The Frustrations of a Simple Pastor
Posted by Rob Ayers in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
I am frustrated.
I could be just plain mad, but that would mean that I am not exhibiting the self-control that is part of the “gift” the Spirit shares. I have laid my burdens down with my Lord, and He takes them – but that does not mean I am not still frustrated, for I am hopelessly still made of flesh. Pray for me, and I will for you.
I am frustrated that many in Christian circles “don’t get it.” And this goes double for many Southern Baptist bloggers.
Now don’t get too riled up gentle reader. I am sure that there are many who are concerned about me and the fact that they believe I don’t get it either. So there is an equal amount of frustration to go around. I “get” that.
Who am I? I am just a simple man, a Pastor of a small traditional Southern Baptist Church that has been in existence for 140 years. Traditional in the sense in that we still sing hymns out of a book (though we have the Power Point and display them for each hymn – but by golly over half the congregation still looks at the book instead of the display), I still wear suits, our eschatology is semi-dispensational (there are some bumper stickers on some cars in the parking lot which say “vehicle will be abandoned if the Rapture occurs”), we have an American and Christian flag displayed at the front of the sanctuary, and we conduct invitations at the end of the service. We no longer have an organ (no one can play it, and we can’t afford to repair our fifty year organ) but we do have a keyboard (which came about despite a little angst from our musical puritans). Our theology is admittedly and unashamedly Baptist and evangelical. We hold to what Jesus said that “not one jod or tittle” so we are inerrantists who proudly display the Ten Commandments upon the wall – and notice carefully – I did not say the “ten admonitions” or the “nine suggestions with one culturally irrelevant “not for us today” New Covenant Theology “nonsense” (in my loving opinion that is) – yet in all that we are not legalists. We also display the “Church Covenant” on the wall which also can be found in our Constitution/Bylaws. We pray and weep for the lost, and attempt through various means to share the Truth that is Jesus Christ to our community, and the world. We stand on the truth of Scripture in our every day world, calling sin a sin, yet sharing that God loves sinners of whom we are chief. We are socially tolerant in that we accept anybody be they homosexual, the poor, an immigrant, the rich, Hispanic, African-American, white, Muslim, Hindi, or “none of the above” to come and hear our proclamation that Jesus is the only way to God. The gospel of Jesus is for everyone, and it is not for sale to the highest bidder or for only those who can afford it – for none of us can. We don’t have many programs, nor do we have a Christian Life Center. We can not compete with the local mega-church wannabe, and struggle with sister churches of all denominational stripes who appeal with activities versus just the plain “fellowship of the saints.” Our deacons are gray haired, and our congregation mainly middle aged with a small youth group and a scattering of young couples with children. We represent the mainstream of Southern Baptist life today scattered over 38,000 churches. We are grieved when some (a minority) tells us “you are doing it all wrong” but then tell us we should be more tolerant of the opinions and practices of others (their opinion, their practices).
Take for example our displaying of the flags in the front of the sanctuary. There are many of the “that’s wrong” folks who would tell us that we are desecrating the worship of the true God while displaying an American and Christian flag in the sanctuary – that we are “Americanizing” the gospel – whatever that means. To tell you the truth, we never thought of it that way at all. The church bought a couple of display flags for the sanctuary in the 1940’s. When the church burned down in 1985, a couple of more flags were bought and are on display in the sanctuary today. We are authentically Baptists who unlike the liturgical church do not deify objects or use a large number of worship aids in worshiping that which is True “in Spirit and in Truth.” We have the Ten Commandments (to remind of us of what is moral and holy living), the Church Covenant (our responsibilities as members one to another), a display banner (which currently quotes Isaiah “…they shall mount up with wings like eagles…” – the messages are seasonal), a pulpit (a monster of one made of oak), the Lord’s Table (with the traditional inscription, “In Remembrance of Me”) a large display Bible, two candles, a beautiful mosaic stained glass window in the baptistery depicting Jesus in the Garden on the night of his betrayal, a screen with projector, sound and computer equipment, and the two flags (which one of our members who is a veteran made sure we were displaying “right”). None of these objects are used in terms of “worship” and are rarely commented upon during services. Besides the obvious “tools” (such as projectors and sound equipment), the rest are just ornamentation with an intentional symbolism.
One could make an argument “why have any decoration at all”? Granted a legitimate argument is that any decoration could theoretically take away true worship, distracting as it might be in worshiping God. The Quakers do make such an argument for you will not find any worship decorations at all besides a table and a chair in a Quaker church. But I don’t see that problem associated with the “why the flag” crowd – they are more than likely (this is antidotal admittedly) to have more worship aids in the sanctuary than less. Of course we have the “what the flag represents” crowd who would crow more about the atrocities of an imperfect human government, fawning more over the sins of a people rather than their accomplishments (so Old Testament that). If we are comparing perfection with imperfection then they are right. But some want to compare (and have compared on this blog) the display of the Swastika with the Stars and Stripes. If you are of that mind, I kindly invite you to come and share that with a couple of my older saints – men who represented the Stars and Stripes against the Swastika. These men never owned slaves, nor did they commit genocide against native tribes. They did help rescue the world from a mass-murdering crazy lunatic and the nation(s) that followed him. They witnessed with their own eyes the atrocities of what pure evil can do if not confronted culturally. What they lack in stamina today, they more than make up for it in passion. And while you may not appreciate the word journey they will take you on, you will be better for it and your rhetoric may become more “enlightened.” I least I hope and pray so.
So why do we have the flags displayed? I can only speak for us and no one else, so do not take this as a universal “truth.” I admit there can be “right” and “wrong” reasons to do anything, however I do believe we have the “right” reason here. That reason is clearly found in our minutes from the 1940’s business meeting when the vote was taken to purchase the flags. The time was during World War II, and many young men from our church family were overseas or preparing to be overseas. Some of them did not come back – they made the ultimate sacrifice their country asked of them leaving behind their grieving families with a church family to grieve for them as well. Wednesday night prayer meetings were packed with people wall to wall in earnest prayer for the survival of the nation and the continuation of the gospel to all the nations through the mayhem and chaos that war brings. The front pew often had to be re-stained every few months from the tears shed by the people who prayed for the end of the war and the return of their fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts who went off to be in harms way. Someone then suggested that the American flag and the Christian flag be purchased and then displayed in the sanctuary. The debate then ensued about what purpose it would serve – mere patriotism would not suffice. The people in that business meeting decided that the flags would not harm true worship – they were not symbolizing the pre-eminence of the nation over God, or even patriotism and nationalism over the Kingdom of God. The flag was not and is not a “worship aid.” It merely is displayed (the minutes actually say this) as a “…reminder for prayer.” A prayer aid! To remind the saints in worship to pray for their nation, the nations leaders, “…and all of those in authority.” To pray that the gospel be sent and heard by the nation so that all people within the States could hear and respond to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The flag would be a vivid reminder so that a righteous people could pray “…for the healing of their land.” The Christian flag would also serve as a prayer aid, a reminder that “…when one part hurts we all hurt…” – a vivid symbolic display in the local church of being united with the Church Universal, with Christians all over the world forming one Body whose Head is Christ – of whom we are commanded to pray for and support. As Communion (represented by the Lord’s Table) is a call to remember what Christ did for the Body, so our little congregation remembers to pray for our nation and fellow believers with the flags being the symbolic reminders to pray. They are no more, and no less than that. And besides, is this not a time to pray for our nation and world plunging into darkness? To pray for Christians everywhere, many who are in bondage and suffering? What IS the problem of being called to prayer for a nation that has given us the ability that many Christians around the world do not have as a luxury: openly and freely worshiping and witnessing for the Lord Jesus Christ?
