You will find below a story of an American soldier that may not appeal to all of you. But it DOES appeal to me as an American citizen for several reasons.
One-- is because, as I said, I'm an American citizen and believe I have a great debt that I owe to those who wear the uniform and protect our country from foreign enemies especially those who attack us on our shores as 9-11 evidenced they can and will.
Two--is because I have a grandson in training with the Marine Corp at this moment and I know he will probably be shipped to Afganistan when boot camp is finished and I would want double care taken when dealing with him or any other soldier when they are engaging the enemy in an atmosphere of war.
Three--is because I have another grandson who went to school with the young man accused, convicted and sentenced to 25 years in Leavenworth. It is his testimony that there will not be found a better person or soldier than the one who is now in prison for the next quarter of a century with no possibility of parole.
I'm not asking about your view of the biblical position on war or anyone's view of the justice/injustice of the present war on terror, though you are free to comment about either if you wish. There are differing views about that I'm sure and the right to disagree about those things certainly exists also. But my concern here is that the truth be known and heard about this specific case because of my concern for him and others who may follow in like responsibilities.
I must confess I have a lot of research to do myself and will be doing just that. I'm going to also do what I can to get our politicians to carefully reconsider what has happened here for the sake of justice.
But as a christian I will be praying for this young man and his family and invite you to do the same.
[I will AlWAYS face issues like this with my eye on the fact that as a christian I'm a citizen of another country and the gospel being shared will always trump the pain or injustices one might suffer in this or any other country. So I would desire my hope for justice in any matter as a citizen and as an American would never be the angry or mean-spirited kind so as to diminish my voice being heard when the true gospel is presented. But sometimes a christian citizen just has to appeal to Caesar. You get the scriptural inference I'm sure.]
The Story
Michael Behenna
On March 20th, 2009, 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. The “victim”, Ali Mansur, was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation, and was suspected to have organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.
During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.
Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. Whether it is U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be so blatantly mistreated.......
To read the rest of the story and get other information go here....DEFEND MICHAEL
Paul B.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
THE BOOK IS OUT
FROM ONE WHO WOULDN'T PLAY THE GAME
You see above the cover of Wade's new book just released. I'm showing it here and linking to the place from which it can be ordered. I'm sure it will be in the bookstores shortly, but it can be purchased On-line at this publisher's site now. That link is......http://www.helwys.com/books/hardball_religion.html
I was asked to review the book with a pre-published printing of that review on my blog but I declined for obvious reasons. However, if you would like to read a thorough, thoughtful and insightful review that is well written by a layman who is no stranger to the SBC conlicts go to....http://mightyfowl.blogspot.com/
My personal and some what [I admit] biased opinion is you will love the book which is a great read [I read the original manuscript] and I predict as well that it will eventually be on most Southern Baptist's bookshelves after they have devoured it. No bias in that last statement at all. Just a humble but accurate prediction. :)
I'm convinced the reading audience may even be much larger than simply Southern Baptist people because of the interest Evangelicals have in general as they have observed some of the struggles and even the potential disintegration of a major denomination. [Some may think that the last part of that an over statement but I've lived long enough to experience the truth that the"little foxes spoil the vines" principle is often found to be a reality in life as the scriptures have pointed out it can be.]
I'm hoping some straight talk about the issues will provide an atmosphere where change can come about without losing a great missions tool in Christendom. I don't know that we've been the greatest tool God has ever had as Southern Baptists but we HAVE been an effective one in the past. May that be regained.
Paul B.
Monday, March 23, 2009
WHAT IS THE CHURCH?
I personally believe much of the turmoil we face in our Convention today [speaking only as a Southern Baptist] can be credited to the difference on how we view the Church. I'm speaking of viewing the church as primarily and "institution" or primarily an "organism."
This was brought out anew to my thinking as I read Dr. Al Mohler's blog post written in response to a woman who had written in the national newspaper USA TODAY about women NOT being viewed as equal in the eyes of the Church. I have to say I agree with Dr. Molher's critique that you don't set forward a truth because of how it is viewed in the culture. We are to set forward our views on women AND men [or anything else theological] based on how we view the text of scripture. I also have to say that, undoubtedly, D. Mohler and I might disagree on our view of women in the church but both of us would be doing so on how we view scripture not culture.
But my interest was peaked by one statement that Dr. Mohler made that is different than how many Southern baptist [myself inluded] see the Church. In this post I'm going to put up the quote AND a portion of an article by another Baptist with a differing view. So you will see the quote first and then a longer statement by John Reisinger.
