The Bottom Line?

Is it really OK to agree to disagree?

Unity amidst diversity sounds nice, but in reality it is easier said than done.

Why?

Coming from divinity school to the 'real world' of ministry has not been an eye opening experience, but I cannot help but notice the difference between theory and practice in church. In divinity school, I was educated to look at both or all sides of a position, delimma or doctrine. Knowing the arguments for each position, it was up to me to weigh the arguments against scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Then, I had to make the choice of where I stood. However, my personal position was not as important as knowing how I arrived at the position. Divinity School taught me to think. That's good. Church history is primarily a history of thought and subsequent practice.

However, it also devalues the importance of the final position. For example, I believe that God calls women to ordained capacities in the church. That is not a position that the church has historically embraced. Furthermore, those like me, who hold to a high view of scripture often come to different opinions as to what the Bible says. Paul seems to limit ministerial roles in 1 Timothy to males. Yet we have other passages that indicate women had a greater role in ministry vis-a-vis the role of women in society. The Bible narrative gives evidence of progress in the role of women when compared to the role of women in First Century Greco-Roman culture.

Yet, many people ask whether or not I believe a certain thing, like women in ministry, and expect a direct answer: "Yes, I believe women can serve in ordained capacities" or "no, they cannot" without appreciation as to how I came to that conclusion.

To illustrate that point, there are some that believe women can serve in ministry regardless of what the Bible says. They read scripture differently. They interpret differently. They believe that the Bible contains the word of God and they must pick and choose what parts of the Bible to embrace. That oversimplifies their position, but I must for sake of brevity. I cannot side with these people who "pick and choose" their scripture as opposed to the whole of the Bible.

Furthermore, I feel more akin to those who believe that women cannot serve in ordained capacities if their position comes from an honest attempt to read scripture. Though I do not agree with their final answer, their theological understanding of scripture I embrace.

Thus, for me, how I arrive at the final answer may be more important than the final answer and its applications. Too, I may appreciate how others come to that final position, even if we disagree.

However, in the 'real world' of church ministry, the final answer and its applications are more important than the process of how to get there. People want simple answers to run with. And, this is understandable. If my church agrees that women may serve in ordained capacities, then that, in turn, affects how the church does ministry. It affects the church's relationship with those churches that disagree. It affects whether or not people may feel they can attend that particular church. The catch-22 then becomes whether or not the church aligns with other churches that embrace the particular practice or with churches that embrace the method that comes to the conclusion. Therefore, to many, the final answer matters most, without thought given to the process of arriving at the final answer.

I fondly remember watching the famous Duke-Kentucky regional final in 1992. The two teams played what many consider to be the best basketball game ever played. Regulation ended with a 93-93 tie and the teams went back and forth throughout overtime. Kentucky led 103-102 with two seconds left. Christian Laettner hit the game winner at the buzzer for Duke's 104-103 win. They went on to win the national championship. Though we can admire the game, that Kentucky played their best basketball of the season, perhaps ever, in that one game, the result still stood. Duke won and advanced. They would have done the same if the game was ugly and the final score was in the 50's or if they blew Kentucky out. The tournament brackets showed no appreciation for the greatest game ever. It merely advanced Duke to the next round and Kentucky was labeled a loser.

The world is a bottom line world. But does this always work in Christianity, especially "organized" Christianity? What is most important, the end result or how the game is played? Does Christianity have a place for both? Can we work with those whom we disagree, yet share common values that led to differing practices?

These are just thoughts, but important thoughts for considering how to think theologically and for practical theology.

"Providing for the Poor"

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/providing.pdf

Here is a link to one of the best sermons on the Christians responsibility to the poor that I have ever heard/read. Dr. Allen Ross is an Old Testament Professor and Biblical Theologian at Beeson Divinity School. As far as exposition of the Old Testament, I know few, if any, who are better. The sermon is posted in a PDF format, so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the document. If you rather hear the sermon, the link is the following:

http://www.beesondivinity.com/templates/System/details.asp?id=25215&PID=515498

Click on the September 16, 2008 sermon.

What do you think?

Regarding Abortion

Following the murder of an abortion doctor in his church lobby on Sunday Morning, please consider the quotations below. Though I oppose abortion on demand, I have often questioned inconsistencies in the so-called "pro-life" position. It is these inconsistencies that led Scott Roeder to murder abortion doctor George Tiller. Though I assume that few abortion opponants actually applaud Roeder's decision (Souther Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler has openly denounced Tiller's murder), former SBC Second Vice-President, Wiley Drake, has applauded his death:

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4119&Itemid=53

Many churches claim a staunch "pro-life" stance, meaning they oppose abortion. However, when the child is born, they hardly lift a finger to stand for the spiritual needs of the child, much less the child's position of powerlessness before the world. It is contradictive to belong to a church that claims a pro-life stance, if that church cannot find enough volunteers for the church nursery. Such a church must consider whether or not it is ready, as a community, to embrace the needs of children - spiritual, physical, mental, emotional and social. Yes, the church is responsible for all these areas.

Though I intend to write no comprehensive article below, I ask that we consider the following:

1. What kind of a community is sincerely a community that welcomes children?

2. What is the coherent moral logic, or better yet, moral vision, that undergirds a church's stance against abortion?

3. What is the church's duty toward the innocent and the victim? Do we merely create a state in which there is no possibility that an unborn child is aborted? Is that the extent of our responsibility as a community of faith?

