My Friends are Famous

This is wild...the writer's host in this story, Drew Toney, has been one of my best friends since we were 8. I know some of the people in this article. Anyone who follows SEC football will find this article amusing.

ClayNation Dixieland Delight College Football Tour: UT at South Carolina

Tithing: Net, Gross, and How Much?

It seems most every Christian has an opinion (usually a highly emotional one) on the issue of tithing. The New Testament never explicitly commands tithing (the practice of giving 10% of one's income to God) as was the case in the Old Testament. Scripture does state that,

"Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7, ESV).

The practice of tithing, however, still remains a good "starting point" on giving to the Lord's church. The controversy remains, however, whether one should tithe on one's gross total income before taxes are taken out, or should one tithe after the taxes are taken out of one's income and given to the government?

Dr. Mark Coppenger has an insightful view on this issue. You may read the article in its entirety here. Coppenger says:

"By my light, if we net-tithe, then we give the government the "first fruit" of our increase, and then the church gets a cut of the leftovers. But when you tithe the gross, you say, in effect, to the state, "Whatever you do, I’m giving first to the Lord, and then you can do as you wish to what remains. If that puts me in a bind, so be it, but your tax policies will not determine my manner of churchmanship."

Tithing as a manner of churchmanship is a good idea. Likewise, continuing with the rest of 2 Corinthians 9, verse 8-9 state, "And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. As it is written, 'He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.'" (ESV)

Therefore, how much should one tithe? One should tithe as much as one wants to be blessed by God. And by using the terminology, blessed, I am not referring to exlusive financial blessings. God blesses in more ways then purely monatarily. So, brothers and sisters in Christ, give abundantly and freely because God loves and blesses the cheeful giver with what is sufficient through His grace.

Happy Reformation Day

Nathan Finn has an informative post on lessons that Southern Baptists can learn from our fathers of the Reformation. His fourth and fifth points are especially exemplary.

Prayer Request

Please pray for Andrew Kinard, the brother of one of my wife's closest friends. He was severely injured while on duty with the Marines while in Iraq.

Not Your Ordinary Afternoon in Ministry (But Should Be)

A good friend of mine, Rev. Andrew Winburn, told me an encouraging story that happened to him earlier today that I feel that all people in ministry should hear. I asked him for permission to post this incredible story and he gladly put his story into words:

"All throughout seminary I was taught how to go out of the church doors and engage lost people who have never heard the story of Jesus (thanks, Dr. Reid). No theology degree could have prepared me for what happened today.

Just when I thought that my week was overloaded with church work, God showed me that He is in control and offered an opportunity that will encourage any man called by God. My church work is done out of my home office—but today I stopped by the church and the phone went “Ring, Ring:” the voice on the other end of the line wanted to talk with a young pastor…and he wanted to meet in person.

The voice on the other line said, 'Before we meet, I want to let you know that I am 24 years old and just came to Columbia from Brooklyn. Last night I read from the book of John in the Gideon Bible at this cheap hotel and I have questions. I’m wearing a yellow shirt and a green book-bag.'

Wow!!! Someone from the big city of New York called my little church in South Carolina and wanted to know how to have a personal relationship with Christ. I called one of the deacons and we proceeded to break a few traffic laws in route to the food court at the mall where Rob was going to meet us (safety in numbers).

Rob hadn’t shaved in a few days and probably hadn’t eaten in more.

'So tell me what’s up Rob,' I questioned.

'My girlfriend and I broke up,' He said. 'I went to college here so I caught a bus down from Brooklyn. None of my friends from college will let me stay with them—they have changed. My mom lives in Charlotte but we don’t get along anymore. Things aren’t good. But I read John in that Gideon Bible last night. I’ve heard about this personal relationship with Jesus thing but I don’t have it.'

Silence. I’m shocked and so is the deacon.

I asked some more questions, explained the Gospel to Rob, and told him my story. I told him how Christ changed my life and how Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior.

