For the years that I have been aware of his work, my normal reaction to the views of Brian McLaren has been that of "uneasy appreciation." I have appreciated his work because of the potential it has to serve a prophetic function inside evangelicalism, but have been somewhat uneasy concerning his sometimes seemingly cavalier treatment of Biblical truth.
This past week in an article written for Leadership Journal, my uneasiness with McLaren has regrettably been vindicated. The January 23 article entitled Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html)features the pastor of Cedar Ridge Church calling for a "moratorium" on "making pronouncements" about homosexuality. But although McLaren's concerns about homosexuals are rightly grounded in the sinful way they have often been treated by those in the evangelical church, his refusal to speak decidedly on a subject clearly addressed by God's Word is ultimately the result of the same mistake: a failure to look to the clear teaching of the Bible as the final authority of our belief and practice.
On the one hand, McLaren raises some very relevant issues in the article. Beginning with an example from his own church of a couple wanting to know Cedar Ridge's "position" on homosexuality, McLaren recalls that his response came in the form of another question: "Can you tell me why that question is important to you?" McLaren continues with the following: "I hesitate in answering 'the homosexual question' not because I'm a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest. We must also be. . . .pastoral." So far, so good! Certainly there is wisdom in knowing not only the concerns, but also the motives of those who inquire about the Christian worldview so that both sides understand each other.
Other legitimate issues that McLaren raises are the political side of this debate, which often sidetracks Gospel preachers from their true calling, and the propensity of Christians in earlier years to treat homosexual people with such disdain as to treat sin and sinner alike. "We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent's constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric--and we're pastors, evangelists, church planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors." He then goes on to state that even with the assumption that homosexual behavior is sinful, "we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do." In short, McLaren is calling for caution in the area of "political speech," and reckless abandon toward treating all persons, including homosexuals, as human beings created in the image of God. No genuine follower of Christ would seek to contradict either of these contentions.
But then comes the bombshell: "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality."
What?
Are we really hearing a pastor admit uncertainty on where he stands regarding the question of homosexuality? For starters, how about the most obvious understanding of Romans 1:26-27? How about moving from there to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
And yes, I've watched the "hermaneutical acrobatics" performed by the theological left in an effort to neuter the clear teaching of these texts. If these are who McLaren is referring to when he says he wants to keep his ears atuned to "scholars in biblical studies," I'd rather take the authorial intent of Paul and run with that.
Nevertheless, McLaren concludes in the article that perhaps we need a "moratorium" on any pronouncements related to homosexuality for at least five years. But what if no new answers come in that time period? "If we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection." In the end, McLaren's suggestion is for five years of silence on a subject the Bible addresses with clarity, followed by . . . .most likely . . . . another five years of silence!
Having grown up within evangelicalism, and having borne witness to the many "unChristian" things said and done to homosexuals, I share McLaren's concern that this particular group might be mistreated. But the answer to our concerns is not to ignore the Biblical passages that address it. Instead, the answer is to further expound on the truth God has given us. The 1 Corinthians passage, for instance, paints a very balanced picture of how the church should view homosexuality:
I. Homosexuality is a Sin. In verse 9, Paul cleary states that the "unrighteous" will not inherit God's Kingdom, and then proceeds to give a broad range of examples concerning what it means to be "unrighteous." The list is not exhaustive, nor is it intended to elevate action over nature. In other words, Paul isn't saying that someone is unrighteous because they are a fornicator, adulterer, or theif. He is saying that someone is a thief, adulterer or fornicator because he or she is "unrighteous." In short, in listing these behaviors, Paul means to give a description of behaviors that are reflective of our fallen nature. Found clearly in the center of his list are two words: "homosexuals" and "effiminate." Both terms refer to same-sex activity as a raw perversion of God's intention for human sexuality. Therefore, homosexuality, among other things, is a reality because sin is a reality and our sin nature is a reality. But the resulting conclusion is clear: Homosexual behavior is an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22), and "unnatural function" of human sexuality (Romans 1:26-27), and an affront to God's design in marriage that perverts the picture that union should portray of the union between Christ and His Church (Genesis 2:24-25, Ephesians 5:22-33).
McLaren's primary concern in this article was that pastors remain "pastoral." Yet a pastor who will not share lovingly the truth of God with his sheep is in the end, anything but pastoral.
II. Homosexuality is not the only sin. Obviously the text in 1 Corinthians isn't primarily about homosexual behavior, but sinful behavior in general that points to an unredeemed nature. This stresses the point that the issue isn't just homosexuality in particular, but also all sin in general that is an affront to a holy God. Although I have never personally struggled with homosexual urges, my flesh has often reared its ugly head in the form of greed, covetousness, and gluttony, which means that from God's perspective, my unredeemed nature is just as pronounced as that of my homosexual friends.
In addition, the Romans passage dealing with homosexuality continues with another Pauline list of sinful behaviors, among which are included those who are "unloving, unmerciful," and "murderers." Much media attention was given several years back to the murder of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual young man from Wyoming who was severely beaten by two others and left to die while tied to a fence. Followers of Jesus Christ should be the first in line to condemn outright such an atrocity! But the answer to such violence isn't laws that demand stricter punishment for "hate crimes." The answer is the Gospel, and the Gospel cannot be clearly spoken unless the need for the Gospel is also clearly spoken. This means that Christians who see homosexuality in Biblical balance will state clearly that it is sinful, while at the same time being careful to always cast that statement against the backdrop of all human sinfulness. McLaren's concern that many evangelicals have "singled out" homosexuals, and that this particular form of sin has become the new conservative "whipping boy" is largely legitimate. The answer however isn't a moratorium on truth, but rather a more comprehensive presentation of it.
III. Homosexuality is a sin Jesus died for. One of the great things about this Corinthians passage is how Paul describes all these sinful expressions of human depravity in the past tense. "Such WERE some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (6:11 NASB). In the midst of our morally relativistic culture, the church must contend earnestly for the truth that homosexual behavior is sinful in order to proclaim the good news that Christ delivers from such sins!
McLaren's concern is essentially the same as Paul's in Ephesians 4:15, "but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ." That passage occurs within the metaphorical context of church growth as a building project (cf. 4:16). In short, Paul is saying that disciples are made by the proper balance of speaking God's truth in the spirit of God's love.
Let's play a bit more with that analogy, shall we? I'll be the first to admit that in our earliest opposition to homosexual behavior, evangelicals became too comfortable with speaking "truth" with no regard for love. In a sense, that is very much like trying to build a house with hammer, but no nails. The result is that no joints get fitted, no walls get held together, but the wood gets badly bruised in the process, as one simply hammers away.
But the "moratorium" approach called for by McLaren is analogus to the other extreme: trying to build a house with no hammer. In this scenario, we want to build the body, but not in any way that requires the "piercing nails" of God's truth. Someone might get hurt! Someone might get offended!
McLaren correctly states that "being right isn't enough." However, being right in one's own mind concerning what God says about homosexual behavior is a neccesary start to correctly engage those trapped in sinful lifestyles. I believe McLaren is genuine and earnest in his suggestions. But given what the Scriptures teach about this subject, his silence on this matter is no less than cruelty to the church he serves, and no less than treason against God's truth!
Responding to sin in love is a lesson evangelicals have learned slowly, and in regard to homosexuality, our understanding of how to face it has been progressing. But our understanding of it as sin has not, and must not change, for the good of the homosexual, and for the glory of God.
Further resources:
Read other responses to this article by:
Mark Driscoll; http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o_2.html
Steve McCoy; http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2006/01/moratorium_on_t.html
Doug Wilson; http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1895
Friday, January 27, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
33 Years of Holocaust: The Sinister Legacy of "Roe v. Wade"
"In years to come, historians will look back on these days, and as they seek to identify the pivotal turning point of the history of America in our era . . . . they will focus on one bleak winter day, January 22, 1973." So wrote the Lutheran pastor Dr. Lawrence White some years ago in correspondence to the annual meeting of Concerned Women for America, and though as each year passes we have to look farther back to remember that moment, the "Culture of Death" legacy resulting from this landmark Surpreme Court decision has never been more imminent.
"Roe v. Wade" was decided exactly one day after I turned one year old, which means that my generation is the first in America to have grown up entirely in a culture that views the infanticide of the preborn as both legal, and socially acceptable. This of course speaks only of those in my generation who managed to survive this decision, as over half of those born between 1973 and 1976 (The "buster" generation lasts from 1965 to 1976) were murdered before they were even born! Today, one of every three children who are conceived are murdered by abortion.
"Murder?" Isn't that language a bit strong? After all, when we speak of abortion, we are speaking of the most frequenly performed outpatient surgery in America today. Every year in America, 1.6 million children are aborted (That's 4383 children per day, 183 children per hour, 4 children every minute!). This of course, is the uncomfortable side of the "pro-choice" argument. Interesting to me is that those who trumpet a "woman's right to choose," never elaborate very much on what that choice is. And in my estimation, their reticence to deal with the fundamental questions of life are the result of the convoluted logic that has permeated this debate for over three decades. On this anniversary of that dark January day, I want to speak of the legacy this court decision has left us. But I want to begin by addressing the primary questions and objections raised by those who would take issue with my assertion that the termination of unborn life is no less than an act of homicide.
We aren't sure when life begins: Though this one is used less often than in the past, it still, from time to time, is raised in the effort to question our epistemology of life. Yet since a 1981 Senate subcommittee meeting on this issue, Geneticists, Biologists and Academic physicians have been uniform in contending that life's beginning coincides with conception. World class scientists and physicians from the Mayo Clinic to Harvard Medical School have confirmed these contentions, but possibly the most compelling evidence comes from a Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris: "After fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of opinion. It is not just a metaphysical contention. It is plain in experiential evidence; each individual has a beginning at conception."
Still, for the follower of Jesus Christ, such evidence, though helpful in our discussions with the culture, should ultimately be unnecessary. God's Word speaks clearly to the issue of when life begins:
"It is you who brought me forth in my mother's womb . . . .you have been my God from my mother's womb" -Psalm 22:9-10
"You formed myinward parts, and weaved me in my mother's womb" -from Psalm 139:13-16
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; I concecrated you, set you apart as a prophet to the nations." -Jeremiah 1:5
The question of life's beginning is ultimately a "smokescreen" designed to introduce doubt. But in the end, this objection is on the same intellectual level as, say, those who question the meaning of the word "is." Science is clear. Physicians are clear. The Scriptures are clear. Life begins at conception. Therefore, no other description can be given to the act of abortion. It is, without a doubt, the taking of a human life.
A woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body: I honestly find this argument amusing. For one, society has already stated to both men and women that there are certain things you can't do, even with your own body. Indecent exposure, public defacation, and prostitution are all illegal acts, not to mention the use of illegal drugs, or the refusal to wear a seat belt while driving.
But this objection ignores the most obvious of its stumbling blocks: If life begins at conception, (and it does), and if human life is created in God's image (and it is), then abortion isn't about what a woman does with her own body, but rather, what she does with the body of another. John Wilkey of National Right to Life speaks eloquently to this issue: "Since when did someone's right to live depend on someone else's wanting them? Killing the unwanted is a monstrous evil. A person's 'right to choose' stops when it injures or kills another human being. The pivotal question is; should any civilized nation give to one citizen the absolute right to kill another to solve that first person's personal problem?" The truth of this matter is hard to face, but it nonetheless remains: To be "pro-choice" about one person's right to kill is, by default, to be "anti-choice" about another's right to live.
What about the "hard cases?": Although they represent less than 5% of the abortions performed in America, the so-called "hard cases" demand serious reflection.
The Mother's Life is in Danger: This is possibly one of the most heart-wrenching situations in which a mother can find herself, and certainly most mothers would gladly give their own life for that of their baby. A 1996 story about a Georgia woman still inspires me. Diagnosed with a fast-spreading uterine cancer, she chose to have the baby and give her own life. Her courage and conviction are the kind of which this world is not worthy!
It can be said that most cases where the mother's life is in danger are precipitated by medical situations that will prove fatal to the child regardless, and in those situations, it is certainly better to save one life than to lose two lives. Yet anytime an abortion takes place, even if for this reason, it is still a tragedy, and followers of Christ should be prepared in such circumstances to rally around the woman and minister to her needs throughout what will be a neccesary grieving process.
The Preborn Child is Handicapped: Statistics over the last decade bear out that children aborted for this reason were discovered later to be perfectly normal children in over 1/2 of the instances where the doctor reccomended abortion due to a severe handicap.
But what if the child really does suffer from a severe handicap? In Luke 14, Jesus told His disciples that a certain blind man was created "for the glory of God." I find it interesting that many of the same "pro-choice" individuals who would push for an abortion in the case of a handicap would rightly oppose with all their might any move to discriminate against a handicapped person. This demonstrates our righteous societal consensus that a person's worth is not measured by whether they are handicapped. And this premise, along with the above premise that from conception unborn children are human beings created in God's image, lead to this singular conclusion: Being handicapped does not warrant the death penalty!
What about Cases of Rape and/or Incest? Obviously this is a very sensitive issue, and followers of Jesus are commanded to respond to situations like this with the greatest humility and concern for the victim. Rape is a most abhorrent crime. It denies the woman a place of equal worth with the man as also created in God's image, viewing her as a "piece of meat" created only for exploitation. It violates every Biblical mandate concerning how women are to be treated, and deserves the harshest punishments that civil government is allowed by its people to administer. In crises moments like these, the church bears a great responsibility to suffer with the victim, and to walk with her throughout the entire healing process.
But if pregnancy results, who then is the guilty party? Admittedly, this is a very difficult question to ask at a juncture like this. But if abortion is the taking of a human life, then how can it possibly be seen as the response to pregnancy that results from rape? Along with exhibitng true Biblical compassion, the church is charged with helping the woman as she makes decisions regarding whether to give the child for adoption, or raise it herself. And if she chooses the later, the church's responsibility is to serve her by giving her the support she needs to fulfill this calling. At the same time, the church must speak clearly that life is life, regardless of how it is conceived. The life created by a rape is just as precious as that created by love. As difficult and agonizing as it may be to carry that child, abortion will not heal the effects of a rape. It will however, complicate matters further by creating a second victim.
I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm still "pro-choice" and it is the law of the land: This of course is the false dichotomy set up by many politicians who want to play both sides of this issue. It is the position of our supposedly "conservative" governor here in Maryland, and it is the epitome of political cowardice.
The one question I always want to ask someone who makes this statement is "WHY are you personally opposed to abortion?" The only reason one has to be opposed to it is that they believe it to be the taking of a human life. If abortion isn't the termination of human life, what possible reason would one have for being opposed to it? But if it is the taking of human life, only a political coward would be "personally opposed," yet still committed to keeping it legal.
I thank God today that a century and a half ago, Lincoln did not say "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but one man ought to have the right to own another if he so chooses." Lincoln stood on moral principle when he said that its not only wrong for one person. It is wrong for America. And in doing so, he was forwarding essentially the same argument that those who are pro-life should be making today. In a very real sense, slavery, racism and abortion, through distinct, are similar. At the root of each of these evils is the propensity to look at a human being created in God's image, and contend that he or she is somehow less than human.
For example, take a look at this 1857 statement of "law": "A black man has no right that a white man is bound to respect." Does this sound morally reprehensible to you? If so, then consider that it was the United States Supreme Court that made this statement. The "settled law of the land" in 1857 was an outrageous insult against the Creator of all races. "Roe" is no different.
Even in light of all the above, I admit that the overturning of "Roe" will not stop abortion in America. The church has a responsibility that it has by and large ignored in this area, and changed minds begin with changing hearts. As with all social issues of this nature, the truest, deepest answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the overturning of court precedent. Nevertheless, these facts do not negate the neccesity of demanding that our leaders speak clearly to these moral issues, and write and adjudicate our laws accordingly.
The legacy of "Roe v. Wade," is a culture that has minimized the meaning and value of life created in God's image. The "domino effect" of this court decision can be seen daily in the issues of asisted suicide and euthanasia in our own country. But the culture of death has spread its tentacles even further in other regions of the world. Certain forms of infanticide for instance, are now legal and socially acceptable ways of dealing with ill children in Holland. And rest assured, as the conscience of America continues to be seared by our increasing disrepect for life, we will soon join the ranks of those that approve of such atrocities.
But the real danger of these issues lies in the truth of the imago dei. When an unborn child is murdered, God's image is insulted, and a blow is struck against His sovereignty. This is what makes this issue such a deadly serious one to our culture: God takes the treatment of His image with extreme seriousness!
But the most personal effects of this legacy are found in the homes of those who have fallen victim to this twisted worldview. Perhaps someone reading this has chosen to have an abortion. Perhaps you are a man who encouraged it, or even paid for it. Perhaps you have had many sleepless nights as you now wonder what that child would have been like at 5, 7, 14, or even 20 years old. To you I say abortion is sin. But it is not an unpardonable sin! And the good news of the Gospel is this: The same God who created that unborn life can heal the hurt and restore you, if you will only come to Him.
The legacy of "Roe" is far-reaching, but the power of the Gospel can turn it back, beginning with each individual touched by this plague, and ending with an entire culture who has turned to God through Christ, and embraced all life created in His image.