What others do or don’t do everywhere else is kind of irrelevant to us. Just because the Norwegians do not display flags in churches is not a relevant or useful argument with us. Just the other day I reminded the folks about that 1940’s business meeting, and the reason why we display the flags in sanctuary. The prayer that night was in earnest: prayers for the nation and her leaders; prayer for our brothers and sisters in Christ everywhere. Like all the other reminders in our sanctuary, these are a good thing. Despite what may be the opinions of others, we will keep them up. We are not accountable to the nay-sayers – we are accountable to God alone.
I am a little frustrated. You see, when I read blogs these days I get a sense of a people whose sole purpose is the cast aside all “tradition” for the sake of “because.” No invitations (so unbiblical) no flags (so American) no standing up against cultural sin and standing up for what is true, holy, and righteous conduct (a waste of time). I witness some who have no problem in disparaging Christians from being engaged in trying to take a stand culturally with others of like mind who may not be Christian (“hypocrisy, adulterous, idolatry”), yet have no problem in standing for edgy methods of engaging the culture which in and of itself may also be idolatrous (cursing in services, popcorn and peanuts during worship, allowing non-Christians to take over church buildings to worship their false gods, etc. etc.). Those who would never desire any level of criticism as to their doctrinal beliefs are more than willing to sling mud on others over weather or not to have an invitation, if tithing is a good thing, or if the 4th Commandment is for all of God’s creation and a moral command (rooted as it is in Genesis) or if it is irrelevant today. And of course if one is a dispensationalist like a vast majority of our traditional churches are, then they are theologically heading to Hades in a hand basket. How quaint!
I am frustrated. I see the vast number of young seminarians rushing to go “everywhere else” except to shepherd a small church in need of some fresh air and a new beginning. Some of these young seminarians do not want to deal with the “antiquated” beliefs of these established churches – they avoid them like a plague. They more often than not start new churches, or hook up with the “in” crowd. How bitterly sad that seminaries built upon the good will contributions of thousands of small churches in the hopes that young men will be trained to perpetuate the work of the Gospel in their communities will never see the benefits of why they are giving to these institutions in the first place because these young men don’t want to minister with them! What exactly are they teaching at these places anymore? “With those with ears to hear, let him hear!”
Of course the biggest part of my frustration with these head wise but heart weak know-it-alls is this: they assume that people in the pews are weak, stupid, and ignorant. They look with a hyper-critical eye at the sheep to determine the undeterminable: if they are saved or not. A couple of points here that I have concluded after some time in ministry: 1) I don’t know and 2) I will never know on this side. I preach the Truth every Sunday. I walk it and talk it within the best of my abilities and the gifts that God has by His grace given to me. Most of my flock does the same. We often fail. Guess what? That does not make us hypocrites – that makes us sinners one and all. I have carefully gone over the fruits of the spiritual life with my church family – the love chapters in 1 John so that folks can make a self-diagnosis where they stand. Those in sin we have confronted – many of them have not returned to the fold for they were not of us. But I do not assume that I know more than my folks – many times they teach me more than I know – and that is a good thing. In that I am more apt to listen to the wisdom of my older saints rather than that of young novices – it has to do with experience. It just seems to me the churches of blogmeisters seem to garner wisdom of the young and wish to ditch the old because they think they are “ignorant.”
There are a lot more things my friends we have in common than we have apart. We need as a community to seek them rather than embrace conflict as a way of life. I understand that conflict in and of itself is a part of the human condition. I also know that our Lord said that they (the world) would know us by our love for one another. In my frustration I am sure I have rubbed people the wrong way. Forgive me in my failure to live up to my own standards. Let us work through our frustrations with this concluding thought: while both you and I may see things that are “wrong” in one another (and it is our duty as siblings to lovingly point these things out) it is our Father who will eventually correct us alone, all by Himself.
Now may God bless you in your work today!



Well said…even if it is a bit long in getting to the point. You truly must be a Baptist preacher (coming from a fellow preacher)!
Sola Gratia!
Thanks Scott. Somewhere I have picked up that if I can’t say in 2000 words or more, then I can’t say it. It truly must be the preacher in me
Rob
Rob,
My short answer to the general point of this post, as I understand it, is: We need to be free to voice our opinion on what we feel the Word of God teaches, and what we feel is the best application of the teaching of the Word of God to our present situation. Yet, we also need to be careful to do so without coming across as condescending and superior to those who see things differently.
My longer and more complete treatment of these thoughts can be found here:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/12/26/church-reform-and-christian-unity/
Regarding the specific issue of flags in churches, for me, the problem is the symbolism of competing loyalties. I understand that the great majority of those who display the American flag in church do not do so with idolatry in their hearts. But, I do think nationalism and national pride can be an idol, and is, indeed, a prominent idol in our society today. Thus, whatever seems to go hand-in-hand with that mentality is probably not best.
I also think an important part of the Christian message (i.e. the gospel) is the universality of salvation in Christ, and the transcendence of national differences and loyalties. Thus, for example, I would have a whole lot less of a problem with displaying flags of all of the nations (or at least, a good many of them) in church.
In communicating this idea, though, I hope to be respectful of and gentle with those who think differently.
“I am a little frustrated. You see, when I read blogs these days I get a sense of a people whose sole purpose is the cast aside all “tradition” for the sake of “because.”
If that’s what you think, I fear you’re 1) reading the wrong blogs, or 2) not reading them carefully enough.
While we must guard against chronological snobbery, there’s nothing sacred about traditions. To use the example you most highlighted, the tradition of putting flags up just “because” is no more right than taking them down just because. However, I think the folks who opt against flags do so out of conviction. I know we do. I notice your church didn’t put up a German, Japanese or Russian flag as a “prayer reminder” even though Paul urges prayer for all leaders everywhere.
Darby and David,
It would be totally impractical to place the flag of every nation as a prayer reminder in our sanctuary. For one it is small. Two, it would be expensive. Third, I am sure as things go these days that we would always have to change out frequently – governments are fluid and loyalties change. That is why we have the Christian flag as well. You see, we pray for the nation we sojourn in and the leadership here so that we remain in peace, so that we would be the caretakers of the gospel where WE are. We pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ were they sojourn, so that they in turn pray for the leaders in their nation where THEY live. It is not idolatrous or a crime to place a reminder to prayer in a place of worship (I really do take exception to that). As I really do take exception to this idea that I do not read the right blogs, or I miss-understand the messages in them. I get the message loud and clear Darby – thus my continued frustration.
Rob
Rob:
Darby L comments and you rip him. I did not view his comment as an attack on you. Is this the way you encourage dialogue with others? Are you not open to those who view things different than you?
I see your point Rob. But I still don’t think it’s cause for frustration. I’m not frustrated by your frustration of views like mine. I thank God he has given you his Spirit and a sharp mind.
Rob,
You write:
“Those who would never desire any level of criticism as to their doctrinal beliefs are more than willing to sling mud on others over weather or not to have an invitation, if tithing is a good thing, or if the 4th Commandment is for all of God’s creation and a moral command (rooted as it is in Genesis) or if it is irrelevant today. And of course if one is a dispensationalist like a vast majority of our traditional churches are, then they are theologically heading to Hades in a hand basket.”
Isn’t it inconsistent to be a dispensationalist and also believe that the Sabbath and tithing are for today? Dispensationalists have traditionally believed the Sabbath and tithing do not apply to Christians in the dispensation of grace.
Tom,
I can protest ideas without attacking a person (“I take exception to the idea…”). I belive I did say this in #5.
