So that you will know up front, this post is about Calvinism, and the next will be about the place of women in the church. I thought, since I am about to leave for two weeks to attend the Southern Baptist Convention and help lead a mission team to Mississippi, that I would like to guarantee a full mail box upon my return!
Every once in a while, urban legend makes its way into the church via an imagined controversy. While such conspiracy theories are usually harmless, they can also sometimes stir up needless strife within the body. With regard to the issue of Calvinism and all the noise recently made about it across Southern Baptist life, I am wondering whether this is a true threat as many contend, or simply a scapegoat so that we don't have to examine the real issues behind our problems.
I was reminded of this today after coming home from the office and picking up my latest copy of National Liberty Journal. (Yes, I admit to getting, and sometimes even reading this monthly apologia for the Republican party.) On the front page, Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, forwards the idea that one of the biggest threats to the unity of Baptist churches is Calvinism. Caner states that "it has become so commonplace in Baptist life, many of us just skim past the articles. In a Baptist paper recently, I read: "Another Church Splits Over Calvinism." Baptist news agencies have begun to investigate this mounting issue."
I hear similar things from pastors from time to time, but have yet to find anyone who can point to a definite example of a church that literally split over this issue. And one would think, given the large numbers of Baptist churches rent in two each year, that at least one tangible example could be presented.
Adding to these thoughts, I should probably reveal at this point that I personally lean very heavily in the Reformed direction. But I've never been angry about it, never attempted to convert a church to it, and honestly detest much of what has been said over the past decade by BOTH sides of the debate regarding this issue.
This is not to say that when I get to texts like Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 that I simply skip over them for the sake of "peace", and I would hope that those who have a different view of these texts would resist that temptation as well! It is however to say that I have always challenged my people to be good Bereans, examine the text for themselves, and draw their conclusions, not based on their pre-conceived notions, or on my opinion, but on the text as it stands. And what has been the result of this approach? In my first pastorate, the church doubled in average worship attendance over a three-year period and saw 60% of its growth come from people turning from their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ. I later planted a church that continues to make Kingdom impact, and has helped to birth two other churches. Presently, I get to ride the wave of what I truly believe will become a church planting movement in central Maryland. How did my understanding of the "doctrines of grace" affect this? Well, for one thing, I understand that I didn't accomplish any of the above. God by His grace chose to do it through me even though I didn't deserve it!
To be sure, I'm aware of the fact that there are a few Calvinists out there, "green" in the ministry, usually just out of seminary, who can cause quite a stir. But I have yet to see any examples of such young bucks tearing into a helpless church and leaving them broken. In every case like this I have seen, the congregation, showing much more spiritual maturity than their young pastor, simply fires the guy, and the trouble is over! Al Mohler (himself a five-point Calvinist) has wisely said that any seminary student who becomes convinced of Calvinism should immediately be detained in prison cell for a "cooling off" period! But while I appreciate all the perceived angst over what some believe to be false doctrine, I'm simply not convinced that this threat is real. To use a southern metaphor, I think it is highly possible that the whole "Calvinism debate" is no more than a theological "snipe hunt."
That said, I was surprised to hear Dr. Caner speaking of this "threat" as if the destruction of the entire Southern Baptist Convention were imminent because of it! But frankly, the more I read of his front-page article, the more I came face-to-face with categorical fallicies, undefined and mis-defined terminology, and broad sweeping generalizations. Honestly, given Dr. Caner's past track record of "debate," I should have expected no less. But I was hoping for much more from a seminary president who touts himself as the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world."
Caner's latest article is but one of a long string of vitriolic outburtsts at those who have differences with him on issues secondary to the Christian faith. Initially, I thought it best to leave this one alone. But if you are a baseball fan you know that sometimes its hard to resist when the pitcher keeps trying to get you to swing at a pitch in the dirt. Sometimes you have to pick the ball up and throw it back in his face!
Therefore, what follows are responses to a five-fold description Caner gives of "Hyper-Calvinism." My reason for this is not to prove one side or the other. The relationship between divine sovereingty and human responsibility has been debated for over 500 years, since before the Reformation, and we aren't about to end that discussion in a single blog entry! Still, my contention here is that if there is trouble over Calvinism in the Convention, it might possibly be caused just as much by those on the other side. And mischaracterizing a person's position is certainly a way to stir up trouble! So let's take a look at Ergun Caner's description of this "danger" called "Hyper-Calvinism."
Says Caner: 1. Double Predestination. Simply put, they believe that a small group of people are predestined, even before the Creation, for heaven, and that the vast majority of the world is predestined, even created for, hell.
This is an interesting way to present this doctrine. First of all, Ephesians 1: 4 states clearly that election, whatever you believe about it, happened "before the foundation of the world." To put it bluntly, Caner's problem with God acting prior to creation isn't with the Calvinists. It's with the Bible
Second, I know of no one holding this view who believes that the saved constitute only a "small number." In fact, when I read Revelation 7, John tells me that the number of the redeemed is so great, mathematics fails at keeping track of them all! Conversely, of those who go to hell, Caner speaks as if these were somehow OK with God until He made a decision to send them there. He forgets the simple Biblical truth that ALL are born dead. Therefore, while a Calvinist may technically believe in what is called "double predestination," no serious student of Scripture believes that "election" and "reprobation" are both active steps of God. "Reprobation," or the sending of someone to hell is done passively. God doesn't actively predestine anyone to hell. He simply allows them to follow their own self-made path of destruction which ends up there. If I die lost, God doesn't have to "predestine" me to hell, because I've been on my way there my whole life!
Furthermore, the contention that the majority of humanity will go to hell is in fact Biblical! Jesus repeatedly states throughout the Scriptures that more will be lost than will be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). This has nothing to do with Calvinism. It is clearly taught in the Bible.
2. Not all babies who die go to heaven. They do not say outright that 'non-elect babies who die go to hell.' They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?
For the record, I personally believe that all who die in infancy go to be with Jesus. I make this claim primarily on the basis of David's statement in 2 Samuel, where he looks forward in faith to the moment when he will see his newborn son in heaven.
That said, I have friends who do in fact believe what Caner has described above. While I do not agree, I do appreciate their struggle with this issue, and their refusal to ignore the truth that we are all born dead in our trespasses and sins, and that the "age of accountability" is nowhere to be found in the Biblical text. My own answer to this is that God regenerates the infant prior to death, and I admit that this is an incomplete answer, because it does not address how God does so apart from repentance and faith.
Caner contends that to even discuss such an issue "raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?" No it does not. It does however, raise the issue of human nature, which Caner seems to completely ignore here. Trite answers to hard questions like this help no one. And lest you think I'm simply living in an ivory tower, I'd remind you that you are reading the words of a father who has six-year-old and eight-month-old sons! What would I do if something happened to one of my boys? If I am given the choice between wringing my hands over whether they were old enough, knew enough, believed enough, or simply placing them in the sovereign hands of the Judge of the Earth whom Scripture tells me always does what is right, I choose the later!
3. God's "love for mankind" must be redefined. Yes, they will say. God does love the world. But His love is a matter of degrees . . .They do not believe that God wants a relationship with everyone. That would go against their system and theology.
Where do I even start? Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe that God truly desires a relationship with every person! 1 Timothy 2: 4 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The problem however, which Caner has completely ignored, is that not all are saved, and both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have their own understanding as to why this is. Neither side would say that there is something or someone more powerful than God who is keeping Him from saving all people. But BOTH sides believe that while God values the salvation of all men, there is something else that He values more. Calvinists say that God values the full display of His glory in both His justice and mercy more than the salvation of all men. Non-Calvinists say that God values man's free will more than the salvation of all men. But neither side, including the Calvinist side, says that God does not have a genuine love for the whole world, nor does either side deny that God is full of sorrow when the wicked refuse to repent. (Ezekiel 18:32)
4. Invitations are an insult to the sovereingty of God. Disturbing as this may sound, some ministers of this stripe have stopped giving invitations in their services.
Caner may be unaware that many non-Calvinists are also jettisonning the formal "invitation." No such presentation is given at Marathon Community Church in Easley South Carolina. Yet this church has grown to over 5000 in nine years without such a man-made practice. His myopic sense of history may in fact be prohibiting him from realizing that this formal way of inviting people to come to the front of a church building is a quite new approach, popularized by the revivalist Charles G. Finney.
Do I personally think "invitations" are an insult to God? In general, no. I came to faith in Christ by responding to just such an invitation.
However, do I think "mood music,"turning down the lights, appeals empowered more by emotionalism than truth, shouting over the music, "programming" people to come forward in order to "get it started," 493 verses of "Just as I Am," and marking such a time as more "sacred" than the previous half-hour spent in the Bible is an insult to God? Yes I do! In fact, I believe such actions border on the blasphemous!
5. Calvinism is the only Gospel. they believe that Calvinism, and only Calvinism is the preaching of the Gospel.
This is simply not true! I have rejoiced to hear the Gospel preached by Methodists, Pentecostals, Free-will Baptists, Nazarene's, and a host of others who would reject the "doctrines of grace." Such a characterization may be rightly fitted on the recent seminary graduate I mention above, but I know of no serious pastor holding to Calvinism who would say such a thing.
I found it interesting that, given all the "differences" Dr. Caner claims to have with someone like me, his description of the Gospel was identical to my own. He writes: "I believe Jesus Christ died to save mankind and offers salvation to every living soul. I believe in the 'whosoever will.' I believe that His love and salvation are extended to every person who will repent of sin and trust in Him."
To the above, I can only say "AMEN!"
So then, what is the problem? From whence comes all of the "trouble" Caner laments?
My own experiences after nearly a decade and a half in ministry have taught me that many times, the issue isn't about doctrine so much as it is about attitude. In a sense, Caner has a point. There is a vast difference between being a "Calvinist" and being a "Calvinazi." But this same point could be turned back on Caner himself. It is one thing to reject Calvinism on what you perceive to be Biblical grounds. It is quite another to mischaracterize, mallign, slander, and build "straw men," and then turn around and blame the other side for "stirring up trouble" or for "causing division," or for "splitting churches."
As a pastor, I have nearly fired staff for pushing Calvinism in the church as if the continued life of the congregation depended on their admiration of TULIP. I have also passed over otherwise qualified and talented staff who were non-Calvinists, and wanted to make an issue of it! In short, I've never hired or fired anyone because they were, or were not, a Calvinist. I have however, put my foot in the hind parts of staff members because they were jerks!
So in the end, I would contend that one side is stirring the waters on this issue every bit as much as the other side. And the sad part of this is that NEITHER side can be as evangelistically productive while yelling across the aisle.
On a more personal note, what can I do to quell this unneccesary struggle? Aside from making corrections as I have done above, I can continue to work with those who disagree with me on this issue, because making Jesus known is more important.
I can also continue to recognize that those who differ with me on this issue are my brothers in Christ . . .and when I say that I don't mean to imply that they are my "little brothers." Some seem to approach this issue in exactly this way: thinking they are promoting "unity" because they "tolerate" the other side even though the other side has what they believe to be a "warped view of God." Such a view is built on sinful pride, and will never put an end to the contention.
John Wesley never thought that George Whitefield didn't really mean it when he called sinners to believe in Christ. Whitefield likewise, never accused Wesley of not believing in a sovereign God. Maybe we should try to learn something from these two men who, while they could not have been further apart on this issue, continued to labor together in the same harvest field.
Since 1845, Southern Baptists have had robust debate about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsbility. What has kept this discussion healthy is that we have kept it "in house" and "off" the mission field! My call here is simply to stop the madness! Both sides have to stop marginalizing each other, calling each other "extremists," viewing each other as a "threat," and believing that the other teaches heresy.
Both sides preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of continuing to tear each other down, maybe we should try working together to lift Him up!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Welcome to the Real World! (A Review of Driscoll's "Confessions...")
Reading most narrative resources on church planting is very much like trying to leave reality and live in a dream world. The inspiring but atypical stories found in books by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley have the capacity to make a church planter dream big, but they can also lead him to fall hard! Yet Mark Driscoll's latest work introduces aspiring apostolic leaders to the hard realities of church planting, as well as the glorious finish line that can await all faithful servants of Jesus.
In 2001 when my family and I began planting a church, I read all the resources that were at the time considered "required reading." I still remember reading about the Real Estate broker who found Rick Warren a rent-free home for a month and simultaneously joined his church. I remember rejoicing as I read about the rapid growth of Willow Creek, and dreaming big while reading Stanley's success story known as Northpointe Church. Six months later, with no building, no money, and struggling to gather a core group, I felt very much like the special needs student who had accidentally signed up for the AP calculus course. I honestly wondered what I was doing wrong, not thinking about the possibility that Rick, Andy and Bill might be telling stories of extraordinary moves of God . . . .the exception rather than the rule.
Five years later, that church which began as a vision from God came togetherwith an older, established congregation, and by His grace continues to worship on Parkins Mill Road in Greenville South Carolina. It has helped to birth two other congregations in the Greenville area as well, but not without almost killing me first! My experiences there taught me that while it is OK to dream big, reading stories about airplanes full of people coming to Jesus can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations.
Now I have the privilege of overseeing the work of church planting in one of the most affluent areas in the country, and God is allowing me to share my limited experience with the guys who are now doing the work. While I want them to dream big, and expect God to do big things, I don't want them to think that growth comes without blood, sweat, tears, demonic oppression, temptation, fatigue, and a host of other impediments. Now that Driscoll's book Confessions is finally in print, I have a resource that will help them see this.
In the book, Mark Driscoll chronicles the birth and growth of Seattle's Mars Hill Church. Each of the seven chapters details a segment of growth within the church, which began in Driscoll's living room in 1996 with 12 people, and has since blossomed into a congregation of over 4,000. Throughout the book, there is a healthy balance of inspirational accounts of conversion and discipleship with brutal honesty concerning the sacrifice neccesary to bring about such spiritual development. Not content to allow you to see only the present worship center after a Sunday morning, Driscoll takes you into his living room where 12 people gathered initially, into the upstairs youth room of a fundamentalist church with 70s shag carpet where the church met for a period of time, into his bedroom at 3 AM for a rather blunt and personal "counseling" phone call with a porn-addict, and even into his own mind as he recounts his personal experiences with sexual temptation, spiritual warfare, sleeplessness, marital discord, frustration, anger and fatigue.
The stories come to life in a way only Driscoll can communicate, and each of his personal experiences leaves the reader with valuable lessons that will prove useful during the church planting experience. As I was reading, I found myself consistently asking "where was this book five years ago?" After reading this work, I have come to the conclusion that either Mark and I are both insane, and the only two people who have experienced such things, or his experiences represent the "norm" of church planting with much more accuracy. While I admit that my sanity is a point of debate among some friends of mine, I will opt for the second possibility.
There are a number of reasons this book should be on every church planter's shelf. First of all, there is a very helpful introduction in which Driscoll asks ten very probing questions that will help pastors and church planters alike shape the vision of their church in a way that will glorify God. Affectionately entitled "Chapter Zero," this section deals with the balance between "Gospel," "Culture," and "Church," and seeks to pull the reader from thinking of church planting solely in terms of "attraction," to thinking missionally so that their church will permeate its community with Gospel presence.
Second, Driscoll is an unabashed theological conservative, and helps today's church planters not lose sight of the fact that our programming, strategies, theological understanding, and ecclesiological foundations must be taken solely from the text of Scripture. One exerpt serves as an example:
At the time, it was becoming increasingly popular for young pastors to have churches that were not called "churches," but rather silly things like "new monastic communities," and leaders that were not called "pastor," but rather silly things like "abbess," or "spiritual director." As our mission began to develop, the New Testament teaching on church leadership and church discipline seemed increasingly wise and urgent to implement, before we ended up like the church at Corinth, divided and off mission because of folly and sin. Over the years, I have become increasingly troubled by the frequency with which young pastors simply dismiss the New Testament teaching on church leadership and discipline, so that if four guys are drinking beer in a pub, they can call it a church." (p.47)
Driscoll also takes the opportunity at one point in the book to distance himself from much of the aberrant theology coming out of Emergent. Recounting his experiences with Brian McLaren, Driscoll says "though I sincerely love Brian and appreciate the kindness he has shown to me, I generally disagree with many of his theological conclusions . . . .His pacifism seems to underlie many of our theological disagreements since he has a hard time accepting such things as the violence of penal substitutionary atonement, parts of the Old Testament where God killed people, and the concept of conscious eternal torment in hell . . . .I find it curious that, from my perspective, he is using his power as a writer and speaker to do violence to Scripture in the name of pacifism." (p.99)
Third, as I mentioned before, Driscoll's story is a "real world" story, that will likely be much more reflective of the average church planter's experiences. Angry core group members walking out, theological heresy causing the resignation of staff, and immature Christians seeking to lead before they are ready are but a few of the experiences Driscoll shares that I suspect will cause almost everyone who has planted a church to say "I remember that!"
