News-Record.com

If the Baptists want a different image in the public eye, they will have to act differently than they have over the past 3 full decades. Their image of being hateful and mean didn't come out of the blue. They HAVE been mean, small-minded and judgmental in their public pronouncements for a very long time. If they are different from the way they have been acting, they are just going to have to find ways to stop acting like that... and wait as long as needed to undo the damage their mistakes have done.

Of course, if their actions over these years weren't mistakes, then they should just hold their heads high, tell the world to bugger off and leave them to waste away in their insular little world of their making.

To me personally, as a former (recovering) Baptist, I find the actions hugely hypocritical. The churches in the article such as Reedy Fork want the luxury of being affiliated with the larger Baptist community (SBC), yet do not want to openly acknowledge that relationship. This is like the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" syndrome.

While Southern Baptists for eons were known for similarities and differences, there were common threads in those churches that distinguished them as Southern Baptist. For the denomination AND the local church to want to distance themselves from the Baptist label/name tells me that there is some degree of guilt over what has been done.

In the article, Pastor Franklin Bowman stated; "When we started praying about it and putting the church together, we felt that we didn't want that [Baptist name/affiliation]to be a hindrance to anyone coming through the door," I just wonder if I, as an openly gay male, would be welcomed as a person were I to walk "through the door" of Reedy Fork?

namtac has posed some good points that should be examined by Baptist's nationwide!

Shalom

Balderdash! This is just a typical liberal guilt-manipulation trick - especially in an election year when the Left is trying to diss the conservative religious community to dampen its vote. I'm not saying it’s a fully conscious conspiracy (at least on the lower echelons), but it is a generalized religious right-bashing mindset.

Personally, I can't think of a single policy that the SBC has set forth over the last couple of decades that was unbiblical or wrong; and they have always stated their positions clearly and civilly. If anything, they were perhaps a bit too reserved at times. They should certainly not be cowed or intimidated by their detractors.

The SBC’s positions on homosexuality, women’s ordination and male headship in the home are straight out of the Bible, and fully consistent with the orthodox Faith of the ages. It’s not being “mean-spirited” to confront the sins and departures of corrupt practices in our culture. What the postmodern PC culture embraces should be irrelevant to those seeking to live in conformity with the unchanging Word of God. Any attempt to soft-pedal or hide these stands is tantamount to being ashamed of the Gospel, and a traitor to the blood of Christ. Certainly, there is no need to parade, or in-your-face, any particular stand (as the Rev. Phelps does). But no matter how loving and sensitive one seeks to explain his opposition to some newly accepted sins, he will always be labeled “mean-spirited.” But there should be no apology for Truth; and it should be boldly declared whenever appropriate, in a way that honors God and advances His Kingdom.

It is the liberal churches and denominations today (UCC, ECUSA, et al.) that have grievously departed from biblical norms and standards and should be repenting and apologizing! And so the SBC is to be highly commended for standing firm in the midst of an apostatizing generation. Tell I like it is, brothers, and leave the fallout to God – as the prophets, Apostles, martyrs and saints of the ages have always done.

Nikos, I have three questions.

Number one; Do you have membership in (or ever been a member of an SBC church)? If yes, which one? If no, then why criticize those who are part of or may come from an SBC background?

Number two; If not a member of an SBC church, to which denomination do you belong and why? If not, why not if there is such apparent agreement with the unchristian ways in which they have over-reacted in the past three and one-half decades?

Number three; If the role of women is what I am perceiving it to mean by the comments made above how is the role of women explained in the early first century house churches?

I await response on these as I am sure others may as well.

Also, does anyone have the fortitude to meeting face to face somewhere and possibly having Nancy as a moderator of such a meeting. No one responded in the blog on Gay Marriage so I am asking in this blog as well.

Shalom

Darryl,

Thanks for your remarks. As for your questions:

First, I grew up a Southern Baptist, and have attended them at times since then. So I think I have some right to comment on how they operate and believe. My current affiliation is Reformed, which I have chosen because, IMO, it represents the most accurate interpretation of the Scriptures and of the Church as it operated in the Apostolic period. The Church forms after its norms. Right doctrine produces true NT living.

I, in no way, want to convey the idea that I have a negative or less than Scriptural view of women and their capacity to minister in the Church. By early house churches, I assume you mean those mentioned in the NT Scriptures. Otherwise there are no authoritative records of how they operated. There is no doubt that women served the saints in MANY wonderful ways, even instructing new converts, such as Priscilla in Acts 18, but in conjunction with her husband, Aquilla. Paul makes it clear that men only are called to be governmental and instructional heads of the home and the Church.