"Roe v. Wade" was decided exactly one day after I turned one year old, which means that my generation is the first in America to have grown up entirely in a culture that views the infanticide of the preborn as both legal, and socially acceptable. This of course speaks only of those in my generation who managed to survive this decision, as over half of those born between 1973 and 1976 (The "buster" generation lasts from 1965 to 1976) were murdered before they were even born! Today, one of every three children who are conceived are murdered by abortion.
"Murder?" Isn't that language a bit strong? After all, when we speak of abortion, we are speaking of the most frequenly performed outpatient surgery in America today. Every year in America, 1.6 million children are aborted (That's 4383 children per day, 183 children per hour, 4 children every minute!). This of course, is the uncomfortable side of the "pro-choice" argument. Interesting to me is that those who trumpet a "woman's right to choose," never elaborate very much on what that choice is. And in my estimation, their reticence to deal with the fundamental questions of life are the result of the convoluted logic that has permeated this debate for over three decades. On this anniversary of that dark January day, I want to speak of the legacy this court decision has left us. But I want to begin by addressing the primary questions and objections raised by those who would take issue with my assertion that the termination of unborn life is no less than an act of homicide.
We aren't sure when life begins: Though this one is used less often than in the past, it still, from time to time, is raised in the effort to question our epistemology of life. Yet since a 1981 Senate subcommittee meeting on this issue, Geneticists, Biologists and Academic physicians have been uniform in contending that life's beginning coincides with conception. World class scientists and physicians from the Mayo Clinic to Harvard Medical School have confirmed these contentions, but possibly the most compelling evidence comes from a Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris: "After fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of opinion. It is not just a metaphysical contention. It is plain in experiential evidence; each individual has a beginning at conception."
Still, for the follower of Jesus Christ, such evidence, though helpful in our discussions with the culture, should ultimately be unnecessary. God's Word speaks clearly to the issue of when life begins:
"It is you who brought me forth in my mother's womb . . . .you have been my God from my mother's womb" -Psalm 22:9-10
"You formed myinward parts, and weaved me in my mother's womb" -from Psalm 139:13-16
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; I concecrated you, set you apart as a prophet to the nations." -Jeremiah 1:5
The question of life's beginning is ultimately a "smokescreen" designed to introduce doubt. But in the end, this objection is on the same intellectual level as, say, those who question the meaning of the word "is." Science is clear. Physicians are clear. The Scriptures are clear. Life begins at conception. Therefore, no other description can be given to the act of abortion. It is, without a doubt, the taking of a human life.
A woman should have the right to choose what she does with her own body: I honestly find this argument amusing. For one, society has already stated to both men and women that there are certain things you can't do, even with your own body. Indecent exposure, public defacation, and prostitution are all illegal acts, not to mention the use of illegal drugs, or the refusal to wear a seat belt while driving.
But this objection ignores the most obvious of its stumbling blocks: If life begins at conception, (and it does), and if human life is created in God's image (and it is), then abortion isn't about what a woman does with her own body, but rather, what she does with the body of another. John Wilkey of National Right to Life speaks eloquently to this issue: "Since when did someone's right to live depend on someone else's wanting them? Killing the unwanted is a monstrous evil. A person's 'right to choose' stops when it injures or kills another human being. The pivotal question is; should any civilized nation give to one citizen the absolute right to kill another to solve that first person's personal problem?" The truth of this matter is hard to face, but it nonetheless remains: To be "pro-choice" about one person's right to kill is, by default, to be "anti-choice" about another's right to live.
What about the "hard cases?": Although they represent less than 5% of the abortions performed in America, the so-called "hard cases" demand serious reflection.
The Mother's Life is in Danger: This is possibly one of the most heart-wrenching situations in which a mother can find herself, and certainly most mothers would gladly give their own life for that of their baby. A 1996 story about a Georgia woman still inspires me. Diagnosed with a fast-spreading uterine cancer, she chose to have the baby and give her own life. Her courage and conviction are the kind of which this world is not worthy!
It can be said that most cases where the mother's life is in danger are precipitated by medical situations that will prove fatal to the child regardless, and in those situations, it is certainly better to save one life than to lose two lives. Yet anytime an abortion takes place, even if for this reason, it is still a tragedy, and followers of Christ should be prepared in such circumstances to rally around the woman and minister to her needs throughout what will be a neccesary grieving process.
The Preborn Child is Handicapped: Statistics over the last decade bear out that children aborted for this reason were discovered later to be perfectly normal children in over 1/2 of the instances where the doctor reccomended abortion due to a severe handicap.
But what if the child really does suffer from a severe handicap? In Luke 14, Jesus told His disciples that a certain blind man was created "for the glory of God." I find it interesting that many of the same "pro-choice" individuals who would push for an abortion in the case of a handicap would rightly oppose with all their might any move to discriminate against a handicapped person. This demonstrates our righteous societal consensus that a person's worth is not measured by whether they are handicapped. And this premise, along with the above premise that from conception unborn children are human beings created in God's image, lead to this singular conclusion: Being handicapped does not warrant the death penalty!
What about Cases of Rape and/or Incest? Obviously this is a very sensitive issue, and followers of Jesus are commanded to respond to situations like this with the greatest humility and concern for the victim. Rape is a most abhorrent crime. It denies the woman a place of equal worth with the man as also created in God's image, viewing her as a "piece of meat" created only for exploitation. It violates every Biblical mandate concerning how women are to be treated, and deserves the harshest punishments that civil government is allowed by its people to administer. In crises moments like these, the church bears a great responsibility to suffer with the victim, and to walk with her throughout the entire healing process.
But if pregnancy results, who then is the guilty party? Admittedly, this is a very difficult question to ask at a juncture like this. But if abortion is the taking of a human life, then how can it possibly be seen as the response to pregnancy that results from rape? Along with exhibitng true Biblical compassion, the church is charged with helping the woman as she makes decisions regarding whether to give the child for adoption, or raise it herself. And if she chooses the later, the church's responsibility is to serve her by giving her the support she needs to fulfill this calling. At the same time, the church must speak clearly that life is life, regardless of how it is conceived. The life created by a rape is just as precious as that created by love. As difficult and agonizing as it may be to carry that child, abortion will not heal the effects of a rape. It will however, complicate matters further by creating a second victim.
I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm still "pro-choice" and it is the law of the land: This of course is the false dichotomy set up by many politicians who want to play both sides of this issue. It is the position of our supposedly "conservative" governor here in Maryland, and it is the epitome of political cowardice.
The one question I always want to ask someone who makes this statement is "WHY are you personally opposed to abortion?" The only reason one has to be opposed to it is that they believe it to be the taking of a human life. If abortion isn't the termination of human life, what possible reason would one have for being opposed to it? But if it is the taking of human life, only a political coward would be "personally opposed," yet still committed to keeping it legal.
I thank God today that a century and a half ago, Lincoln did not say "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but one man ought to have the right to own another if he so chooses." Lincoln stood on moral principle when he said that its not only wrong for one person. It is wrong for America. And in doing so, he was forwarding essentially the same argument that those who are pro-life should be making today. In a very real sense, slavery, racism and abortion, through distinct, are similar. At the root of each of these evils is the propensity to look at a human being created in God's image, and contend that he or she is somehow less than human.
For example, take a look at this 1857 statement of "law": "A black man has no right that a white man is bound to respect." Does this sound morally reprehensible to you? If so, then consider that it was the United States Supreme Court that made this statement. The "settled law of the land" in 1857 was an outrageous insult against the Creator of all races. "Roe" is no different.
Even in light of all the above, I admit that the overturning of "Roe" will not stop abortion in America. The church has a responsibility that it has by and large ignored in this area, and changed minds begin with changing hearts. As with all social issues of this nature, the truest, deepest answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the overturning of court precedent. Nevertheless, these facts do not negate the neccesity of demanding that our leaders speak clearly to these moral issues, and write and adjudicate our laws accordingly.
The legacy of "Roe v. Wade," is a culture that has minimized the meaning and value of life created in God's image. The "domino effect" of this court decision can be seen daily in the issues of asisted suicide and euthanasia in our own country. But the culture of death has spread its tentacles even further in other regions of the world. Certain forms of infanticide for instance, are now legal and socially acceptable ways of dealing with ill children in Holland. And rest assured, as the conscience of America continues to be seared by our increasing disrepect for life, we will soon join the ranks of those that approve of such atrocities.
But the real danger of these issues lies in the truth of the imago dei. When an unborn child is murdered, God's image is insulted, and a blow is struck against His sovereignty. This is what makes this issue such a deadly serious one to our culture: God takes the treatment of His image with extreme seriousness!
But the most personal effects of this legacy are found in the homes of those who have fallen victim to this twisted worldview. Perhaps someone reading this has chosen to have an abortion. Perhaps you are a man who encouraged it, or even paid for it. Perhaps you have had many sleepless nights as you now wonder what that child would have been like at 5, 7, 14, or even 20 years old. To you I say abortion is sin. But it is not an unpardonable sin! And the good news of the Gospel is this: The same God who created that unborn life can heal the hurt and restore you, if you will only come to Him.
The legacy of "Roe" is far-reaching, but the power of the Gospel can turn it back, beginning with each individual touched by this plague, and ending with an entire culture who has turned to God through Christ, and embraced all life created in His image.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Conviction, Cooperation, and the International Mission Board
This year marks the 161st year of service that the International Mission Board has given to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. During this time, godly men and women have been supported by this agency as they sacrificed their lives in Gospel service to the nations. Though it is many years old, the IMB continues to impact the nations for the Kingdom of God unlike any other missions organization of its kind, and this impact has historically been undergirded by two balanced pillars: conviction, and cooperation. Given recent policy developments at the Board, the question that now faces IMB trustees is one of whether this delicate balance will remain, or be disturbed in a way that rolls back its advances into the Kingdom of darkness in a way damaging to the Kingdom of light.
The recent policy changes at the Board regarding tongues and baptism have caused a firestorm of discussion, particularly in the blogosphere. While there have been, shall we say, less than charitable statements made by both sides of this debate in cyberspace, I have found the trustees on both sides to be overwhelmingly cordial, and willing to both listen and honestly speak their minds. As providence would have it, I am in Richmond Virginia this week in meetings with a few pastors and University personnel from different parts of the country to talk about the recruitment of church planters and the sponsoring of new churches in my mission field of central Maryland. As such, I have also had the privilege of attending the plenary sessions of the trustee meetings that are taking place at the IMB headquarters in Richmond this week. I have heard incredible stories just today of what God is doing through this agency, and have rejoiced at the fruit that is being borne due to the heavy spiritual labor of our Southern Baptist missionaries.
Most notably, I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting Wade Burleson. Serving his first term as an IMB trustee, Wade serves the Immanuel Baptist Church of Enid, OK as Senior Pastor, and has just finished his second term of service as President of the Oklahoma Baptist Convention. A strong theological conservative who is passionate about missions and missionaries, Wade is the kind of man who I am proud to have represent our churches as he serves in this capacity. While he speaks with great respect for those who differ with him, Wade is opposed to the new policies, and has made his displeasure known though his weblog Grace and Truth to You (http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/) In addition, I have had the opportunity to speak with those who voted in favor of the new policies. For those of you who are unaware of what these new policies entail, below is a summary:
New Policy on Tongues. The old policy forbade a Southern Baptist missionary from practicing glossolalia in public worship, but allowed for "private prayer language." Under the new policy, those claiming to possess a private prayer language will not be appointed.
New Policy on Baptism. The old policy required those appointed to be members of a Southern Baptist church for at least three years, required that they be baptized by immersion subsequent to their conversion, and that they understood this baptism to be a picture of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit and of their identification with Christ. They must also acknowlege that their baptism was not regenerative. The new policy adds to the above that the missionary candidate be baptized by a "qualified administrator," defined as either a Southern Baptist Church, or a church which believes all of the above about baptism, and in addition, affirms the eternal security of the believer. If a candidate was baptized elsewhere, even if he or she has been a Southern Baptist for years, he or she would be required to submit to a "re-Baptism" in their Southern Baptist Church as an affirmation of all of the above doctrines.
While I strongly believe that all of our trustees want to maintain the balance between conviction and cooperation, I fear that these new policies, particularly the new policy on Baptism, superceeds the Scriptural requirements and creates a needless barrier that could potentially disqualify many godly and otherwise worthy candidates from serving. At the same time, I respect and admire their desire to maintain Baptist convictions. Yet Baptist convictions are Baptist principlally because, as "people of the Book," we believe those convictions to come from Holy Scripture. The ordinance of Baptism was given by Christ as a tool of identification with Himself, not with any particular denominational group. It was given as a metaphorical picture of 2 Corinthians 5:17, and the new guidelines, in my view, distort that picture by claiming that those from certain other traditions who have experienced Biblical immersion after conversion didn't really receive Scriptural baptism because it wasn't under the authority of a church that believes everything Southern Baptists believe.
Certainly the IMB ought to have standards for our missionaries, and those standards should reflect no less than the convictions of our churches as found in the Baptist Faith and Message. But if conviction and cooperation don't continue to be held in balance, the Gospel witness will be harmed, and for the following reasons:
Cooperation without Conviction = Ecumenism: The danger that comes with not setting doctrinal standards has already been experienced (and the results are drastically obvious) within mainline Protestantism. I am thankful that IMB trustees have put in place certain doctrinal safeguards to ensure that those appointed as missionaries actually believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, actually believe that those who die without Christ are eternally separated from God, and actually believe that the preaching of the Gospel to the ends of the earth is the non-negotiable demand of the Great Commission.
In addition, our understanding of Christian baptism is central to the preached Gospel it accompanies. We believe immersion to be the only mode of baptism, and we confess baptism to be symbolic and not regenerative, not because these are "Baptist doctrines," but because our thorough exegesis of the text brings us to these conclusions. If we do not speak where Scripture speaks, then our "cooperation" is ultimately meaningless! Imagine a British soldier and a Nazi soldier trying to "unite" during World War II. They may both be well-trained, and they may both be armed and ready for battle, but each is fighting for a radically different cause! Cooperation is neccesary, but it is only potent when all involved in the process share the same basic convictions.
Conviction without Cooperation = Isolationism: As threatening as Ecumenism is to the larger body of Christ, I believe the more imminent danger we now face as Southern Baptists is that of isolationism. The recent IMB issues are merely one part of a larger tendency among some in the convention toward isolation. Conservative historian Richard Bailey has stated that Southern Baptists "hardly represent evangelicals," and that in our history we have mostly exemplified the principle that "the people who generally tend to work best alone want to keep working alone." Bailey bases his assumption on the fact that a modern understanding of "evangelical", "has to do with a common identity that crosses denominational lines, leaders, publications and institutions. Here, I find 99.9% of [Southern Baptists] unwilling to go." Although I take issue with Bailey's contention about the percentage of Southern Baptists who are unwilling to work with others, the tendencies he describes are tragically sad. It is the refusal to believe that one can stand firmly in his or her own tradition, while at the same time cooperate with others who share his or her basic Gospel convictions.
Similarly, the recent issues at the IMB are, I believe, the refusal of those who hold to a "landmarkist" position on baptism and a "cessationist" view of glossolalia to believe that he or she can stand firmly in that position, while at the same time recognizing and respecting his or her fellow Southern Baptist who shares his or her belief in other Scriptural principles as delineated in the Baptist Faith and Message.
-The SBC Calvinist should be able to work with the SBC Arminian.
-The SBC Covenant Thinker should be able to work with the SBC Dispensationalist.
-The SBC Sabbatarian should be able to work with the SBCer who holds to a "Lord's Day" view of Sunday.
-The SBC premillenial should be able to work with the SBC amillenial.
-The SBC landmarkist should be able to work with those who don't share his or her convictions.
Six years ago, I heard John Piper say that if we only recognize that which we perceive to be totally doctrinally correct as a move of God, we will miss out on most of what God is doing in the world. If we continue to isolate ourselves and narrow the parameters of cooperation in the SBC, I fear we will miss even more!
Bottom line: We need conviction, and we need cooperation! But while I am appreciative of the recent emphasis on conviction, these issues have me convinced that genuine cooperation is at risk!
I'm afraid Burleson is right when he claims that there is a "narrowing [of] the parameters of fellowship and cooperation to the point that real, genuine conservatives are being excluded as unfit for service in the SBC." And it appears that the new IMB guidelines are already fleshing out this reality.
I read day before yesterday of one of our missionaries who oversees a vast area among many unreached peoples. After many years of praying and searching, they finally discovered a young couple who were called and distinctly qualified for serving in this region. They have been members of a Southern Baptist church for many years, are both seminary graduates, and have met every other requirement for appointment. Unfortunately, they were never presented to the Board for approval as missionaries, and because of this, thousands of unreached peoples will have to continue waiting before someone reaches them with the Gospel. Why is this?
Because the husband is from a Pentecostal background. Although he affirms the Baptist Faith and Message, the church that performed his Scriptural baptism rejects eternal security. Oh, and he also has a private prayer language.
