"Labeling" has become an artform in western life, to the extent that most in our culture, including many within the church, care more about certain words than we care about how those words are defined. "Liberal" "Conservative" "Calvinist" "Dispensationalist" "Charismatic" and other terms such as these are used with regularity, often without regard for their etymological or historical origins, or for that matter, their correct definitions.
One such compound term seems to be getting quite a bit of mileage these days: "Emerging Evangelical." And the problem is the same: most have no idea what either of these words mean.
I must admit two things of myself at the outset. First of all, I consider myself, although not an authority on the subject, to be a “fellow-journeyman” with others among the movement otherwise known as the “emerging church.” I believe this movement is helping all of Christendom to make an appropriate course-correction between the wrongly-separated categories of right doctrine and right practice--the whole proclamation of Scripture and the holistic incarnation of the Gospel through the promotion of social justice. I believe that many, under the guise of “conservative” theology, have circumvented the Scriptural call to mission in lieu of a right-wing agenda they intend to implement in a Zealotistic crusade for power, which they wrongly identify as the accomplishment of the Great Commission. And I believe that the central values of the emerging church counter this hunger for power with the call to follow a missional path of suffering and service that Jesus commands His followers to walk. Consequently, I am optimistic about much that I see and hear in this movement.
Conversely, I am also humbly, but unapologetically, Evangelical I believe that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 assumes the inerrancy of the autographic text of Scripture, and that this inerrancy by default commends acceptance of the veracity of the creation account, the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments, and subsequently, the authority of the Bible over every area of our lives, including both our thoughts, and our actions. I believe these authoritative Scriptures further declare the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only path to fellowship with God, abundant life, and a secure eternity. I believe in a literal hell that is both horrifying and eternal, and that those who reject the message of the Gospel will be its occupants in a glorious-yet-sorrowful display of God’s infinite justice. I believe Scriptural teaching on the imago dei declares abortion to be the unequivocal murder of one created in God’s image. I believe these random statements (among many others) are absolute because Scripture is absolute, and Scripture is absolute because the God who inspired Scripture is absolute. And I believe all of these conclusions come by allowing Scripture to speak for itself, via the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation.
This is my understanding of what it means to be an "Emerging Evangelical," yet after reading these words, I am sure there are many who identify themselves as evangelical, as well as many who associate with the emerging church, who would claim that I am neither. In short, while the church uses a common vocabulary, there are many dictionaries!
This issue has been most recently brought to the forefront, probably unintentionally so, by Don Carson, in his latest book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. On the one hand, Carson's assessment of the emerging "conversation" is an accurate one. Though I have read many strong critiques of his work, I maintain that in the end, many associated with the emerging church hold to an ultimately incoherent theology that is sloppy at best, and heretical at worst. They are angry at Carson because he has called them on this point. Nevertheless, while Carson is accurate in his descriptions of these inaccuracies, he wrongly paints with a very broad brush, failing for example, to deal with much of anything in this movement outside of Emergent.
In response to Carson's work, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch of the Forge Mission Training Network have written an articulate position paper that outlines the different approaches taken by Emergent and Forge respectively. In addressing this concern, Frost and Hirsch correctly state that Carson has inadvertently lumped everyone together. "While we accept that Carson's assessment of McLaren and Chalke has some validity, we believe that there are multiple 'emerging' approaches to mission-in-the-west that have unfortunantely been unfairly tarred by the same brush that Don Carson applies to Emergent." These Austrailian missiologists are careful to state that while this was not Carson's intent, it was nonetheless the result. The reason? Frost and Hirsch contend that "many people who have read his book seem to be ignorant of the various permutations of the so-called emerging or missional church. This has become obvious as several articles now quote Becoming Conversant when attacking all new missional expressions of church."
The bottom line so far: It seems that while everyone uses the term "emerging," few seem to agree on what it means!
But the term "evangelical" has also had an elusive definition throughout its history. First used in the early 20th century as a way of distancing the "Carl F.H. Henry" Fundamentalists from more radical proponents of Fundamentalism, the term was basically used of believers who wanted to unite around five "fundamentals" they considered essential and foundational for the preaching of an authentic Christian Gospel: The inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, the bodily ressurection of Jesus, and the literal second coming of Jesus. Within a few short decades however, the definition of this term had become so nebulous that entire collegiate lecture series' and symposiums were dedicated to the discussion of its true meaning. Vernon Grounds, in a 1956 article written for Eternity magazine, strongly asserted the fundamentals as essential in the makeup of anyone identifying as a part of Evangelicalism. "This then, is the nature of Protestant orthodoxy, a twentieth century continuation of the historic faith which springs from a bloody cross and an empty tomb, a Protestant against religious deviants from the Gospel of redemption, a witness to the truth and grace of God in Jesus Christ." And in 1971, Martyn Lloyd-Jones delivered a series of three addresses that were eventually published in book form with the title What is an Evangelical? The struggle for a uniform definition of this term continues today, as inclusivists like Clark Pinnock and open-theists like Gregory Boyd now seek to use it in describing their own theological and missiological vantagepoint.
In an effort to speak with more clarity, some organizations, including the Mid-Maryland Baptist Association in which I am employed, have chosen to use the term "Missional." At present, this term carries much less ecclesiastical "baggage," and is probably a more useful and accurate way of describing the central tenents of what many in emerging church circles are advocating. But I suspect that like other labels, this one is also eventually bound for the terminology "trash-heap" of terms that have come to mean so many things, that they now ultimately mean nothing.
So what is needed to overcome the mis-information that often clouds the vision and judgement of Christ's church? If the confusion is facillitated by the overuse of labels, then maybe a few of these labels should go the way of the dinosaur! But what will take their place?
How about "communication?" How about "dialogue?" Acquisition works such as The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives provide a wonderful example of how discussion can take place between those of different perspectives without oversimplifying the issues at hand, or sounding like the US Congress. And online communities, such as that provided by my old seminary colleague Steve McCoy (www.stevekmccoy.com) are a conduit of information exchange that enriches the learning experience of which we all should avail ourselves.
My contention that labels can sometimes be confusing does not mean that they shouldn't be used. On the contrary, when rightly understood, labels help us to see where we are positionally, and define the contours of how we think, what we believe, and how we will behave as a result. What I'm suggesting here is that if "emerging church" proponents looked a little closer at their "evangelical" brethren, they might discover that not everyone in that movement is an intellectual slave to modernity. Conversely, evangelicals who take a long enough look at the wider emerging church movement will discover many who share their strong convictions, and want to see the unconverted come to share these same convictions within a relationship to Jesus Christ.
Not every emerging leader believes Brian McLaren is postmodernism's "Billy Graham," and not every evangelical believes that the "modern" expression of church is the zenith of its existence in the west. These two groups need to get together! The result, with a few exceptions, might well-resemble what is already happening in Australia. Frost and Hirsch correctly state: "To nurture a vigorous, truly transformational, missionary vision of the world based squarely on the Gospel, will require surer foundations than that which the culturally bound, always insecure, always uncertain, postmodern form of theologising can provide." Similarly: "A transformative missionary movement in the West will need an equally strong transformative vision of the world if we are going to be able to reclaim the ground lost by a disentigrating Christendom in the last few centuries."
In short, a radically agressive missiology, informed by a sound, Biblical theology, and carried by an equally Biblical ecclesiology, would make for a deadlly weapon against the powers of darkness. If emerging leaders who are evangelical, and evangelicals who are sympathetic to the causes of the emerging church could get together somehow, the result might be a God-glorifying synergy that could transform our world as we know it. But for this to take place, we have to check our labels at the conference room door!
The following resources may be helpful:
Carson, D.A. 2005. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Frost, Michael and Alan Hirsch. 2003. The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers
Sweet, Leonard, ed. 2003. The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. (Includes contributions from Andy Crouch, Michael Horton, Fredreca Mathewes-Green, Brian McLaren, and Erwin McManus)
Minetrea, Milfred. 2004. Shaped by God's Heart: The Passion and Practices of Missional Churches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
**There will most likely be no online commentary for next week, as I will be in Atlanta attending the summer meetings at the North American Mission Board. God willing, postings will resume the week of July 31.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Friday, July 15, 2005
Making Love to the Glory of God
Following Jesus and having great sex are two concepts that, unfortunately, are rarely viewed as belonging together. The hijacking of human sexuality by a sinful culture has certainly caused a raw perversion of one of God's good gifts to us. But while the world is largely responsible for contaminating sex, the church, with its ample prudishness, is equally responsible for perverting what God has to say about this powerful subject.
But John Piper and Justin Taylor have just edited a superb new book that introduces us afresh to what God has to say on this matter.
The book, Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, has an obviously "Piperian" bent, as is indicated by the title. Among the assumptions laid out in the first part of the text is that the act of sex, like any other human act, has as it's ultimate purpose to glorify God. Piper, along with Ben Patterson of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, do a masterful job in Part One at communicating the close relationship between the goodness of sexuality and the glory of God in Jesus Christ. For those who have read Piper's other works, the central theme of the chapters he writes are no different from all the other books he has written. But two reciprocal points presented by Piper undergird the rest of the book. First, Piper contends that "sexuality is designed by God as a way to know God more fully," and second, "knowing God is designed by God as a way of guarding and guiding our sexuality." In short, this intense physical experience was created by God to point to an even more intense spiritual reality.
Echoing Piper in the conclusion of Part One is Ben Patterson, who asserts with Biblical authority an axiom that will be novel to many Christians: "Pleasure is God's idea, and God is the devil's enemy. The devil actually hates pleasure, because he hates the God of pleasure." As a result, all sexual perversion, from pornography to fornication and adultery, to homosexuality, should simply be seen as a cheap Satanic replication of God's intended design. Says Patterson: "The devil's grand strategy against pleasure is to twist it, to get us to misuse it." Patterson presents a very candid conversation in which he is transparent enough to describe his own struggles with sexual temptation, and how God has helped him to overcome them.
So what happens when God's sexual gift is misused? Moreover, what can be done to heal the deep hurt caused by its misuse? Al Mohler of Southern Seminary and David Powlison of Westminster Seminary address these questions in Part Two. Powlison provides what in my estimation is the most insightful chapter of the entire book, which deals with how sexual brokennes may be healed. Powlison's wisdom points the reader to the fact that most sexual sins have something other than sex as their root. Using examples from his own experience as a Christian counselor, Powlison unveils the multiple avenues through which Satan leads both men and women into sexual sin.
Al Mohler's chapter on the Christian response to homosexual marriage is both timely and straightforward. On the one hand, Mohler strongly contends that homosexual marriage "is a tragic oxymoron," and states that even the discussion of its possibility in the legislature "demonstrates that we are a civilization in crisis, because a great many barriers must be breached in order to put this question on the cultural agenda." But Mohler doesn't limit his challenge to those favoring homosexual marriage. He also takes dead aim at the overly simplistic rationale that is often used by evangelicals in their opposition to homosexuality (just one example of this contention: "We, as Christians, must be the people who cannot start a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage."), their lack of compassion and willingness to walk with homosexuals through the long and messy healing process, and their objection to the lifestyle based solely on the "yuck factor." The end result is a comprehensive and well-thought-out polemic for us to "speak the truth in love."
In Part Three, readers are introduced to the Biblical way that men are to view sex. Mark Dever, Michael Lawrence and Matt Schumucker each contribute to the chapter on sex and the single man. The reader will not be surprised at their basic view that "the first thing to say about sex and the single man is, there should be none!" However, the authors go further in describing how the church has often presented a truncated message on sex and singleness that has left single men physically pure, but emotionally and spiritually bankrupt. Without resorting to a new form of legalism, the authors encourage single men not only to save their bodies, but also their hearts, for their future spouses. (Wow, if I had only read this when I was 16 years old!)
C.J. Mahanney, President of Sovereign Grace Ministries in Gaithersburg, MD, concludes Part Three with an authentic and transparent look at a man's view of sex within marriage. Using the Song of Solomon as his primary teaching tool, Pastor Mahanney combines his scholarly mind and pastoral heart with his experience as a husband of more than two decades, and the result is a godly wisdom from which every husband will benefit. Principally, he speaks of the sex act as one of service to one's wife. Mahanney reveals the "elephant in the room" by addressing the "extremely common tendency for husbands to find satisfaction in lovemaking sooner than their wives." From 1 Corinthians Mahanney asserts that if a husband is having sex in a way that is honoring to God and his wife "I will take my thoughts captive during lovemaking, disciplining my body in order to focus primarily on giving to my wife sexually, rather than only receiving from her." Mahanney also speaks of the dichotomy between the sexual fantasy world hopelessly aspired to, and the reality of God's gift, and courageously calls Christian husbands back to reality in some quite humorous ways. Mahanney also speaks candidly (although not graphically) about his own experiences with his wife, and with the wisdom of a father speaking to sons, shares with younger Christian men how they can be servants to their one flesh in the bedroom.
In Part Four, Carolyn McCulley, media specialist for Sovereign Grace Ministries and a single woman, speaks in a straightforward way to other single women. Acknowledging the role of radical feminism in how single women now approach the subject of sexuality (and admitting that she herself was at one time an avowed feminist), McCulley laments the result: "When I read articles about the spreadsheets college women keep about their sexual activities, or when I watch how the Christian men I know struggle to avoid the parade of barely dressed women before them at a mall or restaurant, or when I have to turn over all ten womens' magazines at the grocery checkout because my nieces can now read the soft-porn headlines, I find I am more than shocked; I am deeply grieved. This is what feminism has done to improve the standing of women? It's a very poor trade-off, indeed." The alternative McCulley presents is a countercultural revolution of female sexuality. The rest of the chapter addresses practical ways that this can be accomplished, including relishing in the gift of singleness, and dodging sexual snares at the office. Along with the other contributors, McCulley offers her own personal experiences along with Biblical counsel to single women who desire to honor God and their future husbands with their bodies, and who want their bodies honored by others.
Carolyn Mahanney, the wife of C.J. Mahanney, concludes Part Four by speaking to married women on how to glorify God in the sex act with their husbands. She offers practical, Biblical principles of "Grade A passion" that, like her husband's teaching, commends an attitude of servanthood in the bedroom. Chief among these principles is that of training the female mind to anticipate sex, based on Song of Songs 5:10-16. For those who have lost their sexual passion and desire for their husbands, Mahhanney gives encouragement, stating that "God is able to renew your sexual desire, empower you to change, and revive you with hope."
The final part of this work contains information regarding how sexuality has been viewed in two different epochs of church history. Justin Taylor, Executive Editor of Desiring God Ministries, speaks in detail of Martin Luther's reform of marriage, and Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Wahington D.C., sheds new light on the popular perception of how the Puritans viewed the act of sex.
In a sexually broken world informed more by radical sex education and Cialis commercials than the Word of God, the church has often been guilty of giving simplistic and anemic answers to the question of human sexuality. The authors of this book present a view of sex with the comprehensiveness and authority of the Scriptures themselves, and the result is a fully-orbed presentation of God's view of sex. And who better to speak to this powerful topic than the One who invented it? Maybe you have a perception of Christianity as overly-pruddish and ascetic, or maybe you are a victim of the combination of Satan's sexual snares and your own bad choices. Let me beg you to do an Amazon search of the reference below, because this book will point you to the right answers, and more importantly to Christ, who is the end-all, be-all answer to all things!
Piper, John, and Justin Taylor, eds. 2005. Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
But John Piper and Justin Taylor have just edited a superb new book that introduces us afresh to what God has to say on this matter.
The book, Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, has an obviously "Piperian" bent, as is indicated by the title. Among the assumptions laid out in the first part of the text is that the act of sex, like any other human act, has as it's ultimate purpose to glorify God. Piper, along with Ben Patterson of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, do a masterful job in Part One at communicating the close relationship between the goodness of sexuality and the glory of God in Jesus Christ. For those who have read Piper's other works, the central theme of the chapters he writes are no different from all the other books he has written. But two reciprocal points presented by Piper undergird the rest of the book. First, Piper contends that "sexuality is designed by God as a way to know God more fully," and second, "knowing God is designed by God as a way of guarding and guiding our sexuality." In short, this intense physical experience was created by God to point to an even more intense spiritual reality.
Echoing Piper in the conclusion of Part One is Ben Patterson, who asserts with Biblical authority an axiom that will be novel to many Christians: "Pleasure is God's idea, and God is the devil's enemy. The devil actually hates pleasure, because he hates the God of pleasure." As a result, all sexual perversion, from pornography to fornication and adultery, to homosexuality, should simply be seen as a cheap Satanic replication of God's intended design. Says Patterson: "The devil's grand strategy against pleasure is to twist it, to get us to misuse it." Patterson presents a very candid conversation in which he is transparent enough to describe his own struggles with sexual temptation, and how God has helped him to overcome them.
So what happens when God's sexual gift is misused? Moreover, what can be done to heal the deep hurt caused by its misuse? Al Mohler of Southern Seminary and David Powlison of Westminster Seminary address these questions in Part Two. Powlison provides what in my estimation is the most insightful chapter of the entire book, which deals with how sexual brokennes may be healed. Powlison's wisdom points the reader to the fact that most sexual sins have something other than sex as their root. Using examples from his own experience as a Christian counselor, Powlison unveils the multiple avenues through which Satan leads both men and women into sexual sin.
Al Mohler's chapter on the Christian response to homosexual marriage is both timely and straightforward. On the one hand, Mohler strongly contends that homosexual marriage "is a tragic oxymoron," and states that even the discussion of its possibility in the legislature "demonstrates that we are a civilization in crisis, because a great many barriers must be breached in order to put this question on the cultural agenda." But Mohler doesn't limit his challenge to those favoring homosexual marriage. He also takes dead aim at the overly simplistic rationale that is often used by evangelicals in their opposition to homosexuality (just one example of this contention: "We, as Christians, must be the people who cannot start a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage."), their lack of compassion and willingness to walk with homosexuals through the long and messy healing process, and their objection to the lifestyle based solely on the "yuck factor." The end result is a comprehensive and well-thought-out polemic for us to "speak the truth in love."
In Part Three, readers are introduced to the Biblical way that men are to view sex. Mark Dever, Michael Lawrence and Matt Schumucker each contribute to the chapter on sex and the single man. The reader will not be surprised at their basic view that "the first thing to say about sex and the single man is, there should be none!" However, the authors go further in describing how the church has often presented a truncated message on sex and singleness that has left single men physically pure, but emotionally and spiritually bankrupt. Without resorting to a new form of legalism, the authors encourage single men not only to save their bodies, but also their hearts, for their future spouses. (Wow, if I had only read this when I was 16 years old!)
