It really is rather sad. An old man, long separated from his life career, taking upon himself the responsibility of calling a world to get ready for the return of Jesus Christ at a particular hour. Actually the prophet Amos got pulled from his farming tasks to call a nation to repentance. He didn't even want to do it. He just had to be obedient. With Amos, however, he didn't reject the basic nature of God as being consistent in his revelation. Bro. Camping felt it absolutely necessary to rewrite part of the Bible so he could follow through on his predictions. That is sad.
Why do people make predictions about the date when the world will end? If they are right, no one will be throwing them a party. If they are wrong, then they become the brunt of the latest round of jokes. There doesn't seem to be much reward in making such predictions.
So why do it? Here are three possible reasons, all bad.
1. A person needs attention. He or she has been ignored by all the people they consider important. Therefore the only way to get the desired attention is to do something that will be sure to trump anything else that might be happening. All eyes will be upon the central figure at least for a little while. It's why kids throw tantrums. It's why people walk tight ropes between sky scrapers. It's why people float in barrels over Niagara Falls. Gaining attention is considered worth the risk of any negative reactions.
2. A person needs a sense of purpose. When all else in life seems to be failing or slipping into insignificance, carrying a message that will have an impact on everyone gives importance. The need to warn others, to offer hope to others, or simply to make others aware of something that seems inevitable is a powerful source for purpose. We all need an answer to why we are here. If we cannot get that answer from acceptable sources, then we will create one.
3. A person is afraid. Knowledge is power. When we have knowledge, we can exercise control. Control keeps us from being weak and at the mercy of other forces. It helps keep our fear from controlling our lives. The unknown causes tremendous fear for many people. They are afraid of what they do not know, do not understand, or cannot control. The future is the great unknown. If we can predict what will happen, then we can have control over the future and limit or remove the fear. Perhaps this is why studies in biblical prophecy are so popular.
Jesus told his disciples not to be afraid of tomorrow, most certainly not to waste time thinking about the end of all things. It is enough to know that God considers us more valuable than a sparrow. It is enough to know that we have a great purpose in glorifying God and leading others to do the same. It is enough to know that we have nothing to fear. God is in control. Our lack of knowledge has no limiting influence upon God's power. We need to be ready for Christ's return ALL the time.
Frankly, each day as I pull up the Astronomy Picture of the Day web site I am amazed at the awesome universe God has created. It is hard for me to believe that he created all that and would not give us a chance to go out there and see it for ourselves up close. This won't happen in the next few months, but then I think God might leave us around here for another several thousand years. In case he doesn't, well, I'm prepared to walk through heavenly fields anytime. After all it may be that the time of the last days started when Jesus said, "It is finished."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Associational Accountability
One of the great questions in the Bible was addressed by God to Elijah as the prophet on the lam was standing on Mount Horeb, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" (I Kings 19). This could be a pure existential question, the irony being that it is the Creator asking the creature for an answer. It could also be a simple and straight forward question asking why here instead of somewhere else.
The Lord gave very little attention to Elijah's response. I wonder what the Lord thinks of my own attempts to answer that question.
Elijah was the prophet of the Lord. He was accountable to the Lord for a faithful response to his calling. In no less way I am responsible to God for a faithful response to his calling on my life. In the current context that means a faithful response as an associational missionary. This involves an accountability not only for my own life, but also an accountability for my leadership in the asociational structure and a handling of associational resources whatever form they may take. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
Yet accountable we all must be. The associational representatives voted to ask me to fill this position. We both hoped that it was done under the guidance of and in the will of God. To accept that last point is to say we both recognize a greater Power than just a group of churches in control of the situation and setting the standards for expectations. I am more accountable to God than I am to these associational members. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
His calling. His standards, His resources. His expectations. Ultimately his job description. Regardless of what individual pastors or churches or groups of churches think, say, or do, I am first and foremost accountable to God. Then I am also accountable to the association who took action believing that I was supposed to be here.
