The First American Baptists were Calvinists

The First American Baptists were Calvinists

9. Of God's Purpose of Grace
We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners;46 that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end;47 that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable;48 that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy;49 that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree;50 that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel;51 that it is the foundation of Christian assurance;52 and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.53

46. 2 Tim. 1:8-9; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:1-2; Rom. 11:5-6; John 15:15; 1 John 4:19; Hos. 12:9.
47. 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Acts 13:48; John 10:16; Matt. 20:16; Acts 15:14.
48. Exod. 33:18-19; Matt. 20:15; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 9:23-24: Jer. 31:3; Rom. 11:28-29; James 1:17-18; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 11:32-36.
49. 1 Cor. 4:7; 1:26-31; Rom. 3:27; 4:16; Col. 3:12; 1 Cor. 3:5-7; 15:10; 1 Pet. 5:10; Acts 1:24; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 2:9; Luke 18:7; John 15:16; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 2:12.
50. 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Cor. 9:22; Rom. 8:28-30; John 6:37-40; 2 Pet. 1:10.
51. 1 Thess. 1:4-10.
52. Rom. 8:28-30; Isa. 42:16; Rom. 11:29.
53. 2 Pet. 1:10-11; Phil. 3:12; Heb. 6:11.

3 paramount truths re creation

In Jesus and the Doctrine of Creation, Bert Thompson writes about Christ's direct words regarding the creation.He has noted three paramount truths in Jesus Christ's words regarding creation in Mark 10:6. He declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.”

(1) The first couple was “made”; they were not biological accidents. (2) The original pair was fashioned “male and female”; they were not initially an asexual “blob” that eventually experienced sexual diversion. (3) Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning of the creation.”
Jesus placed the first humans at the very dawn of creation. To reject this one must either contend that:

(a) Christ knew the Universe was in existence billions of years before man, but, accommodating Himself to the ignorances of that age, deliberately misrepresented the situation; or (b) The Lord Himself, living in pre-scientific times, was uninformed about the matter.Either of these allegations, of course, is blasphemous.

David Ivey receives NEA honor

Huntsville, Alabama Sacred Harp Singer David Ivey has been named a 2013 NEA National Heritage Fellow. The National Endowment for the Arts National Heritage Awards honors American folk artists for their contributions to our national folk music and traditions.

Congratulations, David!

[Other 2013 NEA National Heritage Fellows can be found HERE]

Hot topics: Historical Adam

Adam and the Fall, or any Adam at all?
...blog cogitations on the historicity of the first Adam

In modern Christianity, serenely subjugated to science, the historical Adam teeters in the balance and is about to take another fall. Is Adam and the Fall an historical imperative that is foundational to Christian theology? Or was there ever any Adam at all?

Last month I broached the subject with Repackaging the Gospel: Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?. A couple of years ago Christianity Today took up the issue in a lengthy article by Richard Ostling, The Search for the Historical Adam. I think this provides a good overview of the topic.

Anti-Adam
10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam (not)
Does Evolution Cancel Out the Fall of Adam? Depends on Whose Adam You Have in Mind
Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?
Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam

Pro-Fall
A biblical and scientific Adam
10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam
The Importance of an Historical Adam
What Depends Upon An Historical Adam?

More than two options
Historical Adam: Embracing the questions

Video
The Importance of the Historical Adam

"As you're reading through Genesis 2 and 3, the author clearly believes that these events happened, because he explains present reality on the basis of what happened. For example, Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife...If the event didn't happen, the explanation for the present reality breaks down." -- Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. speaking of "etiology" in the above video discussion

Science and Faith, Science or Faith?

A friend asked if I might comment on Peter Enns’ blog post concerning Episcopalians on Science and Faith. In it Enns highly recommends the Episcopalian view – as supported in a resolution of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church “Affirming the Compatibility of Science and the Christian Faith” – and suggests that evangelicals might be able to learn something from them. No doubt evangelicals, as all of us, need to learn something, but we might first wonder just who they are. The Episcopalians we know, but who are the evangelicals?

