Normal day yesterday. Study in the morning and then had lunch with Lambertini. Elder/Deacon meeting that night. We had a good discussion in the Elder meeting on theology and prophecy and the church constitution. No decisions made, but a good discussion. My complaint with our constitution is that we take positions on things that we shouldn't take positions on, like whether Christ is returning pre-mill, post-mill, or amill. Why lay out a position on that? What is important is that we believe that Christ is returning, in person, in body; that should be our hope, the rest is just details and why do we need to lay out details? It's the same with sign gifts. Have they ceased? Not ceased? Partially ceased? Who cares? Why get specific on sign gifts? I could go on, but you get the point.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
11 November 2009
Veteran's Day, 2009. A lot of men and women have served in the military, and they have served well. It is a great thing to honor them on this Veteran's Day in which our men and women are spread out (probably too spread out for our own good) across Iraq and Afghanistan (graveyard of empires). Congratulations, Vets!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agree, and sad at the same time.
ReplyDeleteWe just reflect the times. During our discussion, I asked, "why don't we have a position on slavery? The Bible talks about slavery, why don't we include it in our constitution? The answer is: because its not a current issue. So our constitution reflects the issues that the broader church is wrestling with now. Well, actually it reflects the issues that we were wrestling with in the '80's and '90's. Now? Not so much. Those days are past. I just think it would be wiser to be as simple and straightforward as possible. The more minutiae you include the worse it usually gets.
ReplyDelete