Rick Warren has been used by God as a messenger of the good news to tens of thousands of people in need of a Savior. The work being done by Pastor Warren is, without question, a work bringing about the transformation of lives for the glory of God. Our church has been training a hundred leaders in preparation for the launch of Celebrate Recovery, a ministry to help people to find recovery from chemical and non-chemical addictions through Jesus Christ. This ministry was begun by Pastor Warren's church and is being used by churches and pastors nation wide. Rick has been a family friend since the days he was a seminary student at Southwestern Theological Seminary and attended Southcliff Baptist Church, a church pastored by my father from 1976 to 1982. Rick would sometimes lead Sunday night worship sitting on a stool playing his guitar, wearing jeans and sandals. Little has changed over the years. Most of the time when Rick speaks to his church (see picture) he does so in casual dress. His influence is so vast, many young pastors imitate his style, including dressing casual when they teach/preach on Sundays.Some, including John Piper (see picture below), will rarely speak to their congregation without a suit and tie. It's been my practice over the years to also always wear a suit and tie when I teach from the Word of God. I don't think my example (or Piper's) is necessarily one that other pastors should be required to imitate. Personally, I think there are many factors that come into play when it comes to the pastor/teacher's dress on Sundays including culture, climate, tradition, etc... There seems to be no hard and fast rule on the subject found in Scripture.
Why do I wear a suit and tie? Well, I never see a professional comedian (think Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, etc...) or a professional broadcaster (think Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, etc...) in the United States do their thing on television without a suit and tie. My personal feeling is that what I'm delivering is more important than either comedy or news, so I'm going to deliver it in an even better style than the the comedian or the broadcaster. BUT, (and this is a huge conjuction), in no form or fashion am I saying that someone else who does NOT wear a suit and tie is being unprofessional when they teach the gospel. I believe that Christians in churches should accept the decision of their pastor in this matter--even if the pastor's decision is different than your personal taste. Some of our members in the contemporary worship service (REFUGE) come very casual. Others in our two more traditional Sunday morning worship services come casual as well. I wear a suit and tie no matter which service I am speaking and trust that the people of Emmanuel accept my decision.But the reason for this post is the attitude I've noticed among some (not all) of the emergent, contemporary or younger pastors. There is a sense that if a pastor does not dress casual, he is communicating to the congregation that he is not "authentic," "approachable" and "transparent." It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule among some pastors that "casual dress equals Christian authenticity." I don't think the way a preacher/teacher dresses on Sunday morning necessarily communicates authenticity or transparency. It's the way he lives his life, not the way he dresses himself, that communicates these important character qualities.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
125 comments:
Totally!
...and someone needs to tell Ed Young, Jr. that the whole half-tucked sweater-vest thingy is SO 20-0x-ish. (we won't even talk about the color of them)...and Driscoll that seashell choker chains are umm...90's leftovers?
I am for black robes! No seriously. :)
Wow. I wish I knew more in the area of sociology, so I could better understand patterns in human behavior (which is what I believe this represents). I believe your post illustrates what can happen to not just religious groups of people but just about any people groups. Pockets of tradition and the meaning being communicated can become influential and produce long-standing traditions.
I can understand and sympathize with your own reasoning concerning preaching attire (though I am not a minister) while also understanding and sympathizing with the whole "casual dress communicates authenticity" idea as well. I believe what separates the two is the greater ecclesiastical context in which they occur. Personally, I prefer to see preachers wear a suit and tie due to my traditional upbringing (for the most part), but I just have not found that chapter and verse yet in the Bible, so I have to make allowances as well.
Years ago, while in seminary, I recall a visit from Pastor Warren to chapel. In the preaching class which followed, it was interesting to hear the prof's perspective about Warren making a point about refusing to wear socks in that setting. He wasn't impressed, despite the message. Makes one realize that contextualization can be important when engaging different "cultures," and the refusal to adapt to one's audience may be perceived as "arrogant."
Wade,
You said, “There is a sense that if a pastor does not dress casual, he is communicating to the congregation that he is not "authentic," "approachable" and "transparent." It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule among some pastors that "casual dress equals Christian authenticity."
Would you think conducting meetings while chewing gum, shirttail out, and tennis shoes; deacon’s meeting with feet on desk; and baptizing in a bathing suit would be going a little overboard especially if the congregation is required to stand to show reverence for all songs?
If you're preaching God honoring, Christ exalting messages; showing a passion for the lost; guarding your life and doctrine; encouraging the Saints; and showing a radical abandonment to self…then I could give a rip what you're wearing.
John Daly,
I think I know why you said, “I could give a rip what you’re wearing”, but I believe you’re missing the point that clothes speak louder than words sometimes.
What’s OK at the beach is not OK at a funeral because it doesn’t show respect. The same with play clothes and church clothes.
Our youth director preached once a month at our church. One of the more touching words at our old preacher’s funeral was when the youth director told of receiving the only two suits he owned from the old pastor.
Agreed Rex, common sense is needed in regards to the appropriate context. My comments pertain specifically to clothing and the pulpit. Not only is this not a deal breaker for me, it doesn't even register in my top ten (probably 20) reasons why I would stay or not stay at a local fellowship.
When does common sense enter into this argument? Why is it that the men who preach and lead the worship in the summer insist on wearing jackets and ties when the rest of the congregation are wearing their lighter weight summer clothes.
The result is that the air conditioning has to be kept so low to keep the people with their jackets and ties comfortable that the rest of us have to bring jackets to keep from freezing in the summer.
Perhaps we could add to the list of religious "dos and don'ts" that between Memorial day and Labor day no one is allowed to wear a jacket to church and therefore we can all be comfortable. ;)
Mona Loewen
The heart of the issue seems to be that some folks are not going to be happy unless others act the way they want them to. And how selfish and self-centered is that?
Like my dad said, pleasing everybody, pleases NOBODY.
I think maybe my point is being missed just a tad.
