WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO

[Defining that illusive "dying to self" spoken about in scripture in plain English]

Life is tough. Situations develop that are painful and create wounds emotionally, psychologically, physically, and even spiritually. When those situations are found in relationships, especially marriage and family life, it's even more painful. What do you do? How do you face difficulties of that nature? Trusting God is a given for Christians, and that is never minimized, but there are some responsibilities we carry in those kinds of situations also, it seems to me, otherwise, we're simply victims and what kind of life is that! 

I'm no expert and don't have all the answers, but, that said, I have learned some things, the hard way most of the time. It's those things I've learned I'd like to share.

When you are in a relationship that is difficult and you don't know what to do.... I suggest three things... [Remember, trusting God is a given.]

Develop a right frame of mind..

Nothing will remove the emotional pain that a person feels when things are collapsing or relationships are muddled or life seems unfair or unfulfilled. Those are what they are...painful emotions felt. They are neither right nor wrong...they just are. Recognize their existence and their grip on you in the moment. That's OK for the moment. They're yours.

But to let them control what you say or what you do is to lose your personhood and that is too high a price for anyone to be willing to pay. What you say and what you do [Be ye kind one to another] is your opportunity to be the real you. [In Christ a new creation] So when you admit to yourself your feelings about something or someone, from this point on, choose to rethink the moment  [As a person thinketh]  by honestly calculating the consequences [count the cost] of what you say or do as to whether or not it will really help your cause [God being real..that's what His "Glory" means.] or totally work against you and only make things worse. [reaping what is sown]

Develop a resistance to focusing on fault..

Assigning blame [whose fault is it?] may make you feel better in the moment, [or worse depending on whether you're a blame taker or a blame giver]  but it will never actually make things better for you, whether the assigned blame goes to yourself or to someone else. Blame is a recognizable problem with you if the conversation you have with other people degenerates within a few minutes to trying to assign responsibility to someone [even God] for the problem or situation existing. 

The key is to choose to focus in that moment on being to the other person [or to the moment/situation] something that will reflect your genuine personhood [who you are by God's grace] whether that is your ability to listen, share, explain, give or whatever portrays the real you as a person. "Who am I being right now?" is the question you need to ask yourself and answer for yourself, and focus there in the moment. 

Develop a return to teamwork..

A willingness to change, listen, compromise, be there for, is to be chosen by you and stated to yourself as a fact that is settled in your own mind. Then the other person has a choice to make. When the same choice is mutually shared it leads the way to change without blame assigned, but an acceptance of reality in both and a willingness to lay down expectations for the other because you have picked them up for yourself. 

When this is mutual, things can be worked out. If not, you are the better for the journey regardless. [It was good that it was in your heart.]

Jesus was not successful in being able to have a relationship with everyone. When others wouldn't, He respected their choices and went on being who He was in reality. They were the loser. He was never a victim. So it may be with some of our relationships, but we are never a victim. We go on with being who we are, by His grace, with or without them, sad to say, but a reality.

Always remember, where ever YOU go,  there YOU are.

Paul B.

BAPTISM AND LOCAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Five years ago last month we joined the fellowship called Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond Oklahoma. There was a debate going on within the fellowship at that time about baptism and its place in baptist life as the door into local church membership. Mary and I read ALL the documents they posted and watched two messages by the senior pastor, Dennis Newkirk, as well as read every published testimony of every elder as each personally searched the scriptures for their own understanding of this issue. 

I must say we were impressed. They had done their homework. They researched every reference to baptism in scripture. They were doubting the legitimacy of the door to local membership position being bible based. They'd even researched Baptist history and the Baptist Fathers extensively. And they did so with a spirit of humility while attempting to bring their flock along to search for themselves and they hoped ultimately to have a final word spoken by the entire congregation. For some reason they never concluded with a final decision and, while disappointed with the end result, I certainly appreciated their heart and spirit in their attempt to face that particular issue of church life.

While no finalized conclusions came from them, I came away with my own view about that particular issue unchanged. I must confess I started out with a position that had, as a result of my own research, been settled years before and that personal position went unchallenged as I listened to their findings. 

