JimsHelpmeet

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 prOBlem. 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 registered there a very long time ago and my membership was never approved. I was able to log in, but it said I did not have permission to view any of the boards

When I went to a "First Baptist" SBC, the "sign committee" had a little book full of witty things to put on the church sign. Most of them were really silly. Our church sign says, "Welcome to the Friendliest Church in Georgia!" on one side, and the other has our service times.

Since it's a church night and we won't be home until after 8pm, it's easy dinner night - beans and cornbread

Oh, yes, I forgot about the rehearsal dinner. Well, there might be a simple solution to that. Typically the groom's family hosts the rehearsal dinner. Perhaps you could tell your son that if you are going to host the rehearsal dinner that alcohol will not be served, out of respect for your convictions. Then you could toast with a non-alcoholic beverage and not have it present a confusing testimony, since no one else will be drinking alcohol either.

It has been a really long time since I attended a wedding reception where alcohol was served, so perhaps my etiquette is a bit rusty, but is it common now for the groom's family to make a toast? I thought it was typically the best man who toasted, not the parents of the bride and/or groom. I thought if any parents did the toasting, it was the father of the bride who would toast the couple. 

Thanks for the information, Brother! In fairness, most of the complaints I've heard have come from non-christians and so-called liberal Christians. I am eager to watch it when it comes out on DVD. 

Watched "Last Ounce of Courage" (2012)

The son of a fallen soldier, years after his father's death, tries to reconnect with his grandfather, who is still grieving the loss of his child.


Excellent story!

We watched this movie at church before Christmas and I thought it was good. Some of it was a little over the top, or should I say, over-acted, but it was good.

ETA: Has anyone seen "God's Not Dead"? This seems to be more hyped up than a lot of other Christian themed films (mainly because it has that guy from "Duck Dynasty" in it). It has some pretty big name stars in it, like Dean Cain and Kevin Sorbo. I've heard mixed reviews. The biggest complaint I've heard is that it's very much all Christians are wonderful and all atheists are evil, horrible people bent on destroying Christianity. The other complaint is that the debate scene is so unrealistic and lacking in persuasion that it pretty much conveys a message that a Christian simply needs to say, "God is alive" and atheists are all going to fall down and repent right then and there. Anyone who has engaged in an apologetics debate with an atheist knows better than this. 

I was just wondering how "sound" this movie is. 

I've known many Christians who have fallen into the trap of looking like the world so that they can "be more approachable" in the eyes of non-believers. I've seen many Christians justify tattoos, multiple piercings, multi-colored hair, immodest clothing, wild hairstyles, etc. in the name of "looking like everyone else". They justify it by saying things like, "I've had lots of non-christians who have tattoos approach me and ask about Jesus, because I have tattoos like they do." Non-christians, hold us to a higher standard. The world is waiting to see a Christian fall. When we can't be distinguished from non-believers, they call us hypocrites. They say, "typical Christian, picking and choosing. They'll condemn abortion and gay marriage, but dress like that" or "pffffft they beat people over the head with Bible verses about going to church, but they ignore the verses about not getting tattoos". 

The world does not look at a Christian covered in tattoos of pinup girls with spikes sticking out of their bottom lip and a mohawk and take their witness seriously. Instead, the world looks at people like that and they say, "yeah, now that's a Christian I could hang with!". And why is that? Is it because their outward appearance conveys the impression they're more approachable? No. It's because the Gospel is offensive to the non-believer and they assume if you dress/look/speak/act like they do, then clearly you're not going to be one of those "Bible thumpers" who will make them feel convicted about their sinful state. 

This is all the more crucial if you're involved in church ministry and/or leadership. Song leaders, youth pastors, Sunday school teachers, bus ministry workers, deacons and their wives/children, etc. should be even more strict in their behavior and dress. 

