First, ABC News briefly interviewed Miss Tarter for a nationally broadcast news segment and I went back and researched Miss Tarter and her writings on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website. It was then I realized her understanding of "feminism" was something way different than the typical Southern Baptist understanding of it. Second, my wife, who read my blogpost, was so intrigued that she ended up researching Miss Tarter's writings for herself - and told me that she was personally offended by Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist. Finally, I had the privilege this week of reading the personal memoirs of Elizabeth Keckly, an African-American seamstress who worked for Mary Todd Lincoln in the Lincoln White House, and came to the realization that the Southern Baptist Convention needs more women with the spirit of Miss Keckly and not Miss Tarter.
Drs. Mohler and Moore praise Miss Tarter's conclusions in her post, but my wife perceptively pointed out to me a couple of very serious doctrinal problems in Miss Tarter's writings. My wife of twenty-five years (Rachelle) is a conservative, evangelical Christian who has helped me raise four wonderful kids, graduated from Nursing School at forty three years of age with a 4.0 grade average, and is currently enrolled at the University of Oklahoma completing her Masters as a Clinical Nurse Specialist. She is also the sweetest woman you will ever meet, one who is rarely offended, so when she told me Tarter's article offended her, I took notice. Rachelle pointed out to me two statements in Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist that should send shivers up the spines of all Southern Baptists.
(1). "Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator." Miss Courtney Tarter
Feminism, according to SBC seminary trained Cortney Tarter, is opposition to male authority and God's authority.
As Southern Baptists, we keep hearing the pertinent issue in our Convention is "pastoral" authority. Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and others keep hammering away at the "liberals" who are advocating female "pastoral" authority. I keep asking questions like "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Southern Baptist Hebrew professors?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Vice-Presidents of the IMB?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with missionaries at the Strategy Associate level?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with Southern Baptists refusing to endorse Southern Baptist female military chaplains?" I believe Miss Courtney Tarter has provided the answer to my questions, an answer that I have suspected all along, but Moore, Patterson, Mohler and other SBC leaders are careful not to state as bluntly as Miss Tarter.
The issue is male authority in the Southern Baptist Convention, or more precisely, females are to always be subordinate to males; at all places, at all times, and under all circumstances. The issue in the SBC is not about "women pastors" and don't let anybody continue to blow that smoke in your face - it is about certain SBC leaders who believe that women should submit to men - period. Again, the issue in our Convention is the attempt to demand everyone believe in male authority over women.
A handful of powerful SBC leaders in our Convention are pushing a very bizzare scenario of removing women from leadership positions, all the while attempting to mislead us regarding the reasons for their actions. These SBC leaders, including seminary Presidents, their friends who serve as SBC agency trustees, and other strategically placed SBC leaders believe that there should never be a Southern Baptist woman with with any authority over a man. Again, they say they are seeking to protect "pastoral" authority, but it is not about "pastoral authority." Their belief is in male authority.
(2). "Instead of seeing our gender differences as mere cultural constructions we must first admit that there was something far greater going on in the Garden than we now realize, and when Creation fell, it was distorted. In creating man and woman differently, God was pointing to the beauty of the Trinitarian relationship." Miss Courtney Tarter
Pointing to the Trinity in order to establish the "eternal subordination" of the female to the male is a new and growing phenomenon. Yet this heretical teaching is taking hold among some in our Southern Baptist Convention, particularly at our seminaries, as a theological basis to keep women eternally subordinate to men. Southern Baptists best wake up to this growing tendency to use a false understanding of the Trinity to justify the eternal subordination of women to men before the pastors of our Southern Baptist churches begin to accept this doctrine as "the norm." Not only is it not normal, it borders on bizarre. Just because we admire Mohler, just because there is fear that respected seminary administrators like Dr. Moore and Dr. Patterson may torpedo your chances to get a SBC church, you shouldn't be afraid to push back. Loyalty is a major value right now in the Southern Baptist Convention, but following fidelity to the fringe of foolishness will destroy our Convention.
The Gripping, Heartwrenching Story of Elizabeth Keckley
I titled this post, My Prayer for Miss Courtney Tarter: "That One Day, By God's Grace, You May Recover from Your Recovery. What Miss Tarter needs recovery from is her warped concept that a woman is to always be submissive to male authority. That bizarre view may actually cause a Southern Baptist to teach that a wife who is being beaten by her husband should submit to the beatings (more about the tape recording I heard where a Southern Baptist Seminary President actually advocated this on a later post). Our Southern Baptist women need to understand that nowhere in Scripture does God order a woman to be subordinate to a man because of gender. Let me repeat: There is not one scrap of evidence - not one jot or tittle of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures - that should ever cause a woman to feel she is subordinate to a man because of her gender. To militate against a woman's subordination to a man is not feminism. It is respecting the equality of the man and the woman.
For my part, I wish Miss Tarter was more like Elizabeth Keckley. Elizabeth, an African-American seamstress for the Lincoln White House, was born into slavery in 1830. Her story is an incredible journey from slavery to the White House. Without comment, I will simply encourage you to read Keckley's own words as she describes her spirit while being beaten by a very poor North Carolina Presybyterian minister in 1850. At the time of this beating, Miss Keckly was the same age as Miss Tarter. She had been given to the minister as a slave gift, the minister and his wife being unable themselves to afford any slaves. Miss Keckley was unsure as to the reason for the beating described below, but believes it was because she fell asleep while rocking the Presbyterian minister's small child.
"My master was a good-hearted man, but was influenced by his wife. It was Saturday evening, and while I was bending over the bed, watching the baby that I had just hushed into slumber, Mr. Bingham came to the door and asked me to go with him to his study. Wondering what he meant by his strange request, I followed him, and when we had entered the study he closed the door, and in his blunt way remarked, "Lizzie, I am going to flog you." I was thunderstruck, and tried to think if I had been remiss in anything. I could not recollect of doing anything to deserve punishment, and with surprise exclaimed: "Whip me, Mr. Bingham! what for?"
"No matter," he replied, "I am going to whip you, so take down your dress this instant."
Recollect, I was eighteen years of age, was a woman fully developed, and yet this man coolly bade me take down my dress. I drew myself up proudly, firmly, and said, "No, Mr. Bingham, I shall not take down my dress before you. Moreover, you shall not whip me unless you prove the stronger."
My words seemed to exasperate him. He seized a rope, caught me roughly, and tried to tie me. I resisted with all my strength, but he was the stronger of the two, and after a hard struggle succeeded in binding my hands and tearing my dress from my back. Then he picked up a rawhide, and began to ply it freely over my shoulders. With steady hand and practised eye, he would raise the instrument of torture, nerve himself for a blow, and with a fearful force the rawhide descended upon the quivering flesh. It cut the skin, raised great welts, and the warm blood trickled down my back. Oh God! I can feel the torture now - the terrible, excruciating agony of those moments. I did not scream; I was too proud to let my tormentor know what I was suffering. I closed my lips firmly, that not even a groan might escape from them, and I stood like a statue while the keen lash cut deep into my flesh. As soon as I was released, stunned with pain, bruised and bleeding . . . I exclaimed "Master, what I done that I should be punished so severely?"
I would not put off thus. "What have I done? I will know why I have been flogged."
I saw his cheeks flush with anger, but I did not move. Without an explanation, he seized a chair, struck me, and felled me to the floor. I rose, bewildered, almost dead with pain, crept to my room, dressed my bruised arms and back as best I could and then lay down, but not to sleep. No, I could not sleep, for I was suffering mental as well as bodily torture. My spirit rebelled against the unjustness that had been inflicted upon me, and though I tried to smother my anger and to forgive those who had been so cruel to me, it was impoossible. The next morning I was more calm, and I believe that I could then have forgiven everything for the sake of one kind word. But the kind word was never proffered, and it may be possible, that I grew somewhat wayward and sullen. Though I had faults, I know now, as I felt then, harshness was the poorest inducement for the correction of them. It seems that (the pastor) had pledged himself to the Mrs. to subdue what he called "my stubborn pride." On Friday following the Saturday on which I was so savagely beaten, I was again directed to come to the study. On entering the room I found him prepared with a new rope and a new cowhide. I told him that I was ready to die, but that he could not conquer me. In struggling with him I bit his finger severely, when he seized a heavy stick and beat me with it in a shameful manner. The following Thursday, again he tried to conquer me, but in vain. We struggled, and he struck me many savage blows. As I stood bleeding before him, nearly exhausted with his efforts, he burst into tears, and declared that it would be a sin to beat me any more. My suffering at last subdued his hard heart; he asked my forgiveness, and afterwards was an altered man. He who preached the love of Heaven, who glorified the precepts and examples of Christ, who expounded the Holy Scriptures Sabbath after Sabbath from the pulpit refused to whip me any more."
Miss Tarter, keep your pride in being a female. Stay strong in desiring to follow the Word of God. I pray, however, that you will one day see, as did Miss Keckley, that it is not a sin to refuse to submit to the authority of a man - or even a pastor, or even a Seminary President, or even a boss.
You, Miss Tarter, are equal to them in God-given human authority.
In His Grace,
Wade
387 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 387 of 387SL1M:
I welcome your challenge and I will be glad to provide information about Al Mohler's position on singleness as a sin.
Before I share my information with you, let me admit that I was wrong about the article I attributed to Mohler. It was actually written by Camerin Courtney and is entitled: "Is Singleness a Sin?" which can be found at the following link:
www.christianitytoday.com/singles/newletter/mind40811.html
Dr. Mohler responded to Courtney's criticism in the following article: Reflecting on "The Mystery of Marriage". In it he states:
"Singleness is not a sin, but deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of Christian responsibility."
Follow this link to read Mohler's entire article:
www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001244.cfm
I believe Dr. Mohler speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. He absolutely did speak at a church where I live two years ago and called their singles ministry an ABOMINATION. Pastors at the church and congregants confirmed to me in person that this is the actual word he used. It may not be first-hand knowledge, but it's the next best thing, especially when the church's pastors admitted that this is what he said to the entire assembly. That is very strong language!
Another resource about Mohler's position on Singleness can be found at ethicsdaily.com
Bob Allen wrote an article on July 12, 2004, entitled: "Southern Baptist Leader Labels Putting Off Marriage Sinful."
The article begins as follows:
"Males as young as 17 should already be thinking about marriage, a Southern Baptist leader said on a recent Campus Crusade for Christ radio program, calling it a "sin" for adults to purposely postpone getting hitched."
Dr. Mohler's position on singleness seems blatantly clear to me.
Peter,
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY;
AND HE IS US."
There is such a thing as projecting our own weaknesses on to others. This is a very complex theory in psychology: so I will simplify:
We like to ignore our own sin; and see it in the next guy.
Peter, examine yourself, before you cast another stone. I say this, because, I, too, am guilty of what I tell you about.
Peter, you are a member of our community on this blog. Nobody is perfect.
least of all,
YOUR FRIEND
Peter:
What did you say in your last commen?. I did not understand what you were trying to say.
Peter: The objection is this. Wade said it in an earlier post quite clear, as well as Phil.
Christ is not eternally subordinate, even in deed. He is God. The quote I gave you from Bruce Ware is wrong. You appeared to agree in the beginning of the thread, then appeared to change again. You are right I'm confused as to just exactly what you or Tim believe.
This is the same argument used in women submitting. That we are equal but we have different roles. These are subordinate roles, but that makes us no less equal. In reality where is the equality?
I was all ready to put what I really thought, about all this, up as a comment but it's too long. If you want to read it, go here.
peter
all we have to do is read your SICK BLOG and then be uplifted by reading wade's blog.
imsmith
"Many women's ministry groups do not tolerate that diversity in career and family choices. If the women leading the group are homeschooling types, there is cultural pressure that is added to the group to be homeschoolers. Or, if the group is led by career women, there seems to be pressure to be career oriented, and homeschooling stay at home types are tolerated, but not celebrated."
SL1M: Beautifully summed up my friend. This comment stream bears witness to it in my opinion."
This is balogna. Honestly. I am in several Bible studies and this just NOT the case at all.
I am a homeschooling mom of 10 children and I am in Bible studies with moms who send their kids to public schools, moms who are career women and moms who are all of the above and this is NOT an issue.
Where it is an issue is in these churches where homeschooling is the ONLY way, NO birth control, women are blaspheming God if they work outside the home because they are selling their flesh to co-workers in some seedy hotel, no college for women because they will end up having an abortion and some STD, etc. (In other words, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, Scott Brown, Kevin Swanson, etc. teach these things and they are the ones who make these groups exclusive through their manmade doctrines.)
And it is the men who are the most vociferous about the evils of public school and career women and college-going females and there is just as much exclusivity amongst the men as there are the women.
So, it is the GROUP and not the gender that is the problem.
Having been in plenty of women's bible studies in plenty of different churches and community groups, Louis' statements about women's groups is just not true. I have never felt merely "tolerated" in a Bible study group if the women there were mostly career women. They loved me and valued me.
And, how would you guys know if you are not going to these ladies' groups? :-)
BTW, SL1M, where is this allegedly evidenced in this comment stream? Where is this exclusivity? I am curious as to why you would say this at all.
It appears that some individuals are uncomfortable with this discussion because of some of the participant's gender (seems unusually focused upon a certain gender) and it seems to have become the focus instead of the issue at hand.
It is strange to observe. I just don't understand this us vs. them mentality that permeates some of the comments. This is a theological discussion and the gender of a particular commenter shouldn't enter into the picture.
Anonymous,
I have put off going to my M.D.. I spend so much time financing their lives, I just hate to keep my discretionary spending only on medicine and drugs. I do seem to feel better today. I value both your prayers and advice.
Alan,
one of the things that seems to be happening in northern India is that younger Christian children are facing off the hindu mobs with signs such as, "Why are you attacking us. We are a peaceful and peace loving people?"
Rex Ray,
I remember your answer to my inquiry about Dr. Hemphill. His firing and his replacement with Paige Patterson was the proverbial straw "that broke the camel's back" for me. It is the reason I did the article on my experience with Baptist "Fundamentalism." I am no prophet in the sense of foreteller; however, we are all prophets in the sense of forth-telling. It takes no genius to see what is happening.
When the "Crips" started out as a friendly neighborhood gang, as did the Latin Kings, there were no drugs or violence. When some took over and methamphetamine became the cash crop, the power of the leaders went to their heads. Who killed most Crips and Kings? The answer is amazing: Crips killed more Crips than anyone else and Latin Kings killed more L. Kings than anyone else between 1989 and 1996.
With the possession of power, blood lust becomes necessary to maintain control, and blood lust is even more addictive than meth. I think Calvin found this out the hard way in Geneva as did Oliver Cromwell in England. What brought an end to the Crips' reign of terror in LA? The same thing that brought an end to the Latin Kings' terror in NY. There arose some within their ranks and their neighborhoods who said, "Enough is enough."
Only members of the Southern Baptist Convention can control our destiny. God has given us that responsibility. If we do not learn to get along and humbly share power with those with whom we disagree in non-primary issues, the era of World Missions could well be over for the western church. I see none on the horizon that can take the place of the CP.
Phil in Norman.
FYI,
The "balogna" comment is in regards to SL1M's assertion that this comment stream bears witness to it.
If you think about it, it is pretty funny.
I am a stay at home homeschooling mother and there are all sorts of other women commenting on this blog who are not stay at home or homeschooling or moms or anything like me.
Unless the women here are barely tolerating me because I do homeschool and stay at home, I am totally unaware of the fact.
Exclusivity in these groups arise because of the teachings that are coming out of a certain exclusive group of Christians who are the only ones who have got the Christian life right. But, if one rightly divides Scripture, there is no reason to be exclusive.
And, if anything, it is these groups who make career women and public schoolers and any other women who doesn't do "biblical womanhood" the way they have laid it out, feel like garbage with all their over-the-top extra-biblical rhetoric (ie., "Marxist", "Communist", "blasphemer", "white-washed feminist", etc)
Wade,
On Friday, October 5, at 1:30 PM, I have counted 33 males who made comments and only thirteen women out way over two hundred comments.
In response to SL1M's "female, female, female, Peter, female, female..." coment. I suspect this blog is way too much complementarian since more than half of the people in the world are female and about two thirds of our Sunday morning attendance in all US Christian churches are female-- and Peter I would take exception to SL1M, he may be catagorizing you with women (LOL).