Fourth, interspersed between these brutally true experiences are stories of grace. Driscoll is careful to note that even in the middle of the toughest times, God was working to save people at Mars Hill, and the stories are moving to say the least. Each chapter is prefaced with a one-sentence testimony that reminds the reader of the work of God, even in the midst of apparent chaos. These testimonies reveal such things as:
-God saved me while I was living with my lesbian mom and my dad was in prison for murder. I am a founding pastor.
-I was a pothead until I got saved and now I am the president of the chamber of commerce and the executive pastor.
-I was not a Christian when I came to the church. Today, I am a pastor.
Finally, Driscoll is abundantly clear throughout that the success of Mars Hill is owed to God alone. While no one who has planted a church would deny such a statement, many books on the subject seem to leave the reader with the impression that "our church grew because we . . . .[fill in the blank]." To be sure, Driscoll relates the lessons he has learned the hard way in the hopes that others will choose a less rocky path. But in the end, Mars Hill is shown to be totally the work of God. Driscoll admits from the very first sentence when he says, "I have made so many mistakes as a pastor that I should be pumping gas for a living instead of preaching the Gospel." And of the end result of his labors he states, "basically, we are a kite in God's hurricane, which is an absolute joke for reasons that will become apparent as you read through the book." (p.9)
Two cautions are in order. First, his comparisons of congregational ecclesiology with Senior Pastor and Elder ecclesiology is an exercise in oversimplification, and assumes these leadership models to be mutually exclusive. His rationale against "majority vote" decision-making in the church is worthy of a strong hearing, but in the end, he throws the baby out with the bathwater by seeing "congregationalism" as synonymous with "democracy." I agree with Driscoll that the latter has been syncretized into the local church in America, but the former has Biblical merit, and should be given more careful consideration.
Another caution is that some will find the way Driscoll sometimes expresses himself to be offensive. Many reviews have already been written that chide Driscoll heavily for what is perceived to be "coarse and offensive" language that occassionally appears in the book. But in the end, I would encourage the reader to resist straining at this gnat so that you can be blessed by hearing the heart of this pastor-missionary.
Mark Driscoll is a God-send to the emerging church. His newest book is Biblically sound, brutally honest, and cross-centered. This will be required reading for any of our new church planters. I am confident that the book will encourage them to equip themselves for the task ahead.
Driscoll, Mark. 2006. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
In 2001 when my family and I began planting a church, I read all the resources that were at the time considered "required reading." I still remember reading about the Real Estate broker who found Rick Warren a rent-free home for a month and simultaneously joined his church. I remember rejoicing as I read about the rapid growth of Willow Creek, and dreaming big while reading Stanley's success story known as Northpointe Church. Six months later, with no building, no money, and struggling to gather a core group, I felt very much like the special needs student who had accidentally signed up for the AP calculus course. I honestly wondered what I was doing wrong, not thinking about the possibility that Rick, Andy and Bill might be telling stories of extraordinary moves of God . . . .the exception rather than the rule.
Five years later, that church which began as a vision from God came togetherwith an older, established congregation, and by His grace continues to worship on Parkins Mill Road in Greenville South Carolina. It has helped to birth two other congregations in the Greenville area as well, but not without almost killing me first! My experiences there taught me that while it is OK to dream big, reading stories about airplanes full of people coming to Jesus can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations.
Now I have the privilege of overseeing the work of church planting in one of the most affluent areas in the country, and God is allowing me to share my limited experience with the guys who are now doing the work. While I want them to dream big, and expect God to do big things, I don't want them to think that growth comes without blood, sweat, tears, demonic oppression, temptation, fatigue, and a host of other impediments. Now that Driscoll's book Confessions is finally in print, I have a resource that will help them see this.
In the book, Mark Driscoll chronicles the birth and growth of Seattle's Mars Hill Church. Each of the seven chapters details a segment of growth within the church, which began in Driscoll's living room in 1996 with 12 people, and has since blossomed into a congregation of over 4,000. Throughout the book, there is a healthy balance of inspirational accounts of conversion and discipleship with brutal honesty concerning the sacrifice neccesary to bring about such spiritual development. Not content to allow you to see only the present worship center after a Sunday morning, Driscoll takes you into his living room where 12 people gathered initially, into the upstairs youth room of a fundamentalist church with 70s shag carpet where the church met for a period of time, into his bedroom at 3 AM for a rather blunt and personal "counseling" phone call with a porn-addict, and even into his own mind as he recounts his personal experiences with sexual temptation, spiritual warfare, sleeplessness, marital discord, frustration, anger and fatigue.
The stories come to life in a way only Driscoll can communicate, and each of his personal experiences leaves the reader with valuable lessons that will prove useful during the church planting experience. As I was reading, I found myself consistently asking "where was this book five years ago?" After reading this work, I have come to the conclusion that either Mark and I are both insane, and the only two people who have experienced such things, or his experiences represent the "norm" of church planting with much more accuracy. While I admit that my sanity is a point of debate among some friends of mine, I will opt for the second possibility.
There are a number of reasons this book should be on every church planter's shelf. First of all, there is a very helpful introduction in which Driscoll asks ten very probing questions that will help pastors and church planters alike shape the vision of their church in a way that will glorify God. Affectionately entitled "Chapter Zero," this section deals with the balance between "Gospel," "Culture," and "Church," and seeks to pull the reader from thinking of church planting solely in terms of "attraction," to thinking missionally so that their church will permeate its community with Gospel presence.
Second, Driscoll is an unabashed theological conservative, and helps today's church planters not lose sight of the fact that our programming, strategies, theological understanding, and ecclesiological foundations must be taken solely from the text of Scripture. One exerpt serves as an example:
At the time, it was becoming increasingly popular for young pastors to have churches that were not called "churches," but rather silly things like "new monastic communities," and leaders that were not called "pastor," but rather silly things like "abbess," or "spiritual director." As our mission began to develop, the New Testament teaching on church leadership and church discipline seemed increasingly wise and urgent to implement, before we ended up like the church at Corinth, divided and off mission because of folly and sin. Over the years, I have become increasingly troubled by the frequency with which young pastors simply dismiss the New Testament teaching on church leadership and discipline, so that if four guys are drinking beer in a pub, they can call it a church." (p.47)
Driscoll also takes the opportunity at one point in the book to distance himself from much of the aberrant theology coming out of Emergent. Recounting his experiences with Brian McLaren, Driscoll says "though I sincerely love Brian and appreciate the kindness he has shown to me, I generally disagree with many of his theological conclusions . . . .His pacifism seems to underlie many of our theological disagreements since he has a hard time accepting such things as the violence of penal substitutionary atonement, parts of the Old Testament where God killed people, and the concept of conscious eternal torment in hell . . . .I find it curious that, from my perspective, he is using his power as a writer and speaker to do violence to Scripture in the name of pacifism." (p.99)
Third, as I mentioned before, Driscoll's story is a "real world" story, that will likely be much more reflective of the average church planter's experiences. Angry core group members walking out, theological heresy causing the resignation of staff, and immature Christians seeking to lead before they are ready are but a few of the experiences Driscoll shares that I suspect will cause almost everyone who has planted a church to say "I remember that!"
Fourth, interspersed between these brutally true experiences are stories of grace. Driscoll is careful to note that even in the middle of the toughest times, God was working to save people at Mars Hill, and the stories are moving to say the least. Each chapter is prefaced with a one-sentence testimony that reminds the reader of the work of God, even in the midst of apparent chaos. These testimonies reveal such things as:
-God saved me while I was living with my lesbian mom and my dad was in prison for murder. I am a founding pastor.
-I was a pothead until I got saved and now I am the president of the chamber of commerce and the executive pastor.
-I was not a Christian when I came to the church. Today, I am a pastor.
Finally, Driscoll is abundantly clear throughout that the success of Mars Hill is owed to God alone. While no one who has planted a church would deny such a statement, many books on the subject seem to leave the reader with the impression that "our church grew because we . . . .[fill in the blank]." To be sure, Driscoll relates the lessons he has learned the hard way in the hopes that others will choose a less rocky path. But in the end, Mars Hill is shown to be totally the work of God. Driscoll admits from the very first sentence when he says, "I have made so many mistakes as a pastor that I should be pumping gas for a living instead of preaching the Gospel." And of the end result of his labors he states, "basically, we are a kite in God's hurricane, which is an absolute joke for reasons that will become apparent as you read through the book." (p.9)
Two cautions are in order. First, his comparisons of congregational ecclesiology with Senior Pastor and Elder ecclesiology is an exercise in oversimplification, and assumes these leadership models to be mutually exclusive. His rationale against "majority vote" decision-making in the church is worthy of a strong hearing, but in the end, he throws the baby out with the bathwater by seeing "congregationalism" as synonymous with "democracy." I agree with Driscoll that the latter has been syncretized into the local church in America, but the former has Biblical merit, and should be given more careful consideration.
Another caution is that some will find the way Driscoll sometimes expresses himself to be offensive. Many reviews have already been written that chide Driscoll heavily for what is perceived to be "coarse and offensive" language that occassionally appears in the book. But in the end, I would encourage the reader to resist straining at this gnat so that you can be blessed by hearing the heart of this pastor-missionary.
Mark Driscoll is a God-send to the emerging church. His newest book is Biblically sound, brutally honest, and cross-centered. This will be required reading for any of our new church planters. I am confident that the book will encourage them to equip themselves for the task ahead.
Driscoll, Mark. 2006. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
On Cash and Cooperation
Since the nomination of Arkansas pastor Ronnie Floyd for President of the Southern Baptist Convention two weeks ago, much noise has been made of the percentage his FBC Springdale gives to the Cooperative Program. Many of those calling for closer scrutiny of Dr. Floyd's financial commitments to the Southern Baptist machine are dear friends of mine, and people with whom I largely agree regarding recent events that have taken place in Southern Baptist life. Admittedly, $32,000 in total CP giving seems a paltry sum on the surface, when compared with a total church budget of nearly $12 million.
Still, before casting stones at Ronnie Floyd, a closer examination must be given to the overall commitment Springdale First possesses to missions. And one other observation is also in order: namely, the reality of "postdenominationalism" and its practical outworking, even in more established congregations like Floyd's.
Maybe in order to see the entire issue more clearly, both sides of this discussion need to tone it down a bit. For instance, one side needs to recognize the difference between tough, up front questions and character assassination. Marty Duren links to an excellent example of this confusion as one blogger writes "One thing that has troubled me lately is the amount of slanderous chatter going on via the blogosphere. I cannot understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and then go out and attempt to demolish the character of a fellow laborer of Christ. Someone please explain that! I can tell all the naysayers this: Ronnie Floyd is a man of God who is, in my mind, unmatched in his committment to preaching the word of God for what it is without apology."
Perhaps there are some postings in cyberspace which are more jaded than they should be, but I know of no serious thinker in SBC life, including many "younger leaders" who would disagree with the above statement. I too admire Dr. Floyd for his service to FBC Springdale, and for the impact that he has no doubt had on our culture through his broadcast ministry. The question at hand has nothing to do with Ronnie Floyd as a person, or Ronnie Floyd as a man of God. The question at hand is one of comparing recent SBC lamentings about the pathetic giving records of many of her elected leaders with the giving record at FBC Springdale.
Southern Baptists have a right to know why a candidate for the SBC presidency gives a sum to the Cooperative Program comparatvely as small as a fundamentalist's Sunday afternoon tip at Dennys. That said, I personally don't feel this issue is enough to warrant looking toward another candidate, and over all, I think Ronnie Floyd would do a superb job as the next SBC President. Still, to accuse those asking tough and neccesary questions of character assassination is to skirt the real issue, to say the least.
On the other side of this conversation are those who simply want to know the reasons behind a .27 percent CP giving record. While this is a fair question, consideration must also be given to the overall missions and outreach emphasis that is taking place in Springdale Arkansas. In addition to the $189,000 given in total to Southern Baptist causes (1.6% according to Florida Baptist Witness contributor Michael Petty), Floyd's church has partnered to plant many churches both in the US and abroad. And FBC Springdale is but one example of a host of churches doing this very same thing. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin predicted eight years ago that even theologically conservative denominations will face both downsizing and de-centralizing in years to come.
Driven by the Biblical conviction that the local church decides its own destiny and mission under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, churches will begin alligning themselves with multiple entities of like affinity that they perceive will help them to accomplish their vision. This is a trend that actually began more than a decade ago, with organizations like the Willow Creek Association. Today, other networks like Acts 29 are enlisting partners from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Each of those churches remains affiliated with its denomination on doctrinal matters, but alligns itself with other networks that will more effectively help it to reach its goals.
That said, I'm grateful for the guys out there asking the tough questions about Ronnie Floyd. But although we all have a right to know, we also need to consider the possibility that maybe, by contributing to many different streams of missions, Ronnie Floyd embodies the kind of multiple-allignment predicted by guys like Camino and Lattin, and rightly celebrated by guys like Steve McCoy.
The real crime here is that there appears to be somewhat of a double-standard on this issue. For example, when we enlist and fund guys to plant churches, we require them to give a certain percentage of their undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program (and its a lot more than .27 percent!) Had one of my church planters given a percentage close to that of FBC Springdale, I would have pastors asking me to defund his ministry. Yet it is possible that the SBC President elected this year could be pastor of a church that gives less than one half of one percent to the Cooperative Program. The bottom line is that we have no consensus on what it really means to support Southern Baptist missions.
Maybe it is at this juncture that we can learn from the emerging networks. Some, such as Willow Creek Association, have set dues depending ont he size of one's church. Others, like the Acts 29 network, require a certain percentage of a church's budget for that church to remain affiliated. Although I am not in favor of requiring "tithing" to the CP by SBC churches, I think a baseline requirement for CP giving in order for a church to remain SBC is not out of order. Personally, I would reccomend at least 2% of a church's budget given to the Cooperative Program and Association combined in order to identify as a Southern Baptist Church. I anticipate that there will be cries about "congregational autonomy," if and when such measures are suggested. But how would baseline giving criteria threaten the autonomy of the local church? If the church doesn't want to give, they are in a sense already declaring that they don't value being a part of the SBC, but they haven't lost their right to decide their own direction under the Lordship of Jesus.
My guess is that all the noise about Ronnie Floyd is due to the fact that we have no idea what it means to be a "committed Southern Baptist." We need a serious discussion about what this does mean. We need to come to consensus on what is and is not an appropriate level of Cooperative Program support. And when this is done, let's be consistent with how we apply our conclusions. The standard applied to Ronnie Floyd ought to be the same standard applied to an unknown church planter in suburban Baltimore. What's good for the goose . . .
Still, before casting stones at Ronnie Floyd, a closer examination must be given to the overall commitment Springdale First possesses to missions. And one other observation is also in order: namely, the reality of "postdenominationalism" and its practical outworking, even in more established congregations like Floyd's.
Maybe in order to see the entire issue more clearly, both sides of this discussion need to tone it down a bit. For instance, one side needs to recognize the difference between tough, up front questions and character assassination. Marty Duren links to an excellent example of this confusion as one blogger writes "One thing that has troubled me lately is the amount of slanderous chatter going on via the blogosphere. I cannot understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and then go out and attempt to demolish the character of a fellow laborer of Christ. Someone please explain that! I can tell all the naysayers this: Ronnie Floyd is a man of God who is, in my mind, unmatched in his committment to preaching the word of God for what it is without apology."
