Lifeway hocking copiers for Toshiba

My point exactly. Whatever method we can employ to proclaim the message, use it. Flannelgraph of yesteryears is PowerPoint of today.

 

What I find in the Psalms and accounts of OT Israel is that they were to bring every instrument they could find to worship God.

Are you suggesting that the paradigm of the [OT] church is the across the board model for every generation to follow?

And yet you must suggest that, for you will find no NT example of instrumental worship. In fact, the early church shunned musical instruments until the Roman church brought them in with other shadows of OT ritual.

You haven't read the Psalms or the OT very carefully if your conclusion is that they were to bring every kind of instrument they could grab. There is only one passage that endorses the use of all kinds "musick", and that is Nebuchadnezzar's instructions for worshipping the golden image.

For a devout, scholarly discussion of the issues of the OT method of worship, I would suggest the following articles by Dr. Peter Masters, the pastor of The Metropolitan Tabernacle (Spurgeon's church.)

Click Here.

Pay especial notice to Brass, Strings and Percussion? - The facts about Bible instruments and the strong rules restricting their use in worship.

What I discover in Paul is a man who employed whatever means possible to preach Christ crucified.

Now this warrants some evidence. I only find Paul preaching. Did he incorporate Gospel quartets, or dramas? What about mine? What instrument did he play?

Since we have very limited access to what the apostles utilized in their presentation...

This is an arbitrary assumption. This assumes that God did not provide for us the tools and examples necessary in His Word for modern evangelism. This, in turn, demands that we must trust your judgment to discern whether or not something is a form that God has chosen. That demands that you receive some kind of revelation from God that is new, and that in turn demands that signs and wonders must follow you to verify your message.

...your point is moot.

You merely proceed on a premise different than mine, that in and of itself does not render my point moot. What it does demand is that we examine each premise and see which one lines up more with what has been revealed to us in the Scriptures.

I would say the use of "signs" went a long ways in advancing the gospel in the First Century. Are you going to maintain that signs were not a validating form that led to the salvation of souls and the establishment of the church?

No, supernatural signs are great--if they're real. [But now that the Gospel is well established I would say they aren't needed as much, hence their apparent cessation.] But what does this have to do with performing arts?

Drama is not a form of preaching...I have yet to find a single individual who can give a strong biblical basis for such restrictions.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

I thought you knew this verse already. And yet it is you that lacks the "strong biblical basis" for allowing exhibitionistic forms of presentation for the Gospel.

Again, we have no clue what forms of worship and presentation the Early Church employed. What I do find is Paul getting out there amidst the pagans and using their own poets and line of reasoning to confront them with the gospel. What I do find is Paul becoming all things to all men in order to win the few.

It is an incredible leap to suggest that Paul's use of the words of pagan poets or playwrites is an wholesale endorsement of pagan forms of worship! And yet, in each case he did, it was always a use of their words. Unless I missed the verse that he put on make-up and costumes before he quoted them?

As far as Paul becoming all things...please. Take another look at that passage. I can say that Paul did not become a meat-eater to win the meat-eaters. He says quite the opposite. He yielded his rights to certain foods lest he offended his brothers in Christ.

This brings us to the point of liberty. You are not afforded the liberty to indulge your personal preferences at the expense of another's conscience. What you're calling liberty the Scriptures refer to as wantonness or licentiousness.

BTW I am still waiting for those support texts that forbid the unbiblical "forms" with which you have so many problems.

No, the burden is upon you to provide the "strong Scriptural basis" for the methods which you claim please God.

Well, I'm done trying to answer multiple points, but I'm willing discuss it further one point at a time if you are. So choose your point, and we'll go to the appropriate forum, but just choose one. Is it rock music? The proper application of a specific verse? The methods appropriated by the apostles? Is drama really the same thing as a microphone? etc.

 

I tell you what, for such strong thoughts on the form I honestly don't think you could carry that to the end. Christ, our supreme example, He would be classified more of a evangelist than a preacher. He traveled, never setting roots Himself. So, why are you not traveling as Jesus did? I will tell you why. Jesus as did the apostles after him created churches. Oh and those churches didn't start in a big building, maybe somones home at best. As far as the forms of worship. Jesus was able to perform miracles, and that got people's attention, and they were able to hear the word through His preaching and many responded. Well unless you or your pastor can feed thousands with a couple loaves of bread and some fish, you have to do other things to get some people's attention. If you deny this, then you need to immediately stop all music, because what you have now, isn't what they had then, you have to get rid of the elec, they didn't have it, what about the cross, most churches have those now, I dare say that wasn't in the churches Jesus started, aftrer all, it was a tool of torture and death. If you are going to say that certain music can't be used by God, or that a interesting story from a VBS can't be used because they specifically weren't in Scriptures, then you have alot of eliminating to do. God can use rock music, many lives are effected by solid Christian bands. Thousands of children every summer come to Christ by way of VBS, inturn some of their parents too. Don't try to handcuff God's power. If He created it, He can use it.
And back to the original subject, Lifeway does provide solid Christian materials. If you have something else in mind, you should write it, sell it to lifeway or a competitor, or you culd buy a $3000 copier and print it yourself, I know where you can buy one.

