A confession of faith is a written document that declares what a particular sect of Christianity believes.
These 17th-century London Baptists wished to disassociate themselves from the continental Anabaptists, desiring the British Anglican establishment of church and state to know that London Baptists were not continental Anabaptists.
In the title of their confession, a confession which became known as the 1644 London Confession of Faith (also called The First London Confession) these Baptists write:
"(we) are those CHURCHES which are commonly (though falsely) called ANABAPTISTS."The belief that 21st century Baptists in America are the spiritual descendants of continental Anabaptists (e.g. Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc.) is refuted by the source documents, no matter how much modern Anabaptists try to tie Baptists with them. Anabaptists pledge allegiance only to Christ's government and refuse to bear arms in defense of civil government and protest wars in general, preferring to become captives via foreign conquerors than to take the life of other human beings during wars.
In 1644, Baptists in London wanted the leaders of the new English Commonwealth government to know that London Baptists would fight to defend the Commonwealth, though they were not Presbyterian in faith like Oliver Cromwell and his army. Cromwell, who had led his army to overthrow the British Crown government during the English Civil War (1640), distrusted Baptists because he wrongly deemed them to be Anabaptists. Baptists, Cromwell thought, would not fight to defend the Commonwealth.
It is important to note that the 1644 London Baptists wrote their confession two years prior to the infamous Presbyterian Westminster Confession. If one wishes to see how Baptists historically differ from Presbyterians, one only has to compare and contrast the 1644 London Baptist Confession with the1646 London Presbyterian Confession (Westminster).
Historian Henry C. Vedder called the 1644 London Confession "one of the chief landmarks of Baptist history."
Baptists, unlike Anabaptists, are able to distinguish between "church and state" and live in both worlds easily. Baptists see no conflict defending the state while serving Christ personally. What a Christian does in defense of the state is not the same thing as what a Christian will do daily in his private life. Yes, there's a dichotomy, but it's a division of responsibility taught in the New Testament.
The government, according to the Bible, is appointed by God and "does not bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13). Christians lay down their swords. The government picks it up. If a Christian is in support of the government, the sword is borne in its defense. The government's role is to punish criminals, protect borders, and to promote the common good of its citizens.
Baptists understand this, and that's the first reason moral reason why I'm a Christian who identifies as Baptists.
But there's another theological reason. Baptists have historically believed it is unnecessary to use the Law in the conversion of sinners.
The 17th century London Baptists were clear that it was absolutely unnecessary to use "The Law" (meaning the 10 commandments or anything else associated with the Mosaic Law) as prefatory to sharing the gospel. Listen to what they wrote in Article 25:
"The tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners are absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made a Prince and a Savior for such sinners."
Someone might ask, "But how does a person know he or she is a 'sinner' without the Law?"
Answer: Mankind's refusal to reflect the image of his Creator predates the giving of the Mosaic Law, and as such, it is unnecessary for the Law to press on a sinner's conscience his or her spiritual condition.
Truth be known, people are spiritually "dead" in through trespasses and sins, not through God's fault, but by their free choice. Their consciences have been seared by their repeated selfish behaviors, and their soul is dead to God.
Therefore, what is needed is not for a good man to be convinced of his sin, but for a dead man to be raised to spiritual life. A sinner must die to self by experiencing a new birth. Article 24 of the First London Confession states:
Answer: Mankind's refusal to reflect the image of his Creator predates the giving of the Mosaic Law, and as such, it is unnecessary for the Law to press on a sinner's conscience his or her spiritual condition.
Truth be known, people are spiritually "dead" in through trespasses and sins, not through God's fault, but by their free choice. Their consciences have been seared by their repeated selfish behaviors, and their soul is dead to God.
Therefore, what is needed is not for a good man to be convinced of his sin, but for a dead man to be raised to spiritual life. A sinner must die to self by experiencing a new birth. Article 24 of the First London Confession states:
Here is the important takeaway from this first historic Baptist Confession."That faith is ordinarily begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or capacity in the creature, but it (the creature or hearer) is wholly passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power, then that which raised Christ from the dead."
The 17th century London Baptists believed that people should love the ungodly (for Christ died for the ungodly), preach Jesus Christ indiscriminately (for it is the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation), and refrain from using "the Law" as a preparatory work of the gospel.
Christ saves. We love. Christ transforms. We proclaim. Christ judges. We embrace.
When an evangelical gets those things reversed, we try to save people from their sins (and can't), we try to transform behaviors (through rules and laws, and only fail), and we wind up judging people because of their sins (and that's not our job).
Established Protestant denominations (Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc..) have historically believed opposite of Baptists regarding the Law. They've taught that the Mosaic Law to be absolutely essential to the conversion of sinners, and without condemning sinners for their sins, there will never be any salvation.
The Presbyterians write in Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession:
Thus, two of the major differences between Christian denominations and Baptists are:"The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly"
1. The Christian denominations emphasize the union of church and state while Baptists separate them, and,
2. The Christian denominations impress the Moral Law as an instrument of conversion while Baptists simply love the sinner and tell them about Christ.
For example, Christian denominations have historically believed and taught that Christians are obligated to observe a Sunday "Sabbath." They emphasize the 'authority' of pastors/elders to hold people accountable to the Law, similar to the manner in which Old Covenant priests had 'authority' over the laypeople of Israel. The modern church (building) is similar to the historic Temple in Jerusalem. The Mosaic Law is Christianized in most Christian denominations because it is seen as the eternal law of God.
Baptists, on the other hand, see the Law as pointing to Jesus Christ, the Fulfiller of it.
The Law of Moses is a schoolmaster that takes us by the hand and leads us to Christ, our Teacher. Jesus the Messiah fulfilled every portion of the Law (i.e. 'every jot and tittle') and then caused it to 'disappear' in order to establish a 'new and better covenant' with a new and better law (Hebrews 8:13). That law, called The Royal Law, is "to love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:35).
The New Covenant promises us eternal blessings because of the obedience of Another. We are declared 'righteous' by God because we abide in Christ by faith, receiving righteousness that is not our own by any obedience to Law, but "a righteousness that comes from God and is found by faith."
Therefore, we Baptists exalt Christ and live lives of love that image Him.
Though Christ is 'foolishness' to the Greeks and a 'stumbling block' to the Jews, He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life for us. When we come to know the Truth, the Truth set us free.
The reason I am a follower of Jesus Christ who identifies as 'Baptist' is because of historic Baptist theology.
The state should be the state and not act like the church. The state protects borders, promotes the common good, and punishes criminals.