From my research, particularly with the studies of Jon Zens and John Reisinger, I came away with some questions that had been posed for anyone who might hold the view that membership into a local church is tied to baptism. In fact, three questions that I believe would have to be answered.

One...Can anyone show a single instance in the N.T. where a person

is examined and then joined a local church?

Two...Can anyone show in the N.T. where a particular behavior is required of any christian because he/she has joined a local church?

Three...Is it not correct that all behavior enjoined upon any believer in the N.T. is because he/she has been joined to Christ and to every other believer? [Not my original questions but three I've been forced to ask and answer.]

My personal answers to those three questions ...NO...NO...YES 

These are my answers according to my understanding of the text of the New Testament scriptures alone. This is not taking into account Baptist history, Baptist Fathers, Baptist Tradition or Logical Thinking.

I don't think a local church is wrong or sinful for examining a person for membership or for having agreed to standards for membership, or, for that matter, choosing to respect Baptist history, traditions, or logical thinking by requiring baptism, if that's what they choose to do. Just don't call it something the bible teaches when the bible doesn't. 

Those are all pragmatic things needed, perhaps, because our modern culture demands we be organized, and researching Baptist history and the Church Fathers will always be helpful in doctrinal studies, but are never to be seen as the final word. I read someone who said, "If nothing else, reading Baptist history and the Church Fathers keeps us from the pride of our own scholarship." But the New Testament does not address such local church issues specifically nor definitively.

So let's organize, while not violating clear biblical principles to do so, and let's not make it an heretical thing if we disagree. Heresy is when clear biblical principles are misrepresented or when non-biblical principles are entrusted with the same authority as the text of the inspired scripture.

We do, however, see the text of scripture as sufficient for belief and practice, so let's be careful to give no other belief system that kind of authority, even if it is Baptist.

I'm convinced the modern church institution and organization could not possible have been envisioned by the NewTestament Church in their wildest imagination. So any effort to get back to the structure of the N.T. Church may be something of a myth anyway. Living like redeemed people are to live today and evangelizing our present day are things that are possible and essential no matter the shape our organization might take. Each culture and generation brings it's own needs organizationally anyway. We can meet that challenge together without cries of heresy.

The organism of the Church, aka the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, is alive and functioning in this age. [Albeit in need of a revival of Spiritual life.]  That organism has gifted servants, Spirit-led members, all empowered to serve one another, with each one unique in their giftedness. Whatever organizational form the Organism takes locally is but a tool that is very pragmatic and non-biblical. But that form is not to be endowed with any authority or to be seen as authoritative. Remember, this is simply saying that organization is not necessarily wrong or not needed in this day...it is just not seen in the biblical materials.

My conclusion is simply this...since the scriptures do not speak to the matter of baptism and local church membership, the only reason to experience baptism in scripture is to testify of a conversion where one has been united with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. No door mentioned at all. And, it is best to not add anything further to its significance. The scriptures don't. Thus, I have for years believed that baptism is NOT the door of membership into a local church.

But my examination has and will continue. I will keep looking as I study..........[still looking]........[still looking].............[I know what biblical baptism is, a converted person, identifying with Christ in union with His death, burial, and resurrection, through immersion only.]......[still looking for this door thing]......[still looking].................................

Paul B.

A STRANGE THING HAPPENED ON MY WAY TO THE PULPIT.

Four years ago I had double carotid artery surgery. It went well, but for a few weeks I couldn't wear a tie at all. After those few weeks, I tried to wear one as I preached at the Emmanuel Baptist Church, in Enid Oklahoma on a Sunday morning. It bruised my neck___although the collar was quite big and the tie not very tight at all___ and I took it off between a two service set of speaking. I've not had one on since. For four years now, on all occasions, funeral, wedding, worship service, tie-lessness has been my attire.

In Matthew 23:1-7 it says that Jesus said this to the crowd and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,* and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the market-places, and to have people call them rabbi."