Typical wordly responses in that article. The 'ol, "Jesus would have married them" or "this is why people leave Christianity, because pastors are hung up on appearances". Seriously, the dress is in very poor taste. I question the sound judgement of any woman who would wear that to a nightclub, let alone inside a church building. I hate to sound silly, but was it, by chance, a Gypsy wedding? I know they think nothing of immodest wedding apparel. I think the pastor did the right thing. Of course, I'm a little perturbed by his use of the title "apostle", but that's a whole 'nother issue altogether. Still, he took a stand for modesty in a time when many pastors are so willing to compromise just to be PC.

I guess I'm a late bloomer, but I just very recently realized it's pointless to debate online with atheists as well as people who claim they are Christians, but follow progressive ideology. Both deny the Bible as the inherent, inspired Word of God and its authority. Both deny eternal damnation. Both deny creation of the world. Both deny that there in only one way to God. Both deny that people are born with a sin nature and need to crucify the flesh daily. Both make a sport of mocking and belittling Bible believing Christians. 

That is why, whenever someone who is a non-christian (and I will be so bold as to include "liberal Christians" in that group), is obviously solely interested in seeing believers de-convert thanks to their needling and "shining logic and reason" I ignore them. It's very discouraging to be a Christian online and have people openly ridicule your beliefs. I've never had a single debate with non-christians online in which the person said, "you know, you've given me a lot to think about". It typically devolves into, "you're clearly a brainwashed moron, so I'm done". 

Just recently I was on a knitting forum and my avatar is of a man kneeling to pray. No less than five people derailed the conversation we were having about dinner party advice to make childish implications that my avatar looked like a man doing something dirty. When I very politely clarified what the image was, it encouraged them to make even more jokes. They are truly doing the enemy's work via the internet. He's playing them like puppets on strings.

Could you guys be wrong, about the women leading the music, If so, they cannot go up and sign a special either, where do you draw a line?.

Typically the song leader of a church (unless it is a very small church) would be considered a music minister and their duties go outside of simply leading music. My dad is the song leader at our church and he is responsible for setting the tone of the service through music. He has to be in a position of authority over the choir and our pianist. In all of the SBC churches I've attended, the music minister would be called to visit with people in the hospital or in nursing homes if the pastor had other commitments. It was always a paid, full-time ministry position. 

A woman singing special music isn't leading men, teaching men, placing men into subjection under her, or anything else that would be unscriptural (unless she was singing ungodly music). She's simply blessing those with the music. There are no biblical rules against women being a blessing to others. Women are supposed to encourage and edify others within the body, but they aren't supposed to be in a position of leadership over the congregation. 

I'll give another example. My mother and I prepare breakfast for our bus ministry kids. We're blessing the children with the food, but we are still under the authority of our pastor, if that analogy makes any sense.

Ahhh, back to music! In most churches a woman can lead in music, they can sing, they can participate. It's not a matter of "us" not allowing a woman to do things because she's a woman, the issue is a matter of obeying the Word of God. The Word is clear women are not to preach, but the Word doesn't say that women are not allowed to sing or lead the music.

 

As far as I know, most IFB churches don't have worship leaders and most don't have music leaders, though typically the function of one falls to someone involved with the music. In our church we stand up and sing the hymn with no real need for anyone to lead anything, other than the pastor or associate pastor saying, "now let's sing 'name of song', page 101 in our hymnal".

I would, honestly, be uncomfortable with a woman leading music during a worship service, just as I would be women taking around the offering plates, leading the Lord's Supper, or closing the service with prayer. I once attended a SBC that had a female music leader, and it made my spirit feel unsettled having a woman being in a position of authority and ministering to the church through the music. I do, however, very much enjoy being able to sing in my church choir

Black bean burgers on homemade buns with steamed corn niblets.

All day barbecue baked beans and homemade dinner rolls.

I believe that what is called the PTR is in fact the coming of Christ for resurrection & judgement, and that there will be no further opportunity for anyone to repent & be saved.

 

If there is no further opportunity for salvation during the tribulation, then who are the tribulation saints and why the need for 144,000 set apart Jewish converts to preach the Gospel after the rapture?

