There are two sides to every coin and an edge besides.
The one side of the coin is defined by the question of evangelism and witnessing.
The second side is defined by how the Body of Christ is seen as a place of rest and minstry of needful things to an evangelizing outreaching yet human body in need of rejuvenation.
Besides, the edge is that both sides of this coin are called for by a Spirit enfilled Church.
Evangelism is based on iindividual calling along with group emopowerment.
Rubbing the coin we see that empowerment takes many guises.
7/05/2008
Baptist fundamentalism and forgiveness
I note that much of our moneys and benefit packages are still tied to the SBC, and until we become independent of that then griping, we come across as biters of the hand that feeds us, though in reality as Rick Davis says, we the church member feeds the church which feeds the Convention, Association and Fellowships or Alliance. They will all have divisions, almost too numerous to mention. This leads to politics and thus to compromise, which becomes tricky in the realm of religion, where soul competency is foundational and everyone believes their version of the Word Of God is the one true revelation.
Some of us see the struggles of the past twenty years as rooted in those very differences Baptists have always tacitly encouraged by tolerating them for growth and the purpose of ministry under the banner of Christian unity. So the disagreements were always there, and are not some sudden flare up leading to the "takeover twenty years ago". Our inability to overcome the pride engendered by hurt feelings, which did lead to that takeover and seems now to emanate from it, is a real failure--and a sign to us that arrogance has its consequence. Within the local church and inside the associations and conventions there needs to be a return to genteel open minded conversation. I know from my own youth experience based during the sixties that the fundamentalist view was in part an expression of frustration with the secular social centers of influence and a desire to protect children from what can be desctribed as a determined, metered, unbounded, focused attack on Christian ethic and institutions, groups and individuals--almost a paranoia.
The moderate view has a more complicated expression in its seeming desire for secular or government regulation on common definitions and enactments of charity but a laissez faire attitude concerning control of certain personal behaviours. Time and space and fersure my capacity limits a true analysis here of the differences, but as one who feels torn between, as opposed to pushed aside, or demonized, may this be a decent restart at a conversation which should have retaken place much earlier, but might possibly be mute, as to effect and affect, today, due to tardiness or lack of humility.
Some of us see the struggles of the past twenty years as rooted in those very differences Baptists have always tacitly encouraged by tolerating them for growth and the purpose of ministry under the banner of Christian unity. So the disagreements were always there, and are not some sudden flare up leading to the "takeover twenty years ago". Our inability to overcome the pride engendered by hurt feelings, which did lead to that takeover and seems now to emanate from it, is a real failure--and a sign to us that arrogance has its consequence. Within the local church and inside the associations and conventions there needs to be a return to genteel open minded conversation. I know from my own youth experience based during the sixties that the fundamentalist view was in part an expression of frustration with the secular social centers of influence and a desire to protect children from what can be desctribed as a determined, metered, unbounded, focused attack on Christian ethic and institutions, groups and individuals--almost a paranoia.
The moderate view has a more complicated expression in its seeming desire for secular or government regulation on common definitions and enactments of charity but a laissez faire attitude concerning control of certain personal behaviours. Time and space and fersure my capacity limits a true analysis here of the differences, but as one who feels torn between, as opposed to pushed aside, or demonized, may this be a decent restart at a conversation which should have retaken place much earlier, but might possibly be mute, as to effect and affect, today, due to tardiness or lack of humility.
7/03/2008
Degeneacy as gospel, no brag just fact and past
I try not to advertise my degeneracy, for I am sure it would shock most any who found it. While it might speak to some one struggliing in the throws of the same or a related degeneracy, if what I say to them is, 'My past is who I am and never better can I be,' then where is the hope? But if I can say 'That was how I was but now I am free from the chains of that _______________________(fiyob), then at least I am not offering the prospect of nothing really happening or changing because I am so bad, with inferrence that all are so bad, that nothing ever really changes other than now I can rely on Jesus to stand up for me...I firmly believe that God could and would under the right conditions forgive Attila the Hun, but only if those prescribed conditions included a change of heart detectable by God as a change in behaviour, if not even so much as a sigh of repenteance and tenderness of look, but its beginning, on a death bed. When God breathed life into Adam did He not say to himself something on the order of 'It is Good!' And he celebrated. Why should I argue with the edict of God? How do I love another as myself if I do not love myself? And this is not to say that I did not need, nor do I now not need, Jesus the atonemnt and His forgiveness. It is to say that if I mean it in my heart of hearts then I will begin to step out of the way and and Christ will begin to live through me. Edification anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