Woman have unique and indispensable ways of serving, but are not allowed, because the created nature and calling of men, to usurp those positions – which church officials in some denominations have rationalized and distorted the Scriptures in order to allow. Any breech of Scriptural order and teaching will have unintended and unforeseen consequences. Paul makes it clear in I Corinthians 12 that all are vital to the operation of the Body, but there are diversities of gifts and callings. Women’s ordination was and is driven by feminism – NOT by true biblical exegesis.

I am not averse to meeting over a friendly coffee with any number of persons (well, not 50), but not in a formal debate setting. Therefore I would prefer that there be no “moderator” or referee, as I don’t expect any fisticuffs. I don’t consider anyone on this blog an enemy; simply intelligent, generally civil persons with whom I have profound disagreements. Time and place? I am fairly flexible.

Nikos, thanks for the answers. I apologize for the way in which the intent of some of the questions came across. I just wanted to make sure that some degree of experience with the SBC was there.

One further question, are you a Reformed Lutheran? Please clarify. I too am a Reformed Protestant. However, that does not give much information now does it? I hope my point can be seen more clearly now.

One last comment; adamah was created from the rib of adam.....showing a mutual role in life. Paul also wrote about there being no male, female, Jew, Greek, etc. Therefore, noting that the divisive lines that humanity sees are not valid with God. Of course the writings of Paul are also used to support many things that have been found to be in error as well.

Shalom

Darryl, apology accepted. No problema.

I am Reformed Presbyterian.

“ . . . adamah was created from the rib of adam.....showing a mutual role in life.”

First of all, the Hebrew word for woman in this verse (Gen. 2: 21-23) is not adamah, but ishah’ (ish –man, ishah’ -woman) She is elsewhere referred to as avah’ - mother (of all living persons). Both Adam’ and adamah are related to the Hebrew word for red, blushing, etc., OR for ground. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance indicates that adamah means: “soil, earth, ground, husband (man, -dry), land.”

Two different Hebrew words are also used for how Yahweh Elohim “made” Ha-Adam and Ha-‘Avah: BANAH – build, for Ha-‘Avah; and JATZAR – fashion, form, for Ha-Adam. The whole idea of Eve being taken from Adam (rib) was that she was banah-ed especially FOR him. No other creature was sufficient to satisfy Adam’s need for fellowship and love. She was made to be an Ezer’ helper for him; not a slave or servant, but one who fit, or conformed to him - body, soul and mind.

Paul sets the whole relationship in relation to God’s glory:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

It is the man who is first created in the image of God; and then the woman is “built” (BANAH) from man to be his glory (sun/moon). She is nevertheless equally created in the image and likeness of God. This shows, not an equivalency, but an equality of being and worth. In other words, the woman is to have a glory-relationship to her right man, as the man is to God. She is created as an empty vessel, longing to be filled by her own special Adam. And he longs to have his own Eve to love, protect and cherish.

This is not a relationship of sameness, but of dynamic difference – for the sake of the of loving intercourse. She MUST be “filled,” in her body AND in her soul (mind and emotions). This is why women swoon over rock stars etc. or go “boy crazy.” It is this emotional rib-ness that causes the woman to submit to her right man – NOT out of duty or slavery, but out of passionate, consuming amor. Every normal wife I know, who loves her Adam, wants to please and serve him in acts of love. And every godly man I know wants to nourish and take care of his precious Eve – to fill her with his body and his soul.

This dynamic polarity affects every aspect of a woman’s being. This undeniable and uncontrollable sense of submission is what gives men their leadership or headship qualities and calling in every sphere of life. They are created by God to be strong, decisive, authoritative and masculine. A woman is soft, deferential and feminine. To deny and go against this reality out of rebellion against God’s created order makes women rough, pseudo-masculine and bitchy.

When this glorious dynamic of love is working it is indeed glorious, as God planned. When Adams abuse their authority and tyrannize and mistreat their sensitive Eves, they come under God’s judgment. This is why Paul and Peter instruct women to submit to their husbands out of love, AND the fear of God. Our problem today is that both men and women have decided to reject God’s magnificent plan and be what they are not by nature.

Fact is, very few people today understand what the Bible REALLY teaches concerning this whole matter. It is meant to liberate both men and women to be what they were created to be. It does not mean that women can’t be all they are capable of being – but not outside what God designed them to be. And so for men. We are all of us miserable if we are trying to be something we are not; whether in terms of job, art, or passion. The highest calling for a woman is to be a wife and mother (and other career activities as well). But if a woman becomes a mother, that then becomes her highest calling and primary career – so holy and vital is mothering in God’s economy.