Rex, you asked me "how I would feel if a pastor conducted a deacons meeting chewing gum, shirttail out, and tennis shoes." Rev. pointed out what the professor said about Rick Warren when he went without socks to seminary class.
I am ambivolent on both.
The point of my post is that you DON'T make judgments about the pastor because of WHAT HE WEARS.
Either direction.
I don't think any of us know what Jesus would wear to one of our church meetings.
Wade,
I agree with you.
The Holy Spirit is moving.
:)
Certainly that is our only hope.
Rev.,
I agree with you 100%
What is the motive behind the way a preacher dresses? Or the motive behind the way that anyone dresses? We all send a message with our clothing and styles, the brands we choose and don't choose.
We should not judge others for the way that they dress because we know that the way we dress covers insecurities and projects a certain image. Not because it does not matter, but because deep down it does matter to our fallen insecurities.
Tim,
You wrote: We should not judge others for the way that they dress because we know that the way we dress covers insecurities and projects a certain image.
Umm, I think the second portion of your sentence contradicts the first.
Smiling.
Furthermore, the intentional refusal to dress toward cultural expectations for a certain occasion does communicate individuality and arrogance. It says that I am more important than the group, the cause or the occasion.
It reminds me of Lane Kiffin's brief address to the Tennessee media last night. Shirt untucked and no undershirt. It communicated what we knew about Kiffin all along. I am better than Tennessee Football, the state, the players, and the NCAA (by his actions over 14 months).
Re-reading, I think that my last comment could have been misunderstood, and I want to prevent misunderstanding.
I did not mean to imply that the movement of the Holy Spirit was peculiarly the only hope for Wade and myself (i.e., in light of our past disagreements). Rather, I meant to say that the movement of the Holy Spirit is the only hope for us all in attempting to live as Christians.
What's that TV show where the dude can tell if your lying or not? Tim you have a gift buddy, you can look at how someone is dressed and tell their likes/dislikes/what they're thinking/their goals in life/ and their favorite kind of ice cream :)
Pastor Wade,
Sorry, that is confusing.
What I intended to communicate, and stand by, is that people dress a certain way to project a certain image. That image may be to communicate the importance of the occasion, as you do (as well as I) when we wear a suit to Morning Worship. That image may be of a certain social class to fit in with. It may be a rejection of a certain social class. It may be with the intention of dressing like an "idol."
We do so to make up for our own insecurities. We project an image of the way we want others to see us, because it makes up for something we may lack.
We should not judge others by the way that they dress because we know that they are doing what we are doing - trying to project an image. They are projecting an image, as we are projecting an image.
Don't know if you agree with this, but please tell if it is still not clear :)
Thanks for these words, as always!
JOHN DALY wrote this:
“If you're preaching God honoring, Christ exalting messages; showing a passion for the lost; guarding your life and doctrine; encouraging the Saints; and showing a radical abandonment to self…then I could give a rip what you're wearing.”
I was impressed by the emphasis John has laid on the ‘message’, rather than on the physical condition of the messenger.
You know, when the Good Lord touches mouths to speak, He has favored a variety from among His creatures . Our souls can ‘magnify the Lord’ and our spirits can ‘rejoice in Him’, even though our stations in life are humble and lowly, maybe even because of our gift of humility before the Lord. There is a lesson given to us when Balaam’s donkey was given a voice to speak at the command of the Lord. The power to speak given to a donkey. Imagine that.
Do we worry about the clothing of the one behind the pulpit, the outward appearance? Does the five hundred dollar suit lend dignity to a person who has persecuted another ? Or the wearing of camouflage fatigues and the carrying of a weapon on a chapel stage lend strength and authority to the message of a leader whose ‘doctrines’ were used to cause harm to a professor with a sick husband ?
If people care about those who teach them of Christ, let them look deeper than the surface clothing, or the physical structure of the messengers.
Let them look instead upon the humility of the ones who would teach them. Has the messenger ‘put on Christ’ ?
And, in their message, do they point always towards the Holy One who came among us humbly, incarnated in our humanity, in order to save us from our sins ?
Be peaceful.
Love, L’s
John,
I wanted to respond that I know about others because I know myself.
And, I do think that it tells a little about another person. An easy example is when I see some dressed Gothic. They are angry, depressed and cynical. Not hard to figure.
I don't use this information to judge, but to read the person to see how I can get to know them and minister.
By the way, no lie, the word verification is:
"sucked"
A previous one was:
"exual" (no 's' at the beginning)
???
Tim,
Thanks! Much clearer!
Let me think through the image thing.
Truth is, for me, the way I dress is a comfort thing. I'm not saying image plays no part in it, but if someone said, "Wear this, it looks GREAT on you!" and I was not physically comfortable in it (too hot, too tight, too stiff, etc...) I wouldn't wear it, no matter the image it projects.
wade
A lighter note:
Wade writes about how authenticity is not communicated by appearances.
Ever so long ago, I'm thinking in the sixties, there was a comedy act called 'The Smothers Brothers'.
They celebrated this very same concept using slightly different language. Their duet song went like this:
'You see by my outfit, that I am a cowboy.
I see by your outfit that you're a cowboy, too.'
'We see by our outfits, that we are both cowboys . . .
IF YOU GET AN OUTFIT YOU CAN BE A COWBOY, TOO.'
So much for externals . . . :)
Bart,
I understood. Thanks, though, for the clarification.
Like I've told you before, were we to sit down and discuss doctrinal matters, you may be shocked at how much we agree. The major gap between our philosophies seems to be whether or not we should cooperate with people who disagree with us on tertiery matters.
"We should not judge others by the way that they dress because we know that they are doing what we are doing - trying to project an image. They are projecting an image, as we are projecting an image."
Or maybe they're just trying to cover their privates, Tim.
Believe me, I don't wear suits and ties because they are comfortable :)
If comfort is all that I considered, it would be jogging suits with a ball cap every day.