Rob
Jeff,
I did say “semi-dispensationalist” in terms of eschatology (“…our eschatology is semi-dispensational…”) and failed to make that connection further in the article – perhaps in the attempt to curtail the use of many more words – oh well after 2500 words I could have added a few more for more clarity. One I think can hold to a eschatological position rooted in some phase of the position without being a “classical dispensationalist.” See my previous thoughts on the subject here: http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/04/16/the-end-times-a-confession-of-a-mini-dispensationalist/
Rob
Rob:
Is your greatest frustration about the flags?
Rob,
I was not meaning to suggest that your church should display the flags of all the countries. I was really not meaning to suggest anything regarding your church. That is up to you and the members of your church, before the Lord, to decide.
I was just commenting that, if a church were to display flags of a large number of countries, as I have seen some do, it would not communicate the same thing to me as just displaying one. But, if your church feels displaying the American flag and the Christian flag is a good way to remind you to pray, then, who am I to tell you not to do so?
If, however, I feel differently, and, on a blog, I want to politely communicate the rationale behind my thinking, I feel I should be granted the same privilege.
Perhaps a big underlying issue behind what you write here is the nature of blogs. I freely admit I will sometimes write things on a blog I would not necessarily say to some people in person, especially if I do not know them well. It is not that I am in any way ashamed of what I think, or that I feel a need to conceal my convictions. But I would not want to put people in an awkward position of having to agree or disagree with me on a particular issue, when we probably need to win each other’s respect or confidence first. On blogs, however, we all find ourselves, from time to time, dialoguing on controversial issues with people we don’t know very well.
Personally, I am not so sure that is a bad thing. I think it is good to have a forum in which we feel free to say what we really think, as long as we remember to be polite and considerate in the way we say it. But, I think our expectations of our dialogue partners should probably be a little different than if it were a normal conversation with people we don’t know all that well. Some people, for instance, are a little squeamish about writing on blogs. I can understand their squeamishness. It does make you vulnerable to having your ideas critiqued, and your self-esteem potentially attacked, as a result. But, those who venture out into the blogosphere do so, to a certain extent, at their own risk.
Also, I want to make sure I am communicating clearly. I did not mean to say it is ipso facto idolatrous to display an American flag in church. I said that the symbolism that seems to me is communicated thereby may easily be confused with idolatry. Those are two different things, in my book. I hope you are able to see the difference.
Brother Rob,
I think many overseers would echo some of the sentiments and emotions you have put in print here, but could it be that your frustration stems from wanting things a certain way of your own and you are possibly just simply not content?
It is possible that Timothy had some of this same angst and the Apostle Paul picked up on it as he rendered his advice to Timothy in his instructive and encouraging letters.
For instance,…the seminaries you implicate have always been guilty of pushing a backwards ecclesiology,…not necessarily from the books they publish and push, ….yet most churches seemed to be trained to think that a seminary qualifies an overseer and they wait for the seminary to graduate a new class ready for action. Seminaries are not designed to say…”wait a minute, these guys may or may not be qualified….let them come into the church for a while and see if they are”….that would not sell very well. So, why do you hold the seminarian’s hostage to not going to churches that have bought into a backward ecclesiology? I have been encouraged of late with the SBC,…in that, the seminaries are moving toward a more biblical view of the church….that is a good thing.
I am not really understanding your frustration though…. isn’t it a great and wonderful privilege to be in the body of Christ…..especially in a small fellowship where relationships are better maintained and intimate. It’s certainly a great joy to love on folks you get to know in small congregations. Large congregations can’t get that done very well for a host of reasons. Philippians 2 made be a sweet balm for the frustrations.
Blessings,
Chris
Rob, I hear your frustration and your pain. My heart goes out to you in more ways than you know. Sometimes ya just gotta get things off your chest.
I especially am interested in the portion where you share that so many young ministers feel they want to go anywhere but to the small churches which have prayerfully and financially made it possible for them to get educations. You are right there, Rob. Not all, but many do not want to go into a church that has traditions they find are “unbiblical”, unnecessary, behind the times, etc. It’s sad. Those churches need pastors too. They need ones who can love them where they are until the Lord does the changing as He sees fit, in His time, through the preaching of the word and the trust is built between them. That takes time, patience and endurance.
God bless you Rob. selahV
Rob,
Your position is still inconsistent. On the one hand, you affirm much less continuity between Israel and the church than the New Covenant theologian does. On the other hand, you affirm much more continuity of the Old Testament law, particularly regarding Sabbath and Tithing, than the New Covenant theologian does.
You advocate dispensationalism, yet regarding the Sabbath and tithing you advocate the hermeneutic of the polar opposite of dispensationalism – Covenant Theology. Dispensationalists teach that none of the OT is binding upon the Christian unless it is repeated in the NT. Covenant theologians teach that all of the OT is binding upon the Christian unless is repealed in the NT. New Covenant Theologians teach that we understand how the OT applies to the Christian by seeing how it is fulfilled in the NT. You are a theological schizophrenic – a dispensationalist with a Covenant Theology hermeneutic regarding the Sabbath and tithing.
Therefore, you are critiquing the New Covenant theologian from a position that is incoherent, without precedent in church historian, and without support from any major writing theologian. And then you have the audacity to accuse the “New Covenant” theologian of believing “nonsense” because he is not persuaded by your inconsistent and incoherent attempt at a theological system.
Hey Rob good post. I think it is important because from my missiological perspective it highlights an important thing. The issue for me is not whether you have flags or not but how are you impacting your community for Jesus. Obviously, in your community people wave the flag, vote Republican, and watch too much Fox News. Those are not bad things, they are irrelevant things. If you want to reach those people for Jesus then you need to put up a flag and say, ‘Hey, Jesus loves middle class Americans! You don’t need to become Jewish to be a follower of Jesus, he loves you like you are.’ As they come to faith in Jesus and learn to love Him better and deeper some things may change. Maybe they will grow kinder and gentler. Maybe they will learn to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. But let us be clear. The flag is not the point, Jesus is.
On the other hand, what some of these blogs may be getting at- I don’t know which ones you are reading- is that perhaps if we want to reach liberals in New Hampshire then we had better present Jesus just the same. But we don’t need to talk about the flag, abortion, or homosexuality. The truth is that if folks from New Hampshire suddenly started voting Republican, lobbying against abortion, and teaching against homosexuality they would still be going to Hell. They don’t need to be more conservative, they need Jesus. If they turned to Jesus perhaps they would become kinder and gentler. Perhaps their thoughts would clear and they would begin to see the insanity of killing the unborn. Perhaps they would begin to offer hope to the homosexual instead of damning him to eternity as himself. But the point is none of these things, the point is Jesus.
The context of Church is important. It’s aim is always Jesus but its content is the people who make it up. Church is a community and no community needs to change in order to make God love it more. God loves you and your community and don’t ever let anyone tell you that you are second class or behind the times. Its YOUR culture and you should be as proud of it as anyone else. But, when planting a church elsewhere let them have the same privilege of being who Jesus wants them to be right where they are, as a witness to the broken community they are being called out of.
Wow, this is not as long as your post but it is too long. Sorry.
Rob,
I understand your angst.
Strider,
If one preaches the entire message of God, whether it is in liberal New Hampshire, or Conservative Mississippi; he will touch them where they live. When Paul approached those folk on Mars Hill, he approached them in their most visible area of need. You are correct that the issue is “Jesus” and I doubt that Rob would disagree. What he appears to be disagreeing with is the tendency of younger pastors, professors, and those who want to be thought of as young to imply by their writings that pastoring in a traditional setting is where one’s backdrop does not resemble that of a late night talk show host is somehow suddenly “out of touch.”
Tom,
I don’t think Rob “ripped” Darby at all. In fact, he simply countered with his own perspective in a perfectly gentlemanly manner.