I got to quit this. I am going stir crazy. I was in so much of fit earlier today somehow I found myself litening to Fox News. So much for that oath I made last year.
Phil in Norman.
Dear Phil,
You are suffering from 'flu' delirium. You need fluids. No, not that kind of fluids. Call your doctor. He will help.
FOX news is not a news station. FOX actually went to court to get the okay to lie to viewers. But, I expect you knew this, already.
Trust me, listening to Fox will just raise your blood pressure. Bad medicine: try MSNBC instead. Nice contrast. :)
Call the doctor. We don't want to lose you to that flu bug.
A FRIEND
L's Gran:
Thanks for sharing that story.
One take away for me now that I am 47, after 21 years of marriage, which I believe is consistent with my comments on why the US and Christians in the US have such high divorce rates, is for me to really be aware of my own selfishness and how that can affect relationships with my wife, other members of my family and other people.
When I was a young Christian at age 16 or so, I really thought that I could "bullet proof" my future marriage by dating perfectly, marrying the right kind of person, and having the correct doctrine on male/female relationships.
30 years since then, I am reminded every day how self-centered I can be, and how I often think that marriage and all my other relationships exist for me. That thinking, and taking offense when I don't get my way or get my feelings hurt, or thinking that there is some other person or arrangement that would make my life more enjoyable are the kind of thought patterns that can work their way into a marriage and erode it slowly.
Life is marathon. We only make it by continuing to move forward even when we hit the wall.
A vibrant faith in Christ, a servant's heart, and a willingness to do one's part even when the other spouse doesn't live up to their part are the only things that keep marriages together.
There is no magic bullet. Not that good dating, careful mate selection and biblical thinking don't help. They do. But it's the way we live every day that makes the difference.
Thanks, again, for your thoughts.
SL1M:
Thanks. I really wasn't trying to make any profound comments, and I certainly wasn't making an observation about this blog or the comments.
I have worked in adult ministry as a active layman for 25 years or so. I have been involved in organizing, overseeing or participating in men's and women's ministry. My comments are simply my observations.
We have a very diverse church culturally. We have rockers, alternative folks, career women, women training for careers (particluarly in the medical field), single women, single women with kids, and traditional/married moms and homeschooling moms.
I have found that it is really hard to have a core women's leadership that relates well to everybody, for some reason, without the cultural tension that I have noticed.
I was really curious if anyone had any suggestions. The churches on this blog may not be as diverse as ours, but thought I'd ask.
We have tried different personalities over the years, and the issues are always there.
We have just gone to a more de-centralized approach where we multiply the number of offerings and let each type of woman in our church lead their own type of study or outreach. That seems to work best. Having one big group that planned everything always got us into that cultural problem that I mentioned.
Take care.
Louis
Corrie:
I am thrilled to hear about your good experiences. I have not ruled out the possibility that can happen. We have just had a difficult time over the years, even when we switch personalities, and I have noticed this in other places.
And it's not just the types that you mention that are a problem. I haven't heard any of the people that you listed, and really just became aware of the name of one recently.
I would love to hear what Bible study material you are using etc. and the profile of who is doing the teaching.
Could you send that to me?
Don't get me wrong either. The women in the churches that I have served all love each other. I just seen a lot of tension over the years due to the teachers' or leaders' personalities tending to go beyond the teaching material so that some women in the group have felt left out. And again, it's not just one type of person that we have had this problem with.
It's very similar to the issue that can arise in youth groups where there is a healthy representation of private school, public school and homeschool kids. Those can be such different cultures that to please everyone can be really tough.
My girls go to an independent college prep school. They are exposed to lots of technology, a wide variety of students and ideas at an excelerated academic pace. It can be hard for them to mix with some kids who are just in a different place socially and academically. And the other kids feel the same about. And, as with adults, I have noticed that it is worse with the girls than the boys. The kids love and appreciate each other, but retreats can be tough. One kid is socially at one place, and another kid is at another place.
I hope you are hearing what I am saying. I am not judging you or your situation at all.
Just trying to discovery why we have had a much easier time mixing the guys and a tougher time mixing the women without hurt feelings.
Any tips you or others have would be welcome! I am sure that culture has something to do with it. We are in an metro area, one of the most affulent counites in the nation, but we reach all types of people. If we were in a more rural context, I am sure it would be easier because it would be more homogeneous.
Anything that you could tell me about your church (size, location etc.) and the women who teach and the studies that you use would be helpful.
Thanks.
Louis
P.S. Did you say you have 10 kids?
Louis,
I have gone to very diverse churches much like you described your own church and I have not seen the problems that you outlined. Maybe what you are seeing is that sahm/homeschooling moms can get together at times during the day where career/public school moms cannot?
Also, women fall under judgment, not men, when they don't work or do work or don't homeschool/private school or they public school. Women are the ones who are put under scrutiny when they don't measure up to the picture of biblical womanhood that others prescribe and this might make for some issues that the men are oblivious of. I just know that the churches I have been in have had a very hard time getting men to even be interested in doing a Bible study, so this might also factor into what you are seeing.
I have done community bible studies, Precept Bible studies, and other various Bible studies and I have yet to see the dynamics that you have seen in your church.
The only time I saw this is when I was in a FIC church situation where all that was talked about was how wrong/Marxist/feministic/worldly everyone else was outside of their little group.
What are the topics of the women's bible studies? Are they topical (being a godly wife and/or mother per that particular author) or are they more heavy on doctrine? That could be another factor. I don't often do topical Bible studies because they tend to be very fluffy and light on doctrine and heavy on one person's opinion and that tends to cause rifts, esp. if the Bible study heavily leans in one direction or the other.
I would rather study a book of the Bible and focus solely on Scripture. But, there are some who think that a woman should not receive doctrinal teaching in these sorts of settings and that a woman's bible study should only be about being a wife and mother.
Corrie:
This is getting way off the topic of Wade's post, but I was a homeschooling mom for four years when my children were younger. A wonderful Christian school opened in our area, and my children began attending there, so my homeschooling career came to an end. I am a stay-at-home mom too.
Even though I have been away from homeschooling for almost a decade, I am keenly aware of the exclusivity that is occurring in the homeschooling ranks. I heard Doug Phillips speak at our annual homeschooling conference in 1998, incidentally the same year he began Vision Forum. Can I tell you how blessed I was to get out of homeschooling just a year later? I am absolutely stunned at what has been occurring in the homeschooling movement in recent years.
FYI -- A friend and I are on the verge of starting our own blog, and it will target a variety of "Faith" issues. We are both strong Christian ladies who are passionate about discussing topics that impact the lives of Christians.
I can assure you that I will be covering issues that affect Christian homeschoolers (e.g. Vision Forum). I am educating myself about the exclusivity you mention, and I am alarmed! I hope you can participate in some of our discussions once our blog is up and running.
God bless you in an extremely worthy endeavor! I admire you because I know from experience how difficult homeschooling can be. You are making a great investment in your children.
Blessings!!!
Hi Louis,
I was just responding to some of your questions before reading your post.
The size of my current church is about 500 people. Before we moved to this state, my church was about 1200 people. The church we currently attend is conservative and independent (like a Bible church) and our former church was a conservative E-Free church.
Both of these churches are not known as "homeschool" churches even though there are many families who homeschool. We have a very diverse mix of sahms and working women and all women in between.
The leader of one of the studies I attend works part-time and her children attend the public school. The leaders of the other bible studies were women who were quite different from myself.
But, I do see that there could be a problem if someone were leading a Bible study and was quite dogmatic about their own personal beliefs concerning what a woman may or may not do.
Right now I am doing a Precepts Bible study with women who range in age and range in socio-economic background and working, not working, public, homschooling, etc. but there is another study going on concerning the topic of biblical womanhood by Barbara Hughes. The women in that group are very diverse as well and as far as I know there are no problems among them.
We live right outside of St. Louis in an upper middle-class suburb.
I have done community type Bible studies in a larger city and I had a great experience, also. I am also doing another Bible study during the week and it is led by a homeschooling mother. We meet at a small Baptist church and there are, again, working/not working, public/homeschooling, retired, etc women in that group and I haven't seen any sort of problems with women looking down on others because they are not like them. It is not a topical study, either.
I just want to thank you for your kind demeanor and your willingness to engage me in this discussion. It is very encouraging. I guess the most encouraging thing is that you seem to truly want to hear what others have to say, even women. :-)
Wanda,
How exciting! Please let me know when you do get that blog up and running.
I am also very concerned about the homeschooling movement and the influence.
I have been homeschooling since 1993 (my oldest just graduated from college and is working as a structural engineer) and my children have been homeschool through highschool. I have been in this for a long time and I have seen a lot of things come down the road that has been quite disconcerting.
If anyone remembers the hysteria of Y2K and who were the main proponents of propagating that fear? Hint: Patriarchalists. And their doctrine was tame compared to what is being taught now. Bill Gothard looks middle of the road to what others are teaching.
I am amazed at how the Bible is misused in order to shore up a person's own personal belief system. In fact, I have to wonder if some actually read their WHOLE Bibles or just read a few verses which personally appeal to them?
Corrie:
Thanks a bunch for that info. I can pick up some themes there that may lead to cohesion that I am going to suggest.
I met Kay Arthur (Precept) when I was 17. Reach Out Ranch, as it used to be called, was sold to her organization by some dear friends of mine who owned a large farm on Noah Reed Road in Chattanooga. I have always appreciated her.
Thank you for your kind comments. It sounds like your church may just have it together more than ours does, or our diversity may be a bit more broad - or something.
What are the age ranges in your studies? We are still fairly young and small, so maybe we are trying to stretch the age issue.
Thanks, again.
Louis
Phil, Thanks for bringing that to our attention so we can pray for our brothers and sisters there. You take real good care of yourself, you hear?
Dear Louis,
Once again, I am in agreement.
So much of what you shared resonates with my own experiences.
After forty years, I have learned something special. It's a way of coping (it is SO simple that I think it is inspired),
goes like this:
When in a marital disagreement, 'fight' or 'attack' mode, when feelings of the other have been hurt as well as your own:
Do the unexpected.
In peaceful silence, quietly take your time to do something that is loving or kind for the other.
What this does, is to change YOU. The other will react in a way that cannot be predicted. But YOU have taken the responsibility of breaking the cycle and setting a new tone. YOU have become peaceful and caring. For a woman, it is not being submissive, it is about 'taking control of yourself' and control of the situation.
It is not the same as your being manipulative, because your ability to be caring flows from the graces of a marriage blessed by God.
For a husband, it is about assuming the Christian lead in the relationship. So it works for all those different 'doctrines' out there. Everybody's happy. :):)
I can give you SO many examples of how this works, the key is the act of kindness to one's spouse. (No matter that one's natural inclination would be to 'let 'em have it'. :) )
Interesting, how well this works. That's why I think it's inspired. I know this coping method is completely against my own human nature, but it WORKS!
It's got something to do with the kindness, I think. :)
L's Gran
Corrie,
Please tell us about your homeschooling of your ten children. Your situation sounds very commendable. Have you tried co-operative teaching with other homeschooling moms: sharing the work of lesson planning, organization teaching materials, instruction, and assessment? An acquaintance of mine does this and she says it's wonderful for all involved. She has the companionship and support of the other mothers in the group. And field trips are much more fun!
Hi L's Gran,
Several posts back, you asked about Bruce Ware. I'm not sure what his original denomination was. Before he was hired at So Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, he was dean of theology and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School which I believe is Evang. Free.
But I've been told that he attends a Baptist Church in Louisville. As people who have attended there keep telling me, if I could meet him in person and see what a nice and wonderful man he is, I somehow magically would stop questioning his doctrine concerning the Trinity.
Denny Burk who is the new Dean of the undergraduate school at SBTS also teaches this doctrine. Bruce Ware's dean apparently has no problem with Ware's doctrine either.
Again, to summarize, Ware claims that his doctrine (based and expanded upon Wayne Grudem's and George Knight III's doctrine before him) is sound and orthodox. He claims that because Jesus and God are of the same substance and differ only in authority (and will) that he is not questionable and that this does not qualify as remotely heretical. I heard that he despised the term "subordinationist," but he will be debating subordinationism next weekend at TEDS with another professor and graduate of the school.
So go figure...
Cindy,
If you could meet him in person and get to know him you would not question his doctrine?
Just because someone is likeable does not make them right about everything. Not that I claim to be right about everything, but I know many people whom I like but do not agree on everything with.
There can be a difference betweeen disagreeing and being disagreeable. This blog is evidence of that, though differences of opinion do get heated at times, and possibly cross the line.
So, it you choose, meet him, but do feel free to hold firmly to your own beliefs.
Susie
Hi Susie,
Thank you! Looks like Bruce Ware is trying to hide his neo-Arian views underneath, way underneath, the comforting label of 'orthodox' doctrine. He would not be able to get away with this in my religion. He would be outed in a minute.
More than a few neo-conservative fundamentalists are willing to consign members of the orthodox faiths to hell; and in the next breath, they use the label 'orthodox' to promote their desecration of ancient Christian doctrines shared by all main-line Christians.
As an orthodox Catholic, I would be more comfortable being consigned to hell by a neo-conservative fundamentalist; than to see MY church's teachings referenced in support of a man-made 'heresy' (dare I use the word). Especially when I suspect the culprits have ulterior motives as regards women's rights. I feel strongly moved to defend the orthodox trinitarian doctrine in its pure form.
Thank you, I appreciate your time and effort to help me as I wander through the mysterious forest of Baptist theology. Such a varied landscape, at times I am quite overwhelmed. So many kind people, including Wade, have helped me along the way and you are among these good Christian people. :)
L's Gran: "a stranger in a strange land." :)
Susie,
Cindy has not met Ware in person, but she has certainly met with his influence in a very personal way.
See here:
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-what-is-it-about-patriarchy-that.html
Cindy:
Oops! Sorry, I meant to address my note to you and not to Susie. Susie, sorry for confusion.
L's Gran
The (r)evolution of Bruce Ware:
BRUCE WARE
B. WARE
BE WARE
BEWARE of false trinitarian doctrines designed especially to keep women in their 'place'.
Ware's teachings wear thin when placed where they can be seen in the light of 2000 years of ancient Christian orthodox tradition.
Be wary of B. Ware's worrisome words used in the service of the neo-conservative fundamentalists. :)
The (r)evolution of Bruce Ware:
BRUCE WARE
B. WARE
BE WARE
BEWARE of false trinitarian doctrines designed especially to keep women in their 'place'.
Ware's teachings wear thin when placed where they can be seen in the light of 2000 years of ancient Christian orthodox tradition.
Be wary of B. Ware's worrisome words used in the service of the neo-conservative fundamentalists. :)
Hi Suzie and L's Gran,
I don't know that I'd call Ware's ideas part of the traditional forest of Baptist theology but more like the hedges or an overgrown meadow on the fringe, both in desperate need of a good mowing. I agree with whoever it was that said about 100 comments back that I have problems with anything that takes away from Jesus and diminishes Him in any way. I would say that the forest of Baptist theology still sings with the song of the pre eminence of Christ Jesus in all things because that is what the Bible teaches. At least that's my sincere hope. There are a lot of might oaks that are buying into this stuff. I just wish the press and the seminaries reflected their beliefs and not these others.
I've also heard that some of these people who have never met me have some unpleasant and unflattering things to say about me personally, and they certainly have not met me. The comments had nothing to do with the content of that which I've mentioned on the subject of patriarchy and the homeschooling birthed family integrated churches. Hmmm. I wonder why that is?
"Liking" is what an author named Cialdini calls a "Weapon of Influence" that manipulators and sales people use in their favor. It's one of the very good human traits that people exploit. I've said many times before that I'm sure that all these folks who push this patriarchal stuff are quite wonderful and personable. I even told the director of the apologetics group that I'm sure that I'm probably unworthy to unlace the sandals of some of these men, but as you say, that does not compensate for questionable, obscure and confusing doctrine.
Sometimes I wonder if some of these guys sweat sodium pentothal or something? When you meet them, all their questionable doctrine melts away?
More on the Weapons of Influence and how people exploit our good nature (It's a great synopsis of one of those books that everyone should read) And it's free!:
http://www.lucifereffect.com/guide_cialdini-intro.htm
I'm glad that God promises that He will not be mocked. God's going to have his way, so in the grand scheme, it will work out for our greater good and God's greater glory. It just doesn't make much sense to me in the short term and from this perspective.