I am not asking for us to confess sin, just to look at ourselves and say that we communicate something by the way that we dress, consciously or subconsciously. That's all...no more, no less.
Darby, there are always leaves if image plays no part.
I understand.
Ironically, I'm just the opposite. Even on my days off, I will always wear a sports jacket. I wear a sports jacket with jeans.
For me, it is comfort. I am so much in the habit of using the inner pockets of a suit coat, I am uncomfortable without one on! Ties don't bother me either.
I guess I'm a weird duck.
:)
To all. Out of pocket till tomorrow. Multiple ministries the rest of the day including a new teaching series launched tonight called "The Freedom of New Covenant Living."
Blessings,
Wade
Rex
Quit tattling on your preacher!
LOL!
Jack
Wade,
The season of agreement was blessed while it lasted. :-)
I'm glad to have stuck around long enough for you to trot out an empty slogan.
Bart,
Are you saying calls for cooperating with other evangelical, Christ-honoring believers in mission and evangelism efforts ... "an empty slogan"?
Sheesh.
Should you come to the Northwest, you will notice a casualness in worship attire. Rarely have I worn a tie or coat. Some pastors do but the prevailing dress is casual among Montanans.
Ken in Montana
I am assuming some of you believe women can teach so what about what they wear? Lots of time is spent at say, SBTS, telling seminary wives how they should dress.
Would you all have the same opinions as I read here as in it does not matter?
Wade,
I agree. Although I dress casually most of the time when I preach, I don't think this means that I'm more "real" or "transparent" than someone who wears a suit. You can wear anything and still be a fake. :)
Blessings,
Jason
To Ken in Montana -
I am in Montana City (Helena area). Where are you? By the way, I wear a suit and tie on Sunday morning when in pulpit. Even the "casuals" are not offended or put off, and some actually appreciate it. Main thing about attire - don't let anything distract from the message. If I stood in the pulpit with shorts and T-shirt, many would think so much about it that they would not hear the Word.
Steve Young
JT:
Sadly people like Bart Barber have a very narrow view of cooperation and this sort of attitude is leading to the decline of the SBC.
But they do not get it.
Multiple ministries the rest of the day including a new teaching series launched tonight called "The Freedom of New Covenant Living.".
Grace and Truth to You > Showing posts with label "The New Covenant".
JT,
I'm saying that the slogan is empty because it is inaccurate. Just like me, Wade has people with whom he does not and will not cooperate. He voiced no dissent with an IMB policy banning missionaries who speak in tongues publicly, but opposed a policy banning missionaries who speak in tongues privately, for example.
This is not a difference of disposition (one cooperative and the other uncooperative). It is, rather, a difference of position (differing views on the content and priority of doctrines).
When Wade throws around empty slogans (like this one, or like the ever-popular "people who require everyone to agree with them on every last detail"), they are empty slogans not because it wouldn't be a terribly bad thing if anyone actually did require 100% agreement on everything in order to befriend or to cooperate, but rather they are empty slogans because they do not accurately describe anyone involved and are rather designed to cultivate sympathy for one's point of view and to demonize those whom one has chosen as opponents.
Joe,
That was the dumbest and most uninformed comment you have ever made.
K
Joe: I think that you are rushing to an ill-informed (or non-informed) conclusion. True, you qualified your comment with the introductory phrase "just in case," but then seemed to proceed full steam ahead on the supposition that Wade was going to be promoting the New Baptist Covenant movement and/or meetings. The New Covenant is not merely 21st-century Baptist nomenclature, it is a biblical doctrine which is affirmed every time you open your Bible and see that it is divided into Old Testament (or 'old covenant') and New Testament (or 'new covenant').
I encourage you as a brother in Christ not immediately to think the worst of fellow-Christians based on what appears to be a limited understanding of the meaning of a particular 2-word phrase.
Blessings to you and yours.
Louis,
Thank you for saying the obvious.
Joe, the intentional manner in which you systematically seek to distort the truth in order to promote your agenda should cause those who know you concern.
In His Grace,
Wade
Joe,
I agree that any abandonment of biblical doctrine should be cause for concern. I can assure you that the people who know and love me would be concerned, too, if that were to happen. Your statement that I have abandoned "biblical" doctrine is hollow, particularly since I teach and preach from on the Bible on a regular basis, and those who know me know that my emphasis is upon biblical doctrine and nothing else.
However, my concern for your intentional distortion of the truth comes from your comments that all of us are reading.
To all,
To type responses to people like Joe on my Blackberry is time consuming and unprofitable. There will be no more. I will be back in the office tomorrow.
wade
Dear JOE,
You know something, your reference to 'left-wing Christians' as compared to other Christians falls short.
It has been over two thousand years since ANY Christian has said, 'there are so many hungry who need to be fed and all we have are five loaves and two fishes'.
Joe, if there are ANY Christians who can work together to distribute those loaves and fishes, what is so wrong with that?
You can not separate those that have been baptized into one Body by one Spirit. The 'labels' don't work to divide the Body. None of them.
Be peaceful,
L's
Bart Barber:
I really do not believe Wade B is trying to demonize your position of being narrow. He is simply pointing our that your views are so narrow, few would meet your views to be in cooperation with you.
Sadly there are many others with your narrow views in the SBC and because so much power and control rests in these individuals the decline of the SBC continues.
Joe B.,
While your comment was obviously (at the time) uninformed, forgive me for calling it "dumb." I just heard Al Mohler (my hero remember) call Pat Robertson arrogant and ignorant, as to his theological prowess. It is very convicting to me when I hear one theologian bash another live on the air or in writing on a blog. I hope Wade will blog on the Robertson comment. I made the parallel on fb to Piper's tornado comment. No one seemed to agree with me.
What's new.
K
Tom Parker:
I'm in cooperation with tens of thousands of people, and happily so.
The problem with the empty slogan, to be explicit, is that I here declare publicly and openly (again) that I never have and never intend to cease cooperation with anybody over any tertiary issue.