'I want that,' he said. 'Tell me how to have Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.'

Right there in the food court at the mall in Columbia, Rob, with tears in his eyes and a smile on his face, met Jesus.

I got him some food, we talked for a long time, and I took him to the bookstore.

'I want you to have your own Bible,' I told him.

“Well, all I have is what I am wearing and this book-bag. No Money.”

“I’m buying,' I said.

'Wow, thanks. Then get the cheapest one.'

Rob then spoke words that I wish most people in SBC churches could say: 'Andrew, you told me how the blind-man was changed by Christ, how people noticed, and how he then told them about Christ. That happened to you. Now I have been changed by Christ. I want my mom to see. Jesus is the first step in repairing our relationship. Will you take me to the bus station? I need to go to Charlotte.'

That was the best money I have spent in a while and the happiest I have been after accomplishing no 'church work' on a day that I had more to do than time to do it.

Rob will call me again and I will encourage him and offer him discipleship. And the next time my week is in overload with 'church work' I will remember Rob…and remember that God has called me to spread the Gospel and make disciples."

What a wonderful and true story! What a blessing the Gideons are who tirelessly place Bibles in every nook and cranny in the world. Also, this story is a testimony of how we are all just pieces of the puzzle that is God's amazing plan to redeem humanity. He chooses us and tells us where to go and uses us in this time of history to accomplish his plan. Wow!

Church Discipline: But for what Exactly?

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, located in Fort Worth, Texas (where I attended for one semester), recently held a conference entitled “Maintaining the Integrity of a Local Church in a Seeker Sensitive World: The Baptist Perspective on Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Church Discipline." You can read the entire summary here.

Among the scholars present were Drs. Gregory Willis, Mark Dever, Daniel Akin, Stanton Norman, John Hammett, Jason Lee, Emir Caner, and Malcom Yarnell. I'm sure it would have been an excellent conference to attend.

One of the issues discussed was that of church discipline. The topic of church discipline has become more prevalent over the last few years and more churches are going back to the historical (and biblical) practice of enacting church discipline.

Willis stated, that church discipline "is the canary in a coal mine. When the canary in a coal mine keels over, catastrophe impends. When church discipline is lost, catastrophe impends.”

According to Wills, church discipline among Baptists began to decline in the late-19th century and early-20th century. Willis attributed the decline to the rise of pragmatism, individualism and secularization into modern society and culture. He also stated that the decline in discipline also permitted liberalism to make inroads into many Baptist churches.

While I agree that church discipline is a much needed biblical tool that shows love, accountability, and eccleiastical committment, there does not seem to be much unilateral discussion on what exactly should be "disciplined."

There is a substantial amount of biblical instruction on how to inact discipline. For instance, Jesus words, recorded in the gospel of Matthew 18:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (v.15-17, ESV).

Also, in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul begins to shed some light on what should be disciplined:

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you" (v.11-13, ESV).

In case you are keeping a running tally, that means that any church member who is in unrepented sins of sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling (without doing a word study, I'm not exactly sure of what this is), drunkneness, or cheating (swindling), should be disciplined.

It is no secret that many churches now are discipling their members, the loving and biblical way. My question is - How does one decide on what exactly should be disciplined? How does one decide greed, for instance?

Discipline seems obvious for adultery and drunkennes but the other sins are somewhat vague. If one were to take it extremely literal, I suppose most everyone in the church would undergo some type of discipline! Again, I am for this biblical practice, but how does one practically decide on what exactly to practice it on?

A Successful Costume Party

Last night at our AWANA meeting at the church, we had a costume party. I told the kids last week that they were able to wear anything they'd like, except of course scary/goulish costumes that further the demonic spirit of Halloween. This would include scary costumes such as vampires, ghosts, witches, and Borat.

