Many of the same people who received the first anonymous letter a few weeks ago received another one this week. (See "An Anonymous Letter" two topics down.)This was taken from a scan that contained several different font styles and sizes, and some of it wasn't completely clear due to the poor quality of the scan, but I believe I have now corrected all the errors in the original scan.
629 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 629 Newer› Newest»Bellevue's new themesong is "Come as you are to Worship"
It's played all the time now and creates a feeling that anything goes at Bellevue.
Actually, anything does go at Bellevue now as long as the money is being given.
How can the issues of today be addressed by the pulpit when there is so much compromise on the inside? They can't and won't be addressed.
Welcome to the new Bellevue?
Hey Blog friends,
I think the particular article that 32+ presented by Blackaby is good but I, like Ima, see red flags waving when his name comes up.
Maybe he is switching his marketing strategy now....???
BroMichael,
We love and appreciate your heart and the support and councel that you have given us on our blog.
Thank you for your humility. Many of us aren't used to pastors that aren't puffed up with their own pride and ego.
I hope my friends here will pray for God to protect you and give you wisdom and discernment.
I hope you will never buy into some of the culturally friendly things marketed today by the SBC.
My daughter was once referred to as a BBC baby. She fit the mold and made them proud.
She saw BBC (and the SBC) becoming more worldly and less Biblical long before I did.
My son did not fit the mold and pushed the envelope in all the areas he could get away with as he got older.
But even he was hurt and turned off completely by the church becoming like the world.
It was a deeper wound for him that his church had been hijacked (while he went away to college) and that The Word and sin were being tampered with.
We don't have to say the Thee's and Thou's or be legalistic but most kids are like my son and do not want the church to be just like the world.
They want and need to be passionately committed to Christ.
The Word needs to be revered and loved. Pastors need to be above reproach and humble and in love with the Lord and not their authority, the numbers, the baptisms, the salaries......
Please be on guard.
Thank you again for your sweet heart and your courage.
:)
I am so thankful that the "pastor" Steve Haney has been found guilty.
Bet he's wondering why he got caught AND PUNISHED and the other criminals in the ministry...
(and those waiting for the next opportunity to be back in ) were not.
Bet PW doesn't even think it has anything to do with him since his crime was declared "under the blood" by the self annointed king of BBC.
oc,
Eiffel gnot giff ewe won!
Junkster,
Eye one catch.
As soneone who was a corporate 'change agent' for years, I would like to weigh in on this 'change business'.
Frankly, it has been done to death. (Amazed most employees hate it because they are forced into a flavor of the week program for change)
Here was our working model in the change business:
You can change without improving but you cannot improve without changing.
I have had enough of Joel Barker and the boys to last me a lifetime. :o)
What does any of this have to do with scripture, denying self, worship, sanctification, etc?
If one is truly saved...then ONE cannot help but change. God gives us a new heart. He replaces the heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ez 36) We are new creatures...Born Again. Change is an every day thing for a Christian growing in Holiness being sanctified. New mercies every day. Deeper intimacy with our Savior, repentance every day, etc.
Change engineered by the flesh is filthy rags. It is meaningless. And it is everywhere.
David Brown's interview is on Channel 3 now.
junk wrote:
"A friend in Texas just told me that the Baptist church across the street from her currently has this on their sign:
"I Y Q Y Q R"
Wascally Wone Star Babdists. Shamewess!
You know, I don't mind change for the betterment of all, but I do mind change for the sake of change. I also find great comfort in traditions. I like for my kids to say, "I love the Christmas Eve Service; it's my favorite every year!" Every year we will decorate our Christmas Tree the day after Thanksgiving. Count on it; it's what we do. It never gets dull or "old." It's that sweet remembrance of social events and the comfort of that consistency that ties us together in a way.
I love the Lord's Supper. I love the solitude and seriousness with which we approach that time. However, I had a pastor once who felt that every time we celebrated the Lord's Supper it had to be different. It was disconcerting because he made it different for the sake of making it different. It takes away from the experience, in my opinion.
No way do I want to sing the same 4 hymns every Sunday; but I do want to worship with hymns.
No way do I want to say the same prayer, but I do want to share in corporate prayer.
No way do I want to hear the same sermon, but I do want to be taught from the Bible.
I know the change issue is discussed sometimes with tongue in cheek (How many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb? CHANGE??????) but I truly think the vast majority of resistance is because the change doesn't seem for the better and it's not understood why the change has to be made. Maybe more communication would help?
However, changing the culture of a church is something I can't abide, when that decision is made by the leadership and not the congregation. When a new pastor comes to a conservative, traditional church, that is the culture of the church. He knows it before he comes. Make it better, yes, but don't set out to change the culture. However, if a church is in a changing neighborhood, for example, that church may discuss and vote to change their culture to better reflect their membership or to better serve in that community.
concernedSBCer said...
You know, I don't mind change for the betterment of all, but I do mind change for the sake of change.
Very well put.
Bromic - I understand that many don't want to jump for change. But maybe that's a good thing. It's good that change is hard to institute. This way, the frivolous changes can be weeded out. If you're going to go through the trouble, it better be worth it. Otherwise, you get what we see at BBC now, people making changes like drunken sailors.
Instead of seeing the opposers of change as a negative asset to the church, maybe we should thank God for them because they keep the checks and balances.
As far as details, your explanation makes them less necessary but not entirely. I'm not asking for them anymore but I cannot also be in total agreement. Case by case.
But as was said before, change for the sake of change is not necessary and that's why many people oppose it. They want to make sure it is truly necessary.
Some of the things you said troubled me a little bit. The part of getting bored with a song was one. I'm paraphrasing, I know; but that is the gist of what you were saying, is it not? I addressed it before so I won't do it again. But let's be honest, we don't sing the same 4 songs every week. That argument was more like a straw puppet. Still, it doesn't make the case for the need to change, even if we did sing the same 4 songs every week.
Housewife, when you said "Instead of seeing the opposers of change as a negative asset to the church, maybe we should thank God for them because they keep the checks and balances" you made a very important point. It seems to me many pastors have ceased to see their congregations as co-priests, as in "priesthood of the believer" but as underlings. There seems to be a strong hierarchy that doesn't take into account what other members believe, or what God has told them. God speaks and leads ALL his church, every believer, not just the pastors. There might be a wealth of knowledge and insight if the pastors would but just look.
Very true, concerned.
Re: I Y Q Y Q R
Check out this website and click on the video:
http://www.iyqyqr.com
He/she is a pastor of two church, president of Gideons, etc.... yikes!
Re: I Y Q Y Q R
Oh my goodness!!!!!!!! What in the world? This should be a cruel joke!
OK. I took a deep breath... What in the world??????????
I'm not sure why I'm so surprised. I guess this one caught me off guard. A rare event indeed.
Okay...the video.....well, I'm just speechless! (and that doesn't happen very often) If you believe in God, don't you think He made you as He wanted you?
If you want to puke, read this article (goes along with previously mentioned site w/ video:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/News/2003/08/21/Born_Again/index.shtml
Read all the way to the bottom about the Baptist churches and how they did or did not welcome him/her, and where he/she finally found acceptance. Poor thing (NOT!) -- she went against all God had made him to be, and look what she got! Shame!
sxruwypHere is where we have experienced CHANGE at Bellevue Baptist as written by Bob DeWaay, excerpted from his article "Where Are The Elders Who Guard The Flock?"
"Let us consider Acts 20 where Paul gathered the elders in Ephesus and gave them instructions. Here is what Paul said:"
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30)
"Paul is telling us that elders MUST guard the flock against wolves who bring false teaching. In this most important role, many are failing."
My comment: And then Bob goes on to say the following:
“Paul said that elders who “work hard in word and doctrine” should be given special honor. Elders must be “apt to teach.” Those who go astray in doctrine are to be corrected and if they refuse to repent they are to be rejected (Titus 3:10).”
“Combining what we know about elders from Acts 20, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, it is clear that guarding the flock from false doctrine and teaching true doctrine is the elders’ most important role. Churches endanger the flock when they choose elders based on their business acumen, that they seem to be moral men and “nice guys,” or are likely to support the senior pastor at any cost while ignoring the importance of doctrine.”
My comment: Our problem is that Bellevue Baptist no longer has any elders who have enough integrity to reject anyone who refuses to repent. And I said any! If there were any, we would know them by their outspoken hatred for the sins which have scattered and abused the "sheep" of Bellevue.
It is evident that the Deceiver himself has succeeded to lead many to believe that which is not true. And the Destroyer has given us a close up view of his attempt to destroy all that is holy and precious to God.
So I say, WHAT elders? WHAT protectors? Where? I said, WHERE?
There were some I knew, who I believed, would actually have to be carried out of some of those "holy" meetings, gagged and in handcuffs. Much to my surprise and disappointment they left with their heads bowed having squandered their testimony for holiness and the righteousness of God and His Holy Word. And NO ONE was protected by their actions. The result is that we have been left as sheared sheep, naked as it were for the slaughter before the lord of Bellevue.
And it is the “slanderer” himself who has influenced Dr. Gaines to defame and slander God’s own before others in the congregation and those around the world. I have hated that this is so. I have resisted that this is so. What a shame, that I am convinced that this is so. God have mercy on Dr. Gaines! And God have mercy on me for my stance from the shadows necessitated for my own safety and the safety of my family.
Oh for the glory of the Lord Jesus,may all who have agreed to partake in this sinful purging in our fellowship come to repentance. Lay down your offering at the altar and go and make things right with your brother, sister, neighbor, business partner, children, wife, husband, and relative, whoever…. today. In case anyone misunderstands me, if you’re happy “we” are gone, this letter applies to you. If you are in leadership and confused, this letter applies to you. If you are in leadership and willingly defend your adherence to the notion that you are correct for your submission to the authority of Dr. Gaines this letter is for you. Repent while there is time.
This is awful! I have penned a few words which I do not expect will make one little difference, but to be honest with myself, I write. I get to say here what I have no where else to say. No one has to listen. I hope someone does. If I do not write, then who am I to complain? Again, please don’t pick apart my words. I’m doing the best I can. Read patiently…. I do, with what you write. And may God truly get the glory in all that we think or say or do.
Padroc
I don't think so. I will not be referring to him as a "she." To do so would be to legitimize his sin. It is not mere confusion. It is sin. He has no place in the pastorship - no matter what he calls himself. Besides, if he really is a "she" now, "she" doesn't belong in the pastorship anyway because that position is reserved for men! He doesn't belong there no matter how he sees it.
Memphismom02's link.
I couldn't read the entire article. It was nothing but a pity party for him. Selfish. The whole world is wrong but him. The Bible is wrong but he feels right. Please!
Padroc: that was an excellent post. I think you bring up a very important point: the seriousness of the commitment to be a deacon/elder. It's not just about serving a congregation; it's about protecting that same congregation.
