FOREVER CHANGING FORMS

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

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

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

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