On the Death of a Great Pastor--Homer Bassett, R.I.P.
None of you have heard of Pastor Homer Bassett, who passed away this past Friday at 11:00PM at the age of 73. I was lucky enough to know him for a short time and learned a great deal from him not only through watching his life, but watching him go through death as well. Homer was a retired pastor who joined my church a couple years ago. As a teenage boy he felt an initial call to ministry and after fighting it off for a few years enrolled in a Bible college to receive the necessary training needed to enter the pastorate.
Homer would not fit the typical mold of a "great" pastor. He never pastored a large church. His pastorates in the old days were small circuits of churches that he oversaw. In more recent years the churches he pastored were not the ones that guys like myself would be too eager to go into. I'm not sure if he was ever even a full-time vocational pastor. But he served faithfully for a number of years before retiring and then serving his community in other ways as well. For many years, Homer directed one of our denominational campgrounds. Then for the past ten years, Homer was the director of Men's Ministries at Carriage Town Ministries, the local mission in downtown Flint which serves the downtrodden in this region.
For years Homer dealt served those fighting homelessness, addiction and other deeply rooted sin issues, hopelessness, etc. Homer was named "Man of the Year" in 2003 by one of the local major network news affiliates. Around the house, church, and community, Homer was also quite the handyman. He wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty and was always volunteering his services. In fact, placed in his coffin are a couple of his favorite tools. Under his hands is his NIV Study Bible that he so faithfully lived by.
I got to know Homer even better this past fall when he and his wife became participants in my Sunday evening Bible study, which takes place at another member's home. But whether it was in the Bible study or in Sunday School or wherever, Home never tried to upstage the teacher, and even if he disagreed with you he would not embarrass you. When he did talk, what he said was always encouraging or thought provoking.
Right before Thanksgiving, Homer was having pains in his legs that wouldn't go away. When he went to the doctor they thought it was blood clots. But they sent him to the hospital and after some tests they found out that it was actually pancreatic cancer that has also spread to other vital organs. The expected survival time was only 3-6 months. Talk about a shock! Rather than get mad at God or retreat, Homer humbly asked for God's will even through his great fear and suffering. After just month, he decided to stop treatments. He began getting weaker and weaker and suffered more and more pain. But through it all, he kept his wonderful sense of humor (he always had a funny quip on the top of his tongue) and always praised God.
Two weeks ago he got so bad he was moved to a center where he received 24 hour care. Luckily they were able to give him he doses of painkiller so he did not have to feel as much pain in the end. Homer quickly declined these couple of weeks. In just one week he lost so much weight that he was unrecognizable. He could barely speak and eventually lost all speech capacities. Another pastor and I went to see him just several days before he died. He barely looked himself. The other pastor and I told him goodbye and that we'd see him in heaven. We told him we'd miss his jokes. You had to have been there but Homer was able to crack a half smile. Then he struggled to speak. As he lay there dying and a shell of his former self and unable to speak he was able to barely struggle out a phrase that he kept trying to repeat: "Praise the Lord."
Homer praised God until the very end of his life. I have rarely seen so much courage, humility and character. I hope one day I could demonstrate even half of that character. Usually when I hear stories like this of somebody on my death bed I find myself saying "Yeah, right" or question if it really happened. But I was there, and it did. And it touched me deeply.
Homer was never too impressed with himself and never really liked to receive any praise. In fact, he would have told me never to write this. But I learned a great deal from him in this short time and will never forget his example. All of us should have people like this that we are able to look up to and learn from. I'm so grateful that God puts people like this in our lives. I have 100% confidence of where Homer is now, though we will miss him. God bless the family and many people that this wonderful man touched. I will make sure his example and stories of his courage and character survive his death. When Homer's spirit was received by the Lord, I'm confident the words he heard were: "Well done, good and faithful servant." Rest in peace, brother.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
My Problems with the 'Sinner's Prayer'
I come out of a revivalist Christian tradition. In my tradition, the "Sinner's Prayer" is one of the most common avenues to "lead a person to Christ." Before leading someone through the SP, we are taught to take people down "Romans Road"--the presentation of a handful of verses from Romans about our depravity, need for a Savior, and salvation through Christ--and then invite them to "ask Jesus into their heart." As long as the person praying the prayer was sincere, it is understood that at the moment of finishing the prayer, they are "saved," a real born-again Christian. Yes, God knew they would come to the Cross before the foundation of the world, but in terms of our view, the transaction of salvation is complete once one "prayers the prayer." As you can probably tell, I have some problems with all of this.
First, let me say that I very much do believe in born-again theology. Being born again is Biblical and an instruction of Christ Himself. To be born again is part of real repentance. I was going this way and now I've made a complete 180 and I'm going this way. I was following the world and now I am following Christ. I once was lost and now am found. To be born again is both theologically and psychologically profound. I just don't know if the "Sinner's Prayer" is the best way to approach born again theology. In fairness, I still use the SP and still will lead others through the prayer. I have "prayed the prayer" with others and it actually was meaningful for them. However...
