There's a question that has been on my mind over the last few days and that question is "What is it that we want to be known for?" I'm not talking about a name, although that is important. I'm also not talking about what we will be remembered for after we are all gone, though that does play into my question a bit. What I'm talking about is reputation. What exactly is it that we want our reputation to be?
I understand that a reputation can either be true or false however in this particular post, I'm not talking about a false reputation. As it's been rightly explained to me, the only thing you can do with a false reputation is live it down. What I'm talking about a true reputation, the kind of reputation that is derived from character. Character is based on the choices and the actions that we make and that gives us control over what form our true reputation will take. So the essence of what I'm asking is based on our choices and action, what kind of reputation do we desire?
Do we want to be know as scholars, firmly rooted in all doctrinal truths? What about for how often the Holy Ghost blesses the churches within our group? How about as a church that prophesies or maybe one that does great humanitarian works? While any of these things would be good things to be known for, Paul said that without charity, they don't have any value (I Cor 13:1-3).
Just a quick sidebar here. Some of my faithful readers might notice that I like to go to the book of I Corinthians, especially the thirteenth chapter, and use the words that Paul wrote there to guide the words that I write here. If you think that lean on this chapter an awful lot, you're right. The thing is, just about every time I re-read this chapter I can find that there is yet another aspect of my own life where I need to apply these scriptures better. Well, let's go ahead and get back to my topic.
How many churches do you know in your area that have just given up caring? I'm sure that you know of at least one that makes you wonder why they bother to keep their doors open on Sunday. There are some churches out there just going through the motions for no other reason than it is the routine that people have gotten used to. A church like this is one that exemplifies the situation that Paul is describing in these first three verses.
Now certainly not all churches fit into this extreme, but I'd hazard to guess that finding a church sitting at the opposite extreme is a much more difficult task than finding a church that knows no charity. Yes, most churches sit on a sliding scale and fit somewhere in between, but I'd also guess that most churches on that scale are sliding in the wrong direction.
1 Cor 13:4-8 may be the most beautiful and awesome description of what it means to have charity working in your life that I've ever heard. One thought that occurs to me in this passage is that charity isn't an easy thing. Right there in verse four Paul says that charity suffers long. Many more modern translations replace "suffers long" with "is patient" and while that might be a more accurate translation, I think that the words "suffers long" convey a truth about charity that being patient just doesn't.
When I think about charity I tend to look at it from both sides. On one side of charity there is someone who pays a price to give charity to someone else and on the other side there is someone who receives that charity that didn't pay any price. When we are charitable, the cost to us becomes the blessing that others enjoy. We have a wonderful example of this exact thing that I'm talking about shown by the price that Jesus paid for our salvation. Because of this act of ultimate charity, He has been a name above every name and right there in that statement is the nugget of truth that I want to convey when I ask the question about what we are known for (Phil 2:9).
Works have been defended recently, and rightly so, so I will not go into a defense of good works. What I will say about works is that our works should be in response to our salvation, not to try to earn it, and the word that best describes this, at least to me, is fruits. Gal 5:22 lays out the fruits of the Spirit, or in my estimation the form that our works should take. Our works should represent these fruits and not only that, they should be a result of those fruits working in us as well.
What I mean by that last bit is that even though like Luke tells us in his second book it's better to give than receive, a truth remains that we must first receive before we can give (Acts 20:35). How can we produce the fruits of joy or peace as an example if we haven't experienced them ourselves? This is how we can perpetuate charity. When we show charity to others, they gain the capacity to show charity from us. Of course not everyone will do this, but what I'm talking about is the same fundamental principle resident in the statement "we love Him because He first loved us". If for no other reason, this should be our motivation, that because He loved us, not only do we love Him, but we pass that love on to others.
To explore how we can do this on a personal level, consider the idea of having a check list that lists the fruits of the spirit so that when we go about doing whatever it is that we are going to do, we consider these fruits while we are doing them. One thing I notice right away is that in Gal 5:22, the very first fruit is love. I Cor. 13:13 seems to agree with the assessment that love should be first on our list. Shouldn't everything we do be influence and led by these fruits, particularly love?
So I ask you, have you checked off your charity checkbox today?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Work in Sevierville
Brothers and Sisters, I'm glad to inform any of you who don't already know that God is opening a new work in Sevierville, TN. I don't know all the details quite yet, but I know plenty of the people involved, and I must say that I'm greatly encouraged for this group of people.
I'm asking all of my followers today to join me in supporting this new seed in your prayers and find out more about what's going on there yourself at: Sevierville Meetings Blog. There's also a facebook group which you can look at here: Sevierville Meetings Group .
For all my friends and family who are supporting or a part of this new work, know that you are in my thoughts often and that I pray for you just as often. It's my hope that my family and I will get an opportunity to come and join you in one of your meetings some time this year.
I'm asking all of my followers today to join me in supporting this new seed in your prayers and find out more about what's going on there yourself at: Sevierville Meetings Blog. There's also a facebook group which you can look at here: Sevierville Meetings Group .