Men are called to generally run and rule the social order: business, labor, skills, professions, military – to provide for their wives and children. If a woman is miserable at home, it is because she doesn’t know how to do it, or she has a lousy attitude. If a man is not content and inspired to produce and achieve, he is lacking perspective and true passion. It is the godly home, with all its love, interest, and purpose that is the crowning pinnacle of life. Only the Bride of Christ, the Church is more glorious and central to God’s eternal purposes.

Without the Holy Spirit and a knowledge and application of God’s Word in this area of human life, we will continue to see the breakdown of the home, failed marriages, chaotic children, ad nauseam. “There is a way that seems right to men, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs.

Nikos, thanks for the response. I am thankful to God that my apology is recognized and accepted.

I used the adam/adamah from my days in Hebrew and Old Testament class. The ish/ishah came back to my remembrance upon reading those comments. Maybe better, maybe not. The intent was there I suspect or the comments would not have ensued as they did.

Basically we have interpretative differences. One of us has a broader view of things than the other. Only God will correct us on that day. I would still rather err on the side of love/openness and be wrong. Remember Pascal's wager? That is how I am basing my path in the Light.

Shalom

Well, Darryl, you can have Paschal. I'll stick with the clear Word of God, which states things regarding this subject VERY clearly - unless you're trying to put a feminist, postmodern spin on it.

so ole paschal the rascal surmises that to err on the side of safety, one should wager (gamble) that God exists. i agree with him that 'reason' alone would not lead one to faith in the living God. but as he muddles around in wagers and gambling, Paul on the other hand attests what he has either heard directly from Jesus (ever wonder what paul was doing in arabia for three years) or has received from the Holy Spirit. Paul unlike paschal was not afraid to say definitively that he had encountered the living God. if there is any wager to be placed, scripture says it this way "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life ..."
so paschal 'believes', to be safe (supposedly) while the word says "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble". so i surmise that belief alone (as a simple safety net) may not provide the expected results. we must remember that repentance results in an obvious life change.
nikos, like you i will stick with the word of God and cast my lot based upon its teachings.

Nikos, you really truly believe in ribs being turned into people, snakes that talk, etc?
i KNOW somebody has a bridge to sell you.

Nikos, the statement; "the clear word of God" troubles me. First, which version of the "word of God" does one use? Who determines the correctness of said version? Who determines who the decider will be and under what credentials the decider is chosen?

Do my questions make sense?

You see Nikos and buz, I too once walked as one who carried all of the answers to life's questions. I was not ashamed to share the answers even when not asked. Then there was an epiphany and I was shown that I am not God and therefore do not carry the answers to life's questions. What I do carry is a knowledge of the One who does. I can introduce others to that One and hope that the Light that I found in my epiphany will be found by others as well.

Also remember that I believe in continuing revelation. I believe that God still speaks to people today. However, humans do not seem to believe things when one speaks unless what is spoken reaffirms what is already believed. In the Hebrew scriptures I believe people like this were called prophets.

Shalom

hey alice ----- if nikos isn't interested in that bridge - do you think i might have a shot at speaking with the seller? i could add it to the one bridge i already own, you know....the one which looks like a cross and bridges the gap between fallen mankind and our heavenly Father !!

darryl for the final time.....i do not have all the answers, never said i did, never will. but the word of God has as many answers as anyone might need. you say that you believe in continuing revelation which is fine but the real problem is that you have a very redacted belief in past revelations. you've made it clear that you prefer paschal philosophy over paul's revelation.

let's restate your questions as such :
1) "which version of the "word of God" do you use?"

2) "have you determined the correctness of said?" version?

3) "have you determined who the decider will be and under what credentials the decider is chosen?"

buz, I am glad that I give you someone to argue with. I bet your wife is thankful I am around. How is that son from the first marriage handling things today?

Shalom

"How is that son from the first marriage handling things today?"............. i can't seem to link your logic here darryl......but somehow i believe this is your attempt at sick humor or some type of insinuation....i feel certain that it is meant to hurt me in some manner.....how about clarifying what you meant ??

well i'm not surprised in the least darryl - i was certain that you would not respond to my post. here is what i think.....somehow you lost your 'center' and got beyond your 'light' and fell into darkness and your flesh got the best of you and you tried desperately to injure me with that low blow about my son. scripture does teach us to forgive 70 x 7 if someone repents - i am ready to forgive....are you ready to repent ??
and for those true Christians on this blog, please lift up this son of mine that is mentioned here - God knows his need(s) and i pray he will accept Gods grace, amen.