« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
Seems like our watchdog from Enid is guarding the Southern Baptist Convention from the evil that's creeping in. Last week he warned us that while the SBC was not a cult, it acted like one. The next piece of the sky falling is a "growing Semi-Arianism" among us. I wonder what the next theological crisis will be that plagues us. Stay tuned...
With that, I am... Peter
| | |
| | |
I am a complementarian. Without apology, I embrace complementarianism. I believe the Bible reveals a consistent complementarian understanding of gender. Not only so, the BF&M clearly states where the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists stand--they are complementarian too.
Thus, I have my theological feet squarely planted in the mainstream of my faith community.
Now that I have neatly put my personal perspective in place, I have to say Lifeway's recent decision to ban* the September/October issue of Gospel Today, a Georgia-based magazine, must be, at least for me, the most confusing, inexplicable move I have known since Dr. Thom Rainer took its leadership in 2006.
I cannot find, as of this writing, an official statement from Lifeway about it. However, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution quotes Chris Turner, spokesman for Lifeway, as saying: “It is contrary to what we believe." While I am prone toward caution because of AJC's not-so-fair representation of many former subjects, surely Lifeway has a more sophisticated, nuanced response.
Nonetheless, for my part, I cannot imagine a viable case for making this decision. If they were making such out of deep theological conviction on the one hand and consistency with the BF&M on the other, I can think of plenty of material that needs to go.
For starters, how about Lifeway's love-affair with Max Lucado, a retired Disciples of Christ pastor, toward whom they continue to give 'rock-star' status? He gets more PR than our beloved Adrian Rogers ever did. Now there's a theological fight to pick if ever there was one--The Essence of Believers Baptism!
Not to mention the personal bookshelves lined with works by R.C. Sproul, an unrepentant baby-baptizer. "It's contrary to what we believe."? What under heaven were they thinking?
Some books don't belong in Lifeway, all will grant. Nevertheless, when the decision to ban a work is made, it should at least have been given some serious thought. I cannot fathom the decision to pull Gospel Today got more than a short, pigmy-sized, knee-jerk reaction.
This faux pas cost you, guys. The PR fallout alone is stupendous. I remain quite confident that Sarah Pailin's campaign folks are jumping up and down with joy right now: "Well, thank God Sarah is a Pentecostal and not a Southern Baptist!"
With that, I am...
Peter
*The magazine is technically "not banned" since they still sell it "on request." However, they keep it under the counter, similar to the way some convienient stores peddle "adult" material
| | |
| | |
Just in case you've wondered where I've lately been
no mystery is involved, no reason to pretend
I've just been glued to projects with expiration dates
that if I don't pursue, the mortgage will be late
Still I keep my ear ever closer to the ground
to gain if any earthquake toward Baptists in blogdom found
Nope not one tremor threatens us as yet
just the same three dogs barking, At what? Of course, the sunset!
We're better off we all agree if to Jesus we all look
or, another way to gain some sway is study hard the Book
pressing on to another Lord's day, the weekend coming strong
best to you as you're faithful and true in grace to carry on
With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
F. H. Kerfoot, professor of systematic theology 1887-1899, was born at Llewellyn, Kentucky on August 29, 1847. He was the major theologian at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after James P. Boyce passed away.
As the following excerpt from his favorite sermon demonstrates, however, Professor Kerfoot was not the flaming apologist for what's come to be known as aggressive, Five-Point Calvinism.
Continue reading "F. H. Kerfoot On The Doctrine of Predestination" »
| | |
| | |
Just thought I'd would mix it up a bit...
| | |
| | |
Rosie the Riveter is considered the most famous icon representing women's contribution to the success of World War II. Even more, it is not uncommon for Rosie's picture to be scattered across most all issues women have faced since. She represents female power.
The Governor from Alaska may have just overturned Rosie as representing the punch of female pizazz.