1. More often than not, those I have "prayed the prayer" with show no signs of being born again.
I don't know how many people I've taken down "Romans Road" and have led through prayers of salvation. I'm thinking half or more than half never showed any real Christian fruit. Yes, we tried to do follow-up. It wasn't a matter of neglecting them once we "made the sale." But for many people, particularly teens, or folks really down on their luck, praying the SP is often just an emotional experience. A case in point was one youth outreach event I did at the end of 2005. After preaching a salvation message convincing the group that they all needed a Savior and that they all needed to be born again, I had 12 high school guys "come forward." We divided them up and had leaders pray with them in groups and then later each individually. I think I personally led 5 or 6 through the SP. Only ONE of these twelve decided to start attending church and demonstrate any real fruit after the fact.
This doesn't mean that the whole thing was worthless. For some of them it might have been one step closer to a real salvation experience some time in the future. I have read a number of studies that have suggested a range of 8-12 exposures to the gospel before the average unchurched person makes a real commitment. Some of them perhaps left there and forgot everything they heard. Others, however, will remember it some point in the future. But it doesn't mean after these events we leaders should get all excited and claim that "x number of people got saved tonight!" Some might have. Some might have just got a further exposure to the gospel. But they didn't get "saved" in the real sense of the word. This leads to my next point.
2. I question whether those who are exposed to a salvation message and presentation for the first time really understand what's going on.
Perhaps some who are first exposed to the gospel really do "get" it. With our bridge drawings and such we try to make the gospel simple, and in a way it most certainly is. But does the unsaved person really understand the concept of "repentance" after an exposure or two? After watching the bridge drawing, do they really understand what it means to "make Christ the Lord of your life"? Again, this is nothing against the bridge analogy drawing (where God and man are separated by a wide chasm and only the Cross can "bridge the gap"). I like it and use it. But in general I see it more as an initial exposure type method of sharing the gospel. Yes it has value, but it doesn't mean somebody who prays a prayer after being presented with it is truly "born again."
In my tradition and similar ones, we are taught that we need to use every opportunity to allow someone to accept Christ. The Sinner's Prayer is a popular method. But are we being a bit to premature in inviting people to "accept Christ" who don't really know much about Christ, true repentance, etc and then giving them a false sense of security? On some of the more extreme wings of the "eternal security" Baptist movement, there are more than a few who have demonstrated no fruits of the Spirit but feel confident that they are OK with God since they "accepted Christ" at some revival or church gathering. I'm not suggesting that we wait until someone "knows it all" or becomes a Christian before we let them "pray the prayer." I just don't think we should make this invitation prematurely. What difference does it make if we give someone the chance to "pray the prayer" if it's not rooted in any true understanding?
3. This is the pitfall in much of street evangelism.
I'll take relationship evangelism any day over the instant street evangelism. This is for a couple reasons. The most important is a practical one. In 2007, most people will just think you are a loon if you are standing a street corner with a sign of tracts and then seek to talk to them about Jesus. There was a time when people were more receptive to this, or Christians going door to door, but by and large they are not anymore. They think you're either a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or just plain extremist. This doesn't mean that most Evangelicals who enjoy street evangelism are any of these things but that's the general perception.
Street evangelism usually has no follow-up. If any of you are familiar with the SEMP program it trains students to go out into the streets and do evangelism. I remember when my brother came home from this event some years back and was excited about all the homeless people who were led to Christ. But from what I could tell, these supposed converts weren't given any sort of follow-up nor were they referred to a church, pastor, accountability group, etc. I see these exercises as having the most benefit for the Christian participating, helping them be bold and confident when talking to others. I wonder though in this day and age if it really does all that good in terms of making converts. I'm sure some have been led to the Lord this way, or had a positive exposure to the gospel, but I'm guessing more often than not unchurched people today just think of street evangelists as weird.
4. The 'Sinner's Prayer' and street evangelism usually seems too much like a sales presentation.
Most gospel presentations are trying to be somewhat persuasive. We want people to realize that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and He is Lord. Then after making a good "presentation" we "go in for the kill" and try to "close the deal." Here is a somewhat caricatured illustration of this:
"Ok, Jimmy, so you've seen what a great product Jesus is and why you NEED Jesus. All the other products have let you down, but Jesus gives you an eternal guarantee you can't beat. Do you have any questions I can answer about Jesus? No? Ok great, so would you like to finalize this transaction right now? All you gotta do is follow me in a simple prayer. OK, great, just follow along with me and we'll make this official." Or a variation: "Oh, you're not ready yet? Hey man, that's OK, you have my contact information and when you are ready to finalize the deal, just contact me or another one of our God Agents and we'll be happy to assist you in making this wonderful decision for Christ."
Of course, the above is unfair and I've never met anyone who presented this gospel explicitly like this. But some of the underlying themes of gospel presentations I've seen--and have conducted myself--have had tastes of this; marketing Jesus, having a good "sales approach," rushing through the process and hoping to "close the deal," etc. For some pastors they might even see an increase in their "commission" for the amount of "deals they've closed." Also, gospel presentations sometimes (and I'm just as guilty of this) are too consumer focused. By that I mean it's all about what God can do for YOU. Not on our total giving of ourselves to Him.
