ON BEING REAL

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.

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?

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?

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.