I Mistakenly Thought They Were Lazy.

 

It has always frustrated me that many pastors, evangelists, and missionaries do not read. Have you ever wondered why so few pastors read, as in reading theologies, commentaries, and deeply? A now-retired pastor friend of mine who is a weighty thinker with a vast and much-used library now lives in a different part of the country and mentioned that his new pastor declared to him one day, “I don’t read. I listen to podcasts.” My friend was taken aback by that shocking admission.

Today, during my devotions that include slowly progressing through Proverbs a verse a day and reading John Gill, Charles Bridges, and Bruce K. Waltke’s fine two-volume commentary, I read Proverbs 12.1: “Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.”

Before checking out the comments of the above-mentioned worthwhile men’s comments, I checked in with John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck, General Editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 1985), on page 930, where Sid S. Buzzell writes, “To love (i.e., willingly accept or desire) discipline (musir, “moral discipline or correction”; cf. 1:2, 7; 10:17) shows that a person loves (desires;) knowledge. He wants to be on the right path, to be wise. To hate (reject and despise) correction shows that one is stupid (ba'ar, “to be brutish or dull-minded” like an animal; also used in 30:2, “ignorant”). Similar thoughts are given in 12:15; 13:1, 13, 18; 15:5, 10, 12, 31-32.”

I had always imagined that pastors, missionaries, and evangelists who did not read (or read much, or read deeply) were men who did not read well. But I have family members who were poorly educated and read only with great difficulty upon graduating high school. They later became capable and devoted readers because they wanted to learn and overcome their earlier deficiencies.

It had not crossed my mind before why some Gospel ministers do not read. They do not want to read, stupidly (to quote Buzzell’s understanding of Proverbs 12.1) avoiding correction because they do not love knowledge and desire correction.

What is your opinion regarding the shortage of readers in the Gospel ministry? Feedback would be appreciated.

The Christian Right’s Blanket Endorsement Of Law Enforcement

 

Within the last couple of days, we have learned that the presidential detail of the US Secret Service has been infiltrated by two men with connections to foreign governments and that they have compromised Secret Service agents with bribes. Initial reports reveal their penetration of the first lady’s protection detail, with the scandal growing as new failures are discovered.

Couple this with the complete breakdown of the Secret Service detail the night before JFK’s assassination in Dallas, their much-publicized drunken womanizing several decades ago in Latin America, their willingness to suspend the protection of President Clinton during his sexual escapades, and now this, and one has to wonder how deep is the Secret Service corruption?

Hearkening back to the Waco catastrophe involving the newly armed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, that sad chapter can only be described as a display of astonishing incompetence. The local County Sheriff testified that after receiving complaints about David Koresh, he called him and asked him to stop by the sheriff’s office to discuss his concerns. Koresh complied every time.

Some months after the Waco tragedy a member of my Church provided me with a printed copy of the BATF search warrant, authorized based on a concern about the reported number of firearms at the compound. It turned out that the Branch Davidian compound had fewer firearms per adult than the average Texas household. Children died needlessly. Had BATF only spoken to the sheriff before implementing the cowboy tactics, they could’ve saved many lives.

What can be said about the FBI? That organization has been deeply compromised since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, who used agents to gather information used to influence presidents and legislators improperly.

Remember Ruby Ridge and the sniper killing of Randy Weaver’s 14-year-old son and pregnant wife? You may also remember those FBI agents on the scene who were reported to have laughed at the sniper’s success at picking off an enemy of the state. Everything at Ruby Ridge resulted from a trumped-up charge of possessing a sawed-off shotgun.

How about the recent not guilty verdict by one man accused of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate Michigan’s governor Witmer? It turns out that possibly half of those involved in the plot, a number of them occupying leadership positions n the conspiracy, were paid FBI informants or operatives.

Then there is the supposed January 6, 2021, attempted coup in Washington, DC. Never mind that there is camera footage showing DC police moving barriers, opening doors, and waving people into the buildings. There is also evidence of a man whose name slips my mind at present, who was recorded the day before attempting to incite a crowd to violence. That man is likely an FBI-paid informant.

What about former FBI Dir. Mueller? Does it bother anyone that he used notorious Boston area crime lord Whitey Bulger as an informant for many years while overlooking and covering up several of Bulger’s murders and sending several men to prison for crimes he knew Whitey Bulger had engineered?

Most distressing to me is the conspiracy by high-ranking FBI supervisors to bring down President Trump with false allegations, lies on forms presented to judges for FISA warrants, and a decided slant in favor of the profoundly corrupt Hillary Clinton campaign. Do you expect me to believe that FBI underlings did not know what was occurring at the time?