The debate has centered precisely around the question of which issues are, in fact, tertiary. It is for its refusal to acknowledge this fact that the slogan is nothing more than an empty slogan.
Church. Life. Missions. Gotta go. Thanks for the discussion, folks.
And Wade, to return to the original topic, let me say again that I agree with you. My apologies for contributing to thread drift.
"The debate has centered precisely around the question of which issues are, in fact, tertiary."
Such as wearing a tie when you preach. :o)
Everything else is primary such as closed communion, SBC only Baptism for membership, no ppl, women teaching the Word to mixed groups...ad nauseum.
The problem with saying "we'll cooperate despite differences in tertiary issues" is, as Lydia pointed out, that nobody can agree on what is tertiary, secondary or primary. Even among Baptists. Put a Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and Catholic in one room and you'll have even more trouble.
But look at this in light of the tie/no-tie groups that Wade's post discussed. We can (I think) all agree that you are no more or less holy for wearing a tie in the pulpit (or a nice dress) or your hawaiian t-shirt (or more casual woman's clothing). Does it make one more holy, then, to believe in a certain way about woman preachers or ppl's? One's holiness isn't based on what one believes and what one believes isn't proof of holiness, reverence, or even salvation.
Should not our question, then, be not "Is the doctrine tertiary?" but "Can it be defended from scripture?" And if we can gather around the Bible, then that should be enough to warrent cooperation.
When you live where it gets 110 degrees in the summertime, you get used to preachers dressing casually. ;-)
Rex,
About your comment about baptizing in a bathing suit:
It can be VERY appropriate, particularly if the baptism is in a swimming pool or hot tub! :-)
One December evening, the church plant I was going to had a baptism in the (outdoor) hot tub at a staff member's apartment complex. One of the ones who got baptized, after his baptism, got out of the hot tub and promptly jumped into the unheated swimming pool next to the hot tub! (And yes, the preacher did wear a bathing suit during that baptism. We couldn't get him to jump into the pool like the guy he baptized did, though.)
I do have an opinion on one aspect of dressing. The churches that teach women have to wear dresses if doing any kind of service in the church, or worse, have to wear dresses all the time - BARF!!!
Don't get me wrong - I have several dresses in my closet and I do wear dresses to church (sometimes.)
I do not see, however, any biblical justification for saying that dresses are more biblical than pants. The ones who teach this say that women aren't to wear what pertaineth to men, and vice versa, which is in the Bible; however, women's pants are not men's pants, and they are as much women's clothing as dresses are.
I read one essay someone wrote, saying that if we are to use that verse to say women can only wear dresses, then men can only wear robes, since men didn't wear pants in Bible times, either. :-)
Suzanne's Bookshelf [Suzanne McCarthy] > Women wearing pants: Index.
Men dictate that you have to dress a certain way.
God dictates that you have your heart a certain way.
Last I checked, your clothes don't dictate your heart...unless you're a pharisee.
You have two generations that are more concerned about who you are rather than what you wear.
Glad to see that most churches are missing the boat yet again.
OFF TOPIC:
In the face of the revelation that some Christians are saying that the Haitian people deserved this earthquake as a punishment,
I am going to assume, in faith, that the many good people who read Wade's blog are not among them,
so I am going to ask if you will join me in vigil prayer for those who are in pain and for those who will die tonight. God bless and keep you in peace. Love, L's
Christiane,
Maybe, just maybe, the ones that believe the Haitian people deserve punishment need the most prayer.
I know which ones would say ‘Thank you.”
On the Off Topic:
No one has said this is the people's fault. Psalms 94:20-21
My thoughts and prays are as well with the men, women and children trapped, stranded, suffering, lonely, hungry, naked, bleeding, and dying. May the Lord give incomprehensible mercy to the suffering and dying. May believers on the ground be able to give a cup of cold water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ this night.
K
Jack Maddox,
Hey! I found it…the funniest comment to date on Wade’s blog in my opinion:
Jack Maddox said...
Rex
You’re freaking me out dude! I tell you what…you win! Congratulations! I admit it. Your right and I am wrong. Jim Richards is a diabolical dictator. The SBTC is a branch of the illuminati. The CR was all about power, prestige and rock and roll. Good for you Rex. You nailed me. I will call Judge Pressler tomorrow and turn in my official fundie thought control card. Since I have fessed up and conceded your theological and ethical superiority there is really no need for you to keep records of my quotes and conversations any longer. You can take down my picture from the wall, throw away the pin filled voodoo doll, and tell the guy in the red sedan to stop tailing me. There is also no longer any reason for me to go back and forth with you any longer…
Sorry rex, but I am breaking up with you. That’s right…no more talkie talkie.
jrm
06 December, 2007 01:15
THERE! That will teach you to catch me tattling on my pastor! :)
Hi REX,
I know. It is a sad day.
Sometimes people just aren't able to understand. But, if other people care about them, and pray for them, in time, they will see.
Thank you for not condemning those Christians, Rex. You are very right about this, that they need our help now, too.
There is a verse somewhere in the book of Romans, I think, that says it is good for us to 'weep with those who weep'.
Tonight I learn my niece is being deployed aboard the hospital ship 'Comfort'. Good angels will soon arrive where they are needed to help ease the suffering.
Hi KEVIN,
Regarding 'blaming the victims', you should see the latest in the news. Hint: A high-profile Christian leader is involved. He mentions 'a pact with Satan'.
It is very, very sad to watch him speak. Strangely, his organization is going ahead with sending aid, in spite of his statements. Thank God for that.
L's,
I broke this story earlier today on facebook. I am not of the opinion that Pat Robertson's comments were at all how the media is making it out to be. He was making a simple point, wrapped in love, grace, and the hope of the Gospel for the people of Haiti, especially the victims--having already sent Operation Blessing Disaster Relief crews, equipment and funds to the ravaged Island. In fact, OB was one of the first to respond.
The media have this one wrong. I am a loner on this I know. Save maybe his timing, his statement on the 700 Club was spot on to me.