Southern Baptists introduced me to Jesus Christ, discipled me through some of the hardest times in my life, ordained me to the ministry, educated me twice in their seminaries. And presently, they have commissioned me as one of their North American missionaries. I am proud of my heritage! I love the Southern Baptist Convention, and I'm proud that many of our esteemed leaders love it as well. But if we are to continue having a maximum impact on the Kingdom, we had better love the Gospel more!
Update (January 11): It appears from early reports that while in Executive Session yesterday, IMB trustees voted to reccomend that the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the trustee board during the Convention's annual meeting this June in Greensboro, NC. Our prayers should be for Wade and his family during this very difficult time. In addition, now more than ever is the time to pray for the International Mission Board.
The recent policy changes at the Board regarding tongues and baptism have caused a firestorm of discussion, particularly in the blogosphere. While there have been, shall we say, less than charitable statements made by both sides of this debate in cyberspace, I have found the trustees on both sides to be overwhelmingly cordial, and willing to both listen and honestly speak their minds. As providence would have it, I am in Richmond Virginia this week in meetings with a few pastors and University personnel from different parts of the country to talk about the recruitment of church planters and the sponsoring of new churches in my mission field of central Maryland. As such, I have also had the privilege of attending the plenary sessions of the trustee meetings that are taking place at the IMB headquarters in Richmond this week. I have heard incredible stories just today of what God is doing through this agency, and have rejoiced at the fruit that is being borne due to the heavy spiritual labor of our Southern Baptist missionaries.
Most notably, I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting Wade Burleson. Serving his first term as an IMB trustee, Wade serves the Immanuel Baptist Church of Enid, OK as Senior Pastor, and has just finished his second term of service as President of the Oklahoma Baptist Convention. A strong theological conservative who is passionate about missions and missionaries, Wade is the kind of man who I am proud to have represent our churches as he serves in this capacity. While he speaks with great respect for those who differ with him, Wade is opposed to the new policies, and has made his displeasure known though his weblog Grace and Truth to You (http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/) In addition, I have had the opportunity to speak with those who voted in favor of the new policies. For those of you who are unaware of what these new policies entail, below is a summary:
New Policy on Tongues. The old policy forbade a Southern Baptist missionary from practicing glossolalia in public worship, but allowed for "private prayer language." Under the new policy, those claiming to possess a private prayer language will not be appointed.
New Policy on Baptism. The old policy required those appointed to be members of a Southern Baptist church for at least three years, required that they be baptized by immersion subsequent to their conversion, and that they understood this baptism to be a picture of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit and of their identification with Christ. They must also acknowlege that their baptism was not regenerative. The new policy adds to the above that the missionary candidate be baptized by a "qualified administrator," defined as either a Southern Baptist Church, or a church which believes all of the above about baptism, and in addition, affirms the eternal security of the believer. If a candidate was baptized elsewhere, even if he or she has been a Southern Baptist for years, he or she would be required to submit to a "re-Baptism" in their Southern Baptist Church as an affirmation of all of the above doctrines.
While I strongly believe that all of our trustees want to maintain the balance between conviction and cooperation, I fear that these new policies, particularly the new policy on Baptism, superceeds the Scriptural requirements and creates a needless barrier that could potentially disqualify many godly and otherwise worthy candidates from serving. At the same time, I respect and admire their desire to maintain Baptist convictions. Yet Baptist convictions are Baptist principlally because, as "people of the Book," we believe those convictions to come from Holy Scripture. The ordinance of Baptism was given by Christ as a tool of identification with Himself, not with any particular denominational group. It was given as a metaphorical picture of 2 Corinthians 5:17, and the new guidelines, in my view, distort that picture by claiming that those from certain other traditions who have experienced Biblical immersion after conversion didn't really receive Scriptural baptism because it wasn't under the authority of a church that believes everything Southern Baptists believe.
Certainly the IMB ought to have standards for our missionaries, and those standards should reflect no less than the convictions of our churches as found in the Baptist Faith and Message. But if conviction and cooperation don't continue to be held in balance, the Gospel witness will be harmed, and for the following reasons:
Cooperation without Conviction = Ecumenism: The danger that comes with not setting doctrinal standards has already been experienced (and the results are drastically obvious) within mainline Protestantism. I am thankful that IMB trustees have put in place certain doctrinal safeguards to ensure that those appointed as missionaries actually believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, actually believe that those who die without Christ are eternally separated from God, and actually believe that the preaching of the Gospel to the ends of the earth is the non-negotiable demand of the Great Commission.
In addition, our understanding of Christian baptism is central to the preached Gospel it accompanies. We believe immersion to be the only mode of baptism, and we confess baptism to be symbolic and not regenerative, not because these are "Baptist doctrines," but because our thorough exegesis of the text brings us to these conclusions. If we do not speak where Scripture speaks, then our "cooperation" is ultimately meaningless! Imagine a British soldier and a Nazi soldier trying to "unite" during World War II. They may both be well-trained, and they may both be armed and ready for battle, but each is fighting for a radically different cause! Cooperation is neccesary, but it is only potent when all involved in the process share the same basic convictions.
Conviction without Cooperation = Isolationism: As threatening as Ecumenism is to the larger body of Christ, I believe the more imminent danger we now face as Southern Baptists is that of isolationism. The recent IMB issues are merely one part of a larger tendency among some in the convention toward isolation. Conservative historian Richard Bailey has stated that Southern Baptists "hardly represent evangelicals," and that in our history we have mostly exemplified the principle that "the people who generally tend to work best alone want to keep working alone." Bailey bases his assumption on the fact that a modern understanding of "evangelical", "has to do with a common identity that crosses denominational lines, leaders, publications and institutions. Here, I find 99.9% of [Southern Baptists] unwilling to go." Although I take issue with Bailey's contention about the percentage of Southern Baptists who are unwilling to work with others, the tendencies he describes are tragically sad. It is the refusal to believe that one can stand firmly in his or her own tradition, while at the same time cooperate with others who share his or her basic Gospel convictions.
Similarly, the recent issues at the IMB are, I believe, the refusal of those who hold to a "landmarkist" position on baptism and a "cessationist" view of glossolalia to believe that he or she can stand firmly in that position, while at the same time recognizing and respecting his or her fellow Southern Baptist who shares his or her belief in other Scriptural principles as delineated in the Baptist Faith and Message.
-The SBC Calvinist should be able to work with the SBC Arminian.
-The SBC Covenant Thinker should be able to work with the SBC Dispensationalist.
-The SBC Sabbatarian should be able to work with the SBCer who holds to a "Lord's Day" view of Sunday.
-The SBC premillenial should be able to work with the SBC amillenial.
-The SBC landmarkist should be able to work with those who don't share his or her convictions.
Six years ago, I heard John Piper say that if we only recognize that which we perceive to be totally doctrinally correct as a move of God, we will miss out on most of what God is doing in the world. If we continue to isolate ourselves and narrow the parameters of cooperation in the SBC, I fear we will miss even more!
Bottom line: We need conviction, and we need cooperation! But while I am appreciative of the recent emphasis on conviction, these issues have me convinced that genuine cooperation is at risk!
I'm afraid Burleson is right when he claims that there is a "narrowing [of] the parameters of fellowship and cooperation to the point that real, genuine conservatives are being excluded as unfit for service in the SBC." And it appears that the new IMB guidelines are already fleshing out this reality.
I read day before yesterday of one of our missionaries who oversees a vast area among many unreached peoples. After many years of praying and searching, they finally discovered a young couple who were called and distinctly qualified for serving in this region. They have been members of a Southern Baptist church for many years, are both seminary graduates, and have met every other requirement for appointment. Unfortunately, they were never presented to the Board for approval as missionaries, and because of this, thousands of unreached peoples will have to continue waiting before someone reaches them with the Gospel. Why is this?
Because the husband is from a Pentecostal background. Although he affirms the Baptist Faith and Message, the church that performed his Scriptural baptism rejects eternal security. Oh, and he also has a private prayer language.
Southern Baptists introduced me to Jesus Christ, discipled me through some of the hardest times in my life, ordained me to the ministry, educated me twice in their seminaries. And presently, they have commissioned me as one of their North American missionaries. I am proud of my heritage! I love the Southern Baptist Convention, and I'm proud that many of our esteemed leaders love it as well. But if we are to continue having a maximum impact on the Kingdom, we had better love the Gospel more!
Update (January 11): It appears from early reports that while in Executive Session yesterday, IMB trustees voted to reccomend that the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the trustee board during the Convention's annual meeting this June in Greensboro, NC. Our prayers should be for Wade and his family during this very difficult time. In addition, now more than ever is the time to pray for the International Mission Board.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Joel Osteen and the Prevalence of "Pop-Evangelicalism"
In just a short time, Joel Osteen has risen to become one of the most recognized religious figures in North America. His weekly TV program, aired from Houston Texas' Lakewood Church, attracts an audience of millions, in addition to the over 40,000 who attend services at its newest campus in the former home of the Houston Rockets. His book Your Best Life Now has been a consistent best-seller since its publication early last year, and his engaging pulpit personality and charismatic eloquence leave few listeners bored.
When Osteen's wife Victoria was perceived to be the cause of an altercation on a December 20 Continental flight to Colorado, news sources both secular and Christian speculated and criticized. And when Joel appeared in what he himself admits was a failed opportunity to assert the truth of the Gospel on Larry King Live, the result was a dismally unclear and inaccurate articulation of the deity and exclusivity of Jesus Christ.
While the Osteen's recent behavior is currently a hot topic within Christendom, the above events are merely symptomatic of a greater problem within evangelicalism at large. I call it "the rise of the pop-evangelical," and this phenommenon, more than any other, is a clear indication that it is time for the church at large to re-examine the meaning of Christian preaching.
Not too long ago, Evangelicalism as a whole recognized the true focus and impetus of the preaching task. In a somewhat dated commentary, Al Mohler points to the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter as an example of what motivates and clarifies the message being delivered. Mohler quotes Baxter as saying "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." He then comments by saying "With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word." Such a view of Gospel proclamation is undergirded by a conviction that nothing less than the expounded Word of God can truly be legitimized as genuine preaching.
Contrast this with the prevalent mood among Evangelicals today, which motivates many to focus on providing "needs-based" preaching. These preachers may eventually get to the text, but the text in no way sets their speaking agenda. Instead, there are three new foci present in "pop-evangelicalism":
1. It is always Positive and Simple: This of course is a chief concern of Osteen. Over and over in his interview with King, he asserted that he just wanted to be "positive," and make people feel good. Certainly the Gospel is a positive message! But the Scriptures don't just command that pastors "exhort," but that they also "reprove and rebuke," and do so "with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2 NASB) Instead, many of the most popular preachers in our day sound more like Tony Robbins clones at an Amway Convention than prophets of God's truth. These men don't deny the truthfulness of God's Word, but by their practice they minimize its influence in the hearts of their parishioners. Commenting on Osteen, one blogger put it this way: "He's just a motivational speaker. At least that's what his sermons sound like. [I] don't hear a whole lot of scripture being tossed around; just "feel good" Christianity."
One shining example of this is seen in how Osteen opens up every message at Lakewood Church. With his Bible held high above his head, he leads his standing congregation in boldly declaring the following: This is my Bible. I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do. Today I will be taught the Word of God. I boldly confess that my mind is alert, my heart is receptive, I will never be the same, in Jesus name. This is indeed a powerful declaration of both the nature and potency of Holy Scripture. Yet after this declaration, Osteen never again approaches the text with any degree of depth. It never sets his agenda, but is merely used as an authoritative "peg" for Osteen's own thoughts.
Can you imagine someone promising you a steak dinner, only to serve you M&Ms at the table? Your mouth waters at the thought of the sweet nourishment that is coming, and your soul cries out "feed me!" Then the candy comes and leaves you with a slight sugar buzz, but your stomach is still empty. Spiritually, that's how I felt after watching an Osteen broadcast. But Osteen isn't the only one to blame here, simply the most visible. When I think of the churches I have visited while on vacation during my 14 years in the ministry, I have fond memories of a few, but shudder still at what is passed off for Biblical exposition and Gospel preaching, even within my own denomination! Pop Evangelicalism wants preaching to be Positive and Simple. The Scriptures call for Gospel proclamation to be Transforming and Profound.
2. It is Man-Centered: Let us here contrast the powerful view of preaching espoused by Richard Baxter with that of another, earlier pop-pastor; the late Harry Emerson Fosdick. To Fosdick, preaching was simply "personal counseling on a group basis." Mohler asserts that, "Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist." Of course, Fosdick was an unabashed theological liberal, and given his low view of Scripture, one should scarcely be surprised that he saw its content to be of little use in the modern pulpit. The shock should come when those who espouse a high view of Biblical inerrancy and authority marginalize the importance of Biblical content in the sermon, and replace it with man-centered psychotherapy. The problem with this approach is that ultimately, it can never provide the only solution to what ails us. God and God alone heals our hurts and reforms our lives, and thus, only a God-centered worldview will serve as adequate ground for Christian preaching.
In a lecture given to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary over a decade ago, John Piper speaks to this need eloquently: My burden is to plead for the supremacy of God in preaching--that the dominant note of preaching be the freedom of God's sovereign grace, the unifying theme be the zeal that God has for His own glory, the grand object of preaching be the infinite and inexhaustible being of God, and the pervasive atmosphere of preaching be the holiness of God. Then when preaching takes up the ordinary things of life--family, job, leisure, friendships; or the crises of our day--AIDS, divorce, addictions, depression, abuses, poverty, hunger, and, worst of all, unreached peoples of the world, these matters are not only taken up. They are taken all the way up into God. Man-centered, self-help focused pulpits such as those occupied by pop-evangelicals will never be able to provide this powerful cure for souls.
3. It is atheological: Missiologist Paul Heibert makes the astute observation that when preaching and defending truth, evangelicals should adopt a posture of epistemological realism, recognizing that while truth is absolute, none of us will ever know all truth absolutely! Sinful hubris is at the heart of anyone who believes they have it all figured out!
Still, assuming this epistemological posture doesn't mean that there aren't certain things we can know for sure! When asked by Larry King about the fate of those who don't know Christ as Savior, all Osteen could respond with was "I don't know." Since that agonizing night on CNN, Osteen has issued an apology to his congregation and supporters, admitting that he did not accurately represent the Gospel, and this is commendable. Any of us, when called upon to speak the truth of the Gospel, are prone to inaccuracies and unintended compromises because, in the heat of the moment, our sinful nature gets the best of us. The problem however, is that Osteen admits to never having been a serious student of Scripture. He has never been to seminary, which in and of itself is not a problem. Yet he hasn't seemed to compensate for his lack of formal education by being self-motivated enough to study theology on his own, and he isn't the only pastor out there with such a skeleton in his closet!
I can't count the times I have heard a seminary-trained, Baptist pastor say "I'm just not a theologian." In the formal sense, there are indeed very few "professional" theologians. But every pastor should be a practicing theologue. To preach the Word, we must know what it says. To know what it says, we must study it with dilligence, and hold the truth statements it puts forth with clarity as non-negotiable and axiomatic. But for this to be realized, we have dire need for theologians to return to the pulpits of evangelical churches!
With all of this said, I must say that as a person, I like Joel Osteen. I'm sure if I ever had the privilege, I would enjoy his company. Also, Osteen isn't the issue here, but rather, the larger problem of pastors who are valued more for their charisma and winsomeness than for the content of their overall message. No amount of eloquence or positive energy can compensate for the spiritual loss that occurs when the Gospel is truncated and Biblical truth is marginalized.
So what is the answer to pop-evangelicalism? I believe Piper gave us this answer long before Joel Osteen became a household name in Christian homes: People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow. Preaching that does not have the aroma of God's greatness may entertain for a season, but it will not touch the hidden cry of the soul: "Show me thy glory."
Imagine for a moment the result of such thinking permeating the mind and preaching ministry of a man like Joel Osteen! The Kingdom possibilities would be endless. As such, I think the real answer here is not to attack, but rather, to pray earnestly for men of such visibility. If Osteen began preaching the "whole counsel of God," millions of viewers would benefit, as would the people of God at Lakewood Church in Houston.
But such prayers begin in the first person! As I think back on my experiences, there have been times when I know God wanted me to speak as a prophet, and instead I spoke as a salesman. May that never be true of my ministry in 2006! And if you are a pastor, I pray it is never again true of yours either. Instead, let our hidden criy be made audible: "Show us your glory, that we may in turn proclaim it to others."
Further Resources:
John Piper. 1990. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
Robinson, Haddon W. 1980. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Rowell, Ed. 1998. Preaching with Spiritual Passion: How to Stay Fresh in Your Calling. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers.
York, Hershael W. and Bert Decker. 2003. Preaching with Bold Assurance: A Solid and Enduring Aproach to Engaging Exposition. Nashville: Broadman and Holman.
When Osteen's wife Victoria was perceived to be the cause of an altercation on a December 20 Continental flight to Colorado, news sources both secular and Christian speculated and criticized. And when Joel appeared in what he himself admits was a failed opportunity to assert the truth of the Gospel on Larry King Live, the result was a dismally unclear and inaccurate articulation of the deity and exclusivity of Jesus Christ.