Despite all this, I still use the 'Sinner's Prayer' and see value in presenting others with the 'bridge drawing'.
If we can remove the negatives (the sales approach, prematurely "leading people to Christ," etc), these things are indeed pretty good despite their flaws. The negatives give people a false sense of assurance, leave them even more confused afterwards, or cause them to base their spiritual decisions on pure emotionalism. Yes, accepting Christ should definitely have an emotional component (!) but it needs to be rooted in a true understanding of what repentance and lordship really is. One thing that bugs me about the revivalist tradition is that so many "accept Christ" without understanding what that means, and then feel the need to constantly "get saved" even after they've come to a true knowledge of the Lord. While I'm not big on "eternal security" I am perhaps even less fond of "eternal insecurity." Also, while only God knows the true heart of an individual, and acknowledging that even after a more cautious presentation of the gospel and salvation invitation some might not really "get it," there are those who do.
Yes, it frustrates me to think of all the people I "led to the Lord" who at least right now aren't demonstrating any real fruit, but I can think of others who are. In closing, it's important for us to remember that we aren't "saving" anybody. It's God who does the saving, we are just the tools. But we should seek to be effective tools of the Lord, and sometimes doing that means revising method and strategy. Much of what passes for good witnessing and conversion theology needs a revision in our revivalist denominations, at least in my opinion.
How about you? Any better solutions or approaches?
I come out of a revivalist Christian tradition. In my tradition, the "Sinner's Prayer" is one of the most common avenues to "lead a person to Christ." Before leading someone through the SP, we are taught to take people down "Romans Road"--the presentation of a handful of verses from Romans about our depravity, need for a Savior, and salvation through Christ--and then invite them to "ask Jesus into their heart." As long as the person praying the prayer was sincere, it is understood that at the moment of finishing the prayer, they are "saved," a real born-again Christian. Yes, God knew they would come to the Cross before the foundation of the world, but in terms of our view, the transaction of salvation is complete once one "prayers the prayer." As you can probably tell, I have some problems with all of this.
First, let me say that I very much do believe in born-again theology. Being born again is Biblical and an instruction of Christ Himself. To be born again is part of real repentance. I was going this way and now I've made a complete 180 and I'm going this way. I was following the world and now I am following Christ. I once was lost and now am found. To be born again is both theologically and psychologically profound. I just don't know if the "Sinner's Prayer" is the best way to approach born again theology. In fairness, I still use the SP and still will lead others through the prayer. I have "prayed the prayer" with others and it actually was meaningful for them. However...
1. More often than not, those I have "prayed the prayer" with show no signs of being born again.
I don't know how many people I've taken down "Romans Road" and have led through prayers of salvation. I'm thinking half or more than half never showed any real Christian fruit. Yes, we tried to do follow-up. It wasn't a matter of neglecting them once we "made the sale." But for many people, particularly teens, or folks really down on their luck, praying the SP is often just an emotional experience. A case in point was one youth outreach event I did at the end of 2005. After preaching a salvation message convincing the group that they all needed a Savior and that they all needed to be born again, I had 12 high school guys "come forward." We divided them up and had leaders pray with them in groups and then later each individually. I think I personally led 5 or 6 through the SP. Only ONE of these twelve decided to start attending church and demonstrate any real fruit after the fact.
This doesn't mean that the whole thing was worthless. For some of them it might have been one step closer to a real salvation experience some time in the future. I have read a number of studies that have suggested a range of 8-12 exposures to the gospel before the average unchurched person makes a real commitment. Some of them perhaps left there and forgot everything they heard. Others, however, will remember it some point in the future. But it doesn't mean after these events we leaders should get all excited and claim that "x number of people got saved tonight!" Some might have. Some might have just got a further exposure to the gospel. But they didn't get "saved" in the real sense of the word. This leads to my next point.
2. I question whether those who are exposed to a salvation message and presentation for the first time really understand what's going on.
Perhaps some who are first exposed to the gospel really do "get" it. With our bridge drawings and such we try to make the gospel simple, and in a way it most certainly is. But does the unsaved person really understand the concept of "repentance" after an exposure or two? After watching the bridge drawing, do they really understand what it means to "make Christ the Lord of your life"? Again, this is nothing against the bridge analogy drawing (where God and man are separated by a wide chasm and only the Cross can "bridge the gap"). I like it and use it. But in general I see it more as an initial exposure type method of sharing the gospel. Yes it has value, but it doesn't mean somebody who prays a prayer after being presented with it is truly "born again."
In my tradition and similar ones, we are taught that we need to use every opportunity to allow someone to accept Christ. The Sinner's Prayer is a popular method. But are we being a bit to premature in inviting people to "accept Christ" who don't really know much about Christ, true repentance, etc and then giving them a false sense of security? On some of the more extreme wings of the "eternal security" Baptist movement, there are more than a few who have demonstrated no fruits of the Spirit but feel confident that they are OK with God since they "accepted Christ" at some revival or church gathering. I'm not suggesting that we wait until someone "knows it all" or becomes a Christian before we let them "pray the prayer." I just don't think we should make this invitation prematurely. What difference does it make if we give someone the chance to "pray the prayer" if it's not rooted in any true understanding?