The church of Jesus Christ should be the church and not the state. The church feeds the poor, houses the homeless, loves the prisoners and criminals, and proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The reason we live in a convoluted political climate in the USA is that political liberals want the state to act like the church and political conservatives want the church to act like the state. In Baptist theology, the church and the state are two different entities, and the two should never encroach on each others' borders.
Unfortunately, the historic moral, philosophical, theological, and biblical viewpoint of Baptists is in the minority in America. And that's a shame since Baptists played a huge role in the Founding of the United States.
67 comments:
Hello WADE,
I am confused about your descriptions of 'the Mosaic Law' and 'the moral law'. Could you please tell me if you think these are the same thing to Baptists?
I had understood the Mosaic Law to be the commandments given by God to Moses. But as for the 'moral law', I have thought it was related to the moral 'conscience' given to all of mankind as mentioned herein:
"13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. 14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, 15since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them." (from Romans, chapter 2)
So I am unsure of how the two terms are seen by Baptists. I would appreciate some help, and thank you.
Hope all is going well.
Wade,
Ah! Here we go again. Long time ago I told you about a book: Copyright 1952 “The Baptist Story…sermons on THE TRAIL OF BLOOD by A. A. Davis, Pastor FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH Nowata, Oklahoma.
On the last page (210), is a list of 39 books that Davis used in writing his.
Davis wrote on page 70: “Every preacher…is either trying to reach human hearts and bring them closer to God with the great truths, or he has a program arranged to entertain the folks…the old-time idea was if you (preachers) would put on a certain garment, you would be more pleasing to God.”
I have our father’s copy. He has written on the margins many things. On the page above, he wrote: “The stole issued to chaplains, I refused to wear mine. I sent it home for Raynell [our youngest sister] to cut up for doll clothes.”
Davis wrote on page 60: “In the 11 century a highway into Rome for a distance of 30 miles. On every fencepost on both sides of that highway was the gory head of an Ana-Baptist. The world does not know the Baptist blood that shed back there, does not know this Baptist story.”
The last four pages of his book has the history chart of J.M. Carroll.
https://www.amazon.com/Trail-Blood-Following-Christians-Centuries/dp/0998480436
“The History of Baptist Churches from the time of Christ, Their Founder, to the present day. These Christians were the objects of bitter and relentless persecution. History shows that during the period of the “Dark Ages,” about fifty million of these Christians died martyr deaths.”
Wade,
Our dad told us when asked if we were Catholic or Baptist to reply: “Neither, I’m Baptist.”
Hello out there REX RAY,
glad to hear on the last post comments that you don't need surgery!
That's GOOD news. Take care.
Christiane,
"I'm confused about 'the Mosaic Law' and 'the moral law'. Could you please tell me if you think they are the same thing?"
Great question Christiane.
They are the same thing in my mind. The Mosaic Law is often separated into "moral law, ceremonial (religious) law, and civil law." Many Christians say the moral law is eternal, and the ceremonial and civil laws ended at the death of Christ. The only PROBLEM with that view is that the Scriptures never distinguish between moral, civil, and ceremonial law under the Mosaic economy.
They are all one.
And the Mosaic law came to an end after Jesus fulfilled it.
Now, the Royal Law of love is the only commandment for followers of Jesus. You can't steal if you love your neighbor. You can't commit adultery if you love your wife. You can't like if you love the Truth. And so on...
Rex,
I echo Christiane.
Grateful no surgery is needed!
Rex,
Not that this will be posted by Wade.
The Trail of Blood is the standard IFB fiction pushed by its adherents. I find it fascinating that it links Baptists to the following groups:
the Waldensians (founded in the 1170s, based in the Cottian Alps)
the Cathari (or Novatianists) (founded in the 3rd century) - heretical
the Paulicians (founded c. 650 in Armenia) - heretical
the Donatists (originating in North Africa in the 4th century)
It is nothing more than a Landmarkist propaganda piece. Wade, please tell me that you do not subscribe to this view of Baptist history.
Wade,
FWIW, I am happy that at least some Baptists adhere to a Confession. Carl Trueman wrote an interesting book on the benefits and needs for Creeds and Confessions (the LBC was one of them that he discussed):
https://www.amazon.com/Creedal-Imperative-Carl-R-Trueman/dp/1433521903
Another interesting bit about the LBC:
The First London Baptist Confession (first edition) was published in 1644. The second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646. The preface to this edition reads as follows:
"A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed in London, Anno 1646."
More can be found here:
https://www.theopedia.com/first-london-baptist-confession
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm
One minor correction Wade,
You seem to ignore the other dissenters (the Congregationalists) in this post.
They were the early adherents of congregational polity and they also had their own Confession (Savoy Declaration, written by a committee chaired by Thomas Goodwin and John Owen).
The Congregationalists were not joined at the hip to the state and they were kicked out their country (you know the Pilgrims). I would wager that it was the Congregationalists that had a far greater impact on the separation of church and state and on the American Revolution.
Minor bit of trivia, the colonists at the Plymouth Plantation used the Geneva Bible, not the AV1611.
I've taught some classes about the Baptist Faith & Message, and I agree with it overall. There were certain changes made to the 1963 Confessions that I do not agree with, but overall, I'm OK with it.
Even when I was a Presbyterian ... 3 different denominations thereof ... there were some parts of the Westminster Confession I didn't agree with.
In my experience, very few SBCers know what the BF&M says. I find that quite curious.
Bob,
Interestingly, if one looks at the Belgic Confession (Continental Reformed), the WCF (Presbyterian Reformed), the LBC of 1644/1646 and 1689, and the Savoy Declaration, you will find that that there is agreement on the vast majority.
The biggest problem (and it was pointed out in Carl Trueman's book I linked to above) is that most Christians think that a creed or confession smacks of legalism or Catholicism or whatever.
I always roll my eyes and chuckle when Christians and churches say "No creed but the Bible." And yet they believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine or believe in the Triune members of the Godhead and that each is a person (gee I wonder how those were defined and explained and from where did they get those from).
Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered Christians and are therefore heretics. Same with Mormons, Christian Science, Jesus-Only Pentecostals, and others. The creeds were developed in direct response to the heresies threatening the church (body of believers). For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing more than modern day Arianists.
CM: When I first joined FBC Pelham, I asked the pastor if the SBC had a creed like the Westminster Confession, as I do study the beliefs of the denominations I belong to. He said "The say Baptists have no creed but Christ and no book but the Bible. So here's the creed we don't have, and here's the book we don't have". Then he handed me the BF&M (1963), and the book "The Baptist Faith and Message" written by someone whose name I've forgotten.
So yes, I recall that saying, every time I teach on the BF&M!