Michael Luo tells us that even Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'. According to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals,* “The term 'Evangelicalism' is a wide-reaching definitional 'canopy' that covers a diverse number of Protestant traditions, denominations, organizations, and churches.” They apply it to “the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Merriam-Webster gives one meaning of evangelical as "Protestant" while another is "of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism." Now that is a wide enough range to have little clarity! Considering the context of Enns' piece, I have to think that what he refers to as evangelical leans toward fundamentalism, at least holding the classic fundamentals of the faith and certainly inerrancy of the Bible. Wikipedia claims, “Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.”

Peter Enns is a religious instructor on the liberal end of the theological spectrum. He is an Affiliate Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, PA.** Enns is author of The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, a book that "offers a way forward by explaining how this tension is caused not by the discoveries of science but by false expectations about the biblical texts" and "helps readers reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the widely held evolutionary view of beginnings..." A focus of Enns is "re-educating" people on the Bible so they can reconcile it with "scientific truth."

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and biblicists might not strongly object to the many of the things said in this Episcopalian resolution, but would strenuously object to its intent. For example, the archives research report found this resolution was "directly related" to a 2006 resolution which stated: “That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith...”

First, a few statements from Enns' piece, whether his or from the Episcopal catechism, with some brief comments

This Catechism is a breath of fresh air compared to the handwringing and fear that dominates the evangelical discussion.
I am not sure what "handwringing and fear...dominates the evangelical discussion." No doubt Enns has something in mind, but he does not explain. There may be some who are wringing their hands in fear of the discoveries of science, but the rest of us do not fear that God-given revelation will be overturned by man-driven specialization. Skeptics will come and skeptics will go. Heaven and earth -- the very textbook of the scientists -- shall pass away, but God's Word shall stand. It is forever settled in heaven.

The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.
All but the most rigid fundamentalists would agree with both of these statements. But this is the wrong question. It is not, "Did God give us a science textbook," rather "Did God get some of His information wrong in His revelation to man?" Science as we understand it in this discussion is in its very essence a study of nature and not Scripture. The real dividing line is between those who believe that the Bible is the accurate revelation of God through inspiration to men of God to write the Scriptures, or a hodge-podge of information from various ancient sources which are variably reliable and unreliable. What can we believe?

The Bible’s theological declarations about God and creation remain true because they are not dependent upon the ancient world-picture in which they appear.
It seems useful to many to separate the "theological declarations" of the Bible from the extraneous historical and scientific material within which they appear. But this is pipe dream. Why should anyone believe that the theological declarations are any more valid than the “ancient world-view” within which they appear?  Why believe what the Bible says about God if we can't even believe it about the subjects we can "test"? Whom will we trust to divide the true from the false? If the Bible is not an inspired book, why should we expect it to have true theological declarations about God and creation? Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Zend Avesta? Might they not serve just as well?

Until evangelicals find a way to get to these points–quickly–there will be no true conversation on science and faith.
Maybe a simpler (and more honest) statement would be for Enns to write that if evangelicals don’t give up what they believe and acquiesce to the view held forth by scientists, then we have nothing to contribute to the conversation. Sounds like the “true conversation” mainly agrees with him!

Three observations about Peter Enns’ post and the religion vs. science debate

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church prefer science above religion. No, they would not say it that way. That might say that they are compatible, each valid in its own sphere. But the preference is seen in that religion – particularly the statements of the Bible – are a priori excluded from informing us on nature, creation and evolution. They are not valid because they do not complement, and sometimes contradict, what they think they observe in nature. And, of course, we could not be wrong about what we observe in nature. Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.”

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church exude arrogance toward those with whom they disagree (not that there is no arrogance among evangelicals). Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.” Truthfully, we understand some things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, we think we understand all things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, and in some cases we do not understand the physical world as accurately as ancient people. Before you write that statement off as an exercise in ignorance, search out some scientific or academic research that tells about not understanding how something was accomplished by some ancient civilization – or how the same thing could be accomplished by modern civilization. In what we know, we stand on the shoulders of the people who went before us. We have also lost some of the knowledge of those who went before us. And maybe, just maybe, Moses, Paul, and the 21st century believers who accept them at face value aren’t quite the Neanderthals you perceive us to be. But if we are, hey, we’re just too stupid to know it.