Continue reading "Rosie the Riveter: An American Icon Overturned" »
| | |
| | |
I want to begin with a question: Is trust between a minister and a church earned
or is trust assumed? Understand: I realize that, without specifics, the
question could solicit ambiguous responses at best. So, allow me to pose a not uncommon scenario.
CrossPointe Church, Anytown, USA just called Billy Beams as the new Discipleship Pastor. They are a growing congregation and very demanding. Nonetheless the position is admittedly a leap of faith for the congregation. Budgets are tight for all ministries, including the newly created one to which Billy now is committed.
As for Billy, he comes from a church where he was well-loved and highly respected. Nor was ministry monies ever a significant issue. Plus, the church issued Billy a credit card which was used for ministry purposes. The church’s CPA placed standard guidelines with proper accountability on the card’s use to prevent so much as the slightest appearance of abuse. All worked smoothly on the church’s behalf and kept any potential financial burdens for ministry costs where they rightly belong—on the ministry budget, not on Billy.
CrossPointe is an entirely different environment, however. The financial team brutally scrutinizes every ministry cost each month. In doing so, they many times take unusually long periods of time in making reimbursements to ministers who request them.
Making things even more difficult is the financial policy they have which prohibits the issuance of a church-owned credit card for ministry purposes. This is especially burdensome for Billy. Because the church from which he came was much smaller, there were minimal ministry expenses he had to actually purchase on the church’s behalf. Yet, even if he did, he had a credit card to use.
It seems that some years back, Crosspointe had an abusive situation where a minister abused the church’s card and ended up leaving without reimbursing the church for the monies he misspent. As a result, the church cancelled all credit cards and put a policy in place prohibiting their use in the future.
Billy sometimes now has to wait up to six weeks for reimbursement. In fact, he had to place a deposit of $2,200 on his personal credit card for an adult retreat for next year. And, no matter how much he attempts to explain the burden to his church, there is no sympathy toward his position.
Now let’s revisit the opening question: Is trust between a minister and a church earned or is trust assumed? Perhaps one’s first response is, trust between minister and church must always be earned. If that is the response, I record my profound disagreement. From my perspective, unless trust is assumed, the relationship between minister and church can never gain a sure footing. Why should a church call a minister they assumed they could not trust? A better strategy, it seems clear, is to only hire a person you believe to be trustworthy.
Now, before someone responds and asks “Yes, but everybody—including ministers—should be held accountable, shouldn’t they?” allow me to query this: Since when did trust exclude accountability? The two are decidedly not exclusive of one another. They are friends, not foes. A trusting environment—if it is a healthy environment—is always an accountable environment. Trust without accountability is not trust; it is moral stupidity, a type of blind ignorance that holds captive those who sincerely but wrongly insist they possess a loving, trusting relationship between one another. King David’s repugnant fling with Bathsheba stands as the quintessential model for arrogant action without appropriate accountability.
Back now to Billy, not to mention the many who read this tiny treatise who either face a CrossPointe-condition themselves or know of someone who does. If, as a minister, you abuse a church credit card, it should be taken from you, at minimum, until you get a grip on following proper protocol.
More than once I pulled a card from a slothful staffer who thought they were the exception to turning in appropriate receipts. If the abuse is severe enough, not only should the credit card be yanked, but you need to be pitched out of your position on your ears.
If, as a church, you do not have the discernment to call a minister you assume is trustworthy, get out of the church business. Even more, if you do not have the expertise to set up standard guidelines for the use of church credit cards, call the state convention office. They will help you.
Finally, if you do not see that expecting a minister to pay, out of his own pocket, costs for which the church herself is responsible; costs which sometimes goes into hundreds and even thousands of dollars; costs which the overwhelming majority of ministers do not have adequate funds to cover without burden; costs which, for all practical purposes, becomes a short-term, interest-free loan to you; if you do not see this, my dear church, get down on your knees and repent. For now it is you who have become the very thing you despise--The Abuser.
With that, I am...
Peter
| | |
| | |
Recent Comments