That the Democratic Party's original platform excluded the mention of God, while a departure from their past, should not be a surprise to anyone who has been watching their rapid movement away from traditional American values over the past few years. And, in this free society it is certainly within their rights to do so if they so choose.
What is telling and appalling, however, is how, once they felt pressure to mention God, they amended their platform with what appeared to everyone to be less than the required 2/3 majority support. That the chair proclaimed the amendment passed seemed a railroad job. The people's voice seemed to be irrelevant to the process.
But most concerning was how many opposed the amendment to include to mention God. Is this a party that reflects the values of most Americans? Is this a party platform God-fearing people can support?
I hope not. But perhaps I am wrong. Much more is at stake here than jobs and deficits.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
When God Surprises
“It’s too loud!”
More than once that was my granddaughter’s reaction last
week to the tones and sounds she was hearing for the first time in her
mostly-deaf right ear. The
cochlear implant was connected and sending sound waves, and she was hearing
them!
But to her they were “too loud”.
They weren’t the first sounds she has heard. Fortunately her other ear, with the
assistance of a hearing aid has given her fairly good hearing. So, she recognizes sound and has an
ever-increasing ability to speak and growing vocabulary. But now, through the miracles of
surgery and technology she was experiencing something new and previously
unknown…hearing in her right ear.
Really, they were not “loud” at all. But when you’ve never heard anything
before your first experience to a sound that breaks years of silence might be
“Wow!” She was used to
nothing. Suddenly there was sound
interrupting that nothing.
“Too loud” was her way of saying, “Wow!”
That’s often the way it is with us when we hear or learn
from experience a spiritual truth from God’s Word. Perhaps we’ve gone our whole lives assuming one thing or
believing another, only to discover that God has a different take on it. Then suddenly or gradually – it doesn’t
have to take a bolt of lightning – God rocks our world with something we either
didn’t know or to which we had turned off our spiritual senses.
What’s new to us might not be new at all. And because God is the only one in this
universe who does not change what might seem new or surprising to us is only
due to the finite and limited extent of our own experiences. But God’s truth is both eternally true
and absolutely true. It just might
not seem that way to us at the first.
Consider that Jeremiah, the author of the book of Lamentations
– expressions of disappointment or sorrow – wrote that God’s mercies are “new
every morning”, and that those new mercies are evidence of His great
faithfulness. If you can’t handle
“new”, you’ll have a tough time relating to God.
Initially we might not be very receptive because it is so
different – maybe even revolutionary.
It might even stun us and cause us to wonder or doubt. But just like sound is sound, whether
we can hear it or not, truth is truth.
Think about Paul’s conversion experience on the Damascus
road. His whole adult life he has
sincerely believed Jesus to be a fraud and His followers to be dangerous
heretics. Then he is dismounted
from his horse by a blinding light and a voice that follows identifies Himself
as Jesus.
Life changes are sometimes triggered by “Wow!” moments –
maybe not as dramatic as Paul’s or even Gwyneth’s. But they may be big surprises – at least to you. And always they result in change as we
learn more about Him and His truthful ways.
Look for those “Too loud! Wow!” moments as you hear and study God’s Word. Then expect great changes ahead.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Culture Wars: Guest Blogger
A well-written post by "retired" pastor Bob Russell.
Dan Cathy and the Silence of Many Churches.
Dan Cathy and the Silence of Many Churches.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Culture Wars 3: WWJD?
When then candidate Obama said in an interview with Rick Warren that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, he also said that as a Christian he believed "God's in the mix". Indeed. As I engage in the current culture wars dialog I often hear Jesus being quoted and set up as an example of love and tolerance.
Indeed, again. If we're going to seek an example of how to engage culture and what to expect from that engagement, I can think of no greater than Jesus. But as we consider Him, we need also to understand Him a bit, including His worldview and how it was established.
Jesus was a believer in the Scriptures. At that time the "Scriptures" only included what we call today the Old Testament - often called "Moses and the prophets" in the Gospels, because Moses authored the Law (Torah or Penteteuch) and much of the remainder of the Old Testament was penned by prophets.
