Links to a few of the 300-something posts this past year:
Institutionalism
All Male Apostles
Baptist groups in the United States
Washing of the Saints' feet -- book review
History of Mt. Carmel Baptist Church
Plexiglas preaching
Plurality of elders
Baptists afraid of water?
In memory -- Darrell Mark Burress
Baptists baptizing "infants"?
One Anothering
Biblical principles for church music
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Shadows for Son
"If there is to be a futurist end-time 'millennial' restoration of a temple economy with priests, Levites, etc., the plan of salvation inexplicably goes retrograde. What was finished ("It is finished", Jn 19:30) becomes undone, the temple veil is sewn up again, and another foundation is laid other than that which is laid." -- Stephen Conte, pb-mb listserve, 19 Dec 2006
The true Messiah now appears,
The types are all withdrawn;
So fly the shadows and the stars
Before the rising dawn.
No smoking sweets, nor bleeding lambs,
Nor kid nor bullock slain;
Incense and spice of costly names
Would all be burnt in vain.
Aaron must lay his robes away,
His miter and his vest,
When God Himself comes down to be
The offering and the priest.
-- Isaac Watts, Hymns and Spiritual Songs
The true Messiah now appears,
The types are all withdrawn;
So fly the shadows and the stars
Before the rising dawn.
No smoking sweets, nor bleeding lambs,
Nor kid nor bullock slain;
Incense and spice of costly names
Would all be burnt in vain.
Aaron must lay his robes away,
His miter and his vest,
When God Himself comes down to be
The offering and the priest.
-- Isaac Watts, Hymns and Spiritual Songs
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Some scriptural aids to unity
Jesus prays for unity, John 17:11,20-23 - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
An apostle exhorts to unity, I Corinthians 1:10 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The Lord's supper expresses unity, I Cor. 10:17 - For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Seven ONES and unity, Eph. 4:3-6 - Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Spiritual gifts tend toward unity, Eph. 4:11-13 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Submission and unity, Eph. 5:21 - Submitting yourselves one to another one to another in the fear of God.
"We are not our own" -- and are not alone -- but part of a community of believers whose minds and hearts should be on one another. Consensus decision-making seems to fit best with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering (as opposed to other forms of decision-making/governance that have been set forward for the church).
An apostle exhorts to unity, I Corinthians 1:10 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The Lord's supper expresses unity, I Cor. 10:17 - For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Seven ONES and unity, Eph. 4:3-6 - Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Spiritual gifts tend toward unity, Eph. 4:11-13 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Submission and unity, Eph. 5:21 - Submitting yourselves one to another one to another in the fear of God.
"We are not our own" -- and are not alone -- but part of a community of believers whose minds and hearts should be on one another. Consensus decision-making seems to fit best with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering (as opposed to other forms of decision-making/governance that have been set forward for the church).
Friday, December 29, 2006
Decision making -- considerations of New Testament examples
Some considerations and implications from the New Testament examples
Matthew 18:15-18 - Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In the matter of consensus concerning fellowship, the matter (if unresolved at the person to person level) is taken to the church/ekklesia/assembly.
Acts 1:15,21-26 - And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said , (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) ...Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
In this account of unified decision making in the church, the they are some 120 men and women uniting together concerning the matter of Matthias.
Acts 6:1-5 - And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Again in this case it is the they, the whole multitude of disciples/the whole church, that chose the seven.
Acts 13:1-3 - Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it.
Acts 15:1-3 - And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Though disagreeing over circumcision, the Antioch church apparently reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the problem.
Acts 15:22-23 - Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
The "apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them and send Paul, Barnabas and others with a letter of clarification.
I Corinthians 5 & 6 - The whole church were to unitedly carry out the fellowship and discipline of the church, and in weighty matters, even the "least esteemed" are competent to judge.
I Cor. 14:23,27-31 - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, ...If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
When the whole church came together at Corinth, among other things, they were to judge that which was prophesied.
II Thess. 3:6-15 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
The church must act in unison to carry out these commands of the apostle.
Although the whole church was not represented, Peter asked consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47) concerning the baptism of these Gentiles. This shows deference to and interest in the opinion/spiritual discernment of others, and was not very pope-like.
These New Testament examples seem to have a common thread running through them. Even in cases of a direct command from the Lord through an apostle, the church had to act in a unified manner to carry it out. It is not a complicated matter that requires years of the study of parlimentary procedure in order to know how to conduct business, but the simplicity of finding out what the Lord wants and acting in concert.
The unified decision-making carried out by the church does not imply no leadership in the church. The entire church body is led both by the Holy Spirit and the elders whom the Spirit has placed among them. Ultimately the "decision-making" is judicial -- judging or understanding what the Lord says do and then doing it -- but "the whole church" is involved.
Matthew 18:15-18 - Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In the matter of consensus concerning fellowship, the matter (if unresolved at the person to person level) is taken to the church/ekklesia/assembly.
Acts 1:15,21-26 - And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said , (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) ...Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
In this account of unified decision making in the church, the they are some 120 men and women uniting together concerning the matter of Matthias.
Acts 6:1-5 - And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Again in this case it is the they, the whole multitude of disciples/the whole church, that chose the seven.
Acts 13:1-3 - Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it.
Acts 15:1-3 - And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Though disagreeing over circumcision, the Antioch church apparently reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the problem.
Acts 15:22-23 - Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
The "apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them and send Paul, Barnabas and others with a letter of clarification.
I Corinthians 5 & 6 - The whole church were to unitedly carry out the fellowship and discipline of the church, and in weighty matters, even the "least esteemed" are competent to judge.
I Cor. 14:23,27-31 - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, ...If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
When the whole church came together at Corinth, among other things, they were to judge that which was prophesied.
II Thess. 3:6-15 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
The church must act in unison to carry out these commands of the apostle.
Although the whole church was not represented, Peter asked consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47) concerning the baptism of these Gentiles. This shows deference to and interest in the opinion/spiritual discernment of others, and was not very pope-like.
