nor accomplish Christ's desires for His body.

Homes are a natural place for believers to meet, and the early church flourished well into the first and second centuries without erecting any temple-like edifices. In places around the world where persecution reigns, house-church movements have flourished. Someday in America, if our religious infrastructure falls as a result of economic and political turmoil, true believers will be forced to meet outside of traditional church buildings.

But the issue still is not what type of place believers gather, but what shape their committed life together takes as they wrestle with the many duties and privileges flowing out of the priesthood of all believers.

I believe that it is far more important to capture the spirit of church life as we see it unfolded in the New Testament, than it is to try and woodenly replicate cultural particulars of the first century. We do not live in the first century, but the concepts and principles in the New Testament endure and will come to expression in any culture.

The four tragic shifts about to be examined will give us all plenty to reflect and act upon as we seek to take our discipleship earnestly. Christians must take their stand and devote their precious energies to building up the body of Christ in ways that return to the original patterns of the New Testament.

JON ZENS

A BRIEF HIATUS

2011-10-24T07:22:00.000-05:00

With Rex's comment I realized I owe you all an explanation as to why I haven't written some fresh material on my blog. I honestly don't have an explanation other than whatever muse I've had for it has disappeared. It will return I'm sure, but in the meantime I'm going to take a brief hiatus from blog writing to focus on some other things. My schedule this fall has been surprisingly full of meetings [an old guy is still wanted in some quarters for which I'm grateful] and will not be letting up for the next month or so.

So...it will probably be around the first of the year before I return. Please comment on any of the previous posts you wish to address and I will post those comments and even respond if I think it is something that I can do quickly and without much research.

All of you who come by here and take the time to comment are special to me. Thanks for the connection and when I return I trust it will be with something to contribute that is worthwhile. Blessings!

Paul B.

MISTAKES MODERN MINISTERS MAKE--PART 11

2011-10-07T05:20:00.002-05:00

I wrote about two mistakes ministers make in my last post. Those were..1) seeing the pastor as the all-important person/minister in a church and..2) seeing the church as a business instead of a body. Check the previous post for the entire idea presented about those two mistakes.

Now for the third mistake I'll be addressing made by modern ministers. This is one that is so major that I will deal with it by itself before continuing to a few of the implications of this problem in the third and final post on this subject.

The third mistake I'm addressing is a failure to see the Old Covenant, including the moral law written on the tablets of stone, as being fulfilled in the New Covenant and not now binding on the people of the New Covenant as a standard for behavior as Kingdom people.

This is major, as we will see, primarily because of the ramifications of it all. Some ramifications [for example, the tithe and the Sabbath] will be addressed in my final post on this subject next time. But the problem itself is my point at present.

In order to not make this mistake, it would be necessary that one understand how the Old Covenant [Testament] was basically between God and Israel. It is also important to see how the law, called the "Law of Moses" because it was delivered through him to the nation of Israel, codified their behavior as the people of the Covenant following their redemption out of Egypt. [The Exodus]

At that time and place in history, they were brought out of bondage and into a Covenant with Jehovah as His special people and were to live under certain stated standards presented in the law of Moses. There were, in fact, several purposes for that law, but we are at present interested only in dealing with it's binding effect as a lifestyle upon the Covenant people called Israel .

This law, by the way, was a unified standard that was not ever thought of as being divided into three parts, Moral/ Civil/ Ceremonial, by the Jewish people. So many bible students would later attempt to make that division with the purpose of retaining the moral law as an eternal standard even for people of the New Covenant. [Testament] This would include many in our present day, including dispensationalists, who so frequently are found making that mistake.

But the Old Covenant with Israel and the Mosaic law were all only preparatory for something that was yet to come. That covenant was certainly an important step in what could be called "Redemptive history," or the "story of redemption," but God was using it as only temporary "until the time of reformation." [Heb 9:10] That was when God would speak in a final way to a new brand new people in a brand new New Covenant with a standard of behavior to be written on their hearts and not on stone. [2 Corinthians 3:3]

Jon Zens, a friend of mine and as good a scholar on this issue as can be found today, points this out so well when he said... "Thus, all of procedures and special activities in the Old Covenant were types and pictures of the One who would come and deliver a new people from bondage and create a new nation holy to Himself with a new standard of behavior." [See Heb. 3:5/8:5/9:8-9]

All of this is not to say that the Law of Moses was/is not significant for the Christian in the New Covenant in some fashion. But it is to say that it was preparatory and not binding as a lifestyle on those of us who are in the New Covenant .

Again, Zens states it this way..."This is simply to say, then, that the 'law' [for the New Testament believer] must now be identified with the current covenant in force for the former covenant is no longer operative. Moses was the head of his house: Israel. Christ is now the Head of His house: the church. So we must come to grips with the fact that the house of Moses is finished, and the house of Christ is being built until the end of this age (Heb.3:1-6; Matt.16:18; 28:20). These lines of thought come together rather clearly in Matthew 5:17-7:29." That statement of Jon Zens deserves a second reading I would think.

Jon goes on to say..."So Jesus stands in history as the long-awaited Messiah. The government is to be upon His shoulders, which is to say He is the law-giver. He here [In what He says in the gospels & the epistles] expounds "law" in the New Covenant." But - and this is crucial - While His explication of "law" in His Kingdom incorporates elements of the Mosaic code into the New Covenant, it is as He intensifies the Mosaic elements that they become new. ("whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart," 5:28)."

Jon's conclusion is that there are certainly similarities between the Mediator of the New Covenant giving His law, and the Old Covenant mediator, Moses, receiving the Ten Words at Sinai, but it is the authority with which the new Lawgiver says what is the standard for the behavior of the New Covenant believer's lifestyle that is to be recognized. We are not under law [Moses] but under grace. [Christ]

[I personally believe there is a major shift from "doing" which is the basis of the Old to "being" which is the basis of the New. This will be seen more clearly as we look at the Sabbath for example next time.]

The proclaimers of the New Testament message were certainly mindful of how their message flowed from the types, offerings, and sacrifices of the Old Testament, but were also extremely conscious of how their message was new and found its authority in Christ alone and was, thus, fundamentally different than that of Moses.

This contrast can be clearly seen in the familiar expression used by our Lord in the sermon on the mount when He repeatedly said... "But I say to you." This is why the writer of Hebrews was willing to say things like this in his letter to Hebrew Christians to show them how the old has given way to the new.

"If that first covenant had been faultless, then no place have been sought for the second" (Heb.8:7).

"In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old; now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away" (Heb.8:13).

"He takes away the first, that he may establish the second" (Heb.10:9).

"That which is done away....that which is abolished" (2Cor.3:11-13).

It is in this failure of seeing the uniqueness of the Law of Moses for Israel alone and the reality of Old Covenant's
abolishment/fulfillment in the New Covenant that modern ministers so woefully get it wrong. And why is this important? Next time I'll give my two cents on that.

Paul B.

MISTAKES MADE BY MODERN MINISTERS--PART 1

2011-09-29T12:12:00.007-05:00

Ministers are leaders in modern church life. I'm not saying that's the way it should be..but is the way it is. So then leadership leads. But where leadership leads can be disastrous if people follow without question. Modern day ministers, as leaders, are making some huge mistakes in my opinion and I want to gently point out a few that I believe need to be examined carefully.

Were someone to ask how huge I believe these mistakes are, My answer is..big enough to write about them and that may be because I think too many seem to be following without question.

The first huge mistake is in viewing the role of the pastor as all important. The word "Pastor" only appears once in the scriptures [Elder and Bishop however appear over forty times each.] and out of all the letters written to churches none were addressed to the Pastor. They were generally addressed to the people as the church.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the New Testament who would think of a single person as pastor [local fellowships had a plurality of shepherds/Elders] and they certainly would never make the mistake of thinking of a single person, including a pastor, as the head of the church. That place was reserved for the Lord Jesus Himself.

No one is disputing the need or purpose for having in the body some who shepherd the flock, but in the New Testament it was never to the point of one man/one teacher/one preacher in any gathered group. [Local Church]. That's a modern day mistake made by those who lead that way and the churches that follow them.

Where it has disastrously led us is to the unbiblical place where you can find a local body [church] having "lost" a pastor to another church. They are, thus, handicapped by being "without a pastor" and cannot function in worship or training until one is "called" and sets out his "vision" for the church.

Do you see where this is going? We may not want to call a pastor the head of the church in Baptist theology but we sure live like he is the head.

A second huge mistake made by modern day ministers as leaders is to think of political processes as the way to change a society into what it ought to be. No one would disagree that things in America are in a mess. But attempting to change society into what it should be by legislating a particular set of Christian values and ethics through the legal processes is a colossal mistake. It would have been unthinkable in the New Testament.

In doing what I just described, Ministers/leaders are forgetting at best or even possibly purposefully ignoring the fact that New Testament believers lived under some horrible and oppressive political systems and yet never attempted to shame, condemn, change, or force their society to become what it ought to be by their Christian definition.

They, rather, spent their time in obedience to their Lord, in loving their enemies, doing good to those who used them, and, rather than attacking their enemies verbally, with grace they presented the message of redemption found in the person and work of Christ who is Himself God's Son and who came for fallen human beings. Yet, by any way you choose to measure it, they turned the world upside down with that simple theology and methodology.

I think the simple reason is they never thought of the church as a business to be developed. To them, they were the church, and the scriptures always spoke of them as being a body, a bride, a temple, a holy nation, a peculiar people, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, instructed by the Word of God, belonging to God and strangers to this earth and any era.

It simply would have made no sense to them to form protest groups or establish lobbying groups to change culture or society. That lay in the realm of a returning Lord who will make right all things in its time.

It was in their message of the gospel that the unique power of God was presented which was sufficient to change people. And it was the deliverance of that message that would not allow any other message to capture their attention or occupy their time and energy.

More to come.....

Paul B.

SPEAKING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AGAIN

2011-09-25T15:38:00.005-05:00

I'm writing this as an American citizen who is both appreciative for and concerned about our unique system of government. It is my concern that causes me to reflect on a speech given by Edward Erler, professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino California. Dr. Erler delivered a speech at a National Leadership Seminar held in Dallas Texas last May and has appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of birthright citizenship as well as being the co-author of a book entitled The Founders On Citizenship And Immigration.

What Dr. Erler said has caught my attention. I'm going to be paraphrasing much of it but will attempt to capture the salient points that serve the purpose of this post.

One of his points made was that the Framers of our Constitution understood limited government in a different manner than is being propagated by the Tea Party movement of the present day. The Tea Party seems to be advocating a limited government which is synonymous with small government and is similar to what the Anti-Federalists held who opposed the ratification of our Constitution. They preferred a form of government in which the states held the top spot of priorities.

The Federalists, on the other hand, viewed it next to impossible to have a States/Federal system because any attempt to hold to both multiple states rights AND federal sovereignty was a lost cause since one or the other would have to give up their sovereignty and that would render ineffective the governing of the whole nation.

The framers decided on a new and unique system never before tried that James Madison called "partly national and partly federal." Madison explained his point this way..."For some purposes we will be one people: for other purposes, we will be many peoples. So for those purposes that concern the nation as a whole___the federal government will have sovereignty___complete and plenary power to accomplish the things assigned to its care in the Constitution." [Those things are principally found in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.]

Dr. Erler went on to make a second point that if those assigned federal responsibilities are to be fulfilled, the federal government must be given the necessary means to achieve those ends. He also said..."If this entails large government___and today it does___then large government must be compatible with limited government."

But therein is the rub. If large government IS the antithesis of limited government as the Tea Party SEEMS to be saying, then we're in trouble. However, if limited government IS compatible with large government, because the issue is not the size of government, but the definition of limited, meaning the limited areas of concerns assigned, then we must make sure such assignments to the Fed are carefully approached and undertaken by the Fed in a fashion that does not allow for their violation. The States deserve that inherently.