For all my friends and family who are supporting or a part of this new work, know that you are in my thoughts often and that I pray for you just as often. It's my hope that my family and I will get an opportunity to come and join you in one of your meetings some time this year.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Something Just Doesn't Add Up
This post is really a followup to the post Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say. I intend to go into some depth on a few items that I either glossed over or skipped altogether in that earlier post because I was trying to keep to one subject without wandering. I also want to make a note that some people might find some of the language in this post distasteful. I apologize in advance and actually suggest you just skip this post entirely and read this one instead. I'm only using the words that I've heard, and while that is not a defense for crassness, unfortunately we as a group have been dealing with some of the baser issues that men and women face today. If you do find anything in this post offensive, I remind you, you have been warned.
There has been some interesting things that people have said or done in regards to how Bro. Steve Farmer is now teaching dress standards, especially in when it concerns women wearing pants. The problem with what I've heard though is that people are employing very weak logic or none at all when making their arguments. Here are a couple of examples.
I recently heard that a lot of time and research went into finding a story in a very old book where an experiment was performed to determine whether or not it's sinful for women to wear pants. In this experiment women were paraded in front of a group of men twice, one time wearing skirts or dresses and the other time wearing pants. The viewers were then asked to identify what drew their attention each time. When the women were wearing skirts, the men said they were drawn to their beautiful faces, but when the women were wearing pants, the men said their attention was drawn to their crotches. The conclusion derived from this experiment is that women should not wear pants because doing so draws attention to their crotches and that would be a sin. This experiment was used as an argument to establish that Bro. Farmer was out of order based on how he is teaching standards.
When I heard that this story was actually used to make an argument it actually made me laugh out loud. I ask myself how this experiment could possibly apply in today's world unless we were to live a completely cloistered life. Just about everywhere I go, with the exception of church, I see women wearing pants all the time. I understand that in the past when women wearing pants was not mainstream there could have been a considerable shock factor influencing these men in this experiment, however I question whether or not these same men today would still be drawn to women's crotches whenever they see a woman wearing pants. Additionally, to use this story against the Nashville assembly seems to imply that the only women that anyone in our group would ever encounter wearing pants would be those under the direct influence of Steve Farmer and just how silly is that?
To insinuate that the women in this experiment are guilty of some sin and not the men is ludicrous. It is however a very common male psychological pattern to blame women for their faults. How is this different from the man who is physically abusive to his wife and blames his abuse on her or another man who blames the women in his life for the poor choices that he's made and is incapable of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own actions? What is happening in each of these cases is that the man is seeking justification for his actions by blaming someone else; he's not really being a man. Is there really any difference in these examples and the experiment referenced above? If there is, please point it out because I fail to see it.
I've also heard recently that there are some ministers who have been alluding without quite saying it in so many words that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. I won't say who because I have not actually heard this directly from them yet myself, but still I've heard this too often from too many sources for me to ignore it completely (Matt 18:16). The logic behind this statement is that if a woman dresses in a "man's garment" that could only signify that that woman is trying to take over the role of a man, and that a sexual attraction to other women must be the reason behind it. If I try really really hard I can see the progression of this logic, but it certainly overlooks a lot of simple truths.
First of all, stating that pants are exclusively a male garment is just no longer true. The average woman today wears pants much more than they do skirts, and pants have become every bit as much a female garment as they are a male garment. Just look at the women's department in any clothing store and you will see that this is true. While it is true that in the past trousers were designed as an article of clothing for men, ever since the 70's pants have become a normal article of clothing for women. Decades earlier some women did wear men's pants when they had to do a job where a skirt just would not be appropriate and because there just weren't women's pants available, but over the past forty or more years, women's pants have been made differently from men's pants and there is a clear distinction between the two. A man trying to wear pants made for a woman would not look right and vice versa.
If someone really believes that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites, then that logic would also imply that person also believes that the vast majority of American women today are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. Following this logic, you could derive that Scottish men who wear a kilt are gay, cross-dressers or transvestites as well because kilts are merely a different name for a skirt, which of course is a female garment. I even know of a couple who when they were first married used to share sweaters on occasion. Would that make them bisexual?
What is happening here is someone is judging women based on their own view of what society should be and not taking anything else into account. To illustrate what I'm saying here, some of the leading brethren have stated that they wouldn't impose Western dress ideals on people in a foreign field when those ideals clashed with local culture as long as the clothing that was worn remained modest. Hence it would not be a sin for women to wear pants in Asia because it is culturally acceptable there, though it would still remain a sin for women in North America to wear them. Other leading brethren disagree with this completely and see the dress standard as a teaching that should be universal. What neither group seems to be willing to accept is that what is and is not culturally acceptable is based on society and society here in North America has been changing. What we are told instead is that we should just discount our own society because the world is sinful. We seem to have forgotten that many of the "dress standards" in our group are merely derivatives of 1950's Mid-Western American social norms or in other words what was considered modest half a century ago and not derived directly from the Bible. If this were not so, we would all be wearing the same clothing worn by our first century brothers and sisters, tunics (undergarments) and mantles (essentially robes). How it really seems to me is that there are some of the leading brethren who think they are able to dictate culture and others who think something is sinful or not based on where you are. Both viewpoints are flaky in my mind.