God's standards basically revolve around faithfulness to his nature. The association's expectations basically revolve around meeting their perceived needs. I will be held accountable to them and evaluated by them based upon my ability in one way or another to meet their needs.
Unfortunately this can often mean answering questions they won't ask and perceiving needs they won't admit. Yet when you do either or both, you are praised as one who is always there for them to help them be more effectvie in their context. This is good because you are never too sure you are getting it just right or whose toes you will step on while providing the answer you feel they need.
Accountability springs from responsibility. He who is not responsible will not be held accountable. When I took this position, responsibilities came along with it. In a most glorious spiritual form, those responsibilities are defined by God. Assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to the churches who constitute those responsibilities. Much more so assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to God. Part of my responsibilities involves leading the churches to see they have that same accountability. God will hold me accountable for that!
The Lord gave very little attention to Elijah's response. I wonder what the Lord thinks of my own attempts to answer that question.
Elijah was the prophet of the Lord. He was accountable to the Lord for a faithful response to his calling. In no less way I am responsible to God for a faithful response to his calling on my life. In the current context that means a faithful response as an associational missionary. This involves an accountability not only for my own life, but also an accountability for my leadership in the asociational structure and a handling of associational resources whatever form they may take. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
Yet accountable we all must be. The associational representatives voted to ask me to fill this position. We both hoped that it was done under the guidance of and in the will of God. To accept that last point is to say we both recognize a greater Power than just a group of churches in control of the situation and setting the standards for expectations. I am more accountable to God than I am to these associational members. Accountability is a hard burden to bear!
His calling. His standards, His resources. His expectations. Ultimately his job description. Regardless of what individual pastors or churches or groups of churches think, say, or do, I am first and foremost accountable to God. Then I am also accountable to the association who took action believing that I was supposed to be here.
God's standards basically revolve around faithfulness to his nature. The association's expectations basically revolve around meeting their perceived needs. I will be held accountable to them and evaluated by them based upon my ability in one way or another to meet their needs.
Unfortunately this can often mean answering questions they won't ask and perceiving needs they won't admit. Yet when you do either or both, you are praised as one who is always there for them to help them be more effectvie in their context. This is good because you are never too sure you are getting it just right or whose toes you will step on while providing the answer you feel they need.
Accountability springs from responsibility. He who is not responsible will not be held accountable. When I took this position, responsibilities came along with it. In a most glorious spiritual form, those responsibilities are defined by God. Assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to the churches who constitute those responsibilities. Much more so assuming those responsibilities made me accountable to God. Part of my responsibilities involves leading the churches to see they have that same accountability. God will hold me accountable for that!
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Autonomous: To Be or Not To Be
I wish I were a brilliant historian. I would have a big title, a big salary, and a big list of books carrying my name as author. Alas, I am no such creature. So I must gather a foundation for my thoughts in other ways or simply give my opinion.
Federalism versus States' Rights. Autonomous local church versus autonomous association versus autonomous state convention versus autonomous national convention. By the way probably Southern Baptists are the only ones who understand the implications of this previous sentence. We have ongoing crises among Southern Baptists because of misunderstandings and an outright wrong approach to the concept of autonomy and its sister concept of connectionalism. We have ongoing discussions about the cause of the Civil War. Was its cause grounded in slavery or was slavery simply the chosen issue over which the battle for a strong central government versus strong states' rights was finally fought rather that tariff questions or rules governing international trade agreements or the right to print your own money (or maybe even how many wives you could have)?
Alas, I am not that brilliant scholar in American history. So, as to the other issue, why is there so much emotional upheaval among Baptists over autonomy and a proper understanding of connectionalism? It has everything to do with priesthood of the believer and organizational freedom. At this fall's annual meeting for the NC Baptist State Convention, messengers will hear a report concerning the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Should the state convention accept it as our confessional document or stick with the 1963 BF&M?
