Category Archives: Other Stuff

Biblical Woman??

Posted on by
2

The week after I finished a two-part teaching series in which, in honor of Women’s History Month,  we “Focused on Females,” I saw a news article about a website’s post from my alma mater, Southwestern  Baptist Theological Seminary, in Ft. Worth.   The timing was ironic.  The seminary, on its BiblicalWoman.com website, released a statement by women for women clarifying their position on “biblical womanhood.” You can see the seminary’s statement here.

Speaking for the folks at the seminary, Katie McCoy, editor of BiblicalWoman.com, said, “…we’re excited to share the ‘Biblical Woman Statement’ with you!”

“Biblical Woman statement”
“BiblicalWoman.com”
“biblical womanhood”

The word “biblical” makes me nervous.  When it is used, it comes across as one-dimensional; like there is only one right way to look at something, which just so happens to be the way that the user of the term looks at it.

So.  What exactly is a “biblical woman”? Is she Deborah – a woman who held the highest position of spiritual authority in Israel.  She was “President” of Israel, a prophet who heard from God and spoke for God to the people (even men). She was a judge making rulings over matters concerning all people – even men.  She was a General, leading men into battle (Judges 4:4-9). Or, is a “biblical woman” one that follows Paul’s counsel to Timothy and does not “teach or hold authority over men” (1 Timothy 2:11)?

The bw.com website seems to come down on the latter.  Under the “ministry” section of the statement, we read, “We believe…that women are exhorted to instruct and mentor other women.” Not men, but “other women.”

Interesting.  There are some other interesting records showing how Southern Baptists viewed and treated women.  Interesting and instructive.

At the 1885 meeting of the SBC, a total of seven messengers came from Arkansas.  Two of them were women.  Uh oh.  For two days the convention scratched their heads trying to figure out how to handle the women.   “I got it.  Let’s change the constitution!”  So they amended Article III which stated that the convention was composed of “members who contribute funds,” to, “brethern who contribute funds.”  In the middle of the deliberations one man said, “I love the ladies, but I dread them worse.”  Hmmm.  I wonder what he was afraid of? I wonder if that fear still exists.

After the Women’s Missionary Union was formed in 1888, the WMU prepared an annual report to the convention.  Women wrote the report, but weren’t allowed to read the report – to the men.   For 42 years the report was read to the convention by a man.   The first time the president of the WMU, a woman, gave her own report, several men walked out rather than have a woman stand in a position of “authority” over them.  Slowly, things changed.  Men quit running out in protest when the WMU report was given by a woman, but for several years, when the WMU report was given, the convention moved from the church sanctuary to a Sunday School assembly room so that a woman would not stand in the pulpit!  I know.  It sounds too crazy to be true. You gotta love history.
Is the seminary’s statement an accurate expression of what the Bible tells us concerning women in ministry?  Before you answer check out 2 Kings 22:11-16, Acts 2:17-18, Acts 18:26, Acts 21:8-9.

Women today cut their hair, wear jewelry and expensive clothes, and pray in a church gathering without a hat, all of which seem to be forbidden by some passages in the New Testament. Are these ladies “unbiblical”?  At times in Christian history, many Christians interpreted the Bible to justify slavery.  We no longer understand the Bible that way.  Are we “unbiblical”?

My dad, a Southern Baptist pastor since he was 18, had on his staff at First Baptist, Little Rock, a woman worship pastor!!  She stood in authority over men.  Was she “unbiblical”? Was dad “unbiblical” for empowering a woman to use her gifts to lead women and men?

My dad invited to speak in the churches he pastored in Joplin, MO and Little Rock, Bertha Smith, a Southern Baptist missionary.  Wait. Miss Bertha didn’t just speak.  She preached!   To men.  Standing very much in authority over them.  She even shook her finger at them.

I’ve always respected my dad for getting out of the box on this issue.

Jesus loving, Jesus committed people disagree on this topic.  So, instead of claiming that we have the  final word on the definition and description, of a “biblical woman,”   let’s be willing to talk with each other, to wrestle with those passages.  Talking, questioning, wrestling.  That’s good church.