Well, the question was asked, "Charlie, what if someone shows up wearing one of these costumes?" Well, I said of course, we will not tell him/her to leave. Instead, we'll have to just let the little child stay, even though we would not approve of the costume.

Well, of course, a little girl came with a witch outfit on. So, what did we do? You guessed it! We tarred and feathered her and marched her around the church grounds with torches.

Piper = Bad?

My good friend Drew Jones posted this link on his blog first. Check it out...it'll make you laugh even if the sinfulness of humanity doesn't normally do that for you.

Who's bad?

Emily's Blog

My wife stunned me today when she said that she would like to enter the blogosphere and have a blog dedicated to new mothers. Her blog is here:

More Precious then Jewels

She'll have regular updates and pictures of the baby. All of you guys who have little ones (or soon to be little ones) let them know about my wife's site. She's worried no one will read it and I of course told her that that wasn't true!

On Ordination

I had the privilige to go to the ordination of a good friend of mine yesterday. So far, I have been to three ordination councils (including my own) and they were all vastly different. I know this difference is what some would call a hallmark of being a Southern Baptist, but I'm not so sure that historical attribute is very wise. Allow me to explain.

My ordination was, in my opinion, fair. I was ordained at the church where I currently serve. The Director of Missions for the local assocation was there, as was another area pastor and all the deacons of the church. After figuring out that I was not a heretic, my question and answer session quickly went the route of "what are you going to do for our church?" This was fine for me.

A few months later I went to an ordination council at a church across town. The makeup of men in the room was similar to my council. Only, this church was ordaining a former staff person. After over an hour of questioning, it was evident that this candidate, who is about 20 years my senior, did not have a working knowledge of any major doctrine and left me even questioning his salvation. Believing that God is the "most high" is not a sufficent answer to "What does it take for one to be saved." My pastor and I were the only lone dissenters and the council ordained this man to be a preacher of the Gospel because he "meant well" and had a "good heart."

The council I went to yesterday (in a neighboring city) was even more different. The questions were tougher and the candidate knew his stuff and it wass probably run the way a council should be run.

This all leads me to ask the question: "Should the Southern Baptist Convention have some type of standard for ordaining ministers?" If we did, how would we do it with 40,000 churches across the country? I know it is not a part of our tradition to do so (which doesn't make it wrong or right), but I feel that some action needs to be made.

Like I said, I've been to two councils that were run sufficiently. However, I've also been to one that would make most Christians cringe. Whether it be an associational, state, or convention-wide process, something needs to be done because the convention is running the risk of sending out un-qualified people who will ultimately lead sheep to danger.

This is Your Day!!

There was a pamphlet in my church box today sent by Ann Lee Ministries. It claims (I realize a piece of paper cannot make a 'claim') that she is coming back to the Sumter area, "by popular demand."

She advertises that this meeting will be a Miracle Service on Friday Night, October, 27th. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that one could plan when miracles would happen - especially the day and time.

The pamphlet also says:

"This is your night! Come expecting your miracle for healing, for financial blessing, for whatever you need from God!"

Ok...miracle healings...there is Scriptural warrant for that. What there is not Scriptural warrant for, is wholesale heal-fests. If someone had that kind of power, they ought to be going to hospitals every second of their day.

- financial blessing - Does God want us to be rich? Scripture states that "the love of money is the root of all evil" and Jesus said himself it is hard for the rich to come to Him. But once we have Him, he'll make us more money! I don't think so...

- whatever you need from God - really? God, I need the Gamecocks to win this week, can you do it? God, I need some of my hair to grow back. God, I need more money....I don't think so. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WE GET FROM GOD....it's about glorifying Him.

God is not some genie in a bottle that grants your every wish. People like Ann Lee (who has appeared in Benny Hinn Magazine) are giving people false hope. Ann, if you could really heal people, why don't you do what Jesus and the Apostles did and go find the people to heal and not hold a "dynamic service" where they have to come to you.

This kind of stuff is not new of course....in fact its getting old.