While the Osteen's recent behavior is currently a hot topic within Christendom, the above events are merely symptomatic of a greater problem within evangelicalism at large. I call it "the rise of the pop-evangelical," and this phenommenon, more than any other, is a clear indication that it is time for the church at large to re-examine the meaning of Christian preaching.
Not too long ago, Evangelicalism as a whole recognized the true focus and impetus of the preaching task. In a somewhat dated commentary, Al Mohler points to the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter as an example of what motivates and clarifies the message being delivered. Mohler quotes Baxter as saying "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." He then comments by saying "With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word." Such a view of Gospel proclamation is undergirded by a conviction that nothing less than the expounded Word of God can truly be legitimized as genuine preaching.
Contrast this with the prevalent mood among Evangelicals today, which motivates many to focus on providing "needs-based" preaching. These preachers may eventually get to the text, but the text in no way sets their speaking agenda. Instead, there are three new foci present in "pop-evangelicalism":
1. It is always Positive and Simple: This of course is a chief concern of Osteen. Over and over in his interview with King, he asserted that he just wanted to be "positive," and make people feel good. Certainly the Gospel is a positive message! But the Scriptures don't just command that pastors "exhort," but that they also "reprove and rebuke," and do so "with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2 NASB) Instead, many of the most popular preachers in our day sound more like Tony Robbins clones at an Amway Convention than prophets of God's truth. These men don't deny the truthfulness of God's Word, but by their practice they minimize its influence in the hearts of their parishioners. Commenting on Osteen, one blogger put it this way: "He's just a motivational speaker. At least that's what his sermons sound like. [I] don't hear a whole lot of scripture being tossed around; just "feel good" Christianity."
One shining example of this is seen in how Osteen opens up every message at Lakewood Church. With his Bible held high above his head, he leads his standing congregation in boldly declaring the following: This is my Bible. I am what it says I am, I have what it says I have, I can do what it says I can do. Today I will be taught the Word of God. I boldly confess that my mind is alert, my heart is receptive, I will never be the same, in Jesus name. This is indeed a powerful declaration of both the nature and potency of Holy Scripture. Yet after this declaration, Osteen never again approaches the text with any degree of depth. It never sets his agenda, but is merely used as an authoritative "peg" for Osteen's own thoughts.
Can you imagine someone promising you a steak dinner, only to serve you M&Ms at the table? Your mouth waters at the thought of the sweet nourishment that is coming, and your soul cries out "feed me!" Then the candy comes and leaves you with a slight sugar buzz, but your stomach is still empty. Spiritually, that's how I felt after watching an Osteen broadcast. But Osteen isn't the only one to blame here, simply the most visible. When I think of the churches I have visited while on vacation during my 14 years in the ministry, I have fond memories of a few, but shudder still at what is passed off for Biblical exposition and Gospel preaching, even within my own denomination! Pop Evangelicalism wants preaching to be Positive and Simple. The Scriptures call for Gospel proclamation to be Transforming and Profound.
2. It is Man-Centered: Let us here contrast the powerful view of preaching espoused by Richard Baxter with that of another, earlier pop-pastor; the late Harry Emerson Fosdick. To Fosdick, preaching was simply "personal counseling on a group basis." Mohler asserts that, "Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist." Of course, Fosdick was an unabashed theological liberal, and given his low view of Scripture, one should scarcely be surprised that he saw its content to be of little use in the modern pulpit. The shock should come when those who espouse a high view of Biblical inerrancy and authority marginalize the importance of Biblical content in the sermon, and replace it with man-centered psychotherapy. The problem with this approach is that ultimately, it can never provide the only solution to what ails us. God and God alone heals our hurts and reforms our lives, and thus, only a God-centered worldview will serve as adequate ground for Christian preaching.
In a lecture given to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary over a decade ago, John Piper speaks to this need eloquently: My burden is to plead for the supremacy of God in preaching--that the dominant note of preaching be the freedom of God's sovereign grace, the unifying theme be the zeal that God has for His own glory, the grand object of preaching be the infinite and inexhaustible being of God, and the pervasive atmosphere of preaching be the holiness of God. Then when preaching takes up the ordinary things of life--family, job, leisure, friendships; or the crises of our day--AIDS, divorce, addictions, depression, abuses, poverty, hunger, and, worst of all, unreached peoples of the world, these matters are not only taken up. They are taken all the way up into God. Man-centered, self-help focused pulpits such as those occupied by pop-evangelicals will never be able to provide this powerful cure for souls.
3. It is atheological: Missiologist Paul Heibert makes the astute observation that when preaching and defending truth, evangelicals should adopt a posture of epistemological realism, recognizing that while truth is absolute, none of us will ever know all truth absolutely! Sinful hubris is at the heart of anyone who believes they have it all figured out!
Still, assuming this epistemological posture doesn't mean that there aren't certain things we can know for sure! When asked by Larry King about the fate of those who don't know Christ as Savior, all Osteen could respond with was "I don't know." Since that agonizing night on CNN, Osteen has issued an apology to his congregation and supporters, admitting that he did not accurately represent the Gospel, and this is commendable. Any of us, when called upon to speak the truth of the Gospel, are prone to inaccuracies and unintended compromises because, in the heat of the moment, our sinful nature gets the best of us. The problem however, is that Osteen admits to never having been a serious student of Scripture. He has never been to seminary, which in and of itself is not a problem. Yet he hasn't seemed to compensate for his lack of formal education by being self-motivated enough to study theology on his own, and he isn't the only pastor out there with such a skeleton in his closet!
I can't count the times I have heard a seminary-trained, Baptist pastor say "I'm just not a theologian." In the formal sense, there are indeed very few "professional" theologians. But every pastor should be a practicing theologue. To preach the Word, we must know what it says. To know what it says, we must study it with dilligence, and hold the truth statements it puts forth with clarity as non-negotiable and axiomatic. But for this to be realized, we have dire need for theologians to return to the pulpits of evangelical churches!
With all of this said, I must say that as a person, I like Joel Osteen. I'm sure if I ever had the privilege, I would enjoy his company. Also, Osteen isn't the issue here, but rather, the larger problem of pastors who are valued more for their charisma and winsomeness than for the content of their overall message. No amount of eloquence or positive energy can compensate for the spiritual loss that occurs when the Gospel is truncated and Biblical truth is marginalized.
So what is the answer to pop-evangelicalism? I believe Piper gave us this answer long before Joel Osteen became a household name in Christian homes: People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow. Preaching that does not have the aroma of God's greatness may entertain for a season, but it will not touch the hidden cry of the soul: "Show me thy glory."
Imagine for a moment the result of such thinking permeating the mind and preaching ministry of a man like Joel Osteen! The Kingdom possibilities would be endless. As such, I think the real answer here is not to attack, but rather, to pray earnestly for men of such visibility. If Osteen began preaching the "whole counsel of God," millions of viewers would benefit, as would the people of God at Lakewood Church in Houston.
But such prayers begin in the first person! As I think back on my experiences, there have been times when I know God wanted me to speak as a prophet, and instead I spoke as a salesman. May that never be true of my ministry in 2006! And if you are a pastor, I pray it is never again true of yours either. Instead, let our hidden criy be made audible: "Show us your glory, that we may in turn proclaim it to others."
Further Resources:
John Piper. 1990. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
Robinson, Haddon W. 1980. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Rowell, Ed. 1998. Preaching with Spiritual Passion: How to Stay Fresh in Your Calling. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers.
York, Hershael W. and Bert Decker. 2003. Preaching with Bold Assurance: A Solid and Enduring Aproach to Engaging Exposition. Nashville: Broadman and Holman.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Thankfulness at Year's End
Well, the year must be coming to an end, because I find myself presently sitting in my office, gazing out the window at the melting snow in anticipation of a soon-coming trip to the Carolinas! But as I anticipate the future, I am also contemplating the past, and in thinking over everything that 2005 has brought my way, I have much . . . . MUCH. . . .for which to be thankful!
-I'm thankful that God saw fit to have me lead the effort to plant new churches in what I believe is one of the most strategic areas on the planet!
-I'm thankful for an Association, and Director of Missions, that caters my job description to fit my gifts and passions.
-I'm thankful for a ravishingly beautiful wife, who is exponentially even more beautiful in spirit. I'm thankful that after almost 12 years of marriage, we are still dating sweethearts. She is definitely worth thousands of times her weight in gold. She is my partner in the ministry of Christ's Gospel, and her advice, encouragement, occassional rebuke, and unquestionable loyalty leave me wondering what I ever did to deserve such a wonderful gift from God.
-I'm thankful for an oldest son who started Kindergarten this year. I'm thankful for Sam's inquisitive mind and constant thirst for learning, his sense of wonder that reminds me that adults often take so much for granted, and his intuitive ability to have fun wherever we are. Most of all, I'm thankful for his interest in Jesus Christ, his love for reading his Bible, and his recent deep questions about what it means to follow Christ.
-I'm thankful for a church family in Glenwood Maryland called Gethsemane Baptist Church. I'm thankful for the way they so aptly meet the spiritual and relational needs of my family when I have to be away so often.
-I'm thankful for Dr. Jerry Cooper, my pastor. I'm thankful for the relief of knowing that when I am away, my family is receiving the sound and clear teaching from God's Word that I would expect. Having been a pastor for several years, It was difficult to trust another man to fulfill this role for my family. Pastor Jerry has quickly earned my trust, and my admiration. And he serves with a heart of love that is a rare find, even among pastors.
-I'm thankful for a group of professional colleagues, with whom I shared the experience of three years of research doctoral studies at Southern Seminary. These bright and dedicated men and women are located all over the world in church pastorates, mission fields, and institutions of higher learning, and I am honored to call them "friends."
-I am thankful for Rob and Denise Stephens, dear friends, themselves from North Carolina, who help us maintain our "Southern identity" in the midst of "Yankee country."
-I'm thankful for an extended family in South Carolina who fully supports us in the work we are doing. It can't be easy to be hundreds of miles from your grandchildren, but never have Amy and I heard even one negative remark regarding our obedience in moving away. I probably wouldn't truly appreciate this, were it not for friends of mine in mission fields all over the world who have to deal with the constant "nagging" of a selfish extended family. From both sets of parents, there could be no greater gift than that of unconditional support.
-I'm thankful for the music of Frank Sinatra, Guns and Roses, Steven Curtis Chapman, Rascal Flats, G. F. Handel, Keith Urban, and Eric Clapton. (Yep, I know its an eclectic mix, but God Himself is creatively eclectic!)
-I'm thankful that through movies like Cinderella Man and The Chronicles of Narnia, Hollywood demonstrated that it still has some redeeming quality.
-I'm thankful for the people of Rolling Hills Baptist Church, whom I have served during that latter part of this year as interim pastor, and for the privilege they give me each week of being able to teach God's Word.
-I'm thankful for the birth and quick healing of our newest son, Seth. He was a very sick boy when he came into the world in September. Now he is a robust 15 pounds, and eats like his dad! We can't praise God enough for this miracle!
-I'm thankful for that little black dress my wife owns, and that after almost 12 years, I still get "weak in the knees" when I look at her in it. ;)
-I am thankful for a church I helped to plant in Greenville, SC, now called Sanctuary, and that they continue to impact their community for the sake of the Kingdom.
-I am also thankful for Pastor Chad Howard, who was my "right-arm" during the planting of that church (previously called True Life Church), and for how his continued service to that body of believers builds them up as a crown jewel that he will no doubt receive back from Christ Himself at the end of the age. Also, the friendship of he and his wife Tiffani to Amy and me foreshadows what "community" will look like in heaven.
-I am thankful for the memories left me by a precious friend who passed away earlier this year. (Rest in Christ, Alan Weaver!)
-I'm thankful for mentors past and present, including, but not limited to Bill Cashion, Jim Ramsey, Keith Kelly, George Martin, Walter Johnson, Charlie Draper, Spencer Haygood, and Bill Crowe. I thank God for the men who have invested part of their lives in my own development. My failures are entirely my own. But my success is their success, and ultimately, the success of God, who sent them into my life.
-I'm thankful for the incarnate Christ, whose presence in this world brought about all of the above! But mostly, I'm thankful that His coming, living, dying and rising guarantees me that as wonderful as this life is, I ain't seen nothing yet!
2006 could be even better, or, exponentially worse! That's the thing about the future. We just don't know. But God does. Furthermore, Scripture tells us that He has already declared the end from the beginning, and that regardless of what life brings, good or bad, each is designed to fulfill the good future that God has promised each of us who follow Him. With that in mind, I look forward to 2006 with excitement.
God willing of course, 2006 will definitely bring more writing on this weblog. But for the next month or so, I and the family are enjoying the season, and prayerfully getting ready for God's best in the New Year. I wish each reader the same, and pray that our Lord gives you a Merry Christmas and joyous New Year!
-I'm thankful that God saw fit to have me lead the effort to plant new churches in what I believe is one of the most strategic areas on the planet!
-I'm thankful for an Association, and Director of Missions, that caters my job description to fit my gifts and passions.
-I'm thankful for a ravishingly beautiful wife, who is exponentially even more beautiful in spirit. I'm thankful that after almost 12 years of marriage, we are still dating sweethearts. She is definitely worth thousands of times her weight in gold. She is my partner in the ministry of Christ's Gospel, and her advice, encouragement, occassional rebuke, and unquestionable loyalty leave me wondering what I ever did to deserve such a wonderful gift from God.
-I'm thankful for an oldest son who started Kindergarten this year. I'm thankful for Sam's inquisitive mind and constant thirst for learning, his sense of wonder that reminds me that adults often take so much for granted, and his intuitive ability to have fun wherever we are. Most of all, I'm thankful for his interest in Jesus Christ, his love for reading his Bible, and his recent deep questions about what it means to follow Christ.
-I'm thankful for a church family in Glenwood Maryland called Gethsemane Baptist Church. I'm thankful for the way they so aptly meet the spiritual and relational needs of my family when I have to be away so often.
-I'm thankful for Dr. Jerry Cooper, my pastor. I'm thankful for the relief of knowing that when I am away, my family is receiving the sound and clear teaching from God's Word that I would expect. Having been a pastor for several years, It was difficult to trust another man to fulfill this role for my family. Pastor Jerry has quickly earned my trust, and my admiration. And he serves with a heart of love that is a rare find, even among pastors.
-I'm thankful for a group of professional colleagues, with whom I shared the experience of three years of research doctoral studies at Southern Seminary. These bright and dedicated men and women are located all over the world in church pastorates, mission fields, and institutions of higher learning, and I am honored to call them "friends."
-I am thankful for Rob and Denise Stephens, dear friends, themselves from North Carolina, who help us maintain our "Southern identity" in the midst of "Yankee country."
-I'm thankful for an extended family in South Carolina who fully supports us in the work we are doing. It can't be easy to be hundreds of miles from your grandchildren, but never have Amy and I heard even one negative remark regarding our obedience in moving away. I probably wouldn't truly appreciate this, were it not for friends of mine in mission fields all over the world who have to deal with the constant "nagging" of a selfish extended family. From both sets of parents, there could be no greater gift than that of unconditional support.
-I'm thankful for the music of Frank Sinatra, Guns and Roses, Steven Curtis Chapman, Rascal Flats, G. F. Handel, Keith Urban, and Eric Clapton. (Yep, I know its an eclectic mix, but God Himself is creatively eclectic!)
-I'm thankful that through movies like Cinderella Man and The Chronicles of Narnia, Hollywood demonstrated that it still has some redeeming quality.
-I'm thankful for the people of Rolling Hills Baptist Church, whom I have served during that latter part of this year as interim pastor, and for the privilege they give me each week of being able to teach God's Word.
-I'm thankful for the birth and quick healing of our newest son, Seth. He was a very sick boy when he came into the world in September. Now he is a robust 15 pounds, and eats like his dad! We can't praise God enough for this miracle!
-I'm thankful for that little black dress my wife owns, and that after almost 12 years, I still get "weak in the knees" when I look at her in it. ;)
-I am thankful for a church I helped to plant in Greenville, SC, now called Sanctuary, and that they continue to impact their community for the sake of the Kingdom.
-I am also thankful for Pastor Chad Howard, who was my "right-arm" during the planting of that church (previously called True Life Church), and for how his continued service to that body of believers builds them up as a crown jewel that he will no doubt receive back from Christ Himself at the end of the age. Also, the friendship of he and his wife Tiffani to Amy and me foreshadows what "community" will look like in heaven.
-I am thankful for the memories left me by a precious friend who passed away earlier this year. (Rest in Christ, Alan Weaver!)
-I'm thankful for mentors past and present, including, but not limited to Bill Cashion, Jim Ramsey, Keith Kelly, George Martin, Walter Johnson, Charlie Draper, Spencer Haygood, and Bill Crowe. I thank God for the men who have invested part of their lives in my own development. My failures are entirely my own. But my success is their success, and ultimately, the success of God, who sent them into my life.
-I'm thankful for the incarnate Christ, whose presence in this world brought about all of the above! But mostly, I'm thankful that His coming, living, dying and rising guarantees me that as wonderful as this life is, I ain't seen nothing yet!