Understand, I am addressing concerns with only federal-level law enforcement officials and issues. I am not addressing my concerns about state, county, or city law enforcement agencies presently. With regard to the FBI, the Secret Service, and the BATF, is there a levelheaded American who does not have serious reservations about the integrity of these federal agencies?

I do not dispute that good men and women are employed in these agencies. I am dismayed by their cowardice and unwillingness to speak out about what they have observed and know to be true about the agencies and the crooked officers they work with. I only question their silence.

Christians must re-examine our mindless blanket endorsement of all law enforcement agencies and personnel at all times. We cannot afford to continue assuming these agencies are always upright and law-abiding, or even usually respectable and law-abiding. If we believe the Bible, we must believe that since the whole world lies in wickedness, even federal law enforcement agencies lie in wickedness, First John 5.19.

Of course, we should be law-abiding. That goes without saying. But we should also be very, very cautious.

Concerning My Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Reprint

           I am a creature of routine, with one being my commitment to my daily habit of tending to the upkeep and maintenance of my library. A pastor’s library Is a dynamic assortment of books, with new books being continually added, old books that have proven to be useless being frequently discarded, and my filing system (adapted from the library system given to me by my former pastor, the late Dr. Eli Harju) needing constant updating.

Today I dealt with the books related to philology, reminding myself how much I enjoy Roget’s Thesaurus before coming to my 1967 reprint of Noah Webster’s 1828 edition dictionary, purchased while I was a student at PCBBC. While reminiscing about the time in my life when I bought Webster’s dictionary, several memories came to mind.

My first memory was related to an awareness that some of my classmates completely misunderstood the dynamic nature of language. The only languages that are static are languages that are dead. Misunderstanding this reality, which is readily apprehended by those who read, resulted in some of my classmates completely misunderstanding the usefulness of Webster’s 1828 dictionary. It was clear from their conversations back in the day that they held Webster’s 1828 dictionary to be the be-all and final end-all authority for the meanings of English words.

Such an attitude can be catastrophic, owing to the dynamic nature of all languages, including English, especially when one remembers that not only was there an already existing English dictionary published in Great Britain (Samuel Johnson’s published in 1755), but that a dictionary printed in 1828 is only a snapshot of the range of meanings in that language, in that region, and at that time. The reason Noah Webster published his dictionary, after all, was owing to significant differences he noticed between Great Britain’s English in 1755 and the USA’s brand of English in 1828.

However, that is not all. Moisés Silva should have settled once and for all time among Bible-believing Christians with his wonderful, Biblical Words And Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (published by Zondervan in 1983) that words do not have “definitions” but ranges of meanings depending upon the contexts in which speakers or writers use the words. The ways teenagers use the word “bad” sometimes to mean “bad” and sometimes mean “good,” depending on the context, illustrates this perfectly, as does the seven different meanings of kόsmoV in the New Testament.

Dictionaries are excellent tools, but they are most useful in the hands of those with some understanding of the dynamic nature of all languages and the fact that dictionaries do not tell anyone what a word means. Instead, dictionaries are helpful to inform us of the range of meanings words might have depending upon the contexts in which they are used at the time of their publication.

What does this mean? Webster’s 1828 edition dictionary does not tell us what words mean. Instead, it shows us the range of meanings of English words in the new USA at the end of the second decade of the 19^th century. It is laughable that someone would be so naïve as to use Webster’s 1828 dictionary to indicate what a word means in the United States of America in 2022!

          Yet I am afraid that Webster’s excellent 1828 edition is still misused in such a way by some. It is an error almost as egregious as using any English dictionary as a guide to the range of meanings of a word used in the Bible.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter 43, Practical Implications of Election.

The chapter is divided into seven subsections. 

“Too many Christians, the doctrine of election seems to theoretical and irrelevant to their lives. It appears as useful as the medieval debate over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. They are reluctant to believe in election until they see its practical use.” 

Living to God. Two paragraphs. The great English Puritan William Ames is quoted. The Irish Articles of 1615 provides a summary. R. T. Kendall is mentioned. 

Assurance of Election. Thirteen paragraphs. Mention is made of Dave Hunt, Heinrich Heppe, Christopher Love, Joseph Alleine, Jonathan Edwards, the Synod of Dort, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchius, the Second Helvetic Convention, and C. H. Spurgeon. 