C.J. Mahanney, President of Sovereign Grace Ministries in Gaithersburg, MD, concludes Part Three with an authentic and transparent look at a man's view of sex within marriage. Using the Song of Solomon as his primary teaching tool, Pastor Mahanney combines his scholarly mind and pastoral heart with his experience as a husband of more than two decades, and the result is a godly wisdom from which every husband will benefit. Principally, he speaks of the sex act as one of service to one's wife. Mahanney reveals the "elephant in the room" by addressing the "extremely common tendency for husbands to find satisfaction in lovemaking sooner than their wives." From 1 Corinthians Mahanney asserts that if a husband is having sex in a way that is honoring to God and his wife "I will take my thoughts captive during lovemaking, disciplining my body in order to focus primarily on giving to my wife sexually, rather than only receiving from her." Mahanney also speaks of the dichotomy between the sexual fantasy world hopelessly aspired to, and the reality of God's gift, and courageously calls Christian husbands back to reality in some quite humorous ways. Mahanney also speaks candidly (although not graphically) about his own experiences with his wife, and with the wisdom of a father speaking to sons, shares with younger Christian men how they can be servants to their one flesh in the bedroom.
In Part Four, Carolyn McCulley, media specialist for Sovereign Grace Ministries and a single woman, speaks in a straightforward way to other single women. Acknowledging the role of radical feminism in how single women now approach the subject of sexuality (and admitting that she herself was at one time an avowed feminist), McCulley laments the result: "When I read articles about the spreadsheets college women keep about their sexual activities, or when I watch how the Christian men I know struggle to avoid the parade of barely dressed women before them at a mall or restaurant, or when I have to turn over all ten womens' magazines at the grocery checkout because my nieces can now read the soft-porn headlines, I find I am more than shocked; I am deeply grieved. This is what feminism has done to improve the standing of women? It's a very poor trade-off, indeed." The alternative McCulley presents is a countercultural revolution of female sexuality. The rest of the chapter addresses practical ways that this can be accomplished, including relishing in the gift of singleness, and dodging sexual snares at the office. Along with the other contributors, McCulley offers her own personal experiences along with Biblical counsel to single women who desire to honor God and their future husbands with their bodies, and who want their bodies honored by others.
Carolyn Mahanney, the wife of C.J. Mahanney, concludes Part Four by speaking to married women on how to glorify God in the sex act with their husbands. She offers practical, Biblical principles of "Grade A passion" that, like her husband's teaching, commends an attitude of servanthood in the bedroom. Chief among these principles is that of training the female mind to anticipate sex, based on Song of Songs 5:10-16. For those who have lost their sexual passion and desire for their husbands, Mahhanney gives encouragement, stating that "God is able to renew your sexual desire, empower you to change, and revive you with hope."
The final part of this work contains information regarding how sexuality has been viewed in two different epochs of church history. Justin Taylor, Executive Editor of Desiring God Ministries, speaks in detail of Martin Luther's reform of marriage, and Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Wahington D.C., sheds new light on the popular perception of how the Puritans viewed the act of sex.
In a sexually broken world informed more by radical sex education and Cialis commercials than the Word of God, the church has often been guilty of giving simplistic and anemic answers to the question of human sexuality. The authors of this book present a view of sex with the comprehensiveness and authority of the Scriptures themselves, and the result is a fully-orbed presentation of God's view of sex. And who better to speak to this powerful topic than the One who invented it? Maybe you have a perception of Christianity as overly-pruddish and ascetic, or maybe you are a victim of the combination of Satan's sexual snares and your own bad choices. Let me beg you to do an Amazon search of the reference below, because this book will point you to the right answers, and more importantly to Christ, who is the end-all, be-all answer to all things!
Piper, John, and Justin Taylor, eds. 2005. Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Liberalism Lives! A Review of Bishop Spong's "The Sins of Scripture"
Since the 1970s, research abounds showing the close correlations between ecclesiastical decline and "mainline" theology that seeks to syncretize the thinking of a godless culture with Christianity. Conversely, Dean Kelly's 1972 book Why Conservative Churches are Growing noted that evangelical groups were "moving at an amazing clip while there is an equally dramatic decline in membership in the mainline churches."
But liberalism doesn't die easily, and John Shelby Spong's vitriolic new book vindicates this fact.
The well-known liberal cleric, who was Bishop of Newark until his retirement in 2000, has always been a vocal opponent of evangelical theology. Beginning with 1991s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Bishop Spong attacked evangelical confessionalism on hermaneutical grounds, faining respect for the Scriptural text while asserting that fundamentalists fumbled the interpretation. But in his latest work this year, Spong moves from merely attacking Biblical interpretation to attacking the text of Scripture itself. His book, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, seeks ultimately to discredit the Bible and its human authors as outmoded, outdated, homophobic, bigoted and narrow-minded propagandists.
Gone from Spong's work is the suggestion that we have misunderstood the meaning of the phrase "Word of God." In it's place is the assertion that Scripture cannot be understood to be the Word of God at all! Asks Spong: "How can a book that is called the Word of God leave such a trail of violence, hostility, and death throughout its history?"
No more does the Bishop contend that complimentarian evangelicals misinterpret Paul's teaching on women in the pastoral epistles. In Spong's new book, he simply states that Paul was a narrow-minded shauvanist.
Rather than performing hermaneutical acrobatics with Romans and 1 Corinthians in order to "respect" Scripture while rejecting its plain teaching on homosexuality, Spong simply declares the Apostle Paul to be a homophobe.
Well, at least he's honest!
Bishop Spong's latest book is the epitome of classical liberal theology in its most highly evoluted form to date, and the Bishop himself is the poster child for liberalism at its worst. His aim in writing this work includes the refutation of clear Biblical teaching that he considers dangerous and "sinful." Says Spong: "It is quite clear to me that it is the assumption that the Bible is in any sense the Word of God that has given rise to what I have called in the title of this book 'the sins of Scripture.' I mean those terrible texts that have been quoted throughout Christian history to justify behavior that is today universally recognized as evil." But which "terrible texts" does he speak of? To name just a few:
"“When Paul or one of his disciples instructs women to subject themselves to their husbands (Eph 5:22) slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22 and Eph 6:5) and children to obey their parents (Col 3:20 and Eph 6:1-3) surely that is not the eternal ‘Word of God’ speaking. These are the reflections of a rather discredited cultural sexism, an immoral oppression of human life and an obsolete guide to good parenting being revealed here.”
Similarly, Spong reacts viscerally to Paul's condemnation of homosexual behavior, concluding by asking the rhetorical question: "Is there any reason why anyone should believe that this convoluted and bizarre understanding of the tortured Pauline mind could ever be called ‘the Word of God’? Is it rational to think that these words would ever be used to condemn or to oppress those who awaken to the reality of their homosexual orientation?”
But these assertions themselves are grounded in pre-conceived assumptions about the Biblical text itself. For example, the Bishop contends that "Moses had been dead for three hundred years before the first verse of the Torah acheived written form." This contention, commonly referred to as the "documentary hypothesis," assumes several things, cheif among them that the Hebrew people were somehow different from every other people group that lived in the ancient world. Rather than consider the possibility that Scripture has divine origins (in this case, God speaking through his servant Moses), Bishop Spong finds it easier to believe that while other ancient civilizations were writing down their history as it happened, the Hebrews were the only ones to say "why don't we wait 300 years before we write it down?"
The naturalistic assumptions about Scripture continue with Spong's assault on the miracle narratives. “If we believe these stories in any literal way, we have to presume that God suspended the laws of the universe in the first century to allow Jesus to demonstrate His divine origins.” But Spong's critique is not limited to the miracle narratives alone. The historical accuracy of the Gospels themselves is called into question. On Jesus' assertion that no one comes to God except through Him (John 14:6), Spong replies by saying "Of course, Jesus never literally said any of these things. . . . .the “I am” sayings are clearly the contribution to the tradition of the fourth Gospel.”
Predictable liberal positions on abortion, homosexuality, animal rights and environmentalism are the natural result of such assumptions about Scripture, as are overly simplistic attacks on evangelical faith. For example, Spong contends that evangelicals have simply ignored literary criticism and other exegetical tools in order to cling to our understanding of the Bible as "inerrant." Of course, evangelicals do not deny that "inerrancy" applies only to the autographic text of Scripture. Nor do we discount phenommenological and figurative language in the text, or pretend source criticism is a fairy tale. We freely confess the reality of all this within our conviction that a historical grammatical approach to interpretation is the plainest and most obvious avenue to arrive at the true meaning of Scripture. But to Bishop Spong, evangelical faith is a plague on the house of Christianity.
Therefore, his purpose in writing is to reestablish what he believes is the essence of what it means to follow Jesus. "We are to build a world in which every person can live more fully, love more wastefully, and be all that God intends for each person to be. In that vocation we will oppose everything that diminishes the life of a single human being, whether it is race, ethnicity, tribe, gender, sexual orientation or religion itself.” This is, he contends, what Jesus came to do. “That is the Jesus I hope to sketch out when the deconstruction is complete." In short, gut the Apostolic witness of all its major pillars, and you will arrive at this new worldview that the Bishop so desparately wants to identify as 21st Century Christianity.
The difficulty now is in defining how this new Christianity will accomplish the Bishop's goals within his own self-made liberal utopia. How can a "full life" be lived, or even understood, apart from a Biblical understanding of the imago dei? How can we know what God intends if we can't even know God through the Scriptures? How can we know how life is diminished when the very notion of human sin is eradicated from the human conscience? How can we accomplish the mission of Jesus when we can't even distinguish between what He said, and what He didn't say in Scripture? In the end, Spong, described by the inside cover of his book as "a deeply committed Christian," attempts to point to "dramatically different ways to engage the sacred story of the Judeo Christian tradition." Instead, the Bishop's vision of liberal Christianity is as empty as liberalism itself, and totally incapable of pointing humanity to the truth of Jesus Christ.
Can you imagine a liberal going on "evangelistic visitation?" What will he say? "Hi, I'm from the First Baptist Church, and I just stopped by to let you know that your relationship with God is just fine. There is no need for you to reject any idols you may be worshipping. And don't be too worried about the lifestyle you have chosen. God simply wants you to be happy." Is it any wonder that mainline churches are hemmoraging? Their message essentially says to the unchurched "You don't need us."
Over a half century ago, neo-orthodox theologian Richard Neihbur said this of the liberal Christian Gospel: "It presents a God without wrath, who brings men without sin into a Kingdom without judgement, through the administrations of a Christ without a cross." No statement could more accurately describe the bankruptcy of classical liberalism. Bishop Spong in his latest book has revealed this movement for what it really is; a feeble attempt to redefine the God of the Word by rejecting outright the Word of God! But Jesus will not be confined to the liberal agenda!
Make no mistake, the Bible is not to be worshipped! That is not the point of this post, nor the point of evangelical assertions of Biblical authority and inerrancy. But it was Jesus who claimed in no uncertain terms that no part of the Scriptures would pass away. (Matthew 5:17) If you want to find God, you must look to Christ. If you want to find Christ, you must look to the Bible. At stake in the liberal rejection of clear Scriptural teaching is a much more serious consequence than losing a political, intellectual or theological debate. To reject Scripture is to reject the Christ of Scripture!
In his closing lecture on Scripture over 100 years ago, Southern Baptist theologian John Dagg issued this challenge to young pastors: "Mortals, hastening to the retributions of eternity, be wise; receive the revelation from heaven presented to you in the Bible; attend dilligently to its instructions, and reverence its authority, as the word of the final Judge before whom you will soon appear." Solemn words for a solemn subject!
The deadly danger of theological liberalism is that at its heart, it is more committed to a modern human ideology than to God's revelation of Himself. True, liberal theology is far from dead. But the end result of its empty message will be many who remain dead in their sins. Ironically enough, their only hope is found in the very Bible they seek to discredit.
But liberalism doesn't die easily, and John Shelby Spong's vitriolic new book vindicates this fact.
The well-known liberal cleric, who was Bishop of Newark until his retirement in 2000, has always been a vocal opponent of evangelical theology. Beginning with 1991s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Bishop Spong attacked evangelical confessionalism on hermaneutical grounds, faining respect for the Scriptural text while asserting that fundamentalists fumbled the interpretation. But in his latest work this year, Spong moves from merely attacking Biblical interpretation to attacking the text of Scripture itself. His book, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, seeks ultimately to discredit the Bible and its human authors as outmoded, outdated, homophobic, bigoted and narrow-minded propagandists.
Gone from Spong's work is the suggestion that we have misunderstood the meaning of the phrase "Word of God." In it's place is the assertion that Scripture cannot be understood to be the Word of God at all! Asks Spong: "How can a book that is called the Word of God leave such a trail of violence, hostility, and death throughout its history?"
No more does the Bishop contend that complimentarian evangelicals misinterpret Paul's teaching on women in the pastoral epistles. In Spong's new book, he simply states that Paul was a narrow-minded shauvanist.
Rather than performing hermaneutical acrobatics with Romans and 1 Corinthians in order to "respect" Scripture while rejecting its plain teaching on homosexuality, Spong simply declares the Apostle Paul to be a homophobe.
Well, at least he's honest!
Bishop Spong's latest book is the epitome of classical liberal theology in its most highly evoluted form to date, and the Bishop himself is the poster child for liberalism at its worst. His aim in writing this work includes the refutation of clear Biblical teaching that he considers dangerous and "sinful." Says Spong: "It is quite clear to me that it is the assumption that the Bible is in any sense the Word of God that has given rise to what I have called in the title of this book 'the sins of Scripture.' I mean those terrible texts that have been quoted throughout Christian history to justify behavior that is today universally recognized as evil." But which "terrible texts" does he speak of? To name just a few:
"“When Paul or one of his disciples instructs women to subject themselves to their husbands (Eph 5:22) slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22 and Eph 6:5) and children to obey their parents (Col 3:20 and Eph 6:1-3) surely that is not the eternal ‘Word of God’ speaking. These are the reflections of a rather discredited cultural sexism, an immoral oppression of human life and an obsolete guide to good parenting being revealed here.”
Similarly, Spong reacts viscerally to Paul's condemnation of homosexual behavior, concluding by asking the rhetorical question: "Is there any reason why anyone should believe that this convoluted and bizarre understanding of the tortured Pauline mind could ever be called ‘the Word of God’? Is it rational to think that these words would ever be used to condemn or to oppress those who awaken to the reality of their homosexual orientation?”
But these assertions themselves are grounded in pre-conceived assumptions about the Biblical text itself. For example, the Bishop contends that "Moses had been dead for three hundred years before the first verse of the Torah acheived written form." This contention, commonly referred to as the "documentary hypothesis," assumes several things, cheif among them that the Hebrew people were somehow different from every other people group that lived in the ancient world. Rather than consider the possibility that Scripture has divine origins (in this case, God speaking through his servant Moses), Bishop Spong finds it easier to believe that while other ancient civilizations were writing down their history as it happened, the Hebrews were the only ones to say "why don't we wait 300 years before we write it down?"
The naturalistic assumptions about Scripture continue with Spong's assault on the miracle narratives. “If we believe these stories in any literal way, we have to presume that God suspended the laws of the universe in the first century to allow Jesus to demonstrate His divine origins.” But Spong's critique is not limited to the miracle narratives alone. The historical accuracy of the Gospels themselves is called into question. On Jesus' assertion that no one comes to God except through Him (John 14:6), Spong replies by saying "Of course, Jesus never literally said any of these things. . . . .the “I am” sayings are clearly the contribution to the tradition of the fourth Gospel.”
Predictable liberal positions on abortion, homosexuality, animal rights and environmentalism are the natural result of such assumptions about Scripture, as are overly simplistic attacks on evangelical faith. For example, Spong contends that evangelicals have simply ignored literary criticism and other exegetical tools in order to cling to our understanding of the Bible as "inerrant." Of course, evangelicals do not deny that "inerrancy" applies only to the autographic text of Scripture. Nor do we discount phenommenological and figurative language in the text, or pretend source criticism is a fairy tale. We freely confess the reality of all this within our conviction that a historical grammatical approach to interpretation is the plainest and most obvious avenue to arrive at the true meaning of Scripture. But to Bishop Spong, evangelical faith is a plague on the house of Christianity.
Therefore, his purpose in writing is to reestablish what he believes is the essence of what it means to follow Jesus. "We are to build a world in which every person can live more fully, love more wastefully, and be all that God intends for each person to be. In that vocation we will oppose everything that diminishes the life of a single human being, whether it is race, ethnicity, tribe, gender, sexual orientation or religion itself.” This is, he contends, what Jesus came to do. “That is the Jesus I hope to sketch out when the deconstruction is complete." In short, gut the Apostolic witness of all its major pillars, and you will arrive at this new worldview that the Bishop so desparately wants to identify as 21st Century Christianity.
The difficulty now is in defining how this new Christianity will accomplish the Bishop's goals within his own self-made liberal utopia. How can a "full life" be lived, or even understood, apart from a Biblical understanding of the imago dei? How can we know what God intends if we can't even know God through the Scriptures? How can we know how life is diminished when the very notion of human sin is eradicated from the human conscience? How can we accomplish the mission of Jesus when we can't even distinguish between what He said, and what He didn't say in Scripture? In the end, Spong, described by the inside cover of his book as "a deeply committed Christian," attempts to point to "dramatically different ways to engage the sacred story of the Judeo Christian tradition." Instead, the Bishop's vision of liberal Christianity is as empty as liberalism itself, and totally incapable of pointing humanity to the truth of Jesus Christ.
Can you imagine a liberal going on "evangelistic visitation?" What will he say? "Hi, I'm from the First Baptist Church, and I just stopped by to let you know that your relationship with God is just fine. There is no need for you to reject any idols you may be worshipping. And don't be too worried about the lifestyle you have chosen. God simply wants you to be happy." Is it any wonder that mainline churches are hemmoraging? Their message essentially says to the unchurched "You don't need us."
Over a half century ago, neo-orthodox theologian Richard Neihbur said this of the liberal Christian Gospel: "It presents a God without wrath, who brings men without sin into a Kingdom without judgement, through the administrations of a Christ without a cross." No statement could more accurately describe the bankruptcy of classical liberalism. Bishop Spong in his latest book has revealed this movement for what it really is; a feeble attempt to redefine the God of the Word by rejecting outright the Word of God! But Jesus will not be confined to the liberal agenda!
Make no mistake, the Bible is not to be worshipped! That is not the point of this post, nor the point of evangelical assertions of Biblical authority and inerrancy. But it was Jesus who claimed in no uncertain terms that no part of the Scriptures would pass away. (Matthew 5:17) If you want to find God, you must look to Christ. If you want to find Christ, you must look to the Bible. At stake in the liberal rejection of clear Scriptural teaching is a much more serious consequence than losing a political, intellectual or theological debate. To reject Scripture is to reject the Christ of Scripture!
In his closing lecture on Scripture over 100 years ago, Southern Baptist theologian John Dagg issued this challenge to young pastors: "Mortals, hastening to the retributions of eternity, be wise; receive the revelation from heaven presented to you in the Bible; attend dilligently to its instructions, and reverence its authority, as the word of the final Judge before whom you will soon appear." Solemn words for a solemn subject!