Rob,
Why didn’t Jesus get frustrated? Was it His God-side or human-side that made the difference? I do think He got frustrated and he didn’t have to deal with TV evangelist, book clubs or what translation of the Bible to use. You may be experiencing the “comformation” period of life that we find in Romans 8:29. Preachers have it worse, though.
Good post.
Strider,
I agree with your comment. I think context determines a lot about how we present the message and what parts of ourselves to leave behind.
I think there are many places where a well done traditional service would be a huge success. I think what makes many traditional services “blah” is that it is something a church will do to appease a certain group and thus they do it as some kind of cheesy tribute to the past and so it just smacks of sentimentality. That doesn’t mean that is how it has to happen, and someone who would take that crowd seriously would do well.
One thing many contemporary guys seem to miss is that for many postmodern “losties” when they have deep questions and problems to the point that they go looking for answers, they are more likely to find a traditional structure–it seems more legit with a steeple and a cross–rather than someone with a piercing in a coffee shop.
I think the important thing is for each side to see the need for the other. Many of the church models [purpose driven, missional, A29, Family integrated, etc] have the foundational premise that if you are doing church any other way that you somehow are not doing/being church. I think the analogy of the body on the individual level also works at the corporate level. There is a need for the traditional church full of history, ritual [the good kind], and stability. There is also the need for the more organic models which are edgier and have the freedom to adapt to new contexts. I think the problem is that we often choose the one we like and then demonize the other side–I know I have been guilty of that as I have shifted from paradigm to paradigm.
Strider,
Actually, I would say my particular view on flags in church is not really driven by concerns of contextualization. There are, indeed, certain issues and decisions, which are, at the core, issues of appropriate contextualization. But, then, there are core convictional issues, the “stumbling block(s)” of the gospel, if you will, that transcend(s) culture. And, I believe gospel faithfulness will require us, at times, to be counter-cultural, whether in Middle Earth, or the good ole’ USA.
My goal, for example, would be to give a biblically balanced approach to flags in church, abortion, and homosexuality, in whatever cultural context I find myself. While I recognize my own cultural biases and limitations in objectivity, I do not, as a result, give up on my on-going quest for biblical balance and objectivity.
Of course, I am not telling you anything here you do not already know. And, I am sure there are some “blogmeisters” out there who are mostly driven by a need to be trendy and on the cutting edge. And, I do not claim to be entirely exempt from that temptation myself. But, that is not the full explanation of what is going on, in regard to the issues Rob brings up, in my opinion. And, it cuts both ways. Traditionalists, as well as Reformers, can be driven by conformity to cultural expectations. It’s just a different set of cultural expectations.
I am attempting to catch up – busy morning that.
Tom Parker (#11) -
No it is not my “greatest” frustration – it was listed first, and received the most ink from me and others. I don’t think I have quantified my “gripes” (if I can say that) in any listing – they just happened to flow in the order I gave – and I did not list them all (I was already long)
Rob
I think life is going to be full of frustrations because the world does not work and act like we want it to. From three red lights on Monday morning to what I’m sitting on during a Sunday service, chances are I’m going to find something disagreeable to my preferences. Pent up frustration boils over into anger and that can lead to outbursts, damaging words, and simple arrogance.
I suppose if I wanted to I could find much to complain about, whether it be in a traditional or more contemporary church. Neither side wants to be cast off or forgotten. When churches commit to sing only hymns, it makes me, as a younger person, feel like the musical contributions of my generation are unwanted or not good enough. Perhaps that’s why younger pastors and seminarians are avoiding traditional churches. If their music can’t compare to that of previous generations, why should they try to preach, since it will likely not be as good as that of previous generations either?
David (#12) -
I am not disagreeing that writers should not have the freedom to express agreement/disagreement with stated positions. Jeff called me a “theological schizophrenic” primarily because I IMHO believe he is upset that I said that NCT is “nonsense” (and he did not even put his criticism “in a loving way”
).
I have done my share of skewering on blogs on certain positions because of my strongly held convictions of what is right/wrong, good/bad, moral/immoral, biblical/unbiblical – so no I have no problem in criticizing, or being criticized. I have also posted on this blog my held positions and beliefs and have been skewered (one of my first critics on something I wrote on this blog was Peter Lumpkins – shucks that was brutal).
I got into the blogging world primarily out of the chaos that the IMB guidelines provided. I disagreed with the IMB and stated so to both the chairman (who graciously called me at the time) and other IMB trustees (the two from Missouri I had lunch with). I believed at the time that Trustees held to a very narrow interpretation of Baptism and Prayer Language without sufficient Convention input, superimposing them over the agreed to Baptist Faith and Message. While I have intent of reopening this discussion here, suffice it to say that I believe that while I agreed to some of the arguments for imposing the requirements on Missionaries, I disagreed more with the lack of transparency of the board, and their folly of “take it or leave” attitude. And while many of my compatriot bloggers agreed with me, many also have the same spirit of those trustees – we are right, you are wrong, and you are dumb, stupid, “inconsistent” “schizophrenic” “backwards” if you do. It is that spirit that I oppose.
Rob
Rob,
One of my frustrations on a related note is the patriotism found in worship services on particular American holidays i.e. Memorial Day 2009 Worship Service.
I agree with Jeff about the dispensationalism and the Law and tithe, but that’s another post.
Would a traditional church such as yours really want a young seminary graduate who would want to do away with the Flag due to theological conviction? Maybe it is a better for both parties for them not to seek out more traditional churches.
Like David said, whether or not you all choose to display the Flag or not is between you and God. I might disagree or not feel comfortable, but I’m not going to tell you it’s dead wrong. Along these lines is where I find some tension in your post. If you are comfortable ranting out of frustration on these issues shouldn’t those who disagree be free to do the same? If you are comfortable displaying the Flag yet which is admittedly not of eternal value then shouldn’t those who aren’t comfortable with the Flag be given the same freedom?
I’m not sure I understand how the Flag is not counted as a worship aid while at the same time being a prayer aid. Also, the Flag does not represent all Nations. So how is a flag the solely represents America ‘a vivid symbolic display in the local church of being united with the Church Universal?” This is where I begin to see, IMO, an unhealthy connection between America and the gospel. I certainly don’t see how the Flag is to be associated with Communion. The Lord’s Supper unites Christians from all over the world and that is not the same interest of the symbolism of the American flag. All righteous people should pray for the healing of their land which may include a foreigner here in the USA attending an American church.
You may disagree that there is any possibility of a slippery slope when it comes to flags and patriotism, but I think the current non-discernment involving some Christian leaders and Glenn Beck shows that there is a concern.
My Dear Brother Chris (#13);
Your attitude and messages to me on Impact has always been one of a Barnabas even on some of my more grumpier days! May God bless you, and may your tribe increase! You are one of the many reasons I rejoice and give praise that I am in the Body of Christ – and indeed I love my church and am privileged by the grace of God to know these good people who love Jesus (and thankfully their pastor besides his quirkiness!)
No, I don’t believe I am complaining that everybody is not like me, or believes the same thing I do, or does it the same way I would. I have always been for steadfastness on the majors and diversity on the minors. For example I don’t think it says anywhere in Scripture that placing a flag (which if you think about it is just a banner that means something) is forbidden in a sanctuary. We don’t have temples (even though the Jewish temple contained all sorts of things including a Menorah which represented the Jewish people) and “church buildings” are just that – buildings. Certainly the church is no building, and the “church” can meet anywhere albeit in private homes or in shopping malls. What is important is not what is decorated inside your building per Se, but whom is in your heart I believe.