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church are not the final authority. Well, Enns probably is the final authority in his classroom when he’s grading papers. And the General Convention of the Episcopal Church does exercise a degree of authority over the church in the United States. But if I were to search for a final authority above all authorities, I would settle my search for that authority in Jesus Christ. If He is who He says He is, we know He understands the physical world more accurately than all ancient people and all modern people combined. He understands it absolutely accurately. Speaking to the Pharisees concerning marriage, Jesus said “...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6).” Jesus credits the creation of man to God, Who made them from the beginning and not through billions of years of evolution. He also places their son Abel as an historical person in the beginning of time (Luke 11:50-51).*** Could Jesus be a credible Saviour and Son of God and not know these things more accurately than any people?

Conclusion

I find myself on opposite sides of the river from Peter Enns on the subject of the compatibility of science and religion. I don’t identify myself as an evangelical, though the world may thus label me. I don’t refer to myself as an evangelical, but I probably fit Enns’ description of those who need to learn something. But I resolutely refuse to learn his “something” represented in “Episcopalians on Science and Faith: gettin’ it done.” I freely own that Enns is more intelligent than I. I don’t doubt he is sincere. But on the subject of creation and evolution, faith and science, I self-consciously submit to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, who knows all things, both in the physical world and the spiritual world, more accurately than Peter Enns or I, more accurately than the General Convention of the Episcopal Church or the National Association of Evangelicals, more accurately that all the scientists and all the theologians. 

Is our Saviour credible? Can we believe what He said about creation? Or look we for another?

* The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals is a research center and a program of Wheaton College.
** Eastern is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA. One might expect the university's Doctrinal Statement to be understood as "evangelical" and that the statement "We believe that God created human beings, male and female" should be taken in its simplest meaning to the exclusion of evolution. It apparently is not necessary, though, since every teacher is to subscribe to the Doctrinal Statement or "withdraw from all connections with the University" if they are not in accord with it.
*** Jesus matter-of-factly spoke of the events recorded in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) as historical facts and did not allegorize them. He described them in the manner they were recorded. For examples: Adam and Eve as the first marriage, Abel their son as the first person murdered, that God made the Sabbath, Noah and the Flood, Moses and the serpent in the wilderness, the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites, Lot and his wife, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Same-sex 'divorce'

“One of the sweet advantages of insisting that there is no such thing as same-sex 'marriage' is that there is therefore also no such thing as same-sex 'divorce'.”

John Piper is thinking ahead about what a church should do "when, say, two women, who have lived in a so-called married state for some years, are converted to Christ, repent of their sin, and want to join the church...In this uncharted territory, here is a map with some of the biblical guideposts I foresee." What follows is thirteen items he labels "guideposts". Here are two:

1. Rejoice.

6. Help them see, therefore, that what the state has called a “marriage” between them is not marriage.

Have you and your church considered this circumstance? Read more of Piper on Same-sex 'divorce'.

Christ's View of the Bible

Andrew Davis, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina, has written a series of articles investigating Jesus Christ’s view of the Bible. The purpose is to demonstrate what Jesus believed about the Bible and to present this as a model for what Christians ought to believe. Or as Davis puts it:

Premise 1: What Jesus believes should be what Christians believe;

Premise 2: Christ’s view of Scripture is that it is the perfect Word of God;

Conclusion: Therefore, all Christians should have the same view of Scripture as Christ’s

Read the entire first installment, What Is Christ’s View of the Bible?: Introduction, HERE. The other ten short essays in this series can be found linked at the bottom of that page.

Are you a pragmatist?

I read and enjoyed Jeramie Rinne's post, I Was a Pragmatist. I recommend that you read it.

Much of Western Christianity, and particularly churches in the U.S., is mired in the mud of pragmatism. Rinne's definition of the pragmatism he practiced is that a church is at liberty to "adopt any structure, program, or strategy that “works” to reach people for Christ as long as the initiative isn’t obviously sinful." Under this mentality of ministry, preachers ask "does it work" more than or rather than "is is biblical". He lists 3 inherent weaknesses pragmatism: pragmatism is exhausting, man-centered and subjective.

Though Jeramie describes it as a "slow process," he says he has learned not to ask, “Will it work?” Instead he asks questions like, “Does Scripture speak to this?” and “How should the gospel shape this decision?” He concludes that "This rediscovery of a biblical vision has profoundly changed my ministry."