Bob,
That's a funny statement. Or better yet, go to a church's website and print out a copy of their belief statement (or whatever they call it). That is the creed they say they don't have either :-D.
The beauty of something about a BF&M, LBC, WCF, etc is regardless if one parishoner agrees with it completely or not (like you mentioned about the WCF and the BF&M earlier), if X church or denomination states they belief said creed, then you at least have a defined point of reference. An ideally if one wants to be a deacon or pastor or elder in said assembly then it makes sense that that is part of the requirements. In your case, it meant that you could attend a PCA church but not be a deacon or elder, for example.
CM,
You said, “I always roll my eyes and chuckle when Christians and churches say “No creed but the Bible.”
Do you know the difference between a confession of faith and a creed?
Keith Parks explained that very well in a letter he wrote the Baptist Standard on February 11, 2002: “A confession becomes a creed when others determine the beliefs one is forced to sign.”
(Parks was the leader of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Convention that split from the SBC.)
Many years ago, my cousin was a member of his church. Parks’ wife asked him if he knew Rex Ray.
“Yes, he’s my uncle who was a missionary in China.”
“No. I’m referring to Rex Ray; the blogger.”
“Oh, he’s my cousin.”
“I believe every word he writes.”
CM, do you know how many of our missionaries left or were fired?
Rex,
Yes I do. As Bob Cleveland I discussed, when he was in Presbyterian Church, they used the WCF. Now there is nothing wrong with that church doing that any more than any other church that uses something else. It is only applicable to that particular group. And if say you want to be a deacon or elder or pastor in said group, then it is perfectly acceptable for that group to require assent to that confession.
This has nothing to do where are you are in your faith, your maturity, or the litmus test of you being a Christian. But I see nothing wrong for a PCA Church to require its pastor to agree with and adhere to to the WCF any more than whatever confessional document in Wade's church to require that of Wade.
Wade's church believes in credobaptism right? So if someday Wade says, "No we are going to start baptizing babes like the Lutherans do", do you think Wade should remain pastor? Obviously not. Why? Obviously because the BF&M and other confessional type documents. None of this determines if you are a Christian or if you are a heretic.
Creeds on the other hand are different. If say Wade says someday, "I disagree and reject the Nicene Creed and I believe Jesus is of like substance as the father but not the same substance." what does that make Wade? He is only NOT a Baptist, he is NOT even a Christian. Why? He just rejected the Divinity of Christ and has now become a heretic known as a Jehovah's Witness.
And guess what? The various confessional churches reference the Creeds in their confessional documents.
Also,
I do not see a problem with Church X require its officers, leaders and the like from being required to sign off agreement on whatever confessional documents Church X has. If you don't agree, then you are not obligated to join or stay in said fellowship. No one is forcing you to stay. Same as everything else really.
Now I do not know the backstory of the fired missionaries or how many left or were fired.
Presumably when they took the position, there were requirements and things they had to sign off agreement on, yes? Did the requirements or policies change during the time they were employed? Was there a stricter enforcement of these?
If they left because they now disagreed with the polices and beliefs they originally signed off on, then that is fine by me. If things changed, presumably they were given a chance to review said changes. If they disagreed and left, again fine by me. If they refused to adhere to said polices and beliefs and they refused to go and they got fired, again fine by me.
Hello CM,
there is quite a history behind the fired missionaries, but it is one in which a great wrong was done to them.
Perhaps Wade will direct you to some of the information about them as he was a part of their story and tried to help them. It cost him. Sometimes, when people are persecuted and someone stands up for them, then there is a price to be paid for taking a stand.
You might want to know the whole story before making judgment about the outcome being fine with you. It's a sad story, for so many of those good people. There is more to it than what you might think.
CM,
You never answered how many missionaries left or were fired because they wouldn’t sign the BFM 2000. The link below states:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/february/southern-baptists-lose-1132-missionaries-staff-imb-cuts.html
http://216.92.32.39/2002Journals/April2002/Apr02LetterOfSupport.htm
“Jerry Rankin’s decision to require all of our missionaries to sign a loyalty oath to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement.”
CM, my missionary son was first told that signing the BF&M 2000 was only required of new missionaries. (WRONG)
Then he was told if he didn’t sign, he wouldn’t be fired. (WRONG)
CM: One other thing I did was to take the statements of faith of the Assemblies, the WCF and the BF&M, and print out the things each dealt with. Jesus, God, the Scriptures, responsibilities, etc. Then i handed them out to the class and asked which were which. For the most part, they couldn't tell!
Rex and Christiane,
I did answer. I wrote the following in an earlier post:
Now I do not know the backstory of the fired missionaries or how many left or were fired.
That is the answer I do not know. And if you ask why, it is because I am not a Baptist (SBC or otherwise), so why I would follow this any more than what you follow what goes on in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA)?
Christiane,
For starters, those missionaries are part of an organization (a non-profit business organization). How is that any different than if the HR policies of a company change and employees have to sign off on it?
If "Management" said something officially and documented to the effect that current employees are grandfathered under the old policy and the new policy only applies to new employees. Then suddenly they change things, then that is a different story. It is not illegal or nor necessarily liable, it is most definitely sleazy and reflects poorly on management. In which case, why on earth would one want to work in such an organization?
As a follow-up, if a company were as messed up, why would any one want to work there? In which case it is the company's loss as talent will go elsewhere. New Management screwing up and cratering an organization is hardly unheard of.
Does it suck to put it bluntly? Of course. Does it suck for those who got canned? You betcha. But that is what happened. New Management took over and messed things up. But is this really any different than what has happened to Sears or any other mismanaged organization?
Hello CM,
I do believe the missionaries 'worked for' more than 'a company' in the sense that they were God-called to serve in the Kingdom of Our Lord and their 'work' was therefore 'mission' to those who needed a Shepherd. Their work was in its very nature, holy to God, not some 'employment' by 'New Management', but something 'more' than that in its depth and scope. They were 'servants' of Jesus Christ working on the front lines in His Name in the kind of work that put them at risk at times in foreign lands. So, on that level, we have a story that is more epic in its scope by the very nature of their commitment to serve God and how it was that they were so poorly treated by the 'New Management'. The Church (the Body of Christ) is infinitely more than a private 'corporation' run like a 'business' and these missionaries had entered their work for reasons other than personal gain, and even though I am not Baptist, I would stand up if they entered a room out of respect for those who had said to God 'send me'.
