NAME DROPPING WITH A NAME WORTH DROPPING

T.W. Hunt. That name is well known in Baptist life. I know that name well. I know the man who wears that name. He wears it well. Laverne. Another name. That's the woman who was married to the man who wears the name T.W. Hunt. She was as fine a human being as he is...maybe better...as most husbands in saner moments will confess of their own particular wife. T.W. does. So do I.

The reason I know T.W. and Laverne is because I was privileged to be their pastor for several years during his tenure as a Professor at SWBTS when they were members of Southcliff Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, the fellowship I pastored back then. Laverne always called me "Pastor." She always told me she thought I was the best preacher she had ever heard. I told her I thought she was the smartest person I'd ever met. Just kidding. [She said that__but I she said it to all her Pastors__and meant it.]

The purpose of my dropping T.W.'s name today is because, while still living, he's well worth knowing. To help you know him, if you don't, I have to press the envelope personally and tell you of one of the more significant spiritual moments in my life which involves T.W. Hunt. It really is personal and has to do with a morning I sat with him in a Dairy Queen in Ft. Worth, Texas. He and I were eating ice-cream and talking. [Who says you can't eat ice cream in the morning!] Before long I was writing on a napkin. It usually wound up that way. Something he would be saying was always of the nature that I must not forget it. So....write it down. I did.

T.W. told me that he was a student of revival. He had, in fact, studied every known revival in history beginning with the Old Testament events going right through Acts and into the Awakenings, as well as the "Charismatic revival, as it was being called in the day we were living and conversing.

T.W. said that every genuine move of God that he had studied had produced it's own music. The new music of those moves of God was new, not just in lyrics, but in meter, rhythm, notations, and a whole bunch of other stuff that didn't mean much to me then and doesn't now either. I'm musically illiterate basically. But T. W. wasn't and isn't, so I kept listening.

He said that those involved in the revivals usually wrote and produced this "new music". His example was Charles and John Wesley. He reminded me of the many songs written by the Wesleys during that Great Awakening of which they were such a major part. "The Church's One Foundation" was one of those songs written.

T.W. said there were several odd things about the music being produced during each revival. For one thing, it was not only different, it was rejected by the religious establishment. Wesley sang his songs with the crowds on hillsides, but was not permitted to do so in the churches. He and his music were shunned.

Then, T.W. said, after a while, the religious powers that existed in the day, gradually accepted the music that was already being sung by the masses. Finally, that music was "the music" and was "the music" until another revival came along producing its own music which was, again, rejected as ungodly by those singing "The Church's One Foundation" and, again, the new was not permitted in the churches. So, again, the masses had to sing in isolation from the religious establishment.

You see the pattern I'm sure. That's why, according to T.W. Hunt, the Charismatic movement was, in his opinion, while not agreeing with it's theological excesses at all, a real movement of God. The music evidenced it.

I finished writing. He'd finished talking. We finished our ice-cream. But I've never forgotten that day and what he had said. I wrote it down remember. I think time has shown the validity of T. W.'s view of the history of revival. Look at the music we're singing now. I wonder where revival will happen next? I know it will have it's own music. I know some won't like it. For a while anyway.

Enjoy this from T.W. I did!

The Mind of Christ - 13 "It Is Finished" - YouTube

► 2:31► 2:31

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzJmzsdXDWk

Paul B.

PEGGY NOONAN'S BLOG

I digress for a brief moment.

Peggy Noonan is a Wall Street Journal writer who has in the past worked for CBS News with Dan Rather as her boss. She also has been a fixture on ABC and NBC as well. Presently, she is a Fox News Contributor.

She is very well known for being a Reagan speech writer back in the day and actually wrote the Challenger explosion speech President Reagan gave to the nation to address the tragedy. In that speech it was her writing skills that caused Reagan to draw upon the poet John Magee's famous words about aviators who "slipped the surly bonds of earth... and touched the face of God."

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Noonan wrote about Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy in the Wall Street Journal. In one opinion piece, Noonan was not too complimentary and expressed her view that Palin did not demonstrate "the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office," concluding that Palin's candidacy marked a "vulgarization in American Politics" that is "no good... for conservatism... [or] the country."


That straight forward Peggy Noonan recently wrote a blog post in which she described the White House staff of our current President as a bit air-headed to say the least. Her words were a unique summation of the condition, from her perspective, of the people who make up the president’s administration that is leading our nation.

I’m not interested in agreeing or disagreeing with Noonan on her view of the White House Staff or even her view on the present President, whatever that might be.

I do, however, wonder if in her summation about the young people from the Whitehouse she has not connected with a degree of reality about the entire present generation. You can read and decide for yourself. Here is what she said on her blog, unedited.