K
I wear a suit and tie to preach for one very important moral reason.
I sweat so much when I preach that I wear a coat so the sweat stains won't show.
Rex
I say this with all due respect a brother in Christ who has a few years on me...
YOUR FREAKING ME OUT BRUTHA!!!!!!!!!
The quote is from over 2 YEARS OLD!
You have to let go Rex...it is getting creepy
'smiles'
Jack
Jack,
Hey! On Judgment Day, there’ll be quotes thousands of years old. :)
You’re fun whether you like it or not. :)
Elisabeth,
Now baptizing outside, I can see why you wouldn’t want people dripping water all over the house in wet clothes.
In case some of you ever baptize in a fast river, here’s an experience.
While young, my father baptized 17 in Red River leaving him exhausted. Afterwards, an old deacon told him, “Most preachers put a person under the water upstream and bring them up with the current.”
Maybe that wisdom and with the following story should be taught before cooking classes in our seminaries. NEVER LET GO OF THE BAPTIZEE.
The FBC of Fairbanks, Alaska had a glorious revival. One lady of the ‘night’ was saved and was so thrilled she invited her friends to see her baptized.
The pastor was very proper; straight laced and dignified…avoided all appearances of evil. (Wore a suit - see on topic.)
He talked so long and the lady never having seen a baptism finally baptized herself. She slipped and not having an ounce of fat, sank like a rock.
She didn’t come up. And he couldn’t find her.
He was going in circles; plunging his head under and reaching. The congregation worried she might drown.
While his back was turned, a beautiful bare leg came out of the water like a periscope, knee bent over the glass with toes hooked behind a choir seat.
When he turned, that’s what he saw. He rushed to her and with his hands around the leg but not touching, he froze.
That’s when the congregation’s fear turned to restrained laughter as they knew what he was thinking. (How could he TOUCH her, and how could he retrieve her upside down wearing a dress?)
He went back plunging underwater and finally drug her off the glass.
An associate with a strained voice quickly led in prayer. He rushed off the stage and went outside.
My brother had sore ribs the next day from his wife’s elbow.
Wonder if the IMB would accept her baptism for being a missionary?
Kevin Crowder,
Regardless of the context of Robertson's statements, it is irresponsible for a Christian to point to a specific catastrophe and say that it was God's punishment for something. Jesus made this clear when baited by others in Luke 13:1-5. The victims were no "worse" than anyone else, but we all face the same fate whether by natural causes or disaster. Therefore, get your life right with God. That is Jesus' logic in response to disaster and should without question be the Christian response on every single occasion. This includes 9/11, New Orleans, Indonesia and Haiti.
Robertson's comments were irresponsible, insensitive and ignorant (could be our three point sermon for Sunday.)
Tim
K:
You said:"I broke this story earlier today on facebook. I am not of the opinion that Pat Robertson's comments were at all how the media is making it out to be. He was making a simple point, wrapped in love, grace, and the hope of the Gospel for the people of Haiti, especially the victims--having already sent Operation Blessing Disaster Relief crews, equipment and funds to the ravaged Island. In fact, OB was one of the first to respond.
The media have this one wrong. I am a loner on this I know. Save maybe his timing, his statement on the 700 Club was spot on to me.
K"
You scare me more with your views everytime you post them!
" Jesus made this clear when baited by others in Luke 13:1-5. "
Exactly. And how is what Robertson said any different really from what Piper said about the bridge collapse.
Babies get cancer and die. What did that baby do to deserve cancer? Tornado's kill people. Earthquakes kill people.
We live in a fallen world and it rains on the just and unjust alike. These tragedies are to make us long for our Savior when every tear will be wiped away.
Proud of you, JOE.
"‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. "
St. Matthew 5:9
Back on topic:
I spent too much time hanging around with Mennonite friends, I guess.
From them I learned the principles that I need to dress modestly and befitting a Christian woman ALL THE TIME.
Modest, however, carries two meanings. One meaning is the usual one--covering enough and in such a manner as to not arouse lust. So I do wear slacks and jeans, but they are not skin tight and revealing.
The other meaning of modest is often lost on us American Christians. It means "not ostentatiously". Uh oh. So much for "dressing up" for church. In reality that is more a bid to show our class or status than "to honor the Lord." After all, He sees us all the time AND we represent Him all the time. So if we dress up for church, guess we better dress up all the time.
But wait--Scripture forbids us to treat those wearing fine clothing as better than those in rags. Yet we do it--our parson's black suit is nothing more than "hidden" clerical robes, saying this person is "special."
So my husband and I wear to church what we wear everywhere--simple, hopefully tasteful modest clothing. The more stained and certainly torn clothing is for harder labor at home, such as gardening, so in that sense only we "dress up" for church.
And I wonder how many missionaries could be funded, or hungry fed, or lost reached if we all refused to dress for status and just dressed "modestly", with the $$ difference put to the Lord's work?
Getting back to Wade's post, I thought Rev made an excellent point about contextualization. When Driscoll preached at the Christal Cathedral he wore a suit and tie. One thing I've found ministering in the SW is that most people don't care what the pastor wears that is as long as he wears something...
oops...that is Crystal Cathedral...
"We have no idea, beyond the scientific explanations, as to the "Why's" regarding that earthquake."
Really?
Isa 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no one else; there is no God besides Me. I will gird and arm you, though you have not known Me,
Isa 45:6 That men may know from the east and the rising of the sun and from the west and the setting of the sun that there is no God besides Me. I am the Lord, and no one else [is He].
Isa 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.
I think it speaks directly to the sovereignty of God. And it isn't something we shouldn't be able as Christians to share and give an account for. After all, He has warned us.
Mar 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines and calamities. This is but the beginning of the intolerable anguish and suffering [only the first of the birth pangs].
All this seems to be happening in direct accordance with His Will as revealed in the WORD.