 

Most Large Corporations have purchase contracts with other large corporations. Lifeway is just including all SBC churches under the umbrella of their purchase contract with Toshiba and Dell and all kinds of other companies.

Only problem is - How good is their purchasing agent or their purchase contract?

I tried to use their purchase contract to buy a Dell computer and finally abandoned the attempt because I found I could buy a better computer cheaper from Dell as an individual than I could through Lifeway's Purchase contract.

Makes no difference whether the Company is a Christian company or not - The old adage remains true. "Let the Buyer Beware."

 

For Aaron

This discussion has been taken in many directions. I will simply conclude with a few points.

You want to place the burden on the modern interpreter to find appropriate support texts before they implement different forms of worship. A couple of questions are worth answering here:

- Who is the judge of which forms are appropriate? Does your church use a piano or organ? Do they allow a choir or solos or trios? Do they use hymn books? Do you distribute gospel tracts? These are all forms of worship/evangelism that are not found in the text. To be consistent with your paradigm, a church would have to eliminate anything and everything that is not found directly in the text or NT church example.

- When evaluating appropriate forms of worship or evangelism is it fair to eliminate any form that is not found in the NT church example? If so, as stated before, churches better get rid of most of what they do. The burden of proof is not with those of us who seek to employ multiple forms of worship or evangelism to prove these methods are found in a book-chapter-verse. The burden of proof is to demonstrate how such methods are unbiblical or unwarranted. Again it is a difference in one's view of liberty. From what I have read in your posts, your view of Christian "liberty" limits and restricts Christian expression to what the interpreter deems is right and appropriate (based on their personal interpretation of the text). I believe most (outside the circle of strict/legalistic fundamentalism) including Paul would warrant that liberty provides the freedom to employ whatever means one chooses to worship / evangelize (as long as it does not violate a direct biblical command). Such a viewpoint does not diminish the role of preaching, but neither is worship or evangelism or discipleship or fellowship or ministry (the 5 purposes of the local church) restricted to just preaching. The gospel can be advanced and God can be worshipped in a multitude of forms. If one can show dogmatically or reasonably from the text that a certain form is unbiblical, then it should be eliminated. Otherwise, freedom rules.

- Are methods adaptable? Once again, I argue that the message is constant but methods must be changeable. Does your church use flannelgraph or puppets or a bus ministry? These are all methods. Most who argue against the flexibility of methods (usually in the name of protection from "worldliness") are employing methods of a bygone generation. I hate to disappoint you but hymns have not always been around. Hold on to your seat, altar calls are a recent phenomena in light of all of church history. Methods/approaches/forms/programs/styles/preferences ... all of these things change, but the gospel never changes. If you are going to argue along these lines, consistency is a must.

One final note: From what I read about worship in the Old and New Testaments is that it was scandalous. David worshipped in a fashion that offended others (BTW David often instructed the Israelites to bring a variety of musical instruments to worship -- it was not just a pagan celebration with Neb). Mary at Bethany worshipped in a way that offended those around her. Worship is primarily about expressing praise to a God who is worthy of my worship. It takes many forms but in the end the only question is: "was God glorified thru our worship?" Believe it or not, but God can be glorified thru many different forms of worship that are not your own. And I say it is great that worship is not limited to my own personal preferences.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised or ignored in our exchanges, but these are some basic issues at the heart of the methods discussion.

 

Based upon your reply here I would suggest you do not know the issues at hand. 1) No one is forced to sign on or get out. The debate is over the doctrinal accountability of the missionaries (who are totally different than a local church pastor). It only makes since that missionaries work in accordance with and not contrary to the statement of beliefs adopted by the organization which supports them. If they cannot work in accordance to this statement of beliefs (BFM2K), then they need to find another support base.

2) Every church is autonomous. A SBC church can hire a woman pastor if they so choose. They can hire a lesbian if they so choose. Each church is completely autonomous. At the same time, local associations and state conventions are also autonomous organizations, meaning that they can also choose to withdraw fellowship from those that they believe are violating biblical guidelines for fellowship. Autonomy is not violated or diminished but strengthened.