So it is obvious that since by "Limited Government" is meant the limited range of responsibilities, then whether a violation does happen or not will always ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the USA.

I expect some major decisions are on the way. As an American citizen I'm watching and waiting with interest.

Paul B.

ON BEING REAL

2011-09-19T12:56:00.005-05:00

I've been privileged to speak at Emmanuel Church, Enid Oklahoma this past Sunday as well as the upcoming September 25th Sunday.

They asked me to write a brief article for the bulletin on the concluding service of my being with them. I was glad to do so. I just sent it to be published next weekend.

What I said I would like to pass along to you as well. I'm making a point that is very valuable, it seems to me, concerning those times the church gathers for worship. Do you agree?
---------------------------------------------------

I'm so glad for a fellowship that is real. Mary and I have traveled rather extensively and are experienced with attending every size and flavor of local congregations. Not all are real.

What I mean by that is that, all too often, "going to church" takes on a "mask" kind of mentality. Whatever shape or form that mask takes, its purpose is to hide the real person, especially if pain, hurt and struggle are all part of that person's journey. Who wants to be real when real isn't too pretty? Right?

Well, real is beautiful, if the truth be known, and the alternative of pretense and fakery are about as ugly as people can get.

Jesus lived in reality. The woman at the well was a benefactor of that reality. Her failures and hurts didn't turn Him away and were some of the stuff that made the reality of Jesus so potent in that encounter.

Every time Mary and I attend Emmanuel we go away with that sense of reality the woman at the well must have experienced in the Lord. Mary and I struggle and fail, [and are open about it] but just keep going in our journey together. But that doesn't seem to bother you folks at Emmanuel. In fact, you seem to thrive on accepting people who are on that kind of messy journey.

Well, here is a "thanks" from two who love sharing the real journey with you. It's been our joy to be with you the past two Sundays.

Paul B.

SAYING WHAT WE MEAN AND MEANING WHAT WE SAY.

2011-09-08T05:12:00.011-05:00

I'm known as a rebel by many who know me well and after this post I may also be known as a cynic. Although I think that would will miss the mark of reality a bit. I'm saying this because I want to address something that has bothered me for several years now and seems to be getting worse instead of better. It is the use of what I call Christian-ese.

Christian-ese, which cannot be found in Webster's dictionary, is a word of recent vintage that has come to define certain words or phrases used by Christians in everyday language that have become not much more than meaningless cliches. Christian-ese has developed over the past few years among some Christians and now seems to be something of a secret, coded language and is almost a badge worn by people who appear to find their comfort zone to be only with others like themselves. But I'm concerned that it may, in fact, unconciously feed a need to be known as spiritual as opposed to carnal. [Who can know the motives of another person with any certainty!]

My basic concern with all this is Three-fold.

One thing is that the Christian-ese lingo is generally thought of as conveying biblical truth when it doesn't really do that at all. "I feel in my heart God wants me to______" is not a biblical method for knowing and doing God's will. "Let this MIND be in you...who THOUGHT it not good to remain equal with God..." is the biblical pattern. [Phil. 2:5-6] The Bible always speaks of the thinking processes when discovering and doing the will of God. Paul said..."It seemed good to me."...when addressing something to be done except on rare occasions.

In Romans 14 when addressing making choices about questionable things his advise was NOT "Feel God impressing your heart"...but "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." [14:5b]He said in another place.. "For we have the mind of Christ" [1 Corinth. 2:16] which is further indication that it is the mind that is as important as anything in Christianity, with all due respect to anyone who might think Christians are only ignorant and emotional.

A second concern is that such lingo too often becomes a source of measuring spirituality or spiritual growth. I've met new believers who sometimes end up feeling inferior or less "spiritual" because they don't know all the "right" phrases yet. Or worse, they think someone is spiritual who does use the language.

The truth is it doesn't measure true spirituality at all and, in reality, may hide an immaturity behind that kind of language. To continually say, as I once did, "well, praise the Lord," at ever opportunity, may sounds as if we're spiritually minded in all things, when in fact it can be as vain and empty as those who say "Well, fiddlesticks" [or worse] at every opportunity. I'm speaking from personal experience here as you can probably tell.

But a third concern is my greatest. It seems to me that it may forge an unnecessary stumbling block for unbelievers. I often wonder if non-believers hear some Christians talking and think, "Ugh, there go those Christians on their high-horse again using their silly, secret coded language." I know that I have that reaction sometimes and I'm in sympathy with the Christian message completely. It seems to me when we Christians develop our own private language to be used with one another, we may have really forgotten how Jesus made Himself accessible to ordinary people. Using Christian-ese often does exactly the opposite which models the Pharisees rather than the Messiah.

But therein lies the real problem. Our message of the gospel is, in and of itself, offensive to the natural mind anyway. We don't need to create unnecessary obstacles which trite, empty, meaningless, cliches tend to do. I think we, as Christians, may need a new discovery of Koine-English [Common English] as an effective tool of communication much as the early Christians found Koine-Greek [Common Greek] to be an effective tool for conveying the gospel message.

Let me give just a few examples of some Christian-ese phrases along with what is probably meant if the truth were to be known.

"I feel in my heart God wants me to_______" Translated means... "I'm going to do it and I hope it's the right thing to do."

"I'm still waiting for God to open some doors." Translated means... "I don't have a clue about what I'm going to do and I'm hesitant to do anything."

"I can't do_______, so Christ in me will have to do it." Translated means... "I'm struggling with wanting to do this at all and sure don't want to do it right now."

"I need to share with you where the devil is attacking me." Translated means..."I want to tell you where I'm struggling and some of my failures and I feel badly about them."

I'm wondering why we can't, as the post title puts it, say what we mean and mean what we say?

Of course the answer to all this isn't to "not speak at all" but rather to talk like normal people and act in such a fashion [Grace, acceptance, forgiveness, love, integrity] that our lives stir some to ask us about what makes the difference in us and then share the truth of our Lord.

I think that is what could be called...Christianity.

If you wish to... just for fun...add any words or phrases that you view as the best illustrations of Christian-ese in the comment section.

Paul B.

HAVE WE LOST THE GOSPEL?

2011-09-02T08:03:00.003-05:00

This is the final summer rerun. This one is from 2007. I'll put up a new post next week.

There is a sense in which our message is single in it's focus. It is the "gospel." If we should ever lose our focus on the gospel we will be compromised as christians and the "salt" will truly have lost it's savor, if not it's soul, and the"light" will have been put under a bushel, if not blown out. If any other single issue BECOMES our focus, it will be to the detriment of the gospel. Let me illustrate.

No one despises a callous, shallow approach to the issue of abortion more than do I. But in our zeal to correct the law, which needs correcting in my opinion, we may have become other issue oriented and even bed-fellows with a political party. It seems all too often that conservative christianity, in the mind of our culture at least, has become connected to the Republican party and it may be more than just perception. But if we are to remain truly biblical our concern would have as much to do with feeding the poor, clothing the naked, investing ourselves in the lives of those who are incarcerated and their families, as it does with the genuine evil of abortion.

That is made clear from the text of the scriptures themselves. ["In as much as you've done it to these..."] In fact, if I understand the gospel correctly, Jesus came, did what He did, and was raised from the dead to redeem us so we can do, in the power of the Spirit, what we are to do. That will always entail a strategy of redemption from, sin, hatred, prejudice, poverty, hunger, and sickness as we are able to accomplish such things.

But to focus on one issue to the loss of our unique message of redemption would derail the purposes of God, from the human perspective at least, and deplete the power of our gospel. This would be so if our message were to even become solely one of clothing the naked, feeding hungry, or helping the sick. Those things are all the result of the gospel, not the message itself.

The same might be said for correct doctrine. When we focus on the foundational truths of the gospel, the nature of Christ, the truth of redemption by Grace through faith in the work of Christ and the integrity of the scripture which reveals that event, we will be on track to accomplishing the Great Commission as given to the Church. But to be side-tracked into focusing on being correct/united in the truths of lesser consequence, good though they might be, would be, as the opening illustration shows, a genuine tragedy.

We would then be bed-fellows with people who agree with us and enemies to those who don't. We become, as I believe the Pharisees became, a party of people who struggled with gnats while swallowing camels and was of no real value to anyone. To become a group known for a demand that "all agree" or " we're right" on every detail of doctrine is a death blow to the gospel. Ask the people who knew the Pharisees.

It is the same thing as being known or inextricably linked to the Republican OR Democratic parties because of a single issue, even family values, it is a death blow to the gospel.

The "uniqueness" even "dividing" nature of our gospel message is, in and of itself, hard for this pluralistic society to stomach. And we certainly must never compromise our message no matter how divisive or difficult it is for some to hear. But to "divide," with a superiority or elitist attitude, from other christians, over the lesser issues of doctrine, is the atmosphere in which that death blow to the gospel is wielded.

It is the "gospel" that must be the "great divide", not PPL, baptism linked to eternal security, Calvinism, Arminianism, Eccesiology, dispensationalism, or even women teaching men. We can have our "positions" about each of these, and that's OK, but our dividing point should be the gospel message itself. Have we "lost the gospel"? You tell me.

Paul B.

CAN I REALLY BELIEVE THAT AND BE A BAPTIST?

2011-08-26T06:29:00.001-05:00

Another summer 2011 rerun. First run in 2006.

Someone said to me recently, in commenting/complimenting me on the position I've come to with regards to women in ministry, "Even our culture understands the value of women in leadership as evidenced by those now in political positions of authority and power. I'm glad to see you've come there too." [They were obviously referencing Condoleeza Rice and others of the Bush administration.]

My thought about that is two-fold. First, I'm glad educated, qualified, and competent women are not being held back in our culture as has been the unfortunate practice in the past. I even believe in equal pay for those women doing a job that would be given to a man doing the same job.

But the second part of my thought is that, were the scriptures to say differently than what our culture says on any subject, [where it is clear to me what the scripture says on that subject] I would opt for obedience to scripture regardless of what our culture says or thinks.

An example of this might be seen in what our culture says about any sincere religious belief system being as good for people in the long run as any other religious belief system. So, Muslim, Christian, Shinto, it doesn't matter. Being sincere matters. I'm sorry, but the scriptures speak clearly here. Jesus said, " I am the way, the Truth, the light, no man comes to the Father but by me." [John 14] I believe that... and my culture cannot/will not be able to set my standard there.

On the other side of the coin, someone said in a comment section I read, "We must not allow culture to set our view of women in ministry. We must be true to what Baptists have historically held to and our BF@M affirms as our Baptist identity." [The BF@M says only men shall pastor and Baptists have historically held that women could not be pastors or deacons and some Baptists won't allow a women to teach men in any capacity.]

My thoughts about that are two-fold also. First, I'm grateful for our Baptist history and distinctives that are grounded on the text of scripture. But the second part of my thought is, were I to see the text of scripture differently than our history and tradition have said, I would have to opt for obedience to my understanding of the text regardless of Baptist history OR tradition.

An example of this is the gifts of the Spirit. Historically, Baptist have been what would be termed "cessationists," by and large, in regards to many of the lesser gifts. I do not now [I once held that view] see the scriptures forbidding those gifts or them ceasing. I do see a regulation and warning about their use/misuse in First Corinthians, but the validity for them is there, IMHO. Since I see that textually, Baptist history/tradition cannot/ will not set my standard there.

So what I see in the current debate in Southern Baptist life from those who insist on a particular interpretation of lesser significant doctrines [non-salvific] because it's the "Baptist way," is the same danger I see from those in our culture that would insist that we be "culturally correct" to be acceptable. Both cultures, whether secular [world] or sacred [Baptist] must give way to our being able to "search the scriptures to see if those things be so." That...is the Baptist way for me.

So how do we get along under the Baptist tent [regardless of its size] when we see some lesser doctrines differently? [Especially when you see good men/women on both sides.] Let me make a few suggestions for us all.