The deadly danger of theological liberalism is that at its heart, it is more committed to a modern human ideology than to God's revelation of Himself. True, liberal theology is far from dead. But the end result of its empty message will be many who remain dead in their sins. Ironically enough, their only hope is found in the very Bible they seek to discredit.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Public Education Resolution: Southern Baptists and Cultural Engagement
As Russ Moore has already so eloquently stated, gatherings of the Southern Baptist Convention over the past 10 years could be called many things, but "boring" is not one of them, and this year, it seems the controversy has begun before the gavel even hits the podium.
At the center of everyone's attention is a proposed resolution which, if allowed a vote on the floor and passed, would urge all Christian parents to pull their children out of the nation's public school system and either home school, or place them in private school. But while the philosophical underpinnings of this effort are commendable, it is the prescriptive aspects of this resolution that are so troubling. In short, it isn't the descriptive or "whereas" statements in the proposed resolution that are problematic, but rather the prescriptive or "therefore" statements that should make Southern Baptists think twice before raising a ballot in favor.
On the one hand, leaders who put together the latest version of the proposed resolution rightly point out serious problems with, as they describe it, "government school systems." Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, observes that the resolution has much more support than in years past, primarily because "every week, new reports of atrocities in the public schools appear. Radical sex education programs, offensive curricula and class materials, school-based health clinics, and ideologies hostile to Christian truth and parental authority abound." Mohler is fair in his assessment of the situation, admitting that in "some school systems, the majority of teachers, administrators, and students share an outlook that is at least friendly and repsectful toward Christianity and conservative moral values." However, he also reports that in other areas, more notably in the nations cities "the situation is markedly different. In many metropolitan school districts, the schools have truly become engines for the indoctrination of the young . . . .Unless something revolutionary reserses these trends, this is the shape of the future."
This assessment of public school education is an accurate one, especially in places like Montgomery County MD, just minutes from my home. This county's administrators pushed hard for a radical sex education agenda that would be mandatory on all students, without the possibility of parents having their child exempted from such insane classroom practice as learning how to place a condom on a cucumber. In addition, the most radical segments of the homosexual lobby have tried for years to push their own indoctrinations into the minds of young children, and have seen the public school system as the primary conduit for transporting their propaganda to the youngest and most vunerable among us.
So in a sense, there is a serious situation regarding public education in many arenas. John Dewey's proposal was to make America's public schools the home base for bringing individuals to capitulate to the majority worldview accepted by the culture of their day, and this goal has almost been realized. Subsequently, there is a very real chance that our public schools could be lost. Our SBC leaders are right; much is wrong with public education in America. The question that remains is whether encouraging parents to "jump ship" is the answer.
My initial answer to this question is "no." Primarily, I object to the resolution because I believe it stands in opposition to the Great Commission, Great Commandment, and Jesus' ideal of a savoring, illuminating body of His followers given in Matthew 5:13-16. Although I don't believe it is their intention, some of our leaders are unwittingly giving in to an "isolationist" approach of how to engage these issues. Though he did not explicity state whether he would personally support the proposed resolution, even Mohler suggested that this year "is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools."
Exit strategy? I love Al Mohler. As a two-time allumnus of the seminary he runs, I thank God for his influence, and the way in which he courageously steered my alma mater back to its Scriptural foundations. I consider him a brilliant theologian, and our denomination's most eloquent spokesman. He is one of my more distant mentors, and I rely on his analysis of current issues often when time does not permit me to engage certain subjects as fully as I would prefer. Nevertheless, "exit strategy" makes it sound as though we are declaring our battle lost, and are simply resigned to walk away. But while such a strategy might make my children and me feel more secure, what would it do to those who remain? Here, I offer four principles as to why Southern Baptists should vote this resolution down:
1. False dichotomy between "secular" and "sacred" education. The solution suggested by the resolution is that parents pull their children out of public schools and either enroll them in Christian institutions, or teach them at home. Behind this is the belief that somehow, we will escape the "evils" of educational philosophy and simply give our students the Bible. This understanding is fundamentally flawed. Evil can take many forms. The more obvious ones before us are the pushing of a "secuarlist" agenda that includes the acceptance and affirmation of perverted lifestyles. But "Christian" institutions can have their own vices. While in elementary school on the campus of Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, my wife, who grew up in the Pentecostal tradition, was told that she was going to hell because she hadn't been baptized in a Baptist church. She was told that wearing pants or shorts was sinful. In short, slapping a "Christian" label on an institution doesn't cure all that ills education. And in some cases, matters could be worse. Although there are many fine Christian schools out there, there are also many that exist simply to make huge sums of money for the churches that sponsor them, while the students are forced to endure a "less than stellar" academic environment that will in no way prepare them for the real world.
Similarly, it must be admitted that even Christian schools and churches are heavily influenced by the same Educational Psychology that permeates the public school arena, and this isn't a bad thing. Even our modern "age-graded" approach to Sunday School, if traced back, can be credited in part to developmentalists such as Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and yes, even John Dewey. The fact that none of these men were followers of Jesus doesn't change the fact that God's general revelation was discovered in their work. The bottom line is this: The division between "Christian" and "secular" is largely an artificial one, and we do ourselves no service when we think that changing a label neccesarily protects us or our children from all harm.
2. The Absence of a Significant Christian Presence from Public Education will result in its Death. One commentator freely admitted that the runaway secularism present in many urban centers of America had no potency in more suburban and rural areas where parents are still involved to a large degree in their child's education. One has to wonder why the evil is stronger in the cities. Could it be because the church by and large abandoned the cities years ago? I think such things should be considered prior to Wednesday's vote. If similar action is taken in rural areas, and the presence of Christ's church is largely removed from the arena of public education as a result, what then will become of our schools, and subsequently, our culture? Let us not forget that the school systems belong first and foremost to the people, and I believe that instead of walking away, we should, slowly but surely, begin to take it back!
In addition, how will pulling out serve to support the many fine Christian teachers, principals, administrators and school board members who are serving on the "front lines" of shaping young minds? If we really want to support Christian teachers in the public schools, as the proposed resolution suggests, that support will come primarily from our personal involvement in the process, not our retreat. I know many godly teachers who are trying to make a difference. My younger brother is one of them. Let's not leave them "hanging on a limb" by making our absence more conspicuous than it already is.
3. The Scriptures Declare that the Religious Education of Children is Primarily the Responsibility of Parents. I love my local church, and though I preach in other areas almost every Sunday, I do so with confidence that my wife and children are receiving the godly instruction they need from our pastor and Sunday School teachers. Nevertheless, I also understand that my family's walk with Christ and development in the faith is something for which God will hold me personally responsible. We are blessed to live in an area that boasts the top public schools in the nation, so I have no doubt my children will be able to read, write, think and function. I am also certain that at some point I will have to correct my children's teachers concerning worldview issues, and that my sons will see the various viewpoints that exist in our culture and be able to clearly understand why a God-centered worldview is superior to all others. Throughout such discussions, my children will see (I hope) an example of gentle confrontation, love for those who believe differently than myself, and the way of influencing others in Jesus' name. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is clear that giving our children a strong Biblical worldview is a responsibility that belongs to parents first, with the church and others simply supplementing that effort. What this means is that if we do our job as parents, our children will develop spiritually, wherever we enroll them!
4. The Call of the Great Commission is to Engage and Transform Culture. At this point, I probably need to state that I have several friends who feel it neccesary to have their children in private schools, and I respect their decision as parents. Ultimately, I believe it is up to the parent to decide whether their child can handle the pressures that sometimes come with the public school environment, and I respect, and intend in no way to belittle the strong convictions that motivate some to either send their children to Christian schools, or teach their children at home.
Nevertheless, this resolution, if passed, would seem to subtely suggest that one is a less than exemplary parent if one leaves his or her children in the public school system. The fact is, if we are going to be obedient to God's call to reach the world, the world will need to be able to "taste the salt" and "see the light." Yes, there are serious problems with public education today. But the non-negotiable demands of our King should compel us to run toward those problems, not away from them!
My friend Rob Stephens is a great example of this kind of passion. Rob serves as the Youth Pastor at the church where my wife and I are members. He coaches track and wrestling at the local high school, and has made huge "in-roads" with students as well as faculty. It is my hope to help him as he starts a church on the campus of that high school that will first reach the students, and then, eventually, their parents. Now, what would it say to the culture if we pulled our children out of the very system where the people we are attempting to reach are found? In short, an "exit strategy" in our context would be counterproductive in our efforts at mission.
Therefore, when I read those words: "Exit Strategy," I couldn't help but ask myself a question that I hope each reader will ask of himself or herself? Wouldn't it be better if "responsible" Southern Baptists developed an "invasion" strategy? What if, instead of resolving to admit defeat at the hands of the secularists, we resolved to transform public education from within? Imagine just 10 short years from now what kind of difference could be made should followers of Christ bring their children, as well as their discernment, time, dedication, and service, back into the public schools to cooperate with born-again teachers, administrators, and board members? I have no clue what the end result would be, but I would bet the farm on it looking much better than the outcome that is most assuredly to come should Southern Baptists in masse adopt the proposed resolution, and then put it into practice.
Our calling is to influence, to transform, to disciple, to relate, and to win the world! The late Abraham Kuyper once said "there is not one square inch of creation over which Christ who is sovereign does not cry out "MINE!" The arena of public education is no different. And if we are to be obedient to our Lord, retreat is not the answer. Instead, we should by our actions and witness, point to ALL areas of our culture, including public education, and cry with a loud voice, "HIS!" Jesus is worthy of no less!
At the center of everyone's attention is a proposed resolution which, if allowed a vote on the floor and passed, would urge all Christian parents to pull their children out of the nation's public school system and either home school, or place them in private school. But while the philosophical underpinnings of this effort are commendable, it is the prescriptive aspects of this resolution that are so troubling. In short, it isn't the descriptive or "whereas" statements in the proposed resolution that are problematic, but rather the prescriptive or "therefore" statements that should make Southern Baptists think twice before raising a ballot in favor.
On the one hand, leaders who put together the latest version of the proposed resolution rightly point out serious problems with, as they describe it, "government school systems." Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, observes that the resolution has much more support than in years past, primarily because "every week, new reports of atrocities in the public schools appear. Radical sex education programs, offensive curricula and class materials, school-based health clinics, and ideologies hostile to Christian truth and parental authority abound." Mohler is fair in his assessment of the situation, admitting that in "some school systems, the majority of teachers, administrators, and students share an outlook that is at least friendly and repsectful toward Christianity and conservative moral values." However, he also reports that in other areas, more notably in the nations cities "the situation is markedly different. In many metropolitan school districts, the schools have truly become engines for the indoctrination of the young . . . .Unless something revolutionary reserses these trends, this is the shape of the future."
This assessment of public school education is an accurate one, especially in places like Montgomery County MD, just minutes from my home. This county's administrators pushed hard for a radical sex education agenda that would be mandatory on all students, without the possibility of parents having their child exempted from such insane classroom practice as learning how to place a condom on a cucumber. In addition, the most radical segments of the homosexual lobby have tried for years to push their own indoctrinations into the minds of young children, and have seen the public school system as the primary conduit for transporting their propaganda to the youngest and most vunerable among us.
So in a sense, there is a serious situation regarding public education in many arenas. John Dewey's proposal was to make America's public schools the home base for bringing individuals to capitulate to the majority worldview accepted by the culture of their day, and this goal has almost been realized. Subsequently, there is a very real chance that our public schools could be lost. Our SBC leaders are right; much is wrong with public education in America. The question that remains is whether encouraging parents to "jump ship" is the answer.
My initial answer to this question is "no." Primarily, I object to the resolution because I believe it stands in opposition to the Great Commission, Great Commandment, and Jesus' ideal of a savoring, illuminating body of His followers given in Matthew 5:13-16. Although I don't believe it is their intention, some of our leaders are unwittingly giving in to an "isolationist" approach of how to engage these issues. Though he did not explicity state whether he would personally support the proposed resolution, even Mohler suggested that this year "is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools."
Exit strategy? I love Al Mohler. As a two-time allumnus of the seminary he runs, I thank God for his influence, and the way in which he courageously steered my alma mater back to its Scriptural foundations. I consider him a brilliant theologian, and our denomination's most eloquent spokesman. He is one of my more distant mentors, and I rely on his analysis of current issues often when time does not permit me to engage certain subjects as fully as I would prefer. Nevertheless, "exit strategy" makes it sound as though we are declaring our battle lost, and are simply resigned to walk away. But while such a strategy might make my children and me feel more secure, what would it do to those who remain? Here, I offer four principles as to why Southern Baptists should vote this resolution down:
1. False dichotomy between "secular" and "sacred" education. The solution suggested by the resolution is that parents pull their children out of public schools and either enroll them in Christian institutions, or teach them at home. Behind this is the belief that somehow, we will escape the "evils" of educational philosophy and simply give our students the Bible. This understanding is fundamentally flawed. Evil can take many forms. The more obvious ones before us are the pushing of a "secuarlist" agenda that includes the acceptance and affirmation of perverted lifestyles. But "Christian" institutions can have their own vices. While in elementary school on the campus of Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, my wife, who grew up in the Pentecostal tradition, was told that she was going to hell because she hadn't been baptized in a Baptist church. She was told that wearing pants or shorts was sinful. In short, slapping a "Christian" label on an institution doesn't cure all that ills education. And in some cases, matters could be worse. Although there are many fine Christian schools out there, there are also many that exist simply to make huge sums of money for the churches that sponsor them, while the students are forced to endure a "less than stellar" academic environment that will in no way prepare them for the real world.
Similarly, it must be admitted that even Christian schools and churches are heavily influenced by the same Educational Psychology that permeates the public school arena, and this isn't a bad thing. Even our modern "age-graded" approach to Sunday School, if traced back, can be credited in part to developmentalists such as Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and yes, even John Dewey. The fact that none of these men were followers of Jesus doesn't change the fact that God's general revelation was discovered in their work. The bottom line is this: The division between "Christian" and "secular" is largely an artificial one, and we do ourselves no service when we think that changing a label neccesarily protects us or our children from all harm.
2. The Absence of a Significant Christian Presence from Public Education will result in its Death. One commentator freely admitted that the runaway secularism present in many urban centers of America had no potency in more suburban and rural areas where parents are still involved to a large degree in their child's education. One has to wonder why the evil is stronger in the cities. Could it be because the church by and large abandoned the cities years ago? I think such things should be considered prior to Wednesday's vote. If similar action is taken in rural areas, and the presence of Christ's church is largely removed from the arena of public education as a result, what then will become of our schools, and subsequently, our culture? Let us not forget that the school systems belong first and foremost to the people, and I believe that instead of walking away, we should, slowly but surely, begin to take it back!
In addition, how will pulling out serve to support the many fine Christian teachers, principals, administrators and school board members who are serving on the "front lines" of shaping young minds? If we really want to support Christian teachers in the public schools, as the proposed resolution suggests, that support will come primarily from our personal involvement in the process, not our retreat. I know many godly teachers who are trying to make a difference. My younger brother is one of them. Let's not leave them "hanging on a limb" by making our absence more conspicuous than it already is.
3. The Scriptures Declare that the Religious Education of Children is Primarily the Responsibility of Parents. I love my local church, and though I preach in other areas almost every Sunday, I do so with confidence that my wife and children are receiving the godly instruction they need from our pastor and Sunday School teachers. Nevertheless, I also understand that my family's walk with Christ and development in the faith is something for which God will hold me personally responsible. We are blessed to live in an area that boasts the top public schools in the nation, so I have no doubt my children will be able to read, write, think and function. I am also certain that at some point I will have to correct my children's teachers concerning worldview issues, and that my sons will see the various viewpoints that exist in our culture and be able to clearly understand why a God-centered worldview is superior to all others. Throughout such discussions, my children will see (I hope) an example of gentle confrontation, love for those who believe differently than myself, and the way of influencing others in Jesus' name. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is clear that giving our children a strong Biblical worldview is a responsibility that belongs to parents first, with the church and others simply supplementing that effort. What this means is that if we do our job as parents, our children will develop spiritually, wherever we enroll them!
4. The Call of the Great Commission is to Engage and Transform Culture. At this point, I probably need to state that I have several friends who feel it neccesary to have their children in private schools, and I respect their decision as parents. Ultimately, I believe it is up to the parent to decide whether their child can handle the pressures that sometimes come with the public school environment, and I respect, and intend in no way to belittle the strong convictions that motivate some to either send their children to Christian schools, or teach their children at home.
Nevertheless, this resolution, if passed, would seem to subtely suggest that one is a less than exemplary parent if one leaves his or her children in the public school system. The fact is, if we are going to be obedient to God's call to reach the world, the world will need to be able to "taste the salt" and "see the light." Yes, there are serious problems with public education today. But the non-negotiable demands of our King should compel us to run toward those problems, not away from them!
My friend Rob Stephens is a great example of this kind of passion. Rob serves as the Youth Pastor at the church where my wife and I are members. He coaches track and wrestling at the local high school, and has made huge "in-roads" with students as well as faculty. It is my hope to help him as he starts a church on the campus of that high school that will first reach the students, and then, eventually, their parents. Now, what would it say to the culture if we pulled our children out of the very system where the people we are attempting to reach are found? In short, an "exit strategy" in our context would be counterproductive in our efforts at mission.
Therefore, when I read those words: "Exit Strategy," I couldn't help but ask myself a question that I hope each reader will ask of himself or herself? Wouldn't it be better if "responsible" Southern Baptists developed an "invasion" strategy? What if, instead of resolving to admit defeat at the hands of the secularists, we resolved to transform public education from within? Imagine just 10 short years from now what kind of difference could be made should followers of Christ bring their children, as well as their discernment, time, dedication, and service, back into the public schools to cooperate with born-again teachers, administrators, and board members? I have no clue what the end result would be, but I would bet the farm on it looking much better than the outcome that is most assuredly to come should Southern Baptists in masse adopt the proposed resolution, and then put it into practice.
Our calling is to influence, to transform, to disciple, to relate, and to win the world! The late Abraham Kuyper once said "there is not one square inch of creation over which Christ who is sovereign does not cry out "MINE!" The arena of public education is no different. And if we are to be obedient to our Lord, retreat is not the answer. Instead, we should by our actions and witness, point to ALL areas of our culture, including public education, and cry with a loud voice, "HIS!" Jesus is worthy of no less!
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and Father's Day
My parent's generation will remember him as the fresh-faced, "voice beyond his years" youngest brother and lead singer of the group "the Jackson Five." My generation of course, will remember him as the undisputed "King of Pop," who revolutionized both the audio and video aspects of popular music. Tragically however, these mental pictures will be replaced as emerging generations remember only a strange, bizzare, hermitic, and possibly mentally disturbed weirdo.