These New Testament examples seem to have a common thread running through them. Even in cases of a direct command from the Lord through an apostle, the church had to act in a unified manner to carry it out. It is not a complicated matter that requires years of the study of parlimentary procedure in order to know how to conduct business, but the simplicity of finding out what the Lord wants and acting in concert.
The unified decision-making carried out by the church does not imply no leadership in the church. The entire church body is led both by the Holy Spirit and the elders whom the Spirit has placed among them. Ultimately the "decision-making" is judicial -- judging or understanding what the Lord says do and then doing it -- but "the whole church" is involved.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Church decision making -- Baptist history comments
Probably most modern Baptists know the rule of a democratic majority, though some experience the top-down rule of pastoral dictatorship, elder rule or staff decision-making. Historically, the Baptist decision making process has also included consensus, the unanimous rule in matters of fellowship, and even the casting of lots. H. C. Vedder wrote that "The Baptists of the seventeenth century had many curious customs...Fasting was a common observance, feet-washing was practised by many churches, though its obligation was earnestly questioned, and the anointing of the sick was so common as to be almost the rule. Pastors and deacons were often elected by the casting of lots, and love feasts before the Lord's Supper were a common practice. (A Short History of the Baptists, Henry Vedder, Chap. 15)
In the church in which I was raised, the 10th article of decorum passed down from the old Mt. Carmel Church required a "majority present shall rule in all cases except in maters (sic) touching fellowship, when the voice of the church shall be unanimous." This meant that some matters were settled by majority vote, but that receiving and excluding members, etc. had to done with unanimity. This rule reigned in the church until 1934, when a majority bent on excluding a member voted that the unanimous rule "be done away with".*
The historic Sandy Creek Association of North Carolina took the consensus principle beyond the local congregation to their associational meetings. According to David Benedict, "It had been usual with them to do nothing in Associations, but by unanimity. If in any measure proposed, there was a single dissentient, they labored first by arguments to come to unanimous agreement; when arguments failed, they resorted to frequent prayer, in which all joined. When both these failed, they sometimes appointed the next day for fasting and prayer, and to strive to bring all to be of one mind."
These are just some brief historical points to cause you to consider that Baptists probably have not always done it the way you may think they have -- hopefully to begin to knock a little of the wind out of the old "we've always done it that way" argument. Next we will look at the more important New Testament considerations.
* Note: an attempt to rescind the "anti-unanimous rule" vote was mounted in 1937 with no success. Though one might assume the church would be able exclude many more members without a "unanimous rule", this actually had the opposite effect. Perhaps this exclusion by a majority adversely affected the moral authority of the church and resulted in a loss of respect for church discipline.
In the church in which I was raised, the 10th article of decorum passed down from the old Mt. Carmel Church required a "majority present shall rule in all cases except in maters (sic) touching fellowship, when the voice of the church shall be unanimous." This meant that some matters were settled by majority vote, but that receiving and excluding members, etc. had to done with unanimity. This rule reigned in the church until 1934, when a majority bent on excluding a member voted that the unanimous rule "be done away with".*
The historic Sandy Creek Association of North Carolina took the consensus principle beyond the local congregation to their associational meetings. According to David Benedict, "It had been usual with them to do nothing in Associations, but by unanimity. If in any measure proposed, there was a single dissentient, they labored first by arguments to come to unanimous agreement; when arguments failed, they resorted to frequent prayer, in which all joined. When both these failed, they sometimes appointed the next day for fasting and prayer, and to strive to bring all to be of one mind."
These are just some brief historical points to cause you to consider that Baptists probably have not always done it the way you may think they have -- hopefully to begin to knock a little of the wind out of the old "we've always done it that way" argument. Next we will look at the more important New Testament considerations.
* Note: an attempt to rescind the "anti-unanimous rule" vote was mounted in 1937 with no success. Though one might assume the church would be able exclude many more members without a "unanimous rule", this actually had the opposite effect. Perhaps this exclusion by a majority adversely affected the moral authority of the church and resulted in a loss of respect for church discipline.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The church, a decision making body
I'll hope to spend the next couple of blogs considering Biblical arguments for consensus or unified decision making in the church. Perhaps we have settled for less than the ideal.
When I speak of the church as a decision making body, I speak in a context of Christ as the Head of the church. So, no statement on decision making is to be taken as meaning a church can make decisions apart from what her head has already legislated. Each local congregation has authority under Christ to make decisions according to their understanding of the commands of Christ. A church has no right to make an unscriptural decision. BUT no individual, religious body or political body has any right or authority to interfere with and meddle between a church and Christ in said church making her decisions.
It is important to recognize the church as a "decision-making" body, though that is certainly not its only function. There is often found in churches and among church members an apathy and indifference with regard to church-governance functions, resulting in a lack of participation on the part of many church members. Brethren, these things ought not to be.
The church as a decision making body:
A. As seen in the word ekklesia
Ekklesia is the Greek word usually translated "church" in our English Bibles. That Jesus chose this word ekklesia rather than "sunagogue", or some other more "religious" word ought to be given proper consideration. Ekklesia was an assembly of (male) citizens duly summoned or "called out" to transact business. It was an open meeting with due deliberation in which these citizens interacted to come to a decision. Ekklesia never refers to a building or place of worship. We could no doubt get too extreme in trying to make parallels between a New Testament church and a Greek ekklesia, but it is way too extreme to think Jesus used this term carelessly and/or without awareness of its implications to His hearers/readers.
"The term ἐκκλησία was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership. In general Greek usage it was normally a socio-political entity based upon citizenship in a city-state and in this sense is parallel to δῆμος." [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains, New York: United Bible Societies, 1996]
"A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly" [Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament]
B. As seen in New Testament examples
Acts chapter 1 is an account of unified decision making in the church. Casting lots is not the same as voting as we think of it today, but the church was united in this process. In Acts 6 the whole church chose the seven (Acts 6:5); and in Acts 15 "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them. Related verses include the church at Antioch's unified sending Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1ff) following the choice of the Holy Spirt; this same church reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the circumcision problem (Acts 15:1-4); the whole church at Corinth was to judge that which was prophesied (I Cor. 14:23ff). Another incident, although the whole church was not represented, shows Peter asking consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47; not very pope-like, I might add).