This question has arisen because one messenger said we have a "mess" if we don't address it. Where's the mess? The national convention with less than 10,000 messengers supposedly representing sixteen million members adopted the 2000 as drawn up by a presidentially hand picked committee. The 1963 version was drawn up and presented by a committee composed of the executinve directors of the various state conventions, people chosen by the states from which they came!
If NC Baptists have a mess, it is because someone has forgotten that great Baptist element called connectionalism and its relationship to autonomy. In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (c. 1958, vol. I, p. 99), the article author quotes the SBC constitution and then adds his own comments. "'While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, association, or convention.' This limitation is prompted by the theological proposition that each church is independent and autonomous. No other body may usurp the authority of the church."
We are "connected" as NC Baptists to the SBC by choice, choosing to cooperate as we mutually desire. We do not have to follow the SBC in each step it takes, nor does it create a mess when we choose not to do so.
We do not have a mess except when someone decides to turn our convention into a strong federalist organization instead of the local church rights, associational rights, state convention rights organization it was designed to be. We are connected as a community, not as a family bowing before the ruling patriarch who dictates how the entire family will live.
If we are blessed as a state convention, the committee that has been appointed by the president of the convention will remember that we are autonomous and serve together through a clearly defined connectionalism. They will recommend that we maintain our freedom by continuing to function under the 1963 BF&M, a document that was prepared in part by our own elected personnel. When we forget our foundations of autonomy and connectionalism, then we will have a mess! And I really don't want to have to lead my association to assert its autonomous rights.
Federalism versus States' Rights. Autonomous local church versus autonomous association versus autonomous state convention versus autonomous national convention. By the way probably Southern Baptists are the only ones who understand the implications of this previous sentence. We have ongoing crises among Southern Baptists because of misunderstandings and an outright wrong approach to the concept of autonomy and its sister concept of connectionalism. We have ongoing discussions about the cause of the Civil War. Was its cause grounded in slavery or was slavery simply the chosen issue over which the battle for a strong central government versus strong states' rights was finally fought rather that tariff questions or rules governing international trade agreements or the right to print your own money (or maybe even how many wives you could have)?
Alas, I am not that brilliant scholar in American history. So, as to the other issue, why is there so much emotional upheaval among Baptists over autonomy and a proper understanding of connectionalism? It has everything to do with priesthood of the believer and organizational freedom. At this fall's annual meeting for the NC Baptist State Convention, messengers will hear a report concerning the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Should the state convention accept it as our confessional document or stick with the 1963 BF&M?
This question has arisen because one messenger said we have a "mess" if we don't address it. Where's the mess? The national convention with less than 10,000 messengers supposedly representing sixteen million members adopted the 2000 as drawn up by a presidentially hand picked committee. The 1963 version was drawn up and presented by a committee composed of the executinve directors of the various state conventions, people chosen by the states from which they came!
If NC Baptists have a mess, it is because someone has forgotten that great Baptist element called connectionalism and its relationship to autonomy. In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (c. 1958, vol. I, p. 99), the article author quotes the SBC constitution and then adds his own comments. "'While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, association, or convention.' This limitation is prompted by the theological proposition that each church is independent and autonomous. No other body may usurp the authority of the church."
We are "connected" as NC Baptists to the SBC by choice, choosing to cooperate as we mutually desire. We do not have to follow the SBC in each step it takes, nor does it create a mess when we choose not to do so.
We do not have a mess except when someone decides to turn our convention into a strong federalist organization instead of the local church rights, associational rights, state convention rights organization it was designed to be. We are connected as a community, not as a family bowing before the ruling patriarch who dictates how the entire family will live.