Starting with the farce of the Pastor Search Committee, what were they thinking??? In a way, the blame on SG has to be minimized initially because he TOLD them exactly what he was going to do! WHY, oh why did they pursue him??? They failed to protect the integrity of the church and the lives of the sheep. Then that failure has filtered down to the deacons, teachers, and committees. All those "stopgaps" that have rolled over instead of stood up.
Many tried....Mark, Josh....the list continues. God bless them! But most of those in authority.....well, I guess their eyes were covered and their hearts hardened.
Well said, concernedsbcer!:
However, changing the culture of a church is something I can't abide, when that decision is made by the leadership and not the congregation. When a new pastor comes to a conservative, traditional church, that is the culture of the church. He knows it before he comes. Make it better, yes, but don't set out to change the culture.
---------------------
32yrs@bbc says:
It is wrong for a new pastor to come into an established church and turn the culture of that church upside down and inside out -unless that church is dying and needs emergency "surgery."
BBC was not a failing floundering church that needed drastic change in order to survive. Instead it was a thriving flagship church in the SBC with one of the highest number of baptisms year after year - even during those times of Dr. R's absences because of illness, and the stretch of time waiting on a new pastor after
Dr. R's retirement.
bromichael's comments about resistance to change concern me. I believe he has a good heart but I also know (from his own words) that he is young and still in a learning process. He does not know the whole story nor has he lived it. Therefore, his analysis comparing the split at BBC with churches stagnating because of resistance to change is flawed. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
Bromichael, Bellevue never resisted change nor stagnated. Under Dr. R's leadership, it was constantly changing and it was exciting!
Dr. R had an exuberant joyful presonality that was open to new ideas and challenges for the church. However, the changes were always within the bounds of scripture and never changed the basic culture of the church. And God blessed the church exceedingly abundantly.
Ummm... I've caught up on posts I missed overnight and do have a follow-up question regarding change, but, first things first, there's something I'm afraid I've got to say. Remember the IYQYQR video link posted by MemphisMom at 10:52 last night? I just watched it and thought I recognized the "male version" of Elise Elrod. It turns out I did, knowing "the artist formerly known as Ronnie" at Southern Seminary in 1996. He and I weren't what I would call friends, but I remember chatting with him several times. On a lighter note, it does appear that Ronnie is a proponent of change :-).
Now that my cold shivers are gone by confesssion, let me throw myself back into this discussion of change. I keep reading about change itself not being a bad thing, depending on the type of change. Then I read this morning that change is bad when it is explored for change's sake. I can't disagree with either sentiment, but I now wonder if you folks have specifics you might be willing to disclose about recent BBC changes you find suspect, either in faith or practice or both. At first I thought this blog was about missteps and needed accountability in leadership, such as hopping fences, intimidation of members, donations to liberal churches, secrecy in finances, and the like. It sounds like such things are still in the forefront but now share equal bidding with inappropriate changes. Even at my distance from your situation, I would helped knowing what kind of changes you're talking about. Otherwise I'll still find myself facing my own perspective on change, having difficutly seeing things from your shoes.
Yeah, that article was awful. It confirms that Elise is definitely the Ronnie I knew in seminary. If you'll blog without me the rest of the day, I need a foodless day in my prayer closet... foodless since I'm just not sure I'll be able to hold anything down... prayerful since prayer seems like the only appropriate response.
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30)
Padroc the most astonishing thing in these verses is the fact that Paul was making the claim that wolves will come from 'among your own selves'...meaning they would be elders/leaders...and people would follow them.
Bro Michael, you said: "At first I thought this blog was about missteps and needed accountability in leadership, such as hopping fences, intimidation of members, donations to liberal churches, secrecy in finances, and the like."
Missteps???? How about Sin? Disobedience? Poor judgement? Those are examples of change! With the previous leadership, I don't think you would find many, if any, of these situations. The change from a "pastor led, deacon served, congregation approved" to a dictatorship. That's a pretty big change.
We aren't talking about singing two hymns before the offering instead of one. We are talking about a leader that came in with his agenda, not God's. How can I say that? Because it's not scriptural! God's will would never be contrary to His character and His Word.
Right, Lin. You know, most of my life I went to church and things were fine. There was no division or split. People loved each other as they should and all was well. Now, things are torn apart in the churches. People being thrown out or things being made so hard for them, they are compelled to leave. Many have stayed and tried to work the situations out, but to no avail. We are seeing the leaders of the churches behave in ways that are anything but what God would have them do. The bottom line is that we cannot 'fix' this. It is biblical. The Bible tells us this is what is going to happen in the end time. I think we just never thought we would see this happen. We never thought we would be alive when this time came. We are. It is biblical history being revealed before our very eyes. And I must say that it is the most exciting times. I really do think it is likely that some of us will live to see the rapture occur.
Ima: I listen for the trumpet every day....I always have one ear turned towards the sky. I am ready and eager for that day. But somehow that same eagerness has made me feel compelled to speak out more, to be more sure, now. The time is drawing near.
concernedsbcer said: Starting with the farce of the Pastor Search Committee, what were they thinking??? In a way, the blame on SG has to be minimized initially because he TOLD them exactly what he was going to do! WHY, oh why did they pursue him??? They failed to protect the integrity of the church and the lives of the sheep.,
Your answer is found in 1Ti. 4:3 "For the time will come when men will NOT put up with sound doctrine. Instead they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Eight of the ten members of the search committee were gulty of having itchng ears. One caved in to pressure and one was guilty of hubris and thought that a deal could be made to educate and control SG.
I have been told that BBC is now running an ad on MTV...I haven't seen it, obviously, since I don't watch MTV...
Anyone know anything about this?
Yeah, the more I read the more I see differences from my perspective on what I'll call general change. I hope everyone understands my point, though, that change itself is not our enemy. Never was it to defend what you've experienced as change.
sickofthelies said...
I have been told that BBC is now running an ad on MTV...I haven't seen it, obviously, since I don't watch MTV...
Anyone know anything about this?
12:24 PM, October 13, 2007
I don't know. If this is true, my guess would be that Bellevue has paid Comcast to air their commercials across most of the channels they carry, including MTV if this indeed the case.
I heard from a co-worker of mine that they got something in the mail the other day asking members to "pre-buy" tickets for the Singing Christmas Tree before they go on sale publically. The only catch to this is...members have to purchase the tickets in blocks of 20 tickets at the minimum.
Something smells funky with that...and its not my sweaty feet either! Obviously Bellevue is in a financial crunch if they're requiring those who pre-buy tickets to buy them in large blocks like that.
bromichael,
We know you are our brother (bro!)
Lynn wrote:
"I heard from a co-worker of mine that they got something in the mail the other day asking members to "pre-buy" tickets for the Singing Christmas Tree before they go on sale publically. The only catch to this is...members have to purchase the tickets in blocks of 20 tickets at the minimum."
You heard correctly -- you have to buy a minimum of 20 tickets @ $10.00 each. (You can do the math.)
And they have to be "premium seating" tickets -- meaning in the two sections on either side of the front, center section (C-D or F-G), the three sections on either side of the center back section (L-N or P-R), or the center 5 sections of the balcony (GG-KK).
I suppose that's meant to be further incentive for people to pre-buy blocks of tickets -- so they'll be assured of getting the best seats.
This year's "theme" is "The Singing Christmas Tree Goes to NY!" and is entitled "Once Upon a Holiday, Rockefeller Center New York City" presented by the college, senior high, and middle school choirs and sanctuary orchestra.
From the brochure...
"Can't take advantage of the pre-sale? That's okay. Regular ticket sales begin November 1.
"What about coupons? Like always, you'll receive your coupon for eight free tickets in the mail soon. Keep in mind that coupon tickets are for non-premium seats only.
"Thank you for your willingness to purchase tickets and underwrite the cost of this event."
....
"Childcare (birth-age 2) is only available on Friday, December 7, at 7:00 p.m. and Sunday, December 9, at 6:30 p.m."
....
"Tickets cannot be refunded. All sales are final."
....
"Complimentary tickets will be offered beginning December 3 if seats are available. Limit 10 complimentary tickets per family. Due to an overwhelming demand for tickets, complimentary tickets for businesses and other organizations will no longer be available."
Due to an overwhelming demand for tickets, complimentary tickets for businesses and other organizations will no longer be available."
Requiring the purchase of 20 tickets or more for pre-buys is hardly what I would call and overwhelming demand. If 20 or more wasn't the requirement, there would be enough complementaries for the businesses and other organizations.
It wouldn't surprise me if they don't want to give any away to the businesses and organizations because they can't. They are feeling the tightening of lessening tithes and are determined to make it up one way or another.
"Childcare (birth-age 2) is only available on Friday, December 7, at 7:00 p.m. and Sunday, December 9, at 6:30 p.m."
Childcare... yeah right! They're smoking big fat rocks. There's no way I'm handing over my kids to them. Whatever!
bromic, concerned said it well at 9:15 AM, October 13, 2007. That, together with everything else that has been said should have been clear enough. If it hasn't, then I'm not sure it ever will be. Frankly, that troubles me. You post at 7:26 AM, October 13, 2007 made it seem like you're not listening. That troubles me of a pastor. You can't hide behind your age forever. There isn't anyone more deaf than he who refuses to hear.
We've reached an impasse (for lack of a better term) and there's not much else to say. God bless.
Money. It’s all about the money. Snifffff….green…crisp bills. Just follow the money.
What about the multitude of members from other church families that typically drive to Bellevue each December to attend the Singing Christmas Tree? So…are they expected to spend $10 per ticket for the show? I remember when the SCT used to be a ministry.
Follow the money. Follow the money. Follow the money.
It’s all about the M – O – N – E – Y !!!!
The Sin of NOT Fighting For The Truth. Check out the video in the first comment.
LOL! I loved this guy's post (from NASS's link)...
I stay away from the Total Blasphemy Network. every time I surf by it I see some car salesman trying to hock this weeks fad. I hate to call them car salesmen I don't want to offend car salesmen.
Posted by: Jeremyz on Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Total Blasphemy Network...exactly.
Facts, the old BBC is no more, my friend. =(
Hey, this ticket thing is a great opportunity! With the shortage of tickets I can sell a $10 dollar ticket for $20.
However, there has been a mistake with the brochure. This years Singing Christmas Tree theme is actually The Red Velvet Santa...
Blessings!
Do You Go To a 'Me Church'?
Compare the video there to this one.
My goodness, housewife... I only asked for more specifics in things that had changed in Bellevue life that have all of you so troubled. As good as my discernment could be, I'm not in your context. I relate with all of you from a distance. How does my request demonstrate immaturity or poor listening?!