The Bible, Spanking, and Hermeneutics

Posted on by
2

Image

“‘Use the rod.  Beat the child,’ that’s my motto,” asserts Ms Trunchbull, Headmistress of Matilda’s school in Roald Dahl’s remarkable story, Matilda.

Sounds a lot like another motto, “Spare the rod, spoil the child” from another piece of literature.  The Bible?  Nope.  Good guess, though. The exact line is from a 17th century poem by Samuel Butler.  In the poem, a love affair is likened to a child, and spanking is commended as a way to make the love grow stronger.  I guess that’s for another post.

“Spare the rod, spoil the child” may not be in the Bible but what’s in the Bible is close enough.

Proverbs 13:24 “Whoever spares the rod hates their children. But the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”

Proverbs 23:13-14 “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.  Beat them with the rod and save them from death.”

Proverbs 10:13 “Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense.”

Proverbs 20:30 “Blows and wounds scrub away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.”  

Proverbs 22:15 “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

Proverbs 26:3 “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools.”

Denise (my wife of 33 years) and I raised our two boys on a “modified” version of the above verses.  I say “modified” because the spankings were…
-on the bottom not the back.
-administered not by a rod but by a paddle on our boys – You remember the paddle with the ball attached to it?  Devin, one of our sons said, “It’s messed up when parents spank their kids with their own toys.”  He’s right.
-not close to “beatings. Though from the perspective of a child, it may have felt like a beating.
-limited to 2-3 smacks.
-not so severe that they left marks.
-not given beyond 10 years of age.

But this is not a post on parenting.  It is an invitation to think about how we interpret the Bible.

You see, each of the above characteristics of spanking were “modifications” of the Biblical instructions found in Proverbs.  Nope.  We didn’t follow the teaching of the Bible when it came to corporal punishment.  We modified them.  But, we didn’t make these modifications on our own.  They were suggested by the guru of parenting instruction in our day, James Dobson. If you look at the website of the organization Dobson founded, “Focus on the Family,” you will find an article with this title:  “The Biblical Approach to Parenting.”   The “Biblical” approach, it says, is to spank.  But, as is asked in the first paragraph, “What does it look like to spank in a way that obeys Scripture…?”  Their answer doesn’t sound very much like what the Bible actually teaches about “spanking.”  So, what’s up?

They have, according to Dr. William Webb in his book Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts, gone “beyond the Bible biblically.”

Abolitionists went beyond the plain teaching of the Bible concerning slavery (Exodus 21:20-21; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Peter 2:18; Titus 2:9-10) to a “better ethic,” an ethic that reflected the spirit of Christ (See Mark Noll’s book, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis).   It appears that some of the “pro-spankers” have gone beyond the plain teaching of the Bible concerning corporal punishment.

I’m glad they did.  So are my sons!

Here’s something Denise and I are contemplating and discussing:  If Dobson and other “pro-spankers” have moved away from the clear, literal teaching of the Bible to an ethic that is more in line with the spirit of Jesus, is it possible that as we learn more about raising kids, we can move away from spanking altogether?  Every pastor and parent needs to read Dr. Webb’s book before either lifts a hand or teaches others to lift a hand.

Something else… What does this say about how to interpret the Bible?
Especially those tough to understand passages like slavery and spanking?
Are we moving toward an ethic that reflects the spirit of Jesus?

“12 Years a Slave” – We Need to See This

Aside

Image

I watched this year’s Oscar winner for Best Picture last night – 12 Years a Slave.  It’s a powerful film based on the book by Solomon Northup, in which he recounts his experiences as a slave in Louisiana.  It’s not a feel good movie.   It’s a feel sad, feel mad movie.  It’s a movie that some want to avoid.  Who wants to to do something that makes you sad or mad?

Some are mad at the injustices that were committed against people.  Some are mad that the movie portrayed slavery in such a negative way.  Really.

It’s not a movie that you enjoy.  It’s one that you endure.   But we need to watch it.

We need to know.   The movie makes us confront the cruelty of which people are capable – yes, people who claim to follow Christ.

We need to remember.   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  George Santayana

We need to recognize that slavery is not just history, it is the history of our country.

We need to do some serious soul-searching.  Is it possible that even though we’ve done away with slavery, the attitudes and stereotypes that surrounded it still exist? Think back to the Cheerios ad and the responses to it.

