News-Record.com

Interesting, this apparently universal desire for the SBC to develop a "unity of purpose." It seems to me that if they wanted to have a really unified church, they might want to stick to "spiritual" matters and leave the politics out of their work. Goodness knows they've lost an awful lot of members (including myself and my wife and son) mainly because of the political crap they've been pushing for the last 20+ years.

But of course that won't happen. These yahoos have had political power for far too long, and they're used to it. If only they could see the truth that came from the late Jimi Hendrix: "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

I read over the "Memphis Declaration." It seems that some have become disillusioned with the narrowing of belief systems/structures within the SBC. That caused my movement away during the 1990s. I realized then that there was no place for people like myself (GLBT).

What is so unusual, after reading the comments of some from the Floriday Baptist newspaper, it resonated with ideals of Bold Mission Thrust back in 1976. That premise was to evanglize the world by 2000. Then sadly, 3 years later the SBC was embroiled in battle like never seen before. That battle is still there, however, it can be viewed as only skirmishes now.

What would be great coming out of the SBC Convention in Greensboro, aside from me not getting arrested for protesting, would be for the arrogant pious leadership to say that they have been wrong in excluding so many people from membership/leadership roles and that they do not have all of the theological answers!

Were that to happen, I might darken the doors of an SBC church once again for something other than a funeral!

Shalom

Just as one might expect; a vitriolic loathing for the SBC, or any comprehensive Christian witness today, from those who reject God, His Word and those who ardently seek to advance the Crown rights of Messiah. Calling them “Yahoos” speaks volumes- even if some of them are from Virginia..

I’m not a Southern Baptist, although I grew up in a decidedly liberal one; and I would not agree on some doctrinal issues (peripheral ones, not central orthodoxy). But I fully support their efforts to be a biblical and evangelistic witness in a fast-degenerating culture. The narrowing on doctrinal positions is, no doubt, a response to the broad road to destruction that the liberal wing of the SBC took in the 20th century generally. The pendulum almost always swings to the other end in such cases. But the swing is generally good, in my opinion.

As usual, humanists of virtually all stripes (atheists, rainbows, GLBT’s, lefties, etc.) are all just fine if good little Christians “stick to spiritual matters and leave politics out of their work.” But that is precisely why the nation and the Church are in such a dilemma today: the fundamentalists withdrew into their cocoon of orthodoxy during the first half of the 20th century, and virtually left the culture to the liberal social gospellers, who were more or less the religious equivalent of the humanist/socialist crowd. As the Church began to awaken from her self-imposed enclave mentality, it caused increasingly shrill cries from the humanists community for them to go back into their sanctimonious closet and leave the culture-building to them.

No way, Jose! Jesus prayed – and we pray – “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” ON EARTH. A merely “spiritual” Christianity is, biblically, an oxymoron. St. John the Divine declared, as he peered down the corridors of history, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.” Biblical truth, NT and OT, is not only the source material for personal piety, but the blueprint for the Kingdom.

This means that every area of life is to be subject to God and His Word: morals, ethics, marriage, family order, education, arts, government, et al.) This does not imply that a church (denomination) should be in any way “officially” involved with government or the courts (the real meaning of separation of church and state – they are separate divine institutions); but it does mean that working toward a benevolent and righteous social order can only be done in submission to God and His Law/Word. Church and state are to be separate and distinct organizationally, but united in seeking to serve in harmony with God’s moral Law and legal precepts (lex talionis, at al.) Thus, it is not only good, but incumbent on the Church to seek to influence government to govern in a godly and biblical manner.

Well, I got carried away. My prayers are with the SBC as they meet. They are not perfect, of course, but I believe they are on the right track. I trust they will continue the good work of trying to strongly influence the nation from a biblical perspective.

Nikos, ever taken any Baptist History courses?

