If you’ve ever wanted to know what is happening in the sky in Matthew 2 with the star that the Magi saw, the video that is only available at this website will explain everything that is happening. And yes, it actually happened exactly as it is described in the text. The price to watch the video is for you to provide your email address so that you can be informed of future videos, explaining other aspects of the Nativity based on this information about the Star of the Magi. themagistar.com

When you read southern takes on Jim Crow before the civil rights era, they will often say that there was a healthy and friendly relationship between the black and white races. To the uninitiated, that sounds ridiculous. Then, when you see what is going on in the Karmelo Anthony verdict angst, you might just go “Oh. That’s what they meant. It seems things can get way worse than I originally thought possible.”

The moral distance between “immigration status” and “ethnicity” in regards to this standard you’re putting out is vast. It’s all the more vast when the triggering event for the targeted vandalism is not the mere presence of illegal immigrants in the community but the public (attempted) beheading of one of their countrymen by one of those illegal immigrants in their community, while the people’s leaders (who are often controlled or unduly influenced by outside actors) do not protect citizens in their communities. You should realize that you might be debating the justification for a war, not a riot. That changes things in Christian thought.

But: - Genesis 12:2 (not 12:3) does promise a nation-state of Israel. - 2 Samuel 7:16 notes that this kingdom will be established forever, through the house of David. - Romans 11:28-29 notes that none of that changes with Christ. “But Israel is a secular nation! They explicitly reject Christ!” Yeah, bro. So what? That’s the whole point. How is that any different than the entire 3,500 year history of Israel? It’s the grand irony of world history that is being used for your benefit. They have stolen the household gods of their neighbors and oppressors (and lied about it) ever since the beginning. “Secularism” is just the most recent household god. But remember; The stereotypical owner’s kid of a giant company who is given a job among the employees is BOTH a jerk AND needs to be brought into line and proper conduct by his supervisors AND will be specially protected if those supervisors go too far in exacting vengeance upon him for his pugnacity. After all, he is the owner’s kid. That’s an apt metaphor. The Prime Minister of Israel sits in his authority over the nation state of Israel like Denethor of Minas Tirith. He thinks Gondor has no king and needs no king. But one day, the King will return. The chosen people of God have rejected God, but God does not let them go because, as Romans 11:28-29 explains, “they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

I’ll say it once; I’ll say it 1,000 times: The SBC needs to define their terms to prevent confusion on doctrine and polity. But Baptists never define their terms. The terms they do have for offices are not the same terms the Bible uses for offices. It’s the Baptist way.

On the subject of the @SouthernBapCon and women being a “pastor,” I have often said (and continue to say) that the answer is "yes" but it's complicated. The Bible in Genesis 29:9 makes clear that women can be “pastors" (where Rachel is a "pastor" because she is a shepherdess, which is the same thing), because the name Baptists have chosen for their leaders - “pastor” - is just a metaphor for one of the many jobs of elders/overseers (πρεσβύτερος/ἐπίσκοπος) in the church. Elder/overseer is the actual biblical office. (And if you're a non-Baptist hierarchical church, those are two different offices, but that's another conversation). The separate question is whether women can “preach.” The answer is - once again - "Yes, but it is complicated." The biblical word for “preach” is κηρύσσω (kérussó) and it means to herald (as a public crier) and is usually associated with the proclamation of divine truth (the gospel). Can women do that? Of course they can. That's basically the same thing as evangelization. Did not the woman at the well in John 4 both preach and evangelize? To say women cannot preach is the same as saying women cannot evangelize, which is simply not true. The same thing with "teach," which in Greek is διδάσκω (didaskó). It's a general term for giving some form of knowledge to someone. So, of course women can "teach." The same thing with "prophesy," which in Greek is προφητεύω (prophéteuó). We are explicitly told that women can be prophets in Exodus 15:20, Judges 4:4, 2 Kings 22:14, Isaiah 8:3, and Luke 2:36 that women can be prophets. In fact, Baptists should recognize that every time you read your Bible out loud, you are speaking divine truths from God, which is all prophesying is. None of these words are special or unique. They are GENERAL words that are used in specific contexts. As such, the office of elder/overseer is limited to men, but the totality of the functions of elders and overseers is NOT withheld from women (because that's just downright impossible). This means the right question is not WHETHER women can pastor, preach, or teach, the question is WHERE and HOW women can pastor, preach, or teach. It all goes back to the sole limitation on women from 1 Timothy 2:12: [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. Importantly, there is no "in the church" limitation on exercising authority. The only location associated with this place comes from 1 Timothy 2:8, which applies it to "every place." As such, addressing women doing things in church is going to involve addressing the place and role and authority of women EVERYWHERE, which is something I don't think many have the guts to handle. But Baptists can do something short of that to give themselves clarity. They can define THEMSELVES without needing to define scripture and all of society. Traditionally, Baptists (more than other denominations) see the functional role of preaching in church to be THE SAME THING as leadership in the church. To a Methodist (for example), with a hierarchical structure, exercising authority comes with office, while preaching is "ministering," an act of service to the body. Also, in Baptist circles, communion is not seen as the central function of the gathering, which is wildly different than Catholics, Orthodox, etc. In such churches, the “authority” is exercised by the institution of the Lord's supper. That authority is different not only because the church structure is different, but because THE POINT OF THE GATHERING is different. Without casing shade on anyone else, Baptists can simply define WHO THEY ARE, not necessarily what a "pastor" is. In doing so, they can tie "preaching" to "leadership" which is uniquely in their history. I do not think it is an accident that the “women pastors in the SBC” are coming from large churches (like Saddleback) where the leadership is shifting away from preaching itself and towards executive committees and managers of staff, etc. etc. In other words, the preaching is just another task. It’s no longer associated with elders/overseers (πρεσβύτερος/ἐπίσκοπος). Protestia had a good op-ed on "Presbygational" hybrid churches (see below), but the thought needs to be more developed. I hope I have contributed to that project here. x.com/Protestia/status/20596…