A lot that can be nuanced from this passage obviously. One thing is that the Pharisees really were a black/white kind of bad guys no doubt. This is seen in so many different ways according to this passage. First, they appeared to delight in the position of authority about religious things and the people had to take a back seat in their humble serving roll. Then, they seemed to be able to be comfortable with saying what others SHOULD and SHOULD NOT do, but they never bothered with lifting a finger to make it easier on those who bear the burden of doing what they said must be done. Finally, they just LOVED trying to LOOK different than anyone else. They loved to wear their phylacteries in plain sight and fringes [garments] long. They wouldn't be mistaken that way for one of the more common sort of people to whom they "ministered" and for whom they had quite a disdain.   

All this got me to wondering if perhaps clothing of one sort or another CAN get in the way of ministering. Maybe by giving an appearance of being a professional minister, as opposed to being a regular person, and thereby closing down accessibility to people, we miss people really. If clothes do, indeed, perpetuate the theologically flawed concept that the professional minister is the ONLY one who CAN minister the Word of God or is the ONLY one who CAN minister to any of the other needs the people might have, no doubt, those clothes ARE a stumbling block. I'm NOT saying that is is WRONG to wear a tie or any other piece of clothing. [Think suit here or jeans for that matter.] But I am saying anything can become a stumbling block to the ordinary person when we make an elevated thing out of clothing or anything else [think pulpit here] associated with the one doing the preaching of the Word and ministry. 

Someone will declare, I'm sure, that it is just trying to look your best for the Lord. I'll grant you that. Anything looks better than some of the modern garments that appear to be ten years old and dirty when brand new, or are so immodest that it causes one to look away. There is THAT. But when a minister won't mow his lawn without his tie on, [I actually knew this guy] or be seen in public, much less stand in the pulpit, without a coat on, I'm wondering if a modern day "phylactery" is not in place! 

This may be the proverbial "much ado about nothing," but, having thought it through and having spoken about it, I'll just stick to my tie-lessness thank you.

Paul B.

SOME HELP WITH BIBLE INTERPRETATION__PART 3__SUMMER RERUN CON'T.

The final concept that is important to grasp in order to correctly interpret and understand the bible is the discovery of the difference between a timeless truth and a regulation for a certain people at a certain time. This will conclude the four that I've chosen to mention. The first three were...

Grammatical Integrity,

Historical Integrity,

Contextual Integrity.

Now learning to know the difference between a timeless truth and a regulation for a specific people and a specific time is the final one. By the way, none of these are original with me which is quite obvious but I'll confess nonetheless. I've gleaned them from the study of numerous people whom I respect and appreciate and who are a lot smarter than am I regarding all things biblical. Some of those people are dead and some are still living, but none of them would mind us learning from what they've written or said, I'm sure. 

There was a word intended for the generation and specific people and congregations that received the letters and writings we call the bible, which is the original meaning intended by the writers under inspiration. Then there is also a truth for the now which was intended by God and which the true author, the Holy Spirit, desires to make personal to us. The truth that transcends the past to the present is what we could call a timeless principle, although all of the scripture is truth from God as we all know.

That said, I need to emphasis that no one persons idea in this area of bible interpretation is the final word for correctness, including mine. But every person needs to wrestle with it in order to have a good grasp of the biblical materials and an ear for the Word of God as God has given it in scripture. Remember, it is too easy to say, "The bible means what it says." It is far more accurate to say, "The bible says what it means and our job is to find out that meaning." It is to that end I've belabored the point with these three posts.

Let's begin by admitting that the first three, by and large, lead you to the fourth. In other words, if you will adequately do the first three it will generally result in the fourth being easy to see and understand. Someone has said, "Clearly, Scripture is not a collection of timeless truths. Although some of its truths are timeless, others parts of the Bible are designed for a specific situation in a specific culture, and it would be wrong for us to take them out of that context and impose them on modern situations. First-century men were advised to pray with their hands raised (1 Tim. 2:8). Slaves were advised to submit even to harsh masters (1 Pet. 2:18). Virgins were advised to remain virgins (1 Cor. 7:26). Women were told how to dress when they prayed (1 Cor. 11:5), and men were given advice regarding hair length (v. 14)" 

As an example to help us understand the difference, we'll take 1 Timothy 2:8. It says..."I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting." Is the writer [Paul the Apostle] saying that God is commanding men when they pray to lift their hands? Most of us think not. Why?  The word used here translated "will" is a much milder word than is used other places and is not an expression of a command. That fact can be found in John A.T. Robertson's word studies if you do the first step I called the grammatical integrity work or the study of the language. If he had meant it literally then we are to pray in a certain posture [hands raised] and with a certain inner attitude. [Never angry or doubtful when we pray.]