Making a blanket statement that alludes that every woman wearing pants must be a lesbian, cross-dresser or a transvestite stretches the truth way past it's breaking point. Wouldn't this train of logic also imply that all women wearing skirts are straight? What about men? What article of clothing determines their sexual orientation? To me it would just seem simpler to let clothing be a matter of fashion, staying warm or just not being naked and let sexuality be a matter of sex (Gen 3:7).
The kernel of truth here is that women shouldn't try to be men and that men shouldn't try to be women and that includes how they dress. This is what's really at the heart of the scripture Deut. 22:5. Let me just say this too, if you see no difference at all between a real female transvestite who is trying to impersonate a man and a woman who is wearing a pair of slacks, I don't trust your judgment.
I also want to address the way that the Nashville church is being disfellowshipped because it has me greatly disturbed. Although I don't believe this to be the case, for the sake of argument let's assume that Bro. Farmer is completely wrong in how he is teaching modesty in his church. Given that, is disfellowshipping the church really a Biblically based, Christian way to handle the problem?
I'm reminded of the story of the shepherd who lost a sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the story of the woman who lost a coin (Luke 15:8-10). In these stories the protagonist goes after what was lost. The shepherd didn't say, "Well, I've still got ninety-nine sheep, too bad about that other one. I'll just cut my losses and move on". The woman didn't say, "Well, I still have nine coins and I didn't really need that other one anyway, oh well". No, instead both of these people valued these things and diligently went after them. Right after these stories Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), but nowhere in the story did the father kick the younger son out of his house, or did my translation miss something? One of the restrictions that is being imposed by the "leading brethren" means that if a pastor from another assembly was genuinely concerned about Bro. Farmer and the Nashville assembly and wanted to visit them and attempt to influence them to change with the same spirit evidenced in these stories, they can't without clearing it with the "leading brethren" first. Discarding the Nashville assembly this way shows not only a lack of value and love placed on that church and the people in it, in my opinion it creates a precedent of how to handle other churches that don't quite fall in line with what the "leading brethren" lay down. I wonder who will be next.
On a side note, I find it more than just slightly ironic that Jesus told these stories in response to the Scribes and Pharisees murmuring about Him receiving and fellowshipping publicans and sinners, and another of the accusations being leveled at Bro. Farmer is that he refuses to be exclusive enough in whom he chooses to fellowship (Mark 2:16).
Now I know that I Cor. 5:1-6 was being used when making the decision to disfellowship Nashville but I question the use of this scripture though because it refers to the sexual immorality of an individual and the issues that were stated as the reasons for "withdrawing" concern the doctrinal stance of an entire assembly. This just does not apply to the situation that is at hand and to say that it does implies that you are saying that preaching modesty is sexually immoral. More importantly if we use this scripture in regards to doctrinal differences, then we also imply that the assemblies in our group share a doctrinal cohesiveness that just doesn't exist. How else could a doctrinal issue separate a church from the fellowship unless there exists a doctrinal unity which that separated church violated?
I also want to talk about something that shouldn't need to be voiced but obviously does. I've heard from some of my friends in the Nashville church that there are many people with whom they've been friends for a long time who now all of a sudden won't even speak to them anymore. Does anyone out there really believe that these people whom we have known for years just changed overnight some time back in 2009 or perhaps January of this year and are no longer the same people that they were the entire time we've known them? To those who have drank the kool-aid and decided that the Nashville church and everyone in it have become some kind of pariah, I suggest that you read 1 Cor. 13:4-8 very carefully and pray long and hard about it.
The truth about what is going on with Nashville and the people there is that there is a campaign being promoted that diminishes the value of who they are. Every time we say or think "they aren't like us any more", what we are doing is dehumanizing them. What we are saying and what you are saying if you are buying into the party line is that we are better than they are. There's just way too much of this "better than them" mentality in our group and it needs to stop. If we were to just sit down and take a look at the people who are being effected right now, we'd see just how alike we are, not how different. I hear the cry of people who have been slandered ringing in my heart and I ask myself why it is we do this (Rom 3:7-9). Who are we anyway to set ourselves up as the standard against whom everyone should be judged anyway? Who among us qualifies (Rom 3:10)? Who among us has the right (John 8:7)?
Now I know that this post and my last one are going to rock the boat, but on occasion the boat needs to be rocked. And even if no one else will stand up and speak the truth, that will not deter me. An injustice has been done, and as Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I for one will not just sit and do nothing.
There has been some interesting things that people have said or done in regards to how Bro. Steve Farmer is now teaching dress standards, especially in when it concerns women wearing pants. The problem with what I've heard though is that people are employing very weak logic or none at all when making their arguments. Here are a couple of examples.
I recently heard that a lot of time and research went into finding a story in a very old book where an experiment was performed to determine whether or not it's sinful for women to wear pants. In this experiment women were paraded in front of a group of men twice, one time wearing skirts or dresses and the other time wearing pants. The viewers were then asked to identify what drew their attention each time. When the women were wearing skirts, the men said they were drawn to their beautiful faces, but when the women were wearing pants, the men said their attention was drawn to their crotches. The conclusion derived from this experiment is that women should not wear pants because doing so draws attention to their crotches and that would be a sin. This experiment was used as an argument to establish that Bro. Farmer was out of order based on how he is teaching standards.