Wanda, you said that Mohler said, "Singleness is not a sin, but deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of Christian responsibility."
That is NOT what you said he said before. If I had not challenged what you said, anyone reading this stream would think a falsehood about Mohler. Your misrepresentation of his position may or may not mean anything to you, but it should.
However, as for this above comment attributed to Mohler. I find myself agreeing with it. Don't you?
If not, I have a bible study question for you: Do you think the bible teaches that it would be better for one to marry than to fall into sexual sin?
Don't answer. Just make that a personal bible study.
You might be surprised at what you discover! In fact, given your position now, I am certain you will be surprised by the answer as revealed in scripture.
Could Mohler be RIGHT! No way!!!
:)
Corrie - I'm not surprised I can't make a comment without you considering it bologna. You over-reacted to Louis. He wasn't saying that every single class in the history of the church has those characteristics. And every single class you (Corrie) have ever personally been a part of may NOT have had those chracteristics. He was just asking / making a comment in GENERAL. That's what I was agreeing with. And he and I are both still correct. Your opinion not withstanding.
Good grief this is difficult!
And I still stand behind my bologna that the attitude that Louis was pointing to in those men / women groupings is exactly what comes across in this comment stream.
Our relationship went sour too soon and too fast. If I said I agreed with Louis because he said many lawyers are crooked (no offense Louis), you would say I was an idiot. Why? Well, simply because it's me.
That's a shame and I'm sorry for several things. The least of which is your seeming inability to giggle a little.
We homeschool our children as well and we wouldn't make it through a day without some fun and laughter.
I know your reply will be, "But we laugh all the time!!!"
All I'm saying is it is not shown here. (Do you really think I counted all the female and male commenters?)
Relax a little. Forget about me. Carry your passions deeply. And enjoy some laughter along the way.
That's all.
Take care.
SL1M
I have been thinking about the concept of 'homeschooling'. My children went to private religious schools, and one son eventually to a public high school setting in a very upscale neighborhood. I never 'had to worry', so to speak, about them coming into harm in the great 'outside' world.
Them, I realized something. I DID homeschool. All that time I spent reading to them, taking them to libraries and book stores and museums and the zoo and the ocean, so many trips to explore. The time I spent answering questions: good questions!
Most of all, those times my children 'homeschooled' me. :) :) :)
I am a retired public school teacher. I was trained in a private setting by the Sister of St. Lucy Filipini (a teaching order) who have their mother house in Morristown, NJ.
I volunteered in the public schools to work in the inner city. My first week with my new students was full-blown culture shock. I came home and ranted and raved about 'why hadn't someone prepared them for grade six'; why hadn't someone taught them basic manners, and so on and so on, until:
my young son, Joel, put up his hand and motioned me to stop. I did. Joel very simply said this to me:
"MOM, TEACH THEM."
"TEACH THEM"
I got very quiet and looked at Joel. My ranting and raving ceased and I saw my son's wisdom. And so he 'homeschooled' his mom.
And, when I went to help my dear sixth grade, I carried my son's wisdom with me. I had learned.
And then the students began to learn. :)
Thank God for homeschooling!
L's Gran
To L's Gran:
For an introduction to Baptist beliefs you might look at:
http://www.bgct.org/TexasBaptists/Document.Doc?&id=610
This is the side-by-side comparison of statements of faith of Southern Baptists approved in 1963 and 2000. Baptists through the years wrote "confessions of faith" which were (until recently) considered non-binding statements of current belief of the group writing them rather than creeds that demanded conformity. Many (including me) disagreed with parts of the 2000 version.
If you want something briefer, here is MY OVERSIMPLIFIED interpretation. I'm sure many will rush to correct or dispute this and I reiterate this is an oversimplification.
Baptists believe the major doctrines of mainstream Christianity including God as creator, the Trinity. Jesus died to save us. The Bible is God's written word to us (Jesus is the living Word) and we are to believe, follow, and tell others.
Some things considered Baptist distinctives (though in part shared with many others) are believer's baptism by immersion, "priesthood of the believer" (interpreted variously, but I understand to include studying the Bible for oneself, direct relationship with God, and ministry to others), religious freedom and separation of church and state (thus respect for others who differ while standing up for our own beliefs). Baptists do not have sacraments, but consider baptism and the Lord's Supper (bread and grape juice are symbolic only) (often recently called Communion) "ordinances of the church". Church government is in theory the autonomy of each local church which is - again in theory -a democracy. I say in theory because there are efforts by some leaders to insure conformity by churches and some churches are becoming run by the pastor and/or a small group of elders or deacons.
I'm sure I have left out much but consider this a start and others will quickly jump in to correct or add to this. In theory no one Baptist can speak for another, so I expect it.
Susie
yCorrie, I have almost always worked outside the home, my 2 children ages 23 and 16 were always public schooled and I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly. I have always been in Bible studies where there have been women who worked outside the home and women who did not, women who home schooled, private schooled and public schooled, women who had varying levels of education, and women who had only a few children and women who had a lot of children. The only church where I found that to be an issue was one that I went to as a new Christian, and the teaching in the church as a whole was that it was far more biblical for a woman to stay at home with her kids and homeschool. That bled over to the woman's group big time. I was really glad when I found a church that wasn't taught!
Dear Susie,
Thank you so very much. You can imagine how confused I have been: I knew my grandmother's faith was Christian. I knew because of HER. No doubt of it. None at all.
Then I saw those Westboro Baptist Church people on the news and the shock was awful! Now, my sister and I are into geneology, so it was easy for me to segway into trying to find out about Grandmother's church. First, I DID look up SBC main web site. Didn't help me. Then, I heard the story about the 'hostile takeover' and how Herschel Hobbs, a man so revered in the church that he was called 'Mr. Baptist', was booed by the neo-fundamentalist-conservatives under the direction of the new leadership.
I have already done the comparison of the two BF & M's. I immediately saw that Christ had been demoted in the latter version. It stood out like a red blinking sign to me. So, Susie, I thought why were these people doing this?
Now, I am devoted to the Gospel of St. John. I keep it in my heart. I came across the name of Wade's web site: "Grace and Truth To You". Those words 'Grace and Truth' are from St. John's Gospel. So here I am. And what a story of a great battle between forces who are trying to keep Grandmother's Church a Christian church and those who would use it for political power and control (my opinion) and, in the process, demote Christ's message and actions and His Authority in the Holy Trinity. Very sad to me, this.
But then I learned about Sheri Klouda. Bad enough. And then, worst of all: the harm to God's missionaries. HORRIBLE ! (A cousin of my mother was a Protestant missionary who so devoted his life to Christian service that his health was affected.) How could anyone in the church cause harm and pain to missionaries? Susie, these missionaries have already sacrificed their own comfort and safety to serve a calling from God. Now they are crucified by the leadership of their own church? I wonder that immediately all Baptists did not rise in their defense. This sadness is incomprehensible to me, and I am not Protestant. Sorry to run on so, but I needed to get this out.
Then I hear what Wade was put through, how he kept the faith, and tried to work within the Church to make things right again. Then, he was harmed, but not his spirit. :)
I did ask Wade for guidance and he referred me to the website of his own church in Enid. And there, I was able to see that the faith of my Grandmother is still in practice in the Baptist Church: Christian beliefs based on the Nicene Creed.
Susie, read this verse from St. John (10:1,2) which describes those of the hostile takeover that came into the SBC in a furtive manner:
"He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep."
Those 'backdoor' leaders can't hold a candle to a pastor who tries to do what is right and just.
Thanks again,
L's Gran
Anon,
Yes, I have been involved in co-ops with other homeschool moms and I am involved in a couple right now. There are almost too many things to do and if I am not careful I would spend most of my time outside of the home! :-)
I would recommend homeschool co-ops, especially for the upper level subjects and especially if you have a large age span like I do and you are trying to teach little ones to read, nurse a baby and teach Physics to a highschooler.
Louis,
In both the Bible studies I am involved in, the women range in age from mid-seventies to young twenties and everything in between.
Elizabeth,
Yes, that has been my experience, too. I stay away from exclusive churches and groups where there is no other way to be a good Christian than their way. Maybe that is why I haven't seen these problems.
But, I will say that this is not just a woman problem. When you have exclusivity, you have both genders acting out on those who don't do life their way. It is kind of like saying that women are more guilty of gossip than men. That hasn't been my experience. I have known some pretty big gossips in my life and many of them have been men. They just couch it in terms of being "concerned for the spiritual welfare" of so and so. When I used to work, the males gossiped as much as the females. Again, gossip is a sin thing.
All we have to do is take a good look at the Pharisees. These guys couldn't get along with each other much less those who weren't as righteous as they saw themselves. I love John 9 and the story of the blind man healed. How he takes on the Pharisees and turns the table on them is priceless.
They kicked him out of their little group because he couldn't give them the "right" answer.
Then we could take a good look at all the infighting in some of these denominations among the men and we will see that this is not a problem with gender but with sinful flesh.
Dear Corrie,
I highly recommend Larry Gonick's book "A Cartoon Guide To Physics".
With all that you are trying to do (God bless you, dear) this very amusing book can help out: it teaches the basic fundamentals of physics in cartoon form: highly amusing! I was given a copy by my brother-in-law, a graduate of MIT, and he highly recommended it to me. It's hysterical. Your son would enjoy it; and learn in the process. :)
L's Gran
"Wanda, you said that Mohler said, "Singleness is not a sin, but deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of Christian responsibility.""
I have a teaching for Mohler:
Anger and temper tantrums are sin and willfull, continued temper tantrums toward those who work for you is a neglect of Christian responsibility. He needs to resign because he only apologized when it became public. It had been going on for a long time before he was outed. Strange that Mohler did not know his behavior at work was sinful until it became public.
Martin
Corrie:
Thanks, again, for the info.
We probably will stick with the multiple offering approach because it is working so well rather than a "Women's Ministry" directed by one women or a team of women. But your experience is encouraging.
This thread seems worn out, so I don't expect any or many responses to this question, and it is completely unrelated to Ms. Tarter (By the way, no one suggested a joke relative to her name).
But anyway - I have watched the fall Presidential campaign with some interest. Of course, the most interesting development in the campaign is the appearance of Sarah Palin. In my opinion, she is the only thing that has brought any excitement to the McCain campaign.
But here's my question. I have noticed in my personal life with friends, colleagues etc. and in the media that women have 2 distinct reactions to her. They either lover her to death, or they are completely dismissive of her almost to the point of anger. I have not found a woman I know who does not have a strong opinion about this woman. Men are all over the board, some love her, some hate her, some don't really react at all.
I am interested in how the women of this blog react to Ms. Palin. If you comment, it would be helpful to know if you are political and have a party preference.
Any takers?
Louis
L's Gran:
I'm glad it helped.
I've been around along enough and expect you have too, to know that people who call themselves Christian don't always act like Christians should. Like it or not, admit it or not, we all are sinners. And being human we usually look at the things others do as worse than what we do.
That said, I get especially upset when bad things are done in the name of Jesus (which includes many of the things you mentioned). To my mind that is taking the name of the Lord in vain. I call it trying to give God a bad name. When I can I tell people that such actions are not representative of hurt for the many women who have turned away because of such things.
Unfortunately some such things are becoming typical of SBC leadership. Wade is a bright light of hope though I sometimes fear he is beating his head against a brick wall. I realize God sometimes calls us to beat our heads against brick walls, and this may be true for Wade. At various times God has both given me that calling and given me to know that there are better uses for my brain, so I hesitate to judge which is right for another at any one time.
The SBC is no longer what it was for your grandmother or mine. But there are Baptists who still are what I will call traditional Baptists, and I consider myself one. Many have left the SBC (some consider that it left them, which it did) and others reluctantly stay hoping it will get better. Each person must unfortunately find her/his own answer, which is a sad thing.
Susie
Louis, Do you recall Thatcher's gender being such a huge issue for either the British or the USA? I don't. I do remember most of us republicans being very excited about her and relived that England was moving away from socialism with her election to party leader and PM.
Lydia
Correction of my last post:
When I can I tell people that such actions are not representative of HOW CHRISTIANS SHOULD ACT. I hurt for the many women who have turned away because of such things.
To Louis about Sarah Palin
I will being by stating my bias: I am a registered Democrat and usually - not always - vote for Democrats. I voted in the primary for Hillary Clinton for President and plan to vote for Obama in November. I am active politically when I think it can make a difference.
About Sarah Palin. I do not agree with some of her political views and given a better choice would probably not vote for her for any office. (Otherwise she may be a nice enough person.) Of course she is not running for president (though she might serve if worst comes to worst), and the top candidates are the ones who should drive any decision. As far as her candidacy, I think she is out of her depth. I sometmes think she was chosen in a cynical move to try to pull in some women who voted for Clinton and were disappointed she did not get the nomination. When I am thinking that way I consider it a mark against McCain. As far as calling my view of her a strong opinion, I would not characterize it as such. I feel neither great love nor great anger toward her, just think she is wrong for the position. If you are tallying up one side or the other put me in the "slightly against" group.
There was a time when I was thrilled to see any woman gain political office (or any other leadership position previously denied to women) but now I look first at the person's qualifications and views on relevant issues, regardless of race or gender.
Hope this answers your question.
Susie
Hi Louis,
It's me, L's Gran (just in case I forget to sign).
SARAH. I think she is adorable. Very American. Good family person, which I love. Sarah and I both have been given the gift of a Down Syndrome child: angelic gentle beings with more of heaven in them than of earth. Down syndrome people perch lighter on the earth than we do. I love Sarah's energy and spunk and fearlessness in the face of some pretty heavy criticism from ALL sides. So personally, I really like this lady.
Do I think she could take over for John, if, God forbid, something happened to him? No, I don't. I'm not sure ANYONE is ever up to the responsibility of the office, but no, I don't believe that Sarah is ready now. This is not said out of any disrespect, it is just my opinion.
I will vote Democratic this November. But I still like this lady very much and I wish her well personally. :) She DOES have a future. :)
Hi Susie,
Wow. You do sound a bit discouraged and I'm sure all of this trouble has been hard to witness from within your church. Goodness knows, it's painful for an outsider to see.
Don't be impressed by the leadership: they don't have the moral high ground, here. As shepherds of the church, they were supposed to go out and bring 'lost' sheep back. Instead, they pushed very dear people out. These people suffered unjustly.
Give Wade some time. I have a feeling tht Someone very special is on his side. Wade's behavior is honorable and ethical. Even more than that, his behavior is recognizably Christian.
Brick walls: been up against a few of those myself. Nothing like a good challenge to bring out hidden strengths. Wade is up to this challenge. Don't give up, Susie, so many good people need protecting. :) Be peaceful,
L's Gran
Hi Lydia!
The Brits are cool because they unloaded all their fundamentalist on us about three hundred years ago. Think about it. :)
L's Gran
Quite frankly, Palin has more executive experience than does Obama...yes, even in her short term as Gov and head of commissions. I am a bit stunned when I hear her 'lack of experience' argument from Obama supporters. What IS his executive experience? Being a one term congressman is completely different than being a gov or prez. There is a reason most of our presidents come from the Gov office or even the VP office.
Exactly what qualifies Obama for being president that does not qualify Palin? I would be very interested to hear this.
For those supporting Obama, I ask that you watch this video about his support of killing born alive babies. Note: Jeremiah Wright was on the board of this hospital.
Watch the whole thing to hear what Jill Stanek says about her testimony to Ill legislature and her experience with Obama on 2 bills about this. If you do not like this clip, I have one from CNN, too.
Like Susie, I also prefer we look at policy, priniciples of governing, etc when looking at candidates...not gender.
The reason I mention Thatcher is that I think the vitriol against Palin on the right is a result of the last 25 years of teaching in Christendom from the Patriarches.
Quite frankly, Palin harkens back to our founding principles of farmers, etc. being president.
oops, here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B3O9uUc-4
This is not just abortion but infanticide. Who next? unproductive old people when he has his way with our health industry?
Hi Lindon,
What is your stand on the death penalty issue?
Hi Lindon,
What is your stand on the death penalty issue?
Sat Oct 04, 05:31:00 PM 2008
I am uncomfortable with it. But I also know that babies do not commit heinous crimes.
But what does that have to do with Obama supporting the murder of born alive babies? That is what the bills were about in the Ill legislature because of the born alive aborted babies at Christ Hospital in Oaklawn, Ill that were denied medical care and given over to die.. put to die in the soiled laundry room at the hospital. That is barbaric. Do you not agree?
