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 401 – 600 of 629 Newer› Newest»The question is God finished with Bellevue?
I believe nothing is over until God says it’s over. I have no doubt there is a Godly remnant at Bellevue and without, that are bombarding heaven with prayer and supplication….asking God to intervene and bring about much needed brokenness and repentance.
I also firmly believe if the Church stays the course, of allowing leadership to continue in a haughty, arrogant …if you don’t like it, leave mentality….then Bellevue’s influence will continue to diminish rapidly.
I don’t believe for one minute that the Church is going to suddenly correct itself with a proliferation of Television ads and creative sermonetes.
To be blunt, Non believers are not going to flock to Bellevue, and there are too many wonderful Churches in the area for mature saints to put up with the nonsense!
Without a mid-course… new direction the Church will continue to slide, Godly people will saturate 2000 Appling road with their absence!
Unless….Dr. Gaines is absolutely broken by God’s Spirit…..and the Memphis Mafia (A.K.A. His yes men) are rained in, by God and the remnant of God’s people who have the courage to say no more!
If that happens, Bellevue could still be a “Family of friend’s, and a friend to the family”….now it more resembles something from “The Godfather” if you don’t like it….we will whack ya!
Trying hard to dislodge from my brain the image of Dr. Gaines sitting at the head of a conference table like (Brando) saying Whadda ya Mean we have’s a problem!
gmommy/concerned
I fully agree that there have been some deep hurts inflicted on individuals and large parts of the church body. And I believe that those responsible will be held to account, either in this life or the next. However, there is this clarion call out there that if you are a discerning person, you should remove yourself from the fellowship, as God has moved on from Bellevue. I have a hard time with that statement. I agree that things are out of whack right now. There are situations that are too bizarre and surreal to be true, yet they are. There does appear to be a move on the part of the leadership to just "wear down and wait out" those who have "concerns", and simply play the numbers game. (If this is in fact the case, the claim that "Bellevue loves Memphis" kinda rings hollow, as we don't even love each other. At least not with a Christ-like love.)
Or it could be that they really don’t understand the breath and depth of sincerity of those who are “concerned”. (This could be the case, as I keep hearing that opposition is explained as “people just don’t like the music”, when it fact it goes much deeper than that.)
I personally believe that God can use Bellevue in the furtherance of his Kingdom, no matter what the motivations of leadership and members may be. History is full of examples. However, it's my firm belief that Bellevue will have to come to a place where it is absolutely broken before God. I do not think that has happened yet, nor do I think it’s in the near future. I think as a church, people are tired, uneasy, worn down, angry, hurt, bitter, sad, confused, frustrated, or some similar feelings, but not broken. There are those who are truly broken before God over the events of the past two years, but those are the exception and not the rule. (In my humble opinion and observation).
People are too focused on Steve Gaines. I would argue that the seed for the current troubles was planted years ago, by a congregation that placed too much responsibility on the pastor for it’s spiritual health. The pastor’s Spiritual Condition became the barometer of our own personal Spiritual Condition, making us complacent as a congregation. As long as we were going to hear a preacher that had unimpeachable credentials as a mature Christian, we could assure ourselves that we were “all right”. This led to a congregation where the average person was not being adequately discipled, and led to a false sense of spiritual maturity. As long as I’ve been at BBC, my observation has been that it was a mile wide and an inch deep. (My fear is that where it’s headed is “two miles wide, and still, just an inch deep”.)
Yes, the leadership bears some responsibility for the lack of discipleship, where is the sense of our own personal responsibility?
I know I’m a “black and white” kind of person, but I can come to no other conclusion that either the Pastor is right, or those who oppose him are “right” (in a generic sense. Some of those people are clearly wrong)
That said, only one of two options are available. Either the Pastor and leadership will be revealed for who he/they truly are, or the Pastor will be proved to be a person of great character, and has been terribly misunderstood and misjudged.
In either case, a long, rough road is ahead. I think anyone who thinks this conflict is going away anytime soon is simply fooling themselves. First, in a spiritual sense I don’t think God is through with the “breaking” process with us; Secondly, from a human perspective, the leadership has just flat underestimated the level of hurt and emotion that’s out there.
For now, I would humbly submit that those of you who have left, need to be very careful judging those who have not by making blanket bold statements condemning Bellevue. Remember, God saved Nineveh, and Jonah, the Man of God, was proved to be the one with the bitter and wrong attitude. God has led some to stay, and some to leave. It’s just as dangerous to judge those who’ve left as those who haven’t.
Disclaimer:JMHO
As an aside, i've only skimmed the discussion on intentionally childless marriages/abortion and the only comment I will make, is that it's not a sin to not have children. It's a sin to be selfish and self centered about "my life" and "my body" and "my decisions".
Why are we talking about this on this forum anyway? That's one reason I went away. This blog gets distracted so easily.
And that, with apoligies to Forrest Gump, is "all I have to say about that".
Gmom,
I only got an extra day for fall last friday, but I went camping in Arkansas. I've been peeking in often, but I don't have much to offer on theological issues. Plus, I'm writing papers at night for my masters program.
I hope all of y'all are doing well.
Yo friend, D.
Finance Guy: I'm sorry that my words could have been misunderstood earlier. When I told my friend she was discerning, what I meant was that she is seeing some of what is truly going on at BBC. I know there are some still at BBC that see it too and are trying to affect change from within. I don't think there's a single person on this blog that wants to see BBC "fail." I think our heartbeat is to see it and it's leadership come to repentance and be restored.
FG,
We are in agreement on many things. Thank you for your input.
truett...well said.
To speak to a "meandering thread"......
I have read the purpose of this blog, and I know it was initially begun as a place to discuss BBC business. However, it seems to me as if it has evolved to include issues that impact BBC, the SBC, and Christian life as well. We have, in effect, become a Sunday School class all our own in many ways! Sometimes these other issues directly impact the church; sometimes it merely challenges us to study more in the Word.
All are welcome to join us as we address, study, and discuss many aspects of church life and Christian walk here in these dark days.
Hey Cakes! I've still got those supplies for you. Let me know when you want them!
:-)
Thank you, concernedsbcer. You saved me the trouble. We've moved beyond just BBC here, and the discussion will occasionally "drift" off the main topic. I learned early on that people simply cannot or will not stay on topic. So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
avfinance guy,
I am one who has left but have many sweet friends at BBC who are choosing to stay for various reasons. I could not stay - not because of a matter of preference but because of a matter of principle and, I confess, a lack of patience. After 2 yrs. I no longer had what it takes to continue on witnessing the deterioration of a church I loved dearly.
I agree with you that many of us at BBC were very complacent in our "holy hudles" and perhaps even had a "holier than thou" attitude towards other fellowships. This has been like a refining fire for me personally. I have been reminded in the process that I must continually place Jesus first. And I've also learned that there is spiritual life outside of Bellevue.
God has not left Bellevue. His Spirit is indwelling many who are choosing to stay. I personally believe His Spirit is grieved over what has happened and therefore the power has been greatly diminished. JMO But God is the God of Resurrection and He can revive and resurrect and restore. I pray that He will. May God bless you and those like you who remain light and salt in the midst of these dark days @BBC.
Truett...I find it a little strange that in your 11:26 AM post. you referred to Bellevue as the Church with a capital C.
concerned,
I didn't mean to accuse you to judging those who have not left. When I write those words, the echoes of many conversations over the last year or so are bouncing around in my head.
Which brings up another thought. I’ve often wondered why can’t well meaning Godly people disagree and still remain friends? It seems like to not be on “my side” is to be my enemy. This has been true of both “sides”. Where is Christ in that?
Finance Guy: I think to some degree Christians can "agree to disagree." I think it depends somewhat on the hill that is between you. I think sometimes the hill is the Word and there are many, in fact probably most of us, that can't compromise on that. What is happening at BBC is an emotional, personal issue. The betrayal for some goes all the way to the bone. I think there has been respect shown for those, like you, who see and acknowledge the problems but are trying to affect change from the inside. I think where agreement can't be found is those that see no wrong. It is in my humble opinion that if you are in God's Word, you would have to see at least some of the sins that are happening at 2000 Appling.
You know, Jesus did have several times when he stood up against wrong without being a peacemaker....the moneychangers in the temple is one example. I also think the way he admonished Martha cut to the quick as well. His conversations with the Jewish leaders were pretty "black and white" too! He didn't agree in order to keep peace.
I see people make it almost as a "For SG" or "Against SG" situation and I think that's inaccurate as well. SG is somewhat seen as the target because he is the leader. That's what the leader is. "The buck stops here" kind of thing. A Godly leader must be above reproach. Sinless? Of course not. No one is asking for that. But it has to be acknowledged that decisions made by SG and the leadership have not honored God. Giving $25,000 to a church that supports policies contrary to scripture is not God honoring. I don't need to review all this; you already know.
I think when people get upset about differing opinions, it's more righteous anger at the situation, not focused directly on the person. At least, I hope so.
JMHO
Actually, Mohler did give examples of these couples in the article Nass gave.
Lin, you know good and well that he was talking about married couples. You talking about the possibility that your daughter may remain single is a non-issue to his point about married people.
Again, this conversation has nothing to do with adoption or bareness. Your continued slide to something he wasn't talking about isn't very honest of you.
finance guy said...
"Which brings up another thought. I’ve often wondered why can’t well meaning Godly people disagree and still remain friends? It seems like to not be on “my side” is to be my enemy. This has been true of both “sides”. Where is Christ in that?"
Funny but those of my friends who have remained at BBC have chosed to cut off communication with me. Even some staff that I had once been close to are now snubbing me in public.
Someone told me a while back that at Gardendale, there were Christian friends and families who are still bitter enemies after Steve Gaines got thru dividing their church. I have heard he did the same at W Jackson.
Since when would a God-called pastor do that, and gloat about taking out the "trash" and casting out the "evil-doers" when referring to brothers and sisters in Christ.
What Steve Gaines has done is not of God.
I think the reason he says churches need to speak of these issues is because willful childlessness has been accepted as there having nothing wrong with it. He doesn't need to point out the need for the church to call out adultery, for example, because well all accept it as wrong and churches already talk about it as such. But willful childlessness isn't even given a second thought.
You're asking where these couples are. Are you saying that you don't believe that there are Christian couples out there who have chosen not to have kids?
lin said...
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.
8:18 AM, October 15, 2007
I mentioned that too. =)
financeguy,
"Which brings up another thought. I’ve often wondered why can’t well meaning Godly people disagree and still remain friends? It seems like to not be on “my side” is to be my enemy. This has been true of both “sides”. Where is Christ in that?"
That probably started with the first "if you don't like it leave". Sheep usually follow the leaders. We sure have learned well.
lin said...
Sweetie, My point is that one just cannot really know.
If you can't have children, God knows that, of course. You don't fall into the category he's speaking of. Period. End of it.
He's also not calling for people to start taking a poll to see what category one belongs to. Like most of what is taught, you determine if this applies to you. If it doesn't then you don't force it to apply to you.
If people don't tell the world that they can't have kids, it doesn't change that this isn't about them. You don't need an active list of people in order to teach or preach the truth. You don't need to know how many people fib about their situations. It doesn't change the subject matter.
Actually, Mohler did give examples of these couples in the article Nass gave.