But what hath Michael Jackson to do with Fatherhood?
Actually, Jackson's story has a lot to say to today's fathers. So in fact, does the story of O.J. Simpson. Again, visions of the charismatic, Heisman Trophy winning pro-football hall-of-famer have been replaced by that of a sinister, underhanded, violent philanderer. Whether or not one accepts the 1995 "not guilty" verdict which gave Simpson back his freedom, the facts presented in that trial revealed a jealous and extremely violent side to the ex-football star.
These are two prime examples of the kinds of men our society is creating, according to Terrance Moore, who authored the 2003 book "Wimps and Barbarians: The Sons of Murphy Brown." Playing off the infamous sit-com plot of a single woman having a son, Moore suggests the "real life" version of Murphy's son (who by now would be a late teenager), would likely resemble one of two kinds of young men that exist today: wimps, or barbarians.
Quoting Moore in an article last year, Al Mohler suggested that the "barabarians" can be easily recognized "wandering about in parks, recognizable by their sloppy dress, their lack of linguistic ability, their crudeness of manners, and their treatment of women. . . .When barbarians actually use words, their speech is most likely to be laced with profanity." Like it or not, Simpson is the model "barbarian," as is illustrated in previous 911 calls by his late ex-wife Nicole Brown.
On the other side of this dismal picture is the "wimp." Moore states that "Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians." Mohler elaborates, stating that the wimp "is incapable of living up to his responsibilities as a man, and shows no valor in his public or private life . . . .The wimp is always looking for the easiest way out of a problem." Enter Michael Jackson!
The one time "King of Pop" is now, for all practical purposes, a reclusive, child-like boy in a man's body. His own self-admittance of his reticence to grow up is embodied in his actions with the young boys who stayed with him at his California home, and is further evidenced by the child-beckoning atmosphere that Jackson often avails himself of at his "Neverland" ranch. It seems that Peter Pan isn't such a myth after all!
But Simpson and Jackson aren't alone! Their respective approaches to how they cope with life are merely reflective of the wider populace. Terrance Moore's answer seems simple enough, when he states that "the prescription for what ails our youngest males might be reduced to two, simple instructions: Don't be a barbarian, Don't be a wimp. What is left . . . .will be a man!" But a sobering question remains: Who will give these instructions?
It is obvious that Jackson's father will not be among those to take this responsibility. Joe Jackson is described in MTVs biography of his son as "by all accounts an often ill-tempered disciplinarian." When he organized the Jackson Five, his famed temper became notorious, and his son's mortal fear of his retribution should they blow it on the stage made for stressful nights of performance. In short, this Gary Indiana steel worker seemed to care more about fame and money than his children. And we thought this all started with "Showbiz Moms and Dads!"
Studies abound that demonstrate how this kind of exasperating discipline can crush the spirit of a boy so that he grows up to be a wimp instead of a man. But even worse than the exasperative father is the absent one. Single parent households have grown exponentially over the past two decades, largely due to fathers who have refused to accept responsibility for raising their children. While this certainly has an effect on daughters, it is especially damaging to young men. A few years ago, Dr. James Egan, a child psychiatrist at Washington D.C.s children's hospital, cited qualitative research that constrasted the single parent home where the father had abandoned his family with the single parent home where the father had died. In the home of the deceased father, Egan asserted that Dad still has a place of authority and moral leadership. Negative behavior by the children could often be corrected with "Would your dad approve of that?" In the home of the abandoned child, this question would be met with "Who cares," or even worse, "Who?" Dr. Egan's provocative conclusion?
...."A dead father is a more effective father than a missing father."
Steve Farrar echoes these semtiments: "I believe that if you look at every major pressing social issue in this country, whether it's teenage pregnancy, child abuse, drive-by shootings, teenage suicide, or the divorce rate, and reduce each of these problems to its lowest common denominator, you will find in each case the same root cause. That cause is a lack of male leadership."
Bottom line: Boys need men to learn how to be men! And sons need their fathers to learn how to lead families!
-We should teach our sons to love God with all their hearts, and to be consistent and dilligent students of God's Word.
-We should teach our sons to see women, not as merely sexual objects to be possessed, but as lifetime companions to cherish, protect, lead, provide for, love, and respect. This of course begins with the inflexible demand that they respect their mother, and continues as we "coach" them through the dating process, and see to it that they become capable leaders of their homes.
-We should teach our sons to accept personal responsibility for mistakes and failures. Boys need to be taught once again to make wrongs right.
-We should set the example for our sons by bringing them rather than sending them, or taking them) to church to worship God with His people.
-We should teach our sons to have a good self image, but at the same time to not think too highly of themselves. Teach them that at the end of the day, they aren't any "better" than anyone else.
-We should model for our sons how to love our wives. We should teach them that God's ideal is no less than a lifetime commitment between one man, and one woman, and warn them that anything less than this ideal is a distortion of the picture God intends to paint in marriage of the relationship between Christ and His church.
-We should teach our sons that the world owes them nothing. Conversely, they should learn from us to appreciate the value of hard work, and demand their best efforts in academics, sports, and manual labor, so that they grow up with a sense of purpose, and won't be afraid of working hard to acheive that purpose.
-We should teach our sons that work, while noble, isn't an end unto itself, but rather a means of providing for one's family and making a valuable contribution to society. The hopeful result of this will be their eventual resistance to ignoring their responsibilities to family in order to climb a "corporate ladder."
To be sure, these are high marks to which we should aspire, and they don't guarantee results. Many a parent has misread Proverbs 22:6 as divine promise rather than as a universal principle of divine wisdom. But one thing is for sure: The return of Biblical fatherhood is something for which our society is long overdue. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to raise our children, and especially our sons, in this way . . . .
. . . .after all, we don't want to raise Michael Jackson, and we don't want to raise O.J. Simpsons. What we want are real men!
Earl Rainey was one of those who knew in the end what he wanted his sons to be. He wasn't a Biblical scholar, but my strong evangelical convictions have their genesis in his admonishments that I should revere the written Word of God. He wasn't an internationally known evangelist, but my love for the unchurched began while watching him, in the bottom of an oily pit underneath a broken down semi-truck, speaking to the mechanics who worked for him about Jesus. And he certainly wasn't perfect. But my views on God's sovereign grace were seeded by watching him grow in his own faith. And today, when I read Psalm 1, I see my dad. May God be pleased to allow all of us still raising our sons to leave an identical legacy.
Speaking of which, I hear my five-year-old boy calling! I better get to work!
But what hath Michael Jackson to do with Fatherhood?
Actually, Jackson's story has a lot to say to today's fathers. So in fact, does the story of O.J. Simpson. Again, visions of the charismatic, Heisman Trophy winning pro-football hall-of-famer have been replaced by that of a sinister, underhanded, violent philanderer. Whether or not one accepts the 1995 "not guilty" verdict which gave Simpson back his freedom, the facts presented in that trial revealed a jealous and extremely violent side to the ex-football star.
These are two prime examples of the kinds of men our society is creating, according to Terrance Moore, who authored the 2003 book "Wimps and Barbarians: The Sons of Murphy Brown." Playing off the infamous sit-com plot of a single woman having a son, Moore suggests the "real life" version of Murphy's son (who by now would be a late teenager), would likely resemble one of two kinds of young men that exist today: wimps, or barbarians.
Quoting Moore in an article last year, Al Mohler suggested that the "barabarians" can be easily recognized "wandering about in parks, recognizable by their sloppy dress, their lack of linguistic ability, their crudeness of manners, and their treatment of women. . . .When barbarians actually use words, their speech is most likely to be laced with profanity." Like it or not, Simpson is the model "barbarian," as is illustrated in previous 911 calls by his late ex-wife Nicole Brown.
On the other side of this dismal picture is the "wimp." Moore states that "Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians." Mohler elaborates, stating that the wimp "is incapable of living up to his responsibilities as a man, and shows no valor in his public or private life . . . .The wimp is always looking for the easiest way out of a problem." Enter Michael Jackson!
The one time "King of Pop" is now, for all practical purposes, a reclusive, child-like boy in a man's body. His own self-admittance of his reticence to grow up is embodied in his actions with the young boys who stayed with him at his California home, and is further evidenced by the child-beckoning atmosphere that Jackson often avails himself of at his "Neverland" ranch. It seems that Peter Pan isn't such a myth after all!
But Simpson and Jackson aren't alone! Their respective approaches to how they cope with life are merely reflective of the wider populace. Terrance Moore's answer seems simple enough, when he states that "the prescription for what ails our youngest males might be reduced to two, simple instructions: Don't be a barbarian, Don't be a wimp. What is left . . . .will be a man!" But a sobering question remains: Who will give these instructions?
It is obvious that Jackson's father will not be among those to take this responsibility. Joe Jackson is described in MTVs biography of his son as "by all accounts an often ill-tempered disciplinarian." When he organized the Jackson Five, his famed temper became notorious, and his son's mortal fear of his retribution should they blow it on the stage made for stressful nights of performance. In short, this Gary Indiana steel worker seemed to care more about fame and money than his children. And we thought this all started with "Showbiz Moms and Dads!"
Studies abound that demonstrate how this kind of exasperating discipline can crush the spirit of a boy so that he grows up to be a wimp instead of a man. But even worse than the exasperative father is the absent one. Single parent households have grown exponentially over the past two decades, largely due to fathers who have refused to accept responsibility for raising their children. While this certainly has an effect on daughters, it is especially damaging to young men. A few years ago, Dr. James Egan, a child psychiatrist at Washington D.C.s children's hospital, cited qualitative research that constrasted the single parent home where the father had abandoned his family with the single parent home where the father had died. In the home of the deceased father, Egan asserted that Dad still has a place of authority and moral leadership. Negative behavior by the children could often be corrected with "Would your dad approve of that?" In the home of the abandoned child, this question would be met with "Who cares," or even worse, "Who?" Dr. Egan's provocative conclusion?
...."A dead father is a more effective father than a missing father."
Steve Farrar echoes these semtiments: "I believe that if you look at every major pressing social issue in this country, whether it's teenage pregnancy, child abuse, drive-by shootings, teenage suicide, or the divorce rate, and reduce each of these problems to its lowest common denominator, you will find in each case the same root cause. That cause is a lack of male leadership."
Bottom line: Boys need men to learn how to be men! And sons need their fathers to learn how to lead families!
-We should teach our sons to love God with all their hearts, and to be consistent and dilligent students of God's Word.
-We should teach our sons to see women, not as merely sexual objects to be possessed, but as lifetime companions to cherish, protect, lead, provide for, love, and respect. This of course begins with the inflexible demand that they respect their mother, and continues as we "coach" them through the dating process, and see to it that they become capable leaders of their homes.
-We should teach our sons to accept personal responsibility for mistakes and failures. Boys need to be taught once again to make wrongs right.
-We should set the example for our sons by bringing them rather than sending them, or taking them) to church to worship God with His people.
-We should teach our sons to have a good self image, but at the same time to not think too highly of themselves. Teach them that at the end of the day, they aren't any "better" than anyone else.
-We should model for our sons how to love our wives. We should teach them that God's ideal is no less than a lifetime commitment between one man, and one woman, and warn them that anything less than this ideal is a distortion of the picture God intends to paint in marriage of the relationship between Christ and His church.
-We should teach our sons that the world owes them nothing. Conversely, they should learn from us to appreciate the value of hard work, and demand their best efforts in academics, sports, and manual labor, so that they grow up with a sense of purpose, and won't be afraid of working hard to acheive that purpose.
-We should teach our sons that work, while noble, isn't an end unto itself, but rather a means of providing for one's family and making a valuable contribution to society. The hopeful result of this will be their eventual resistance to ignoring their responsibilities to family in order to climb a "corporate ladder."
To be sure, these are high marks to which we should aspire, and they don't guarantee results. Many a parent has misread Proverbs 22:6 as divine promise rather than as a universal principle of divine wisdom. But one thing is for sure: The return of Biblical fatherhood is something for which our society is long overdue. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to raise our children, and especially our sons, in this way . . . .
. . . .after all, we don't want to raise Michael Jackson, and we don't want to raise O.J. Simpsons. What we want are real men!
Earl Rainey was one of those who knew in the end what he wanted his sons to be. He wasn't a Biblical scholar, but my strong evangelical convictions have their genesis in his admonishments that I should revere the written Word of God. He wasn't an internationally known evangelist, but my love for the unchurched began while watching him, in the bottom of an oily pit underneath a broken down semi-truck, speaking to the mechanics who worked for him about Jesus. And he certainly wasn't perfect. But my views on God's sovereign grace were seeded by watching him grow in his own faith. And today, when I read Psalm 1, I see my dad. May God be pleased to allow all of us still raising our sons to leave an identical legacy.
Speaking of which, I hear my five-year-old boy calling! I better get to work!
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The SBC in 2035: What will it Look Like?
"Lots and Lots of candles!" That is how a colleague (tongue in cheek, of course) responded to me when I asked the question: "If the conversations about young SBC leaders result in their taking the reigns of leadership, what will our convention look like in 30 years?"
Regretably, many who know of the recent conversations between SBC and emerging leaders would reply in the same manner, without trying to be funny! Others would balk at the thoughts of where our denomination is headed should these "young bucks" get hold of the largest Protestant group in North America. But I have noticed very few, substantive conversations that seek to conjecture the question; "Where would young leaders take us?"
Below is my own feeble analysis of this question. Based on conversations I have had with young SBC pastors and church planters, as well as books and other resources I have read on the emerrging church, I believe the things below are a very real possibility! But before you explore my personal attempt at "futuring," let me throw up a two-fold preface:
1. I have listed things here which I believe, given the current trajectory of emerging leaders, WILL happen in our denomination should they be given the reigns of leadership. But although I am in favor of many of my predictions, the reader should not mistake my predictions for an endorsement of everything they read.
2. At the start, let me admit to my own ultimate ignorance of the future, and offer an open invitation for anyone to respond with critique of my predictions. My goal here is not to be an "autonomous knower," but rather, to foster discussion, which means of course, that I have failed if no discussion is generated from this post. You are encouraged to leave your own views on this post as a response.
And now; fast-forward with me about 30 years into the future:
ORGANIZATION:
-"Southern Baptist Convention" will no longer be used, as the multi-national and multi-cultural nature of our denomination is reflected in a new title. (anyone want to suggest what it should be?)
-Although the national convention will still convene, attendance will plummit, not because of any lack of interest, but due to the regionalization of annual meetings to different parts of the United States and other nations. The national convention will then be simulcast to these regional meetings.
-State Conventions by and large will continue to decline, as their influence continues to wane, and as newer churches opt to be resourced either by non-denominational entities outside the SBC, or by professional educational staff in their own churches. Eventually, state conventions will be 'streamlined' so that many both state and associational staff will include those who also work bi-vocationally as pastors and staff members in the local churches which support these entities. Continuing education and leadership training will move closer to the local level, as larger churches provide their own professional staffs to be at the disposal of the smaller congregations.
-Local associations; well, their fate depends solely on how relevant they are perceived to be by the churches they serve, which means that many will die, and die soon! Others however, will assume a place of prominence that was once held by the state convention, as localized equipping and training will be seen as more appropriate for their context. The "Director of Missions" job description will radically change, eliminating the idea of the DOM as a "bishop without power," and replacing it with the view of the DOM as a "missions facillitator." As these more traditional understandings pass, the DOM will be expected to fulfill a job more closely associated with a Church Planting/Church Growth Strategist, thereby resulting in the elimination of those positions at the associational level.
-Local churches will, by and large, adopt governmental systems that, while still "congregational" at their base, are much less "democratic." The use of "elders," church councils, etc. as administrative advisory arms to the Senior Pastor and staff will grow exponentially. The "team" approach to leadership (i.e. co-pastors, or plurality of elders) will also see a sharp rise. "Robert's Rules of Order" will be an unfamiliar term to the vasy majority of new churches. In addition, the title "Reverend" will go the way of the dinosoaur, as younger leaders eliminate the essential distinctions that have been made by the modern church between clergy and laity. Ordination will still exist, but only for legal and tax purposes. Those who lead God's church will prefer the Biblical term "Pastor" to "Reverend," "Preacher," or even "Doctor."
-The role of women in church leadership will rise. Many will serve as deacons, and a few will begin serving as elders. We will see a surge of single women volunteer as missionaries, and be sent out by their local churches to the ends of the earth.
MISSIONS:
-As the lines between methodologies in North America continue to blur with those in other parts of the world, eventually the International and North American Mission Boards will merge. In addition, those who are funded through this new missions organization will not be "missions administrators" but rather, practicioners who are "on the field" among the people he or she is attempting to reach. Many administrative positions will be eliminated, as local church pastors and volunteers from the business sectors assume these roles, thereby giving local churches more control over the decisions made concerning doctrine, qualifications for appointment, etc.
-Deputation will again enter Southern Baptist life for the first time since the inception of the Cooperative Program in 1925! Mission Boards will still underwrite much of the financial support for keeping a missionary on the field, but the missionaries will be required to raise additional support from the local churches that reccomend them for service to the field. In addition, the local church will have much greater control over who is and who is not appointed. The result of this will be a closer, more personal connection between the missionaries and the churches that support them.
-While the Baptist Faith and Message will remain the de facto confession for our churches, less rigid statements (Such as that used by the Evangelical Theological Society) will be employed as guidelines for working across denominational lines with other evangelicals in the field of mission. The result of this will be cooperative, joint efforts with Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and others whom our missionaries are now told to limit their cooperation with because of diferences on secondary issues (such as speaking in tongues, etc.).
-The SBC (under its new title, whatever that may be), will appoint missionaries from other nations of the world to come to the United States for ministry, as well as other countries. As multiculturalism eventually engulfs the planet, there will be an increased amount of "crossover" as Americans go to other nations as missionaries, and vice versa. The single, mission board will be charged with the oversight of all of these missionaries.
-Giving to the Cooperative Program will plateau, if not decline, but special mission offerings. (Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and World Hunger) will skyrocket, as the churches participate wholeheartedly in direct missions giving and involvement.
THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
-Seminary education will undergo major changes, as online and distance education becomes the norm rather than the exception. While the classical base curriculum for the basic degree programs (such as the M.Div.) will remain, many of the practical ministry courses will be re-written and contextualized to the world as it will be 30 years from now. Some of the courses that will undergo major overhauls include pastoral care and counseling, homiletics, leadership, and the practice of ministry.
-The sharp rise in bi-vocational and "tentmaker" pastorates will neccesitate that for many, the local association's training events become the primary locus for theological education. This of course, will mean "beefing up" the leadership curriculum.
-The whole basis of Theological Education is likely to be turned on its head, as the theological foundations of classical seminary education is replaced by a missiological emphasis. In effect, "Theology of Missions" will be come "Missional Theology."