We need to look at our use and understanding of the Bible.
The Bible plays a prominent role in the movie – as it did in the days of slavery – something I’ve mentioned before.

In one scene, slave owner Edwin Epps holds a church service for his slaves and quotes the Bible, Luke 12:47, “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” After he reads this passage, he waves his Bible in the faces of the slaves and says, “and that’s Scripture!”

Each lash of the whip from the hand of Epps upon the back of Patsey – played by Oscar winning Lupita Nyong’o – was punctuated with Biblical justification.

Hopefully no Christian today still quotes the Bible to defend slavery.  But how many still use the method of interpreting the Bible that allowed slave owners to use the Bible as a spiritual whip.

We need to see God as the slaves saw God.  The “slavers” used their faith as a tool to control and dehumanize. The slaves used their faith to endure the degradations, indignities, and cruelties of slavery.

We need to make a “hypocrisy check.”  After Solomon arrives on the plantation, his master, William Ford, gathers the slaves and gives a sermon, quoting Luke 17:2, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”  We had just seen, in the previous scene, Ford buying and thus separating a female slave from her children.  We can’t miss the hypocrisy.  I should see my own hypocrisy as clearly.

We need to let the spirit of Jesus shape us – the spirit of justice, the spirit that sees each person as one made in the image of God.   The voice of justice in the movie belongs to Samuel Bass, played by Brad Pitt, a Canadian surveyor and abolitionist.  He tells Epps, “If you don’t treat them as humans, then you will have to answer for it… Laws change. Social systems crumble. Universal truths are constant. It is a fact, it is a plain fact that what is true and right is true and right for all. White and black alike.”

It is Bass’ intervention that leads to Solomon’s deliverance and return to freedom – deliverance and freedom, but not justice.  Solomon does not find justice.  Because of racist laws, he was unable to hold the men accountable who sold him into slavery. In what ways do we need to intervene?

We need to see this film because it can change us for the better.  Maybe that’s what art does.

Necessary? True? Kind?

Posted on by
1

Best-selfie-ever-taken-at-the-2014-Oscars-3201387

I don’t know if it’s because I’m an “aging baby boomer” or what, but I kind of cringed at a couple of age jokes by Ellen at this years Oscars.

I like Ellen.  A lot.  So I tried hard not to cringe.  To overlook the jokes.  To think, “She didn’t really say that, did she?”

Her best joke, according to TIME, was when she said, “Possibility number one: 12 Years a Slave wins Best Picture. Possibility number two: You’re all racists.  And now welcome our first white presenter, Anne Hathaway!”

Her worst joke?   There were two nominees.
One was aimed at 84 year old Best Supporting Actress nominee June Squibb.  Ellen mentioned the Nebraska actress, and then turning to Ms Squibb, she shouted “I’m telling everyone you were very wonderful in Nebraska,” as if the elderly actress must have hearing problems. Granted,  It may be true – it’s true for me.  A lot of music booming in this baby boomer’s ears has surely lessened my hearing.   The comment still seemed hurtful

The other nominee for worst joke was one directed at 67 year old Liza Minnelli.  Ellen complimented the crowd for including “one of the most amazing Liza Minnelli impersonators she’d ever seen…Good job, sir.”  She was, of course, referring to Minnelli herself.  Ouch.

Liza came to the Oscars with her siblings to see their late mother, Judy Garland, honored in a tribute to the 75th anniversary of “The Wizard of Oz.”  Not sure how “honored” Liza felt.

The “age theme” was set early in the show with this joke,  “I’m not saying movies are the most important thing in the world. I’m not saying that because the most important thing in the world is youth.”

Sadly, the joke represented reality to a lot of people.

Last week, Ellen promised on “Good Morning America”  that she would not be doing any “mean joke”.  “My intentions are to make people happy, “ she had told Robin Roberts, “and my intentions are to never hurt anybody, and my intentions are to have compassion and to hope I can spread that a little bit every single day.”

I believe her.   Few people set out to intentionally hurt others.  “Hurt,” though, doesn’t know the difference between intentional and non-intentional.  It just hurts.

There is truth in the African proverb, “The ax forgets.  The tree remembers.”