2:30 PM, October 15, 2007
Check again. He never says if they are professing Christians or not. He leaves that part vague. Yet, he writes about society AND the church in the same article.
Concerned,
Good points, but even in principled disagreement amongst Christians, we should still show civility, and Christ-honoring love for each other. If the stories are to believed, certain members of at least the laity (and rumors have included staff) have actually sought to cause harm to fellow believers, either financially, socially or even with the threat of physical violence!!!
I won’t repeat those stories here. If you know them, you know what I’m referring too.
My question is this. How can you work to undermine a fellow Christian, either professionally, financially or just destroy his reputation, and reconcile this with Jesus teachings on loving your enemies and turning the other cheek? Likewise, how can people who claim that the Word is being compromised by the leadership maintain their credibility when they express their feelings with anger and bitterness that is hard to believe is “righteous” anger? I believe that one reason our prayers have not been answered is that we have been disguising our hurt and anger over things and changes that have been more of a personal nature than scriptural, as a righteous indignation at violations of scriptural principles. This isn’t true of everyone, and I’m not accusing you, but there has been a lot of unrighteous anger and bitterness expressed both here, and in private conversations over the past year.
I don’t mean to minimize anyone’s real hurt, and a true sadness and nostalgia at the whiplash inducing change that was made to “our” church, in an arguably insensitive manner, and with unnecessary speed. I feel it too. However, it’s important to separate that from the true Scriptural and character issues at hand. I don’t think a lot of people have been able to separate the two, although they are smart enough not to characterize it that way in conversation.
JMHO
Also, it’s interesting that you brought up the $25K again. Did anyone else find it odd that “we” wrote a check “off the cuff” for $25K to a church of dubious theological integrity, (who’s needs were being met), and yet the congregation was asked to give an offering to raise $8,000 for a more genuine community outreach opportunity? Why couldn’t this be made out of benevolence offerings as well? I don’t have a problem either way, it’s just the inconsistency that’s interesting. Quite frankly, I think the offering approach is better, although it would be difficult and unnecessary to take up an offering for every community outreach opportunity. Had the pastor proposed taking up an offering for FUMC, that would have been a lot more palatable. Those that wanted to could have given, and those that were opposed on moral grounds wouldn’t have felt the same way that they feel as taxpayers when the government gives money to organizations they find morally repugnant.
Lin, you know good and well that he was talking about married couples. You talking about the possibility that your daughter may remain single is a non-issue to his point about married people.
2:33 PM, October 15, 2007
Housewife said...
Again, this conversation has nothing to do with adoption or bareness. Your continued slide to something he wasn't talking about isn't very honest of you.
2:36 PM, October 15, 2007
Well at this point we are talking past each other. I was quoting OUT OF HIS ARTICLE and commenting on it. How is that not relevant? Go back and read my comments again. He said we are to raise our daughters to be wife and mothers. Our sons to be fathers and husbands. I commented on THAT part and that is where singleness was mentioned.
How can it NOT have anything to do with it when I QUOTE his article?
I have simply pointed out (as have many others on this blog) that many Christian couples would LOVE to have children and cannot. It may look like to the world or Mohler that they do NOT want children because they DO NOT discuss it publicly.
He made general and vague accusations that both Pagan and Christian couples are opting not to have children for selfish reasons. BUT he does not tell us in the article if the couples he mentions by name are Christians or NOT.
By the way, I would NEVER accuse you of being dishonest in our communications but I do think you have misunderstood. Sorry you think I am dishonest. I hope Nass, gmommy, concernedsbcer, junk, EZ and others will vouch that I am NOT ever purposely dishonest in my communications here.
Our conversation is OVER. I never mind disagreements but when I am accused of being purposely dishonest, it is time to shut it down.
Finance Guy: It must be considered, also, that character and scriptural issues usually do overlap. If we are following scripture, then our character will reflect that high morality. There have been some cultural differences, I certainly agree with that. But trespassing, withholding information regarding a confessed sexual predator, and neglecting to even admit that Matt.18 applies to leadership are all character lapses based on disobedience of scripture.
Finance Guy said: "even in principled disagreement amongst Christians, we should still show civility, and Christ-honoring love for each other."
AMEN.
Housewife: I feel I know both you and Lin fairly well. You don't think she would be anything but completely honest, do you? It seems to me the points have been made, and knowing her as I do, it seems as if for the most part you two are agreeing.
Children (having them/not having them) is a very personal issue, especially to those of us who experienced problems. I do think it is rare for Christian couples not to want to have children because we have the Hope of tomorrow! Whether Mohlor mispoke or wasn't clear, I still think we all are in fairly close agreement, and what we aren't, maybe it's an issue of misunderstanding. Sometimes that happens with posts.
:-)
Lin said...
Junkster: "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. "
Lin: 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.
Guess I'll just have to be not fair, then. I've gotten used to reminding my son that life isn't fair. :)
When you said "the other side" you hit on why I'm not interested in jumping into the debate on that site (complementatian vs. egalitatian). When it comes to secondary doctrines (and my list of "essentials" doesn't go much beyond the Apostles Creed) if I am dealing with people who firmly hold to a particluar viewpoint and it appears to me that they are already fully convinced that they are right, I prefer to limit engagement in doctrinal disputes that distract from our common faith and mission in Christ. Sometimes I am better at sticking with that preference than others!
"When it comes to secondary doctrines (and my list of "essentials" doesn't go much beyond the Apostles Creed) if I am dealing with people who firmly hold to a particluar viewpoint and it appears to me that they are already fully convinced that they are right, I prefer to limit engagement in doctrinal disputes that distract from our common faith and mission in Christ. Sometimes I am better at sticking with that preference than others!"
Amen. If only you could get Patterson, etc., to think the way you do! They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on the woman issue. A padeo-baptist minister spoke at one of our seminary chapels and nary a word that we bibically disagree on this issue. A minister who preaches baptismal regeneration spoke at another seminary and, again, not a word. Some SBC ministers are sharing stages with a known Deist and nary a word. But the women's role issue seems to be the main focus. I do not get it.
I can't even follow why HW would say Lin isn't being honest.
I DO "vouch" for Lin's honesty and committment to scriptural integrity.
I don't understand why there can't be some room in this discussion for differences.
...and I don't even know what Junk is talking about :)
Lin said...
Amen. If only you could get Patterson, etc., to think the way you do! They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on the woman issue. A padeo-baptist minister spoke at one of our seminary chapels and nary a word that we bibically disagree on this issue. A minister who preaches baptismal regeneration spoke at another seminary and, again, not a word. Some SBC ministers are sharing stages with a known Deist and nary a word. But the women's role issue seems to be the main focus. I do not get it.
That is strange, isn't it? But it has been that way for quite a while in the SBC. Back before the SBC conservative resurgance got going, there was a church in Memphis that was dually aligned with the SBC and the ABC, that was very open about their "moderate" views, especially that they did not believe the Bible was inerrant, accepted members baptized as infants, etc. Yet there was never a peep out of the local association about their doctrines.
But when they called a woman pastor, they were immediately voted out of the local association. Not that I agree with the idea of a woman as senior pastor, but it seemed odd since I know there are Christians who are fully committed to the infalliblity of Scripture who differ on that issue, yet somehow it was worse that they had a woman pastor than that they didn't really believe the Bible is God's Word. Something backward there....
lin,
It has been common in seminaries for years to have men from other denominations come and speak. Al Mohler spoke at a conference on the Westminster Confession. He did not address baptism, just as Ligon Duncan, a Presbyterian, speaks at Baptist churches and conferences and does not address paedobaptism out of respect for those who hold a differing view. I guess we could go to war with every denomination or group of Christians who hold some non-essential doctrines differently than ourselves, but I think most evangelicals at this point in history are trying to find whatever common ground we hold with each other. I follow Dr. Mohler's articles fairly closely, and I do not find him to be an "ivory tower" type. He does however address the cultural issues of the day, both inside and outside the church, and personally I find he is quite in touch with the pulse of what is going on in our world. Spurgeon was often criticized for allowing paedobaptists to preach from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in his day...shall we burn all his books and brand him an "ivory tower" theologian and compromiser? Personally I thank God for men who are willing to put themselves out there, often at great personal cost, and address the issues of their times...from the reformers till now.
Simmer down, friends,
Like Gmom, I don't know what y'all are talking about, but let's try to not use language that indicts someone's ethical integrity, unless it is obvious. Also, I don't mind healthy disagreement, so we don't have to throw rose petals at one another either, but there's no reason to get personal.
Finance Guy,
I'm sure you mean well, but you disclose your thoughts when you assume it is nostalgia that is at play in the truthseekers' alienation, or that wait and see attutude towards Gaines. It reminds me of those that attribute the troubles to folks not liking the music--these are all fictions that some hope will get traction if repeated often enough.
That said, from my visits, the milquetoast music is an easy target--it screams saccharine. But the crux of the matter is Gaines, his demonstrable and damning lack of judgement, the toady-leadership, the chinless "business meeting," the lack of an exhaustive investigation into the pedophile scandal and the dishonesty of scaprgoating the BBCPCIR as if it counts as such, the dictatorial loyalty oaths and finally, the self-serving recklessness of shameless careerists.
This is from someone who doesn't give a hoot about some lost era.
conernedsbcer
You have mail....
Piglet, no I don't. But you do!
:-)
What is a Paedobaptist? And on a different note, what, if anything, does the Baptist sect(s) have to do with the Anabaptists?
lin said...
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.
Lin, you said a mouthful! Have you ever noticed that in every single church service you see so many more women than men? Or that there are so many more women's Sunday school classes than men's? It's because men are not being discipled when they are young and falling away from their faith when they're older. They are taught to make commitments without counting the cost.
Yes, many single mom's and divorced/abandoned women truly believed they were marrying Christians.
But think about this: many of the men they married really believed they were Christians, too. It wasn't until they better understood what it meant to surrender their life to God that they said 'thanks, but no thanks' and walked away.
This is still another problem caused by 'easy believism'.
imo
Food for thought:
Below is a paragraph I copied from Matt Henry, a comment on the church of Pergamum in Rev 2. I thought this was such an intersting commentary in light of of the recent conversation here about BBC:
"To continue in communion with persons of corrupt principles and practices is displeasing to God, draws a guilt and blemish upon the whole society: they become partakers of other men's sins. Though the church, as such, has no power to punish the persons of men, either for heresy or immorality, with corporal penalties, yet it has power to exclude them from its communion; and, if it do not so, Christ, the head and lawgiver of the church, will be displeased with it."
Just got home from work. I see my siblings in Christ making biting remarks toward each other. All in the name of being right, it seems.
Who gives a rat's tail what Mohler, Gaines, Calvin or Arminius surmises? Every one of you know the Source of salvation. Let's get back to Him, shall we?
Just sayin'.
oc.
AOG, I actually agree with you about finding common ground. What grieves me is that they refuse to do the same with egalitarians. Why? They consider egalitarians to be IN SIN but the padeo baptists, aren't. Why? If we are going to find common ground ignoring secondary doctrines, let's not pick and choose.
It is obvious there is an agenda. And I am taking a lot of things into consideration that have happened over the past few years that point to that fact.
Larry said: "It's because men are not being discipled when they are young and falling away from their faith when they're older."
AMEN! Boys are not being taught to be men anymore. They aren't being taught to love as Christ loved the church, that the family is their responsibility, or that marriage vows mean forever.
