"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Revivals Accompanied by Proclaiming the Truth in Unusual Places and By Unusual Means

"It would be very easy to prove that revivals of religion have usually been accompanied, if not caused, by a considerable amount of preaching out of doors, or in unusual places." C.H. Spurgeon

There is rising within my soul a sense of true revival in the people and ministries of Emmanuel. Exhibitions of real, agape love; spiritual unity, a hunger and desire for Christ to be preeminent in all things; brokenness over sins and corresponding recovery by God's grace are all signs of what I am seeing God do in our lives. The above quote by Spurgeon has caused me to think a little about the history of revivals and the uniqueness of preaching in them.

Peter Waldo was a wealthy businessman in Lyons, France during the 1300's. When Waldo came under conviction of the Holy Spirit, he sought the way of salvation and was told that he should "sell his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow Christ." Waldo literally did this and gave away all of his personal wealth. He and others with the same passion began to travel two by two through the countryside, preaching in the streets, reading passages of Latin Scriptures which they translated into the street French spoken by the common man. Foxe's Book of Martyrs declares that The Inquisition originally began with the Roman Catholic Church seeking to stop the "Waldensians" (slang for Waldo's men) from preaching the Scriptures in the common language. Many Baptists see their spiritual heritage in the Waldensians.

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) is called "the morningstar of the Reformation." Wycliffe is the man credited with translated the Latin Vulgate into English. Those who were discipled by Wycliffe were called Lollards. The Lollards went throughout England proclaiming Christ in the streets and places of business. Again, Foxe's Book of Martyrs speaks of a great revival arising from the bold proclamation of Christ from of the Lollards.

During what we call the Protestant Reformation, many of the great evangelistic meetings were held outdoors because, as Spurgeon writes, all the churches were controlled by Rome. William Farel (1489-1565), the man who cleared the way for John Calvin to enter Switzerland, and the one has been called "the pioneer of Protestantism in Western Switzerland," was himself a street preacher. It was said of Farel, "He turned every stump and stone into a pulpit, every house, every street,and market-place into a church."

John Knox (1513-1572), founded the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, but he started out as a bodyguard for a street preacher named George Wishart. John Knox accompanied him on his preaching tours, sword in hand, to protect him from violence. All the preaching occurred in fields because Wishart was barred from preaching in the churches. After Wishart was murdered for his gospel preaching in 1546, Knox became the leader of the Scottish reformation.

George Whitefield once stated: "I believe I never was more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields... I now preach to ten times more people than I should, if had been confined to the Churches."

The Methodist John Wesley once began a great evangelistic meeting by preaching on top of his father's tomb out in an open field. He said of that meeting, "I am well assured that I did far more good tomy Lincolnshire parishioners by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit."

I know the world has changed a great deal, but the gospel of Jesus Christ is being shared in new, creative ways by evangelicals who seem to be experiencing real revival. From all night prayer and worship meetings in a business warehouse districts, to Internet worship services being held via the web, to iPod messages being listened to as people run on the treadmill, to small groups involving recovery from both chemical and non-chemical addictions, to other creative ways--Christ is being proclaimed in unusual places and by unusual means. We may well be on the cusp of genuine revival in this world. It is also to be observed that every move of God has also brought with it a new style of worship and a new repertoire of songs.

Interesting.


In His Grace,


Wade

128 comments:

Darby Livingston said...

Great post Wade.

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade,

I like the post, and what strikes me is that the current wave of interesting new ways of spreading the gospel, learning, leading etc, hints at what would happen if believers simply started living their faith, and being as open and willing to share what they believe as they are their job, their marital status, their favorite football team, etc. Just take faith out of the "religion arena" and live it.

I saw a question on Facebook concerning "If someone could teach you a simple way to share your faith, would you do it?" Such thinking hints that there's something else ordinary folks need to know, to share their faith. Truth is, we know enough already.

Tim G said...

There is indeed a Spirit of Revival in the air! Oh that it would indeed hit in us all!

Rose said...

Just wanted you to know how neat I thought it was that you included John Knox. I just recently learned that I am descended from him and Margaret Stewart through their daughter Elizabeth and John Welsh - what a legacy! It's also fun for me because I love studying Christian history. Thanks for this fascinating post.

Lydia said...

Rose, My countenance fell when I read your comment. Because I don't want to offend but I am amazed John Knox is included on this list.

He was part of a group that planned the murder of David Rizzo and he even penned a sermon he would deliver stating it was justifiable to murder the Queens personal secretary. He also married a 17 year old girl when he was about 50 which raised the eyebrows of even his supporters. The list goes on even so he is not a guy I would include in any post on revival. Why? Because Revival always starts from ABOVE. It is not human generated. And most of what Knox did was human generated in the Name of our Lord. He was political.

But then, I am sure I am descended from some pretty shady characters, too. :o)

Wade Burleson said...

Lydia,

Calvin, Knox, and others all lived in a day when freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and soul competency were foreign concepts--but church/state law was normal.

I think it is very tough to fathom the culture in which these men lived--but I agree, they all (like we) have foibles.

Lydia said...

"Calvin, Knox, and others all lived in a day when freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and soul competency were foreign concepts--but church/state law was normal."

Which always makes me wonder why some think they were such brilliant theologians that they could not see that church/state is not a NC concept. Others during the same timeframe understood this and paid a very big price for it.

Wade Burleson said...

The same reason we Southern Baptists adopt policies that forbid missionaries from praying in tongues or being baptized in a church that doesn't believe in eternal security.

It's a cultural thing.

Wade

P.S. Just watch the responses to this comment for further insight. Smile.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Don't knock Knox! He didn't do anything to you--except for help usher in a heritage of Reformation from the evil of the RC church and the heresies they spewed.

Pray for more Calvin's and Knox's to bring about a new reformation to the body.

Revival is short lived and emotion laden. Reformation is grounded in the bedrock of Scripture for all eternity.

K

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

Calvin and Knox were hardly what you call "NC" theologians.

That was in part their greatness.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
My father told me I ought to read ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’ about thirty years before I did.

I’m curious to which editor prepared the book you are referring to.

W. Grinton Berry wrote in old English. He portrays James, brother of Jesus, close to being a Catholic priest and hero of the Pharisees and Jews.

The newer book (forgot the editor) is in modern English. His depiction of James would pass as a Baptist preacher.

Both books show the greatest hatred in the world is ‘religions hatred’.

It’s amazing how much in common the friction caused by the ‘Lord’s Supper’ being real blood vs. a symbol is to the friction caused by ‘Inerrancy’ vs. ‘Infallible’.

We believe the one that persecuted the other was in the wrong.

Wonder if that’s true today.

Lydia said...

Kev, you know why it is called the 'Reformation'? Because it was really about reforming the Catholic church and it evolved to be political. Why is it no one mentions Cromwell?

Lydia said...

"The same reason we Southern Baptists adopt policies that forbid missionaries from praying in tongues or being baptized in a church that doesn't believe in eternal security.

It's a cultural thing."

I would have guessed it had more to do with control and authority. Which has been popular in all cultures since the fall. :o)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Lydia: The Reformation was to reform the Catholic church, but I disagree that it was a political thing. The Catholic church was all Luther, Calvin knew. They wanted to change the doctrine of the Catholic church and they did pay a heavy price for it. When they could not change the church, they left and had a price on their head. Changes made by the HS through the reading of the Bible caused the Reformation, not politics.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Anytime change is in the air, someone is going to try and step in to profit. The politics of the Reformation lay in the Papal arm across Europe. If you fear holy mother church to absolve your sins, you'll do just about anything to remain a papal loyalist, even kill, or oblige the Princes of the Church.

