Sunday, February 21, 2010

Let's Do the Tithe Rap!

This "rap" was performed in a Sunday service at First Baptist, Woodstock, Georgia where Johnny Hunt, current president of the SBC, is pastor. Not much I can think of to say about it. I think the latest commenter summed it up pretty well.

"Church today is a place to go for entertainment."

Update: I only thought it couldn't get worse. Now we have Ed Young, "Jr." rapping.


TN Lizzie said...


Where are the tables to overturn?

New BBC Open Forum said...

Kinda leaves you speechless, doesn't it?

WishIhadknown said...

At least it was more entertaining than Test the Tithe Sunday.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Speaking of "Prove the Tithe" Sunday, have we heard how that went? Usually when they get a big response to something they publicize it. When they don't, you never hear another word about it. I haven't heard a word.

32yrs@bbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
New BBC Open Forum said...

If you saw the first 15-20 seconds you pretty much saw the whole thing, BUT it's interesting, if you can't tolerate watching the whole thing, to skip to the last 20 seconds and witness Johnny Hunt's tacit approval. This is the man, in his own church, who's been at the helm of the SBC for the past 20 months.

I've witnessed a lot of things in Baptist churches in the last few years that, if I'd been there in person, would have caused me to have walked out and never gone back. This would have been one of those occasions.

drstevej said...

You Tube has several of these performances online. Looks like the Tithe Rap is going viral. And a virus it is.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Some very choice quotes from this performance:

"Listen up now to what I got to say,
What I do every Friday when I get my pay,
Before I buy my groceries or pay my rent,
I gotta give God his full 10 percent"

and this gem:

"I take it straight off the top,
That's the way its gotta be,
And then everything's good between God and me."

Hey, there is a first for everything...false doctrine put to rap music...whodu thunk it?

Junkster said...

I thought the video was a creative and funny presentation of the doctrine of storehouse tithing. The only problem I had with it was what was being taught.

New BBC Open Forum said...

So if the doctrine being presented was simply generous giving you would have been okay with it?


Junkster said...

Yeah, probably.

gmommy said...

I agree with 32yrs that what most of we "middle aged and beyond" know to be reverence is just gone in most Baptist churches. But this process has been going on for a long time so why the shock? This is the norm.
You DID notice the standing O after the routine, right??
Time to change denominations if you are so bothered with "culturally relevant" entertainment and marketing IMO. Things have been marketed this way in the Baptist church (and even in BBC)for years now. If you are offended b/c the "gimmick" involved dancing or "simulated rap" that may be the most shallow and legalistic reason to be offended IMO.
I agree with Junk that this performance was creative, amusing, and done well. Never mind the message given was probably the Baptist doctrine rather than Biblical teaching. The people there seemed to enjoy it(mission accomplished)...others will be offended instead of seeing the big picture. This method isn't new in the Baptist church.
Why not discuss WHY this was offensive to you as an individual from a Biblical perspective. Why it may be offensive in a worship service? Or why this might be offensive to it?
Just my thoughts.

32yrs@bbc said...

Junkster said...
"I thought the video was a creative and funny presentation of the doctrine of storehouse tithing. The only problem I had with it was what was being taught."

Question: Is the worship service the venue for a rap presentation whether it has correct doctrine or not?

gmommy said...

My answer (I do think the skit was done well)to your question 32yrs is no...the rap and many other things done in churches every Sunday are not appropriate for a worship service. I don't think it is ever appropriate to make ourselves like the world in a worship service.
I enjoyed reading this article...I'm NOT pushing Calvin in anyway. But I like this Puritan site and I like the "RPW"

The Regulative Principle in Worship:

32yrs@bbc said...

When the presentation/performance causes the focus to be more on the
performance than the Lord and His Word (no matter how creative or well done), it is wrong! Worship services are to be about HIM - His deity, His worthiness, His glory, His majesty, His holiness. He is infinite God; we are finite beings. His ways and His thoughts are high above ours. Something has happened - an erosion - in the church of Jesus Christ. Somehow the thinking today is God exists for us and our good, when the truth is we exist only because of God, and for His glory. The reverential fear of God is gone - in the culture and in the church.
The lack of that fear is exhibited in programs and performances the
church so eagerly presents now.
The significance of Calvary seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

I did see the standing O when I went back and reviewed the video and it broke my heart.

New BBC Open Forum said...

I don't think I can add anything to what "gmommy" and "32yrs" have said. In a word, it's the irreverence and me-centeredness of all this. There are still small Baptist churches which understand the meaning of reverence. You just don't hear about them and don't see clips from their services on YouTube.