As one who speaks publicly regularly, I know people have said about me what I said about Ellen: “He didn’t really say that, did he?”   I get that.  So, I look at this situation not as a judgment against Ellen but as a mirror in which I can see myself and the power of my words.

I was accepted into membership of an international service fraternity last week.  Its members commit to live by the following:
Of the things we think, say or do:
Is it the TRUTH?
Is it FAIR to all concerned?
Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER RELATIONSHIPS?
Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

As a Christ-follower, should I commit to anything less?

Buddha put it like this, “If you propose to speak, always ask yourself, is it true, is it necessary, is it kind?”
Or check out the Bible, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18).

A Taste of Grace

Posted on by
1

Image
A  highlight of my week is a 30 minute lunch with my “lunch buddy” at a local elementary school.  The “Lunch Buddy” program, administered by Big Brothers/Big Sisters, pairs an adult with a kid who needs a good adult role model.

 “Big Brothers” thought I would fit the bill -as the adult.

I was paired with a 6-year-old kindergartner.

Sitting in the school library for our first lunch together several weeks ago, we unpacked our lunches.   I opened my Zip-Lock bag of apple slices.  He opened his Spider Man lunch box filled with three bags of chips, 2 cereal bars, and a Capri-Sun fruit juice.

Maybe he felt sorry for me. “How sad,” he may have thought, “all this man has to eat is an apple.” Because each time he opened a bag of food, before taking some food for himself, he would hold it out to me,  “Mr. Bill (that’s what he calls me – I’m good with that –  “Phil”- “Bill” sound the same), do you want one?”

“Thank-you, but (How do I explain Celiac to a 6 year old?),  I have some food allergies. I’ll just eat my apple.”  Not being able to comprehend eating only an apple for lunch, he persisted.  He unwrapped his cereal bar, tore off a piece, held it up to me, “Can you eat this?”

“No, thanks though, I really can’t.”

He was relentless.

“How about chocolate?  Can you eat chocolate?”

“Yes,  I love chocolate.”

So, like a miner digging for diamonds the little fella dug into his cereal bar with those little 6-year-old fingers until he pulled out a bit of chocolate.  “Here you go,” he said with a beaming smile, “here’s some chocolate for you!”

Forget cross-contamination – a Celiac’s fear.
Forget where those fingers may have been.
How could I say “No” to such a face, to such grace?

Some of the best chocolate I’ve had.

I wonder if Jesus had this boy in mind when he said,

“Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children you will in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3)?

I signed up to be a “lunch buddy” to inspire a kid.  The kid inspired me.

Posted on by
2

the-most-and-least-bible-minded-cities-in-america

“You can do better Phillip…..#4???”

This is a text I got a few days ago from one of my most sarcastic and best friends.  It then linked me to a survey conducted by the Barna Group for The American Bible Society who was looking for “American’s Most Bible-Minded Cities.”  Here’s a different link but to the same survey: Barna Group

See who’s in 4th place?  That’s Springfield, MO, where I live and pastor.  Yes, I could do better – in lots of areas, not just this one.

“Bible-mindedness.” What does that mean? How do you tell if you’re Bible-minded or not?    According to the survey, those who “report reading the Bible within the past seven days and agree strongly in the accuracy of the Bible” are classified as Bible-minded.

A couple of thoughts:
Accuracy: According to Webster, “accuracy” is “freedom from mistake or error.”    Does one need to “strongly agree” that the Bible is “free from mistake or error” in everything within its pages – historical references, science references, chronology of events, details of events (For example, Mark 6:8 – Take a staff; Matthew 10:9-10 – Don’t take a staff,) to be considered Bible-minded?

This is a head scratcher.    What does this definition say about guys like Dietrich Bonhoeffer – yes that Dietrich Bonhoeffer – the guy who wrote The Cost of Discipleship, a book that’s on every evangelical pastor’s book shelf?  Yet, by this definition, he brings up the rear on the survey.  In his book, Christ the Center, Bonhoeffer, writing of the Bible and the use of historical criticism, uses pretty clear language, “But it is through the Bible, with all its flaws, that the risen one encounters us.  We must get into the troubled waters of historical criticism.”

Uh-oh. What does his view do to our understanding of what it means to be “Bible-minded”?