Perhaps there are some postings in cyberspace which are more jaded than they should be, but I know of no serious thinker in SBC life, including many "younger leaders" who would disagree with the above statement. I too admire Dr. Floyd for his service to FBC Springdale, and for the impact that he has no doubt had on our culture through his broadcast ministry. The question at hand has nothing to do with Ronnie Floyd as a person, or Ronnie Floyd as a man of God. The question at hand is one of comparing recent SBC lamentings about the pathetic giving records of many of her elected leaders with the giving record at FBC Springdale.
Southern Baptists have a right to know why a candidate for the SBC presidency gives a sum to the Cooperative Program comparatvely as small as a fundamentalist's Sunday afternoon tip at Dennys. That said, I personally don't feel this issue is enough to warrant looking toward another candidate, and over all, I think Ronnie Floyd would do a superb job as the next SBC President. Still, to accuse those asking tough and neccesary questions of character assassination is to skirt the real issue, to say the least.
On the other side of this conversation are those who simply want to know the reasons behind a .27 percent CP giving record. While this is a fair question, consideration must also be given to the overall missions and outreach emphasis that is taking place in Springdale Arkansas. In addition to the $189,000 given in total to Southern Baptist causes (1.6% according to Florida Baptist Witness contributor Michael Petty), Floyd's church has partnered to plant many churches both in the US and abroad. And FBC Springdale is but one example of a host of churches doing this very same thing. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin predicted eight years ago that even theologically conservative denominations will face both downsizing and de-centralizing in years to come.
Driven by the Biblical conviction that the local church decides its own destiny and mission under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, churches will begin alligning themselves with multiple entities of like affinity that they perceive will help them to accomplish their vision. This is a trend that actually began more than a decade ago, with organizations like the Willow Creek Association. Today, other networks like Acts 29 are enlisting partners from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Each of those churches remains affiliated with its denomination on doctrinal matters, but alligns itself with other networks that will more effectively help it to reach its goals.
That said, I'm grateful for the guys out there asking the tough questions about Ronnie Floyd. But although we all have a right to know, we also need to consider the possibility that maybe, by contributing to many different streams of missions, Ronnie Floyd embodies the kind of multiple-allignment predicted by guys like Camino and Lattin, and rightly celebrated by guys like Steve McCoy.
The real crime here is that there appears to be somewhat of a double-standard on this issue. For example, when we enlist and fund guys to plant churches, we require them to give a certain percentage of their undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program (and its a lot more than .27 percent!) Had one of my church planters given a percentage close to that of FBC Springdale, I would have pastors asking me to defund his ministry. Yet it is possible that the SBC President elected this year could be pastor of a church that gives less than one half of one percent to the Cooperative Program. The bottom line is that we have no consensus on what it really means to support Southern Baptist missions.
Maybe it is at this juncture that we can learn from the emerging networks. Some, such as Willow Creek Association, have set dues depending ont he size of one's church. Others, like the Acts 29 network, require a certain percentage of a church's budget for that church to remain affiliated. Although I am not in favor of requiring "tithing" to the CP by SBC churches, I think a baseline requirement for CP giving in order for a church to remain SBC is not out of order. Personally, I would reccomend at least 2% of a church's budget given to the Cooperative Program and Association combined in order to identify as a Southern Baptist Church. I anticipate that there will be cries about "congregational autonomy," if and when such measures are suggested. But how would baseline giving criteria threaten the autonomy of the local church? If the church doesn't want to give, they are in a sense already declaring that they don't value being a part of the SBC, but they haven't lost their right to decide their own direction under the Lordship of Jesus.
My guess is that all the noise about Ronnie Floyd is due to the fact that we have no idea what it means to be a "committed Southern Baptist." We need a serious discussion about what this does mean. We need to come to consensus on what is and is not an appropriate level of Cooperative Program support. And when this is done, let's be consistent with how we apply our conclusions. The standard applied to Ronnie Floyd ought to be the same standard applied to an unknown church planter in suburban Baltimore. What's good for the goose . . .
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Spiritual Authority and the "Memphis Declaration."
This week in Memphis Tennessee, Calvinists sat down to eat with Arminians. Premillenialists spent time in prayer with Amillennialists. Cessationists teamed up with Continuationists. All Southern Baptists, this diverse group, made up of roughly thirty pastors and laity, came together in a time of prayer and repentance, and left Memphis with a unified statement calling for cooperation under the Lordship of Jesus Christ to advance His Gospel in the world. In doing this, they not only provided Southern Baptists with a glimpse of the kind of unity that should permeate our denominational culture, but they also exemplified the epitome of Southern Baptist's deepest and most pressing need: Spiritual authority.
I admit at the outset that when I first heard of the meeting that would take place in Memphis, I was concerned. I know personally many of the men who participated. I share their strong conviction that narrowing the parameters of cooperation in our Convention will be detrimental to the advance of the Gospel, and deadly to our continued participation in extending the reign of Jesus Christ in the world. I'm also convinced that while a course-correction away from such a tendency comes primarily from planting and growing healthy churches, systemic change cannot take place apart from addressing the system as it exists. Yet while working in Chicago this week, I prayed often for my brothers, that their meeting would not be perceived as an attempt to grab power and control. After seeing the results of their time together, my concerns are not only alleviated, but I have a fresh hope for where Southern Baptists can go from here.
Presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is in danger of falling prey to theological and ecclesiological myopia. The recent policy and guideline moves at the International Mission Board, while the most visible examples of this danger, are merely symptoms of a greater problem. When you are the largest Protestant denomination in America, it is easy to think that your size indicates your superiority and significance. Those meeting in Memphis understood that there is a fine line between standing resolutely on your own convictions, and aggressively, or even passively, degrading the convictions of others. Within, our arguments have been over whether God's election is conditional or unconditional, whether the milennium is literal or figurative, whether the "sign gifts" ceased with the closing of the canon, or have continued to the present day. Since 1845, such arguments have not only remained "in house," but also "off" the mission field. Our brothers and sisters who met in Memphis want to keep it that way.
Still, it is possible for one to be right in the wrong way, and the wrong approach to addressing these volatile issues could have easily caused a schism within our ranks. Given the strong convictions that exist regarding these issues within the Convention, the Memphis Declaration could have resulted in the taking of "sides," and forwarding another theological battle similar to the inerrancy debates which took place two decades ago. But those writing the declaration chose not to take sides. To be sure, they stated their convictions with clarity, but not in a polarizing way.
Instead, in the tradition of Ezra, this group of faithful Southern Baptists wrote a public statement of repentance. Realizing that the Gospel is the great unifier, this group wrote a declaration that resists looking at all the current issues as a division between "heroes and enemies" and instead forwards a statement that emphasizes the sin in all of us that causes ungodly conflict, and the grace of God that empowers us to unity in spite of our differences.
This is refreshing for several reasons. For one, the Southern Baptist Convention for the past two decades has been led primarily by "positional" authority. Yet all this time, I have been convinced that "spiritual" authority has been thriving beneath the surface, empowering the SBC to continue its Great Commission task. Spiritual authority, as Gary Mayes describes it, is "quality found in leaders who speak with an authority beyond themselves." Examples of such authority are seen in the Apostles (Acts 4:13), and Jesus Himself (Matthew 7:28-29). Mayes goes on to state that to possess spiritual authority, one must surrendered to God, alligned with His will, broken before His presence, and vulnerable to the point that His spirit can work through us with complete freedom. As I read this document, these are the characteristics that I strongly sense. I know a few of the folks who were in Memphis. Though I love them, and though they are good men, I can assure you that such a humble statement did not come from them alone (and had I been there, they would have said the same thing about me). It is obvious to me that these men and women literally spent two days with Jesus.
The Memphis group has stood only on Scripture, only against darkness, and is seeking to stand with as many Southern Baptists as will agree to join them in repentance. And this is one Southern Baptist who will. Shortly after the public release of this document, I was contacted and asked to sign it. I declined at first, not because of any objection I have to its contents, but in order to do some introspection. After taking the time to do this, I am willing to own my part of the sin in our denomination. In the past, I have been guilty of marginalizing people without personally meeting them. I have spoken before having all the facts. I have used the label "liberal" because it was easier than getting to know someone who differed with me theologically. I have allowed "guilt by association" to deter me from developing genuine friendships with people who have turned out to be godly and righteous. I admit to my own contribution to the problems present in the SBC. As a result, my signature will soon be affixed to the document.
Spiritual Authority is what turned the disciples into commandos. It is what permeated the hearts of the martyrs. It has been at the heart of all the great revivals the world has known for the last 2000 years. And spiritual authority can empower the SBC to be a leader among other evangelicals to transform the world for the sake of the Gospel. But if we want to be first, we have to be last! This is, I believe, at the heart of the "Memphis Declaration." I join my brothers and sisters in endorsing its content, and invite my readership to do the same. To add your name, send your request to Mary Duren at martyduren@yahoo.com, with your name, church membership, and city. The Declaration is pasted below for your review.
There are lots of folks expecting a fight in Greensboro. Pray instead for spiritual authority that will take our theological, methodological and missiological diversity, and create a unity that glorifies God.
_____
MEMPHIS DECLARATION: MAY 3, 2006
We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering.
We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.
We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:
1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.
2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.
3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.
4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.
5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.
6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.
Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.
7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.
8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.
Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.
Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.
I admit at the outset that when I first heard of the meeting that would take place in Memphis, I was concerned. I know personally many of the men who participated. I share their strong conviction that narrowing the parameters of cooperation in our Convention will be detrimental to the advance of the Gospel, and deadly to our continued participation in extending the reign of Jesus Christ in the world. I'm also convinced that while a course-correction away from such a tendency comes primarily from planting and growing healthy churches, systemic change cannot take place apart from addressing the system as it exists. Yet while working in Chicago this week, I prayed often for my brothers, that their meeting would not be perceived as an attempt to grab power and control. After seeing the results of their time together, my concerns are not only alleviated, but I have a fresh hope for where Southern Baptists can go from here.
Presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is in danger of falling prey to theological and ecclesiological myopia. The recent policy and guideline moves at the International Mission Board, while the most visible examples of this danger, are merely symptoms of a greater problem. When you are the largest Protestant denomination in America, it is easy to think that your size indicates your superiority and significance. Those meeting in Memphis understood that there is a fine line between standing resolutely on your own convictions, and aggressively, or even passively, degrading the convictions of others. Within, our arguments have been over whether God's election is conditional or unconditional, whether the milennium is literal or figurative, whether the "sign gifts" ceased with the closing of the canon, or have continued to the present day. Since 1845, such arguments have not only remained "in house," but also "off" the mission field. Our brothers and sisters who met in Memphis want to keep it that way.
Still, it is possible for one to be right in the wrong way, and the wrong approach to addressing these volatile issues could have easily caused a schism within our ranks. Given the strong convictions that exist regarding these issues within the Convention, the Memphis Declaration could have resulted in the taking of "sides," and forwarding another theological battle similar to the inerrancy debates which took place two decades ago. But those writing the declaration chose not to take sides. To be sure, they stated their convictions with clarity, but not in a polarizing way.
Instead, in the tradition of Ezra, this group of faithful Southern Baptists wrote a public statement of repentance. Realizing that the Gospel is the great unifier, this group wrote a declaration that resists looking at all the current issues as a division between "heroes and enemies" and instead forwards a statement that emphasizes the sin in all of us that causes ungodly conflict, and the grace of God that empowers us to unity in spite of our differences.
This is refreshing for several reasons. For one, the Southern Baptist Convention for the past two decades has been led primarily by "positional" authority. Yet all this time, I have been convinced that "spiritual" authority has been thriving beneath the surface, empowering the SBC to continue its Great Commission task. Spiritual authority, as Gary Mayes describes it, is "quality found in leaders who speak with an authority beyond themselves." Examples of such authority are seen in the Apostles (Acts 4:13), and Jesus Himself (Matthew 7:28-29). Mayes goes on to state that to possess spiritual authority, one must surrendered to God, alligned with His will, broken before His presence, and vulnerable to the point that His spirit can work through us with complete freedom. As I read this document, these are the characteristics that I strongly sense. I know a few of the folks who were in Memphis. Though I love them, and though they are good men, I can assure you that such a humble statement did not come from them alone (and had I been there, they would have said the same thing about me). It is obvious to me that these men and women literally spent two days with Jesus.
The Memphis group has stood only on Scripture, only against darkness, and is seeking to stand with as many Southern Baptists as will agree to join them in repentance. And this is one Southern Baptist who will. Shortly after the public release of this document, I was contacted and asked to sign it. I declined at first, not because of any objection I have to its contents, but in order to do some introspection. After taking the time to do this, I am willing to own my part of the sin in our denomination. In the past, I have been guilty of marginalizing people without personally meeting them. I have spoken before having all the facts. I have used the label "liberal" because it was easier than getting to know someone who differed with me theologically. I have allowed "guilt by association" to deter me from developing genuine friendships with people who have turned out to be godly and righteous. I admit to my own contribution to the problems present in the SBC. As a result, my signature will soon be affixed to the document.
Spiritual Authority is what turned the disciples into commandos. It is what permeated the hearts of the martyrs. It has been at the heart of all the great revivals the world has known for the last 2000 years. And spiritual authority can empower the SBC to be a leader among other evangelicals to transform the world for the sake of the Gospel. But if we want to be first, we have to be last! This is, I believe, at the heart of the "Memphis Declaration." I join my brothers and sisters in endorsing its content, and invite my readership to do the same. To add your name, send your request to Mary Duren at martyduren@yahoo.com, with your name, church membership, and city. The Declaration is pasted below for your review.
There are lots of folks expecting a fight in Greensboro. Pray instead for spiritual authority that will take our theological, methodological and missiological diversity, and create a unity that glorifies God.
_____
MEMPHIS DECLARATION: MAY 3, 2006
We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering.
We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.
We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:
1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.
2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.
3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.
4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.
5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.
6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.
Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.
7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.
8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.
Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.
Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The Power of the Resurrection: The Easter Story as Apologetic
The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the lynchpin of the Christian faith. Take it away, and the entire Christian worldview collapses under the weight of its own foolishness. The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that if someone produces the body of Jesus, our faith, our prayers, our preaching, and our very way of life are to be pitied above all others.
This Easter season, a new set of challenges faces the church, and seeks to undermine historic Christian teaching. Every challenge throughout the history of the church has been met with various apologetic approaches. But each threat has ultimately and finally been defeated with three profound, simple words: "Christ is risen!"
Three very distinct threats to the Christian faith can be noted this Easter. Just this month, National Geographic released a series of TV specials surrounding the "Gospel of Judas," a document that dates back to around 150 A.D. and supposedly gives a "different angle" to the relationship between Jesus and the disciple who betrayed Him. Notably absent from this series is the fact that even using the most liberal dating, this document is predated by the latest of the New Testament Gospels by 50 years, making its comparative reliability highly questionable at best. Along with "Judas," wide discussion of the "Gnostic" gospels has risen, even within the ranks of Christendom. And this May, the world will have the opportunity to see the silver screen version of "The DaVinci Code" in theatres.
Patterned after the best-selling novel by Dan Brown, "DaVinci" posits the theory that historic Christian teaching is, in fact, the product of a grand, ecclesiastical conspiracy. Such a notion is popular with our culture, which pants like a bloodthirsty wolf at the thought of uncovering a conspiratorial plot. In fact, the whole idea behind "DaVinci" is so popular, our culture has all but ignored the enormous historical fallacies present in the book, many of which were made by one of the main characters, a historian! My dear friend Spencer Haygood has eloquently stated that any Oxford-educated history professor who made such gross mistakes would immediately be stripped of his terminal degree and be sent back to History 101. But such mistakes are glossed over by the wider populace, who prefers to think of Christianity as "DaVinci" presents it: an institution founded by conspiratorial action and maintained by continued cover-up.