Humility. Three paragraphs. “Pride keeps many Christians from believing in election. Nothing humbles a person more than knowing how sinful he is and that God chose him by sheer sovereign grace and not for anything good in him. Christians should never lose the humble awe that God saved them by grace … Arminianism is tempted to pride because it says that God chose us based on our foreseen faith. But Calvinism produces humility because it asserts that God chose us by near sovereign grace, and even our faith is a gift of God’s grace.” 

Holiness. Four paragraphs.” Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us to be holy, and holy we shall be in Heaven … A person who claims to be elect but lives a life of flagrant sin is lying and self deceived, as much as the person who claims sinless perfection (1 John 1:8). 

Praise. Two paragraphs. References made to Jay Adams, Augustine, Edward Polhill, and Ephesians 1:6. 

Love. Two paragraphs. God chose the elect out of love and predestined them to an eternal ocean of love (Ephesians 1:4-– 6; 2:7). Between our conversion and our glorification, we enjoy this love in our hearts and are moved to love God and return: we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). 

Conclusion. “Assurance of election causes great joy: rejoice that your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20). Christians should not only love the God who elected them but love the doctrine of election as well. Edwin Palmer asked, ‘Be very honest now. Do you like the teaching of election? Why?’ Non-Calvinists do not like it; some even hate it. That is sad. They do not know what blessings they are missing. Some Calvinists only grudgingly accept it. We should joyfully believeth and love God for electing us.”

Honoring A Former Pastor.

My formal education has been engaging. My first classroom experience occurred in 1956, on the Fort Totten Indian Reservation near Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. My first-grade teacher, Miss Daggs, was a black spinster from New Orleans, Louisiana. She was marvelous, beginning the educational experience of Native American students and successfully transitioning them from their native language to conversational English by Thanksgiving each year. Being the only English as a first language student in the class and the only white kid in the entire school, she was a marvel to behold.

In January 1960, my father was transferred to southern Florida to work with the Seminole Indians, with me in four different grade schools, New River Junior High School and the Nova School in Davie, Florida. 1965, we moved to the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, near Madras, Oregon, where I graduated from high school in 1968, after also taking several classes along the way from what was then Portland State College.

In June 1968, I received an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado. I lasted four months before a medical discharge caused by malformed L5 vertebrae left me with a 4F draft status. I enrolled in the Oregon State University school of engineering, graduating with a degree in mechanical engineering in March 1973.

I began working for Hughes Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California, and immediately took courses at El Camino College. Following my conversion in 1974 and my resignation from Hughes Aircraft Company in 1975, I attended the Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College, the Grace Graduate School of Theology, the International Seminary, the Talbot School of Theology, and finally, the Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary.

I love going to school. I have always loved going to school. While in school, I typically sat in classes I was not enrolled in just because I found going to school stimulating. That said, though I have had primarily wonderful teachers in the various schools I have attended, the most important lessons I have learned and come to appreciate were discovered in the school of life, outside the classroom.

During my ministerial musings, I was reminded yesterday of an occurrence that took place more than forty years ago, early on in my first pastorate.

My first best friend in the Gospel ministry was the late Jim Johnston, a Baptist pastor from whom I learned many lessons. He was old enough to be my father, having a son just about my age, but he chose to relate to me as a pastoral peer. I learned that it is okay for a pastor to be nice to people.

The specific incident that I recollect was when he and I drove from the Imperial Valley of California to pick up a friend flying into Los Angeles International Airport. After retrieving our friend from Oregon, we checked into a hotel near the airport. Before we unpacked our bags, the third preacher indicated that he needed to make a phone call.

In the days before cell phones, he picked up the hotel phone and dialed the Baptist pastor of the church he had formerly been a member of and greeted the church receptionist who answered the phone. He identified himself to her, said a couple of nice things, and then asked if the pastor was available.

When his former pastor got on the line, I heard him identify himself to the preacher and informed him that he had just flown into LAX and wanted the pastor to know he was in the area. Think about that and reflect on the fact that the Los Angeles area has 15 million people. Yet that man felt it was appropriate to inform his former pastor that he was in the area as a matter of courtesy.

He then asked the pastor for his permission to reach out to a couple in the church he used to be a member of. He sought the all-clear from the pastor to contact several church members where he formerly served God. Think about that. He checked with the pastor to make sure it was okay, not because he was not a free American who could do whatever he wanted to do, but to serve two purposes: First, to show respect to his former pastor. Second, to make sure he was not creating the problem by contacting friends in his former church.

Who does that any more? Who shows that kind of respect? Do a word search of your Bible to see how important the word honor is in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Please arrive at your conclusions about whether or not that friend from Oregon was doing a necessary check-in with his former pastor. But can you fault him for seeking to honor his former pastor? Can you fault him for trying to make sure that he would not create a problem by checking in with church members he used to spend a lot of time with?