Does anyone question Bonhoeffer’s commitment to Christ, love for God, love for people?  Does anyone question his desire to live out the life of Christ in his culture?  Can we really label him as one of the “least Bible-minded”?

I’m just asking.

Second thought:
Going to Sunday School as a child, I remember proudly checking the box on my offering envelope that said, “I read the Bible every day last week.”   As I grew up, and continue to grow up spiritually, I realized that being “bible minded” was not as simple as checking the box.

The Pharisees knew the Scriptures like the back of their hands, but when God stood right in front of them, they didn’t know him from Adam (John 5:39-40).
Here are some questions I have to ask myself – questions that aren’t so easy to check off:

*Am I more attentive to my wife than I was last year?
*Am I more generous with my resources than before?
*Do I handle disappointments and hurts with trust in the God who has the power to work all things for good?
*Do I show compassion for those who are hurting?
*Do I do justice, love mercy, and walk in humble dependence with God (Micah 6:8)?

In other words, am I allowing the Word (Jesus) to whom the words of the Bible point, to transform me into His likeness?

Martin Luther King Jr., Slavery, the Bible, and Us

Posted on by
3

Image

Today is the day we have set aside to give national recognition and much deserved  honor to Martin Luther King Jr.

The battle for civil rights was fought on many fronts.

Dr. King appealed to us as Americans, taking us back to our founding documents which declare  the “self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  Politically, Americans had to choose between being an American as defined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence or being racist.

The civil rights movement was a spiritual movement.  Dr. King was also Rev. King. On this point, the matter gets more complicated.  You wouldn’t think so.  To our minds, slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, racism, prejudice just don’t fit with the Christian life.    It was not always so.

Growing up in Little Rock, I am well aware of the stain of a segregation mentality. Growing up a Southern Baptist, I was not aware until sitting in a Baptist History class in a Southern Baptist college that the founding of the SBC was all about slavery.  Foreshadowing the Civil War, white Baptists in the South separated from their northern counterparts on May 10, 1845, and formed the Southern Baptist Convention  in order to defend the South’s practice of and dependency on slavery.

Slavery was biblical.  Abolition, therefore, was sinful.

On January 27, 1861, Ebenezer Warren, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, delivered a sermon in which he said, “Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man.  Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible…The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject…It is necessary for ministers of the gospel…to teach slavery from the pulpit, as it was taught by the holy men of old, who spake as moved by the Holy Spirit…Both Christianity and slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time …. Because Slavery is right; and because the condition of the slaves affords them all those privileges which would prove substantial blessings to them; and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life ….”

Wow.  Such a view, a view which its holder claims to be grounded in Scripture, staggers my mind. But he wasn’t alone.

All you history buffs may know Mark A. Noll.  He authored, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
Great read.
Eye-opening.
Instructive for us in regard to Bible interpretation and application.  The book is a case study in hermeneutics.

It seems that pro-slavery pastors and Christians appealed to specific Scripture verses in support of their position, while anti-slavery pastors and Christians appealed to the general Biblical principles of justice, mercy, and love to support theirs.

Henry Van Dyke, Presbyterian pastor in Brooklyn, wasn’t comfortable with the abolitionists hermeneutics.  Noll quotes him as saying, “When the abolitionists tell me that slave holding is sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the Holy Scriptures, I point him to this sacred record, and tell him, in all candor, as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes the name of God and His doctrine.”

The problem was, the pro-slavery folks had a lot going for them in the way of proof-texts (Exodus 21:20-21; Deuteronomy 20:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:20,21; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1 to name a few).

The same verses and interpretation used to support slavery were used to support segregation a century after emancipation.

What then was the Biblical basis for Rev. King’s call to unity and equality?
What’s the Biblical basis for us making the same call?

The same basis used by the abolitionist…

Noll says that the abolitionists appealed to the “broad sweep of Scripture” moving away “from the Bible’s ‘letter‘ of sanction for slavery to its ‘spirit‘ of universal liberation.”  In 1861, abolitionist Gerrit Smith said, “The religion taught by Jesus is not a letter but a life.”

Do you see the dilemma?

Noll’s book is not just a look at history.  It’s a look at ourselves and how we use the Bible.