2006 could be even better, or, exponentially worse! That's the thing about the future. We just don't know. But God does. Furthermore, Scripture tells us that He has already declared the end from the beginning, and that regardless of what life brings, good or bad, each is designed to fulfill the good future that God has promised each of us who follow Him. With that in mind, I look forward to 2006 with excitement.
God willing of course, 2006 will definitely bring more writing on this weblog. But for the next month or so, I and the family are enjoying the season, and prayerfully getting ready for God's best in the New Year. I wish each reader the same, and pray that our Lord gives you a Merry Christmas and joyous New Year!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Christmas in Narnia: The Way to Truly Celebrate
Early this week I and my family were able to see the motion picture version of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. As a family, we have anticipated the release of this film since the first preview, released almost one year ago. Also, our oldest son Samuel and I had just finished reading this book during the summer, so he was anxious to see how the adventure he loved so much would be portrayed on the silver screen.
As we expected, it was a great experience. As I thought of the true meaning behind the metaphor, I found myself quite emotional. Yet this Christmas season, one line taken from the book struck me as particularly profound. And as I continue to ponder the focal point of this season, I finally understand the tragedy of living a life reflected by the setting described by the faun Mr. Tumnus, in which it is "always winter, but never Christmas."
Of course, the tale is fictional, but C.S. Lewis intended his allegory to be exactly that from the start. In fact, his goal was to be able to read the entire story to a child, and simply say to the child at the end "Aslan is Christ," resulting in the child understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness. Consequently, the story rightly centers around the coming of the great Lion and the fulfillment of the prophetic freeing of Narnia.
As much as we enjoyed the film, movie screens can never depict with the same depth and precision what the human imagination can conceive with a book in hand. For example, when Mr. Beaver tells of the coming of Aslan, there was no possible way for movie makers to portray the following reaction by the children:
At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.
In this part of his masterpiece, Lewis rightly captures the juxtaposed whole of what should permeate the heart of a Christ-follower--delight and adventure, excitement and horror--such are the appropriate extreme emotions in the presence of the King of Kings!
Yet as believers approach the coming Christmas season, I fear that our emotions might in fact be the opposite of that expressed by young Lucy. Rather than feeling the holidays have begun because of the name of Christ, we feel the obligatory pull to somehow recognize Christ because of the holidays. This not only puts the "cart before the horse," it dishonors Him who is to be adored above all things, and that at all times, not just at Christmas.
The lack of awe that many professing Christians have for the sovereign Christ is a year-round phenomenon, but is amplified at this time of year, as so many seem more impressed with the lights at Rockefeller Center than with the Light of the World--more fearful of the prospect of stolen gifts than of the reality of the Incarnate Word. Now is certainly the time of year to remember the warning of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. Responding to Lucy's question of whether this Lion is "safe," Mr. Beaver asserts "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly . . .don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King I tell you!"
The movie, as well as the book, also makes clear the fact that Christmas is inaugurated by the coming of Aslan, and until his coming, the White Witch has cast a spell over all of Narnia, so that it is "always winter, but never Christmas."
This is something to think about as we ponder the meaning of the "Christmas culture wars." The desire by businesses, governments and schools to eliminate Jesus from the holidays is, ultimately, their attempt to officially allign our nation with what has likely been reality for many years now . . . it is always winter, but never Christmas!
Rest assured; when Santa Claus gets more attention than our Sovereingn God, that isn't Christmas, just winter!
When families merely tip their hats toward the Bethlehem manger on their way to open gifts and commit gluttony, never again to pick up a Bible and reflect deeply on how God Incarnate fulfills every redemptive promise that assures me of an eternity in His presence, that isn't Christmas, just winter!
Make no mistake: Christmas is because Jesus is! In Narnia, Father Christmas makes his appearance in this fantasyland only after it is announced by the Beavers that "Aslan is on the move." Without the coming Son of God, there is nothing to celebrate. Conversely, because He has come, there is much to celebrate! No doubt 2005 has been especially hard on many. Some have faced financial hardships, others sickness, others the death of a spouse, parent or other relative, and still others the anxiety that comes with knowing their loved-one is serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other area of the world. (Lewis was accutely aware of such anxiety, and set the timeline for Narnia in the midst of World War II).
To these, it will be a difficult time around the tree this season, and apart from a renewed awe for the baby in the manger, this season, even with the gifts and decorations, will be "always winter, never Christmas."
But those who have faced hardships this year as well as those who have simply minimized the meaning of this season are presented with the same solution: Stand at the manger. Meditate, as did Simeon, on the identity of this child. Tremble with fear at the One who is infinitely more than a baby. Remember with trepidation the words of Mr. Tumnus that "he isn't a tame lion." Moreover, remember that He isn't a baby anymore, but that Christmas, in remembering His first coming, also reminds us of His promise to come again.
And on doing this, let your heart feel brave and adventurous. Let your soul delight in the sweetness of His presence that Scripture tells us is the fulness of a joy that cannot be duplicated by even the most tight-knit family. Most of all, let your excitement over the coming holiday be fueled by the salvific miracle of the incarnation. And know that the holidays have truly begun, not because of parties, gifts, or even the presence of family . . . .
. . . .but because "Aslan is on the move!"
As we expected, it was a great experience. As I thought of the true meaning behind the metaphor, I found myself quite emotional. Yet this Christmas season, one line taken from the book struck me as particularly profound. And as I continue to ponder the focal point of this season, I finally understand the tragedy of living a life reflected by the setting described by the faun Mr. Tumnus, in which it is "always winter, but never Christmas."
Of course, the tale is fictional, but C.S. Lewis intended his allegory to be exactly that from the start. In fact, his goal was to be able to read the entire story to a child, and simply say to the child at the end "Aslan is Christ," resulting in the child understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness. Consequently, the story rightly centers around the coming of the great Lion and the fulfillment of the prophetic freeing of Narnia.
As much as we enjoyed the film, movie screens can never depict with the same depth and precision what the human imagination can conceive with a book in hand. For example, when Mr. Beaver tells of the coming of Aslan, there was no possible way for movie makers to portray the following reaction by the children:
At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.
In this part of his masterpiece, Lewis rightly captures the juxtaposed whole of what should permeate the heart of a Christ-follower--delight and adventure, excitement and horror--such are the appropriate extreme emotions in the presence of the King of Kings!
Yet as believers approach the coming Christmas season, I fear that our emotions might in fact be the opposite of that expressed by young Lucy. Rather than feeling the holidays have begun because of the name of Christ, we feel the obligatory pull to somehow recognize Christ because of the holidays. This not only puts the "cart before the horse," it dishonors Him who is to be adored above all things, and that at all times, not just at Christmas.
The lack of awe that many professing Christians have for the sovereign Christ is a year-round phenomenon, but is amplified at this time of year, as so many seem more impressed with the lights at Rockefeller Center than with the Light of the World--more fearful of the prospect of stolen gifts than of the reality of the Incarnate Word. Now is certainly the time of year to remember the warning of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. Responding to Lucy's question of whether this Lion is "safe," Mr. Beaver asserts "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly . . .don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King I tell you!"
The movie, as well as the book, also makes clear the fact that Christmas is inaugurated by the coming of Aslan, and until his coming, the White Witch has cast a spell over all of Narnia, so that it is "always winter, but never Christmas."
This is something to think about as we ponder the meaning of the "Christmas culture wars." The desire by businesses, governments and schools to eliminate Jesus from the holidays is, ultimately, their attempt to officially allign our nation with what has likely been reality for many years now . . . it is always winter, but never Christmas!
Rest assured; when Santa Claus gets more attention than our Sovereingn God, that isn't Christmas, just winter!
When families merely tip their hats toward the Bethlehem manger on their way to open gifts and commit gluttony, never again to pick up a Bible and reflect deeply on how God Incarnate fulfills every redemptive promise that assures me of an eternity in His presence, that isn't Christmas, just winter!
Make no mistake: Christmas is because Jesus is! In Narnia, Father Christmas makes his appearance in this fantasyland only after it is announced by the Beavers that "Aslan is on the move." Without the coming Son of God, there is nothing to celebrate. Conversely, because He has come, there is much to celebrate! No doubt 2005 has been especially hard on many. Some have faced financial hardships, others sickness, others the death of a spouse, parent or other relative, and still others the anxiety that comes with knowing their loved-one is serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other area of the world. (Lewis was accutely aware of such anxiety, and set the timeline for Narnia in the midst of World War II).
To these, it will be a difficult time around the tree this season, and apart from a renewed awe for the baby in the manger, this season, even with the gifts and decorations, will be "always winter, never Christmas."
But those who have faced hardships this year as well as those who have simply minimized the meaning of this season are presented with the same solution: Stand at the manger. Meditate, as did Simeon, on the identity of this child. Tremble with fear at the One who is infinitely more than a baby. Remember with trepidation the words of Mr. Tumnus that "he isn't a tame lion." Moreover, remember that He isn't a baby anymore, but that Christmas, in remembering His first coming, also reminds us of His promise to come again.
And on doing this, let your heart feel brave and adventurous. Let your soul delight in the sweetness of His presence that Scripture tells us is the fulness of a joy that cannot be duplicated by even the most tight-knit family. Most of all, let your excitement over the coming holiday be fueled by the salvific miracle of the incarnation. And know that the holidays have truly begun, not because of parties, gifts, or even the presence of family . . . .
. . . .but because "Aslan is on the move!"
Monday, November 28, 2005
Who's at War with Christmas?
For the past month I've listened to the conservative "talking heads" warn, as they do now on an annual basis, of the impending destruction of the Christmas season by the secular left, and to a large extent their assessment is correct. Organizations from the ACLJ to the American Family Association are adept at keeping us informed concerning the plethora of liberal plots to eradicate anything reminiscient of Christ from the public square during the "holiday" season. And FOX News anchor John Gibson's newest book, The War on Christmas, calls even greater attention to activists efforts to remove any presence of Jesus Christ from the holidays.
Still, my observations and reflections this past weekend have me wondering if the greatest threat to the central message of Christmas isn't the guy I see every morning in the mirror!
Every year we hear stories of ACLU sympathizers trolling schoolhouse and courthouse properties in search of nativity scenes to challenge. But the greater threat may not be the elimination of the nativity on public property, but rather the minimization of its meaning on private property. I think of the past several Christmas seasons, and I am embarrassed when I compare the time spent giving and opening gifts with that spent celebrating the greatest of all gifts. I remember as a child having to take a "time out" as it were, from my new toys to sit for the perfunctory reading of the Christmas story. With a nervous twitch that would not be relieved until I was back at my new electric racetrack set, I tried to fake interest in this story that I had heard so many times. To me, it was a required religious drudgery; a payment of sorts in exchange for two weeks of no school and new toys.
As an adult, I must still admit to giving more attention at times to my children’s presents than to their focus on Jesus as the center and circumference, not only of the season, but of our lives.
This year, as in times past, we have heard challenges issued by the left to the constitutionality of mentioning the religious roots of the season. In addition, many American companies have now fallen victim to political correctness, as is best illustrated in Lowes’ marketing of the “holiday” tree. Afraid that a “Christmas tree” might be offensive to the non-Christian segment of its customer base, Lowes simply markets the same product under a different name. Isn’t that a bit like calling Easter eggs “Spring eggs,” or referring to Ramadan as “September weight loss days”? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Yet there is something more ridiculous, and more offensive, than removing any mention of Christ from Christmas by those who don’t follow Him, and that is the trivialization of the Christ of Christmas by those who do claim to follow Him. It is the equivocation of God the Son with eight tiny reindeer.
Though we are quick to defend the identity of this season as “Jesus’ birthday,” we often neglect to think that the incarnation was infinitely more that that. Perhaps this is why reflection on the Biblical Christmas story has lost some of its luster. Luke wasn’t just writing history. He was proclaiming that the One who created and foreordained history stepped into history on our behalf! God wrapped Himself in human flesh, and the wonder of that incarnation causes all the lights and decorations in the world combined to pale in comparison. Frankly, my boredom as a child, and passivity as an adult with the Christmas story is not the result of the story itself, but of my failure to truly appreciate how that moment in history affects history. It fulfilled every promise of God that was made up until that moment, and assures all who believe that this perfect and divine manifestation of the ideal humanity provides the righteousness required for the intimate connection with our Creator for which all of humanity longs.
But the ultimate rejection of the season’s truest meaning sometimes comes, ironically enough, at the times when we think we have the season all figured out and are enjoying it to the fullest. And there is a real chance that this coming Christmas could be like the last one . . . . We will read the story of the culturally questionable birth of a Jewish baby in a stall to a 14-year-old virgin and her blue-collar husband. We will remember how He invested His life among those the world did not think worthy of investment, and how He claimed to come for the poor, the sick, and the sinful. We will reflect on this, the most vivid picture of what it means to be “incarnational,” and then forget that Jesus calls us to follow His example while enjoying our “upper-middle class” Christmas. Paul reminded the church at Corinth of Jesus’ words that the most blessed person is the person who chooses giving over receiving. Evidently, I haven’t wanted that blessing very often.
No, the ACLU and Lowes aren’t our biggest issues this season. To be sure, they aren’t helping matters! But when it comes to the “War on Christmas,” the real culprits are those of us who should know better! And if I’m right, then we won’t recover the meaning of this season by court decision.
Instead, we should take ourselves back to that seminal moment in salvific history, hear the cattle in the stalls and smell the sheep dung. Hear the screams of a woman experiencing violent birthpangs who knew nothing of a soft bed, much less an epidural. Watch as the God-man in the body of a pre-pubescent boy learns the skills of a carpenter from his earthly father. Smell the stink of rotting human flesh as He walks among the lepers. Sense the spiritual darkness that has overcome the demoniac among the tombs. Feel the stomach-wrenching sensation of spikes being driven into the wrists. Sense the weight of God’s judgement upon all of humanity as it falls upon He who became sin for us. And feel the earth-shattering concussion that was the bodily resurrection.
Having meditated on these things, know what it means to be “incarnational.”
There is a reason that the secular left is at war with Christmas. It is because this world is at war with Christ! Scary thing is, Jesus leaves no room for “fence-riders,” which means that my past passivity is, in His eyes, enmity. My boredom is, in reality, scorn that has creeped back into my life along with other fleshly things; a part of that old life that Paul tells me was crucified with Christ 2000 years ago.
There is a war on Christmas, and I fear that many who claim to follow Christ are, by their indifference to the season, aiding and abetting the enemy. Moreover, I fear that in the past, I have been among that number. But this year, I resolve to be on the offensive! My family and I will spend less time opening gifts, and more time in front of the advent candles. Through Salvation Army, the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions, Samaritan’s Purse, and our own holistic service, we will serve those to whom Jesus calls us. And though our boys will enjoy a visit from Santa, they will be taught to stand in infinitely greater awe of their God, who eliminates all war and oppression, and who brings a Gospel of peace, all through His entrance into our world.
To end the “war on Christmas,” I must first make sure I really believe in the cause. May God grant us the grace this Christmas season to speak with our lips, and our lives, of the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.
Still, my observations and reflections this past weekend have me wondering if the greatest threat to the central message of Christmas isn't the guy I see every morning in the mirror!
Every year we hear stories of ACLU sympathizers trolling schoolhouse and courthouse properties in search of nativity scenes to challenge. But the greater threat may not be the elimination of the nativity on public property, but rather the minimization of its meaning on private property. I think of the past several Christmas seasons, and I am embarrassed when I compare the time spent giving and opening gifts with that spent celebrating the greatest of all gifts. I remember as a child having to take a "time out" as it were, from my new toys to sit for the perfunctory reading of the Christmas story. With a nervous twitch that would not be relieved until I was back at my new electric racetrack set, I tried to fake interest in this story that I had heard so many times. To me, it was a required religious drudgery; a payment of sorts in exchange for two weeks of no school and new toys.
As an adult, I must still admit to giving more attention at times to my children’s presents than to their focus on Jesus as the center and circumference, not only of the season, but of our lives.
This year, as in times past, we have heard challenges issued by the left to the constitutionality of mentioning the religious roots of the season. In addition, many American companies have now fallen victim to political correctness, as is best illustrated in Lowes’ marketing of the “holiday” tree. Afraid that a “Christmas tree” might be offensive to the non-Christian segment of its customer base, Lowes simply markets the same product under a different name. Isn’t that a bit like calling Easter eggs “Spring eggs,” or referring to Ramadan as “September weight loss days”? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Yet there is something more ridiculous, and more offensive, than removing any mention of Christ from Christmas by those who don’t follow Him, and that is the trivialization of the Christ of Christmas by those who do claim to follow Him. It is the equivocation of God the Son with eight tiny reindeer.
Though we are quick to defend the identity of this season as “Jesus’ birthday,” we often neglect to think that the incarnation was infinitely more that that. Perhaps this is why reflection on the Biblical Christmas story has lost some of its luster. Luke wasn’t just writing history. He was proclaiming that the One who created and foreordained history stepped into history on our behalf! God wrapped Himself in human flesh, and the wonder of that incarnation causes all the lights and decorations in the world combined to pale in comparison. Frankly, my boredom as a child, and passivity as an adult with the Christmas story is not the result of the story itself, but of my failure to truly appreciate how that moment in history affects history. It fulfilled every promise of God that was made up until that moment, and assures all who believe that this perfect and divine manifestation of the ideal humanity provides the righteousness required for the intimate connection with our Creator for which all of humanity longs.