When I heard that this story was actually used to make an argument it actually made me laugh out loud. I ask myself how this experiment could possibly apply in today's world unless we were to live a completely cloistered life. Just about everywhere I go, with the exception of church, I see women wearing pants all the time. I understand that in the past when women wearing pants was not mainstream there could have been a considerable shock factor influencing these men in this experiment, however I question whether or not these same men today would still be drawn to women's crotches whenever they see a woman wearing pants. Additionally, to use this story against the Nashville assembly seems to imply that the only women that anyone in our group would ever encounter wearing pants would be those under the direct influence of Steve Farmer and just how silly is that?
To insinuate that the women in this experiment are guilty of some sin and not the men is ludicrous. It is however a very common male psychological pattern to blame women for their faults. How is this different from the man who is physically abusive to his wife and blames his abuse on her or another man who blames the women in his life for the poor choices that he's made and is incapable of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own actions? What is happening in each of these cases is that the man is seeking justification for his actions by blaming someone else; he's not really being a man. Is there really any difference in these examples and the experiment referenced above? If there is, please point it out because I fail to see it.
I've also heard recently that there are some ministers who have been alluding without quite saying it in so many words that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. I won't say who because I have not actually heard this directly from them yet myself, but still I've heard this too often from too many sources for me to ignore it completely (Matt 18:16). The logic behind this statement is that if a woman dresses in a "man's garment" that could only signify that that woman is trying to take over the role of a man, and that a sexual attraction to other women must be the reason behind it. If I try really really hard I can see the progression of this logic, but it certainly overlooks a lot of simple truths.
First of all, stating that pants are exclusively a male garment is just no longer true. The average woman today wears pants much more than they do skirts, and pants have become every bit as much a female garment as they are a male garment. Just look at the women's department in any clothing store and you will see that this is true. While it is true that in the past trousers were designed as an article of clothing for men, ever since the 70's pants have become a normal article of clothing for women. Decades earlier some women did wear men's pants when they had to do a job where a skirt just would not be appropriate and because there just weren't women's pants available, but over the past forty or more years, women's pants have been made differently from men's pants and there is a clear distinction between the two. A man trying to wear pants made for a woman would not look right and vice versa.
If someone really believes that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites, then that logic would also imply that person also believes that the vast majority of American women today are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. Following this logic, you could derive that Scottish men who wear a kilt are gay, cross-dressers or transvestites as well because kilts are merely a different name for a skirt, which of course is a female garment. I even know of a couple who when they were first married used to share sweaters on occasion. Would that make them bisexual?
What is happening here is someone is judging women based on their own view of what society should be and not taking anything else into account. To illustrate what I'm saying here, some of the leading brethren have stated that they wouldn't impose Western dress ideals on people in a foreign field when those ideals clashed with local culture as long as the clothing that was worn remained modest. Hence it would not be a sin for women to wear pants in Asia because it is culturally acceptable there, though it would still remain a sin for women in North America to wear them. Other leading brethren disagree with this completely and see the dress standard as a teaching that should be universal. What neither group seems to be willing to accept is that what is and is not culturally acceptable is based on society and society here in North America has been changing. What we are told instead is that we should just discount our own society because the world is sinful. We seem to have forgotten that many of the "dress standards" in our group are merely derivatives of 1950's Mid-Western American social norms or in other words what was considered modest half a century ago and not derived directly from the Bible. If this were not so, we would all be wearing the same clothing worn by our first century brothers and sisters, tunics (undergarments) and mantles (essentially robes). How it really seems to me is that there are some of the leading brethren who think they are able to dictate culture and others who think something is sinful or not based on where you are. Both viewpoints are flaky in my mind.
Making a blanket statement that alludes that every woman wearing pants must be a lesbian, cross-dresser or a transvestite stretches the truth way past it's breaking point. Wouldn't this train of logic also imply that all women wearing skirts are straight? What about men? What article of clothing determines their sexual orientation? To me it would just seem simpler to let clothing be a matter of fashion, staying warm or just not being naked and let sexuality be a matter of sex (Gen 3:7).
The kernel of truth here is that women shouldn't try to be men and that men shouldn't try to be women and that includes how they dress. This is what's really at the heart of the scripture Deut. 22:5. Let me just say this too, if you see no difference at all between a real female transvestite who is trying to impersonate a man and a woman who is wearing a pair of slacks, I don't trust your judgment.
I also want to address the way that the Nashville church is being disfellowshipped because it has me greatly disturbed. Although I don't believe this to be the case, for the sake of argument let's assume that Bro. Farmer is completely wrong in how he is teaching modesty in his church. Given that, is disfellowshipping the church really a Biblically based, Christian way to handle the problem?