We need to start, in this generation, raising men. Hopefully it's not too late for our families and our churches.
As our pastor said last night (during a sermon of the 5th commandment),
As goes the family, so goes the church.
As goes the church, so goes society.
*Disclaimer: not all divorces are instigated by men.
concernedsbcer
Check your mail again....
RE: Mohler and his views about Christians not having children...
Is this an epidemic? I, personally, do not know of any...
I'm sitting here wondering if he is one of those rude people that would question a couple as to why they do not have children..Regardless of what they may SAY...he would never really know WHAT the reasons are because it is SOOOO VERRYY personal, and, quite frankly, it is so very NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.
I"m thinkin that he is doing a lot of assuming about these couples (whoever and wherever they are) that do not have children...and we all know what they say about
ASSUMING.
I'm also thinkin that he needs to MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS.
My grandfather, born in 1888, used to tell his daughters ( 3 of them) and grandaughters ( 6 of them)
" Learn to set on your own bottom"
Which meant, " have a way to earn a living"
That advice is timeless.
cakes,
I'm sure you mean well, but you disclose your thoughts when you assume it is nostalgia that is at play in the truthseekers' alienation, or that wait and see attutude towards Gaines.
Huh? I'm not assuming anything. There are people, both on and off this blog, who have become unhealthily (is that a word?) bitter over what's transpired. You don't become angry and bitter while "truth-seeking". You become angry and bitter when you've been personally affected, or take up someone else's offense. Argue me if you will, but there are those (not all) who are focused on the personal nature of this conflict, but use the justification of the theological, character and spiritual issues to express a less-than-righteous anger. It is not a humble brokeness I hear, but a dangrously self-righteous prideful attitude from those.
Thus, I don't believe God is done "breaking" Bellevue.
Now let's stop wasting time with this Bellevue nonsense, and get back to what's important.
"Do you think that Al Mohler is a closet Feminist or does he in fact not give a wit about women?"
I can hardly wait to hear everyone's response.
Finance Guy,
Are you playing games??
You say you stopped coming here because we got off the subject of BBC. Now you say enough of the BBc stuff and try and get us back on A.M.
And you assume you know the hearts of many on the blog...
Cakes understands us more than most. I'm sure you meant well but your response to him didn't sound right to me....
Just sharing my thoughts.....
I think you simply see, FG, human beings, deeply abused and alienated, trying to make sense of the mess the leadership made of their beloved church and its legasy--this neither justifies every vowel, nor infers an equivalence where a large power differential has been shamelessly and obviously exploited.
I am not in a position to judge what God will do, or not, at Bellevue. I live in a world where, when a man discredits himself--especially in such an awesome position of power and prestige--then the thinking person doesn't wait for the whispers of the almighty to penetrate the obvious. God wouldn't bestow faculties He wishes we ignore, now would He?
People have tried to bring these very real issues before the church in measured and sober ways, but they have been rebuffed time and again. Does some of the dialogue make me uncomfortable? Of course, but not as much as the systematic and contrived actions of the rich and powerful in leadership to stifle dissent and brush the pedophile scandal under the rug.
It is not change that people here are resisting--it is the hijacking of their church. Let me ask you a question--upon what basis would anyone who finds Gaines' nonaction, with regard to the pedophile, irresponsible and timid, believe they should submit to his spiritual leadership?
What it comes down to is that some folks would keep a score of all the fouls on this blog (of which there are a few), and assume that, gee, they exhibit human frailty, hot tempers and tainted baggage, thus in the same boat as leadership. Not so. Everyone here is fallable, and will remain so, but that is not the same as willful plodding and scapegoating to preserve ones career--that cuts to ones integrity and truthfulness, not merely human frailty.
This is not a distinction that needs to even be made, yet here I am again...
Finance Guy: I addressed the issue of our conversations on this blog. We deal with lots of different things; sometimes there are two or three conversations going on at a time! Bloggers just weigh in on the ones they want it. The choice is yours. :-)
In all truthfulness, BBC is not the only important issue right now. In fact, the die is pretty well set there. It seems to me that until repentance happens within the leadership, to a large degree things are at a stalemate. BBC is led by a man that has great potential but is behaving and leading in a way counter to scripture and law. It really is easy; repentance is the answer.
Condescension on either side doesn't help anything. It does take a lot to stand against the grain; to leave a safe haven of 10, or 20, or 30 years based on principle and scripture. Those that have left have done so because they could not be a part of the surface/false teaching, unkindness towards long time members, casualness towards law and scripture, etc. If you have chosen to stay and try to affect change, I think that's great. My prayers are with you. But understand that BBC is not the only church in the county. Many have found new church homes where they are cared for, nurtured, and taught strong theology. These churches have always been there, led by men who have been called to serve God in that capacity. The other issues we discuss have to do with the SBC and it's direction, and Biblical questions we need help understanding or want to study more. We support, encourage, challenge and sometimes disagree with each other. But I believe there is an underlying layer of respect and compassion on this blog. Your last post could have been kinder, and quite frankly, I feel it should have been. Sarcasm and condescension doesn't help anything.
I know this is so hard for all involved, but we do pray for BBC, for the people remaining, and for the leadership. We hope there will be more that will see the truth and will possibly be able to help return BBC to the path which would honor God more.
The A. M. comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek (sarcastic) if that wasn't clear.
I'm sitting here wondering if he is one of those rude people that would question a couple as to why they do not have children..Regardless of what they may SAY...he would never really know WHAT the reasons are because it is SOOOO VERRYY personal, and, quite frankly, it is so very NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.
I"m thinkin that he is doing a lot of assuming about these couples (whoever and wherever they are) that do not have children...and we all know what they say about
ASSUMING.
I'm also thinkin that he needs to MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS.
Hi SOTL :)
I'm going to use you as an example. I hope that's ok.
Let's just be careful that we are not doing the same assuming that we are attributing to Dr. M.
Having interacted with Dr. M a time or two, I perceive him to be a very reasonable man who, though not perfect (just like all of us), does want to honor the Lord with his words, both public and private.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
Finance Guy: I'm glad to hear that! A joke I can take but it was a little hard to tell from that post!
:-)
Lin said...
Food for thought:
Below is a paragraph I copied from Matt Henry, a comment on the church of Pergamum in Rev 2. I thought this was such an intersting commentary in light of of the recent conversation here about BBC:
"To continue in communion with persons of corrupt principles and practices is displeasing to God, draws a guilt and blemish upon the whole society: they become partakers of other men's sins. Though the church, as such, has no power to punish the persons of men, either for heresy or immorality, with corporal penalties, yet it has power to exclude them from its communion; and, if it do not so, Christ, the head and lawgiver of the church, will be displeased with it."
Thanks for the great quote. My scripture reading this morning just happened to be 1 Cor. 5. Henry was no doubt expounding on this passage.
sickofthelies said...
My grandfather, born in 1888, used to tell his daughters ( 3 of them) and grandaughters ( 6 of them)
" Learn to set on your own bottom"
Which meant, " have a way to earn a living"
That advice is timeless.
10:46 PM, October 15, 2007
Hey SOTL,
Is this the same family sage that advised that folks never show their teeth when they smile? : )
{{{SOTL}}}}
MJM
MJM said:
Hey SOTL,
Is this the same family sage that advised that folks never show their teeth when they smile? : )
{{{SOTL}}}}
MJM
9:45 AM, October 16, 2007
SOTL says:
ABSOLUTELY!!! it's vulgar, don't ya know?
NBBCOF: You'll have to forgive me for I never post articles in their entirety. However, I couldn't help myself on this one.
Gimme That Showtime Religion
by: John MacArthur
Can the church fight apathy and materialism by feeding people's appetite for entertainment? Evidently many in the church believe the answer is yes, as church after church jumps on the show-business bandwagon. It is a troubling trend that is luring many otherwise orthodox churches away from biblical priorities.
Church buildings are being constructed like theatres. Instead of a pulpit, the focus is a stage. Some feature massive platforms that revolve or raise and lower, with colored lights and huge sound boards. Shepherds are giving way to media specialists, programming consultants, stage directors, special effects experts, and choreographers.
The idea is to give the audience what they want. Tailor the church service to whatever will draw a crowd. As a result, pastors are more like politicians than shepherds, looking to appeal to the public rather than leading and building the flock God gave them. The congregation is served a slick, professional show, where drama, pop music, and maybe a soft-sell sermon constitute the worship service. But the emphasis isn't on worship, it's on entertainment.
Underlying this trend is the notion that the church must sell the gospel to unbelievers. Churches thus compete for the consumer on the same level as the latest TV reality show or a major motion picture. More and more churches are relying on marketing strategy to sell the church.
That philosophy is the result of bad theology. It assumes that if you package the gospel right, people will get saved. The whole approach is rooted in Arminian theology. It views conversion as fundamentally dependent on an act of the human will. Its goal is an instantaneous, superficial decision rather than a radical change of the heart.
Moreover, this whole Madison-Avenue corruption of Christianity presumes that church services are primarily for recruiting unbelievers. Many have abandoned worship as such. Others have relegated conventional preaching to some small-group setting on a weeknight. But that misses the point of Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together."
Acts 2:42 shows us the pattern the early church followed when they met: "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Note that the early church's priorities clearly were to worship God and to edify the brethren. The church came together for worship and edification; it scattered to evangelize the world.
Our Lord commissioned His disciples for evangelism in this way: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt. 28:19). Christ makes it clear that the church is not to wait for or invite the world to come to its meetings, but to GO to the world. That is a responsibility for every believer. I fear that an approach emphasizing a palatable gospel presentation within the walls of the church excuses the individual believer from his personal obligation to be a light in the world (Matt. 5:16).
We have a society filled with people who want what they want when they want it. They are into their own lifestyle, recreation, and entertainment. When churches appeal to those selfish desires, they only fuel that fire and hinder true godliness. Some of these churches are growing exponentially while others that don't entertain are struggling. Many church leaders want numerical growth in their churches, so they are buying into the entertainment-first philosophy.
Consider what this philosophy does to the gospel message itself. Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense. Why not have a real carnival? A tattooed knife thrower who juggles chain saws could do his thing while a barker shouts Bible verses. That would draw a crowd. It's a bizarre scenario, but one that illustrates how the medium can cheapen and corrupt the message.
And sadly, it's not terribly different from what is actually being done in some churches. Punk-rockers, ventriloquists' dummies, clowns, magicians, and show-business celebrities have taken the place of the preacher--and they are depreciating the gospel. I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey. It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message.
Don't be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech superchurches. And don't sneer at conventional worship and preaching. We don't need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Cor. 1:21). We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed. If we're faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.
© Copyright 2004 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.
Finance Guy
I recognized it as tongue in cheek.
:)
Ima: WOW! Double Wow!!!! We have been saying this for ages....it is true.
Thanks for posting that. Maybe it will reach many in leadership and give them pause on the "new" growth tactics.
cakes,
What it comes down to is that some folks would keep a score of all the fouls on this blog (of which there are a few), and assume that, gee, they exhibit human frailty, hot tempers and tainted baggage, thus in the same boat as leadership
You make a good point. Unfortunatly, what's been illustrated is the fact that there is still repenance needed on all sides.