Obama was the point man in opposing these bills.He knew the details. So did Jeremiah Wright, a Christ hospital board memeber and his pastor at the time. The one who preaches God d***m America from his pulpit.
It speaks to character and principles. Babies do not murder people. They are the 'least of these'.
Do you equate the death penalty for the murder of others with innocent aborted babies born alive then given over to die being denied medical care? Even the man on death row is given medical care.
Anyone who would recommend MSNBC (left-wing shills) over Fox News (fair and balanced) is not your friend.
NO SPIN
Lydia:
I do not recall Margaret Thatcher's gender being an issue. I suppose when a country has had a queens, especially one like Elizabeth I, gender does not come up.
Susie: Thanks for the response.
L's Gran: Thanks for the response.
I am not going to get into the pros/cons on Palin on this thread. I will say, however, that I do not think McCain did anything wrong by selecting her. The women's movement for 40 years in this country has advocated on behalf of electing women because they were women. I don't see that as wrong, it's just something that I have seen for many years. The pitch has been, "come on sisters, let's break the glass ceiling..." I think that Tina Fey actually made a speech to that effect on SNL in Hillary's favor back during the primaries. Experience, so to speak, has not always been an issue - witness Geraldine Ferraro, or Senator Patty Murray from Washington, who said in her campaigns that she was "just a mom in tennis shoes." It's been the appeal to give women a chance to lead.
Also, a direct appeal to identity politics exists in many groups, particularly this time around in the minority community with respect to Obama. Had Hillary gotten the nomination, she almost certainly would have chosen Obama for his appeal to the African American community. Lieberman was chosen by Gore because of the appeal to religious people and their convictions. I think that worked. Gore is why Gore lost. Lieberman helped him greatly.
So, the fact that McCain did that does not seem in appropriate.
I have never really been into identity politics myself, which is one reason I could not get into Mike Huckabee. Huckabee appealed to evangelicals because he was an evangelical. Interestingly, I wonder if any of you caught the Wall Street Journal article about Baptists and Huckabee? Some of Huckabee's strongest detractors were Baptists from Arkansas. One was Betsy Hagan, the leader of Eagle Forum in Arkansas. Another person who did not favor his candidacy was Paul Pressler. The both were quoted at length in the article.
We are going to have a new President regardless. My greatest hope is whomever is elected will be treated with respect. It is one thing to oppose the policies of any administration, even strongly. It's quite another to impugn a person's character etc. simply over policy decisions.
We have witnessed a lot of enmity toward Bush that seems to be personal. The same can be said of Clinton and Reagan. I think that the criticisms of Carter and Bush I were more substantive versus personal. Of course, Clinton and Nixon both had legal troubles where personal wrongdoing was proved, and that made the personal comments predictable.
Reagan and Bush II, however, in my opinion, were the source of many personal attacks that seem unwholesome for the national discourse.
I can say the same thing about Johnson. The primary disagreement with him was over his handling of the Vietnam conflict. But the hatred toward him and the statements that were made were really out of bounds.
So, I am hoping whoever is elected will at least enjoy some civility from their detractors. I am not optimistic if what has already occurred continues.
Just think. Either way, the US is going to make exciting history. Either the first part African American will be elected President, or the first woman will be elected Vice President. What's not to rejoice about either of those things?
Whomever is elected will be my President, and will have my support as such - at least until the next election. I hope we argue about policies. But I hope we do not try to tear our next President down personally.
Louis
Lindon:
Are you a one issue voter?
Hi Louis,
It's me, L's G. :)
May I quote you?
"The women's movement for 40 years in this country has advocated on behalf of electing women because they were women."
I do not dipute that women have advocated for their advancement as a sex for a very long time. A lot of them did this for the sake of their daughters' futures. However, I myself would paraphrase your statement in this way:
'The women's movement for 40 years in this country has advocated on behalf of electing women because they were human beings.' OR
another choice of mine might be this:
"The women's movement for 40 years in this country has advocated on behalf of electing women because they were American citizens."
As for Pres. Johnson, I lived through that time. In that war, I lost my cousin Jackie, aged 19, (his death nearly killed his mother; she was never the same).
Johnson was a focus of a lot of our anger and frustration, I admit. The really sad thing is that today, I feel like it's happening all over again in Iraq. Only this time, I could lose my own son, or my nephew, or my niece, or some of the neighborhood boys I helped raise (they were always in our pool with Joel or loading up at our dining room table, and many still call me 'Mom").
You know, Louis, I'm not going to judge John McCain's choice of Sarah. For all of her gifts, I cannot see her matched evenly with Biden.
The detractors from all our candidates sometimes take the low road. Look what happened to John McCain years ago when he ran for the nomination against G.W.B. He and his family received pretty brutal treatment at the hand's of some in his own party.
I support the OFFICE of the President of the United States. If disgrace is brought upon that office and upon the nation by the occupier, do not ask me to go 'sieg heil'. I clearly see the difference.
I believe in vigilance and in the balance of powers as laid forth in the Constitution. Presently, the concept of balance of powers is under attack. Americans will NOT support a president or a vice-president who swear they will uphold the Constitution, and then work to undermine it.
Louis, you are a thoughtful man and a man of faith. As an 'older' American, let me give you the advice I gave my very well-off physician brother four years ago.
I said simply , "Leonard, when you vote, think of your country, think of your children."
He voted for Bush.
In November, he told me he is voting for Obama.
You must make the right decision for YOU. But think first, about ALL of the issues and about the state of the country. It also does not hurt to consider the future of your children. There is much at stake. :) (Not easy, being an American, is it?)
L's Gran
Louis,
I am frankly tickled pink about Sarah Palin. She is a strong woman who lives her pro-life as well as talks it. I recognize that she has a lot to learn, but she does have more executive experience than Obama. I also like her views on gun control.
I voted in the primary as a Democrat so that I could vote against Obama. (In my state, I wasn't declared which party until I voted for the first time.) But, I consider myself Republican. Which makes me a rare species, a Republican Catholic.
Anna A:
Are you a one issue voter?
"Are you a one issue voter?"
Nope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLFPjLaXPM
Lindon:
So its the Democrat's fault for the current economic crisis? You've got to be kidding!
I don't like McCain, and I don't like one single thing about Obama. I think that stem cell research is sicker than abortion (using the unborn for parts), and I was completely turned off when I heard Obama on Oprah's show (at least 1 1/2 years ago) talking about how wonderful it is. If the technique offered viable options to treat disease, there would be more than enough private money. We would not need government money.
McCain said he would do away with the first amendment if it would give us clean government. And he voted for Ginsberg and at least one other pro-abortion judge, so I don't buy that he is really as pro-life as he says. I fear McCain as one who would be very much in favor of broadening the powers of the central government, far beyond what they are now (not to say that Obama would not also).
Both want to expand the powers of the federal government and both are likely to grossly expand our national debt. I don't like the idea of getting deeper into more war debt when we cant afford to pay our own bills at home. But then what do you sit down and talk about with a terrorist? So that's all very difficult.
So where I weigh in on Palin doesn't matter much because I find voting for McCain very problematic. I don't have much problem with her at all and actually like her far better than I do him. Someone offered Thatcher here as an example and I also think of Golda Mier, too. I see no issues from Scripture or otherwise that preclude a woman from the job. Palin's family and their issues only make her more endearing to me and a real person that has real appeal to the non-elite.
I live in Michigan which is nearly guaranteed to vote "blue," so I will vote for Bob Barr. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. In a state where it might be a close race, I would consider voting for McCain, but it would definitely be the matter of a lesser of two evils. I don't know that I could do it. I think that both parties are far too liberal, and I have both ethical and pragmatic problems in making decisions about candidates.
So its the Democrat's fault for the current economic crisis? You've got to be kidding!
Sat Oct 04, 08:41:00 PM 2008
Who refused oversight on Freddie and Fannie when serious problems were brought to the surface in hearings in 2004? Who said there were no problems and hailed F & F as doing a great job? If you can, get a hold of the entire hearing on C-Span. it is quite instructive. The answers to the above is: Democrats.
Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorlick and
Dick Johnson all walked away with huge bonuses when it was failing. Who are they and why were they appointed? That is also instructive.
Raines is now an Obama advisor. Johnson served as an adviser on his VP selection committee. Gorlick was in the Clinton Admin.
Obama recieved the second highest contributions from Freddie Mac. Chris Dodd was number 1.
So now, Obama is going to fix it?
Do your homework. I thought Obama was for the 'little guy'.
Lindon,
One word: "de-regulation".
How do you feel about this word?
FORMER REPUBLICAN
Lindon:
I guess I will just have to vote the opposite way. For you to blame all of this on Obama is past incredible!!
Hi Cindy,
I wonder how you feel about in vitro fertilization?
Also, what do you think should be the right thing to do with embryos that are not used in in vitro fertilization? My understanding is that now, they are burned.
I do not share your opinion about stem cell research but I am respectful of your beliefs. I know this is a very sensitive and sacred topic, for both of us.
L's Gran
Hi Tom,
Eight years ago, I overheard two of my fellow faculty members discussing the economy. At the end of the Clinton administration, they were displeased. One of them said that whenever Democrats were in power, they always messed up the economy and that it would take a Republican administration to straighten it out again. At the time, I wondered where all this was coming from.
Between you and me, if today's economy is 'straightened out' then I have fallen down the Republican rabbit hole where everything is in reverse.
Strange, Obama is not credited with having leadership skills and yet he was, according to some, able to bring down Wall Street?
Does this not strike you as just a little bit illogical?
L's Gran
L's Gran,
It is beyond illogical!!
Lindon,
Please don't bother trying to confuse a Democrat with the facts.
FORMER IDIOT TURNED REPUBLICAN
A Summary of the SBC Controversy: 1979-1994
by: Paul Kenley,
Pastor, Baptist Temple, Houston
Editor's Note: In May 1994, we published the following article by Paul Kenley written to state as briefly as possible a summary of the SBC controversy. An update to this article covering 1995 to 2000 is also online in this issue.
A Presupposition
This account begins with a basic presupposition: the Southern Baptist Convention, as we have known and loved-no longer exists. We must accept this fact in our own minds from the outset of this discussion. The SBC is now Baptist in name only. Historical Baptist heritage, polity, and principles are not believed in nor practiced by the current SBC leadership. As a result many of our most familiar terms can no longer be used as we have spoken of them previously. To say you are a "Southern Baptist" is likely to say something about you that is no longer accurate. To speak of the "Cooperative Program" no longer means the same thing that it once did when we spoke of it out of a love for missions. What has happened to so radically alter the makeup of our beloved convention?
A Brief History
Initial Objections
Southern Baptists were enjoying a boom period in the 1950s. Church growth was at its apex, and the denomination as a whole was attuned to its missions' enterprises. But one of Baptists' great attributes, their toleration of great diversity, ironically provided the environment for a takeover.
The champion of fundamentalism in the first half of the 20th century was J. Frank Norris, the fiery pastor of First Baptist Church, Fort Worth. His attitude and spirit were one of blatant contempt for Southern Baptists in general and for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in particular. He was known to send boxes of rotten fruit as Christmas gifts to seminary professors!
Because of Norris's well-publicized hot temper and his brash boldness in criticizing other evangelicals, most of those who agreed with him in his fundamentalist views shunned any identity or association with him publicly. He always had his followers within the SBC, but they remained in the closet until someone could legitimize their cause in a more public forum.
That opportunity came in the 1960s when Norris's charges of liberalism in Baptist schools found a more sympathetic ear among grassroots Southern Baptists. A few well-publicized, but isolated instances of what many considered to be blatant liberalism on SBC school faculties set the stage for fundamentalists to come out of the closet and make their case. Rather than cleansing the schools doctrinally, they took advantage of the unrest caused by the few disturbing cases, to wrest control of the SBC away from those in charge.
A Strategist for the Cause
In the late 1960s, Paul Pressler, a state appeals' court judge in Houston, began to look into the inner organizational structure of the SBC. He was seeking a way for one group to assert its will on the convention by taking over key positions of leadership.
He discovered that all power is vested in the president, who controls the makeup of the various boards and agencies through the appointment process. (see diagram on this page)
On a now famous audio tape entitled Firestorm Chats, Pressler proudly describes his discovery of how the convention's own structural make-up provided the only procedure necessary to effect a complete takeover of every board and institution. Once he had learned how to bring about the takeover, he just needed an inroad to the pastors of the 36,000+ SBC churches and a theological red flag to alarm the grassroots Baptist people.
The Pressler-Patterson Coalition
Pressler and Paige Patterson, then president of the Criswell Bible College, Dallas, met to plan their strategy at the Cafe du Mond in New Orleans in the early 1970s. Patterson, who had demonstrated an affinity for classical fundamentalism from his college days at Hardin-Simmons, took to pulpits across the convention as a conservative theologian.
He expressed his viewpoint that convention leaders in general, and seminary professors in particular, no longer believed that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God. He challenged Bible believers to join their cause claiming they would return the SBC to its true conservative roots. Patterson and Pressler made numerous visits to every major state convention during the months prior to the SBC annual meeting in June 1979 at Houston. They continued to do the same during the early 1980s as their movement gained strength. That year, fundamentalists elected Adrian Rogers of Tennessee, their first president.
Ironically, that same year, Southern Baptists adopted Bold Missions Thrust, a plan for spreading the gospel over the whole earth by the year 2000. Since then, presidents sympathetic to the fundamentalist agenda have been elected at all succeeding annual meetings: Bailey Smith, 1980-81; Jimmy Draper, 1982-83; Charles Stanley, 1984-85; Adrian Rogers, again 1986-87; Jerry Vines, 1988-89; Morris Chapman, 1990-91, and Ed Young, 1992-93.
Much deception has marked the movement. Sometimes it included an outright manipulation of the ballot box to protect the plan's momentum. At the 1985 convention, as in other annual meetings, parents registered small children as messengers and then cast the children's ballets for them.
Annually, busloads of messengers would arrive for the convention, vote in a block with their bus captain and then leave. Many made the trip just to vote for president. Some convention meetings have required an early adjournment for lack of a quorum because thousands of messengers would arrive on busses on Tuesday morning, vote in the presidential election that afternoon, and then leave.
At San Antonio in 1988, many well-meaning messengers stood outside the convention center long before the doors were open to get a seat in the main hall, only to find that busloads of fundamentalist sympathetic messengers had been brought in through the back way and already occupied all the seats near the platform area. At the 1985 Dallas convention, the vote for president was so close that many suspect that a fallacious tabulation was announced, insuring that the takeover was not derailed.
The 1990 convention in New Orleans is viewed by many as the completion of the takeover. Moderate-conservatives made one, last-gasp effort to regain control of the presidency. But the platform was totally inaccessible, positioned in isolation in the center of the Superdome floor.
Well-meaning speakers voicing valid concerns were silenced in mid-sentence as their microphones were turned off. Daniel Vestal, then a pastor in Dunwoody, Georgia, was defeated by Morris Chapman in the presidential race.
And through it all, Pressler was firmly ensconced on the platform, delighting in the success of his now complete takeover plan.
But how could great preachers, many of whom were well meaning, fall prey to such devious tactics of outright lies and manipulation?
Many had believed that the problem was a single people split into two factions, each trying to gain power over the other. But while power and control was a driving force, it was not the whole issue. Over the years, obvious philosophical and theological issues began to surface, hearkening back to the Norris movement decades before.
Some Tenets of Fundamentalism Counter to Traditional Baptist Principles
"The End Justifies the Means"
Fundamentalist religious causes from time immemorial have operated by this misguided principle. Conducting holy wars in the name of religion has inflicted tremendous injustices on humanity. This principle was used to justify ballot manipulation at various SBC meetings to insure control of the outcome.
Trampling and besmirching reputations and destroying careers of many Southern Baptist key leaders became the name of the game. Fundamentalist control of the media resulted in the firing from Baptist Press of Al Shackleford, director and Dan Martin, news editor. The ouster of Lloyd Elder, president of the Sunday School Board, quickly followed. Pressured resignations grabbed Randall Lolley, president of Southeastern Seminary, Keith Parks, president of the Foreign Mission Board, and most recently, the outright firing of Russell Dilday as the president of Southwestern Seminary. These men were fired or forced into early retirement not because they were liberal in their theology, but because they refused to bow to the demands of the political agenda first set out by Pressler and Patterson in the 1970s.
