The Power of The Word of God

I am amazed and in awe of what God has done. If you have read any of my previous posts you will see that I have devoted alot of my blogging energy on the topics of legalism and traditionalism concerning alcohol. The reason for this is not because I am infatuated with drinking but for two reasons. 1) My church was in the thick of the alcohol debate when I started this blog, and while there were many things being discussed alcohol was the hot-button; 2) an unabashed concern for the truth of God's Word.

So what is so amazing and what has God done? Read my second ever post first and then read this to contrast. (just scroll down! it's the "voting on alcohol" one) A bit of background; 6 months ago, like I said, my church was debating whether or not the phrase concerning abstinence from alcohol in our covenant should be changed or removed. We had arrived at this point because a some previous pastors told some new members that even though our covenant required abstinence that they should not be concerned and join anyway. Basically, I assume these guys felt that it was an unbiblical statement but they understood the extreme backlash that might occur if they tried to change it. Too bad they didn't have the courage to do something about it and not stick these new members in a rock and a hard place. Anyway, after these pastors had gone, a committee updated the Constitution of the church, we were searching for a new pastor and trying to find our identity through what we believe, and some people (like me) were questioning the abstinence statement as a non-biblical, man-made requirement for membership and felt it should be changed. People started coming out of the woodwork on both sides, again you can read about the circus that took place last September in my previous post.

The church was divided and there seemed to be nothing short of a miracle that would reconcile everyone together and allow both sides to walk away happy. Thankfully, this did not lead to a physical split of the body but it was "ignored" for a few months. And by "ignored" I don't mean that no one thought or talked about it, it's just that no one did it in public!

Now on to the amazing stuff. During this time we called a new pastor who, having heard of the debate from the search committee, addressed the topic of alcohol and the unity of the church head on BEFORE we voted on him! This was sure to ruffle some feathers but when it came time to vote the church voted unanimously to call him. Since then, we have received a healthy dose of the Word of God every Sunday. Then, in February, our Pastor brought forward a motion to get rid of the abstinence statement and replace it with wording not unlike the previous wording that was voted down in September. We voted to vote on it (stupid Robert's Rules) and so the church had a month before the vote.

So the night arrived last Sunday evening, March 9th. The Pastor gave us the Word of God on the subject as well as sharing that his position is abstinence, so for the sake of unity and because nowhere in Scripture does it command us to abstain was the reason he brought this forth. The church voted by ballot and to my utter shock and amazement, voted UNANIMOUSLY to change the covenant and the church's official position on abstinence so that it was no longer a requirement for members.

That is a total 180 from where we were just 6 months ago! How do you explain it? I believe that this turning of hearts and changing of attitudes can be attributed only to the Word of God. There was nothing magical about getting a new pastor, but this new pastor truly PREACHED the Word of God. The church wasn't used to that and hadn't been for a long time. I am grateful to God that He has guided and protected His church through that difficult time. This was a huge step for my church and I pray that this will be the first big step in the direction of reformation. The more I think about it, the more I am amazed at what God has done.

Just wait until the MBC/SBC gets wind of this!

Show-Me Stupidity: The MBC and Acts 29

Let me start off by saying that I am a Southern Baptist who lives in and goes to church in Missouri. Now, as soon as I heard about the MBC Executive Board cutting funds for all Acts 29 churches I was blown away and dumbfounded. I guess I still am. I wanted to blog about it here but I was just too frustrated. I still am frustrated but I guess I have some time on my hands. You can find a ton of information all over the internet about this story so I won't spend the time recounting what took place but I did want to voice my opposition to this decision by the Executive Board. Anyone who reads this blog will see my position on alcohol does not match that of my own denomination. Most of my posts are slamming my denomination's stance on alcohol so, again, I won't re-hash that.

The thing I guess that bugs me the most about this is the absolute stupidity that I see in this situation. If you read the Pathway (MBC's newspaper) their editor will tell you that the Executive Board can make whatever decision they want, and well I guess I have to agree with that since they have the authority to make "executive" decisions but to me that isn't the problem. The problem is, is that the decision they have a right to make is a stupid one. If you haven't read anything from Dr. Mark DeVine start here and keep going. Dr. DeVine is a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary here in KC (where I currently attend undergraduate courses) and lately he has become one of the foremost experts on the "emerging/emergent" church movement. Dr. DeVine addressed a Theology sub committee about the emerging church and people came away from the meeting with an opposite understanding of Dr. DeVine's lecture. He gave warning to Southern Baptists, well before this Acts 29 ban had taken place, to not break fellowship and to not be too hasty in our judgment about Acts 29 or the emerging church so that we might have a greater understanding of each other and are able to work together. Read this.