I believe you will find instruction and help in his thoughts.

Bandwagon Beliefs

Three days ago I wrote about bully theology. Today I want to speak of its cousin, Bandwagon Beliefs. Both relatives arise from the slum of what others think, though one is pressured upon you from the outside while the other pressures up from the inside.

"Jumping on the bandwagon" is well known in political discussion.  In our county, when the wheels began to fall off the old Democratic bandwagon, most politicians climbed off it and jumped on the Republican bandwagon that was whizzing by. A person or cause gains steam and everyone wants to be associated with him or it. The side is picked by who has the most followers or who is winning or expected to win. If a person, party or movement seems assured of success, folks want to climb on board. We don't want to be part of the losing team. We don't want to have egg on our faces. Like a snowball rolling downhill, the bandwagon gains size and strength as it sucks up what is in its path. Like a magnet, its mass appeal attracts many followers.

Our beliefs, philosophical and theological, may suffer under the adverse effects of the bandwagon syndrome. In "post-Christian America" it will quickly become apparent who has sincerely-held beliefs and who was riding the (old) bandwagon.* If there is no courage of convictions, whatever is popular or whatever is held by the majority will be the standard. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run over. The nature of the bandwagon -- and the nature of human nature -- is that most people get on board.

In Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View, Robert Lopez says that the gay movement "is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears" stories like his. The greatest significance of Lopez's story is not whether homosexual marriage is right or wrong, but that pro-homosexual groups do not want his story to be told! This is bully theology, but it is also bandwagon belief. The old bandwagon of Christian theology that homosexuality is sinful is headed uphill and is losing steam (Yes, this was merely a "bandwagon belief" for many people rather than sincere conviction). The new bandwagon of legal homosexual marriage is perched at the top of the hill and ready to make its run for all it's worth. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run over.

One of the simplest, amoral examples of the power of the bandwagon can be seen the multitudes of "turn of the millennium" celebrations that were held on January 1, 2000 -- despite all the nerdy-types and us calendar clowns telling them otherwise. Some folks can cloud this issue with lots of smoke and noise, but there are few things even someone as simple as I can understand. You don't have to be an advanced mathematician or a millenniologist. Our calendar has no "zero" year (though some other calendars do). If you count from 1 to 10, you'll find ten is the last of the first ten numbers, not the first of the second ten numbers. If you count from 1 to 100, one hundred is the last of the first hundred numbers, not the first of the next hundred. If you count from 1 to 1000, one thousand is the last of the first thousand numbers, not the first of the next thousand. Under the Gregorian calendar the new millennium began on Monday, January 1, 2001. Nevertheless the vast majority of Americans celebrated its "occurrence" on Saturday, January 1, 2000. Really, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong to understand the point. Thousands upon thousands did not celebrate the coming of the new millennium because they knew when it started (or even cared). They celebrated it because everyone else was doing it -- the bandwagon effect.

When the majority of denominated Christianity rejects creationism, an historical Adam & Eve, the virgin birth of Christ, the blood atonement, a literal resurrection, and so forth, where will you be found? Will you still be standing on the Word of God, or will you be riding the bandwagon? Let's carefully look inside our minds and hearts and see what we see. Let's look inside the Bible. Are we following God or men? In matters of belief, let's reject the bandwagon and be like the Bereans -- search the scriptures to find out what things are so, what things are good, what things are right.

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. Jeremiah 10:23
...do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. Galatians 1:10
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8

* This does not mean that no one on a bandwagon is sincere. It is just the nature of the bandwagon to pick up most all stragglers and make them riders.