-Retired Gen-Xers (sounds strange, doesn't it?) will return to the academy to learn theology and be equipped to start lay-led churches and house churches.
-Local churches will again assume the role of primary theological educator, as the seminaries once again simply act to augment this role.
CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT
-"Boycotts" will be history, as young leaders perceive these sorts of tactics to be unneccesarily alienating to those the church should be trying to reach. Instead, relational engagement will undergird the philosophy of how the church interfaces with culture. For example, instead of "boycotting Disney," Southern Baptists would purchase a showcase at Epcot Center and utilize it to speak to all who vacation there concerning the Gospel and how it relates to family values in the larger Christian worldview.
-The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will continue to be a strong and conservative "prophetic" voice to our government. But while moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cell research will continue to receive attention by this agency, other issues like taxes, gun control, the ten commandments on public property, and school prayer will largely be ignored, in lieu of subjects like the poor, and human rights throughout the world. (For example, many seem to ignore the fact that our "conservative" administration continues to advocate continued trade relations with China, which has an atrocious human rights record. Expect these issues to be addressed with much more strength.)
Obviously, this is a very incomplete list, and that is intentionally so! Where do you think we are headed, provided young leaders take the reigns of leadership. What I have left out? Where am I wrong?
The SBC is just a few weeks away, and I anticipate with excitement the conversations that I know will take place. But instead of simply complaining about the SBC as it is, why not begin discussion now of what it could be? Why not begin to speak now of how to honor its legacy? When we approach our esteemed present leaders, wouldn't it be great if, instead of a list of complaints, we brought our ideas of what could be to the table? I look foward to hearing your views. So let's get started building a vision together, shall we?
Regretably, many who know of the recent conversations between SBC and emerging leaders would reply in the same manner, without trying to be funny! Others would balk at the thoughts of where our denomination is headed should these "young bucks" get hold of the largest Protestant group in North America. But I have noticed very few, substantive conversations that seek to conjecture the question; "Where would young leaders take us?"
Below is my own feeble analysis of this question. Based on conversations I have had with young SBC pastors and church planters, as well as books and other resources I have read on the emerrging church, I believe the things below are a very real possibility! But before you explore my personal attempt at "futuring," let me throw up a two-fold preface:
1. I have listed things here which I believe, given the current trajectory of emerging leaders, WILL happen in our denomination should they be given the reigns of leadership. But although I am in favor of many of my predictions, the reader should not mistake my predictions for an endorsement of everything they read.
2. At the start, let me admit to my own ultimate ignorance of the future, and offer an open invitation for anyone to respond with critique of my predictions. My goal here is not to be an "autonomous knower," but rather, to foster discussion, which means of course, that I have failed if no discussion is generated from this post. You are encouraged to leave your own views on this post as a response.
And now; fast-forward with me about 30 years into the future:
ORGANIZATION:
-"Southern Baptist Convention" will no longer be used, as the multi-national and multi-cultural nature of our denomination is reflected in a new title. (anyone want to suggest what it should be?)
-Although the national convention will still convene, attendance will plummit, not because of any lack of interest, but due to the regionalization of annual meetings to different parts of the United States and other nations. The national convention will then be simulcast to these regional meetings.
-State Conventions by and large will continue to decline, as their influence continues to wane, and as newer churches opt to be resourced either by non-denominational entities outside the SBC, or by professional educational staff in their own churches. Eventually, state conventions will be 'streamlined' so that many both state and associational staff will include those who also work bi-vocationally as pastors and staff members in the local churches which support these entities. Continuing education and leadership training will move closer to the local level, as larger churches provide their own professional staffs to be at the disposal of the smaller congregations.
-Local associations; well, their fate depends solely on how relevant they are perceived to be by the churches they serve, which means that many will die, and die soon! Others however, will assume a place of prominence that was once held by the state convention, as localized equipping and training will be seen as more appropriate for their context. The "Director of Missions" job description will radically change, eliminating the idea of the DOM as a "bishop without power," and replacing it with the view of the DOM as a "missions facillitator." As these more traditional understandings pass, the DOM will be expected to fulfill a job more closely associated with a Church Planting/Church Growth Strategist, thereby resulting in the elimination of those positions at the associational level.
-Local churches will, by and large, adopt governmental systems that, while still "congregational" at their base, are much less "democratic." The use of "elders," church councils, etc. as administrative advisory arms to the Senior Pastor and staff will grow exponentially. The "team" approach to leadership (i.e. co-pastors, or plurality of elders) will also see a sharp rise. "Robert's Rules of Order" will be an unfamiliar term to the vasy majority of new churches. In addition, the title "Reverend" will go the way of the dinosoaur, as younger leaders eliminate the essential distinctions that have been made by the modern church between clergy and laity. Ordination will still exist, but only for legal and tax purposes. Those who lead God's church will prefer the Biblical term "Pastor" to "Reverend," "Preacher," or even "Doctor."
-The role of women in church leadership will rise. Many will serve as deacons, and a few will begin serving as elders. We will see a surge of single women volunteer as missionaries, and be sent out by their local churches to the ends of the earth.
MISSIONS:
-As the lines between methodologies in North America continue to blur with those in other parts of the world, eventually the International and North American Mission Boards will merge. In addition, those who are funded through this new missions organization will not be "missions administrators" but rather, practicioners who are "on the field" among the people he or she is attempting to reach. Many administrative positions will be eliminated, as local church pastors and volunteers from the business sectors assume these roles, thereby giving local churches more control over the decisions made concerning doctrine, qualifications for appointment, etc.
-Deputation will again enter Southern Baptist life for the first time since the inception of the Cooperative Program in 1925! Mission Boards will still underwrite much of the financial support for keeping a missionary on the field, but the missionaries will be required to raise additional support from the local churches that reccomend them for service to the field. In addition, the local church will have much greater control over who is and who is not appointed. The result of this will be a closer, more personal connection between the missionaries and the churches that support them.
-While the Baptist Faith and Message will remain the de facto confession for our churches, less rigid statements (Such as that used by the Evangelical Theological Society) will be employed as guidelines for working across denominational lines with other evangelicals in the field of mission. The result of this will be cooperative, joint efforts with Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and others whom our missionaries are now told to limit their cooperation with because of diferences on secondary issues (such as speaking in tongues, etc.).
-The SBC (under its new title, whatever that may be), will appoint missionaries from other nations of the world to come to the United States for ministry, as well as other countries. As multiculturalism eventually engulfs the planet, there will be an increased amount of "crossover" as Americans go to other nations as missionaries, and vice versa. The single, mission board will be charged with the oversight of all of these missionaries.
-Giving to the Cooperative Program will plateau, if not decline, but special mission offerings. (Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and World Hunger) will skyrocket, as the churches participate wholeheartedly in direct missions giving and involvement.
THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
-Seminary education will undergo major changes, as online and distance education becomes the norm rather than the exception. While the classical base curriculum for the basic degree programs (such as the M.Div.) will remain, many of the practical ministry courses will be re-written and contextualized to the world as it will be 30 years from now. Some of the courses that will undergo major overhauls include pastoral care and counseling, homiletics, leadership, and the practice of ministry.
-The sharp rise in bi-vocational and "tentmaker" pastorates will neccesitate that for many, the local association's training events become the primary locus for theological education. This of course, will mean "beefing up" the leadership curriculum.
-The whole basis of Theological Education is likely to be turned on its head, as the theological foundations of classical seminary education is replaced by a missiological emphasis. In effect, "Theology of Missions" will be come "Missional Theology."
-Retired Gen-Xers (sounds strange, doesn't it?) will return to the academy to learn theology and be equipped to start lay-led churches and house churches.
-Local churches will again assume the role of primary theological educator, as the seminaries once again simply act to augment this role.
CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT
-"Boycotts" will be history, as young leaders perceive these sorts of tactics to be unneccesarily alienating to those the church should be trying to reach. Instead, relational engagement will undergird the philosophy of how the church interfaces with culture. For example, instead of "boycotting Disney," Southern Baptists would purchase a showcase at Epcot Center and utilize it to speak to all who vacation there concerning the Gospel and how it relates to family values in the larger Christian worldview.
-The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will continue to be a strong and conservative "prophetic" voice to our government. But while moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cell research will continue to receive attention by this agency, other issues like taxes, gun control, the ten commandments on public property, and school prayer will largely be ignored, in lieu of subjects like the poor, and human rights throughout the world. (For example, many seem to ignore the fact that our "conservative" administration continues to advocate continued trade relations with China, which has an atrocious human rights record. Expect these issues to be addressed with much more strength.)
Obviously, this is a very incomplete list, and that is intentionally so! Where do you think we are headed, provided young leaders take the reigns of leadership. What I have left out? Where am I wrong?
The SBC is just a few weeks away, and I anticipate with excitement the conversations that I know will take place. But instead of simply complaining about the SBC as it is, why not begin discussion now of what it could be? Why not begin to speak now of how to honor its legacy? When we approach our esteemed present leaders, wouldn't it be great if, instead of a list of complaints, we brought our ideas of what could be to the table? I look foward to hearing your views. So let's get started building a vision together, shall we?
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Young Leaders, Scripture, and Tradition: The "Unintended Consequences" of the SBCs Conservative Resurgence
Well, it's official! Young leaders and the emerging church have finally made it onto the "radar screen" of the Southern Baptist Convention (if you consider Baptist Press the radar screen). But where did these guys come from in the first place?
Opinions abound concerning the origin of the latest generation of Southern Baptist pastors and the views they bring to the denominational table. New Testament scholar D.A. Carson suggests that emerging leaders have their genesis in a combination of cultural savvy and protest. Some young leaders themselves think their ilk began with a desire to find the "historical church."
Missiologist Ed Stetzer however, suggests a totally different kind of fountainhead from which emerging leaders may have come, and his views make a lot of sense. Dr. Stetzer states that young leaders' questioning of tradition and establishement is no less than the result of the conservative resurgence within the convention, which brought our agencies, seminaries, and many local churches "back to the Bible."
While Stetzer admits that "there are a few bad [theological] apples out there," he also suggests that "it would be rather odd for them to stick around in a denomination known for its serious commitment to theology, evangelism, preaching, etc." In other words, while post-liberal hermaneutics and the re-writing of the meaning of atonement are prominent aspects in many corridors of the emerging church movement, these heretical concepts are largely rejected by young Southern Baptists.
Conservative young leaders, however, have other concerns as they relate to denominational life. And these concerns relate to many traditions and practices that they feel are "extra-biblical." Stetzer again contends that Southern Baptists "spent more than two decades telling young leaders that we must take the Bible seriously. Should we be surprised that they do? When younger leaders question some long-held traditions, we should not be surprised--they are the result of the theological resurgence."
If Stetzer is correct, there must be a few Southern Baptists scratching their heads and wondering if they have created a monster! I wonder if by the time of Leipzig, Staupitz felt the same way about Luther?
As Martin Luther's confessor in the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz is credited by the reformer as the one who germiniated his doctrine. This germination began of course, during Luther's early struggles with his own faith, followed by Staupiz's encouragement for Luther to go back to the Word of God, where He would find "Christ Himself." Luther followed the advice of his spiritual father, and the eventual result was the Protestant Reformation.
But not everyone was happy with the results of Luther's challenge to take the church "back to the Bible." Finally ordered to appear at Leipzig in July 1519, Luther, accompanied by his longtime colleague Professor Carlstadt, stood to face John Eck, the famed Catholic debater who was called the "hammer of the heretics." Eck came to this debate with one goal: to force Luther into a corner and prove he was a heretic. But while Eck was considered the "technical" winner of the debate, the authorities to which these two men appealed could not have been any more different. Eck argued on the basis of papal authority and church tradition. Luther countered from Scripture, and forcefully contended that popes and councils were to be tested by Scripture, because none are above Scripture. From this came the Reformation cry of authority, sola scriptura!
Fast forward 486 years, and we have a similar (though not at all identical) issue before us. While Southern Baptists would never make the same objective claims made by Eck, it must be admitted that sometimes in practice, tradition is held to be at least equal to the Bible. Young leaders, like Luther, aren't interested in dividing the house. But they are interested in challenging a few of our traditions, and asking for Biblical grounds for a few things, among them:
1. Where is the Biblical basis for saying that only ordained ministers can administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
2. Where is the Biblical basis upon which we call for a "tee-total" approach to alcohol consumption, but say little or nothing about the problem of gluttony that is so present in our churches, and not a few pulpits?
3. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that anyone who doesn't issue a formal "altar call" at the end of a sermon is not evangelistic?
4. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that the Great Commission can't be accomplished without the Cooperative Program?
5. Where is the Biblical basis for claiming that God has placed His unconditional approval upon the Republican Party?
6. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that "church" always looks the same in every context?
7. Where is the Biblical basis for shackleing the universal church rite of Baptism to membership in local bodies?
These are just a few of the questions I have heard. And they aren't being asked with the intent of proving their side of an argument. Most of the young leaders I speak with have a sincere desire to know the truth. But they will not accept something as true simply because it comes from Nashville. Like Luther, they simply want to be taken to Scripture.
But this requires that all of us go back to Scripture! And in the process, we may discover that some of what we considered "Biblical" is in fact only grounded in tradition.
To be committed to sola scriptura (Scripture alone is our authority), Southern Baptists must also be committed to the concept of semper reformanda (Always Reforming). If indeed Scripture is our sole authority for faith and practice; if indeed we are "a people of the book," then we must be equally committed to the continual task of reforming ourselves, and our practice, so that we are always sure to have our commitment to Scripture alone. I believe Dr. Stetzer is correct: The conservative resurgence has borne us these young leaders. They are radically committed to Scriptural truth, and to Scriptural truth alone!
My own hope is that articles like those appearing in Baptist Press last week will result in fruitful conversations between our esteeemed present denominational leaders, and the potential leaders of the future. Jimmy Draper has already exhibited a wonderful openness by starting his own conversation with emerging leaders, and this year's SBC would be a great opportunity to begin more such conversations.
So what would this mean for the future? What if young leaders are in fact, allowed a prominent place at the table. What will the SBC look like in, say, 50 years? More on this next week!
Opinions abound concerning the origin of the latest generation of Southern Baptist pastors and the views they bring to the denominational table. New Testament scholar D.A. Carson suggests that emerging leaders have their genesis in a combination of cultural savvy and protest. Some young leaders themselves think their ilk began with a desire to find the "historical church."
Missiologist Ed Stetzer however, suggests a totally different kind of fountainhead from which emerging leaders may have come, and his views make a lot of sense. Dr. Stetzer states that young leaders' questioning of tradition and establishement is no less than the result of the conservative resurgence within the convention, which brought our agencies, seminaries, and many local churches "back to the Bible."
While Stetzer admits that "there are a few bad [theological] apples out there," he also suggests that "it would be rather odd for them to stick around in a denomination known for its serious commitment to theology, evangelism, preaching, etc." In other words, while post-liberal hermaneutics and the re-writing of the meaning of atonement are prominent aspects in many corridors of the emerging church movement, these heretical concepts are largely rejected by young Southern Baptists.
Conservative young leaders, however, have other concerns as they relate to denominational life. And these concerns relate to many traditions and practices that they feel are "extra-biblical." Stetzer again contends that Southern Baptists "spent more than two decades telling young leaders that we must take the Bible seriously. Should we be surprised that they do? When younger leaders question some long-held traditions, we should not be surprised--they are the result of the theological resurgence."
If Stetzer is correct, there must be a few Southern Baptists scratching their heads and wondering if they have created a monster! I wonder if by the time of Leipzig, Staupitz felt the same way about Luther?
As Martin Luther's confessor in the Augustinian order, Johann von Staupitz is credited by the reformer as the one who germiniated his doctrine. This germination began of course, during Luther's early struggles with his own faith, followed by Staupiz's encouragement for Luther to go back to the Word of God, where He would find "Christ Himself." Luther followed the advice of his spiritual father, and the eventual result was the Protestant Reformation.
But not everyone was happy with the results of Luther's challenge to take the church "back to the Bible." Finally ordered to appear at Leipzig in July 1519, Luther, accompanied by his longtime colleague Professor Carlstadt, stood to face John Eck, the famed Catholic debater who was called the "hammer of the heretics." Eck came to this debate with one goal: to force Luther into a corner and prove he was a heretic. But while Eck was considered the "technical" winner of the debate, the authorities to which these two men appealed could not have been any more different. Eck argued on the basis of papal authority and church tradition. Luther countered from Scripture, and forcefully contended that popes and councils were to be tested by Scripture, because none are above Scripture. From this came the Reformation cry of authority, sola scriptura!
Fast forward 486 years, and we have a similar (though not at all identical) issue before us. While Southern Baptists would never make the same objective claims made by Eck, it must be admitted that sometimes in practice, tradition is held to be at least equal to the Bible. Young leaders, like Luther, aren't interested in dividing the house. But they are interested in challenging a few of our traditions, and asking for Biblical grounds for a few things, among them:
1. Where is the Biblical basis for saying that only ordained ministers can administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
2. Where is the Biblical basis upon which we call for a "tee-total" approach to alcohol consumption, but say little or nothing about the problem of gluttony that is so present in our churches, and not a few pulpits?
3. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that anyone who doesn't issue a formal "altar call" at the end of a sermon is not evangelistic?
4. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that the Great Commission can't be accomplished without the Cooperative Program?
5. Where is the Biblical basis for claiming that God has placed His unconditional approval upon the Republican Party?
6. Where is the Biblical basis for stating that "church" always looks the same in every context?
7. Where is the Biblical basis for shackleing the universal church rite of Baptism to membership in local bodies?
These are just a few of the questions I have heard. And they aren't being asked with the intent of proving their side of an argument. Most of the young leaders I speak with have a sincere desire to know the truth. But they will not accept something as true simply because it comes from Nashville. Like Luther, they simply want to be taken to Scripture.
But this requires that all of us go back to Scripture! And in the process, we may discover that some of what we considered "Biblical" is in fact only grounded in tradition.
To be committed to sola scriptura (Scripture alone is our authority), Southern Baptists must also be committed to the concept of semper reformanda (Always Reforming). If indeed Scripture is our sole authority for faith and practice; if indeed we are "a people of the book," then we must be equally committed to the continual task of reforming ourselves, and our practice, so that we are always sure to have our commitment to Scripture alone. I believe Dr. Stetzer is correct: The conservative resurgence has borne us these young leaders. They are radically committed to Scriptural truth, and to Scriptural truth alone!
My own hope is that articles like those appearing in Baptist Press last week will result in fruitful conversations between our esteeemed present denominational leaders, and the potential leaders of the future. Jimmy Draper has already exhibited a wonderful openness by starting his own conversation with emerging leaders, and this year's SBC would be a great opportunity to begin more such conversations.