Junkster said...

32yrs@bbc said...
Question: Is the worship service the venue for a rap presentation whether it has correct doctrine or not?

To me it is a matter of indifference. The New Testament does not speak to music in the church in any way, so I consider it entirely a matter of personal opinion and taste. I also think that the what people consider "reverant" is often based on culture and personal experience.

However, each person should be able to associate with a church that shares like views and practices, and I don't think so called "leadership" should be able to decide to change a church's traditions without the blessing and consent of the congregation.

gmommy said...

I am in agreement with you about worship...I am not good at articulating theology so I included that article b/c it gives scriptural reasons why worship should be done in a reverent way based on what God asks of us and not what entertains or amuses.
I added that the skit was done well to say something positive and truthful.I don't like coming off critical all the time. I'm not upset by this or what goes on at BBC and other churches b/c I'm not surprised. I accepted small things and changes along the way. I wasn't paying enough attention and digging deep enough into scripture. My eyes are open now and I won't be easily fooled again.

32yrs@bbc said...

Gmommy, you and I are on the same page and I knew what you meant. Thank you for the puritanworship site. I have already checked it out. I have the book of Puritan Prayers which I get into occasionally to refresh my perspective.

Junkster: I pretty much agree with you except I don't think indifference or situational ethics should be applied to the matter of church worship. From what I have seen over the years, the more the church (any denomination) conforms to the world, the weaker it becomes spiritually- no matter the size of its membership.

New BBC Open Forum said...

The "Tithe Rap" video only left me temporarily speechless. This one (see front page for permanent link) left my jaw resting on my keyboard.

You may recall my previous article on Ed Young, "Jr." and the series on the FBC Jax Watchdog blog about Ed and his recent troubles with the secular media.

Ed Young: "No Secrets" or "No Answers"?

Young and Two Board Members Answer Critics

Florida Baptist Convention President Cross Endorses Young's Use of Jet

Young, Cross, and Richard (Re-SHARD) "Dog and Pony Show" Analysis

Ed Young's "Franchise Player" View of Himself Explains Quite a Bit

Senior Defends Junior: "Ed and Lisa Give Away More than 1/2 of Every Dime They Touch"

WishIhadknown said...

After reading and seeing all of the linked stuff, I'm beginning to think SG is not so bad afterall.

I have to go find the Tylenol and the Pepto Bismal now. I have a very bad headache and I am sick to my stomach.

32yrs@bbc said...

Last time I saw Ed Young, Jr. he was sitting on a bed that was on the platform of his church speaking to a full house about the
joys of marital intimacy. I kid you not.

WishIhadknown said...

Pornography from the pulpit, it’s not just for the internet anymore.

You all need to remind me to get the duct tape and duct tape my head before I read these posts. My head just exploded and made an awful mess. The duct tape at least keeps the pieces from flying everywhere. Now where is that super glue.

Heaven help us!

Lydia said...

Last time I saw Ed Young, Jr. he was sitting on a bed that was on the platform of his church speaking to a full house about the
joys of marital intimacy. I kid you not.

6:58 PM, February 24, 2010

Can anyone picture Spurgeon or Jonathan Edwards doing that?

32yrs@bbc said...

Ed Young, Jr. rapping, Ed Young, Jr. whinning about the burden of the ministry, Ed Young, Sr. defending his son's lavish life style - it reminds me of the spin we get from the media and our politicians and I am frankly weary
of it all. Where has discernment gone? Is the average Christian reading their Bible anymore? How do they justify following men who
are not "servant to all" but who think THEY are to be served - without question, and lavishly?

TN Lizzie said...

The 57 comments are quite interesting. Too bad there are so few suggestions of Good churches to try.

My personal sanctuary is in the middle of my home, surrounded by piles of laundry and children. They run and get me a pen, if I have a thought I just must jot down.

My Jesus meets me there, and I didn't have to hire an interior designer to accomodate Him. He joins us on the couch, or in the kitchen, or in the front yard...

It is a joy for life to be so simple! If I had vast resources with which to build myself a private sanctuary, I would spend it on someone else.

Just sayin'

(word verification = allybout) hee hee ~ It's all about Him!

32yrs@bbc said...

TN Lizzie, do I understand correctly that you and your family no longer attend worship in a local church?

One of my great joys is to meet with fellow believers for corporate worship on Sundays. I worship the Lord every day but there is something special about coming together with other believers. It also gives me opportunity to love, pray for, and minister to those outside of my family.