Read the links provided to you about what happened. When I tell you that there is 'more to it' than you presently understand, I can assure you that these people did holy work for reasons far removed from personal gain, as did my mother's cousin, a Baptist missionary who remained on duty long after his health permitted him the physical strength to go on serving. His life and his death were 'more than' a work-contract between a company and its employee. I honor his memory as someone who would not put himself first before the ones he had come to care for, and so he gave of himself beyond what his mortal coil could sustain indefinitely. You don't 'pay' people for that kind of service, no. As to how these good people were treated by 'new management', I leave that judgment to the Good Lord who sees all hearts more clearly than we are capable of doing as human persons.
A great wrong was done to these missionaries. Their story is one of an injustice for which there are no adequate words, only a very deep sadness for the good they might have done if allowed to remain in service.
Christiane,
You do realize that the Assemblies of God (AG) has requirements for its missionaries. Here is the link to the information:
http://media1.razorplanet.com/share/510093-8874/siteDocs/World%20Missions/Becoming%20an%20AG%20Missionary%20-%20INFO%20PACKET.pdf
For many of its missionaries, they have agree to their doctrinal statement (either by itself or as part of being ordained or licensed). One their statements is agreeing with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and that the Sign Gifts still continue to this day.
So what if a missionary comes to conclusion that they don't agree? Should they resign and if not be let go?
I am sure such cases happened in the AG, and I am sure in a whole host of other denominations. I could pick several denominations that you are also NOT a member of and point out similar cases as what happened to IMB. So where is your outrage on those?
Those missionaries also "worked for" more than "a company."
The bottom line is that a New Management took over. So perhaps the best and long-term solution is to work to get rid of said management. Or alternatively create another organization or have the affected members go to another one. Or both.
I am not disputing that it is more than a company and they are more than workers at all. The but real, concrete behavior, actions, and characteristics are exactly what happened as described.
Hello CM
'power' and 'control' and whose running the show doesn't work in the Church when it comes to honoring Christ, and if the Church (denomination) is not honoring Christ, there is little else that matters
perhaps it's a case of trying to do what is right by people, instead of always 'being right', and the DIFFERENCE is what separates the Church from the board rooms of major corporations who are profit-making for their share-holders
no comparison and as for the 'new management' that 'took over' the SBC, well that came to worse and worse until the house of cards fell down . . . even the Pattersonian stained glass windows were removed at SWBTS, so much of a reminder they were of an era that seemed very far indeed from honoring Christ
I would not want to speak for a regime that supported the abuse of women OR the mal-treatment of God-called missionaries, no. I would respect the ones who tried to help the victims of manipulation and abuse. I think that the seeds of the fall of the house of Patterson were planted when those missionaries were 'fired'. Now, maybe someone will tell you the story of what happened to Dr. Klouda. That's another story, but the mean-spiritedness that targeted her and her family is of the same source as the evil that harmed the missionaries.
Christiane,
I am not disputing any of your points at all. And I am not speaking for the regime of abuse, incompetence, malfeasance, etc. there or at any other organization. There were obviously systemic issues in the organization that allowed this to happen.
How is what targeted Dr. Kouda any more or less evil than those who went after Edward Snowden? Also, there is systemic abuse and all the power games in COGIC, another denomination of which also you are NOT a member of:
https://cogicabusewatch.wordpress.com/
But have you or anyone in this forum or on the WW ever heard of what is going on there?
There is more than enough injustice in this world.
You and Wade have your specific injustices you post on, help the victims of, etc. Others while they agree with you, they have other injustices they focus on. So do not fall into the mistake that somehow because others don't have the same focus doesn't mean they don't care or don't agree.
CM,
You remind me of Saul being told, “…it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Acts 9:5 KJ)
Have you ever thought because many missionaries were removed, how many more souls will be in hell?
REX RAY,
that is what is so sad, that all the good that might have been done was prevented
CM,
I’ll never forget a long letter my son passed on to me that Jerry Rankin (President of IMB) had sent to all missionaries:
“It seems the whole world is waiting with bated breath for what I’m going to say…I want you to have the confidence in your leaders to follow their instructions.”
In my opinion, he wanted missionaries to be employees.
Hello CM,
as for 'injustices' in the world, that one happens does not 'excuse' another, no
your logic seems strange to me, that because I find the world filled with terrible injustices, it should matter to me to remark on something such as the fate of the missionaries and the traumatic treatment of Dr. Klouda whose husband was so ill at the time . . . but we cannot remain silent in the face of evil without losing something of our own humanity
look at the toll it took on our country when the refugees were separated from their children, and the littles taken from their mother's arms and places in facilities that were sub-standard and poorly provisioned . . . as a nation, we lost something irreplaceable in the silence of so many people who looked away and 'excused' what was inflicted on these innocents;
and although I don't see the coronavirus as a 'punishment' for our crimes against the innocent border children, I sometimes think that in our own discomfort, we might again recover some empathy for the sufferings of others for whom we might have spoken up and tried to help, but we would not . . . we did not
sometimes God's mercy comes to us in strange ways to bring us to where we again can respond to the pain of this world with something approaching the compassion that Our Lord felt when He looked out over the helpless throngs who had no one who cared for them
We do what we can... when we can . . . in the ways that we can according to our talents and gifts given to us to be shared for good in this world . . . to repair what is broken, to stand up for those who are afflicted and speak for them .... we turn away from this duty only at the risk of our own souls
in response to your argument about 'why bother to care about this one?' because of all the 'other' injustices in the world, I can offer this for you to think about:
"“It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction
of the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work.
Nothing we do is complete,
which is a way of saying that the Kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection.
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the Church’s mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.
This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything,
and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
and to do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord’s grace to enter and do the rest.
We may never see the end results,
but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.”
(Ft. Romero)
CHRISTIANE,
CM probable doesn’t know all the story of Dr. Klouda.
She was teaching Hebrew at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas when Paige Patterson became its president. Knowing his belief that ‘women shouldn’t teach men’, she asked if he had a problem with her teaching.
She had the reputation of being the best Hebrew teacher they ever had. At one time my niece was a student of hers. My niece liked her very much.
Patterson told her there was no problem. Since her husband was very sick, she put a down payment on a house close by so she could take better care of him.
It wasn’t long before Patterson fired her. With no job, the money she had saved didn’t last long. She lost the house. She sued Patterson for ‘sex discrimination’. His lawyer convinced the judge that the Seminary was the same as a church. Because of separation of church and state, the judge ruled against her.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16828466/ns/us_news-education/t/professor-seminary-ousted-her-over-gender/
The Link above states what Wade Burleson believes:
"The extraordinary belief that women should be forbidden from teaching men the Bible, or 'doctrine,' is held by only a handful of Southern Baptist leaders, including at least one agency head and a few strategically placed trustees in various agencies," Burleson wrote on his Web blog. "Unfortunately, the majority of Southern Baptists let them dictate policy for the entire convention."