If we are blessed as a state convention, the committee that has been appointed by the president of the convention will remember that we are autonomous and serve together through a clearly defined connectionalism. They will recommend that we maintain our freedom by continuing to function under the 1963 BF&M, a document that was prepared in part by our own elected personnel. When we forget our foundations of autonomy and connectionalism, then we will have a mess! And I really don't want to have to lead my association to assert its autonomous rights.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
One Man's Death
Everybody dies. Most have not known or will not know when that is to happen. The assurance, however, is there. We will all die. The only way to avoid that is to be alive at the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that will still bring about a rather significant change. Death in and of itself does not therefore hold any particular uniqueness for us. That is, until it takes someone of importance to us.
I must admit there was no great rejoicing in my spirit when I got the word that Osama bin Laden had been killed. My first thought was simply, "Who will be the next world assasin?" In one form or another the bin Ladens have been around since long before we even read of Barabbas, a local Jewish zealot, being traded for Jesus. My emotions reflected my feelings that executionary death removes a symptom of a problem from our midst. It does not remove the problem.
Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? If you weigh the pain he and his organization have caused millions of people, Americans and non-Americans, Christians and non-Christians, rich and poor alike, it would be hard to find any man in the first decade of the 21st century who deserved it more? If allowed to live in freedom, would he have been searching for additional ways to cause pain to anyone who differed with his agenda? Without a doubt!
I only raise the question that should we as civilized people, as Christians, find in the violent death of any person, no matter how deserving, a reason to celebrate. Let us grieve with those who have lost loved ones due to this man's hatred, bigotry, and twisted mind. Let us work to restore justice in areas where such hatred finds fertile soil. Let us bring love, compassion, and hope for redemption into relationships that would otherwise be attracted to such a perverted view of human existence.
The death of one man such as Osama bin Laden will ultimately be a note on a page in a history book. The millions who died in the Holocaust deserve and will get more space. Those who have died in mass ethnic cleansings deserve and will get more space in those same books. Those millions who died at the will of some passing dictator deserve and should get more space.
One man's death rarely makes a difference in social history. Thankfully, there is one man's death that has. Jesus carried neither spear nor sword. He carried a cross. He preached neither social correctness nor ethnic superiority. He preached love and forgiveness. He sought the death of no one. He sought only salvation for all through his own death.
Dictators die. Jihadists die. Theologians and philosophers die. Their deaths offer no one abundant life now and salvation eternal. One man's death did.
I must admit there was no great rejoicing in my spirit when I got the word that Osama bin Laden had been killed. My first thought was simply, "Who will be the next world assasin?" In one form or another the bin Ladens have been around since long before we even read of Barabbas, a local Jewish zealot, being traded for Jesus. My emotions reflected my feelings that executionary death removes a symptom of a problem from our midst. It does not remove the problem.
Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? If you weigh the pain he and his organization have caused millions of people, Americans and non-Americans, Christians and non-Christians, rich and poor alike, it would be hard to find any man in the first decade of the 21st century who deserved it more? If allowed to live in freedom, would he have been searching for additional ways to cause pain to anyone who differed with his agenda? Without a doubt!
I only raise the question that should we as civilized people, as Christians, find in the violent death of any person, no matter how deserving, a reason to celebrate. Let us grieve with those who have lost loved ones due to this man's hatred, bigotry, and twisted mind. Let us work to restore justice in areas where such hatred finds fertile soil. Let us bring love, compassion, and hope for redemption into relationships that would otherwise be attracted to such a perverted view of human existence.
The death of one man such as Osama bin Laden will ultimately be a note on a page in a history book. The millions who died in the Holocaust deserve and will get more space. Those who have died in mass ethnic cleansings deserve and will get more space in those same books. Those millions who died at the will of some passing dictator deserve and should get more space.
One man's death rarely makes a difference in social history. Thankfully, there is one man's death that has. Jesus carried neither spear nor sword. He carried a cross. He preached neither social correctness nor ethnic superiority. He preached love and forgiveness. He sought the death of no one. He sought only salvation for all through his own death.
Dictators die. Jihadists die. Theologians and philosophers die. Their deaths offer no one abundant life now and salvation eternal. One man's death did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)