I am not being critical of your decision (if I've understood you correctly). However, God does tells us in Heb. 10:24,25 "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."

Maybe you and your family are assembling yourselves together with other families/friends. My point, I guess, is that I believe God wants us to reach out from just our own as we worship and serve Him. Many have been wounded by the antics of their local church so I understand the temptation to just withdraw from church altogether. But consider Jesus - He was in the synagogue every Sabbath day in spite of the corrupt priests who despised Him and plotted against Him. He set the example for us to come together at least one day a week to join with others who love Him.

What I have written is not meant to cause offense. It is merely a point of consideration and debate.
One day we will be together in Glory worshipping Him together.:-)

WishIhadknown said...

The reality is that most believers do not tithe 10%. Nor are they in a financial position to tithe; especially those in the “all important 25 to 40 year old demographic” that BBC targets. By the time you are married have a couple of children, a mortgage, a couple of car notes there just is not enough money left to pay a full tithe.
Most of the people I know who contribute 10% or more have paid off their mortgage and reared their children.
The next question is what do you think of preachers laying guilt trips on their congregations or calling the members “thieves?” Are they not being like Satan when they stand in the pulpit and accuse the brethren?
What about preachers who are paid from members’ tithes and offerings having extravagant lifestyles, like belonging to Country Clubs or charging lavish meals to the church?
Are the preachers not misusing the word? Are they not using the word for their own self seeking purposes?
If the preachers are misusing the word then are they really preaching the word as so many contend?

32yrs@bbc said...

No one should ever stay in a church where there is verbal abuse, manipulation, lack of love and misuse of monies. That's a given. There are good and godly pastors preaching/teaching because of their love of the Lord and the Gospel; pastors who are not
on a power trip or full of greed.
I grant you those pastors seem to be in the minority in the times we are now living BUT they are out there.

TN Lizzie said...

32yrs@bbc, You are correct. We call it Home Discipleship. We are in a season where my DH is leading our family in worship at home. We have grown so deep in our Bible Study, even the 6yo!

When God open the door for us to attend a local church, we will not say "No." We are waiting, but we are comfortable too.

We take advantage of ministry opportunities as they arise, we serve and meet needs in our neighborhood and community, we support 2 missionary families... All this, without having to create our own altar and/or sanctuary inside our home. He do, however, own a small set of hymnals!

Thank you for your kind exhortation. If you know of a good local church, please e-mail me?

TN Lizzie said...

Argh! I hate typos! That should say, "When God OPENS the door..." and "WE do, however, own a small set of hymnals!"
I found this online, from Stop Dating the Church by Joshua Harris:

10 Questions to Explore and Understand a Church

1. Is this a church where God’s Word is faithfully taught? (2 Tim. 3:16)

2. Is this a church where sound doctrine matters? (Acts 2:42; 2 Tim 4:3-4)

3. Is this a church in which the gospel is cherished and clearly proclaimed?

4. Is this a church committed to reaching non-Christians with the gospel? (Matt. 28:18-20)

5. Is this a church whose leaders are characterized by humility and integrity? (1 Tim. 3)

6. Is this a church where people strive to live by God’s Word? (James 1:22)

7. Is this a church where I can find and cultivate godly relationships?

8. Is this a church where members are challenged to serve? (Eph. 4:12)

9. Is this a church that is willing to kick me out? (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2)

10. Is this a church I’m willing to join “as is” with enthusiasm and faith in God?

32yrs@bbc said...

TN Lizzie:
Thanks so much for the Stop Dating the Church outline. Excellent! No church is perfect because it is compromised of sinners saved by grace - including the pastor - BUT
my family feels we have found a church that meets all these requirements. If I knew how to e-mail you, I would be glad to give that info. to you.

Your fellowship of believers sounds a bit like the home churches in China. Jesus says where two or more are gathered together in His Name, He is there with them.:-)

32yrs@bbc said...

"No church is perfect because it is compromised of sinners saved by grace - "

Well, I did a big OOPS! too. Of course, I meant COMPRISED of sinners saved by grace. Guess compromised could be used though in
many cases.:=)

And of course there is no little trash can to remove the OOPS!.:-(

TN Lizzie said...

My e-mail address is in my profile. At least, it was when I just checked it...

TN Lizzie said...

Hopefully this is unrelated, but have y'all gotten your census form?

Please be aware of something:

On the back of the 2010 Census form, at the very bottom, it says,
"Respondents are not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Office of Management and Budget."