3) You are probably correct that both sides have employed unnecessary tactics, words, etc. at times. Yet at the same time, I recognize that the conservative leadership of the resurgence believed that their cause was a fight that transcended hurt feelings and emotions. The integrity of the Bible was at stake and that was a battle worth fighting. Was everything handled with Christian love and appropriateness? Probably not. But the resurgence was a battle worth winning.

4) I do not classify a mod/lib with their agreement or disagreement with the BFM2K, but I would say that you would have a hard time identifying yourself as a conservative and being at odds with the basic statement of beliefs found therein.

 

SBC,

Like I said, if you're willing to discuss further, which apparently isn't so, I would be happy to discuss a single issue.

Since you last post was merely a restatement of old hash, I feel no need to respond.

I do think that the articles to which I referred you deserve your attention if you wish to state an informed opinion.

S'long.

 

Your lack of response to any of these questions now or in previous posts proves your inability to do so. The articles to which you referred are not accessible via your post.

Your attitude reflects the typical legalistic mindset, viz., "I have an exclusive monopoly on the true interpretation of the entire NT. Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. B/c my preferences are more strict, they are right. B/c I prefer a certain style of music, all other styles are wrong. Furthermore, I am consistent with my views even though they make no sense in light of the bigger picture. Even though I am in a small minority among evangelicals, I am right and they are wrong. I know exactly how evangelism and worship should transpire and if anyone chooses a method different than the method I prefer they are involved in wanton hedonism."

The more I write, the more thankful I am that God brought me out of the mindset you display. Thank God the chains are gone!!!

You remind me of Lazarus coming out of the grave. You are alive but your grave clothes are suffocating the life out of you.

Catch a glimpse of grace brother. It will do you much good.

See ya.

 

Actually, the offer that I am now making for the third time is conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Pick one topic and I will be happy to discuss that one topic with you.

Pick one. Any one. And you will find me a worthy contestant.

Besides, isn't it quite disingenuous of you to conclude your arguments, then here pretend that you were expecting an answer?

Yes, quite.

[ July 18, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I do not want to portray an "end justifies the means" mentality in any way. I was simply suggesting that hurt feelings occurred on both sides of the aisle b/c we are all humans. I do not believe the conservatives set out to attack maliciously the mod/libs in order to win at all costs. My point is that in this type of resurgence process feelings are going to get hurt (b/c both sides cannot be right). Therefore, the conservative leadership had a simple decision to make: should we stay and try and regain the SBC or should we pull out (which is what many present day IFB did). After realizing the convention was worth saving, they decided to stay and go about returning the convention to its original roots. I am sure they recognized the task would not be simple and would not be pleasant at times, but it was a battle (I would employ such language when you are talking about the integrity of the text --the fundamentals of the faith are worth fighting for -- I am thanking of the Lindsell book "Battle for the Bible") worth engaging.

I would never endorse intentional mistreatment of those with whom we disagree. I do not believe that is what happened. Once again when you are talking about a resurgence, you are talking about employees of seminaries, etc. that must be replaced. Such actions are going to create hard feelings and accusations of hateful treatment. What must be maintained is a pure heart thru the process. I am sure Paul was accused of some mistreatment in his time. We just have to make sure our own motives and actions are Christ-honoring.

As far as the missionary issue, I just disagree with you here. The IMB is offering grace. Each missionary has the opportunity to explain their differences with the stated beliefs of the SBC. And I concur that if a missionary cannot work in accordance with the confession of the people he/she represents, they should align themselves with a group they can represent. This has nothing to do with mistreatment and everything to do with preserving the integrity of the people as a whole. Missionaries should work in conjunction with not in opposition to the beliefs of those they represent.

I would agree that a graceful separation is best for all. And I think most leaders on the conservative side would recommend the same.

One final question: do you believe the authority of God's Word is an issue worth fighting over (not talking physical fistfighting, but you know what I mean)?

 

I live in Indiana so this should actually be "thinking" instead of "thanking". Simple typo that one could find amusing if they lived in the South.

 

Thank you for such a thoughtful and eloquent post.
I think alot of moderates like myself would not raise a fuss about the whole BF&M thing if the SBC just acted with grace in carrying out their goals. Of course we would prefer that all missionaries give a confession of their faith rather than be faced with signing a statement, but giving a severence package as you describe would certainly be a welcome gesture of good faith that we could all appreciate, while allowing the SBC to reach its goal of doctrinal conformity in a Christian manner.
The problem is, the "sign or else" MEANS is testimony to what is the SBC's true END.

