I'm continuing in my "favorites" for the summer thing. This post has drawn more total e-mails, post comments, and phone calls than any I've EVER done. Interesting!! I've added some emphasis and clarity at certain points but the post is basically unchanged.
-------------------------------------------------------------
January 2007
Authority in a local church is a much debated and, as I've discovered of late, a much misunderstood concept. I want to make several personal observations about the biblical understanding of authority in a local fellowship as I see it.
First, there is only one head of the Church/churches and all authority has been given to Him. If anyone ever assumes authority because of their person or position they are usurping the authority of the Head. There IS only ONE Head of the Church after all and that is Jesus Christ our Lord. [Eph. 4:5,15]
Second, the Head of the Body [Christ] has given an authoritative Word to all the members of the Body. [Universal or local] The Old and New Testaments are that inspired Word with New Covenant people in-particularly bound to the New Testament writings. [Heb. 1:2, Acts 18:28]
Third, all believers are responsible to the Head individually and have a responsibility to each other as members of each other in the body. [Rom. 14:4, Eph. 5:21]
Fourth, all believers are priests and are gifted to minister. Therefore all must take their place among the body members to minister for the good of all. [1 Corinth. 12-14]
Fifth, there are certain gifted ones [both men and women] who become a gift to the body in a unique way. The purpose of these people/gifts is to equip all for ministry. [Eph. 4:11-12]
Sixth, there is no emphasis in the New Testament on "authority" that is derived from an "office." The King James version translates the word "office" in Rom. 11:13, 12:4, and 1Tim 3:1. But in Rom. 11:13 it is the word "diakonia" or "service." In 12:4 it is "praxis" or "action/function." While in 1 Tim. 3:1 "office" is not in the text at all. The verse simply says in the original "if anyone aspires to oversight."[Episkope]
Authority is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries given by the Holy Spirit to and through people. In one sense the entire body shares authority. [Eph. 5:21, 1Peter 5:5] This means we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experience in the Lord and we choose to serve/submit because the Holy Spirit has placed some of them as gifts and has anointed the ministries of those gifts. That is the key to understanding Pastors/Elders and their function. No one has authority BECAUSE they have a stronger personality, knows more Bible, or they hold an office. That is foreign to the New Testament. Remember, even Paul the Apostle had to defend his Apostleship by virtue of it being the work of the Spirit setting him aside for it.
1Tim. 5:17 speaks of those Elders that "give oversight well"...."are worthy of double honor." It is that "give oversight well" that is the reason for any authority. We define it as Holy Spirit anointing. In other words, the anointing of the Spirit makes clear the authority that rests on a ministry done well, not the office holder.
Conclusions...
I think we can conclude in all of this that a "one man show" is completely foreign to the New Testament. It may be traditionally Southern Baptist at least over the past one hundred years but It just isn't the New Testament pattern at all.
Further, submission is to be given to any of those who "serve" the body well, whatever area of "service" that might be and regardless of "gender." [Some people believe that the Spirit will never place a woman in the ministry of Pastor/Elder and the BF@M concurs with that. But whether that is true or not, and I have my own views about it, "authority" and "submission" are not "gender based" in the New covenant but "Holy Spirit ministry" based. No one is to be a leader by saying "I'm the Pastor/Elder" or "I have a Seminary degree" or I'm a man."]
Finally, servanthood is the "badge" of Christian living and is to be the overriding characteristic of body-life. If God's people are to ever reflect the biblical relationship of Body/local body to the Head and members to one another as members, servanthood is essential. So the rule of church life is really to be the Headship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, and each member contributing with giftedness and edifying each other in the process.
Set up any system you wish, any format you desire, any procedure you choose to carry out business, but function under the anointing of the Spirit and serve one another. This must not be theory but practice if we are to reflect the reality of Christ to a lost world in need of the gospel. Check any leadership by this standard if you want authority to be biblical in church life.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM
I'm not a political animal. That being true, I like to find people who know more about political issues than do I and are able to talk about them better than can I. So here goes.
But first there is a need to understand that I'm presenting this simply as an American citizen concerned about the country I love NOT as a preacher. I don't often speak on political issues much less write on them but believe this is one time I should.
In our present crisis economically as a nation there is much political talk about the good/bad aspects of government intervention in the business life of America. Most agree that it is a move toward socialism albeit some say to only a small degree. Besides, they would say, what's wrong with that?
Some people would argue that socialism helps the poor while others would argue it is anti-American and destructive. Those who view socialism favorably would argue against capitalism because they say it favors the rich and is therefore more destructive than socialism.
I don't really know what to say. I do know what I intuitively think but would not be the best in stating why I think it because of the truth of the first five words of the body of this post.
But I did find this fellow who said something I think is worth hearing. [Obviously it rings my intuitive bell.] Below is a portion of a speech given by Michael Novak on the Virtue of Capitalism. The full speech can be found here...http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402180913.asp.