I agree with you as far as the seminaries go – but remember they are limited in what they can do per SBC polity. It would be best to set up a system in which elders are sent for OJT in various positions in the churches to serve. However our polity is not hierarchical but in the main remains congregational. Churches call pastors into service. I know I could have used a little OJT in my first pastorate – a sad thing is that some churches call young seminarians for all the wrong reasons – from their angle they can get them cheap, and they can control them somewhat. This is just as an evil as young seminarians avoiding service in the small church in my opinion. My question is “where are the professors and instructors in the seminaries who see the beauty of the small church?” (sorry – wanted to channel my friend Les Puryear a bit here).
Rob
There has been a SelahV sighting!
Hariette – thank you for all the kind words. We have traveled far together in the blog world, have we not? I certainly miss you here, and I do pop in from time to time on your site – and I do think and pray for you often. I don’t think “pain” would describe my thoughts here (I can do without blogging, and I really don’t need to listen or read anything on-line – and I have perfectly other important things that I could be doing with my time rather than being critical of other views or being criticized by others for my views) but “disappointment” and “discouraged” would be appropriate adjectives. Admittedly I was much more emotional the first time I read some things out there – not so much today, thank you. I have taken my own advice (and our good Brother Christ) to heart and God has been good.
Blessings on you sister!
Rob
Jeff (#14),
This is not a post about NCT. I raised only one word in connection to it (“nonsense”) and did not lift another finger in criticism of it. Since this is not a post about NCT (nor will it be) I will forgo further interaction with you about its content other than to say, “God bless you my brother and go with the light God has given you.”
As to my ability to be consistent, that is probably in the eye of the beholder. More than likely I am not consistent in all things, but I try to be in God’s grace. Since we often use labels in the attempt to describe our system, I am limited with one that does not describe me except in a very narrow way – something I hoped you would appreciate, but somehow my “nonsense” has turned you into (an analogy follows) a dog hanging hard onto a bone. Since I have not shared “in totality” my personal theological system, you have taken great liberties to fill in the gaps and have me pretty much boxed in. As the patient, I protest! This is not a fair system to determine my theological consistency or lack thereof. I hope you agree with me on that. At least real schizophrenics (I don’t know about theological ones – perhaps you can advise me) get a diagnosis using all available tools, often taking an MMPI II in confirming a diagnosis. Shucks either you must be a good prognosticator, or can deal out a swift spiritual diagnosis from long distance. What a gift my brother!
For the record, I have discussed my views on the Fourth Commandment in a post as well as in the comment stream here: http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/03/11/holy-day-or-holiday/
Rob
Strider (#16)
Reading your comments I thought about Mylon LaFever’s old song “Love God, Hate Sin” – “It’s not a conservative I am asking you to be..I don’t believe a certain type will set your soul free…” or something like that.
Biblical Truth is not left or right nor is it culturally rigid – it just is for all people in all cultures. If we are not sharing the complete and unvarnished truth of the gospel, then we are doing people a disservice. We already have a problem in Christianity of surface level Christians who like the assurance but do little in “taking up the cross”. The “left” hates the cross because of it’s message of holiness and righteous living. The “right” hates the cross because of its message of self sacrifice rather than self aggrandizement. You see, we get it both ways. So for the life of me I don’t get how you connect our prayer aid to all of this.
Rob
Andrew,
I hear you brother. But I do have somewhat against your words. Will a calling of God be determined merely by what songs that are acceptable in church? What about Selah’s words here – how do they stack up against your words:
“I especially am interested in the portion where you share that so many young ministers feel they want to go anywhere but to the small churches which have prayerfully and financially made it possible for them to get educations. You are right there, Rob. Not all, but many do not want to go into a church that has traditions they find are “unbiblical”, unnecessary, behind the times, etc. It’s sad. Those churches need pastors too. They need ones who can love them where they are until the Lord does the changing as He sees fit, in His time, through the preaching of the word and the trust is built between them. That takes time, patience and endurance.”
Just a short word here brother – it has taken 14 years of hard slogging, preaching, loving, exhorting, encouraging, selling to get our church where it is now. No our service is not contemporary – but it definitely could be called “semi-blended.” Something I have come to realize: I am not the Master, the Ruler, or the “rod of iron” – my “word” goes for little, and I have been disappointed much. What I am is the “servant” “messenger” “under-shepherd”. Those words took a lot of getting used to in a world of type “A” mega-church pastors who seemingly make all the rules without much gripe (with a few exceptions here or there). Not going to a place of service because they don’t do my type of music – well with respect to you, that sounds not if the problem lies with the people – the problem lies with the speaker of that tale.
Rob
Mike Rasberry,
These folks have never been involved in a discussion on the MOBaptistList. They have no idea what gentlemanly means
Rob
Rob:
We have about 60 flags mounted up high in the front of the church behind the balcony — 30 on either side. As far as I know they are not a subject of any debate. These flags represent various countries where the IMB has missionary work going on.
In the front hall of our education building we have plaques with the names, dates of service, and countries where missionaries from our church have served/are serving.
In addition to contemporary music we sometimes sing modern arrangements of “old time” hymns. By “modern” I mean special bridge sections, modulations, instrumental fills between verses, etc. I don’t think it is necessary or desirable to consider various worship styles as either “old time” or “trendy”. To me this stuff really just boils down to individual taste which is mostly a function of the generation we belong to.
I felt that the IMB was “wasting time” arguing over private prayer language and the exact criterion by which immersion baptism is “OK” for service in the IMB. I believe the situation with the IMB has vastly improved in the last couple of years because the squabbling over this stuff has been diminished by at least an order of magnitude. Most — if not all — of the beligerants in the IMB squabble are now long gone.
We are pretty patriotic around here because of the huge military presence. Tinker AFB is only about a mile from our church. I don’t think it is likely that the USA and Christian flag are going anywhere soon.
Brother Rob,
Thank you for your kind words and the willingness to introduce the subject of this post my friend. You rang the bell of what is on many a Pastor’s heart.
Your comment on the young seminarians is spot on…. Would it not be a breath of fresh air to see these seminarians take their few short years of brief classwork back into the churches in their communities and “begin to qualify” to oversee the fellowship? What an amazing sight and illustration of biblical character to aspire to oversee within the congregation through qualifications without the implied justification of commendation alone. That is the biblical view of what congregations need (lived out qualifications),….but it will take much training and deliberate leadership in the seminary movement to ascend to that sort of instruction.
Give your folks a hug for me…and I hope to meet you someday in the future.
Blessings,
Chris
Rob,
My point wasn’t about music styles, but attitudes. I believe God is calling me to overseas work, so the question of pastoring a church here isn’t high on my radar personally.
The real issue I was trying to describe is not one of musical styles, but attitudes towards the differing generations. Like I said, neither the older nor the younger generations want to be cast off or forgotten. The contributions of the older generations should not be soon forgotten nor our traditions be cast off lightly. I could just have easily said that an older man might not want to pastor a church that only sings “contemporary” music because his culture is excluded. I just chose the younger perspective because that’s the one I share.
As far as what Selah has to say, I do think it sad that many in the younger crowd don’t pay their respect to the older generation. But it is a two way street. The younger generation needs to be appreciated and affirmed as well.
And regarding giving to seminaries and making it possible for young people like myself to get an education: I think the seminary professors would take offense at your statement,
“
”
Many, not just myself, are called to overseas mission work, and I think those same churches may not see the benefits of why they are giving because we won’t be ministering in their communities either. But for those specifically called to the pastorate, churches need to recognize that they need to identify men from amongst themselves who are called to serve in the local congregation. If a church feels that those who go off to plant churches outside the South (and even in the South) are robbing them, they should stop funding their education, but those who are giving without expecting something in return are the ones to admire. When thinking of those churches that give out of love without expecting something in return, I will raise my voice with Paul in praising them as I minister to those who didn’t support me, saying “I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you” (2 Cor. 11:8).