Sadly the RC church has not changed their overarching views regarding justification and absolution form sin. Thus we see a loyalty to priests who advocate stealing (both food and innocents).

K

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Here is sketch of true reformation in the monergism.com bio of Albert Mohler.

What a delight to read!


http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/mohler.html

Pege` said...

Maybe even on Golf courses?

Lydia said...

The Catholic church was all Luther, Calvin knew. They wanted to change the doctrine of the Catholic church and they did pay a heavy price for it. When they could not change the church, they left and had a price on their head. Changes made by the HS through the reading of the Bible caused the Reformation, not politics.

Mon Dec 28, 12:29:00 PM 2009

They why did the reformed church in Geneva look so much like the Catholic church replete with church/state, magistrates, infant baptism, sacraments and persecution of those who disagreed? Why was it a crime to re-baptize an adult that had been baptized as a baby?

You are right about the ability to read and study the Word. It was just this ability that caused Zwingili's students to secretly rebaptize themselves and leave his teaching.

I fear we idolize/romantisize such things and rewrite history to please ourselves and elevate mere men.

Verduin quoted letters Calvin wrote to his friend stating he ordered 'green wood' so Servetus would burn slowly.

Christiane said...

RENEWAL:
'come, Holy Spirit, and enlighten the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy Divine Love . . .
and Thou shalt renew the face of the Earth . . . '



From the writings of A.W. Tozer:

"I believe that the imperative need of the day is not simply revival, but a radical reformation that will go to the root of our moral and spiritual maladies and deal with causes rather than with consequences, with the disease rather than with symptoms."


"Truth consists not merely in correct doctrine but in correct doctrine to which is added the inward enlightenment of the Holy Spirit...John the Baptist said, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27). He was not referring to men's gifts. He was speaking of spiritual truth."


"It is useless for large companies of believers to spend long hours begging God to send revival. Unless we intend to reform we may as well not pray. Unless praying men have the insight and faith to amend their whole way of life to conform to the New Testament pattern there can be no true revival."

willoh said...

That you see Hope gives me Hope. A revival is needed. I am not sure the word revival can be used with so many dead. Is Vival a word?

Lydia said...

Have you guys seen this account of spontaneous Revival at Asbury college in 1970?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9gBszZM-0Y&feature=related

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Verduin quoted letters Calvin wrote to his friend stating he ordered 'green wood' so Servetus would burn slowly."

Yet other accounts place Calvin as the merciful reformer pleading for Servetus's death to be a quick beheading. Calvin wrote many letters in many contexts and I doubt the one you mention is true and accurate, but who knows.

Calvin was a man of a different age. But he knew the power of the written word. Servetus' views were indeed heresy. For him to think them was not a crime, but to publish them was a different matter entirely.

In the end we have the Institutes as the best treatise on biblical theology in all of history apart from Scripture itself.

Allowing heretics and pagans to run freely led to wars and the death of the Christian religion in some areas. Even in the Bible we see Israel's folly in not conquering all the Canaanites.

Men like Mohler, Pressler, Patterson, et al understand this all too well. A few casualties in the name of the doctrines of the Bible are worth a pure doctrine being available to our future generations. And so, the Conservative Resurgence in my opinion was led by the rider on the white horse. And if Servetus is not burning in hell, many of his followers sadly are--and will.

Stand by and let people think what they want and Satan will make sure they will.

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

You wrote this: 'A few casualties in the name of the doctrines of the Bible are worth a pure doctrine being available to our future generations.'

No.

No evil may be done in the Name of Christ. 'The ends justify the means' is not a Christian doctrine.
Christ has overcome the world. His Sacrifice was the redemption for Christians: not the destruction of 'the few' for the sake of Christianity. You know this, Kevin. I know you know this.

No evil may be done and credited to the Name of Christ.

L's

Thy Peace said...

Off Topic:

My Utmost For His Highest > December 28th.

CONTINUOUS CONVERSION

"Except ye be converted, and become as little children. . . ." Matthew 18:3

These words of Our Lord are true of our initial conversion, but we have to be continuously converted all the days of our lives, continually to turn to God as children. If we trust to our wits instead of to God, we produce consequences for which God will hold us responsible. Immediately our bodies are brought into new conditions by the providence of God, we have to see that our natural life obeys the dictates of the Spirit of God. Because we have done it once is no proof that we shall do it again. The relation of the natural to the spiritual is one of continuous conversion, and it is the one thing we object to. In every setting in which we are put, the Spirit of God remains unchanged and His salvation unaltered, but we have to "put on the new man." God holds us responsible every time we refuse to convert ourselves, our reason for refusing is wilful obstinacy. Our natural life must not rule, God must rule in us.

The hindrance in our spiritual life is that we will not be continually converted, there are wadges of obstinacy where our pride spits at the throne of God and says - I won't. We deify independence and wilfulness and call them by the wrong name. What God looks on as obstinate weakness, we call strength. There are whole tracts of our lives which have not yet been brought into subjection, and it can only be done by this continuous conversion. Slowly but surely we can claim the whole territory for the Spirit of God.

Lydia said...

Servetus obviously asked for it since he showed up in Geneva and went to hear Calvin preach. He was arrested from there. Whether his beliefs and writings were heretical have little bearing on why he was persecuted. it says more about the persecutors.

But Kevin, you fail to see the evil inherent in having power and influence bestowed upon one. Your comment makes that quite clear.

If I must admire some humans then let it be the Anabaptists hiding in caves to escape persecution from Calvin and the magistrates because they refused to have their babies baptized and were rebaptized themselves when they learned of the true Christ. A crime according to Calvin and his magistrates.

Unfortuantly, Calvin and others thought like you and decided they were heretics worthy of death for such thinking.

Kevin, Follow Christ. Not Mohler, Calvin or Patterson. They are all just depraved sinners like you and me saved by grace if saved.

Benji Ramsaur said...

"We need a 'reformed' reformation and not just a repeat of the sixteenth century....Let us not make the same mistakes that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but held on to sanctification by the law. They rejected the Church's authority over your soul, but hung on to the Church's authority over your conscience. They discarded priestcraft and substituted clericalism. They rejected the authority of Church tradition (which taught Papal infallibility) but replaced it with man-made creeds that soon became as authoritative as Scripture. In reality they replaced a two-legged Pope with a paper Pope. They cried sola Scriptura while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other."

--John Reisinger [Abraham's Four Seeds]

I agree with Reisinger that the Reformation did not go far enough.

Christiane said...

BENJI,
would you agree with this?

' Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

Benji Ramsaur said...

Christiane,

I don't think there is a simple yes or no answer to your question from my end.

I am against a local church/seminary/institution/etc pressuring anyone to act against a conscience accurately informed by Scripture.

While I am in favor of congregationalism, I also think the congregation needs to understand that if they do this to an individual member, they will have to answer to the King of Kings.

I once worked in a Christian institution where a man was pressured [according to what he told me] to open up a swimming pool on Sundays when he believed that was wrong. He believed Sunday was the Sabbath.