As you read this I want to say that I desire for it to simply add to the discussion of where we are as a nation and where we perhaps need to be. It's political but we CAN have a civil discussion about things of this nature as well as theology I believe. At least I hope so. What do YOU think?
------------------------------------------------------------
Wealth @ Virtue--A Moral Case For Capitalism... given in Sri Lanka on January 11 2004 by Michael Novak.
"It is not difficult to understand why the practical case for capitalism is easy to grasp. No other system so rapidly raises up the living standards of the poor, so thoroughly improves the conditions of life, or generates greater social wealth and distributes it more broadly. [Than does capitalism]
In the long competition of the last 100 years, neither socialist nor third-world experiments have performed as well in improving the lot of common people, paid higher wages, and more broadly multiplied liberties and opportunities.
This point needs elaboration since, in Marxist analysis, the only beneficiaries of capitalism are said to be the rich. In actual fact, it is the poor who gain most from capitalism. [Italics mine] That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries. That is why my own grandparents (and scores of millions of others) left Europe for America. They sought opportunity, and they found it. Desperately poor on their arrival (just before 1900), they lived to own their own homes, watching their children and grandchildren advancing in income and education. "Give me your tired, your poor. . ." the Statue of Liberty beckoned to the world; and nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor. Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four). That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. In 1990, 38 percent of the American poor owned their own homes; 95 percent of the poor had their own television sets; and a poor American was more likely to own an automobile than the average Western European.
Today, the percentage of the American poor who own their own homes has climbed from 38 to 46 percent; more than half own two or more color televisions; almost two-thirds have cable or "dish" TV; three-quarters have a VCR or DVD player. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more. Beyond the poor, half of all families have incomes above $50,000 per year. About 20 percent have incomes above $91,000 per year.
It is sometimes suggested that American blacks are poor. But in the year 2002, 24 percent were poor; over 75 percent were not poor. Half of all black married couple households had incomes over $52,000 per year. The total income of America's 26 million blacks over the age of 15 came to $650 billion in 2002. This is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of all but 15 nations.
This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America (or other capitalist countries) is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor. To an amazing extent, it does do this. [Italics mine.] I would bet you that the great majority of Americans can remember when their families were poor, two or three generations ago; but they are not poor today.
In the nations of Western Europe and in Japan, the case is similar. So also in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly capitalist countries. Measure capitalism by how well it raises up the poor. That is the test it is designed to meet. Look around the world and see."
Interesting.
Paul B.
But first there is a need to understand that I'm presenting this simply as an American citizen concerned about the country I love NOT as a preacher. I don't often speak on political issues much less write on them but believe this is one time I should.
In our present crisis economically as a nation there is much political talk about the good/bad aspects of government intervention in the business life of America. Most agree that it is a move toward socialism albeit some say to only a small degree. Besides, they would say, what's wrong with that?
Some people would argue that socialism helps the poor while others would argue it is anti-American and destructive. Those who view socialism favorably would argue against capitalism because they say it favors the rich and is therefore more destructive than socialism.
I don't really know what to say. I do know what I intuitively think but would not be the best in stating why I think it because of the truth of the first five words of the body of this post.
But I did find this fellow who said something I think is worth hearing. [Obviously it rings my intuitive bell.] Below is a portion of a speech given by Michael Novak on the Virtue of Capitalism. The full speech can be found here...http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402180913.asp.
As you read this I want to say that I desire for it to simply add to the discussion of where we are as a nation and where we perhaps need to be. It's political but we CAN have a civil discussion about things of this nature as well as theology I believe. At least I hope so. What do YOU think?
------------------------------------------------------------
Wealth @ Virtue--A Moral Case For Capitalism... given in Sri Lanka on January 11 2004 by Michael Novak.
"It is not difficult to understand why the practical case for capitalism is easy to grasp. No other system so rapidly raises up the living standards of the poor, so thoroughly improves the conditions of life, or generates greater social wealth and distributes it more broadly. [Than does capitalism]
In the long competition of the last 100 years, neither socialist nor third-world experiments have performed as well in improving the lot of common people, paid higher wages, and more broadly multiplied liberties and opportunities.
This point needs elaboration since, in Marxist analysis, the only beneficiaries of capitalism are said to be the rich. In actual fact, it is the poor who gain most from capitalism. [Italics mine] That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries. That is why my own grandparents (and scores of millions of others) left Europe for America. They sought opportunity, and they found it. Desperately poor on their arrival (just before 1900), they lived to own their own homes, watching their children and grandchildren advancing in income and education. "Give me your tired, your poor. . ." the Statue of Liberty beckoned to the world; and nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor. Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four). That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. In 1990, 38 percent of the American poor owned their own homes; 95 percent of the poor had their own television sets; and a poor American was more likely to own an automobile than the average Western European.