What Color is God’s Skin

Posted on by
Reply

“What Color is God’s Skin” is the title of a song from the folk era of the 60s, by the group Up With People. Yes, I remember the song well…

The color of God’s skin and Santa’s skin came up this week  on “The Kelly File” with Megyn Kelly.  Ms Kelly says that both Santa and Jesus are white.

Ms Kelly was responding to an article by Aisha Harris in “Slate” in which Ms Harris writes a personal account of her childhood feelings of exclusion brought on by the culturally created white Santa.  Ms Harris suggests a more inclusive Santa – a Penguin.

Ms Kelly and the panel didn’t think much of the idea.  You can see their discussion here.  Personally, I don’t have any trouble grasping a Penguin Claus.  Once you give a guy magical elves and the power to squeeze his roly-poly body down billions of chimneys in one night, anything is possible.

I do have a bit of trouble with Ms Kelly’s assertion that Jesus is white.  After presenting her view that Santa is white, she said, “Jesus was a white man, too.  It’s like we have, he’s a historical figure, that’s a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that…”

Yes, our view of Santa comes courtesy of Coca Cola and Clement Moore, and Santa is white in those depictions.  No argument there.

But Jesus’ race?  Behold the power of pictures. European art throughout the centuries have shown Jesus as a white man.  It stuck.  Pick up one of those “Bible Story” books in a Sunday School classroom and you’ll see a white Jesus on the pages.  The baby Jesus in the manger of our Nativity on the buffet in our dining room is white, blond-haired, blue-eyed and rosy-cheeked.   Millions of people watched The History Channel’s The Bible and they saw a light-skinned Jesus.

Does it matter?  I think so.  It matters historically and theologically.
Christianity is an historical faith.  It is rooted in historically verifiable events.  We value that.  So, let’s value what history teaches us about Jesus’ race.  Jesus was Jewish.   Jesus lived in Palestine.  In 2001 a team of British anthropologists and forensic scientists created a hypothetical model of Jesus’ face based on the skull of a first century Jew.  Guess what.  He’s not white. Some people are uncomfortable with that? Wonder why?

Let’s be true to history.

Theologically, it matters. It’s interesting to me that every culture makes Jesus look like them.  African Jesus.  Asian Jesus.  Touchdown Jesus.  Why?  I think it has something to do with the incarnation – you know, what Christmas is all about.
God becoming one of us.
God connecting to, identifying with – becoming us!  WOW!
God-in-the-flesh.

These different portrayals of Jesus help us to get our hearts around the theological truth that God knows us, understands us, identifies with us.
He gets us.
Because He became us.  All of us.

So, what color is God’s skin?  I’m happy with the answer given in the rest of the song: It is black, brown, yellow, it is red and it is white.  Everyone’s the same in the good Lord’s sight.

Greasy Grace

Posted on by
5

I don’t do grease.  I don’t cook with it (My choice these days is olive or coconut oil).  I used to grease my car back when cars weren’t so complicated, but no more. I pay someone else to do that.  I don’t even know if cars get greased anymore. In the 60s I would grease my hair – “a little dab’ll do ya” – now it’s pomade or something like that.

I found out a few days ago, though, that when it comes to Christianity, I am greasy.

A person who attends the church I pastor and who is part of a small group to which I belong told the group that he was accused of going to that “Greasy Grace” church. I wonder if the guy who made the statement has ever been to the church on which he slapped the label.  Has he heard me preach? I don’t know.

“Greasy Grace” church?  I had never heard of the term.   A quick Google search and I realized that the statement was not intended to be a compliment. I didn’t think it was.   People who make such statements usually make similar statements such as, “That preacher is soft on sin”, or “He is just giving them a license to sin” and, “You just don’t understand what it means to live holy.”  Oftentimes, “greasy grace” is combined with the catchy term, “sloppy agape.”  Nice.

I do preach grace.  No doubt about that.  I believe that:

– grace is the “good news”
– Jesus replaced a law-based religion with a grace-based relationship.
– Jesus replaced an obedience driven by fear, guilt and bargaining (If I am good, then God will be good) with a fresh motivation to follow Him out of love and joy.
-everything comes to us by grace.  To believe that we have to work for God’s blessings is to try and buy that which is not for sale.
– instead of following lists of rules Jesus calls people to follow Him.
– sin is overcome by grace.