The bitter acrimony that has been displayed here has turned off even those who would agree with the views expressed on this blog. If you want to look at it that way, it's damaged the credibility, and made yourselves less effectual.
This brings up a point. There are people on the "truthseeker" side who need to be held accountable for their wrong prideful and bitter attitudes, and yet refuse such accountability, all the while demanding it of the church leadership.
I'm not saying that they are wrong, but my goodness! Listen to what Jesus said about dealing with your own sin first, then deal with your brother!!
And of course I will get roundly critized for this!
Larry, Amen.
SOTL, Yes, he wrote like it is an epidemic...even in the church. I simply cannot figure that one out except that it makes for provactive copy.
Soc, I cannot figure out why he thinks egalitarians are in such sin but with padeo-baptists or baptismal regenerists we can find common ground. There IS some picking and choosing going on. And it is not just Mohler but Patterson who treated Dr. Klouda horribly and of course, we all saw his quote to the abused wife. Nevermind his new 'homemaking' degree at SWBTS.
SBC is quickly becoming very legalistic on a few issues including authority. Seems priesthood of believer is going by the wayside.
concernedSBCer
It seems to me that until repentance happens within the leadership, to a large degree things are at a stalemate.
And this gets to the crux of my point. I believe, after over a year of observing this stalemate, that there is enough sin to go around. There is a sum total of sin on the part of the entire congregation over a period of years (i.e. pride), there is the “current” sin that's been discussed (and cussed) on the part of the leadership, and then there is the continued sin of pride and arrogance on the part of at least a large part of those who are "truthseeksers". Either this is undiscernible to them, or they simply will not acknowledge it. And if you just puffed up and got angry at that statement, you probably guilty of that.
I would add to your above statement this It seems to me that until repentance happens within the leadership, and everyone elseto a large degree things are at a stalemate. There is plenty of scripture on this point. Many times in the Bible God warns that our sin can prevent him from dealing with sin in others. Is this what is happening? I don’t know. Perhaps God’s purpose here is something entirely different. I just feel that there’s too much focus on “fixing” Bellevue, when that isn’t our job. Our job is to “Fix” ourselves. Jesus said as much in Matthew where he said that we should get the beam out of our own eye before we should deal with the mote in our brothers. I think those who have yet to deal with the beam in their own eye have either drowned out those who are truly grieved and burdened over what’s transpired, and/or God is working some purpose here we have no conception of.
As yourself this question. (yourself is anyone reading this) If everything were to be “fixed” tomorrow in a way that you feel it should be, what would your reaction be? Be honest with yourself. It’s my belief that a large number of people would have a smug, “we won” attitude, even though outwardly they would use the right words of “Look what God did, etc etc”. God isn’t going to honor that. He wants the glory to Himself.
Years ago, a staff member at a church my family attended did something very hurtful and indisputably wrong to my parents. (Which he and the pastor of that church denied later of course). Years later, that minister was caught doing something unethical and possibly illegal, and had to leave church ministry. I asked my dad if he was glad that this minister had finally been “taken down”. His head snapped at me, and he emphatically stated the opposite, and how grieved and saddened that shame had been brought on the name of Christ. He went on to express a love and an empathy for this man, who years before had wronged him in a unnecessary way. He used it as a teaching opportunity for how Jesus has taught us to love, even those who aren’t very lovable and had wronged us.
I dare say, that if Steve Gaines and others were to be ‘taken down”, there would be a lot of rejoicing “it’s about time”, etc etc that would just not be a Christ like reaction. Disagree if you will, but I firmly believe that as long as that is the dominant attitude among the “truthseekers”, God isn’t going to honor that.
I know I’ll be accused of judging hearts here, but I’m only doing that to the extent I’ve observed bitter attitudes and the sin of taking up others offenses in various conversations both on and off this blog, etc. You “are known by your fruits”.
If you have chosen to stay and try to affect change, I think that's great. My prayers are with you.
I certainly covet and appreciate your prayers, but my goal is not to affect change. I’ve chosen to stay because I’ve not been led to do anything different. I would hope that my goal is to be more like Jesus today than I was yesterday. If my presence affects change that is Godly and fits with His purpose, then that’s wonderful. If my presence doesn’t affect change in anything other than the life of an individual, or even in my family, that’s fine too. My purpose is to minister, and be salt and light were I can. This battle, if it is still a battle, is the Lords. At this point, I could only get in the way. I’m come to the conclusion over the past year that one reason a lot of efforts have been vain, is because it’s been viewed as a battle to be fought by man. If it has been, it’s been a dismal failure, as one side has “outgunned” the other by a very lopsided margin. That’s why it’s important to trust God, get out of His way by repentance and seeking personal holiness, and let Him fight whatever battles need to be fought, or show you what the real issues are.
*sarcasm alert*
Perhaps this will provide something to discuss other than the whether or not Al Mohler is a closet NASCAR fan, or does he just like running around in circles.
Finance Guy: I'm not sure what blog you are reading, but the NBBCOF blog I read has contained reproofs, corrections, admonitions and apologies.
However, right and wrong are still black and white- a red- in my Bible, and in yours.
Here is an interesting history:
http://www.sbcouthouse.blogspot.com/
FG: There are so many replies, but I'm on my way out the door to work. I'll leave it at this: you've been shown respect for your decision to stay; those that have been led to leave deserve the same respect. Also, one other point....Bellevue is not the only church where believers have been taught and discipled; you need to remember that. All of us have sin; the only perfect one was Jesus. However, I am trying VERY hard not to purposefully sin; can the BBC leadership say the same? I say no. Matt. 18, and the entire rest of the Bible, applies to everyone, even the leadership and members at Bellevue.
This battle belongs to God, but I'm sure not going to be guilty of condoning (by being silent) the behavior that's going on. I have friends that keep me accountable. Also, I don't think Christians should think disobedience is okay as long as someone else is doing it, which is what it seems like you are saying. My momma always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Soc, I cannot figure out why he thinks egalitarians are in such sin but with padeo-baptists or baptismal regenerists we can find common ground. There IS some picking and choosing going on. And it is not just Mohler but Patterson who treated Dr. Klouda horribly and of course, we all saw his quote to the abused wife. Nevermind his new 'homemaking' degree at SWBTS.
Hey Lin,
I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with Dr. Mohler's position, having a varying opinion, etc. What I do take issue with is assuming certain things are true about the person (whether it be Mohler or Patterson or whomever) based on conjecture and speculation, rather than dealing with the actual issues.
My post was just a meager attempt to guard against moving in that direction (ad homs rather than discussion of the issues). :)
" I just feel that there’s too much focus on “fixing” Bellevue, when that isn’t our job. Our job is to “Fix” ourselves."
FG, Give some consideration to the Epistles. When Paul wrote these to the churches he was writing them to the people in the Body. He told them to deal with the sin in their midst. I Corin 5, he told the BODY to get rid of the wicked person. (Something that was ignored about PW as a minister of prayer)
Paul was not writing to ONE elder telling him to handle it. He did not say, do nothing and let God handle it. He told them to act...to keep His Bride pure.
" Jesus said as much in Matthew where he said that we should get the beam out of our own eye before we should deal with the mote in our brothers."
That verse is teaching that if your sin is the same as what you accuse your brother or sister of... the pointing it out in them is hypocritical. This verse has nothing to do with dealing with false teaching or blatent sin by elders. There is enough teaching in the Epistles to know that Gaines and others should have been removed. And that Gaines should have known that PW HAD to be removed immediately as an elder. In a nutshell, that verse cannot wipe away all the other teaching that tells us to deal with false teachers and contend for the truth.
I know how hard it must be to stay there and rationalize that decision but you are becoming desensitized to sin slowly and accepting of blatant ignoring of the Word. A little leaven. It is deadly.
You call those who discuss this angry and bitter. You might want to find some new words as it is obvious that comes from your pastor. Miss Billie uses the same language. It is in his interest to call those that disagree with him angry and 'bitter'. I believe his wife referred to them as 'trash'. Makes it more palitable to those who stay and continue to ignore scripture thinking they are hearing truth from the pulpit when they are not.
Sorry buddy, but that is just the way it is. YOu can try all you want to make this the fault of those who left but Gaines brought every single bit of it on himself. Quite frankly, I am amazed at how far so many went to try and connect with him over the situation but he refused.
I am praying that you have NOT signed a loyalty oath yet.
Finance Guy said...
This brings up a point. There are people on the "truthseeker" side who need to be held accountable for their wrong prideful and bitter attitudes, and yet refuse such accountability, all the while demanding it of the church leadership.
Perhaps, FG. But it sounds like you're tarring all "truthseekers" with the same brush. We're individuals, not an organization of power brokers unified behind corporate error. Do you believe that all who oppose the apostasy at BBC must be 100% right before any of the leadership may be held accountable?
In any case, who did you have in mind? For my part, I can assure you I bear no ill will, malice or bitterness toward anyone at BBC. I mourn that a once great church -- one considered the flagship of the SBC and highly visible to a watching world -- has fallen into such grievous error. I pray that God will restore its commitment to truth and integrity. In that I feel a strong kinship with Nehemiah, regardless of Dr. Gaines's high-handed comparisons.
...my goal is not to affect change. I’ve chosen to stay because I’ve not been led to do anything different.
So you see no need for change? For I would certainly hope that if you did, you'd want to effect it; that even if everything was fine, you'd still want to make things better. My question is how you justify keeping your family under the teaching of of an apostate preacher who has no pastoral love for the sheep. For over a year now, the predominant emotions I've detected from the BBC pulpit have been pride, presumption and anger. I just can't subject my family to that kind of abuse. God's people should leave a worship service refreshed, encouraged, exhorted and edified, with the glory of God on their countenance and the knowledge that their pastor loves them; not castigated, angry and frustrated, their brow furrowed and eyes tearful from a beating at the hands of a hireling.
Really feeling like I'm being misunderstood.
Lin...
You are being polite...I say SBC has fallen by the wayside, probably permanently. Many think it is on it's way out...including me. JMHO...
Good posts to FC
Thank You
alltoJesus, Lin, and Concernedsbcer.
FC,
I don't think you are the one misunderstood here. And that's OK. You do what you need to do. We are respectful of that. Not trying to win you over to anything.
BUT what is the difference in your coming on here and telling us
(who are you???)
that WE need to be "held accountable" and those who have said WE (bloggers) need to be brought before the church, or we aren't spirit filled because we don't bow the knee to BBC and it's spin on the way things should be according to the BBC leadership.
Just wondering if you have emailed SG and the leadership the same things????
We are accountable to GOD alone ....not you or SG or the Bbloggers.
I don't get you....and don't need to.
Blessings to you and your family.
Lin,
What does it mean when someone says they are
following Jesus....NT Wright style?????
At first I misunderstood and thought it was Ryle and googled him and read some good stuff.
AND is McArthur good to read in general or just some of his stuff....(remembering when you first recommended his book but had some hesitation).
And have the "conservatives" in the SBC become something different now??? And maybe that's why the once thought of "moderates" don't sound so strange to me anymore ..maybe???
Just asking.
I told my daughter I feel like I am having a crisis of sorts, spiriturally.
I feel like it's... throw out alot of the old BUT be really careful what you replace it with!!!!!
Wish I were in college going thru this and not an "old grandmommy!"