#1--BE OPEN--to people who think differently than do we about these minor/lesser issues. I love this quote..."Since no one of us, affected as we are by original sin, is perfectly pure in our desire for truth, no one of us is exempt from some degree of closed-mindedness." [Searching Together Winter 1985] "I think this means we must be open to at least "listen" to multiple sources in the Body of Christ if we are really going to have the thoughts of Christ on lesser issues." [Same Publication] No better statement can be found in my judgement.

#2--BE READY--to change if the evidence from the text begins to be seen in a new/different light. Things can/do escape our attention and, for us to grow, we must be ready to admit that fact. This means it is not a crime to continue to examine the text with new light and understanding. And if a person sees that new light and is helped by it, that is not weakness on his/her part but humility. This change because of new light does not rob one of being Southern Baptist, but rather, it verifies the uniqueness that is Baptist, namely, we're free to grow in our knowledge of the Word.

#3--BE WILLING--to grow in truth when presented with new light regardless of the source. If it comes from one who is insignificant in the Body, so be it. There is no such person as insignificant where the Body is concerned anyway is there! In fact, to a proud individual, others are insignificant and that one doesn't take what anyone else says seriously. To an humble person, because he/she loves people AND the truth, an ear will be given to insignificant voices in the Body. [Dare I say even blogging voices...]

What I've said here, were I willing to practice what I write, will not, in my opinion ruin my confidence in the integrity/nature of the scriptures or make me a "liberal". It will not diminish my joy and appreciation for the privilage of being a Baptist. It will simply enable me to be truly Christian and relate to others in the Body with deep respect. I don't have to get angry at someone who sees a lesser point of theology differently than do I and I don't have to be closed to what they are saying about it. I don't have to agree, but I certainly don't have to believe they/I are/am no longer truly Southern Baptist BECAUSE we disagree.

Paul B.

A FRAIL ATTEMPT TO MEET HEAD-ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN TO MINISTRY QUESTION

2011-08-21T05:08:00.001-05:00

Summer is the time for reruns on TV...so...why not blog posts? This was first posted some five years ago. I think it bears repeating with slight adaptation of language for clarification.

-------------------------------------------------------

It's clear that all [men and women] are given gifts to be used for the good of the Body of Christ. It is also apparent that some women did this exceptionally well in the New Testament. [See Romans 16:1-2 as only one example of many Paul gives.] Add to that the fact that you have good people on both sides of the women being able to be deacons or pastors issue and you see the problem.

I've also personally come to appreciate the emphasis on the "laying on of hands" [Hebrews 6:2] which seems to have indicated the blessings of a fellowship on a person and their ministry. It may well be that this is the ONLY kind/form of ordination that you will find in the scriptures for anyone in ministry.

Be that as it may, I don't believe you will find the system of ordination that we have put together the modern church in scripture at all, especially the idea of licensing prior to ordination. Which, by the way, has caused us to wind up with many men having a license to preach but no evidence of a call that qualifies them for ordination.

I do recognize and sympathize with the need for a church to say something that allows a potential pastor/preacher college student a reduction of cost when entering a Baptist school. But I wonder if something other than a license would not be better. Remember the Government recognizes the license to be equal with an ordination for tax purposes, in fact, for all purposes.

I'm not saying what we're doing is evil. In fact, it could be argued that it is needed. Ordination/licensing is demanded by government officials for those who marry the living and bury the dead.[Certainly if this is done with regularity or in the name of a church.] At the very least, one or the other, it doesn't matter which, ordination or license, is necessary when you start talking tax exemptions and government regulations.

So...I was faced, as were our seven Elders, in my last pastorate some ten years ago, [fifteen now] with how to recognize women in ministry and fit it into the "laying on of hands" and the "ordination" required by the government. Do we "ordain" them to the gospel ministry? [That would make them pastors in the eyes of the government.] Do we make the "laying on of hands" a meaningless gesture? What do we do?

We devised a system. Notice I call it "frail" in the title so I readily admit it's fallibility. We dropped licensing and designed two tiers [yes, tiers] of ordination. One tier was for the ordination of Pastors and Deacons. [Tier one] The other was for all other ministers [men and women]to such ministries as youth, children, counseling, and a myriad of other things that are legitimate and needed in the Body of Christ. [We used tier one to include Elders/Bishops/Pastors since we view all three terms referring to the same person.]

The second tier was specifically for a ministry named, such as counseling or youth, and did not go beyond that specified call/ministry. We laid hands on them as well and gave to them an appropriate certificate of ordination [tier two] that reflected their being set aside for that specified work of ministry for as long as that ministry continued.

The first tier was reserved for men, though, as mentioned, some did not believe that was the clear scriptural position, but it was a major step in the right direction for our local felloship. [By this I mean some didn't see [myself included] scripture forbidding the ministry of deacon or pastor to women when passages that seem to say that are properly interpreted in context.]

But we were only a part of a body of seven elders and the elders were only seven of a whole congregation the majority of which disagreed with the view of having women pastors at the time. So we accepted the majority position [since it wasn't a issue of salvation] and lived by it while a part of that group. This, while at the same time some having, as I said, a bit of a different opinion including myself.

It worked well and there are at present people [men and women] working under that ordination method. One couple on the East coast ministers in a church counseling ministry, tier two, where both are ordained, and are able to operate in ministry with the blessings of both their local fellowship and their government.

This was an attempt to handle a local congregation's desire to create an effective way of recognizing women as a legitimate part of the Body of Christ and for them to be qualified to minister in the eyes of our culture.

Perfect? Absolutely not. In violation of scripture? Show me where. A tool for working effectively in our culture. I think so. The final answer on the complex issue of ordination and need for rethinking it? Hardly. One church's effort to meet a need? Yes.

Paul B.

WHAT DOES A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH LOOK LIKE?

2011-08-14T17:10:00.000-05:00

Read carefully and ponder well this classic article about the nature of the New Testament Church by John Reisinger.

"We reject the notion that there is a 'true, New Testament, institutional role model church.' No one can find such a system anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures! We would argue the same as the Anabaptist argued with the Lutheran when discussing baptism. The Lutheran chided the Anabaptist by saying, "Surely, sir, you believe there was at least one small infant in the Philippian jailer's household." The Anabaptist replied, "No, sir. The youngest person in that household was a sixteen-year-old boy." The Lutheran opened his Bible to Chapter 16 of Acts and said, "Where, sir, do you find your sixteen year old boy in these words?" The Anabaptist replied, "In the same verse that you find your infant child!"

I am not obligated to prove that something could not possibly be in the Bible. It is your duty to prove it IS clearly there if you claim Biblical authority for it. I can say that no single 'institutional' view of the church is biblical and therefore not mandatory, not only because there are so many different views, but also because no one view can be established with specific texts of Scripture. However, in this case I can go further and prove that the basic concept of church that is essential to ANY institutional system is itself contrary to Scripture. That fact in itself is enough to convince me that the black cat does not exist. Let us consider the following facts:

(1) An institutional role model church simply cannot be found in Scripture by clear exegesis of texts. It must first be assumed to exist and then discovered by a whole series of logical (?) deductions. One must first make the assumption and then look for the evidence to prove it. This is backwards. The truth should come directly from texts of Scriptures. It takes a pretty thick book to prove any system of church order. You have to have a lot of therefores, and we can assumes, when you have no texts of Scripture. If the Bible was one-tenth as clear about church polity as the institutionalist claims, his book on church order would be very thin and made up mostly with Scripture. He could make his statement and give a text of Scripture to prove it. It is the 'sound reasoning' part that takes up so much space.

(2) We could not have such a true New Testament church today without someone having the same authority as that possessed by the Apostles. Some Baptists, especially some Reformed Baptists, have actually come very close to practicing this in their view of eldership but none (that I know of) have claimed Apostleship. One Reformed Baptist preacher has convinced himself, and some immature zealots, that he is the 'modern day Nehemiah' raised up by God to purify the twentieth century church.

(3) We could not have a true New Testament church without having the Apostolic gifts of the Spirit in operation since it was these gifts that created and operated the early church. Do we have prophets giving us special messages from God today? I agree that some zealots make this claim, but we all know better.

(4) We could not have a true New Testament church unless all of the true believers in our area were part of it and there were no other kinds of churches around. If Paul wrote a letter to the "Church in Any Town," I verily believe that some deluded souls actually believe the mailman would bring the letter directly to their pastor. They literally believe they are the only 'duly authorized' church in town. Is a Bible-believing Presbyterian church just as duly authorized by God as a Reformed Baptist Church? Can we accept them as a 'church' when most of their members have not obeyed Christ in biblical baptism? The moment you say "yes," to either of these questions then you must either admit that there is no clear role model for the institutional church or else God has 'duly authorized' some people to disobey God and practice error.

(5) We could not have a true New Testament church today because the New Testament Scriptures not only do not give us details for such a church, they give us evidence of more than one view of church polity among the early believers themselves. One of the difficult struggles in both Acts and Paul's epistles is resolving the problems that arose simply because they did not have a uniform polity in the various churches. This was glaringly evident in the Jew/Gentile struggles. The church at Jerusalem, under James, would never have agreed to operate that congregation like the Gentile congregations that Paul established.

(6) We should not even WANT churches like some of those described in the New Testament Scriptures! How would you like to be an elder in the Corinthian church? Who in his right mind would accept a call to pastor the Galatians? This last question assumes that local congregations in the New Testament times followed the modern practice of extending a 'call' to an ordained (?) clergyman to come and 'pastor' them. Is this practice (a) Biblical, (b) against Scripture, or (c) legitimate expediency? Are we denying the sufficiency of Scripture when we frankly admit we have no clear biblical proof for such a practice? Just because Paul would never have been willing to accept a call to pastor a church already established by someone else (Romans 15:20), does that make it wrong for me to do it today? If so, then I have sinned in this manner at least five times.

I will never forget the first Baptist ordination service I attended. The chairman kept saying, "We Baptists go by the Book" as he waved the Bible. However, all he did was wave it. He never opened it. I was waiting for him to read about how the early church 'called an ordination council,' how they interviewed the candidate on 'his (1) conversion, (2) call to the ministry, (and (3) his doctrinal statement.' I was really waiting for the verses that justified women being on the ordination council (actually there were more women than men but only the men 'laid on hands'). I guess every one was familiar with the verses 'in the Book' on that subject so they did not bother to quote them. I really learned a lot about 'Baptists going by the Book' that day.

(7) The Scriptures themselves give us no encouragement even to look for a role-model church with each detail laid out. It gives us principles and exhorts us to apply them in wisdom and love to the existing situation. We are to create a church order that is consistent with biblical principles and which also enables us to serve God in unity and efficiency with other congregations that differ with us in church order but preach the same gospel of grace."

John Reisinger

REUNION RETREAT REFLECTIONS

2011-08-09T10:53:00.004-05:00

Back in the late seventies and early eighties I pastored Southcliff Baptist Church in Fort worth Texas for a number of years. Among the blessings of that time was the fact that several couples were in our fellowship while they were students at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They were part of an early move of God in all of our lives at that time in that church that can only be described as profound for us all.

In the ensuing years they've married, raised children, had careers, been missionaries, built businesses, pastored churches, and generally ministered in the grace of God in times and circumstances that would take a myriad of adjectives to describe. Some of those adjectives would be joyful, exciting, growing, successful, unbelievable, anointed, incredible, and any other positive word you can imagine.

But those same couples, for the sake of reality and honesty, would have to and did, in fact, use other words to describe their journey in the grace of God together. Words like struggle, failure, weakness, depression, control, manipulation, and self-pity were also necessary to describe the journey of life they've experienced.

Where did this kind of sharing happen? Well, a retreat just finished at the Billy Graham Training Center called "The Cove" in Asheville North Carolina involved a number of those couples. Some of them Mary and I had not seen in the intervening thirty years. But with brutal honesty we all shared our journey of grace.

