I recognize that most SBCers think that if it doesn't involve the SBC it's not worth thinking about, so here's my list of top SBC stories for 2011. The rest of Christendom can have their list, but none of that counts here (however, if the world had ended as Harold Camping said it would a couple of times in 2011, I would have been happy to include that non-SBC story in the list).
_______________
1. Bryant Wright appoints an informal, unfunded SBC name change committee. And thereby stirs up the ire of many who resent his ability to do this. Get over it. You will get a direct vote, if it comes to that, next June.
2. Tom Elliff elected as new head of IMB. Whenever our flagship agency has a new leader, that's big news. I wish him every success in leading the SBC's flagship entity.
3. SBC Cooperative Program receipts show a slight increase. The Executive Committee reported this for the fiscal year ending September 30th; however, the next two months showed a steep decrease. Maybe they back-loaded September to make 2010-2011 look good? Whatever...an increase was unexpected.
4. Southern Baptists bash Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Start with Robert Jeffress, pastor of what used to be the SBC's top church, FBC Dallas. Add a few others and not a few bloggers who display their religious bigotry in foreswearing voting for a Mormon candidate. Perhaps the brethren should start a re-elect Obama SBCers group.
5. State conventions move towards 50/50 Cooperative Program split. State conventions get credit for good intentions; however, Plodder takes the Matthew 24 approach to these - cuts and rumors of cuts, but don't be alarmed, the checks haven't been written.
6. Surry (NC) Baptist Association kicks out church with female pastor. And does so summarily. How dare the church call a female and ignore the association's doctrinal purity and unity? And some in the SBC say that our name ("Southern") is the cause of our bad image.
7. Frank Page puts Calvinism at the top of his list of challenges for the SBC. Since he hears from a lot of Baptists, I'd listen to him on this.
8. SBC annual meeting attendance lowest since 1944. Only 4,814 at Phoenix, a group which didn't include moi (I've already been to Phoenix in 110 degree heat in June). So, it was an off election year and ther was no raging controversy. Still, SBCers used to like to spend some expense money.
9. New biography of Lottie Moon published. Regina Sullivan's new bio is the first in about three decades. It calls into question the use of Lottie's starvation death narrative as a fund raising tool but what good are facts if they don't get the money flowing? SBCers should read the book.
10. Plodder resigns his church and retires. Well, this one is pretty big news around my house if nowhere else. I reserve the right to undo this one if the Lord leads.
Showing posts with label Robert Jeffress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Jeffress. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Time for another term besides "cult" for LDS?
Americans regularly are exposed to cults, cultic behavior, and cult suicides with the poster boy for the same being Jim Jones whose descent into insanity and depravity gave us the sad phrase "drinking the Kool Aid" as a metaphor for unquestioning acceptance of ideology or unhesitant following of some leader. Sad, because this phrase is tossed around in political circles with little remembrance that almost a thousand people, including children, suffered untimely deaths in that deplorable episode of the People's Temple in Guyana.
So how is the term "cult" working for us with regard to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mitt Romney's church, commonly called Mormons?
Not so good, I'd say.
Robert Jeffress, pastor of one of the SBC's highest profile churches even if the church has declined somewhat from its halcyon days, notably labeled Romney a member of a "cult" recently, to the winces of many. The label caused not a few sensible evangelicals to try and explain things a bit better.
'Well,' they say, 'we have theological cults and sociological cults' and one might add fringe cults and mainstream cults, powerful cults and powerless cults. By the time you get out all the explanations and caveats the audience is long gone.
Jeffress himself has taken time to walk back his earlier comments: "Mormonism has never been considered a part of evangelical historic Christianity," he rightly and more appropriately said.
He also said, "I am not a Jeremiah Wright on the fringe, making fanatical statements," leading one to ask, why, if he is not a Jeremiah Wright fringe type, would he feel the need to state the same?
Clearly, Mitt Romney is not Jim Jones. Manifestly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is not a fringe group, though other splinter Mormons clearly are, just read about convicted child rapist Warren Jeffs and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Jeffress has even stated that he would vote for cult member Romney, making for an odd marriage of conviction and convenience.
Those of us of a certain advanced middle age grew up with this terminology. Mormonism is a cult. Still is, but we have to define the term better, exactly what we have to do when explaining what Mormons mean when they use our terminology like "Jesus" and "God." So, if we have to explain what we mean by "cult" why not start with a more appropriate term?
We should certainly be good stewards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which means identifying heresy and aberrant theology that masquerades under the broad term 'Christian' but 'cult' is such a loaded word. By the time you get around to explaining that you're not classifying LDS with The People's Temple or Mitt Romney with Warren Jeffs, you've lost too much ground to make up.
Mormonism will be no less considered to be far from orthodox Christianity if the term is not used, and we may find more usefulness in some other appelation.
I just don't know what the term would be.
One thing for sure. You will not hear Robert Jeffress introduce Rick Perry again anytime soon.
So how is the term "cult" working for us with regard to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mitt Romney's church, commonly called Mormons?
Not so good, I'd say.
Robert Jeffress, pastor of one of the SBC's highest profile churches even if the church has declined somewhat from its halcyon days, notably labeled Romney a member of a "cult" recently, to the winces of many. The label caused not a few sensible evangelicals to try and explain things a bit better.