I disagree with him concerning the Sabbath, but I also disagree with pressuring him to act against conscience.

Now, in having said that, I do not believe that "supposed" conscience is absolute. I do not believe a SB professor can justifiably get up and teach that the tooth fairy is equal to God in three Persons and claim that he is untouchable because of his conscience [for example].

Just as I believe man can dress up his ideal as Jesus so I believe man can dress up his heresy as conscience.

And if these things are persisted in, despite loving and patient correction, then I think that calls for intolerance [Rev. 2:20].

I am against pressuring one to act against an accurate conscience and a weak conscience, but a made up conscience to protect one's arrogant autonomy is another story.

In Christ,

Benji

Christiane said...

Thank you Benji.

I am beginning to understand that not all denominations understand the term 'conscience' in the same way. Thanks for helping.
Love, L's

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"No evil may be done in the Name of Christ. 'The ends justify the means' is not a Christian doctrine.
Christ has overcome the world. His Sacrifice was the redemption for Christians: not the destruction of 'the few' for the sake of Christianity. You know this, Kevin. I know you know this.

No evil may be done and credited to the Name of Christ."


Did you make up this rule L's?

Now obviously I am not free to murder and manupilate of my own accord, but I assure you the Lord uses His people to accomplish His will. I am not so sure I would place the Father alone in your box and leave the Spirit out.

K

Lydia said...

Benji, Great comments!

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"I am against a local church/seminary/institution/etc pressuring anyone to act against a conscience accurately informed by Scripture."

But what if the conscience (spirit) is incorrectly informed by Scripture? Then does not the Body of Christ (BoC) have a duty to inform, teach, rebuke, and in some cases correct insofar as the incorrect information is being passed to others?

K

Benji Ramsaur said...

This is a test

Benji Ramsaur said...

Kevin,

"But what if the conscience (spirit) is incorrectly informed by Scripture?"

How can the conscience (spirit) be incorrectly informed by Scripture?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Benji,

This is NOT a test!

-Infant Baptism
-Believer's Baptism
-Sacramental Baptism
-Baptism of the Holy Spirit (A Second after water)
-“Baptism which now also saves”
-Baptism by Sprinkling
-Baptism by immersion
-Baptism by fire
-Baptism by Tequila :)

All but the last of course--informed by Scripture. (as you say)


But I submit that Scripture does not inform beyond mere facts and figures. The Spirit does. Only a conscience enlightened by grace can bring about true faith.

His Spirit testifies with our Spirit.

Pride in tradition (among other things) many times quenches this Spirit leading to an incorrect application of Scriptural information.



K

Thy Peace said...

There is rising within my soul a sense of true revival in the people and ministries of Emmanuel. Exhibitions of real, agape love; spiritual unity, a hunger and desire for Christ to be preeminent in all things; brokenness over sins and corresponding recovery by God's grace are all signs of what I am seeing God do in our lives.

These sermon series seem to help the above (Videos of the Sermons).

Love Never Fails - 1 Cor. 13.

The Christian and Complete Joy - 1 John.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Kevin,

I apologize because I communicated something to you that I did not mean. When I said "This is a test" it was not directed to you. I was trying to see if I could embolden a word. Sorry about that.

Of course we can "misinterpret" the Bible, but the Bible itself does not inform the conscience incorrectly.

Christiane said...

No KEVIN,

I did not make that up. It is based on the Moral Law of God,

My Church teaches:
" One may never do evil so that good may result from it"

St. Augustine said that doctrine is faith seeking understanding.
Sometimes our actions reveal to us the strength of our faith, or sometimes our actions reveal our lack of faith.
We are asked by Lord Christ to bear witness to the Light, to love our enemies, to love one another.

In Corinthians Ch. 13, we are taught we may understand all mysteries and have all knowledge and faith so as to move mountains, but without love, we are nothing.

If we go about doing evil, we cannot look to Lord Christ to approve of it. Surely, the destruction of people's lives is great evil. Surely the pain inflicted on Dr. Klouda and her family was great evil.

When Paige Patterson inflicted persecution on Dr. Klouda, he violated the Law of Christ.
There has been no reconciliation on his part to seek justice for her suffering, for which he is morally accountable.

Members of the Body of Christ may contribute their gifts to build up the Body of Christ and to help one another.

But they may not cause harm to one of their brothers or sisters in the Body of Christ for any reason. It violates Christ's Law of Love, and harms the whole Body of Christ.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Of course we can "misinterpret" the Bible, but the Bible itself does not inform the conscience incorrectly."

Benji,

As to the test, I know, just being me. :)

As to the above quote, the Bible does not "inform" the conscience at all. Our minds can (the flesh) can inform the conscience negatively or the Spirit and inform the conscience and make the flesh act accordingly. Satan can also be a strong and powerful force on the mind which informs the conscience.

Here are a few formulas to help:



1. Scripture + mind + conscience = mess

2. Scripture + mind + (grace +conscience) = Faith

3. Scripture + (remaining sin{powers of evil} + mind) + (grace + conscience) = many denominations



Learn your formulas for the test tomorrow. :)


K

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

IF you have time and are inclined,
take a look at this site and see where you disagree:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

(specifically numbers 1776 to 1802)

If you are not inclined, don't worry about it.
I am trying to sort out the differences in how people define
the term 'conscience'.

Thanks,
L's

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's

Employment at a seminary is not a biblical right. Professors knew what was coming. They had a chance to get our before the heat was turned up. They chose to stay and fight. They lost, They should stop using Pinky as ploy.


"My Church teaches:
' One may never do evil so that good may result from it'"


Please dear sister, your church invented just the opposite. Not to mention the worldwide manipulations of today.

Why are Hispanics and Latinos the largest, and largest growing demographic in the RC church: "Our Lady of Guadalupe," the biggest fundraising scheme since the bulls of Leo X.

I love you bunches dear L's, but know that I have the vim and vigor to fight to the death. (In Christ of course)

:)

K

Christiane said...

Now, Kevin, 'venting and ranting' is actually good for you. It is better to 'get it out'.
You will find that we Catholics can be sympathetic. We know that there is much misunderstanding
and that only the Holy Spirit can heal the fractures in unity which have injured the Body of Christ.
There is a certain peacefulness in the knowledge that the Spirit will guide us towards unity in Christ.

You are cared for, regardless of rant. :)
Love, L's

Benji Ramsaur said...

Kevin,

You are losing me here brother:)

You earlier said "But what if the conscience (spirit) is incorrectly informed by Scripture?" (italics mine)

Now you say "...the Bible does not 'inform' the conscience at all." (italics & bold mine)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's,

It seems to me the way we define conscience begs the question as to whether or not one has a conscience before one is redeemed. The word is used alot in Scripture. Some places I might study would be Rm 9:1 and the end of 1 Cor. 10. Paul seems to talk about the conscience of believers and unbelievers.

So I tend to go with my original assumption tha the conscience is all or part of the heart/Spirit/Soul. How ever you want to slice that up.

I just read a sermon by charles Finney who seemed to think about this alot. Not sure I agree with him 100% but he has a ton of great insight.

Of the CC, I cannot agree with this line: "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ." Of course I'd have to look further into just exactly what they mean.


K

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin M. Crowder said...

You earlier said "But what if the conscience (spirit) is incorrectly informed by Scripture?"


Now you say "...the Bible does not 'inform' the conscience at all."