The Definition of a Liberal
To a fundamentalist, a liberal is anyone who does not agree with him. For instance, a basic tenet of fundamentalism is a premillenialist view of the return of Christ- a view which, while held by many Southern Baptists, is subject to varied interpretation. If one happens not to accept this basic fundamentalist interpretation, then his whole faith and experience are called into question.
Classic liberalism denies the virgin birth of Christ, His vicarious death, His bodily resurrection and His imminent return. By these standards, there was not a true liberal leader in the entire SBC!
The Matter of Inerrancy
The fundamentalist claims to be an inerrantist, in that he believes that every word of the Scripture- - one word following the next- is inspired, and thus penned by men under the direction of God. Most any evangelical will accept a fully inspirational view of Scripture, but the question arises, "What version of the Word is inerrant?"
Patterson has set a standard for the fundamentalists by saying that the original manuscripts or autographs were inerrant. The only problem with that is we have no original autographs! The bottom line is you are not an inerrantist unless you fall in line with certain prescribed interpretations of the Scripture.
Since no original autographs are extant, the King James Version, for most fundamentalists, has been substituted for the originals! All this has the effect of turning the scripture into a creed and rules out individual interpretation.
The Priesthood of the Believer and Religious Liberty
Baptists have always believed that each individual Christian can discover the truth of God's Word under the leadership of His illuminating Holy Spirit. The fundamentalist, however, believes that the pastor-preacher is to be the sole authority of God's revelation to His people.
The fundamentalist agenda in its purest form discounts the separation of church and state, shuns a free press, and seeks to elevate its own brand of doctrinal and religious bent to the status of the law of the land.
It is interwoven into the very fabric of the Religious Right on today's political scene, and is bosom buddies with independent right-wing religious/political leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Six prominent SBC leaders serve on the Board of Trustees of Falwell's Liberty University. Falwell has endorsed all that has happened in the SBC in the past 15 years.
The Pastor as Ruler of the Church
If the pastor is the sole channel through which God conveys His truth, then he obviously is to be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. This is perhaps the most "non-Baptist" belief of them all. Fundamentalist Baptist churches tend not to have business meetings and many of them have abolished all committees in favor of pastoral rule.
A Basic Difference in How We Do Missions
Under fundamentalist control, our Foreign Mission Board has departed from traditional approaches to mission work overseas in two basic areas:
1. Centralized Control
Traditionally, many decisions were made by the missionaries in the field because they know best the local culture and the needs of their particular assignments. The new philosophy is to have headquarters in Richmond make more of these decisions and more closely supervise missionaries. More decisions, therefore, are made by people who have less knowledge of local conditions.
2. The Missionary as Evangelist
Baptist philosophy has been that local people can witness to their neighbors better than an outsider can. As churches were started, pastors from that area or country were found, and churches were encouraged to start other churches.
In foreign countries, seminaries were established to educate leadership. The churches in foreign countries formed their own conventions and played an active role in spreading the Gospel. The new SBC leadership emphasizes the missionaries as evangelists, spreading the gospel by means of mass media, crusades, etc., thereby de-emphasizing local churches, conventions and seminaries.
This sends the subtle message to the local people that they are not considered capable of the task. Consequently, the SBC chose to totally defund Ruschlikon Seminary in Switzerland just at the time when the fall of the Berlin Wall signaled a new openness to the Gospel in Europe.
These two key changes in direction, coupled with the replacement of our best mind in foreign missions' leadership, Keith Parks, must lead thinking Baptists to question the motivation of the Foreign Mission Board trustees who are the source of all these changes both functional and philosophical.
A Sad, But Challenging Conclusion
The SBC has departed so radically from traditional roots that many of us have been led to confess that while we are still Baptists and proud of it, we can no longer be called Southern Baptists in terms of denominational affiliation.
Tragically, we have allowed the election of leaders who have been willing to instantly surrender principles bought with the blood of our Baptist forefathers, many of whom came to this continent to freely exercise their faith.
For years we tried to defeat the takeover with our ballots at the conventions. We were unwilling, however, to use the fundamentalists' own political tactics so we failed to rescue the convention from its irreversible course toward a calamity.
May 2000
Tom - You seem to make yourself feel better about supporting someone who stands against Christian thinking (Barack Hussein Obama) as it relates to moral issues by simply asking others if they are a one issue voter!?
Are you kidding me? Heck yes a Christian should be a one issue voter...IF THAT IS THE ISSUE!!!
It's also tough to understand the kind of illogical thinking that sees no difference in killing an innocent baby inside a mother's womb (or even killing the baby outside a mother's womb as Obama supports) and putting to death someone who murders.
Wow! This is frustrating to realize that Christians must defend these issues on a blog that supports Christian thinking.
Wade - Nascar or football...PLEASE!
:)
SL1M
By the way, to "diatribe anonymous" above me, I read your complete comment...
NOT!
Tom,
I do place being pro-life from birth to natural death at the top of my desired list. The next, and very close is respect for personal property and conservative economics. (That by itself, would cause me to be against Obama)
Football,
I've been gone two days to watch OU play Baylor in Waco
Problem: Suppose, just suppose, the candidate's advisors have told the candidate to SAY and VOTE in support of YOUR FAVORITE ISSUES just to get elected.
Once in, they do NOTHING about abortion, economics, etc.
Then, YOU have been had. And, your 'God' vote has disgraced your religion.
Don't be so easily fooled. Don't be so easily manipulated. Don't let THEM make a joke out of 'values voters' for the rest of the nation. WISE UP.
Our enemies are not intellectual 'light weights'.
Our enemies are not 'Joe Six Packs".
Our enemies are not "hockey moms"
Fight fire with fire; not with thawed-out Alaskan snow. Charm will not win the day in today's world.
On a different topic and an anatomy of an issue.....In reading another blog concering the issue of tithing not being necessary and only 20 percent of SBC leaders agree to this. It is a well documented study that is historical and examines the OT in detail. The SBC does let local leaders decide on this issue but there is a problem if you don't work this problem out in the Council of the SBC, you are then blindly accepting money in something you don't believe in. Somes issues do need the statement of councils like the SBC.
What do you give whem you have no money?
What do you give whem you have no money?
We will see full-blown attack ads on you-know-who in the next 3 weeks. But there is one card, they will not play, because loyal Bushies have already used it in 2000:
"The assault on McCain’s family didn’t spare Bridget, the litte girl they’d adopted from a Mother Theresa orphanage in Bangladesh. In the mouths of anonymous quote ‘push pollers,’ who called Republican voters across South Carolina to smear the maverick reformer, Bridget was transformed into an illegitimate black baby. . . . "
So, this attack was done effectively in 2000. ( McCain lost the nomination.)
It will be interesting to see what the loyal Bushies come up with against you-know-who.
Lesson Learned: The uglier the lie, the more people will repeat it. Some of them will believe it and it WILL be reflected in their vote.
Is there a lesson here: how about staying focused on the issues????
So let me get this straight.
Guy #1 says, "I hate abortion. It is wrong and I will work to right this wrong." (Although he leans more left than right regarding this issue, this is McCain's documented position.)
Yet he does nothing about it ultimately for whatever reason.
Guy #2 says, "Abortion is great. It allows for personal choice and control. I think a woman should even be able to kill her baby after it's born if the baby has a defect of some sort." (Barack Hussein Obama's documented position.)
Your logic is that we should vote for guy #2 because guy #1 only says he will stop the murders but doesn't do it (for whatever reason)???
That is some messed up, illogical, NON-christian ideaology you got working there.
Do the rest of the biblical, Christian community a favor. Pretend that you were manipulated, fooled, or whatever and that you have finally wised up and stay right where you are.
Frankly, I don't want that non-sensical thinking on my side.
This is so elementary, I can't believe this kind of silly thinking rears it's ugly head on this blog. I could see it on www.choice4allexcept4baby.com or www.anyhollywoodcelebritynamehere.com.
:)
SL1M
Re: the comment titled "A Summary of the SBC Controversy: 1979-1994, by Paul Kenley." Mr. Kenley needs to set aside his presuppositions and go back and study the history and doctrine of Baptists, of the SBC, and of the conservative resurgence. A good start would be James C. Hefley's multi-volume work, "The Truth in Crisis". This would provide a good corrective to the many historical inaccuracies and bias of Mr. Kenley's article.
George W. Bush 'did not believe in abortion." Was he pro-life.
Let's count:
100,000 Iraquis dead
over 4000 of our finest troops dead
How many hundreds of prisoners did he kill when he was governor of Texas?
Pro-life?
Shall we continue: no support for children's health care initiatives
We could go on.
Point: When you cast the 'God' vote, just be sure you playing on the right team. Do not take God's name in vain by saying that a vote for a MAN is a vote for Christ. It don't work that way.
Slim:
A man what talks the talk; don't always walks the walk. Their is no Jesus vote here. Just two guys.
Just to get back on topic, is Ms. Tarter allowed to support Palin? Or, better, is she allowed to vote? Which male authorities are in charge of how she thinks and how she behaves?
The question of 'life' is above Obama's paygrade as he said. He asked Rick Warren: Are you talking 'science' or 'Theology'.
He is a barbarian who had no problem with born alive babies being left to die in soiled laundry rooms. He knew the details of the bill and why it came before the Ill legislature. He was the point man for opposing the bills. He was not outraged. He was only concerned that the bill could hurt Roe vs Wade. He said that himself if you do the research.
Who is next? Unproductive old people when health care is nationalized? We are well on our way there now.
I am talking about principles and character. Not policy. Obama had a real choice with that bill in Ill. But more than that, he was the point man to get it defeated. He knew what he was doing and why. Preserving abortion was more important to him than babies being left to die in a soiled laundry room.
Where did a first term senator get the money to run for President?
Obama did not single handedly bring down Wall Street. He, along with his party, did all they could to ignore the problems presented to them in a hearing in 2004 about Freddie and Fannie. They told us that everything was fine and it was only politics from republicans. Even though the report came from the Federal Housing Authority with very grave concerns and warnings.
I really would like to hear why Palin does not have enough experience but Obama does. Can anyone tell me what Obama's qualifications are that so outshine Palin's?
Anon (who posted the Paul Kenley article):
It was interesting to read how you feel about the SBC and the period of its history from 1979 to 1994.
What type of church are you in now, by way of denominational affiliation? What seminaries does your church support and what missions agency are you guys connected with?
How much do you find (and I mean this seriously) that your concern and energy goes into talking and writing about the SBC and SBC life versus moving on to a new expression and oranizations that you feel comfortable with?
Do you often post things like this in an effort to try to undo what was done 15 or so years ago, to educate or to express frustraton.
Do you have any hope that the changes you want to see will occur? How do you envision that change happening?
I would be really interested in hearing your feelings on this.
Louis
The fundamental thesis of the pro-life position is that human life is of such intrinsic value that one should not unjustly take the life of another.
As applied to the issue of abortion, this means that human life is of such intrinsic value that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child.
As applied to the death penalty, this means that human life is of such intrinsic value that the proper and just punishment for taking it is to forfeit that which is of appropriate like value, which is one's own life.
As applied to war, this means that human life is of such intrinsic value that the proper response to those who would unjustly take the life of another is to take their lives to prevent their unjust killing.
It's pretty basic logic ...
Oh my goodness! Somebody chose to say this to prove exactly my point!
"George W. Bush 'did not believe in abortion." Was he pro-life.
Let's count:
100,000 Iraquis dead
over 4000 of our finest troops dead
How many hundreds of prisoners did he kill when he was governor of Texas?
Pro-life?
Shall we continue: no support for children's health care initiatives
We could go on.
Point: When you cast the 'God' vote, just be sure you playing on the right team. Do not take God's name in vain by saying that a vote for a MAN is a vote for Christ. It don't work that way."
It is unbelievable to think that the kind of people (presumably) that view this blog really think taking the life of a baby in the womb or murdering a new born baby for any reason (like Barack Hussein Obama believes) should even be in the same conversation with things such as acts of war, whether or not war is justified, soldier killing soldier opposed to soldier killing civilian, and this little doozey...the guilty one who has taken another life and pays his debt to society.
We have said it before and people keep bringing it up. I just can't get my head around that kind of logic.
Not even close.
WOW!
SL1M
Slim:
Not trying to feel better. Just asking a fair question. Thanks for trying to read my feelings--. I hope you realize Republicans use one issue voters. I was in a Sunday School class today where several interjected republican politics and I found it very uncomfortable and would have if several would have interjected democratic politics. God is not a republican or a democrat.
Been thinking about Baptist theology and Ms. Tarter and found this:
"Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
That part about 'it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me'
how does this verse permit that any Christian is less than any other Christian in dignity and worth.
'but Christ lives in me'
Dear Ms Tarter, you need bow to no man's authority. Sweet child, you have put on Christ. No man stands above Him.
L's Gran
A FRIEND
L's Gran,
You said, "Dear Ms Tarter, you need bow to no man's authority. Sweet child, you have put on Christ. No man stands above Him."
Sounds like you may have inherited your grandmother's Baptist gene! No offense intended (as I agree with your assessment), but it seems it would be hard to be a Catholic with that perspective.
Folks, let's face a fact. It is uncomfortable, it is despicable, but like it or not, it is a fact.
Abortion is legal in the US. The "pro-choice" people won that one. They won it, and no President (or Vice-President for that matter) is going to change that. Why? Because although the President nominates Supreme Court and other Federal judges, none of them will make it through confirmation hearings in today's Congress unless they lie about having a predisposition to reverse Roe v. Wade; and even then, it will require a vast conspiracy between judges at the district, appealate, and Supreme Court levels. And even then, it will only stop legal abortions, and I guarantee, there will be such a flood of illegal abortions that the number done before Roe v. Wade will look like a drippy faucette. (Please read my last paragraph before you completely give up on me.) My point is that abortion is a moot point in the 2008 Presidential election, because even IF McCain is elected, and even IF he gets the chance to nominate judges/justices who are opposed to abortion, the likelihood that they will (1) make it through confirmation and (2) would still be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, are just not there. Consequently, your decision (and mine) for who to vote for should NOT be determined by non-issues, like abortion, the candidate's middle name, the nationality of his parents, his race, his neighbors or their background 40 or 50 years ago, or any of the other nonsense floating around. If you want to vote for McCain because you think he will do a better job fixing the economy, fine; if you think he will do a better job in Iraq, Afghanistan, or where ever, fine; if you think McCain has the experience necessary and that Obama does not, fine; if you think McCain will do a better job fixing Washington, fine. Just vote for him on the basis of REAL issues, not racial and ethnic matters so thinly veiled that we have to find other justifications for voting against Obama. Myself: although I voted for "W" twice and his daddy twice, and Ronnie before them, over the last 8 years, I've had enough unfulfilled Republican Party promises. As a conservative evangelical, I've been used enough.
BTW: I am NOT saying we should give up on reversing Roe v. Wade. Not in the least; what we have to do is (1) pray it out--and at the risk of angering some, I suggest most conservative, evangelical Christians give more lip-service to prayer than they do time; (2) we have a lot of folks in the US to evangelize; and (3) when we have done that, then we must educate them what the Bible says about it, and they WILL listen to the Spirit because He indwells in those who are converted. Then there will be such a groundswell against abortion that the most liberal Democrat imaginable will not be able to stand against it, and the number wanting it will slow to a trickle anyway. But until we do it God's way instead of the political way (which is what we've been doing the last 20 or so years), we are doomed to failure.
John
Dear Christian Thinker,
You said,
"It's pretty basic logic ..."
Faith takes us beyond where our logic ends and leads us to a more peaceful world. This ia a place where our poor human logic gives way to the mysterious love of God and the humble unconditional love of our fellow man,
We can only go to that peaceful place with Jesus the Christ in our hearts. And there, the command to 'love thine enemy' is no longer beyond our reach.
L's Gran
I simply
Want to
be the
300 person
to comment
On this
amazing blog
And I
did it.
Dear Baptist Thinker,
We Catholics, also, are immersed in the love of Christ. Maybe, not 'immersed' in water, but I can tell you my spirit belongs to Him, and I feel His peace in my life.
I'm not here to speak of my Catholic faith; but to learn of Grandmother's Christian faith. I have found some Christian brothers and sisters here. I recognized them almost immediately.
L's Gran
L's Gran
L's Gran - Would it offend you if I were to say that you have a "new age movement" sound to your comments?
It may be just me. In fact, I'm sure it is just me. No worries.