But the ultimate rejection of the season’s truest meaning sometimes comes, ironically enough, at the times when we think we have the season all figured out and are enjoying it to the fullest. And there is a real chance that this coming Christmas could be like the last one . . . . We will read the story of the culturally questionable birth of a Jewish baby in a stall to a 14-year-old virgin and her blue-collar husband. We will remember how He invested His life among those the world did not think worthy of investment, and how He claimed to come for the poor, the sick, and the sinful. We will reflect on this, the most vivid picture of what it means to be “incarnational,” and then forget that Jesus calls us to follow His example while enjoying our “upper-middle class” Christmas. Paul reminded the church at Corinth of Jesus’ words that the most blessed person is the person who chooses giving over receiving. Evidently, I haven’t wanted that blessing very often.
No, the ACLU and Lowes aren’t our biggest issues this season. To be sure, they aren’t helping matters! But when it comes to the “War on Christmas,” the real culprits are those of us who should know better! And if I’m right, then we won’t recover the meaning of this season by court decision.
Instead, we should take ourselves back to that seminal moment in salvific history, hear the cattle in the stalls and smell the sheep dung. Hear the screams of a woman experiencing violent birthpangs who knew nothing of a soft bed, much less an epidural. Watch as the God-man in the body of a pre-pubescent boy learns the skills of a carpenter from his earthly father. Smell the stink of rotting human flesh as He walks among the lepers. Sense the spiritual darkness that has overcome the demoniac among the tombs. Feel the stomach-wrenching sensation of spikes being driven into the wrists. Sense the weight of God’s judgement upon all of humanity as it falls upon He who became sin for us. And feel the earth-shattering concussion that was the bodily resurrection.
Having meditated on these things, know what it means to be “incarnational.”
There is a reason that the secular left is at war with Christmas. It is because this world is at war with Christ! Scary thing is, Jesus leaves no room for “fence-riders,” which means that my past passivity is, in His eyes, enmity. My boredom is, in reality, scorn that has creeped back into my life along with other fleshly things; a part of that old life that Paul tells me was crucified with Christ 2000 years ago.
There is a war on Christmas, and I fear that many who claim to follow Christ are, by their indifference to the season, aiding and abetting the enemy. Moreover, I fear that in the past, I have been among that number. But this year, I resolve to be on the offensive! My family and I will spend less time opening gifts, and more time in front of the advent candles. Through Salvation Army, the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions, Samaritan’s Purse, and our own holistic service, we will serve those to whom Jesus calls us. And though our boys will enjoy a visit from Santa, they will be taught to stand in infinitely greater awe of their God, who eliminates all war and oppression, and who brings a Gospel of peace, all through His entrance into our world.
To end the “war on Christmas,” I must first make sure I really believe in the cause. May God grant us the grace this Christmas season to speak with our lips, and our lives, of the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Jonathan Edwards on the Missional Church
If nothing else, I had you at the title didn't I? I know few if any who would expect to see the phrases "Missional Church" and "Jonathan Edwards" in the same book, much less in the same blog within the same sentence. Yet as God has allowed me to spend some time this week looking back at the life and ministry of Edwards, I am more convinced than ever that we can find our most accurate measurement of what it means to be "missional" from the writings of this 18th century revivalist.
If I'm right, then we may finally have the potential for a measuring instrument that doesn't judge everything within evangelicalism mathematically. Particularly in Southern Baptist life, the "denominationalism" of the 1940s and 1950s has created a church culture in which it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge the value of anything that can't be counted. Regardless of the "measuringn sticks" that have been used in our recent history, from the 50s and 60s emphases on the sheer number of baptisms, to the 70s emphasis on programming, to the 80s and 90s emphases on church growth and church health, the "bottom line" that has been observed is always, in the end, "bucks in the plate, bottoms in the seats, and buildings on the land." The result is now the worship of all things numerical, almost without regard for deeper examination of what is happening in the lives of each member of the crowd. Who cares if your church service exceeds 1000 in attendance if the lives of those attending are not deeply and profoundly affected and moved toward a deeper Christlikeness as a result of your ministry?
Yet a new movement is afoot that I believe has the greatest potential to reverse our almost exclusive focus on numbers. Although the movement began with anteceedents to his book, Robert Lewis' The Church of Irresistible Influence really introduced the incarnational church concept to evangelicalism at large. Published in 2000, this book chronicled the experiences of the 2500 member Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock, AR. Lewis states that by any standard, "anyone observing our growing church would probably have characterized it as a great success . . . .but even with all our advances over ten years, we were still little more than a stranger to our community."
Needless to say, a mega-church admitting failure to impact its surroundings grabbed much attention from the wider evangelical world, and Lewis' prescription for Fellowship, described in "guidebook" fashion for others to follow, earned the applause of many across the theological spectrum (Try to find another book that carries the reccomendations of both Thom Rainer and Brian McLaren on the back cover!) I believe the warm reception of this book by the church at large was due in large part to a yearing for a better way to judge "success." Other works, such as Milfred Minetrea's Shaped by God's Heart, and Frost and Hirsh's The Shaping of Things to Come, have further encouraged pastors and church leaders to think, act, and measure success in a "missional" way.
Even the most committed denominational employee would have to admit that while the Annual Church Profile our Southern Baptist churches fill out each year can track all the tangible "vital statistics," it was never designed, and therefore not presently equipped, to measure cultural impact. Yet to focus on the numerical to the point that examining obedience to Matthew 5:13-16 is excluded leaves church leaders with merely a truncated picture of what is really happening in their congregations. My proposal here is for another instrument of sorts that along with the ACP's numerical trackings can detect the level of spiritual growth and cultural impact. But what categories would one choose to measure such things? It is at this juncture that Johnathan Edwards' picture of true revival becomes helpful, as given in his 1741 book The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.
The original context of the book is that of a theological reflection on both the good and bad aspects of what has become known as America's "First Great Awakening." Much of the revival spirit of that era could find its origins in Edwards' pulpit ministry in Northampton, Massachussetts. In the midst of all that was happening, Edwards saw the neccesity of teaching his church how to discern a genuine work of the Holy Spirit from its demonic replication. Edwards sincerely believed that the latter was possible even in the midst of an authentic revival. The book begins with what Edward's refers to as the via negationis (way of negation) in which he describes activities and events that in and of themselves do not prove or disprove that a genuine work of revival is evident. These included emotionalistic behavior in worship, intense but short-lived zeal, robust discussion about the Christian faith, and the dread of judgement and hell which came on those who heard these Biblical truths proclaimed. Edwards' contention is that it is possible for all these things to be happening outside the context of Holy Spirit revival.
And even today, it must honestly be stated that the most intense and emotional worshipper may in fact be worshipping the worship rather than God. Zeal for service can just as easily be motivated by pity for the less fortunate as it can by a vision for the greatness of God to be known among the nations. Deep theological discussions can, quite frankly, cause more division about the minutae of what some believe to be axiomatic than they cause a sense of awe toward the God who reveals such truth. And many have responded to the Gospel call in a disengenuous fashion that is based on a fear of spending eternity in hell. As a result, they miss real salvation by neglecting to realize that hell is exactly where they deserve to go, and subsequently miss out on the godly, faith-filled sorrow that leads to repentance from sin toward God.
So then what are the bona fide evidences of revival? The answer to this question is an important one of which to take note, because interestingly enough, Edwards' view of a genuine work of the Holy Spirit coincides to a large degree with what many today are claiming that a missional church looks like. And its no small wonder. After all, the work of the church is ultimately that which is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, my contention is that churches should determine how to measure the following factors that Edwards claimed over 250 years ago as vindicating the Spirit's work in their midst:
1. An elevated Esteem for Christ. The chief ministry of the Holy Spirit is to bring people to the Son of God. Therefore, truly missional churches will by nature lift up the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, bodily ressurrection, and literal return of Jesus Christ, and will apply these truths to every area of life. Alluding to 1 John 4:3, Edwards claimed that "antichrists" don't always vehemently oppose Christ, but they certainly take every opportunity to minimize either His person, His work, or both. Churches that desire to fulfill a missional vision must start here. Mark Driscoll has rightly observed that "everything, reformission included, begins and ends with [Jesus]. . . .and as we read of Jesus' involvement in culture, we see a free and radical God whose life is so shocking that it is self-evident that the story is true, because no one in their right mind could make it up." As you seek to discover the level of missional involvement in your congregation, ask youself if the desire to lift up the Son of Man to draw all unto Himself is genuinely at the focal point of your mission and vision.
2. Operations against the Interersts of Satan's Kingdom. The Spirit of God works against sin, and all true revivals check and curb sinful behavior. If you hear a man speaking in tongues in a church service, and then witness him use that same tongue for vain and useless profanity at lunch, you can rest assured that whatever happened in that church service was NOT a genuine work of God! When a pastor blesses God during his message only to curse his family at the dinner table, serious doubts about the work of the Holy Spirit in his life are warranted! During the Awakening of Edwards, bars and brothels were closed, not because of political pressure or city ordinances, but because of the sorrow of the culture over their sin that came as a result of a similar sorrow within the churches. The impact that the Northampton Church had on its surroundings resulted in a remarkably changed culture! With this in view, it must be asked: What is the level of genuine and continuing repentance and brokenness before God in your congregations? And how does this level of repentance affect the surrounding culture? Are the actions within the church causing repentance outside the church?
3. A Greater Regard for the Scriptures. During periods of genuine revival, people realize that the Bible is the Word of God, and this results in their seeking direction from it. Dr. Jerry Cooper, Senior Pastor of the church where my wife and I are members, expresses it simply, yet profoundly when he says to me that his one goal for his flock is "to get everybody to obey the Bible." Edwards believed that if this was ever acheived within the life of a church, it was a sure sign that the Holy Spirit was at work. In the words of Milfred Minetrea, does your church produce disciples who not only know the Bible, but obey it?
4. Discernment between Light and Darkness. Edwards rightly asserted that one cannot be a part of the cause of Christ and despise truth. A sign of a church that is truly committed to carry out His commands is people who love the truth too much, and find the truth too neccesary to avoid it. Yet if this is an essential aspect of what it means to be "missional," many churches are nowhere near the mark. A recent survey of congregations by Doctor of Ministry students at one Southern Baptist seminary revealed that over 40% believe "good people go to heaven, whether or not they have a relationship to Jesus Christ." To judge the missional success of your church, there must be a way to measure whether the congregation is wholly committed to those truths which themselves form the foundation of missional enterprise.
5. A Spirit of Love to God and Man. Edwards believed that during genuine revival, God makes the soul to long after Him, and that this same longing resulted in a Holy Spirit-inspired quelling of contentions among men. In other words, Edwards taught that a genuine love for God spills over into a genuine love for others that is ultimately manifest in service to them. To judge the missional success of your church, you must determine how to measure the level of fellowship between God and the congregation, as well as the level of fellowship between all the members of the congregation. There must also be a way to trace the holistic ministries of the church back to this spirit of love.
As one looks back on these five "markers," it becomes evident that much of what Edwards described as evidence of genuine revival is synonymous with what many missional leaders today see as the marks of a healthy and growing church. Rather than high attendance, the missional church measures the heights to which Christ is lifted in the lives and worship of its members. Rather than reactions to sinful behavior, the missional church measures how effective it has been at squelching such behavior within its own context. Rather than merely counting the number of holistic ministries, the missional church uses the standard set in Deuteronomy 6:4 as a measuring tool for judging their congregation's love for God, and the subsequent concerns of poverty, equality and social justice that emerge from such love.
In changing his church's measuring stick of success, Robert Lewis believes Fellowship Bible Church reconnected "with a long-neglected part of our Christianity: the part that believes that the Great Commandment to 'love your neighbor as yourself' (MAtthew 22:39) is just as essential to the spread of the Gospel and to the sanctification of church members as the Great Commission (MAtthew 28:18-20). Coupled with Edwards' observations on revival, one comes to understand rather quickly that such a shift in thinking, as well as the accompanying impact such a shift has on the church and its community, could only be a genuine work of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore, in seeking a way to measure an effective "missional" church, it is incumbent upon us to listen afresh to the man Samuel Davies called "the greatest divine that America has ever produced."
Charles Colson states that "the western church, much of it drifting, enculturated, and infected with cheap grace, desparately needs to hear Edward's challenge." And the late D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones asserted that "no man is more relevant to the present condition of Christianity than Jonathan Edwards." After my reflections this week, I join these men in calling all who would listen to find the heart of what it means to be missional, not from the latest offering from Emergent or the next Mars Hill conference, but from an antiquated pulpit in Northampton.
If I'm right, then we may finally have the potential for a measuring instrument that doesn't judge everything within evangelicalism mathematically. Particularly in Southern Baptist life, the "denominationalism" of the 1940s and 1950s has created a church culture in which it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge the value of anything that can't be counted. Regardless of the "measuringn sticks" that have been used in our recent history, from the 50s and 60s emphases on the sheer number of baptisms, to the 70s emphasis on programming, to the 80s and 90s emphases on church growth and church health, the "bottom line" that has been observed is always, in the end, "bucks in the plate, bottoms in the seats, and buildings on the land." The result is now the worship of all things numerical, almost without regard for deeper examination of what is happening in the lives of each member of the crowd. Who cares if your church service exceeds 1000 in attendance if the lives of those attending are not deeply and profoundly affected and moved toward a deeper Christlikeness as a result of your ministry?
Yet a new movement is afoot that I believe has the greatest potential to reverse our almost exclusive focus on numbers. Although the movement began with anteceedents to his book, Robert Lewis' The Church of Irresistible Influence really introduced the incarnational church concept to evangelicalism at large. Published in 2000, this book chronicled the experiences of the 2500 member Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock, AR. Lewis states that by any standard, "anyone observing our growing church would probably have characterized it as a great success . . . .but even with all our advances over ten years, we were still little more than a stranger to our community."
Needless to say, a mega-church admitting failure to impact its surroundings grabbed much attention from the wider evangelical world, and Lewis' prescription for Fellowship, described in "guidebook" fashion for others to follow, earned the applause of many across the theological spectrum (Try to find another book that carries the reccomendations of both Thom Rainer and Brian McLaren on the back cover!) I believe the warm reception of this book by the church at large was due in large part to a yearing for a better way to judge "success." Other works, such as Milfred Minetrea's Shaped by God's Heart, and Frost and Hirsh's The Shaping of Things to Come, have further encouraged pastors and church leaders to think, act, and measure success in a "missional" way.
Even the most committed denominational employee would have to admit that while the Annual Church Profile our Southern Baptist churches fill out each year can track all the tangible "vital statistics," it was never designed, and therefore not presently equipped, to measure cultural impact. Yet to focus on the numerical to the point that examining obedience to Matthew 5:13-16 is excluded leaves church leaders with merely a truncated picture of what is really happening in their congregations. My proposal here is for another instrument of sorts that along with the ACP's numerical trackings can detect the level of spiritual growth and cultural impact. But what categories would one choose to measure such things? It is at this juncture that Johnathan Edwards' picture of true revival becomes helpful, as given in his 1741 book The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.
The original context of the book is that of a theological reflection on both the good and bad aspects of what has become known as America's "First Great Awakening." Much of the revival spirit of that era could find its origins in Edwards' pulpit ministry in Northampton, Massachussetts. In the midst of all that was happening, Edwards saw the neccesity of teaching his church how to discern a genuine work of the Holy Spirit from its demonic replication. Edwards sincerely believed that the latter was possible even in the midst of an authentic revival. The book begins with what Edward's refers to as the via negationis (way of negation) in which he describes activities and events that in and of themselves do not prove or disprove that a genuine work of revival is evident. These included emotionalistic behavior in worship, intense but short-lived zeal, robust discussion about the Christian faith, and the dread of judgement and hell which came on those who heard these Biblical truths proclaimed. Edwards' contention is that it is possible for all these things to be happening outside the context of Holy Spirit revival.
And even today, it must honestly be stated that the most intense and emotional worshipper may in fact be worshipping the worship rather than God. Zeal for service can just as easily be motivated by pity for the less fortunate as it can by a vision for the greatness of God to be known among the nations. Deep theological discussions can, quite frankly, cause more division about the minutae of what some believe to be axiomatic than they cause a sense of awe toward the God who reveals such truth. And many have responded to the Gospel call in a disengenuous fashion that is based on a fear of spending eternity in hell. As a result, they miss real salvation by neglecting to realize that hell is exactly where they deserve to go, and subsequently miss out on the godly, faith-filled sorrow that leads to repentance from sin toward God.