Consider also Matthew 18:15-18; I Cor. chapters 5 and 6; II Thess. 3:6-15; and Gal. 6:1. We will develop these examples to a greater extent in a later blog.
When I speak of the church as a decision making body, I speak in a context of Christ as the Head of the church. So, no statement on decision making is to be taken as meaning a church can make decisions apart from what her head has already legislated. Each local congregation has authority under Christ to make decisions according to their understanding of the commands of Christ. A church has no right to make an unscriptural decision. BUT no individual, religious body or political body has any right or authority to interfere with and meddle between a church and Christ in said church making her decisions.
It is important to recognize the church as a "decision-making" body, though that is certainly not its only function. There is often found in churches and among church members an apathy and indifference with regard to church-governance functions, resulting in a lack of participation on the part of many church members. Brethren, these things ought not to be.
The church as a decision making body:
A. As seen in the word ekklesia
Ekklesia is the Greek word usually translated "church" in our English Bibles. That Jesus chose this word ekklesia rather than "sunagogue", or some other more "religious" word ought to be given proper consideration. Ekklesia was an assembly of (male) citizens duly summoned or "called out" to transact business. It was an open meeting with due deliberation in which these citizens interacted to come to a decision. Ekklesia never refers to a building or place of worship. We could no doubt get too extreme in trying to make parallels between a New Testament church and a Greek ekklesia, but it is way too extreme to think Jesus used this term carelessly and/or without awareness of its implications to His hearers/readers.
"The term ἐκκλησία was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership. In general Greek usage it was normally a socio-political entity based upon citizenship in a city-state and in this sense is parallel to δῆμος." [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains, New York: United Bible Societies, 1996]
"A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly" [Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament]
B. As seen in New Testament examples
Acts chapter 1 is an account of unified decision making in the church. Casting lots is not the same as voting as we think of it today, but the church was united in this process. In Acts 6 the whole church chose the seven (Acts 6:5); and in Acts 15 "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" at Jerusalem came to a united decision on the circumcision question before them. Related verses include the church at Antioch's unified sending Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1ff) following the choice of the Holy Spirt; this same church reached a consensus agreement to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning the circumcision problem (Acts 15:1-4); the whole church at Corinth was to judge that which was prophesied (I Cor. 14:23ff). Another incident, although the whole church was not represented, shows Peter asking consensus of the disciples who traveled with him to Cornelius' household (Acts 10:47; not very pope-like, I might add).
Consider also Matthew 18:15-18; I Cor. chapters 5 and 6; II Thess. 3:6-15; and Gal. 6:1. We will develop these examples to a greater extent in a later blog.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Fresh Excitement
"Every time you open the Holy Divinely Inspired WrittenWord of God, it should be with a prayerful heart, as if it was the very first time you opened it, with the same FRESH EXCITEMENT as at the first." 2nd Tim. 2:15. -- Elder Hulan Bass, pastor of Bethel PBC, McMahan, TX, on the [PB-MB] listserve November 20, 2006
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Monday, December 25, 2006
A grouchy saint
A little on the lighter side:
Brother returned from fields of sin;
My father had a ball.
Me? I'll be a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
I know conversion's evidence --
Love brethren, one and all.
But let me be a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
On soured milk I have been raised,
I've drank some bitter gall.
My face shows I'm a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
My practice is the narrow way.
Doctrines? CORRECT ON ALL!!
My pride suits a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
If someone disagrees with me,
We might get in a brawl.
My mood proclaims a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
I'm at my best, above the rest,
When sadness casts its pall.
That suits me -- a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
-- by R. L. Vaughn December 8, 2006
[Note: Some mistakenly think the correct opposite of this grouchy saint is to always yuk and ham it up. Not so. The correct "opposite" of the grouchy saint is not the saint who knows all the latest jokes, but the one who patiently rests in the will of God. "Godliness with contentment is great gain."]
Brother returned from fields of sin;
My father had a ball.
Me? I'll be a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
I know conversion's evidence --
Love brethren, one and all.
But let me be a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
On soured milk I have been raised,
I've drank some bitter gall.
My face shows I'm a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
My practice is the narrow way.
Doctrines? CORRECT ON ALL!!
My pride suits a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
If someone disagrees with me,
We might get in a brawl.
My mood proclaims a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
I'm at my best, above the rest,
When sadness casts its pall.
That suits me -- a grouchy saint --
If I'm a saint at all.
-- by R. L. Vaughn December 8, 2006
[Note: Some mistakenly think the correct opposite of this grouchy saint is to always yuk and ham it up. Not so. The correct "opposite" of the grouchy saint is not the saint who knows all the latest jokes, but the one who patiently rests in the will of God. "Godliness with contentment is great gain."]
The elder brother; or, Grouchy saints, if saints at all
Micah 7:18 -- "Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy."
Sometimes those who profess to be God's people may become so lifted up with the Elijan pride of only I and so full of our "scriptural" correctness that we cannot abide how and on whom God chooses to dispense His gracious favours.
"Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry..." Are we elder brothers, ever ready to complain about how the Father chooses to dispense His Grace? Should we not rather have joy, as it is in the presence of the angels -- rejoicing over even one sinner that repents? If we have experienced any of the hog-pens and husks (as many of us claim), might we rather cry out with the hymnist, "Who is a pardoning God like Thee? Or who has grace so rich and free?" Sadly, often more true to character we must begin with the lines of an unknown hymnwriter: "I am a great complainer that bears the name of Christ..."
"O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." Shall we, like Jonah, condemn the Father's choice on whom He dispenses His Grace? Happy are we prophesying the restored coasts of Israel, while withholding our look toward those which "were not a people"?? May we rather be pleased with that which pleases the God who does as He pleases!