In fairness to Dr. Mohler [whom I admire in many ways] were he able to speak to the issue I'm raising he might come closer to John Reisinger than I know. But I'm simply using a quote not assigning a doctrinal belief to him. It's a contrast of thoughts I'm raising here...not men. First the Mohler quote then the quote from a Reisinger article.
Mohler quote
"Nevertheless, those who believe that the church is an institution established by Jesus Christ and who believe that the Bible is our sole final authority for belief and practice must obey what the Bible teaches. This means that we must also follow the pattern set out in the Scripture as the pattern set out by God himself." Dr. Al Mohler
Reisinger quote
"The Landmark Baptists, along with Rome, insists there is no such thing as a universal/invisible ekklesia. They are convinced the only ekklesia in the NTS [New Testament Scriptures] is the local/visible ekklesia. If we ask the question another way, the Landmark Baptist and the Romanist miss the boat. Instead of asking whether the visible or invisible ekklesia is the most used concept in the NTS, let's ask this question: "Do the NTS emphasis union with Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit, which all agree is true of all Christians, or does it emphasize membership in a local congregation of professing Christians?" That is bottom line in the discussion.
The moment you try to make the "local/visible" ekklesia to be an institution, or physical organization, which is supposed to be Christ's Vicar on earth, as opposed to the ekklesia being an invisible/universal spiritual organism, you are half way back to Rome.
My contention is that the NTS do NOT give us two different definitions of the ekklesia of Christ. There is not a spiritual ekklesia where all who are in it are saved, and a physical ekklesia made up of both saved and lost. The moment we allow these two different kinds of ekklesias, we have denied and changed the basic meaning of ekklesia as being "the called out ones." The difference between the so-called 'universal' ekklesia and 'local' ekklesia is not that one is a spiritual organism made up of regenerate people and the other is a physical organization with both saved and lost in it. There is only one ekklesia and the different uses of the word is only referring to how many of the 'called out ones' you are talking about. In one instance you are talking about all the called out ones, or the ekklesia for whom Christ died, and in the other instance you are talking about all those living in Corinth, or wherever, for whom Christ died.
The Bible does not talk about the difference between an organization and an organism. The so-called visible ekklesia does not take on a life of its own independent of a living relationship with her Lord. The ekklesia of Christ does not have an ounce of authority on her own. She speaks for Christ only when she speaks His words. She represents Christ only when she repeats what her Lord has spoken. She cannot say, "Christ has made me His Vicar on earth therefore you must obey me without question."
I repeat, the ekklesia emphasized in the NTS is not an institution, or organization that you join, but it's a spiritual body into which the Holy Spirit has baptized you. Everything is determined by the phrases "Christ in you" and "you in Christ." It is this truth that the NTS emphasize.
Should Christians today join a group of Christians and live under the love and discipline of that group as it has defined itself and its beliefs in its constitution? Absolutely! But not because that is the way the early church did it. Where is there a single instance in the NTS of any individual being examined and then joining "a local church?"
Should a group of believers write out their beliefs and rules of conduct and require everyone who wants to join their church to promise to live under those rules. Absolutely! But again, not because that is the way the early church did it. Where do the NTS say that each group of believers wrote a constitution?
In the next article I will attempt to demonstrate why there is such confusion about church polity in our day. We must deal with problems for which we have no clear answers. We struggle with situations that not only did not exist in the apostolic age but also could not have been anticipated in that age." John Reisinger [All emphasis made by PB]
Interesting. Your thoughts? let me know...graciously. :)
Paul B.
This was brought out anew to my thinking as I read Dr. Al Mohler's blog post written in response to a woman who had written in the national newspaper USA TODAY about women NOT being viewed as equal in the eyes of the Church. I have to say I agree with Dr. Molher's critique that you don't set forward a truth because of how it is viewed in the culture. We are to set forward our views on women AND men [or anything else theological] based on how we view the text of scripture. I also have to say that, undoubtedly, D. Mohler and I might disagree on our view of women in the church but both of us would be doing so on how we view scripture not culture.
But my interest was peaked by one statement that Dr. Mohler made that is different than how many Southern baptist [myself inluded] see the Church. In this post I'm going to put up the quote AND a portion of an article by another Baptist with a differing view. So you will see the quote first and then a longer statement by John Reisinger.
In fairness to Dr. Mohler [whom I admire in many ways] were he able to speak to the issue I'm raising he might come closer to John Reisinger than I know. But I'm simply using a quote not assigning a doctrinal belief to him. It's a contrast of thoughts I'm raising here...not men. First the Mohler quote then the quote from a Reisinger article.