Speaking specifically of "the Law" Jesus said: For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. (Matthew 5:18 HCSB) Many today like to point out the aspects of the Jewish Law, meant to preserve them physically as well as spiritually, are essentially ignored today by Bible believers. They likely don't understand the theological reasons (there is tremendous depth to Scripture as well as a "big picture") for the dietary and clothing restrictions, for example, not being adhered to by modern Christianity. Yet, Jesus accepted that Law as "Gospel".
He even believed in the stories of Noah and the Ark and Jonah being swallowed by a fish only to emerge three days later to preach repentance to a pagan nation. If we're going to use Jesus as our example, let's be sure we understand what shaped His words and deeds. It was an unwavering acceptance of all of Scripture. If we're not willing to understand that then perhaps we shouldn't be referring to Him.
(Really, if we're going to "follow" Jesus wouldn't that mean the same acceptance of Scripture?)
Jesus was counter-cultural. Some would call Him radical or revolutionary. He found great occasion to confront the religious hypocrisies of His time, and minced no words in judgment and condemnation of those who were steering the people in a direction away from truth and justice. He even threatened them with condemnation in hell. But then, He's Jesus, and only He has that right.
His counter-cultural stirring of the pot would cost Him everything. Eventually those he exposed and challenged became angered to the point that they conspired against Him and succeeded in having Him executed. Indeed, there is a price to pay for daring to warn the fish that they are swimming in the wrong direction.
Jesus was the friend of "sinners". The religious power-brokers - those He dared to offend - were shocked that He ate and drank and conversed with the marginalized of their society. But He came to seek and to save them; to provide them a way to move out of their enslavement to whatever sinful addiction had them entrapped and to set them free. He knew that the best way to accomplish that purpose was to engage them and befriend them. They already knew they were "sinners" - they knew the Law and felt the disdain of the self-righteous. Jesus knew they were sinners as well. And more than anything he wanted to make a difference in their lives.
Yet, He came to bring to them a real righteousness. One story in His life illustrates how He could bring together the seeming paradox of believing that sin condemns, yet offering grace to the sinner that expects radical change. While I find the phrase used too often, He indeed was showing us how to "hate the sin but love the sinner". (Not His words.)
A woman was brought before Him who was guilty of adultery - a sexual sin involving a man to whom she was not married. Some believe it was a set-up, especially since the man was not brought to Jesus. Only the woman. But that's another discussion. The point was, she was guilty of "sin" according to the Law. And His critics, those who would later falsely accuse Him and set Him up for crucifixion, were hoping to cause Jesus to deny the Law He so believed in.
Jesus practiced both grace and truth. He didn't dodge the issue. He didn't give in, either to the self-righteous or to the guilty sinner. To the surrounding crowd He acknowledged that the Law required this woman be stoned - put to death - for her sin. (Within the same context of the Levitical Law were all forbidden sexual practices.) And remember, Jesus accepted this Law as God's eternal word. So, first He threw the ball in the court of the religious, telling them that whoever was sinless should commence the judgment by throwing the first stone.
Not only did He silence the crowd, His requirement of self-judgment dispersed them as they unwittingly were moved to see their own sin. Ouch. But the story doesn't end there. The next part is just as crucial to understanding Jesus as the first.
Turning to look at the woman He asked her a question: "Where are your accusers?" Looking up and around, she realized through teary eyes that they were gone. Now it was just her and Jesus. How powerful that the only one qualified to stone her would not. "Neither do I condemn you." That's grace - receiving what we don't deserve. The Law said she deserved death. Jesus was giving her life.
But don't miss what He said next. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.”
What didn't He say? He did not say, "You know, I'm not an adulterer myself. It's not how I roll. But if that's what fulfills you, OK." He didn't say, "Nobody's perfect (except Me), and I know this is probably not your fault that you think it's acceptable to do another woman's husband. So, be a little more discerning about who you welcome into your bed from now on." He certainly didn't say, "The Law is so outdated. I say 'If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with'".
He didn't come to redefine sin. He didn't come to free her to continue to sin. He came to free her from her sin and it's consequences. He didn't water-down her guilt. He told her simply, "You're free. Now live a changed life. What you did was wrong. Put it in your past and don't go there again." That's truth.