Eight excerpts embracing entreaty

"He who runs from God in the morning will scarcely find Him the rest of the day." -- John Bunyan

"The Cinderella of the Church today is the prayer meeting. This handmaid of the Lord is unloved and unwooed because she is not dripping with pearls of intellectualism, nor glamorous with the silks of philosophy, neither is she enchanting with the tiara of psychology. She wears the homespuns of sincerity and humility and so is not afraid to kneel!" -- Leonard Ravenhill

“Is prayer your steering wheel or your spare tire?” -- Corrie ten Boom

“God will fill the hungry because He Himself has stirred up the hunger. As in the case of prayer, when God prepares the heart to pray, He prepares His ear to hear (Psalm 10: 17). So in the case of spiritual hunger, when God prepares the heart to hunger, He will prepare His hand to fill.” -- Thomas Watson

“Pray often; for prayer is a shield to the soul, a sacrifice to God, and a scourge for Satan.” -- John Bunyan

“Prayer is weakness leaning on omnipotence.” -- W. S. Bowden

“The condition of the church may be very accurately gauged by its prayer meetings.  So is the prayer meeting a grace-ometer, and from it we may judge of the amount of divine working among a people.  If God be near a church, it must pray.  And if he be not there, one of the first tokens of his absence will be a slothfulness in prayer.” -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

“You can tell how popular a church is by who comes on Sunday morning.  You can tell how popular the pastor or evangelist is by who comes on Sunday night.  But you can tell how popular Jesus is by who comes to the prayer meeting.” -- Anonymous

Why are people gay?

This morning I read a US News article that suggests scientists may have finally unlocked the puzzle of why people are gay. The article, and the scientists, fall far short of the claim. It is more about what they would like to unlock than what anyone may have unlocked.

The words of William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara, reveal the desire of scientists to find a genetic or hereditary cause for homosexuality, "We've found a story that looks really good." Yes, a "story that looks good," in other words one that they hope will prove what they already believe. I thought scientists were supposed to believe what they've already proved!

Folks have been telling us for years now that homosexuality exists because people are "born that way." But if you catch them in their gleeful moments thinking they have found something new -- if you know what you're reading, you'll find the tacit admission that they don't really know that homosexuality is genetic or hereditary.

In an early sentence, the writer begins, "The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established..." Yes, yes, "the hereditary link," yes, "already established," yes. And we're supposed to buy this because...? If this has long been established, why does the writer opine, "Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link..." and "Though scientists have long suspected some sort of genetic link..."

The simple fact is that scientifically we do not know what causes homosexuality. The politically correct answer most of our society has chosen to believe is that folks are born homosexual. Actually, folks are born male and female and then choose what and how and how often and with whom to have sex (or not).

Be not deceived, God is not mocked.

The fickle church attender

The fickle church attender
Prays of the sermon and the song,
Regardless -- time offender --
That they won't last too long,
Their heart's not set on Jesus,
Something else beckons them on.
The dinner table's calling,
There is a ballgame on.
Hurry through that sermon,
So we can all go home.
Preacher, why keep on a-rambling?
The clock tells us twelve noon.
We need to be soon traveling,
Throughout the month of June.
And when July beckons,
We've other things to do.
So don't e'en get to thinking,
You could preach longer then, too.

The two lives

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Writing to Timothy of issues with which he must grapple, Paul speaks of the life that now is and the life which is to come. This sums up the totality of our existence. Now in time and in the flesh we live "the life that now is" a mortal temporal existence. It is appointed unto men once to die. This temporal existence numbers only a few days, and is full of trouble. It is like a vapor that appears for a little while and then disappears.

When we die the second life, the life which is to come, must follow. It will be for all, but it will not be the same for all. This is graphically illustrated in the lives and deaths of the rich man and Lazarus (Read Luke 16:19-31).

In Paul's exhortation to Timothy we see the need to rightly divide between the temporal and the eternal. In verse 7 Paul's urges us to exercise "rather unto godliness." He follows that by noting "bodily exercise profiteth little." Paul is not campaigning against exercise or healthy living, but putting it in its proper perspective. Physical exercise is temporal. It only affects this body, which lives this life that now is -- the vaporous life. Godliness, on the other hand, is profitable both now and forever. Let us not exalt the things that are temporal over the things that are eternal.