I guess that is why I'm so frustrated. To me (and others) it looked like this could have been avoided or at least dealt with in a better way by the Executive Board. And whether it is about alcohol, power, the emerging church, or calvinism I don't care, no matter which way you cut it it is still a stupid decision. Alcohol: seems to be the biggest reason but, wow, what an unbiblical reason and might I add a reason (viewed as biblical or not) that brothers should not divide over, read my earlier posts, or better yet, read the Bible about it. Power: again, they can do whatever they want, even if it is stupid, but it doesn't mean that it isn't stupid, follow me? Emerging church: they had time to think it over and help from Dr. DeVine so there is no excuse. Calvinism: a stretch of an argument derived, I believe, from the alcohol issue but even if that is the case it strengthens my "stupid decision" case because the SBC is in the midst of "Building Bridges" with Calvinists. You see, any way you cut it there is no real good evidence that this is not a stupid decision.

I hope that in someway I have made my point. It is hard for me to express the way I feel about this fully on a blog. For me, writing this is a bit of a release and so I hope it makes since to people other than myself. I do thank you if you have taken the time to read through this. (On a lighter note, I'm excited about the new Baptist Hymnal that's coming out this year...)

Another Stupid, Unbiblical, Legalistic Question...Happy Halloween

Once again we see another example of "Ask a legalistic question, get a legalistic response." In a recent poll about Halloween from ChristiaNet.com, they ask the question, "Should Christians participate in Halloween?" 66% of the 2000 Christians who responded said "NO!" In fact one person said, "Halloween is evil. It glorifies the Devil!"

Now again, I'm not really blown away by the numbers. Given the state of legalism in the fundamentalist American Churches I would say that the numbers are quite low. Only 66%? But I digress.

If you have read my previous post you will know that my problem here is the question, "Should Christians participate in Halloween?" placing the individual person being polled in the seat of everyone else's conscience. And when the numbers come back saying 66% of Christians say "Stay away from Halloween!" then it is "evidence" that all Christians should stay away.

These kinds of surveys make me want to bang my head against a wall. The only purpose they serve is to spark a legalistic outcry amongst the church and empower Christians to tell other Christians what to do in regards to their liberty. What other purpose could there be?

Now I am not trying to downplay the fact that many evil and pagan ideas float around during Halloween, but along the same lines how about the evil and pagan ideas that float around during Christmas? The difference is that Santa comes to your house and gives you treats instead of you going to his. That's all it's about anyway, isn't it?

I hope my point is clear. People will flock when such legalistic questions are laid before them. It's human nature to want to follow the law only to break it. Ask a legalistic question, get a legalistic response.

Interesting Study on Alcohol and the Church

I just read a study by LifeWay on the topic of alcohol consumption among Protestant Christians. (here's the story reported by the Baptist Press and here's the story reported by the Christian Post)

Some results didn't surprise me. For instance 41% of Southern Baptist pastors agreed with the statement "Scripture indicates that people should never drink." What Bible are they reading from? Oh well, I don't want to spend the time on this subject.

What I found interesting was how a couple of statements were made. First, they asked if you agreed with this statement: "when a Christian partakes of alcohol in a social setting, it is a liberty that could cause other believers to stumble or be confused." 98% if SBC pastors and 71% of the laity agreed with this statement. Ummmmm......I agree with this statement. Who wouldn't? But the problem here is that every social setting is going to be different. Of course it "could," there is always the possibility. And I think it is funny that they added "or be confused" to the end of that statement because I think that most people who are offended or claim that it makes them "stumble" are in reality, just confused. Confused because Southern Baptists (in general) don't teach correctly about christian liberty and for that matter alcohol.