The ONLY place on the Census form that number is found is at the bottom of page 1, under question 4

Per their own instruction, you don't have to answer any questions except #1- 4!
I realize that Joseph and Mary registered for the census, giving their names.

There is no Constitutional allowance for most of the questions they are asking this year.

This census wants to know my RACE. I belong to the Human Race - Why does it matter to the census how much melanin my skin contains?

Maybe this census could use it's own thread?

Junkster said...

TN Lizzie,
Another strange thing about this census is that the instructions say to complete and mail it back immediately, but they also say to report number of residents, etc., as of April 1. How am I supposed to send in information today about what things will be like in the future? I could guess what I think it will be, but providing any false information is subject to fines -- so what if someone moves or dies between the time I fill it out and April 1?

Then there was the fact that they sent out a letter a week or so ago just to tell me that the cenus would be coming soon. How much did it cost to print and send that to every address in the country?

The census has always asked about "race" -- but the Constitution says nothing about that, only that an "enumaration" (a count, not demographics) shall be made every 10 years. However, Congress gets to set the laws about the census, and the laws specifies that we are subject to fines if you don't provide all the information requested.

My opinion is that much of what all three branches of government have done over the last century or more is unconstitutional.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Please don't be nervous about filling out your census form. It appears to me the OMB number applies to the whole form, not just question #4.

When your great-great-grandchildren are working on their genealogy, especially if they're working on a common surname, that information will be invaluable.

The census is kept sealed for 72 years. Therefore, the information you put on your 2010 census form will not be unsealed until 2082 at which time I can pretty much assure you that you won't be around to care. The 1930 census didn't become available until 2002, and the 1940 census will be available in 2012. (I can hardly wait!)

Look, I'm as security conscious as anyone, but please don't let the alarmists convince you not to provide accurate and complete information on your census form! It's important now for congressional representation and allocation for our infrastructure (if we're going to have to pay taxes anyway we might as well get all the bang for our buck we can), and it will be invaluable for your descendants long after you're gone.

When I began doing genealogy many years ago I thought I'd found my great-grandparents in the census. Everything fit -- given names, ages, location, etc. -- until I noticed the family was black. (I'm not.) If that information had not been available I would have wasted a lot of time chasing a wrong lead.

Do you know that as soon as you die your Social Security number is a matter of public record? (The census form doesn't ask for your SSN.)

Besides, if you don't fill it out completely and return it, they're either going to call you or show up at your door. So make it easier on yourself and just do it now. For every form that isn't mailed back that's just more of your tax money spent paying someone to track you down.

32yrs@bbc said...

I just mailed my census form. The only information I gave was the
# of people in our household, our names and race. That's it. No date of births, are we renting or buying, do we have a mortgage, etc.
The census is to count people in a household. That's all that is required by law. Any other information is none of their business.

New BBC Open Forum said...


Wait until April 1st to mail it back. That's only two weeks away.

At least with the race question there's now an allowance for people who are of mixed race. Years ago they had a category for "mulatto" (which is, by definition, what Obama is), but now there are white, black, and several varieties of Hispanic and Asian, and you can check as many as apply. (Truth be known, most of us don't know how many apply.) I wonder how many people will notice that or think about it. Obama is just as much white as black (maybe more), but apparently he considers himself black. Certainly many of those who voted for him did. Someone who immigrates to the U.S. from Africa, even if he's white, could call himself "African American." Folks, if you're an American citizen, you're plain old unhyphenated American. Period. (I think this is similar to Lizzie's point about being a member of the "human" race.)

Has anyone seen the show Who Do You Think You Are? on NBC? Each week they take a famous person and trace one or two lines of their ancestry. Last week it was Emmitt Smith. The look on his face when he discovered one of his ancestors was "mulatto" was priceless.

"My opinion is that much of what all three branches of government have done over the last century or more is unconstitutional."



Unless you gave them a phone number, they will likely be showing up at your door. Whether or not you have a mortgage is a matter of public record already. So are birth, marriage, and divorce records in some states.

The only year (that's available to date) where they've included anything about age (other than in years) was the 1900 census where they gave the month and year of each person's birth. That's very helpful for future researchers, and knowing the age distribution of the people in a community IS important. The needs of an aging community are different from those of a young community. (The administrators of the government-run healthcare system, if this thing passes, have to know who to kill off first!)

