Allowing A New World to Emerge – Becoming Minimalist

Why It Is Absolutely Unnecessary to Make a Person Feel Conviction of Sin – Grace and Truth to You

Render Unto Caesar? On Paying Taxes After Obamacare – Albert Mohler

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

They’d show four things, and one of the things would be different: three letters and a number, three circles and a square, you get the idea. Your job was to pick out the thing that didn’t belong with the others.

A few days ago, I was reading this story about a Southern Baptist church in Georgia that is probably going to be removed from fellowship because the Church appointed the pastor’s wife as a co-pastor. The story reminded me of a “One of These Things is Not Like the Others” moment I had a few years ago.

The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention was preparing to fire some missionaries because they refused to sign a statement affirming the Baptist Faith and Message. I was discussing the situation via e-mail with a former IMB trustee, and I asked her what were the non-negotiable doctrines that a person must believe in order to qualify as a missionary. Her response:

1. The Deity of Christ
2. The Resurrection of Christ
3. The Work of the Holy Spirit
4. Not allowing women as pastors

Now when you just read that list, you likely had one of two reactions: you either said, “Yep, that’s about right,” or, like me, you had a baroo moment. Think the little dog looking into the gramophone and tilting his head in the old RCA “His Master’s Voice” logo. I think my brain actually locked up for a second when I read the last item in the list.

There is certainly room for different opinions on the proper role of women in the church. Both the Complementarians and Egalitarians have good arguments. Where you come down on the issue depends on who you think has the best arguments. (FWIW, I think the Egalitarians make the stronger case, and the associate pastor at the church I attend is a woman). But putting “not allowing women as pastors” in that list of non-negotiable doctrines is a perfect example of “one of these things isn’t like the other.” It’s also symptomatic of the “Gospel plus something” expansion of “essential doctrine” happening all over the evangelical church in America. This “Gospel plus” approach is, I believe, the main reason why the SBC (among many evangelical groups) is declining in membership. People don’t need “Gospel plus some other rules we made up”; they just need Gospel, period. As long as churches continue to exclude people from membership and service over non-essential issues, those churches will continue to decline. Unfortunately, they may also drive some people away from Christianity permanently in the process. Being always right carries a high price.

Recommended Reading

The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters
I Believe: Exploring the Apostle’s Creed
Two Views on Women in Ministry
Ten Things I Learned Wrong From a Conservative Church

Teabonics: A Set on Flickr – Flickr

My View: Genesis 1 – Internet Monk

The Lost Art of Solitude – Zen Habits

Atom smasher achieves ‘Big Bang’ collisions – Physorg.com

Clarke Beasley wrote:

Did Jesus hold to a literal view of the creation account? (Mark 10:6)

Impossible to tell from the given passage. Jesus references a passage from scripture (Gen 1:27), and talks about the theological meaning of that passage in the context of marriage:

That only humans are designated “male and female” indicates that both genders are included in the image of God, and both are essential to fully articulate our humanity—hence the twofold blessing-instruction to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and rule. Genderedness is God’s good gift, and its abuse is a serious affront to the holiness of God, whose image humanity, as male and female, bears. (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament , G. Beale and D. Carson)

The point Jesus makes only depends on the fact that God created human beings male and female, not how he created them. Nothing in the passage requires that Jesus held a literal view of the creation account.

If you require science to affirm Biblical doctrine (a problem in and of itself according to Habbakuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17.)

It has nothing to do with requiring science to affirm a Biblical doctrine. But we can, and do, use the knowledge that science provides to clarify our understanding of the Bible. See my response to quartet man below for further explication.

Both the passages you quote refer to living by faith, something all Christians agree that we are called to do. But faith doesn’t mean turning off our brains or denying knowledge gained outside of faith, especially when that knowledge can helpfully inform our interpretation of scripture.

you might study Chuck Missler’s series on Genesis. Be ready to invest some time, he takes 9 one hour sessions to go through creation week explaining how the passages relate to the latest in cosmological science.

I’ve looked over his material before. His understanding of science is, to be charitable, a bit shaky. It would sound good to someone who didn’t know much about cosmology or astronomy, but wouldn’t get past a second-year major in those subjects. And he starts from a mistaken premise: that the creation accounts in Genesis were written as literal, observational, scientific accounts, as if a 20th century western Christian had written them for a 20th century western audience. It’s a common mistake, one that I have been guilty of making myself. To properly understand the Bible (or any historical writing) we have to put ourselves into the time and context of the original author and audience, not bring them forward to ours. Only when we have determined what the text meant to them can we attempt to bridge the gap of time and culture to understand what it means for us. (Gordon Fee & Doug Stuart’s book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is an invaluable guide in learning how read and interpret the Bible in this way.)