Certainly such claims should be answered by the church, and the arsenal of information against "DaVinci" grows by the day. But if we answer a story full of error only with the facts, the story still wins! Ultimately, confronting the latest attempts to undermine historic Christian faith must be empowered by the greatest of all stories! Our culture is now steeped in narrative. As such, they require a narrrative apologetic. Solomon was right: there really is nothing new under the sun! After 2000 years, the Easter story is still the greatest defense of the Christian faith. Therefore, the answer to the latest threats against Gospel integrity is ultimately that which has finally answered all other attempts to undermine Christianity: We must confront error with the story of the resurrected God-man!
And let's be honest: part of that truth is that the church has had her conspirators! Roman Catholicism is the result of the theological collapse of the Christian church in the third century, which itself resulted in the return of a spurious and unneccesary "Priesthood." Christian Hierarchicalism in all its forms is the result of women being seen as essentially inferior to men, and as a result, barring them not just from the Pastoral office (a Biblical position I believe), but also from any form of leadership in Christ's church. Denominationalism, in its worst form, is the result of individuals within particular expressions of church life claiming that theirs is the only "true church." The list of attempts to hijack the mission of the church could go on and on. As Greg Caruso of CRM Ministries well states, "When it is disfunctional, the body of Christ is a hideous thing!"
Nevertheless, throughout all of this, the true church has continued to stand, and with it, the power of the Gospel it is called to preach. For 2000 years, the church has answered her critics, and after 2000 years, the message of the Gospel remains undefeated! In light of this, are we really so afraid of "DaVinci"? For two millenia, the Gospel has withstood the attacks of Marcionism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Doceticism, Donatism, Imperial Catholicism, Hyper-Calvinism, German higher Criticism, Neo-Orthodoxy, Hyper-Landmarkism, and Postliberlism. After all of this, do we really believe it can finally be brought down by Tom Hanks and Opie?!
Certainly we need to be prepared to discuss the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of "DaVinci." Followers of Christ should, as Peter exhorts, be prepared to give an answer for what we believe, and why we believe it (1 Peter 3:15). But the greatest way to defend the Christian faith is to proclaim the greatest story of all; the story we remember this weekend. The ultimate proof of the truthfulness and superiority of Christianity is that while the tombs of all other religious leaders are occupied, we can proclaim with confidence that a dead man rose from the grave and has commissioned us to tell His story. The Canadian scientist G.B. Harding said that in searching for a religion, he asked himself two questions: 1. Has anybody conquered death? 2. Have they provided a way for me to do it? After searching the world and finding the tombs of Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, and others respectively occupied, he found the tomb of Jesus Christ empty, and subsequently read the New Testament, finding the words of Jesus which said "Because I live, you shall live also!" In the words of Harding, "my search is over!"
This Easter, let us stand on the shoulders of our brothers and sisters who have come before us, face the present challenges to our ancient faith, and say with the confidence of our Orthodox brothers and sisters . . . .
"Christ is risen!. . . . .
. . . .He is risen indeed!"
This Easter season, a new set of challenges faces the church, and seeks to undermine historic Christian teaching. Every challenge throughout the history of the church has been met with various apologetic approaches. But each threat has ultimately and finally been defeated with three profound, simple words: "Christ is risen!"
Three very distinct threats to the Christian faith can be noted this Easter. Just this month, National Geographic released a series of TV specials surrounding the "Gospel of Judas," a document that dates back to around 150 A.D. and supposedly gives a "different angle" to the relationship between Jesus and the disciple who betrayed Him. Notably absent from this series is the fact that even using the most liberal dating, this document is predated by the latest of the New Testament Gospels by 50 years, making its comparative reliability highly questionable at best. Along with "Judas," wide discussion of the "Gnostic" gospels has risen, even within the ranks of Christendom. And this May, the world will have the opportunity to see the silver screen version of "The DaVinci Code" in theatres.
Patterned after the best-selling novel by Dan Brown, "DaVinci" posits the theory that historic Christian teaching is, in fact, the product of a grand, ecclesiastical conspiracy. Such a notion is popular with our culture, which pants like a bloodthirsty wolf at the thought of uncovering a conspiratorial plot. In fact, the whole idea behind "DaVinci" is so popular, our culture has all but ignored the enormous historical fallacies present in the book, many of which were made by one of the main characters, a historian! My dear friend Spencer Haygood has eloquently stated that any Oxford-educated history professor who made such gross mistakes would immediately be stripped of his terminal degree and be sent back to History 101. But such mistakes are glossed over by the wider populace, who prefers to think of Christianity as "DaVinci" presents it: an institution founded by conspiratorial action and maintained by continued cover-up.
Certainly such claims should be answered by the church, and the arsenal of information against "DaVinci" grows by the day. But if we answer a story full of error only with the facts, the story still wins! Ultimately, confronting the latest attempts to undermine historic Christian faith must be empowered by the greatest of all stories! Our culture is now steeped in narrative. As such, they require a narrrative apologetic. Solomon was right: there really is nothing new under the sun! After 2000 years, the Easter story is still the greatest defense of the Christian faith. Therefore, the answer to the latest threats against Gospel integrity is ultimately that which has finally answered all other attempts to undermine Christianity: We must confront error with the story of the resurrected God-man!
And let's be honest: part of that truth is that the church has had her conspirators! Roman Catholicism is the result of the theological collapse of the Christian church in the third century, which itself resulted in the return of a spurious and unneccesary "Priesthood." Christian Hierarchicalism in all its forms is the result of women being seen as essentially inferior to men, and as a result, barring them not just from the Pastoral office (a Biblical position I believe), but also from any form of leadership in Christ's church. Denominationalism, in its worst form, is the result of individuals within particular expressions of church life claiming that theirs is the only "true church." The list of attempts to hijack the mission of the church could go on and on. As Greg Caruso of CRM Ministries well states, "When it is disfunctional, the body of Christ is a hideous thing!"
Nevertheless, throughout all of this, the true church has continued to stand, and with it, the power of the Gospel it is called to preach. For 2000 years, the church has answered her critics, and after 2000 years, the message of the Gospel remains undefeated! In light of this, are we really so afraid of "DaVinci"? For two millenia, the Gospel has withstood the attacks of Marcionism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Doceticism, Donatism, Imperial Catholicism, Hyper-Calvinism, German higher Criticism, Neo-Orthodoxy, Hyper-Landmarkism, and Postliberlism. After all of this, do we really believe it can finally be brought down by Tom Hanks and Opie?!
Certainly we need to be prepared to discuss the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of "DaVinci." Followers of Christ should, as Peter exhorts, be prepared to give an answer for what we believe, and why we believe it (1 Peter 3:15). But the greatest way to defend the Christian faith is to proclaim the greatest story of all; the story we remember this weekend. The ultimate proof of the truthfulness and superiority of Christianity is that while the tombs of all other religious leaders are occupied, we can proclaim with confidence that a dead man rose from the grave and has commissioned us to tell His story. The Canadian scientist G.B. Harding said that in searching for a religion, he asked himself two questions: 1. Has anybody conquered death? 2. Have they provided a way for me to do it? After searching the world and finding the tombs of Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, and others respectively occupied, he found the tomb of Jesus Christ empty, and subsequently read the New Testament, finding the words of Jesus which said "Because I live, you shall live also!" In the words of Harding, "my search is over!"
This Easter, let us stand on the shoulders of our brothers and sisters who have come before us, face the present challenges to our ancient faith, and say with the confidence of our Orthodox brothers and sisters . . . .
"Christ is risen!. . . . .
. . . .He is risen indeed!"
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
The Wonder of the Blogosphere
Working from home today, I took a moment to surf over to SBC Outpost an congratulate Marty Duren on surviving (barely) an entire year in the blogosphere. Later this afternoon, I realized that my own weblog is exactly one year old today!
Much has been said over the past year about the advantages and liabilities of blogging. Many have joked that until last December, most Southern Baptist leaders didn't even know what a blog was. I must admit myself that until late 2004, I was only faintly aware of those underground currents of information which rapidly release information, and promote discussion, fellowship, and even evangelism. Now, exactly 365 days to the date of my first online post, I'd like to think I'm a bit more informed, both about blogs, and because of blogs.
Information regarding recent denominational contentions were publicized through the blogosphere in a way no major news source could have ever released such information. In light of this, many who were caught in the middle of such contention lamented the very existence of such a technology. Some, still speaking from ignorance, equated blogs with "internet pornography." Others saw the blogosphere as merely a more rapid way of spreading gossip among the body of Christ at large.
While such concerns are legitimate, the issue that should drive them should not be the technology that is admittedly used sometimes to forward inaccurate and even slanderous information. What should drive concerns about online gossip is the same issue that drives concern about every other kind of gossip; human depravity.
Ed Stetzer has spoken eloquently to the tendency to confuse form with meaning. Meaning is what matters, while form is simply the vehicle used to transport meaning. Stetzer of course uses these concepts to speak of Christian worship, evangelism and church planting. But such concepts can just as easily be applied to recent discussions about blogging. Blogging in and of itself is amoral, neither good or bad. Throw human depravity into the mix and you get gossip, slander, misinformation and false accusations released at beyond-lightning speed all over the world. Still, this isn't any worse than the juicy stories disguised as "prayer requests" at your average Baptist church.
On the other hand, inject God-given human insight and creativity into this form of communication and what you end up with is an awesome tool of evangelistic and ecclesiastical collaboration! Given the reality of globalization, there has never been a more immediate need for followers of Christ to engage cyberspace than now!
Like it or not, the blogosphere is now in full swing and gaining speed. Sure, some will (and in fact, already have) use this tool for evil. But many will (and in fact, should) use it for the building of the Body, the announcing of the Kingdom, and the pursuit of God's glory.
My hope is that as a result of my own weblog, I will grow at least at the same rate this coming year that I have in the past year. Whether it was from thinking through exactly how to communicate what I want to say so as to minimize misunderstanding, or from addressing questions poised to me publicly, challenging my positions and opinions and forcing me back to the Word of God, I know the blogosphere has been a powerful tool of God for my own growth. My prayer is that you have grown too, and that I will continue to use this powerful form of communication to speak on meanings that really matter!
Oh, and congratulations again Marty! (see www.sbcoutpost.com)
Much has been said over the past year about the advantages and liabilities of blogging. Many have joked that until last December, most Southern Baptist leaders didn't even know what a blog was. I must admit myself that until late 2004, I was only faintly aware of those underground currents of information which rapidly release information, and promote discussion, fellowship, and even evangelism. Now, exactly 365 days to the date of my first online post, I'd like to think I'm a bit more informed, both about blogs, and because of blogs.
Information regarding recent denominational contentions were publicized through the blogosphere in a way no major news source could have ever released such information. In light of this, many who were caught in the middle of such contention lamented the very existence of such a technology. Some, still speaking from ignorance, equated blogs with "internet pornography." Others saw the blogosphere as merely a more rapid way of spreading gossip among the body of Christ at large.
While such concerns are legitimate, the issue that should drive them should not be the technology that is admittedly used sometimes to forward inaccurate and even slanderous information. What should drive concerns about online gossip is the same issue that drives concern about every other kind of gossip; human depravity.
Ed Stetzer has spoken eloquently to the tendency to confuse form with meaning. Meaning is what matters, while form is simply the vehicle used to transport meaning. Stetzer of course uses these concepts to speak of Christian worship, evangelism and church planting. But such concepts can just as easily be applied to recent discussions about blogging. Blogging in and of itself is amoral, neither good or bad. Throw human depravity into the mix and you get gossip, slander, misinformation and false accusations released at beyond-lightning speed all over the world. Still, this isn't any worse than the juicy stories disguised as "prayer requests" at your average Baptist church.
On the other hand, inject God-given human insight and creativity into this form of communication and what you end up with is an awesome tool of evangelistic and ecclesiastical collaboration! Given the reality of globalization, there has never been a more immediate need for followers of Christ to engage cyberspace than now!
Like it or not, the blogosphere is now in full swing and gaining speed. Sure, some will (and in fact, already have) use this tool for evil. But many will (and in fact, should) use it for the building of the Body, the announcing of the Kingdom, and the pursuit of God's glory.
My hope is that as a result of my own weblog, I will grow at least at the same rate this coming year that I have in the past year. Whether it was from thinking through exactly how to communicate what I want to say so as to minimize misunderstanding, or from addressing questions poised to me publicly, challenging my positions and opinions and forcing me back to the Word of God, I know the blogosphere has been a powerful tool of God for my own growth. My prayer is that you have grown too, and that I will continue to use this powerful form of communication to speak on meanings that really matter!
Oh, and congratulations again Marty! (see www.sbcoutpost.com)
Friday, March 24, 2006
Red and Blue Politics: What Would Jesus Do?
With the Senate poised to take up the divisive issue of immigration next week, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York has become one of the leading voices against suggested legislation coming from the other side of the aisle. The fomer First Lady said that proposed legislation criminalizes undocumented immigrants (as if being here without documentation isn't already criminal according to existing laws), and boldy proclaimed that Republican-sponsored bills were not only in opposition to Democratic values, but were antithetical to the views of Jesus Himself. The proposed legislation, in her view, "would likely criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself."
Needless to say, many in the evangelical community are shocked to hear Senator Clinton appeal to Jesus as an authority for anything! But Clinton isn't the only politician, and the democrats certainly aren't the only party, claiming God is on their side. And the propensity on both sides of American politics to play fast and loose with the person and message of Jesus Christ should cause His followers grave concern.
But efforts to shape Jesus into our own image are not new. In the 19th century, amidst the rise of classical liberalism and the demytholigization approach of Rulolph Bultman and David Strauss, German theologian Martin Kahler expressed concern that the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" was in reality simply a re-making of Jesus into the image of those who sought to critique His person and message. Though Kahler himself rejected the authenticity and historical accuracy of the New Testament Gospels, he was reticent to accept Bultmans approach of re-interpreting Jesus' message in light of history. As a result, Kahler sought to promote a total separation of the "Jesus of faith" from the "Jesus of history." As a liberal, Kahler understood that if one rejects the veracity of the Biblical text, the only other option is to separate faith from history, otherwise, the "re-interpreted" history that results would be far less historical and far more convenient to the views of those seeking to do such re-interpretation.
Kahler had a great analogy for this. He compared those looking for the "historical Jesus" to those looking down into a well, and claimed that it is no surprise to find that the Jesus they construct in the end looks very much like the reflection they have been observing.
In the case of the Jesus Seminar, our Savior comes out as an arrogant academic seeking tenure at an ivy-league school. Coincidental?
The above review of this small but significant part of Church History allows us to see a very similar parallel in remarks such as those made by Senator Clinton yesterday. Instead of starting with Jesus, and being conformed to His image, many start with themselves and seek to conform Jesus to their own image.
But there is no reason why evangelical Christians should have to even struggle through such an issue. We do not distinguish between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. We believe both are described with perfect accuracy in the text of the Bible. Yet so often, even Bible-believing Christians yield to the temptation to form their Savior in their own image. Though forthcoming descriptions have been published in similar form in far more eloquent fashion, it is helpful to examine the "Blue" Jesus, and the "Red" Jesus, and compare them both to the Jesus of Scripture.
The "Red" Jesus. This Jesus is a "gun-totin' redneck," and proud of it! His definition of a tax is "legalized theft." He cares little for the environment. After all, the whole planet is goiing to burn under God's judgement one day anyway, so why not help things out a bit? He is anti-abortion, but simultaneously anti-charity. If she got herself into that mess, then she can get herself out of it. The "Red" Jesus also takes his cues from John Calvin when it comes to church-state relations: The state should simply adopt policies as they are dictated by the church. This of course includes immigration policy, which, according to the Red Jesus, can be articulated clearly and sufficiently with two words: "STAY OUT." The preaching of the Gospel is accomplished through the acquisition and retention of power, and is spoken in the most offensive manner possible. Let's face it: most of the world is going to hell anyway, so why should we care about how our message "sounds" to them?