So what would this mean for the future? What if young leaders are in fact, allowed a prominent place at the table. What will the SBC look like in, say, 50 years? More on this next week!
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Ressurrection and Legitimacy in Ministry
Spencer Burke, principal architect for The Ooze website www.theooze.com, often laments the condition of the church in North America. One of his main objections is how the modern church defines "legitimate" ministry. Similarly, Mike Yaconelli, author of Stories of Emergence, shares his experience of being told that even though he functioned as a pastor, he wasn't really viewed by the "church world" as a pastor, because he had no seminary degree, and his congregation was in decline.
Stories like these abound, especially in the United States, and they raise an all-important issue: How is the church called to define "legitimacy?" If you are a pastor reading this, I am almost certain that you have asked these questions of your own calling at one time or another. If you are not a pastor, please excuse my focus on them in this post, and let me enjoy some "comdradere" with them for the present. I'll get back to the rest of you next time! :)
Burke and Yaconelli rightly point out many of the fallacies present in the way the modern church growth movement would define legitimacy. While those in ministry should have a way of identifying themselves as the "genuine article" (We don't want surgeons operating on our bodies who received Ds in medical school. We want the guys who actually know what they are doing! Why should competency be any less important when questioning the qualifications of those who hold eternal souls in the balance?), there are certain assumptions about what gives a minister of the Gospel credibility that, in their view, must be challenged. They are largely correct.
Topping the list is formal education. Presbyterian theologian D.G. Hart contends that the importance of formal theological training can be seen in the "hermaneutical egalitarianism" that exists in the church today. Speaking specifically of seminary faculty, Hart asks "are church members likely to regard professors as doctors in the church whose judgement and insights, though by no means infallible, are worth hearing, if only because of their proficiency and expertise in a specific theological discipline?" His conclusion is that this is probably not the case, due again to an egalitarian hermaneutic that "makes the conclusion of the seminary professor no better than what the folks 'share' at the Wednesday Bible study."
While Hart's concerns are worthy of attention, his views on the essential distinction between clergy and laity transcend discussion of formal education alone, to include the solemnity of calling. He points out the notion that "Kingdom work," which bestows significance upon all vocations, leads people in all walks of life "to believe that their vocations have as much redemptive import as that of officers in Christ's church." In other words, part of what grants legitimacy to ministers in Hart's view is an understanding that vocational ministry is somehow of greater value to God's Kingdom than any other profession. Therefore, formal education is of absolute neccesity for the "legitimate" minister of the Gospel.
Another "modern credential" is, of course, the minister's "track record." This is no surprise, given how the American church has "syncretized" a worldly definition of "success" to be its own. Often, the "church growth" mentality even causes comparisons of ministries based solely on the "numbers game." Just a few weeks ago one well-known Louisville, KY pastor, when in disagreement with a more moderate pastor on the other side of town over a particular issue, answered his colleague, not by addressing the issue itself, but rather by suggesting that the other pastor pay closer attention to his own church, because "his numbers seem to indicate that he should." In other words, "my church is bigger than yours, therefore my ministry is more legitimate than yours." This sort of sinful pride has no place in the body of Christ, yet it is regrettably the driving force behind how many pastors and church leaders are recognized as "authorities."
The above faulty assumptions have been addressed with eloquence by Burke, Yaconelli, and others who share their views of "ministerial legitimacy." Formal education, while important, is not the end-all-be-all panacea to a succesful ministry (and as a terminal degree-holding, two-time product of my denomination's flagship seminary, I think I can speak here in an unbiased fashion) Certainly, a call to ministry is a call to prepare, but while a rich knowlege of the Scriptures should be the minimum prerequisite to the pastoral office, it is not a piece of "sheepskin" that guarantees such knowlege.
Similarly, one must ask if the rate of growth in a church corresponds to the level of legitimacy God places on a ministry. The fastest growing denominational body in the United States is presently the Mormon church. The fastest growing religion in Great Brittain is Islam. Burke and Yaconelli are correct: If we want to discover what is really important to God, we must learn how to judge the value of things we can't count!
Still, while many of the criticisms leveled at the modern church by Burke and company are worthy of attention, I fear that Burke unknowingly steps over the line in his search for legitimacy by criticizing Christ as well as His Church. Much of this criticism is well-intentioned. For example, Burke contends that Christians have been wrong about many subjects, such as slavery and women's rights. His conclusion: "Given a less-than-stellar track record, is it really so heretical to think that the evangelical church may be wrong about homosexuality as well? Isn't it wise to ask the 'what-if' question from time to time, if for no other reason than to test our contemporary application of Scripture?"
...Yes, it is heretical!
...and no, it is never wise to question issues on which the Bible speaks with crystal clarity!
In the end, legitimacy doesn't come from the "modern" trappings of education, or a worldly definition of success. In addition, legitimacy will not be found by questioning the truths given us in Scripture. Ultimately, our legitimacy as ministers of the Gospel comes from the Word of God, given by the God of the Word. The Apostle Paul believed this, and in his proposal to the Church at Rome for a mission to Spain, he grounds his authority and legitimacy there. Interesting, isn't it? Paul could have very easily appealed to his Rabbinical training, or to his "track record" as a church planter.
Instead, he simply finds his legitimacy in being "called as an Ap0stle, set apart for the Gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh, and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His ressurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 1:1b-4]
Authority and legitimacy don't come from denying or questioning that which Scripture teaches with clarity. Nor does it come from any artificially-imposed "credentials" the modern church may attempt to use. It comes from the ressurrectd Christ!
Have you, as a minister, ever questioned your calling? Seriously, have you ever thought to yourself, "you know, if only I had more education." Similarly, have you ever looked at what appeared to be anemic results from your service as a pastor and said "maybe I should find another line of work."? You are not alone! But Paul, the most articulate theologian and successful missionary/church planter in the history of Christianity, said that his legitimacy was not based on his track record. It was based on the bodily ressurection of Jesus!
Our pride in the modern church has caused our failure to see what God truly values. I don't have any authority because of my educational attainments, or because of a "successful" ministry. I have authority and legitimacy as a minister because a dead man rose from the grave, and commands that I tell His story! But He also commands that I accurately represent His story, which means that as I hold to the living Word as my base of authority, I must also simultaneously hold to the written Word which reveals Him for who He is. In short, prepare as God gives you opportunity, be faithful to the clear teaching of His Word, and live to His glory until Jesus comes! Has God called you to this task? Has God "sent you out" to do ministry among His people? Do your spiritual gifts and skills confirm this sense of calling? Have God's people, the church, recognized this in you? Are you seeking to prepare yourself in all ways accesible to you, including the "seminary of real world experience?" If so, then let there be no question of your "legitimacy."
Stories like these abound, especially in the United States, and they raise an all-important issue: How is the church called to define "legitimacy?" If you are a pastor reading this, I am almost certain that you have asked these questions of your own calling at one time or another. If you are not a pastor, please excuse my focus on them in this post, and let me enjoy some "comdradere" with them for the present. I'll get back to the rest of you next time! :)
Burke and Yaconelli rightly point out many of the fallacies present in the way the modern church growth movement would define legitimacy. While those in ministry should have a way of identifying themselves as the "genuine article" (We don't want surgeons operating on our bodies who received Ds in medical school. We want the guys who actually know what they are doing! Why should competency be any less important when questioning the qualifications of those who hold eternal souls in the balance?), there are certain assumptions about what gives a minister of the Gospel credibility that, in their view, must be challenged. They are largely correct.
Topping the list is formal education. Presbyterian theologian D.G. Hart contends that the importance of formal theological training can be seen in the "hermaneutical egalitarianism" that exists in the church today. Speaking specifically of seminary faculty, Hart asks "are church members likely to regard professors as doctors in the church whose judgement and insights, though by no means infallible, are worth hearing, if only because of their proficiency and expertise in a specific theological discipline?" His conclusion is that this is probably not the case, due again to an egalitarian hermaneutic that "makes the conclusion of the seminary professor no better than what the folks 'share' at the Wednesday Bible study."
While Hart's concerns are worthy of attention, his views on the essential distinction between clergy and laity transcend discussion of formal education alone, to include the solemnity of calling. He points out the notion that "Kingdom work," which bestows significance upon all vocations, leads people in all walks of life "to believe that their vocations have as much redemptive import as that of officers in Christ's church." In other words, part of what grants legitimacy to ministers in Hart's view is an understanding that vocational ministry is somehow of greater value to God's Kingdom than any other profession. Therefore, formal education is of absolute neccesity for the "legitimate" minister of the Gospel.
Another "modern credential" is, of course, the minister's "track record." This is no surprise, given how the American church has "syncretized" a worldly definition of "success" to be its own. Often, the "church growth" mentality even causes comparisons of ministries based solely on the "numbers game." Just a few weeks ago one well-known Louisville, KY pastor, when in disagreement with a more moderate pastor on the other side of town over a particular issue, answered his colleague, not by addressing the issue itself, but rather by suggesting that the other pastor pay closer attention to his own church, because "his numbers seem to indicate that he should." In other words, "my church is bigger than yours, therefore my ministry is more legitimate than yours." This sort of sinful pride has no place in the body of Christ, yet it is regrettably the driving force behind how many pastors and church leaders are recognized as "authorities."
The above faulty assumptions have been addressed with eloquence by Burke, Yaconelli, and others who share their views of "ministerial legitimacy." Formal education, while important, is not the end-all-be-all panacea to a succesful ministry (and as a terminal degree-holding, two-time product of my denomination's flagship seminary, I think I can speak here in an unbiased fashion) Certainly, a call to ministry is a call to prepare, but while a rich knowlege of the Scriptures should be the minimum prerequisite to the pastoral office, it is not a piece of "sheepskin" that guarantees such knowlege.
Similarly, one must ask if the rate of growth in a church corresponds to the level of legitimacy God places on a ministry. The fastest growing denominational body in the United States is presently the Mormon church. The fastest growing religion in Great Brittain is Islam. Burke and Yaconelli are correct: If we want to discover what is really important to God, we must learn how to judge the value of things we can't count!
Still, while many of the criticisms leveled at the modern church by Burke and company are worthy of attention, I fear that Burke unknowingly steps over the line in his search for legitimacy by criticizing Christ as well as His Church. Much of this criticism is well-intentioned. For example, Burke contends that Christians have been wrong about many subjects, such as slavery and women's rights. His conclusion: "Given a less-than-stellar track record, is it really so heretical to think that the evangelical church may be wrong about homosexuality as well? Isn't it wise to ask the 'what-if' question from time to time, if for no other reason than to test our contemporary application of Scripture?"
...Yes, it is heretical!
...and no, it is never wise to question issues on which the Bible speaks with crystal clarity!
In the end, legitimacy doesn't come from the "modern" trappings of education, or a worldly definition of success. In addition, legitimacy will not be found by questioning the truths given us in Scripture. Ultimately, our legitimacy as ministers of the Gospel comes from the Word of God, given by the God of the Word. The Apostle Paul believed this, and in his proposal to the Church at Rome for a mission to Spain, he grounds his authority and legitimacy there. Interesting, isn't it? Paul could have very easily appealed to his Rabbinical training, or to his "track record" as a church planter.
Instead, he simply finds his legitimacy in being "called as an Ap0stle, set apart for the Gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh, and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His ressurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 1:1b-4]
Authority and legitimacy don't come from denying or questioning that which Scripture teaches with clarity. Nor does it come from any artificially-imposed "credentials" the modern church may attempt to use. It comes from the ressurrectd Christ!
Have you, as a minister, ever questioned your calling? Seriously, have you ever thought to yourself, "you know, if only I had more education." Similarly, have you ever looked at what appeared to be anemic results from your service as a pastor and said "maybe I should find another line of work."? You are not alone! But Paul, the most articulate theologian and successful missionary/church planter in the history of Christianity, said that his legitimacy was not based on his track record. It was based on the bodily ressurection of Jesus!
Our pride in the modern church has caused our failure to see what God truly values. I don't have any authority because of my educational attainments, or because of a "successful" ministry. I have authority and legitimacy as a minister because a dead man rose from the grave, and commands that I tell His story! But He also commands that I accurately represent His story, which means that as I hold to the living Word as my base of authority, I must also simultaneously hold to the written Word which reveals Him for who He is. In short, prepare as God gives you opportunity, be faithful to the clear teaching of His Word, and live to His glory until Jesus comes! Has God called you to this task? Has God "sent you out" to do ministry among His people? Do your spiritual gifts and skills confirm this sense of calling? Have God's people, the church, recognized this in you? Are you seeking to prepare yourself in all ways accesible to you, including the "seminary of real world experience?" If so, then let there be no question of your "legitimacy."
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Lessons in Absolute Truth; from Obi-Wan Kenobi
Like most other "Gen-Xers," I have long anticipated this day as one of "closure." What began as a monumental epic in 1977, has now come full circle, as "Star Wars: Episode III" has finally been released to the public.
As much as I enjoyed this film (though dark, it is undoubtedly the best of the last three movies!), one particular scene toward the end brought this fictional tale directly to bear on the worldview issues we face in reality. And in the process, I think that my own "real-life" Christian worldview may have been compared with the "dark side" of the force!
In the much-awaited battle between Anakin Skywalker (who by this time in the film had converted to the dark side and been dubbed "Darth Vader") and Obi-Wan Kenobi, Skywalker's life-long mentor says to him "only the sith deal in absolutes."
"Pop culture" of course, goes by that name principally because it is a reflection of the cultural values of the vast majority, and no one can doubt that most in our culture today are skeptical of any notion of that which is absolute. In view of this, is it any surprise that the iconic symbol of Gen-X heroism himself associates such thinking with evil? But the rejction of absolutes didn't arrive within pop culture by accident. It began with the collapse of modernism's "Empire" of epistemological certainty, and grew stronger with postmodernism's sweeping denial of any such concept.
The modern world of the past 500 years believed that human reason could deduce away any mystery from life. But in the midst of two bloody world wars, and the threat of terrorism and nuclear annihilation, postmodernists began asking if these contentions were accurate. Is the human mind entirely trustworthy? Can science solve all of our problems? Is the advance of human knowledge and progress a foregone conclusion?
Within the "modern" church, similar questions were asked: Is it possible to know truth absolutely? Doesn't Deuteronomy 29:29 suggest that God, while knowable, will forever remain ultimately mysterious? Shouldn't theology be utilized to stand in greater awe of the One whose ways and thoughts are much higher than our own, rather than for trying to "figure everything out"? These were valid questions. But in the end, postmodernism gave even worse answers to them than the modern age that preceeded it.
Postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty claimed that "truth" is made rather than found. In other words, any statement given as "absolute" was not actually something transcendent, but rather constructed by a given culture in order to facilitate the continuation of traditional cultural norms. Likewise, Jaques Derrida, the french philosopher who is often touted as "postmodernism's 'Abraham'" stated that metanarratives in the modern world were not drawn from absolute sources, but were stories constructed by various cultures to oppress. Therefore, the primary objective of postmodernism was to "deconstruct" all "truths" and reject all contentions of things absolute. Hence, we have Kenobi associating belief in absolutes with the dark side!
The late Carl F.H. Henry lamented these ideas when he wrote almost thirty years ago that "no fact of contemporary WEstern life is more evident than its growing distrust of final truth and its implacable questioning of any sure word." How is it then, that followers of Jesus Christ can confront such skepticism?
The answer is to go back to the Scriptures, and in doing so appeal to an authority that transcends both the modern and the postmodern. From the opening line of Genesis; "In the beginning, GOD . . . ." we see clearly that Scripture has no problem with stating that there are indeed, absolutes, because God Himself is absolute! As one theologian once described Him, "he is the only REAL reality in the universe!"
Are there things we don't know about God? Without a doubt! Are there mysteries for which we have no answer? Certainly! But just because we lack posession of the answers doesn't mean that the anwers don't exist! Must we "agree to disagree" concerning the way certain Biblical passages should be interpreted? To do anything less would be to promote a hubris that dishonors God. But just because we can't agree on one interpretations doesn't mean that there isn't one "right" interpretation, and that all others are wrong!
Close to the end of my undergraduate training, Dr. Walter Johnson, one of my dearest academic mentors, reminded me that my rigorous studies were not ultimately for the purpose of disproving neo-orthodoxy, classical liberalism, liberation theology, or any number of abberrations from the truth of Scripture. Quoting one of his own early mentors, I remember him telling me "Joel, we have taught you these things so that as a pastor, when you stand in front of the people over which God has given you charge, and you open the Bible, you can have complete confidence that God has spoken!"
If the church continues to "hide out" in the modern world, pretending that it has all the answers, sooner or later (if it hasn't happened already) the culture is going to call our bluff! If we "lift our sails into the winds of postmodernity" (as has been suggested by Leonard Sweet) then our aspirations to relevancy will leave us the most irrelevant institution in culture. Cetainly, the world sees belief in the absolute exclusivity of Jesus, the absolute existence of God, the absolute holiness of God, and the absolute truth of holy Scripture as something narrow, something bigoted. . . .dare we say. . . .something "dark." But lest we lose the foundation of the Gospel, let us forever hold to these two absolute certainties: God is, and God has spoken!
Now, go and enjoy the movie! (Seriously, I think its the best one of the six!) Don't take it as seriously as I just did. But do remember the cultural values it reflects. Remember that Jesus challenged us to be "counter-cultural," and commit yourself to His Kingdom enterprise. This is a far better thing than having someone say "May the force be with you." :)
As much as I enjoyed this film (though dark, it is undoubtedly the best of the last three movies!), one particular scene toward the end brought this fictional tale directly to bear on the worldview issues we face in reality. And in the process, I think that my own "real-life" Christian worldview may have been compared with the "dark side" of the force!
In the much-awaited battle between Anakin Skywalker (who by this time in the film had converted to the dark side and been dubbed "Darth Vader") and Obi-Wan Kenobi, Skywalker's life-long mentor says to him "only the sith deal in absolutes."
"Pop culture" of course, goes by that name principally because it is a reflection of the cultural values of the vast majority, and no one can doubt that most in our culture today are skeptical of any notion of that which is absolute. In view of this, is it any surprise that the iconic symbol of Gen-X heroism himself associates such thinking with evil? But the rejction of absolutes didn't arrive within pop culture by accident. It began with the collapse of modernism's "Empire" of epistemological certainty, and grew stronger with postmodernism's sweeping denial of any such concept.
The modern world of the past 500 years believed that human reason could deduce away any mystery from life. But in the midst of two bloody world wars, and the threat of terrorism and nuclear annihilation, postmodernists began asking if these contentions were accurate. Is the human mind entirely trustworthy? Can science solve all of our problems? Is the advance of human knowledge and progress a foregone conclusion?