How about this clarification: the Bible cannot correctly inform the conscience with out the grace of God.
The mind, incorrectly interpreting Scripture can indeed influence the conscience. (1 Cor. 10:29)

K

Debbie Kaufman said...

Lydia: I do not know the source of your information, but needless to say I disagree with it. It would take too much time to go into Servetus or the Geneva church(and yes, I do have an answer just not the time nor space), but I believe your source of information to be in error.

Steve said...

I know JUST what the traditional churchmen and their mommas said when these like Waldo showed up, and it's a Bapti- no, an American classic:

"B-b-b-but, we've never DONE it THAT way before!"

Thank you, Lord, for the pattern changers and habit breakers!

What a great post, birthday boy....

Steve said...

Sure enow, some good hearts are tempted to jump up & down on the Catholics and the Bishop of Rome for the treatment of martyrs. I simply can't join in because we have done the same sort of thing or worse, and the same and worse thoughts have found time to fill the stage of my mind, however briefly.

HOWEVER, if your heart is really so pure that you've never spoken or thought in the sort of hatred and anger that these terrible acts of the past exemplify, then go right ahead and share your worldliness with us sinners.

(Wow - I hope you ain't jes' jealous 'cause they tho't of it first!)

Blessings to all -

Thy Peace said...

Ministry of Reconciliation > John Calvin And Servetus.

Suzanne's Bookshelf > Calvin and Servetus.

Lindon said...
There is so much rewritten history in the Reformed movement that ones needs to check many sources. The excuses made for Calvin in this episode are ridiculous.

Leonard Verduin, in his book, The Stepchildren of the Reformation, researched in Europe in the 1950 on grant from the Calvin Foundation, found in some documents made available after WW2 that Calvin ordered 'green wood' so that Servetus would burn slower.

This was after Servetus refused to recant to Calvin after several attempts.

After the burning, the tide started turning against Calvin and his power in the state church. Verduin quotes from a letter that Calvin wrote to a friend lamenting on the 'persecution' he was receiving from folks about Servetus.

Just another source to consider

11:51 AM

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi JOE,

So I see that you believe that Patterson's behavior towards Dr. Klouda should not be imputed to the SBC under it's guidance by the 'CR' movement.

I was reading this, from Wade's archives:
"United States Federal Judge McBride has granted Southwestern's Motion for Summary Judgment, and as such, Sheri Klouda's case will be dismissed and will not be going to trial. Sheri Klouda may appeal the motion, but that may, or may not happen. Sheri will receive no financial settlement from Southwestern for being removed as a Hebrew Professor from the School of Theology for gender reasons. The courts have determined this is a religious matter that should be dealt with within the Southern Baptist Convention."


So the courts say that it IS to be 'dealt with' within the SBC.
Patterson was given a 'free pass' based on this ruling.

The judge DID assign the SBC responsibility for 'dealing with' this matter. Patterson did not 'protest' this judgment, so we may assume that Patterson and the SBC agreed with the judge. (?)


How has the SBC, under the guidance of the CR movement 'dealt with' this 'religious matter', in the light of the judge's ruling?

How have they, in Christian charity, sought justice for the pain inflicted on this innocent woman and her family?

I ask, as a member of the larger Christian community, to which the SBC is a member, through their allegiance to Christ the Lord.

Love, L's

Thy Peace said...

Google Books > The Reformers and Their Stepchildren By Leonard Verduin, Franklin H. Littell - Page 55.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi JOE,

Thanks for 'trying again' :)
Sorry to be so much trouble.

In your opinion, who should accept responsibility for seeing that justice is done in the case of Dr. Klouda ?

She was abused.
We know who did it.
He hid behind the SBC.

Is it now the judge's fault?

You know, the seeds of bitter fruit will replicate and replant themselves. And the legacy will not be of Christ.

You've gotta admit, there is a moral case for Dr. Klouda that remains unresolved. It is never 'too late' for justice to be done by a Christian community that harbored and protected a Paige Patterson.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin M. Crowder said...

"I mean, she was teaching Hebrew for Pete's sake."

Joe,

I am not sure if you have ever taken or sit in on a Baptist college or Seminary's Greek or Hebrew classes (either beginning or exegetical classes) but these are cornerstone/keystone/capstone classes to an institution’s theology. This is where it begins and ends. The entire curriculum is wrapped around what is taught in these classes. So, in that light, I hope it makes a bit more sense why that person teaching a class of men on pastoral and preaching tracks ought more rightly to be a man. I have found that the Bread is broken more in these classes than in any others.

Just my opinion.


K

Tom Kelley said...

Kevin M. Crowder said...
I am not sure if you have ever taken or sit in on a Baptist college or Seminary's Greek or Hebrew classes (either beginning or exegetical classes) but these are cornerstone/keystone/capstone classes to an institution’s theology. This is where it begins and ends. The entire curriculum is wrapped around what is taught in these classes. So, in that light, I hope it makes a bit more sense why that person teaching a class of men on pastoral and preaching tracks ought more rightly to be a man. I have found that the Bread is broken more in these classes than in any others.


I agree that, if one takes the position that a woman should categorically not be teaching theology to men, it is a reasonable conclusion that teaching Hebrew falls within the general category of teaching theology. That might not be the case if Hebrew were being taught in a secular institution, from a purely academic standpoint, but in a Baptist college or seminary, the Hebrew taught is biblical Hebrew, and there is no easy way to distinguish what constitutes pure "language" instruction and what constitutes commentary on or interpretation of the meaning of the text.

However, what puzzles me is the equating of teaching theology (and biblical languages) in a college or seminary with the function/position of "pastor" in a local church. Even if one holds to the complementarian position on male/female roles in the church, and thus believes that a woman should not be a pastor/elder/bishop, I do not see how any Baptist can equate teaching in a school with the pastoral role/function.

Southern Baptists, like most Christian groups, have historically distinguished between a school and a church, as they have taught that a church is more than simply an organization or a group of Christians gathering together and teaching and learning. I have always heard it taught in Baptist churches and schools that a NT church has specific necessary defining elements (administration of the ordinances, preaching of the Word, making disciples, church governance, church discipline, church offices, worship, etc.). A denomination of Baptists derives its existence and purpose from the churches it serves, but neither the denomination nor its entities (associations, boards, agencies, schools, etc.) are themselves churches. They are merely tools to aid the church in accomplishing its functions & mission. At least that what I've been taught for decades (and what I've read in theology books) as standard Baptist doctrine of the church.

So for Baptists to argue that a woman shouldn't teach a man theology (or Hebrew) in a context outside the local church (such as in a Baptist school or seminary) goes way beyond basic complementarianism. I know many, many complementarians (including myself when I was one) who believe that women can hold positions of authority over men in realms outside the church and family. The idea that a woman can never teach a man anything of a religious nature is an extreme position, and sounds quite Pharisaical to me.

Now, if we want to go into an examination of the whole complementarian / egalitarian issue again, I believe one can demonstrate from a firm commitment to Scripture that there are problems with the fundamental assumptions of complementarianism about the nature of the church and authority. But even if one insists on sticking with a complementarian perspective, there are plenty of folks within that viewpoint who would not agree with the notion that a woman shouldn't be teaching theology to a man outside the context of a local church.

