Definition........."Incredulous"......[ expressing disbelief]
That's what I'm doing. Expressing my disbelief. I cannot believe the nonsense I've read in the comment sections of some blogs over the last several days.
For example..Jesus was subordinate [according to one pastor] to the Father because of the nature of that relationship and so should the wife be to her husband [as pictured in the Trinity] because that's the way relationships were intended from the beginning. The subordination within the Trinity was used to prove that authority in relationships has always been God's way.
I wonder what happened to the equality of the Godhead? What happened to the study of the Greek language where the word 'hupo-tasso' was used to speak of one who was of equal voice AND value choosing to stand under and serve and was the word used of the submission of Jesus to the Father? [Which was the word used of the husband/wife relationship also.] What happened to the word in the same Greek language 'hupo-akuo' which was used of an inferior submitted to a superior but was NEVER used of Jesus to the Father OR in the husband/wife relationship either?
Another example of what leaves me incredulous as I read comments on blogs is the idea that women are not to teach the scriptures to men because this shows authority over men which is wrong. A woman is NEVER to be in authority over a man. [Said the commenter.] So..I guess this would mean, one.. you have to declare Christian women off base [sinning] who hold authority over men in our society..OR.. two, you would have to declare whatever organization a Christian woman might be in.. a 'church'.. if you don't want said woman in authority over said men in your said organization.
If the first is true one would be establishing a biblical standard for a society made up of unredeemed people with the same standard one would have for the church. If the second is true you are totally identifying the church as an organization and would have to declare ANY organization where this principle is put into play..A CHURCH. [Which one Seminary has done.] You've got to be kidding me. I don't know which is worse. The institutional church idea or the universal standard for all lost people idea.
Another example of what makes me incredulous..is one where some one stated that if you don't believe 1Timothy 2:12 is saying that a woman is to never have authority over a man..[as stated by that commenter...others say it refers to times in the church] and were you to think otherwise you don't believe the bible and can't have fellowhip with him.
So, because of my view which is that 1Timothy is speaking about one situation in one church.. [the language is singular].. and Paul uses a word here for 'authority' that is found no where else in all of scripture, or classical Greek either for that matter, [There is evidence it WAS used as slang in the streets with a sexual conotation in that day..ie..a woman using sexuality to gain power over men.] and was probably refering to a woman in that church converted out of the worship of Diana, whose temple was outside the city, who may have still had some old habits that needed addressing by Paul, since the mystery religion of Diana held strongly to women being created before men and superior to men in every way... [Thus, in context, NOT a universal principle, and I see this BECAUSE of an historical, grammatical, and textual study.]... I'm unable to fellowship with this commenter BECAUSE I don't believe the bible. As I've said, you've got to be kidding me.
His idea loses sight of a thought well expressed by someone who said.."Sometimes, the Bible doesn’t give you enough evidence, one way or the other, to settle a question beyond the possibility of a continuing discussion and debate. If this is true, and if the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not remove this ambiguity, then there are points beyond which discussion and debate ought to proceed only with considerable and generous amounts of respectful humility."
One final example of comments that leave me incredulous. Some one said that the attitude I just refered to in a quote is REALLY the view that is narrowing the parameters of our convention life and is being divisive in suggesting that there is NOT a clear biblical statement on ALL issues. All Baptists will know the truth about these issues of authority, or women, or the make-up of the church or whatever if we just believe the bible. To suggest a thought on something other than what is stated in scripture, as they interpret it, or the BF@M, as they see it, is dividing us. As one commenter said to another SBC pastor, "Shame on you for being divisive in SBC life." [Because that SBC pastor believed there were lesser important truths that we could hold different interpretations on even in the BF@M and still fellowship as SBCers.]
