The Conservative Baptist and Roger Williams (A Church and State Issue)

In American Church history, there is a man named Roger Williams. Many today seem to not know about his existence, but he is very crucial.

Roger Williams started as an Anglican in England, but eventually was disillusioned by that church body and went to live with the Puritans in Massachusetts. After a certain time there, he felt convictions that led his interpretations of Scripture away from the Puritans. He was evicted from the settlement and took his followers elsewhere. There he established the first church which birthed the tradition known as Baptist.

Roger Williams was a major proponent of the separation of church and state. He saw what had happened in Europe ever since Constantine named Christianity an acceptable religion and eventually made it the official religion. Too much invested power from one to the other led to corruption, murder, stealing, and condemnation of innocent brothers in the faith (this could lead to a paragraph about Martin Luther and the Anabaptists, but I digress).

The point of this post is to point to the Southern Baptist Convention and other Baptist denominations and say that something is not matching up. Are Baptists to give in to the state or be something separate. Williams never outright took up blind violence against the state, but he did want to make it clear that the Church just seems to work better when it does not try to seek a pseudo-matrimonial union with the state. I think the SBC needs to consider their founder’s history and words and apply them better.

This is in light of the recent vote for the NC marriage amendment. Many Baptists and other traditions came out to proclaim that the church and state serve the same purpose and should work as one. Is this our purpose? I have posted elsewhere on this vote more directly, but the point is to call out a bigger problem, the Church in America wants to be primarily American and not first and foremost Christian. This will cause problems with us and the state, but mostly with us. (As a side note, this action sounds much like the Catholics and the Anglicans 200+ years ago, something that a SBC person usually will not like.)

PS – My own denomination, which has no lineage crossing lines with Baptists but is a Wesleyan tradition, has made this same mistake.

This We Believe

Great thoughtful video from Timothy Tennent

The Nature of The Authority of Scripture.

It seems as if Christianity is always fated to battle with science, but does it have to? It also seems that the conversation about who the Bible exercises authority over is heated as well. Let me address both in this post. Starting with authority of Scriptures.

In Charge of Whom?

Most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would seem to think that the Bible is written for everyone everywhere. In a sense, that is true. Call it God’s love letter to the world, if you will. But that is a starting point. What one must remember is that the letter is in the form of covenant. If you pan through the Torah and through other books of the Bible, the love letter is being offered to everyone, whether or not they accept it.

Who is the one that accepts the Covenant? I think the answer is obviously the Christians accepting Christ as Lord. In the nature of a covenants, that means that the ones who accept the covenant are then subject to the conditions. Paul in the New Testament seems to carry this implicitly when talking about the faith of Abraham in Romans and Galatians. The point is not getting the cart before the horse in the matter. Authority is for those who accept the authority. (We must also remember that the nature of the authority in detail is not agreed upon in the Christian Church itself, but that is a post for another day.)

Origins and Process.

Now that we basically see authority in a nutshell, let’s turn to the Bible’s authority over science. This is tricky, since the Bible is not a science text-book. Many Christians will tell you that evolution cannot show you origins and is untrustworthy. This is only half-true. It definitely does not show you origins, but it does not claim to do so either. Most people get confused we they listen to Hawkins and others who say that evolution is the Grand Theory of Everything. There is a bit that evolution cannot explain, so it is not a threat to the Scriptures and neither is Science. Science is only concerned about the observable anyways, which excludes origins.

The creation story also has an even more important point. The creations accounts (yes, plural, since the two have different orders to the creation timeline) seem to focused not simply on the mechanics of creation, but on liturgy (the work of the people in worship). Liturgy here is steeped in creation so that everything someone does is subject to the worship that God requires. The Genesis accounts are more worried about how a man lives and who he is living for. Besides, if the creation accounts were just scientific, it would only be academically authoritative and not able to set the rules for living, which is a major point of the grouping of the books that it is a part of, the Torah (meaning Law in the Hebrew).

Conclusion

The Bible is the authority of the Church being the accepted love terms from God. But it has to be authoritative over our hearts. The Origin aspect of the science vs fundamentalist Christianity debate is faulty not only in that the latter does not understand the former and the former has false representation of what the latter is really supposed to believe. It is time for the Church to pick up its book and look at it as the liturgy, much like a book of prayer or a doctrinal statement, but much more powerful and useful. Once we view it as that, our understanding of ourselves will be better and our reflections of what is in us will be none other than Christ alone.

In what ways have you tried to make the Bible authoritative in your lifestyle? Or do you want to lack power and stay a textbook?

Important Women in the Bible (and In Ministry!!!)

This here is a list of important women in the Scriptures. I know its odd for a man to be doing this, but nonetheless, I think it is important to remember the role women have played in the formation of the Christian Faith and our Scriptures and what that means for our future.