And lest I be accused of going too far off topic from the original post, let me add that I personally believe that genuine revival would drive people back to the Word to set aside traditions and presuppositions and culturally-driven interpretations and embrace the simple truth of Scripture (=egalitarianism). :)

Christiane said...

From his sermon on
"When A Man Is Down" comes this quote:

" Good advice is poor food for a hungry family." C.H. Spurgeon


Makes one wonder what that Anglican priest was reading before he advised hungry people to steal food.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Tom Kelly,

I am of the opinion that Seminary Professors teaching men to ordained ministry ought also to be ordained and in most cases should be pastors or have been pastors.

As I have stated earlier, this most certainly includes the languages.

I do not want to be trained for an office by someone who is not qualified to hold that office. I am in good company, for a clear majority of Christiandom holds to this view. "Laying on of Hands" is more than a ceremony. (see 1 Tim 4:11-16)


K

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi JOE,

I'm not defending the priest.
I'm not judging him either.
You can have that job if you want it.
The situation at his parish must be rather grim, though, for him to say what he did.
Maybe it was 'a cry for help' because he must have known it would bring attention to the situation there. ?

In any case, I am out of the 'judgment' circle on this one.
I'll leave that to 'the saved'.
My sympathies for suffering people, when activated, will often over-rule 'the law', which must make me a very poor Christian indeed, as well as an object of scorn.
Love, L's

Kevin in Manila said...

I love this post, Wade. I do most of my evangelism on college campuses. The other day it happened at Starbucks. I'm amazed at the divine appointments God will set if we are just open to Him.

Benji Ramsaur said...

"I do not want to be trained for an office by someone who is not qualified to hold that office."

Herein lies my concern for the justification for the "let's remove the Hebrew teacher with a sick husband" position.

A desire or tradition ends up carrying more weight than the new commandment [John 13:34-35]. That is basically how I take what Kevin is saying.

And yes, this get's right back to what your theology is. We minister [if I may call it that] out of our theology.

If you are one of those "well, I didn't steal, lie, or break any of those other 10 commandments [aside from resting on 'the unchanging' 7th day]" who rarely, if ever, bring up the new commandment and pretty much relegate Jesus to being a law interpreter rather than a lawgiver, then I think your view of Christian ethics is seriously distorted.

A Klouda ends up selling her blood because the 10 commandments are seen as the foundation for Christian ethics IMO.

You could obey "all" of the commandments in the decalogue that relate to other people and never sacrifice for them.

The 10 commandments guy could say "Well, I haven't lied about, stolen from, killed, etc Klouda and so I guess I'm alright".

However, we all saw that Wade went beyond that as a new commandment guy.

Of course, there would probably be those who would say "Well, I think we should practice both".

However, aside from there being "two lawgivers" involved in this view, I think what ends up happening is that the 10 commandments are still seen to be "foundational" whereas the new commandment ends up being a tag on. Or the "eleventh" commandment in which it still is not elevated to the position of supremacy.

The prophet Moses gave the 10 commandments.

The prophet like Moses gave the new commandment.

I suspect there are some folks who reason saying "Well, of course there is not some explicit statement from Scripture saying that a female cannot teach in a seminary, but we must take the general principles of God's word and apply them to this and that particular situation. And therefore, I take what Paul says about only men teaching and having authority in the church and apply that to the Klouda sitution so that I am against her teaching in a seminary".

Alright, why can't I reason by saying "I take the new commandment of Christ and apply that to the Klouda situation so that, far from disadvantaging her, it should have been sought to disadvantage oneself for the advantage of her"?

I long for the day when children are not taught the "ten commandments" as the foundation for "Chrisian" ethics, but taught "you should think about others for Christ thought about you on the cross" instead.

May it be so Master Jesus.

Father, please stregthen me to live out the New Commandment.

Benji Ramsaur said...

"If you are one of those 'well, I didn't steal..."

I think that was condescending on my part and I ask for your forgiveness to whom it may apply.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Ryan said...

Benji,

It sounds to me like you noticed it when, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "You have heard it said... but I say to you...". Using Moses as your standard just doesn't seem so appropriate after that, does it?

Christiane said...

Perhaps the priest wanted to help his parishioners survive in the 'short-term'.
His solution, hardly acceptable among the righteous, is 'temporary' at best.
The person in need would steal and eat, but would still need to steal again when the hunger returned.

The rabbis tell of a charity that goes beyond the 'temporary'. They teach that to help the needy person by providing food is good.
But the 'greater charity' is to make it so that the person is no longer 'needy': to help the person find a way to earn their own bread.

More complex. More work and commitment involved. But a 'greater charity'.

Like trying to make a society where young women see some hope and help so that they do not, out of desperation, seek abortions. For this, a much greater commitment is required than the present popular solutions now proposed.
And yet, perhaps it would be a 'greater charity': to offer hope where before there was despair.

Sometimes those who 'must' steal to eat are more sinned-against than sinning.
Is it fitting that we should look upon them with contempt? We, who have been given so much from the Lord?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe: You say so what? I say it matters that objections be based on truth and not rumor. So what? is easy to spout out but a honest person basis their objections on truth and not error.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Benji,


Condescending or not, I am going to forgive your entire post. Serious bud, it was a train wreck. You were trying to shove shotgun ammo into a riffle.

I mentioned nothing about tradition or "desire." Though it is my desire to be biblical. You and others can bring Pinky into the theological debate all you want, but that is a separate issue, one which I no intention of commenting on because I do not know the facts. But to use Pinky as a theological shield is imho disgraceful.

Maybe as disgraceful as what actually happened, but I do not know that and neither do any of you--really.

The point was however, on the nature of a woman (not Dr. Klouda) teaching OT Hebrew Exegesis to male MDiv ordinees and future ordinees. That is the general debate. Pinky is part of a specific and local debate. The general principle must first be applied. Then, how to enact that result should be carried out in light of the specific and local circumstances. As to that I am not completely informed, but she was not simply fired over night. She knew this was coming. Obviously she is free to chime in and correct me if I am wrong.

In fact I would invite her to. The timeline from the moment Dr. Patterson was installed to the moment of her firing seems a bit unclear to me.

Finally, while it saddens us all to hear stories of blood selling, and indeed it is unfortunate, that was her choice. Maybe she felt it was her only choice-- I cannot say, her need for cash however must have been deeply important to her. But I think we drag too much emotion into the situation by combining the blood selling with the firing. Certainly God has provided and she no longer (we hope) needs to shed her own blood.

Lesson: Our emotions must not dictate our theology. (Read Habakkuk)

K

Christiane said...

Kevin, there are some things only the heart can understand.
I think it has to do with that special kind of wordless grace that blesses a simpler faith, and leaves us in no doubt of God's loving-kindness.

I can't down-grade Dr. Klouda's devotion to her husband. What she did may be what REALLY IS the 'servant model' for a wife:
when she sold her blood to help her husband, she put to shame all the silliness of the 'tatting' and the 'decorating' and the 'you lead and I'll follow, Honey'.

She showed us the real beauty of a Christian woman's devotion for her husband , by literally giving of herself, for his sake. It doesn't get any better than that.

Paige Patterson won't find another Christian teacher for his seminary to match her.

Benji Ramsaur said...

Kevin,

"I mentioned nothing about tradition or 'desire.'"

You said "I do not want to be trained for an office by someone who is not qualified to hold that office."
(italics mine)

You also said "I am of the opinion that Seminary Professors teaching men to ordained ministry ought also to be ordained and in most cases should be pastors or have been pastors."