But what about the poor? Red Jesus doesn't care about them! Red Jesus writes them all off as simply lazy and uninitiated, Sure, they are the "least of these," but that is most likely because they contribute the least! This of course includes the people of China. Its not America's fault that they won't take the initiative to rise out from under their oppressors, so Red Jesus will normalize trade relations with them because it doesn't matter how the Chinese treat their women and children, so long as we can use strategic partnerships with them to make a buck. Heck, the Red Jesus will use those monies to fund "faith-based initiatives." Yeah, that's what we need: government using the tax dollars of Baptists to fund the work of Mormons! Makes perfect sense!
To be sure, what I have described represents only the worst of Republican politics. But the above should be well noted, and sufficient to substantiate that Jesus is not a Republican. This is admittedly troubling to me, because I am a Republican. As such, I'd sure be more comfortable if I knew God shared all of my political views. I could take the Hillary Clinton approach and define Jesus on my terms of course, but I think there is something about the second commandment that would make this wrong.
The "Blue" Jesus: This Jesus is a liberal, bleeding-heart, tofu-eating, PETA-supporting socialist who believes that government is the answer to all things. The blue Jesus doesn't need to carry a gun. Guns are dangerous, and if we could get rid of all the guns, we would get rid of all the violence. Of course, Blue Jesus can't afford a gun anway, because the politicians he has elected have raised his taxes to the point that he can barely afford groceries, let alone a gun!
Blue Jesus believes that the government needs those taxes to help the poor. After all, the problem of the poor isn't laziness, or sinfulness. Its a bad environment. In fact, that is everybody's true problem: bad environment, or abuse as a child, or not enough attention, or economic disenfranschisement. Therefore, Blue Jesus works dillegently to ensure that the government provides and access and funding to what these people need.
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, this would of course include abortion. But this can't be limited to the first trimester. A girl should have the entire term of her pregnancy to decide whether she wants the baby . . .em, excuse me, I meant to say fetus. Actually, the later she makes this decision the better, because late term abortions, especially of the DNX (i.e. partial birth) variety provide huge amounts of grant money to doctors and research hospitals, as well as fetal body parts on which to experiment. Sure, this may involve piercing the back of a baby . . . .excuse me again . . . . fetus' neck and sucking out its brains, but we have to sacrifice the one to serve the many!
Blue Jesus also thinks the whole attempt to define marriage is stupid. If two men or two women want to get married, that should be their right. After all, people should be able to believe what they want, and act the way they want. Blue Jesus encourages Muslims to remain Muslim, Hindus to remain Hindu, and so on. Blue Jesus would certainly not claim to be the "only way" to God. How arrogant! And of course, Blue Jesus would say that, with regard to immigration (or any other area for that matter), that the law of the land really doesn't matter, so lets just keep ignoring the problem. We will not take the intolerant road of telling an undocumented worker that he or she has broken the law, and then enforce that law. Blue Jesus doesn't even bother with changing the law to make the immigration process less cumbersome for those who want to make a better life for themselves. Blue Jesus just ignores the law. Changing it would take up too much valuable time that could be spent saving another spotted owl.
"Red Jesus" and "Blue" Jesus are prime examples of what Dr. Kahler warned us about over one hundred years ago. Worse yet, Red Jesus and Blue Jesus are idols: gods that we have fashioned in our own image. So why is it that our culture, both inside and outside the church, continue to define Jesus only as they would like Him to be, like some wierdo spiritual angle on Extreme Makeover?
The answer? I believe it is because the real Jesus; the Jesus who historically existed, born of a virgin, dying in time and space for human sin, and being historically and literally resurected by God the Father, that Jesus is hard to handle! The Jesus of Scripture isn't confined to a political agenda or any other box. This Jesus is unplugged!
-He creates the entire world in six days.
-He destroys that same world by flood over forty days, violently drowning every man, woman, boy, girl, and baby not in the ark.
-He kills the first-born sons of an entire nation of people, including the Princes.
-He destroys Sodom and Gommorrah by fire.
-He is born in a barn, and raised in a blue-collar household.
-He hangs out with prostitutes, drunks, cheats, theives, and worst of all, employees of the Internal Revenue Service!
-He grows up within Judaism, only to vehemently condemn the leaders of His own faith, calling them "whitewashed tombs."
-He gets angry, REALLY angry, at those who use faith to take advantage of others. He gets a whip, cracks it across a few backs and trashes the entire joint.
-He calls out Judas in front of all the others, revealing in His omniscient understanding Judas' intent to betray Him. Then He basically says to Judas "Do what you gotta do, but when you're done, you are gonna wish you were never born!"
-He dies in a bloody mess on a Roman cross.
-He rises bodily from the grave, demonstrating that the "box" called death can't hold Him either.
-He advocates, as a nation-building strategy for His eternal and indestructable Kingdom, the suffering, persecution and death of those who follow Him.
-He is coming back as the strong, powerful, white haired, tatooed warrior to kill all His enemies.
To sum it all up: The Jesus of the Bible can't be domesticated! And since this is the real Jesus, any other "Jesus" who perfectly fits our understanding, worldview, or political persuasion is by definition a false god.
Hillary Clinton an idolater? Who would have thought that? But she isn't the only one. And this kind of idolatry happens every time we emphasize some things about the Savior to the exclusion of others.
Check the Great Commission. Jesus doesn't speak for us. We speak for Him. Jesus doesn't support our views. We support His.
And Jesus has no desire to identify as a Republican or Democrat. Rather, Jesus expects . . . .indeed commands . . . .those of all political parties to bow before His sovereign goodness. There will be no political parties in the Theocracy that Jesus will soon return to establish. Those who want to be counted as belonging to Him had better realize this, and begin living as if it is true.
Needless to say, many in the evangelical community are shocked to hear Senator Clinton appeal to Jesus as an authority for anything! But Clinton isn't the only politician, and the democrats certainly aren't the only party, claiming God is on their side. And the propensity on both sides of American politics to play fast and loose with the person and message of Jesus Christ should cause His followers grave concern.
But efforts to shape Jesus into our own image are not new. In the 19th century, amidst the rise of classical liberalism and the demytholigization approach of Rulolph Bultman and David Strauss, German theologian Martin Kahler expressed concern that the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" was in reality simply a re-making of Jesus into the image of those who sought to critique His person and message. Though Kahler himself rejected the authenticity and historical accuracy of the New Testament Gospels, he was reticent to accept Bultmans approach of re-interpreting Jesus' message in light of history. As a result, Kahler sought to promote a total separation of the "Jesus of faith" from the "Jesus of history." As a liberal, Kahler understood that if one rejects the veracity of the Biblical text, the only other option is to separate faith from history, otherwise, the "re-interpreted" history that results would be far less historical and far more convenient to the views of those seeking to do such re-interpretation.
Kahler had a great analogy for this. He compared those looking for the "historical Jesus" to those looking down into a well, and claimed that it is no surprise to find that the Jesus they construct in the end looks very much like the reflection they have been observing.
In the case of the Jesus Seminar, our Savior comes out as an arrogant academic seeking tenure at an ivy-league school. Coincidental?
The above review of this small but significant part of Church History allows us to see a very similar parallel in remarks such as those made by Senator Clinton yesterday. Instead of starting with Jesus, and being conformed to His image, many start with themselves and seek to conform Jesus to their own image.
But there is no reason why evangelical Christians should have to even struggle through such an issue. We do not distinguish between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. We believe both are described with perfect accuracy in the text of the Bible. Yet so often, even Bible-believing Christians yield to the temptation to form their Savior in their own image. Though forthcoming descriptions have been published in similar form in far more eloquent fashion, it is helpful to examine the "Blue" Jesus, and the "Red" Jesus, and compare them both to the Jesus of Scripture.
The "Red" Jesus. This Jesus is a "gun-totin' redneck," and proud of it! His definition of a tax is "legalized theft." He cares little for the environment. After all, the whole planet is goiing to burn under God's judgement one day anyway, so why not help things out a bit? He is anti-abortion, but simultaneously anti-charity. If she got herself into that mess, then she can get herself out of it. The "Red" Jesus also takes his cues from John Calvin when it comes to church-state relations: The state should simply adopt policies as they are dictated by the church. This of course includes immigration policy, which, according to the Red Jesus, can be articulated clearly and sufficiently with two words: "STAY OUT." The preaching of the Gospel is accomplished through the acquisition and retention of power, and is spoken in the most offensive manner possible. Let's face it: most of the world is going to hell anyway, so why should we care about how our message "sounds" to them?
But what about the poor? Red Jesus doesn't care about them! Red Jesus writes them all off as simply lazy and uninitiated, Sure, they are the "least of these," but that is most likely because they contribute the least! This of course includes the people of China. Its not America's fault that they won't take the initiative to rise out from under their oppressors, so Red Jesus will normalize trade relations with them because it doesn't matter how the Chinese treat their women and children, so long as we can use strategic partnerships with them to make a buck. Heck, the Red Jesus will use those monies to fund "faith-based initiatives." Yeah, that's what we need: government using the tax dollars of Baptists to fund the work of Mormons! Makes perfect sense!
To be sure, what I have described represents only the worst of Republican politics. But the above should be well noted, and sufficient to substantiate that Jesus is not a Republican. This is admittedly troubling to me, because I am a Republican. As such, I'd sure be more comfortable if I knew God shared all of my political views. I could take the Hillary Clinton approach and define Jesus on my terms of course, but I think there is something about the second commandment that would make this wrong.
The "Blue" Jesus: This Jesus is a liberal, bleeding-heart, tofu-eating, PETA-supporting socialist who believes that government is the answer to all things. The blue Jesus doesn't need to carry a gun. Guns are dangerous, and if we could get rid of all the guns, we would get rid of all the violence. Of course, Blue Jesus can't afford a gun anway, because the politicians he has elected have raised his taxes to the point that he can barely afford groceries, let alone a gun!
Blue Jesus believes that the government needs those taxes to help the poor. After all, the problem of the poor isn't laziness, or sinfulness. Its a bad environment. In fact, that is everybody's true problem: bad environment, or abuse as a child, or not enough attention, or economic disenfranschisement. Therefore, Blue Jesus works dillegently to ensure that the government provides and access and funding to what these people need.
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, this would of course include abortion. But this can't be limited to the first trimester. A girl should have the entire term of her pregnancy to decide whether she wants the baby . . .em, excuse me, I meant to say fetus. Actually, the later she makes this decision the better, because late term abortions, especially of the DNX (i.e. partial birth) variety provide huge amounts of grant money to doctors and research hospitals, as well as fetal body parts on which to experiment. Sure, this may involve piercing the back of a baby . . . .excuse me again . . . . fetus' neck and sucking out its brains, but we have to sacrifice the one to serve the many!
Blue Jesus also thinks the whole attempt to define marriage is stupid. If two men or two women want to get married, that should be their right. After all, people should be able to believe what they want, and act the way they want. Blue Jesus encourages Muslims to remain Muslim, Hindus to remain Hindu, and so on. Blue Jesus would certainly not claim to be the "only way" to God. How arrogant! And of course, Blue Jesus would say that, with regard to immigration (or any other area for that matter), that the law of the land really doesn't matter, so lets just keep ignoring the problem. We will not take the intolerant road of telling an undocumented worker that he or she has broken the law, and then enforce that law. Blue Jesus doesn't even bother with changing the law to make the immigration process less cumbersome for those who want to make a better life for themselves. Blue Jesus just ignores the law. Changing it would take up too much valuable time that could be spent saving another spotted owl.
"Red Jesus" and "Blue" Jesus are prime examples of what Dr. Kahler warned us about over one hundred years ago. Worse yet, Red Jesus and Blue Jesus are idols: gods that we have fashioned in our own image. So why is it that our culture, both inside and outside the church, continue to define Jesus only as they would like Him to be, like some wierdo spiritual angle on Extreme Makeover?
The answer? I believe it is because the real Jesus; the Jesus who historically existed, born of a virgin, dying in time and space for human sin, and being historically and literally resurected by God the Father, that Jesus is hard to handle! The Jesus of Scripture isn't confined to a political agenda or any other box. This Jesus is unplugged!
-He creates the entire world in six days.
-He destroys that same world by flood over forty days, violently drowning every man, woman, boy, girl, and baby not in the ark.
-He kills the first-born sons of an entire nation of people, including the Princes.
-He destroys Sodom and Gommorrah by fire.
-He is born in a barn, and raised in a blue-collar household.
-He hangs out with prostitutes, drunks, cheats, theives, and worst of all, employees of the Internal Revenue Service!
-He grows up within Judaism, only to vehemently condemn the leaders of His own faith, calling them "whitewashed tombs."
-He gets angry, REALLY angry, at those who use faith to take advantage of others. He gets a whip, cracks it across a few backs and trashes the entire joint.
-He calls out Judas in front of all the others, revealing in His omniscient understanding Judas' intent to betray Him. Then He basically says to Judas "Do what you gotta do, but when you're done, you are gonna wish you were never born!"
-He dies in a bloody mess on a Roman cross.
-He rises bodily from the grave, demonstrating that the "box" called death can't hold Him either.
-He advocates, as a nation-building strategy for His eternal and indestructable Kingdom, the suffering, persecution and death of those who follow Him.
-He is coming back as the strong, powerful, white haired, tatooed warrior to kill all His enemies.
To sum it all up: The Jesus of the Bible can't be domesticated! And since this is the real Jesus, any other "Jesus" who perfectly fits our understanding, worldview, or political persuasion is by definition a false god.
Hillary Clinton an idolater? Who would have thought that? But she isn't the only one. And this kind of idolatry happens every time we emphasize some things about the Savior to the exclusion of others.
Check the Great Commission. Jesus doesn't speak for us. We speak for Him. Jesus doesn't support our views. We support His.
And Jesus has no desire to identify as a Republican or Democrat. Rather, Jesus expects . . . .indeed commands . . . .those of all political parties to bow before His sovereign goodness. There will be no political parties in the Theocracy that Jesus will soon return to establish. Those who want to be counted as belonging to Him had better realize this, and begin living as if it is true.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Suffering and Martyrdom: Reflections on the Situation in Afghanistan
Four and a half years after the American invasion of Afghanistan, a people have been set free from the rule of the Taliban, a new government has been established, and the United States now has a new ally rather than an old enemy in the War on Terror. In this context, the shocking trial of Abdul Rahman is a surprise to many, especially to evangelical Christians in America who expected that our military efforts there would result in an atmosphere that included freedom of religion. But Islamic Sharia law recognizes no such concept, and a March 21 article in the Chicago Tribune quotes Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada saying that if Rahman doesn't recant his Christian faith, the death penalty will likely be administered, sooner rather than later.
Still, while the American focus on religious liberty is being touted by everyone from the American Family Association to pastor-friends of mine who have sent me emails, and is an important argument to be voiced, there is a much greater issue that we in the west have predictably overlooked: Martyrdom as a missionary strategy.
Lets face it: The American church goes faint at the sight of blood. Our strong belief in the ideals of religious freedom, and our often litigious spirit that makes headlines on a regular basis in this country has often blinded us from that which the Scriptures declare is both a solemn responsibility, and an effective catalyst for the growth of God's church. From FOX News to explicitly Christian news sources such as The 700 Club, the journalistic angle given to stories like this one is the terrible plight of our brothers and sisters in other lands who do not enjoy nearly the same level of latitude toward their faith by their government. Whether the reports are describing the persecution of Christians in the Sudan (which has been taking place since 1988), the recent genocide in Darfur, or this latest story on our Afghan brother, the attention is always on the evil actions of a foreign government. Conspicuously absent from these stories is the "problem" which precipitated such persecution: the bold witness of Christ-followers and/or the rapid growth of God's church in those areas.
In short, the Christian media tells me that I should look on the Afghan government with disdain, and my persecuted brother in Christ with pity. . . .
. . . .but the Scriptures tell me I should actually be envious of Abdul Rahman!
Our western orientation often causes us to miss the fact that the Scriptures are permeated with the call to suffer. Isaiah tells us that the eternal, undefeatable, universal Kingdom of God (described in Isaiah 52) will not be built in this world in the same way that sinful humanity seeks to build Kingdoms; with power, intimidation, strength. The Kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and the very foundation for this everlasting Kingdom (as given in Isaiah 53) is personified in the servant who comes to suffer on our behalf. Jesus reiterated this truth to His disciples when He declared "The Son of Man must suffer many things." (Mark 8:31), and He made clear that those who follow Him must do so in every way.
