Today in Blogworld 12/17

The first article I read this morning is probably the most sad. Dr. Mohler addresses a new agenda-filled T-shirt worn by toddlers. The T-shirt reads "My Daddy's name is Donor". No, that's not Donner, one of the 8 reindeer; it is a reference to a sperm donor. What is communicated to this little guy is that his daddy does not matter. Mohler sites Catherine Bruton of The Times in London who says: The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted." Despite my concern over the political agenda behind this, I am most pained for this little child and the host of other little boys. What does it communicate to a male child when he is told that daddy doesn't matter? It means men do not matter. It means your masculinity does not matter. Truly sad.

John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading

In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.

Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.

Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.

And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."

MBC/Acts29 Continued debate

The title is a little misleading. This really is not much a debate. Those who have made the decision have remained pretty silent as to the reasons for their decision. The only thing that could somewhat be considered a response is that of Don Hinkle. The BP has also ran an article that gives us a little light. If we combine these two responses we get a few vague reasons. It appears that Hinkle's reasoning is that this decision was made because the Executive Board is the highest authority (except of course the necessary shout out to Jesus and His Word). I always thought that it was the local church--but perhaps I missed that class in Introduction to Southern Baptists. Along with the "just because they can" argument it appears that Hinkle's other reason is that Acts29 is a renegade network with no accountability. Here is his statement: "Because Missouri Southern Baptist churches did not give their Cooperative Program gifts to fund the church plants of another organization. Nor did they give to plant churches who pledge to do one thing, then do another, often putting the church plant and convention at doctrinal odds — and without accountability, something Acts 29 seems to be lacking."

I am trying my best to be fair with these comments. But they seem to be not grounded in truth or any biblical basis so it is very difficult. Acts 29 is a network and does not require affiliate churches to give to them. Therefore, giving to this network is no different than a church giving money to the Purpose Driven Life or for that matter the MBC giving or taking money from Mormons (Tan-Tar-A, MO Baptist College). I am not certain what the "pledge one thing, and do another" is referring to. I know my friends church is doing everything they pledged to do. I think my main problem with Hinkle's statement is that it is not substantiated by anything. They are just accusations; many of which have been addressed and disproven (see here). Timmy Brister does a far better job and is more expansive than I in addressing this, read his response.

When we look at the BP article we learn that the newly elected President of the MBC, Gerald Davidson, "argued that only a handful of board members were informed enough about the Acts 29 Network to be able to vote on any motion that was critical of it. He said on two separate occasions that his knowledge was lacking." It would have been really nice if they had heeded advice and tabled the issue until April. But, as often is the case in our democratic Christianity the majority won: "But Dunn spoke for the majority of board members who have at least heard about The Journey's well-publicized barroom ministry and are bothered by it and vow that it will never happen again." The article is not extremely informative. Yet, it does help us to see that this issue is heated, emotional, and volatile and it appears to have a set course. What bothers me most is that the majority report by Theological Committee was accepted but not the minority report. Also comments by Mark Devine and mounds of evidence seem to be ignored. This really pains me because it is brother fighting against brother.

Also, the Lord has moved in the hearts of many brothers and sisters to set up a fund for these 9 churches that will be hurt by this decision. If you feel so compelled to give then you can do so by sending a check or money order to:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
(designate it for the “Show Me Church Planting Fund”)
Mailing
address:

St. Louis Metro Bapt. Assoc.attn.
Darren Casper
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044

Newton: On Controversy

This might be an especially well timed article amidst the present controversy in the MBC. In a letter, to what appears to be a young man, John Newton advices him on engaging in debate with another over the issue of election. It is the typical Calvinist/Arminian debate. You get the idea that maybe this "young man" that Newton is addressing is a "caged-Calvinist". As I read this it rebukes me of some of pride and arrogance. It also convicts me of a spirit of superiority in doctrine which leads sometimes to bitterness towards my other brothers that "don't get it". This also serves to temper me in the recent Acts29/MBC controversy. I have included points 1 and 3. The entire letter can be found at Grace Gems:

Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of
truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul,with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes,and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it.

Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise,blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth,therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Brothers, may we heed the wise counsel of this dear man that is now with Jesus. May we especially take heed to his last two paragraphs. It is my prayer as well as we engage our brothers that we might, as the word of God says, speak the truth in love.