Now more than ever, we should be ready to show mercy and goodness and extend a hand to them. Practice it there so we can better perform it here as it comes....
God did, can and will do whatsoever he pleases with his creation.
Ezekial,
Really?!?! This is proof that Jesus is coming back. Here's the rub: there have been and will always be wars and rumors of wars. There have been and will always be earthquakes. There have been and always will be anguish and suffering. Always until such a time as Jesus actually does return.
Jesus is, let's admit, so impossibly vague with those predictions that they could have applied to His time, the years before He was born, and every year since He was born. Jesus' point was not that "these things suddenly happening will show you I'm about to come." It can't be because these are perennial issues. Rather, that we should see them and be reminded to live in such a way that He could come and we would not be ashamed.
These are reminders of His always imminance, not signs that He is suddenly on the way.
Dispensationalsim dispensed.
Ezekiel,
Even if God still sends earthquakes to punish peoples for specific sins, the difference today is that we do not have a prophet who has heard from the Lord that God sent the earthquake to Haiti to punish for that specific sin. God did not tell that to Pat Robertson. Robertson is even trying to do damage control. That is the difference between catastrophes of the Bible and today. In the Bible we have the prophetic witness of scripture to confirm that the tragedy was from the Lord.
Too, Mark 13 deals with the precursor to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which happened in 70 AD. Context is key!
Verification: hotchead
Is the greatest attribute (and sovereign attribute) of God that he is in control or that he loves?
I think that how you answer that question says a lot about your theology.
1 John 4:7-10
Joe,
I just gasped when I saw that we are on same page!
Blessings!
"I totally understand that God is in conttol and He either directly caused the earth quake or in His providence allowed it to happen because it was in His plan and purposes."
I can agree with this: "in His providence allowed it to happen"
God, the Source of All Good, cannot do evil. He may permit evil to exist, but He Himself cannot, by His Nature, be evil.
He CAN and DOES bring good out of evil that has been allowed to occur. This is a great mystery of our faith.
Joe,
I don't have to ask my mother for permission to get on the computer, though from time to time you should ask God's permission before you hit "publish."
And as a former dispensationalist who has heard every argument for it and can now make much better arguments against it (really, I've had people pull out the "here's 100 reasons..." lists and I've gone one by one and debunked each one), I have no problem saying that dispensationalism should and can be dispensed with. It's not arrogance. It's studied assurance.
Chris Ryan,
You might want to re-read my comment. I think I was addressing the "why" not the "when".
As to the when though, I agree with you, we don't know when but we are told repeatedly to be ready.
I have Matt 24:36-51 in my bible too.
Chris Ryan,
Dispensationalist???
Mind if I ask what in my comment poked your dispy button?
I think I have argued pretty strongly against that in the past and if memory serves me it was even a point that we agreed on then.
I haven't changed my mind so help a brother out. What did I say that advocated a dispy point of view?
Ezekial,
I guess I'm just used to hearing Mark 13:8 quoted and followed by "All this seems to be happening in direct accordance with His Will as revealed in the WORD," entirely differently than how you apparently intended it. As I read it again, I still could see why I thought you meant timing (even in the context of the comment), but I can see how you could have meant what you did, also.
Ezekial,
Anytime somebody starts quoting the Bible and applying the apocalyptic texts as specifically fulfilled in contemporary events, which is what it seemed to me you were doing, I immediately go back to my old dispy days. That was a tactic frequently employed then, but that I have never heard any non-dispensationalist use seriously.
I don't recall us having that conversation in the past, but we well may have.
Joe,
There is nothing inherently evil about being blind or deaf. Less than desireable, yes, but not evil. Would you like to try another proof-text?
I agree with Joe. Robertson is a fruitcake. And he did directly relate some alleged pact that some slave made with the devil in order to free the Haitian people of years and years of oppression from the Spanish and French who invaded their country and enslaved them to the earthquake. Robertson said they have been cursed ever since some Haitian slave made a pact with the devil 200 years ago.
Really? That is crazy. Eze 18:20 says that the the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers and vice versa. It also says that the righteousness of the righteous will be upon them and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon them.
The tower of Siloam, brought up by Lydia (or was it Tom?) is also another GREAT example.
So, even if some slave made a pact with the devil, it didn't put a curse on the nation for hundreds of years...according to the Bible.
And if Robertson would bother to do his homework, then he would have found out that there is absolutely no proof for this assertion that there was a pact with the devil.
It is the same as when Katrina hit and he said God was punishing America for aborting babies.
Really? Maybe God was punishing America because so many of its leaders are perverts and molesting children in their churches or stealing from their congregations? Or maybe God was punishing America because of so many Christian men who are into internet porn and on Sunday morning deliver a message condemning others as sinners for going to Hollywood movies at the theater or drinking a beer once in a while. Or maybe God was punishing America because its churches are filled with greedy, materialistic people?
Why is it that God never punishes people for His people's little secret pet sins? Why is it that God only punishes people for homosexuality, pacts with the devil and heathens who abort their babies?
Tim,
I am not approaching the calamity either there or here (Katrina) from a punishment point of view but a sovereignty of God view.
Have you ever read Arthur Pink and the doctrine of election? I am about 3/4 through and it appears that much has been done to muddy or emasculate this doctrine. Much of it by arrogant self proclaimed "elect". The overwhelming picture that I am getting though is the total sovereignty of God. Beyond the choosing and electing but the point of he created vessels for honor/dishonor, mercy/wrath. Two seeds.
Christiane,
"God, the Source of All Good, cannot do evil. He may permit evil to exist, but He Himself cannot, by His Nature, be evil.
He CAN and DOES bring good out of evil that has been allowed to occur. This is a great mystery of our faith."
You must have missed my quote of Isa 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no one else; there is no God besides Me. I will gird and arm you, though you have not known Me,
Isa 45:6 That men may know from the east and the rising of the sun and from the west and the setting of the sun that there is no God besides Me. I am the Lord, and no one else [is He].
Isa 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.