3. This is the pitfall in much of street evangelism.
I'll take relationship evangelism any day over the instant street evangelism. This is for a couple reasons. The most important is a practical one. In 2007, most people will just think you are a loon if you are standing a street corner with a sign of tracts and then seek to talk to them about Jesus. There was a time when people were more receptive to this, or Christians going door to door, but by and large they are not anymore. They think you're either a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or just plain extremist. This doesn't mean that most Evangelicals who enjoy street evangelism are any of these things but that's the general perception.
Street evangelism usually has no follow-up. If any of you are familiar with the SEMP program it trains students to go out into the streets and do evangelism. I remember when my brother came home from this event some years back and was excited about all the homeless people who were led to Christ. But from what I could tell, these supposed converts weren't given any sort of follow-up nor were they referred to a church, pastor, accountability group, etc. I see these exercises as having the most benefit for the Christian participating, helping them be bold and confident when talking to others. I wonder though in this day and age if it really does all that good in terms of making converts. I'm sure some have been led to the Lord this way, or had a positive exposure to the gospel, but I'm guessing more often than not unchurched people today just think of street evangelists as weird.
4. The 'Sinner's Prayer' and street evangelism usually seems too much like a sales presentation.
Most gospel presentations are trying to be somewhat persuasive. We want people to realize that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and He is Lord. Then after making a good "presentation" we "go in for the kill" and try to "close the deal." Here is a somewhat caricatured illustration of this:
"Ok, Jimmy, so you've seen what a great product Jesus is and why you NEED Jesus. All the other products have let you down, but Jesus gives you an eternal guarantee you can't beat. Do you have any questions I can answer about Jesus? No? Ok great, so would you like to finalize this transaction right now? All you gotta do is follow me in a simple prayer. OK, great, just follow along with me and we'll make this official." Or a variation: "Oh, you're not ready yet? Hey man, that's OK, you have my contact information and when you are ready to finalize the deal, just contact me or another one of our God Agents and we'll be happy to assist you in making this wonderful decision for Christ."
Of course, the above is unfair and I've never met anyone who presented this gospel explicitly like this. But some of the underlying themes of gospel presentations I've seen--and have conducted myself--have had tastes of this; marketing Jesus, having a good "sales approach," rushing through the process and hoping to "close the deal," etc. For some pastors they might even see an increase in their "commission" for the amount of "deals they've closed." Also, gospel presentations sometimes (and I'm just as guilty of this) are too consumer focused. By that I mean it's all about what God can do for YOU. Not on our total giving of ourselves to Him.
Despite all this, I still use the 'Sinner's Prayer' and see value in presenting others with the 'bridge drawing'.
If we can remove the negatives (the sales approach, prematurely "leading people to Christ," etc), these things are indeed pretty good despite their flaws. The negatives give people a false sense of assurance, leave them even more confused afterwards, or cause them to base their spiritual decisions on pure emotionalism. Yes, accepting Christ should definitely have an emotional component (!) but it needs to be rooted in a true understanding of what repentance and lordship really is. One thing that bugs me about the revivalist tradition is that so many "accept Christ" without understanding what that means, and then feel the need to constantly "get saved" even after they've come to a true knowledge of the Lord. While I'm not big on "eternal security" I am perhaps even less fond of "eternal insecurity." Also, while only God knows the true heart of an individual, and acknowledging that even after a more cautious presentation of the gospel and salvation invitation some might not really "get it," there are those who do.
Yes, it frustrates me to think of all the people I "led to the Lord" who at least right now aren't demonstrating any real fruit, but I can think of others who are. In closing, it's important for us to remember that we aren't "saving" anybody. It's God who does the saving, we are just the tools. But we should seek to be effective tools of the Lord, and sometimes doing that means revising method and strategy. Much of what passes for good witnessing and conversion theology needs a revision in our revivalist denominations, at least in my opinion.
How about you? Any better solutions or approaches?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
On Keeping the Women in their Proper Places in our Churches
Says one reader:
"I guess I got here a little late, but it seems to me that you have no insight into the implications of the slavery passage, or fail to recognize that most people are simply indentured servants with enough liberty to secure their performance. However, the passages address the attitudes we should have in our vocation.
This is a response to my earlier sarcastic post about how fellow conservative Evangelicals want to maintain the Greco-Roman "household codes" in effect towards women, but basically disregard the passages towards slavery. In this piece I quipped that we are mature enough now to know that slavery is not God's best for people and that we've actually risen above the culture in Paul's day that saw slavery as a norm, but many Christians aren't yet willing to see women differently than the culture saw them in the first century. Paul did not come right out and say "abolish slavery" but he, Christ and other NT teachers did raise the ethical bar on the treatment and status of slaves. Basically they met the culture where they were at and it gave us implications for how we should treat people in the future. Well, it took us many years but we've finally admitted that slavery should go. Apparently, women should still be as they were in the first century, however. So it is not I who am playing fast and loose with the texts, it is these supposed "conservatives" who have an inconsistent application of the household codes. And contrary to my critic above, no, the original meaning of the slavery passages was not pointing towards "employer-employee relationships." That may be a good application for today, but back then they were directed at real slaves. Yes, the type of slavery that existed then was not necessarily like the most brutal forms of African slavery from our recent history, but it was slavery nonetheless and something all sensible people would reject for our culture today.