Grace and truth were what Jesus came to bring. He epitomizes the blending of the two. If we who are His followers are to be like Him, we have to do the same. We cannot turn a blind eye to the truth and in the name of Jesus only give grace, because grace, without being coupled with truth only becomes license to sin. Nor can we go the other way and preach truth without extending grace.
The Gospel requires a message of both. Grace provides the freedom we need from sin. Truth provides the boundaries we need as well. They are not mutually exclusive. They are the very essence of Jesus and how culture should be countered.
Just remember that when and if you do counter the culture, there will likely be a cost to be paid. Not everyone respected Jesus then. Not everyone respects Him now, mainly because they have crafted a Jesus of their own making.
Indeed, again. If we're going to seek an example of how to engage culture and what to expect from that engagement, I can think of no greater than Jesus. But as we consider Him, we need also to understand Him a bit, including His worldview and how it was established.
Jesus was a believer in the Scriptures. At that time the "Scriptures" only included what we call today the Old Testament - often called "Moses and the prophets" in the Gospels, because Moses authored the Law (Torah or Penteteuch) and much of the remainder of the Old Testament was penned by prophets.
Speaking specifically of "the Law" Jesus said: For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. (Matthew 5:18 HCSB) Many today like to point out the aspects of the Jewish Law, meant to preserve them physically as well as spiritually, are essentially ignored today by Bible believers. They likely don't understand the theological reasons (there is tremendous depth to Scripture as well as a "big picture") for the dietary and clothing restrictions, for example, not being adhered to by modern Christianity. Yet, Jesus accepted that Law as "Gospel".
He even believed in the stories of Noah and the Ark and Jonah being swallowed by a fish only to emerge three days later to preach repentance to a pagan nation. If we're going to use Jesus as our example, let's be sure we understand what shaped His words and deeds. It was an unwavering acceptance of all of Scripture. If we're not willing to understand that then perhaps we shouldn't be referring to Him.
(Really, if we're going to "follow" Jesus wouldn't that mean the same acceptance of Scripture?)
Jesus was counter-cultural. Some would call Him radical or revolutionary. He found great occasion to confront the religious hypocrisies of His time, and minced no words in judgment and condemnation of those who were steering the people in a direction away from truth and justice. He even threatened them with condemnation in hell. But then, He's Jesus, and only He has that right.
His counter-cultural stirring of the pot would cost Him everything. Eventually those he exposed and challenged became angered to the point that they conspired against Him and succeeded in having Him executed. Indeed, there is a price to pay for daring to warn the fish that they are swimming in the wrong direction.
Jesus was the friend of "sinners". The religious power-brokers - those He dared to offend - were shocked that He ate and drank and conversed with the marginalized of their society. But He came to seek and to save them; to provide them a way to move out of their enslavement to whatever sinful addiction had them entrapped and to set them free. He knew that the best way to accomplish that purpose was to engage them and befriend them. They already knew they were "sinners" - they knew the Law and felt the disdain of the self-righteous. Jesus knew they were sinners as well. And more than anything he wanted to make a difference in their lives.
Yet, He came to bring to them a real righteousness. One story in His life illustrates how He could bring together the seeming paradox of believing that sin condemns, yet offering grace to the sinner that expects radical change. While I find the phrase used too often, He indeed was showing us how to "hate the sin but love the sinner". (Not His words.)
A woman was brought before Him who was guilty of adultery - a sexual sin involving a man to whom she was not married. Some believe it was a set-up, especially since the man was not brought to Jesus. Only the woman. But that's another discussion. The point was, she was guilty of "sin" according to the Law. And His critics, those who would later falsely accuse Him and set Him up for crucifixion, were hoping to cause Jesus to deny the Law He so believed in.
Jesus practiced both grace and truth. He didn't dodge the issue. He didn't give in, either to the self-righteous or to the guilty sinner. To the surrounding crowd He acknowledged that the Law required this woman be stoned - put to death - for her sin. (Within the same context of the Levitical Law were all forbidden sexual practices.) And remember, Jesus accepted this Law as God's eternal word. So, first He threw the ball in the court of the religious, telling them that whoever was sinless should commence the judgment by throwing the first stone.
Not only did He silence the crowd, His requirement of self-judgment dispersed them as they unwittingly were moved to see their own sin. Ouch. But the story doesn't end there. The next part is just as crucial to understanding Jesus as the first.