I think if more Christians would study the book of Revelation and try and visualize what the tribulation will be like, we would be all the more on fire for witnessing to the lost. I cannot even begin to comprehend the horror and devastation those people will face. When I think of just the chaos that will ensue the moment the rapture takes place. Pregnant women suddenly with empty wombs. Unmanned vehicles with lost passengers still on board. Doctors gone missing in the middle of a life-saving surgery. The death toll of that alone should be catastrophic. Then the emotional fallout once people try and sort out what happened. Then, of course, the reign of the antichrist and all of the catastrophic events that will take place during that time. It will be so awful.

My Saviour's Love (can anyone tell yet we sing from "Soul Stirring Songs & Hymns" in my church? lol)

The man who lead my father to Christ was a primitive Baptist. He believed Jesus literally spoke in Olde English and was a preterist. When my dad presented him with Biblical evidence for a pre-tribulation rapture he simply said, "look, I'm a simple man. This is what my daddy's daddy taught him, it's what my daddy taught me and that's what I was raised to believe". I've yet to meet a preterist who actually offers any sort of proof text for their eschatalogical viewpoint. 

Jesus Paid it All

Each Step I Take

 

I wonder if they had not come up with the vaccination with many people taking them what would the numbers right above have looked liked? I figure the numbers would have sky rocketed.

 

It's possible. Of course, vaccines are different now. They are mass produced very hastily with little clinical trial and contain some pretty scary ingredients. Doctors and pharmaceutical scientists have already admitted yearly flu shots and the Pertussis vaccine are not as reliable as they once thought, yet still encourage people to get them. At this point I doubt it's about public safety, so much as it is about the bottom line. 

I've been very blessed that I've only had the flu five times in my entire life - three of those times as a child. I contracted H1N1 during the pandemic, and that wasn't as hard on me as it was on others. But I do take care of myself with diet, exercise and vitamins the entire year. My husband used to get a flu shot every year until his doctor told him, with his family history of Alzheimer's Disease, yearly jabs may increase his risk of having it himself. So now he doesn't get them anymore.

Just for argument's sake....the fact that you do not vaccinate your child/children would also be considered neglect by many....?

 

So again, being the devil's advocate here....who get's to decide what is "neglect" and what is not?     For instance, there is a well-known cult-based church in Philly that believes in faith-healing....probably the same church these folks are from, actually--and there have been several measles outbreaks down there, some children dying in those.   So....some would say not getting the measles vaccine would be neglect....?

 

So why would vaccinations be a choice, while a doctor sick visit should not be a choice?

 

Again, just asking, for consistency's sake and for sake of discussion.

That's true. Many view my choice to not vaccinate as irresponsible. Last winter, my son contracted Pertussis. I cannot tell you how many people scolded me for not having him vaxed. With that said, I got the general impression from the articles about this news story that the parents in question did not even use natural or over-the-counter remedies at home to relieve their children's symptoms. They believe all medical intervention is a sin. Their pastor said their children died because they "lacked faith". That, to me, is appalling. Not wanting to inject my son with mercury, aborted fetal tissue, and other poison differs in that if my son was running a fever, I wouldn't refuse him a children's aspirin. I would pray, certainly. I am no disbeliever in the power of prayer, but I also believe in exercising wisdom and administering tangible care, when needed. 

Another aspect of where it differs, in my opinion, is that I'm not opposed to parents opting out of unnecessary "preventative care" in the form of vaccinations and yearly mental health evaluations. That should be the parents' choice. I do, however, oppose not taking care of a sick child. I gather that in the case of the Schaible family, if a child's arm was cut off they would find medical care to be a sin. Their own pastor issued a statement that all medical care is a sin.

When it comes down to brass tacks, though, there are roughly a dozen children every year in this country who die from lack of medical care due to faith healing beliefs. Compare that to the estimated 98,000 people who die in hospitals due to medical errors and another 100-something thousand who die from fatal adverse reactions to prescription medication. That's staggering, so faith healing is clearly not enough of a problem to mandate routine medical intervention for children or enact invasive laws that take away parental privacy and authority in regards to how they see fit to care for their children.

In this case, third-degree murder is so out of line I can't see it as anything but a case of Christian persecution. This isn't like parents who beat children to death, because they're convinced "the devil's in them".