It was called a reunion retreat for obvious reasons. It was put together by a few of those couples, with others invited to come. Our purpose was so Mary and I could tell them how we are different now as opposed to those Southcliff days and why we're different. Then, generally, to fill them in on our view of God and His grace as we see and experience Him now compared to then. We did just that.

What transpired was greater than anything I could have conceived. In fact, I was a bit apprehensive honestly, as Mary and I are SO different in our understanding of grace and even the meaning of much of the text of scripture.

My views about so many things have changed not because the scriptures have changed, but because my understanding about what they said was so lacking back then.

My views back then, I'm sad to say, were so steeped in tradition and Baptist culture, if not American culture, it was incredible. This is not to say there wasn't grace and a move of God then. There was in His Providence. It is to say, however, that life is a journey of growth and grace with greater understanding.

I have subsequently under gone an extensive, even exhaustive study, for myself, [as has Mary] about so many texts and truths and have come away REALLY different in my belief system, that I now wondered if they would be able to handle that!

Would you like for me to tell you whether they were able to handle it? They were different too. They had learned about grace in a deeper fashion too. Their journey had, in fact, brought some of them to a place they wondered if Mary and I would be able to handle where they had come to in their lives. Some of them had as many misgivings as we did. So here is how we wound up as a group together.

We laughed, cried, hugged, shared, confessed, revealed, forgave, rejoiced, debated, disagreed, loved, embraced, reveled, and celebrated one another the entire four days.

Then we talked as people who honestly admitted having failed and succeeded, grown and diminished, changed and all too often remained the same, understood and misunderstood, just like all the other paradoxical Kingdom people who are on a journey and adventure of discovering the grace of God in ways never before seen.

The difference was we had found a safe place to be honest about it all. That place was with each other with all our differences and stories. The safety was because our unity was not our belief system, but our Lord and an expression of grace that we had found in Him.

I will conclude this post by simply saying it this way...we experienced Kingdom living. We experienced CHURCH. More later.

Paul B.

A REVIEW OF...BLOGGING 101

2011-07-30T06:03:00.000-05:00

On May 23rd of 2006 I started this blog. I had some hopes and desires for the blog that I expressed back then and thought it might be good in the summer of 2011 to stop and see how we stack up against my original wishes. I would be interested in any response you would give and any suggestion you might have for what you would like addressed in the future. What follows is my first ever blog post. [With some cleaning up of language, paragraphs and punctuation.]

----------------------------------------------------------

This blog site is part of and connected to VTM ministries. Our homepage is www.paulburleson.com and all things relative to our ministry such as schedule, types of meetings, etc., can be found there.

Someone may ask why a blog? My answer is... so I can address issues theological and ministerial in a conversational way. I will, of course, be giving my view on the issues and will do so with the knowledge that my grasp of truth is finite and growing. I completely trust the Spirit to give understanding, as do all Christians, and am confident that He does and will. My confidence, however, in my ability to hear Him and to grasp the truth is not as strong. I've lived with the power of flesh and self too long to have much confidence there. I will attempt to be open, honest, and careful in what I post so at least you will know where I stand.

I do wish to express that I believe strongly our ground of unity is not in agreement on the issues or even the nuances of minor doctrines. I'm using the word minor here not meaning unimportant but related to essentials of salvation/eternity which are the majors. Our ground of unity, which by the way we are never told in scripture to create, but are told to maintain because the Spirit HAS ALREADY CREATED OUR UNITY IN CHRIST, is on the basis of Christ and His work on the Cross, as Paul said to the Corinthians in the first three chapters of that First Corinthian letter.

If a person says Christ was human only and not the divine Son of God who died on the Cross for us that person is not my brother. I will love them and share my life with them but they are in need of the gospel. My brothers/sisters are those who name Jesus as Lord. We may be as different as daylight and dark in understanding of doctrine, associating with various denominations, having differing views on issues and the embracing of a multitude of methods in mission and evangelism, but we are brothers/sisters because of who Christ is to/in us and our acceptance of what He accomplished on the Cross. This obviously presupposes a confidence in the integrity of the Scriptures.

This blog will address those issues, differences, and nuances. But as a brother in Christ I hope to do what my son and others have been doing for several months and quite successfully. I also hope I can be as gracious and gentle as they have been. If I can, then perhaps this little personal word will be of some help and will be enjoyed by a few.

Paul Burleson

WORKING TOGETHER AS STAFF WITH DIFFERING OPINIONS ON NON-ESSENTIALS

2011-07-26T10:19:00.001-05:00

I thought a reminder via a post written originally five years ago might be in order.

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 to be assured. These certainly include things like knowing how sinful I am [repentance] and resting in how much Jesus loves me and was willing to die in my place and, in light of who He is, believing that completed what was necessary to deal with my sin as evidenced by an empty tomb. [Faith] Things like this are essential for redemption and eternity and are not up for rejection.

I'm speaking of the non-essentials. By using 'non-essentials' I'm not saying unimportant things, just things not necessary for salvation to be experienced. These might include 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 is God choosing me before time because He determined to, or, seeing I would choose Him, chose me because of that foreknowledge. Whether repentance and faith are my responses alone 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 and any abilities toward spiritual things are the result of His Grace being experienced not the cause. But my point is...I came to all this understanding after I became a believer... not before.

However, the unique situation of which I speak is when there are two guys/gals on the same staff who disagree over those non-essentials. How do you work together with integrity with differences? It has happened ...to me...several times on several staffs. I developed a certain way [method] of handling it. My way is 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.

One is 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 to teach their understanding.

An example...an Education minister on my staff had a different view of divorce and remarriage than mine. I asked him to preach in my absence. We were 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? " was his question. I said, "You teach how you see it and be honest enough to mention that I [Bro. Paul] sees it a bit differently, but we respect each other as brothers in the Lord." Then I suggested he encourage the people to search on their own. He did and they did.

Interestingly, twenty-five years later, I hold now the position he held then, not because the text has changed, but because my understanding has changed as I've studied. That's one of the two important things I wish to mention. We were both free to search and share our understanding of truth without fear.

The second is when, for whatever reason, it is good to agree as a staff on a non-essential as a standard for the staff, knowing some one will have to adjust to something he/she doesn't hold to personally, be willing to do it 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.

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

But by mutual consent we felt it was best for us as a staff 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 there.

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 not an issue. It was shared for information only. But the congregation learned and 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 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...practical and good for the work.

6. 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 in authority coming from the annointing of the Holy Spirit rather than a position because I take seriously the command to not Lord it over the flock.

But, 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

AN APT ILLUSTRATION OF A FIFTY-FOUR YEAR RELATIONSHIP

2011-07-18T06:26:00.000-05:00

Giving credit where credit is due...Mary gave me this illustration of our marriage as we drove home from church yesterday morning. I liked it. It now belongs to me. It will belong to you if you like it as much as I did. It certainly does the job of speaking to the 52 years Mary and I have spent in our marriage. [We knew one another two years before our marriage, thus, fifty-four total years in a relationship.] The illustration is of how a house can be a picture of relationships. Obviously, it needs a little explanation.

Think of a house with it's rooms and in your thinking include a front porch, a yard and a cyclone fence around it all. Each area is observable and separate, yet each is connected to the whole. You live there. You relate to others from there. It can become an apt illustration of the kind of relationships one may have at different levels.

There are people who may walk by your fence. You see them, you wave to them, you are cordial with them and yet you don't really have a relationship at all other than the one that is shared by being human and a part of whatever culture [neighborhood] you might share.

But there are those who share your yard. This is more personal. They are your neighbors who may stop by and talk a while. You know their names, their work perhaps, and even some of the bare facts about their life. You would even interject yourself into their lives in ways that would be of benefit to both of you__say you saw their papers lying in the driveway collecting and you pick them up to cover the fact that they are away__ and you would do it gladly. You can figure out what is meant here.

But some people come to your door. They are on the porch. They are not going to enter unless invited and would not be invited to enter unless you wish to share something deeper with them than you share with those walking by your fence. When invited in they don't have free run of your house at all. They respect you too much for that. They might even ask permission to use the restroom before assuming they are free to do so.

A marriage relationship is different. It's inviting someone to share a house in ways no one else EVER will. [Children are a category of relationships for another post.] The marriage bed, the breakfast nook, the master bathroom, every nook and cranny becomes a shared experience. That relationship exceeds every other one and is to be characterized by things like respect, trust, honesty, and openness. All others are secondary to that relationship, even the children. That, because one day they will establish another relationship which will be their own house to share.

But problems come in a marriage. A couple can find themselves living in the same house but not be able to share it very well. They may find themselves going to separate rooms because of hurts or harsh words between them. It takes work to face and solve what problems they can in order to REALLY share the whole house.

How all this applies to Mary and me is that we've found ourselves with a SAFE ROOM built. All who live in Oklahoma, tornado country, know what that room represents. It is the place where you go to avoid storms that can do great damage and are a threat to you personally. There you will be truly safe from any danger.

We've spent our lives working on problems that caused us to sometimes choose to go to separate rooms. There has been a time or two where we wondered if one or the other would not walk out the door and end the relationship. But that did not happen. The value of so many years invested in a marriage is having faced so many problems that you find yourselves sharing rooms comfortably. If one happens to need some space occasionally, one may ask for some space and get it.

But the safe room is there so that no problem, storm, or situation will ever keep the two of us from going TOGETHER to that room when threats come. The safe room that has been created gives both in the relationship a sense of safety and freedom. Nothing will destroy it except death.

Permit me a couple of final thoughts.

One is about the matter of love. Love is to be present in all the relationships. But it is expressed within the boundaries that are apparent in the illustration and doesn't look the same in each at all. When Jesus expressed Himself to Jerusalem He did so recognizing "they would not." The Rich Young Ruler said "no thanks" to a relationship. But Jesus loved him. So love is not lost when you recognize where relationships are. [Abusers having to remain on the porch is an example.] It is simply living by what the scripture describes as being "wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

This is truly loving people where they are. Some don't know of your love. Some choose to know of your love in a casual way. Some choose to share it deeply. But no one lives with you in a love relationship without some reciprocity as Jerusalem proved. If you love but they don't it may indicate where the relationship is in the house illustration in reality.

A second thought is that people who have suffered sexual abuse in their past or have family members who might be a perpetrator of such abuse might have to choose to keep those family members on the porch [no close relationship] protecting the children inside the house. That's not only legitimate in my opinion, but it may be necessary.

If abuse happens in a marriage, this could be physical, emotional or sexual, it could force the abused one to expel the abuser until a willingness develops for the establishing of the relationship again which includes mutual trust and respect. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a partner can choose to walk out the door of a relationship. It is over.

But after 54 years Mary and I are finally enjoying the whole of the house...together. We have our problems. We sometimes need our space. We even on rare occasion request our privacy. We mutually agree to those when necessary. But the construction of that safe room is what makes our relationship function at a level we never dreamed possible before. It is there. It is for us both. We share it in times of threat. We are committed to that reality.

That's why I've called this post "AN APT ILLUSTRATION OF A FIFTY-FOUR YEAR RELATIONSHIP. You may not like the illustration. You are obviously free to reject or argue as to its' validity. You may wish to expand, or correct it. But somehow it speaks to me. If it says something to you, I'm glad.

CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CULTURE

2011-07-13T12:19:00.005-05:00

It is really difficult to talk about Christianity and culture. This is because there is such diversity of thought about how they are to relate if, in fact, they are to relate at all. There are those who see the culture in which we live as the enemy of Christianity and so have nothing but disdain when addressing the subject.

Others see no problem with adapting to the culture when speaking of methods and believe to do so makes for giving our gospel message a better hearing. The consequence has been an introduction of media, atmosphere, entertainment, facilities and a myriad of other cultural tools that are an attempt to draw people to the gathering of the Church for that hearing of the gospel.