Friend's,
When I look at the preponderance of events since Dr. Gaines arrival (No need to itemize, we know what they are) I personally would not sit under the current leadership period!
Finance guy that you have chosen to, especially in light of your past assessments and spot on insights, is baffling to me.
I appreciate your tenderness, and ardent desire to clearly spell out that poor attitudes abound in either side of the issue…..but I have to agree with Lynn and all2 ….that Dr. Gaines is at the epicenter of the willful destruction of a once great church!
How so you ask? In my opinion a man chosen to succeed Dr. Rogers would not… dispatch a minister of music who poured His heart into Belleview for over thirty years; allowed a Business meeting that was a farce…..and shut-down microphones…..treat God’s people with disdain, etc ad nauseam!
Great word by the way I learned it is a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea” Hello? Remind you of any sagas?
As I have studied Bellevue and her history and her previous Pastors extensively, I am appalled at the multitude of tactical errors and grievous sin that the remaining congregation has chosen to stomach.
Naysayers will and have said “it’s just that you think, nobody could replace Dr. Rogers”.
I loved Dr. Rogers, and I truly believe that we will never again see such a combination of a Scholar a Statesman, and a Pastor who genuinely loved God’s people…to me He had no peer….and you would have to go back in time to Dr. R. G. Lee or Dr. George W. Truett….to find a Pastor who even come close.
That said…I absolutely believe God’s people had and have ample room in their heart for his successor….provided that successor was humble, gracious, loving…..well like Jesus!
Do you honestly think Bellevue would be where it is today had they called Ken Whitten as Pastor, a man who is humble, contrite, loving and who possesses a servants heart….or anyone else with those attributes?
I would suggest a carefull reading of Judges chap 2 and 3.
As a result of Israel's turning away, God left nations among Israel that they could not conquer. They could not conquer them because God would not fight for them. God left them there to test Israel and teach them (the generation that did not know how to fight)how to fight.
If you look at BBC you see a lot of similarities that may answer some questions. We have a whole generation that sat under the teaching of a true shepherd. Did we get complacent and turn away in that time?
It is pretty obvious that we don't know how to fight, we even have folks wondering if we should.
Is this a test? Yes, I think so. What are we learning? How to fight. What do we fight against? Pricipalities Eph 6:12. Why do we fight? Col 2:15
Are we passing the test.
No. Some fight in the flesh, some won't even fight. Some have intermarried with the power that we were supposed to fight...
Gmom said...
I can't even follow why HW would say Lin isn't being honest.
Because I have said time and time again that I was NOT talking about those incapable of having kids. Neither was Mohler. Yet, lin kept swaying the conversation back to those who can't have kids as if I was talking about them. She wasn't the only one. And I thought it was dishonest of her and others to try to discredit what I was saying by bringing out the pain of those who can't have kids. I don't deny their pain. Far from it. I know how much that hurts!! I have someone dear to me who can't have children and I've been right there with her. But this conversation had nothing to do with those who can't have kids, so why insist on that?
I think I need to make it clear that at no time and in no way was I trying to offend or purposely hurt those who can't have kids. I honestly believe that the conversation and Mohler's comments were NOT directed at, nor were they condemning, nor were they trying to hurt those who can't have children. That's why I felt freedom to converse about this and that's what I have been trying to make clear. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.
Housewife,
I appreciate your candor..and I know that none of what you say is directed to those who cannot have children..
Having said that..I guess that my question to Mohler is, " HOw do you KNOW they " can't or won't" have chidren"? I mean, does he tap them on the shoulder and ask them? He must know of some epidemic that we are unaware of..and how did he get this information?
IF so, I'm really really thinkin that he has waaaaaay too much time on his hands and he needs to go home and help his wife change diapers, or fold the laundry, or scrub the toilets, and pay less attention to the personal lives of others.
:)
"And have the "conservatives" in the SBC become something different now??? And maybe that's why the once thought of "moderates" don't sound so strange to me anymore ..maybe???
Just asking."
I am just as guilty as anyone when it comes to following men and putting them on pedestals. In the CR the battle lines were drawn. It became 'sides' as in who believes in the inerrancy of scripture.
But, even that 'side' has not been born out. Inerrancy means understanding that God is NO respecter of persons. Inerrency means understanding Biblical authority is only to the degree that the truth of the Word is taught and personal Biblical integrity applies. It is not from titles.
There are inerrant egalitarians. There are inerrant padeobaptists. Right? If not, then WHERE are the lines drawn? Some of those who were fired, exiled, treated horribly in the CR were called liberals because they did not agree on some secondary doctrine. Some were flaming liberals who denied the Trinity and needed to go. But a broad brush was used to paint them all.
But as with all battles it became political. Power has been amassed and abused. It is like that with anyone who gets too much power for too long. It becomes a fight to maintain the image and power.
It will be like that with the next band of leaders who get power in the SBC.
I can remember reading some old old Quaker stuff and being amazed at how they drilled into their children's heads that earthly titles and position meant nothing and that they should respect biblical truth, character and integrity not the title.
"I told my daughter I feel like I am having a crisis of sorts, spiriturally.
I feel like it's... throw out alot of the old BUT be really careful what you replace it with!!!!!"
This is why Jesus said the greatest among you must be your servant. The first will be last and the last will be first. God is NO respecter of persons.
I am asking myself this a lot lately: Why do we look to powerful earthly leaders like the seminary presidents? What is the point? This is NOT the model of the NT. Christ is our teacher.
housewife,
May be best to just let it drop. This is apparently a discussion you feel very strongly about.
Lin was making points that she apparently felt were important as well.
I did not read anything that compelled me to believe that lin was being dishonest. In fact, I have never known her to be dishonest. Ever.
Maybe you perceived something that just wasn't there.....At no time have I read anything that would even hint at the idea you were trying to offend or hurt people that can't have children. Neither have I read anything that would even hint that lin would accuse you of it.
Peace.
Having said that..I guess that my question to Mohler is, " HOw do you KNOW they " can't or won't" have chidren"? I mean, does he tap them on the shoulder and ask them? He must know of some epidemic that we are unaware of..and how did he get this information?
Maybe it's a generational thing, but it's common for those in my generation to have this mindset: "I might or might not get married; if I do get married, we're not having children until 'X' (specified time) if ever." I think it's pretty common in America to have this I'll-control-when-I-have-children-thank-you mindset. And I think that's what Mohler is referring to. In fact, I've heard him speak about this particular issue and when I heard him speak, he acknowledged that there are infertile couples, that he was not referring to them, but to those especially in my generation who want to be in control of whether or not (and when) to have children.
truett said:
(quotingLynn and all2) ….that Dr. Gaines is at the epicenter of the willful destruction of a once great church!
Do you honestly think Bellevue would be where it is today had they called Ken Whitten as Pastor, a man who is humble, contrite, loving and who possesses a servants heart….or anyone else with those attributes?
Reply: Lest we forget: Steve Gaines may be the epicenter, but he was brought into Bellevue by Bellevue leadership who were fully aware of who and what he was. Personally, I don't believe they would have chosen anyone who was not willing to carry out their direction for the church. They wanted a contemporary, pastor and inner-circle-led church where deacons have a servant's role, tithing and loyalty agreements are inforced, business meetings are an annual formality, spending is unsupervised, the gospel is easy and unthreatening, dress is come as you are, and the music is hip.
This is what Steve Gaines is accomplishing for them (the leadership) at Bellevue. This movement is sweeping the SBC, the nation, and the world. Check
http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/?ID=205&artid=8237&expand=1
"You are being polite...I say SBC has fallen by the wayside, probably permanently. Many think it is on it's way out...including me. JMHO..."
I agree and so do many others as time goes on. The whole reason for the SBC was missions. But now with global communications we can support missionaires much easier from our local church. The collective money goes further but it also pays very high salaries and lots of other things none of us would approve of and are totally frivolous.
There are some old timers in my church who are so disgusted with the power wrangling and legalism of secondary doctrines that they are tithing to the local church only and supporting missionaries directly.
The SBC, seminaries, etc., serve at the pleasure of the thousands of SBC churches. When they thumb their noses at the churches and refuse to disclose financial information, etc., they are hastening the downfall.
We won't even get into the problems with Lifeway and NAMB. My goodness.
Wonder how many know that their CP dollars are paying attorney's for SWBTS lawsuit? Or at least scandal insurance?
"I think it's pretty common in America to have this I'll-control-when-I-have-children-thank-you mindset. And I think that's what Mohler is referring to. "
That is not what he said in the article. We cannot infer...we have to take his article as it is written. He did NOT talk about waiting on having children. he said emphatically they are NEVER having children for selfish reasons.
Funny you should mention this though...I am around seminary students all the time in my daily doings. The number ONE thing I hear is having children and the conumdrum on waiting until they have their degree or not. This is even a bigger conumdrum for married couples at Boyce.
Most seminary wives work to support their education endeavor. The men work, too most of the time. ..now we have an even bigger problem: Should the wife work with kids? If not, should the husband quit full time seminary and work full time? Can they do it all?
I hear this discussed almost on a daily basis.
And then, these broke couples at SWBTS are being told the wife should take homemaking classes in order to be a better preacher's wife! (She will have to work to pay off tuition for homemaking classes !)
That is not what he said in the article. We cannot infer...we have to take his article as it is written. He did NOT talk about waiting on having children. he said emphatically they are NEVER having children for selfish reasons.
I haven't read this article you are referring to, though I have heard him talk about this issue.
If that's what the article says though (those who are NEVER having children for selfish reasons), then why all the talk about infertile couples? Clearly, that does not seem to be whom he is referring to according to what you just mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Funny you should mention this though...I am around seminary students all the time in my daily doings.
Me too. :)
The number ONE thing I hear is having children and the conumdrum on waiting until they have their degree or not. This is even a bigger conumdrum for married couples at Boyce.
Ok. What's the issue then? If the issue is those couples who are never having children for selfish reasons, seminary and college students don't seem to fit into that category. (They might, but it does not necessarily follow that they do).
Most seminary wives work to support their education endeavor. The men work, too most of the time. ..now we have an even bigger problem: Should the wife work with kids? If not, should the husband quit full time seminary and work full time? Can they do it all?
Good questions, but again, isn't this a different issue than the one in the article?
I hear this discussed almost on a daily basis.
It's a legitimate conundrum for married students.
"If that's what the article says though (those who are NEVER having children for selfish reasons), then why all the talk about infertile couples? Clearly, that does not seem to be whom he is referring to according to what you just mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something. "
How does Mohler know that "Christian" couples are not having children for selfish reasons?
How does he know that this willfull barreness is going on in serious proportions in our churches?
How does he know this? He never tells us. He made a declarative statement about Christian couples that he never backs up in the article.
The infertility question came up becasue most Christian couples who cannot have children do not go around announcing that fact. It is VERY personal. They may look like they are being willfully barren when they really aren't.
Does this help make it more clear?
Good point,Lin.
My daughter was the main bread winner in their family while my son in law went to seminary.
Then my precious grand baby didn't wait until the planned time to bless us all with her arrival.
I was proud when my son in law (grieving at first) dropped out of seminary and took an entry level job so that our baby could have the benefits of her nursing mom with her.
He may never get back to seminary now and they lived VERY tightly until my daughter was able to work some part time and he was able to move up some.