I would like to ask you this though. Maybe it will propel us to 400 comments. :)
What is salvation and what does one need to do to earn it?
Thanks for answering and take care.
SL1M
Dear John Fariss,
May I quote you,
"And even then, it will only stop legal abortions, and I guarantee, there will be such a flood of illegal abortions that the number done before Roe v. Wade will look like a drippy faucette."
I fear that you may be right.
I am old(er) now but I can remember what happened to a college friend long before Row v. Wade. She made a mistake. She panicked. She was butchered in an abortion 'back street' clinic in the Caribbean. So long ago, but I can still remember how all of us college girls were in shock about our friend.
Now, am I for abortion. No.
Is my Church for abortion. No.
Am I for young girls being butchered? As God is my witness, No.
No easy choices or answers, but just one thought:
Maybe, our Christian energies can be better used to work towards a time when young girls can bring new life into a more welcoming society than the one we have now. This would entail a whole lot more money and effort than simply casting a vote and walking away. What are your thoughts?
L's Gran
Louis,
Wade Burleson printed “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by Jeff VanVonderen. In one section it says: “The person who speaks about a problem must become the problem.”
Let’s see if you have made the person who printed Paul Kenley’s history of Baptist, the problem by the questions you asked him:
1. What type of church are you in now, by way of denominational affiliation?
2. What seminaries does your church support?
3. What mission’s agency are you guys connected with?
4. How much do you find that your concern and energy goes into talking and writing about the SBC versus moving on to a new expression and organization?
5. Do you often post things like this in an effort to try to undo what was done 15 or so gears ago, to educate or to express frustration?
6. Do you have any hope that the changes you want to see will occur?
7. How do you envision that change happening?
Lewis, would you agree that over half your questions could be asked Burleson and Paul as he was slapped in the face with (you’ve all heard this before): “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are ALL jealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20)
The law required them to put their sins on an ‘escape goat’. Did that hurt God by their believing the blood of his Son was not good enough?
I believe God feels pain when a missionary answers God’s call but it’s NOT good enough without their signature on a creed.
Paul lost the fight in stopping most early Christians in becoming Catholic, but hopefully, if enough Baptists wake up, Burleson’s cause of stopping legalism will win out, and once again the glue that holds us together will change from doctrine to missions.
And Lewis before you ht me with your questions, I’m in the same small country BGCT church were I was a charter member in 1944.
Last year we were given an award in our county for giving the most to Lottie Moon per person.
Not mentioning local mission trips, I’ve been on eighteen volunteer overseas trips of construction for the SBC.
Since last Wednesday, our revival led by an “Team Impact", has over forty salvations.
All praise goes to Jesus because without Him we are nothing. Out works are as filthy rags, but God can hit a lot of straight licks using crooked sticks.
L's Gran,
Yes, the love of Christ shed abroad in our hearts bring peace with God, others, and ourselves. And that sort of love is indeed far beyond human logic, and with it comes a love of life, and sorrow over all that ends it. My reference to logic was in reference to prior comments that indicated that it is somehow inconsistent to be against abortion while supporting the death penalty. etc. I only meant to point out that one places high value on human life, it is expressed in different ways in different contexts.
Be blessed.
Hi Slim,
I read your question. Please know that I am not being evasive, here, but out of respect for Wade and the others, I don't wish to 'explain' Catholic doctrine here. I don't think it is appropriate to do so.
I do know that there are different word used in the various denominations as regard 'salvation' . But the end result is the same, in my perception.
I can speak for me. I not fearful and I can't explain that. I am very trusting in my 'Abba' or 'gentle Father' who sent Jesus to bring us Home to Him.
I don't know from 'new age'. Can't help you there. I'm pretty old.
My eyes were opened to God's great love and mercy as I cared for my son, Patrick, who has Down Syndrome. I have never known a more gentle, loving creature than this child. So how could his Creator be any less? :)
In the words of my faith, I can sincerely leave you with this ancient Christian prayer:
"May the peace of Our Lord be always with you."
L's Gran
L's Gran,
I meant no criticism of your faith. I just found it ironic that a Baptist (Miss Tarter) would be placing more emphasis on human authority than a Catholic (yourself). I enjoy such ironies; seems to me to reflect God's sense of humor.
Be blessed.
Dear Baptist Thinker,
Didn't realize how people felt.
I can only tell you that all that is addressed to God in my faith is done 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit'. I always thought ALL Christians prayed this way: 'through Him, in Him, and with Him.'
I did not know that the differences were so great. I supposed they must, if you say so.
Trust me, I am the one in ignorance about your faith. I'm pretty up on my own faith and traditions. It's the faith of others that I seek to learn of. Especially Grandmother's.
For example, I periodically go to see a Jewish 'rebbe' or rabbi because I wish to learn more of the Jewish traditions. There, I can ask, because I am not afraid to say 'I don't understand'.
He is a very kind man, this rabbi. He says, that admitting 'you don't know' is a good place to start. (I have a friend at the synagogue who teaches Hebrew to the children , so I am able to visit the rabbi in the company of my friend.)
What I am fearful of, is sitting in judgment on others. I'd much rather try to understand them, if I can. L's Gran
Wade,
I do not see in your post the connection between Ms. Tarter's comments on feminisim's rejection of male authority and Al Mohler's alleged position on male authority. Perhaps you are referring to other writings where he has stated this or perhaps this is a wild extrapolation because it makes good news copy.
Jesse
L's Gran,
When a true Christian is asked what is salvation and how does one earn it, they should relish in the fact that they were asked, see it as an evangelism opportunity, and give a one or two sentence answer that succinctly states what salvation is and how one "earns" it.
That fact that you didn't answer, gave excuses about why you won't answer it, and that it took you quite a bit of writing to not answer it, unfortunately speaks volumns (no pun intended).
I am afraid that you don't want to speak about your catholic religion here because it would revealed that it is a typical catholic position you maintain regarding salvation...
Christ + works = salvation
Everyone here certainly appreciates your gentle spirit, but we would be failing you tremendously if we didn't tell you that salvation is in Christ alone and that if any of us are depending on our works we are going to be eternally regretful of that decision.
These are hard words to hear for you I'm certain.
Just please know that I wrote them for me as much as I wrote them for you.
99% of my life's work is trying to help life long catholics understand biblical salvation as opposed to the works-centered, ritualistic "salvation" they have always known.
SL1M
Rex Ray:
Great to hear about your church and what it is doing. That's impressive that you were a charter member in 1944 and are still there. How old were you in 1944? An adult, teen, child? That's a great heritage.
Anon, didn't want to "slap" you with my questions, so please take no offense. I was truly interested in the answers, and would find them interesting.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks.
Louis
Dear Slim,
Thank you for your concern for me. This is what I believe:
"I am very trusting in my 'Abba' or 'gentle Father' who sent Jesus to bring us Home to Him. "
So: I must believe this: that God is our Father. I am His Child.
2. The nature of my Father is gentle and merciful and infinitely compassionate, the way any parent feels towards their child.
3. Jesus is God's Mercy come to Earth to save us. He has healed the breach. He forms a bridge between Heaven and Earth. Now, we can go Home to the Father, because of what Jesus did.
So, that is what I believe.
Very simple: Salvation was the result of God's great love for us: the Sacrifice of a just God for His children, out of His infinite mercy.
My Church asks me to go into the world 'to love and serve the Lord'. We are commanded by God to love Him with our whole hearts and souls and minds; AND OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES. We are asked to walk humbly with our God. This is what we must do to be saved.
Your comment about 'works' is interesting. My understanding of 'works' comes from the Gospel.
If you read in the Holy Scriptures the Gospel of St. Matthew (25:33 to 46); I think you can see what my Church teaches me that I must do in the world: I must work in the service of those less fortunate than myself. In serving them, I serve Him.
Slim, what do you believe about the verses in Matthew 25:33 to 46)? These verses are a central part of my practice of my Catholic faith.
I have a peaceful, gentle nature. I believe in this: "If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and my Father will love him, and We will come unto him; and make Our abode with him." (Gospel of St. John 14:verse 23)
So, the concept of 'Emmanuel" or 'God With Us" is real to me and He is my recognized source of peace, or what you call a 'gentle spirit'.
Concerning 'works' as I think you are meaning it, perhaps you are speaking of the 'fruit' of faith?
I have seen that phrase in this blog.
So what is this fruit? I think that it must be loving kindness towards others. Acts of loving kindness.
The Jewish people have a saying: 'Tikun olam' translates to 'the repair of the world'. A commission from God to help in the world to relieve the suffering of others. I am from two traditions: Judeo-Christian, that believe in the care of the less fortunate. We Christians believe in it, not only at the command of Our Lord, but because His spirit abides with us and we find that service to the least of His IS service to Him.
I hope you can understand some of this. If not, just read the Gospel of St. Matthew 25:33 to 46 and there you will learn about the practice of my faith as my church sends me out to 'love and serve the Lord'. In my religion, lip-service is not going to cut it.
If we abide in His spirit and He with us, our mercy towards the least of His is an overflow of our faith in Him, not 'something extra and not necessary.'
L's Gran
L's gran: You directed your reply to SL1M and not me, but I must respond. Your concept of salvation really troubles me. You start off with an apparent Universalism by stating "God is our Father" but you do not qualify or defend that. Then you mention the "the Sacrifice of a just God for His children, out of His infinite mercy" but you never answer what the sacrifice is for or qualify it in any way. Then you speak of works as evidence of faith, but you never explain what faith you are talking about. Then you mention the two greatest Commandments of loving God absolutely and your neighbor as yourself, and walking humbly with God, and that you must do this to be saved. Do you really believe that a perfect, infallible God will accept you based on imperfect obedience? Or will you claim perfect obedience to the Laws and Commandments of God like the rich young ruler tried to do (who had his heart of covetousness exposed by Christ's command)? And in your entire response, sin is never in your vocabulary while writing your explanation.
Please, please, L's Gran. I am not trying to be mean, hateful, or even judge your heart. All I can do is judge your words for truthfulness and accuracy to the best of my ability. I would strongly recommend you go to the website wwww.justforcatholics.org and read about salvation from a man who ministers to Catholics the truth of the gospel of Christ.
"I have not found a woman I know who does not have a strong opinion about this woman. Men are all over the board, some love her, some hate her, some don't really react at all.
I am interested in how the women of this blog react to Ms. Palin."
Hi Louis,
I guess I am in the "man camp" once again....I am pretty indifferent. I see some strong points but I also have concerns. I don't love her or hate her. I honestly do not have a strong opinion about her and I could go either way.
I guess I just go by the Bible's advice to avoid all extremes.
My experience, as a female, is that I don't feel that all this genderizing is all too helpful and it tends to be highly discouraging to women like me who don't fit the stereotyping of how a woman thinks, feels or acts. Also, I used to work in politics, in fund-raising, so I understand some of the inside workings of all the rhetoric and game playing.
I think it is very ironic that back when Clinton was running it was said that women were voting for him because he is "good looking" (blech!) but every time I turn on the news, some male pundit is pontificating about Palin and her beauty and how "hot" she is. I wonder if it is going to be said if McCain/Palin is elected it is because men voted for her because they thought she was "hot" just like it was said of women and Clinton?
You know what I am really enjoying? Watching the opening skit of Saturday Night Live every week with Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin. It is hysterically funny. :-)
p.s. Our women's ministry in the church I am a member of is run by a team and not just by one woman. Just wanted to clear that up.
Hi Byroniac,
Sorry for the 'slim' confusion.
May I quote you:
"Then you mention the two greatest Commandments of loving God absolutely and your neighbor as yourself, and walking humbly with God, and that you must do this to be saved. "
Well, all I do here is to tell you the source of the commandments:
From St. Luke (10:25 to 28)
"And behold a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, 'Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He said unto him, "What is written in the Law? how readest thou?
And he answered saying,
'THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART,
AND WITH ALL THEY SOUL,
AND WITH ALL THY STRENGTH,
AND WITH ALL THY MIND;
AND THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF."
And He said unto him: 'Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
So, that is what I believe about salvation. These are the words of the Lord. Praise be the Name of the Lord.
Our church has this prayer before the reading of the Gospels:
CHRIST BE IN MY MIND
CHRIST BE ON MY LIPS
CHRIST BE IN MY HEART
That is all "I" can tell you. I have no other words than His.
Thanks again for your concern. I remain peaceful. I wish you the same in His name. :) L's Gran
L's Gran,
Byron and I are two, not one. You did not confuse.
Hi Byron. :)
I had an inkling that your response would not be biblical as I could hear the catholic undertones in your writing.
I am sorry to say that you do not have a biblical understanding of salvation. That sounds harsh, but your argument is not with me, it is with scripture.
You are being deceived by giving an overwhelming value to meekness and gentleness, and for this I am sorry.
I hate blogs!!! There is absolutely no way to evangelize under these conditions and perhaps we should not have went down this road.
I will trust that something might be said by someone, anyone, that might cause you to look deeper into what you believe and compare that to what the bible says is required for salvation. Not just a few verses pulled out of context that deal with love and kindness, etc...but the whole of scripture.
Praying for you tonight my friend.
SL1M
Dear L's Gran,
Thanks for the comment. Though I am a bit pressed for time, I will say that I have long held (and even said from the pulpit) that while there is Biblical authority opposed to abortion as retroactive birth control, before we have the moral authority to tell young women they cannot have abortions, we must be willing to take care of their babies, whether through adoption or removing stigma we hold for their actions, or whatever. And yes, I do believe that we, as Christians of whatever denomation have a duty to reach out to those who differ with us on isues--not to convince them they are wrong, but with love and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that the Holy Spirit may convict them.
John
Hi Slim,
God bless you for your prayers on my behalf.
I have a gift for you: I copied the Ist Book of Corinthians which is from my faith tradition also:
" Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
I think we both share this book in our Scriptures. It explains a lot of my beliefs in the power of God's love and mercy. Be peaceful, do not worry so much. L's Gran
Hi John Fariss,
Well, here's to a better world for the sake of new life. L's Gran.
L's Gran, just to clarify so there is no confusion:
SL1M != byroniac
His secret identity is still secret as far as I know. I have often suspected that whenever trouble arises and he politely excuses himself from a social gathering for minutes or even hours at a time, and then mysteriously some flying caped crusader appears to save the day, only to reappear after everything has settled on with nary a clue that anything happened, that the two events are somehow inextricably linked but I have no proof of such currently. If he would just take off those eyeglasses... :)
But, getting to my main point. I will not argue salvation with you. All I can do is refer you to the www.justforcatholics.org website because I believe your understanding of salvation is inaccurate and incomplete, and I do not mean that rudely. Even if I am wrong, and you are right, you owe it to yourself to thoroughly investigate this issue and consider everything very carefully, with prayer. If you have already done this to your satisfaction, I have no intentions of troubling you further.
Thanks Gran. And you are right, I have that already.
Again, my life's work is working with catholics and showing them that Christ + anything is not biblical salvation.
You fit this bill.
I also deal with many catholics who employ a lot of out of context bible teaching in my work. You have also done this with your example of the parable above.
I'm not pretending like anything I say is going to cause you to rethink what you traditionally have believed for such a long time, that has to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
But I can pray for you to study and know the whole counsel of God.
I can also warn you against thinking that salvation is yours simply because you think you are a good person, or that you think you have kept the commandments (any of them), or that you only need to be a loving person, or a gentle person.
Most importantly, it is my pleasure to pray for you. So no worries indeed.
Praying still...
SL1M
Dear Slim,
So you "deal with many catholics". Then I would encourage you to spend a week or two at a Benedictine monastery as a Benedictine oblate and pray the psalms with the monks. After a few weeks of that, you will begin to understand the peace that I feel. AND, at that point, we could make some headway in our conversations. I do not understand you. I cannot imagine how you must feel. I'm sorry, if in anyway, I have caused you some personal spiritual unease. It's a little like we are trying to communicate with each other and we do not know the other's language.
God bless, :) L's Gran
P.S. I am comfortable grazing in the pastures of the Holy Scriptures: I find nourishment and peace there. I have never felt like I was abusing the Holy Writings by reading them and keeping them in my heart. I think you have a strange philosophy about the Scriptures. (?)
To John:
I was all set to say (to you and to others)there is more to being pro-life than being against abortion and quote the saying about people who seem to think life beings at conception and ends at birth because they oppose such things as health care for children, good education, and are for such things as unjustified wars. For example, it does a child no good to be born and then die soon after because they could not afford health care when they become sick.