"A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you." (John 15:20)
Ananias was told this by God regarding Saul of Tarsus: "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the sons of Israel. for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." (Acts 9:15-16 emphasis mine) Later, the Apostle Paul will speak to his converts in Thessalonica about their responsibility in suffering (1 Thess. 3:2-3), and John will write of his experience of the revelation of Jesus Christ within the context of Christian suffering.
But the Scriptures also record for us how the early disciples responded to such a solemn call. After being publicly flogged by the Jewish authorities, and admonished to stop preaching the Gospel, Luke tells us that the early disciples "left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name." (Acts 5:41). Frankly, when one observes the difference in perception between the 1st century church and its 21st century American counterpart, it becomes obvious that American Christians, myself included, are clueless!
All of the above does not mean I think it is wrong to seek reprieve for our Afghan brother. Paul certainly took advantage of the political system of his own day in order to prolong his life, so that he might have more opportunity to spread the Gospel. Similarly, it is only fitting that American Christians take advantage of the democratic system God has sovereignly seen fit to instill in our country, not to our own advantage, but to the advantage of the Gospel's advance. However, this is where most efforts by American Christians come to a halt.
But the most stinging realization of this truth for me is very personal. Two weeks ago, one of my church planters was bemoaning (rightfully so) his inability to minister to his community via the public school system because the county schools do not collaborate with "religious organizations." On my way home that day, I actually had the gall to think of this as "persecution." Again, we don't have a clue! Maybe that is why the American church is presently so theologically and missiologically impotent.
Our brothers and sisters in "closed countries," by contrast, are seeing the ranks of believers grow in almost every situation. In those countries, it actually means something to be called a "Christian." And as we survey Biblical history, we discover a pattern identical to what I have just described. It was the murder of a deacon that led to the spread of the church outside Jerusalem, and into Judea and Samaria. It was the suffering of Paul that led to churches being planted all over the First Century world.
Similarly, it is the genocide in Darfur, the unjust killing in the Sudan, the relentless persecution of Christians in Ambon, Indonesia, and the communist repression in North Korea that is the catalyst for the building of God's Kingdom in those countries.
For that matter, it was also the unjust, legally abhorrent, "good-ole-boy" justice of Judaism mixed with the convenient politic of a Roman governor that led to the substitutionary atonement of Christ in which all believers place their faith. And it is likely, tragic as it may be, that the martyrdom of Abdul Rahman will result in the explosion of the Christian church in Afghanistan. I can't explain how this happens. I only know that the Bible touts this as the primary way that God's Kingdom is advanced, and I see proof of it every time I observe the plight of my brothers and sisters in lands where far less freedom is enjoyed.
But such news is met by the American church with a great degree of squeemishness. For many American Christians, the Gospel of Christ and the coming Kingdom of God have been supplanted by "The American Dream." My goal is to put my sons through college so that they can have an even better life than the one I am currently enjoying. Don't even suggest that one or both of my boys might lose his head in the middle east for the sake of the Gospel! Don't speak about the neccessity of suffering and death to forward God's church on earth! Such talk is offensive to those who think of Christianity as a "step program" toward a more "successful" life! And I know this more intimately than anyone else!
As I write, I'm sitting in a hotel room at the Westin Hotel near the airport in Atlanta, GA. I am here for the next four days to meet with other Church Planting Missionaries from all across North America so that we can plan another year's strategy. Over the next 96 hours, I will be pampered with all of the trappings that one would expect from a Five-Star hotel. I will eat good food, drink good drink (non-alcoholic, of course. After all, this is a Baptist meeting.), and then fly back to Baltimore, get in my car, and drive back to my home near Mt. Airy Maryland, where I will continue to enjoy my "upper-middle class" lifestyle. If the weather permits Saturday night, I will climb aboard my Suzuki motorcycle and take a ride. I will enjoy the company of my wife and sons at about the same time my Christian brother in Afghanistan is being sentenced. All in all, when I compare my lifestyle with that of Abdul Rahman, I feel pretty pathetic. And maybe I should!
What bothers me about all of this? The Scriptures tell me that my brother Abdul's testimony of persecution is of more value than my own. What bothers me is that somewhere in my pursuit of the American idea of what is right and good for me and my family, I fear I have missed God's best merely because my cultural environment doesn't recognize it to be the best. Yet Abdul Rahman is called a "victim" and I'm called a "missionary." Ironic, isn't it? And in times like this I honestly wonder how truly significant I am to the advance of God's agenda.
American Christianity says victory is acheived through power, political victory, influence, and the acquisition of wealth.
The Bible says victory is acheived through weakness, suffering, persecution, and giving.
Looking at the article in the Tribune, we see what being a "witness" is really all about. Because he values Christ more than anything else, Rahman's wife has divorced him, his family has abandoned him, and Islamic law has condemned him. Yet Tribune reporter Kim Barker stated that this past Thursday, Rahman appeared with no attorney present to represent him.
"On Thursday, the first day of the trial, Rahman appeared in court with no lawyer. Prosecutor Abdul Wasi said Rahman had been told repeatedly to repent and come back to Islam, but Rahman refused. Wasi called Rahman a traitor. "He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed," Wasi told the court. Rahman said he had surrendered himself to God. "I believe in the holy spirit," he said. "I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian."
My heart is full of sorrow for my Afghan brother. But after reflecting on this situation, I don't pity him. I envy him! The kind of faith and commitment to Jesus Christ he is demonstrating is virtually unknown to the materialistic, power-hungry, rights-conscious church in the west. And this puts me to shame!
I'm not yet ready to commit my boys to martyrdom if that is indeed where God calls them one day. I'm simply not there yet, and I recognize that as sin that needs to be dealt with. Moreover, I need a change in perspective that sees suffering and persecution exclusively through the lens of Scripture. Such a view confesses that ultimately, suffering is not sacrifice, but joy. John Piper describes this view well:
From the youngest to the oldest, Christ is calling His church to a radical, wartime engagement in world missions. He is making it plain that it will not happen without pain. But let their be no Christian self-pity, no talk of ultimate self-denial. It is simply amazing how consisent are the testimonies of missionaries who have suffered for the Gospel. Virtually all of them bear witness of the abundant joy and overriding compensations. Those who have suffered most speak in the most lavish terms of the supreme blessing and joy of giving their lives away for others.
A prayer:
God, grant me the divine wisdom required to understand such a marvelous thing, the will to choose such a path for myself and my family, and the love for you that only the Holy Spirit can produce in my heart, and that will bring endurance through the pain to the greatest of all blessings. Bless our brother Abdul, who is now before the authorities that you have sovereingly ordained in Afghanistan. If it pleases you, we ask for his freedom. But we ask even more for your glory in his life. And if in fact those in authority choose to take his life, that he will continue to see it as rubbish compared to the surpassing value of knowing you. We ask this in the faith that you are standing, even as you were in the martyrdom of Stephen, ready to receive your servant, and ready to use him in life or in death for the further propogation of your Gospel in that part of the world.
More than this, I ask that you give myself and the Christians in this country the perspective that my Afgahan brother has. As painful as it is to ask, I ask for this even if it comes through loss, pain, persecution, or even the fall of this great nation and the loss of freedom. Thank you for causing us to think deeply about such things, and may we leave behind our insignificant, inconsequential concerns over freedom, prosperity, money, family, and power, and clasp tightly onto those things that are tied explicitly to your coming indestructable Kingdom. I fear that to a large extent, much of what we do in North America in the name of Christ really doesn't matter. Almightly God, we want what we do in your name to matter! Empower us by your spirit to rejoice as we willingly build your Kingdom through suffering. And I make this prayer in the name of the Suffering Servant, whom you were pleased to crush for my sin. -Amen!
Resources:
Piper, John. 1993. Let the Nations be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Still, while the American focus on religious liberty is being touted by everyone from the American Family Association to pastor-friends of mine who have sent me emails, and is an important argument to be voiced, there is a much greater issue that we in the west have predictably overlooked: Martyrdom as a missionary strategy.
Lets face it: The American church goes faint at the sight of blood. Our strong belief in the ideals of religious freedom, and our often litigious spirit that makes headlines on a regular basis in this country has often blinded us from that which the Scriptures declare is both a solemn responsibility, and an effective catalyst for the growth of God's church. From FOX News to explicitly Christian news sources such as The 700 Club, the journalistic angle given to stories like this one is the terrible plight of our brothers and sisters in other lands who do not enjoy nearly the same level of latitude toward their faith by their government. Whether the reports are describing the persecution of Christians in the Sudan (which has been taking place since 1988), the recent genocide in Darfur, or this latest story on our Afghan brother, the attention is always on the evil actions of a foreign government. Conspicuously absent from these stories is the "problem" which precipitated such persecution: the bold witness of Christ-followers and/or the rapid growth of God's church in those areas.
In short, the Christian media tells me that I should look on the Afghan government with disdain, and my persecuted brother in Christ with pity. . . .
. . . .but the Scriptures tell me I should actually be envious of Abdul Rahman!
Our western orientation often causes us to miss the fact that the Scriptures are permeated with the call to suffer. Isaiah tells us that the eternal, undefeatable, universal Kingdom of God (described in Isaiah 52) will not be built in this world in the same way that sinful humanity seeks to build Kingdoms; with power, intimidation, strength. The Kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ, and the very foundation for this everlasting Kingdom (as given in Isaiah 53) is personified in the servant who comes to suffer on our behalf. Jesus reiterated this truth to His disciples when He declared "The Son of Man must suffer many things." (Mark 8:31), and He made clear that those who follow Him must do so in every way.
"A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you." (John 15:20)
Ananias was told this by God regarding Saul of Tarsus: "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the sons of Israel. for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." (Acts 9:15-16 emphasis mine) Later, the Apostle Paul will speak to his converts in Thessalonica about their responsibility in suffering (1 Thess. 3:2-3), and John will write of his experience of the revelation of Jesus Christ within the context of Christian suffering.
But the Scriptures also record for us how the early disciples responded to such a solemn call. After being publicly flogged by the Jewish authorities, and admonished to stop preaching the Gospel, Luke tells us that the early disciples "left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name." (Acts 5:41). Frankly, when one observes the difference in perception between the 1st century church and its 21st century American counterpart, it becomes obvious that American Christians, myself included, are clueless!
All of the above does not mean I think it is wrong to seek reprieve for our Afghan brother. Paul certainly took advantage of the political system of his own day in order to prolong his life, so that he might have more opportunity to spread the Gospel. Similarly, it is only fitting that American Christians take advantage of the democratic system God has sovereignly seen fit to instill in our country, not to our own advantage, but to the advantage of the Gospel's advance. However, this is where most efforts by American Christians come to a halt.
But the most stinging realization of this truth for me is very personal. Two weeks ago, one of my church planters was bemoaning (rightfully so) his inability to minister to his community via the public school system because the county schools do not collaborate with "religious organizations." On my way home that day, I actually had the gall to think of this as "persecution." Again, we don't have a clue! Maybe that is why the American church is presently so theologically and missiologically impotent.
Our brothers and sisters in "closed countries," by contrast, are seeing the ranks of believers grow in almost every situation. In those countries, it actually means something to be called a "Christian." And as we survey Biblical history, we discover a pattern identical to what I have just described. It was the murder of a deacon that led to the spread of the church outside Jerusalem, and into Judea and Samaria. It was the suffering of Paul that led to churches being planted all over the First Century world.
Similarly, it is the genocide in Darfur, the unjust killing in the Sudan, the relentless persecution of Christians in Ambon, Indonesia, and the communist repression in North Korea that is the catalyst for the building of God's Kingdom in those countries.
For that matter, it was also the unjust, legally abhorrent, "good-ole-boy" justice of Judaism mixed with the convenient politic of a Roman governor that led to the substitutionary atonement of Christ in which all believers place their faith. And it is likely, tragic as it may be, that the martyrdom of Abdul Rahman will result in the explosion of the Christian church in Afghanistan. I can't explain how this happens. I only know that the Bible touts this as the primary way that God's Kingdom is advanced, and I see proof of it every time I observe the plight of my brothers and sisters in lands where far less freedom is enjoyed.
But such news is met by the American church with a great degree of squeemishness. For many American Christians, the Gospel of Christ and the coming Kingdom of God have been supplanted by "The American Dream." My goal is to put my sons through college so that they can have an even better life than the one I am currently enjoying. Don't even suggest that one or both of my boys might lose his head in the middle east for the sake of the Gospel! Don't speak about the neccessity of suffering and death to forward God's church on earth! Such talk is offensive to those who think of Christianity as a "step program" toward a more "successful" life! And I know this more intimately than anyone else!
As I write, I'm sitting in a hotel room at the Westin Hotel near the airport in Atlanta, GA. I am here for the next four days to meet with other Church Planting Missionaries from all across North America so that we can plan another year's strategy. Over the next 96 hours, I will be pampered with all of the trappings that one would expect from a Five-Star hotel. I will eat good food, drink good drink (non-alcoholic, of course. After all, this is a Baptist meeting.), and then fly back to Baltimore, get in my car, and drive back to my home near Mt. Airy Maryland, where I will continue to enjoy my "upper-middle class" lifestyle. If the weather permits Saturday night, I will climb aboard my Suzuki motorcycle and take a ride. I will enjoy the company of my wife and sons at about the same time my Christian brother in Afghanistan is being sentenced. All in all, when I compare my lifestyle with that of Abdul Rahman, I feel pretty pathetic. And maybe I should!
What bothers me about all of this? The Scriptures tell me that my brother Abdul's testimony of persecution is of more value than my own. What bothers me is that somewhere in my pursuit of the American idea of what is right and good for me and my family, I fear I have missed God's best merely because my cultural environment doesn't recognize it to be the best. Yet Abdul Rahman is called a "victim" and I'm called a "missionary." Ironic, isn't it? And in times like this I honestly wonder how truly significant I am to the advance of God's agenda.
American Christianity says victory is acheived through power, political victory, influence, and the acquisition of wealth.
The Bible says victory is acheived through weakness, suffering, persecution, and giving.
Looking at the article in the Tribune, we see what being a "witness" is really all about. Because he values Christ more than anything else, Rahman's wife has divorced him, his family has abandoned him, and Islamic law has condemned him. Yet Tribune reporter Kim Barker stated that this past Thursday, Rahman appeared with no attorney present to represent him.
"On Thursday, the first day of the trial, Rahman appeared in court with no lawyer. Prosecutor Abdul Wasi said Rahman had been told repeatedly to repent and come back to Islam, but Rahman refused. Wasi called Rahman a traitor. "He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed," Wasi told the court. Rahman said he had surrendered himself to God. "I believe in the holy spirit," he said. "I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian."
My heart is full of sorrow for my Afghan brother. But after reflecting on this situation, I don't pity him. I envy him! The kind of faith and commitment to Jesus Christ he is demonstrating is virtually unknown to the materialistic, power-hungry, rights-conscious church in the west. And this puts me to shame!
I'm not yet ready to commit my boys to martyrdom if that is indeed where God calls them one day. I'm simply not there yet, and I recognize that as sin that needs to be dealt with. Moreover, I need a change in perspective that sees suffering and persecution exclusively through the lens of Scripture. Such a view confesses that ultimately, suffering is not sacrifice, but joy. John Piper describes this view well:
From the youngest to the oldest, Christ is calling His church to a radical, wartime engagement in world missions. He is making it plain that it will not happen without pain. But let their be no Christian self-pity, no talk of ultimate self-denial. It is simply amazing how consisent are the testimonies of missionaries who have suffered for the Gospel. Virtually all of them bear witness of the abundant joy and overriding compensations. Those who have suffered most speak in the most lavish terms of the supreme blessing and joy of giving their lives away for others.