I'm reminded of the story of the shepherd who lost a sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the story of the woman who lost a coin (Luke 15:8-10). In these stories the protagonist goes after what was lost. The shepherd didn't say, "Well, I've still got ninety-nine sheep, too bad about that other one. I'll just cut my losses and move on". The woman didn't say, "Well, I still have nine coins and I didn't really need that other one anyway, oh well". No, instead both of these people valued these things and diligently went after them. Right after these stories Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), but nowhere in the story did the father kick the younger son out of his house, or did my translation miss something? One of the restrictions that is being imposed by the "leading brethren" means that if a pastor from another assembly was genuinely concerned about Bro. Farmer and the Nashville assembly and wanted to visit them and attempt to influence them to change with the same spirit evidenced in these stories, they can't without clearing it with the "leading brethren" first. Discarding the Nashville assembly this way shows not only a lack of value and love placed on that church and the people in it, in my opinion it creates a precedent of how to handle other churches that don't quite fall in line with what the "leading brethren" lay down. I wonder who will be next.
On a side note, I find it more than just slightly ironic that Jesus told these stories in response to the Scribes and Pharisees murmuring about Him receiving and fellowshipping publicans and sinners, and another of the accusations being leveled at Bro. Farmer is that he refuses to be exclusive enough in whom he chooses to fellowship (Mark 2:16).
Now I know that I Cor. 5:1-6 was being used when making the decision to disfellowship Nashville but I question the use of this scripture though because it refers to the sexual immorality of an individual and the issues that were stated as the reasons for "withdrawing" concern the doctrinal stance of an entire assembly. This just does not apply to the situation that is at hand and to say that it does implies that you are saying that preaching modesty is sexually immoral. More importantly if we use this scripture in regards to doctrinal differences, then we also imply that the assemblies in our group share a doctrinal cohesiveness that just doesn't exist. How else could a doctrinal issue separate a church from the fellowship unless there exists a doctrinal unity which that separated church violated?
I also want to talk about something that shouldn't need to be voiced but obviously does. I've heard from some of my friends in the Nashville church that there are many people with whom they've been friends for a long time who now all of a sudden won't even speak to them anymore. Does anyone out there really believe that these people whom we have known for years just changed overnight some time back in 2009 or perhaps January of this year and are no longer the same people that they were the entire time we've known them? To those who have drank the kool-aid and decided that the Nashville church and everyone in it have become some kind of pariah, I suggest that you read 1 Cor. 13:4-8 very carefully and pray long and hard about it.
The truth about what is going on with Nashville and the people there is that there is a campaign being promoted that diminishes the value of who they are. Every time we say or think "they aren't like us any more", what we are doing is dehumanizing them. What we are saying and what you are saying if you are buying into the party line is that we are better than they are. There's just way too much of this "better than them" mentality in our group and it needs to stop. If we were to just sit down and take a look at the people who are being effected right now, we'd see just how alike we are, not how different. I hear the cry of people who have been slandered ringing in my heart and I ask myself why it is we do this (Rom 3:7-9). Who are we anyway to set ourselves up as the standard against whom everyone should be judged anyway? Who among us qualifies (Rom 3:10)? Who among us has the right (John 8:7)?
Now I know that this post and my last one are going to rock the boat, but on occasion the boat needs to be rocked. And even if no one else will stand up and speak the truth, that will not deter me. An injustice has been done, and as Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I for one will not just sit and do nothing.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say.
I have been rather disturbed by something that has been creeping up more and more in our group over the last few years. For some reason, semantics are playing a more prevalent role and intention has been relegated to the back seat. Personally I make it a habit not to judge the intentions of others, but when what you say and what you do aren't lining up it's no longer a matter of judgment, it becomes a simple matter of observation.
I find it most harrowing that a decision can hang on the definition of one word, or rather how we choose to define that word at the moment. When being "politically correct" becomes so important it signifies that somebody is playing politics. Furthermore it seems to me at least that these people are employing misdirection, and making misleading statements in order to accomplish their goals. Personally I prefer honesty to political correctness every time.
An example of what I'm talking about happened at the Brownsville ministers meeting when the decision was made to disfellowship the Nashville church. Instead of simply saying that this is what was happening though, an attempt to soften the blow was made by calling it something else, withdrawing. Let's take a closer look at this and examine what is really happening so that we can know the truth of it. If we were going to disfellowship a church, we would stop visiting their church and attending their meetings, and we would not recognize their leadership. However keep in mind that we are not disfellowshipping this church, instead we are withdrawing, where we will stop visiting their church and attending their meetings and will not recognize their leadership. Don't let yourself be fooled, this is the exact same thing and to say that it isn't is a lie. To believe that these two things aren't the same must either mean that you are being dishonest with yourself or that you are very naive.
Even if disfellowshipping and withdrawing were two completely distinct defined procedures, if you can't see an appreciable difference in the results then they are still the same, though this is not the case here. There's a old bit of horse sense that goes something like "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". I ask myself why we are trying to convince ourselves that if we just say it enough or with enough conviction that that thing that's waddling down the road quacking will miraculously become something other than a duck (John 3:19). Stand up and have the guts to actually call a duck a duck, and if you are going to disfellowship a church have the fortitude of character to not be deceptive and misleading about it and actually say that what you are doing is disfellowshiping that church. If it looks like disfellowship, and sounds like disfellowship, it's disfellowship.