------------------------------------------------------------

From what I have seen the present Obama White House is full of young people who’ve seen the movie but not read the book. They act bright, they know the reference, they’re credentialed. But they’ve only seen the movie about, say, the Cuban missile crisis, and then they get into a foreign-policy question and they’re seeing movies in their heads. 

They haven’t read the histories, the texts, which carry more information, more texture, data and subtlety, and different points of view. They’ve only seen the movie—the Cubans had the missiles and Jack said “Not another war” and Bobby said “Pearl Harbor in reverse” and dreadful old Curtis LeMay chomped his cigar and said “We can fry a million of ‘em by this afternoon, Mr. President.” Grrr, grrr, good guys beat bad guys.

It’s as if history isn’t real to them. They run around tweeting, all of them, even those in substantial positions. “Darfur government inadequate. Genocide unacceptable.” They share their feelings – that happens to be one of the things they seem to think is real, what they feel. “Unjust treatment of women—scourge that hurts my heart.” This is the dialogue to the movies going on in their heads.

There’s a sense that they’re all freelancing, not really part of anything coherent.

For four years now, I’ve been told, by those who’ve worked in the administration and those who’ve visited it as volunteers or contractors, that the Obama White House isn’t organized. It’s just full of chatter. Meetings don’t begin on time, there’s no agenda, the list of those invited seems to expand and contract at somebody’s whim. 

There is a tendency to speak of how a problem will look and how its appearance should be handled, as opposed to what the problem is and should be done about it. People speak airily, without point. They scroll down, see a call that has to be returned, pop out and then in again. It does not sound like a professional operation. 

This is typical of White Houses, to be sure, and yet, on some level, extreme.

The lack of focus, the lack of point, the sense that they think that they are operating within accepted levels of incoherence—this all sounds, actually, peculiar.

----------------------------------------------------------
I’m  seeing this in all venues of our present day generation of young people. No one is saying ALL of them. I've got grandchildren that don't fit that airhead definition. I’m not even saying MOST of them. But it is far more than I’ve ever seen existing before, that’s for sure.

Paul B.

RESCUING PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO BE RESCUED

I heard it again recently. It was said this way, "Would you use your nice, polite, positive voice when your neighbor's home is burning down? IMO our world is burning down & the time left to rescue most of them is short & growing shorter."

I cannot count the number of times I've heard this used as a reason [excuse] for being what I consider unreasonable, if not disrespectful, in actions, attitude, and tone when dealing with lost people. [They call it tough love.]

I do not question the heart of some of those who say it, In fact, I know some very well who do say it and love their zeal for witnessing. [The Westboro group notwithstanding.] And I totally agree with the idea that the time for rescue is short and growing shorter.

But I'm also convinced that if Christians are not careful, with a thoughtless kind of zeal we can do great damage when sharing the good news of the gospel. Let me explain why I believe this.

Please remember when using the analogy of a house being on fire, because it can be forgotten, that we are trying to rescue people who DON'T BELIEVE the house IS on fire and tend to NOT LISTEN to someone who uses frantic, loud, forceful, hateful, disrespectful tactics to try to force them TO ADMIT it is on fire and be willing to escape it.

In fact, they may reject any offers of help BECAUSE of those very antics.

Much as a little child who is in danger may often draw back and even hide from that kind of confrontation, and remember where Kingdom things are concerned we're all children to a degree, just so many people we are trying to help may back away until they are convinced that we are not the enemy or out to hurt them. It is exactly that response to the gospel that I believe we can unintentionally create with a disrespectful, pushy, kind of presentation of our message of Christ.

The very people who face a horrible fate that we say we want to rescue them from may refuse to listen and may even withdraw back into the danger zone, if the presence of a caring and loving person is not seen handling the gospel.

[No one is doubting that it is only the Holy Spirit who can bring about a willingness to receive the gospel, but may we NEVER excuse bad behavior because of our sovereignty of God doctrine.]

This was one of the things so wonderfully strange about Jesus.

His ability to never be seen as demanding or forcing upon people decisions that He thought were needed was part of what made Him different. [Think Rich Young Ruler.] He walked in and out of sinner's lives with nothing but the kind of actions that expressed love. No one knew and cared more for the desired end result of a relationship with people needing deliverance than did He. And, He was ALWAYS honest with them, but it was always "with them."  He was "with" the harlot. He was "with" the thieving tax-collector. He was "with" the drunkard and wine-bibbers. 