Take a look at Arthur Pink
here
We could get into a good dust up about creating evil but for now, it is clear that he creates physical evil/calamity and has from at least the first flood or Job.
I can probably go with you on your statement if you want to qualify it by saying "spiritual" evil but then did or did he not create both of the two seeds? To much to get into today but thatnks for your comment.
Chris Ryan,
As I remember it, we agreed that the rapture is a part of dispy doctrine that neither of us support.
Maybe I am wrong. Don't worry bout misreading me, I don't communicate as clearly as I would like sometimes. Don't hold it against me.
"What I intended to communicate, and stand by, is that people dress a certain way to project a certain image. That image may be to communicate the importance of the occasion, as you do (as well as I) when we wear a suit to Morning Worship. That image may be of a certain social class to fit in with."
Americans sometimes miss that many Christians around the world just dress in what they can afford. Period.
RECOVERY OF SIGNT TO THE BLIND
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
Luke 4:16-21
Back to topic.
"‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,* or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?* 28And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” 32For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But strive first for the kingdom of God* and his* righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. "
from the Gospel of St. Matthew
"Modest, however, carries two meanings. One meaning is the usual one--covering enough and in such a manner as to not arouse lust. So I do wear slacks and jeans, but they are not skin tight and revealing.
The other meaning of modest is often lost on us American Christians. It means "not ostentatiously". Uh oh. So much for "dressing up" for church. In reality that is more a bid to show our class or status than "to honor the Lord." After all, He sees us all the time AND we represent Him all the time. So if we dress up for church, guess we better dress up all the time."
Linda,
Excellent.
And the second meaning is not even touched in the "modesty" sermons. In fact, the passage that talks about women being modest is directly speaking of standing out because of ostentatiousness. It is not (directly) speaking of scantily clad women who are coming to church in sleazy clothing. It speaks of women who were drawing attention to themselves because of their costly garments, lots of expensive jewelry and broided hair that took a lot of time and money to make that way. Those were the examples Paul gave of what he was talking about when he said "modest".
But, now the examples we are given in our modern churches are all about "too short" and "too tight" and "too revealing" all the while there are women all around dressing ostentatiously, violating the very principle Paul was specifically addressing.
We can be "modest" in the modern sense and still be immodest because we are dressing in such a way to draw the attention to our own selves and our own status.
Tom Parker,
It pleases me that I scare you.
To the rest, specifically L's,
All I did in my comments was to say that Robertson, while maybe ill-timed, is not wrong that this clearly could be a punishment from God for a nation turned against him. Umm...the Bible is replete with His doing this so it should not shock believers that He would do it today. Many times God has enacted justice on the grandchildren for the sins of the fathers.
If we cannot see God in His judgment then we cannot see Him in His mercy. To blame the earthquake on simple tectonics is to say that God is not in control. The winds and seas obey Him, and so do the pressures of the earth.
Be that all as it may though, I have not attempted to debate or argue this point with any of you. Nor will I. So there is no argument for Joe to break up.
I am defending our brother in Christ Pat Robertson who is being crucified by Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Rick Warren and others. I do not like their name calling and vitriol spewed towards him.
And so that is my only beef. These men did not speak up when John Piper said the same things about the Minnesota Bridge or the Lutheran Tornado. My claim has been from the beginning that they will give a pass to a 6 pointer, but not a -5 pointer.
It is hypocrisy. I love all the brothers I have mentioned.
God used Solomon to build His Temple--look at his life. God has used Pat Robertson to build many great ministries. A few comments which amount to little more than the misspelling of the word potaotoe have been aggrandized and used as power plays by many who use CP funds to digitally update us every time they wipe their butt.
K
K:
You said to me:
"Tom Parker,
It pleases me that I scare you."
What a funny comment. There is just something about not being teachable and spouting off about things you know little to nothing about that truly scare me.
You're not going to learn all these practical items in Seminary either.
"All I did in my comments was to say that Robertson, while maybe ill-timed, is not wrong that this clearly could be a punishment from God for a nation turned against him. Umm...the Bible is replete with His doing this so it should not shock believers that He would do it today. Many times God has enacted justice on the grandchildren for the sins of the fathers."
Kevin, please read the comments above. Not just mine, but all. We have no prophetic witness to confirm that this is a punishment from God. It is therefore wrong to say something like this.
Too, the arguments above also indicate that we agree that God created a universe in which such things do occur as part of the way creation works. It just so happens that the way creation works can be deadly for human beings. That is what Jesus was saying in Luke 13:1-5.
In light of that I think that it is wrong to look and say that God worked a certain way in certain passages of scripture and say that this is what happened in Haiti. There were many more tragedies in Biblical times, but only the ones that made it into scripture are the ones that I can verify as God's judgment. Without the prophetic witness testifying in God's written word, the words of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 are the trump card for the aces of prooftexting.
The conclusion of the NT (as well as Ecclesiastes) - we will all die. Whether in our 90's as a millionare or a pauper in a tragedy, we will meet the same fate. Therefore, we must get our lives right with God.
I do agree that Piper gets some free passes. That is hypocritical to call out Robertson and not Piper.
Ezekial,
As one who frequently has trouble communicating clearly, there is nothing to hold against you at all.
Joe,
See, proof-texting doesn't communicate all that.
I kinda like this response to Pat Robertson's Haiti comments:
Donald Miller
Tim,
It is not necesary for you to try to convince me. Bu thank you for trying. I agreed with Piper in both cases, and quite frankly I agree with Robertson. That does not mean I am cruel, selfish, or tactless or uncaring. I do care. I am glad to see the Christians of the world uniting to bring hope in Jesus name. But it is not harmful to at the same time deal with reality--as if we must all stop what we are doing and sit still till this is over.
I disagree with you. That is ok.
You can love me, or you can be an [explative] like Tom Parker.