Add to all this the one hour conversation I just had with a trustee of one of our SBC Seminaries [which for the moment will remain unknown unless he reveals the information though I have his permission to reference this] who will not be renominated for the position because of his bad behavior and divisive [there it is again] attitude. His bad behavior? He asked for information on the use of some money designated for one thing and used for another by a Southern Baptist state entity. His divisive attitude? When he was refused the information he asked why? It became obvious to him that to disagree with a decision made and to ask 'why' about that decision was seen as divisive. His actions and attitude were reported to the powers that be and he will NOT be renominated as a trustee of one of our Seminaries. He was never contacted about any issue of action or attitude that resulted in his being dropped from the trustee nominations until after the fact and, then, not by those in charge.
I'm wondering if those in charge of that particular SBC state entity and several other SBC entities I know about have ever pastored churches. For a Pastor/Elder to be asked 'why' is par for the course and that Pastor/Elder had better have a good answer for the questioner. That is, unless of course, there is more than one Lord over the church. There does seem to be a danger of there being more than one Lord in Southern Baptist life in these days.
As I said, "incredulous" is the word that best describes my state of mind at the moment.
Paul B.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
MY THOUGHTS ON KLOUDA
I'm a firm scripture person as I'm sure you are. When the scriptures speak on something I want to obey. When the scriptures are silent on something I'm free to act/be within any known guidance and personal preferences I might have. When the scriptures are hard to understand I am to be gracious and far less than dogmatic on any position I might take. That's where the Berean spirit must come into play for sure.
The issue of Christians in Court is one of those hard to understand things for me. I see 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 and I see 1Peter 2:13-15 as both valid for believers. It is the decision about whether something is a trivial matter or whether it is an abusive matter that violates the law that one must make to stand on either passage alone. Dr. Klouda is qualified to stand on the second passage IMHO. She stood on it. She lost her case in court. So be it.
Now what? The appeals process is always in order, if one can, because the courts have ruled in favor of the wrong side in more than one case historically. Slavery is an example. I believe there are similar issues involved with this case. Some disagree. But that is for the legal system to work out. It will eventually one way or another after all appeals are addressed.
But where does our convention stand now? With respect to a woman being Senior Pastor our Confession of Faith [BF@M] has already spoken to that as a guiding document which is non-binding on the conscience of any Southern Baptist since it is not a creed. SBC entities should choose to follow it very closely, even the parts you or I might personally disagree with, but certainly must be very careful to NOT exceed it without Convention approval or permission. Again, IMHO.
Now, however, we are told a Seminary can/will model itself after a local church. Aside from my theological problems with that whole idea biblically, I have to wonder if this is the kind of thing our Convention wishes our seminaries to be doing. If, in fact, this were to happen, where does that model begin and end? At what point do we say, "No, it's a Seminary at that point and not a church"...and vice-versa. Since our Convention is our voice to our entities and they are to hear us and respond, I'm assuming local autonomy would be one of those points. As I said, I'm assuming so. But.......
Really, however, my greater concern at the moment, is for Dr. Klouda and her family. There is a price that goes with standing on personal conviction. She has paid a great price personally. I believe her cause to be just. I hold, as I said earlier, her to be true to the 1Peter 2:13-15 passage. Some of you disagree. So be that too.
But now I believe all who agree with her stand and all who disagree with her stand will want to come together fulfilling the verse that says,
"Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
And I remind us all that is in the context of giving to those with whom you disagree. We all can be family here.
My final observation is simply this. I'm not sure but as the so-called Conservative Resurgence believed it was facing, among some other things, the systemic problem of the Trustees of our entities not doing their job well, [this can be debated I know] we, in fact, may be facing that very same systemic problem again. My hope is that we will not be blind to what problems we've produced over the past 25-30 years, or be closed to self-judgment and correction of any problems we may have produced, and unwilling to harbor agendas that would go beyond the integrity and sufficiency of the scriptures for life, a mission endeavor to reach the world with the gospel, and a purity of heart with one another as we debate how to solve any problems we might have.
If our Convention were to make of itself or any entity, in any fashion, our god to be worshipped, adored, and served at any price, may the One true God of heaven in His jealous love, bring to an end any such idol as He has been faithful to do in the past, is my final prayer and desire for the Convention I love.
Paul B.