A prayer:
God, grant me the divine wisdom required to understand such a marvelous thing, the will to choose such a path for myself and my family, and the love for you that only the Holy Spirit can produce in my heart, and that will bring endurance through the pain to the greatest of all blessings. Bless our brother Abdul, who is now before the authorities that you have sovereingly ordained in Afghanistan. If it pleases you, we ask for his freedom. But we ask even more for your glory in his life. And if in fact those in authority choose to take his life, that he will continue to see it as rubbish compared to the surpassing value of knowing you. We ask this in the faith that you are standing, even as you were in the martyrdom of Stephen, ready to receive your servant, and ready to use him in life or in death for the further propogation of your Gospel in that part of the world.
More than this, I ask that you give myself and the Christians in this country the perspective that my Afgahan brother has. As painful as it is to ask, I ask for this even if it comes through loss, pain, persecution, or even the fall of this great nation and the loss of freedom. Thank you for causing us to think deeply about such things, and may we leave behind our insignificant, inconsequential concerns over freedom, prosperity, money, family, and power, and clasp tightly onto those things that are tied explicitly to your coming indestructable Kingdom. I fear that to a large extent, much of what we do in North America in the name of Christ really doesn't matter. Almightly God, we want what we do in your name to matter! Empower us by your spirit to rejoice as we willingly build your Kingdom through suffering. And I make this prayer in the name of the Suffering Servant, whom you were pleased to crush for my sin. -Amen!
Resources:
Piper, John. 1993. Let the Nations be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Spirit of "Emerging Baptists."
Three years ago in the midst of my church planting experience, I had the opportunity to meet, lead to Christ, and baptize a young couple who had no previous church background. These two had been coming to our church for several months, and being recent converts, they were excited about their new life in Jesus Christ, and wanted to continue to grow and serve the Kingdom of God in cooperation with our church. Subsequent to their baptism, they expressed a desire to join our church.
During the membership class they discovered that although our denominational label was not indicated on our signage, we were a church that was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The husband's questions were not only honest and heartfelt, but direct, and closely alligned with the predominant attitudes of his own generation: "Why can't we just be committed to the Bible and the message of Jesus? Why do we have to be affiliated with a label like 'Baptist' and be more divisive?"
Committed Baptists are such because we believe that those principles historically referred to as "Baptistic" are the closest one can find to those principles found in the New Testament. This is not a statement of hubris, but rather, of conviction. Just as we would expect conviced Presbyterians to say the same thing about their own tradition, we claim that we are what we are because our understanding of Biblical teaching leads us to call ourselves "Baptists."
But such confidence and conviction can easily degenerate into sinful pride, and recent discussions surrounding the doctrine of the church seem to suggest that committed Baptists who do not agree with exclusivist, isolationist policies that only legitimize those things that come from Baptist life and thought are promoting a weak and ecumenical ecclesiology. Still, those of us who pastor churches, start churches, and serve literally "in the trenches" believe that the heart of Baptist life is not a reclusive ecclesiology shaped more by modernity than by Scripture. Rather, we believe that if the heart of Baptist thought is made known first in the Scriptures, and second in our history, that there is an entire generation emerging that would be proud to call themselves "Baptist."
Observers both inside and outside the church have for years called attention to the waning effect of denominational labels and programs on emerging generations of young people. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin have recently published this assumption, stating along with others that in the near future "religious denominations will lose influence to local congregations and new coalitions of believers like Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Two words describe the future of religious denominations--downsized and de-centralized."
While this trend began with the "Baby Boomers," it seems to be reaching its zenith with that group affectionately known as the "Busters" or "Generation X." As George Barna well notes, the primary motivator has been the shift from "religion" to "spirituality." Quite unlike their parents and grandparents, the Busters "see faith as a framework for discovering important insights and developing lasting relationships. The institutions are irrelevant to them since their personal interest is in people, not trappings."
As is the case with previous generations, the attitude and outlook of Busters, as well as that of their millennial siblings, is largely affected by the world in which they grew up. This generation experienced the longest stage of adolescence (from 11 to 27 years of age on average). As a result, they possess an outlook on life that is very much "sit and wait" by nature. Due to cultural influences and attitudes such as these, Busters and Millenials are hesitant to commit themselves to any idea, concept, religious belief, political party, or special interest group very quickly. In fact, emerging generations are prone to multi-faceted commitments that transcend political parties, institutions, and even religious denominations. Tod Hahn and David Verhaagen accurately observe that "GenXers almost inveriably see no other option to subjective reality . . .This view of relative truth invariably translates to an emphasis on subjective, mystical experiences, or what we would call 'cut and paste' faith."
Hahn and Verhaagen go on to observe that even those in this generation "who grew up in the church and have received good teaching tend to cut and paste their faith, dismissing with ease bothersome doctrines and troubling tenets."
This "cafeteria method" of theological construction is but one facet of this generation's tendency to "pick and choose," and on a larger level translates into a worldview that is extremely non-institutional. While their Boomer parents werel largely "anti-institutional" (Vietman war protests and the reaction to Watergate are but two historical examples of this tendency among Baby Boomers), GenXers and Millenials are more "non-institutional." In other words, while they do not oppose institutions with the same voracity that their parents did, neither do they see much relevancy or usefulness in current institutions. This of course includes religious denominations, and the results have been obvious to observers of our culture. Cimino and Lattin assert that in North America "the loosening of denominational ties creates a free-market environment in which an entire Presbyterian church goes Pentecostal, or an Episcopal parish turns Eastern Orthodox."
With these cultural realities comes the responsibility of denominations to define themselves clearly and demonstrate their relevance to emerging generations. It is my contention that Southern Baptists are in the best position to do this very thing. The historical commitments and vision of Southern Baptists are, I believe, fundamentally Biblical, but they are also closely alligned with the values which are sought after by the very generational groups who see denominational commitment as irrelevant. But for such vision to be seen, the heart of Baptist life must be communicated clearly, and must overshadow the latest back-and-forth that has been taking place over issues secondary to the essence of our identity.
While questions like those coming from my church's new members may be a bit unsettling to denominational leaders, it nonetheless expresses the driving issue for this generation with respect to denominationalism: "What's the point?" Southern Baptists are not exempt from these lines of inquiry, and should welcome these types of questions as an opportunity to demonstrate the relevancy of denominational identity. But as our values are discussed, the precedent for those values must be expressly Biblical. If the proper hermaneutic is applied to each Baptist distinctive, the application of these distinctives to church culture will not only be easier, but also clearly supported by divine authority.
Distinctive #1: Local Church Autonomy. While the grandparents of the present generation were lifetime loyalists to political parties, workers unions, and denominations, GenXers and Millennials possess the capacity to switch denominations with the same degree of swiftness that many of them continue to switch programs of study while in college. This is a context in which this first Baptist distinctive will be welcomed with open arms. As the etymology of the term suggests, Baptist churches are "self-governing," meaning that no outside governing body, denominational or otherwise, has the right to impose its will on the local church.
This distinctive automatically makes null and void any attempt to impose a Presbyterian or Episcopalian hierarchy on Baptist churches. While this principle does not mean that Baptist churches must be exclusive, it does suggest that at its base, each Baptist church is an independent congregation, which exercises its independence through voluntary cooperation. For a generation that detests hierarchical power and influence, these key principles of congregational autonomy and voluntary cooperation are appealing principles that Baptists have always believed to be clearly taught in Scripture.
Distinctive #2: The Priesthood of Believers. Within Baptist life and thought, the proper understanding of this principle has been a recent source of contention. Timothy George states that the source of this debate is not whether the principle is valid, but rather "how it is to be understood, and how it is related to other, equally valid doctrinal concerns" In introducing this principle to emerging generations, Baptists must be careful not to be understood as promoting hermaneutical anarchy and the "right of private interpretation." However, the best way of displaying the merits of this principle is to emphasize the Biblical teaching of liberty in coming to Christ on one's own, without the neccesity of any human mediator. The appeal of such a doctrine to the personal exploration of faith and the participative nature of belief that is present in Busters and Millenials will be great.
Distinctive #3: Confessionalism. Historically, Baptists have been particularly skilled at striking an appropriate balance between doctrinal anarchy and doctrinal uniformity. The former happens no doctrinal parameters are set according to a consensus of belief delineated by the churches. The latter takes place when the common confessions of our churches are lifted to a level equal in authority to the Scriptures. Barna well notes that emerging generations likewise "want neither a predetermined plan nor a set of imposed facts. They want to inhabit the discovery process, so questions and dialogue are keys for them."
At the same time, Barna's observation must be balanced with what is known about the uneasiness of the Millenials concerning their own moral compass. Thom Rainer correctly states that this generation has "an inability to distinguish right from wrong. And many of the [Millenials] know that they do not know."
These juxtaposed realities can be met with confidence by Southern Baptists. As I continue to talk with those of emerging generations, I find that they do not want to be "indoctrinated" or in any way forced to believe something merely on the basis of its inclusion in a creed. They do however, desire guidance in interpreting the Scriptures, and a common confession upon which the essentials of the faith can be placed. As Baptists, our confessional approach to faith balances well accountability in interpretation of the essentials, freedom of interpretation in non-essentials, and charity in both areas.
Distinctive #4: Congregationalism. Camino and Lattin give a prognosis for the future of the church that includes "the decentralization of power away from clergy and into the hands of laypeople," and state that this shift of power "will have an impact both inside and outside congregations well into the new millenium." Much of this coming shift will be attributed to Buster and Millenial animosity toward autocratic approaches to leadership. As Barna states, emerging generations "want a life that is authentic and genuine--and they want leaders whose style and objectives reflect those same qualities."
This observation demonstrates the need for Baptists to strongly emphasize our belief in the congregational form of government. Whether a church follows a totally democratic paradigm of leadership, or employs elders of some sort, the understanding that all church leaders derive their authority ultimately from the entire congregation will certainly have appeal for emerging generations.
Distinctive #5: Cooperation in Missions. While there is no denominational hierarchy, the denominational structures that do exist, when they function properly, have one purpose: to unite Southern Baptist churches in a common effort to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a purpose should be coupled with the emphasis that GenXers and Millenials place upon holistic mission.
While at first glance, emerging generations appear to merely be "slackers," over time one observes that these generations of young people are wholly committed to missional causes. As a result, the relevancy of Southern Baptist missions can be clearly communicated as the synergistic approach to world evangelization that combines the collective efforts of our churches. Such a vision will be attractive to those seeking to have a maximum impact on their world for the sake of God's Kingdom.
I believe that what motivates Busters and Millenials to service in God's Kingdom are those same things which are the heart and soul of Southern Baptist identity. As such, I believe it is possible for future generations of young people to see the relevancy of our denominational structure, and consequently commit themselves to our identity and purpose.
Hahn and Verhagen correctly note that "every generation is different from the ones before it." If the church hopes to reach any particular generation, and impact them with the Gospel in such a way that they in turn impact others, they must seek to understand how that generation most efficiently responds to the message of the church. That said, I firmly believe that if our SBC roots are revisited, and things that matter are promoted as they should be, the things about which emerging generations are passionate will be seen as lying at the very heart of what it means to be a Southern Baptist.
**This post is an abridged version of an article I wrote three years ago entitled "Baptizing Generation X: Bringing Emerging Generations to Denominational Commitment."
Resources:
Barna, George. 2001. Boiling Point: Monitoring Cultural Shifts in the 21st Century. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Cimino, Richard and Don Lattin. 1998. Shopping for Faith: American Religion in the New Millenium. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hahn, Tod and David Verhaagen. 1998. GenXers After God: Helping a Generation Pursue Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
During the membership class they discovered that although our denominational label was not indicated on our signage, we were a church that was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The husband's questions were not only honest and heartfelt, but direct, and closely alligned with the predominant attitudes of his own generation: "Why can't we just be committed to the Bible and the message of Jesus? Why do we have to be affiliated with a label like 'Baptist' and be more divisive?"
Committed Baptists are such because we believe that those principles historically referred to as "Baptistic" are the closest one can find to those principles found in the New Testament. This is not a statement of hubris, but rather, of conviction. Just as we would expect conviced Presbyterians to say the same thing about their own tradition, we claim that we are what we are because our understanding of Biblical teaching leads us to call ourselves "Baptists."
But such confidence and conviction can easily degenerate into sinful pride, and recent discussions surrounding the doctrine of the church seem to suggest that committed Baptists who do not agree with exclusivist, isolationist policies that only legitimize those things that come from Baptist life and thought are promoting a weak and ecumenical ecclesiology. Still, those of us who pastor churches, start churches, and serve literally "in the trenches" believe that the heart of Baptist life is not a reclusive ecclesiology shaped more by modernity than by Scripture. Rather, we believe that if the heart of Baptist thought is made known first in the Scriptures, and second in our history, that there is an entire generation emerging that would be proud to call themselves "Baptist."
Observers both inside and outside the church have for years called attention to the waning effect of denominational labels and programs on emerging generations of young people. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin have recently published this assumption, stating along with others that in the near future "religious denominations will lose influence to local congregations and new coalitions of believers like Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Two words describe the future of religious denominations--downsized and de-centralized."
While this trend began with the "Baby Boomers," it seems to be reaching its zenith with that group affectionately known as the "Busters" or "Generation X." As George Barna well notes, the primary motivator has been the shift from "religion" to "spirituality." Quite unlike their parents and grandparents, the Busters "see faith as a framework for discovering important insights and developing lasting relationships. The institutions are irrelevant to them since their personal interest is in people, not trappings."
As is the case with previous generations, the attitude and outlook of Busters, as well as that of their millennial siblings, is largely affected by the world in which they grew up. This generation experienced the longest stage of adolescence (from 11 to 27 years of age on average). As a result, they possess an outlook on life that is very much "sit and wait" by nature. Due to cultural influences and attitudes such as these, Busters and Millenials are hesitant to commit themselves to any idea, concept, religious belief, political party, or special interest group very quickly. In fact, emerging generations are prone to multi-faceted commitments that transcend political parties, institutions, and even religious denominations. Tod Hahn and David Verhaagen accurately observe that "GenXers almost inveriably see no other option to subjective reality . . .This view of relative truth invariably translates to an emphasis on subjective, mystical experiences, or what we would call 'cut and paste' faith."
Hahn and Verhaagen go on to observe that even those in this generation "who grew up in the church and have received good teaching tend to cut and paste their faith, dismissing with ease bothersome doctrines and troubling tenets."
This "cafeteria method" of theological construction is but one facet of this generation's tendency to "pick and choose," and on a larger level translates into a worldview that is extremely non-institutional. While their Boomer parents werel largely "anti-institutional" (Vietman war protests and the reaction to Watergate are but two historical examples of this tendency among Baby Boomers), GenXers and Millenials are more "non-institutional." In other words, while they do not oppose institutions with the same voracity that their parents did, neither do they see much relevancy or usefulness in current institutions. This of course includes religious denominations, and the results have been obvious to observers of our culture. Cimino and Lattin assert that in North America "the loosening of denominational ties creates a free-market environment in which an entire Presbyterian church goes Pentecostal, or an Episcopal parish turns Eastern Orthodox."
With these cultural realities comes the responsibility of denominations to define themselves clearly and demonstrate their relevance to emerging generations. It is my contention that Southern Baptists are in the best position to do this very thing. The historical commitments and vision of Southern Baptists are, I believe, fundamentally Biblical, but they are also closely alligned with the values which are sought after by the very generational groups who see denominational commitment as irrelevant. But for such vision to be seen, the heart of Baptist life must be communicated clearly, and must overshadow the latest back-and-forth that has been taking place over issues secondary to the essence of our identity.
While questions like those coming from my church's new members may be a bit unsettling to denominational leaders, it nonetheless expresses the driving issue for this generation with respect to denominationalism: "What's the point?" Southern Baptists are not exempt from these lines of inquiry, and should welcome these types of questions as an opportunity to demonstrate the relevancy of denominational identity. But as our values are discussed, the precedent for those values must be expressly Biblical. If the proper hermaneutic is applied to each Baptist distinctive, the application of these distinctives to church culture will not only be easier, but also clearly supported by divine authority.
Distinctive #1: Local Church Autonomy. While the grandparents of the present generation were lifetime loyalists to political parties, workers unions, and denominations, GenXers and Millennials possess the capacity to switch denominations with the same degree of swiftness that many of them continue to switch programs of study while in college. This is a context in which this first Baptist distinctive will be welcomed with open arms. As the etymology of the term suggests, Baptist churches are "self-governing," meaning that no outside governing body, denominational or otherwise, has the right to impose its will on the local church.