Also watch out for those who want to use the homosexual issue as scare tactics in this debate. The logic goes, "Well, if we interpret the women passages the same way we do the slavery ones, before we know it we'll have homosexuality running rampant in our churches!" And to be sure, some pro-gay rights types have tried to use these passages this way. But these passages have nothing to do with the homosexual issue. Gays aren't an issue or in view in these "household code" texts in question. So let's just stick to the issue at hand, especially considering we have transcultural texts in the NT that deal with the sinfulness of homosexuality that speak for themselves. Bringing up gays is just smoke and mirrors in this debate by people who oppose applying these texts consistently towards women.
Regarding women in leadership positions. I find you utterly clueless. If you consider the "pattern" showed to Moses in the mount (Heb 8), the Levitical priesthood was entirely male. There were sacrifices that had to be eaten only by the priests. If you look at the Scriptures, every book or epistle was written by a male vessel. If you consider the 12 apostles, there was not a woman among them - maybe Jesus was culturally biased; how absurd.
If my friend above is a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, his views might carry more weight, though still be wrong. The fact is that Protestants believe in a Biblical concept known as "The Priesthood of All Believers." This is not just limited to men. Therefore, using Old Testament concepts about the all male Levitical priesthood don't work. In the NT, yes, Jesus started with 12 male apostles. But perhaps this individual has missed out on the various females in the NT who were in fact "fellow-workers" (aka ministers) even during Paul's day. And speaking of apostles, Junia is listed as a female apostle in Romans 16 (The gender-neutral name "Junias" of the NIV and other translations is not found in any historical data from that era. We most certainly are dealing with a female in Romans 16). And no, Jesus was not "biased" but He did meet people where they are at. The fact that Jesus knew of slavery and spoke of slaves does not mean that the application for us and all times is to keep the institution of slavery going.
If you examine the other New Testament Scriptures about women and about Church leadership, it should be obvious there is no passage that states, "a deaconess" must be", despite the fact that Paul included instructions to both Timothy and Titus! (In the mouth of two or three witnesses...) The woman's movement is nothing but the leaven of Jezebel, and the rebellion of those who lack the meekness and sincerity to live out 1 Peter 2:4 (no one wants to pay that price - they'd rather please themselves than God.)
Well, Phoebe was a deaconess (The translation "servant" doesn't suffice here, plus the same word was used for "deacon." Theological biases should not interfere with our understanding and translation of the original Greek. Is it therefore inappropriate to apply the instructions regarding male elders to female leaders as well? The poster above would flip out at such an assertion, yet he has a somewhat more flexible application of the slavery passages. There's less applicational leap taking the elder passages and substituting a "she" instead of "he" than their is making the passages about slaves and masters to mean employees and employers. Besides, we have precedent in Scripture of women teachers and ministers. And they taught over men occasionally as well. If we want to say that never happened then Priscilla rebelled against God when she taught Apollos.
I will certainly follow Solomon's counsel from Proverbs 12:7 -"Go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."A virtuous woman is indeed a rare, and I don't know who can find her, not simply as a person, but also as it pertains to the "Church".Solomon also said:"Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: (28) Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (29) Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."And in conclusion one that explains the tone of my response:"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Yes, I'm a fool, thank you so much for the Biblical rebuke. Apparently it's foolish to look at all the Biblical evidence in context and to have a logical and consistent hermeneutic for applying the Biblical text for today. I wonder who exactly is being conceited here.
Pro 26:5 Well, at least in light of the falling away, the time of the Lord's return grow ever closer...
Nope, sorry, this isn't "godless liberalism" at work here, and we are by no means certain to be in the "last generation" before Christ's return. As NT Prof Ken Schenck just observed on his blog, it's only "liberal" if by liberal we mean, "It's different from what I think." And as I just posted on Ken's Blog (check out his blog at http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/):
For those who argue against women in ministry based upon their two or three key prooftexts about women being "silent", I want to know if: (1) They allow congregational singing with women in their churches, (2) If they let women in their choirs, (3) If women are allowed to give announcements up front, (4) If their women are wearing headcoverings, (5) If their women have ever given a "testimony" during a worship service, etc, etc.If they answer yes to ANY of these questions, then I suppose their churches also are full of lukewarm heretics who ignore the plain counsel of God. After all, Paul says there are NO other practices in ALL the churches. They better get with the program and be faithful to their KJV's lest they miss the imminent pretribulational rapture.
Says one reader:
"I guess I got here a little late, but it seems to me that you have no insight into the implications of the slavery passage, or fail to recognize that most people are simply indentured servants with enough liberty to secure their performance. However, the passages address the attitudes we should have in our vocation.