So then what are the bona fide evidences of revival? The answer to this question is an important one of which to take note, because interestingly enough, Edwards' view of a genuine work of the Holy Spirit coincides to a large degree with what many today are claiming that a missional church looks like. And its no small wonder. After all, the work of the church is ultimately that which is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, my contention is that churches should determine how to measure the following factors that Edwards claimed over 250 years ago as vindicating the Spirit's work in their midst:
1. An elevated Esteem for Christ. The chief ministry of the Holy Spirit is to bring people to the Son of God. Therefore, truly missional churches will by nature lift up the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, bodily ressurrection, and literal return of Jesus Christ, and will apply these truths to every area of life. Alluding to 1 John 4:3, Edwards claimed that "antichrists" don't always vehemently oppose Christ, but they certainly take every opportunity to minimize either His person, His work, or both. Churches that desire to fulfill a missional vision must start here. Mark Driscoll has rightly observed that "everything, reformission included, begins and ends with [Jesus]. . . .and as we read of Jesus' involvement in culture, we see a free and radical God whose life is so shocking that it is self-evident that the story is true, because no one in their right mind could make it up." As you seek to discover the level of missional involvement in your congregation, ask youself if the desire to lift up the Son of Man to draw all unto Himself is genuinely at the focal point of your mission and vision.
2. Operations against the Interersts of Satan's Kingdom. The Spirit of God works against sin, and all true revivals check and curb sinful behavior. If you hear a man speaking in tongues in a church service, and then witness him use that same tongue for vain and useless profanity at lunch, you can rest assured that whatever happened in that church service was NOT a genuine work of God! When a pastor blesses God during his message only to curse his family at the dinner table, serious doubts about the work of the Holy Spirit in his life are warranted! During the Awakening of Edwards, bars and brothels were closed, not because of political pressure or city ordinances, but because of the sorrow of the culture over their sin that came as a result of a similar sorrow within the churches. The impact that the Northampton Church had on its surroundings resulted in a remarkably changed culture! With this in view, it must be asked: What is the level of genuine and continuing repentance and brokenness before God in your congregations? And how does this level of repentance affect the surrounding culture? Are the actions within the church causing repentance outside the church?
3. A Greater Regard for the Scriptures. During periods of genuine revival, people realize that the Bible is the Word of God, and this results in their seeking direction from it. Dr. Jerry Cooper, Senior Pastor of the church where my wife and I are members, expresses it simply, yet profoundly when he says to me that his one goal for his flock is "to get everybody to obey the Bible." Edwards believed that if this was ever acheived within the life of a church, it was a sure sign that the Holy Spirit was at work. In the words of Milfred Minetrea, does your church produce disciples who not only know the Bible, but obey it?
4. Discernment between Light and Darkness. Edwards rightly asserted that one cannot be a part of the cause of Christ and despise truth. A sign of a church that is truly committed to carry out His commands is people who love the truth too much, and find the truth too neccesary to avoid it. Yet if this is an essential aspect of what it means to be "missional," many churches are nowhere near the mark. A recent survey of congregations by Doctor of Ministry students at one Southern Baptist seminary revealed that over 40% believe "good people go to heaven, whether or not they have a relationship to Jesus Christ." To judge the missional success of your church, there must be a way to measure whether the congregation is wholly committed to those truths which themselves form the foundation of missional enterprise.
5. A Spirit of Love to God and Man. Edwards believed that during genuine revival, God makes the soul to long after Him, and that this same longing resulted in a Holy Spirit-inspired quelling of contentions among men. In other words, Edwards taught that a genuine love for God spills over into a genuine love for others that is ultimately manifest in service to them. To judge the missional success of your church, you must determine how to measure the level of fellowship between God and the congregation, as well as the level of fellowship between all the members of the congregation. There must also be a way to trace the holistic ministries of the church back to this spirit of love.
As one looks back on these five "markers," it becomes evident that much of what Edwards described as evidence of genuine revival is synonymous with what many missional leaders today see as the marks of a healthy and growing church. Rather than high attendance, the missional church measures the heights to which Christ is lifted in the lives and worship of its members. Rather than reactions to sinful behavior, the missional church measures how effective it has been at squelching such behavior within its own context. Rather than merely counting the number of holistic ministries, the missional church uses the standard set in Deuteronomy 6:4 as a measuring tool for judging their congregation's love for God, and the subsequent concerns of poverty, equality and social justice that emerge from such love.
In changing his church's measuring stick of success, Robert Lewis believes Fellowship Bible Church reconnected "with a long-neglected part of our Christianity: the part that believes that the Great Commandment to 'love your neighbor as yourself' (MAtthew 22:39) is just as essential to the spread of the Gospel and to the sanctification of church members as the Great Commission (MAtthew 28:18-20). Coupled with Edwards' observations on revival, one comes to understand rather quickly that such a shift in thinking, as well as the accompanying impact such a shift has on the church and its community, could only be a genuine work of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore, in seeking a way to measure an effective "missional" church, it is incumbent upon us to listen afresh to the man Samuel Davies called "the greatest divine that America has ever produced."
Charles Colson states that "the western church, much of it drifting, enculturated, and infected with cheap grace, desparately needs to hear Edward's challenge." And the late D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones asserted that "no man is more relevant to the present condition of Christianity than Jonathan Edwards." After my reflections this week, I join these men in calling all who would listen to find the heart of what it means to be missional, not from the latest offering from Emergent or the next Mars Hill conference, but from an antiquated pulpit in Northampton.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
The Intolerance of the "New Tolerance"
On the surface, the term "tolerance" seems to suggest a healthy dose of placidity. Most who hear it immediately think of a certain broad-mindedness, forebearance, and some would even go so far as to see this term as synonymous with benevolence and compassion. But for John Moeller, an evangelical follower of Jesus and chaplain for the Washington Nationals baseball franchise, the word "tolerance" is associated with a mor ominous concept: termination.
Last month, the the new D.C. based team suspended the volunteer chaplain, who is also employed as an FBI agent. Moeller was working under the auspices of Baseball Chapel, an evangelical group that provides unpaid Christian ministers to be available for spiritual guidance to professional baseball players. During the course of his service he found himself talking with outfielder Ryan Church about an ex-girlfriend who follows a religious faith that does not profess Jesus as Savior and Lord. Speaking of all non-Christians, Church wanted to know the truth...what did the Bible say happens to such people? "Are they doomed," he asked? His chaplain, backed by Scriptural teaching, merely gave an affirming nod.
A subsequent Washington Post article citing the above incident via an interview with Church was cause enough, in the mind of team president Tony Tavares, to suspend Moeller indefinitely and force an apology from his outfielder. It was a complaint by Rabbi Shmuel Hertzfeld, leader of an Orthodox Jewish congregation in the nation's capital, that resulted in this action. Urging the Nationals to distance themselves from the chaplain, Rabbi Hertzfeld, in vitriolic fashion, charged that "the locker room of the Nationals is being used to preach hatred." Welcome to the "new tolerance"
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was actually an "old" tolerance. In this by-gone age, the term "tolerance" was understood to be the concept that kept adherents of competing faiths from seeking to harm each other, and it fostered mutual respect for each one's right to believe, preach, and worship as one chose. The American ideal that undergirded this old tolerance was the understanding that "forced conversion," in the end, was no conversion at all. Bible-believing Christians both accept and embrace such a view of tolerance. American soldiers have shed blood on battlefields all over the world to ensure that the Muslim has the right to be a Muslim, a Jew has a right to be a Jew, a Hindu has a right to be a Hindu, and a Christian a right to be a Christian. Belief in this kind of tolerance does not neccesitate believing that each of these respective faiths has equal validity. It simply requires believing in the free moral agency of human beings, and respecting the choices they make by ensuring that they can worship as they choose, free of persecution or aggression.
But this older understanding has been trumped by a new notion that no religious expression or idea should ever claim superiority over another. Not only should one respect his neighbors "right to be wrong" with regard to religious faith, but the very idea that one's neighbor could be wrong is seen as "intolerant," arrogant, and even dangerous! The end result of this kind of thinking is not good for followers of Jesus. Those who insist on believing and proclaiming an exclusive Jesus will discover quickly that the new tolerance isn't so tolerant after all!
Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, is quick to point out that this new tolerance is in itself an incipient form of exclusivism that in the end is more intolerant than the Christian faith it seeks to discredit. Keller states that the common objection to the exclusivity of Jesus is that no one should insist that their "god" is any better than any other "god" because all religions are equally valid. Keller responds by stating that those who make such naive assumptions are "assuming a very particular view of God and you are pushing it as better than the rest . . .To say 'all religions are equally valid' is itself a very white, Western view based in the European Enlightenment's idea of knowlege and values. Why should that view be privileged over anyone else's?" Hmmmm, I bet Tony Tavares hasn't thought about that one!
Add to this that if the new tolerance is truly going to have room enough for Christ-followers, it must refuse to silence the voices of exclusivity. Commenting on Moeller's firing, Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, saliently observed that "the worst this chaplian could be convicted of is ascribing to orthodox Christian faith, which is what I think you would want from a Christian chaplain." Regrettably, not all denominational leaders feel this way. Christopher Leighton, a Presbyterian minister who heads Baltimore Maryland's Institute for Christian and Jewish studies, says that although one must admit that the dominant tradition of Christianity was marked by exclusivity, many churches "have moved toward the view that God has a 'continuing covenant' with the Jews. . .this [denouncing the chaplain] is the work that really belonged to other Christians, to say this is an unacceptable understanding of our faith."
So, to say that those who die outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ spend eternity separated from God is now an "unacceptable understanding" of our faith?! Such a suggestion means that Jesus demonstrated a colossal ignorance of the faith He Himself founded! And what of the Apostle Paul, who in Acts 13 after being rejected in the synagogue said to his Jewish brothers "Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we are turning to the Gentiles." (13:46 ESV) So Paul taught that if you reject Jesus, you don't have eternal life, even if you are a Jew worshipping in a synagogue? If he had only heeded the wisdom of Christopher Leighton! Had he only understood that such teaching was "unacceptable."
Contrary to what Leighton and others like Rabbi Hurtzfeld I'm sure would contend, such belief rightly applied does not lead to "hatred." As an Evangelical, I understand the Hebraic roots of my faith. I would not have a Savior were it not for the descendants of Abraham! At the same time, my Bible teaches me that they who literally delivered my Messiah into the world themselves have no Messiah. And it is love, not hate, that compels me to tell them about Him, and to pray for the hastening of the mass-conversion of Jewish people that I believe the Bible predicts will come at the end of the age!
Not long ago, someone asked me "do you believe that because I'm ______ (the particular faith doesn' t matter) that I am doomed to an eternity of God's wrath?" But in the end, it really is irrelevant what I think about this individual, or what he thinks about me. The crucial issue is whether our respective beliefs are consistent with the revealed truth of God. So to those of you reading who would be tempted to accuse me of "intolerance" or a "judgemental attitude," let me lay your minds to rest by reminding you that ultimately, it isn't up to me who gets into heaven. But if we want to get there, and if we want to take others with us, we had better jettison this nonsensical notion of "tolerance" and pay close attention to the One who does decide such things!
John Hick, an avowed "pluralist," actually frames this debate properly. In his essay on salvation in a pluralistic world, he describes his own pilgrammage from exclusivism to pluralism. This road, he claims, had many stops in which key Christian doctrines, from the inerrancy of the Bible to the virgin birth to the atonement to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, were systematically rejected. Hick openly admits that in order to arrive at a view consistent with the "new tolerance," you must effectively gut the Apostolic witness of all its major pillars. On the other hand, Hick to this day continues to admit the following:
"For if Jesus was literally God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, so that the Christian religion was founded by a God-on-earth person, it is then very hard to escape from the fact that all mankind must be converted to the Christian faith."
This was a conclusion that, thankfully, John Moeller could not escape. And for that matter, neither can I!
Last month, the the new D.C. based team suspended the volunteer chaplain, who is also employed as an FBI agent. Moeller was working under the auspices of Baseball Chapel, an evangelical group that provides unpaid Christian ministers to be available for spiritual guidance to professional baseball players. During the course of his service he found himself talking with outfielder Ryan Church about an ex-girlfriend who follows a religious faith that does not profess Jesus as Savior and Lord. Speaking of all non-Christians, Church wanted to know the truth...what did the Bible say happens to such people? "Are they doomed," he asked? His chaplain, backed by Scriptural teaching, merely gave an affirming nod.
A subsequent Washington Post article citing the above incident via an interview with Church was cause enough, in the mind of team president Tony Tavares, to suspend Moeller indefinitely and force an apology from his outfielder. It was a complaint by Rabbi Shmuel Hertzfeld, leader of an Orthodox Jewish congregation in the nation's capital, that resulted in this action. Urging the Nationals to distance themselves from the chaplain, Rabbi Hertzfeld, in vitriolic fashion, charged that "the locker room of the Nationals is being used to preach hatred." Welcome to the "new tolerance"
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was actually an "old" tolerance. In this by-gone age, the term "tolerance" was understood to be the concept that kept adherents of competing faiths from seeking to harm each other, and it fostered mutual respect for each one's right to believe, preach, and worship as one chose. The American ideal that undergirded this old tolerance was the understanding that "forced conversion," in the end, was no conversion at all. Bible-believing Christians both accept and embrace such a view of tolerance. American soldiers have shed blood on battlefields all over the world to ensure that the Muslim has the right to be a Muslim, a Jew has a right to be a Jew, a Hindu has a right to be a Hindu, and a Christian a right to be a Christian. Belief in this kind of tolerance does not neccesitate believing that each of these respective faiths has equal validity. It simply requires believing in the free moral agency of human beings, and respecting the choices they make by ensuring that they can worship as they choose, free of persecution or aggression.
But this older understanding has been trumped by a new notion that no religious expression or idea should ever claim superiority over another. Not only should one respect his neighbors "right to be wrong" with regard to religious faith, but the very idea that one's neighbor could be wrong is seen as "intolerant," arrogant, and even dangerous! The end result of this kind of thinking is not good for followers of Jesus. Those who insist on believing and proclaiming an exclusive Jesus will discover quickly that the new tolerance isn't so tolerant after all!
Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, is quick to point out that this new tolerance is in itself an incipient form of exclusivism that in the end is more intolerant than the Christian faith it seeks to discredit. Keller states that the common objection to the exclusivity of Jesus is that no one should insist that their "god" is any better than any other "god" because all religions are equally valid. Keller responds by stating that those who make such naive assumptions are "assuming a very particular view of God and you are pushing it as better than the rest . . .To say 'all religions are equally valid' is itself a very white, Western view based in the European Enlightenment's idea of knowlege and values. Why should that view be privileged over anyone else's?" Hmmmm, I bet Tony Tavares hasn't thought about that one!
Add to this that if the new tolerance is truly going to have room enough for Christ-followers, it must refuse to silence the voices of exclusivity. Commenting on Moeller's firing, Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, saliently observed that "the worst this chaplian could be convicted of is ascribing to orthodox Christian faith, which is what I think you would want from a Christian chaplain." Regrettably, not all denominational leaders feel this way. Christopher Leighton, a Presbyterian minister who heads Baltimore Maryland's Institute for Christian and Jewish studies, says that although one must admit that the dominant tradition of Christianity was marked by exclusivity, many churches "have moved toward the view that God has a 'continuing covenant' with the Jews. . .this [denouncing the chaplain] is the work that really belonged to other Christians, to say this is an unacceptable understanding of our faith."
So, to say that those who die outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ spend eternity separated from God is now an "unacceptable understanding" of our faith?! Such a suggestion means that Jesus demonstrated a colossal ignorance of the faith He Himself founded! And what of the Apostle Paul, who in Acts 13 after being rejected in the synagogue said to his Jewish brothers "Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we are turning to the Gentiles." (13:46 ESV) So Paul taught that if you reject Jesus, you don't have eternal life, even if you are a Jew worshipping in a synagogue? If he had only heeded the wisdom of Christopher Leighton! Had he only understood that such teaching was "unacceptable."
Contrary to what Leighton and others like Rabbi Hurtzfeld I'm sure would contend, such belief rightly applied does not lead to "hatred." As an Evangelical, I understand the Hebraic roots of my faith. I would not have a Savior were it not for the descendants of Abraham! At the same time, my Bible teaches me that they who literally delivered my Messiah into the world themselves have no Messiah. And it is love, not hate, that compels me to tell them about Him, and to pray for the hastening of the mass-conversion of Jewish people that I believe the Bible predicts will come at the end of the age!
Not long ago, someone asked me "do you believe that because I'm ______ (the particular faith doesn' t matter) that I am doomed to an eternity of God's wrath?" But in the end, it really is irrelevant what I think about this individual, or what he thinks about me. The crucial issue is whether our respective beliefs are consistent with the revealed truth of God. So to those of you reading who would be tempted to accuse me of "intolerance" or a "judgemental attitude," let me lay your minds to rest by reminding you that ultimately, it isn't up to me who gets into heaven. But if we want to get there, and if we want to take others with us, we had better jettison this nonsensical notion of "tolerance" and pay close attention to the One who does decide such things!