This Week's Sign That Jesus is Coming Back Soon

Joel Osteen now has a board game.

I first noticed this story on Russell Moore's blog. But, its definitely worth re-hashing since Dr. Moore was more then kind.

Listen to this heretical game description:

The game is, "an entertaining and educational way to take inventory of yourself and accountability of your actions. Climb the mountain as you

• Enlarge Your Vision

• Develop a Healthy Self Image

• Discover the Power of your Thoughts and Words

• Let Go of the Past

• Find Strength Through Adversity

• Live To Give

And • Choose to Be Happy

Each new plateau represents a challenge and a chance to open up and experience these steps first hand as you learn to live Your Best Life Now."

I really don't know what to say about this other then, "WHAT?!" Only a few of these 'goals' are even close to being biblical. But even then, I'm sure its all about what we've done, as opposed to what Jesus has done for us. How is Christianity, the fact that God sent his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for our sins, that we are redeemed by the power of his blood shed on the cross - a game? It's not...it's real life and it's not to be marketed.

Hounds? Release...

Geisler on Agnosticism

This post is in response to the comments made in the last one. In Foundations, Geisler states this (my paraphrase):

Agnostocism means literally ‘no knowledge.’ This view as promulgated by Immanuel Kant. It teaches that although we know that reality exists, that reality in itself cannot be known by human reason. We only see reality as it appears to us.

Later, Kant’s followers stated that if we cannot know whether or not our ideas correspond to reality, then all truth must be relative to the individual way our minds interpret reality. Hence, the modern view of truth called relativism (all truth is relative) in due time gave rise to pluralism (all views are true).

Kant's fundamental flaw is his claim to have knowledge of what is unknowable. If it were true that reality cannot be known, no one, including Kant, would know it. If knowledge about reality is impossible for everyone, then it must be impossible for Kant. If reality were actually unknowable, how would Kant know this was true?

Furthermore, in relation to relativism and pluralism, Geisler states,

"It makes no sense to say that relativism or pluralism represents a better way to view reality than a view taht believes in absolutes, unless these views are being compared with some absolute fixed point or standard. Without a fixed point, it only makes sense to say that these views are different from each other and that no one view is any better than another view. Hence, relativists and pluralists cannot logically label a view incompatible with their view as wrong; they can only logically say that the other view is different. Yet the minute they decided they are right and that those who believe in absolutes are wrong, they must logically conclude that some absolute standard exists, even if they do not verbally admit it. Consequently, relativsm and pluralism cannot be true. " (p.47)

Feed Me, Seymour

David F. Wells, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, has written an excellent critique of modern, as well as postmodern, culture's effect on society as a whole. Here is a snippet on his view of technology, which was birthed from capitalism, which came along side a modern culture buttressed by the ideas of the thinkers of the Enlightenment:

"Capitalism requires the pervasive presence of technology, and technology is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it has allowed us to transcend our world, to achieve what was unimaginable only a short time ago, to effect an unparalleled degree of efficiency in the production of the goods which fill our malls and showrooms, an elevation in their quality, a new array of medical procedures, more information, and more information spread more rapidly. Today, as Zygmunt Bauman asserts, there 'are more - painfully more - possibilities than any individual life, however, long, adventurous and industrious can attempt to explore, let alone to adopt.' On the other hand, what began as teh physical conquest of our world by technology, teh annihiliation of space and time, the control of some of nature's forces, and the exploitation of its resources, has now become a profoundly psychological reality. The benefits of technology all come packaged in values - values which are natualistic and materialistic. These fill the air, quite literally, all the time. We find no solitude. We have no escape. The experience of this new culture is intense and intrusive in wyas that older cultures never were."