'Well,' they say, 'we have theological cults and sociological cults' and one might add fringe cults and mainstream cults, powerful cults and powerless cults. By the time you get out all the explanations and caveats the audience is long gone.
Jeffress himself has taken time to walk back his earlier comments: "Mormonism has never been considered a part of evangelical historic Christianity," he rightly and more appropriately said.
He also said, "I am not a Jeremiah Wright on the fringe, making fanatical statements," leading one to ask, why, if he is not a Jeremiah Wright fringe type, would he feel the need to state the same?
Clearly, Mitt Romney is not Jim Jones. Manifestly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is not a fringe group, though other splinter Mormons clearly are, just read about convicted child rapist Warren Jeffs and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Jeffress has even stated that he would vote for cult member Romney, making for an odd marriage of conviction and convenience.
Those of us of a certain advanced middle age grew up with this terminology. Mormonism is a cult. Still is, but we have to define the term better, exactly what we have to do when explaining what Mormons mean when they use our terminology like "Jesus" and "God." So, if we have to explain what we mean by "cult" why not start with a more appropriate term?
We should certainly be good stewards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which means identifying heresy and aberrant theology that masquerades under the broad term 'Christian' but 'cult' is such a loaded word. By the time you get around to explaining that you're not classifying LDS with The People's Temple or Mitt Romney with Warren Jeffs, you've lost too much ground to make up.
Mormonism will be no less considered to be far from orthodox Christianity if the term is not used, and we may find more usefulness in some other appelation.
I just don't know what the term would be.
One thing for sure. You will not hear Robert Jeffress introduce Rick Perry again anytime soon.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Disrespect Christmas? Off with their heads!
Publicity stunt?
Pastor Robert Jeffress has the grinchalert website in order to chastise those who dare offend his view of how Christmas ought to be handled. As the Dallas Morning News puts it:
With the largest building program in the history of the SBC in his pocket and paid (or pledged) for does Jeffress really need to be this demagogic about Christmas?
Is Christ honored if Christians form a holy crusade to punish all who don’t handle Christmas like they think it should be handled?
Let’s see, here’s a ma and pa business that puts up a “Happy Holidays” banner in their store or restaurant rather than a "Merry Christmas" one. "Drive the clowns out of business!" manicured, well-coiffed followers of Christ rage.
Is the cause of Christ advanced by punishing them for this offense? I think not.
While in Kenya some years ago, I was struck by the ubiquitous portrait of the country’s strongman president, Daniel Arap-Moi. Almost everywhere I went - homes, businesses, offices, public places - I found his stern visage staring down at me. Seems Kenyans knew the value of respecting the president, or, more accurately, knew the consequence of not respecting him.
And is anyone not aware that there are laws in Islamic countries that punish (death penalty in some places) those who disrespect the prophet Mohammed. “Backward, evil miscreants” we might say about that.
So, why in freedom-loving, heavily Christian America do we want to stir up the masses to punish fellow citizens – restauranteurs, private businesses, small town politicians - for disrespecting Christmas? And what’s the difference, aside from the fact that the chief demagogue wears an expensive suit instead of a head covering?
One might ask, are we more interested in lost people respecting Christmas or coming to Christ?
[Jeffress has walked back the concept somewhat, disassociating himself from boycotts, for example. Still, people are invited to serve as the Christmas police and list offenders. Bah humbug.]
Pastor Robert Jeffress has the grinchalert website in order to chastise those who dare offend his view of how Christmas ought to be handled. As the Dallas Morning News puts it:
The website points out those who don’t acknowledge the religious meaning of Christmas. Chief offenders are companies and groups that say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”You gotta be kidding me. There’s crime, poverty, drug abuse, murder and mayhem all over Dallas and the most prominent pastor is apoplectic about some retailer who says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”?
With the largest building program in the history of the SBC in his pocket and paid (or pledged) for does Jeffress really need to be this demagogic about Christmas?
Is Christ honored if Christians form a holy crusade to punish all who don’t handle Christmas like they think it should be handled?
Let’s see, here’s a ma and pa business that puts up a “Happy Holidays” banner in their store or restaurant rather than a "Merry Christmas" one. "Drive the clowns out of business!" manicured, well-coiffed followers of Christ rage.
Is the cause of Christ advanced by punishing them for this offense? I think not.
While in Kenya some years ago, I was struck by the ubiquitous portrait of the country’s strongman president, Daniel Arap-Moi. Almost everywhere I went - homes, businesses, offices, public places - I found his stern visage staring down at me. Seems Kenyans knew the value of respecting the president, or, more accurately, knew the consequence of not respecting him.
And is anyone not aware that there are laws in Islamic countries that punish (death penalty in some places) those who disrespect the prophet Mohammed. “Backward, evil miscreants” we might say about that.
So, why in freedom-loving, heavily Christian America do we want to stir up the masses to punish fellow citizens – restauranteurs, private businesses, small town politicians - for disrespecting Christmas? And what’s the difference, aside from the fact that the chief demagogue wears an expensive suit instead of a head covering?
One might ask, are we more interested in lost people respecting Christmas or coming to Christ?
[Jeffress has walked back the concept somewhat, disassociating himself from boycotts, for example. Still, people are invited to serve as the Christmas police and list offenders. Bah humbug.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)