The accusations against pro-grace people have been around a long time.  Paul was accused of promoting sin and reckless living.  Listen to what he said:  “And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, ‘The more we sin, the better it is!’ Those who say such things deserve to be condemned” (Romans 3:8 NLT)  Tough words.

These guys follow Paul’s lead… What do you think?

From D. Martin Lloyd-Jones:

There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel… I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament…

Romans: The New Man, An Exposition of Chapter 6

From Charles Swindoll, commenting on the above comment:

“To all fellow ministers, if you claim to be a messenger of grace, if you think you are really preaching grace, yet no one is taking advantage of it, maybe you haven’t preached it hard enough or strong enough.  I can assure you of this: Grace-killing ministers will never have that charge brought against them.  They make sure of that!”

The Grace Awakening

Grace is big. Too big for me to understand.  I just re-read a book by Steve Brown, Professor Emeritus of Preaching at Reformed Theological Seminary.  Check out these quotes:

“You ought to live your life with such freedom and joy that uptight Christians will doubt your salvation.”  Steve Brown, A Scandalous Freedom

“The only people who get better are people who know that, if they never get better, God will love them anyway.”  Steve Brown, A Scandalous Freedom

“Religion can make people mean, angry, gloomy, critical, judgmental, and neurotic.  Religion can also become an abuser of Christians.  I have seen so many people hurt by religion that sometimes I think it would be better to be a pagan.  Worst of all, religion can keep you from God…Something about institutional Christianity (as necessary as it is) will kill your freedom if you aren’t careful.  Steve Brown, A Scandalous Freedom

Sounds greasy.

The statement made to my small group friend may have been intended as a criticism.  I think I’ll look at it as a compliment.

Franksgiving

Posted on by
1

People are mad!  They’re picking sides.  Now, arguing and fighting are nothing new during the holidays –  just sit around the table of the average American family on Thanksgiving, or reach for the last specially marked item on the shelf on Black Friday.  But this fight is a bit unique.

The fight is not over what to buy but when to buy. Yep. Black Friday has expanded into Brown Thursday – a name I learned by watching  Jimmy Kimmel Live.   And the feelings run high.

“They’re ruining Thanksgiving!”

“It’s the death of Thanksgiving!”

A “Save Thanksgiving” Facebook page includes a “Naughty and Nice” list of who is open and who is not.  The “nice” list includes Home Depot, Sam’s Club, T.J. Maxx, Dillards.  On the “naughty” list we find “Macy’s, Walmart, Best Buy, among others.

Thirty-three million Americans have said they plan to be “naughty” this Thanksgiving.

This isn’t the first time controversy has been cooked up over Thanksgiving and shopping.  Ever hear of “Franksgiving”?    It’s a reference to our 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his attempt to mess with tradition. The tradition was set by another President, Abraham Lincoln who, in 1863, set the last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving Day.

In 1939,  the last Thursday of the month was November 30 – which meant there were just 20 shopping days left til Christmas – not a good thing for retailers.  Business leaders, including the head guy of Federated Department Stores (Macy’s, Bloomingdales), and the Retail Dry Goods Association, expressed concern to the Secretary of Commerce who passed on the concern to the President, who in turn moved Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of the month – to extend the shopping season.

Simple, right?  Not at all!  The public choked on their pecan pie.
Roosevelt was compared to Hitler.
Long time Democrats threatened to vote Republican in the next election.
In time, the earlier date became known as the “Democratic Thanksgiving” while the traditional “last Thursday” Thanksgiving became the “Republican Thanksgiving.”

Finally, after two years of squabbling and gobbling,  Congress made it official:  Thanksgiving Day would be the fourth Thursday of November – all because of shopping.

Observations:

  • So much for the “good old days” when Americans cared more about getting together with family to celebrate Thanksgiving than the gross national product.  Maybe the “good old days” aren’t really too much different than these days.
  • We still demonize our leaders.
  • Maybe Thanksgiving is more than just a particular “day.”
  • Remember Lincoln?  When he established Thanksgiving Day, he asked – no, he pled with – all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”

A prayer for God’s care.  Let’s pray that.  Let’s be answers to that prayer.

No disagreement with that!