6-8s. A Pardoning God - Micah vii. 18.
GREAT God of wonders! all thy ways
Display the attributes divine;
But countless acts of pardoning grace
Beyond thine other wonders shine:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Crimes of such horror to forgive,
Such guilty, daring worms to spare;
This is thy grand prerogative,
And none may in this honour share:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
In wonder lost, with trembling joy
We take the pardon of our God;
Pardon for crimes of deepest dye,
A pardon bought with Jesus' blood:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
O may this strange, this matchless grace,
This God-like miracle of love,
Fill the wide earth with grateful praise,
As now it fills the choirs above!
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
-- by Samuel Davies, published posthumously in Hymns Adapted to Divine Worship, by Thomas Gibbons
Sometimes those who profess to be God's people may become so lifted up with the Elijan pride of only I and so full of our "scriptural" correctness that we cannot abide how and on whom God chooses to dispense His gracious favours.
"Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry..." Are we elder brothers, ever ready to complain about how the Father chooses to dispense His Grace? Should we not rather have joy, as it is in the presence of the angels -- rejoicing over even one sinner that repents? If we have experienced any of the hog-pens and husks (as many of us claim), might we rather cry out with the hymnist, "Who is a pardoning God like Thee? Or who has grace so rich and free?" Sadly, often more true to character we must begin with the lines of an unknown hymnwriter: "I am a great complainer that bears the name of Christ..."
"O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." Shall we, like Jonah, condemn the Father's choice on whom He dispenses His Grace? Happy are we prophesying the restored coasts of Israel, while withholding our look toward those which "were not a people"?? May we rather be pleased with that which pleases the God who does as He pleases!
6-8s. A Pardoning God - Micah vii. 18.
GREAT God of wonders! all thy ways
Display the attributes divine;
But countless acts of pardoning grace
Beyond thine other wonders shine:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
Crimes of such horror to forgive,
Such guilty, daring worms to spare;
This is thy grand prerogative,
And none may in this honour share:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
In wonder lost, with trembling joy
We take the pardon of our God;
Pardon for crimes of deepest dye,
A pardon bought with Jesus' blood:
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
O may this strange, this matchless grace,
This God-like miracle of love,
Fill the wide earth with grateful praise,
As now it fills the choirs above!
Who is a pardoning God like thee?
Or who has grace so rich and free?
-- by Samuel Davies, published posthumously in Hymns Adapted to Divine Worship, by Thomas Gibbons
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Thank you, readers
A couple of years ago, I had no idea of what a blog even was! December 24th, 2006 marks the completion of one year of blogging. In one year I have had 5656 visits* to this site (as of 2:29 p.m. December 24; actually slightly less than a year since I haven't had a counter the full year). I'm sure that isn't many for well known, famous and infamous folk, but that seems like a lot to a country boy who has lived all his years in one Texas county. We've had visitors from as near as "right here" and as far away as Canada, Portugal, and Spain (to name a few). Thank you, readers; and thank you, Lord.
* Note: this only represents the number of visits, not the number of visitors; as some visitors come back to the site on a regular basis.
BTW, I am told "blog" stands for "web (as in world wide web) log"
* Note: this only represents the number of visits, not the number of visitors; as some visitors come back to the site on a regular basis.
BTW, I am told "blog" stands for "web (as in world wide web) log"
When did this happen?
Perhaps I shouldn't ask this question. It may show my age and that I'm not keeping up. But.....
When did we begin to call 12 midnight 12 a.m. and 12 noon 12 p.m.? I was taught that wasn't correct and that it must always be either midnight or noon. But I've noticed on the radio and a few other places that 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. seems to be coming into common usage? Is this another part of the computer age?
It's confusing to me, but I'm sure it would work fine if one were taught that way from the beginning. Every time I hear 12 a.m. (or 12 p.m.) I have to think about when that is.
When did we begin to call 12 midnight 12 a.m. and 12 noon 12 p.m.? I was taught that wasn't correct and that it must always be either midnight or noon. But I've noticed on the radio and a few other places that 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. seems to be coming into common usage? Is this another part of the computer age?
It's confusing to me, but I'm sure it would work fine if one were taught that way from the beginning. Every time I hear 12 a.m. (or 12 p.m.) I have to think about when that is.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
A couple of funnies
Back in the late 70s & early 80s (that would be 1900s), my wife and I knew someone who insisted she would not pull over for the big 18-wheelers racing down her highway when she had the right-of-way. Back then I learned this little poem that was so appropriate:
Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died defending his right-of-way,
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But now he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
To this I found someone has added:
John had the courage; he had the pluck,
But the other guy had a very big truck!
[Instead of the right-of-way right, I usually follow the who has a bigger vehicle theory!]
One that some of you all who are beginning to get a little older can appreciate:
I get up each morning and dust off my wits,
Go pick up the paper and read the obits.
If my name isn’t there, I know I’m not dead;
So I get a good breakfast and go back to bed.
Oh, how do I know my youth is all spent?
My get-up-and-go has got-up-and-went.
But in spite of it all, I'm able to grin,
And think of the places my get-up has been.
[Unknown authors on both, so far as I can tell]
Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died defending his right-of-way,
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But now he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
To this I found someone has added:
John had the courage; he had the pluck,
But the other guy had a very big truck!
[Instead of the right-of-way right, I usually follow the who has a bigger vehicle theory!]
One that some of you all who are beginning to get a little older can appreciate:
I get up each morning and dust off my wits,
Go pick up the paper and read the obits.
If my name isn’t there, I know I’m not dead;
So I get a good breakfast and go back to bed.
Oh, how do I know my youth is all spent?
My get-up-and-go has got-up-and-went.
But in spite of it all, I'm able to grin,
And think of the places my get-up has been.