Followers of Michael Heiser are well aware that when Genesis 1:26 quotes God saying, “Let us make man, they know that it a plural address to the divine council, not a dialogue among the trinity. What those same people are not aware of is that the verse goes on and says "in our image, after our likeness." That would also be plural.

Baptists need to understand historical religious freedom, and reject a blanket “religious freedom” among all religions in their documents. The modern Baptist movement emerged in the early 17th century among English Christians who broke from the Church of England during the Protestant Reformation era. They then came to America and became extremely large in the first and second great awakening movements. In other words, Baptists always existed in a Christian context. Baptists were also (until very recently) always a “minority” Christian denomination in America and always fought for THEIR RIGHT AMONG CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS to continue to practice their faith without being dominated by the Anglican/Episcopal church or other mainline denominations. That’s why they fight for “religious liberty.” Unfortunately, this means Baptists historically have no history or experience being in a position of non-Christian religious competition. This, their documents and words ASSUME AND DEPEND ON the Christian civilization in which Baptists have always existed. This leads to many Baptists supporting stupid “pro-building gigantic pagan idols in Texas” amendments like the one below under the guise of “religious liberty,” which used to be an internal Episcopal vs. Baptist fight, not a Paganism or Islam vs. Christianity fight like it is today. Don’t fall for that. As was stated in the early court case of People v. Ruggles (8 Johns. 290, New York Supreme Court, 1811), written by Chancellor James Kent, in a case regarding blasphemy (specifically, the man said in a loud voice: “Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore.”): “The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice… The free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the Constitution… not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately, the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.” Or as it specifies in Article I, Sec. 16 of the current Virginia Constitution in the religious freedom section: “…it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other…” In other words, our American religious freedom is a CHRISTIAN religious freedom, not a general religious freedom. So don’t fall for that stupid, pagan, disobedient-to-Christ craziness, Baptists. Obey the LORD.

Uh… that doesn’t sound like a good situation (and yes, it is wrong to steal contact info to start a new church, so don’t do that), but it also sounds like there’s a lot more going on. It’s also weird that you would try to “disqualify” someone as a pastor, when they are going out to make an INDEPENDENT church. That dog don’t hunt. But EVEN ASSUMING everything in that letter is true, there is another passage that would apply. That would be Philippians 1:15-18: “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”

This is wrong. The Christian right’s mission is DEFINED by scripture. The “drift” is usually the result of having a good foundation (scripture) but not thinking about scripture clearly in complicated situations, which is solved by proper thinking, teaching, and explanation. That’s healthy, not dangerous. The Christian left’s mission drift is caused by cultural factors (“science,” or feminism, or political egalitarianism, or historical criticism, etc.), not scripture. That means the foundations of thought are the problem. Debate and thought does no good when the precepts are wrong. Veneers of authority only fool the liberal mind, because the veneer IS the authority in liberal thinking. Conservative minds can be fooled by veneers, but they abandon them when they perceive that they are veneers. As such, thick veneers of authority fool only slightly less liberal minds.

This is wild. On the basis of this amendment that changes “such as” to “specifically” regarding women preaching to the gathered congregation, this means women in SBC churches can: 1. Preach (but not to the assembled congregation); 2. Preach to the non-assembled congregation (like in a webinar or video); 3. Be in an instructional teaching/preaching video that is played by a man to the assembled congregation, so long as she is not in the room; 4. Exercise authority over men in the context of marriage counseling; 5. Offer congregational prayers on behalf of the church body; 6. Exercise authority over men in the context of church discipline proceedings; 7. Baptize new converts in front of the assembled congregation; 8. Distribute communion to the assembled congregation; 9. Officiate over communion being distributed to the assembled congregation; 10. Teach scripture to men outside of the assembled congregation; Whoop-de-doo. Bravo, you conservative champion. Way to stand up for “Truth” and “Unity.” Might I remind everyone that there is nothing in the Bible that says women cannot “preach.” This might shock you, but the confusion arises because preaching is the most visible function of Baptist elders/overseers. Instead, the BIBLICAL male-only requirement for the OFFICE OF ELDER/OVERSEER comes from Titus 1:5-9. But this is not an office of “pastor” or an office of “preacher.” It is an office that INVOLVES AND REQUIRES pastoring and preaching. But that’s a distinction that Baptists need to recognize and understand (and incorporate into their documents). Also, the prohibition on certain actions of women comes from 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Specifically, 1 Timothy 2:12: [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. NOTE THE ABSENCE OF THE WORD “PREACH” OR “PASTOR.” That is because EVERYONE is required to preach and shepherd in their proper domain. What Mohler seems to be avoiding is women’s “proper domain,” which is defined in 1 Timothy 2, and is not limited to the gathered assembly. In order to preserve unity, Mohler has agreed to an amendment that will explicitly authorize what scripture prohibits and explicitly prohibits things that scripture is ambiguous about. What a mess!!!