This is a response to my earlier sarcastic post about how fellow conservative Evangelicals want to maintain the Greco-Roman "household codes" in effect towards women, but basically disregard the passages towards slavery. In this piece I quipped that we are mature enough now to know that slavery is not God's best for people and that we've actually risen above the culture in Paul's day that saw slavery as a norm, but many Christians aren't yet willing to see women differently than the culture saw them in the first century. Paul did not come right out and say "abolish slavery" but he, Christ and other NT teachers did raise the ethical bar on the treatment and status of slaves. Basically they met the culture where they were at and it gave us implications for how we should treat people in the future. Well, it took us many years but we've finally admitted that slavery should go. Apparently, women should still be as they were in the first century, however. So it is not I who am playing fast and loose with the texts, it is these supposed "conservatives" who have an inconsistent application of the household codes. And contrary to my critic above, no, the original meaning of the slavery passages was not pointing towards "employer-employee relationships." That may be a good application for today, but back then they were directed at real slaves. Yes, the type of slavery that existed then was not necessarily like the most brutal forms of African slavery from our recent history, but it was slavery nonetheless and something all sensible people would reject for our culture today.
Also watch out for those who want to use the homosexual issue as scare tactics in this debate. The logic goes, "Well, if we interpret the women passages the same way we do the slavery ones, before we know it we'll have homosexuality running rampant in our churches!" And to be sure, some pro-gay rights types have tried to use these passages this way. But these passages have nothing to do with the homosexual issue. Gays aren't an issue or in view in these "household code" texts in question. So let's just stick to the issue at hand, especially considering we have transcultural texts in the NT that deal with the sinfulness of homosexuality that speak for themselves. Bringing up gays is just smoke and mirrors in this debate by people who oppose applying these texts consistently towards women.
Regarding women in leadership positions. I find you utterly clueless. If you consider the "pattern" showed to Moses in the mount (Heb 8), the Levitical priesthood was entirely male. There were sacrifices that had to be eaten only by the priests. If you look at the Scriptures, every book or epistle was written by a male vessel. If you consider the 12 apostles, there was not a woman among them - maybe Jesus was culturally biased; how absurd.
If my friend above is a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, his views might carry more weight, though still be wrong. The fact is that Protestants believe in a Biblical concept known as "The Priesthood of All Believers." This is not just limited to men. Therefore, using Old Testament concepts about the all male Levitical priesthood don't work. In the NT, yes, Jesus started with 12 male apostles. But perhaps this individual has missed out on the various females in the NT who were in fact "fellow-workers" (aka ministers) even during Paul's day. And speaking of apostles, Junia is listed as a female apostle in Romans 16 (The gender-neutral name "Junias" of the NIV and other translations is not found in any historical data from that era. We most certainly are dealing with a female in Romans 16). And no, Jesus was not "biased" but He did meet people where they are at. The fact that Jesus knew of slavery and spoke of slaves does not mean that the application for us and all times is to keep the institution of slavery going.
If you examine the other New Testament Scriptures about women and about Church leadership, it should be obvious there is no passage that states, "a deaconess" must be", despite the fact that Paul included instructions to both Timothy and Titus! (In the mouth of two or three witnesses...) The woman's movement is nothing but the leaven of Jezebel, and the rebellion of those who lack the meekness and sincerity to live out 1 Peter 2:4 (no one wants to pay that price - they'd rather please themselves than God.)
Well, Phoebe was a deaconess (The translation "servant" doesn't suffice here, plus the same word was used for "deacon." Theological biases should not interfere with our understanding and translation of the original Greek. Is it therefore inappropriate to apply the instructions regarding male elders to female leaders as well? The poster above would flip out at such an assertion, yet he has a somewhat more flexible application of the slavery passages. There's less applicational leap taking the elder passages and substituting a "she" instead of "he" than their is making the passages about slaves and masters to mean employees and employers. Besides, we have precedent in Scripture of women teachers and ministers. And they taught over men occasionally as well. If we want to say that never happened then Priscilla rebelled against God when she taught Apollos.
I will certainly follow Solomon's counsel from Proverbs 12:7 -"Go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."A virtuous woman is indeed a rare, and I don't know who can find her, not simply as a person, but also as it pertains to the "Church".Solomon also said:"Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: (28) Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (29) Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."And in conclusion one that explains the tone of my response:"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Yes, I'm a fool, thank you so much for the Biblical rebuke. Apparently it's foolish to look at all the Biblical evidence in context and to have a logical and consistent hermeneutic for applying the Biblical text for today. I wonder who exactly is being conceited here.
Pro 26:5 Well, at least in light of the falling away, the time of the Lord's return grow ever closer...