[Unknown authors on both, so far as I can tell]
Friday, December 22, 2006
100% Agreement
Acts 3:24 - Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
"Often in our advertising we will see phrases like, '3 out of 4 Dentists agree.' Or maybe its '85% of 100 people surveyed found those who have followed this advice are satisfied customers today.' Those statistics sound pretty good and cause us to take note. There are a couple of problems with them however. First we do not know who these four dentists are. They could be four dental students just graduating college and the company has hired them for lab research. (I wonder if the fourth one still works there.) Also 85% of 100 people sound good, but how many did they ask before they got that percentage? They may have asked 1000 people and 915 said they didn’t like it. But if you toss out the first 900, then 85 out of 100 did like it. That’s 85%. We don’t know how their data is collected. But what if someone could say 100% of the time our statements are true. Or 4 out of 4 agree? That’s what the Bible says about Jesus and prophets. It says all the prophets were speaking of Jesus. Every one that opened their mouth spoke of Him. Not most, 85% or 3 out of 4. Not one was speaking of another god or idol. It says that all of them recorded in the pages of the Bible that prophesied of a coming messiah were referring to Jesus. Now those are some impressive statistics." -- by Franklin Senters, Living in His Word Devotions, Friday 22 Sept 2006
"Often in our advertising we will see phrases like, '3 out of 4 Dentists agree.' Or maybe its '85% of 100 people surveyed found those who have followed this advice are satisfied customers today.' Those statistics sound pretty good and cause us to take note. There are a couple of problems with them however. First we do not know who these four dentists are. They could be four dental students just graduating college and the company has hired them for lab research. (I wonder if the fourth one still works there.) Also 85% of 100 people sound good, but how many did they ask before they got that percentage? They may have asked 1000 people and 915 said they didn’t like it. But if you toss out the first 900, then 85 out of 100 did like it. That’s 85%. We don’t know how their data is collected. But what if someone could say 100% of the time our statements are true. Or 4 out of 4 agree? That’s what the Bible says about Jesus and prophets. It says all the prophets were speaking of Jesus. Every one that opened their mouth spoke of Him. Not most, 85% or 3 out of 4. Not one was speaking of another god or idol. It says that all of them recorded in the pages of the Bible that prophesied of a coming messiah were referring to Jesus. Now those are some impressive statistics." -- by Franklin Senters, Living in His Word Devotions, Friday 22 Sept 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Christmas songs
Christmas songs, or carols, are usually relegated to be sung once a year -- at least by "Christmas traditionalists". OTOH, some folks may wish they were never sung at all!
If these songs contain truths about Jesus and His birth, why shouldn't they be sung? If these songs contain truths based on the holy Scriptures, why shouldn't they be sung year around? If they're not fit sing year around, should we sing them at all?
Some "Christmas traditionalists", if they hear "Joy to the World" sung in the summer, react as if someone has broken some sacred unwritten law! This song is among my favorites. I think it should/could be sung whenever the Spirit moves.
Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing.
Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy.
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.
-- Isaac Watts, 1719
If these songs contain truths about Jesus and His birth, why shouldn't they be sung? If these songs contain truths based on the holy Scriptures, why shouldn't they be sung year around? If they're not fit sing year around, should we sing them at all?
Some "Christmas traditionalists", if they hear "Joy to the World" sung in the summer, react as if someone has broken some sacred unwritten law! This song is among my favorites. I think it should/could be sung whenever the Spirit moves.
Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing.
Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy.
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.
-- Isaac Watts, 1719
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
"Christian Americanism"
"In recent years, a very vocal element within mainstream Christianity has been promoting a nationalized gospel — a gospel wrapped in an American flag. Unbiblical notions about patriotism and America's special place in God's plan abound in books, magazines, radio and TV programs produced by these religio-political zealots, as well as from their pulpits. To equate nationalism, American or any other, with faithfulness to the gospel is a misguided perspective that can only serve to weaken our witness to the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. When such nationalistic battle cries dominate our agenda, the true message of the gospel will be inevitably compromised, if not forgotten altogether...Those who have been influenced by the advocates of this nationalized gospel are often led to believe they will fail their God if they do not participate in campaign and voting processes and an ungodly candidate should happen to win. The implication, if not the actual teaching, is that it is always God's plan to have leaders with the right kind of values in power, and when his people fail to get them elected, his perfect will for that nation cannot be accomplished. Dear believer, the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Ephesians 1:11) is not so easily thwarted, and that includes the role world leaders play in the unfolding of his eternal purposes in Christ. It may have been hard to convince the oppressed Jews that it was God who placed Pharaoh on his throne. And yet, God proclaimed, I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Romans 9:17)...Many Christians have been duped into thinking that some sort of national renewal will come if we simply get more people registered to vote, elect the right candidates in office and pass legislation in line with the 'Judeo-Christian heritage'. Christian political activism is viewed as critical for the future of our country. For the Christian to place any hope in political systems is naive at best, and will only bring disappointment and disillusionment. Our confidence must not rest in such human devices, but in the power of the gospel to transform hearts in any culture." -- From The Dangers of Contemporary Christian Americanism by Jon Zens
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
It's that time again...
According to Andy Williams, "It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year." It's that time again. The Winter Holidays. Christmas. A time that runs the emotional gamut from the unhinged glee of the suicidal shopper to the desperate desperation of the suicidally depressed. A time when shoppers' faces are all a-glow with cheer and drivers' faces might as likely be a-glow with road rage!
Yes, Christmas is quite a paradox; a holiday loved by both Santa-esteeming sons of fundamentalists & money-lusting moguls of corporate America, and loathed by both left-leaning liberals who hate the sound of Jesus' name & "ultra-conservative" Christians who take the New Testament as their only rule of faith and practice. It is a holiday that carries the name of Christ but has more than its share of secular and pagan symbolism and history. During this holiday carrying Christ's name, Kwanzaa songs, Hanukkah songs and "Granma got run over by a reindeer" may be considered beneficial to the well-rounded education of a public school student, while "Joy to the World" might well damage their psyche!