Mohler quote
"Nevertheless, those who believe that the church is an institution established by Jesus Christ and who believe that the Bible is our sole final authority for belief and practice must obey what the Bible teaches. This means that we must also follow the pattern set out in the Scripture as the pattern set out by God himself." Dr. Al Mohler
Reisinger quote
"The Landmark Baptists, along with Rome, insists there is no such thing as a universal/invisible ekklesia. They are convinced the only ekklesia in the NTS [New Testament Scriptures] is the local/visible ekklesia. If we ask the question another way, the Landmark Baptist and the Romanist miss the boat. Instead of asking whether the visible or invisible ekklesia is the most used concept in the NTS, let's ask this question: "Do the NTS emphasis union with Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit, which all agree is true of all Christians, or does it emphasize membership in a local congregation of professing Christians?" That is bottom line in the discussion.
The moment you try to make the "local/visible" ekklesia to be an institution, or physical organization, which is supposed to be Christ's Vicar on earth, as opposed to the ekklesia being an invisible/universal spiritual organism, you are half way back to Rome.
My contention is that the NTS do NOT give us two different definitions of the ekklesia of Christ. There is not a spiritual ekklesia where all who are in it are saved, and a physical ekklesia made up of both saved and lost. The moment we allow these two different kinds of ekklesias, we have denied and changed the basic meaning of ekklesia as being "the called out ones." The difference between the so-called 'universal' ekklesia and 'local' ekklesia is not that one is a spiritual organism made up of regenerate people and the other is a physical organization with both saved and lost in it. There is only one ekklesia and the different uses of the word is only referring to how many of the 'called out ones' you are talking about. In one instance you are talking about all the called out ones, or the ekklesia for whom Christ died, and in the other instance you are talking about all those living in Corinth, or wherever, for whom Christ died.
The Bible does not talk about the difference between an organization and an organism. The so-called visible ekklesia does not take on a life of its own independent of a living relationship with her Lord. The ekklesia of Christ does not have an ounce of authority on her own. She speaks for Christ only when she speaks His words. She represents Christ only when she repeats what her Lord has spoken. She cannot say, "Christ has made me His Vicar on earth therefore you must obey me without question."
I repeat, the ekklesia emphasized in the NTS is not an institution, or organization that you join, but it's a spiritual body into which the Holy Spirit has baptized you. Everything is determined by the phrases "Christ in you" and "you in Christ." It is this truth that the NTS emphasize.
Should Christians today join a group of Christians and live under the love and discipline of that group as it has defined itself and its beliefs in its constitution? Absolutely! But not because that is the way the early church did it. Where is there a single instance in the NTS of any individual being examined and then joining "a local church?"
Should a group of believers write out their beliefs and rules of conduct and require everyone who wants to join their church to promise to live under those rules. Absolutely! But again, not because that is the way the early church did it. Where do the NTS say that each group of believers wrote a constitution?
In the next article I will attempt to demonstrate why there is such confusion about church polity in our day. We must deal with problems for which we have no clear answers. We struggle with situations that not only did not exist in the apostolic age but also could not have been anticipated in that age." John Reisinger [All emphasis made by PB]
Interesting. Your thoughts? let me know...graciously. :)
Paul B.
Friday, March 20, 2009
RANDOM THOUGHTS RESULTING IN UNEASINESS AND REPENTENCE
A contemplative moment. I don't like what I've experienced the past few hours. Let me be specific.
One thing is... I'm always surprised when a belief about the equality of women in the Kingdom [non-hierarchical] leads someone to say that the same thinking that led to that will lead to homosexual behavior being approved as if both [equality of persons and acceptance of immoral behavior] are linked and both are immoral. My guess is the female gender would have a sense of being disrespected tremendously by that. [And rightfully so...I'm even sure some whose behavior is of that nature would object to the disrespect as well.]
The fact that someone would try to justify doing it by saying they are speaking only of a failure to use sound principles of biblical interpretation which bring about the one [equality of gender] and would bring about the other [sexual orientation acceptance] doesn't change the disrespect. It exacerbates it. They are attempting to say that to believe in Kingdom gender equality is a result of the acceptance of a cultural standard rather than a biblical one. Not withstanding people CAN see the scriptures differently both using good principles of interpretation since we see through a glass darkly at present, the fact is that cultures, including the American one, DO NOT have a gender equality belief at all. The pay scale adequately shows that as a multitude of other gender prejudiced things do. The same could be said for racial equality.