Within the "modern" church, similar questions were asked: Is it possible to know truth absolutely? Doesn't Deuteronomy 29:29 suggest that God, while knowable, will forever remain ultimately mysterious? Shouldn't theology be utilized to stand in greater awe of the One whose ways and thoughts are much higher than our own, rather than for trying to "figure everything out"? These were valid questions. But in the end, postmodernism gave even worse answers to them than the modern age that preceeded it.
Postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty claimed that "truth" is made rather than found. In other words, any statement given as "absolute" was not actually something transcendent, but rather constructed by a given culture in order to facilitate the continuation of traditional cultural norms. Likewise, Jaques Derrida, the french philosopher who is often touted as "postmodernism's 'Abraham'" stated that metanarratives in the modern world were not drawn from absolute sources, but were stories constructed by various cultures to oppress. Therefore, the primary objective of postmodernism was to "deconstruct" all "truths" and reject all contentions of things absolute. Hence, we have Kenobi associating belief in absolutes with the dark side!
The late Carl F.H. Henry lamented these ideas when he wrote almost thirty years ago that "no fact of contemporary WEstern life is more evident than its growing distrust of final truth and its implacable questioning of any sure word." How is it then, that followers of Jesus Christ can confront such skepticism?
The answer is to go back to the Scriptures, and in doing so appeal to an authority that transcends both the modern and the postmodern. From the opening line of Genesis; "In the beginning, GOD . . . ." we see clearly that Scripture has no problem with stating that there are indeed, absolutes, because God Himself is absolute! As one theologian once described Him, "he is the only REAL reality in the universe!"
Are there things we don't know about God? Without a doubt! Are there mysteries for which we have no answer? Certainly! But just because we lack posession of the answers doesn't mean that the anwers don't exist! Must we "agree to disagree" concerning the way certain Biblical passages should be interpreted? To do anything less would be to promote a hubris that dishonors God. But just because we can't agree on one interpretations doesn't mean that there isn't one "right" interpretation, and that all others are wrong!
Close to the end of my undergraduate training, Dr. Walter Johnson, one of my dearest academic mentors, reminded me that my rigorous studies were not ultimately for the purpose of disproving neo-orthodoxy, classical liberalism, liberation theology, or any number of abberrations from the truth of Scripture. Quoting one of his own early mentors, I remember him telling me "Joel, we have taught you these things so that as a pastor, when you stand in front of the people over which God has given you charge, and you open the Bible, you can have complete confidence that God has spoken!"
If the church continues to "hide out" in the modern world, pretending that it has all the answers, sooner or later (if it hasn't happened already) the culture is going to call our bluff! If we "lift our sails into the winds of postmodernity" (as has been suggested by Leonard Sweet) then our aspirations to relevancy will leave us the most irrelevant institution in culture. Cetainly, the world sees belief in the absolute exclusivity of Jesus, the absolute existence of God, the absolute holiness of God, and the absolute truth of holy Scripture as something narrow, something bigoted. . . .dare we say. . . .something "dark." But lest we lose the foundation of the Gospel, let us forever hold to these two absolute certainties: God is, and God has spoken!
Now, go and enjoy the movie! (Seriously, I think its the best one of the six!) Don't take it as seriously as I just did. But do remember the cultural values it reflects. Remember that Jesus challenged us to be "counter-cultural," and commit yourself to His Kingdom enterprise. This is a far better thing than having someone say "May the force be with you." :)
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Myth of the "Third Way": A Humble Polemic for the Emerging Church
First, let me state from the beginning: I am probably not someone who could be identified as part of the "emerging church" movement. I am a linear thinker who has the creativity of a #2 pencil. Yet there is much about this movement that I appreciate, and believe that it has the potential as one facet of the church of the future, to change the face of Christianity in North America for the better.
Still, there are things of grave concern within this movement; things which must be jettisoned if the emerging church is to help lead the body of Christ in North America into the 21st century and beyond.
Let me also say at the outset that although parts of this post may appear arrogant, they are not intended to be so. I have a deep and abiding respect for many who may be referenced in the forthcoming paragraphs because of the way they have challenged me personally. Yet, while certain issues should remain "non issues," there are others which define the church and the Gospel in which there is no--repeat no--room for compromise!
As a whole, the emerging church has provided a helpful push out of the "bowels" of modernity. Their reviving of the use of the arts in worship, their missional focus, Kingdom consciousness, and narrative approach to evangelism in a postmodern world do more than just help us to be more effective in making 21st century disciples: These revived foci also help us return to a Christianity that is less Constantinian and more Apostolic. In addition, it must be admitted that the "modern" church contends with its own demons (epistemological idealism, "establishment arrogance", and a borderline-legalistic perception of Biblical morality are but a few of these), and those among the emerging church movement are right and just in their challenges to these modern shortcomings.
Given these wonderful positives, the emerging church movement (or "conversation" as Brian McClaren prefers to call it) sometimes is touted as the group that could possibly "unify" the body in ways never dreamed possible. It seems, on the surface, to provide a way for evangelicals to enjoy an affinity with more liberal Christians that was not previously known or experienced. At a youth workers convention, Mark Oestreicher introduced Brian McClaren as a "pilgrim" in search of a "third alternative, something beyond the confining boxes of liberal and conservative..." and was met with erupting applause. But is there really any such thing as a legitimate "third way?"
I began to smell something rotten about this just today. In a recent post by Adam Clevelandhttp://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings, this Princeton Seminary student issues a challenge as to whether Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church, could really be considered a part of the emerging church. His rationale was not tied to appearance, worship style, methodology, or missional commitment, but to theology. For example, Cleveland contends that Driscoll might be excluded because Mars Hill excludes women from pastoral leadership positions. He is also troubled by how Driscoll seems to come across with "absolutes." Cleveland states "I just get the feeling that Mark feels like Scripture is clear, black/white on many issues and he is sharing these answers with people."
Further troubling Cleveland was the fact that when he visited the church, "Mars Hill had a lot of John Piper available [at their book tables]" Cleveland's conclusion then, is that Mars Hill couldn't be a real emerging church, because "theologically, they resemble any other conservative, evangelical church [with the possibility of a bit of a fundamentalist streak there]."
Why don't we turn the tables a bit? What if I walked into Brian McClaren's Cedar Ridge Church, just minutes from my house, and made the following observations: "As I sat in worship, I noticed that women were prominent leaders in the worship service. In fact, this particular morning, one of the women pastors gave the message. In addition, when I walked by their book tables, I noticed both Walter Brueggeman and Joel Green. Also, McClaren is very 'fuzzy' on a lot of issues that I think Scripture addresses with crystal clarity. Therefore, McClaren couldn't possibly be a part of the emerging church movement, because theologically, Cedar Ridge resembles any other liberal, neo-orthodox church [with the possibility of a bit of an existentialist streak there]."
Think the above paragraph is unfair? Of course it is! The truth is that both McClaren and Driscoll have made helpful contributions. But Cleveland's post reveals a certain reality that I fear is not yet understood by many in this movement. Over a half-century ago, J. Gresham Machen revealed this same division in his classic text Christianity and Liberalism. Machen was sometimes hurtfully clear that the teachings of Scripture were incompatible with the teachings of early 20th century liberalism. For many in the emerging church movement today, this incompatability is the "elephant in the room." Few seem willing to acknowledge it. And as Machen first said in 1923, "Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time . . . .clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding." In other words, in the early 20th century people were asking whether it was really neccesary to discuss these differences--to risk division on the grounds of doctrine to the detriment of mission. Machen's answer was that the destruction of mission comes when the "fundamentals of the Christian faith" are compromised for the sake of a disingenuous "unity." If we don't know what message it is we are to carry, then what good is it to run with empty arms?
This same challenge must be made to the emerging church, only with much more solemnity! The issues at stake are more severe, because unlike the liberalism of the past, which claimed "scientific" answers to many questions of faith, that sector of the emerging church which holds to "post-liberal" understandings of Scripture claims no answers at all; only a "journey." Strange thing is, this "journey" has more "absolutes" than many will admit:
-They are certain that women should be allowed to serve as Pastors, overseeing the local church.
-They are certain that George Bush is evil, and that ALL war is unjust!
-They are certain that much that is wrong with the 21st century church is due to "doctrinal division" caused mainly by "fundamentalists."
-They are certain that orthopraxy is not just equal to orthodoxy. It superceedes orthodoxy.
-They are certain that the "conservative/Protestant" Gospel is not actually what Jesus or Paul were getting at.
If these "certainties" are troubling, consider their "uncertainties"
-They are uncertain about whether truth is absolute.
-They are uncertain about the veracity of the miracle passages in the Bible.
-They are uncertain about the substitutionary nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
-They are uncertain about the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only route to a relationship with God, and eternal salvation.
So you tell me, is this a legitimate "third way," or is it simply plain, old-fashioned liberalism? Though I strongly disagree with Adam Cleveland's post, I have to give him credit for being among the first to point out this "elephant in the room." There are differences on the two "sides" of the emerging church movement that will not be overcome, except by eventual fracture.
Contrary to the pictures of Jesus given by those on the "left" side of this movement, He was at times divisive! And He was most divisive when it came to the issue of His identity and purpose. To be sure, we can learn much from McClaren, especially when it comes to the way in which we display humility and graciousness. (Some might argue after reading this post that I could take a few lessons from McClaren in this regard, and I would probably agree!) But a compromise of the "faith once delivered unto the saints" will not move the North American church forward, it will destroy it.
Now, do not read what I haven't written! I am not suggesting a "takeover," or some other "political strategy." For one, there is nothing to "take over" (which may be the best thing about this "conversation," as McClaren calls it). But I am suggesting that in our dialogue we remember that there can only be one Gospel! Take away the meaning of the cross and ressurrection, the means of grace, the deity and exclusivity of Jesus, and all you have is a glorified copy of the United Way with a baptismal pool! If the emerging church is going to continue to legitimately be called the "church," it must continue to act as what Martin Luther called "God's mouthpiece." For those in the movement who believe in the ultimate authority of Scripture, that may mean becoming "divisive." But you are a debtor to God, and to the people He has called you to reach, to ensure that the message you bring really is able and mighty to save them.
Still, there are things of grave concern within this movement; things which must be jettisoned if the emerging church is to help lead the body of Christ in North America into the 21st century and beyond.
Let me also say at the outset that although parts of this post may appear arrogant, they are not intended to be so. I have a deep and abiding respect for many who may be referenced in the forthcoming paragraphs because of the way they have challenged me personally. Yet, while certain issues should remain "non issues," there are others which define the church and the Gospel in which there is no--repeat no--room for compromise!
As a whole, the emerging church has provided a helpful push out of the "bowels" of modernity. Their reviving of the use of the arts in worship, their missional focus, Kingdom consciousness, and narrative approach to evangelism in a postmodern world do more than just help us to be more effective in making 21st century disciples: These revived foci also help us return to a Christianity that is less Constantinian and more Apostolic. In addition, it must be admitted that the "modern" church contends with its own demons (epistemological idealism, "establishment arrogance", and a borderline-legalistic perception of Biblical morality are but a few of these), and those among the emerging church movement are right and just in their challenges to these modern shortcomings.
Given these wonderful positives, the emerging church movement (or "conversation" as Brian McClaren prefers to call it) sometimes is touted as the group that could possibly "unify" the body in ways never dreamed possible. It seems, on the surface, to provide a way for evangelicals to enjoy an affinity with more liberal Christians that was not previously known or experienced. At a youth workers convention, Mark Oestreicher introduced Brian McClaren as a "pilgrim" in search of a "third alternative, something beyond the confining boxes of liberal and conservative..." and was met with erupting applause. But is there really any such thing as a legitimate "third way?"
I began to smell something rotten about this just today. In a recent post by Adam Clevelandhttp://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings, this Princeton Seminary student issues a challenge as to whether Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church, could really be considered a part of the emerging church. His rationale was not tied to appearance, worship style, methodology, or missional commitment, but to theology. For example, Cleveland contends that Driscoll might be excluded because Mars Hill excludes women from pastoral leadership positions. He is also troubled by how Driscoll seems to come across with "absolutes." Cleveland states "I just get the feeling that Mark feels like Scripture is clear, black/white on many issues and he is sharing these answers with people."
Further troubling Cleveland was the fact that when he visited the church, "Mars Hill had a lot of John Piper available [at their book tables]" Cleveland's conclusion then, is that Mars Hill couldn't be a real emerging church, because "theologically, they resemble any other conservative, evangelical church [with the possibility of a bit of a fundamentalist streak there]."
Why don't we turn the tables a bit? What if I walked into Brian McClaren's Cedar Ridge Church, just minutes from my house, and made the following observations: "As I sat in worship, I noticed that women were prominent leaders in the worship service. In fact, this particular morning, one of the women pastors gave the message. In addition, when I walked by their book tables, I noticed both Walter Brueggeman and Joel Green. Also, McClaren is very 'fuzzy' on a lot of issues that I think Scripture addresses with crystal clarity. Therefore, McClaren couldn't possibly be a part of the emerging church movement, because theologically, Cedar Ridge resembles any other liberal, neo-orthodox church [with the possibility of a bit of an existentialist streak there]."
Think the above paragraph is unfair? Of course it is! The truth is that both McClaren and Driscoll have made helpful contributions. But Cleveland's post reveals a certain reality that I fear is not yet understood by many in this movement. Over a half-century ago, J. Gresham Machen revealed this same division in his classic text Christianity and Liberalism. Machen was sometimes hurtfully clear that the teachings of Scripture were incompatible with the teachings of early 20th century liberalism. For many in the emerging church movement today, this incompatability is the "elephant in the room." Few seem willing to acknowledge it. And as Machen first said in 1923, "Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time . . . .clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding." In other words, in the early 20th century people were asking whether it was really neccesary to discuss these differences--to risk division on the grounds of doctrine to the detriment of mission. Machen's answer was that the destruction of mission comes when the "fundamentals of the Christian faith" are compromised for the sake of a disingenuous "unity." If we don't know what message it is we are to carry, then what good is it to run with empty arms?
This same challenge must be made to the emerging church, only with much more solemnity! The issues at stake are more severe, because unlike the liberalism of the past, which claimed "scientific" answers to many questions of faith, that sector of the emerging church which holds to "post-liberal" understandings of Scripture claims no answers at all; only a "journey." Strange thing is, this "journey" has more "absolutes" than many will admit:
-They are certain that women should be allowed to serve as Pastors, overseeing the local church.
-They are certain that George Bush is evil, and that ALL war is unjust!
-They are certain that much that is wrong with the 21st century church is due to "doctrinal division" caused mainly by "fundamentalists."
-They are certain that orthopraxy is not just equal to orthodoxy. It superceedes orthodoxy.
-They are certain that the "conservative/Protestant" Gospel is not actually what Jesus or Paul were getting at.
If these "certainties" are troubling, consider their "uncertainties"
-They are uncertain about whether truth is absolute.
-They are uncertain about the veracity of the miracle passages in the Bible.
-They are uncertain about the substitutionary nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
-They are uncertain about the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only route to a relationship with God, and eternal salvation.
So you tell me, is this a legitimate "third way," or is it simply plain, old-fashioned liberalism? Though I strongly disagree with Adam Cleveland's post, I have to give him credit for being among the first to point out this "elephant in the room." There are differences on the two "sides" of the emerging church movement that will not be overcome, except by eventual fracture.
Contrary to the pictures of Jesus given by those on the "left" side of this movement, He was at times divisive! And He was most divisive when it came to the issue of His identity and purpose. To be sure, we can learn much from McClaren, especially when it comes to the way in which we display humility and graciousness. (Some might argue after reading this post that I could take a few lessons from McClaren in this regard, and I would probably agree!) But a compromise of the "faith once delivered unto the saints" will not move the North American church forward, it will destroy it.
Now, do not read what I haven't written! I am not suggesting a "takeover," or some other "political strategy." For one, there is nothing to "take over" (which may be the best thing about this "conversation," as McClaren calls it). But I am suggesting that in our dialogue we remember that there can only be one Gospel! Take away the meaning of the cross and ressurrection, the means of grace, the deity and exclusivity of Jesus, and all you have is a glorified copy of the United Way with a baptismal pool! If the emerging church is going to continue to legitimately be called the "church," it must continue to act as what Martin Luther called "God's mouthpiece." For those in the movement who believe in the ultimate authority of Scripture, that may mean becoming "divisive." But you are a debtor to God, and to the people He has called you to reach, to ensure that the message you bring really is able and mighty to save them.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
"Frat-House Faith" and the Missionary Call
In a world full of people living in a "Christian bubble" asking "What would Jesus do," Brandon Straub and Peter Howell are actually doing it, and their actions define what striking the tension between "cold-shouldering" and "compromise" actually looks like.
TIME's Religion article in their May 9 issue focused on those like Straub and Howell, who are struggling with how to live out their faith on the secular college campus. The article asks the pertinent question of collegiate-aged Christians: "Can they be, like Straub, both a brother in Christ and a brother in a frat?"
What makes this question all the more important is the "casualty rate" of faith. Many Christian young people enter college with a fath that is strong and vibrant, only to leave academia four years later with a greater degree of uncertainty about the relationship between life and faith. As the article states, "Faith matters to students as they head off to college, but then it begins to lapse." Even in the face of a growing number of evangelical fellowships on campuses, only 40% of UCLA students considered their faith important enough to discipline themselves for its daily practice.
Could the problem be that student's faith is weaker than it appears? How about the overwhelming pressure coming from culture? My suggestion is a bit more "scandalous," but I honestly wonder if this collegiate "backsliding" epidemic isn't systemic of our entire approach to moral development inside the church. From "cradle to diploma," we are efficient guardians of chastity and temperence, warning our young people against the "evils" of alcohol, drugs, and pre-martial sex. Yet rarely have I heard of Christian young people having a Biblical worldview instilled in them that allows them to think for themselves. Instead, they are encouraged to avoid sin, as well as sinners. (i.e. we are always exhorting them to stay away from the "wrong crowd.") By and large, we preach "separation" as if it were a literal, rather than moral concept, so that by the time our teenagers are granted the freedom that comes with dorm living, they are ready and curious to try things out on the "dark side." The result is the loss of testimony, the loss of purity, and the loss of Kingdom effectiveness.
For example, the son of a minister observed by the writer of this article, "was more interested in having a good time than in setting a Christian example." Why is this? He answers with "Christianity wasn't a choice, and I wanted to do what I wanted to do. The culture of the college is 'if it feels good, do it.'" Missiologists call this "syncretism," or capitulating to the sinful aspects of the culture you should be trying to reach. And let's face it, many of not most "Christian" college students have effectively "neutered" their witness for Christ before the end of their first semester on campus. However, this is not the only bad result of our "us-them" approach to moral development in the church.
Another is "sectarianism," or cutting onesself off from culture to the extent that one no longer encounters the lost in any meaningful way. Two examples of this kind of behavior are illustrated in TIME's article. The first is the "Christian" Frat-House. "Christian students share rooms with one or two other like-minded students, eat their meals in a communal dining room and get together for one-on-one spiritual mentoring and small-group Bible study." Although Christian community is important for further spiritual development, it is essential to challenge those in this environment with the question of when they have time to engage the lost?