Shalom

nikos (the bond slave),
i'm with you on this one, the sbc is far from perfect but as you very well sated their mission is evangelical in nature and thus serving the commission that Jesus gave the disciples. it's funny how some will hop from church to church until they hear what supports their theology. i can tell you that i attend a wesleyan church and believe me i do not believe or adhere to all of their doctrines and theology, but the ones i've come into fellowship with understand that Christ is central and that salvation, obedience and sacrifice are key elements in a life serving God and many of the side issues are just that, side issues. that is not to say that these issues are not important but less important than other things (imo). i'm overweight and i've heard sermons on your body being the temple and how we should honor that temple and perhaps if you are overweight you may not be honoring that temple in the best possible fashion, well i did not immediately starting looking for another church b/c i was offended, rather i appreciated the words of scriptures/wisdom and realized God's truth is more important than my feelings. sometimes God's word convicts us and makes us realize we are in error/sin and that is EXACTLY what it should do - we either embrace God's truths or we go looking for another church which preaches another gospel.

Funny, I have had family and friends who perform similar functions in my life: helping me beome mire aware of my choices and consequences in this life and for the future after I am gone, in both local and global impact.

Aside from the quest for eternal life, we have had quite familar experiences.

Oh, and Nikos, although I fear where the discussion might turn, what excatly does Christainity, as you perceive and practice it, espouse for the arts?, as that is my field.

As a former Baptist and one who stood not a few times in their pulpits, I left the Baptist church because they became so caught up in the programs that they forgot the message. They got so caught up in growth and money to continue the growth that they left out the Gospel. Programs replaced Gospel and membership became foremost in the SBC.
I left because I found it reprehensible that they would rather keep women in the kitchen and in the nursery rather than allow them in any type of real leadership roles. I found their man-made doctrine which allowed women to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ but not to preach the gospel was outrageous. They allowed women to go to the mission field to work and supposedly to teach about Jesus Christ but yet did not allow them to baptize those who believed as is stated in scripture that it is be done. They were allowed to prepare the communion in the kitchen but not allowed to pass it to like believers as if being a woman delegated them to a lesser role. They took one scripture of Paul's where he stated that women should be silent and ground it into dogma for the church doctrine. They forgot that Paul addressed and praised women who were leaders of churches in Asia Minor as well as Greece. That part of the story was left out to suit the man made doctrine.
They ended the role of the Holy Spirit after the death of the last Apostle.
They took more interest in elevating man rather than Jesus Christ and squabbled over matters not belonging within the church.
They became more like the Pharisees and Sadducees than disciples of Jesus Christ.

My first class year in Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was also my last as I heard so called professors deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus, call the sacraments(baptism, communion) man-made and of no consequence and that one could leave that part of the scripture out since it mattered not . It seemed to me that the professor had failed to read and study the NT where Jesus commanded his disciples to go preach the gospel and baptize all those who believed. He forgot that it was Jesus who instituted the Lord's Supper , or as some denominations call it , communion.
I find the SBC to have lost it's way when it comes to the true Gospel and have replaced it with the "teachings of man". We are warned to beware of such teachings and unless it lift up Jesus Christ, then it is of no avail.

I left the SBC when that entity as a whole started issuing the invitations to God's table; rather than God in God's self doing so.

Shalom

I certainly do agree with you, Mr. P, that there are problems within the SBC in applying doctrinal truths. I think they were courageous in moving away from the liberal drift as much as they have, but there will always be differences of opinion on various doctrinal points: all groups of all persuasions have internal debate and disagreement. My support for the SBC is simply one of general agreement on the authority of Scripture and biblical morality.

The women in ministry issue is not an easy one to sort out, as there are varying degrees of female participation in leadership roles in the Scriptures. There are, however, clear guidelines in the Word as to the limitations of women in leadership. I do not, however, believe that women are to be relegated to the kitchen, as Mr. P. pointed out. But men are clearly given the nature and calling by God throughout the Scriptures to be loving leaders in church and family.