Andrew,
No part of the body has the right to say, “I have no need of you.” Neither the young about the old – nor the old about the young. I was speaking about attitudes – the attitude of a young minister unwilling to yield his tertiary unimportant personal preference in lieu of a greater good of service to many? How can Jesus expect us to lay down our lives if we are unwilling to “give it all up?” Jesus gave His very life for the sheep – what are we willing to do for them? What did Jesus say to Peter to do for his sheep “Beat them up about a flag in the sanctuary” “Tell them ‘no way’ am I going down there without a praise band and drums!” – Tell me what did He say? “Feed my Sheep” “Feed My Lambs.”
The mature saint will not give automatic approval or respect to the young minister. Experience has taught them to withhold such approval (something you will learn) until it is earned. With some it may mean a simple visit in the home. It may happen at that first hospital visit. Or it may only happen after two or three years (at which time the young minister has passed the hurdle – most of these young guys move on after eighteen months to two years to bigger and better things).
So – you are telling me that a small church of say forty who are predominantly made up of seniors and a few single moms with kids should find someone from their midst (or die) – no I know you did not say those words in parenthesis – but that will be the result. And by the way most of these churches do not say a peep about their need – they just dutifully send in their checks, Praise the Lord, pray for the lost, and pray that God would send their way someone not a novice with a little education who will love them and teach them to be better Christians and disciples. They are praying for guys just like you who see the need in their mission fields to help them reach people where they are for Christ. This is no slight against seminaries and those who lead and teach in them (I know plenty of those guys – some personally) – call it a challenge – how many of them truly, truly, truly encourage students to see the need in our established small churches to preach and teach the gospel? Who are the heroes who teach and mentor guys who would be willing to give it all up – even some of their precious conscience over superfluous non-consequential tertiary stuff – in order to get it done?
Rob
Mark (#24),
As to your second question of me, I can truthfully say that I do not believe that a search committee of my church would ask such a question of a pastoral candidate. A position on the flag would be so superfluous and tertiary that no one would even think to ask it – there would be greater fish to fry in terms of evaluation on more important and meatier subjects. Now of course if the candidate made an observation about the flag and shared his feelings about it, they would probably consider his position so ridiculous that they would drop him – “We need a Pastor, and all this guy is worried about is the flag in the sanctuary?”
Your first question is beating a scare crow. Our church has not had any special services in honor of American holidays inside a worship service. I have recognized veterans on Memorial Day, as I would recognize school children for awards won in class. I really do not understand this aversion to patriotism and simple appreciation of one’s nation that some of you guys seem to hold like a cloak tightly held on to during a rain storm.
You said: “…the Flag does not represent all Nations. So how is a flag the solely represents America ‘a vivid symbolic display in the local church of being united with the Church Universal?” Quite obviously you did not read carefully or merely skimmed over when I talked about the two flags – One American – One Christian. It was the Christian Flag (you know, blue corner, red cross, white field – “I Pledge Allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands…” – I went to VBS, did you?) which is, “…a vivid symbolic display in the local church of being united with the Church Universal.” Golly you must really believe I bleed Red, White, and Blue!
You probably should have stopped, Mark, when you wrote this sentence, “Like David said, whether or not you all choose to display the Flag or not is between you and God.” Then you go on and preach to me about why you don’t believe it to be a good thing. 1) In my article I did not focus on why others should put the flag in the sanctuary – just why we as a church did. It has never been a problem for me why churches do not put a flag on display in the sanctuary – my concern has been why folks like you would demean those of us that do 2)What you do or don’t do or what you can convince a church to do or not to do is between you and God and I would not want it any other way – I have given you a positive reason why we do something, and your response is a negative reason why you (and by inference we) should not do it at all. And in the process, you even get me all wrong by not reading my post correctly.
My final response in love to you then is this: “Like all the other reminders in our sanctuary, these (the flags) are a good thing. Despite what may be the opinions of others, we will keep them up. We are not accountable to the nay-sayers – we are accountable to God alone.” And all people said, “A-Men”
Rob
Chris and Rob,
Regarding young seminarians and churches: perhaps seminary is not the best way to train pastors–I am convinced it is not the answer for missionaries.
Rob,
My first issue about patriotic worship was not a question. Obviously you didn’t read carefully or merely skimmed my short sentence.
Your response in love? Where might that be?
Give me a break.
Rastis,
You bring up an important point, and one not readily embraced by the current seminarian environment. I am quick to say…that the information that the seminary itself investigates, its libraries and attempts to disseminate can be very helpful and is helpful to many. The issue though is two fold,… (1) seminaries only teach a small slice of the churches needs and (2) it is done in the wrong direction. This can effectively be changed for the benefit of the churches, and in some very small ways it is trying to be done within a few of the seminarian circles. But, the current concept (seminary structure) of getting this “small slice” of information back to the churches is disruptive and slow, and the initiative is backward.
The best way to train is local. So, how this is to be achieved is the question. We have the scriptures that teach us the localized methodology, but we tend to enjoy traditions that have the smell of success….so we ignore the churches (which is one of the frustrations brought up by Rob) by sending men out of the church for training, instead of making the training available where they are. …so that they (these local seminarians) will by the Spirits leading aspire to oversee the fellowship as well as be lead by the Spirit to go out to evangelize the world. This is the pure methodology explained by the Apostles,….but we tend to like the “Catholic” seminary hierarchical design much better so far…. Even as the SBC seminary experience is historically an infant. That’s not to say that our SBC seminaries teach “smoking canister methods” or other bizarre stuff…. But the concept of the SBC education can only become hierarchical through its pedagogical trappings, thus resulting in a small local church in the middle of Iowa longing for the day they can afford one of those guys coming out of the mill.
The current process, even with the good that comes out of it, is just simply backward thinking…..
My aim (I’m 50) in the next 30 years is to slowly change the seminary experience (that small slice of information) to local. It can be done, …and I think it would be a tremendous benefit in the life of the local churches. So that the missionaries that are encouraged to move forth from the local churches are well connected as they go and do the will of God. We have several fellowships beginning to do this now…its hard, but hugely beneficial!
Blessings,
Chris
Rob,
You’re missing what I’m saying and are talking past me. I’ll be glad to dialogue with you when your responses bear evidence of an attempt to interact with my thoughts. You’ve read so much into them that a point-by-point response would only serve to legitimize your handling of my statements.
Rastis,
I agree that young Seminarians are ill prepared to lead congregations, or do missions effectively.
Time was when young men would serve in a church after seminary and that first full time church would teach them some things that would stand them in good stead over the course of the years, but now these guys come out of seminary without a learner’s heart. There seems to prevail a sort of spiritual snobbery amongst many of them which prevents them from serving traditional churches because they don’t seem to want the hassle of dealing with any tradition. Rather they want to start a new work made in their own image of what church should be.
The seminary life is responsible for this state of affairs, and one day we’ll quit pouring boatloads of monies into these institutions which seem almost to have forgotten why they exist.
Rob:
You continue to dismay me with the way you go after people who try to interact with you. I’m really suprised by now that any would try and converse with you who hold a different view than you do. You’re just too on the edge and react harshly and wordy to many things that simply should not frustrate you.
But, I am just saying. People are really trying to just have a conversation with you.
Tom – stop being so critical at my every step, converse on the subject at hand, or get out of here. Your choice.
Andrew – I am listening – what is it that you are trying to say?
