Trial date set in first of five Missouri Baptist lawsuits

[Hardsheller]

You must be referring to the "humble" nature Jesus displayed when he fashioned a whip of cords and drove out the money changers in the Temple, or maybe when he humbly called the pharisees a generation of vipers? Maybe when he addressed the Syrophenecian woman as a dog and not of the children?

Good reminder Salamander of the many faceted ministry of Jesus Christ.:thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

It has no connection. The logic is if we use the state for one thing should we not be then free to use the state for other things including suing a Christian brother. The use of the state in an unrelated matter does not give good reason to use it for another.

The point concerns authority, and there is an obvious connection. What authority does the church operate under? If a church incorporates it is placing itself under the authority of the State government. It identifies itself in its legal papers as " ......church, a corporation of the State of ......"

If a church incorporates to protect individual members from lawsuits from other Christians or non-Christians then it agreeing to follow the rules of those States concerning incorporated entities.

Are you saying if a former member sued your church and you personally as a member of it, you would not use the protection afforded by State law to prevent yourself from being held personally responsible for any judgment?

The Missouri Baptist Convention is incorporated, as well as the entities that have changed their charters, in violation of their charters and against the will of the majority of Missouri Baptists that have voted for the conservative change. The Missouri Baptist Convention has chosen to use the protection provided when it incorporated.

Although I believe the lawsuit is a mistake, I can see where good Christians can disagree with me.

By good I assume you mean of good intentions. Because scripture is clear good intentions are not possible. (If that is what you meant)

By "good" I mean genuine Christians that believe they are acting in the best interest of the gospel and cause of Christ, and within the liberty granted them in scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[Hardsheller]

So what you are saying is that no one should take part int his conversation in this board unless they agree with what the folks in Missouri are doing. In the end it isn't what I think. It is what God said.

Just reading your signature and figured you were serious about it.

 

[JDale]

What you have stated is exactly the problem with conservative Christianity. I do not see one time where Jesus acted in a conservative way. He profess a radical love for God and people not a lukewarm sweet feeling and watching the world go by. He professed a radical gospel not one like wqe see today of doing as you please and claiming to follow Jesus. Radical Christianity calls for action not just relying on a democracy. Those conservatives are quickly finding out how well their theology of a democracy being godly is working. Conservatism acts in a conservative way and often acts like practical atheism. Christ demands action not conservatism. Conservatives need to quit being afraid of listening to the book of James.

Being conservative is the problem. Being conservative is not living the Christian life. Being conservative is the same thing as being lukewarm.

Many of us in Arizona saw what happened when we took a stance against the BFA. The conservatives stood up and assured us everything was alright and spoke aginst us telling everyone at the convention meetiung we were wrong. Later the conservatives who refused to investigate found how wrong they were when the SEC came in and investigated.

It is quite hard to have a court case with one side present. It takes two for that to happen.

It takes two for a fight to happen.

I am not from Missouri, and have no dogs in this fight at all. Even as a member of the SBC and an ordained minister... But the above statement by gb, implying that to be "conservative" is to be directly at odds with the way Jesus lived and taught, is repugnant and offensive.

I know extremists and legalists who are just as offensive, but those of the liberal persuasion who charge conservatives in this way are just as unbiblical and uncharitable.

JDale

 

[JDale]

The unreal Christians are those who put politics or power above the humble nature that Christ displayed. They use religion for something other than praising God.

ANd that ALWAYS refers to "fundamentalists" and "conservatives?!" Gimme a break.

JDale

 

[JDale]

So did the Sadduccees. They were the conservatives of the day.

This is not true. Sadducees were actually the liberals of the day theologically -- the Pharisees were the so called "Fundamentalists." The liberal Sadducees controlled the temple and religious institutions of the day -- much like many denominations of our time.

JDale

 

[Lagardo]

Once again, let me know when you tell your entire community that should someone vandalize or steal from your church property you will not be taking any legal action.

Someone said this a good example as to why we should avoid larger organizations? Perhaps, but what would you do if a church member declared that the church van was now their own personal vehicle, and then they sold it?

 

[gb93433]

I am not from Missouri, and have no dogs in this fight at all. Even as a member of the SBC and an ordained minister... But the above statement by gb, implying that to be "conservative" is to be directly at odds with the way Jesus lived and taught, is repugnant and offensive.

I know extremists and legalists who are just as offensive, but those of the liberal persuasion who charge conservatives in this way are just as unbiblical and uncharitable.

JDale

The liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed just on opposite ends. They are alike in many ways.

Think about the very definition of conservative. It says that a person is not action oriented and traditional. I did not know that the church was ever called ot be traditional. The traditional church is lukewarm. The very nature of the gospel calls for action and certainly not what we see in MO. Those in hte SBC who are watching are conservative. They say and do nothing. What we see in MO is exactly what conservativism is in the SBC leaders today. Jesus described it as vomit. It is nothing more than a "conservative" theology lived out as practical atheism. If those folks really feared God they would not spit in the face of God with their actions. The conservatives in scripture would be the Pharisees. Jesus did things that bothered the religious folks of the day. He offened their conservatism and also called them white washed tombs.

Jesus called for a Christianity to do right and stand for righteousness. That requires action. How is watching the SBC taking a stand for righteousness?

 

[JDale]

Churches should stay out of entanglements such as these. They should focus on their duty, to preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and avoid all of the state conventions, colleges, etc that can cause strife.