Nope, sorry, this isn't "godless liberalism" at work here, and we are by no means certain to be in the "last generation" before Christ's return. As NT Prof Ken Schenck just observed on his blog, it's only "liberal" if by liberal we mean, "It's different from what I think." And as I just posted on Ken's Blog (check out his blog at http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/):
For those who argue against women in ministry based upon their two or three key prooftexts about women being "silent", I want to know if: (1) They allow congregational singing with women in their churches, (2) If they let women in their choirs, (3) If women are allowed to give announcements up front, (4) If their women are wearing headcoverings, (5) If their women have ever given a "testimony" during a worship service, etc, etc.If they answer yes to ANY of these questions, then I suppose their churches also are full of lukewarm heretics who ignore the plain counsel of God. After all, Paul says there are NO other practices in ALL the churches. They better get with the program and be faithful to their KJV's lest they miss the imminent pretribulational rapture.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Was Life Really So Great in the 1950’s?
Many Christians and others long for the good old days. The 1950’s always seem to be the point of comparison against today. The way they see it, life was just great then, and it’s really bad now. Well, the way I see it, things are generally better today when you look at the big picture. Who reading this really wants to go back to 1950’s technology? Who wants 1950’s knowledge about medicine and surgery? Or 1950’s attitudes regarding publicly institutionalized racism? Who wants 1950’s quality in filmmaking and music? It’s this last point that rattles the chain of many. Sex, violence and profanity is very prominent in the popular culture today compared to the 1950’s. But this is not true of every modern film or song. If I were a Christian in the film or music industry, I’d much prefer to have the technology available that we have today compared to what we had in the 50’s. And yes, while there are some great classic movies back then, on a whole the acting was not very good. Besides, does anyone want to go back to black and white television? Anyone want to give up their email or Internet access?
When it comes down to it, the only argument left is that we have too much sex, violence and profanity in the popular culture today. I don’t dispute this. But we also have to look at the big picture. Objectively life was not better back then. We whine that kids are too lazy today and don’t know the value of sacrifice. I generally agree. But do we necessarily want them to experience the same struggles our grandparents did during the Great Depression? Why exactly do we want to turn back the clock and make life harder? Don’t we want our children’s generation to be better than the one we lived in? Can not people learn responsibility today with the advances we’ve made?
In response to my earlier post regarding misconceptions that people were automatically more morally pure before the mid 1960’s, somebody left a number of interesting comments. Amongst other things, this person says:
“The schools continue to corrupt students. Now we have an epidemic of teachers seducing students. Until the 60s girls who became pregnant were expelled from school. Or they were quietly sent to homes for unwed mothers to await the birth of their illegitimate child. Now schools either advise students about Planned Parenthood and venereal diseases or they make accomodations for the students' bastards. Only "trashy" girls slept around until the New Morality took over. Schoolboys used to play a ball game called Smear the Queer but no children knew what queers did. They only knew it was something awful. Now, no child would dare speak the words "smear the queer" on school property but they will be taught in that school that being a queer is fine, that homosexuals are born that way and they have no choice in the matter.
”Unnatural as it may have been, TV actors who played husband and wife did not lie in the same bed. I still remember the first time I sat in a movie and watched simulated coitus. It was the late 60s and I was horribly uncomfortable sitting there beside my husband. Now simulated coitus is on daytime television, not even cable. For those who fancy themselves intellectuals, scientific sorts, one can, this month, turn on a travel program about a South American tribe to watch adult men and women filmed completely naked. The men wear a sort of phallic sheath of exagerated length but they wear no other covering. No attempt is made to blur the rest of their nakedness. Sin that used to be a source of shame is now a source of pride. Now "It's all good" as they say.”
Let’s break some of this down:
Is that really what we should go back to? Expelling unwed mothers from school and socially outcasting them? How exactly is that going to lead to anything productive for the mother or child? The way this person writes makes it seem like she’d prefer to make women walk around with the scarlet “A” on their clothing for the rest of their lives. And note the high view for the child: they are just “bastards.” Not little children also created in God's image who had no choice that they were conceived in unfortunate circumstances, just "bastards." A lot of Christian love here!
And just because we are opposed to homosexual behavior does that mean we should taunt gay people? Also, I’m not for sex scenes in any movies, but this person’s words reminded me the scene from Pleasantville where the mother and father slept in separate twin beds while holding hands and had never heard of sex. I think she’d much prefer this be the norm. When I saw that movie, it angered me because not only did it mock Biblical values, but did so in a way that pretended that all traditionalists were prudes and simpletons. Unfortunately, it seems that such individuals are out there and many of them are in our churches.
Isn’t it possible to hold to a Biblical Christian ethic without acting and sounding like an uncaring jerk?
In any event, people were not necessarily more moral back then. They are just openly now what they were quietly and hypocritically back then. Besides, there were a lot of other prevailing attitudes that reigned supreme during the golden age of the 1950’s. It was then when we still had “Colored Only” drinking fountains in certain areas of our country and racism was celebrated publicly and privately. So, we had problems then and problems now. The problems look a little different than they did then, and we face some new challenges. But especially for Christians, we should not cover our eyes and just hand the world over to Satan. We should not just “focus on conversions” and wait for Jesus to come get us in the so-called “rapture.” All of us, but Christians in particular should focus on personal and cultural renewal. This goes beyond just getting others to parrot a “sinner’s prayer.”
