The Pursuit

18 and Drinking…

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 | Alcohol, News, politics, tradition | 11 Comments

Four Georgia college presidents have signed on to a national initiative to fight binge drinking by their students — by lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.

Launched in July 2008, the Amethyst Initiative is made up of chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States. These higher education leaders have signed their names to a public statement that the problem of irresponsible drinking by young people continues despite the minimum legal drinking age of 21, and there is a culture of dangerous binge drinking on many campuses. 1

As it currently stands, 18 year olds are allowed to smoke, drive, join the military, get married, open lines of credit, vote, etc. but you are not allowed to drink a glass of wine with dinner, or have a beer with friends. The Amethyst Initiative was started as a way to prevent Alcohol abuse among young adults. Their theory is that if 18 year old College Students are allowed to drink, then they will drink more responsibly. The reason why they do not drink responsibly now is because they’re not allowed to do it at all.

I started to drink when I was about 16. We drank and got drunk. It wasn’t a weekly occurrence for me, but when we drank, we did it with the idea that we were going to get drunk. I believe the Amethyst organization believes that if we were allowed to drink, then we wouldn’t need to find excuses to buy an excess amount of alcohol to get drunk. It would be a more casual thing for everyone. It seems to make sense, in a way.

By the way, Amethyst “is derived from the Ancient Greek words meaning ‘not’ (a-) and ‘intoxicated’ (methustos). According to mythology, Amethyst was a young girl who incurred the wrath of the God Dionysus after he became intoxicated with red wine.” 2

Personally, I think that drinking at 8 is fine. There are whole countries that have no limit on the drinking age, many of which have lower alcohol related tragedies than America. I also believe that God does not condemn drinking alcohol.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Here are some more articles about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/
http://gpbnews.blogspot.com/2008/08/ga-college-presidents-want-to-cut.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418822,00.html

Polygamists, Muslims, and Scripture: A Question.

Thursday, May 29th, 2008 | News, bible, philosophy, questions, teaching, testimony, tradition | 15 Comments

Part of my new job requires me to drive from time to time. Recently I had to drive to Wildwood, FL. This trip is about 5 hours one way. If you’ve ever driven a long distance you know that entertaining yourself is always a challenge. I forgot to take the time to prepare myself CDs to listen to, so I was stuck with the “scan” feature on the radio. Eventually I ran into NPR, a station I frequent (when I can find it). NPR was running a story about Black American Orthodox Muslims. Apparently in their scriptures they are taught that polygamy is best for a family. They especially said that having 2 wifes is best, then 3, then 4, if you cannot treat more than 1 wife equally (fairly), then you should only marry 1. They interviewed a few different polygamist families, they all shared good things and bad things about polygamy (the number one bad thing mentioned was the potential for jealously amoung wives). One lady was a Southern Baptist converted to Muslim. She was her husband’s first wife, and she decided that she wanted to study abroad. Realizing what this would do to her family, she decided it would be best to find another wife for her husband, so that he would be taken care of. The NPR reporter fairly stated that sex is one reason for polygamist marriage, but assured her listeners that alturism is often another reason (such as taking a widow as a second wife to help support her and her children).

If we look in the Bible, we see many examples of Polygamists. I am not saying that these are examples for us to follow. The biggest name I can think of for polygamists would be Abram (Abraham). Although he was not the biggest polygamist (Solomon), being that he was the father of the faith (as some call him), his polygamy cannot go unnoticed. Traditionally, however, Christians believe that Monogamy is the best practice. I think there are probably more scriptural commands that encourage monogamy, than those that encourage polygamy (1 Timothy 3 for example).

Given all of what I have said, and all that you already know, I have a question. If a polygamist family converts to Christianity, what should they do? Divorce? Remain as they are? What are your thoughts?

What was Lost?