How true is this statment? In other words, yes, technology has made our lives "easier" in the respect that there is more convenience and pleasure. However, technology (and indirectly capitalism) while not being negative in themselves, have so absorbed our 21st century society to where we literally could not function without it. Indeed, if capitalism did not continue to grow, businesses continue to make more money, stock markets continue to rise, and inflation continue to bulge, we'd be in trouble. Capatalism, and technology, are animals that have to be fed in order to survive. We must feed them - and we do feed them. However, lost in this feeding frenzy, is a realistic view of...well, reality. Our reality has become feeding an animal that, if he doesn't eat, will not only die of starvation, but will cause the server (us) to die as well.

We do live in a world, where, for the first time in history, we have no place of solitude and no escape.

However, there is one place of escape and solitude and rest: the arms of our loving Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. When Christians take a step back and realize that life is not about 'feeding the beast,' or 'more, more, more,' we realize that God has created us to serve Him...and not humanity. We are to serve the Creator and not the creation. Indeed, serving the creation makes us slaves to the creation, which is no life at all.

Differences in Worldviews

Norman Geisler on worldviews: (Unshakable Fondations, pp. 53-60)

"There are seven worldviews: theism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, polytheism, and finite godism. We know that all of these views have permeated our culture and exist, in one form or another, on virtually every secular college or university campus in North America and much of the rest of the world."

However, Geisler mentions that there are three predominate worldviews which exist in our culture: atheism, pantheism, and theism.

Atheism:

"Atheism believes that no God exists, either beyond the universe, or in it. The universe or cosmos is all there is or ever will be; it is self-sustaining. Some of the more famous athiests were Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzche, Sigmund Freud, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Their writings have had a tremendous influence upon the world. These men expressed their views in different ways, but all of them held to the basic belief that God does not exist. Some of the main tenets are as follows:

God – He does not exist; only the universe exists
Universe – It is eternal; or it randomly came to be
Origin of Humanity – We have evolved, are made of molecules, and are not immortal
Destiny of Humanity – We have no eternal destiny and will be annihilated
Origin of Evil – It is real, caused by human ignorance
Destiny of Evil – It can be defeated by man through education
Basis of Ethics – They are created by, and grounded in, humanity
Nature of Ethics – They are relative, determined by situation

Pantheism:

"The belief that God is the universe...For a panthiest there is no creator beyond the universe; creator and creation are two different ways of viewing the same reality, and ultimately only one reality exists, not many different ones. God pervades all things and is found within all things. Nothing exists apart from God: God is the world and the world is God; God is the universe and the universe is God. People hold to different kinds of pantheism, which are respresented by certain forms of Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and the New Age. Their views differe as to how God and the world are identified, but they all believe that God and the world are one. Some of the main tenets are as follows:

God – He is one, infinite, usually impersonal; he is the universe
Universe – it is an illusion, a manifestation of God, who alone is real
Origin of Humanity – The human’s true self is God.
Destiny of Humanity – Our destiny is determined by karma/cycles of life.
Origin of Evil – It is illusion, caused by errors of the mind.
Destiny of Evil – it will be reabsorbed by God
Basis of Ethics – They are grounded in lower manifestations of God.
Nature of Ethics – They are relative, transcending the illusion of good and evil.

Theism:

"The worldview that holds to the belief that the world is more than just they physical universe (atheism). At the same time, theists do not accept that idea that God is the world (pantheism). They believe in the existence of God and see His existence as the essential component of the theistic worldview. Thesists are convinced that the universe had a supernatural First Cause who is indefinitely powerful and intelligent. This God is a personal God, separate from the world, who created the universe and sustains it. Thesists believe that God can act within the universe in a supernatural way. The traditional religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity represent theism. Some of the main tents are as follows:

God – He is one, personal, moral, infinite in all his attributes
Universe – it is finite, created by an infinite God
Origin of Humanity – We are immortal, crated and sustained by God.
Destiny of Humanity – By choice we’ll be either eternally with or separated from God.
Origin of Evil – It is privation or imperfection caused by choice
Destiny of Evil – It will ultimately defeated by God
Basis of Ethics – They are grounded in the nature of God
Nature of Ethics – They are absolute, objective, and prescriptive.