Much work has been done and much remains. Defeatism, escapism and phony separatist pietism is not honoring to Christ or what He’s commanded Christians to be in this life.
Many Christians and others long for the good old days. The 1950’s always seem to be the point of comparison against today. The way they see it, life was just great then, and it’s really bad now. Well, the way I see it, things are generally better today when you look at the big picture. Who reading this really wants to go back to 1950’s technology? Who wants 1950’s knowledge about medicine and surgery? Or 1950’s attitudes regarding publicly institutionalized racism? Who wants 1950’s quality in filmmaking and music? It’s this last point that rattles the chain of many. Sex, violence and profanity is very prominent in the popular culture today compared to the 1950’s. But this is not true of every modern film or song. If I were a Christian in the film or music industry, I’d much prefer to have the technology available that we have today compared to what we had in the 50’s. And yes, while there are some great classic movies back then, on a whole the acting was not very good. Besides, does anyone want to go back to black and white television? Anyone want to give up their email or Internet access?
When it comes down to it, the only argument left is that we have too much sex, violence and profanity in the popular culture today. I don’t dispute this. But we also have to look at the big picture. Objectively life was not better back then. We whine that kids are too lazy today and don’t know the value of sacrifice. I generally agree. But do we necessarily want them to experience the same struggles our grandparents did during the Great Depression? Why exactly do we want to turn back the clock and make life harder? Don’t we want our children’s generation to be better than the one we lived in? Can not people learn responsibility today with the advances we’ve made?
In response to my earlier post regarding misconceptions that people were automatically more morally pure before the mid 1960’s, somebody left a number of interesting comments. Amongst other things, this person says:
“The schools continue to corrupt students. Now we have an epidemic of teachers seducing students. Until the 60s girls who became pregnant were expelled from school. Or they were quietly sent to homes for unwed mothers to await the birth of their illegitimate child. Now schools either advise students about Planned Parenthood and venereal diseases or they make accomodations for the students' bastards. Only "trashy" girls slept around until the New Morality took over. Schoolboys used to play a ball game called Smear the Queer but no children knew what queers did. They only knew it was something awful. Now, no child would dare speak the words "smear the queer" on school property but they will be taught in that school that being a queer is fine, that homosexuals are born that way and they have no choice in the matter.
”Unnatural as it may have been, TV actors who played husband and wife did not lie in the same bed. I still remember the first time I sat in a movie and watched simulated coitus. It was the late 60s and I was horribly uncomfortable sitting there beside my husband. Now simulated coitus is on daytime television, not even cable. For those who fancy themselves intellectuals, scientific sorts, one can, this month, turn on a travel program about a South American tribe to watch adult men and women filmed completely naked. The men wear a sort of phallic sheath of exagerated length but they wear no other covering. No attempt is made to blur the rest of their nakedness. Sin that used to be a source of shame is now a source of pride. Now "It's all good" as they say.”
Let’s break some of this down:
Is that really what we should go back to? Expelling unwed mothers from school and socially outcasting them? How exactly is that going to lead to anything productive for the mother or child? The way this person writes makes it seem like she’d prefer to make women walk around with the scarlet “A” on their clothing for the rest of their lives. And note the high view for the child: they are just “bastards.” Not little children also created in God's image who had no choice that they were conceived in unfortunate circumstances, just "bastards." A lot of Christian love here!
And just because we are opposed to homosexual behavior does that mean we should taunt gay people? Also, I’m not for sex scenes in any movies, but this person’s words reminded me the scene from Pleasantville where the mother and father slept in separate twin beds while holding hands and had never heard of sex. I think she’d much prefer this be the norm. When I saw that movie, it angered me because not only did it mock Biblical values, but did so in a way that pretended that all traditionalists were prudes and simpletons. Unfortunately, it seems that such individuals are out there and many of them are in our churches.
Isn’t it possible to hold to a Biblical Christian ethic without acting and sounding like an uncaring jerk?
In any event, people were not necessarily more moral back then. They are just openly now what they were quietly and hypocritically back then. Besides, there were a lot of other prevailing attitudes that reigned supreme during the golden age of the 1950’s. It was then when we still had “Colored Only” drinking fountains in certain areas of our country and racism was celebrated publicly and privately. So, we had problems then and problems now. The problems look a little different than they did then, and we face some new challenges. But especially for Christians, we should not cover our eyes and just hand the world over to Satan. We should not just “focus on conversions” and wait for Jesus to come get us in the so-called “rapture.” All of us, but Christians in particular should focus on personal and cultural renewal. This goes beyond just getting others to parrot a “sinner’s prayer.”
Much work has been done and much remains. Defeatism, escapism and phony separatist pietism is not honoring to Christ or what He’s commanded Christians to be in this life.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Troubling Worldview of the 'Rapture Ready' Christian
Be sure to read and comment on my latest column regarding end-times mania and the troubling theological and political implications of the popular pretribulational/dispensational teachings.
Be sure to read and comment on my latest column regarding end-times mania and the troubling theological and political implications of the popular pretribulational/dispensational teachings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