The last thing my daughter would have time and money for would be to PAY to get a homemaking degree.....that whole thing just sounds like an effort to demean women...sorry.
I guess my point is...these are personal individual decisions that married couples need to make.
We have SO MANY areas we can focus on....there are SO many things the SBC could spend time and training on.
Heaping guilt on women and parents rather than training ministers in the areas of servanthood, sin, REPENTANCE, Biblical qualifications,and accountability seems alot more wise to me....
but then I am just a woman.
:)
My point to you would be that he doesn't need to know who can't and won't have children. He doesn't need to tap anyone on the shoulder. What he said stands without needing to take a census. If someone can't have children, they should be able to simply know that he is not talking about them and move on. It doesn't matter if they fib about not being able to have kids. What he said doesn't apply to them period.
Is teaching against adultery spending way too much time in other people's lives? Is teaching against homosexuality spending too much time in other people's lives?
As for his going home and helping around the house... careful there, lest you be mistaken for a feminist. There's nothing wrong with a man helping around the house, of course, but what does the former topic have to do with his helping or not helping around the house? I could be wrong about your having feminist tendencies. I hope I am. But most women who make comments like that have an anti-male mentality.
soc said...
If that's what the article says though (those who are NEVER having children for selfish reasons), then why all the talk about infertile couples? Clearly, that does not seem to be whom he is referring to according to what you just mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Exactly. Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.
Now I'm the one banging my head against the keyboard.
Feminist tendencies = anti-male? Who'd have thunk?
fem·i·nism
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
gmommy, I understand what you said about training ministers. I would only add that matters relating to the home and family are equally important to not neglect in teaching and training, especially in this society that constantly attacks the family. After all, Biblically speaking, how can a pastor expect to manage a church if he can't manage his home?
That thing about going to seminary for to learn homemaking is ridiculous though. =/
I may not be an expert, but I am a thinker, and we need to take a look at the big picture.
Speaking as a kid who was born to someone who didn't want me, I fail to see how it is rebellion for someone to willingly decide not to have kids. Has anyone thought about things like the costs of raising a child? If a couple is barely able to support themselves financially, why have kids? It wouldn't be fair to the children.
Additionally, children are people! NOT OBJECTS. Some peoples attittudes makes it seem like your a nobody if you don't have kids. Its not like a BMW or a pair of Nike shoes.
That's the cleaned up version of feminism. But I'm talking about the real meaning of feminism. The anti-male, anti-God, anti-family mentality. I'm NOT espousing all of these to anyone here. But the borderline anti-male bit just concerned me.
Well put, Lynn. It's not a contest or a case of keeping up with the Joneses.
Finance Guy: I don't think you've been misunderstood. I took your words at face value. Let me assure you though that I do my best to keep my eyes open for when I sin, or drift from God's Word. I have dear friends who aren't shy about holding me accountable. Every Christian needs that, I think.
:-)
Regardless, the leadership at BBC needs to get back to the basics of scripture and serving and that starts with repentance. It is what it is. Being a leader has responsibility along with the perks.
HW,
Well, actually, what you're talking about is radical feminism -- which is a whole other animal. It's like the word "gay." People took a perfectly good word and corrupted it to mean a deviant "lifestyle."
And I'm beginning to see that "conservatism" in the SBC, in some cases, has been corrupted to mean patriarchy, power, and greed.
25+, HW, Nass, Lin, Soc, Junk and anyone else: To follow up from a previous post......
Why do we need the SBC? If they aren't going to help when we need them (like to set up a data base) because we are autonomous, then exactly why do we need them?
I guess the seminaries.........???
Mohler was trying to convince us there is an epidemic of selfish, willfully barren CHRISTIAN couples in oue churches. According to him, this is a serious problem invading our churches.
Where is it?
So, if you guys meet a couple at church/seminary that tells you they are not having kids becasue they are selfish. Please, let us know.
In my daughter's age group, the young Christian families (in this case, the more "artsy" group)
are very committed to nursing, homeschooling,dads being parents, keeping things simple, observing the Sabbath, having less to have more as a family.....
(so sorry for misspelled words...brain not working well)
It's the power brokers running the SBC that may have their priorities out of wack....just commenting....
HW,
I agree the ministers need training and accountability in the family area but if they are being taught (maybe by example) to be dictators...how will the men learn to serve and protect their own families???
all I have are questions....
someday maybe some answers.....????
Well, nass, the feminism I was talking about is radical but it's also mainstream. The leaders of feminism are exactly as I describe or worse. Most of whom follow them are as well. I know that you don't hold their views on many things. But let's not make light of what feminism is, what it stands for and what their purpose was and is.
It's not merely for equality. As a matter of fact, their version of equality is not equal at all. It's typically about special consideration for women or even more consideration for women. That, and the other things I mentioned... But I digress.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK YOU letter writter. You hit the target of truth, and truth is powerful. Keep up the excellent work.
rod almond
God's Word was never meant to become a battering ram for personal use, against the sheep. Against the sheep of His pasture.
Housewife said...
... But I digress.
Seems to me like this whole conversation has been a digression. :)
Not that there's anything wrong with that ...
Miriam, (what a nice name), Wilmoth, do not fear truth! The Lord tells us there MUST be disagreements and it is by really reading or hearing these disagreement that we are able to discern TRUTH> Never fear information! Fear being blinded by predjuices and love of men above love of our LORD>
I'm sorry g, but I think I missed somehing. Can you give me an example or two of seminaries training men to be dictators?
And what does Mohler's article have to do with not training men to serve and protect their familes? BTW, they should provide and be the head of their families. I don't have a problem with the word serve, but that word is more in line with the duties of a wife. And no, I don't mean that as a slave.
j said...
Seems to me like this whole conversation has been a digression. :)
Ha! Cheeky fellow. I bet SG's camp is just happy we're not concentrating on them for a while. =)
concernedsbcer said:
Why do we need the SBC? If they aren't going to help when we need them (like to set up a data base) because we are autonomous, then exactly why do we need them?
I guess the seminaries.........???
oc says:
Let me suggest that they need us more than we need them. We need THEM for the seminaries? No, they need US for the seminaries. Who is paying for those seminaries? Isn't it a bit ironic that we feel obligated to the Convention, who does little for us, but in fact survives only because of us?
Do you think something may be twisted here?
So, maybe some things need to be 'rethunk'.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Okay, now you have my total attention--Has AMYONE on this board seen loyalty "agreement" at another church? WHERE? That is like finding out there is a whole world out there I know nothing about. What SPECIFIC churches have these? GBC? FBC? Seriously if anyone knows/has signed one, please tell me.
THANKS!
Housewife,
LOL..I am NO feminist, but I am a lazy housekeeper...and when we got married, I told my husband that I was NOT the maid..I was working full time and he was expected to pull his weight.
This was not done from a feminist point of view..just the point of view of a very lazy housekeeper.\
Not lazy in general, mind you...just LOATHE housework.
For example, i have NEVER learned to fry any food and i have NEVER baked a cake..25 years of marriage..and I don't do his laundry..well, I did one time, but washed something red in with his underwear, and much to his dismay, he then had 25 pairs of pink underwear.\
He puts up with me..so dont' worry about it. :)
NASS wrote:
fem·i·nism
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
sotl:
HAHAHA...my grandfather, the one born in 1888, was a feminist by that definition!!!
I don't have a problem with the word serve, but that word is more in line with the duties of a wife. And no, I don't mean that as a slave.
6:28 PM, October 16, 2007
Huh?
Serve:
Matthew 20
26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
SOTL wrote:
"HAHAHA...my grandfather, the one born in 1888, was a feminist by that definition!!!"
... as am I. By that definition...
Lin, ditto.
If you think getting Hanna Montannah tickets was hard....scalpers are even scalping Joel Osteen Tickets!!!
Joel Osteen Tickets being scalped
loyalty oaths -
the Independent Baptist movement that proliferated in the 60s and 70s - and the Bible Baptist group out of Springfield, MO, are really big on loyalty to the pastor. And I think because the pastor is THE authority figure in the church. Deacon bodies tend to be rubber stampers. I had 'inside' experience at one of the larger Independent Baptist churches in the 70s. Ten months was about all I could handle. The pastor was an adulterer. Abused financial trust in the church. The 'loyalty oath' was required of all staff both of the church and the school.
So, nothing new but the modern mega church movement mirrors much of the same. It's all about power and greed, to put it mildly.
After experiencing it 1st hand, the warning signs are always ominous for me.
I don't know if any here remembers when Stanley became pastor at 1st in Atlanta, but I lived in the area at the time and in a Sunday morning service which was televised, some deacons attempted to take control of the service and the TV went black! Who knows what happened, but ultimately Stanley won. Or did he?
Eprov: Take control, how? Get him out of the pulpit???
C....
YES! He up-ended the traditional structure of the church, big time! It is / was quite a story. Major church split adjusting to his 'new' leadership.
Eprov: I had no idea.....so FBC Atlanta is contempory?
C....
No. Not that. But he certainly made dramatic changes in the church. This was in 1971-1972 so contemporary wasn't the issue. But I don't think it would be unfair to say that the changes might be very similar to what we are seeing at BBC, difference would be time and culture. I wouldn't want to imply the fence jumping and the other silly stuff, but to the many members who were ultimately displaced, it was a dramatic downer.
I remember when I didn't know any of this stuff....ahhh...to be ignorant again!!!!
Lin was SO gentle with me when I first mentioned to her how I listened to C.Stanely daily.
I could still deal until the MD hiring and Christa Brown's info about his church.
Now, I turn the station as quickly as I can when I see him on.
Now, eprov...you had to enlightened me MORE!!!!
sick, the attitude you seem to have toward your husband is so sad that I don't even know where to begin. very sad.
Nass,
Do we have an extra badge??
gmommy....
I had to learn a long time ago to 'listen' for God's voice thru all the folderol (that's a high falutin word for barnyard manure). I honestly enjoyed the 'teaching' of a Methodist female minister for several months. She was an excellent Bible student and teacher. Always fully prepared to give the sermon. Don't ask. It was an unavoidable situation!
And the real challenge was to listen to a lesbian Lutheran interim pastor. Yes! Again, don't ask. It was a forced situation. And, btw, she disaffectioned the female education director from her husband! Serious.
Okay. Too much confession is NOT good for blog relations! LOL
So, I assure you I enjoy a God-called, gifted preacher/teacher more than some can appreciate!
Anyone got any duct tape...I need it to keep my head from exploding.
HOUSEWIFE,
SAID:
Housewife said...
sick, the attitude you seem to have toward your husband is so sad that I don't even know where to begin. very sad.
sotl SAYS:
lolol!!! i TOLD you not to worry about it..my husband loves me just the way i am and we have things all worked out..
He tells me all the time that I am the best thing that ever happened to him..
You gonna argue with him? :)
What a man and woman does within a marriage should be decided by those in a marriage. To judge someone's attittude about their spouse as sad is kinda nuts. Every marriage works differently. To sit there and say that the wife should be a slave to the husband (Yes, housewife, that is how I'm interpreting your statements) is completely ascinine.
Now excuse me while I wrap my head in duct tape.
HW,
SOTL can speak for herself (and probably will), but you don't know her. She and Mr. SOTL have been happily married for 25 years. I assure you she loves him and he loves her and they love and care deeply for their children. While their division of household duties might not meet your concept of "ideal" (whatever that is), it works for them, and frankly, that's all that matters. Sounds to me like she and Mr. SOTL had an understanding from the beginning, so if they're happy, what's the problem?