That preacher from Oregon passed away several years ago. He and I were not close friends, though we got along amicably. But I will always appreciate him for the honor he displayed toward his former pastor and his concern not to harm his former church.

Is It Really A Fellowship Meeting?

I have been to fellowship meetings of pastors, and I have been to preachers meetings for almost a half-century. Fellowship meetings are almost a thing of the past. The following questions serve to illustrate my point. 

• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when you are invited to attend but you have to pay fore the privilege?
• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when you are invited to attend but there is no interaction of any kind with the host pastor, who keeps himself aloof throughout the meeting?
• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when there is a fixed agenda, but the fixed agenda is not announced to those attending, neither will it be revealed ahead of time to those who inquire, treating preachers as children.
• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when the purpose of the gathering is the host pastor’s interest in persuading those in attendance to “Do it the way I do it”?
• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when there is no meaty doctrinal preaching?
• ·       Is it really a fellowship meeting when attending pastors are provided no opportunity to speak, and when visiting missionaries are dismissively granted thirty seconds to present their calling, field of service, and life’s ministry? 

Isn’t it about time men who identify as Baptists stop the nonsense of treating certain guys as if they occupied a position somewhat lower than apostle yet somewhat higher than pastor? 

I have a proposal. What about a Pastors As Peers Fellowship? 

1. A gathering of equals, not a meeting of lords and underlings.

2. A gathering to bless and promote godliness, not a meeting to listen to “How To” recipes.

3. A gathering to cultivate humility, not an arrangement to bolster the pride of any individual.

4. A gathering to sharpen discernment, not listen to someone and his friends spout “How I Do It.”

5. A gathering to make and strengthen friendships, not a meeting to establish pecking order or bragging rights.

6. A gathering for presenting and discussing Bible doctrines and their application to real ministry? 

Would you be interested in this kind of fellowship meeting? Would it not be interesting to announce a time and place, to make the gathering free of charge, to suggest a topic or doctrine for consideration and discussion, and to allow those who have gathered to select from among those present a willing moderator for the meeting? 

Let me know. John.Waldrip@GMail.com 

Please forward this to others.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Forty-Two, The Destiny of the Elect.

One of the surprising tendencies I have observed since entering the Gospel ministry has been the contrast I have noticed from my days in engineering school and as a spacecraft vehicle engineer at Hughes Aircraft Company in El Segundo. Engineers know stuff, and they know that they know stuff. This makes engineers a fairly opinionated group of individuals who are willing to engage in disputes with other engineers over design philosophies and design specifics. However, I never observed differences to be the sources of personality conflicts. Not so in the Gospel ministry, where I have observed a dismal tendency to vilify those with different philosophies and embracing doctrinal variations well within the limits of orthodox Christianity.

The chapter I will relate to you deals with one aspect of the Calvinistic framework that seems to produce the most heat and smoke from those who oppose the position without ever familiarizing themselves with the position by actually reading the actual writings of those who champion the position. It is yet another chapter in the author’s section titled Unconditional Election.

The chapter is divided into seven subsections.

“What is the destination of predestination? God chose the elect in eternity past – what does he have in store for them in eternity future? The subject of Heaven is too vast to cover in depth in one short chapter. The great Puritan Richard Baxter wrote over 500 pages on it in the classic The Saints’ Everlasting Rest. I will concentrate on those aspects of Heaven that the Bible associates with predestination and election.”

Salvation and Eternal Life. Two paragraphs. “God chose the elect to be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:13) and receive eternal life (Acts 13:48). Both were planned in eternity, secured by Christ at the cross in time, and bestowed on the elect by the Holy Spirit at the appointed time. Faith is the instrument by which the elect receive them (Acts 16:31; John 3:16).”

Holiness. Eleven paragraphs. The Scripture references include Ephesians 1:4; Jude 24; 1 John 3:19–20; Ephesians 5:27; Revelation 19:7; 21:2; Hebrews 12:23; Luke 16:26; James 1:14; Psalm 103:20; Titus 1:2. Mention is made of Augustine and Thomas Boston’s contribution to the topic, as well as Arminianism’s shortcoming.

Conformity to the Image of Christ. Two paragraphs.

Glorification. Four paragraphs.

The Glory of God’s Grace. Four paragraphs.

Heaven Is a World of Love. Three paragraphs. Comments by Jonathan Edwards and Robert Murray Mc’Cheyne are included.

Conclusion. “God chose the elect to salvation, eternal life, holiness, conformity to the image of Christ Jesus, glorification, grace, and love. That is the destination of predestination.