In relation to the question of "Truth", Atheists state that truth is relative and their are no absolutes (although that idea is a 'truth' and 'absolute' in itself, thus self-defeating.) Pantheists state that truth is relative to this world (which is still not logical). Theists believe that there is one truth - an absolute truth - that exists and Theists seek to know it.

"What is Truth?" - Pontius Pilate

I just finished taking my young adults' Bible study class through a 12-week study of the doctrine of God. It's always refreshing when they ask for the notes from a class that they missed! My goal is to eventually take them through every major doctrine. However, seeing as how theology can become onerous at times, between each doctrine I am going to teach something different.

Two weeks ago I gave the class a survey as to what they would like to learn next. To my surprise, it was a tie between Christian philosophy/apologetics and a unit on marriage and family. Because M and F may get a little controversial, I've decided that we'll tackle (form-tackle) X Ph. first. I'm using a potpourri of sources, and Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino's Unshakable Foundations is one. Here is a snippet from their book on the topic of the search for Truth:

"The word philosophy comes from two Greek words: phileo, "love," and sophia, "wisdom." It is interesting to note that phileo signifies the kind of love that one has for a friend; the true philosopher loves wisdom as if it were a close friend...

"Philosophy is an effort to engage in rational and consistent examination of the truth claims of any system of belief. Yet if truth does not exist, why bother with philosophy? Think of all the philosophers and philosophy books in the world today. If the academic discipline of philosophy is devoid of truth, then philosophers are in a vain pursuit. Something must be seriously wrong with philosophers who write and speak about the love of a close friend who does not exist!

"The first major assumption that needs to be made by everyone searching for answers it that true answers can be found. Some people do deny that true answers exist. The problem with their view though, is that they assume this view to be true: if it is true, it is self-defeating. If they believe that all views of reality are false, then their view must also be false, for if it were true, then all views would not be false. To deny the existence of truth is to affirm its existence - truth is inescapable! Therefore, the affirmation that true statements can be made about reality is a rationally justifiable one." (32-33)

I'll probably be posting clips from this book, as well as from David Wells' Above All Earthly Pow'rs.

Before I let you quit reading, check out the second doctrine of God quiz: This one may not be as cut and dry among readers...

1) According to a literal interpretation of the “days” in the Bible, the earth seems to be how many yeas old:

a) 2-3.5 million

b) 500,000-750,000

c) 10,000-20,000

2) True or False: God controls every aspect of our lives

3) True or False: We are 100% responsible for our actions and decisions

4) What is one purpose of a miracle:

5) Yes or No: There are such things as false miracles

6) True or False: Prayer does not change the way God acts

7) Effective prayer is made possible by:

a) God the Father

b) Jesus Christ

c) The Holy Spirit

8) True or False: Angels can be in more then one place at a time

9) What is an example of a purpose that the angels serve?

10) True or False: Satan and demons were created evil

More Jack

At my wife's request, here is some more pictures of her "Boo-Boo:" Picture one is naptime with his daddy. Picture two is a solo shot. Picture three is Jackson in a daze. And picture four is he and his aunt, K-Dub.

In Christ Alone

In the last couple of years, old hymns have been coming back in vogue. Part of the reason for this renaissance is that some of these hymns are rich in theology. As these hymns are put to modern, 'contemporary' arrangements, there have been a few old songs that have been re-discovered. For some reason, In Christ Alone, had been left out of the Southern Baptist hymnals for over fifty years. Luckily, music leaders have rediscovered this inspired gem and what a blessing this redisovery has become. One of my fondest memories at seminary was when I was at my graduation where 2,000 men and women sung all four stanzas in what seemed like perfect unison. How wonderful it is to hear people singing about their unified blessed hope. It was a little taste of our heavenly future. In Christ Alone is one of my all-time favorites:

"In Christ alone my hope is found
He is my light, my strength, my song
This Cornerstone, this solid ground
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease
My Comforter, my All in All
Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones He came to save
‘Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live

There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me
For I am His and He is mine
Bought with the precious blood of Christ

No guilt in life, no fear in death
This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand "

What's it Take to be Fired?