See, I told you SOTL could speak for herself!
Lynn,
I used all mine..so sorry!!!
gmommy said on Stanley, "Now, I turn the station as quickly as I can when I see him on."
Comment...So do I gmommy, so do I. And I do the same on many, many others. Did you see Joel Osteen on CNN tonight? I nearly lost my dinner.
imaresistor said...
Did you see Joel Osteen on CNN tonight? I nearly lost my dinner.
Watching CNN was where you made your mistake! Unless it was Glenn Beck, of course. :)
Lynn said...
To sit there and say that the wife should be a slave to the husband (Yes, housewife, that is how I'm interpreting your statements)
You can interpret it as you want but that's not what I said. I even made a point to make that clear. But your insistence on in can also be deemed asinine.
Ima,
I am just trying to figure out who to listen to on the internet....and I get help from my blog friends!!!
Basically, most of "the old standards" have been retired forever for me.
BTW, what exactly did you "interpret" as my saying a wife should be a slave to her husband?
Lynn,
Have you used your neww Bowling ball lately??
I think it's cool that we got that in our last picture!!
eprov,
That story (well, not the part about the lesbian... eeeewww!) reminds me of this true-to-life story from an address presented at the 1987 SBC Historical Commission annual meeting by Leon McBeth who, at least at that time, was a professor of church history at SWBTS. Somehow today I can't see Paige Patterson putting up with anyone who'd say some of these things!
As a very young man, I served as pastor of a strong, rural church in west Texas. We had a one-room building, and divided the Sunday School classes by drawing burlap curtains strung on clothesline wire. We had no pastor's study, so I sat in the men's Sunday School class. Our teacher was a wonderful man, a farmer named J.E., a man unspoiled by the schools. I had no car, so I rode the Greyhound bus to the nearest town; and many a Saturday afternoon, J.E. and Joyce picked me up and I spent the weekend with them. On Sunday morning on the way to church, Joyce would drive while J.E. prepared his lesson. His preparation went as follows: "Joyce, where is the lesson for today?" She would tell him the Scripture passage, he would open his Bible, find the passage, insert his quarterly at that place, and close his Bible. That was his total preparation. In class we would each read a verse and tell what it meant to us.
The women's class met just across the curtain from us. Not five feet away, their teacher, Duchess, taught an excellent lesson. She had a strong voice; I should have such a voice. We could not help but hear her teaching; and most Sundays after a few moments, our class would lapse into silence, and we would just sit there listening to Duchess across the curtain.
That was my first pastorate, and I did not know anything. One day I said, "Why don't we just draw back this curtain, and all of us make one class, and let Duchess be our teacher." There was a stunned silence. I wish you could have seen the look on the faces of those men: consternation, shock, dismay, and disbelief that the pastor would suggest such a thing. "Oh no," they said, "we can't do that. That would make it a mixed class."
The whole article is here.
gmommy said...
Lynn,
Have you used your neww Bowling ball lately??
I think it's cool that we got that in our last picture!!
10:46 PM, October 16, 2007
Yup. I use it when the lanes are a bit dry.
I think I forgot to mention this but I actually bowled another perfect game.
housewife,
the attitude you seem to have toward sotl is so sad that I don't even know where to begin. very sad.
Are you sure you're not just jealous that you don't have your hubby so well trained?
:)
Hey Lynn,
That is so good!!!!How often do you go bowling???...without us that is?
Housewife said...
BTW, what exactly did you "interpret" as my saying a wife should be a slave to her husband?
10:45 PM, October 16, 2007
From your statements you seemed to indicate that women should do all the work in the house. On top of that your comments about sickofthelies and her husband indicated that you expect her to wait on her husband hand and foot. Thats how come I interpreted your comments the way I did.
In class we would each read a verse and tell what it meant to us.
The problem with this concept is that different people come up with different answers and not necessarily the correct ones. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what you think It says. It doesn't matter what I think It says. It doesn't matter what It means to so-and-so. The only thing that matters is, 'what does It say in and of Itself.'
P. S. housewife,
While you seem to think it sad that I dyed my husband's underwear pink, 10 years later, we are STILL laughing about it!!!
Actually, what I didn't post earlier was that he was cooking us some Orange Roughy on the inside grill and had the vent on while I was drying his pink underwear.
Somehow, the vents are connected, because when he got to San Francisco and opened up his suitcase, the underwear were not only pink, but they smelled like Orange Roughy.
We think it's a funny story...It's sad that you think it's sad.
But let's agree to this: you manage your marriage any way you choose and I will do the same :)
gmommy said...
Hey Lynn,
That is so good!!!!How often do you go bowling???...without us that is?
10:54 PM, October 16, 2007
4 Nights a Week lol.
Lynn.
Congrats on another perfect score!
What's wrong with the woman doing all the work around the house, especially when the husband works all day? But I didn't say that anyway! I think it's great when the husband helps out. Bless him for doing so! But it is mainly the woman's responsibility to keep the home.
Hand and foot? Now you're just reaching. I said nothing of the sort!
sick, I think the pink story is funny too. I was merely talking about your comment that you told him from the start that he had to pull his own weight - as if you already expected him to be your burden.
The horses have all been beaten....please let them rest.
Proverbs31Woman.com
A Biblical Response to the Feminist Agenda
awww, come on now housewife...
You're calling me a feminist?
I'm not a feminist!! I'm just lazy!!
Could we all just show each other some grace? People are different. What works for one family might not work for another. The "ideal" is what works for that family.
We're completely losing sight of the real issues which aren't SOTL's housekeeping routine or Mr. SOTL's fishy, pink Fruit-of-the-Looms or someone's conscious decision to have or not to have children.
But I did enjoy that story, SOTL! I'll never think of Mr. SOTL the same way again!
HW,
I'm sure your goal is not to constantly hammer at people when they don't agree with all of your views.
You have been coming off rather harsh and dogmatic recently.
We are friends here...not strangers to each other, not here to pounce on each.
Why do we have to agree with you on all issues and why can't you be a little less harsh and argumentive...please.
The way you treated Lin was over the top and I chose not to respond when you wanted to be critical and dogmatic with me....
can you take a breath please and be respectful.
God meant for us to be uniquely ourselves...not all clones.
I say all this with respect to you and not to get you fired up again.
could someone pass the bon bons, please :)
You can have mine...I can't eat or drink anymore until tomorrow afternoon.....
I DO look forward to my comforting ice cream at night......
Who kidnapped Dr Looney?????
After he defended me on the bblog for the death threat I was accused of making.....he has been gone so long now......oh my...do you think "someone" silenced him???????????
From HW's second link:
"There was even an organization in America called 'CBE' having to do with Christians for Equality... "
Actually, it still exists. As does the associated blog.
SOTL said
LOL..I am NO feminist, but I am a lazy housekeeper...and when we got married, I told my husband that I was NOT the maid..I was working full time and he was expected to pull his weight.
This was not done from a feminist point of view..just the point of view of a very lazy housekeeper.\
Not lazy in general, mind you...just LOATHE housework.
Piglet says:
I just HAVE to comment here.
The same folks who say the household chores are woman's work also say the man should bring home the bacon (this arrangement is fine with me, BTW).
But if the man doesn't mind his wife working and helping him with HIS responsibilities, then why are you lazy if you want help with YOURS? I think not!
Since I homeschool, I consider myself atleast holding a part time job so I appreciate some help - atleast picking up after himself, for goodness sakes. And I have special shoppiing privileges....:)
Piglet, dear, homeschool Moms are holding down a full-time job....teaching is a full-time job. Right, SOTL and HW?
But the shopping privileges are nice!
:-)
Both sides have said some harsh things. Both sides have gone back and forth presenting their arguments and dare I say, trying to convince and win the argument. I guess it's only wrong when others do it.
Well, I suppose my NOT being a feminist has been my downfall on this blog. So be it.
That said, I really do hope your quest for the truth and justice at BBC prevails. That was my only interest when I came seeking the truth like others. God bless you on your efforts on this front.
gmom,
I've been wondering the same thing! Poor Dr. Loney. I fear "they" did something to him.
Piglet,
AMen, sister!!
I have homeschooled now for 13 or 14 years..I have lost count..I am very very dedicated and diligent to this responsibility.
It is a tremendous responsibility. In addition, I have also run a home based business, where I design, sew, and install window treatments. At the first of this year, my husband started sub contracting cleaning services to car dealerships at night, and I help him for an hour or two each night.I am an avid scrapbooker, having completed several books for each child. Our daughter is graduating from college in december with a BSN and our son has recently been awarded the rank of Eagle Scout. When my daughter was a senior in high school, ( 2004) she was the Memphis Home Education's outstanding student of the year.
I might not get up before dawn and make biscuits for my husband, but I have earned his respect with everything else I do for this family.
Does he complain about folding the towels or sweeping the floor? NEVER. It has never occured to him to complain. WE work together for the things that matter to us. He knows when I am worn out. Because he loves me and respects me, he does not even ALLOW me to disrespect myself by taking on all the chores, while he does nothing.
I am only being silly when I call myself lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes concerned, full-time job. Rearing kids by itself is a full-time job, even without homeschooling. =)
I never said anything about his helping or not helping around the house. I never said anything about a woman's skills or lack there of at housekeeping.
Concernedsbcer
Well, I guess it just feels like part time now since my ADHD son is on meds. I even have to visit with a friend now and then....:)
Good night, my friends.
:-)
Good night, Dr. Loney, wherever you are......hope you aren't jogging though......
Correction:
I don't HAVE to visit with a friend - I have TIME to visit ....(sigh) It's late.
HW,
We can hold differing views on some issues without being overly critical of each other. I've never criticized your choices. In fact, from what you've told me about your family, I admire and respect you -- a lot!
Obviously you hold some very strong views on this particular subject, but I think we've about beat it to death. I was gently suggesting that maybe it would be best to move on to a new topic. I hope you'll stick around!
HW,
It's your choice if you want to react that way.
I have been nicely corrected by JTB and Junk on this blog.
ConcernedSbcer,Nass, Lin, and OC have emailed me when I didn't realize how I was coming across and I appreciated it.
I have emailed several or ask them to chill....we help each other not get fired up and attack.
Why are we feminist because we differ from your thinking.
We haven't criticize you....I tried to encourage you back when I didn't realize your screen name was a banner for you.
I am not intending to be ugly at all. I was just trying to ask you to calm down some and not be so aggressive with our own blog friends.
We expect that from those outside our friends.
I'm sorry you think we are so feminist. I've been alone raising and educating children for 10 years....alone even before that but I had more money and good insurance.
Can't you please accept women that have been thru different life experiences and that maybe don't want to have PP AM or anyone else with the SBC or BBC for that matter dictate how our homes should be??????
I wish you would relax and not be so defensive.:)
HOUSEWIFE,
Stick around..I'm not offended...
I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree :)
Before this piggie gets in her blanket for the night - I'd like to say that my hat's off to women everywhere (especially my blog pals) who, through no fault of their own, are having to do the man's AND the woman's job!
May God's grace be sufficient for you all!
gnite little piggie
Thank you piglet.
It hasn't been a lot of fun but that's is my project for 08...I am going to learn some balance and remember how to have fun.