Now, when an organization like BBC starts asking for people's SSNs and checking "tithing" records, then we have a problem. I never give my SSN to anyone who doesn't absolutely have to have it. Doctors' offices always want it to use for a "patient number," and I just say no, that's not what a SSN is for. But as I mentioned before, as soon as you die your SSN becomes public anyway. Much of the illusion of "privacy" we have today is just that -- an illusion.

32yrs@bbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
New BBC Open Forum said...

I was just reading a site where the census was being discussed, and people are filling in all kinds of wrong races, made-up races, names, ages, etc. They're stuffing the return envelopes with junk, marking through questions (presumably so no one else can answer them), putting the form in the envelope backwards, tearing it up, throwing it away, writing messages to Obama on the form (as if he's going to see them), etc.

Paranoia has taken over! If you're going to fill out the form, please fill it out accurately and completely or don't fill it out at all. Then we can all be taxed even more to cover the cost of them having to send out people to get the information in person. (I hate to say this, but sadly, I predict someone is going to be sent into the wrong neighborhood and get shot before this is over.) I hate to think what a mess the 2000 and 2010 censuses are going to be when they're released in 2072 and 2082. (I remember some of these same protests in 2000.) I don't envy our descendants who will be trying to sort it all out.

I don't understand why they didn't ask each person's occupation. That's always been asked before, and it would be useful information when the census becomes public. Another question in the past for each person has been if s/he speaks, reads, and writes English. (It's usually in the form of three columns you check.) They also used to ask what state you, your father, and your mother were born in. It seems to me they've left out a lot of information that has historically made the census useful to future generations.

Oh, and that long form that some people are getting? That's nothing new either. I helped an elderly lady fill out one of those in 1970. (It just dawned on me how many years ago that was. Ugh.) Back then they asked, among other things, if you had flush toilets and how many.

Here's how far we've come since the first census was taken in 1790. Back then the questions were:

- Name of the head of each household.

- How many free white males age 16 and older?

- How many free white males under age 16?

- How many free white females of any age?

- How many of all other free persons? (I always assumed this meant non-family members who weren't slaves.)

- How many slaves?

It wasn't until 1850 that each person in the household was listed by name. From 1790 to 1840 only the head of household was listed with tick marks (or later, numbers in columns) for other males, all females, and slaves in each household.

I wonder how many of those who are so vocally protesting the census today have sons (or are themselves males) between 18 and 25 who've registered for the Selective Service. That's still required by law, too, but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone object to that.

Here is a good summary of the questions that have been asked in previous censuses. All but a tiny portion of the 1890 census was destroyed in a fire.

For anyone who's interested in seeing old censuses (and maybe looking for your ancestors) there are several free sources online. The best, if you have a library card to just about any library, is to access HeritageQuest which you can do from home through the library's website. Some libraries also have available for use inside the library only. The LDS library has the 1880 census online for free. The LDS churches maintain genealogy libraries within their facilities that are open to the public free of charge. They can borrow microfilm from the Salt Lake City library for a small fee. Before so many online resources were available, I spent many hours in the local LDS library.

I realize all this is off topic, but frankly I'm weary of BBC and the SBC.

32yrs@bbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Junkster said...

I agree that what most people are concerned about is the size and intrusiveness of federal government. But I personally didn't have a problem with providing any of the information asked for on the census, and it was less than has been asked on some in the past.

The U.S. Constitution says this:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct.

Thus, as I said previously, the only thing specifically authorized is a count. But the it also specifies that the counting differed based on whether a person is free, American Indian, or "other Persons" (meaning not free, which, in historical context means black), then the question of race is also allowed by the Constitution.

But it also says "in such manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct", and elsewhere the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have the power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

From this we can see that it IS legal for the census to ask for more than just a count. So the census bureau can pretty much ask whatever Congress passes into law. We are then obligated, under penalty of law, to provide whatever information is asked. I believe that the current penalty for providing no resposne is up to $100 per question (totaling $1000 for the 10 questions on the current census form), and up to $500 per question for knowingly proving false information (up to $5000 total).

Do I like it? No. Do I think it is what the Founders had in mind? No. I think the federal government is going way beyond its constitutionally stated role, and the census is just one minor example of many. But I am answering all of the questions, and I advise everyone else to do the same.

Also, according to the Bible, we are to obey the laws of our land unless they contradict the laws of God. Since God never told us (as Christians) not to provide the government with the info asked for in the census, then it would be a violation of Scriptural principle not to complete the census.

I'll probably wait until after April 1 to send it in; I just think it is funny that they gave conflicting instructions (send it back today, but provide the info as of 4/1, and be sure it is accurate). Typical of the federal government to ask us to do something impossible.