Is this "opinion" a conservative traditional understanding or not?

"Serious bud, it was a train wreck. You were trying to shove shotgun ammo into a riffle....Our emotions must not dictate our theology."

I brought up Scripture [John 13:34-35] and theology and application.

Yes, I brought up her "blood", but I did not "overstate" my case [that is simply what she did] by bringing up mere shock language. Like train wreck, shotgun ammo, riffle, and things of that nature.

"You and others can bring Pinky into the theological debate all you want, but that is a separate issue..."

Oh really? Well, I tell you what, if you get married and you end up getting fired from some church, then please tell your wife "honey, what is happening to me only affects me. You are a separate issue".

Now, before you accuse me of being "emotional", allow me to quote from Westminster at this point:

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: (italics mine)

"The general principle must first be applied."

Great. Let's apply John 13:34-35.

"She knew this was coming."

I don't think she should have been bothered with this in the first place. That is the point.

Love ya K-man

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin M. Crowder said...

"I don't think she should have been bothered with this in the first place. That is the point."

Had Job thought that way he might not have got a book about him in the Bible. John Piper recently posted on fb Job 42:10. Probably something we should all take to heart in this matter, from Dr. and Pinky Klouda, to Drs. Patterson, to Wade, to us all.


G'nite Beng,

K

Benji Ramsaur said...

Kevin,

"Had Job thought that way he might not have got a book about him in the Bible."

I was not referring to the "Sovereignty of God" angle. I was referring to the "human accountability" angle.

I was not referring to the vertical angle. I was referring to the horizontal angle.

From the horizontal angle, Klouda should not have been bothered with the knowledge that her time was coming to an end in the light of John 13:34-35 IMO.

"If" Klouda had begun to teach gnosticism [for example], then the negative consequences brought on her and her husband would have been "her fault"."

However, that was not what happened.

In order to justify the Klouda incident, then you would have to prove that *she* did something wrong. Please show me from the Bible where she was wrong if you want to argue that.

If you want to "infer" from 1 Timothy 2, then why can't I "infer" from John 13:34-35?

In fact, why wouldn't my inference be "closer" to the text than yours [Acts 18:26]?

Lydia said...

Benji,

I just want to say that reading your comments here-- the fact that you are a non egal comp would not stop me from learning at your feet. Your kind is a rarity in the patriarchal authoritarian man's traditional religion some call CHRIST-ianity.

True believers recognize true elders. This is something I had to learn the hard way. It is not always a title conferred by men but an indwelling of the Holy Spirit always growing in Holiness and humbleness.

The simple truth is that we do not hurt our brothers and sisters in Christ. There is a worldliness to blaming the victim (one who was awarded a PhD by the same institution who took her money) that seems so evil to me. I do not think I will ever understand it. And it is scary to see it defended in Christendom. It says a lot about the true state of things.

Thy Peace said...

Amen to Lydia's comment.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Benji,

Train wreck again. While Lydia is groveling at your feet I am gonna bow out. I am not getting into your verse vs. my verse. Now you're stuffing bible verses in that rifle.

Anyway, it's pointless, she shoud have never been placed in the position in the first place. That is why the CR was needed.

K

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hi C.B.

My father worked three jobs, you would have liked him a lot, I think.

Here is one example of providing hope as an alternative to abortion:

http://www.cfshw.com/teen-pregnancy/

There are many ways. The effort is non-denominational and all Christians are welcomed to participate in programs like these.

Do you have to do it?
There is no law on the books that says we must. But, if we know we can help, there is another Law that asks us to try. Love, L's

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

oops

I posted a comment addressed to C.B. instead of you, JOE

I need more coffee . . .

I know you want to help these young people, given an opportunity.
It is this: that you see the wisdom of the kind of help that gives them enough strength to grow into their responsibilities to their children. There are so many 'homes' and 'programs' out there where volunteers are needed and they do so much good.
They are run by many, many denominations, and are born out of love for Christ.

Hand-outs may weaken. I agree.

Christians, on the 'other hand' may raise one hand upwards towards the Lord Christ and the other hand towards a hurting person. How wonderfully the power of the Lord can flow through such Christians to those who are cared for in His Name.
Love, L's

Lydia said...

"Anyway, it's pointless, she shoud have never been placed in the position in the first place. That is why the CR was needed.
"

Kevin, Logic demands that your comment means the CR did not really work. Think about it. Dr. Klouda was working on her PhD at SWBTS and installed as a prof of Hebrew long after the CR had been in full swing.

And your saying she should never have been placed in that position does not condone the behavior toward her. It is just more cruelty toward the victim. As a matter of fact, it means we should not allow women to obtain such PhD's in our seminaries unless they sign a document that says they will never use their knowledge to teach men. That would be more honest.

Otherwise the educated female can just go to another Christian college and teach men. And that is enabling and promoting what they think is sin. Why would they do that? Would that mean they just want the money and the FTE count?

Lydia said...

"I would gleefully support an organization like this that was sponsored by a church even if they had a woman pastor. :o)"

Steady on there, old buddy.

:o)

Lydia said...

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15401

Tom Parker said...

Kevin:
You said:""Anyway, it's pointless, she shoud have never been placed in the position in the first place. That is why the CR was needed.
"
Kevin, have you ever thought about how devestating it must have been to Dr. Klouda and her family and students for her to be fired from her dream job?

BTW the CR was never needed and destroyed the SBC but you are much to young to know what I speak of.

Joe Blackmon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

Any folks who didn't believe above but got hurt in the CR made a choice. They choose not to stand against those with unbiblical beliefs. When you make a choice to stand with the wrong crowd bad things happen sometimes. Maybe next time they have to make a similar choice they'll have learned their lesson.

Wed Dec 30, 03:28:00 PM 2009

Joe, I think one of the embarassing aspects of this whole CR thing is that Klouda was awarded a PhD and hired at SWBTS after the CR was in full swing. Are they willing to stand up and say the President of SWBTS, The Dean and the Trustees at that time

were enemies of the CR because they allowed Klouda to be hired to teach Hebrew to male students?

Are they willing to publicly state these folks do not believe in the inerrancy of the Word and make sure they are not employed anywhere in the SBC nor have any influence as trustees or committee members?

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

A famous and powerful teaching from St. Paul in Romans 12:

"17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil,
but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all "

Has the 'CR' hurt the Church by openly dishonoring the Word ?
Has the result been scandal surrounding the pain openly caused to innocent people ?


Lydia wrote, "The simple truth is that we do not hurt our brothers and sisters in Christ"
And we may all say 'Amen'

Tom Kelley said...

Kevin Crowdr,
I suppose it is not unreasonable to prefer to be trained for an office by someone who is qualified to hold that office. That argument holds no water for me personally, since I believe that the concept of church offices, or ordination to church offices, is not biblical (but is rather a tradition carried over into Protestantism from Catholicism, and likely to Catholicism from Judaism and/or paganism).