When Dr, Klouda started selling her blood, Wade asked donations for her. I gave $300.
CM has much to learn about the ones who 'took over' the SBC, and how they treated many innocent people, REX RAY.
Your donation to Dr. Klouda was a great kindness to her in her trouble. God will not forget you on The Day of the Lord.
Her story is as shocking to me as the fate of the missionaries who were 'fired'. Christians don't treat people this way, to see them suffer so. The ones who took 'control' were not kind people, no. Not if they could persecute missionaries and a woman professor with a very ill husband. Her story and how Wade and yourself and others helped her remains with me as a 'witness' to the faith of Christ, the faith that asks us to stand up for those who are being harmed. Good on you for helping her.
You take care. Things are not going well with that virus in Texas according to the news.
I am hopeful that people will be self-protective and not ignore the danger. Be safe!
in honor of all Christian people who speak out for the persecuted, I can share this quote from history, written circa 1946 by Martin Niemoller who famously said 'God is my feuhrer':
""... the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—"should I be my brother's keeper?"
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.
Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. "
(Niemoller)
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
Pastor Martin Niemoller, survivor of the camps
CHRISTIANE,
Thanks for the kind words.
Yes, the virus in Texas is not good. Tomorrow, we’ll go back to having church watching it on TV since three of our members have the virus.
Today, the ashes of my cousin, Francis Ray, were buried near her husband’s grave in a cemetery near here. He was the son of our missionary uncle, Rex Ray. They were missionaries in Korea 39 years. Many funny stories were told.
Many years ago, her son, Mark, told me that his younger brother, Andy, could get me down. I said, “No seven-year-old can do that!”
“GET HIM, ANDY!”
Before I could move, Andy jerked one of my legs in the air and I landed on my back. (He was strong!)
Mark is now a retired missionary from Australia.
Great story, REX RAY, about Andy-The-Seven-Year-Old. It is so vividly told that I could actually hear the 'THUMP' as you hit the floor! :)
I'm sorry you lost your cousin Francis Ray. There is so much of loss these days, that I find I am in need of Christ's Peace as a place in which to rest. So much loss.
this week, in the midst of all the paper-work fuss of lawyer's, accountants, the government, the legalese, and writing notes to those who sent flowers and cards; the phone rang:
it was late at night, one of the care-givers at my eldest son's facility had found him having difficulty breathing and he was taken by ambulance to hospital. After much examination, it was found that my son had fluid that filled up the area around his heart under the pericardium (a sac-like structure) and it was drained off with needles and a drain was inserted that saved him. His kidneys had 'shut down' temporarily and were treated by rinsing so that he began to be able to urinate once again; and it was determined that likely his medications were in need of review. So it was three days in the CCU (cardiac unit) and after he rallied (thank God), he is now on a regular hospital floor and will remain as more observation and evaluation takes place.
I remember my prayer to God: please don't take my boy so soon after his father's passing, Lord, please help him. . . . what happened to my son put all the 'busy-ness' of the legal and financial concerns in perspective,
and I was able to see 'the long view' once again, and to be able to find peace in the knowledge that God cares for us in our woundedness, and shelters us in our grief. Such is the kindness of our God, REX RAY, this sense of peace in midst of the storm. I am in awe of it.
I'm sorry to hear about the members of your Church who have fallen victim to the virus, and you and Judy are wise to stay at home and view the service in safety from there for now. Maybe soon it will all be over, but the news is not good and I worry for those who do not take reasonable precautions.
My mother's cousin died because he was a missionary who would not come home and leave his flock when he started to become ill. His condition slowly worsened, sadly, and by the time he arrived home for medical care, it was too late. He gave selflessly of himself in service to those in his care, and I honor his memory. For sure, maybe sometime before Patterson meets his Maker, he will realize the harm he orchestrated, but in any case, Our Lord is merciful beyond all understanding. So much sadness.
These are strange days. Take care and stay safe. If you are staying home tomorrow, Wade also has a sermon on line Sundays over at Wartburg Watch blog. It's always worth listening to. :)
CHRISTIANE,
Praying for your son. I don’t believe there’s any worse pain than a parent losing their child. Makes you wonder how much God loves us that only his tears could answer “Why have you forsaken me?”
I didn’t hit the floor on my back as we were outside. The pain wasn’t near as much as the loss of dignity from everyone laughing.
Your saying “…the phone rang” reminded me of one of the stories told yesterday. Mark (the one that said, “Get him Andy!”) told a story how tuff his mother was. She lived alone but didn’t answer his phone call. He hurried over to find out why.
She was taking a shower when he called. In a rush to answer, she didn’t dry off. She slipped and broke a hip. He found her on the floor and called 911. Despite his protest, she made him put her cloths on before the ambulance got there.
CHRISTIANE,
My brother, Hez, met Jesus March 17, 2020. Our favorite cousin, Claude Hicks did the same May 23, 2020 at age 93.
In college we three had a contest. Claude had a 22 pistol in a holster. A stopwatch told who could draw and shoot the fastest. After many times, Hez cut the time in half. He had pulled the trigger while the gun was in the holster; missed his foot by six inches.
END OF CONTEST. :)
I like the Scripture that tells what we know in heaven: “…I will know fully, as I am fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12 Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Hey out there REX RAY,
I was afraid that story about Hez was going to end in blown-off toes, but once again, your family seemed to be blessed with good fortune and plenty of guardian angels
Yes, I like that Scripture too, as now sometimes our understanding suffers much as we see 'through a glass darkly' and still we wonder about the meaning of our existence and like small children we ask God 'Why?' and admit that 'we don't understand' so much. But I do think we know when we are being cared for, and that makes up for not having all the answers, you bet.
Thanks for the prayers for my son. He is better today, and after they work up a better medicine regime for him, he will return to Eastern Christian Childrens' Retreat, which he loves very much, and is loved there and cared for beautifully. God watches over him. I 'know' this in a way that has no room for doubt.
Glad you all are sheltering from crowds. It's hard this staying home, but if it saves lives, then it has meaning and purpose for now. We will pray for better days, yes.
You take care.
CHRISTIANE,
Glad your son is doing better!
RB Kuter,
You said, “Keith Parks’ role as FMB [Foreign Mission Board] was ended.”
Parks argued the glue that held Baptist together was MISSONS, but his opponents said the glue was DOCTRINE; and it became OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
Many Southern Baptist churches joined the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Convention that he helped to start.