From Quartet Man:

Human science can be faulty. What seems logical and true can be refuted and changed in the future as we learn and understand more. At one point science said the world was flat. I believe I will trust God on the issue of creation.

I used to see the matter as “God’s word” vs. “science”, but that is a misunderstanding. It’s not God’s Infallible Word against Fallible Science; it’s fallible human interpretations of God’s word against fallible science. Yes, science is sometimes wrong, but so are our interpretations of the Bible.

The most famous example is the Church’s (Protestant and Catholic) insistence that the Bible clearly teaches that the earth is the center of the solar system and that the sun and all the other planets revolve around it. It was science that showed the error of that interpretation of scripture. I believe that science has shown us a similar error in interpreting Genesis literally.

Of course, the idea that the Genesis creation accounts shouldn’t be understood literally predates modern science by many centuries. St. Augustine argued for a non-literal reading of Genesis in his 5th century work The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In that same book, he makes the following statement about how Christians should relate to contemporary science:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]. (Emphasis mine.)

Augustine’s words are probably more pertinent today than when he first wrote them 1500 years ago. My primary concern in the supposed science vs. the Bible conflict is that well meaning and sincere (but mistaken) Christians do exactly what Augustine describes in this passage and drive people away from Christianity for no good reason. Unfortunately, I know that it happens because I have personally seen it happen, and the damage done by the anti-Science Christian can be difficult if not impossible to undo. We’re not supposed to be imposing a science orthodoxy test to allow people to come to (or stay in) the Church. We’re not supposed to be putting up a “proper science” fence around the Cross. We’re supposed to be welcoming people into the Kingdom with the open arms of Jesus.

Clark Beasley asks:

How do you square Christianity, (even emergent, post-modern, the Bible is a metaphysical poem, let’s make up doctrine as we go brand of Christianity,) with Obama’s horrific and infanticidal opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act?

A fair question, and one I’ve been asked many times. I have a two-part answer.

First, I don’t necessarily agree with every position that Obama takes. I thought that of the two candidates Obama would make the better president, as his concerns and priorities aligned more closely with mine. A candidate’s stand on a single issue does not make or break that candidate for me. Some Christians use a candidate’s stand on abortion as a litmus test. I fully support their right to choose a candidate based on whatever criteria they think appropriate. It’s a problem, though, when such people believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a bad Christian or not a Christian at all.

Second, I don’t think that abortion is a political issue; it’s a spiritual issue. If abortion were outlawed tomorrow, the number of abortions performed would drop maybe a few percentage points. Illegal abortions would always be available in the U.S., and a person seeking a lawful abortion could take a short trip to a country (Canada) where abortions were still legal. No prohibition law has ever worked. As long as you have demand for a service, there will be a supply. The only way to end abortion (or drug abuse or prostitution or any other such problem) is through eliminating demand. The only way to eliminate demand is through a change of heart. The only way to truly change a heart is the Gospel.

Or, as John MacArthur put it in his excellent sermon “The Christian’s Responsibility in a Pagan Society” (Part 1 & Part 2)

I hear a lot of talk today about the church impacting culture. Coming back from Atlanta where I went to the Christian Booksellers Convention this week I read a couple of books on the plane, both of them had to do with confronting our culture, effecting and impacting our culture. But frankly, folks, that’s not our goal. That is not our goal. It sounds like a noble goal and I’m sure there are people who can see certain noble aspects of it and there may be some. But our goal is not to impact our culture by changing their moral values. Our goal is not to impact our culture by creating traditional values, family values through legislation or judicial process. Our goal is not to make sure that the United States of America adheres to a national policy that equates to biblical morality. That is not our goal. We are not involved in altering social morality. We are not involved in upgrading cultural conduct. We are interested in people becoming saved. That is our only agenda. If we’re going to change our culture we’re going to change it from the inside out.

(Full disclosure: Clarke Beasely and I kind of grew up together, and we both attended Pensacola Christian School. I left after 8th grade, while Clarke went on to graduate from Pensacola Christian College. Since Clarke drank the PCS Kool-Aid longer than I did, it’ll probably take a few more years for him to get his head screwed back on straight. )

What My Jesus Would Do – John Scalzi

10 Ways to Deal With the Non-Simplifying Others in Your Life – Zen Habits

119 Ways to Store and Organize Your Cats

Dark Roasted Blend: Retrofuture Transportation Showcase, Part 2

The Jon Stewart Clip That Will Make Glenn Beck Cry Real Tears – Jon Stewart – Gawker.TV

Again, if this is Brad I’m assuming that you have the money Houston fine phone from the great project has probably cup number 11 title. Are you going to eat all that if you put that I have to go til about 2 minutes and 40 seconds if you were here. The another struck by a reference just hoping to hear that Belinda see if you have it for you at the office today. Later.

Dover Beach
Matthew Arnold

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the A gaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.