The one criticism that I've received over and over regarding how I handle myself in this blog is that I shouldn't name names or hold people accountable for what they say or do, especially when those people are in leadership roles, and instead should be more oblique about how I say what I say. I've been told this with the best of intentions, but in essence I am being asked to candy coat what I say, even if that means having to stretch the truth from time to time. That this desire to be deceived comes from my fellow laborers saddens me greatly. If I were to say that an unnamed brother in certain northern church which just happens to reside a mitten-shaped state may or may not have made a statement that resembles something that comes close to the truth, would that sound better than if I said that my name is Dan Dillon, and I will say what I believe is true 100% of the time and if I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to admit it and take my lumps? Is it right that I am criticized for writing the truth in a plain and simple fashion while I've yet to hear much criticism at all of those who would mislead with the words that they use?
Don't be fooled, what I'm talking about here is deception, nothing more, nothing less. When someone says that they won't do something but then does it anyway and calls it something else to hide the facts, we have a term for that: operating under false pretenses. Quit playing word games and instead speak the truth! The truth will set us free (John 8:32), but misdirection is only good if you are trying to hide something. Do you think that perhaps those who are playing these word games are secretly aware that they are handling the issues that the ministry has with Bro. Farmer in a non-Christian and unbiblical manner and are feeling guilty about it so they are hiding behind pretense? I don't know about you, but that explanation certainly seems plausible to me.
If there seems to you to be a little more passion in this post than normal, you are absolutely right. Dishonesty isn't just a pet peeve with me, I despise it and to knowingly accept dishonesty from our leadership sickens me. You see, there comes a time when you have to make a choice between doing what is acceptable and what is right. The problem is that what is right isn't always acceptable and what is acceptable isn't always right. I speak for no one other than myself in the next statement, but if I am criticized, maligned, condemned and shunned because what I say isn't acceptable and yet what I'm saying is still right, then so be it, I'll bear that onus. So I ask you, does this deception represent the leadership that we really want? Are we so happy with the comfort that deception provides that we prefer it to the truth, no matter how harsh? The only answer I can give is I hope not.
As I reread through this post I realized that the heat of my words needs to be tempered with a splash of cool water, so to close I want to remind you of one of the most blessed scriptures Paul ever wrote. "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:38-39). Even though I am disheartened by the turmoil that seems more and more prevalent in our fellowship, I am persuaded that it could never be able to separate us from the love of God.
I find it most harrowing that a decision can hang on the definition of one word, or rather how we choose to define that word at the moment. When being "politically correct" becomes so important it signifies that somebody is playing politics. Furthermore it seems to me at least that these people are employing misdirection, and making misleading statements in order to accomplish their goals. Personally I prefer honesty to political correctness every time.
An example of what I'm talking about happened at the Brownsville ministers meeting when the decision was made to disfellowship the Nashville church. Instead of simply saying that this is what was happening though, an attempt to soften the blow was made by calling it something else, withdrawing. Let's take a closer look at this and examine what is really happening so that we can know the truth of it. If we were going to disfellowship a church, we would stop visiting their church and attending their meetings, and we would not recognize their leadership. However keep in mind that we are not disfellowshipping this church, instead we are withdrawing, where we will stop visiting their church and attending their meetings and will not recognize their leadership. Don't let yourself be fooled, this is the exact same thing and to say that it isn't is a lie. To believe that these two things aren't the same must either mean that you are being dishonest with yourself or that you are very naive.
Even if disfellowshipping and withdrawing were two completely distinct defined procedures, if you can't see an appreciable difference in the results then they are still the same, though this is not the case here. There's a old bit of horse sense that goes something like "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". I ask myself why we are trying to convince ourselves that if we just say it enough or with enough conviction that that thing that's waddling down the road quacking will miraculously become something other than a duck (John 3:19). Stand up and have the guts to actually call a duck a duck, and if you are going to disfellowship a church have the fortitude of character to not be deceptive and misleading about it and actually say that what you are doing is disfellowshiping that church. If it looks like disfellowship, and sounds like disfellowship, it's disfellowship.
The one criticism that I've received over and over regarding how I handle myself in this blog is that I shouldn't name names or hold people accountable for what they say or do, especially when those people are in leadership roles, and instead should be more oblique about how I say what I say. I've been told this with the best of intentions, but in essence I am being asked to candy coat what I say, even if that means having to stretch the truth from time to time. That this desire to be deceived comes from my fellow laborers saddens me greatly. If I were to say that an unnamed brother in certain northern church which just happens to reside a mitten-shaped state may or may not have made a statement that resembles something that comes close to the truth, would that sound better than if I said that my name is Dan Dillon, and I will say what I believe is true 100% of the time and if I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to admit it and take my lumps? Is it right that I am criticized for writing the truth in a plain and simple fashion while I've yet to hear much criticism at all of those who would mislead with the words that they use?
Don't be fooled, what I'm talking about here is deception, nothing more, nothing less. When someone says that they won't do something but then does it anyway and calls it something else to hide the facts, we have a term for that: operating under false pretenses. Quit playing word games and instead speak the truth! The truth will set us free (John 8:32), but misdirection is only good if you are trying to hide something. Do you think that perhaps those who are playing these word games are secretly aware that they are handling the issues that the ministry has with Bro. Farmer in a non-Christian and unbiblical manner and are feeling guilty about it so they are hiding behind pretense? I don't know about you, but that explanation certainly seems plausible to me.