The second statement I have issues with asks if a person agrees with the sentence "Christians should not use alcohol as a beverage." (77% SBC pastors agree, 59% laity) I cannot agree with this statement, not because I disagree with it (I do), but because the Bible makes it clear that this is a personal decision of the conscience between you and God. The mere statement "Christians should not use alcohol as a beverage" is the problem with the SBC regarding christian liberty. Why? Because it takes what YOU think and applies it to EVERYONE. (Just like a church covenant?) So then we read a poll like this and see that 77% of pastors say that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol so that automatically means 23% of pastors must have it wrong.

Where is the teaching on this subject!? I'll tell you where it is. It's in that 77% that says "just don't do it." "Don't think about it, just don't do it...it's easier for you not to drink and easier for me not to teach you about moderation and liberty."

I think I'm gonna poll Christians in my church and ask if they agree with the following statements:
"When a Christian partakes of chilly-cheese fries in a social setting, it is a liberty that could cause other believers to stumble or be confused."

"Christians should not use red meat as a food"

Get Real

I recently listened to Jim Shaddix speaking at Baptist Identity II at Union University. I didn't attend the conference but listened to it here. The topic he was speaking on was the Future of the traditional church and near the end of his lecture he said something that struck me:

Our younger Baptists are of great value to Christ's Church, and they do have something to bring to the table. We better wake up and we better realize that with all their faults and shortcomings, just like all the rest of us older generations have faults and shortcomings, God has given this generation of young people a measure of grace in discerning authenticity in the church.

The phrase that struck me was the last line, "God has given this generation of young people a measure of grace in discerning authenticity in the church." It struck a chord with me because it captures in words exactly the way I have felt about my generation in the church for some time.

The thing that amazes me is how clear the issue of authenticity is to me and my generation and how foggy or non-existent it is to others; specifically in my church. Now, I am in no way trying to toot my own horn or exalt the younger generation as "better than" or "more holy" than any other generation; I just see it from my perspective as a no-brainer thing. It strikes me odd when a person says one thing but, by his actions, lives another.

I really see the difference between generations and authenticity when it comes to change in my church. In my previous post I informed you of the circus that took place during our business meeting as we discussed the issue of the church requiring abstinence from alcohol as a qualification for membership. To me, the issue of authenticity and just being realistic about things takes center stage here. I understand the personal and emotional destruction of alcohol abuse and the personal conviction to abstain from its use. What I don't understand is the vehement denial of Biblical truth and instruction regarding the issue of alcohol. It doesn't make since to me when a person claims that the Bible is enough to change, shape and mold our lives and minds and then upholds a document (i.e. the covenant) that denies the truth of the Bible. Even if it is just a teeny weeny issue that deals with alcohol. And so now, everyone my age is an alcoholic and ready to push booze on their kids.

Then there's the issue of worship style. The issue of authenticity takes front and center again, perhaps more so here than anywhere else. Old people (that's my way of saying 'the older generation') freak out if you tap a drum, change the arrangement of an outdated tune, strum a guitar, or [gasp] repeat the chorus. I could go on and on forever. Seriously. But the thing about it is you get people stomping and shouting about how "wrong" your style is and how "right and timeless" theirs is but the moment they get what they want (which is normally only hymns played on the organ) they stand there with the same sourpuss faces, arms folded, singing joyless noises to the floor. It's not authentic! They want it their way, not God's way.

Now, of course I am making generalizations here and I know that not all old people feel this way and I am not saying that all young people are authentic, but the reality is there.

I don't care if you play the organ; as long as it doesn't take the place of God
I don't care if you wear a suit and tie; as long as it doesn't get in the way of putting on Christ
I don't care about abstaining from alcohol; as long as it doesn't take away grace
I don't care what style of song you sing; as long as it is real

"Ladies and Gentlemen, May I direct your attention to the Center Ring as the Church Votes on Alcohol!"

I am completely and utterly blown away. This past Sunday (sept 9th) our church gathered together in a Town Hall/Business Meeting to discuss and vote on a proposed amendment to the church covenant. The proposed amendment would remove the phrase "Furthermore, we resolve to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage" and replace it with a more biblical statement, allowing for individual members to utilize their freedom, while also raising the bar and calling for abstinence from any and all activities which might be harmful to oneself and/or his brother.

That said, the meeting was, more or less, a circus. The proposal was read and the one who proposed the amendments stated his full intentions, citing the Bible as the standard and the reason for the change, and even speaking about the dangers of alcohol. But once he finished, the very first suggested change to the amendment was to add the above stated phrase back into the covenant with the new changes tagged on at the end. Thus, making the entire proposal null and void of any meaning.