In fact, were christians to be truly biblical in relationships especially in marriage and family life, it would upset the apple cart of our culture as well as all other nations, beyond measure. It would be tantamount to the turmoil Jesus caused when He brought about a radical view of equality regardless of race, gender, or social background to the life of His own religious and secular culture. How transforming and disturbing is that to a hierarchical, racial, male -dominated culture!! But, alas, it will take His return for culture to truly be transformed that way. That is unless one becomes truly a biblical christian. Then it would be seen as a reality albeit in a microcosm in a marriage and family where there is mutual respect, value, submission and love all under Jesus as Lord. That sounds like the picture of a truly biblical local church as well.
A second thing...resulting in my uneasiness and repentance is... I've found that, if we're not careful, in our zeal [my zeal] to disprove the charge that our culture has dictated our gender-equality position and will bring about the approval of homosexual behavior unless changed, we can come to a person-bashing position under the disguise of theological correctness. There is no doubt in my mind that the sexual behavior under discussion is of the same moral category as that of adultery and fornication and is not the best for human relationships.
That said, we must never forget that Jesus was identified as one who "ate with publicans [tax-collectors who were the dregs of society] and sinners." [Luke 15:1-2] May that same charge ever be laid at our feet as His followers and people of His Kingdom. Whatever one's definition of "dregs" of society [some would say religious people are] we are to recognize and embrace their value as a human being and be ready to express grace, mercy, and love to whomever fits your particular definition of that word "dregs."
I personally hold to two conflicting opinions here. I do believe certain actions [the three named earlier] are immoral and destructive actions. I also believe those guilty of such actions are to be people I embrace and love as I've been loved of the Lord. That is my greatest desire. I would hope NO ONE experiences rejection from me whatever their particular behavior might be. With regards to sexual child-abuse I'm still on the journey of non-rejection of the one who is serving a fifteen year sentence in prison for my grand-daughter being attacked. However, I AM on the journey.
But I also hold to a different definition of "dregs." I don't mean to be cruel here, but I'm rapidly approaching a belief that the "real" dregs of society in the day of Jesus were the religious people who thought more of their belief system than they did of the mind boggling reality of God's revelation of Himself in the Son seen in His receiving of the so-called outcasts. I'm not sure the same isn't happening today. That "They were first called christians" event was in Antioch as the people saw believers embracing people of every stripe some of whom were then broken by that love and the gospel that followed and came to know the love of God in Christ. "See how they love" was the testimony of the day for believers. That love is still the biblical standard for us I believe.
Lest someone hear this as love with no doctrinal foundation or lest someone think this love will lower the scriptural standard for immoral behavior, let me say, I do not mean that at all. I DO mean that the same love, experienced in Christ and founded upon the truth of scripture WILL be shed abroad by the Holy Spirit to people who may be a bit unlovely. Even those in their theological cages they've built for themselves. In other words, it isn't any less important to love the elder brother of Luke 15 than it is to love the younger one. [The prodigal] My problem used to be not loving the younger guy of Luke 15. I learned better. Then I struggled loving the elder guy. But when God's love is REALLY shed abroad thru me it will go to both the elder and younger bros. [The legalists and the immoral ones] just as the father did.
Finally, what I've said all says more about me than anyone else. I'm a work in progress and, as one of my favorite commenters Aussie John says, it comes with some "ego bruising" going on if real growth happens. It's happening and my ego is no longer in tact. Not that it has grounds to be intact and, after all, this is a "praise the lord" thing as you can see.
So...my comment approval button has been punched once again. [It was only recently opened anyway] I find I need time to think over negative comments that might be posted and when they need, I can answer them privately through e-mail as I've done many times over the past two years of blogging at least those which I deem too critical in spirit to benefit anyone. I realize that someone may view this my being unable to take criticism. Trust me after pastoring for forty years a thin skin is NOT my problem. My problem is really the opposite. I answer in like kind too easily. That is the flesh I struggle with and, perhaps, will until Jesus comes. So as an alcoholic would be wise to refrain from the area of temptation, so should one who tends toward an addiction to setting people straight who, unjustly, in the opinion of the one offended, criticizes people he knows and respects.
This is obviously a rather long apology for a job not done well but an apology it is. Since done in public the apology is in public.
Paul B.
One thing is... I'm always surprised when a belief about the equality of women in the Kingdom [non-hierarchical] leads someone to say that the same thinking that led to that will lead to homosexual behavior being approved as if both [equality of persons and acceptance of immoral behavior] are linked and both are immoral. My guess is the female gender would have a sense of being disrespected tremendously by that. [And rightfully so...I'm even sure some whose behavior is of that nature would object to the disrespect as well.]