1. Eve – This women was said to have been made from Adam (funny that this puts Adam in a pseudo-giving-birth situation). It is odd that her most noticeable achievement is giving the forbidden fruit to Adam, but we tend to forget that she too walked with God as the man/Adam did in the creation narratives. All the great things the man did, she did too. In the end, she is held just as responsible as Adam in all things. She is also the one to start off humanity with the first baby. That is an amazing accomplishment. (Genesis 1-4)
2. Mariam (Aaron’s Wife) – Not many people recognize this lady, but she was a Jewish woman and was with Aaron most of the way through the desert. She even led the community (the first worship leader?) in a song/hymn of praising God. She was considered sent by God in the same way that Moses and Aaron were called. (Exodus 15 & Micah 6:4)
3. Deborah – Judge and Prophet. She was a fierce women that everyone seemed to know as filled with the Spirit. She was the leader of her tribe, but more than that, she spoke the will of God to those around her, even Barak, a male general. Although most would be scared of seeing a woman with a weapon at her hip, she wielded it with wisdom and praise towards God. (Judges 4-5; cf. Numbers 11 & Deuteronomy 16, it seems that in some cases Elders and Judges are interchangeable)
4. Ruth – A daring woman who took chances. She was a foreigner who stuck with her Israelite mother, even though the Israelites would despise her. She also had no male to take care of her. Eventually, she meets a man that would take here and her family of just women in, but not without out some provocative and scandalous action on her part. (Ruth)
5. Huldah – This is a woman that almost none of you have heard of. She was a prophet during the time of Josiah, the great reformer King. She was married, so she had a husband “over her.” The King has the priest and a group of men to ask her for advice after panicking, a result of them reading the lost Law (might be Deuteronomy) and thinking God was going to destroy them. Her oracle has been recorded in Scriptures. As a side note, one must remember that Josiah cleanses Israel, but allows a woman to remain the prophet of God, a leader who spreads the words of God. I just find that fascinating (2 Kings 22:3-20; 2 Chronicles 34:14-28).
6. Esther – Esther finds herself a small town girl, living in a kingly world. She gets married to the King, finds out her people are in trouble, and performs the most daring plan to save them. She even gets a lucky break when the antagonist of the story performs one fatal mistake, arousing the anger of the king.
7. Mary (Mother of Jesus) – The mother of Jesus. She raised the Christ Child. Through Jesus life, ministry, and even at His death, Mary keeps popping up in the story. There is something special about this woman. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts 1-2)
8. Mary Magdalene – This woman is just everywhere in the story. She seems to be a close follower of Jesus, like the male disciples. She also seems to serve the role of a patron, supplying Jesus and His followers with the basic life needs for the ministry.(Matthew 27:36, 27:61, 28:1; Mark 15:40, 15:47, 16:1; Luke 8:2, 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1, 20:18)
9. Tabitha – This women was an important woman in the Church of Joppa. She passed away while the apostle Peter was visiting. The believers were so distraught from Tabitha’s death that they begged Peter to come. Peter prayed, she resurrected, and she kept doing what she always had done. (Acts 9:36-42)
10. Priscilla – In Athens, Priscilla is mentioned after the discussion with the philosophers. She mentioned as part as her husbands house in chapter 18:2, but the next mention in chapter 18, her name is before the husband’s. They meet up with an excellent teacher named Apollos. Both Priscilla and her husband take in Apollos and teach him further of the way of God. The next you hear of these two is at the end of Romans. Oh, and every since Acts 18 her name comes before husbands. This was a very important woman. (Acts 18; Romans 16:3)
11. Phoebe – She is the first name in Romans 16. She is “commended” to the Roman believers. Why? She is delivering the letter and will read it to the congregation. A note, the word for her position is deacon, not deaconess. The same word is found in describing Christ in 15:8. This is very key in understanding women in Acts. (Romans 16:3; cf. Romans 15:8)
12. Junia – This lady’s name and status in the Church is always a topic for debate. Some say she is actually a he and that his name is Junias. Unfortuantely, there is no evidence of this. Also, they say that she was revered BY the Apostles. However, the preposition does not designate that concept. It designates being AMONG the Apostles. So guess what folks, we had a female Apostle. Just amazing.

Although it seems arbitrary, the mention of women and the roles they played in the Scriptures are crucial to understanding the roles they should play today. We should ask questions as the conversation of complementarianism and egalitarianism is still in process. One day we will come to the other side of that conversation. In my opinion, we will challenge the language of both sides and come to a third way of understanding it.

But I digress,

because I’m working on publishing something that has to do with that.

Sorry, I don’t do spoilers.