Mark – I notice no interaction from you at all – no humility for owning your own mistakes in understanding me, yet a clear rebuke for misunderstanding you. Not much humility there at all – just a visceral reaction of condescension. Now we can either get back on the right track, or you can go away in a huff – I prefer the former. But if I can’t dialogue with you on an equal footing using the same method you used for me (and I did not call you names, cast aspersions on your character – just merely engaged you in ideas “as iron sharpens iron”) then we are apt to fail in our conversation. Your choice now.
Rob
Bro. Rob.
Bullseye.
Thanks for saying, what others are feeling. God Bless
All,
Sometimes we don’t need to know the details or understand why things frustrate us, we simply need to look for the simplicity in scripture and simply just keep going. Many of you seem to be looking at the brush strokes and not the picture itself.
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Romans 8:29
It is in that conforming process that life itself forms Christ into our lives. We are predestined to the furnace and Christ goes with us all the way even though He has already been there before. How did the Christian in Jesus day handle the same problem brought up in this post? Then, we need to learn from them because that is how Christianity remains today.
All in love. (smiley face)
Rob:
You said to me:”Tom – stop being so critical at my every step, converse on the subject at hand, or get out of here. Your choice.”
Wow!How am I being critical of you?
And you said–Or get out of here???
Where is the love, brother?
I know you are frustrated, but the Lord has allowed you to be a Pastor and frustration comes with the territory.
BTW, I really appreciate your giving me a choice.
Rob,
Your reply did frustrate me and I will point out why below. I was tempted to be annoyed at this reply, but you did say, “Now we can either get back on the right track… I appreciate that. I don’t believe we are each others’ enemy.
A position on the flag would be so superfluous and tertiary that no one would even think to ask it…
Yet you essentially wrote a whole post about it.
Now of course if the candidate made an observation about the flag and shared his feelings about it, they would probably consider his position so ridiculous that they would drop him..
Maybe so, but another point of view could be that this pastor may have some insight and leadership the congregation needs and so flag may easily be removed. But if the feelings are that strong which party is really making them an issue?
My first “question” wasn’t a question. It was a post to a related point in my opinion. I stated the reasons in the post as to the aversion of the worship service focusing on patriotism. You can see in the comments that some pastors agreed with me and it helped them work through some issues.
Quite obviously you did not read carefully or merely skimmed over when I talked about the two flags – One American – One Christian. It was the Christian Flag (you know, blue corner, red cross, white field – “I Pledge Allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands…” – I went to VBS, did you?) which is, “…a vivid symbolic display in the local church of being united with the Church Universal.” Golly you must really believe I bleed Red, White, and Blue!
Note the mocking tone in the description of the Christian Flag. Also, note the “Golly” comment neither of which helped my attitude in my previous comment. (Though it is my responsibility to not response in kind.) I did not go to VBS, I was raised in a sect of Mormonism. Please understand my confusion as you went from talking about the debate over both flags to talking about a flag (singular). You do go on to say, “The Christian flag would also…” which may be clear in your mind of what you meant, but it wasn’t in mine. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Also, not that it matters much, but I’m still unclear how something can not be a worship aid yet be a prayer aid. Maybe my issue here stems from too many years debating Roman Catholics on Marian prayers and the like.
You probably should have stopped, Mark, when you wrote this sentence, “Like David said, whether or not you all choose to display the Flag or not is between you and God.” Then you go on and preach to me about why you don’t believe it to be a good thing.
I believe you were writing while frustrated and spoke of people who “don’t get it.” Some of us do get it, but we don’t always agree. Am I not allowed to counter your points with another perspective? Don’t you also agree that this issue is personally between others and God? If so, why did you even write the article of your personal opinion for public consumption?
Just as you are pushing back on those who might disagree I’m offering the same. I’m not “preaching” in an attempt to change your mind. Hopefully, I’m giving you and others reading some things to think about in the same manner you are giving me and others things to think about. I’m not claiming that no church should ever display flags. I’m personally uncomfortable with it and would prefer that the church I serve not do so. Thankfully, I’m not alone, but we still honor our veterans. We recently honored our 13 (if memory serves) WWII veterans who are church members.
I understand that you think the flags are a good thing. I say, generally speaking, that they may or may not be a good thing given the circumstances and the way they are used.
Do you believe there should be any concern for patriotism in the church in light of the recent support of Mormon Glenn Beck and some Christian leaders?
Twenty years ago (when I was a young man) the younger generation of Southern Baptist Pastors were being scolded for not being “Mission-Minded”, and not wanting to do the difficult work of a missionary, and for not starting New Churches… Everyone said to these young preachers (Calvinist in particular) we do not want you in our pulpits; why don’t you go start a New Church or something. How very well I remember the door being slammed in my face by some of these very churches who now cannot find a minister at all.
Fast forward twenty years to today, and now a new generation of “Mission-Minded” Church Planters are being scolded for not desiring to minister in these very same churches who over the years have made it clear that they do not want “their kind” in their pulpits…
There is an old saying that goes something like this; “Be careful what you pray for, God just might give you exactly what you ask.”
Grace Always,
Greg
Hi ROB AYERS
you wrote this: “I am frustrated that many in Christian circles “don’t get it.”
I remember, my first week of teaching in the inner city, coming home to my family and expressing my frustration. I vented . . . ‘there’s so much my students can’t do, they’ve been so neglected, they can’t behave well, they can’t get along with one another . . .
they can’t . . ”
My five-year Joel put his hand up to stop me,
and he said, very simply, this:
‘MOM, TEACH THEM’
I got quiet and looked at him who gave had the answer I needed to hear, and coming from my small child, all the more clearly I could understand.
So, in the midst of your frustrations, I share with you his wisdom:
and when ‘they don’t get it’,
be at peace, focus on what is most important: Our Lord,
and ‘teach them’. Here is some encouragement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4CapSBM8UA&feature=related
Teh best thing in your presentation was the story about the Church deliberations in the 40′s that put the flags up there to begin with.
I also like David Rogers response. Not to needlessly provoke David, I imagine his Dad’s friend Ed McAteer woulda been of a different disposition, but maybe David’s time in Spain helped him get past McAteer. If only it could get him back in the BWA.
I digress.
I don’t think it would be the end of the world if your church put a few challenging books in their Library for discussion.
I suggest STand With Christ, the Keith Durson bio of George Truett–your gray hairs will like the story of Truett’s ambassadorship for USA during WWII; and maybe a book by Fisher Humphreys.
If Shakespeare and the KJV of the Bible was all Lincoln read; then it should be good enough for your people. Still it wouldn’t hurt to step outside the thinking box a little.
I grew up in a fairly large church (it wasn’t called a mega church in the 70s) where I can remember during every morning of vbs we would have 3 kids do the flag precession and all would recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag, the Christian flag and the Bible. Was that so wrong? In GA’s, we would write different missionaries, collect for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings. The co-op was a good thing. FMB was a one story building in a small part of Richmond. Centrifuge was the goal to make to Ridgecrest, NC.
Now that same church 20 years later, struggles to keep the Baptist name in the 1st Baptist Church of whatever town even with a charter back in the 40s. They have replaced the beautiful oak pulpit and communion table (in remembrance of me) with a Lucite podium and a world etched in the center on the open stage. There are flags of almost every nation to represent the missionaries and the lost….they have removed the hymnals and the holders to make a more modern look of the old pew (surprised they haven’t replaced them with the proper worship chair) The baptistery now has a screen in front of it for the PowerPoint – I remembered it being installed, the stain glass work was amazing – and is only seen during a baptismal.