The NT, although clearly expanding the honor and ministry of women, does not abrogate this Scriptural truth, but consistently affirms men’s headship in marriage and authority in the Church. The tendency of liberal churches to abandon this teaching is merely the result of yielding to feminist pressure, and not of new and more accurate exegesis of Scripture. The stand of the SBC to affirm the clear guidelines of Scripture is commendable, even if sometimes too rigidly.

Women are given key and marvelous ministry callings in the Word of God, especially in the NT. The ministry of the home has been denigrated by some feminist proponets, so much so that women are made to feel like failures if they remain at home with their children and are not out career-chasing. Women should certainly be encouraged to fulfill their talents and giftings in every way possible, but they should not seek to press beyond what God has clearly decreed as limits, which is not done to squelch or put down women, but rather to establish and maintain the dynamics of Kingdom order and blessing. Some women may be called to marriage/home-only work in the Kingdom; others may certainly be called to other ministry and labors. Professional careers are certainly open to women; but if they choose to have children, it should be seen as their primary ministry – by their own CHOICE! It is a high, key and noble calling indeed. Other careers then become secondary.

Freddy, art simply reflects the nature of human beings in general, and can be used for everything from decorative enhancement to serious ideological statement. Good “Christian” art does not have be expressly religious OR Christian, but it should not be depraved, or draw people into destructive and degrading behaviors. After all, it does have formative and directive influences. While I believe that artists should be encouraged to produce high quality and positive art, I do not believe that there should be rigid censorship. Some limits, however, should be publicly enforced when “art” becomes luridly pornographic, morally depraved or excessively violent.

There are many issues regarding media and art today that have nothing to do with morals or spirituality. I’m not sure Christians or any religious groups have adequately understood or addressed these issues: too much of the TV drug, banal movies, etc. In the end, the only realistic way to change the arts or anything is from the inside out. If the heart is at peace and beautified with Christ, it will reflect that reality in all areas of life, including art. Unless I am grossed out by it, I personally find something at least to think about in most art.
There are just some aesthetic and moral limits; ideally imposed from within.

Nikos, did you see the question I posed? Or, are you ignoring me?

Shalom

Either busy on Saturday or as suspected, ignoring me!

Anyone wishing to join me in silent protest at the Coliseum, email me for information and details.

Shalom

Would Guernica come out as too violent?
Would Waiting for Godot seem to disrespectful to believers?
Would Duchamp's Fountain be offensive?

"Just as one might expect; a vitriolic loathing for the SBC, or any comprehensive Christian witness today, from those who reject God, His Word and those who ardently seek to advance the Crown rights of Messiah."

"Crown rights"?!

Here is a perfect example of the danger posed by those Christians who want political control of this nation. Such people truly want to destroy Democracy and replace it with a "Kingdom." But since God never holds press conferences itself, nor manages to say anything to the public firsthand in any manner at all, that "Kingdom" would have to be administered by the humans who have God whispering in their ears.

Would any person who reads this want their government run by someone like Buz or Nikos?

Here's why I say that Christians (well, the Constructionist types at any rate) should not hold political power in this country: They are working under the philosophy of the Old Testament, that the "sins" of a few are the reason bad things happen to the whole. It's the old theology of Leviticus 26... the whole nation is punished with famine, drought, crop failures, etc, if even one person steps out of line, and these folks want to try and make sure that all will follow the laws in the Bible. Well, at least the laws they feel are most important. I would hope that they wouldn't ban cheeseburgers, for instance... but how could you tell beforehand?

I have no problem with a Christian getting into the government and using his ethical training from his religion in making decisions in his job. But I will not tolerate anyone, like the Southern Baptists, trying to get into government and attempting to force me or anyone else to follow the many insane, extremist things they want to do in this country. LONG LIVE THE CHEESEBURGER!!

eric,
hey nikos we've made erics top 10 list ....
not to worry mon, i will not be running for any office soon ! nikos will you be running for office soon ?
and eric the whisperings in my ear is music to my soul......"you" must remember those whisperings....for you were once saved right....God does speak to His children.....and dare i say if you never heard God speak - well then maybe you weren't, well you know, really a child of God ? Jesus said " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ". yes i continue to hear His voice and yes i am still following and yes i am willing to be a fool for Christ's sake - which i have probably done more than once - but i am not ashamed !!