Somehow He didn't register on the scale of demanding, anger, judgment, fear that they wouldn’t get it, or any other disturbing kind of emotional description. To them He registered as an earthquake on the scale of love, and they knew His love was real because He was "with" them, though He wasn't "of" them, and He wasn’t shouting at them them so they would know the seriousness of their situation.

This is why I believe it is the announcement of the goodness of God in the gospel by people who are real in their demonstration of love and respect, leaving the results in the hands of the Holy Spirit, that really does work repentance in hearers, and not the fearful and loud tactics of supposed rescuers.

Let's do remember that time is short. So, redeeming that time with real relationships and the sharing of the gospel is essential for this fallen world. But let's be sure and be Christ-like about it all.

Paul B.

SOME SINISTER SIGNALS THAT ARE A SIGN OF WEAK SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP AND SHOULD MAKE US SKEPTICAL

It is tragic when the Church is confronted with failure in leadership. Moral failure always seems to be ever present unfortunately, but there is a far more sinister kind of potential failure that is far less identifiable. That is because this failure in leadership can be masked with a spiritual lingo and pious appearance and often goes unidentified by many believers.

The Church has been entrusted by God with the sharing of the gospel and His message of redemption with this fallen world. In the doing of it however, there can be a shift of emphasis by those in leadership that disallows the authority of the gospel itself, and the authority that goes with the Holy Spirit's gifting of all the members of Body of Christ for it's life on earth as well.

The result is a system of spiritual abuse set up that effectively makes for an idol out of some leaders and robs the Holy Spirit of His unique place of direction giving in the life of the Church.

There have been cases of this in our history where that kind of idolatry has led to terrible consequences of the nature and magnitude represented by the picture on the left that accompanies this post.

There are lesser scenarios of course, but these may have destructive effects of abuse as well, just not as noticeable as the ones that make headlines. But lives are damaged and the cause of Christ suffers nonetheless. This would be those situations where a twisted kind of theology places authority in the hands of sinister people who are weak leaders but hide it with the afore mentioned spiritual lingo and pious appearance. Such people will use verses out of context and after a mis-interpretation, those verses are misapplied to gain the follow-ship of duped individuals. This creates followers of men instead of followers of God.

When this kind of crisis is found present in leadership, it is imperative the congregation not abandon the truth of righteousness and holiness in the face of a defensive or adversarial heart in that leader when confronted. And such leaders will be defensive and adversarial. It is much as physical abuse in that the abuser is able to get the abused to believe they'll be doing something wrong to resist. But careful, loving, graceful, scriptural confrontation there must be.

If any leader fails to respond in confession and repentance when confronted over such spiritual abuse, in truth and love by the body, believers are to hold firm to that Kingdom principle of speaking the truth in love regardless. Abusive, false authority must not go unchallenged as it is idolatry in the first degree. 

Yet in the face of authentic humility by a leader who might repent, there is also to be a response with a Kingdom mind of grace and justice that allows the effects of confession and repentance to bear the fruit of health and wholeness to the glory of God. This is a serious and sad kind of situation, but face it we must. Spiritual abuse must not stand any more than any other kind of abuse. 

Here are ten signals that failing, sinister [singularly bad or capable of destructiveness] Christian leaders give off which should give all believers pause and about which they should be keenly aware and wary. When found present these can ultimately lead to what has been described above. I call them the nine "if" questions.

(1) If there emerges an organization built around a person and their peculiar emphases instead of being built around Christ and His Word bringing healthiness to His Body, the Church.

(2) If the claim is made of a direct authority from God rather than there being a desire for and an encouragement of the testing of things by the Word of God, by the entire body of people being served.

(3) If a gift or ability is exploited so others are made to feel totally dependent on the one exercising it.

(4) If there is a demand presented that says, "submit to me," rather than "I will serve you." This is the antithesis of biblical leadership.

(5) If there is the revealing of a spirit characterized by a dominating, pushy drive to control, instead of a personal dependence on God to direct.

(6) If the method of leadership is one that orders people around with decisions made in secret, rather than to appeal for them to help investigate what the right thing to do might be on issues.

(7) If there is an unapproachability and intimidation kind of "aura" around the leader that keeps the followers in "awe" of that leader.

(8) If there is an inflexibility and an unwillingness to be questioned shown by demands like "don't question me" - "don't touch the Lord's anointed."

(9) If there is more concern for maintaining the authoritarian structure than there is for caring about the people in the body.

May God grant us all, male and female, young and old, as members of His body, where ever we worship and serve locally, a gracious body where the Holy Spirit is able to anoint and give gifts to people who will be looked to as leaders in whatever area they are gifted so that our true authority, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, will be able to effect His life through us all as we share the gospel with all peoples everywhere.

Paul B.