I worship in two places….Saturday night is very contemporary and all about presentation (I do the PowerPoint) but Sunday morning, I found a small sbc that does the traditional hymns. I have friends who don’t get it either and in their defense, they don’t have that experience. What seems old fashion and traditional can’t be worship. But the biggest difference in worship – the traditional hymns have history and if you knew the history the worship to me was enhanced….but with that, many worshipers do not read music….they learn a song from the radio, cds and even just the worship leader/PowerPoint catchy chorus……I think for all generations, a blend can be a good thing…..one or the other shouldn’t be the only options…..having 2 flags, 1000 flags or no flags isn’t the issue…..worshiping the one God — God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit…having accountability…”Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it”……..knowing accepting Jesus as the Savior and publicly being Baptized, and participating in communion “in remembrance of him”…I know where my salvation lies…”In the Old Rugged Cross”
I watched Steve Gaines on Television on Many occasions when he was at FBC Gardendale, Al
And now that Dora has mentioned it; on no occasion on those hourlong services do I remember the church on a Sunday morning taking the Eucharist, doing Communion.
I guess there was no Way the PR wing of Gdale’s staff could figure out how to work a Football metaphor into the Breaking of the Bread and Drinking of the Cup.
Roll Tide.
Mark, (and all)
I am sorry for the delay of responding back to you (hope you are still listening!) Ministry obligations kept me away, as I had a series of crises occurred in short order beginning Thursday. The part about “confronting people in sin” was one of my duties this weekend -and I have never liked that part of the job – I despise it. While it may not seem like so from the written word, I truly I am a “people person” whose greatest need is appreciation and whose greatest fear is conflict. I control with God’s grace these strengths and weaknesses and ask Him for strength in my weaknesses.
Now Mark our continued dialogue – and in fact I am glad you responded! We indeed are not each others enemies, but friends and fellow soldiers in the battle for souls.
It is true that the post essentially dealt with the one issue of the flags – that is a legitimate criticism. My intent was to diagram a few of my frustrations together in a stream – the flag issue came first in direct response to the comments in this post by David Rogers:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/07/19/whats-more-important-theology-or-saving-america/ – specifically comments #103-111 with #109 and #110 getting a paragraph each. Both of us participated in that comment stream – admittedly before these series of comments. This was the first brick in my “frustration list. In that comment stream there is no attempt to clear the way for a “balanced approach” save from the administrations of a veteran with the moniker “SSBN.” Comment #109 is what really flew me into a spastic hoedown – comparing (in so many words) the connection of “national pride” and moral “relativism” in displaying both the Stars and Stripes with the Swastika in churches. As I said, our church never considered (or at least did not write down in the minutes) the issue of patriotism in displaying the flags. Just the idea that the flags represented a people that needed praying for. That was what I was trying to communicate.
Now I try to curtail and limit my comments on fellow posters blogs – *boys, I really do
* For one, I don’t like “taking over” – not proper etiquette – and two – I have another outlet in promoting another post in response to theirs. In some ways I did that with this one. And if I put one item up onto the list first, it is just because it was the first one on my mind.
My answer – the party which first mentioned it. They (the first one who mentioned it) are the one making it an issue – they are the one who have place importance on it. Thus my belief that my church’ committee would respond as I suggested – they would never mention it first, and would respond to the candidate who mentioned it as placing importance on something they never would.
Perhaps we are coming across from a different background of raising. In my case it was Southern Baptist – these things I have mentioned would not be surprises to those who had the background for them. I must remind you again that these symbols (although we have refereed to them as “worship” or “prayer” aids are not items that are used as “worship tools” as Roman Catholics would use all the forms of symbolism in their churches. Historically SB’s have held to the reformed belief that extraneous symbolism is a form of idolatry which violates the Second Commandment (see my post here on the subject:http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/08/27/the-second-commandment-the-basis-of-worship/. Yet I do not believe the displaying the National and Christian flags violate the Second Commandment if done for the right reasons. We place offerings of money (mammon) on display on the table as a symbol of worship – but I really do not hear of any argument of removing “unrighteous mammon” from the sanctuary which more people idolize than they ever do a flag. That is because money is displayed as an “offering, a sacrifice of praise” as the flags are displayed in my church as a “reminder to prayer.” As to my other comments that you found disparaging, I do plead guilty to an often unhealthy degree of sarcasm which only occurs on blog posts. Forgive me.
As to Glen Beck and the indigestion that many have of him. 1)I have never watched the “Glen Beck” show, 2)I have never read a Glen Beck book 3)I know that I have a grand great big problem with his theology and not so much with his conservative beliefs 4)I would never invite his to share a spot on the podium of my church, but would invite him to hear the Truth of the Real Jesus and not the make believe one from Kolob and 5)There is a balance between Salt and Light and responding in a balanced manner to both of these truths. I have no problem with combating social issues with non-believers because I get to share the truth of Jesus with them in the process. As long as I place patriotism for Country in the proper context of primarily being a sojourner and ambassador in a foreign land then I believe I have kept that proper balance. I must be willing to share the truth of the True Gospel in any case – that message has the priority over love of country. At the same time I will not be a social isolationist and allow evil to lift up its banner in the form of the Swastika or the Sickle and Hammer. That would not be in my opinion in keeping a balance between sharing the faith and maintaining truth for Truth’s sake.
Rob
Greg my Brother,
I have observed your comments over some time in many forums. While I believe that you started off making some first rate observations about the discussion items generally, lately (in my opinion only) you have just sounded bitter. Are you applauding and cheering the fact that churches are without shepherds based upon you prognostications? Admittedly there is a balance necessary in training young men for service in areas of need, albeit in starting new work in under-reached areas, being missionaries in other countries, or maintaining the work in current established churches. My contention is that for some time this has been totally imbalanced, for at least 40 years in Southern Baptist life and in her institutions of training.
Now I think it can be argued that small churches have always gone a begging no matter what generation has graduated from seminaries. For example in an RE class at Southwestern I took in the early 90′s entitled “Children in the Church” our pedagogical focus primarily seemed to center on the church building with the optimal facilities/ environment promoted for a healthy children’s program. When I mentioned that the great majority of Southern Baptist churches could not meet so an unrealistic set of expectations, the instructor merely shrugged, “…then these are places you should try to avoid” or some such rot as this. This was before the CR hit Southwestern = even the moderates/liberals in the establishment were very scornful of Southern Baptist small churches and their backward ways and conservative beliefs – so I really do not believe that this just reflects a Calvinist thing – in fact for some Calvinists they have just took the place of these mods/libs in heaping scorn on small traditional SB churches.
I believe that Mike Rasberry has it hit squarely in the middle of the nail in #40 which I will quote in part:
“Time was when young men would serve in a church after seminary and that first full time church would teach them some things that would stand them in good stead over the course of the years, but now these guys come out of seminary without a learner’s heart. There seems to prevail a sort of spiritual snobbery amongst many of them which prevents them from serving traditional churches because they don’t seem to want the hassle of dealing with any tradition. Rather they want to start a new work made in their own image of what church should be.”
What I tried to say with 2500 words, Mike said in a paragraph. Wow! Is this not what you are betraying my brother – a spiritual snobbery that says to make a church in ones own image is better than dealing with an established church with it’s own sets of beliefs that would be a “hassle” to deal with? Please consider this my brother.
Rob
Good wisdom Christiane. Your words of encouragement did just that (as well as the YouTube – in fact I will download that thing and play it on the screen). Since my primary gift IS teaching I will continue to do just that – Teach. Spot on – Thank you sister.
Rob
Stephen,
Thank you for staying on topic. Your posts have contributed to the discussion here. Thank you.
Rob
Dora -
Excellent set of thoughts! Thank you for sharing them. Perhaps we can gain some needed empathy over the various positions stated here by one who does both set of practices.
Rob