Another, more extreme example of the sectarian lifestyle is seen in Old Paths Baptist Church, who sends a group to the Bloomington campus of Indiana University weekly, "touting posters of aborted fetuses and shouting anti-gay slogans." These groups practice "tertiary separation." That is, not only are they separated from sin (Biblical separation), but also sinners (secondary separation), as well as those who have company with sinners. Those who seek to influence college students for Christ by living among them are criticized for "living in a house of sin."
Bridging the gap between the "syncretistic" and "sectarian" are students like Straub and Howell, who, according to the article "are making their mark in ways that will never draw much public attention." They live among the non-Christian student population, and seek to influence them daily. After spending some time in the Christian fraternity, Straub recalls being challenged with this question: "Try to think of another time when you'll live with 100 other guys, most of whom don't want to be bothered with God right now." In other words, Straub was challenged to "look at the harvest." Sounds strangely like John 4 doesn't it?
There, Jesus breaks all the social rules of a "good Jew." He "lolli-gags" in the bad part of town, he approaches a woman of questionable reputation (actually, there was no question about her reputation, it was terrible), he drinks from her water container, and He offers her eternal life. And after all of this, the disciples still don't get it, and their ignorance becomes the impetus for a missionary calling that still echoes in our ears today: "Behold I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest [Jn 4:35b]." As we ponder how to train up our young people so that they will remain pure while influencing their world for Christ, some principles emerge from this story:
I. Train our young people to face the realities of a sinful world. The old adage "garbage in=garbage out" may in fact be a myth. By that I mean that keeping young people in a "Christian bubble" will not help them develop morally. If it did, we would most certainly see that result today. Mark Driscoll rightfully observes that "there is no such thing as a pure culture untainted by sin and sinners, including Christian entertainment, which has had its share of scandalous behavior." In addition, "sin looks good only from a distance; the closer you get to it, the more clearly you see it, the more sickening it becomes." Maybe we should be less concerned about young people being "exposed" to sin, since exposure is inevitable, and instead show them the reality of where sin leads. Regardless, sin is real, even in the church, and we do young people no service when we delude them into thinking they can totally escape it.
II. Teach Separation as the Bible Teaches Separation: When we trump Biblical teaching on separation to include separation from sinners, we give young people a perverted view of holiness, and in the process, we add to God's Word! For morally strong young people to overcome sin, they must be brought to understand that separation will not be acheived by focusing on their distance from the world, but rather, focusing on their closeness to Jesus. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, not artificially-imposed rules, that develop genuine Biblical morality.
III. Teach Students the concept of being "Salt and Light." And remember, Matthew 5:13-16 isn't about the world hearing our voices, but seeing our good works! Influence which is most potent is personal influence. Peter Howell knows this, and it shows in his weekly "door to door" ministry at Sigma Nu. Trevor Loe, an unchurched member of that fraternity, notices. "In the biggest meathead frat" reports Loe," he's 100%. And no matter what day I say no, he'll always come back. One day, when I'm ready, I'll remember Peter."
IV. Teach Students to Love the Lost: Jesus didn't go to Samaria because it was the popular thing to do. He didn't go to impress His disciples, and He didn't go to make a good name for Himself. None of those things happened. He went because prior to the beginning of time, He had set his unconditional love upon a slut who didn't deserve His time and attention, much less His salvation. And like that woman, all of us are simply undeserving sinners who are who we are by the grace of God alone. When students really digest the deepest meanings of grace, the foundation for their moral development, as well as their missional calling, will have been laid.
Sectarians quote 1 Peter 1:16 out of context, forgetting that true holiness is extrinsically tied to the concepts taught in 1 Peter 2:21-25.
Those who fall to syncretism fail to see the truth of Philippians 3:7-11, that Christ is a treasure greater than any earthly pleasure.
Young men like Brandon Straub and Peter Howell however, embody the function of that most honorable of titles: "Missionary." They understand that one's moral compass cannot be divorced from one's missional calling, and their lifestyle and witness are undergirded by how they look at their place on the college campus; as workers in a field that is white unto harvest!
TIME's Religion article in their May 9 issue focused on those like Straub and Howell, who are struggling with how to live out their faith on the secular college campus. The article asks the pertinent question of collegiate-aged Christians: "Can they be, like Straub, both a brother in Christ and a brother in a frat?"
What makes this question all the more important is the "casualty rate" of faith. Many Christian young people enter college with a fath that is strong and vibrant, only to leave academia four years later with a greater degree of uncertainty about the relationship between life and faith. As the article states, "Faith matters to students as they head off to college, but then it begins to lapse." Even in the face of a growing number of evangelical fellowships on campuses, only 40% of UCLA students considered their faith important enough to discipline themselves for its daily practice.
Could the problem be that student's faith is weaker than it appears? How about the overwhelming pressure coming from culture? My suggestion is a bit more "scandalous," but I honestly wonder if this collegiate "backsliding" epidemic isn't systemic of our entire approach to moral development inside the church. From "cradle to diploma," we are efficient guardians of chastity and temperence, warning our young people against the "evils" of alcohol, drugs, and pre-martial sex. Yet rarely have I heard of Christian young people having a Biblical worldview instilled in them that allows them to think for themselves. Instead, they are encouraged to avoid sin, as well as sinners. (i.e. we are always exhorting them to stay away from the "wrong crowd.") By and large, we preach "separation" as if it were a literal, rather than moral concept, so that by the time our teenagers are granted the freedom that comes with dorm living, they are ready and curious to try things out on the "dark side." The result is the loss of testimony, the loss of purity, and the loss of Kingdom effectiveness.
For example, the son of a minister observed by the writer of this article, "was more interested in having a good time than in setting a Christian example." Why is this? He answers with "Christianity wasn't a choice, and I wanted to do what I wanted to do. The culture of the college is 'if it feels good, do it.'" Missiologists call this "syncretism," or capitulating to the sinful aspects of the culture you should be trying to reach. And let's face it, many of not most "Christian" college students have effectively "neutered" their witness for Christ before the end of their first semester on campus. However, this is not the only bad result of our "us-them" approach to moral development in the church.
Another is "sectarianism," or cutting onesself off from culture to the extent that one no longer encounters the lost in any meaningful way. Two examples of this kind of behavior are illustrated in TIME's article. The first is the "Christian" Frat-House. "Christian students share rooms with one or two other like-minded students, eat their meals in a communal dining room and get together for one-on-one spiritual mentoring and small-group Bible study." Although Christian community is important for further spiritual development, it is essential to challenge those in this environment with the question of when they have time to engage the lost?
Another, more extreme example of the sectarian lifestyle is seen in Old Paths Baptist Church, who sends a group to the Bloomington campus of Indiana University weekly, "touting posters of aborted fetuses and shouting anti-gay slogans." These groups practice "tertiary separation." That is, not only are they separated from sin (Biblical separation), but also sinners (secondary separation), as well as those who have company with sinners. Those who seek to influence college students for Christ by living among them are criticized for "living in a house of sin."
Bridging the gap between the "syncretistic" and "sectarian" are students like Straub and Howell, who, according to the article "are making their mark in ways that will never draw much public attention." They live among the non-Christian student population, and seek to influence them daily. After spending some time in the Christian fraternity, Straub recalls being challenged with this question: "Try to think of another time when you'll live with 100 other guys, most of whom don't want to be bothered with God right now." In other words, Straub was challenged to "look at the harvest." Sounds strangely like John 4 doesn't it?
There, Jesus breaks all the social rules of a "good Jew." He "lolli-gags" in the bad part of town, he approaches a woman of questionable reputation (actually, there was no question about her reputation, it was terrible), he drinks from her water container, and He offers her eternal life. And after all of this, the disciples still don't get it, and their ignorance becomes the impetus for a missionary calling that still echoes in our ears today: "Behold I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest [Jn 4:35b]." As we ponder how to train up our young people so that they will remain pure while influencing their world for Christ, some principles emerge from this story:
I. Train our young people to face the realities of a sinful world. The old adage "garbage in=garbage out" may in fact be a myth. By that I mean that keeping young people in a "Christian bubble" will not help them develop morally. If it did, we would most certainly see that result today. Mark Driscoll rightfully observes that "there is no such thing as a pure culture untainted by sin and sinners, including Christian entertainment, which has had its share of scandalous behavior." In addition, "sin looks good only from a distance; the closer you get to it, the more clearly you see it, the more sickening it becomes." Maybe we should be less concerned about young people being "exposed" to sin, since exposure is inevitable, and instead show them the reality of where sin leads. Regardless, sin is real, even in the church, and we do young people no service when we delude them into thinking they can totally escape it.
II. Teach Separation as the Bible Teaches Separation: When we trump Biblical teaching on separation to include separation from sinners, we give young people a perverted view of holiness, and in the process, we add to God's Word! For morally strong young people to overcome sin, they must be brought to understand that separation will not be acheived by focusing on their distance from the world, but rather, focusing on their closeness to Jesus. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, not artificially-imposed rules, that develop genuine Biblical morality.
III. Teach Students the concept of being "Salt and Light." And remember, Matthew 5:13-16 isn't about the world hearing our voices, but seeing our good works! Influence which is most potent is personal influence. Peter Howell knows this, and it shows in his weekly "door to door" ministry at Sigma Nu. Trevor Loe, an unchurched member of that fraternity, notices. "In the biggest meathead frat" reports Loe," he's 100%. And no matter what day I say no, he'll always come back. One day, when I'm ready, I'll remember Peter."
IV. Teach Students to Love the Lost: Jesus didn't go to Samaria because it was the popular thing to do. He didn't go to impress His disciples, and He didn't go to make a good name for Himself. None of those things happened. He went because prior to the beginning of time, He had set his unconditional love upon a slut who didn't deserve His time and attention, much less His salvation. And like that woman, all of us are simply undeserving sinners who are who we are by the grace of God alone. When students really digest the deepest meanings of grace, the foundation for their moral development, as well as their missional calling, will have been laid.
Sectarians quote 1 Peter 1:16 out of context, forgetting that true holiness is extrinsically tied to the concepts taught in 1 Peter 2:21-25.
Those who fall to syncretism fail to see the truth of Philippians 3:7-11, that Christ is a treasure greater than any earthly pleasure.
Young men like Brandon Straub and Peter Howell however, embody the function of that most honorable of titles: "Missionary." They understand that one's moral compass cannot be divorced from one's missional calling, and their lifestyle and witness are undergirded by how they look at their place on the college campus; as workers in a field that is white unto harvest!
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Jennifer and Gomer: Examples of Grace
Until last week, most people hearing the phrase "Runaway Bride" would probably have first thought of the Gary Marshall movie that debuted in 1999 and starred Richard Gere and Julia Roberts. Now of course, that phrase is reflective of a real-life situation, and all of Gwinett County Georgia is up in arms about Jennifer Wilbanks' decision to go AWOL and then lie about it.
But there is in this story a powerful example of true, Biblical grace. Perhaps this is why most in our culture simply cannot begin to understand why her fiance John Mason is still committed to her.
Let's face it: Our culture knows little, if anything, of true commitment. Pundits and talk-show callers have all weighed in on this situation already, with most speaking in favor of severe retribution for what this obviouslly confused woman has done. Personally, I see many paralells between this story and another one, which took place about 2800 years ago.
The story of Hosea is much more tragic than last week's tale. Here, God tells this prophet to the Northern Kingdom to marry Gomer, and predicts that she will, in a very short time, become a "woman of harlotry." Can you imagine being in ministry with a slut for a wife? Probably not, as most churches would fire you on the spot the moment something like this was found out! But this was God's plan for Hosea, principally because He wanted to demonstrate the more offensive adultery that was taking place each day in Israel, as God's people "stepped out" on Him to court and worship idols.
In other words, 8th century B.C. Israel wasn't much different from 21st Century America. We are a culture adrift in relativism and self-centered individualism. And these worldly values are as present inside the church as they are anywhere else! As a result, commitment is not something we value. . . . .
. . . . . .This church didn't do what I wanted, or someone offended me, or someone made me angry, so I'll just leave . . . . .
. . . . . . .This person isn't who I thought he/she was. I'm just not as happy and fulfilled as I thought I would be, so I'll just get a divorce and move on . . . . . . .
Is it any wonder that in the middle of this cultural environment so many would look at the "runaway bride" situation and wonder if John Mason had lost his mind?
But this story, like the story of Hosea, serves as something of a modern-day narrative example of grace. In fact, there are several realities this story teaches that become apparent when one looks beneath the surface:
1. Human beings are prone to do illogical, even stupid things, for no apparent reason. According to those who know Jennifer Willbanks best, this was not at all in her character. Her father has recently been heard on the radio, making known his wishes that the public would get to know the "real Jennifer." Everyone blows it!
2. There are (and will be in this case, I'm sure) consequences to wrong behavior. Gomer's loose sexual living eventually caused her to end up on the auction block as a slave. And in this case, Miss Willbanks is probably looking at legal consequences for lying about her supposed "kidnapping" and costing the Alberquerque, NM and Gwinnett County, GA residents to the tune of $100,000. It is, therefore, appropriate that she answer for what she has done, not only to her family and future husband, but also to the public at large.
Understanding and forgiveness does not preclude the natural, and sometimes legal, consequences that come as a result of our mistakes. The repentant homosexual who is freely forgiven in Christ may still die of AIDS. The recovering alcoholic who has been sober for 12 years may still have to live with liver problems, and the glutton who loses weight may still have to pay years later with heart disease. Sin, by default, brings trouble, and when we make our proverbial bed, we sometimes have to lie in it.
3. Even Christian people are incomplete people. Those of us who are among the "redeemed" and still live on earth are unfinished works of God. No doubt the media will make a huge issue of the fact that these were both strong Christian families. Stories like this one remind us that while justification is instantaneous, salvation as a whole is a process that is worked out over the course of our lives as children of God. God is still working on Jennifer Willbanks, as well as the rest of us.
4. God's love is truly unconditional, and was illustrated beautifully this week by John Mason. Mason will be touted as a love-sick, desparate, and foolish husband-to-be. I'm sure Hosea was looked at with the same degree of cynicism. Again, our culture, including many inside the visible church, knows next to nothing of commitment, but this man has lived it, even before saying "I do." In an interview with Sean Hannity on FOX News, Mason testified that even though they were not yet married, "I believe in God's eyes, when I put that engagement ring on her finger, my lifetime commitment to her started then."
No one would deny that this woman deserves to face pretty tough consequences for her actions. But reflecting on this story, it's parallel to Hosea, and subsequent illustration of our relationship with God has reminded me that I too, deserve the most severe of consequences for my rebellion against the One who created me.
Just like Israel, our culture doesn't understand this husband's love because it doesn't understand commitment. But God is faithful, even when we are faithless.
But there is in this story a powerful example of true, Biblical grace. Perhaps this is why most in our culture simply cannot begin to understand why her fiance John Mason is still committed to her.
Let's face it: Our culture knows little, if anything, of true commitment. Pundits and talk-show callers have all weighed in on this situation already, with most speaking in favor of severe retribution for what this obviouslly confused woman has done. Personally, I see many paralells between this story and another one, which took place about 2800 years ago.
The story of Hosea is much more tragic than last week's tale. Here, God tells this prophet to the Northern Kingdom to marry Gomer, and predicts that she will, in a very short time, become a "woman of harlotry." Can you imagine being in ministry with a slut for a wife? Probably not, as most churches would fire you on the spot the moment something like this was found out! But this was God's plan for Hosea, principally because He wanted to demonstrate the more offensive adultery that was taking place each day in Israel, as God's people "stepped out" on Him to court and worship idols.
In other words, 8th century B.C. Israel wasn't much different from 21st Century America. We are a culture adrift in relativism and self-centered individualism. And these worldly values are as present inside the church as they are anywhere else! As a result, commitment is not something we value. . . . .
. . . . . .This church didn't do what I wanted, or someone offended me, or someone made me angry, so I'll just leave . . . . .
. . . . . . .This person isn't who I thought he/she was. I'm just not as happy and fulfilled as I thought I would be, so I'll just get a divorce and move on . . . . . . .
Is it any wonder that in the middle of this cultural environment so many would look at the "runaway bride" situation and wonder if John Mason had lost his mind?
But this story, like the story of Hosea, serves as something of a modern-day narrative example of grace. In fact, there are several realities this story teaches that become apparent when one looks beneath the surface:
1. Human beings are prone to do illogical, even stupid things, for no apparent reason. According to those who know Jennifer Willbanks best, this was not at all in her character. Her father has recently been heard on the radio, making known his wishes that the public would get to know the "real Jennifer." Everyone blows it!
2. There are (and will be in this case, I'm sure) consequences to wrong behavior. Gomer's loose sexual living eventually caused her to end up on the auction block as a slave. And in this case, Miss Willbanks is probably looking at legal consequences for lying about her supposed "kidnapping" and costing the Alberquerque, NM and Gwinnett County, GA residents to the tune of $100,000. It is, therefore, appropriate that she answer for what she has done, not only to her family and future husband, but also to the public at large.
Understanding and forgiveness does not preclude the natural, and sometimes legal, consequences that come as a result of our mistakes. The repentant homosexual who is freely forgiven in Christ may still die of AIDS. The recovering alcoholic who has been sober for 12 years may still have to live with liver problems, and the glutton who loses weight may still have to pay years later with heart disease. Sin, by default, brings trouble, and when we make our proverbial bed, we sometimes have to lie in it.
3. Even Christian people are incomplete people. Those of us who are among the "redeemed" and still live on earth are unfinished works of God. No doubt the media will make a huge issue of the fact that these were both strong Christian families. Stories like this one remind us that while justification is instantaneous, salvation as a whole is a process that is worked out over the course of our lives as children of God. God is still working on Jennifer Willbanks, as well as the rest of us.
4. God's love is truly unconditional, and was illustrated beautifully this week by John Mason. Mason will be touted as a love-sick, desparate, and foolish husband-to-be. I'm sure Hosea was looked at with the same degree of cynicism. Again, our culture, including many inside the visible church, knows next to nothing of commitment, but this man has lived it, even before saying "I do." In an interview with Sean Hannity on FOX News, Mason testified that even though they were not yet married, "I believe in God's eyes, when I put that engagement ring on her finger, my lifetime commitment to her started then."
No one would deny that this woman deserves to face pretty tough consequences for her actions. But reflecting on this story, it's parallel to Hosea, and subsequent illustration of our relationship with God has reminded me that I too, deserve the most severe of consequences for my rebellion against the One who created me.
Just like Israel, our culture doesn't understand this husband's love because it doesn't understand commitment. But God is faithful, even when we are faithless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)