You know, ever since I started reading on this blog I've had a simple heart: to be equipped to pray for your church family and to learn for my own ministry from what's going on elsewhere. I've refused to buy into the "soap opera" this affair has become, not implying fault of your own. I've tried to remain objective and sought to offer what counsel I could. But every time I've posted, though I believed what I had to offer might be spiritually beneficial to someone, I've felt a palpable level of discomfort. Reading your last post only intensifies that feeling, fueled by the fear that blogging here could take on such a life of its own that too many posters would lose sight of the goal. So this will be my last offering and last visit. In my own context I have far too much at stake to any longer allow myself to be distracted by your situation. Perhaps that is the move of greatest maturity for me at this point.
In closing, for what it's worth, for the sake of our King and His Kingdom I'll beg one last time for all involved--whether regular bloggers on your side or current leadership supporters on the other--to seek Christ anew and embrace new lifestyles of repentance and restoration. Sure, I could easily discern that there needs to be a radical move in that direction from your leadership, but a fresh walk of repentance is also needed throughout your church family. The longer this rift endures the longer the glory of God and the health of your church will be sacrificed. If the cause of Christ is to be fulfilled by your ministries then somewhere this must stop, and that's not a call to compromise. It's just a call to fresh surrender. Amazing heart change can happen throughout entire churches when even one believer forms the first link in a chain of surrender. Continue your call to accountability through blogs and other means as God allows, but by all means examine yourselves, seek His face, be humble, give Him lives of ongoing repentance, and press on. Remember the reason we fight any battle: not for the sake of vanquishing another side and not for the sake of saving or preserving our churches, but for the sake of standing firm for Christ, seeing souls saved, and seeing unity preserved. And please know my love even at my distance. I will be praying for you, more effectively I would think through my limited participation here.
Thank you, Michael. I appreciate your words and caring attitude.
Housewife, take it easy on "bromichael." He suffered a terrible shock this morning! :-)
"Truth becomes the sacrifice:
When absolutism is out, and relativism is in;
When obedience is out, and pragmatism is in;
When teaching is out, and dialogue is in;
When thus saith the Lord is out, and consensus of opinion is in;
When using Scripture to judge right and wrong is out, and unity with tolerance at all costs is in;
When the narrow way is out, and the broad way is in."
Welcome back, telos! Long time, no see.
NASS,
Hey! Hope you are well. ME thanks you for the greeting:)
Bro Michael,
I guess you are no longer on here, but just in case.....
I was trying to explain a position, not attack you. Sin is sin, and that sin from the pulpit is a major change at BBC.
Thank you for your insights; I have enjoyed our discussions.
Bromic, please know that I never meant to move you to a place where you felt you needed to leave. But the specifics you ask for have been recounted time and again on this blog. That is why I said you weren't listening. If our many concerns seem no more than petty changes to you or after having read one of the many lists posted by others, you still don't see the problem, then I don't know what else can be said.
Your last words are kind, but not very practical given whom we are dealing with. Surrendering would be to also surrender at the feet of that which has destroyed our church and betrayed the Word of God. We are already there. I can assure you that Steve will NOT surrender his destructive war path.
This goes beyond prideful egos for us. This is about fighting for the truth, the Word of God, His church, etc. You're asking us to surrender that. I'm sorry but we can't do that.
Should the Allies have surrendered to Hitler? Should the North have surrendered to the South? Should Luther have surrendered to Rome?
Shouldn't Christ's church surrender to Christ?
Lynn said...
sickofthelies said...
I have been told that BBC is now running an ad on MTV...I haven't seen it, obviously, since I don't watch MTV...
Anyone know anything about this?
12:24 PM, October 13, 2007
I don't know. If this is true, my guess would be that Bellevue has paid Comcast to air their commercials across most of the channels they carry, including MTV if this indeed the case.
~---~
Comcast actually has this feature to where you can pick which channels your commerical is broadcast on to reach the people you want to reach. I don't watch MTV either, so I don't know if it's on that channel, but if it is, I'm sure it was by choice.
Thank you “ima” and “concerned” for your comments. I would like to use them to lead into a follow up to my comments relating to the CHANGE we at Bellevue Baptist experienced when we were left without the protection of our elders and deacons.
imaresistor said...
“The Bible tells us this is what is going to happen in the end time. I think we just never thought we would see this happen. We never thought we would be alive when this time came. We are. It is biblical history being revealed before our very eyes. And I must say that it is the most exciting times. I really do think it is likely that some of us will live to see the rapture occur.”
9:36 AM, October 13, 2007
My added off topic comment:
(Ima, just a soft, side note….I hope none of us see the rapture occur (I know what you meant). According to the word of God I’ll not be a spectator and I have no clue as what any of us will see in that time span called the twinkling of an eye. Thanks so much for your study/research and posted comments on the current condition of the church.)
concernedSBCer said...
“Ima: I listen for the trumpet every day....I always have one ear turned towards the sky. I am ready and eager for that day. But somehow that same eagerness has made me feel compelled to speak out more, to be more sure, now. The time is drawing near.”
9:56 AM, October 13, 2007
My Comments: On May 27, 1998 I noted the following comment made by Chuck Swindoll.
“There is no more formidable an instrument of temptation than a friend that cares more for your comfort than your character.”
Elders / Deacons of Bellevue Baptist, I hope that you will take the time to consider what Chuck is saying. And I hope that you will at least consider the notion which “concerned” has alluded to as the time for Christ’s return draws near as you read my admonition.
Elders / Deacons of Bellevue Baptist, the most loving thing you could do for Dr. Gaines would be quit caring more for his comfort than for his character. The next most loving thing would to be to start “screaming” your objections to his chosen behaviors which have destroyed our once unified fellowship of Christ followers. And yes I said scream…. Not as in out of control anger, but as a decided, emphatic, loud protective scream. Sort of like the scream you would do if you saw one of your children about to be hit by a car. You would be screaming for their safety and benefit. This is the type of screaming which has been appropriate. Dare I say the “car” has hit God’s children and your reserved and diplomatic expressions of concern were ignored. You didn’t scream. You collectively have given the appearance of having traded your love for the children of God at Bellevue for the perverted doctrine of “touch not God’s anointed”. Which brings me back to Chuck Swindoll’s comment where it appears that collectively and perhaps individually to the man, you cared more for Dr. Gaines comfort than for his character. The question which stands is….Now what?
What are you as individuals and collectively as Deacons and leaders going to do? More of the same? More assuaging? More enabling? More foolish submitting to raging authority? More of trying to maintain the delicate and fragile balance between your being under authority of Dr. Gaines and following Christ? Or something radical and biblical?
I can only do what I’m doing. I have no station. I have no roll of authority. Oh how I wish I had any measure of Christ centered, Holy Spirit filled influence which would be as a struck match to gasoline in the lives of you leaders. As Brother Michael in earlier posts has repeatedly admonished us that each one of us…. (in my words) should repent anew of anything and everything which would cut off your entire love for God so that individual restoration of relationships can begin and that the ensuing unity of Spirit, which would then come from our following Christ and not Dr. Gaines, would blossom.
The “car” has hit the “children of God” at Bellevue. Those of you in leadership, there will not be a better time in the future for you to stop yielding to the temptation to comfort Dr. Gaines. His character is at stake. Your screaming should be in proportion to the outrageous nature of the damage to God’s children. I believe that heaven is listening and waiting for the sounds of your anguished screams.
This is as loud as I can get. I am screaming. In the mean time I am hating the fact that I have had to lead my family to repent of Bellevue Baptist Church. Our membership is at Bellevue but for our safety we are fellowshipping elsewhere. Please “scream”. Dr. Gaines needs and deserves your love not your acquiescing.
For the Love Jesus our Lord,
Padroc
Ima, what a day that will be when we see Jesus. Concerned, we must continue to encourage one another as the day approaches to study the scriptures so as to be more sure and then to give an answer, when asked, for the hope which lies within us.
Junkster said...
Shouldn't Christ's church surrender to Christ?
11:08 PM, October 13, 2007
Yes, but not to Pope Steve.
Padroc,
Thank you for your heart felt "scream".
Padroc,
What you wrote was so beautiful and meaningful that I am sitting here in awe.
You said it all.
This is off topic....but here goes:
I just finished reading an article on World Net Daily entitled:
" Mom and Dad" banished In California"
Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'
Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.
******
But don't think " oh, that's just California, this is Tennessee, it wont' impact my children"...read on:
Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
****
I don't know how to post a link, but you can get there by going to
Worldnetdaily.com It's the headliner today.
Padroc: We must all continue to scream, and you are exactly right...leaders at BBC must do it as well.
Excellent points, thank you so much for speaking up. You never know who is reading and will be challenged to stand up for Jesus.
SOTL: You are right; don't kid yourself, it will spread.
I wonder if Arnold has thought of the ramifications of shared locker rooms and bathrooms? I thought the push was to slow down the spread of STDs, teen pregnancy, rape, assault, etc. Somehow I'm thinking shared intimate space might be detrimental to that plan.
On another off topic note:
My great neice had a baby girl a couple days ago! This makes great great neice/nephew #2!!!! AND I"M ONLY 27 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ay Yi Yi!!!
California's SB 777.
At least this provides a safety net for churches and church schools:
66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 45. Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
66271. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
I didn't find any mention of restrooms or locker rooms in this bill -- or exclusion of the terms "Mom and Dad." That's not to say I condone some of the items in the bill because I don't, but I think people are reading things into it that aren't there. (Reminds me of when Phyllis Schlafly was railing against the ERA, claiming it would result in "unisex" restrooms.) Of course, one never knows what some nutty California judge might do with this bill.
Congratulations, Lynn! Isn't it funny how that genealogy stuff works sometimes? People can be decades apart in age and still be in the same generation.
GBC's pastor search committee is announcing this morning that Hal Kitchings is their choice for GBC's new pastor.
The Administrative Pastor's page has been updated to list the messengers to the associational and state conventions. You'll see the list includes the usual names -- including Mark Dougharty to the state convention. (So I guess it's true he's back at BBC.)
Also listed are the new and returning deacons.
Both lists were posted October 12th, and both are dated October 14th (today). The "business" meeting for these motions to be approved isn't until this evening.
So they're assuming that both motions will be approved by the congregation. Which I'm sure they will...
But will a quorum be present?
Was the deacon who told DC he wasn't leaving BBC because his child's blood was on the grounds not asked back????
I don't see 2 other deacon's names on there that did there very best to bring about honesty and accountability in a proper godly fashion.
I guess all names present are signed, sealed, and endoctrinated.
Are those all the deacons????
Where is Beau Pittman's name?
I was listening to LWF after church today and Pastor Rogers was talking about submitting to authority. He mentioned that there is a difference between submitting and obeying.
He used the example of an employer asking an employee to cook the books. The employee should obey God over man.