Whether or not the final verdict is in on the effect all this is having on Christianity is also debatable perhaps. But one person has offered his opinion on that effect. I'm speaking of Ken Meyers of Mars Hill Audio and author of the book entitled "All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes"

One of the best quotes in that book is this, .."I believe that the challenge of living with popular culture may well be as serious for modern Christians as persecution and plagues were for the saints of earlier centuries. . . Enemies that come loudly and visibly are usually much easier to fight than those that are undetectable. . . But the erosion of character, the spoiling of innocent pleasures, and the cheapening of life itself that often accompany modern popular culture can occur so subtly that we believe nothing has happened."

If you think Myers has joined the 'abandon culture because it's the enemy' Christian group, you would be mistaken. He ALSO said this in speaking about Fundamentalists of the past...."Rather than attempting to understand what was happening in modern culture, they retreated to a cultural ghetto." Meyers did not mean that as a compliment by the way.

What Meyers did do rather effectively is to show that culture is complex. In his book he divides culture into three categories. Those categories are Folk culture, High culture, and a somewhat new phenomenon he calls Pop culture.

According to Meyers, High culture is generally a society attempting to elevate the thoughts and emotions of the people and has as its' goal an ability to reflect seriously on things that transcends the present and bringing people along in that thinking.

He sees Folk culture as a unique worldview of a particular place, community, or group of people. It is the communal sharing of traditions and values. Folk culture holds the people accountable to the community for those traditions and values..

Pop culture, however, is the leveling out of the High and expanding of the Folk in an attempt to appeal to all peoples. It winds up being an attempt to appeal to the masses by taking on a marketing style approach and becomes, as a result, strongly individualistic rather than community.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when Meyers criticizes the Church for embracing it's culture it is the Pop culture that he is referring to. A quote from one who critiqued his book says this..."One of the key issues that Meyer is seeking to address is the wholesale embrace of the methodology of pop culture by the church under the banner of contextualization. He points out that the church has long been the bastion of High culture, elevating minds and hearts and focusing people’s attention to the transcendent, and folk culture, instilling communal values and cultural heritage. Now, however, the church is often simply imitating the worst of pop culture and mixing in a little Jesus."

Now reread the quote from the opening of this post and it will make a little more sense I think.

"I believe that the challenge of living with popular culture may well be as serious for modern Christians as persecution and plagues were for the saints of earlier centuries. . . Enemies that come loudly and visibly are usually much easier to fight than those that are undetectable. . . But the erosion of character, the spoiling of innocent pleasures, and the cheapening of life itself that often accompany modern popular culture can occur so subtly that we believe nothing has happened."

Maybe the book might be worth the reading! What do you think?

Paul B.

A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

2011-07-05T08:43:00.000-05:00

A mistake is often made when people quote the Constitution of the United States of America. That historic document declares that all Americans have certain UNALIENABLE rights among which are listed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the word often used when people quote the Constitution is the word INALIENABLE, which is incorrect but seldom realized as so.

Before someone says they mean the same thing and so the using of one or the other is insignificant, I would like to point out the difference that is ever so slight but essential to language being used correctly.

The word "unalienable" refers to rights that are inherent in man and are not rights that can be surrendered, bought, or transferred. Unalienable rights are a gift from the Creator to each individual and as such, cannot be taken away for any reason.

The government cannot take them as the government did not provide them. In fact, the only responsibility the government has toward unalienable rights is to secure them or to create an environment that protects them.

This point was clearly stated in a court ruling in 1892 entitled Budd vs People of the State of New York. That ruling said, " Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and it is to 'secure,' not grant or create these rights, for which governments are instituted."

The list in the Constitution can be expanded since it says "among which are" and then lists life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We could add such things as self-government, self defense, nature's necessities of air, food, water, clothing and shelter as well as worship. Such rights are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, privately or by implication or operation of law.

That which is your unalienable right is a part of you in an absolute sense and could no more be removed from you than could your blood be removed and you live without it.

INALIENABLE rights, on the other hand, can be surrendered, sold, or transferred with the consent of the individual because they are NOT inherent [unalienable] and the government CAN alienate these from an individual, if a person consents, either actually or constructively, since the government may be the source of these individual rights.

Most State Constitutions refer to only inalienable rights it is true. But it is our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS to which our Constitution addresses itself and recognizes them as given to us by our Creator. It could be the loss of recognition of our Creator is what is leading to the mistaken general use of these two words in our modern day language.

People do have both but they are not the same at all. So, clearly, the words are not to be used as synonyms though often are among otherwise intelligent people.

Paul B.

THE MAKING OF A MIRACLE

2011-06-27T20:34:00.008-05:00

I recently delivered a message at the Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond Oklahoma, our home Church, on the water to wine miracle in John 2. In the introduction I gave a brief word about Acts 2:22 and Peters' use of the phrase "miracles, wonders and signs" that God did through Jesus. In that introduction I mentioned that each of those words had a unique meaning in the realm of miracles. Let me explain.

"Miracles" is dunamis [GK] which means 'power' and refers to the actions of God in the natural realm. When God acts it is a miraculous thing and perfectly normal for Him because He is God.

"Wonders" is Teras [GK] which means a marvel or wonder and refers to the awesomeness of God when He acts in the natural realm. When God acts it is a mind-boggling thing and perfectly normal for Him because He is God.

"Signs" is Semeion [GK] which means a token or to make known and refers to the authentication of God in the natural realm. When God acts [miracle] it is mind blowing [wonder] and it is often a making known [sign] of His presence in what is transpiring or being said. [The Gospel of John records seven miracles and calls all of them signs.]

Generally speaking, this just about covers what the scriptures say about God and miracles. [A further word "works" is another study.] He acts, [miracle] it is awesome, and many times it authenticates His presence.

Miracles are relatively rare and are not for the removal of difficult or discomforting situations. [As the water to wine is said to be for the announcement that He was God present NOT to cover the shame of the lack of wine. John 2:11] In fact, difficult and discomforting circumstances are not generally removed by God but allowed by God for the purpose of character development, particularly for the development of patience in believers.

All this brings me to some thoughts about the miraculous acts of God. [Miracles] Some of these thoughts are what I call bible driven speculation. By this I mean it isn't made clear in scripture, so one has to be honest about a bit of speculation. But there seems to be plenty of inference in certain passages or events as we will see.

One, is the thought that if we believe Jesus is God, and we do as Christians, we're not surprised by the miracles He did. [God did through Him.] He was fully man and He was also fully God. But living as man He was fully and truly submitted to the Father and miraculous things were bound to happen. That's just the way God acts.

Two, I don't think we are to view miracles as God suspending or violating natural law at all. He just introduces a new cause and effect. As I would do if I held a book in my right hand, dropped it, and, as it fell, [natural law of gravity] with my left hand catch and raise it up. New cause, [left hand] and new effect. [Raising it.] God simply injects Himself into the natural realm, [From the Supernatural realm remember as He is Spirit after all, and Lord of all.] and causes something to result. [effect]

Peter walking on the water illustrates this. He stepped out of that boat and walked and did not go under water. He did begin sinking momentarily in doubt but was picked up by Jesus and continued walking. But if any other of those guys had stepped out, or if a guy on a boat watching in the distance had assumed he could do the same, he and they would have sunk immediately I would think. This because God, as the new cause for Peter not sinking and the new effect of his walking on water, was not setting aside natural law to do it. It was a new cause and effect for Peter alone. It was a miracle but that's just normal for God.

This shows, to my way of thinking, that there is no lock on a miracle being done for me or anyone else just because God has done it before for someone else. But when He has a specific purpose in mind, He may act in His normal way for anyone He chooses for whatever purpose He might have and we will be caught up in the wonder of it all. If He doesn't act, [miracle] that's OK too since that's His business. Ours is to trust His person and obey His Word while living in this natural realm.

Besides...He has ALREADY performed the greatest of all miracles for us in the giving of His Son as our Salvation. Then He miraculously regenerated us, [quickened us] miraculously gifted us with faith, and miraculously birthed us into His family. ALL OTHER MIRACLES He might ever do on our behalf pale in comparison. If He NEVER does another it matters not.

We believe Him, trust Him, love Him, serve Him, and enjoy Him in a supernatural relationship while in this natural world which is also His gift to us. [As Paul said in 1 Corinthians "All things are ours."]

Third, I also see something else that is a bit of speculation on my part, I admit, but I believe it is informed speculation, as I said. That is that it could be that the DIFFERENCE in the natural realm [where we live and breath] and the supernatural realm [where God's throne is] is not one of distance but dimension.

When God sent Gabriel to Mary I don't think it was past the galaxies, stars, sun and moon to earth. I think God pulled back a veil and Gabriel stepped from the supernatural to the natural in an instant. As when Stephen was stoned he saw Jesus standing at the Throne and that without a telescope. A new realm [Dimension] was revealed to him.

Finally, remember the servant of the Old Testament prophet who was fearful of the enemy surrounding them and the prophet asked God to show him something. The veil was drawn and angels in the supernatural realm were stationed all around in the natural realm.

If departed believers are truly aware and in God's presence after death, their natural body awaiting the resurrection but their spirit with Him, they may not be way up there... but right here... though in a totally different dimension. I'm thinking the reason we can't see or communicate with them is we just don't have the equipment. [Natural people as we are.] Nor do they have the equipment [supernatural/spirit people as they are] to communicate or interact with us, unless God acts miraculously in an unveiling moment as the Mount of Transfiguration. And don't be fooled by any deceiving spirit of our enemy.

But one day when Jesus returns to this natural realm [earth] in full Glory, [manifested presence] from the supernatural realm [heaven] where He is now, this natural realm will pass away and a new heaven and new earth will appear and we will, with resurrected bodies made of heavenly material, in other words new equipment, live in the presence of God in a miraculous fashion that has become the norm.

Man...that will be the final miracle, wonder and sign. From then on that kind of thing will be the norm for all believers. What a day that will be.

Paul B.

GRADUATION DAY

2011-06-24T13:27:00.002-05:00

Here is an article my good friend Bill Gillham wrote awhile back. He has now graduated as did his wife, Anabel, a few months ago. Bill has had a tremendous impact on countless people including me. I was privileged to be the Gillhams Pastor for several years in the late seventies and early eighties at Southcliff Baptist Church in Fort Worth Texas and was always blessed when they were in the congregation as I would preach. They would both be enraptured as they would listen and follow the message in scripture. No one has ever been better fellow saints or pastor encouragers than were they to me.

As I said, Bill has graduated and joined Anabel and Mason, their son, to await family and friends left behind. Look over your shoulder Bill, I'm not too far behind.

God says in His Love Letter to us:

“You know that if the earthly tent which was our [To make it personal, substitute the pronouns with your name. I'll use my name “Bill.”] house is torn down, Bill has a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

For indeed in this house Bill groaned, longing to be clothed with his dwelling from heaven;

For indeed while Bill was in this tent, he groaned, being burdened, because he did not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”

II Corinthians 5:1-2,4

God separates Bill's “earthly tent” (or earthsuit) from the real Bill—Bill, the personality and spirit—who formerly indwelled it. Does God say Bill's earthsuit “groaned” or that “Bill groaned” inside his body? It's the latter. The true Bill is the saint who indwelled that old earthsuit that wore out like an old car.

Sometimes earthsuits, like cars, may look fine on the outside, but have vital parts that go awry. The earthsuit is somewhat similar to the booster rocket on the shuttle. When it's completed its work, it falls to the earth while the payload soars on to the target it was aimed for. The payload is the real Bill, the true Bill, the spirit-soul person who formerly indwelled the earthsuit. God uses physical death to peel away the physical husk enabling the inner spirit-critter to enjoy heaven to its fullest. I believe Bill now moves with the speed of thought, that he's no longer limited by time and space.