Then you came back and said provision should be made for pregnant women and their children.
I am glad to revise my comment.
There have been studies that show that when women are shown how they can provide for themselves and their children and can start or continue education, even with children, they are much less likely to have an abortion. Unfortunately many who call themselves pro-life in one way oppose spending for health care and education and other such things that will enable those who cannot otherwise afford these to take care of themselves and their already born and potential children.
People can be anti-abortion without being truly pro-life. I am glad this statement does not apply to you.
Susie
Gran,
I understand your very catholic reply and I completely understand why you would like our conversation to end.
This was a predictable response and I'm okay with it.
Praying, even now.
SL1M
Hi Slim,
No. You misunderstand. There is a reason for our discussions: I'm sure that we both have much to learn from each other's view point. Just a little hard to understand each other, I think.
So, let's see. I am ONLY familiar with Presbyterian worship as my mother took me to a Presbyterian church when I was little. Then, when she converted, I was educated in my father's faith, he being from a French Canadian family, very Catholic.
I am somewhat familiar with Anglicans and Episcopalians. My husband is a former Lutheran. And my brother converted first to Presbyterian faith of his wife, married in her church, and they are both Methodist now. Of course, you know about Grandmother. That's about it. Not much depth of understanding about each denomination on my part, I'm afraid, but there it is.
You misunderstand my suggestion regarding the Benedictines. If I could get away from all of my responsibilities, I should like to go for a retreat to pray with them for a week or two. I think I would be renewed. I was just wishing something for you that I wanted for myself. The monastery atmosphere is conducive to Christian prayer, I think.
Please don't let me scare you away, slim. Your company is welcome and, although confusing, it is beneficial. :)
L's Gran
No really, it's okay.
Take care.
SL1M
Slim,
Let me clarify some Catholic doctrine for you. (Being a convert, I am somewhat bilingual religiously)
Catholics do NOT believe that just be being good people will save us. Only through Jesus will.
Just to call God Father, and to recognize that He is Father to all, doesn't make us universalists. John Chrysostom said that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. We can hope that all will come into a relationship with Christ Jesus, and that He will make himself known to them so that they can respond.
To Wade, sorry about the off topic posting. And thank you for recommending Miss Keckley's book. I'm waiting for it to come in, inter-library loan.
Dear Anna,
Thank you for helping Slim in a way I could not do. I'm afraid I made a mess of it and now, he won't want to write to me anymore. Oh dear. I think he really was trying to help me, in his way. I have no experience with faiths outside of the main-stream, honestly.
Now, Anna, which way did you convert? RC to Baptist or vise-versa? No need to respond; I'm just curious. You might be able to help me sort things out as I learn of my Gran's Baptist faith.
And thank you for returning the blog to topic. :) L's Gran
SLIM,
Your saying, “99% of my life’s work is trying to help life long Catholics understand biblical salvation …” made me think why I wrote “Truth of Acts” fourteen years ago.
In the past, I thought if Catholics read this article, they’d become Baptists, but time has shown it’s easier for Catholics to believe this article than Baptists.
The ‘hang-up’ with most Baptists is they can’t believe what they read in the Bible is true or false.
Don’t get me wrong…ALL Scripture is true because God cannot tell a lie. Words from God are 100% true. Jesus said truth will set us free, but what about words in the Bible that deceive?
Eve was deceived by words in the Bible. Many are deceived by what is RECORDED in the Bible. Words RECORDED in the Bible do NOT automatically make them true because there is recorded ignorance, confusion, forgetfulness, stupidity, and the lies of men and the devil.
If every word in the Bible was written like a math book, there would be one denomination of Christians. When L’Gram quoted Matthew 22:33-46, L’Gram applied verses 37-39 (Love God and neighbor) to being saved.
But this Scripture was an answer to verse 36: “Which is the most important command in the laws of Moses?” The Law of Moses does NOT save people today. All the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbols of the real Sacrifice…Calvary! Today, this particular Law of Moses is a way to live as a RESULT of being saved.
L’Gram quotes Jesus in Luke 10:25-28 as a way to be saved. Again this applies to the Law of Moses. If the Law of Moses was sufficient to be saved, then God would NEVER have sacrificed his Son for our sins.
All a person has to do to go to heaven is ask Jesus to save them. The only catch to this is you’ve got to mean it.
L’Gram,
If you read capture Acts 15 ten times, you will see the roots of Catholics and the roots of non-Catholic. (My opinion of course.)
One group was made of a sect of Christian Pharisees that argued that Salvation was by Jesus plus the Law. (Acts 15:5) The other group (Peter, Paul, and Barnabus) argued Salvation was Jesus plus nothing.
The first group argued Jesus came to back the Law for salvation. The other group argued Jesus fulfilled the Law.
Peter said if the Jews BURDENED the Gentiles with the Law, they would be ‘correcting’ God because all were saved the same way…by the free gift of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 15:10, 11)
Peter’s words were omitted from the letter sent to the Gentiles: (Acts 15:28 Holman Bible) “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision, and ours, to put no greater BURDEN on you than these NECESSARY things:” (Four Jewish laws.)
Did the Holy Spirit correct God, or did men use Him to back their wrong decision?
This is an example, in my opinion, of the Bible recording truth of what was written, but recording did not make it true. Paul fought against these laws for salvation the rest of his life.
Lewis,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry so long in responding.
As I was repairing our church last year, I thought, “My, my; when I was fifteen, I used a handsaw on this roof sixty years ago.” Most of my life has been many places, but we retired to the ‘farm’ seven years ago and are the nearest members to the church.
Your reply made me smile…sort of like the woman at the well when Jesus got too much into truth that she switched the subject.
Dear Rex Ray,
Thank you for taking so much time to help me. I focus in my Scripture reading on two special books that have nourished me: they are the Psalms, which I pray, and the Gospel of St.John, which , as a Presbyterian Bible Study class member of mine years ago told me: "put me 'Under Conviction" ' when I became very sad about my sins while studying this beautiful Gospel. I was in turmoil for three days and then, peaceful. What a reaction!
So, these days, I concentrate on the words and actions of Jesus in the Holy Writings. I am aware of the early fathers' difficulties vaguely, but not in depth.
As far as what I quoted, my understanding has always been that the Lord Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it.
Rex R.: I wonder if you could help me understand an experience I had recently. There was a show on the Hallmark channel called 'The Good Witch" and I commented that I thought it was really good. Another lady remarked that she watched it and thought it was evil. All that being aside, she then began to describe her beliefs: she did not even think that it was right to say the Lord's Prayer anymore. She focused solely on the writings of St Paul as her guide. Have you ever heard of such a religion? I admit, I had never run into that before and it kind of threw me.
Again, thanks for taking time.
Be peaceful. :) L's Gran
Hi RR and thanks for the input.
For some reason I feel like I already knew that about you and the Book of Acts? I'm not sure why though? Have you said that before?
Anyway, all I was trying to say by using the law is that if Gran thinks she is going to heaven solely because she is a good person (sweet, gentle, loving, etc...) she will NOT be there. I don't think there is anyone else here who disagrees with that. All 3 of us. :)
The law does not save us 'tis true. It in fact shows us our sin. No matter how good Gran thinks she is she is still a liar, murderer, thief, adulterer, idol worshipper, she hasn't always (100% of the time) put God first in her affections, etc..., etc...and she has broken the other 4 as well.
God bless her, I can say all that without even knowing her. Sorry Gran. But we are all in that same boat.
I do appreciate your input RR and I think we probably agree that Gran's road to salvation is paved with false ideas. I just felt like I had to make that known to her even though there is absolutely no way to make that very clear on a blog.
I hate that. So I pray.
On a side note, I understand your need to use something to supplement when dealing with catholics and it sounds like your Acts book may be great. We are also in the midst of preparing something similar as well.
SL1M
Dear Slim,
I wanted to comment on what you wrote. You said,
"Sorry Gran. But we are all in that same boat."
YES! But, Slim, the Lord Jesus is on board that boat to calm the waters with a Word, and bring us safe to Shore. Don't be so frightened of the storm with Him on board: He can save ALL of us who put our trust in Him.
As far as 'sweet and gentle', I smile at that because, in my life, I have have worked with some very hurting children: in a drug rehab, and in the inner city schools. A supervisor once told me that my 'quiet spirit' was calming for my students. I told him about my son Patrick. :)
If a have a 'sweet and gentle' nature; I have also done battle on the front lines in our country with children who were unloved, un-cared for, undisciplined, and in pain emotionally. Most of the men on this blog could not have lasted one day in some of the classrooms I have worked in. The only way that I could have done any good there was with the help of the Lord. So I am not alone. Nor are you. Be peaceful. I leave you with another ancient Christian saying: 'Jesus Christ Son Savior'
and this biblical prayer of sinners: 'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; but only say the Word, and I shall be healed."
Stay faithful,
L's Gran
Gran,
As I was reading what you wrote I thought of 5 things I wanted to ask you but, frankly, I just don't want to do this anymore.
You are steadfast in your catholicism and this blog is no place for me to deal with that. My plate is full with catholics that will be sitting right next to me tonight as we search the scriptures in an effort to lead them to an understanding of biblical salvation instead of the ritualistic, behavior-oriented salvation they are caught up in.
Please take Byron's advice and check out the site he mentioned. Although you seem very pleasant, and you have a sweet spirit, and a lot of life's lessons to share, your previous description of salvation is not biblical. I hate that and I'm sorry. But it's true.
Feel free to have the last word, but please don't think me as rude if I don't reply.
Meanwhile, God's grace to you on life's journey.
SL1M
SLIM,
Thanks for the nice words, but the GREATEST thing I want to say is L’s Gran has ‘found’ her grandmother’s faith that’s shown in her comment of 12:54 AM. I will quote her:
“…the Gospel of St. John…put me ‘Under Convention’ when I became very sad about my sins…I was in turmoil for three days’ and then, peaceful. What a reaction!”
GLORY! I felt that peace 66 years ago and it’s never left me. She was convicted by the Holy Spirit about her sins that caused her turmoil. Her peace came when she had faith in John 3:16 or other writings or prayers that brought her to Jesus.
SLIM, she is our sister in the Lord. We’ll meet in heaven someday and talk about our sharing with one another.
We’ll meet my cousin who was buried in China when she was five years old. As she slipped into eternity, she asked, “Mama which one is our house?”
I miss-quoted...the word is "Conviction".
Dear Rex Ray,
Thank you. Thank you so much!
Your little cousin saw something wonderful before she went on ahead Home. Such a gift from God given to comfort her mother, for the little one to say those words. Beautiful!
Before her death, my grandmother was unable to move. As she was dying, she SAT UP IN BED and reached out her arms and said, 'Jesus'. Then, she slowly lay back on her pillow, and went on ahead of us to go Home. The doctors told us that there was no way that Grandmother would have had the physical ability to sit up.
Praise Be the Name of the Lord.
Yes, all those years ago, my Presbyterian friend did tell me that what I was going through was sometimes called 'going under conviction', but she didn't tell me anything else about it. I remember those three days vividly, and the peace that followed. 'The peace that surpasseth all understanding.' :)
I do not know how anyone can read the beautiful Gospel of St. John, and not have the same experience.
The verses of this Gospel still nourish me when I am troubled.
Now Slim won't have to have to be disappointed in me any more. He can stop worrying. That is good.
You are a very kind man, I think.
The Lord be with you Rex Ray,
L's Gran
Hi RR - I was simply reacting to Gran's description of salvation.
It is so vague that it seems written by someone without a clear understanding of their true standing before God.
It's also littered with lingo that leads one to think "catholicism" or even "new age". My opinion there, of course.
As Byron noted as well, her concept of salvation is troublesome. It has overtones of universalism in it by stating "God is our Father" without it being qualified. Do you not agree that it would better to say "God is MY Father"? Is God everyone's Father when we are discussing the salvation of souls? Surely we agree He is not.
She mentions the "the Sacrifice of a just God for His children, out of His infinite mercy". Well, who is the sacrifice for? Who are His children? Why was it needed? Still unanswered is how does one receive it? The over all vagueness and impersonalness jumps off the page.
Surely you agree that simply reading the bible and getting a warm fuzzy feeling is not the complete story of salvation? Does she see her need for a Savior? Does she realize she is a liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer, idolater, etc...?
I am sincerely concerned that she might think that if she is sweet and gentle in spirit and does lots of nice things for people, and loves everyone, that she will get to heaven. Surely we agree that is not correct / biblical.
As Byron pointed out as well, she speaks of works as evidence of faith, but she never explains what faith she is talking about. What is faith? And faith in what?
She also mentions the parable that Jesus uses to make a lawyer realize that he hasn't kept the commandments even though he thought he had. The two greatest Commandments of loving God absolutely and your neighbor as yourself, and walking humbly with God. She saus you must do this to be saved.
As Byron asked her, does she really believe that a perfect, infallible God will accept her based on imperfect obedience? Maybe she thinks she has kept the commandments? If she thinks that, shouldn't she be told that she is wrong. No one has kept them. As it says in James, if she has stumbled once then hasn't she has broken them?
Furthermore, as you know, she didn't finish that parable which Jesus went on to simply show that the man had not and could not keep those commandments. When asking who his neighbor was, he wasn't seeking identity so he could make sure he spread his love to everyone. He was asking because he didn't want his neighbor to be a certain group of people that he didn't really care for. Surely you know this story and I don't mean to insult you by restating it here.
Another alarm should go off with this kind of response is that sin is never mentioned? Does Gran thinks she is a liar, a thief, an adulterer, etc...?
That is way more than I wanted to write my friend. I'm so sorry. I was just concerned by her reply to what salvation is and that's why I tried to share a little. Her reply wasn't and still isn't biblical.
Byron directed her to a great website that helps catholics overcome the ritualistic tradition that they have always known salvation to be.
I am certain this will evoke a response from her and I told her I would let her have the last word.
So with that, I will move on the to the two newer posts. :)
I enjoy your comments RR and I enjoyed this exchange.
Blessings to you.
SL1M
Slim:
You said to RR-"Does Gran thinks she is a liar, a thief, an adulterer, etc...?"
That is a great evangelistic tool--not.
That will really help her to see the light want it? not
Tom - Very much don't appreciate your comment. Especially since you haven't even been involved in the conversation. Not sure why you felt the need to pop in after this stream is long dead with the exception of Gran, RR, and me and especially just to spout venom and run away again.
But it's no problem. I've dealt with your kind before. Plenty!
What do you tell people Tom? That God loves them just the way they are? FALSE!
That God loves the sinner but hates the sin? That's probably what you say to a homosexual that you don't want to make upset...is that right Tom? That is also NOT biblical.
Do you tell them that they are pretty good people but they just need a little help from the "big man upstairs" to make that last little step? FALSE and stupid theology!
There is a guy named Paul who said he wouldn't have known sin except from the law. Do you know what the law is Tom?
There is another man named Jesus that inspired someone to write these words; "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul."
There's that "law" word again Tom. Don't you just hate that? It can really mess up your "a great person you just need a little help" evangelism method can't it bro.?
Want more? I got plenty cause the bible is full of it.
The law shuts up the mouth of sinners and keeps them from justifying themselves.
Do you hear Gran doing that Tom? Did you even read what she said salvation was Tom?
Either you didn't read it or your thought on biblical salvation is just as messed up as hers is.
Gran is a liar, thief, and an adulterer...just like me and listen to this...just like YOU Tom.
She, like every other sinner, will never find a place of true repentance and Godly sorrow until she sees herself in NEED of a savior. The kind of savior that doesn't need help from our filthy rags and ritualistic works. The one that can only be found in the work of Christ.
So you can muddy the waters with your "I'm okay, You're okay" evangelism if you want to. The bible says there will be those that try to do that.
As for me, I'll stick to biblical evangelism.
I would apologize to Wade for going off on you and your criticism of biblical evangelism, but I'm thinking he agrees with me.
SL1M
p.s. No time to reply further. I need to write a paper. It's titled "Idiots that try to convince people to accept a cure when they don't even think they have a disease."
Dear Tom,
Please don't worry about me.
I'm not upset for me. I am concerned that somehow, I might have caused or worsened the upset of another.
You are one of His children. It is said that 'blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of God.' You, also, are a kind man, I think. Shalom.