He also used the example of a man being physically abusive to his wife. She should have a submissive heart, but she should get out of there because one must obey God before obeying man. (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) He said that if his daughter was in an abusive marriage, he'd get her out of there. He also said not to tell her to submit! (under those circumstances)
He said this: We should strive to live in peace with other men. But only IF that's possible. It's not always possible to live in peace with other men because we can't control other men.
Again, I'm paraphrasing and I hope I didn't lose the essence of his sermon, nor change it. Unfortunately, I only caught the end of his sermon. But I believe the essence is still there.
I'm so thankful to God that we can so easily record and preserve the sermons of great men of God like Pastor Rogers.
gmommy,
I believe those were just the names of the new deacons plus the ones who were invited back after rotating off for a year. They serve three years and rotate off for one. Then if they're good (meaning they don't rock the boat) and stay in favor with the administration, they get invited back the following year. The ones you mentioned didn't rotate off last year. We know that because at least two of them were officers this year. Apparently Chuck Taylor did rotate off though since he's on the list of returning deacons.
Richard Emerson, for example, rotated off at the end of 2005 but wasn't invited back for 2007.
Well, it's good to know Dr. Rogers differs from Paige Patterson in his views on this topic. From a comment on another blog comes this...
"I became concerned about Paige Patterson and the level of respect he has for women when I listened to an audio message on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website. One of the messages offered is called 'How Submission Works in Practice: A Panel Discussion.' Paige Patterson is part of the panel. At about fifty-five minutes into the message he is asked about how he handles wife abuse. He explained that he never recommends divorce, and only in the most serious of cases does he recommend a separation. He said he advises women who are being abused less seriously to do three things: pray, submit, and elevate their husbands. As an example of why he is right in counseling in this way, he gave an example of one of his counseling situations. A woman came to him and said she was being abused by her husband. He advised her that every night she should kneel down by the side of the bed and pray for her husband even if it made him mad and may cause him to beat her again. She did that, and she did get beaten. When she came back to church, she approached Mr. Patterson with her bruises and angrily told him, 'I hope you’re happy,' to which Mr. Patterson replied, 'Yes, ma'am, I am.' He went on to explain that he was happy because what the wife didn't know at that point was that the husband felt so bad about beating his wife again that he had come in earlier and repented and became a Christian and from that time on was a man of God. The moral of the story was that if a Godly woman stays in the situation and takes his advice (pray, submit, elevate), then she can trust God to move in the situation."
I would like to hear this discussion if anyone can find it. It doesn't seem to be on the referenced site now.
Question for PP: How would you define "abused less seriously"? Just being beaten weekly instead of daily?
Is it any wonder spousal abuse is as rampant among the "churched" as the "unchurched"? Phyllis Schlafly has contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands. "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.
Question for Mrs. Schlafly: What exactly would you call it then? Her "wifely duty"?
Screaming along with "padroc"!
Question. Are Coombs and Dougharty real reverends? Or did they receive a special dispensation by his eminence, Steve the merciful?
I admit it. I'm not sure how this works. That's why I'm asking.
I guess I'm wondering if they studied through a reputable seminary to be ministers. Too many men become ministers by applying online through a half-baked organization/business.
I'm not saying this is the case. I'm saying I don't know what the case is. That's why I'm asking.
housewife,
I don't think either of them went to seminary. Not that that's a requirement to be a minister or pastor. I think "special dispensation" in the case of the former is probably accurate. MD was ordained before SG came on the scene. I think many churches these days will ordain anything that wears pants regardless of his qualifications.
"He said he advises women who are being abused less seriously to do three things: pray, submit, and elevate their husbands. "
I have a serious problem with that take. In fact, that take deserves 4 Manual Buzzers it stinks so bad.
For the life of me, I cannot believe a pastor would be willing to endanger someone like that (Oh wait, Bellevue had that with PW, but thats another animal altogether).
I understand that there is the obstacle of fear to contend with as it relates trying to get out of an abusive relationship. I would still encourage that person to get out of dodge ASAP and would provide what assistance I could to help. Seriously, as big of a nutcase he is, I'm surprised Patterson hasn't come out supporting Sharia Law. His view of women is almost that bad.
OK. Why do I need a degree to tell me how to be a housewife? You mean, I can't learn how to be a wife, mother, cook, clean and homeschool my kids without that 4-year degree? I guess we're all doomed.
Funny thing is, I thought we learned that stuff from our mothers, grandmothers, neighbors, etc. Some women didn't get the advantage of being taught how to cook, for example, from their mothers. But they didn't just say, "Oh well. My family will now starve." On the contrary, they took the responsibility of learning from the many resources they had: neighbors, grandma, aunts, church ladies, internet, libraries, etc.
Foolishness for the sake of foolishness.
"A woman came to him and said she was being abused by her husband. He advised her that every night she should kneel down by the side of the bed and pray for her husband even if it made him mad and may cause him to beat her again. She did that, and she did get beaten."
That is not submission. This is
a wacked out view of Patriarchy. Patterson would have been more Christlike if he had given that woman refuge and confronted the husband. But he took the cowardly
easy way out: Blame it on the woman.
This situation, if true, is the EXCEPTION. (I am not so sure Patterson did not exaggerate this particular situation..just as he is blurring the truth lines in the Klouda legal case)
The abuse usually gets worse becasue there is no accountability or consequences for his behavior. And lets face it, a sanctfied man does not beat his wife. How can he ever experience loss, repentance and godly sorrow? Actually, he respects her less for staying and taking the beating. Abuse is about power and control.
She can pray for her husband out of harm's way. Besides what if there are children involved?
Patterson DID say this. It was on a tape. Between this and the Dr. Klouda situation, we get a good idea of what Patterson thinks of women: Not much.
Welcome to the new SBC. Where our leaders think rape, pedophilia and perverts in leadership are no big deal and women should take the beatings from abusive husbands.
Makes one want to cough up more CP dollars so Patterson can live even higher on the hog!
Yeah, Nass. I remember someone mentioning the Patterson horror. That's exactly what came to mind as I was listening to Pastor Rogers. I was so glad that AR outright said that he would get the woman out of the abusive situation. I'm glad he made it clear. =)
Lin wrote:
"Makes one want to cough up more CP dollars so Patterson can live even higher on the hog!"
NOT!!! Remember, though, that PP was among the movers and shakers behind the "conservative resurgence" in the SBC.
Al Mohler wrote an unbelievable article a couple of years ago in which he stated of married couples who choose not to have children (and he didn't mean by abortion which I think we can all agree is wrong), "Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion."
Children are indeed a gift from God, but on the other hand, some people aren't parent material. I applaud those who realize when they aren't -- before they bring children into the world.
What's the Dr. Klouda situation?
Nass said...
and he didn't mean by abortion which I think we can all agree is wrong
Murder, in fact.
The Klouda story.
PP should be so proud!
Even though he's Catholic, I think Pat Buchanan's book, "Death of the West" is an excellent read regarding the statistics of "not multiplying" and the effects is has on a nation, or the death of it.
He includes a lot of historic proofs and parallels. Very interesting.
"Al Mohler wrote an unbelievable article a couple of years ago in which he stated of married couples who choose not to have children (and he didn't mean by abortion which I think we can all agree is wrong), "Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion."
I read that article and could not figure out the reasoning behind it. It seemed somewhat legalistic to me. I know very few Christian married couples that choose not to have children. Many I know have challenges having children and adoption has so many problems associated with it. It is almost impossible to adopt right out in this country anymore without attorneys and lots of money. And the cost of foreign adoption is very high, too.
If he was writing about the culture at large then what does he expect? He spends quite a bit of time warring with the culture and I fail to see the point of that. Why not witness instead?
There was a big movement inside my former mega called Growing Children God's Way. Part of this movement advocated very large families. There was almost a point of pride in how many children and part of the reasoning was to have lots of Christian children for dominion. Scary stuff, that.
I think Mohler has 2 children, btw. Is that selfish? he could obviously afford many more. :o) See how that works?
Here is another link with information that is very interesting about Klouda's hiring and the Trustees minutes:
http://boydluter.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/break-in-series-thoughts-on-the-circumstances-of-the-hiring-of-dr-sheri-klouda-take-two/
I agree with the article about willful childlessness being rebellion of God's will.
Lin's link.
Christians having children: I'm all about kids. Love' em. Would have had more. My husband didn't want more so he made the decision not to have more. Having, or not having, children is a very private decision and should be made only by the husband, wife, and God. This process gets off balance when one in that equation -or not one of those three- makes that decision. I've seen those in that movement, Lin, and you are right....they have children sometimes as a "keeping up with the Jones'" sort of thing. I think merely having children is "raising and army of Christians" because to do that, you need to have the time to disciple them. Any of y'all see the stories about the Duggar family in Ark? They have 16 or 17 children now and yet in the stories it looks as if they are doing a great job of discipling each of them.
Okay, sorry to ramble.....
Bottom line, it's not Al Mohler's job, or PP or anyone else's job to determine what number of kids is right.
Apart from the emotional side of the argument, all I want to know is, what does the Bible say about cases like the Klouda case?
Unfortunately, the writer's response was based more on emotion than Biblical exposition.
This is a good question for John MacArthur.
This is the first time on the blog. Today GBC announced Hal Kitchings was announced as the new pastor. I found a sermon that he gave on July 22 at the FBC in Tuscaloosa. It was about God calling a preacher. Good stuff!
http://www.fbctuscaloosa.org/templates/cusfbctuscaloosa/details.asp?id=30073&PID=465314&Style=
Mohler made it very clear that he wasn't talking about those who couldn't have children.
Also, I agree that sending this message to the world is almost a waste of time. The world doesn't care about what is or isn't God's will.
BTW, why are large families scary?
"Trusting God's" link.
housewife wrote:
"... what does the Bible say about cases like the Klouda case?"
I don't believe the Bible says anything about it. PP's making up his own rules and going back on his word at the same time.
concernedSBCer said...
Bottom line, it's not Al Mohler's job, or PP or anyone else's job to determine what number of kids is right.
Your statement is true and it doesn't contradict what Mohler said. He did't mention how many kids one should have.
Housewife: I think large families are scary for some because they don't think there is time or money to take care of so many.
Trusting God: So GBC called the new pastor today? The vote was taken? And he is official?
Did the congregation find out his name and resume prior to this am?
Just curious. :)
(The parking lot was sure packed!)
What do we do about I Timothy 2:12?
I thought this guy's summary quite accurate...
volfan007 said...
wade,
i see no problem with a woman teaching men the hebrew language. but, the bible does prohibit a woman from teaching a man doctrine. that is very clear. no woman should be teaching a man in sunday school. no woman should be teaching men theology, or doctrine, in a seminary. no woman should be a pastor.
but, if all she was doing was teaching men the hebrew language, then i dont see the problem.
volfan007
17 January, 2007 12:44
Again, dealing with it without the emotion. I understand the emotion. But we must approach doctrine without it. That doesn't mean we don't care.
housewife wrote:
"I agree with the article about willful childlessness being rebellion of God's will."