If there seems to you to be a little more passion in this post than normal, you are absolutely right. Dishonesty isn't just a pet peeve with me, I despise it and to knowingly accept dishonesty from our leadership sickens me. You see, there comes a time when you have to make a choice between doing what is acceptable and what is right. The problem is that what is right isn't always acceptable and what is acceptable isn't always right. I speak for no one other than myself in the next statement, but if I am criticized, maligned, condemned and shunned because what I say isn't acceptable and yet what I'm saying is still right, then so be it, I'll bear that onus. So I ask you, does this deception represent the leadership that we really want? Are we so happy with the comfort that deception provides that we prefer it to the truth, no matter how harsh? The only answer I can give is I hope not.
As I reread through this post I realized that the heat of my words needs to be tempered with a splash of cool water, so to close I want to remind you of one of the most blessed scriptures Paul ever wrote. "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:38-39). Even though I am disheartened by the turmoil that seems more and more prevalent in our fellowship, I am persuaded that it could never be able to separate us from the love of God.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Site Update
Hello everyone out there who may think I've fallen off the planet. I thought it may not be a bad idea to put together an update just to let you know why the writing has been so sparse the last couple months and to let you know what's happening in the future.
First of all, I just want to give you an idea of what I've been doing. In 2009, I wrote just under 30,000 words that you can see on this blog and about another 10,000 that you can't (because I'm not finished with those articles yet). This is not the only writing that I do either. Last year I also wrote another 100,000 words in various projects and if I count that right, that's right around 140,000 words, which is about the size of two medium-sized novels. Needless to say, I got just a bit burnt out with writing.
I was going to take a two week break from writing over the holidays, but I decided to extended it to about a two month break because I just couldn't get back into the swing of things. However, I'm definitely getting back into the groove now and I foresee some more articles coming in the future.
I need to be realistic though. I was originally trying to complete 4 articles a week for this blog, 3 for another, and between two other blogs 1 a week. That as well as writing everything else I write is just too much for me, so I'm going to cut back a little bit and try to pace myself.
I'm going to commit to trying to write one article a week for this blog. I normally like posting on Tuesday, but instead of committing to a specific deadline, what I will say is that most likely there will be at least one new article here per week and that will most likely be on Tuesday. I expect that I will write more than that on occasion as well, so I'm leaving myself room to write up to 4 articles a week, on Sun, Tues, Wed and Thurs.
I've had a lot of positive response from what I write, so I don't want to neglect this blog any longer. I hope to write more this year over all than I did last year, and if I get the time, I'll keep bumping up the amount of work I do. Remember, I don't just write, I also go over what I've written several times editing and polishing, trying to produce a good product, so there's a considerable amount of time and energy that I commit to writing, so when I feel the need, I will take a break once in a while. Still for the foreseeable future, I think my writing is going to be back to normal, whatever that is.
First of all, I just want to give you an idea of what I've been doing. In 2009, I wrote just under 30,000 words that you can see on this blog and about another 10,000 that you can't (because I'm not finished with those articles yet). This is not the only writing that I do either. Last year I also wrote another 100,000 words in various projects and if I count that right, that's right around 140,000 words, which is about the size of two medium-sized novels. Needless to say, I got just a bit burnt out with writing.
I was going to take a two week break from writing over the holidays, but I decided to extended it to about a two month break because I just couldn't get back into the swing of things. However, I'm definitely getting back into the groove now and I foresee some more articles coming in the future.
I need to be realistic though. I was originally trying to complete 4 articles a week for this blog, 3 for another, and between two other blogs 1 a week. That as well as writing everything else I write is just too much for me, so I'm going to cut back a little bit and try to pace myself.
I'm going to commit to trying to write one article a week for this blog. I normally like posting on Tuesday, but instead of committing to a specific deadline, what I will say is that most likely there will be at least one new article here per week and that will most likely be on Tuesday. I expect that I will write more than that on occasion as well, so I'm leaving myself room to write up to 4 articles a week, on Sun, Tues, Wed and Thurs.
I've had a lot of positive response from what I write, so I don't want to neglect this blog any longer. I hope to write more this year over all than I did last year, and if I get the time, I'll keep bumping up the amount of work I do. Remember, I don't just write, I also go over what I've written several times editing and polishing, trying to produce a good product, so there's a considerable amount of time and energy that I commit to writing, so when I feel the need, I will take a break once in a while. Still for the foreseeable future, I think my writing is going to be back to normal, whatever that is.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Be Merciful
There is a wonderful scripture that implores us not to judge and condemn people and instead tells us to forgive (Luke 6:37). One scripture earlier reminds us to be merciful (Luke 6:36). Don't judge, instead be merciful. Don't condemn, instead forgive; This seems so minor and simple, but this may be one of the most difficult teachings to put into practice.
I could list examples of having a judgmental and condemning spirit that I've seen in my own church or in the larger body, but there's really no reason to. We all know what I'm talking about. Instead, to bring added emphasis, I will quote the revised judgmental version of John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless(fill in the blank)."