Thursday, February 21st, 2008 | News, church, politics, prayer, questions, teaching, tradition | 1 Comment

You may have heard the news, a couple of weeks ago there was a large “wave of religious violence” in Nigeria. “Around 1000 people were displaced, several critically wounded, and every church reportedly destroyed in Shira Yana, Bauchi State, Nigeria on 2 February 2008.” Christianity Today ran a news article titled Churches destroyed in wave of religious violence in Nigeria.

Apparently this was all started become a young Christian woman was accused of blaspheming Muhammad. A young man who was 20 died, the article does not say if he was a Christian or not. Here are the other reported losses in this article:

• On the following morning the youth attacked her house accompanied by a crowd
• triggering a rampage in which police and Christians were attacked and their homes and churches destroyed.
• Elsewhere, a Baptist church and a Deeper Life church were set ablaze
• A car owned by a local Christian that was parked close to the churches was also destroyed in the blaze.
• six Christian-owned houses had been razed to the ground

Although it is devastating to lose your buildings, cars, sense of security, etc. to senseless violence, I ask, “What was Lost?”

Damage Control…

Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 | News, deacon, pastor, tradition | 12 Comments

My father-in-law is the vocational pastor of Zion Baptist Church in Covington, GA. Sunday, August 11th, he resigned from his position. Paraphrasing, he said, “Due to my health I am unable to pastor a church of this size… or so I’ve been told.” In this weeks weekly newsletter, the Zion Trumpet, a letter from the deacon body appeared on the front page:

Dear Church Family,

Our pastor, Brother Rickey Brantley, has resigned. Because of his health problems, he no longer feels he can pastor a church the size of Zion. He informed the deacons that it is God’s will for his life to resign at this time. We do not know what God has planned for Brother Rickey and Elaine, but we trust that our God will supply all their needs. We love them and affirm this decision.

Just for the record, the deacons did not suggest or ask Brother Rickey to resign as pastor. We have been supportive of Brother Rickey, doing whatever we could do to help him. We do, however, feel this decision is best for Brother Rickey in his quest to regain his health and we also feel that, in time, it will be best for our church.

The Deacon Body

Does this letter seem as suspicious to you as it does to me or I am just biased? This whole ordeal is very unfortunate. I would love to sit down with some of these men and try to truly understand what they were thinking, why they have done some of the things they have done, and how they have justified some of their actions to themselves.

What’s your Sign?

Thursday, July 26th, 2007 | News, church, ministry, service, tradition | 8 Comments

Woody Murray, an independent church communications specialist who helps churches more effectively reach their communities, has started contributing to Baptist Press News. On the 17th, he wrote an article called Is your church sending mixed messages?. Yesterday (the 25th), he wrote an article called Church signs are key to outreach.

Both of these articles concern the importance of putting your best face forward when advertising for your church programs, meetings, etc. To be perfectly honest, if you are running a business, then Murray has some very sound advice that you should probably follow. The problem is, the church is not a business. I am not going to get into the whole church vs. Church thing right now, you all know where I stand. Instead, I want to discuss some of the things these article asks us to focus on. Here are a few quotes you should consider:

If you don’t present one clear and inviting message for your church through every touch-point, then a single weak communication can counter all of the strong church promotion you are working so hard to build. (1st article)

Because you don’t know how –- or when –- someone will want information on your church, you can’t afford to let any one message touch-point miss the mark and hinder the ministries of your church. (1st article)

If you don’t have a church message sign, you need to get one. If you do have one, you need to make sure the messages are very inviting and that they stay fresh. That is where many churches make a crucial mistake –- they don’t devote enough time to their messages. (2nd article)

Each church needs someone — or maybe even a few people — who will take on the sign as their ministry for the congregation. If you have a publicity committee or communications committee in your church, your sign should be an integral part of their work. If not, pray about your need and seek a person who will want to make this his or her primary ministry for the church. (2nd article)

I think these few quotes will give you the gist - if not, read them for yourself. What do you all think of what Murray is talking about? Are our ministries really that dependent on advertisements? Is the “church sign” really as important as he makes it sound?