The fact that someone would try to justify doing it by saying they are speaking only of a failure to use sound principles of biblical interpretation which bring about the one [equality of gender] and would bring about the other [sexual orientation acceptance] doesn't change the disrespect. It exacerbates it. They are attempting to say that to believe in Kingdom gender equality is a result of the acceptance of a cultural standard rather than a biblical one. Not withstanding people CAN see the scriptures differently both using good principles of interpretation since we see through a glass darkly at present, the fact is that cultures, including the American one, DO NOT have a gender equality belief at all. The pay scale adequately shows that as a multitude of other gender prejudiced things do. The same could be said for racial equality.
In fact, were christians to be truly biblical in relationships especially in marriage and family life, it would upset the apple cart of our culture as well as all other nations, beyond measure. It would be tantamount to the turmoil Jesus caused when He brought about a radical view of equality regardless of race, gender, or social background to the life of His own religious and secular culture. How transforming and disturbing is that to a hierarchical, racial, male -dominated culture!! But, alas, it will take His return for culture to truly be transformed that way. That is unless one becomes truly a biblical christian. Then it would be seen as a reality albeit in a microcosm in a marriage and family where there is mutual respect, value, submission and love all under Jesus as Lord. That sounds like the picture of a truly biblical local church as well.
A second thing...resulting in my uneasiness and repentance is... I've found that, if we're not careful, in our zeal [my zeal] to disprove the charge that our culture has dictated our gender-equality position and will bring about the approval of homosexual behavior unless changed, we can come to a person-bashing position under the disguise of theological correctness. There is no doubt in my mind that the sexual behavior under discussion is of the same moral category as that of adultery and fornication and is not the best for human relationships.
That said, we must never forget that Jesus was identified as one who "ate with publicans [tax-collectors who were the dregs of society] and sinners." [Luke 15:1-2] May that same charge ever be laid at our feet as His followers and people of His Kingdom. Whatever one's definition of "dregs" of society [some would say religious people are] we are to recognize and embrace their value as a human being and be ready to express grace, mercy, and love to whomever fits your particular definition of that word "dregs."
I personally hold to two conflicting opinions here. I do believe certain actions [the three named earlier] are immoral and destructive actions. I also believe those guilty of such actions are to be people I embrace and love as I've been loved of the Lord. That is my greatest desire. I would hope NO ONE experiences rejection from me whatever their particular behavior might be. With regards to sexual child-abuse I'm still on the journey of non-rejection of the one who is serving a fifteen year sentence in prison for my grand-daughter being attacked. However, I AM on the journey.
But I also hold to a different definition of "dregs." I don't mean to be cruel here, but I'm rapidly approaching a belief that the "real" dregs of society in the day of Jesus were the religious people who thought more of their belief system than they did of the mind boggling reality of God's revelation of Himself in the Son seen in His receiving of the so-called outcasts. I'm not sure the same isn't happening today. That "They were first called christians" event was in Antioch as the people saw believers embracing people of every stripe some of whom were then broken by that love and the gospel that followed and came to know the love of God in Christ. "See how they love" was the testimony of the day for believers. That love is still the biblical standard for us I believe.
Lest someone hear this as love with no doctrinal foundation or lest someone think this love will lower the scriptural standard for immoral behavior, let me say, I do not mean that at all. I DO mean that the same love, experienced in Christ and founded upon the truth of scripture WILL be shed abroad by the Holy Spirit to people who may be a bit unlovely. Even those in their theological cages they've built for themselves. In other words, it isn't any less important to love the elder brother of Luke 15 than it is to love the younger one. [The prodigal] My problem used to be not loving the younger guy of Luke 15. I learned better. Then I struggled loving the elder guy. But when God's love is REALLY shed abroad thru me it will go to both the elder and younger bros. [The legalists and the immoral ones] just as the father did.
Finally, what I've said all says more about me than anyone else. I'm a work in progress and, as one of my favorite commenters Aussie John says, it comes with some "ego bruising" going on if real growth happens. It's happening and my ego is no longer in tact. Not that it has grounds to be intact and, after all, this is a "praise the lord" thing as you can see.
So...my comment approval button has been punched once again. [It was only recently opened anyway] I find I need time to think over negative comments that might be posted and when they need, I can answer them privately through e-mail as I've done many times over the past two years of blogging at least those which I deem too critical in spirit to benefit anyone. I realize that someone may view this my being unable to take criticism. Trust me after pastoring for forty years a thin skin is NOT my problem. My problem is really the opposite. I answer in like kind too easily. That is the flesh I struggle with and, perhaps, will until Jesus comes. So as an alcoholic would be wise to refrain from the area of temptation, so should one who tends toward an addiction to setting people straight who, unjustly, in the opinion of the one offended, criticizes people he knows and respects.
This is obviously a rather long apology for a job not done well but an apology it is. Since done in public the apology is in public.
Paul B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)