L's Gran
Tom, it should if the Holy Spirit is involved. He will show the utter worthlessness of our own "righteousness", and the surpassing excellency of the holiness of Christ who redeems sinners and cleanses His people from their sins.
ESV below:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.
Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
For the life of me, I do not understand your comment. If there is nothing to be saved from, why we do we need to tell people about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Evangelism isn't "Try Jesus" but "Repent, or perish" (Luke 13:1-5). True compassion and mercy in evangelism is telling people the truth about sin, righteousness, and redemption. I'm not saying we're all out to offend people (the Gospel message does offend many). But what I am saying is, tell the truth, and let the Holy Spirit work, because without Him our words and methods and programs are useless, no matter how sweet or convincing. To God alone be the glory.
Byron - You said what I said in a much more peaceful, biblical way. Thank you.
Of course you weren't the one he insulted. :)
Actually, I should have just asked him to read the bible at look at EVERY evangelistic opportunity Jesus had. He will see how to evangelize.
Jesus is actually the One Tom insulted.
SL1M
"Jesus is actually the One Tom insulted."
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SL1M
Slim:
I find your comments to me beyond humorous in that you are trying to bully me. i don't bully very easily. Your approach to evangelize Gran just stink!! Your trying to look into her heart and that is not your job. That's all I am trying to say. Your approach drives people away.
Tom, you said, "Your approach drives people away."
Here is hoping it works on you.
SL1M
p.s. You have a bigger problem than being bullied by me now. It seems you have given Gran a sense of comfort in her sin. God help you.
Or not.
slim:
I am really worried now.
slim:
You're still trying to bully me, it aint working.
SL1M: good point.
Tom: I honestly do not believe either of us are attempting to look into L'Gran's heart or bully you. Of course, I realize I am interjecting into this conversation, and your words were not directed to me. But I do have a question. Does your desire to not offend outweigh your willingness to tell the truth of the Gospel about sin and righteousness?
If so, then I am very thankful to not be responsible for the souls under your evangelism, sir. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, and not because I somehow value rudeness over true love and compassion. Where the light of the Gospel shines the true believer shows repentance and Godly sorrow in turning away from sin, not bucking up in rebellion and stubbornness as if nothing is wrong. That surely can't be a correct response!
WOW! I’ve been on another post, and when I checked back here, I thought all would be peaceful. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
L’s Gran, I enjoyed your grandmother saying, “Jesus”. One word tells it all. In keeping with your story, I’ll try changing the present tone with several true stories I’ve copy-pasted from ‘Truth of Acts”:
1. I lived to swim four miles across the Sea of Galilee at age 65 by yielding to my twin brother’s plea when we were 14. I was trying to swim farther than I could and would have drowned had my brother stayed on the bank. I wouldn’t listen to him but he wouldn’t stop following me. Being a poor swimmer, his constant call of, “Come back!” grew fainter and further behind. Finally, my anger turned to fear he would drown and I went back.
That’s how man gains his life when he swallows his pride and turns to Jesus. It can happen at any time, any place, in a teardrop. The devil’s lie is you will go to heaven by keeping rules and being good.
2. I was a boy on the bank of Red River watching my father fight the current for quite a while without any progress. My admiration of him being a better swimmer than me turned to fear when he called for help. His next call was a plea as it looked like I was running away, but I was going to where the current would take me to him. He was exhausted and kept his hand on my shoulder. Alarmed I was swimming the wrong direction, he yelled, “Go to the bank!”
(It was 50 feet upstream.) I yelled, “I am!” and went 200 feet to the bank downstream.
While lying on the bank he said, “I wouldn’t have made it without you.” Will we lead any of God’s lost sheep?
3. The devil says wait till a better time. After a softball game I told a player, “How do you run so fast? I wish I was in your shape.”
He laughed while showing a scar from a heart operation, “I take it one day at a time.”
I wonder if Christ had wanted me to say, “Yes there’s no promise of tomorrow. Do you know Jesus?” Instead, I said, “I’ll see ya.”
Ten minutes later he was dead. His last words were, “I’m dizzy”, and he left this world not knowing his life was over.
4. Some know their last words. The blood zigzagged across the sand from a dying soldier in the arms of a chaplain. “Yesterday, I thought I would be killed, and I asked Jesus to save me. He came into my heart and I was so happy I though I’d live forever. I don’t know why I was hit, but tell my mother I’ll meet her in heaven.”
The mother wrote the chaplain, “You’ll never know what your letter meant to us, knowing our son trusted Jesus.”
5. My grandfather had a thousand acre ranch. The Holy Spirit convicted him of cheating a boy in a trade. He got off his horse and knelt in a ditch asking Jesus to forgive and save him. Years later, a doctor said, “Blood poison. You’ll not be with us in the morning.”
He told my grandmother, “Now, you can make our six sons preachers, and I said I’d never die in bed.” So he put his boots on and sat in a chair waiting for a sunrise that would never come.
My grandmother called him Papa, and was a widow for 39 years. One became a missionary to China and my father was a chaplain. From a coma, she sat up in bed with her face bright as a child’s. She slipped into heaven saying “It’s so beautifully! I see Papa.”
Your faith in Jesus determined your destiny.
6. At 93, my dad was confused. He said, “That’s a nice belt you have on. If you give it to me I could get out of this horse trough.”
“No Daddy. You’re in a hospital bed.”
Dad’s tears changed to a big smile as he had my belt in his hands after I heard his last words to me, “I’ve done a lot for you.”
Do we realize what Jesus did for us? Dad’s favorite song was “I want to go where you go.” During his last days, every time he saw Mama, he said, “Elizabeth, where have you been?”
Eleven years later, she followed with a sweet smile on her lips. I know she heard, “Elizabeth, where have you been?”
Tom Parker:
I apologize. I lost my temper a bit in my response. I should not have done that.
I do not understand your reluctance to directly face sin and its consequences. It is only in this context that the Gospel makes any sense. Christ Himself made the woman at the well very uncomfortable, because He dealt directly with her sin and then the revelation of He is.
Rex Ray: Those are good stories. But Ephesians tells us we are dead in trespasses and sins, not merely sick, or drowning and in need of rescue. Dead means dead, so life can truly mean life.
Dear Rex Ray,
I enjoyed reading the excerpts from your book. I particularly liked the last entry. Thank you for sharing these with me.
Can you tell me if Southern Baptists still pray the Lord's Prayer? My grandmother taught it to me as a child. I just wondered.
Peace,
L's Gran
Tom - You mocking me is hitting deaf ears for I have driven you away with my evangelism...remember?
However, your deafening silence to Byron's pointing out of your unbiblical view of sin and salvation speaks volumns.
He is all yours Byron. :)
Sorry about that bro.
SL1M
Are Byron and Slim brothers?
Or the same person?
Dissociative Identity Disorder, perhaps?
To Anonymous1 and Anonymous2 (or to Anonymous1 twice. How can I tell?)
SL1M and I are entirely two different people. The bloghost administrator can verify two different IP addresses for us, I'm sure. We're simply two people speaking on the same subject, and that's all.
Tom Parker: I have said all that I can think of to say on this issue. I have twice stated my perspective and given my reasons. I will make one final attempt by summarizing my position to the best of my ability. The seriousness of sin transcends both culture and etiquette, but the redemption of Christ purchases the grace and mercy of God in full on undeserving sinners. There is a lot more that could be said, but the Bible says it better anyway, as SL1M pointed out.
Someone's been reading 'Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God' by Jonathan Edwards
Yes, grim stuff: lot of sin and anger. Very grim. Very.
I have not read that wonderful sermon in a long time. I'll have to go back and reread it now. Thanks for bringing it up!
In fact, I would recommend "Mourn, God may hate you" to everyone who reads this. This is not a tract for the fainthearted, but it is not gleeful in condemnation either. The purpose is not to condemn, but to warn with evangelistic hope.
Mourn God May Hate You
Try to stay out of the book of Jeremiah, or you will probably overdose on 'grim'.
Salvation = Jesus
God = Love
God did not give Jeremiah a choice (20:7) about being grim. Personally, I would much rather have listened to Hananiah than Jeremiah in chapter 28. Sometimes the truth is grim.
For God so loved the world . . . .
Jesus wept.
So what's your point?
Anonymous, that about sums up most everyone's idea of evangelism these days. Throw the words God, love, and world into the pot, mix, and serve for as many as possible. If it's not too much trouble, would you please quote the entire verse next time, and the next several verses after, particularly 18 through 21?
Byroniac:
Pray the Lord's Prayer, as taught by Jesus.
Sing the 23rd Psalm.
And then, come back with your small god who hates mankind.
Are you blind to God's Love?
L's Gran,
You asked me which way I converted. I was raised Southern Baptist, but only about 10 years ago, reconciled myself to the Catholic Church. Main reason that I converted is that the Catholic view of God is a better fit for the one I developed on my own. (Seems more merciful).
Yes, Baptists use the Lord's prayer. But more often the Matthew verison (Matt. 6:9-13). Catholics tend to use Luke's (Luke 11:2-4)
Dear Anna,
Thank you. I want to believe that more people will make it to Heaven than what some denominations teach. I also value that 'moral compass' or conscience that God implants in ALL humans. I see God as INFINITELY and ETERNALLY merciful. I see His great love for mankind in the Person of Jesus Christ. Thanks again.
P.S. I did wonder because the 'Lord's Prayer' begins with 'Our Father' .
A Baptist on this web told me it was wrong to speak of the Holy One in that way. Confused me because my Baptist grandmother had taught me that prayer.
Dear Anna, Dominus vobiscum. :)
L's Gran
Anonymous, believe it or not, I do not hate people or want them to go to hell.
I wish that the prayer had never gotten the name Lord's prayer, because it's not really for Him as He couldn't pray it for Himself, so it should be called the Model or Disciple's Prayer. The true Lord's prayer is found in John 17. And no man can pray that high priestly prayer.
I cannot see how praying that prayer and singing that Psalm will benefit either of us or further the conversation, so I'll decline, unless I just so happen to be in those locations in Scripture and decide to read them later.
Apparently, the God of the Bible is not all like the god of your imagination. The Bible shows God as both holy and just in His condemnation, as well as grace-filled and merciful in His salvation. If you would rather pursue a different concept of God than the truth, let me know how that works out for you. :)
Are you blind to the Gospel? (If you bothered to read anything on the website I linked to, and halfway understood it, you would not have asked your original question which does not deserve a response).
I realize I'm being short with you, but there are not too many ways to deal with ridiculous accusations and questions and still maintain the illusion that a meaningful conversation is taking place. It is not, and you are welcome both to your opinion and the last word.
Byron
People asked Jesus how to pray and He taught them.
You must be one of those Baptists who don't hold with what He taught.
I am curious as to why Tom Parker never responded to my comments, but I suppose I will never know.
Maybe Tom is somewhere saying the Lord's Prayer. I don't think he has given up on Christ yet like SOME people.
hehe - good luck with these guys Byron.
To: 'he he anonymous'
Yeah, these guys are running out of kool-aid to drink. Their message of hate and sin and evil is no match for the Light. They really need to 'lighten up'.
And I don't mean 'Christianity Light'. They need the heavy-duty reception of the Holy Spirit into their souls in order to drive Satan's influence over them out.
I don't understand of word of that.
But just so there is no confusion, I'm with Byron and his biblical view of God.
God is love is wonderously true, but people drown themselves in it and it causes them to miss the just as true fact that God is also holy and just!
God is holy , just, and
INFINITELY MERCIFUL.
Your teaching denies His mercy to anyone who does not agree with YOU. Say it ain't so.
"God is love is wonderously true, but people drown themselves in it"
YES. THAT'S THE IDEA
die to self and rise in Christ.
Anonymous (whichever one you are, since you don't sign your name or give any identifying signature), it amazes me that you think we have the power to deny God's mercy to anyone. All we can do is declare from God's Word what He has said about His own mercy and the people He "mercies" (I'm using that as a verb, because it is His prerogative). God is Love, and God is mercy, but He is also Holiness and Wrath. And if you do not seek the mercy of God in Christ in faith and repentance, you will find His holy wrath without hope or rescue outside of Christ. God owes no one salvation, but He freely gives it to all who believe.
In fact, you say God is infinitely merciful, but the Scriptural testimony is in Rom 9:15 ESV, "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" I believe this verse clearly teaches not only God's absolute freedom in showing mercy and compassion, but also that God has no obligation to extend either one to any person, and that by implication, there are those He will NOT extend mercy and compassion (e.g., unbelieving Israel at various times, and unbelieving Gentiles, such as King Herod). I do not know your exact theological position, but if you restrict the freedom of God, or impugn His character in any way, then obviously you are in error.
Also, if God were infinitely merciful, then Hell (and if you are Catholic, Purgatory as well) would not exist.
Byron - I think you are speaking to someone with a very weak and unbiblical view of God.
Be careful, these kind of people also like to quote out of context as you can see above with the half sentence they quoted from someone else.
They are consistent at least. They also pull verses from scripture out of context and throw them around like they understand them.
God is love! Who is gonna disagree with that? Is that where your intelligence ends? That's all you need to know and you don't want anyone else disturbing your life of love?
Do you know this is also the same God that killed every single baby at one point in the Old Testament unless a certain condition was met.
Do you understand that kind of love? Do you understand what was behind that action?
Or did you just skip that part because it's not very lovely and you just couldn't bare to read it?
I won't tell you where it is, just look it up. You need the experience.
Without even trying too hard, you will run into many other instances that will shock you.
Read your bible and stop commenting on blogs. Not one or two verses. Don't use a concordance and only read the verses that have the word love in them. Read the whole thing.
Your weak theology will become strong.
Maybe.
This is like talking to a first grade theology class.
Maybe I am? How old are you Mr. Love?
Pray to the Holy Spirit before you read ANY of the Scriptures or 'another kind of spirit' might make you see something the wrong way. Protect yourself from the Evil One.
I'm coming late to this ballgame, so all I will say is that this was an excellent post. As a former anti-feminist, I really appreciated your words, Wade. You are right on the money.
On Voddie,
The man and others like him may be "nice men." But many of their teachings promote idolatry, plain and simple. It's about Christ. Christ. Christ. It's not about whether your kids go to Sunday School or don't. It's about Christ. But that's juy 2 cents (one who was fully invested in their camp for eight years and has the scars to prove it).
Personally, I can't tell you how happy I am to be set free of the (well-intentioned-but-wrong) concept that I am under the authority of males. Why? Because I'm against authority itself. Far from it. I am simply against WRONGFUL authority. Having a uterus does not mean one is called of God to follow those who were born with testicles (it's all so silly when you think about it that way).
Gender does not define calling. The Holy Spirit defines our calling, not our organs or lack thereof.
I am so happy to be set free from the idea that I am supposed to obey the dictates and visions of mere human men, BECAUSE that means I am now free walk in submission to the authority of my God. If that means some people will call me a feminist, so be it. (Following God's never been all that popular, and they've used much worse slurs against His lambs in the past)...
Molly
Thank you for once again speaking the truth about what is really going on in the SBC.
And thank you for this heart-rending post! May all of us have that kind of courage when needed!
Wade,
Have you corresponded with Courtney at all? As someone who knows her (and is male) I can definitively put to rest any notion that she believes that all women should submit themselves to all me. She certainly would never submit herself to me (as a male friend). And she shouldn't. You are making a caricature of the complimentarian position. You are not acting according to your own blog title.
That being said, what is closer to her belief is that she should submit to the authority of her husband. Realize that CBMW is couched largely in relationships between husband and wife, pastor and congregation. Scripture shows Adam as holding authority over and responsibility for his wife. Paul also presents the case for wives to submit to husbands Eph 5:22-24, Col 3:18.
Wives are supposed to submit in all things, but husbands are also required to love wives and care for them (not beat or harm them). To draw loopholes (what if a husband beats his wife) is an abuse of the Scriptures. Both husband and wife are to serve the Lord and care for one another. The complimentarian view does not hold that the man is better or more viable than the woman, and those who act that way while claiming to be of the camp are skewing it. Generally, however, the skewing comes from the opposing egalitarian camp. Both partners are equally human, and equally substantial members of a marriage, but the husband has been given the spiritual role, due to his sex, of responsibility for the married unit (one flesh). He also has the responsibility to lead his wife in proper worship. This all comes straight out of Genesis and the Pauline Epistles.
To better encompass your own blog title, you should have contacted Courtney before libeling her on the blogosphere.
Post a Comment