While everybody is rightfully perplexed about the guilt on second charge of unwholesome talk for mild-at-worst sarcasm (that was factually correct)… I think everybody is missing the significant fact that Zachary’s position o slavery has Ben categorically vindicated in the PCA.

Friendly Observation: If Baptists are going to kick churches out of friendly cooperation with the SBC for having female “pastors,” they’re going to have to define their terms better. If you define the term, you’re going to discover that “pastoring” is a function. The function is leading, guiding, protecting (etc.) those beings (whether human or not) under your care. That’s an ambiguous word. You’ll also discover the title of “pastor” is a metaphor based on that function. Do leaders of churches pastor? Of course. But so do school teachers and parents. It’s ambiguous. You’ll also discover that the function of “pastoring” is (to some extent) done by all persons over the age of 10 in their relevant spheres. For example, anyone walking a dog is literally pastoring the dog. You will also discover (as Genesis 29:9 explicitly states), women can be “pastors” in a non-metaphorical sense. That’s because the noun of “pastor” in a non-metaphorical sense is someone who watches over livestock. The relevant Biblical NOUNS for offices in the church include (but are not limited to): Minister/deacon (διάκονος): 2 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:8, Philippians 1:1, etc. Overseer/bishop (ἐπίσκοπος): Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:7, etc. Apostle (ἀπόστολος): 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Timothy 1:11, etc. Prophet (προφήτας): 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:12, etc. Elder (πρεσβύτερος): Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1, etc. Teacher (διδασκάλους): 1 Corinthians, 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, etc Evangelist (εὐαγγελιστής): Ephesians 4:11 And Shepherd (ποιμήν): Ephesians 4:11 These offices DO different things. Many of them are synonymous with non-gendered activities. For example: Women can be “deacons” because deacons are just servants. (But Baptists call their elders deacons, because they historically don’t like hierarchies and bishops - except in situations of multi-site churches - which causes unnecessary confusion.) Women can teach (because everybody can teach), but the prohibitions depends on who they are teaching and how they do it. Women can “pastor,” because any parent not pastoring is probably guilty of child neglect. Therefore, with this background, realize the prohibition on women being what Baptists call “pastors” comes from 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Notably absent is the Greek word “pastor.” Instead, there is a prohibition on FUNCTIONS that are done OVER A SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE. That being said, the prohibition IS REAL AND BINDING, but I would recommend that conservative and Bible-following Baptists who are resisting feminist and egalitarian impulses do a deep dive on the WORDS that they use to describe these concepts and offices and functions and align them more directly to Biblical descriptions, carefully defining each title and function as they go.

I’m just not convinced that “shepherding” is a carefully defined thing in the Bible. It’s a metaphor for a group of things. Yes, “shepherding” is a part of what elders and overseers do, but it is not an umbrella term for all that elders and overseers do. This is evidenced by the fact that in Ephesians 4:11-12, it says: [11] And he [God] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, “Shepherds” is towards the end of the list, and it is not an umbrella term for apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers. Even if it was, we have NT evidence for female prophets (Luke 2:36). Prophesy isn’t “teaching,” because if it was, why would there be female prophets in the gospel of Luke with a prohibition of women teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12? In the same way, “shepherds” are not “teachers,” because why would there be two words used in this list? And are we also to say that women cannot be an “evangelist”? Who’s going to condemn the woman at the well in John 4? I think it’s totally fine to say that women can be “shepherds” (in biblical terms), even though women can’t be WHAT BAPTISTS CALL “pastors” (which are actually elders and overseers). That’s because “shepherd” is not a Biblical title. It’s a description of an activity that everyone (to some extent) MUST do to some extent to obey the commands of scripture. This is not a promotion of egalitarianism. This is my critique of Baptist terminology which I don’t think really aligns carefully with the Bible.

Same.

Everybody thinks that the government is hiding the existence of aliens from us because the government wants to keep that information secret for its own purposes. Everybody thinks the government is working on something and will perhaps even kill to accomplish their secrecy goals. Nobody stops to think that maybe the government is hiding the existence of aliens from us because THE ALIENS want to keep their existence secret for THEIR OWN purposes. Nobody stops to think the government is beholden TO SOMETHING ELSE that will perhaps even kill to accomplish THEIR secrecy goals.

As someone who has dealt with HR departments in employment litigation matters, this should be done 1,000 times over.

“Tim Keller died three years ago! Why is everybody talking about Tim Keller!?” Also: Tim Keller’s last tweet was 12 hours ago. His second to last tweet? 12 hours before his last tweet.