The issue of Christians in Court is one of those hard to understand things for me. I see 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 and I see 1Peter 2:13-15 as both valid for believers. It is the decision about whether something is a trivial matter or whether it is an abusive matter that violates the law that one must make to stand on either passage alone. Dr. Klouda is qualified to stand on the second passage IMHO. She stood on it. She lost her case in court. So be it.
Now what? The appeals process is always in order, if one can, because the courts have ruled in favor of the wrong side in more than one case historically. Slavery is an example. I believe there are similar issues involved with this case. Some disagree. But that is for the legal system to work out. It will eventually one way or another after all appeals are addressed.
But where does our convention stand now? With respect to a woman being Senior Pastor our Confession of Faith [BF@M] has already spoken to that as a guiding document which is non-binding on the conscience of any Southern Baptist since it is not a creed. SBC entities should choose to follow it very closely, even the parts you or I might personally disagree with, but certainly must be very careful to NOT exceed it without Convention approval or permission. Again, IMHO.
Now, however, we are told a Seminary can/will model itself after a local church. Aside from my theological problems with that whole idea biblically, I have to wonder if this is the kind of thing our Convention wishes our seminaries to be doing. If, in fact, this were to happen, where does that model begin and end? At what point do we say, "No, it's a Seminary at that point and not a church"...and vice-versa. Since our Convention is our voice to our entities and they are to hear us and respond, I'm assuming local autonomy would be one of those points. As I said, I'm assuming so. But.......
Really, however, my greater concern at the moment, is for Dr. Klouda and her family. There is a price that goes with standing on personal conviction. She has paid a great price personally. I believe her cause to be just. I hold, as I said earlier, her to be true to the 1Peter 2:13-15 passage. Some of you disagree. So be that too.
But now I believe all who agree with her stand and all who disagree with her stand will want to come together fulfilling the verse that says,
"Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
And I remind us all that is in the context of giving to those with whom you disagree. We all can be family here.
My final observation is simply this. I'm not sure but as the so-called Conservative Resurgence believed it was facing, among some other things, the systemic problem of the Trustees of our entities not doing their job well, [this can be debated I know] we, in fact, may be facing that very same systemic problem again. My hope is that we will not be blind to what problems we've produced over the past 25-30 years, or be closed to self-judgment and correction of any problems we may have produced, and unwilling to harbor agendas that would go beyond the integrity and sufficiency of the scriptures for life, a mission endeavor to reach the world with the gospel, and a purity of heart with one another as we debate how to solve any problems we might have.
If our Convention were to make of itself or any entity, in any fashion, our god to be worshipped, adored, and served at any price, may the One true God of heaven in His jealous love, bring to an end any such idol as He has been faithful to do in the past, is my final prayer and desire for the Convention I love.
Paul B.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
SIMPLE YET PROFOUND QUOTE
Until my next post on relationships...enjoy this quote from 'The Shack."
"From the very first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn't create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. We created a circle of relationship like our own, but for humans. She, out of him, and now, all males, including me, birthed through her, and all originating and birthed through God."
"Oh, I get it," Mack interjected, stopping in mid throw. "If the female had been created first, there would have been no circle of relationship, and thus no possiblity of a fully equal face-to-face relationship between the male and the female, right?'
"Exactly right Mack." Jesus looked at him and grinned. "our desire was to create a being that had a fully equal and powerful counterpart, the male and female. But your independence with it's quest for power and fulfillment actually destroys the relationship your heart longs for."
Paul B.
"From the very first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn't create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. We created a circle of relationship like our own, but for humans. She, out of him, and now, all males, including me, birthed through her, and all originating and birthed through God."
"Oh, I get it," Mack interjected, stopping in mid throw. "If the female had been created first, there would have been no circle of relationship, and thus no possiblity of a fully equal face-to-face relationship between the male and the female, right?'
"Exactly right Mack." Jesus looked at him and grinned. "our desire was to create a being that had a fully equal and powerful counterpart, the male and female. But your independence with it's quest for power and fulfillment actually destroys the relationship your heart longs for."