I don't think it's Al Mohler's place (or yours or mine) to tell any couple whether they should have children or not. Some people are not parent material, and to me it's better if they realize that ahead of time they remain childless -- for the children's sake. I don't consider this selfish. Are you saying you believe that if someone doesn't want to have children, he or she should remain single?
"BTW, why are large families scary?"
Large families, in and of themselves, aren't scary (to me). Large families used to be the norm when we lived in an agrarian society, and I admire any couple who can properly raise and provide for a large brood. As long as you can afford to feed and provide for them and give them the one-on-one attention they need, I say have all you want. People should not, however, expect the taxpayers to foot the bill as in the cradle-to-grave, generational welfare which is epidemic in our society today.
I believe they just presented the name at GBC today. He's going to preach at least once (I think twice), and there's supposed to be an opportunity for the congregation to ask questions and get to know something about him before a vote is taken. So no, it's not "official" yet.
Isn't that an amazing concept? I mean, actually knowing the name of the potential pastor more than 30 minutes before the vote is taken? Who'd have thought... ?
housewife said...
"Too many men become ministers by applying online through a half-baked organization/business."
Unfortunately for BBC, neither did either. They are not real ministers or reverends, let alone pastors, just business men making a killing off God's tithe. (Sort of like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson)
GBC's Search Committee gave their recommendation of Dr. Hal Kitchings
- the church will have an opportunity to meet him and his family Sat. Oct. 27th and he will preach Sun. Oct 28th. Then there will be a vote.
Okay, the Duggars scare me a little. They obviously love their children, but they dress their girls like refugees from Little House on the Prairie! And while they are educating (home-schooling) all their children through high school, they've said they have no plans for any of their daughters to go to college. It seems their only goal is for the girls to get married and produce more children.
New BBC Open Forum said...
I believe they just presented the name at GBC today. He's going to preach at least once (I think twice), and there's supposed to be an opportunity for the congregation to ask questions and get to know something about him before a vote is taken. So no, it's not "official" yet.
Isn't that an amazing concept? I mean, actually knowing the name of the potential pastor more than 30 minutes before the vote is taken? Who'd have thought... ?
4:49 PM, October 14, 2007
Ellendale did the same thing with their new pastor. Announced his name one week, the next week he preached in view of call and had a dinner/meeting to get to know the guy, then the next week held a vote. Its an amazing Concept. Bellevue should apply it.
I absolutely agree with the welfare comment, Nass!!!!
BTW, I'm not saying all should have large families. But someone mentioned it as if large families were scary. I wasn't saying anything about large vs. small families.
About childlessness, again, what does the Bible say about it? I think Mohler's assessment is accurate. I agree that there are some scummy people out there. But that doesn't discount that what Mohler said about what the Bible says. Both points are true.
Unfortunately, that is yet another dichotomy of the world we live in. The Bible says one thing and the world wants to do another. The Bible says we should be fruitful and multiply and yet there are monsters out there who shouldn't be anywhere near a child.
=/
New BBC Open Forum said...
Okay, the Duggars scare me a little. They obviously love their children, but they dress their girls like refugees from Little House on the Prairie! And while they are educating (home-schooling) all their children through high school, they've said they have no plans for any of their daughters to go to college. It seems their only goal is for the girls to get married and produce more children.
4:57 PM, October 14, 2007
A virtuous endeavour, in my opinion.
I wrote:
"... but they dress their girls like refugees from Little House on the Prairie!"
Which is obviously better than the ridiculous way many teenage girls (including plenty I've seen in churches) dress today, but there is a happy medium. One can dress modestly without looking like an 1800's pioneer.
housewife wrote:
"A virtuous endeavour, in my opinion."
I agree if they're given other opportunities in life. What happens when one of them gets married and has a dozen children and her husband dies at a young age? Of course in the case of the Duggars, there will be plenty of siblings to step in to help out, but what if there weren't? Isn't getting an education or some kind of job skills so one can support oneself of any importance?
RE: the Duggars,
I believe some women are called to be stay-at-home moms, some are called to serve in another capacity. Some women desperately want children and have not been able to have them. Who knows God's plan for each of us except for Him and as he revelas it to us individually?
I think the danger is in the suppositions made that all women are to be stay at home mom's. I have been on both sides and I am here to tell you that it is no gravy job, the hardest on the planet I would think. I also believe that we should trust the Lord's leading in what we do, I can make no presumptions on another's decisions, even my own daughters. HOWEVER, while they do have college degrees, they would all be happy being known as just "Mom":) I did instill in them the wisdom to follow the Lord's leading in their lives and to be prepared for whatever calling he may have for them.
Childless
by Edgar A. Guest
If certain folks that I know well
Should come to me their woes to tell
I'd read the sorrow in their faces
And I could analyze their cases.
I watch some couples day by day
Go madly on their selfish way
Forever seeking happiness
And always finding something less.
If she whose face is fair to see,
Yet lacks one charm that there should be,
Should open wide her heart to-day
I think I know what she would say.
She'd tell me that his love seems cold
And not the love she knew of old;
That for the home they've built to share
No longer does her husband care;
That he seems happier away
Than by her side, and every day
That passes leaves them more apart;
And then perhaps her tears would start
And in a softened voice she'd add:
"Sometimes I wonder, if we had
A baby now to love, if he
Would find so many faults in me?"
And if he came to tell his woe
Just what he'd say to me, I know:
"There's something dismal in the place
That always stares me in the face.
I love her. She is good and sweet
But still my joy is incomplete.
And then it seems to me that she
Can only see the faults in me.
I wonder sometimes if we had
A little girl or little lad,
If life with all its fret and fuss
Would then seem so monotonous?"
And what I'd say to them I know.
I'd bid them straightway forth to go
And find that child and take him in
And start the joy of life to win.
You foolish, hungry souls, I'd say,
You're living in a selfish way.
A baby's arms stretched out to you
Will give you something real to do.
And though God has not sent one down
To you, within this very town
Somewhere a little baby lies
That would bring gladness to your eyes.
You cannot live this life for gold
Or selfish joys. As you grow old
You'll find that comfort only springs
From living for the living things.
And home must be a barren place
That never knows a baby's face.
Take in a child that needs your care,
Give him your name and let him share
Your happiness and you will own
More joy than you have ever known,
And, what is more, you'll come to feel
That you are doing something real.
Again, the author is assuming that choosing to remain childless is a selfish choice. It isn't always. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one.
I think people know whether or not they are capable of raising a kid or not.
I have one friend who fights depression constantly and other mental disorders. She doesn't want to have kids, not for the sake of not wanting them, but she doesn't want kids because with her mental disorders, she doesn't think she would be able to raise children.
Nass, I do believe that choosing to be childless is a selfish choice. But I say, "Fair enough." We will agree to disagree. =)
As far as being a housewife... Some people don't meet their spouses until later in life. Some marry just after high school. Either way, once a woman marries and has children, she should be home raising her own children.
If a woman wants to get a degree "just in case," she should do that before she has children. The children need her at home more than she needs her career, fancy stuff, etc. What's the point of having kids if you're not going to raise them yourself?
I understand that some women are left by their husbands. That's horrible. Many women know the men they chose were scum before they married them and they did it anyway. Others honestly went through the trouble to make sure the guy was a good, God-fearing man. And they (the men) betrayed them anyway. My heart goes out to the women who tried to do it right and were burned anyway. They now have to provide for a family. God bless them for stepping up to the plate. Ditto for the widows and wifes of men who somehow became physically unable to provide for their families. God bless them for doing what was necessary in the face of strife!!
RE: posts around 300pm October 14: It is domestic violence awareness week. With all love and respect, please when you publish those comments, MAKE SURE to note they are quotes. From a man who has obviously never been beaten or raped under his own roof, with his kids there. We have to be sure no one has the capability to paste/copy those in ANY WAY, to make them look valid. God Forbid someone should find her way out of D.V., only to stay due to garble like that. Thanks.
STM,
I thought we all did make it clear those were quotes of Paige Patterson and that his advice was stupid... for lack of a better word.
I want to weigh in MY OPINION about having children, please.
First of all, I think it is not the business of PP or AM or the government or women that love being moms so much we think everyone should feel the same way.
I can think of 3 friends right off the top of my head that chose not to be parents for different reasons....personal ones.
I had the opportunity the last several days of being responsible for a young teen that has every single thing money can buy. Her parents have every Christian book available, they have a huge house in a nice area,and they participate in many many church activities.
The 2 children KNOW they are not high on the parents priority list....particularly the dad's. As much of a "church man" as the world and the church see the dad as... everything and everybody in the family revolves around keeping him happy, living up to his standards, his moods, his control, ....no real relationships or respect...certainly not for the children as individuals or as valuable.
Some people should NOT have children even when they can afford them.
Then there is the young mom I spent time with last year that was tired of being away from work before the baby was 6 weks old.
The baby was in day care from 7 AM till 5-6 PM 5 days a week.
How does that baby learn trust and safety and love in a day care setting.
How is that baby properly stimulated and nurtured. I asked if she wanted to be with her baby more and she said she loved her job too much.....
I guess too much to sacrifice the time to nurture and protect her own child.
I'm not talking about the single moms left without child support as many of us have been. These people HAVE choices.
Sometimes it's more selfish to give birth to a child!
And just for the record.....
I KNOW ConcernedSBCer home schooled her triplets and 4th child and has a beautiful relationship with them and they are fine young people.
They may not have had every little extra thing money could buy BUT they are very confident in the loving relationship they have with their mom and much more that money can never buy.
My son said he was the only kid he knew in middle and H.S. that had a "stay home mom" that worked full time.
We had 1 vacation in a thousand years and we are experts at nailing and gluing things almost anything back together.
But on his worse day he will say that he never doubted my love and committment to him or to his sister or that I wanted only God's best for them.
Back before birth control, parents had alot of kids as a rule.
I can tell you how life altering it is to KNOW you were not wanted and just an accident that happened. It affects a child forever.
IF people are not able to have the type of sacrificial love and committment to children that is necessary...
then they should NOT have kids and they should NOT be shamed by or encouraged by whoever these ministers think they are that we should care about their input on matters so personal.
Are the Baptists now Catholics with popes!
I wish I were still as ignorant as I used to be about the people that run the SBC!
I have to eat chocolate now!!
Ironically, the first Duggar family special is on the Discovery Health Channel right now with two more to follow. Channel 203 on Comcast, 279 on DirecTV.
Actually gmommy, your post speaks to the point I made about the dichotomy of the world we live in. We don't interpret Scripture according to the fact that this culture has gone to hell in a hand basket but rather, in spite of it.
gmommy said...