BP has an article about pastoral staff dismissals over the last year. Throughout the over 40,000 Southern Baptist churches in America, 1,300 pastors were canned. What are the top five reasons for firing a pastor (any position)?

1. Control Issues - Who's going to run the church? Well, for starters, Christ. But after him, it's the pastor. Before all of my Baptist brothers scream "Congregationalism!" let me preface by saying, yes, the church votes, etc. However, final authority should always, in my opinion, be left up to the pastor. Additionally, he should go along with what the church votes on unless its unbibilical or unethical. This is sad. The inability to get along with anyone is generally because one person is acting in sin. Take for instance the relationship between me and my pastor. If we don't get along about an idea, I humbly follow his lead, since he is the pastor. What's hard about that? The problem is that too many pastors get worked up over methadology then baptizing and discipling. As a result, selfish pride ends up contributing to the number one reason for getting fired by a church. Another problem is the 'board of deacons' (unbiblical) is often constituted by men who should not be in that position. My church is not like this, fortunately.

2. Poor People Skills - This is also sad. I don't know what to say about this other then pastors need to try to talk to their members instead of holing themselves up in their studies all day long.

3. Churches' Resistance to Change - Not surprising. Not much to say here other then pastors - take it slow and don't push.
4. Leadership style being too strong - this is all probably relative. What is 'too strong?'

5. Churches already in conflict when pastor arrives - always a tough situation.

There a couple of disturbing trends. For the first time ever, Sexual Misconduct cracked the top 10 at number 8. The internet has enabled sexual misconduct to become more prevelant in churches. Before the internet, to be fired for sexual misconduct meant the pastor did one of a few things. Now, "sexual misconduct" could include a wide number of activities, thanks to the WWW. Even so, this is a sin that is killing the convention and seems to be on the rise. Accountability is a must.

Disagreement over Doctrine entered the top 20 for the first time at no. 12. I feel quite strongly that this has something to do with the rise of Calvinistic influence in the convention. A lot of this could be cured if pastors and staff were upfront about their beliefs when talking to pulpit committees.

All in all, it's always interesting, and disturbing, to hear about what is costing pastors their positions.

The Marginilization of Planet Pluto

For some reason, I'm really irritated that Pluto is not considered a planet anymore. All through my public schooling I was taught that the planets were (closest from the Sun) Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars...asteroid belt...Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Anyhow, the powers that be in the wild world of science have all of a sudden decreed that Pluto is no longer a planet...and really ticks me off. I'm not sure why though...it's just unsettling. Who decides that Pluto is no longer a planet? Who has that kind of power? I'm still going to consider Pluto a planet regardless.

This decision has far-reaching implications. Did you know that elements (remember the Periodic table?) 92, 93, and 94 are named uranium, neptunium, and plutonium respectively?

So why was Pluto said not to be a planet?

Well, apparently, the IAU has three main conditions to meet in order for a piece of rock to be called a planet:

1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun (check)
2. The object must be large enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. It's own gravity should be strong pull it into a sphere. (Hydrostatic equilibrium) (check)
3. The object must "clear the neighborhood" around its orbit. (Houston, we have a problem).

Apparently, Pluto is a little slow (not that there's anything wrong with that) at clearing its neighborhood

Alan Stern has stated that this new definition of a 'planet' would also exclude Mars, Jupiter, Neptune...and Earth.

Astronomer Mike Brown said, "through this whole crazy circus-like procedure, somehow the right answer was stumbled on. It’s been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved."

Well I'm glad that science eventually self-corrects itself. Maybe it'll self-correct itself on more important issues in the future.