Required Reading

I am currently reading several good books. Some are better than others, but basically I would recommend them all.

The 5,000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed The World (Author: Cleon Skousen) - A good read for greater understanding of our political system. If you have questions about our government and where it went wrong, then read this book for some basic understanding.

What In The World Is Going On? 10 Prophetic Clues You Cannot Afford To Ignore (Author: Dr. David Jeremiah) - Another good read concerning prophecy on a basic level. I like Dr. David Jeremiah but was hoping for a much more in-depth book. However, I still recommend it because it does give a good overall understanding of prophecy concerning today.

Shadowmarch: Volume I (Author: Tad Williams) - I have just started reading this sci-fi/fantasy book. It looks like it will be another good read, however, I really am waiting on Patrick Rothfuss' sequel to The Name Of The Wind: Kingkiller Chronicle, Day 1.

10 Choices: A Proven Plan To Change Your Life Forever (Author: Dr. James MacDonald) - Still reading this, but so far, good reading concerning our basic choices in our life.

Church Discipline (Master of Theology Thesis by Bro. Ralph Simmons) - Good doctrinal teaching concerning scriptural discipline and even gives examples of church discipline from our area (several are included from the history of Ebenezer Baptist Church!).

Magazines of Interest:
Biblical Archaeology Review
World
National Geographic
Sports Illustrated

Some Good Thoughts From The Barber

The following is found at www.praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com:

The Pernicious Evil of Mere Preference
…in matters of denominational divisionIt is a serious matter to divide the Body of Christ. In the New Testament we find both the longing of Christ that division might not take place (John 17:20-23), and the accomplished fact of division as the necessary consequence of discipline in the church and the task of contending earnestly for the faith (e.g., 1 John 2:18-19; 1 Corinthians 5:13; Jude...in its entirety; Revelation 2:2, 6, 14-16, 20-25). In every case, the only grounds for division in the New Testament were as a response to the continued, unrepentant sin (either in doctrine or in practice) of fellow members in the church.Every age of Christianity has understood this simple truism: Division is to be avoided and unity is to be prized in the body of Christ. The only appropriate time to cleave the people of God is in response to unrepentant sin.
When Christiantiy divided East and West, the leaders of the two factions mutually excommunicated one another. If they had not considered it a matter of sin, they would not have divided.
When Martin Luther left Roman Catholicism, he did so over what he regarded as profound, unrepentant sin in the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. If he had not considered it a matter of sin, he would not have divided.
When John Smythe and company separated from their congregation of English expatriates, Smythe declared the faith and practice of the Anglican Church, the Ancient Church, and all of his former spiritual kindred to be "Antichristian." If he had not considered it a matter of sin, he would not have divided.As I said, every age of Christianity has understood this simple truism—every age, that is, except for the present age. To divide the Body of Christ over anything other than obstinate, unrepentant sin is itself an act of obstinate, unrepentant sin.We have instituted in some corners among ourselves a consumeristic mutant of Christianity in which the basis of unity is, rather than our collective submission to the indwelling Christ, the common preferences of our little band regarding the things that we consume (music, activities for our children, activities for ourselves, or preferences for cultural trappings). People shop for churches like they shop for restaurants. This is the legacy of Evangelicalism, which derives its idiosyncrasies from the present zeitgeist—it is just so much more polite to sidestep questions of true or false, right or wrong, and find refuge in the concept of personal preference.Enter a recent conversation I had with Paul Littleton at his blog (click here). Paul had his knickers in a knot over Dr. Mark Dever's frank assertion that pedobaptists are engaged in unrepentant sin for baptizing contrary to Christ's institution of the ordinance in the Bible. I entered the thread to assert that Dever was no less consistent than Littleton (or John Piper), who would bar pedobaptists from positions of leadership in the church. Paul retorted that his church's refusal to place a pedobaptist in positions of high leadership within the church was based merely upon their preferences, and not upon any matters so grave to call them sinful:
No, our church would not call a paedobaptizer as pastor, but it isn't because we would say he is an unrepentant sinner. That I know of Faith Baptist would not allow an unrepentant sinner to knowingly speak from the pulpit. We also discourage unrepentant sinners from partaking of the Lord's table (though we don't always know who they are, so that is often left to their own consciences). But again, we would not consider our Presbyterian brother an unrepentant sinner.. . . . . . . . The reason would be that we are a Baptist church and he is a Presbyterian. We believe in believer's baptism by immersion and he does not. We practice congregationalism and I would presume he does not.Littleton's underlying point here is that he considers "Baptist" and "Presbyterian" to denote personal religious preferences—that being one or the other does not amount to a sin.Certainly, I can comprehend coming to the conclusion that Baptists and Presbyterians are divided by mere preference. Christian history is replete with churches split, individuals alienated, and battles waged over things that, in the long run, history has adjuged to be less than substantial. Perhaps, someday, somebody like Paul will convince me that the distinctive beliefs of Baptists are not matters of biblical obedience, but instead are merely points of private interpretation. It's possible.But when I am so convinced, I shall know what I must immediately do—at that moment, if I would be faithful to Christ, I must immediately renounce the separate existence of such a thing as a Baptist church and repent of ever being a member of such a church. Why? Because it is a sin to divide the Body of Christ (or to perpetuate division) over matters of mere preference. Thus my reply to Littleton:
Put me in the same category as John Smythe, Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, John Clarke, et al. If it would not be a sin for me to merge with the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Romans, or whomever else (i.e., if to do so I would not be joining them in their unrepentant sin), then it would be a sin for me not to do so. Anything less fails to take seriously Christ's plea for Christian unity.
…in matters of church leadership.It is also a serious matter to deny to any person the opportunity to exercise what the person believes to be a calling from God. Jesus Himself warned us about hindering people in the pursuit of Christian ministry (Mark 9:38-40). The Bible also provides us with a full set of qualifications by which we admit or bar people into the offices of the church (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:9-3:13; Titus 1:5-9). When we apply these biblical qualifications, we know that we are limiting the offices of the church not according to our personal prejudices but according to God's command. Who are we to restrict the calling of God? If we limit the offices based upon anything other than biblical authority, we limit them based upon illegitimate authority and are guilty of a grievous sin.Enter a recent post by Wade Burleson (click here). Burleson's post spun off from a post by R. L. Vaughn (click here), which in turn found its origin in the comment stream of a post by Emily Hunter-McGowin (click here). Burleson's position appears in his own words in comment #137 at the original post, where he said:
Finally, I have said publicly that I would not personally lead my church to hire a female pastor, would not be a member of a church where the senior pastor was female, and I have no problem personally with the BFM 2000 on this issue. However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural—and not Biblical.Someday, somebody like Wade Burleson might convince me that the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as elders/pastors/overseers. Better men than I have reached this conclusion. It's possible.But when I am so convinced, I shall know what I immediately must do—at that moment, if I would be faithful to Christ, I must disavow my former affirmations of The Baptist Faith & Message, must campaign to alter the policies of FBC Farmersville to permit women to serve as pastors, and must give my personal benediction to women called to serve as pastors. Why? Because it is a grave matter to obstruct anyone in the pursuit of what they believe to be God's calling upon their lives. For me to dare to tell anyone, based upon nothing but the authority of my own mere preferences, that that person must not comply with what they believe to be God's calling upon their lives, would be a heinous act of sin. Either I have sound biblical grounds to say that they have misunderstood God's calling—that it would be sinful for them to pursue their plans contrary to the commandment of God—or I had better keep my opinion to myself and prevent my opinion from being legislated into the tenets of my church.But, in both of these matters (denominational division and qualficiations for biblical offices of the church), what if I am not convinced either way? What if I can see both sides of the matter? What if I have not come to any sound conclusion? Then I must preserve liberty on the matter. But liberty doesn't mean "I'll go arrange my church according to my view, and you go over there and arrange your church according to your view." Liberty means staying in the same congregation together and not making my uncertain preferences a test of fellowship. God prevent me from tying the hands of my own closest brethren over matters that I find entirely unimportant beyond the bounds of our local congregation. If I have matters of mere preference in view, my own congregation—my next-of-spiritual-kin—are the very last people upon whom I should impose my commands rather than the commandments of God.To divide or restrict the body of Christ over matters of mere preference (personal, cultural, denominational, or otherwise) is a pernicious evil.