I can tell you how life altering it is to KNOW you were not wanted and just an accident that happened. It affects a child forever.
I know this as well and yet, I reached a different conclusion.
BTW, I would NEVER discount how you pulled yourself by the bootstraps to do what your husband would not! As you say, your kids know your virtue! Amen to that. =)
"I agree with the article about willful childlessness being rebellion of God's will."
Like Paul or Mary Magdalene?
Where do you read this command in the NT? Just curious.
I make an absurd argument above because we cannot judge these things. Paul remained single for a reason. We do not know about Mary M. We do not know the situation with Peter's family.
All we know is that Christ want us to love Him MORE than we love our kids and our spouse.
Apart from the emotional side of the argument, all I want to know is, what does the Bible say about cases like the Klouda case?
Unfortunately, the writer's response was based more on emotion than Biblical exposition.
This is a good question for John MacArthur.
4:03 PM, October 14, 2007
Actually it is not a good question for him. He believes in the creation order of authority which one has to READ INTO the Genesis account.
If the creation order meant authority then why wasn't that mentioned in the account? If you check it out...the word for 'helper' is ezer which is used to describe God several times in the OT. It is not a 'subordinate' position.
Why do you think the post was 'emotional'? I am lost on that one.
"What do we do about I Timothy 2:12?"
The first thing is to take the verse in the entire context of the letter. Why was it written and to whom? What is the overall theme?
Here it is in a nutshell:
In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)
Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine. He only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)
Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of his fighting against the church was because he was ignorant of the truth and he had been deceived (1 Tim 1:13, 16)
Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7) and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)
Paul names the deceivers Hy and Al(1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)
Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)
All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst - those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)
The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)
Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man and deals with a problem of false teaching and a false teacher.
Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers - he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education in sound doctrine and he never ever identifies the deceived.
Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context the prohibition can only be the stopping of false doctrine and stopping a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)
We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for false teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)
Whenever 'gune' and 'aner' are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.
Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1) 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 follows that example as two people are called “a woman” and “a man” without naming them. They are not named because the wife is one of the deceived and Paul never identifies the deceived ones by name.
Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman was created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14 and Gen. 2:8, 19) See Genesis 2:8, 19 in the Apostle’s Bible which is the modern English version of the Greek Septuagint where it is quite clear the education Adam had before Eve was created.
The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The â”she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.
The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.
1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer as to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).
Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.
"BTW, I'm not saying all should have large families. But someone mentioned it as if large families were scary. I wasn't saying anything about large vs. small families."
That was me and I did not do a good job of explaining. I meant some are having large families for DOMINION purposes. They are actually teaching this! That was the scary part.
Don't look now folks, but you're making the same arguments the abortion rights groups make.
aog,
Huh?
People who aren't parent material aren't marriage material either. Dr. Mohler has and does address the issue of people who marry with the express intent to remain childless, which is one of the main purposes of the institution of marriage to begin with. Saying it's no one's business as to whether or not someone chooses to reproduce, is the very same argument the abortion rights activists make...it's no one's business...I would say it's very much God's business, since His word declares that it is "the Lord who opens and closes the womb." The moment we say we will decide the issue ourselves we've attempted to place ourselves on God's throne. Who are we to say who should or should not have children, since it is the Lord Himself who is the author of all life? Do we think we are that wise? Do we really believe a single life enters this world outside of His authority and will regardless of how it arrives?
If so then that god is not the God of the Bible. Btw, Dr. Mohler's writings on this subject have nothing to do with those who remain single, but those who marry and choose to remain childless, even though they are capable of having children. I say he's right on target.
aog,
We're not talking about abortion which, as I already stated, I think we all agree is wrong. In fact, as someone said, it's murder. That's hardly the same thing as practicing "family planning" even though I'm sure you'd tell me the abortion proponents include abortion as an alternative in "family planning." (I don't for one second buy that.)
To "let nature take it's course" if you can't afford to have children or properly take care of them or for whatever reason know you would not make a good parent, is just plain irresponsible. We're not animals!
Bottom line: It's none of my business or yours or Al Mohler's or anyone else's but the two people involved whether a married couple chooses to have children.
Hey, Lin! I think you sucked all the air out of the room with that last comment. :-)
AOG, Where is this taught in the NT in writing or in practice?
Would the reverse, a godly couple who cannot have children be a curse or punishment of some sort then?
(I do not have time to research his original article but I do not remember if he was speaking specifically to Christian couples...or to all married couples.)
Hey, Lin! I think you sucked all the air out of the room with that last comment. :-)
The calm before the storm? :o)
Lin wrote:
"The calm before the storm? :o)"
I hope not. But the ones that didn't faint dead away are probably penning their responses now. Buckle up.
Oops, I found one:
1 Timothy 5:14
So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.
And then there are couples who marry later in life, ( late twenties to late thirties) and their window of opportunity has dwindled for reproducing. Let me tell you...there is NOTHING more hurtful than to be accused of being selfish by not having children, when you have blisters on your knees from crying out to God to PLEASE give you children.
Please don't just assume that when a couple has not children that it is by choice. They are probly not going to tell you why, because, frankly, it's no one else's business and it is VERY personal, but pleae don't just assume selfishness on their part.'
Many times, people will make up excuses as to why they don't have children to hide the fact that they are infertile...so please don't judge one way or the other..it is VERY personal, and it's no one's business.
oh, and p.s. ....
DO NOT ASK THEM WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN!!!!!!
It might seem silly that I would have to say that but trust me on this one...people will ask...
I once had a total stranger ask me whose problem it was..mine or my husband's.. If I had been able to think quick enough, i would have said to her, " YOURS"
Here's another thing NOT to say to couple who you suspect have been unable to conceive....Do NOT say, " Maybe you're just trying too hard"...This has many many implications, some sexual in nature and it is the HEIGHT of ignorance and " butinsky" ..bite your tongue before you EVER say this!!!!
Of course, as you all know, The Lord DID send us the two children that he had planned on us having all along...they just didn't come in the ' traditional' way. They came in HIS way in HIS own time.
God is so good!!!! I praise HIS name!!!
Thank you, SOTL. I would never pretend to presume why any couple is childless. You're absolutely right. It's nobody's business.
Not that it is any of my business, but why are people debating formula?
All these details are confusing. I know I am no scholar, but isnt God trying to teach us about life in the flesh and of this world v. a life outside our bodies in the Spirit?
God gifts us all differently, so each is responsible to find his/her way through Him and not in accordance with any forumula.
Do I need to quote scripture to participate?
SOTL,
It's amazing to think anyone would be so crass as to ask such personal questions! I can't imagine. Eeek!
You and your husband and your two beautiful, special children are truly blessed!
SOTL,
I can relate. My story is too personal to relate here but God answered prayer after a long time with one dear child. I have a dear friend right now who I have been interceeding for 10 years. They are in their mid 30's.
It is very sad. I can see them both tear up when someone callously says, when are you going to start having kids?
"Not that it is any of my business, but why are people debating formula?"
Telos!!! How are you, friend?
Of course it is your business...this is a blog. :o)
Can you give me some understanding what you mean by formula? I don't get it. I'm blonde, you know. :o)
Boy, I go out after church with friends and look what I miss!
Verse to think about:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed.
Titus 2: 4-5
I always wanted to be a Mom; God put that desire in me as long as I can remember. I met a good Christian boy from a good Christian family (I thought!) married and settled down. I didn't finish college because a baby came along. That was my biggest mistake. Because, while I thought my marriage was forever, my husband did not. It has been a real struggle to provide as a single Mom. It would have been easier, I believe, with a degree. See, it wasn't my dedication, or sin, but another's sin affected me and I was ill-prepared. I have told my girls this: my heart's desire is for you to be able to have a family and be at home to school and raise them, but I want you to be prepared regardless. Therefore, you can marry after you graduate! Insurance? You betcha. This world is a tough place. It takes two to make a marriage and only one to divorce, so be prepared no matter what. That being said, the best part of my entire life has been being a Mom to my kids, schooling then, and watching them grow up.
Why God allows children to be born to parents that don't want them is right up there with why God allows children to be abused.
Aog,
I respect that your opinion is different from mine. I just don't think these are easy questions.
Maybe for you but not for me.
:)
BTW GMommy, Thanks for the compliment, but it has only been by the grace and mercy of God that things have turned out the way they have. God is truly husband to the husbandless and father to the fatherless.
:-)
Exactly, Paul was single. The subject matter was about willful childlessness within marriage.
Why does it need to come from the NT? Does not the OT speak plenty of it? Did Jesus change or remove what the OT says about having children as he did food and the law?
Can you expand on the "Creation order" part? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've either not heard that one or I've never heard it called that. Thanks in advance.
Many people would rather ignore what the Bible says because they feel it's unfair, not practical, outdated, etc about certain issues. A good example of this is the issue of women pastors. The usual reasoning is, "Don't you think it's unfair? Don't you think it's antiquated especially in this day and age?" It's an emotional way of approaching the matter rather than keeping it simple as to what does the Bible say?
.....God gifts us all differently, so each is responsible to find his/her way through Him and not in accordance with any forumula.
THANK YOU!!!! Welcome Telos!
Telos: What do you mean, formula?
Please jump in; that's why we are here!
Not having children is painful... My former wife had a miscarriage with her first husband and subsequently we could not have children in our marriage. This, primarily, made her very bitter.
People ask me all the time if I have children. It is at these times when I feel God is really at work.
I believe we are all called to live in Him. To be content and be of the Spirit irrespective of the circumstances. Within the pain we grow deeper in Christ and our lives become a testament of His divine power and Glory.
I kind of get upset when I hear people talk about being financially able to provide for a child. Or like there is some formula that says this is how you do it. This seems so contrary to a life in Christ. I do believe that we have become more concerned about standard of living and less concerned about standard of Spiritual living.
telos wrote:
"I kind of get upset when I hear people talk about being financially able to provide for a child."
Well, someone has to provide for them if their parent(s) can't or won't. Why should responsible, tax-paying citizens foot the bill for those who act irresponsibly? Again, I wasn't talking about people who have a short-term need for assistance but those who are on the public dole from cradle to grave, generation after generation.
Nass,
telos isn't talking about the same thing that you are...
Well lin, I must admit that I am not as learned in the Greek as you are. So I can't say if your summary is accurate or not. I will have to consult further study to know this, verify it. But thank you for explaining this. I said earlier regarding other posts that I ask because I don't know. (Although sometimes, the questions are rhetorical.) And this is one that I will have to continue on with. Thanks. =)
telos,
Did I misinterpret?
BTW lin, you didn't give an emotional answer. Whether or not your assessment is correct, your answer dealt with Scripture and not about fairness. That's what I meant when I said the writer of the article dealt with it in emotion.
telos wrote:
"I kind of get upset when I hear people talk about being financially able to provide for a child."