So did he, in fact, intend us to read it as literal? I don't think so. The language is showing that Paul was saying that he thought it was the right thing for men to pray with a purity about their intention or motive for praying. ["holy hands" raised is a colloquialism for purity in prayer. It would be the same as me saying you were driving as fast as lightning down the road. Don't take me literally on that. It is a present day colloquialism for speed.] There is to be that purity of motive along with an attitude clear of any anger and doubt.

Then, were one faithful to the historical integrity mentioned above, he or she would also find that the people of that day DID NOT normally bow heads and close their eyes to pray. That would lend weight to the method of prayer being a cultural thing and not a command. So the language and history do not demand a literal obedience to a certain method or posture while praying as something commanded by Paul.

Finally, in context, Paul was writing to a particular situation in the Church in Ephesus where Timothy was pastoring. There were those present in worship who had been a big disturbance to the entire congregation. [Including a woman and her husband who were not getting along described in the next few verses.] They were making a problem of themselves with anger and were casting doubt on the teaching they had previously received from Paul himself about the creation order. 

So Paul was here addressing those who were a disturbance. He is saying they were to be careful when they participated in public prayers that their actions [Illustrated by the lifting of hands which they generally did as they prayed.] and their attitudes [Called wrath or anger and doubt here.] were to never be divisive.

What I've done in this interpretation of this verse is an attempt to be faithful to the language or text, while being knowledgeable of the history, and all the while let the context be involved in getting to what Paul meant when he wrote it under inspiration. This will allow the Holy Spirit to make clear its original meaning and, by way of application, any meaning to my own life and time.

I will say parenthetically here that the above words are the reason for the view of 1 Timothy 2:12 that I now hold to instead of the one I once held to and which many of my friends disagree with me about. I'll address that at another time.

So, honestly, there may be several different levels at which we see truth being presented in the bible that become clear as one navigates the pages of scripture. Those are, as someone has said.....

Obsolete situations---These would be guiding principles or commands which address specific situations and there is generally no timeless principle to transfer. [Such as Israel told to take a specified number of paces outside the camp to defecate.]

Normal patterns---These are principles that can be seen because because of language that was normal for them but do speak to us by example in some fashion about some issue. [As shown in the 1 Timothy 2:8 verse.] In these places the timeless principle is really an example about something generally.

Universal Principles---These are principles or truths that are fundamental and found everywhere in scripture. They may not even be specific commands, but, because they are seen as healthy for relationships, for example, such as going to a person who has hurt you instead of running them down to someone else, those principles become part of your belief system that guides your life. They impact your behavior greatly

Moral Absolutes---These are timeless commands that apply to all situations and times. [Such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery."] Jesus was free as God to deepen some of those, and He did, saying if we look with lust we are already adulterers, and our obedience is to His final say or word about ANY timeless command.

My trust is that this lengthy and often complicated writing will ultimately bring some help to those who are serious about the study of the bible and hearing and obeying the Lord. It is a given that, while I've been addressing what we are responsible and wise to do in study and research, there is a sense in which the very nature of the scriptures do not allow us to understand them at all apart from the person and work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

The bible is after all a supernatural book written in a supernatural fashion, in its original manuscripts, for a supernaturally born again group of people. That is the very core of the reason many people will NEVER understand scripture. But when that new birth experience has come, understanding does follow, slow though it may be, and never complete, it is adequate for guidance for the living of life in relationship to God and others. I trust you will enjoy the study of the library of books we call the bible for the rest of your life.

Paul B.