You and I do not fear death. We know what awaits us. We know that we have a glorious future, a glorious eternity. The thing that may bother us is the dying part, the event or perhaps the long, sometimes painful process by which we enter into God's presence. Being left behind as a loved one dies doubtless looks difficult or even frightening as is the case with any dramatically new experience. Being left behind is very unsettling. But He promises you that He will take good care of you. In fact, it is He who has been taking good care of you for all these years, even throughBill. He is faithful. He will come through on His promises to you and yours.

C.S. Lovett said that physical death is the saint's “graduation day”. Just as you and I experienced numerous emotions as we marched into the auditorium to graduate from school, we're now marching toward the halls of glory. Paul said to us, “To be absent from the [earthsuit] is to be present with the Lord” (II Corinthians 5:8). Jesus is beckoning; He and “Bill” are both saying, “You'll never believe how great this is! This is really living for the very first time!” Jesus is saying, “You've got it made. You're going to cross that stage to get your diploma, even if I have to carryyou across, but you will graduate (Philippians 1:6). Trust Me. And when you have your diploma in hand, Bill and I are going to begin explaining the glorious, active, eternity I have planned for you both” (Jeremiah 29:11, LB). On that day more than ever, we'll be dying to live.

FRIENDSHIPS

2011-06-18T06:23:00.006-05:00

Charles Colton said..."True friendship is like good health; the value of it is seldom known until it is lost." I love pithy sayings...especially when they are true. This one is.

I've thought a lot about friendships through the years. This is partly because as a pastor I was always finding people [sometimes it seemed like most of them] in the churches I pastored who wanted to be my best friend. How in the world can anyone be a best friend to everyone? In fact, can a pastor have a best friend in a congregation? Or even a real friend? These are not questions with easy answers as I found out in my own journey as a pastor.

I've come to see, in my simple way of thinking, that there may be several levels to friendships. People can be found on every level but all people WILL NEVER be found on any one level in my opinion. I want to name and describe those levels as I see them. Some are just fun and light while some are serious. All are just my simple way of thinking about the subject with no research involved.

There is the Face Book/blog level. This is where you communicate with someone you have perhaps never met but have befriended on FB or a blog. You enjoy their comments and even occasionally you enjoy writing on their Wall or blog as you follow their journey of life in writing. It's fun, informative, safe [generally] and you really do get to know a lot about some people and can count them as friends to a small degree.

I've also found that when an occasion presents itself where you meet them personally there can be an instant bond. Rex Ray and Rodney Sprayberry are two of my now personal friendships that came about in this fashion. Some people discount this level as totally unimportant, but, for me, it has been a good experience.

There is also a personal acquaintance level. This is made up of people you've met before and maybe even recognize their face when you see them again, but are unsure where you met them or how you know them or even what their name might be. You usually ask your wife, as I have on many occasions when I walk away, "Who are they?" Unfortunately, many people I pastored in forty years of pastoring fall into this category. But... they don't know it...and I don't want to tell them either. I'm too chicken to do that.

Then there IS the real friendship level. This is where you know them, relate to them, hear from them, see them occasionally, and are, generally, glad to be with them when those occasions do happen.

I say "generally" because there are exceptions. Not everyone on this level is the kind of person you completely enjoy as a friend. There are a couple of types that find their way to this level and one of those types can give you some problems. But the other is a delight.

The delightful one first. They see themselves on a level ground with you and require little maintenance. They are enjoyable, interesting, a fun person to be around and you smile big when you see them and love to catch up. This type you really view as a friend. You're there if they need you and they are there for you on occasion as well. A lot of the people in any congregation can be found here.

The other person on this level is a different story. They are high maintenance. They are always needy and looking for something that will fix their particular situation whatever that may be. It seems to always be a broken situation. They "pick your brain," so to speak, about what you think they should do about life, kids, job, health, ministry, whatever that broken situation is at the time.

This is not the kind of friend that you talk to about YOUR struggles as that would only add to their list of broken things and they would feel abandoned by the loss of your help. [We weren't really talking about your problems!!] So there is, of course, little or no regard for your struggles. There can't be. Their list is long enough already.

This person drains you quickly. You don't mind helping WHEN you can because of a desire to help WHERE you can, but, you have to guard against an unhealthy dependency that can occur and sometimes can even masquerade as Christian ministry because it makes you feel good to be someone's source for the answers to life.

But, since there is no reciprocity, you will always be the one giving to the relationship and never being replenished by it. Thus, creating an unhealthy and unwise relationship. When you are totally honest you have to admit this person wears you out and is not one you relish being around for any extended length of time if you don't play that masquerade Christianity game. Unfortunately, I've found that many church members can be found in this category particularly where a Pastor is concerned.

My final category is made up of people who are friends in the truest sense of the word. They are on the life long friendship level. This is the person who is on an equal basis with you and there is total reciprocity in the relationship.

Here is what that reciprocity looks like. You love them and they love you. You're there for them when they need you, and they for you when needed. When they fail, you don't abandon them, nor they you. You know their weaknesses and strengths and cherish both because it's who they are in their journey and you're with them in it all, and they with you.

When you are not together for some time, but then you see them, it is as though no time has gone by and there is no distance to make up in the relationship because no gap has arisen. There are no expectations about writing, calling, or a list kept of who communicated last and waiting until it's your turn.

If you want to talk you call. If you don't call they may. But no record is kept of who has or hasn't called or written. No feelings are hurt because you didn't acknowledge them in some way or think about some situation the same way as they do. You're friends and you love each other and love doesn't keep records.

You find yourself experiencing, when with them, being happy, angry, laughing, crying, agreeing, disagreeing, and a ton of other authentic emotions all with the relationship intact. In them you really have found someone who sticks "closer than a brother." They are your life long friend and will be until the day you or they die. [There may even be family members who are on this level.]

You know...while writing this I realized why my wife is my best friend and I also realized that there are a few others I count can as being life long friends.They are, indeed, a treasure.

"True friendship is like good health; the value of it is seldom known until it is lost" My wish for you is that your true friendships will prosper as does your health. Mine are and I'm thankful for His grace that allows it to be so.

Paul B.

TWO GOATS---ONE SACRIFICE

2011-06-16T06:41:00.008-05:00

Three Hebrew words are found to be translated 'pardon' or 'forgive' in the KJV of of the Old Testament. Those words are 'kipper,' [which means to cover] 'nasa,' [which means to lift up or to take away] and 'salach.' [Which means to let go.] These three words all have reference in some fashion to the mercy seat of the Tabernacle and to the idea of the atonement.

They are all three a metaphorical reference to the removal of sin. Sin is seen to be 'covered' [mercy seat] so that there is no longer a barrier to sinful man approaching and relating to holy God. Then it is seen to be 'carried away' [The Scape-Goat] so that there is no hindering offense that separates the offender from the offended One. Finally, it is 'forgiven' [The Lord's goat] so that there is no longer any wrath and death awaiting sinful man. All of these together create a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ and His work in picture form in the Old Testament as declared in Hebrews 9. What a picture it is.

Leviticus 16:7-10 is where the scape goat and the Lord's goat show vividly that picture just referenced. Aaron was to take a bullock and kill it to sprinkle blood for his and his sons purification. That was a personal thing for Aaron. But then there was the taking of two goats and a lot was cast making one the scape goat, to carry away the sins of the people, and the other was the Lord's goat, to die for the people. It is good to remember, however, that both were to be seen as ONE offering.

This is important to understand as some have tried to identify the scape goat as Satan and the sacrificed goat as the Lord. It is true the Lord's goat was slain and it's blood sprinkled on the mercy seat for the sins of the people and then the scape goat had hands laid on it as the sins of the people were confessed and the animal was released in the wilderness. But the scape goat pictures our Lord as our sins were IMPUTED to Him and were "carried away" from us as He bore them on our behalf. Our sin has been lifted from us and carried away to be remembered against us no more.

Remember that the first goat had already been killed and it's blood had been taken and sprinkled upon the mercy seat for the sins of the people. Thus the penalty was paid. After all, the wages of sin IS death. God cannot simply send our sins away without a just consequence being seen. Death.

It is a double picture then as the scape goat reveals that the Lord Jesus carried our sin away but the Lord's goat pictures the Lord Jesus dying on our behalf. Sin IS removed from us but it is at a high cost to Someone and we know who that Someone is don't we!!

So the blood, having been sprinkled on the mercy seat enabled sinful man to approach holy God because their sins have been covered, [kipper] and the scape goat shows that any barrier those sins might have created had been taken away. [nasa] On top of all that their failure was not remembered against them any more. [salach] That is to be REALLY forgiven.

So we can now forget the rituals, the sacrifices, the animals, the tabernacle or the Temple, as those were only pictures. We can now speak and sing of our LORD JESUS CHRIST who is the revealed truth about our sin being covered, lifted up, and carried away. All of the Old covenant was the message of the New Covenant in picture form. That picture is now reality in our Lord.

Just another picture of our Lord from the Old Testament. They just keep pointing us to Him don't they!!

Paul B.

RAISING CAIN

2011-06-11T06:56:00.003-05:00

The promise of a coming Savior was given early on in the drama of the temptation and sin thing that happened with Adam and Eve. Interestingly, the first promise of help was given in the context of a curse being put upon the offending serpent. It reads this way..."And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between her seed and thy seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." [ Genesis 3:14-15]

This is not simply a statement of some kind of hostility that would exist between snakes and people but does, albeit in cryptic language, speak of a strife that will be between Christ and Satan and a final triumph of the former over the latter.

How much Adam and Eve understood of it all may be up for discussion to be sure, but that there was a measure of comprehension is clear from the language in the following verses. It is pointed out by James P. Boyce in his work entitled "Abstract of Systematic Theology" that Eve, at least, associated Jehovah and His promise with the birth of Cain. Boyce says this, "Now the record taken in it's strictest grammatical interpretation teaches not only that the promised seed had become a ground of hope for the woman, but that she had learned to associate with him who was to be the antagonist of the serpent the name of Jehovah Himself." [P-260]

Boice then gives an elaborate and interesting word study that winds up with his showing that Eve thought Cain was, in fact, that Jehovah man-child as he gives a well researched documentation of the language that shows her statement was a statement that said, "I have obtained a man JEHOVAH." In other words, she thought her child Cain was Jehovah come in human form. He wasn't. But that child did ultimately come and the heel-bruising of the seed of woman and head-crushing of the seed of the serpent did occur. We know it as the work of the Cross on our behalf.

I think interpretive honesty and our knowledge of Christ allows us to admit that Eve was incorrect in her assumption that Cain WAS that seed promised. But nothing in the language of scripture ever states that she was correct in that assumption either. Her belief that the promised seed would be Jehovah in human form doing battle on her behalf against sin and it's sources and consequences was ultimately brought to pass however. As stated before, it is the work of the Christ of the Cross and that is the message of the gospel.

This is another simple view of Christ presented in the Old Testament much as we saw last time that He can be seen in the garments worn by the High Priest, Aaron, and his sons, the priests.

I love to reflect on how the whole of scripture is a tale of Christ and His accomplishing the work of redemption.

Paul B.

A COAT WORTH WEARING

2011-06-06T11:11:00.003-05:00

When Adam and Eve sinned God did a gracious thing for them immediately. Genesis 3:21 says it this way, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." The word 'coats' is "Kethoneths" which has a double meaning of "to cover or to hide." Adam had already tried to do both on his own when he and Eve sewed fig leaves together and hid from God in the bushes. You see, Adam and Eve had a duel problem of guilt and shame but couldn't take care of their problem by self effort any more than can we.

But God graciously did the necessary hiding and covering of their guilt and shame with the "coats of skins" according to Gen. 3:21. It is significant to remember that the word "skins" in the KJV is plural, but in the original it was singular. This is important, perhaps, because, as C. W. Slemming says, "This suggests that one sacrifice was sufficient for both."