Paul B.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
GROWING OLD IN GRACE
I'm continuing my thoughts about growing older and changing in the process. I must admit that, after reading what someone said about twelve things that should NOT be done on anyone's blog, one of which was being too personal, [It's a real no-no.] I've had second thoughts. Then I had third thoughts. I think it may be a little like a clock. You have to decide what it's purpose is. If a clock's purpose is to tell time, and it is for me, then the shape color, size, and all the other characteristics don't matter, if it fails to tell time. If your purpose for a clock is to decorate a wall, whether it tells the correct time or not doesn't matter. The color does matter. So to determine the purpose of one's blog is essential. Mine is to be personal and relational. So if I shape or size it differently than some that's OK. If your purpose in reading blogs is NOT personal and relational...our purposes are like two ships passing in the night. I understand why you will exit this blog at this point. Thanks for coming this far.
For the rest of you, I've become something of a student of personalities. It doesn't matter to me at this point which school of thought about how personalities are explained you hold to, you have one. Personality that is. It is why yours' is the way it is that interests me. No one would doubt that there are certain aspects about one's personality that are in play from birth, but, that said, there are other reasons in play as to why we develop the one we have I would think.
Proverbs 23:7 says, in the context of eating with a selfish person, be careful because that selfish person is undoubtedly thinking a certain way in his heart and will act accordingly. This may be the case for all of us. We act as we are thinking in our heart. KJV says "for as he thinks in his heart so is he." Aren't we all!! Another translation says "As he calculates the cost to himself, this is what he does." Don't we all!!
In fact, my contention is that your thinking about your situation in life early on helps you create actions that are basically to protect yourself from whatever you see as imagined or real threats to you personally and, generally, this is an unconscious, though very real activity. Those actions or ways of behaving become encased in what we call personality. Call them what you will, type A, sanguine, phlegmatic, number 8 on the enneagram, or any other school of thought, what you have is your personality.
It is this pattern of behavior based on our thinking that is in the process of change through out life. It is this understanding that has opened so many hidden rooms in my own life that I had refused to look into. It is this that I'm convinced is, in fact, the flesh, that has to be put to death experiencially in a believer, myself included, and can be when the finished work of the Cross is adequately and scripturally understood.
Some Christians speak of their aggressive and controlling behavior and attitudes and wind up saying, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. that it's because they're a Prophet.] Others speak of their struggles with addictions and say, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. that it's OK to do this.] While others see their timidity and fear of rejection and say, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. it's your fault for what you did to me.]
Often I see those same people in their religious or christian setting and their behavior is no different than before they came to Christ. It just has a new language/verbiage and they are the same old person even if they have changed addictions or some behaviors, all with a new religious pattern to them of course. That was me for so many years I can't count them.
My contention is.."just the way we are".. is what we are described as when the scriptures speak of who we are 'in Christ.' That is who we are in our person-hood. A new creation, a peculiar [high-priced] people, a loved and forgiven person, and a myriad of other things are used in scripture to describe who we REALLY are. But how we act has to catch up with reality. Remember, we've spent years perfecting how we act [for self protection and self benefit basically] and now we're told to act differently. [Self-giving and being there for others basically.] It will take some time and some honesty about ourselves to learn to act like who I really am in Christ. There is no doubt that it also takes the power of God to accomplish this change, but His power is ours in the Person of the Holy Spirit in us. My point is that it comes through the same truth..."as a person thinks within himself/herself so is he/her in their behavior."
Here's the kicker. It isn't JUST that I've learned to think a new way, [The Truths of Scripture] but I'm beginning to challenge the protectionism patterns I developed during my life. I'm learning to open dark rooms inside and see WHY and WHAT I've hidden there. I know full well I CAN respond in the present in the same manner I did before I came to Christ. I catch myself doing it frequently. It even feels kind of comfortable. [Remember I used to define myself BY that behavior.] It is certainly agonizing when I try to do things differently. Hold it. Maybe that's what it means to 'die daily.' It sure feels like death sometimes. But every time I'm willing to go there...I come out on the other side...different. Maybe that's the new person I am in Christ. All of this is simply the work of the Cross and who Christ is as my life.. faithed..as real..[because it is] in any given moment. I do know it is a journey. I do know it's the one I'm on. I do know it ain't easy but, wow, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Now, at the risk of being personal, I'm going to tell of an illustration or two from my own walk next time. :)
Paul B.