But your argument does fit for those many (most, perhaps) Christians who do believe in the church office concept. In that case, if one believes one must be male to be qualified to be a pastor, it makes logical sense that one should be male to teach pastors anything related to being a pastor. That would also mean that all seminary professors teaching future pastors to be pastors must also meet the following criteria:

From 1 Timothy 3:1-7:
*One who seeks to be an overseer
*Without reproach
*A one woman man
*Self-controlled
*Sober-minded
*Orderly
*Hospitable
*Able to teach
*Not a drunkard
*Not violent but gentle
*Not quarrelsome
*Not a lover of money
*Manages his own household well, with submissive children
*Not be a recent convert
*Well thought of by outsiders

And from Titus 1:5-9:
*Above reproach
*A one woman man
*His children are believers, not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination
*Not arrogant
*Not quick-tempered
*Not a drunkard
*Not violent
*Not greedy for gain
*Hospitable
*A lover of good
*Self-controlled
*Upright
*Holy
*Disciplined
*Holds firm to the trustworthy word as taught

There are other relevant passages, but those are enough to get the idea. Do most seminaries really hold their professors to those standards? Seems unlikely, as so many churches don't seem willing to hold their pastors to them.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Tom Kelley,

There are also a great many requirements for those in the "pews." Yet we are all reborn from sin, and sin still remains. None are perfect but being perfected. Certainly biblical elders and deacons must meet these requirements, but how you define some of them will determine how legalistic your mind is. That was not the point of the list. Many shepherds struggle with sins. And daily dying and confession brings healing in these areas when confronted biblically. But it seems to me that it would take a miracle or serious surgery to bring a woman in step with a clearly implied biblical mandate.

So I am afraid I shall not be buying your argument today.


K

Tom Parker said...

KMC:

Are there any women theology professors at the seminary you are attending?

Will you be a SB pastor?

Chris Ryan said...

So Kevin,

Paul should have said that any sinner saved by grace and working to be more godly is qualified as long as they are male.

Because you basically just said that the rest of the list if "if-fy" so long as surgery isn't required.

Christiane said...

Hi TOM KELLEY,

You wrote this:
"I believe that the concept of church offices, or ordination to church offices, is not biblical (but is rather a tradition carried over into Protestantism from Catholicism, and likely to Catholicism from Judaism and/or paganism)."

You are right about the ‘laying on of hands’ being found in the Judaic tradition.
The reception of ‘smicha’ (the ordination ) by a rabbinic candidate involves the ‘laying on of hands’. The way it is described is that the action involves a transfer of ability to be relied on, a ‘leaning on’.
So, while studying for the rabbinate, the student ‘leaned on’ the teachers, now the time has arrived so that the teachers may confidently and reliably ‘lean on’ their student, who is finally prepared and trusted to carry the work of God forward.

A trust has been transmitted.
The one, who is now prepared, has been commissioned.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's,

And the 2-fold point is that Paul affirmed this practice, and that the practive is not simply ceremonial, but rather a teaching, a discipling, a mentoring, and building up into the office, a testing/seasoning is you will.

K

John Fariss said...

Kevin (KMC),

You wrote, "I do not want to be trained for an office by someone who is not qualified to hold that office." As a Hebrew profesor, Dr. Klouda was not explicitly preparing anyone for the "office" of pastor, but rather for informed Old Testament exegesis. Granted there is a pastoral application, but only an application. Every Christian needs to be equipped to correctly exegite the Scriptures. And if anyone at SWBTS still believed as you do, I suspect there was more than one Hebrew teacher there.

John

Lydia said...

Tom,

According to the 'plain reading' of scripture, Crowder is not qualified either because he is single.

Lydia said...

"There are also a great many requirements for those in the "pews." "

There were no 'pews' when the early Christians met. That was a man made invention


All believers were to be priests because all believers should now have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Who held the offices of the church at Corinth? Philippi?

If these are so important, why don't we know their names? How come all the letters were not written exclusively to those "in charge"?

A true elder is going to look more like Matthew 5 than a Pharisee with power.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

A plain reading of Scripture does not mean that one takes their interpretation from their first impression of the text. A plain reading means that the Bible does not contain hidden meaning, secret codes or agendas and can be read in light of the intent of the authors for those whom it was originally written. the irony of the phrase "plain reading" is that it requires much study and prayer.

Lydia said...

the irony of the phrase "plain reading" is that it requires much study and prayer.

Thu Dec 31, 11:46:00 AM 2009

Tell me about it! Which is why your view of Klouda teaching Hebrew to young minds full of mush who want to be pastors --has no biblical support.

If I take your interpretation then I must also believe you are not qualified because you are single.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Thank you Lydia for your comment, you have made your point very clear.

K

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin,

You and I are 100% in agreement.

Lydia has made her point very clear.

AND ...

irrefutible.

I would be interested in your logic for pastoring while single (ignoring "husband of one wife").

For the record, I don't think there is a problem because the statements are descriptive characer qualifications of the teacher/preacher/pastor not mandates.

Blessings,

Wade

Tom Parker said...

Lydia:

You said:"Tom,

According to the 'plain reading' of scripture, Crowder is not qualified either because he is single."

Lydia, it is plain he does not meet this qualification, but it does not seem to faze him in the least.

I really do feel for Kevin because he appears to be well intended, but he is missing some very aspects of being a minister.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"I don't think there is a problem because the statements are descriptive characer qualifications of the teacher/preacher/pastor not mandates."

Exactly my point Wade. (Again we are in 100% agreement) But if we are to labor the issue of singleness, we must note the passage does read "one woman man." While I am currently not hold a pastoral position, the Lord may see fit in the future to place me there again. I should hope he does so with a help mate of equal kingdom importance at my side. But if He should choose not, then I shall go alone where called, married only to my calling and my church.

The phrase "one woman man" does not in my opinion preclude single men from holding the office of Pastor, but I can tell you from a year and a half in that position alone, that I would much prefer the help of a woman of much grace.

K

PS: I have thick skin enough to continue in ministry even if the "Lydia and Tom Baptist Convention" were to remove my vestments. Just beware, with no wife, my undergarments may be a bit wrinkled.

:-0

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane said...
You are right about the ‘laying on of hands’ being found in the Judaic tradition.


Thanks, Christiane. When I said that I do not believe the concept of ordination to a church office is biblical, I did not mean that I do not believe in laying on of hands, or commissioning individuals for a task in the body of Christ. I am not opposed to such "ordination" itself, or to folks functioning in an ongoing capacity within a church. I simply mean that I don't believe that the intention of Jesus or the apostles was to establish a hierarchical institution with some persons having a position with inherent authority over others.

I don't think it's inherently wrong for churches to set up organizational structures as seem expedient to them in their situation and culture, but I do think it's wrong when people view those structures as having the force of biblical authority behind them. In other words, traditions are fine, but they are not binding on behavior or conscience in the way that God's Word is.

I know that's not how the Catholic church sees it, and apparently not how many modern day Baptists see it, either, but from what I've read of what you've written here, I don't think you are always in lock step with all official Catholic dogma. :)

Tom Kelley said...

Kevin,
I have no desire to remove your vestments, regardless of the state of your undergarments. As I indicated in my comment just now to Christiane, I don't have a problem with churches setting up structures and traditions that go beyond Scripture (so long as they are not contrary to scriptural commands). I just think we have made "churchianity" way more complicated and formal and full of requirements than the simple "love God, love people" Christianity that Christ intended.

Happy New Year, and always follow the motherly advice to remember to put on clean underwear, in case you're in an accident.

Tom Parker said...

Kevin:

I can assure you I have desire to affect your INVESTMENTS. I'm not 100% sure I even know what you are speaking of.