4. What action would really demonstrate a vision of a community that welcomed children, that opposed abortion, and that assumed responsibility for the needs of the innocent and the victim?

Below are some thoughts toward such answers:

"Let me ask you: Which has greater power? Ten thousand people who fill the streets in front of abortion clinics and shame those seeking abortion, or ten thousand people...who take to the state capital a petition they have signed stating they will take any unwanted child of any age, any color, and physical condition so that they can love that child in the name of Jesus Christ?"

- Bill Tibert, Presbyterian Minister (Quoted in Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 458)

"We must begin by recognizing that we cannot coerce moral consensus in a post-Christian culture. The United States is deeply divided over the question of abortion because there is no consensus about the cultural logic that ought to govern our decisions about this matter. We should recognize the futility of seeking to compel that state to enforce Christian teaching against abortion. This is neither because we advocate a dualistic seperation of sacred and secular spheres of life nor because we acknowledge an alleged sacred right of individual conscience; rather, it is because we recognize that the convictions that cause us to reject abortion within the church are intelligilble only within the symbolic world of Scripture. The church's rejection of abortion is persuasive only in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ...Thus, the primary task of the Christian community on this issue is to form a countercommunity of witness, summoning the world to see the gospel in action."

- Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 457-58.

"...I think that we will be wise as Christians to state our opposition to abortion in a manner that makes clear our broader concerns for the kind of people we ought to be to welcome children into the world."

- Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character, p. 229

What do you think?

Does God Cause or Allow Evil?

http://www.gregboyd.org/popular/the-35w-bridge-collapse-and-the-book-of-job-blog-post-from-8-29-07/

When I created this blog it was primarily for the purpose of discussing Theodicy, which is commonly known as the so-called "Problem of Evil." Actually, "theodicy" is a word derivved from two Greek words Theos and dikaios. Theodicy, therefore, is best translated righteousness of God, or God's justification. In Romans 1:16-17, Paul indicates that the gospel reveals God's righteousness. The Gospel reveals the answer to theodicy!

The above link is to Greg Boyd's response to the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly two years ago. Boyd's response is to a pastor that said God caused the bridge to collapse to demonstrate his glory. What do you think?

Romans 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous will live by faith.'"

Clergy Sex Abuse in Baptist Life

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

http://www.tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/

http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/

The above are links to blogs dealing with the topic of clergy sexual abuse Baptist Life. The first, is Wade Burleson's blog, which is covering the story of disgraced former SBC pastor Darrell Gilyard and his plea deal in a sexual abuse case. The others are the blogs of Tiffany Croft and Christa Brown, who were victims of clergy sexual abuse in their own churches as children and students. When they had the courage to report these acts, they were humiliated into forced "apologies" while their perpeptrators moved on to other churches, usually larger churches.

In the case of Darrell Gilyard, his sexual misconduct had a history of nearly 25 years. Only the late pastor E.K. Bailey dared to tell the truth about Gilyard's nature, and he was rediculed by other denominational officials for doing so.

The only way that clergy sexual abuse will end in any denomination, including Baptist life, is to tell the truth, stand for the innocent, and leave the results to God.

Matthew 18:5-10: "5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. 6 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes! 8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. 10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

Human Trafficking...in North Carolina!

http://www.biblicalrecorder.com/post/Human-trafficking-a-growing-NC-problem.aspx


Micah 6:8: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Christians and Torture (again)

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4052&Itemid=9

I have written before that I cannot believe that support for torture is greater among Christians than it is among those who are not active in church or who do not go at all. David Gushee's prayer is a masterful call to consider the contradiction between our faith and support for torture.

Dr. Gushee's prayer is incredible. I hope that you will take the time to read it, and, if you dare, to pray it. I appreciate what he said about torture, the corralation of support for torture and church attendance. It is interesting how through the history of the church, Christians have supported forms of torture and cruel punishment for their/our opponents.

However, the most important thing that Dr. Gushee noted is that we should not worry about churches being empty in the future. They already are. Our faith as a whole is empty. We do not have the Spritual or Moral Vision that a follower of Jesus Christ must possess in order to see injustices purported in the world. Our faith lacks consistency and substance.

I tend to be overly critical of the church, after being raised in Alabama and seeing first hand the effects of racism and hearing stories of how "Bible believers" responded, or failed to respond. I realize that when I point fingers, I have three pointing back. I merely want to ask, "Are you reading the same book that I read? Are you hearing the same Word that I am hearing? Are you praying to the same God that I pray to?

However, what are we missing that spurred on the disciples in the book of Acts? What are we missing that empowered the martyrs of the early church? What are we missing that fueled the writings of early church fathers like Augustine? What are we missing that motivated the Radical Reformers to abandon state supported religious institutions and reject their baptism, at the cost of their lives?

What are we missing that fuels the fire of Christians in Africa, Asia and South America?
Too me, we can no longer say that this empty religion is a symptom of "liberalism" or "fundamentalism." It is not something characteristic of only conservatives or moderates. It is not something symptomatic of denominations.

It is across the board. We are inconsistent in our applications of faith to real life. We are comfortable. We fail to think for ourselves. When we do, we are afraid to stand up for things that really matter. Furthermore, do we really believe it when Jesus says that for those who want to follow him, there will be a cross waiting for us, too?