Today, the percentage of the American poor who own their own homes has climbed from 38 to 46 percent; more than half own two or more color televisions; almost two-thirds have cable or "dish" TV; three-quarters have a VCR or DVD player. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more. Beyond the poor, half of all families have incomes above $50,000 per year. About 20 percent have incomes above $91,000 per year.
It is sometimes suggested that American blacks are poor. But in the year 2002, 24 percent were poor; over 75 percent were not poor. Half of all black married couple households had incomes over $52,000 per year. The total income of America's 26 million blacks over the age of 15 came to $650 billion in 2002. This is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of all but 15 nations.
This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America (or other capitalist countries) is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor. To an amazing extent, it does do this. [Italics mine.] I would bet you that the great majority of Americans can remember when their families were poor, two or three generations ago; but they are not poor today.
In the nations of Western Europe and in Japan, the case is similar. So also in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other newly capitalist countries. Measure capitalism by how well it raises up the poor. That is the test it is designed to meet. Look around the world and see."
Interesting.
Paul B.
Monday, July 27, 2009
ICE CREAM IS SOUL FOOD
This is another post which is among my personal favorites that I've chosen to put up this summer. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. It was first posted on 2/24/07.
"I read the following and was smitten by it so much that I wanted to put it on my blog as a post. I do so with the permission of Charles Roberts who hosts the blog uniquely called "The Blog Itch." It's a play on "scratching where people itch" in discussing things and he does it well, scratching where I itch at least. The incident was relayed to him from the father, who is a missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators, of the boy who did what you're about to read. It is just some good stuff that I want to pass along. Thanks Charles for permission to do so. Enjoy. __________________________________________________________________
"Last week, I took my children to a restaurant. My six-year-old son asked if he could say grace. As we bowed our heads he said, "God is good, God is great. Thank you for the food, and I would even thank you more if Mom gets us ice cream for dessert. Liberty and justice for all! Amen!"
Along with the laughter from the other customers nearby, I heard a woman remark, "That's what's wrong with this country. Kids today don't even know how to pray. Asking God for ice cream! Why, I never!"
Hearing this, my son burst into tears and asked me, "Did I do it wrong? Is God mad at me?" As I held him and assured him that he had done a terrific job, and God was certainly not mad at him, an elderly gentleman approached the table. He winked at my son and said, "I happen to know that God thought that was a great prayer." "Really?" my son asked. "Cross my heart," the man replied. Then, in a theatrical whisper, he added (indicating the woman whose remark had started this whole thing), "Too bad she never asks God for ice cream. A little ice cream is good for the soul sometimes."
Naturally, I bought my kids ice cream at the end of the meal. My son stared at his for a moment, and then did something I will remember the rest of my life. He picked up his sundae and, without a word, walked over and placed it in front of the woman. With a big smile he told her, "Here, this is for you. Ice cream is good for the soul sometimes; and my soul is good already." ______________________________________________________________
I agree. Ice cream IS good for the soul. Excuse me while I go feed my soul.
Paul B.
"I read the following and was smitten by it so much that I wanted to put it on my blog as a post. I do so with the permission of Charles Roberts who hosts the blog uniquely called "The Blog Itch." It's a play on "scratching where people itch" in discussing things and he does it well, scratching where I itch at least. The incident was relayed to him from the father, who is a missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators, of the boy who did what you're about to read. It is just some good stuff that I want to pass along. Thanks Charles for permission to do so. Enjoy. __________________________________________________________________
"Last week, I took my children to a restaurant. My six-year-old son asked if he could say grace. As we bowed our heads he said, "God is good, God is great. Thank you for the food, and I would even thank you more if Mom gets us ice cream for dessert. Liberty and justice for all! Amen!"
Along with the laughter from the other customers nearby, I heard a woman remark, "That's what's wrong with this country. Kids today don't even know how to pray. Asking God for ice cream! Why, I never!"
Hearing this, my son burst into tears and asked me, "Did I do it wrong? Is God mad at me?" As I held him and assured him that he had done a terrific job, and God was certainly not mad at him, an elderly gentleman approached the table. He winked at my son and said, "I happen to know that God thought that was a great prayer." "Really?" my son asked. "Cross my heart," the man replied. Then, in a theatrical whisper, he added (indicating the woman whose remark had started this whole thing), "Too bad she never asks God for ice cream. A little ice cream is good for the soul sometimes."
Naturally, I bought my kids ice cream at the end of the meal. My son stared at his for a moment, and then did something I will remember the rest of my life. He picked up his sundae and, without a word, walked over and placed it in front of the woman. With a big smile he told her, "Here, this is for you. Ice cream is good for the soul sometimes; and my soul is good already." ______________________________________________________________
I agree. Ice cream IS good for the soul. Excuse me while I go feed my soul.
Paul B.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)