Well, someone has to provide for them if their parent(s) can't or won't. Why should responsible, tax-paying citizens foot the bill for those who act irresponsibly? Again, I wasn't talking about people who have a short-term need for assistance but those who are on the public dole from cradle to grave, generation after generation.
I guess we are called to sacrifice. I guess if I pay more taxes my standard of living goes down?
Was Christ born in Germantown off Johnson road?
Who said if he provided for the birds how much more did he think of you? Who said take care of the widows and the orphens?
Nass, I am not saying it is responsible to have sex if you cant afford to have children. But if you do - your life will be changed in the sense you will have to depend more on Christ and less on your own dollar.
Sorry - I understand your point and your unhappiness to support those who are irresponsible, but we are called to live a different life.
The generational problem is complicated and it would take too long to break down tonight.
But perhaps it is a good place to start a ministry to help them dig out???
lin said...
Would the reverse, a godly couple who cannot have children be a curse or punishment of some sort then?
This is what aog was talking about regarding God's will. Sarah was barren but God had a will for her. Still, Sarah did see it as a curse.
housewife,
You might want to read and consider some of the material here.
This is really not a hill to die on.
I disagree with housewife and probably aog on this subject ...
but that's OK...doesn't mean we need to get all bent out of shape.
PROBABLY if PP or AM made an issue of it...I would disagree with their views.
One more opinion...what's wrong with being an educated mom?????
Not "Just in case" but just because education is a wonderful thing!!
I have quoted my "redneck daddy" before...his thinking was "why does a woman need a college education to birth babies."
I absolutely adore being a mommy. But what was wrong with an education too...it is inspiring and a good example for the kids to follow anyway.
Everytime we saw a garbage collector,I would say to my son that had the man had an opportunity to get an education he may not be working with stinky garbage....
I heard him tell his little cousin that same thing when his cousin was still in a car seat.
JMO
"Why does it need to come from the NT? Does not the OT speak plenty of it? Did Jesus change or remove what the OT says about having children as he did food and the law?"
Jesus does not speak of it except for the verse I wrote above. What He says is this and it is repeated in Mark and Matthew:
Luke
25Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."
My point is that I do not see the 'be fruitful and multiply' command in the NT. Remember, the premise we are talking about...childless couples being outside of God's will. We do not know if Priscilla and Aquila have children. Wouldn't that be important?
"Can you expand on the "Creation order" part? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've either not heard that one or I've never heard it called that. Thanks in advance."
That is the premise that is taught for God ordained male authority OUTSIDE of marriage.
"Many people would rather ignore what the Bible says because they feel it's unfair, not practical, outdated, etc about certain issues. A good example of this is the issue of women pastors. The usual reasoning is, "Don't you think it's unfair? Don't you think it's antiquated especially in this day and age?" It's an emotional way of approaching the matter rather than keeping it simple as to what does the Bible say?"
It has nothing to do with fair or what I want. I have NO agenda except to understand the Word. If I am sinning by witnessing to and teaching men, then I need to be sure.
I only want to deeply study scripture. I believe the scriptures are Inspired...including the original grammar.
What I am NOT willing to do is to believe any teaching from anyone without studying it for myself in context..with prayer for understanding.
Remember, millions believe(d) that infant baptism is scriptural for almost 2 thousand years now.
Scripture NEVER contradicts itself. That is why it has to be taken as a whole. Including the covenants and/or dispensations.
We have to be very careful not to add or read into it what we want. And, I am here to tell you it is many times not as clear as one thinks. Especially when there is so much proof texting going on.
You will even have well known pastors tell you that Jesus used parables so that people would easily understand. That is a lie.
Here is a question for you: Can you tell me where in the OT there is a law prohibiting women from teaching or leading men?
sickie- This has been cleared up already. This isn't talking about those who can't. This is talking about those who won't. That a couple hides the fact that they can't, doesn't change their category. Nobody is asking for a public account as to "can't" and "won't."
Lin,
I will email you about the formula thing.
Hey, I do love your blog. I wonder if J Carter stops in : )
Peace
sickie - just to clarify... When I said, "Nobody is asking...", I was referring to this conversation. =) I'm sorry strangers think they can ask those questions. =(
"I am not saying it is responsible to have sex if you cant afford to have children."
Therefore, you're saying it's irresponsible, right?
"But if you do - your life will be changed in the sense you will have to depend more on Christ and less on your own dollar."
Interpretation (subject to correction): "But if you act irresponsibly your life will be changed.... " Of course, you'll still be relying on someone's dollar, if not your own.
"Sorry - I understand your point and your unhappiness to support those who are irresponsible, but we are called to live a different life."
Thank you. However, I don't understand what our call as Christians to "live a different life" has to do with this.
New BBC Open Forum said...
housewife,
You might want to read and consider some of the material here.
I think its kinda funny after all the talk on this blog about false teaching to have this website referenced in this discussion. There are so many problems with what is promoted on that site that I cannot begin to enumerate them.
Sigh.
GMommy: You make an excellent point. Education for the sake of education is priceless. It doesn't all have to come from a college degree, though. Many people I know have been truly educated without the benefit of a degree. I hope to return to college to complete my degree sometime. However, in the meantime, I can do my best to continue studying and learning.
Nass,
In short - it is God's dollar and God's children.
We should do everything to Glorify God and our comfort is secondary.
Would the reverse, a godly couple who cannot have children be a curse or punishment of some sort then?
This is what aog was talking about regarding God's will. Sarah was barren but God had a will for her. Still, Sarah did see it as a curse.
10:30 PM, October 14, 2007
It is in God's hands and He can do what He wants. But lets not get off topic too much: Mohler said childless couples are selfish.
We are still waiting to hear from the willfully- childless- truly -Christian couples. Are there any out there reading this that would care to comment?
yet, we have heard from several who have been on their faces in prayer over this painful subject. I bet many of us know quite a few godly couples who are in or have been in this situation.
I once went to a foreign adoption orientation at a local church and there were over 400 people there! (Half of them were crying the whole time)
I think Mohler needs to get out of his ivory tower and mingle with the peasants more often.
Ya know....when I was born, I had a mother that did not want me. Thankfully, the people who I call mom and dad today did. And to be quite honest, God blessed me greatly by allowing me to wind up with my adoptive parents.
I firmly believe in my heart that if I had not been adopted and loved by my adopted parents, I would either be in prision, a crackhead, or a carnie like my biological brother. Yes I have met my biological mother. She lived next door to me for years growing up. I really don't have any use for her. My adoptive mom even regrets not taking my brother in when he was born as well. If she did, he wouldn't be where he is. :(.
Lynn
Nobody is asking for a public account as to "can't" and "won't."
10:36 PM, October 14, 2007
Then how do you know???????????????
(banging head against keyboard)
Telos: You've got mail.
:-)
Hey, I do love your blog. I wonder if J Carter stops in : )
Peace"
In my dreams! :o)
Thanks Nass. I'll check it out. =)
"There are so many problems with what is promoted on that site that I cannot begin to enumerate them."
Go for it. The site owner welcomes those who will lovingly show where she is wrong using scripture. She is very gracious.
gmommy, I never said a woman can't be educated. I said, "just in case" in response to a specific thing NASS said, in which she mentioned that some marriages break up, then what? (Don't mean to misquote you Nass. Please correct me if I'm wrong on what you said.)
But educated or not, a woman should raise her own kids.
Nass,
Is it irresponsible to start a church if I cant afford one?
Again lin, your post has given me great info that I need to look into. =)
You said "It has nothing to do with fair or what I want."
Exactly. That's all I was saying. (That's not the way to refute the question.) But that's usually how most people, including the writer, approached it. I just wanted to cut across all of that and get to the only thing that matters... What does the Bible say?
lin said...
Here is a question for you: Can you tell me where in the OT there is a law prohibiting women from teaching or leading men?
HA! I haven't even gotten to the Greek part. I'll need more time for the Hebrew side. LOL.
What I am NOT willing to do is to believe any teaching from anyone without studying it for myself in context..with prayer for understanding.
My prior point exactly.
But educated or not, a woman should raise her own kids.
10:57 PM, October 14, 2007
Some single moms have to work and cannot be home all day. Like my mom had to when my dad died after a long, costly and rare disease when I was young.
It turned out to be a blessing she was college educated.
Beware of legalism.
Lin said...
I think Mohler needs to get out of his ivory tower and mingle with the peasants more often.
Exactly what I thought when this topic came up. I'm glad you said it so I wouldn't have to. :)
lin said:
I once went to a foreign adoption orientation at a local church and there were over 400 people there! (Half of them were crying the whole time)
****
LOL, that was probly me!!! :)
Been there and done that!! But mine had a happy ending!! We picked up our 3 month old Korean born daughter at the Memphis Internationsl airport on February 26, 1986. NOw that baby girl is about to graduate from college in December..with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing...
We have been so blessed!!!
Hey room. Someone told me that I was missed, so I thought I'd poke my head back in here.
Quick question. I was in the service tonight, and someone or someone's (it was hard to tell) voted "No" very loudly to the motion for messengers to the local and state conventions, as well as the nominations for new deacons.
Why do this? Was there someone objectionable about the individuals involved, or was it just a protest vote against the leadership?
I'll reserve editorial comment pending a response.
Lin said...
Junkster said: "There are so many problems with what is promoted on that site that I cannot begin to enumerate them."
Lin said: Go for it. The site owner welcomes those who will lovingly show where she is wrong using scripture. She is very gracious.
I could tell that she is.
But, nah, its not an issue I'm interested in debating, and it is not a quick, easy matter to address. Maybe I shouldn't have commented about the site at all ... it is not that everything there is all wrong; she has many good points to make. I just don't want folks to assume that there isn't an agenda being promoted just because someone claims they are only seeking to correctly interpret and apply Scripture.
But as you are fond to say, I encourage everyone who reads it (or anything you or I or anyone else writes) with the attitude of the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures to see if what they were taught was true. (I admire that the author of the site also encourages diligent study to test whether her teachings are correct.)
OK. Come on now. How many times does this need to be cleared? He wasn't talking about those who can't have children.
telos wrote:
"Is it irresponsible to start a church if I cant afford one?"
I don't get it. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
SOTL,
Praise Him!
"He wasn't talking about those who can't have children."
I thought that was obvious. Wasn't it?
Lin said...
Then how do you know??
Think about the reasons why people willfully choose not to have kids.
It would get in the way of my career. I don't want to give up the stuff....
Me, me, me, me. That's selfishness. Even if you factor in the opinion that these people don't make good parents, they don't because they are selfish.
Please, please don't start with the part about applying this conversation to those who can't have kids. We all should know by now that this isn't talking about them.