32yrs@bbc said...

Totally off subject - but, can anyone explain to me the thinking behind what seems to be a uniform for the younger generation of pastors? I just learned of another young man who is being called as pastor to a small town church. For his first sermon on the Sunday the congregation would take a vote, he
wore tennis shoes, jeans and a long tail shirt hanging out. Why would he think this was appropriate? Anyone who goes for a job interview, if they have a grain of sense, knows the importance of dressing appropriately...shirt tail tucked in and a belt at the very least.
I honestly just don't get it.

gopher said...

32yrs@bbc said...

"... can anyone explain to me the thinking ...."

well at least he's being honest, unlike some who come all dressed up in suit and tie alone with his nicely attired family, and like a strip tease artist, things begin to go, first the tie, then the jacket, then the dress shirt, then the choir, then the Passion Play....


32yrs@bbc said...

Excellent point! At least the guy is not blindsiding them. I guess I see the jeans, tennis shoes, and shirt tail hanging out as a sign of immaturity - emotional and spiritual. But, hey! He's not trying to hide who he is.

Junkster said...

Maybe dressing in jeans and sneakers, with shirt tail out, when preaching in view of a call, is a sign of spiritual and emotional maturity rather than immaturity. He's being who he is, not who others say he should be and not pretending to be something he isn't, and he's not focused on outward appearance.

But I don't think I'd vote for him, so maybe I'm too spiritually and emotionally immature. :)

One thing we can be pretty sure of -- not likely he went to Mid-America Seminary!

TN Lizzie said...

According to the live blog of the House vote on health care reform at

10:45 PM ET: According to the current roll call, the Democrats have crossed 216 votes. If that holds, the Democrats have passed the bill.

10:47 PM ET: The House has passed health care reform by a vote of 219 to 210.


Prov. 21:31 says, "The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the LORD."

I will sleep tonight on those last 6 words...

WishIhadknown said...

To not dress appropriately is disrespectful and reveals a rebellious heart that cares only for self. But that seems to be today’s attitude. It’s only about me and what I want. If you want to dress like a bum then that is what you need to be. I say fire the bum!

gopher said...

Now at Bellevue Baptist Church

an ATM Machine, right outside the Bookstore, soon to come Coffee Shop.

Claims it is "Donated"
by Regions Bank

Does that name ring any bells?

And by the way, the machine requires a $3 donation to deliver your $$$$.

So where does the donations go?


32yrs@bbc said...

gopher said...
"Now at Bellevue Baptist Church an ATM Machine, right outside the Bookstore, soon to come Coffee Shop.Claims it is "Donated"
by Regions Bank."

Who cares if it was donated? An ATM machine in a church is wrong!
Just one more step in SG's master plan to tear down and rebuild and I'm sure his loyal followers think an ATM machine in the church is awesome!:O)

WishIhadknown said...

Can't wait to see the Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express stickers on the doors and the signs hanging from the street signs. Gotta love this seeker friendly stuff.

fogmachine said...

Slot machines with Christian symbols are in the waiting as soon as gambling is legalized in TN.

I figure Bellevue will probably line the foyer with them so folks can use them while waiting for the
11-11 to start.

All of course, in the name of good.

The end justifies the means.

The way the Southern Baptist leadership are cozying up to Donna and Steve leads me to believe the Southern Baptist Convention is falling fast.

We need to pray that the rank and file churches all over America (that are not mega-churches) wake up and stop voting for these big money guys who are selling themselves.

Junkster said...

The apocalypse can't be far off now ...

Historic moment at MABTS

New BBC Open Forum said...

Blasphemy! Next thing you know they'll be admitting women to the ministerial programs.

Junkster said...

Women can attend and graduate from MABTS, just not with an M.Div., a Ph.D., or a D.Min., which are considered "pastoral" degrees. (Unless that has changed recently, but I doubt it.) They can get other masters degrees, including one in missions, which is considered an "M.Div. equivalent" academically. Guess it is like churches that have women do the same thing that men do but are called "Directors" instead of pastors or ministers.

New BBC Open Forum said...

A few decades ago they called that sort of thing "separate but equal." Today they just call it "roles."

New BBC Open Forum said...

2010 Census Forms to be Preserved as Digital Images... including notes scribbled in the margins. Uh oh!

Junkster said...

Commenting with nothing more to say just because I don't like unevern numbers.

Nenanda said...

Haven't been here in a long time. See things haven't changed except to get worse...and worse. There isn't any going back. Leaves me feeling sickly.