For the rest of you, I've become something of a student of personalities. It doesn't matter to me at this point which school of thought about how personalities are explained you hold to, you have one. Personality that is. It is why yours' is the way it is that interests me. No one would doubt that there are certain aspects about one's personality that are in play from birth, but, that said, there are other reasons in play as to why we develop the one we have I would think.
Proverbs 23:7 says, in the context of eating with a selfish person, be careful because that selfish person is undoubtedly thinking a certain way in his heart and will act accordingly. This may be the case for all of us. We act as we are thinking in our heart. KJV says "for as he thinks in his heart so is he." Aren't we all!! Another translation says "As he calculates the cost to himself, this is what he does." Don't we all!!
In fact, my contention is that your thinking about your situation in life early on helps you create actions that are basically to protect yourself from whatever you see as imagined or real threats to you personally and, generally, this is an unconscious, though very real activity. Those actions or ways of behaving become encased in what we call personality. Call them what you will, type A, sanguine, phlegmatic, number 8 on the enneagram, or any other school of thought, what you have is your personality.
It is this pattern of behavior based on our thinking that is in the process of change through out life. It is this understanding that has opened so many hidden rooms in my own life that I had refused to look into. It is this that I'm convinced is, in fact, the flesh, that has to be put to death experiencially in a believer, myself included, and can be when the finished work of the Cross is adequately and scripturally understood.
Some Christians speak of their aggressive and controlling behavior and attitudes and wind up saying, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. that it's because they're a Prophet.] Others speak of their struggles with addictions and say, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. that it's OK to do this.] While others see their timidity and fear of rejection and say, "That's just the way I am." [Or worse.. it's your fault for what you did to me.]
Often I see those same people in their religious or christian setting and their behavior is no different than before they came to Christ. It just has a new language/verbiage and they are the same old person even if they have changed addictions or some behaviors, all with a new religious pattern to them of course. That was me for so many years I can't count them.
My contention is.."just the way we are".. is what we are described as when the scriptures speak of who we are 'in Christ.' That is who we are in our person-hood. A new creation, a peculiar [high-priced] people, a loved and forgiven person, and a myriad of other things are used in scripture to describe who we REALLY are. But how we act has to catch up with reality. Remember, we've spent years perfecting how we act [for self protection and self benefit basically] and now we're told to act differently. [Self-giving and being there for others basically.] It will take some time and some honesty about ourselves to learn to act like who I really am in Christ. There is no doubt that it also takes the power of God to accomplish this change, but His power is ours in the Person of the Holy Spirit in us. My point is that it comes through the same truth..."as a person thinks within himself/herself so is he/her in their behavior."
Here's the kicker. It isn't JUST that I've learned to think a new way, [The Truths of Scripture] but I'm beginning to challenge the protectionism patterns I developed during my life. I'm learning to open dark rooms inside and see WHY and WHAT I've hidden there. I know full well I CAN respond in the present in the same manner I did before I came to Christ. I catch myself doing it frequently. It even feels kind of comfortable. [Remember I used to define myself BY that behavior.] It is certainly agonizing when I try to do things differently. Hold it. Maybe that's what it means to 'die daily.' It sure feels like death sometimes. But every time I'm willing to go there...I come out on the other side...different. Maybe that's the new person I am in Christ. All of this is simply the work of the Cross and who Christ is as my life.. faithed..as real..[because it is] in any given moment. I do know it is a journey. I do know it's the one I'm on. I do know it ain't easy but, wow, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Now, at the risk of being personal, I'm going to tell of an illustration or two from my own walk next time. :)
Paul B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)