Once, I asked a guy why did they disliked them so much since they were following the Great Commission of Christ.
He replied, “Because they’re getting money that should be coming to us!”
Wade,
When I saw JFK’s picture on this post, I first thought it might be about who was responsible for his assignation. To me, the LBJ Library; the LBJ Freeway in Dallas is like Germany honoring Hitler.
Rex Ray, I decided to "delete" my lengthy comments which were not related to Wade's post and weakly related to any subsequent comment made by other readers. I realized I was writing to voice my own opinion taking advantage of the popularity of Wade's blog site. That doesn't seem right to me.
But in response to your mentioning Keith Parks, my wife and I knew him well and were broken hearted when he was railroaded out of the President position of FMB. When we were appointed back in 1988, it was Keith who was President at our appointment and deployed us to serve in Zambia. What a great, humble, Godly man and one who was very experienced in "on the field" service having served in Indonesia for years prior to taking the role in Richmond headquarters. He and his wife, Jean, were loved by all who were involved with the Board. Sure wish we had someone like him to serve as President of IMB today.
Actually, we do have someone who reminds me a lot of the heart, experience, and Godliness of Keith who is currently serving as the "second in charge" of IMB as the Executive Vice President. I know that I and many others who know this guy recommended that HE be the President to follow David Platt but the Trustees continue to insist that they have someone with more notoriety and celebrity among the power players in SBC so they didn't get this man to serve as President but did as Executive VP. Actually, due to his humility and admirable objectives, I don't know that he would have accepted the role as President, BUT if he had, or someone else like him had, we would be greatly blessed with a missions leader who served most effectively with experience, understanding of international dynamics and how best to lead missionaries and implement international mission strategy.
Oh, sorry, going right back to my hijacking Wade's blog!
This post was excellent in its definition of the term "Baptist" (which is not necessarily synonymous with "Southern Baptist") and with what I have read from several other authors who were in a position to be experts on the subject.
I'm not sure what the influences have been, but in recent years, the churches I have encountered as being authentically "Baptist" don't identify as such while many Baptists I know have abandoned historic principles held by most Baptists and have picked up a different mantle, whether influenced by secular politics or by their need for allies to win some kind of denominational political contest. Labels are becoming increasingly meaningless in an American Evangelical Christianity that is declining in evangelistic influence.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Lee, just wondering if you can clarify what you refer to when saying, "the churches I have encountered as being authentically "Baptist" don't identify as such while many Baptists I know have abandoned historic principles held by most Baptists and have picked up a different mantle".
Back in the day of more intense battling within the Southern Baptist Convention, there did seem to be a push toward being more "fundamental" in the sense of pastors/movement leaders being forceful in asserting "their" agenda at the expense of the traditional Baptist "priesthood of the believer" concept that counters authoritarian leadership style. Is that what you're saying you encounter today that contradict your concept of what is authentic "Baptist"? Just not sure.
Among several things that run counter to the the older concept of being "Baptist," yes, there does seem to be a move toward a more hierarchical, "Presbuterian" if you will, authoritarian governance model becoming prevalent among Southern Baptists in particular. The expectation that political involvement will generate government enforcement of Christian moral values to change people's behavior and enforce conformity is a shift away from both belief in a free church in a free state and the dependence that Baptists have always had on evangelism and discipleship.
This is interesting, Lee Saunders:
"The expectation that political involvement will generate government enforcement of Christian moral values to change people's behavior and enforce conformity is a shift away from both belief in a free church in a free state and the dependence that Baptists have always had on evangelism and discipleship."
so the political lure was to get a result that could be had by 'force' (conformity) rather than the traditional 'free Church in a free state' model?
Question is: conformity to WHAT when the 'fruit' of the political moves were leaders who approved of treating innocent people poorly, something forbidden to Christian people by the Royal Law of Christ
what might have prevented this? perhaps some thought given prayerfully to these words of St. Paul in sacred Scripture:
"But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
(2 Corinthians 11:3)
might have been better to stay with Our Lord as the lens through which all sacred Scripture is to be read and interpreted, to stay with 'the simplicity that is in Christ'
Focusing on Christ is safe harbor from the reaches of those who would ask us to 'look away' from Him, as they will promise to provide you instead with the 'words of eternal life'. . .
but St. Paul's words in sacred Scripture would point us only and ever to 'the simplicity that is in Christ' as is written in his epistle to the Church at Corinth in ancient days.
So, let us also attend.
CHRISTIANE,
The hour is late, but maybe I’ll feel better if I tell you I’ve experience a little ‘taste’ of hell, and am waiting for more pain pills to help.
Today, I went to a new VA doctor to get some relief from the hole in my ankle that refuses to get well.
He said he was going to give me the same treatment as if I was wounded on a battlefield by using acupuncture. After midnight, I woke Judy and asked her to remove needles in my ear because I couldn’t stand the pain in my ear anymore.
Christiane, I wrote the above and went to Google trying to find a name of his treatment. This is the link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/02/15/battlefield-acupuncture-pseudoscience-for-wounded-troops/#750822c2552e
“…The military is spending money on something that actual harms wounded military men…a practice that is so bizarre, so obviously ridiculous, that some may think I’m making this up. I’m not. Battlefield acupuncture is a technique where they stick short needles into five points on the ear.”
The link states it was more than ten years old.
Yikes, REX RAY
so now they've got witch doctors in VA hospitals? :)
What on Earth? I'd like to know where this doctor got his MD.
you would be better off in a hyperbaric chamber with super-oxygen treating your ankle than with needles stuck into your ear . . . and he left the needles in??? strange and stranger still
sounds like pseudo-medicine to me, you bet
I remember my dear father struggling with a wound in his lower leg that he got trying to make his own bed putting on one of the fitted sheets. He slipped and tore the skin badly, so that the scrape did not heal well and began to fester. His doctor 'scraped' the wound and applied some kind of poultice that was supposed to be healing. I remember we had to take Pop back to that doctor about four times before the wound healed to where the skin was 'almost' back in shape. It was very difficult for my Pop. I'm going to try to remember the name of the cream he was given to put on the wound himself between visits. No needles in the ear for Pop, though. :) (I think the cream was zinc oxide, but I can't remember exactly, so don't try it until you talk to a physician about it.)
Needles in the ear . . . for an ankle wound . . . . good grief
I hope your next visit to the VA turns out better for you! Take care.
BTW, my son is doing better but still faces some more tests to determine what parts of the heart were weakened by his trouble. Thanks for the prayers, as they mean so much. God Bless!