I think Murray is trying his best to help the church, as he understands it. But it should be much more simple than worrying about signs and advertising. I say, sell your buildings, sell your signs, sell your space in the yellow pages, and make disciples, be the Church.

Why care about the CBF? - Response

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 | News, fellowship, ministry, philosophy, questions, service, tradition | 4 Comments

David Roach has written an article published at the Baptist Press titled, Why care about the CBF?. Roach describes a recent experience he had when visiting the CBF’s General Assembly. The thesis of his article is that the CBF is still useful to the SBC, not necessarily for the ministry, but as a reminder of the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence and as a reason for the SBC to unite in its cause.

He says, “There are at least two important reasons why Southern Baptists should take note of what our moderate counterparts are doing. . . . First, for younger Southern Baptists like myself, the CBF should cause us to give thanks to God for the SBC’s conservative resurgence. . . . Second, observing the CBF should call us to unity as a convention.”

In response to his first reason; I can only say that his apparent reverence for the Conservative Resurgence Fathers seems a little tacky.

In response to his second reason; he discusses one of the “saddest moments during the entire General Assembly.” He explains that “the Lord’s Supper seemed only to be a generic symbol of Christian unity rather than a remembrance of the glorious salvation we have in Jesus.” Roach did not partake of the elements with the others. He says that he was “discouraged that Fellowship Baptists only celebrated unity abstractly without articulating a solid doctrinal foundation for that unity.”

I asked myself, did Jesus perform the first sacrament up to Roach’s standards? Did they discuss theology before taking the blood and body? Did Jesus call for a moment of reflection before offering himself up?

How many times do we have to repeat the same procedure before we “get it” and can enjoy the sacraments with the full knowledge of what they symbolize - in unity with our brothers and sisters.

Roach continued by saying, “That sad celebration made me think of how much we have that’s worth unifying around in the SBC. . . . Seeing unity without substance should be a vivid reminder that we must take full advantage of the opportunity to unify with those who share our most valued convictions.”

He ends, saying, “If you think the CBF is not worth thinking about, think again. Taking a little time to see what Southern Baptists could have been might help you celebrate and unify around what we are.”

I am not trying to pick on Roach (although he seems to be doing a good job of putting down the CBF). I did not attend this meeting. I am not an “Ecumenicalist” (at least not in the political sense of the word). I even sense that he probably means well - but I have to ask - is he really seeking unity? Isn’t this just an attempt at uniting with disunity? Are we really called to unite, only, with those who agree with our “most valued convictions” or with all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus?

Should we really thank God that we are not like those CBF Baptists as we choke down our dry crackers and grape juice?

“The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’” - Luke 18:11-12

NEWS: Dwight McKissic

Friday, June 22nd, 2007 | News, tradition | 1 Comment

I just read from dallasnews.com that Dwight McKissic has resigned from the Board of Trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological seminary.

“It has taken a tremendous toll on my family and ministry, and my wife believes it has negatively impacted my health,” he said in a resignation letter to Van McClain, chairman of the Fort Worth seminary’s trustee board. “I simply want to return to the place I was prior to being a trustee.”

What a terrible shame that becoming a trustee of a conservative seminary would be a stumbling block for one of our brothers. In a place where open discussion and challenging believes should be welcomed they had been silenced and hidden away. And for what? To protect churches from these challenging beliefs.

I often wonder why Jesus sent us a helper, when we clearly already have people in offices willing to do the job for him.

This article ends with this quote from Dr. Patterson:

“My personal relationship with Pastor McKissic has been a long one and overwhelmingly a happy one,” Dr. Patterson said. “I anticipate that that relationship will continue and that Brother McKissic will continue as a faithful supporter of the seminary. It is well known that we have not always agreed, but we are brothers in Christ, and I love this pastor.”

I sincerely hope that Patterson and McKissic do sustain a relationship. But I found myself wondering what, if anything, does this have to do with McKissic being a “faithful supporter” of the seminary?