It is also significant to remember that this is the first example of a" Kethoneth" needed to cover man's sin and to hide man's shame. It wasn't a Botany 500 [the best suit back in my day of buying suits] that Adam now wore, but it sure was a fine garment of a totally different nature for both he and his wife.

The first High Priest for Israel was another example of wearing a wonderful garment. It was a "coat" [there's that word kethoneth again] made of "fine linen" according to Exodus 18:39. Aaron, the High Priest, wore it as an inner garment but his sons, the Priests, wore it as their only garment. [Plus the Priestly girdle, bonnet etc.]

With this coat the High Priest and the Priests were sufficiently covered so they could minister in the Tabernacle itself. Then, on that wonderful day of Atonement, the High Priest would by himself, take in the blood of the lamb, sprinkle it on the mercy seat, which covered the law that was in the Ark of the covenant, and sinful man had an audience with God. More than an audience...man had relationship with God.

We know the blood speaks of His sacrifice for us on the Cross. He gave His life on our behalf. But often forgotten is the righteousness that is His which is imputed to us by Grace. You see that "coat of linen" speaks of our guilt and shame being hidden once and for all. Isaiah foretold of it with these words, "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God: for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness..." [Isaiah 61:10]

I'm sure we all agree that Righteousness was the foundation of everything Christ was and did. But our claim to being righteous is of a different nature. It is not our own. It is a righteousness given to us by Him. So our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is righteous in His very character, [As shown by the inner garment of the High Priest] is willing that His righteousness become imputed to us. [As shown by the outer garment of the Priests.] All this so that we are, in fact, clothed with His Righteousness, because we are washed in His blood, and as Adam pictured, we are free from EVER being seen in our guilt and shame.

Not a botany 500 by any means. Far better than that. Our garment is a permanent covering. THAT, my friend, is GRACE.

Paul B.

MINISTERING TOGETHER

2011-06-01T06:10:00.008-05:00

Without question, every believer, regardless of age or gender, is a priest and has something to offer in service to our Lord.

F.F. Bruce says it this way...“Christianity is sacrificial through and through; it is founded on the one self-offering of Christ, and the offering of His people’s praise and property, of their service and their lives, and all are caught up into the perfection of His acceptable sacrifice, and are accepted in Him.”

So no one has any reason to doubt that they have been called to a ministry in the body of Christ. To every believer grace has been given for service to the Lord. The scripture says it this way, “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.” (Eph. 4:7)

So, in Christ, every Christian is a son or daughter of God, clothed in Christ’s righteousness, and all Christians come to God the Father directly. As a royal priesthood, we then serve God in gratitude for our salvation all of our life. We are anointed by the Holy Spirit and we are to function in the body under Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King.

This means that all Christians are free from any tyranny or bondage of any mediating priest, minister, pastor, reverend, bishop, or spouse. We are to recognize Jesus Christ alone as our Mediator and High Priest whose sacrifice alone has ushered us into God’s presence.

Sacrificial service to God then comes from an enlightenment we get from a studied Scripture and we all are empowered by the Holy Spirit to minister within and for the good of the whole of Christ’s Church. Such is the great ministry of every believer within the Church.

I think it may be time that we admit as Baptists that the ministry of the church is not a "one-man ministry" or even a "man" ministry. Everyone is a priest. Everyone is graced. Everyone is gifted. And everyone is to serve out of that gifting and grace.

A New Testament congregation may be like the orchestras Mary and I saw this past year in the Edmond Culture Center that made such beautiful music. Each orchestra was made up of many instruments and in the warmups when each was warming up with little or no regard for the others and it was a cacophony of confusion and disorder. But let the Conductor step to the podium and raise his baton and begin his leading and what beautiful music was heard.

Similarly, a local congregation can be one characterized by confusion and disorder when left to each one with no regard for the others. Our mistake, however, is in thinking order comes by elevating one man [a pastor] or one group [deacons or men only] into the conducting of affairs of the church with no real regard for all the others.

The resulting tragedy is that the typical congregation finds itself robbed of "each one ministering" as they are gifted to help build up the body and the majority of the members wind up being spectators. Or...they are consigned to working in an organization with little or no ability to impact anyone other than an assigned small group based on age and gender.

Don't hear me knocking present day Christianity with a negative spirit or condescending attitude. You would be mistaken on both counts. I love and appreciate people where they are and I also minister among those people that I love and appreciate multiple times a year in conferences and meetings as well as in my own local fellowship.

My words here are not the ravings of an angry and frustrated preacher or Christian. They are the honest words of evaluation about us all and a stated longing for what could be in the Body of Christ if we were willing and able to yield to the Holy Spirit in fresh ways with a greater desire for something that cannot be explained in terms of human control, manipulation, or methods born out of pragmatism.

Think about what would happen if the Holy Spirit were really free to raise His baton and make music through any person He chose to in harmony with all the others in a congregation.

I think the resulting spiritual music would likely be far from the institutional and organizational chaos and deadness that we wind up with generally because of our fear of being "out of control" of where things might go if no one person or group is in charge.

It is this loss of the reality of the Spirit's life and direction that plagues us in the modern day church IMHO. The ultimate result is the loss of the giftedness of men and women from whom the whole body would benefit.

As a royal priesthood, then, it is my fervent prayer that we will learn to live and serve together with no regard to age or gender under the true leadership of the Spirit. What music we could make together

Paul B.

MEMORIAL DAY---REMEMBERING

2011-05-29T12:42:00.000-05:00

I, and I'm sure you are with me on this, hate war. There are those who cause it, debate it, declare it, and struggle with making sure we are as a nation are in just wars. But the fact is, it is the heroes of the Armed services who have to fight it. They ultimately pay the price for our freedom as a nation.

As an American citizen I have my personal opinion about the wars we fight and whether they are being fought for the right reasons or not and even whether they are being fought in the right way. But those who are responsible for doing the fighting are to be appreciated and honored, in my humble opinion, by all of us who stay behind and argue the justice or the rightness of war.

I want to use one such warrior as a point of reference for this particular Memorial Day. I do not know him, nor do I know the older veteran who embraced him that day in Dallas when this picture was taken, but it is now one of my favorite pictures of all time.

Marine Staff Sargent Mark Graunke Jr. was a member of an EOD team [ Explosive Ordinance Disposal] in the summer of 2003 in Karbala. He, another Marine, and an Iraqi EOD team member were piling up some mines for disposal. It was later recorded that as the EOD team was prepping the pile one of the mines detonated. It killed the Iraqi and the other Marine and severely wounded Staff sargent Graunke. He lost a hand, a leg and an eye. Graunke later said after arriving to a hero's welcome at home, “Although my Marine Corps career as an EOD technician is over, I am ready and willing to confront the challenges that civilian life has to offer. We say in the Marine Corps, ‘Improvise, Adapt and Overcome,’ and that is what I will do."

As I said, this picture is one of my very favorites. The older man is Houston James, a Pearl Harbor Survivor from Dallas, who spontaneously embraced Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during a past Veterans Day commemoration in Dallas. This picture was taken by the Dallas Morning News and shows the span of time and conflicts that as a Nation we have had to endure. These two men, and those who DID NOT come home, show us freedom is not free. It has a price someone pays. Let's remember them on this Memorial Day 2011.

FIFTY-TWO YEARS AND COUNTING

2011-05-25T10:50:00.000-05:00

It was on May 28th in 1959, fifty-two years ago this coming Saturday, that Mary Cherry was willing to become my wife. We have spent the years learning to be what we had been declared to be on that day. it has been quite a journey. The learning isn't over yet because the journey isn't. I wouldn't trade these years or the learning for anything in this world. I thought I'd share some of my favorite pictures of the two of us together in celebration..

This first picture is when it all started. The second one just below is one of the resulting four kids and their spouses at our 50th anniversary which they put together for us. Left to right you can see Wade & Rachelle, Cherri & Mike, M&P, Melody & Tony,and Brett & Kelly.

The final picture below is simply my favorite picture taken in my favorite place with my favorite person showing us as our older, casual, temerarious, fun-loving selves in the present day.

So I will simply wish another "HAPPY ANNIVERSARY" to my wife, Mary. [AKA 'beautiful.]

What follows is a poem I wrote a while back celebrating our years together. I tried to be real, truthful, and celebratory of all the good and the bad because I wouldn't have missed either. Mary and I recognize both are part of any relationship and we've learned from both together. But that's just us, isn't it beautiful!!

But that's just us isn't it!!

We've had so many times that were good

And some that we'd have to call bad.

Sometimes we've been very happy

And sometimes we've been somewhat sad.

But that's just us isn't it!!

We've shared life's deeper joys

Mixing love and care in special ways.

At times we saw our world fall apart

then find each other anew in those painful days.

But that's just us isn't it!!

We learned some new ways to care

Such as hearing each other's deepest dreams.

And hearing the sad, tearful crying of one of us

When no one else was listening it seems.

But that's just us isn't it!!

There were shadows as black as night

That sometimes blocked my view.

But a gentle light would often disperse them

And that light seemed to come from inside you

But that's just us isn't it!!

Strength we'd find and we'd give to each other

When we knew that brave we'd have to be.

It took it all plus the Grace of God

To face some moments that came to you and me.

But that's just us isn't!!

So joys and struggles were friends it seems

As we've lived out our years of marriage.

It was always the two of them

And neither would we dare disparage.

But that's just us isn't it!!

Now we see it was a truly precious gift

When He merged our roads making one from two.

So these words are a way of my saying to Him

A sincere, heartfelt and simple, "thank You."

But that's just us isn't it!!

THE NEW COVENANT

2011-05-23T09:04:00.002-05:00

We have had a lot of discussion about the law in our last post. I thought I would give you an outline of a message I brought to Wade's fellowship over four years ago in a series of messages he asked me to do in conference style entitled..."What I wish I'd known forty years ago." This particular message was entitled, "The New Covenant." It is ONLY an outline but presents my thinking on the subject. Enjoy it, use it, reject it, whatever you choose. It's my studied opinion only.

WHAT I WISH I’D KNOWN FORTY YEARS AGO

“I Believe in the New Covenant”

Texts:“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Hebrews 9:15
“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14

I. The Covenant of “the Law”

Exodus 34:27-28 - “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

The Covenant of “the Law” . . .

1. Was made with Israel specifically, and

2. It was based on law or performance

What does the Covenant of 'the Law' say? “If you” keep the Law, “then I, the Lord, will bless you.”
“If you don’t” keep the Law, “then I, the Lord, won’t or can’t bless you.”

Israel failed to keep the law. The sacrificial system was established, including the Temple and the sacrifices and the priesthood to point Israel, in picture form, to a coming Messiah/Redeemer.

This first covenant, or Covenant of 'the Law' has been viewed.....

1. By Dispensationalists: As set aside for the church age, but there is coming for Israel in the future a new land, and a new Temple, and a new peacel.
2. By Reformed Covenant Theologians: As part of the one Covenant of Grace -- the only eternal covenant. The covenant of 'law,' and all other covenants, are simply different administrations of this one, eternal Covenant of Grace.

I disagree with both Dispensationists and Reformed Covenant Theologians. Here's why.....

II. The New Covenant

2 Corinthians 3:6 - “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 - “But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”
Hebrews 10:9 - “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The Old Covenant had a Mediator - Moses.
The New Covenant has a NEW Mediator - Christ.

The Old Covenant had a High Priest -Aaron.
The New Covenent has a NEW High Priest - Christ

The Old Covenant had a sacrifice of goats & calves.
The New Covenant has a NEW sacrifice - Christ

The Old Covenant had a Temple - in Jerusalem.
The New Covenant has a NEW Temple - Christ in me.

The Old Covenant had a Law Giver - Moses. "If you obey..then I am free to bless.."
The New Covenant has a NEW Law Giver - Christ: “Hear ye Him” "I have..you're free to obey.."