"I just don't want folks to assume that there isn't an agenda being promoted just because someone claims they are only seeking to correctly interpret and apply Scripture. "
I wouldn't want folks to assume there isn't an agenda being promoted from the other side, too, just because they claim they are only seeking to correctly interpret and apply scripture. :o)
But, Junk, it is NOT fair to say there is lots wrong on that site and then refuse to point it out to her. We can all learn from loving and scriptural discussions.
Oh lin, here we go again. I already mentioned that I wasn't talking about those who were widowed and had to step up to the plate. As a matter of fact, I hold such women in high regard!
New BBC Open Forum said...
"He wasn't talking about those who can't have children."
I thought that was obvious. Wasn't it?
11:32 PM, October 14, 2007
Apparently not.
You know, I often wonder how hard it must be to see all of those kids in an orphanage. I wonder if I would think, "How do I pick just one?" I would think it's hard to leave the rest behind. Can't I just take them all? Emotional, I know. Silly questions since I would be grateful to take just one little baby home.
Bless those who adopt!!!
Off to bed. I have enjoyed the discussion tonight very much. And I still love all those I disagree with!
Finance Guy @ 11:19 PM, October 14, 2007...
For the record, it wasn't me even though I joked about it. I've been getting into trouble here all evening and I have witnesses to prove it. ;P
'Night, sheeps! Thanks for the interesting, thoughtful discussions tonight.
Room,
Mrs Finance Guy was recently in a conversation with someone who has left, and the individual made the comment "God is finished with Bellevue".
Further conversation seemed to indicate that this person really seemed to be saying that "Bellevue will never be the same" A true statement, for sure, but "God is finished with Bellevue"? I find this a very bold statement indeed, no matter what "side" you find yourself on.
Her response, which I agreed with is that God is Sovereign, (and while it's true that God can and does place "Icabode" over the door), how is any one of us in a position to say that God is finished at Bellevue? Can God still work at Bellevue?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Finance Guy: Hey! We have missed you! :-)
Is God finished at Bellevue yet? I don't think so. Just Saturday I was talking to a longtime member at BBC, who has stayed for various reasons, who said to me, "I'm very uncomfortable at BBC now. It just doesn't seem right." After I smiled, nodded, and congratulated her on being discerning, I asked her what she was going to do. She said, quite puzzled, "I'm not sure." God is still working within the lives of members, I'm sure of it. However, on a corporate level, who knows? I'm sure He is trying. Is leadership listening? I certainly hope so. No outward signs yet on that. Stay tuned.
As always, JMHO.
Seems there has been interesting conversation ongoing...I missed it. Have to add although a little late in doing so...my mother-in-law had ten children. My husband was next to the youngest. She was a dandy...meaning that she was cut from the old cloth. She was among the top of the line when it came to her Christian duties. She loved God and never, never missed an oppportunity to witness to the lost about Jesus Christ. I had great admiration and respect for her. She was often chided about having such a 'housefull' of children. She was always quick to respond that this was biblical...that the Bible said to replenish the earth. :) My husband used to tell her that God didn't mean for her to do it all by herself. I love to hear the storied my husband can tell about being raised in a family such as this...it always reminds me of the movie, "Cheaper by the Dozen". This family wasn't supplied with material things...they were supplied with spiritual goods. A big difference.
financeguy,
"Why do this? Was there someone objectionable about the individuals involved, or was it just a protest vote against the leadership?"
We will never know unless the peson that objected finds a microphone and tells us.
What would have happened if this person had asked for the floor to tell us? What if he had stood behind a mike and said...I don't want____representing me, I live next door to him, and know his sin....
First, from experience...we know he would never get close to the mike...and we know that exposing sin in the camp just ain't the christian thing to do any more. Especially at church.....
So you take the only option available....vote no. When one takes a vote the way we do it these days...you gotta hand it to the guy....took guts to loudly say no in a crowd that said yes.
I bet his daddy told him that just because all your friends jump off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to....
By the way, it wasn't me. But I do say this to get folks to think. Just what would have to be put up for a vote that a majority would collectively, loudly vote no or against?.......It goes totally against animal husbandry......
I have heard it said that a mule is about the safest animal to ride. Because you can't make him hurt himself.............
Herd animals are especially stupid because they will go places as a group that they would never consider going as an individual.....
It took 1 generation for Israel to jump off that bridge after Joshua died......1.......1......(Judges 2:10)
And the result was servitude...caused by IDOLATRY......Judges 3:1-8
And that leads me to take a stab at answering your last question. No God is not through with BBC. (Judges 3:1-8). The people that have left BBC and the ones that have stayed are being and have been tested. Some...have stood firm on the WORD and refused to sign an oath...or pledge..at great cost. Just ask that old granny...God bless her....Some have found other places to serve. Some have gathered at the bank of the sea.....(Rev 17:15).
You have a leader that is standing in the water and telling you "come on in, the water is fine". He is even doing it publicly on TV paid for with your tithe dollars. You say "no he isn't, he is inviting the world to the church"......When is the last time you saw the sea come to dry land? Katrina? Yes but it went back........
God tells us in the WORD that in the end times there will be leaders that are leading you to destruction. Israel had them. We have them. Prophecy is going to be fulfilled. I bet you could canvass the nation and talk to every church in it and not find one that as a group views themselves in apostacy. Yet the WORD tells us they will be here and they are here....
The WORD came as a sword to divide even families, husband and wife, father and child....yet in the culture we have today, any division is seen as rebellion. Targeted for condemnation and ridicule. Persecution.......Things really haven't changed much in 2000 years have they?
Please, please don't start with the part about applying this conversation to those who can't have kids. We all should know by now that this isn't talking about them.
11:34 PM, October 14, 2007
Sweetie, My point is that one just cannot really know. If you met my dear friend who is trying like crazy, you would think she is a big corporate career person who does not want to give that up. But she would in a heartbeat if she had a child. In the meantime she works, gets promoted, etc. And no, she does not go around making it known how hard they are trying. It is extremely personal. That has been the whole point all along. We cannot judge these things without more information. And we rarely get it.
However, I will concede that we read about childless couples who do not want kids and are very vocal about it. But as I said earlier, are these Christian couples or unbelievers? We can expect this sort of thing from the world and it only shows us that they need to hear the gospel.
Where are the vocal Christian couples who say they do not want children?
Oh lin, here we go again. I already mentioned that I wasn't talking about those who were widowed and had to step up to the plate. As a matter of fact, I hold such women in high regard!
11:36 PM, October 14, 2007
With no fault divorce and spouse abuse many of these women today are single moms. Many of the single moms in churches thought they were marrying Christians.
Al Mohlers article about willfull barrennes
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16748_2.html
From the article: “The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.”
Where are these couples? He gives us no examples. Most of us have seen tons of examples of those who cannot have children but unless you knew them personally, you might think they were choosing not to. It is not something people make public.
Article: “The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied.
Raise them up to be husbands, fathers, wives and mothers?. I do not understand what he means by this in practice. Whether he likes it or not, children ‘catch’ most of that from their role models: Parents.
But what about Lottie Moon? Were her parents in sin because she did not turn out to be a wife or mother? What about Peter who was gone from home all the time building the early church? Timothy’s father was Greek and Timothy learned the scriptures from his mom and grandmother.
I want to raise my daughter to FIRST and foremost love Jesus Christ with all her heart and soul. If that manifests itself in marriage and children, then fine. If it manifests itself as a single woman doing whatever she does to the Glory of God, then fine. .
Is anyone else seeing the legalism creeping into SBC circles? A very good friend of mine who goes to SBTS told me just yesterday he is seeing an acceptance of padeo-baptism slowing creeping into SBTS. We are also seeing a form of Patriarchy coming into SWBTS and SBTS.
I would like to suggest that Al put his six figure income where his mouth is. There are tons of Christian couples out there who would love to have children or more children but cannot. Why not start a fund for adoptions? It costs a fortune to adopt. Most couples go into a huge debt to do so.
But the most chilling aspect of this article is this:
“The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding””
The church MUST preach the full gospel, first. Then it needs to go out and witness. There will ALWAYS be moral rebellion. And there are millions of issues that society needs to gain sanity on., What is the solution? Jesus Christ! What good is it to tell unbelievers in society they are in rebellion on THIS particular issue?
Then he switches from ‘society in general’ and makes us think he is now talking about ‘saints’ on this issue. Where are these couples in Christendom?
Finance Guy,
I can only say I would never speak for God and His being finished anywhere.
Probably alot of hurt was mixed into that bold statement. It has been almost a year since the BBC journey began for me and I can say I still feel like an orphan.
As an individual, I personally was finished at BBC at the rigged business meeting.
The "leadership" shut down the meeting while a motion was on the floor
(and BTW, we had our own Palimentarian and went by the Roberts Rules).
At the same time, a young man was seen by the Sr Pastor and others in leadership (and by me)
making his way down the balcony steps.
He had grown up at BBC, been molested by his minister parent and then ignored and discounted by the current leadership.
Seeing his face as Jim Angel stood up with his lame motion,
seeing men making proper "Roberts Rules " motions to prevent the shut down
BUT the microphones had been turned off to prevent this young man from speaking about the so called integrity of the SR Pastor and about the way he was further violated by the church he had called home.
Watching Steve walk by him and the gray haired men ignore him as well was when this gmommy was finished at BBC.
It has been almost a year of shock and grief, physical as well as emotional pain, and a time of questioning almost everything I thought I knew.
Hey y'all,
I don't have children, and feel I made the decision responsibly after I took the path of an artist--a speculative career if there ever was one. Not everyone should be a parent, and not only because they are not fit for it. We must all decide what role we play in society. Once a parent, all other priorities should fall below providing a good home and looking after a child's education and well-being.
This was not the case in my upbringing, and thus inherited a maalstrom well into adulthood. Had I made the decision to be a parent, then my career choice would have needed to follow suit.
Now this path has placed me before 500 children, most of whom are without the basics--without involved parents, these kids come to school to eat, already carrying huge emotional, physical and psychological burdens, considered a lost cause to the majority of society. How much should they be responsible for the circumstances of their birth, the state of their mother and fathers lack, or the way society dismisses them, out of hand?
Lynn, thank goodness and your God for your adoptive parents; so few that pay lip-service to the sanctity of life are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
I agree Sweet Cakes! Are you on Fall break???
Sorry I have been a no show in life....have been thinking about you!!!
Hi Cakes!
In one sentence you said it all: "Once a parent, all other priorities should fall below providing a good home and looking after a child's education and well-being."
That is the key, whether you have 1, 4, or 14 children, that is the key. That's what's missing in so many homes now. The raising (not spoiling!) of children that is the parent's responsibility, and the decision was made when they decided to have children. (and when you decide to be intimate, you are ultimately deciding to become a parent because the two are connected....oops happen!)
Post a Comment