As ABBA (the group, not the father) once said, “money, money, money…”

P.S. I made up a new word - Batholic. I really like it, it is a combination of Baptist and Catholic. What really endears me to the word is the fact that “Bath” can be found in it - like a baptism! This is hilarious on so many levels! Looks like we can have our cake and eat it too!

(HT: Ben Cole for linking to this article)

The Sit Down…

Thursday, June 14th, 2007 | News, church, fellowship, ministry, pastor, preaching, sermon, service, teaching, tithe, tithing, tradition | 4 Comments

Last week I wrote a post called A New Addition - where I recounted a recent sermon I heard about the requirement of tithing.

Tuesday I was able to sit down with the speaker of that message for lunch. We were able to discuss what took place, and how I felt about it. I am not going to share with you everything said, but I will give you an idea of what occurred.

He asked me what I thought about the past two Sundays (the Sunday I wrote about, and the last Sunday - a similar topic was preached). I answered by saying, “Actually I need to talk to you about that. Do you want me to remove myself from my teaching position in Sunday School?” (You see, during his two messages he pretty much said that if you were in a ‘leadership’ position - which in his eyes includes me - than you either needed to repent and start tithing or you needed to remove yourself from that position).

He asked, “Why?”

I said, “Well I don’t tithe.”

He said, “Well, you should tithe then.”

I said, “I’m not going to.”

He said, “Why not?”

I said, “I do not see that it is taught in scripture…”

And the conversation went on from there.

He brought up the “store house,” the “first fruits,” etc. I brought up pretty much everything I have discussed here and maybe a little more. I will not bore you with repeating myself.

What I found interesting was his idea that if you use the building (which I do to help teach and to meet with others) than you should help pay for that building. In a way, I agree with that idea. I recommended that a better solution though would be to charge admission. He didn’t like that idea.

What I found VERY interesting was the dilemma he was in. You see, he wants a teacher for the Sunday School that I teach. But I know he does not trust anyone else to teach it. The dilemma of course was, go against his “conviction” and allow me to continue to teach OR remove me and be out a teacher. I urged him, more than once, that he should not go against his conviction and that I would have no hurt feelings in any way. But as it stands, I am still the teacher of this particular Sunday School class. Which is only like 3-5 people on an average Sunday morning…

Anyways, the best part of the meeting was that through this discussion it opened a door for us to meet again next week, to specifically talk about these issues. He kept telling me that I have given him “a lot to think about.” I do not know if that is good or bad, but either next week he will come guns-a-blazing or he will be where he is or he will have changed his position. Regardless, I look forward to discussing this with him further and I wonder what he is going to speak about this coming Sunday.

P.S. When we first started talking about this he said, “You don’t believe in supporting the Church?” I replied, “Absolutely, of course I believe in supporting the church.” His reasoning then became, “Well the church wants to meet in this building, so you should help support that by helping pay for the building.” I hope next week the church decides to meet in the Caribbean, I’ll be voting for that at the next “business meeting.”

P.P.S. He also asked me if I thought pastors should get paid. I said no. He said that I would feel differently when I was in the ministry. I didn’t get into it with him over his vocabulary (I have in the past) but I assured him that I would not.

Did Jesus Really Resurrect?

Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 | Blogs Worth Mentioning, News | 3 Comments

Many of you may have seen the headlines of late concerning the Discovery Channel documentary: The Lost Tomb. It is about an archaeological finding of four ossuaries, with the names, Jesus, son of Joseph, Mary (twice), and Judah, son of Jesus. At first glance this finding may seem shaking, especially to our faith. Fret not my friends, for this story is full of holes.

Ben Witherington elaborates on a recent post, The Jesus Tomb? ‘Titanic’ Talpiot Tomb Theory Sunk from the Start. I encourage you to equip yourself by read what he has to say.

Here are some other articles related to this story:
Documentary Shows Possible Jesus Tomb - WRAL
Archaeologists, scholars dispute Jesus documentary - CNN
‘Jesus Tomb’ documentary ignores biblical & scientific evidence, logic, experts say - BPNews

God’s Glory,
Lew