Bully theology

A problem that the internet and interactive blogs amplify and exacerbate is what I have dubbed "bully theology". This is an effort to promote doctrine, make points and correct errors through peer pressure or "bullying" -- Let's all gang up on someone and twist the e-arm until he cries "uncle" rather than approach it with education from the Word of God and the effects of the Holy Spirit. We would do well to remember that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Certain blogs, and particularly certain subjects, tend to draw out the bullies who try to beat their opponent into subjection. Sophistry is the method and the politically correct status quo often the informant. It is troubling when men who profess to be taught in the word of God do not draw upon the word of God to teach, exhort and rebuke. Rather we hear shouts to "drop this" or "shut up." “...give this garbage up and rid yourself of this kind of stupidity...Now just stop it. Put this godless, pseudo-religious, trashy way of thinking behind you and move on with your life.” Such an exhortation might have a place, if we can give biblical principles and/or chapter and verse to exhibit that it is godless, pseudo-religious, and trashy. And if we can, why don't we? 

Bully theology is the theology of Rome and others, and should have no place among Baptists. After the conversion of Constantine, force began to be used against "heretics" -- dissenting Christians. In the 8th century under Charlemagne its use had been solidified to force conversion to "Christianity". By 1300 it was common practice. The Baptist watchword is religious liberty with no brute force or legal means standing between any man and his god.

Forced theology is no better than forced conversions. Might does not make right. The truth shall make you free. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5b

A man convinced against his will

I have the proverb “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” written in the front of my Bible (have written it in all my Bibles for some thirty years or so). It is a reminder that beliefs should be adopted rather than coerced. When I was writing the "Bully Theology" post, I was reminded of a humorous story I've heard J. Vernon McGee tell on the radio. Though he was making a different point, I want to repeat his story.

"A mother sent her little boy to sit in a corner in his room. After awhile she heard a noise in the room, and she called to him, 'Willie, are you sitting down?' He said, 'Yes, I'm sitting down, but I'm standing up on the inside of me!'"

Flipping the 40 minute sermon, and four other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

13 Things That Americans Do That The Rest Of The World Just Finds Bizarre
Are Women Really Saved through Childbearing?
Flipping the 40-Minute Sermon
Last Living Man Born in 19th Century
Researchers Find Tinnitus Cause and Treatment

The price for a free, safe society

Is “Big Brother” the price of a free, safe society?

No, I am not comfortable with getting "Big Brother" as the price for a free, safe society. A "free" and "safe" society may soon become mutually exclusive. When you listen to a radio program with conservative Craig Parshall (General Counsel for National Religious Broadcasters) and liberal Barry Lynn (Executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State) discussing the Boston bombing, for example, and agreeing that we've got a problem with too many cameras and too little privacy we should have a light go on in our heads. Adding video surveillance to every square inch of the earth IS NOT the answer. It may be what we get, nevertheless.

"Person of Interest" is a current TV show on CBS that presents omnipresent surveillance in a positive light. The surveillance is used to predict future crimes and terrorist attacks. Anybody ever see or hear of "Minority Report," a movie where criminals are apprehended before they commit a crime, based on foreknowledge that they're going to commit it? Some things I hear discussed seem similar, even though we don't have any precogs to see into the future. Pity the honest citizens when the system turns on them. 

May we return to an old-fashioned republic that wants less government and more freedom. May we not trade our birthright for a mess of governmental pottage.

Are there clumsy squirrels?

As I walked out my front door Sunday afternoon, I heard a thunderous thud (at least as thunderous a thud as a two-pound critter can make). I looked to see a squirrel had just fallen some 10 or 12 feet out of an oak tree and landed hard on the ground. It sounded like it hurt! Unfazed, sir sciurus rufous scurried as fast as he could -- not to the next tree, but across the yard and down the road until I could no longer see him. I wonder if he was embarrassed and hoped no one noticed, or if he was suddenly afraid of heights? I know we people can be clumsy and awkward, but I've never thought about those traits in a squirrel. Quite a liability if you spend most of your life up a tree!

Is bigger always better?

SBC Voices bills itself as "Just another Southern Baptist blog." Despite the humility, it appears to me to be one of the most active Southern Baptist Convention blogs and engenders some lively and interesting discussion. From Calvinism to racism, politics to philanthropy; one week they may deride Tribalism and the SBC, noting that "Tribalism can become destructive when we isolate from one another, when we start viewing the other Baptist tribes as our enemies, or worse..." then next week extol the SBC system as the best in the history of the church, for the propagation of the gospel.

I intended to make some comments in that thread, but its discussion sort of died on the vine before I got a round tuit. So I'm posting the comments here instead. First, I will paste a few excerpts, then will comment.