But I will say this…Women, rise up and sing with your lives and leadership. Live your servanthood as men have done in following Christ. And love all as Christ does his Church.

Grace and peace to you all.

Coercion or Conviction (On Ammendment For Marriage in NC)

The Current political air is thick with discontent. One of the issues that fills the air is an amendment concerning Gay Marriage. In North Carolina we will be voting in Primaries on May 8 on this issue. Many Christian are coming out and saying that we must vote the values of the Scriptures and the Church (meaning vote yes), while other Christians along with non-Christians are saying vote no.

There are couple points to explore since the point that the vote yes crowd is making is actually more complex. It will end up having much to say towards the assumptions as why we should vote either yes or no.

Voting Yes.

Some points from this crowd are valid, such as we should be concerned about Godly values, we should desire for people to follow the way of God, religious views affects politics, and we should we want people to follow the way of God as described in Scriptures. All of these are noble positions in themselves.

The proposition of this group, however, seems to spring from desires to implement Scriptural lifestyles towards those around us. I’m not sure if that is the correct approach. The point here is that voting “Biblical” values is assumed to be forcing right living. It also might assume some level of avoiding God’s judgment by pushing Christian lifestyle into Constitutional American (I could go into how the Republican party has been courting supporters who are the Religious Right for their benefit and not based on Christian persuasion, but not today).

The question here is if making something legal is the proper way to promote good Christian lifestyle and ethic. I think it is a fair question. Does this amendment actually end sin in the hearts of certain people? And then there is the question of what Christians actually did with legal matters in the Scriptures…

Voting No.

There is a major issue of Church and State here. One that is blatantly ignored. The amendment says that government makes no law favoring any religion at all. The Church has also forgotten that it’s rules and guidelines are not made favoring any nation. We are the arm of God and not any country we find ourselves in. Could there be even better reasons to look for?

When we look at Jesus and Paul, we definitely see interaction with sinners. But, unlike the Old Testament, there is no stoning or harsh consequence carried out by the believers towards outsiders. This seems strange considering that the Old Testament seems to promote these harsh consequences. Paul for starters, mainly speaks to believers concerning the correct way to live, which turns the Christian ethic into an in house issue and not one the was pushed onto the current powers that be (which probably would have killed the Christian movement from the start). Jesus is even more revolutionary since he eats with sinners. Although this was not his acceptance of their lifestyle, He gave them grace and reason to choose God’s way of living.

This approach sound very different than the one taken by the people wanting to vote yes. The reason it sounds different is because the voting yes for an amendment sounds like coercion, making people follow your way and look like you. It may even be trying to save people by making them carry out the right actions, which is works righteousness. That does not sound like the Way that the Scriptures promote.

The other option, which would be to vote no, seems to be more in keeping with the way of Jesus and Paul. THIS IS NOT A MOVE TO ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY AS A NORM FOR THE CHURCH. Paul makes that very clear. BUT IT IS A MOVE TO MAKE CONVICTION THE NORM. Conviction is one the bases of why we do evangelism. Why would you force someone to act and still have a heart of sin and not convince them to listen to the Spirit, associate with Christ, and choose God’s way for themselves, rejecting the sin that was once in their hearts?

The latter is better. The latter is Scriptural. And even though voting yes might SEEM to be voting the Bible, there is a pretty good chance that it is not. I would rather vote no and have the Spirit use the Church to convict people and actually witness their salvation expressed in actions than force people to live a certain ethic and be filled with a heart against God and the Church.

I propose to vote no, not in agreement with the lifestyle of homosexuality, but with the full hope that the Church is more than powerful enough to evangelize and have people choose Christ. We do not need a law from a country that will soon enough crumble to help us. We need the Great Commission and the Two Greatest Commandments.

Get Closer…

Great music…great video…but most of all a great message.

Til Death Do Us Part

I have heard much on marriage being forever recently. It ranges from people saying, “I swore to be with you forever,” to pastors saying, “we’ll be standing hand in hand in front of the judgement seat.

What does the Bible say?

I do not think people are going to like this, but the Bible seems to propose that death ends marriage. In Matthew 22:25-30, Jesus states that people will not be married or be given in marriage. Much conversation can take place about women’s rights here, but the sure fact is that marriage ends at death.

In Romans 7:1-3 , Paul states that a woman is freed from the marriage once the husband dies. Although the point Paul is making is much broader, the fact remains that Paul is assuming that marriage is dependent on the currently unresurrected life still going on. This repeats what Jesus said in the Gospels that no one is married or given in marriage in the Kingdom of heaven.

This is an important point, but is missed by today’s reader. Marriage today is about romance and love. Marriage in the time of Jesus seemed to be more about ownership and property acquisition. When Jesus and Paul say this they are denying that women should be defined by this reality. Women in those days were the caretakers of the home and were to bear children. The new testament says that that is not the only thing women are good for (Acts goes further and so does Romans 16).