Marriage, Divorce, And The Reconciliation / Discipline Dynamic

The following is an excerpt from The Christian Counselors Manual by Jay Adams (pgs. 60-62):

"...Let us consider the growing problem of divorce among Christians. This is a problem with which every Christian pastor increasingly will find himself confronted...however, the addition of one further factor...will enable the counselors to bring every case to a successful conclusion. This factor is the reconciliation / discipline dynamic.
The argument begins in I Corinthians 7...Paul has first reiterates Christ's word concerning two believers, namely that there is no reason short of adultery for dissolving their marriage (I Corinthians 7:10-11). But then he takes up another question about which the Lord did not speak directly while on earth (vs. 12). By the Spirit's inspiration the Lord's Word on that new matter is now about to be written by the apostle himself. That Word deals with the additional question of the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever. The believer is to continue the marriage if the unbeliever so desires. However, because his partner has now become a Christian, the unbeliever may no longer wish to continue living with him. In such cases the believer is to let him (or her) go (vs. 15). Whenever this happens, Paul says, the believer is no longer "in bondage" (vs. 15). Murray argues successfully that this means that the Christian is free of his marriage bonds, may obtain a divorce and remarry. [Footnote: The right of remarriage is inherent in the biblical concept of divorce (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-2).]
The problem remains, however, as to what must be done when two professing Christians fail to keep their marriage together and reconciliation does not take place. Let us say that a husband who is a professing Christian refuses to be reconciled to his wife. Perhaps he has even left her. Reconciliation has been attempted by the wife. Perhaps he has even left her. Reconciliation has been attempted by the wife. If she continues to insist upon reconciliation (according to Matthew 18), but fails in her attempts at private confrontation, she must take one or two others from the church and confront her husband. Suppose she does and that he also refuses to hear them. In that case she is required to submit the problem officially to the church, which ultimately may be forced, by his adamant refusal to be reconciled, to excommunicate him for contumacy. Excommunication, Christ says, changes his status to that of a heathen and a publican, i.e., someone outside of the church (Matthew 18:17). Now he must be treated "as a heathen and a publican." That means, for instance, that after reasonable attempts to reconcile him to the church and to his wife, he may be taken to court (I Corinthians 6:1-8 forbids brethren to go to law against one another) to sue for a divorce (only, of course, if the excommunicated one deserts his partner).
By following the reconciliation dynamic, hopefully there will be reconciliation in most cases. Whenever the principles of biblical reconciliation are followed faithfully, discipline rarely reaches the highest level of excommunication. Most marriages not only can be saved, but by proper help may be changed radically for good. But in those few cases where reconciliation is refused, the believer who seeks it is not left in a state of limbo. He has a course of action to pursue, and if it leads to excommunication and desertion he is no longer obligated to remain married indefinitely. This is true only if the believer's marriage partner during the whole process of discipline has failed to demonstrate evidence of repentance and faith, if that partner has been excommunicated, and if he (or she) wishes to dissolve the marriage. Continued rejection of the help and authority of Christ and His church finally leads to excommunication.
An excommunicated party who continues to be unrepentant must be looked upon and treated as a heathen and publican. He shows no signs of a work of grace. When he has been put outside of the church and still evidences no signs of salvation, the believing partner may deal with him as an unbeliever. This means that if he leaves the believer under those circumstances, the latter is no longer under "bondage." The word in I Corinthians 7:21 ff. governing the relationship of a believer to an unbelieving marriage partner then comes into effect. By plugging in the reconciliation / discipline dynamic to the marriage-divorce-remarriage problem, the solution to ninety-nine percent of these cases that heretofore may have seemed unsolvable immediately may be seen. Most parties hopefully will come to reconciliation, but those who will not repent and be reconciled should be disciplined. Either way, matters are not left at loose ends."