Turning to look at the woman He asked her a question: "Where are your accusers?" Looking up and around, she realized through teary eyes that they were gone. Now it was just her and Jesus. How powerful that the only one qualified to stone her would not. "Neither do I condemn you." That's grace - receiving what we don't deserve. The Law said she deserved death. Jesus was giving her life.
But don't miss what He said next. “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.”
What didn't He say? He did not say, "You know, I'm not an adulterer myself. It's not how I roll. But if that's what fulfills you, OK." He didn't say, "Nobody's perfect (except Me), and I know this is probably not your fault that you think it's acceptable to do another woman's husband. So, be a little more discerning about who you welcome into your bed from now on." He certainly didn't say, "The Law is so outdated. I say 'If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with'".
He didn't come to redefine sin. He didn't come to free her to continue to sin. He came to free her from her sin and it's consequences. He didn't water-down her guilt. He told her simply, "You're free. Now live a changed life. What you did was wrong. Put it in your past and don't go there again." That's truth.
Grace and truth were what Jesus came to bring. He epitomizes the blending of the two. If we who are His followers are to be like Him, we have to do the same. We cannot turn a blind eye to the truth and in the name of Jesus only give grace, because grace, without being coupled with truth only becomes license to sin. Nor can we go the other way and preach truth without extending grace.
The Gospel requires a message of both. Grace provides the freedom we need from sin. Truth provides the boundaries we need as well. They are not mutually exclusive. They are the very essence of Jesus and how culture should be countered.
Just remember that when and if you do counter the culture, there will likely be a cost to be paid. Not everyone respected Jesus then. Not everyone respects Him now, mainly because they have crafted a Jesus of their own making.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Culture Wars 2: Up is Down
One thing I'm realizing is that as I attempt to discuss relevant cultural issues with those of diverse opinions is that the words I use may be the same words they use yet the meanings have changed.
I'm a baby boomer, so for me words meanings go back to at least what they were in a generation past. Not long past, but past. But as we saw and heard in President Clinton's term, "is" may not mean "is" anymore to some.
Apparently the same is true with terms that are being hashed out in the cultural debates in 2012. Here's what I've noticed. In 2012...
..."Tolerance" means agreement. If you disagree with me you must be intolerant. Back in the day "tolerance" meant I may not agree with you. I may think you are dead wrong. But I'll respect your right to disagree.
..."Disagreement" means "hate". If you disagree with me you hate me. I grew up believing that it was possible for friends and families to love one another yet be on opposite ends of the spectrum. Today's mantra is "Don't hate", which simply means, don't disagree and please don't verbalize that disagreement. I still believe it is possible to disagree on major issues politically and morally and not want to kill the person you disagree with. In fact, I think you can and should love even those you with whom you disagree.
..."Love" means acceptance. If you love me you'll let me. If you love me then you'll let me do my thing, whatever it might be, and respect my right to do it, even if you think it's wrong. Yet my parents often stopped me from making major mistakes while growing up because of their love for me. Love in my day didn't mean you didn't confront someone. We believed in something called "tough love" if it was necessary. Love didn't mean "I'm OK and you're OK".
..."Judge" means disagree. If you disagree with me you're judging me, and everyone knows Jesus even said not to do that. If you're judging me it means you think you or your opinion is better than my own. There was a time in this country when to "judge" meant to use common moral sense about right and wrong. And so, we made judgments - moral evaluations based on a greater, higher authority than our own. Some call them "absolutes". We believed them so deeply we were willing to stand up and protest. But absolutes have gone the way of Blockbuster Video. Seen one of those lately?
For example, there was a time when murder was always wrong (an absolute) because life was sacred (another absolute). But then we began to redefine and water down those absolutes so that even the criminal became acceptable.
Abortion and assisted suicide somehow became acts of love. Selfish love, perhaps, but we determined culturally that they were no longer wrong. To speak out against them was judgmental, intolerant and hateful.
So, it becomes increasingly difficult to debate a point when the other person in the debate is essentially speaking a different, redefined language. Hence the feeling of frustration. Up is down when I think it is still up.
I guess we'll have to learn to be bi-lingual if we're ever going to make sense. And would someone please notify Webster of the changes?