The Bible, with this evidence, seems to point to some level of women having status. It might not support complementarian. It seems to be challenging to the Patriarchical. Egalitarian might be a candidate (but falls short in that it does not take full advantage of submission to everyone by everyone. But this is beside the point).

We need more biblical marriages. This means letting the Scriptures pour into us it’s message. It sounds sensational to say we will stand hand in hand before the judgement throne with our spouses, but it simply is not the case. God judges the individual for his/her individual decisions. Despite our saying they become one (we really should say they become AS one), and despite God’s final purpose of saving all of Creation, we are still individually responsible, even when married.

Grace and peace to you all.

Review of John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus

I finally finished Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus. It is older now and I am surprised I had forgotten most of the information in this book. This book created a great challenge to read since it challenges a couple elements of Christianity.

It is an outright challenge to the Just War Theory. It proposes that via Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, violence can is rejected in the Early Church. It also points to Paul and the other writers as rejecters of violences as well. Even the Revelation of Jesus Christ is put into terms of pacifism.

The pacifist is challenged too. Pacifist have sometimes stated that they can be more influential than those who follow the Just War Theory in that they can push their agenda just as far if not further than people who use violence. Yoder disagree’s with this by saying that through the cross Jesus abandons retaliation and in such abandons any notion to control outcomes in history. The proper way is to obey the Lord and to not seek any agenda except love.

The book dives into deep biblical study and then takes a short turn towards application. I appreciated the use of original languages and look forward to using this book for years to come. Many may not agree with the road to pacifism that Yoder takes, but they can appreciate his approach to pacifism as better than described by others.

I am not sure about the relinquishing of controlling historic outcomes. In the sense that we are not really the controllers of History, then yes. We are not called to called to be that and when it boils down, Scriptures is not about humans who controlled history, but God who controls history and us. I do question the mention of the word agenda. Although I see where he is going, it makes it hard to read the end of his book. We do in some sense have an agenda. It is not our agenda, but it is a call to be something within history and moves towards life in the City of God.

In the end, this book enlightened me. And as a writer, I have found a new source. I am a pacifist too, but this book challenged my pacifism. Maybe I can try to let go of controlling those around me by wit, charm, or strong vocabulary. I highly recommend this book.

Have you read this book? Have you read other books similar to this one? If so, which book was it? What do you think of Pacifism?

Ben Witherington on Women in Scriptures (7 Minute Seminary)

Dr. Ben Witherington III has given an excellent synopsis on how accounts of women in Scripture have given us a legitimacy of women in ministry. You can find these items posted as 7-minute Seminary on Asbury Seedbed along with other helpful videos.

The Animals (and Their Souls)

Questions about animals and their appearance in resurrection seem to repeatedly arise in the Church conversation. The key argument against it seems to be that there has to be separation between man an animals when it comes to the soul. Though I agree here, I think there are other things that do separate us, but not in the sense of being a living soul.

The word nephesh hayah is the Hebrew term for living soul (also could be translated living being, creature, or thing). This specific term comes up a few times. The key points are in Genesis.

• Chapter 1 mentions it in verses 20, 21, 24, and 30. All those times refer to animals.
• Chapter 2 mentions it in verses 7 and 19. The first is about Humans and the second is about animals.
• Chapter 9 mentions it in verses 10, 12, 15, and 16. All refer to animals in the covenant along with Noah and his family.

There are other places as well.

• Leviticus 11:10, 46 (Animals)
• Ezekiel 18:27 (Humans) and 47:9 (Animals)
• Job 12:10 might be a place for it. Not sure whether the grammar is different or not.

This is not to debase humanity to mere creatures. There is something that does separate us. That thing is the tselem elohim, or as some say imago dei. This is the image of God. The Image of God is being the representing ruling figure or image while the King is away. That is what separates us from the animals.

Another thing to consider is that the Hebrew word nephesh is used in many other places. It is commonly translated as soul, but seems to be more diversely related to life and anything alive when you consider the context of each and every use.

If you look at the word soul, you will find that soul is not really something we have as much as it is something that we just are, alive. And if that be the case, animals, which are alive, are defined in the same way.

What hope does this give us? God promises to resurrect humanity and even heal the earth. If God promises that to the humans who have the nephesh hayah, then the animals sharing that term in their existence are probably held to the same promise. And even if that were not the case, God’s promise to heal the earth on which we live would include these animals.

What have you been taught about animals in the resurrection? Do you think they will be brought back when Christ returns? Why or why not?

*Links to verses were not shared on this post. I do not have a site that easily guides people through the original language of hebrew. Sorry guys, but I still wish you grace and peace like always.*