Being with my sweet grand baby for the 2 weeks recently reminded me of the happiest time of my life.
nighty
And if life gets to be a little too much to handle... there's always our little friend! (Remove your Bichon Frise or other small animal from the room, then click the piggy's nose.)
GMommy: Thinking of your during your tests today. Also, God is not finished with you yet. Go for the balance! Life still has many wonderful things to offer. :-)
eprov:
You mention loyalty oaths and it made me think of something I was reading last night about early martyrs. I did not know that one of the main concerns of John Wycliff was the taking of an oath.
He came to this conclusion because of his translating the scriptures into english so the masses could read them.
Seems oaths were common in the Catholic church in those days and many of those who refused on Biblical grounds were martyred.
My-My-My-We have gone from attacking Ms. Billie to attacking each other over the place of a husband in the home and the pros and cons on when to have children.
We haven't just strayed off subject-we have fallen off the clift.
Where are these distinct housekeeping servant roles for women in scripture?
The proverbs 31 woman had servants, bought real estate and managed some businesses in addition to being wife and mother.
In the NT, we see Priscilla traveling all over with Aquila and teaching Apollos, Peter leaving his family to travel, Phoebe a traveling businesswoman, Lydia a businesswoman....I could go on and on. They also had 'households' which implies children.
Where are we seeing these legalistic distinctions in gender roles?
The Talmud states: Better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman. Jesus turned these man made laws on their head! He said...In HIM, there is no Greek or Jew, slave or free, male or female.
You know what is even more suspect? That we, rich as we are in the US right now can make this gender role issue so important in Christendom. Think of our recent ancestors: Depression, WW1 and WW2. Roles were turned on their head. People did what they had to do to make it.
When we were agrarian, women worked the fields with their husbands. Everyone did what they had to do.
I see more evidence everyday that Patriarchy is taking over the SBC.
John McArthur is a wonderful teacher. He contends for the truth on primary doctrine and I appreciate that. But on this issue, he gets out of whack. He teaches creation 'order' which one has to read into the account. (If we take a strict literal meaning...then cows are in authority over Adam because they were created first :o)
This issue has become so volatile that we even have a dean at SBTS teaching subordination within the Trinity as evidence of universal male authority! Dangerous stuff.
McArthur also teaches that the fall meant your husband would rule over you as a command. If that is correct then having an epidural during labor is sin. And it also means that any man NOT toiling in the field is in sin?
All of this legalism makes me love Jesus Christ even more. For Him to talk with the woman at the well was scandalous! For Him to allow all these women to follow Him around was SCANDAL! Mary M was even single and around all these married me! The SCANDAL!!
Remember what He told Martha!
It's okay, amazed. Strong opinions sometimes make for strong discussion, but all is well. No one's "attacking" anyone.
Got any ideas for a new topic?
NBBCOF-As a matter of fact, I do have a new subject for discussion in mind.
Back in the days before mega churches, the way new churches were started was as missions of established churches. This method has fallen by the wayside and the new method is through church splits.
There is no question as to which is the correct way to go but in the absence of a choice, will God bless congregations formed in this manner. There are plenty of examples here in Shelby county. Two that come to mind are Second Baptist Church (split from BBC) and Trinity Baptist Church (split from FBC).
amazed,
Why would you make that statement when it was obvious we were all very careful NOT to "attack".
SOTL made jokes, Lin tried to cut the whole line of discussion off...politely.....I "avoided" when the discussion was directed at me and later discussed bowling with Lynn when he was getting in the discussion.
No one wanted anything to be ugly.
I care very much for many on this blog and there will be times we don't agree on everything and we will NOT attack.
BTW...I forgot to add Lily to the list of blog friends who have sent me nice little emails telling me to calm down :)
Amazed: Covenant Baptist split from Immanuel Baptist (now known as Life Church at Schilling Farm)
I personally think church planing is a better idea with less angst.....example: Leawood East, a church plant from Leawood.
That being said, Covenant has been a blessing in my life!
lin.....
as a reformed sexist (I laugh at myself!), I can heartily say amen to your post about women. Married to one woman for 40 years and 5 children. Only 1 daughter, the oldest. Both are gifted, talented, smart and independent thinkers.
The culture creates extremes but I do think women have a responsibility to become all that God offers them. And yes to the level field at the foot of the Cross.
Anything taken to extremes is usually not healthy or good. God can bring the balance we all need.
Several years ago we were active members in a non-denominational church in Little Rock. One of the recently-graduated-from-seminary pastors taught women should be 'under the authority' of a man, and he even thot some merit to a woman wearing a head covering in the worship service.
There was an older married lady who with her husband was very active in the church. She was at one time head of the Republican party in Arkansas. So get the picture.....not a wimpy woman!
So help me the next Sunday she comes in with her adult daughter and they both sit on the front row with shawls draped over their heads!
It embarassed the pastor and he had an usher request they remove the 'head covering!'
I never figured that one out!
And another thought.....at what size is a church "too big?" Should mission churches be planted instead?
Just askin'
gmommy-Maybe there is a difference of opinion about the meaning of "attack". Some of the posts sure seemed to be doing a good job of getting after another persons opinion and then trying to change that persons way of thinking.
After all, I thought we were all entitled to our opinions with out having to crawl under a rock.
"This method has fallen by the wayside and the new method is through church splits."
That is a pretty general statement. I am amazed at the new churches coming up here. I have counted 4 Bible believing in the last few years that have not been planted by existing churches or the result of church splits, either. Some are simply groups of believers meeting to Worship.
My cousin visited a church recently that rents a 7th Day Adventist church on Sunday's. She went to hear Paul Washer speak there. They told her that they want to give 90% to missions and not put it into buildings and administration costs. My cousin said she was overwhelmed with the love they showed her and each other while she was there.
The book of Acts is an excellent place to start.
I agree with your premise that church splits are not always the ideal way to go -- at least not when they involve splitting over non-essential matters. That brings to mind some questions/observations:
1. Do you not think the two congregations you mentioned have been blessed? I don't consider "numbers" to necessarily equate into blessings, so please don't base your answer on that.
2. Trinity's history. I didn't know they were a "split." I thought they were more like a mission, formed when the population began to move east.
3. I believe Covenant Baptist was formed as part of a church split, and they're certainly being blessed.
4. What if the split is over core issues? I'm thinking of all the people who've left BBC, and I don't mean those who left because of the music. I dare say most who have left have had deeper reasons than that. (And I'm not saying that's not a legitimate reason to leave if it's interfering with one's ability to worship.) In the case of BBC, it's been more of a splintering than a split.
Okay...okay,
Let's discuss Joel and Victoria Osteen, the pastor and co-pastor of the great Lakewood Church.
Did any of you see them on Larry King Live last evening? They have been visiting the different shows as of late promoting his new book...A Better Life for You, I think is the name of it. I forget how many copies have already sold, but it is astronomical and it is still hot off the presses! Rick Warren...move over!
Paul Proctor has an article on News with Views that you will enjoy reading. He says that in spite of himself, he likes Joel...sort of a Mr. Rogers guy. :) And I do too...he is a likeable fellow. However, there is just so much more of a need for Truth than likeable fellows.
Sorry...meant to provide the link to Paul Washer's article today:
Joel Osteen's Sugar Coated Gospel by Paul Proctor
Trinity was a split from 1st Baptist, Memphis.
Ima: To be truthful, I've yet to hear Joel Osteen preach the Gospel. In my opinion, he's a great motivational speaker.
Thanks, concerned. Does anyone know why Trinity and Second split from First and Bellevue, respectively? I heard something about the Second split being over the big chandelier (that someone donated, right?), so that's always sounded suspect to me. BTW, First, Second, and Trinity are the only Memphis-area churches listed in the CBF.
Nass: I do believe God blesses congregations regardless of how they were formed, if they are solid in their beliefs and serving and giving Him the glory.
In my personal experience, the split I went through caused me to search more diligently than I had ever done before. I had to determine what was correct, what was scriptural, and I had to stand firm on that. When a believer takes the leap from believing what he/she has been taught to standing on what he/she has learned for himself, then they can stand solid on that belief and no one can shake them.
You are right; BBC has splintered. Had a group chosen to form another church, I think it would be called a split. JMHO
Nass: What is CBF?
ima
I hope Joel did better last night than he did on his previous visit with Larry King. Last time, he stumbled around over the issue of whether or not Jesus was the only way to get to heaven. When asked about it later, his publicist (sp?) said he was just tired.
But he is a likeable guy...a great motivational speaker...just dont' look to him for any " meaty" Bible study.
Bellevue split when Dr. Pollard came after Dr. Lee left. He wanted things done his way and was was short with people--did not take the time to listen to them. In fact, one of his sayings was, "If you don't like things going on here the only thing for you to do is leave."--sounds eerily familiar, huh!? He said this from the pulpit.
He was approached by those who were concerned, but said he didn't see any problems. Many people left and started 2nd Baptist Church.
New BBC Open Forum said...
Thanks, concerned. Does anyone know why Trinity and Second split from First and Bellevue, respectively? I heard something about the Second split being over the big chandelier (that someone donated, right?), so that's always sounded suspect to me. BTW, First, Second, and Trinity are the only Memphis-area churches listed in the CBF.
2nd split from BBC after Dr. Pollard replaced Dr. Lee. The standard explanation given by BBC leadership at the time was that folks were never going to be happy with anyone who wasn't Dr. Lee. (Sound familiar?) But I don't know what the issues were in the minds of those who formed 2nd.
Trinity was more of an "amiable" split from 1st. The pastor and many church members wanted to relocate from Midtown to the east (sound familiar?), but a significant portion of the membership wanted to stay put. So they agreed together that those who wanted to move east could start a new church, including the pastor, so 1st sponsored Trinity as a church plant.
CBF = Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the missions and education funding organization formed by "moderate" Baptists who felt disenfranchised from SBC leadership after the concervative resurgance.
I knew those three churches were considered liberal but I didn't know there was a separate organization. Are they members of SBC or is CBF a different organization entirely?
amazed said...
Back in the days before mega churches, the way new churches were started was as missions of established churches. This method has fallen by the wayside and the new method is through church splits.
Don't know about other denominations, but Baptists have been notorious for ages for forming new churches from splits. A common saying was that Baptists start new churches a lot like cats breed ... there's a lot of fussing and scratching and clawing and hissing but when its all over you have more cats.
I'm sure many have heard of towns with two Baptist churches ... Harmony Baptist and New Harmony Baptist.
And then there's this story ...
A man is walking across a bridge one day, and he sees another man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So he runs over and says, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" says the first man.
"Because there's s much to live for!" says the second man.
"Like what?"
"Well, are you religious or atheist?"
"Religious."
"Me too! Are your Christian or Jew or Buddhist or what?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are your Methodist or Presbyeterian or Baptist or what?"
"Baptist!"
"Wow! Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
"Northern Baptist."
"That's great, me too! Are you Orthodox Northern Baptist of Reformed Northern Baptist?"
"Reformed Northern Baptist!"
"Amazing, me too! Are you Reformed Northern Baptist, Council of 1879, or Reformed Northern Baptist, Council of 1912?"
"Reformed Northern Baptist, Council if 1912!"
So he says, "Die, heretic!" and pushes him off the bridge.
Post a Comment