CHRISTIANE,
Pray your son keeps getting better. This doctor was a doctor in the army. Maybe nettles in a soldier’s ear caused so much pain he forgot he’d lost a leg. :)
Same doctor mailed a wonderful ointment that reduces pain. (Lidocaine Ointment USP, 5%) It had a note: “Child-Resistant Cap”. Note should have included “Senile Adults” as we couldn’t get the cap off with plyers. Finally read note: “Push to open”
Told doctor ankle got well once with “Unna Boot with Calamine, so we’d try again He agreed.
CHRISTIANE,
Pray your son keeps getting better. This doctor was a doctor in the army. Maybe nettles in a soldier’s ear caused so much pain he forgot he’d lost a leg. :)
Same doctor mailed a wonderful ointment that reduces pain. (Lidocaine Ointment USP, 5%) It had a note: “Child-Resistant Cap”. Note should have included “Senile Adults” as we couldn’t get the cap off with plyers. Finally read note: “Push to open”
Told doctor ankle got well once with “Unna Boot with Calamine, so we’d try again He agreed.
Lee, you bring up some very interesting issues that deserve debate, saying, "The expectation that political involvement will generate government enforcement of Christian moral values to change people's behavior and enforce conformity is a shift away from both belief in a free church in a free state and the dependence that Baptists have always had on evangelism and discipleship."
Never before in my lifetime has secular politics become more relative to the church. I guess one might refute that citing the campaign for John Kennedy, the first Catholic Presidential candidate. I remember evangelicals of those times campaigning hard against Kennedy based upon his being Catholic saying that if he were to be elected the Pope would be running the US!
But other than that, I don't recall our churches, Southern Baptists in particular, being so identified with one political persuasion so as to make it difficult for a person from the opposing persuasion to feel comfortable in attending and participating in a Bible study and interacting with members of a Southern Baptist Church. But it should come as no surprise when the opposite party actually makes an official resolution to identify with those who are not associated with religion.
The particular positions on issues involved and the polarization between each side due to the extreme contrast in their positions create a situation that is as much identified as being a matter of "religion" as it is "secular politics".
We can see how the concept of total separation of church and state has become so blurred with the assertion of government involvement into the church and its functioning has diminished in its being a reality. The Supreme Court ruling this week is an example of how likely, contemporary, the attack on religious liberty by the secular government is a reality in the United States today.
When the government mandates that individuals, businesses, and of course, churches, must hire homosexuals, transgenders and those totally gender-confused even when it directly contradicts the church's devotion to Scriptural mandates is what we have all been dreading but has now happened. A follower of Jesus can oppose the loss of such liberties only through involvement in the secular process of changing government representation. Same goes for abortion and other issues involving spiritual as well as secular ideology.
So even though what I see to be your opposition to the church and Christians becoming identified with particular political persuasions AND the church leadership becoming more visible as supporting one side or the other, how can it not? Are church leaders to be silent as leaders of their congregations when one political side is blatantly, even proudly, promoting their party as being the party of the "non-religious"?
Not a simple issue.
RB Kuter,
You wrote:
"We can see how the concept of total separation of church and state has become so blurred with the assertion of government involvement into the church and its functioning has diminished in its being a reality. The Supreme Court ruling this week is an example of how likely, contemporary, the attack on religious liberty by the secular government is a reality in the United States today."
"When the government mandates that individuals, businesses, and of course, churches, must hire homosexuals, transgenders and those totally gender-confused even when it directly contradicts the church's devotion to Scriptural mandates is what we have all been dreading but has now happened. A follower of Jesus can oppose the loss of such liberties only through involvement in the secular process of changing government representation. Same goes for abortion and other issues involving spiritual as well as secular ideology."
This has not happened yet, and you are wrong if you think the recent SCOTUS decision is an attack on religious liberty. I suggest you download the opinion and read it. All it said was you cannot fire someone because they are LBGT, like 21 states already have in their laws. Also, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 protects religious institutions and the like.
Second, there is an exception to Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise."
That last part is another way out and was the reason why Hooters is allowed to hire only women as their servers.
Thanks for that, CM. We shall see whether this most recent ruling results in a chipping away of the strength for protection of religious liberty.
Personally, given the trend and the extortionist tactics of those power-player lobbyists at work to legitimize this lifestyle as being morally acceptable, I will be pleasantly shocked if the right for a church to reject the employment of someone on its staff due to their being an openly professing, homosexual and/or transgender, is not challenged and defeated in the courts soon. I will be surprised if Christian-oriented businesses will not be inhibited in their preferences regarding the venue and environment in which it does business. I will be surprised if churches are not forced to allow homosexual unions to take place on their church premises.
As support for my fears, if there existed all of the defined, detailed, laws and Acts in place to protect these groups in which you make mention, WHY was there an additional ruling that expands the advancement of this movement? WHY was it even necessary? My conclusion is, because it is an additional chipping away of religious freedom and the freedom to function upon those moral principles we discern from the Bible. This ruling WILL be used to diminish the exercise of an institution's religious liberties from what it was formerly. You of course are free to remain complacent and support such maneuvers, but to me, that's exactly what they are accomplishing.
RB Kuter,
For starters, when the Act was passed, the pro-segregation people deliberately put "sex" into the Title VII law as a poison pill hoping it would not pass. But it did.
How Gorsuch ruled is taken from a page of Scalia's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 US 75 (1998), which was a unanimous SCOTUS ruling:
In Oncale, the case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.
https://reason.com/2020/06/15/how-gorsuch-took-a-page-from-scalia-in-an-lgbt-employment-discrimination-case/
This has nothing do with the anti-Christian forces but everything do with being consistent in their textualism and originalists view of the Constitution and the Law. This means that social conservatives will NOT always get what they want. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, NOT the Bible (no matter how much you think or want it to be so).
Thanks for those additional details, CM. The key is the definition of "sex".
The Court is defining that term for you. It is defining HOMOsexuality and transgender, etc., which is "behavioral choice", as being "sex" within the Constitution context.
References to that word, "sex", which in fact was intended by the Constitution to be defined as "GENDER", is in reference to a person being "male" or "female". The Supreme Court, and much of today's society, has got caught up in the conspiracy driven by very organized crusaders for this cause by their allowing the definition of "sex", or "gender" to ridiculously be determined by any person's preference.
The reality that the word "sex", when used in the Constitution and all institutions was intended to be considered as being in reference to the "gender" of a person is confirmed by its common application as such when used in relation to job applications, visa applications, military enlistment applications, etc. When the blank on the application reads "sex", the response written was to denote either "Male" or "Female".