I'm a baby boomer, so for me words meanings go back to at least what they were in a generation past. Not long past, but past. But as we saw and heard in President Clinton's term, "is" may not mean "is" anymore to some.
Apparently the same is true with terms that are being hashed out in the cultural debates in 2012. Here's what I've noticed. In 2012...
..."Tolerance" means agreement. If you disagree with me you must be intolerant. Back in the day "tolerance" meant I may not agree with you. I may think you are dead wrong. But I'll respect your right to disagree.
..."Disagreement" means "hate". If you disagree with me you hate me. I grew up believing that it was possible for friends and families to love one another yet be on opposite ends of the spectrum. Today's mantra is "Don't hate", which simply means, don't disagree and please don't verbalize that disagreement. I still believe it is possible to disagree on major issues politically and morally and not want to kill the person you disagree with. In fact, I think you can and should love even those you with whom you disagree.
..."Love" means acceptance. If you love me you'll let me. If you love me then you'll let me do my thing, whatever it might be, and respect my right to do it, even if you think it's wrong. Yet my parents often stopped me from making major mistakes while growing up because of their love for me. Love in my day didn't mean you didn't confront someone. We believed in something called "tough love" if it was necessary. Love didn't mean "I'm OK and you're OK".
..."Judge" means disagree. If you disagree with me you're judging me, and everyone knows Jesus even said not to do that. If you're judging me it means you think you or your opinion is better than my own. There was a time in this country when to "judge" meant to use common moral sense about right and wrong. And so, we made judgments - moral evaluations based on a greater, higher authority than our own. Some call them "absolutes". We believed them so deeply we were willing to stand up and protest. But absolutes have gone the way of Blockbuster Video. Seen one of those lately?
For example, there was a time when murder was always wrong (an absolute) because life was sacred (another absolute). But then we began to redefine and water down those absolutes so that even the criminal became acceptable.
Abortion and assisted suicide somehow became acts of love. Selfish love, perhaps, but we determined culturally that they were no longer wrong. To speak out against them was judgmental, intolerant and hateful.
So, it becomes increasingly difficult to debate a point when the other person in the debate is essentially speaking a different, redefined language. Hence the feeling of frustration. Up is down when I think it is still up.
I guess we'll have to learn to be bi-lingual if we're ever going to make sense. And would someone please notify Webster of the changes?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Culture Wars
This whole thing with Dan Cathey, Chic-fil-a and his statement that he believes in the biblical traditional model of marriage has convinced me that we, indeed are in a cultural war in this country. Two sides are distinctly drawn, it seems.
What has me most concerned is not so much that there are so many who now believe in a different definition of marriage, and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow a bigot or hater, but that so many who profess allegiance to Christian values see more conservative believers as bigoted.
I confess. Over the years I have "softened" my understanding of many things I once felt strongly about, mostly because I recognize more and more my own limited knowledge. At the same time I hold to a very high view of Scripture, treating it as the very Word of God. I also have a high respect for the two centuries of orthodox faith, meaning that it would be virtually impossible to conceive that the body of faithful Christianity, including it's greatest thinkers, apologists and theologians have "gotten it wrong" all this time.
Really? Would the Holy Spirit allow that to happen without constant generational correction? God is patient, as He demonstrated with Israel in the Old Testament. But God also had limits to His patience, finding ways to bring them back to Him when they strayed. Certainly He cares no less for the Church in this era of grace.
There are those who point out that Christians indeed, "got it wrong" in this country in the past, using slavery as an example. And they are right. But, they did so in defiance of Scripture and by contorting it to agree with their wrong conclusions.
But marriage has been the same since Adam gave Eve her first kiss as his bride, with God officiating the ceremony. (Yes, I'm using allegory.) "Male and female" was the Divine design, and that was before the Mosaic writings condemning homosexuality among the Jews BC and the Pauline words AD to the Roman and Corinthian churches that homosexual behavior had no place in the life of a Christian.
So, what has me perplexed is the seeming growing number of professing Christians - most I will admit are millennials - who see no problem with what has been regarded for two thousand years as not just wrong but really wrong. Has the church, in an effort to win a generation by failing to teach every part of the Bible, even the hard parts (and there are many) or by dodging the counter-cultural in Scripture, turned a generation who says they love Jesus into one that thinks He's great, but His Word is irrelevant?