Whacky political correctness run amuck
Students at Unity Drive Elementary School in Centereach, New York were given an assignment by a teacher to decorate a Christmas ornament which would be displayed in the hallway. "Here’s a Christmas ornament -- please have your child decorate it and have it back by Wednesday," the assignment note that was sent home read. One student decorated his ornament, including a cross symbol and the words "The Reason for the Season" and "Jesus". When this particular student brought his decoration to school the next day, the teacher refused to display it, claiming it was "too religious and it cannot be put up." Whoever are making these kinds of decisions need to get more sleep, eat right, stop watching too many horror movies, and/or drop their membership in the ACLU! Purveyors of such ideas often cite separation of church and state. But this is actually state-sponsored viewpoint-based discrimination, in which the state approves and disapproves of viewpoints of its students based on religious criteria. This type of discrimination violates the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it -- that public school students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (1969, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)
On the other hand, you might be surprised that I would agree with the ACLU when they filed a lawsuit to have a Wiccan symbol included on a deceased American soldier's headstone. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has a policy that allows many religious symbols to be included on headstones in military cemeteries. This policy excludes Wiccan symbols. Is not this the same state-sponsored viewpoint-based discrimination, in which the state approves and disapproves of viewpoints based on religion? I'm not keen on seeing Wiccan symbols in military cemeteries, but freedom of religion is freedom of religion regardless of whether I like the religion.
For the Christian American*, there are at least two sometimes opposing ideas that come into play -- politics and religion (both of which are not supposed to be the subject of polite conversation!).
Political -- For us U.S. citizens (it is different for some of my readers), freedom of religion in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures the citizens' right to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas or any other religious (or secular) holiday. Some confusion clearly exists, though; we discuss whether the "government" should support a religious holiday, yet Christmas is a national/federal holiday and has been since 1885. As Christians, the religious/biblical considerations should trump the political.
Scriptural -- Clearly there is no New Testament command, precept or example that indicates Christians are intended to celebrate Jesus' birthday. We are given by Jesus Himself a celebration of His death, but not of His birth. That being true, any complaint we have about the "treatment" of Christmas versus Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, or whatever must be tempered with the knowledge that these things do not cause us to disobey God -- since there is no obedience demanded or expected to engage in such a celebration. The New Testament teaching, so far as I can tell, is to obey the governmental powers that be unless they require us to disobey God.
What about private schools, employers, businesses, etc? Some "Christmas Christians" are ready to cry foul (and boycott if necessary) should someone not share their enthusiasm for "Merry Christmas" and merely wish them "Happy Holidays". A private entity or person is under no obligation to use a particular greeting, or any greeting at all, in this regard. Of course, the "offended party" is also free to not shop at a store that doesn't use the particular greeting that he or she wants to hear. I guess I have a problem getting too enthusiastic about "boycotting", seeing that Paul didn't even have a problem with buying meat for sale in the markets that had previously been used in some kind of idol worship. It was only meat, after all.
* I write here as a U.S. citizen who feels to have some understanding of our system, but with little of how other nations approach "freedom of religion".
** I had a little to say about Christmas songs, but since this is running long, I'll wait till later.
Yes, Christmas is quite a paradox; a holiday loved by both Santa-esteeming sons of fundamentalists & money-lusting moguls of corporate America, and loathed by both left-leaning liberals who hate the sound of Jesus' name & "ultra-conservative" Christians who take the New Testament as their only rule of faith and practice. It is a holiday that carries the name of Christ but has more than its share of secular and pagan symbolism and history. During this holiday carrying Christ's name, Kwanzaa songs, Hanukkah songs and "Granma got run over by a reindeer" may be considered beneficial to the well-rounded education of a public school student, while "Joy to the World" might well damage their psyche!
Whacky political correctness run amuck
Students at Unity Drive Elementary School in Centereach, New York were given an assignment by a teacher to decorate a Christmas ornament which would be displayed in the hallway. "Here’s a Christmas ornament -- please have your child decorate it and have it back by Wednesday," the assignment note that was sent home read. One student decorated his ornament, including a cross symbol and the words "The Reason for the Season" and "Jesus". When this particular student brought his decoration to school the next day, the teacher refused to display it, claiming it was "too religious and it cannot be put up." Whoever are making these kinds of decisions need to get more sleep, eat right, stop watching too many horror movies, and/or drop their membership in the ACLU! Purveyors of such ideas often cite separation of church and state. But this is actually state-sponsored viewpoint-based discrimination, in which the state approves and disapproves of viewpoints of its students based on religious criteria. This type of discrimination violates the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it -- that public school students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (1969, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)
On the other hand, you might be surprised that I would agree with the ACLU when they filed a lawsuit to have a Wiccan symbol included on a deceased American soldier's headstone. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has a policy that allows many religious symbols to be included on headstones in military cemeteries. This policy excludes Wiccan symbols. Is not this the same state-sponsored viewpoint-based discrimination, in which the state approves and disapproves of viewpoints based on religion? I'm not keen on seeing Wiccan symbols in military cemeteries, but freedom of religion is freedom of religion regardless of whether I like the religion.
For the Christian American*, there are at least two sometimes opposing ideas that come into play -- politics and religion (both of which are not supposed to be the subject of polite conversation!).
Political -- For us U.S. citizens (it is different for some of my readers), freedom of religion in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures the citizens' right to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas or any other religious (or secular) holiday. Some confusion clearly exists, though; we discuss whether the "government" should support a religious holiday, yet Christmas is a national/federal holiday and has been since 1885. As Christians, the religious/biblical considerations should trump the political.
Scriptural -- Clearly there is no New Testament command, precept or example that indicates Christians are intended to celebrate Jesus' birthday. We are given by Jesus Himself a celebration of His death, but not of His birth. That being true, any complaint we have about the "treatment" of Christmas versus Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, or whatever must be tempered with the knowledge that these things do not cause us to disobey God -- since there is no obedience demanded or expected to engage in such a celebration. The New Testament teaching, so far as I can tell, is to obey the governmental powers that be unless they require us to disobey God.