If the church wants to associate with other churches, then form a loose Association, with only minimal amount of money donated for the purpose of carrying out basic business. They do not need Presidents, or Boards, or Newspapers, or Colleges. If there was ever a reason that churches should be separate entities unto themselves, not interfering with the matters of another church, then this is it.

Excellent point.

JDale

 

[gb93433]

This is not true. Sadducees were actually the liberals of the day theologically -- the Pharisees were the so called "Fundamentalists." The liberal Sadducees controlled the temple and religious institutions of the day -- much like many denominations of our time.

My understanding is that it is the other way around and that the Sadducees only believed the Torah and not the rest of the OT. They were the legalists.

 

[JDale]

The liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed just on opposite ends. They are alike in many ways.

Think about the very definition of conservative. It says that a person is not action oriented and traditional. I did not know that the church was ever called ot be traditional. The traditional church is lukewarm. The very nature of the gospel calls for action and certainly not what we see in MO. Those in hte SBC who are watching are conservative. They say and do nothing. What we see in MO is exactly what conservativism is in the SBC leaders today. Jesus described it as vomit. It is nothing more than a "conservative" theology lived out as practical atheism. If those folks really feared God they would not spit in the face of God with their actions. The conservatives in scripture would be the Pharisees. Jesus did things that bothered the religious folks of the day. He offened their conservatism and also called them white washed tombs.

Jesus called for a Christianity to do right and stand for righteousness. That requires action. How is watching the SBC taking a stand for righteousness?

And again I say, that is the most absurd thing I've heard -- today.

Conservatives don't have an exclusive deal on the white-washed tombs market. In fact, the entire "institutional church" -- liberal, conservative, orthodox, catholic, protestant -- are all made up of HUMANS. This kind of garbage comes from corrupted human hearts that do not characterize Christ or what He intends His Body to be.

But another question arises -- which type of theology do you accept? Biblical, scriptural, respecting verbal-plenary inspiration -- or liberal, make it up as we go relative beliefs?

JDale

 

[JDale]

My understanding is that it is the other way around and that the Sadducees only believed the Torah and not the rest of the OT. They were the legalists.

They rejected the Prophets, only accepting the Torah, that's true. They rejected life after death, angels, much of the supernatural, etc. That would classify as liberal. They believed only the ritual aspects and traditions as they related to Jewish beliefs. Anything else was nonsense to them.

The Pharisees believed the Law and the Prophets -- and even ADDED their oral traditions to them (fence laws) which Jesus condemned them for. They were the "Fundamentalists" (Legalists) of their time.

JDale

 

[gb93433]

Conservatives don't have an exclusive deal on the white-washed tombs market. In fact, the entire "institutional church" -- liberal, conservative, orthodox, catholic, protestant -- are all made up of HUMANS. This kind of garbage comes from corrupted human hearts that do not characterize Christ or what He intends His Body to be.

You are right it does not matter what party you are to be corrupt. Most likely if you claim a party you are already corrupted to some degree and may not know it.

Christ never exhorted Christians to be conservative. He said, "Follow me. . . " Following him does not mean conservative, liberal, or moderate. It means one thing--follow Him. In fact 1 Cor. speaks loudly against a party spirit. I am not of the conservative movement or any other movement. My aim is to follow Christ not compare myself to some party. If I assocaite with some people and they choose to go down the wrong road that is where I stop. I can only they are going down a wrong road by knowing the right road. It is like the old question? How do oyu tell a crooked stick? By laying a straight one next to it.

In 1998 the SBC put out a magazine to parents in the churches. One day my daughter who was in the fourth grade was reading it and noticed an article that was not quite right theologically. After I read it, I agreed. I contacted the other pastors in the asssociation and all of us pulled it from the shelves. A conservative would have said it is SBC and the SBC is conservative and agrees with my theology. Therefore it must be right. A follower of Christ would call it what it is. A follower of Christ does not relax and put his trust in people but in Christ. A follower of Christ examines everything to make sure it agrees with scripture.

If you claim to be a conservative then who would you claim to follow? Where did Christ ever make a claim to conservatism. Jesus was not a Sadducee or a Pharisee. Which party was he?

If you read your Bible there were many times when Jesus went against the Pharisees and Sadducees. So again I ask which party was he. If you follow Jesus most likely you will be shot at by the liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists and other party group. A party spirit divides and Christ unites. What I find in each party is a consensus of pride. They are proud to be of some particular group. I fail to find anywhere in scripture where Jesus sided with any theological or any other party except what God wanted.

But another question arises -- which type of theology do you accept? Biblical, scriptural, respecting verbal-plenary inspiration -- or liberal, make it up as we go relative beliefs?

If the name of the party changed would your theology change or would it stay the same?

Today we have many brands of conservatives, liberals and fundamentalists.
If you say you are a conservative which brand are you?

Are you a conservative who is evangelical? Are you a conservative who lives like a practical atheist? Are you a conservative who lives like a moderate? Are you a conservative that lives like a liberal? Are you a 4 point Calvinist? Are you a five point Calvinist? Are you a six point Calvinist? Are you a three point Calvinist? Are you a three point Calvinist and 2 point Arminian? Are you a Calvinist that never shares his faith? Are you a dispensationalist? Are you a premillenial dispensationalist? Are you a historical premillenialist? Do you believe in baptizing by dunking the person three times or once? Are you a southern Baptist? Are you a northern Baptist? How about a confederate or yankee Baptist? There are many more.

So, which brand of conservative are you?