I've been pastor of the same church for 21 and a half years, so I've seen an entire generation come and go. Longer than that, I've been either a pastor or a theological student (hopefully I'm still both) for the better part of four decades. Longer than that (!) I've been a reborn Christian for close to half a century. And all that time I've been an observer both of culture and of the church. Often I'm a critic of both.
My observations are driving me to believe that if the church does not see we are in a war for the souls of our children and grandchildren and realize we must now stand in the gap and "fight back" by grounding the church in "sound doctrine", those generations will have no grasp of the differences, whether subtle or stark in the worldviews that are captivating them. It will take more than creative tweeting or posting. It will take a prophetic voice.
And we all know what happened to the prophets.
What has me most concerned is not so much that there are so many who now believe in a different definition of marriage, and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow a bigot or hater, but that so many who profess allegiance to Christian values see more conservative believers as bigoted.
I confess. Over the years I have "softened" my understanding of many things I once felt strongly about, mostly because I recognize more and more my own limited knowledge. At the same time I hold to a very high view of Scripture, treating it as the very Word of God. I also have a high respect for the two centuries of orthodox faith, meaning that it would be virtually impossible to conceive that the body of faithful Christianity, including it's greatest thinkers, apologists and theologians have "gotten it wrong" all this time.
Really? Would the Holy Spirit allow that to happen without constant generational correction? God is patient, as He demonstrated with Israel in the Old Testament. But God also had limits to His patience, finding ways to bring them back to Him when they strayed. Certainly He cares no less for the Church in this era of grace.
There are those who point out that Christians indeed, "got it wrong" in this country in the past, using slavery as an example. And they are right. But, they did so in defiance of Scripture and by contorting it to agree with their wrong conclusions.
But marriage has been the same since Adam gave Eve her first kiss as his bride, with God officiating the ceremony. (Yes, I'm using allegory.) "Male and female" was the Divine design, and that was before the Mosaic writings condemning homosexuality among the Jews BC and the Pauline words AD to the Roman and Corinthian churches that homosexual behavior had no place in the life of a Christian.
So, what has me perplexed is the seeming growing number of professing Christians - most I will admit are millennials - who see no problem with what has been regarded for two thousand years as not just wrong but really wrong. Has the church, in an effort to win a generation by failing to teach every part of the Bible, even the hard parts (and there are many) or by dodging the counter-cultural in Scripture, turned a generation who says they love Jesus into one that thinks He's great, but His Word is irrelevant?
I've been pastor of the same church for 21 and a half years, so I've seen an entire generation come and go. Longer than that, I've been either a pastor or a theological student (hopefully I'm still both) for the better part of four decades. Longer than that (!) I've been a reborn Christian for close to half a century. And all that time I've been an observer both of culture and of the church. Often I'm a critic of both.
My observations are driving me to believe that if the church does not see we are in a war for the souls of our children and grandchildren and realize we must now stand in the gap and "fight back" by grounding the church in "sound doctrine", those generations will have no grasp of the differences, whether subtle or stark in the worldviews that are captivating them. It will take more than creative tweeting or posting. It will take a prophetic voice.
And we all know what happened to the prophets.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
God uses every experience
When
I was working in construction 25 years ago I wasn’t happy about it. God had called me to preach and lead in
the church, but for a season He had me banging (and bending) nails. I confess I didn’t do so with the most submissive of
attitudes toward the Lord, often asking “Why?” and whining.
But
if we understand that our lives are under the lordship of a sovereign God who
uses every experience as a tool to mold and shape us, then we can handle the
disappointments life brings with grace.
Before those 4 years I call my “wilderness journey” I knew nothing about
construction and had no skills with hammer or saw.
It
now makes perfect sense to me why God took me down that path for a while. In 1991 and 1999 I was able to use
those skills to remodel and add on to my own house. A few years ago I got to go to Canada and help build cabins
for a Christian conference outreach to native Americans with our missionaries
Don and Mary DeHart. I’ve even
applied some of that knowledge and skill to projects around NHC over the years.
