I'm seeing a lot of things lately that are disheartening. Our church just isn't seeing growth. In fact, a lot of key families have left just in the past two years and it's really hurt the church. It's keeping with a sad trend, though. The Southern Baptist Convention reported another record loss in membership and baptisms. It's not just IFB churches being hit hard. It's all churches that aren't liberal laser light rock shows with trampoline rooms for the kids and coffee bars for the grown-ups.
My dad was so heartbroken when Ray Boltz "came out" as a sodomite. My dad's entire track repertoire was Ray Boltz, because they have the same range. My dad sang "Thank You", "Watch the Lamb", "The Anchor Holds", "Scars". He and I are in a similar position when it comes to trying to find accompaniment tracks for singing special music (his range is Ray Boltz, mine is more like Sandi Patty's). We don't have a full-time pianist at church, so oftentimes we have to use "canned music" to play when we sing hymns. It gets really hard for me to find decent music these days
My dad was in a Southern Gospel quartet, so I'm a little biased on this topic. I think there are different types of Southern Gospel, the two most notable would be the kind performed by secular artists (like Alan Jackson or Elvis Presley) and it sounds like honky tonk music, and the kind that is sung by people in the Southeast accompanied only by a piano, but the singers sound "country", just by their accents. I'm not opposed so much to music that has a beat one can clap to. It's music that makes you want to sway seductively that is a pr OB lem. I get no such feeling from much of the Southern Gospel music, to be quite honest.
Now, I will say we must be careful. Southern Gospel artists are sometimes no more holy than their CCM counterparts. There have been sex scandals, drug and alcohol abuse, pride, greed, immodest dress, long hair on men, ecumenical beliefs, etc. in Southern Gospel, so we should be very careful about who we listen to. Bear in mind, I am very, very choosy. There are very few Southern Gospel groups that pass my "test", and they are locally based. One is the Scenic Land Quartet. They have performed at our church several times.
I can empathize with your inner struggle, Brother, because after some irritating "confrontations" online (not here) I've realized that the internet in general has more often r OB bed me of my peace, joy, and time than it has edified me and strengthened my faith and knowledge of the Scriptures. Hold fast to the Lord and if I don't see you back here on OB , we shall meet again in Glory. God bless, Swath.
Arbo, I think most of us are discussing how there were words we used growing up that are now considered "offensive". Words like "handicapped" and "lame". Do you believe it's wrong to call gays and lesbians sodomites? Perhaps you could share with us what about this thread is bothering you?
What a waste of time. The term "handicapped" has been socially acceptable for as long as I can remember. I remember having a discussion recently with some liberals. I made the mistake of saying, "wow, that's pretty lame" and they jumped on me. Said I was being "insensitive to disabled people". Apparently saying something is lame is the same as saying that a crippled person is awful, or something ridiculous like that. Some other terms I've been told are no longer "PC". Beside each word, or phrase, I listed the reason liberals claim these words are offensive, and people should no longer use them:
Homosexual(ity) (homoph OB ic)
Nuts (ableism/mental health shaming)
Crazy (ableism/mental health shaming)
Mental (ableism/mental health shaming)
Indian (unless the person is from India) (racism)
Insane (ableism/mental health shaming)
Stupid (ableism/mental health shaming)
Psycho (mental health shaming)
Spaz (epilepsy shaming)
"Are you blind/deaf?!" (ableism)
"Hey, you guys?" (gender bias/sexism)
"oh, man!" (gender bias/sexism)
Mankind (gender bias/sexism)
Chairman (gender bias/sexism)
Queer (homoph OB ic, although the sodomite community uses it regularly to describe themselves as a means of "reclaiming the word")
Queen (homoph OB ic)
It's ridiculous, and most of the people who claim these words are offensive aren't even affected by them, because they are straight, able bodied, white folk.
I give it less than two years. It will pr OB ably be OB ama's last hoo-rah. And there will be no guarantee that states won't force churches to participate in such an abomination. The guy running on the Democratic ticket for Georgia's gubernatorial race is Jimmy Carter's grandson. He voted against religious exemptions to provide insurance that covers contraception and abortion. How much more of a stretch would it be to assume he would also be against laws protecting churches from having to perform sodomite wedding ceremonies?
And there are so-called Christians on board with this deception. Just look at any article on sodomite issues online and read the comments. People will actually call those so-called Christians who claim the Bible "got it wrong" on this issue "the only true Christians" they've ever encountered. One guy said on one article, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the Bible. Why would I believe in a book that r OB s me of any chance at sexual intimacy just because God made me gay? Not to mention, it condones slavery. No thanks!" Another person said, "only an idiot would claim that the Bible still applies today. Get with it, Christians! I'm glad I'm a smart Christian and can see that not letting people have gay relationships, eat shrimp, wear pants, or lets them own slaves doesn't pertain to our present culture. The Bible is outdated and Christians need to use some critical thinking and realize this!" Another person said, "God is love, therefore, all love is good. Even gays who love each other."
We live in a depraved world, folks, and it just gets worse by the day. Before it was the atheists and hippies on the LGBT bandwagon. Now it's crept into our churches and we have people who profess Christ out one side of their face, then mock His Word out the other.
Paul was missionary predominantly to the gentile churches, whereas Peter was spreading the gospel to the Jews. Because of that, many Jews found Paul's teachings about dietary restrictions (or lack thereof) or keeping the Sabbath or feasts confusing. Peter also warns that many used Paul's teachings as an excuse for lawlessness. Have you ever met an antinomian? Someone who believes that being under the dispensation of grace means we can do whatever we please, because hey....God forgave us, right? Paul said that all things are lawful, but not expedient. Many people have used that verse, along with Romans 14:2, as the reason they claim as a Christian, under Grace, they can do whatever they please and so long as they don't feel conviction from the Holy Spirit, then they're not doing anything wrong.
Peter was expressly warning believers to not fall into that trap by misunderstanding Paul's writings.
Hmmmm, my church doesn't have a "friend day", per se. We have homecoming once per year and a lot of people will bring guests on that day. We have visitation every Saturday morning to canvas the local neighborhoods and invite people. And we have first Sunday fellowship, where we have either potluck lunch or supper after the service and we encourage people to bring guests for that.
despise the KJV ? On another forum I lurk at, some Baptists were discussing whether or not a person can be convicted about what translation they should use. Most people said "no". That God speaks to us through any translation, and that translation discussions do nothing but divide Christians. One member said that the KJV is "outdated" and "pointless" in today's society. That the NIV is far superior, because it reads easier. Another member said that the KJV is "full of errors" and "should not be read until the Christian has matured in their Bible understanding". These were all, supposedly, Baptists saying these things