It wasn't until the orchestrated movement of the homosexual/etc., segment of society began its powerful lobbying and forceful push to eliminate the traditional definition of "sex" in that context that it became something other than "gender". There was never any intent by the Constitution for the courts to apply this terminology in a manner that would dictate a person's acceptance of another person's "behavior". But that is exactly what the Court is doing.
In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States has positioned itself as being the "Moral Police". It dictates that even a religious institution, as well as a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, business, must hire people who have chosen a lifestyle that contradicts their religious principle. To place a behavioral choice in the groupings of race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, etc., was never intended by the framers of the Constitution.
This is as unlawful ruling as was the Wade vs. Roe case on abortion defining a woman's right to kill her infant as being defended by the US Constitution; i.e., a matter of "freedom of choice of behavior" even at the expense of another innocent person's life.
My goodness, what would the original framers think?
Thanks for those additional details, CM. The key is the definition of "sex".
The Court is defining that term for you. It is defining HOMOsexuality and transgender, etc., which is "behavioral choice", as being "sex" within the Constitution context.
References to that word, "sex", which in fact was intended by the Constitution to be defined as "GENDER", is in reference to a person being "male" or "female". The Supreme Court, and much of today's society, has got caught up in the conspiracy driven by very organized crusaders for this cause by their allowing the definition of "sex", or "gender" to ridiculously be determined by any person's preference.
The reality that the word "sex", when used in the Constitution and all institutions was intended to be considered as being in reference to the "gender" of a person is confirmed by its common application as such when used in relation to job applications, visa applications, military enlistment applications, etc. When the blank on the application reads "sex", the response written was to denote either "Male" or "Female".
It wasn't until the orchestrated movement of the homosexual/etc., segment of society began its powerful lobbying and forceful push to eliminate the traditional definition of "sex" in that context that it became something other than "gender". There was never any intent by the Constitution for the courts to apply this terminology in a manner that would dictate a person's acceptance of another person's "behavior". But that is exactly what the Court is doing.
In essence, the Supreme Court of the United States has positioned itself as being the "Moral Police". It dictates that even a religious institution, as well as a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, business, must hire people who have chosen a lifestyle that contradicts their religious principle. To place a behavioral choice in the groupings of race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, etc., was never intended by the framers of the Constitution.
This is as unlawful ruling as was the Wade vs. Roe case on abortion defining a woman's right to kill her infant as being defended by the US Constitution; i.e., a matter of "freedom of choice of behavior" even at the expense of another innocent person's life.
My goodness, what would the original framers think?
RB,
As for as I know, the only time the word "sex" is mentioned in the Constitution is in the 19th Amendment which itself was more or less superseded by the 26th Amendment.
Read this link: https://reason.com/2020/06/19/bostock-v-clayton-county-and-the-debate-over-the-meaning-of-ordinary-meaning/
From the link above:
The statute's message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That's because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.
Thanks for the link, CM. I did read it. Sexual discrimination seems to be throughout the conversation and is the basis of the argument. The reality is that the preference for sexual behavior has become defended by the continuing application of it being interpreted as considered in the category of "gender".
It is part of the decades old ploy orchestrated by special interest groups seeking to legitimize the diverse sexual activity taking place outside the traditionally accepted parameters of sex between male and female. It is so blatantly obvious that I'm not sure why that is so difficult for people to accept.
Hello WADE,
a little late for this response, but thank you for answering my question about 'the moral law' and the 'Mosaic Law'.
I see some difference in how the idea of 'moral conscience' is seen in Baptist terms and in my own Church, but I do think we are on the same page with the idea that 'the Royal Law of Christ' is pre-eminent. It's just that I feel that this Royal Law is 'universal' and is and was honored by many who never heard of Our Lord, or read the New Testament or even will in this life. How can this be?
well, I think one perspective is that IN the parable Our Lord told of the Good Samaritan, we know that the Samaritan was not under the Mosaic Law of the Jews,
and yet he KNEW to stop and render help to the broken wounded victim by the side of the road,
he KNEW this within his own heart and his own conscience to do what was HUMANE for the poor man beaten by robbers somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.
So, sure, I can see that you comprehend the superiority of the Royal Law above the Mosaic Law as 'perfecting' what God intends for us to follow AS Our Lord is to us the Teacher and the Example of what true humanity was to have been like before the Fall; before we were wounded by sin and pride.
So, for me, I can say I see a 'connection' between the moral law written on the hearts of men (the moral conscience) and the Royal Law of Christ
in the example of the Samaritan who was NOT under Mosaic Law.
We may be saying the same thing, what wording it a bit differently, although I do think my wording opens the way of grace for those who do not know Christ personally to be affected by the Paschal mysteries IF they are tuned into the 'Royal Law' that is written on their own hearts . . . to respond to 'Who is my neighbor?'
Thanks again, and I hope you get a chance to read this, as I am quite late in responding. But the current post of 7/3/20 prompted me to remember that I had intended to respond in a more timely way. Sorry for late. All your good help has been much appreciated, please know this. God Bless!
Hello WADE,
a little late for this response, but thank you for answering my question about 'the moral law' and the 'Mosaic Law'.
I see some difference in how the idea of 'moral conscience' is seen in Baptist terms and in my own Church, but I do think we are on the same page with the idea that 'the Royal Law of Christ' is pre-eminent. It's just that I feel that this Royal Law is 'universal' and is and was honored by many who never heard of Our Lord, or read the New Testament or even will in this life. How can this be?
well, I think one perspective is that IN the parable Our Lord told of the Good Samaritan, we know that the Samaritan was not under the Mosaic Law of the Jews,
and yet he KNEW to stop and render help to the broken wounded victim by the side of the road,
he KNEW this within his own heart and his own conscience to do what was HUMANE for the poor man beaten by robbers somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.
So, sure, I can see that you comprehend the superiority of the Royal Law above the Mosaic Law as 'perfecting' what God intends for us to follow AS Our Lord is to us the Teacher and the Example of what true humanity was to have been like before the Fall; before we were wounded by sin and pride.
So, for me, I can say I see a 'connection' between the moral law written on the hearts of men (the moral conscience) and the Royal Law of Christ
in the example of the Samaritan who was NOT under Mosaic Law.
We may be saying the same thing, what wording it a bit differently, although I do think my wording opens the way of grace for those who do not know Christ personally to be affected by the Paschal mysteries IF they are tuned into the 'Royal Law' that is written on their own hearts . . . to respond to 'Who is my neighbor?'
Thanks again, and I hope you get a chance to read this, as I am quite late in responding. But the current post of 7/3/20 prompted me to remember that I had intended to respond in a more timely way. Sorry for late. All your good help has been much appreciated, please know this. God Bless!
Post a Comment