Buz, we are not light years apart on hearing from God. The regenerate child of God hears God speak every time he/she reads the Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is when major public issues are at stake that some well-meaning Christians have gone beyond the bounds of biblical and Church order. When one makes a well-publicized public declaration in a prophetic mode, he should be EXTREMELY careful to get confirmations from mature, respected brethren and Church leaders before letting the whole world in on his revelation. In the public forum, with the media coverage available today, one is de facto speaking for the Church, becoming a lightning rod for examination and critique. Preaching from the Scriptures where God is the authority and the one putting his head on the block, is one thing; claiming direct prophetic revelation is another altogether!

I realize, Darryl, that the Baptist tradition is very strong on independence and separation of church and state. I grew up a S.B. And I certainly agree that the church should be organizationally separate. (I will not repeat my earlier entry). What I do not agree with is that the state should be some kind of amorphous moral and spiritual vacuum. Ultimately, all peoples and all nations are under God, and every government should seek to govern with the principles set forth in God’s Law/Word. Otherwise there can be no “common good” or justice for anyone. This was certainly the case and the intent of the founding fathers and those who followed them for many decades thereafter. No state church, but godly influence from individuals and churches in governing.

The Church’s calling is to seek to INFLUENCE governance not to DO it. It should speak prophetically to the state; as Martin Luther King did and the black churches did during the civil rights struggle. Libs were perfectly fine with that and even championed it –as did many, many Christians – and rightly so. That was influencing without organizational merging. It is only when Christians seek to influence legislators and legislation in regard to their pet issues, that liberals accuse it of infringement of separation; and use terms like “insane, extremist.”

“I have no problem with a Christian getting into government and using his ethical training from his religion in making decisions in his job. But I will not tolerate (Whoa!!!) anyone, like the Southern Baptists trying to force me . . . to follow the many insane, extremist things they want to do . . . CHEESEBURGER!!”

Eric, whether we like or not, the political interest group that achieves elected authority at any given time, “imposes” their positions/values on all the others. That’s representative government, is it not? Inevitably, values (gay marriage, abortion, 1 man 1 woman marriage, right to life, higher or lower taxes, etc. etc.) are IMPOSED by law. Then the opposing value block seeks to overturn those laws and policies through influencing elections. Duhh!!!! Your comment is sheer whining. How do you think Christians have felt, lo these many years, having to accept the imposition of baby killing, and now it seems, gay marriage. We have patiently born it (with some unfortunately exceptions), and are now exercising our constitutional right to redress grievances and elect our people. Stop the whining and separation flack. If you guys win elections, we’ll simply accept for the moment, pray and ACT ! (do political organizing, etc.) It’s your right – and ours. RIGHT?

At least Nikos and I agree one one item: we have no problem with expressing our opposition to each others' agendas.

I just hope that the people who vote for public office will see how unreasonable and extreme the views of Christian dominionists are and avoid the mistake of electing such nut cases. Otherwise, we'll have to follow the Ten Commandments and I, for one, love my cheeseburgers!

as a whole started issuing the invitations to God's table; rather than God in God's self doing so.

Darryll, I do not issue the invitation to the Lord's table as He did that when he said, that "as often as your drink of this cup and eat of this bread do this in remembrance of me." I mearly repeat his invitation to those who would join in that rememberance. I don't remember the SB churches that I was in doing other than what I did and do. All believers are invited to gather around the table of the Lord to remember the sacrifice he made for each of us and someone has to issue that open invitation at the time the table is prepared. I do hold those in contempt who would only allow those of their denomination to partake in the Lord's Supper. Some Baptist churches of many years ago did that and I was certainly against it. Some may do it today but I have not been invited nor have I been in a Baptist church during such an occassion. The few SB pastors that I do know do not have what is called "closed communion".