John Hick, an avowed "pluralist," actually frames this debate properly. In his essay on salvation in a pluralistic world, he describes his own pilgrammage from exclusivism to pluralism. This road, he claims, had many stops in which key Christian doctrines, from the inerrancy of the Bible to the virgin birth to the atonement to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, were systematically rejected. Hick openly admits that in order to arrive at a view consistent with the "new tolerance," you must effectively gut the Apostolic witness of all its major pillars. On the other hand, Hick to this day continues to admit the following:
"For if Jesus was literally God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, so that the Christian religion was founded by a God-on-earth person, it is then very hard to escape from the fact that all mankind must be converted to the Christian faith."
This was a conclusion that, thankfully, John Moeller could not escape. And for that matter, neither can I!
Saturday, October 15, 2005
From Stare Decisis to Sola Scriptura: How to Implement Belief in Textual Authority
For newly installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts, liberal concern in the Senate centered around his views on abortion and the right to privacy. Conservative concerns about newest Bush nominee Harriet Miers involve the opposite side of those same issues, among others. But what both groups fail to realize is this: If both new justices execute their respective offices within consitutional parameters, their personal views are irrelevant. What really matters is the authorial intent of the constitution itself. Similarly, Evangelical Christians who desire to avoid similar internal power struggles must put into practice what we have long professed in our confessions: That the heart of the matter is the authorial intent of the Bible, not the most popular understanding at the time.
But this view presupposes a particular view of texts like the Bible and the constitution: namely, that the authority lies within the text itself, not with the interpreters of the text! Unfortunately, the postmodern hermaneutical shift from "text" to "interpretation" has turned this view on its head, and even worse, the scope of this shift in our culture is not limited to politics. From the Constitution to the Bible, it has found its way into the interprative views of even the most conservative churches! And the consequences of such ideology are always the jettisoning of any real final authority and the subsequent advent of raw power struggles. Such a move tenders terrible results in a nation, and even more devastating consequences in God's church!
As little as five years ago (think the 2000 election), the dichotomy between the belief in "textual authority" vs. belief in "interpretive authority" was seen in much clearer contrast. One presidential candidate promised to appoint judges whose judicial philosophy was "strict constructionism." This school of thought believes that the final legal authority of the United States is vested in the text of the constitution itself (what a novel idea!) and therefore the judicial role is to arrive at a correct interpretation by seeking out the original intent of the document as expressed by the authors. This view was contrasted with Al Gore's vision of the constitution as a "living, breathing document," meaning that in the end, the actual words of the text mean nothing until meaning is injected into them by the Supreme Court, therefore giving carte blanche judicial authority to the justices who interpret the text, rather than the text itself. The result of this philosophy is expressed in the popular phrase "legislating from the bench." The constructionist view believed that a change in the constitution was the responsibility of the legislative branch. The latter view argued that change can come from the declaration of a majority of nine justices without the consent of the people for whom the constitution was written. As Justice Antonin Scalia eloquently stated at a Chapman University address early this fall, "Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a "moderate" interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" In short, the argument five years ago was over whether the final authority belonged to text, or interpreter.
Since the 2000 election, these two interpretive understandings have, regrettably, become less clear, as both conservatives and liberals simply struggle for control of what has become recognized as possibly the least accountable branch of our government. Liberals want justices who will rule in favor of the sound constitutionality of homosexual marriage, despite the fact that the constitution as written guarantees no such right. They also want justices to continue to pretend that the right of a mother to murder her unborn child is somehow protected in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, conservatives want justices who will take the Bill of Rights seriously . . . . that is, until our safety is on the line, in which case, they want conservative justices to bend those rights via their approval of the Patriot Act, forgetting Benjamin Franklin's warning that "those who desire safety more than freedom deserve neither safety nor freedom." And the end result of this struggle is, well, more struggle! Our divided nation is now seeing the results of "interpretive authority." If the text's authority is subservient to those who interpret it, then the final authority is never determined by actual law, but rather, by who has the most power! Where there is a vaccum of textual authority, that vaccum will be filled by a raw struggle for power!
But this political dynamic has a parallel in church life. For years, even in "conservative" churches, Bible studies have been held which centered around the question "What does this text mean to you?" Subconsciously, Evangelicals in general, and Southern Baptists in particular have usurped the authority of the Scriptural text with the artificially imposed authority of the interpreter. The result, regrettably, is that the "correct" interpretation is now recognized as that held by the most powerful, or the most charismatic, rather than which most accurately represents the authorial intent of the text. At the denominational level, I think it is safe to say that recent denominational debates over Calvinism, Ecclesiology, Evangelism, Worship, Eschatology, and even the newest debate over the consumption of beverage alcohol have been guided less by the appeal to Scriptural authority and more by the wielding of denominational power and charismatic personality. And what makes this observation even more saddening is that this kind of "power struggle" comes on the heels of the "conservative resurgence" that was intended to take us "back to the Bible" for everything.
That battle, by the way, was absolutely neccesary as far as I am concerned! Prior to conservative efforts toward a "sharp right turn," Southern Baptists were headed for a fate much like that which other mainline denominations are now seeing in their own ranks. Our reticence years ago to speak directly from the Scriptural text to address issues like abortion, homosexuality, marriage and family issues, and the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ sent an "unclear sound" to the culture God had called us to reach. For those who desired clarity and conviction, the "inerrancy" banner provided a theological framework wherein we could preach and teach with the conviction that the words upon which we expounded were those of God Himself! My mentors in ministry taught me that Biblical inerrancy, in the end, meant that when I opened up my Bible to address God's people, I could do so with absolute confidence that God had spoken. For me (and I suspect, for many other Southern Baptists) inerrancy was not a political term used to gain control of the SBC "machine." It was, and is, a theological term which forms the basis, not only for what I believe, but for how I interpret the text in which I place my belief. Unfortunately, this term has been used politically, and may still be used in this way to accomplish political denominational ends. In the end, inerrancy (along with its hermaneutical cousin, the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation) was intended to point readers back to the text as the final authority (can you say "strict constructionism"?). Yet what has resulted is much akin to the above-described Supreme Court fiasco, and a subsequent struggle for power.
In his September 26 weblog, Tom Ascol notes that when SBC leadership draft policies, resolutions, or statements, there is an unspoken expectation that anyone who is "conservative" will be "lock-in-step" behind such actions. And if anyone questions or expresses doubt, the response is not to look to the text of Scripture, but rather to paint someone as less than conservative, or to suggest that any objectors do not "trust" SBC leadership, or that objectors are being "arrogant" in their principled opposition to a given policy. Says Ascol, "Now that conservatives are in charge, the theological commitments have changed, but the method of operating seems interchangeable with the previous regime. "
Ascol speaks here from experience. I remember vividly his objection to a change in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which dealt with the SBC view of Sunday. Was it the Lord's Day, or was it to be observed as the "Christian Sabbath?" Ascol's view was closer to the latter, and as a result, he objected to the proposed change in the statement which moved Southern Baptists confessionally toward a "Lord's Day" view of Sunday. I on the other hand, agreed in principal with the SBC decision on the view of Sunday, yet still recognized and respected Ascol's view, as well as his right to object. But some denominational leadership apparently did not take his criticism well. Ascol credits such offense to bureaucratic arrogance, in which any objection "is met with an almost incredulous disappointment that the actions of 'conservatives' would be questioned at all. 'We are inerrantists! You can trust us. We have 'Empowering Kingdom Growth.' We are good guys. Why are you questioning us?'"
The issue at hand then, is how to get past the Bureaucracy so that the practical outcome of Biblical inerrancy can be realized. It isn't conservative theology that stifles wholesome debate and honest and open dissagreement and dialogue. Rather, it is denominational bureaucracy that is neither liberal nor conservative, but simply seeks to retain power. But as Timothy George has saliently observed, "The exchange of one set of bureaucrats for another doth not a reformation make."
So then, if the above suspicions are true, how will such stifling bureaucracy be overcome? And the answer lies in the worthy, two-decade long battle that conservatives fought and won. When moderates controlled the SBC, the Bible was still inerrant. Conservative political victory did not make the Bible inerrant, but simply brought our denomination into conformity with the metaphysical reality of such a doctrine. Ultimately, the resurgence was about asserting what was already reality: that the final authority in all matters of faith and practice is indeed the Word of God. And that fact doesn't change, regardless of who is in power!
Speaking at a recent forum at American University, Justice Scalia suggested the following: "I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be ammended. If that's what it says, that's what it says." Following his advice here results in the end of the struggle for power, and the beginning of a common dedication toward discovering the intended meaning of the Constitutional text. Similarly, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, when "fleshed out," leads to the same conclusion. The meaning of the Bible is not dependent on what the most charismatic or powerful SBC leader has to say about it, but rather what the text actually says, whether or not we are comfortable with it. This is not to say that there won't be honest disagreements about whether good Southern Baptists can drink socially, or whether the rapture occurs prior to or subsequent to the tribulation. It does however, mean that such honest dissagreements can be discussed as both sides humbly submit to the text of God's Word rather than one side seeking to seize power over the other. When this happens, we will have realized the practical outcome of Inerrancy: My personal opinions are irrelevant, as are those of every other pastor, missionary and theologian in Southern Baptist life. What really matters is the authorial intent of the text.
The bottom-line question that must be asked: Was the "conservative resurgence" really about the Bible, or was it merely about power? At present, I refuse to believe the latter, and pray that the future direction of the SBC will prove me right!
But this view presupposes a particular view of texts like the Bible and the constitution: namely, that the authority lies within the text itself, not with the interpreters of the text! Unfortunately, the postmodern hermaneutical shift from "text" to "interpretation" has turned this view on its head, and even worse, the scope of this shift in our culture is not limited to politics. From the Constitution to the Bible, it has found its way into the interprative views of even the most conservative churches! And the consequences of such ideology are always the jettisoning of any real final authority and the subsequent advent of raw power struggles. Such a move tenders terrible results in a nation, and even more devastating consequences in God's church!
As little as five years ago (think the 2000 election), the dichotomy between the belief in "textual authority" vs. belief in "interpretive authority" was seen in much clearer contrast. One presidential candidate promised to appoint judges whose judicial philosophy was "strict constructionism." This school of thought believes that the final legal authority of the United States is vested in the text of the constitution itself (what a novel idea!) and therefore the judicial role is to arrive at a correct interpretation by seeking out the original intent of the document as expressed by the authors. This view was contrasted with Al Gore's vision of the constitution as a "living, breathing document," meaning that in the end, the actual words of the text mean nothing until meaning is injected into them by the Supreme Court, therefore giving carte blanche judicial authority to the justices who interpret the text, rather than the text itself. The result of this philosophy is expressed in the popular phrase "legislating from the bench." The constructionist view believed that a change in the constitution was the responsibility of the legislative branch. The latter view argued that change can come from the declaration of a majority of nine justices without the consent of the people for whom the constitution was written. As Justice Antonin Scalia eloquently stated at a Chapman University address early this fall, "Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a "moderate" interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" In short, the argument five years ago was over whether the final authority belonged to text, or interpreter.
Since the 2000 election, these two interpretive understandings have, regrettably, become less clear, as both conservatives and liberals simply struggle for control of what has become recognized as possibly the least accountable branch of our government. Liberals want justices who will rule in favor of the sound constitutionality of homosexual marriage, despite the fact that the constitution as written guarantees no such right. They also want justices to continue to pretend that the right of a mother to murder her unborn child is somehow protected in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, conservatives want justices who will take the Bill of Rights seriously . . . . that is, until our safety is on the line, in which case, they want conservative justices to bend those rights via their approval of the Patriot Act, forgetting Benjamin Franklin's warning that "those who desire safety more than freedom deserve neither safety nor freedom." And the end result of this struggle is, well, more struggle! Our divided nation is now seeing the results of "interpretive authority." If the text's authority is subservient to those who interpret it, then the final authority is never determined by actual law, but rather, by who has the most power! Where there is a vaccum of textual authority, that vaccum will be filled by a raw struggle for power!
But this political dynamic has a parallel in church life. For years, even in "conservative" churches, Bible studies have been held which centered around the question "What does this text mean to you?" Subconsciously, Evangelicals in general, and Southern Baptists in particular have usurped the authority of the Scriptural text with the artificially imposed authority of the interpreter. The result, regrettably, is that the "correct" interpretation is now recognized as that held by the most powerful, or the most charismatic, rather than which most accurately represents the authorial intent of the text. At the denominational level, I think it is safe to say that recent denominational debates over Calvinism, Ecclesiology, Evangelism, Worship, Eschatology, and even the newest debate over the consumption of beverage alcohol have been guided less by the appeal to Scriptural authority and more by the wielding of denominational power and charismatic personality. And what makes this observation even more saddening is that this kind of "power struggle" comes on the heels of the "conservative resurgence" that was intended to take us "back to the Bible" for everything.
That battle, by the way, was absolutely neccesary as far as I am concerned! Prior to conservative efforts toward a "sharp right turn," Southern Baptists were headed for a fate much like that which other mainline denominations are now seeing in their own ranks. Our reticence years ago to speak directly from the Scriptural text to address issues like abortion, homosexuality, marriage and family issues, and the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ sent an "unclear sound" to the culture God had called us to reach. For those who desired clarity and conviction, the "inerrancy" banner provided a theological framework wherein we could preach and teach with the conviction that the words upon which we expounded were those of God Himself! My mentors in ministry taught me that Biblical inerrancy, in the end, meant that when I opened up my Bible to address God's people, I could do so with absolute confidence that God had spoken. For me (and I suspect, for many other Southern Baptists) inerrancy was not a political term used to gain control of the SBC "machine." It was, and is, a theological term which forms the basis, not only for what I believe, but for how I interpret the text in which I place my belief. Unfortunately, this term has been used politically, and may still be used in this way to accomplish political denominational ends. In the end, inerrancy (along with its hermaneutical cousin, the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation) was intended to point readers back to the text as the final authority (can you say "strict constructionism"?). Yet what has resulted is much akin to the above-described Supreme Court fiasco, and a subsequent struggle for power.
In his September 26 weblog, Tom Ascol notes that when SBC leadership draft policies, resolutions, or statements, there is an unspoken expectation that anyone who is "conservative" will be "lock-in-step" behind such actions. And if anyone questions or expresses doubt, the response is not to look to the text of Scripture, but rather to paint someone as less than conservative, or to suggest that any objectors do not "trust" SBC leadership, or that objectors are being "arrogant" in their principled opposition to a given policy. Says Ascol, "Now that conservatives are in charge, the theological commitments have changed, but the method of operating seems interchangeable with the previous regime. "
Ascol speaks here from experience. I remember vividly his objection to a change in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which dealt with the SBC view of Sunday. Was it the Lord's Day, or was it to be observed as the "Christian Sabbath?" Ascol's view was closer to the latter, and as a result, he objected to the proposed change in the statement which moved Southern Baptists confessionally toward a "Lord's Day" view of Sunday. I on the other hand, agreed in principal with the SBC decision on the view of Sunday, yet still recognized and respected Ascol's view, as well as his right to object. But some denominational leadership apparently did not take his criticism well. Ascol credits such offense to bureaucratic arrogance, in which any objection "is met with an almost incredulous disappointment that the actions of 'conservatives' would be questioned at all. 'We are inerrantists! You can trust us. We have 'Empowering Kingdom Growth.' We are good guys. Why are you questioning us?'"
The issue at hand then, is how to get past the Bureaucracy so that the practical outcome of Biblical inerrancy can be realized. It isn't conservative theology that stifles wholesome debate and honest and open dissagreement and dialogue. Rather, it is denominational bureaucracy that is neither liberal nor conservative, but simply seeks to retain power. But as Timothy George has saliently observed, "The exchange of one set of bureaucrats for another doth not a reformation make."
So then, if the above suspicions are true, how will such stifling bureaucracy be overcome? And the answer lies in the worthy, two-decade long battle that conservatives fought and won. When moderates controlled the SBC, the Bible was still inerrant. Conservative political victory did not make the Bible inerrant, but simply brought our denomination into conformity with the metaphysical reality of such a doctrine. Ultimately, the resurgence was about asserting what was already reality: that the final authority in all matters of faith and practice is indeed the Word of God. And that fact doesn't change, regardless of who is in power!
Speaking at a recent forum at American University, Justice Scalia suggested the following: "I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be ammended. If that's what it says, that's what it says." Following his advice here results in the end of the struggle for power, and the beginning of a common dedication toward discovering the intended meaning of the Constitutional text. Similarly, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, when "fleshed out," leads to the same conclusion. The meaning of the Bible is not dependent on what the most charismatic or powerful SBC leader has to say about it, but rather what the text actually says, whether or not we are comfortable with it. This is not to say that there won't be honest disagreements about whether good Southern Baptists can drink socially, or whether the rapture occurs prior to or subsequent to the tribulation. It does however, mean that such honest dissagreements can be discussed as both sides humbly submit to the text of God's Word rather than one side seeking to seize power over the other. When this happens, we will have realized the practical outcome of Inerrancy: My personal opinions are irrelevant, as are those of every other pastor, missionary and theologian in Southern Baptist life. What really matters is the authorial intent of the text.
The bottom-line question that must be asked: Was the "conservative resurgence" really about the Bible, or was it merely about power? At present, I refuse to believe the latter, and pray that the future direction of the SBC will prove me right!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)