Friday, February 8, 2008

Friends For The Future of Broadway

Well.....
Like the Calvinist said after he fell down the stairs, "I'm glad that's over with."

Fort Worth's Broadway Baptist votes to keep pastor
from The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
and a similar story from the Dallas Morning News Religion Blog

I'm a member of a study group called "Exploring The Christian Faith" at Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth. We don't hesitate to ask the hard questions. Very few answers are provided. We're just about to finish a series called "Living The Questions". We'll probably do a book study next.

If you've lost touch with your faith, or lost interest in traditional answers to Christianity's difficulties, come join us. There's been some recent controversy about our studying some of the theologians listed in the Spiritual Advisors blogroll to your right. Borg in particular. I hope we're over it now. (See the Star-Telegram link above.)

In the last few months, I've learned that Freedom of Religious Expression is a valuable thing. Lord have mercy, I love this class. All points of view are respected. No one believes me, but meeting in that room is the most Libertarian hour of my week.

If you want to join us, we meet at 9:30 in Room 306 every Sunday morning. 305 West Broadway, Fort Worth, TX 76104.

6 comments:

Denney Crane said...

All the good you do and have done will all be undone in your effort.

Having gay people come to church and showing them the love of Jesus is our calling. Publishing pictures of gay couples in your directory, you embrace the sin as well as the sinner.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Same as the money changers in the temple...yes, it is that simple.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Denny C,
I've looked through your "Denny Crane" user profile. Therefore, I'm relieved that I can disagree with you. That's some wild S&M/pain fetish you have going there, sir....

Our old church directory also contained pictures of married heterosexual couples, which seems to be a total violation of First Corinthians 7:7-9.
We also had quite a few pics of divorced couples who have since remarried, despite Luke 16:18.
In the older 1970's directories you can actually see men wearing Leisure Suits made from mixed fibers - Leisure Suits that not only violated the unspoken laws of taste, decency, and aesthetics, but also were in conflict with Leviticus 19:19.
So yes, we have to plead guilty. We've got 'em all - People who were so weak they had to marry, divorced people, gay people, and mixed fiber Leisure Suit wearers. Let God sort 'em out.

John Klink, Jr. said...

Hummm, Lets do some actual biblical thinking on this one. First, the "violation" of 1st Cor 7. Was Paul calling marriage a sin? As far as Luke 16:18 goes yes Divorce & remarriage is a sin. And last is the Lev 19:19 addressed to the church or as a LAW given to ISRAEL?
So then we can ignore the mixed cloth and the heterosexual couples as they are NOT SIN for the church age. Perhaps we shouldn't include pictures of divorced and remarried couples or homosexual couples in our directories.
Maybe our problem is we excuse one sin so long, we forget the bible calls it sin. That is not God's fault. It is ours.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

John,
Thanks for the comment.
There are several ways of looking at Paul's writing to the Corinthians....this is my opinion, and only my opinion....but there's a fundamentalist view that says he was divinely inspired to write what he wrote. He describes a continuum of behavior, from perfection (his wish) to less than perfection. Falling short of perfection is....sin.
Then, there's my approach, which is that if Paul had ANY idea that he was going to be read 2000 years later, on continents that hadn't even been discovered yet, he would've chosen his words more carefully.
Also, I've never been able to buy into the idea that an all-knowing God could set up these various Dispensations and "Church Ages" where different rules applied to different times and places. Isn't it more likely that we all "see through a glass darkly", and do the best we can to do what we think is right?
Please elaborate.
My point is this: Paul gave us an example of his view of perfection. Celibacy. Unmarried.
I prefer to think he was just blogging in that section of Corinthians.
What do you think?

John Klink, Jr. said...

What "I" think really doesn't matter. The issue is not what either of us think Paul said. The issue is NOT how we interpret what he said.
The issue is-- Was Paul writting what God said? As you have pointed out very clearly, you believe this was Paul's ideas not God's. But then you refer to the same book of Paul's where he says we look through "a glass darkly" as excuse that it is "biblical" to think that way.
If the best I can know about scriptue is "a dark mirrior" then why bother, since "all scripture is at best hazy" not "all scriptue is given by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instuction in righteousness" If it was so dark, why did Paul tell Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."? With your view of scripture, I can't even be sure what I'm supposed to be dividing, let along do it "rightly". Also why would Luke (Acts 17) single out the Bereans as being "more noble" for "searching the scriptures daily" to see if what Paul was teaching was true?
If Paul were writting today or known that he was going to be read today, he would have done this or that. Sure he would, and we can know that how?
We dare not force scripture to bend to the acceptability of our current culture. Is it God's word? Or is it "this is what I think God would have said in order to culturally acceptable."?
Jesus was not and is not culturally acceptable. Why do we keep trying to make Him so?

The Whited Sepulchre said...

John,
Thanks again for the comment.
I believe that what you think really does matter. That's why I asked the question. God gave you a "thinker". There's a reason that you put more stock into, say, the gospel of Mark than you do "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

But I have to part company with you on a few things....the biblical canon wasn't truly established until almost 400 A.D. (council of Hippo)?? They included a few books that might seem unfamiliar, books that were included in the Bible until at least the first King James versions. These included the Books of Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc etc etc. These books were included as a result of votes, just like all the other biblical texts that were voted in.

These books would not be voted out of the protestant bible until the reformation. They remain in the Roman Catholic versions. They make for some good reading. But they are a good example of scripture being adapted to conform to the current culture.

Another interesting thing about the Council of Hippo....they affirmed the current Biblical Canon (with the additional books that I listed). Many of us will go to the wall in defense of their decisions.

But guess what else they affirmed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
Why do we spend so much time defending one of their decisions, while ignoring the other?