I am going to ask you to be honest with yourselves. Have you been sticking disclaimers on salvation? Have you been qualifying Christianity? Salvation isn't about being perfect, it's about being forgiven. So why is it so prevalent to question a person's salvation or Christianity when they do something wrong? Paul himself stated that the good he meant to do he didn't, and the evil that he didn't want to do he did (Rom 7:19). Should we not also condemn Paul along with our brothers and sisters that also do evil?
John has something to say about condemnation. The Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery (John 8:3-4). They tried to force Jesus to judge her but instead He told them that if any of them were "without sin", they could condemn her to death (John 8:5,7). They were convicted by this and left, and Jesus asked the woman, won't anyone condemn you (John 8:9-10)? When she told Him that there was no one left to condemn her, He forgave her and told her that He did not condemn her either and admonished her to go and sin no more (John 8:11).
This is such a wonderful picture of what mercy and forgiveness are. Did this woman commit adultery? Yes. Did Jesus know it? Of course He did. The Bible says that if a person commits adultery, they should be put to death (Lev 20:10). Didn't Jesus know this? Most certainly. So here's the question I have for you: Why did Jesus just let this woman off the hook when the law said she should have died for what she did?
Christ gave himself to be the propitiation for our sins and not just mine or for yours, but for the whole world's (1 John 2:2). Jesus bought the right to be merciful to this woman with every drop of blood that He shed on the cross and with every moment of agony he endured, and to not be merciful ourselves brings dishonor and disgrace on the sacrifice that He made. And remember, He died for your sins just like he died for mine, so why does it seem right to deny the mercy that Christ bought to someone else? Why is it that it is so difficult to let mercy and forgiveness reign in our hearts when it comes to others?
It's easy to judge and condemn, but it takes something more to forgive and show mercy. So the next time you start judging the faults that you see in others, ask yourself this question. Wasn't Christ's death enough to forgive that person of their sins? Because if it wasn't my friend, how could it be enough to cover us in forgiveness?
To close, I want to put up a song that has been circling by mind as I write this.
Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it!
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
Redeemed through His infinite mercy,
His child and forever I am.
My brothers and sisters, are we all not redeemed, bought with a price? Are we all not covered by that same blood? Are we all not forgiven, our sins banished forever to the sea of forgetfulness? Are we all not His children, born again into a new family? Have we not all been shown His same infinite mercy? How then can we fathom to repay the good that we've been shown with anything but the same? Be merciful, even as God is merciful.
I could list examples of having a judgmental and condemning spirit that I've seen in my own church or in the larger body, but there's really no reason to. We all know what I'm talking about. Instead, to bring added emphasis, I will quote the revised judgmental version of John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless
I am going to ask you to be honest with yourselves. Have you been sticking disclaimers on salvation? Have you been qualifying Christianity? Salvation isn't about being perfect, it's about being forgiven. So why is it so prevalent to question a person's salvation or Christianity when they do something wrong? Paul himself stated that the good he meant to do he didn't, and the evil that he didn't want to do he did (Rom 7:19). Should we not also condemn Paul along with our brothers and sisters that also do evil?
John has something to say about condemnation. The Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery (John 8:3-4). They tried to force Jesus to judge her but instead He told them that if any of them were "without sin", they could condemn her to death (John 8:5,7). They were convicted by this and left, and Jesus asked the woman, won't anyone condemn you (John 8:9-10)? When she told Him that there was no one left to condemn her, He forgave her and told her that He did not condemn her either and admonished her to go and sin no more (John 8:11).
This is such a wonderful picture of what mercy and forgiveness are. Did this woman commit adultery? Yes. Did Jesus know it? Of course He did. The Bible says that if a person commits adultery, they should be put to death (Lev 20:10). Didn't Jesus know this? Most certainly. So here's the question I have for you: Why did Jesus just let this woman off the hook when the law said she should have died for what she did?
Christ gave himself to be the propitiation for our sins and not just mine or for yours, but for the whole world's (1 John 2:2). Jesus bought the right to be merciful to this woman with every drop of blood that He shed on the cross and with every moment of agony he endured, and to not be merciful ourselves brings dishonor and disgrace on the sacrifice that He made. And remember, He died for your sins just like he died for mine, so why does it seem right to deny the mercy that Christ bought to someone else? Why is it that it is so difficult to let mercy and forgiveness reign in our hearts when it comes to others?
It's easy to judge and condemn, but it takes something more to forgive and show mercy. So the next time you start judging the faults that you see in others, ask yourself this question. Wasn't Christ's death enough to forgive that person of their sins? Because if it wasn't my friend, how could it be enough to cover us in forgiveness?
To close, I want to put up a song that has been circling by mind as I write this.
Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it!
Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
Redeemed through His infinite mercy,
His child and forever I am.
My brothers and sisters, are we all not redeemed, bought with a price? Are we all not covered by that same blood? Are we all not forgiven, our sins banished forever to the sea of forgetfulness? Are we all not His children, born again into a new family? Have we not all been shown His same infinite mercy? How then can we fathom to repay the good that we've been shown with anything but the same? Be merciful, even as God is merciful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