K
K:
You said:" I agreed with Piper in both cases, and quite frankly I agree with Robertson. That does not mean I am cruel, selfish, or tactless or uncaring. I do care. I am glad to see the Christians of the world uniting to bring hope in Jesus name. But it is not harmful to at the same time deal with reality--as if we must all stop what we are doing and sit still till this is over.
I disagree with you. That is ok.
You can love me, or you can be an [explative] like Tom Parker.
K"
Kevin, you are being cruel, selfess, uncaring, and tactless.
And I'll tell you what scares me more than you're being this way is that I actually do love you in the Lord and will continue to do so.
Actually I find you a funny guy--you do not even know how to spell "expletive." You don't even know how to curse me. But I'll give you an A for effort for trying.
Kevin,
So God told John Piper that the I-35 Bridge collapsed and the tornado hit the church where the ELCA met as works of his specific judgment?
Is Piper the canonized prophetic witness who can speak with divine authority on these matters?
Is Pat Robertson right?
Does God love in terms of total sovereignty or is he sovereign in terms of his total loving character?
"Does God love in terms of total sovereignty or is he sovereign in terms of his total loving character?"
Tim,
That is a fundamentally flawed question. God's sovereignty and love permeate every act and thought and fiber of His being ALL the time. So I guess the answer to your either/or question is the proverbial "yes."
Tom Parker,
Still happy I am scaring you even more. Even though I misspelled the word, the letter chosen should get you started on what I was thinking.
;)
K:
You said--"Tom Parker,
Still happy I am scaring you even more. Even though I misspelled the word, the letter chosen should get you started on what I was thinking.
;)"
I have not a clue what you are thinking. I will not spend my time figuring out the curse word you had in mine for me.
What scares me is that you desire to be a ???!
You know what I'm thinking don't you.
Same thing I was thinking:
"Amazing!"
But anyway, you might have some cause to rejoice. I just lost a facebook friend for my view on this. Maybe I am wrong in the end, but I am not backing down. Robertson is being treated poorly by some Christians. Maybe it is some camaraderie for another tactless brother, but I think it is all wrong. Anyway, I may have shot my chances of ever going to one specific SBC seminary. EVER.
Maybe PR will let me in at Regent University. lol
Peace,
K
K:
You said-"But anyway, you might have some cause to rejoice. I just lost a facebook friend for my view on this."
You really don't know me do you. I do not rejoice when bad things happen to people. I'm not happy at all that you lost a facebook friend.
I just think you are burning a lot of bridges needlessly that you are going to regret someday.
KEVIN wrote: " Robertson is being treated poorly by some Christians."
Perhaps we should all avoid treating anyone poorly.
"As usual, when scapegoats are wanted, all the fury of the attack is directed at the ones that seems the weakest.
"Weakest", here, in the sense that they can be mocked, derided with impunity, without any risk of retaliation"
Treating innocent people poorly is not something we Christians should be doing. Especially the ones that are the weakest, the most broken.
Pat is vulnerable now. He sometimes says things impulsively. We all do it. He is vulnerable now to the judgment of others.
So are the thousands of victims who cannot defend themselves against the judgment of good Christian people.
They have no strength to fend off these attacks.
Pat will be defended. He is loved.
And prayed for.
And the 'Others' ?
Who will speak for them ?
Kevin,
What about Piper and Robertson? Are they God's spokesmen who have the authority to interpret natural disasters as acts of God's judgment?
Tim,
Maybe. God has done this with men before.
Tom,
You may be right, but I hate to think that having an opinion is burning bridges, that calling out facts and inconsistencies is burning bridges. I am not calling names nor denigrating anyone. I am trying to bring clarity to something I think is horribly wrong. But I am finding out that dissent can be squashed by those who refuse to be challenged. I am very thankful to one Bart Barber for engaging me in the same dialogue as the "lost friend" and allowing for dissent in a Christian way. We still disagree, but he at least heard me out, and I him. We exchanged a few comments and all is still well.
Frankly I am a bit hurt that a seminary professor would simply slam the door to another brother without so much as a "bye you looser." But that is still how it felt. (I will still listen to this man's sermons and learn from him.)
L’s,
Every time I hear Father Jonathan Morris on Fox News I keep thinking, that guy is gonna be Pope someday. What say you? He almost makes me want to be Catholic. As to the Haitians, my heart cries for them each day. I have not spent this much time reading columns and blogs and listening to new and commentary since 9/11. No one is denying the necessity of the immediate help for a lost and hurting people. I’d be there using my strength to life concrete walls if I could. That aside the dynamic of the situation is much more complicated. And the conversation is going to need to be had for a long term solution to work. But the solution is going to have to be different than past solutions. History can give us the way NOT to go. Conversation and dialogue can help for the future.
My prayers are with all, including the loss to your community of Msgr. Miot.
K
Clothing has become more important than the message to some these days.
Pat Robertson, as usual, if full of pious pronouncements which are just -- pious hog wash.
Jesus wore simple stuff and went about doing good. That's about example enough for me these days.
I am certainly tired of the fancy silk ties and $1,000 suits taylored to prefections these days on people beggin for money for a mega-church.
Just a recreation of the Temple at Jerusalem and the Pharisees, in my opinion.
Simple black clergy robes. Hides the man behind the Word. Hides the man from the thoughts of the people. Eliminates the appearance of evil. Places the focus back in what is important.
k
CLOTHE YOURSELVES IN HUMILITY
"3 Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away.
5 In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders.*
And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another,
for ‘God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.’"
I Peter 5:3-5
I have to share a quick funny story.
My wife and I have known Wade since 2005 when we first started attending Emmanuel. We've gotten to know him very well over the years, he married my wife and I in 2006.
A couple of years ago when we still lived in Enid, OK, we were walking in one of the entrances at Oakwood Mall when a man walking up next to us waved and said "Hey guys. How are you?" I nodded and stared at the man for a moment, trying to figure out where I knew him from . . . it was Wade . . . in khaki shorts and a casual button up shirt. I'll never forget it.
Post a Comment