The New Covenant is Christocentric:

“Love”- “as I have loved you” and “Forgive”- “as you have been forgiven”

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 -“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

I do not hold to a Reformed Covental Theology because:

1. There is no mention of a covenant as pre-existing; covenants relate to time only, and

2. Covenants are also plural in Scripture, not singular.

Romans 9:4 - “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.”
Ephesians 2:12 - “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the COVENANTS of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

"Why is this so important that I wish I had known it 40 years ago?

1. It completely changes my view of the cross

The cross did…redeem me
The cross did…sanctify me
The cross did…glorify me

All the lambs of the Old Covenant were a picture leading to the final Lamb of God.
There are no lists needed to perform in order to get His blessings...

"We have already been blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus."

2. It completely changes my view of the law

The Law [Ten Commandments] was a “school teacher” to bring Israel to the need of a Messiah.

When the Messiah came He fulfilled the law of Moses which had brought condemnation not life.

We, the church, have a new Law-giver -- Christ Himself." Hear ye Him."

He has established His own Law which is the expression of new life in Him.

We would no more go back to living by the 10 commandments than we would go back to offering lambs once a year.

Their purpose and need have been fulfilled "in Christ."

3. It completely changes my view of living

All of life is … now a gift … and is sacred … and is to be lived ... as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving … because of His grace given in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Every day is truly a Sabbath day as we rest in His grace and live by His law written in our

hearts FROM a place of acceptance rather than FOR a place of acceptance.

Paul B.

AM I ANTINOMIAN?

2011-05-19T13:26:00.003-05:00

I'm sometimes accused of being antinomian.

The word antinomian is not generally used outside theological circles and would not find much interest in theological circles were it not for some, myself included, who do not believe that the law of Moses found in the Old Testament does NOT retain any definitive purpose or delivering power in the life of a New Covenant believer.

In simple language, the Law of Moses is not the tool used by the Holy Spirit to bring about practical sanctification in the life of a Christian. At least so believes those who are often, as I said, labeled antinomian. [Meaning no law or against the law.]

Someone will perhaps ask.."Brother Paul, are you saying that you believe the ten commandments are no longer binding on Christians today?"

My answer to that question is yes. That's exactly what I believe. I hold to the view that a Christians sanctification or growth in grace is brought about by the direct work of the Holy Spirit and His tool is simply the Gospel of Justification by Grace through faith in Christ and an ever increasing knowledge of Christ as our life. ["You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free."]

My word that this is so will not be, nor should it be, sufficient for anyone. That will take your own study. So the point of this post is a simple statement as to what I believe about the Law of Moses and its' relationship to the present day believer with a small amount of why this is so. The full why I believe this would take many words and will have to come later.

I believe the ten commandments are not binding on believers today because...

One...The law of Moses is unique to the covenant God established with Israel. That law cannot legitimately be divided biblically into three parts, Civil, ceremonial and moral, which has to be done if you try to make the ten commandments continue to have authority. You can't pick and choose which parts of the law continue. It's all the law or none of the law.

Two...I don't hold to a one covenant of Grace concept with two administrations made up of the Old Testament and the New Testament which most Reformed theologians try to do. My personal understanding of the covenant concept is, since Romans 9:4 speaks of several covenants that pertain to Israel and, since I believe all the covenants are fulfilled in Christ, I hold to a New Covenant that has been established based on who Christ is as the new Prophet, Priest, King, Covenant ratifier and Law giver.

So, in my view, there was never just two covenants nor was there ever just one covenant with two administrations. [The Old and the New] There were, in fact, many covenants made with Israel with all of them being fulfilled through the establishment of the New Covenant made by Christ and ratified by His blood. This is the clear message of the book of Hebrews.

Three...There are familiar ideas, concepts and even words used in the New Covenant that sound something like what can be found in the other covenants but their value is not because they were in the Old and carry over, but because they are, in fact, part of the New covenant given by the New covenant maker and law giver, Christ Jesus. ["This is my beloved Son..hear ye Him."]

It would be a lot like a Church developing a new constitution and by-laws. Some of the language of the old constitution and it's by-laws might re-appear in the new but it is valid because it is in the new, not because it's in the old, since the old constitution no longer applies. [I read that illustration somewhere and really liked it.]

But does this mean there is no law in the New Covenant? Hardly! As I said, He is the new Law-giver and whatever He says goes. I'll close with a quote from Wade Burleson in a thing he said about this subject which makes it quite clear...

"The Apostle Paul was often accused of being antinomian. Some in Rome called him this. A few in Galatia did also. In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the Jerusalem church leaders "have been told that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake the law of Moses, and that you tell them to not circumcise their children or observe other laws." Then, some leaders in Corinth were alarmed by Paul's teaching that led people away from observing rituals [feasts, new moon celebrations, Sabbath observance, etc...] and other Mosaic laws."

"In response to their charge of antinomianism Paul writes, "To those not having the law [Gentiles] I became like one not having the law [though I am not free from God's law but under Christ's law], so as to win those not having the law." The expression translated "I am not free from god's law but am under Christ's law" is a peculiar phrase in the original Greek and can be literally rendered, "I am not lawless toward God, but I am inlawed to Christ."

"Inlawed to Christ." Wow. That is a powerful phrase. It means you [as a christian] are wed to Christ and all the benefits and protection of perfect obedience and righteousness are yours because of Christ's obedience. You reap what you have not sown; you reap what HE has sown. You are a co-heir with Christ, a child of God, and forever blessed because you are 'inlawed to Him' "

Hear what Wade is saying. Whatever we have, it is His that becomes ours. He is our righteousness, our sanctification, our life. Nothing pertaining to Moses is our standard for performance. Not the feast days, the offerings, or even the law. We have a new relationship. We have a new Prophet, Priest and King, and even a new law-giver. In Christ the Old IS gone and the NEW has arrived. Our law is given by Him, written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit and the New Testament is the record of what He has said.

We are NOT under the Law of Moses in ANY fashion. We truly are under grace.

Am I antinomian? By no means. By His Grace, I have a new law-giver and a new law.

Paul B.

REALITY CHECK

2011-05-17T05:39:00.003-05:00

My wife Mary has a blog. I would like to share her post about a friend with you. Enjoy.
http://rebel4reality.blogspot.com/

GOING ON TO MATURITY

2011-05-13T14:30:00.000-05:00

Immaturity can be a major problem in life no matter one's age. An immature individual has a great deal of trouble accepting personal responsibility for any situation or the development of any relationship. This is generally because of their tendency to think that the whole world revolves around their desires and needs. Immaturity is the present day plague of marriages, churches, politics and our culture in general, IMHO.

I think the overriding characteristic of immaturity very well may be the often accepted, albeit naive, idea that life is intended to be an experience of unending happiness. Unless our circumstances and relationships in life produce that happiness, we assume they are defective and must be changed. [The reverse is also immaturity, namely, that life is never to be happy and there is always only pain and suffering. But that's another blog post.]

We have, as a culture, even bought into the idea that growing old must be pleasant and produce happiness or somehow we have missed out on life as it was intended to be. So sometimes people place unrealistic expectations on themselves as they grow older that leave them searching for people, things, and experiences that they think will somehow help attain their goal of happiness . It doesn't happen, but they keep trying.

They can become obsessed with a hunger for looks and a body that may indicate, more than anything else, a vain effort to hide from the inevitability of age. This can even lead to multiple surgeries for some because they believe by doing so, they can hold back the aging process. That self centered searching renders them incapable of real life at all. No one is more miserable than an older person who believes happiness has passed them by and refuses to look or act their age.

So may I say it? If personal happiness is your goal in life, I think it is time to grow up and leave such immaturity far behind... whatever your age. Happiness is, in fact, a by-product of what real life is all about and in some strange way, if personal happiness becomes one's primary focus in life, it becomes so elusive it may never be experienced at all.

This is nowhere more obvious than when happiness is associated with "being in love." Marriages suffer greatly unless those involved realize that true marriage is not about "being in love." [happy] It is learning to love one another. Love is an active, transitive verb. An active transitive verb simply means that the word expresses a doable activity and has a direct object that receives the action of that verb. I paint a picture. That sentence shows the meaning well.

So, to say a man loves his wife means he is committed to being involved in some healthy expression towards her in their marriage relationship. His goal in life isn't her making him happy or even him making her happy. It is his being something to her. Love is something mature grownups do no matter the inconvenience of things, the failure of people or the feelings that often have to be fought through. Truly loving others defines and illustrates true maturity.

Don't for a minute think I'm advocating a philosophy that produces a skepticism of pleasure and enjoyment that ultimately creates a stoic realist about life. And I'm certainly far from being cynical about growing older. Not at all. What I am doing however, is attempting to remind us all that true pleasure comes from a refusal to treat one's personal needs and one's own happiness as the highest priority in life.

It is a fact that the fallen world is often difficult and life doesn't always leave us with a lightheartedness that produces giggles like those coming from a little school girl or boy. It can be hard and burdensome even discouraging.

That being so, to enjoy the true pleasure of life, we must view it with maturity. We must grow up. Selfishness always strips life of any true pleasure unless there is an absence of pain which, unfortunately, never happens. But self-giving love always enriches a life no matter circumstances that can sometimes produce an onslaught of pain or heartache for any one of us.

Jesus is our Pioneer in this kind of life and, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul the Apostle tells us of our guide to Christlikeness. "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you must not look only to your own interests but also to the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" [Philippians 2:3-5]

My personal prayer for us all echos the words of the writer of Hebrews..."May we all go on to maturity."

vtmbottomline

MOVING CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

OUR LORD'S VIEW OF WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP

THE BAG LADY

FINAL RANDOM THOUGHTS....I PROMISE.

FROM THE RANDOM THOUGHTS CATEGORY....AGAIN

FROM THE RANDOM THOUGHTS CATEGORY

THIS ILLUSIVE, INCREDIBLE, THING CALLED UNITY

THIS GIRDLE IS NOT FOR GIRTH

FOREVER CHANGING FORMS

THE HIATUS IS OVER AND I'M BACK TO BLOGGING IN 2012

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM VTM AND PAUL BURLESON

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2011

A WORD TOO IMPORTANT TO MISS

VINTAGE FRANK VIOLA VIA WADE BURLESON

FOUR SHIFTS CONCLUDED

FOUR SHIFTS....CON'T

I'm still off writing for awhile. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy someone who is on target with his writing. Jon Zens, my friend, is one of those. I'll post the four shifts fully explained next time.

Four Tragic Shifts In The Visible Church180-400 A. D.

by Jon Zens

A BRIEF HIATUS

MISTAKES MODERN MINISTERS MAKE--PART 11

MISTAKES MADE BY MODERN MINISTERS--PART 1

SPEAKING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AGAIN

ON BEING REAL

SAYING WHAT WE MEAN AND MEANING WHAT WE SAY.

HAVE WE LOST THE GOSPEL?

CAN I REALLY BELIEVE THAT AND BE A BAPTIST?

A FRAIL ATTEMPT TO MEET HEAD-ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN TO MINISTRY QUESTION

WHAT DOES A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH LOOK LIKE?

REUNION RETREAT REFLECTIONS

A REVIEW OF...BLOGGING 101

WORKING TOGETHER AS STAFF WITH DIFFERING OPINIONS ON NON-ESSENTIALS

AN APT ILLUSTRATION OF A FIFTY-FOUR YEAR RELATIONSHIP

CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CULTURE

A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

THE MAKING OF A MIRACLE

GRADUATION DAY

FRIENDSHIPS

TWO GOATS---ONE SACRIFICE

RAISING CAIN

A COAT WORTH WEARING

MINISTERING TOGETHER

MEMORIAL DAY---REMEMBERING

FIFTY-TWO YEARS AND COUNTING

THE NEW COVENANT

AM I ANTINOMIAN?

REALITY CHECK

GOING ON TO MATURITY

Four Tragic Shifts In The Visible Church
180-400 A. D.