What about private schools, employers, businesses, etc? Some "Christmas Christians" are ready to cry foul (and boycott if necessary) should someone not share their enthusiasm for "Merry Christmas" and merely wish them "Happy Holidays". A private entity or person is under no obligation to use a particular greeting, or any greeting at all, in this regard. Of course, the "offended party" is also free to not shop at a store that doesn't use the particular greeting that he or she wants to hear. I guess I have a problem getting too enthusiastic about "boycotting", seeing that Paul didn't even have a problem with buying meat for sale in the markets that had previously been used in some kind of idol worship. It was only meat, after all.
* I write here as a U.S. citizen who feels to have some understanding of our system, but with little of how other nations approach "freedom of religion".
** I had a little to say about Christmas songs, but since this is running long, I'll wait till later.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Right of conscience
"Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free." – Elder John Leland in Right of Conscience Inalienable
Sunday, December 17, 2006
More on Baptist identity -- another book review
More than just a name: preserving our Baptist identity. By R. Stanton Norman. Foreword by R. Albert Mohler. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001. 198 pp. $16.99 paperback.
In my review of Shurden's The Baptist Identity, I mentioned Norman's book More than just a name. I'm going to give a short review of it here. It is one of several fairly recent books that indicate a possible renewed interest in Baptist distinctives.
Stanton Norman is an Associate Professor of Theology, occupying the Cooperative Program Chair of Southern Baptist Studies at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Other writings by Mr. Norman include "Doctrine of Sin" in A Theology for the Church edited by Daniel L. Akin and David S. Dockery; Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (Norman is co-editor with Chad Brand); "Distinctively, Unashamedly Baptist" in Why I Am a Baptist: Confessional Conviction for a New Century edited by Russell D. Moore and Thomas J. Nettles; as well as several articles in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Broadman/Holman, 2003).
The subject that Mr. Norman addresses is "What makes a Baptist a Baptist" or "Baptist distinctives". Norman explains his book investigating "What makes a Baptist a Baptist" as an outgrowth of his own "identity crisis", as well as a doctor of philosophy dissertation. He opines that this simple question is not so simple. This opinion is supported by the bounteous body of literature on the subject and the difficulty in answering it simply. The subject is important, according to Norman, because Baptist distinctivess "play a major role in shaping church life and ministry for Baptists" and influence "relationships with non-Baptist denominations."
Norman's plan in researching and developing this work appears to be a most appropriate one. He seeks "to provide an overview of the literature that exists on the subject" and examines "Baptist distinctives as a collective body of literature". So this is not just another book of someone setting forth his own peculiar Baptist views and offering them as THE Baptist distinctives. Many books offer only what the author believes with little or no examination of what others say or have said. Not so with Norman. His opinion is expressed, and he believes "preaching, writing and teaching Baptist distinctives" should be a primary emphasis. But he investigates a distinct body of literature to arrive at and/or support his conclusions. I am not so naive to believe that Mr. Norman worked in a "theological vacuum", but this book may be the only existing objective analysis of this genre of literature. Norman researched books that "communicate intentionally the unique beliefs of Baptists."
As a result of his research, Mr. Norman concluded that these writings use either Biblical authority or Christian experience "as the interpretive distinction to formulate the other distinctives. He develops the categories of Reformation tradition (Biblical authority) and Enlightment tradition (Christian experience) to express the two views as he unfolds his research. He contends that Baptist distinctives "are not simply a body of doctrine" but also "a method of theology." In chapters 4-9 he examines theological ideas such as the Bible, church, baptism, church polity, soul competency and religious freedom as they are formulated within the two Baptist interpetive traditions. According to Norman, the Enlightment tradition became a new guiding tradition for Baptist distinctives early in the 20th century, especially through the writings of E. Y. Mullins.
In the conclusion of the book, Norman addresses just how "distinctive" Baptist distinctives might be, and argues that Baptists DO have a distinctive historical and theological tradition separate from non-Baptists. For him one proof is because the "peculiar theological identity of Baptists did not exist before the rise of the Baptists." Further his evaluation is that the Biblical authority tradition is most consistent with Baptist history and theology: "Both religious freedom and soul competency promote the purity of a church built upon the conviction that the Bible is the absolute authority for faith and practice. The Reformation tradition of Baptist distinctives best embodies those ideals."
The endnotes are -- what can I say -- adequate, but endnotes; always a disappointing placement for an avid footnote reader as myself. The bibliography is an extensive collection of primary and secondary sources on the subject of Baptist distinctives. This collection will prove exceedingly worthwhile to the researcher of the subject. Nevertheless, Norman could have broadened the appeal and usefulness of his book had he chosen to include a broader cross-section of Baptists. For example, as far as I could tell, there were no references to or inclusion in the bibliography of the contributions of Primitive Baptists, Free Will Baptists, National Baptists, etc. to this genre of literature. Southern Baptists often forget that some of us exist. Furthermore, it would seem there should be more writings of the Baptist distinctive genre before the 19th century, though Mr. Norman only mentions one in his bibliography -- Thomas Grantham's Presumption No Proof: or, Mr. Petto's arguments for infant baptism considered and answered.
The book is very readable, though not a walk in the park for the drowsy or unattentive reader. More than just a Name will broaden your knowledge of Baptist distinctives, provide a foundation for future inquiries, and even shed light on Baptist "conservative-moderate" controversies (particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention). Buy Walter Shurden's The Baptist Identity and Stanton Norman's More than just a Name. Compare them. I think it will become apparent that Shurden moves well within the "Enlightenment Tradition", as Norman does within the "Reformation Tradition".
I cannot see how we can understand Baptist theology (except some of the modern variations) apart from their approach to "sola scriptura" or "Biblical authority".
In my review of Shurden's The Baptist Identity, I mentioned Norman's book More than just a name. I'm going to give a short review of it here. It is one of several fairly recent books that indicate a possible renewed interest in Baptist distinctives.