Here is where the circus began. It seemed many were convinced that adding the phrase back into the proposed wording only hindered progress and placed us back where we started and so conversation moved on. Voices of opposition rose and more discussion took place about other suggested changes to the proposal's wording. It was moved that the wording be changed again with the old phrase attached but this time the old phrase would say "We resolve to promote abstinence..." To which I responded, "This does not fix the problem of a member who chooses to drink alcohol, because how can one take a drink and promote abstinence at the same time?" After some blank stares the man who initially Seconded the motion removed his "I second that."

At this time the man who made the very first suggested change questioned why his version was not voted on. This caused the Great Robert's Rules Debate of 2007. Everyone seemed to know exactly what Robert's Rules of Order had to say on the matter and no one was in agreement. His motion was never seconded but apparently it "should have been" and five people shouted "Second!" But then we already had a motion on the floor that "should have been" voted on but thankfully it was withdrawn.Then it was finally settled upon that a proposed amendment can be amended up to three times, each being voted on, before a final vote on the original proposal can be voted on, even though the original wording may now be changed. Follow me? Honestly, that is a very simple summary of the absolute chaos that I witnessed.

So finally we voted by secret ballot whether or not to accept the proposed change to add the old phrase and tack on the "nice pretty words" at the end. The vote came back with just over half rejecting the amended amendment. What a freakin headache.

Next, someone with actual brains stood up and called for a vote on the original proposal. Though we should have voted then and there, discussion still continued and other suggested changes were made. Someone wanted to remove wording to make the new proposal sound like the old phrase again until someone reminded the moderator that we need to vote on the first proposal. But of course it's not that easy. We were also reminded that we need to vote about voting on the proposal without further discussion. So we voted (by hand, praise the Lord) on whether or not we should vote and it passed.

So the secret ballot was handed out whether or not to accept the new proposal. Votes were cast and the proposal failed 36 votes to 39. Enter: Hypocrisy. Now that the proposal failed and the old phrase remained, the people who voted to keep it in were called out. Members who drink told the church, "You know now that I drink, you want to keep this in the covenant, I am now in violation of the covenant...what are you going to do? You voted to keep it this way, in what way now are you going to enforce it?" There was no answer. Then when it was pressed again and people asking, "What am I to do now?" Someone says, "Oh, that's between you and God." To which 30-some people responded, "You just voted that it's NOT between me and God!" Again, stupefied looks and no answers.

Discussion at this point now began to go in circles. The moderator laid before us two paths: 1)Continue to pursue this issue with another proposal at another date or 2) figure out what to do with people in violation. Since no one would dare speak up about option #2 I proposed that we should just cut the old phrase from the covenant altogether.

My reason for proposing this is two-fold. First, I figured since no one else was going to pick a path that I would pick one. And second, while the first proposal was shot down, there could have been members who just disagreed with the wording. Voting to remove the phrase altogether will show who actually wants the phrase left in and who doesn't. In my opinion it will indicate whether or not the church is serious in choosing to follow the Bible in regards to membership qualifications. As of now it seems the majority is content with legalism.

The next vote takes place Oct. 7th. If this past meeting gives any indication of what to expect for the future vote I might just ride in on an elephant wearing pancake makeup.

Reformed, Therefore Dangerous

So I've finally done it. Here's my blog. I have given it the title "Reformed and Dangerous" for a reason. First of all, I am Reformed in my Theology and beliefs. I believe wholeheartedly that the Church is to be constantly reforming and always re-aligning herself in light of Scripture. This, to some, is considered "Dangerous". Reforming our lives and the Church with the truth of the Bible challanges every man-made tradition that we build up and find comfort in. It is dangerous to those in the church who hold dearly to the world and tradition. It threatens the status quo. It demands leadership. It makes old ladies cry.

I see all around me in my church and in The American Church a passive, wimpy, spineless, watered down, buisness-like, faithless, passionless, unbiblical mindset that would rather walk on egg shells relying on human wisdom, instead of charging hell in the power of the Holy Spirit with the Bible in hand. I am tired of it and I need a place to talk about it. So here it is. May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be pleasing to You, O Lord.