Once again God is letting me dust off my tool belt to do some mission
work. Now banging nails is a joy
as I see the seeds planted and watered in the hearts of those needing Christ.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Diversity in the Southern Baptist Convention
I just watched online as the Southern Baptist Convention - the denomination with which my church affiliates - voted by a cheering acclamation a black man to be our denominational president for the first time. Frankly, I was moved to tears, seeing the unanimity and joy of those assembled, and then watching a clearly humbled Fred Luter come to the podium and simply say, "To God be the glory for the things He has done."
Southern Baptists didn't have a good or righteous start when in 1845 they separated themselves from the Baptists to the North over the issue of slavery. Clearly their reasons for establishing a new Baptist group was not based on anything espoused in Scripture, but was solely motivated by cultural economics and secular politics. That is unfortunate, since Christians are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God before they owe allegiance to any state or flag of man's making.
As those generations died off, and the American Civil Rights movement (led most prominently by a black Baptist pastor from Atlanta) began to right racial wrongs held over from the previous era of blindness, Baptists in the South slowly began to change from the past sins of their fathers. In the late '90's at a Southern Baptist Convention (at which I was in attendance), the group put forth a resolution expressing repentance from the sin of racial prejudice.
Today, that change took a very large step toward turning words into action. As I looked via the camera at the crowd on their feet and applauding with "Hallelujahs" and "Amens" I was looking at a very white crowd. But, that's mostly who makes up Southern Baptist Churches.
This will not mean now that every Baptist church will suddenly become racially diverse. Churches tend to reflect the communities in which they are located, and not all communities (ours for example) is very integrated. Yet our church is racially diverse at a higher percentage than our town. My guess (and hope) is that is because we value everyone regardless of their color and refuse to allow race to be any kind of issue here.
I also know that churches tend to be comprised of people who are "alike". First-time guests to a church are more prone to return when they look about and see others who look like them, whether it be age, race, tattoos or whatever other cultural identification. So, there will always be Southern Baptist churches that will be predominantly white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. Always...not because others are not welcome, but because people want to worship where they are comfortable. Like it or not, that's a fact of life.
At the same time I'm not ignorant of the fact that within our own Baptist association of 65 churches in our region there are some - maybe many - all white churches that either through practice or unwritten rule would not accept believers of other colors into their congregations. Perhaps today's election will spark a change.
Such churches should now consider whether they want to remain within the SBC fold. Sure, the president of our denomination has no power or authority over any church. We all know that. Baptists are autonomous. But why belong to a denomination whose president would not be welcome as a member in your church? How great a hypocrisy!
My hope is that those churches within our denomination who are today shaking their heads and will continue tosecretly or quietly ostracize other races from their membership would do the honest thing and pull out of the Convention so that the remainder of us can be unhindered by their testimony and move forward to reach all people to discover life in Christ.
We used to sing it when I was a child. "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight". It is good to see it begin to be lived out in word and in deed.
Monday, June 11, 2012
65Roses4PattySue Trust Fund
In 2005 my wife Gail along with Tricia's parents Don and Agnes created a trust fund designed to assist Tricia with the collateral expenses that would come with her CF treatment and eventual transplant. At that time we sent out letters to family and friends, inviting them to give if they chose to do so.
The result was extremely helpful as Nathan and Tricia spent 9 months living near Duke University before and after the transplant.
However, as her health improved, and trips to Duke became less frequent, the trust fund lost its steam. Now, with her status very much changed, and already this year multiple trips to Duke, including the current hospitalization for rejection, we have reinvigorated the fund. Below is a letter that appears on a Facebook group for donors.
If you are not in that group and would like to be able to donate via PayPal, I've added a button at the top left of this blog site for your convenience.
If the idea of donating is offensive to you, we are sorry. Please refrain from negative comments.
The result was extremely helpful as Nathan and Tricia spent 9 months living near Duke University before and after the transplant.
However, as her health improved, and trips to Duke became less frequent, the trust fund lost its steam. Now, with her status very much changed, and already this year multiple trips to Duke, including the current hospitalization for rejection, we have reinvigorated the fund. Below is a letter that appears on a Facebook group for donors.
If you are not in that group and would like to be able to donate via PayPal, I've added a button at the top left of this blog site for your convenience.
If the idea of donating is offensive to you, we are sorry. Please refrain from negative comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