Stanton Norman is an Associate Professor of Theology, occupying the Cooperative Program Chair of Southern Baptist Studies at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Other writings by Mr. Norman include "Doctrine of Sin" in A Theology for the Church edited by Daniel L. Akin and David S. Dockery; Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity (Norman is co-editor with Chad Brand); "Distinctively, Unashamedly Baptist" in Why I Am a Baptist: Confessional Conviction for a New Century edited by Russell D. Moore and Thomas J. Nettles; as well as several articles in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Broadman/Holman, 2003).
The subject that Mr. Norman addresses is "What makes a Baptist a Baptist" or "Baptist distinctives". Norman explains his book investigating "What makes a Baptist a Baptist" as an outgrowth of his own "identity crisis", as well as a doctor of philosophy dissertation. He opines that this simple question is not so simple. This opinion is supported by the bounteous body of literature on the subject and the difficulty in answering it simply. The subject is important, according to Norman, because Baptist distinctivess "play a major role in shaping church life and ministry for Baptists" and influence "relationships with non-Baptist denominations."
Norman's plan in researching and developing this work appears to be a most appropriate one. He seeks "to provide an overview of the literature that exists on the subject" and examines "Baptist distinctives as a collective body of literature". So this is not just another book of someone setting forth his own peculiar Baptist views and offering them as THE Baptist distinctives. Many books offer only what the author believes with little or no examination of what others say or have said. Not so with Norman. His opinion is expressed, and he believes "preaching, writing and teaching Baptist distinctives" should be a primary emphasis. But he investigates a distinct body of literature to arrive at and/or support his conclusions. I am not so naive to believe that Mr. Norman worked in a "theological vacuum", but this book may be the only existing objective analysis of this genre of literature. Norman researched books that "communicate intentionally the unique beliefs of Baptists."
As a result of his research, Mr. Norman concluded that these writings use either Biblical authority or Christian experience "as the interpretive distinction to formulate the other distinctives. He develops the categories of Reformation tradition (Biblical authority) and Enlightment tradition (Christian experience) to express the two views as he unfolds his research. He contends that Baptist distinctives "are not simply a body of doctrine" but also "a method of theology." In chapters 4-9 he examines theological ideas such as the Bible, church, baptism, church polity, soul competency and religious freedom as they are formulated within the two Baptist interpetive traditions. According to Norman, the Enlightment tradition became a new guiding tradition for Baptist distinctives early in the 20th century, especially through the writings of E. Y. Mullins.
In the conclusion of the book, Norman addresses just how "distinctive" Baptist distinctives might be, and argues that Baptists DO have a distinctive historical and theological tradition separate from non-Baptists. For him one proof is because the "peculiar theological identity of Baptists did not exist before the rise of the Baptists." Further his evaluation is that the Biblical authority tradition is most consistent with Baptist history and theology: "Both religious freedom and soul competency promote the purity of a church built upon the conviction that the Bible is the absolute authority for faith and practice. The Reformation tradition of Baptist distinctives best embodies those ideals."
The endnotes are -- what can I say -- adequate, but endnotes; always a disappointing placement for an avid footnote reader as myself. The bibliography is an extensive collection of primary and secondary sources on the subject of Baptist distinctives. This collection will prove exceedingly worthwhile to the researcher of the subject. Nevertheless, Norman could have broadened the appeal and usefulness of his book had he chosen to include a broader cross-section of Baptists. For example, as far as I could tell, there were no references to or inclusion in the bibliography of the contributions of Primitive Baptists, Free Will Baptists, National Baptists, etc. to this genre of literature. Southern Baptists often forget that some of us exist. Furthermore, it would seem there should be more writings of the Baptist distinctive genre before the 19th century, though Mr. Norman only mentions one in his bibliography -- Thomas Grantham's Presumption No Proof: or, Mr. Petto's arguments for infant baptism considered and answered.
The book is very readable, though not a walk in the park for the drowsy or unattentive reader. More than just a Name will broaden your knowledge of Baptist distinctives, provide a foundation for future inquiries, and even shed light on Baptist "conservative-moderate" controversies (particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention). Buy Walter Shurden's The Baptist Identity and Stanton Norman's More than just a Name. Compare them. I think it will become apparent that Shurden moves well within the "Enlightenment Tradition", as Norman does within the "Reformation Tradition".
I cannot see how we can understand Baptist theology (except some of the modern variations) apart from their approach to "sola scriptura" or "Biblical authority".
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Why Glory in the Cross
"Why is glorying in the cross the opposite to glorying in the flesh? Because the cross, far from being the work of man, is the work of God. Far from demanding merit from man, righteousness is accounted to men. Far from requiring works from the flesh, justification is freely bestowed by Christ’s merit. Far from obliging men to earn favor, grace is freely lavished upon debtors. Far from expecting anything from sinners, everything is accomplished by Jesus Christ. Far from the curse falling upon transgressors, the curse fell upon the Substitute." -- Selected, Bulletin: Shreveport Grace Church - October 15, 2006
I'm not ashamed to own my Lord,
Or to defend his cause;
Maintain the honor of his word,
The glory of his cross.
Jesus, my God! I know his name,
His name is all my trust;
Nor will he put my soul to shame,
Nor let my hope be lost.
Firm as his throne his promise stands,
And he can well secure
What I've committed to his hands
Till the decisive hour.
Then will he own my worthless name
Before his Father's face,
And in the new Jerusalem
Appoint my soul a place.
-- Hymn 103, The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts
I'm not ashamed to own my Lord,
Or to defend his cause;
Maintain the honor of his word,
The glory of his cross.
Jesus, my God! I know his name,
His name is all my trust;
Nor will he put my soul to shame,
Nor let my hope be lost.
Firm as his throne his promise stands,
And he can well secure
What I've committed to his hands
Till the decisive hour.
Then will he own my worthless name
Before his Father's face,
And in the new Jerusalem
Appoint my soul a place.
-- Hymn 103, The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)