As a Southern Baptist, I am part of perhaps the most extensive world missions program in the history of the church.
According to the IMB website, there are currently 4867 IMB missions personnel, 4206 of those being career missionaries. That is down considerably from the days before the recession and the recent financial issues, but it is still a stunning fact. The old phrase, "we can do more together than we can do separately" is not a cliche. It is a fact.
By pooling our resources as a convention, we are able to support nearly 5000 missionaries around the world. 
Can you match that on your own?

Why should I have to match this on my own? We are not in a competition, are we? In the true spirit of the gospel should I not rejoice per Paul that "Christ is preached" (assuming He is preached) rather than rejoice over how much better my "program" is than yours? Years ago I heard Brother Lavelle Knight say that he and Brother James Broome "preached 52 revivals last year." After a pause and a chuckle, he explained that he had preached two and Brother Broome had preached 50! Bro. Knight wasn't jealous that Bro. Broome preached 50 revivals, and Bro. Broome didn't expect Bro. Knight to have to "match that on his own." If it is true that one plants, one waters, but it is God that gives the increase, jealousy and comparisons should subside with the realization that "he that planteth and he that watereth are one," as each servant answers to the Lord and not to the other servants, and we ask "Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

When one lives by the numbers he must also die by the numbers. I looked up some other missions organizations online to compare with the 4867 IMB/SBC missions personnel mentioned in Dave's post. I checked six organizations that I could think of quickly and found that four of those six -- ABCUSA, BBFI World Mission Service Center, BMA of America and CB America World Venture -- seem to support quite a few more missionaries for the number of churches that they have than does the SBC. Now this was by a quick search of their web sites, and more detailed study might find some problems with the numbers I found and these comparisons. This comparison is solely number of missionaries per number of churches, and does not compare overhead costs per missionary and other variables. But, for example, the SBC has approximately 45,000 churches. CB America has only about 1200 churches and they support about 500 missionaries through their CB America World Venture. If my math is correct, for the SBC to support the same number of missionaries for the number of churches in the convention, the IMB would need to have over 18,000 missionaries. Yes, the SBC would need to increase their total missionaries nearly 4 times to equal the Conservative Baptists. I don't own any stock in CB America -- don't intend to -- and am not sure how their system even operates. This, nevertheless, gives pause when we look at and compare these numbers as numbers of missionaries supported per number of churches.

Dave mentioned that his church gives somewhere around $45,000 through the Cooperative Program on an annual basis, and that it could be possible to support one full-time missionary on their own. Assuming that just 1/4 of the churches of the SBC could support one full-time missionary "on their own," that could add up to support of over 11,000 missionaries. Would that be better or worse than the present system? Would God get more glory or less from it? Or are these even valid questions? I am not sure that it is any different in the grand scheme of things that one church gives $10 to 4800 different missionaries or 4800 churches each support one missionary. The same number of 4800 missionaries would be supported and the same people to whom they are preaching would hear the same gospel. The general mindset, though, is that it is better for one church to have a little part in paying for the gospel in 100's of places all around the world than for 100's of churches to each support the gospel in one place of the world.

This post only compares numbers. It does not consider the question, which must be considered, of whether God's organization, or men's organizations, or both, or something else are the best way or ways to carry the gospel to the world. Since the 1700's Baptists have disagreed and debated over the propriety of missions boards and missionary societies. I come down on the side of the local churches being the kind of organization God planted in the world for the propagation of the gospel. That subject must wait for another post.

The Contemplation of God

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (1 John 3:1)

Consider four truths: God’s love is:

Eternal – it is without beginning and end. ‘In love, having predestined us’ (Eph 1:4-5). ‘Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee’ (Jer 31:3).

Sovereign – it is without external influence. ‘Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated’ (Rom 9:13). ‘According to the good pleasure of his will’ (Eph 1:4)

Immutable – it is without change. ‘strong as death…many waters cannot quench it’ (SS 8:6-7). ‘having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end’ (John 13:1). ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’(Rom 8:35)

Gracious – it is without condition. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son’ (Jn 3:16). God’s definite love rested on the fulfillment of one condition: the obedience of Christ unto death.

Excerpt from The Contemplation of God by T. David Simpson