It is very difficult, I would say impossible to try and help someone who sees no need for help.

Ten years from now we will see how things in the ministry are with you.

There is much to be said for real life experience as compared to book learning.

Christiane said...

Hi TOM KELLEY,

I am not 'in disagreement' with the teachings of my Church.
Some of the 'practices' which are not based on these core teachings, I should like to see changed.

For example, our priests of the oriental rites are permitted to marry, according to the traditions of their rite. Whereas our priests of the Latin rite, to which I belong, are asked to take a vow of celibacy. That is one example of something I would like to see changed, as it can be done without changing a doctrine.

Kevin was right about something: the doctrines of my Church don't change. Sometimes they are expanded upon as a council is called to consider them, or clarified, but they don't change.

In the words of St. Augustine,
'doctrine' is 'faith seeking understanding'.

I have noticed that, in the Southern Baptist membership, there is a fracturing of the way the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is now being interpreted: some now saying that the Son is 'eternally subordinate' to the Father. That kind of thing was dealt with in my Church by the Councils and resolved for our understanding almost two thousand years ago.

Our doctrines are expressed in our creeds: basically the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. These are the doctrines of our Church that have been clarified by council and which I accept.

I have compassion for Wade's plea that Southern Baptists not separate from one another over secondary and tertiary beliefs.
Hopefully, by moving away from 'Baptist Identity' and towards the fulfillment of the 'Great Comission', Southern Baptists will draw closer to one another. And, in responding to great call of Christ in the Gospels, they will move closer to the 'ekklesia' or as my Church calls it, the 'ecclesia'.
We find our center in Christ the Lord, all of us. As is written, St. Peter asks of Christ: 'to whom shall we go, Lord ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.'

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's,

ESS does not deny Eternal Equality as well. They are indeed conundric (my new word) but so is the concept of "3 in 1."

K

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

LOL 'conundric'
can you translate from Kevinese into Latin or English please.

I can say that the early heresies of the Church did involve disagreement over the Nature of Christ (who He was) and the development of the understanding of the Holy Trinity.

My Church does not accept the idea of E.S.S. from time immemorial, based on the rulings of the councils.

The differences in 'sending forth' do not reflect differences in the majesty of each Person in the Holy Trinity, in the opinion of my faith. Kevin, the Trinity is a great mystery. We know what has been revealed, and we can try to infer from this knowledge more understanding, but much is left to mystery. I do know that this doctrine has led to schism over the filioque clause. In time, the Holy Spirit will heal these divisions.
What concerns me is, that in the SBC, some are so devoted to the idea of female subordination, that they are WILLING to change an ancient basic Christian doctrine to support their views. That is a matter for concern among Southern Baptists, I have no doubt.

Love you dearly,
L's

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane,
I didn't mean to imply that you are in disagreement with your church's primary teachings. I'm sure you know better than me what are considered "core doctrines" of the Catholic religion, and what are just "practices". Is a male-only priesthood a core doctrine? Or is that just a practice that is open to change over time? I've always assumed it was the former. Not that it is a big issue to me' I'm just curious.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

"PS: I have thick skin enough to continue in ministry even if the "Lydia and Tom Baptist Convention" were to remove my vestments."

I am not that kind of a girl :o)

Have you been shopping at Zieglers in anticipation of new career?

http://www.zieglers.com/scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=5

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's

Aparently you and I are not the only wo in history laughing over this word. We are in good company:

conundrum

1596, Oxford University slang for "pedant," also "whim," etc., later (1790) "riddle, puzzle," also spelled quonundrum; the sort of ponderous pseudo-Latin word that was once the height of humor in learned circles.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper




I thought you might like that.


K

Christiane said...

Hi TOM KELLEY,

You ask this: "Is a male-only priesthood a core doctrine? Or is that just a practice that is open to change over time? "

It is the current practice. Yes.
It has been defined as such for the whole Church. Yes

It is NOT what is known as 'ex cathedra' or 'infallible' and therefore is open for debate and possibly for change.

Here are some references. I know the term 'ex cathedra' is confusing. But I can tell you that until a teaching is pronounced 'ex cathedra', it is not considered 'infallible'. :)

And, yes, I am hopeful for change. One of the thirty-three great 'Doctors of the Church' was a little cloistered nun, Therese of Lisieux who died at the age of twenty-four. She was declared a 'Doctor of the Church' because of the impact of her writings on doctrine. She longed to be a priest, and the Church appointed her post-mortem to high position knowing of her longing in her writings. Yes, there is hope.
So I am grateful also for the witness of other Christian women, like Suzanne, and Christa, and Paula, and Lydia, and Mara, and Debbie . . .
hopeful witnesses. Thank God.

My Church has not closed the door forever, but only for the present time.

Here are the references
from ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS,
a letter to the Church from John Paul II (not written ex-cathedra, therefore not considered 'infallible' case-closed. ):

“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”

Commentary:
“after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [3]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [4] [5] [6], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WAS NOT AN EX-CATHEDRA TEACHING OF THE CHURCH saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.”

In short, the debate continues :)

Hope this helps, and doesn't totally muddle you. Love, L's

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane,
No, it doesn't confuse; that was helpful and interesting summary. Thanks!

Kevin M. Crowder said...

L's

It is my understanding that this teaching also provides for sort of a "check" by the Spirit in that all Magisterial Decrees will be accompanied by a working of the Spirit to ensure this teaching is received by the masses. So, for a Priestly requirement which does not include a specification as to gender to ever become ex cathedra dogma it would need to be accompanied by an overwhelming show of suport from both the Cardinals, Bishops, and the masses of the people in general right?

I am thinking we will both be pushin' up 10th generation daisies before that happens. :)


from an Amateur Roman Cathologist (my other new word)


K :)

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

a 'cathologist'
okay, that's pretty good, Kevin.

:)))))))) (trying to restrain laughter, and failing badly :))))))

it's almost as good as, what was that kevinism: 'conundric' :)))))

I think you are correct about my Church moving very, very slowly on most anything. Even 'ex cathedra' is rarely used. But 'order' is kept and everyone is relatively unified. and peaceful with one another. Except we've too, have got our idiots and clowns just like everyone else. We're just not allowed to call one another 'error-ticks'. But it's nice to know that there is some hope for changes in future. I remember when Vatican II shocked everyone and we switched from the tridentine (latin) mass to the vernacular. No change in doctrine, but a lot of older people were upset. They were used to the 'old ways', so to make them feel better, the Church kept the tridentine liturgy active for some of the masses said. ( I still know all the latin prayers by heart.)

When a Church moves this slowly, there is a continuity and an order that is comforting. Unless of course you want something to change. :) Better to pray, 'Thy Will Be Done ... and then be peaceful.

Have a wonderful New Year's Eve.
Love, L's

Kevin M. Crowder said...

When I pastored I would always pop in a piece of "tridentine" during the benediction as I walked to the vestibule (totally not my word). Preachers who use tridentine get more "great sermon, preacher" type remarks. :) Better than hellatosis breath.

Ya, I slipped on in on ya. ;)
hehe I am gonna have to publish this stuff. :)

Christiane said...

go for it !

:)))))))))))))))))

Tom Kelley said...

Kevin M. Crowder said...
hehe I am gonna have to publish this stuff. :)


I think you did, when you clicked on the "Publish" button.