 

SBCbygrace,
Lets not forget that many of these missionaries were hired under one set of rules, then the rules were changed on them. I bet most of them would have affirmed the 1963 BF&M, even if they were uncomfortable signing it. The BF&M has been changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then.
As to your question about whether the bible is worth fighting for, many moderates (which by default now includes conservatives who are not fundamentalists) think that Jesus is worth fighting for first. Many are uncomfortable with a view and focus on the bible that (to them) reduces the role of Christ and elevates scripture to a place above him. I'm sure thats not how you see it but that's how many conservative people of good conscience view the BF&M controversy.

[ July 19, 2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

We could argue extensively whether the BF&M has been changed that much, but it misses the primary point, which is the fact that the BF&M reflects the confessional beliefs of the SBC. BF&M2K is that document right now. I am not against some type of "grandfathering" program with missionaries who were hired under previous conditions. At the same time, I am vehemently against missionaries who take SBC funds and yet who cannot work in accordance to the stated beliefs of those that support them. Again, this is a sticky situation with no clear-cut answer. I believe the IMB is taking the best approach possible. Two things must be kept in mind:

- The BF&M2K is the confession that has been approved by the SBC as its statement of beliefs.

- A few missionaries cannot sign a statement that they adhere to or can work in accordance with this statement yet they receive their support from those who have embraced it.

How can these two facts be brought together in a harmonious way? If there is a possible scenario that a) preserves the doctrinal integrity of the adopted statement of beliefs and b) allows those who disagree with it to serve and c) allows both parties to maintain ethical veracity in the process, then I am unaware of how it will happen. I am open for suggestions.

As far as your "Bible over Jesus" statements -- classic mod/lib straw man.

TIC alert -- It never ceases to amaze me how mods want to avoid the use of the term. It sounds better to be called a conservative. It reminds me of our disdain to be written off as fundamentalists. There are a lot of people vying for that "conservative" title.

 

We could argue extensively whether the BF&M has been changed that much, but it misses the primary point, which is the fact that the BF&M reflects the confessional beliefs of the SBC. BF&M2K is that document right now. I am not against some type of "grandfathering" program with missionaries who were hired under previous conditions. At the same time, I am vehemently against missionaries who take SBC funds and yet who cannot work in accordance to the stated beliefs of those that support them. Again, this is a sticky situation with no clear-cut answer. I believe the IMB is taking the best approach possible. Two things must be kept in mind:

- The BF&M2K is the confession that has been approved by the SBC as its statement of beliefs.

- A few missionaries cannot sign a statement that they adhere to or can work in accordance with this statement yet they receive their support from those who have embraced it.

How can these two facts be brought together in a harmonious way? If there is a possible scenario that a) preserves the doctrinal integrity of the adopted statement of beliefs and b) allows those who disagree with it to serve and c) allows both parties to maintain ethical veracity in the process, then I am unaware of how it will happen. I am open for suggestions.

As far as your "Bible over Jesus" statements -- classic mod/lib straw man.

TIC alert -- It never ceases to amaze me how mods want to avoid the use of the term. It sounds better to be called a conservative. It reminds me of our disdain to be written off as fundamentalists. There are a lot of people vying for that "conservative" title. [/QB][/QUOTE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not think that the BF&M 2000 necessarily accurately reflects the confessional beliefs of the SBC. I think the BF&M comes first, then doctrinal comformity. It is a wedge that is used to divide people into "us" and "them", and a tool of coercion to compel people to sign something they don't believe in, or to force people who may believe it but don't believe in creeds to sign it anyway. It puts good people of conscience serving our Lord in an awkward position, after they have already been through a rigorous selction process (and for many of them, years in our Lord's service).
By the way, don't dismiss our heartfelt concerns as a "strawman". That's another way of saying we're lying. We really do believe that deleting Jesus as the criteria for interpreting scripture elevates scripture too high and brings Jesus too low.

[ July 19, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

Opinion noted and opinion only I might add since the convention has spoken where they stand.

Second opinion noted. I love how you subtly insert the word creed. BTW if anyone signs it who doesn't believe it, they are outside the ethical bounds in my humble opinion.

Is the leadership's first obligaion (outside of their obligation to the Lord) to the people of the SBC as a whole or a few missionaries? Years in the Lord's service does not guarantee doctrinal purity (as Rankin has stated from the beginning).

Final opinion noted. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that any conservative elevates Christ over Scripture. To bifurcate the two is a drastic mistake and an impossiblity in my mind.