This distinctive automatically makes null and void any attempt to impose a Presbyterian or Episcopalian hierarchy on Baptist churches. While this principle does not mean that Baptist churches must be exclusive, it does suggest that at its base, each Baptist church is an independent congregation, which exercises its independence through voluntary cooperation. For a generation that detests hierarchical power and influence, these key principles of congregational autonomy and voluntary cooperation are appealing principles that Baptists have always believed to be clearly taught in Scripture.
Distinctive #2: The Priesthood of Believers. Within Baptist life and thought, the proper understanding of this principle has been a recent source of contention. Timothy George states that the source of this debate is not whether the principle is valid, but rather "how it is to be understood, and how it is related to other, equally valid doctrinal concerns" In introducing this principle to emerging generations, Baptists must be careful not to be understood as promoting hermaneutical anarchy and the "right of private interpretation." However, the best way of displaying the merits of this principle is to emphasize the Biblical teaching of liberty in coming to Christ on one's own, without the neccesity of any human mediator. The appeal of such a doctrine to the personal exploration of faith and the participative nature of belief that is present in Busters and Millenials will be great.
Distinctive #3: Confessionalism. Historically, Baptists have been particularly skilled at striking an appropriate balance between doctrinal anarchy and doctrinal uniformity. The former happens no doctrinal parameters are set according to a consensus of belief delineated by the churches. The latter takes place when the common confessions of our churches are lifted to a level equal in authority to the Scriptures. Barna well notes that emerging generations likewise "want neither a predetermined plan nor a set of imposed facts. They want to inhabit the discovery process, so questions and dialogue are keys for them."
At the same time, Barna's observation must be balanced with what is known about the uneasiness of the Millenials concerning their own moral compass. Thom Rainer correctly states that this generation has "an inability to distinguish right from wrong. And many of the [Millenials] know that they do not know."
These juxtaposed realities can be met with confidence by Southern Baptists. As I continue to talk with those of emerging generations, I find that they do not want to be "indoctrinated" or in any way forced to believe something merely on the basis of its inclusion in a creed. They do however, desire guidance in interpreting the Scriptures, and a common confession upon which the essentials of the faith can be placed. As Baptists, our confessional approach to faith balances well accountability in interpretation of the essentials, freedom of interpretation in non-essentials, and charity in both areas.
Distinctive #4: Congregationalism. Camino and Lattin give a prognosis for the future of the church that includes "the decentralization of power away from clergy and into the hands of laypeople," and state that this shift of power "will have an impact both inside and outside congregations well into the new millenium." Much of this coming shift will be attributed to Buster and Millenial animosity toward autocratic approaches to leadership. As Barna states, emerging generations "want a life that is authentic and genuine--and they want leaders whose style and objectives reflect those same qualities."
This observation demonstrates the need for Baptists to strongly emphasize our belief in the congregational form of government. Whether a church follows a totally democratic paradigm of leadership, or employs elders of some sort, the understanding that all church leaders derive their authority ultimately from the entire congregation will certainly have appeal for emerging generations.
Distinctive #5: Cooperation in Missions. While there is no denominational hierarchy, the denominational structures that do exist, when they function properly, have one purpose: to unite Southern Baptist churches in a common effort to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a purpose should be coupled with the emphasis that GenXers and Millenials place upon holistic mission.
While at first glance, emerging generations appear to merely be "slackers," over time one observes that these generations of young people are wholly committed to missional causes. As a result, the relevancy of Southern Baptist missions can be clearly communicated as the synergistic approach to world evangelization that combines the collective efforts of our churches. Such a vision will be attractive to those seeking to have a maximum impact on their world for the sake of God's Kingdom.
I believe that what motivates Busters and Millenials to service in God's Kingdom are those same things which are the heart and soul of Southern Baptist identity. As such, I believe it is possible for future generations of young people to see the relevancy of our denominational structure, and consequently commit themselves to our identity and purpose.
Hahn and Verhagen correctly note that "every generation is different from the ones before it." If the church hopes to reach any particular generation, and impact them with the Gospel in such a way that they in turn impact others, they must seek to understand how that generation most efficiently responds to the message of the church. That said, I firmly believe that if our SBC roots are revisited, and things that matter are promoted as they should be, the things about which emerging generations are passionate will be seen as lying at the very heart of what it means to be a Southern Baptist.
**This post is an abridged version of an article I wrote three years ago entitled "Baptizing Generation X: Bringing Emerging Generations to Denominational Commitment."
Resources:
Barna, George. 2001. Boiling Point: Monitoring Cultural Shifts in the 21st Century. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Cimino, Richard and Don Lattin. 1998. Shopping for Faith: American Religion in the New Millenium. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hahn, Tod and David Verhaagen. 1998. GenXers After God: Helping a Generation Pursue Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
What we are Doing Right.
Any entity as large as the Southern Baptist Convention will have inevitable times of contention, and the recent controversy at the International Mission Board is certainly an example of this. During those times, worthy debate must take place in order for iron to sharpen iron. Things that matter must be discussed, and debated. These are not unneccesary arguments. They are conversations that will no doubt define our Convention of churches for years to come.
Yet in the midst of such discussion, there is the temptation to miss the forest for the trees. We need to remember why some issues are worth a fight so that we don't end up fighting merely for the sake of fighting. Moreover, we need to remember why God has placed us at this juncture in history, and the contribution Southern Baptists are called to make in these critical times.
I was reminded of this today as I was preparing for an upcoming Missions Emphasis during which I will be speaking next week. It is that time of year in which our churches participate in the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. Named for the native Marylander who championed early missions involvement and giving among Southern Baptists, this offering will supply 44% of NAMBs operating budget for the coming year. Part of my role as a North American missionary is to travel to churches promoting this offering, and thanking them for their support of the Cooperative Program and their prayers for our mission efforts.
This year, such promotion is taking place within the context of skepticism regarding the trustees of our sister missions organization, the IMB, and a scathing critique of NAMBs effectiveness by Georgia's Christian Index. Such scrutiny is always hard to hear, especially when you are on the inside of the organization being taken to task. Yet scrutiny should be welcomed, especially by the churches that support our ministries.
At the same time, I realize that the present context of controversy could very well affect our overall missions efforts in Southern Baptist life. And while I find the current debates refreshing to some degree, I also feel the need at this juncture to remind us that there is much that is right about Southern Baptist life:
-We currently support over 5300 NAMB missionaries, and over 5500 IMB missionaries, who are spreading the Gospel and planting churches all over the world.
-Since the inception of the Annie Armstrong offering in the early 20th century, Southern Baptists have generously given over $1 billion to North American mission efforts.
-NAMB, along with state conventions, associations, and local churches, are working together toward the common goal of doubling the number of Southern Baptist churches by the year 2020.
-Over 30,000 people came to faith in Jesus Christ last year as a result of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, literacy missions, week day ministries, and hunger ministries operated by Southern Baptists.
-NAMB disaster relief volunteers served literally thousands of meals every day in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and SBC Disaster Relief continues to be the most effective relief organization in that region. All in all, over 10 million meals were served in the gulf region by Southern Baptists in 2005. Spend some time in Misissippi and Louisiana. The folks there will tell you that it isn't the government that is providing the greatest help. It is the churches, and more particularly, the Southern Baptist churches.
-Strategic Focus Cities emphases have resulted in over 48,000 conversions and over 420 new churches since 1998.
-World Changers and PowerPlant involved over 25,000 youth and adults in evangelism and church planting respectively last year alone, leading to over 1500 conversions.
-Aided by NAMBs support, the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware continues to aggressively plant churches in a state convention where less than 20% of the population has a relationship with Jesus Christ. As an associational missionary who works closely with this state convention, I am proud to say that the church planting process at the Maryland-Delaware Convention is second to none!
-In central Maryland, the area over which I lead church planting efforts, we saw God work through us to plant four new churches in 2005. And as I type, three of between five and seven churches planned for 2006 are already taking shape!
-Baltimore has just been named a Strategic Focus City, and this initiative will begin next year. Plans are already underway for community development and revitalization that we hope will serve as a model for how the church can transform the city through the power of the Gospel!
Southern Baptists are not perfect people. But there is much that we are doing right! Heated discussion on many issues is bound to be forthcoming, but let us not allow such discussion to divert our attention, or re-direct our prayerful and financial support away from the mission of God as it is accomplished through gifts to both the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings.
Greensboro will no doubt be an interesting Convention. But the debate that will likely grow larger during that time should remind all Southern Baptists that our approach to missions and evangelism is worth it! To those of you who continue to give generously and pray passionately, please accept my heartfelt thanks, and may God continue to bless the churches of our Convention by allowing us a continued place in His Kingdom's advance!
(*UPDATE: Since the publication of this article, I have received many requests to have it published elsewhere. As a result, I am granting permission for anyone desiring to publish this article in its entirety in another forum to do so, provided you alert me prior to publication. Also, anyone desiring to publish only parts of this article may do so after allowing me to review any proposed changes or deletions.)
Yet in the midst of such discussion, there is the temptation to miss the forest for the trees. We need to remember why some issues are worth a fight so that we don't end up fighting merely for the sake of fighting. Moreover, we need to remember why God has placed us at this juncture in history, and the contribution Southern Baptists are called to make in these critical times.
I was reminded of this today as I was preparing for an upcoming Missions Emphasis during which I will be speaking next week. It is that time of year in which our churches participate in the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. Named for the native Marylander who championed early missions involvement and giving among Southern Baptists, this offering will supply 44% of NAMBs operating budget for the coming year. Part of my role as a North American missionary is to travel to churches promoting this offering, and thanking them for their support of the Cooperative Program and their prayers for our mission efforts.
This year, such promotion is taking place within the context of skepticism regarding the trustees of our sister missions organization, the IMB, and a scathing critique of NAMBs effectiveness by Georgia's Christian Index. Such scrutiny is always hard to hear, especially when you are on the inside of the organization being taken to task. Yet scrutiny should be welcomed, especially by the churches that support our ministries.
At the same time, I realize that the present context of controversy could very well affect our overall missions efforts in Southern Baptist life. And while I find the current debates refreshing to some degree, I also feel the need at this juncture to remind us that there is much that is right about Southern Baptist life:
-We currently support over 5300 NAMB missionaries, and over 5500 IMB missionaries, who are spreading the Gospel and planting churches all over the world.
-Since the inception of the Annie Armstrong offering in the early 20th century, Southern Baptists have generously given over $1 billion to North American mission efforts.
-NAMB, along with state conventions, associations, and local churches, are working together toward the common goal of doubling the number of Southern Baptist churches by the year 2020.
-Over 30,000 people came to faith in Jesus Christ last year as a result of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, literacy missions, week day ministries, and hunger ministries operated by Southern Baptists.
-NAMB disaster relief volunteers served literally thousands of meals every day in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and SBC Disaster Relief continues to be the most effective relief organization in that region. All in all, over 10 million meals were served in the gulf region by Southern Baptists in 2005. Spend some time in Misissippi and Louisiana. The folks there will tell you that it isn't the government that is providing the greatest help. It is the churches, and more particularly, the Southern Baptist churches.
-Strategic Focus Cities emphases have resulted in over 48,000 conversions and over 420 new churches since 1998.
-World Changers and PowerPlant involved over 25,000 youth and adults in evangelism and church planting respectively last year alone, leading to over 1500 conversions.
-Aided by NAMBs support, the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware continues to aggressively plant churches in a state convention where less than 20% of the population has a relationship with Jesus Christ. As an associational missionary who works closely with this state convention, I am proud to say that the church planting process at the Maryland-Delaware Convention is second to none!
-In central Maryland, the area over which I lead church planting efforts, we saw God work through us to plant four new churches in 2005. And as I type, three of between five and seven churches planned for 2006 are already taking shape!
-Baltimore has just been named a Strategic Focus City, and this initiative will begin next year. Plans are already underway for community development and revitalization that we hope will serve as a model for how the church can transform the city through the power of the Gospel!
Southern Baptists are not perfect people. But there is much that we are doing right! Heated discussion on many issues is bound to be forthcoming, but let us not allow such discussion to divert our attention, or re-direct our prayerful and financial support away from the mission of God as it is accomplished through gifts to both the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings.
Greensboro will no doubt be an interesting Convention. But the debate that will likely grow larger during that time should remind all Southern Baptists that our approach to missions and evangelism is worth it! To those of you who continue to give generously and pray passionately, please accept my heartfelt thanks, and may God continue to bless the churches of our Convention by allowing us a continued place in His Kingdom's advance!
(*UPDATE: Since the publication of this article, I have received many requests to have it published elsewhere. As a result, I am granting permission for anyone desiring to publish this article in its entirety in another forum to do so, provided you alert me prior to publication. Also, anyone desiring to publish only parts of this article may do so after allowing me to review any proposed changes or deletions.)
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Extremists: How to Identify them, and What to Do About Them.
Upon hearing the term "extremist,"' some envision a dark-skinned, Osama-like individual with a bomb strapped to his chest looking for the largest crowd of innocent people. Others immediately envision their version of the stateside terrorist who, in defense of his anti-abortion views, blows up an abortion clinic. Still others, hearkening back to the early nineties, think immediately of David Koresh.
Needless to say, we have laws . . . .and those who enforce those laws, to protect us from such forms of extremism. Yet there are many non-violent folks in our world who, while they would never murder anyone over their beliefs, carry such beliefs to what can rightly be called an "extreme." For two thousand years, the church has heard and answered such people via every means from confessions to anathematization, and the 21st century is no different. As long as depravity affects the mind there will be extremists. And the question that must be continually asked is this: How do we identify these peculiar people, and what do we do with them?
I ask that question primarily in light of all that is happening within the International Mission Board. Many supporters of recent policies that place much tighter restrictions on who can be appointed by Southern Baptists to carry the Gospel are grounding their support in a desire to keep out certain influences that they perceive to threaten the integrity of the Gospel and the credibility of our witness. Even in my casual conversations with some pastors, I get the occassional familiar remark:
"We are Baptists, and we want to be represented on the mission field by Baptists. We don't want any Pentecostal influence in our missionaries because that would damage the integrity of our identity."
The further conversations like this go, the more I realize that it isn't so much a difference of opinion on matters secondary to our faith that concerns those who support the new policies. Rather, it is a legitimate fear of an "extreme" form of Pentecostalism, or Calvinism, or some other "ism" that compels some to desire ever-more restrictive policies for our missions personnel.
But the question remains: Is this really the right way to "weed out" extremists? South Carolina trustee Alan McWhite, with whom I worked for four years at North Greenville University, assures me that there are already policies governing against extremes and abuses in the field regarding glossolalia, and that these policies are strictly enforced. So how would more restrictive policies help matters?
Widening the discussion a bit, how exactly do we define what is "extreme?" For some, it seems that a label in and of itself is extreme. A decade ago, the extremists were those who called themselves "Calvinists." Though that debate is still ongoing in some circles, it is a proverbial cakewalk compared to the latest back-and-forth over Baptist ecclesiology, or our understanding of the nature and purpose of the church. Those who became a part of the church growth movement were extremists who only cared about numbers. And presently, those who are learning from the emerging church movement are extremists who are nothing more than epistemological relativists disguised as evangelical preachers. As one surveys the past half-decade in evangelical and Southern Baptist life, it appears that "guilt by association" has been the rule of thumb when it comes to judging anothers belief and practice.
Basically, I want to ask two questions here: 1. How do we define "extreme?" 2. How should the church handle extremists?
How do we define "extreme?"
As I look back at the above paragraph, I realize that within each of the traditions I have mentioned there exist extremists. Nevertheless, we must be careful with our prejudice, lest we malign genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let's start with a hot one, shall we? How about Calvinism? John Calvin, the second-generation reformer of Geneva, was a masterful theologian and systemitician. His emphasis on a Creation-Fall-Redemption approach to redemptive history has defined how the Gospel message is succintly presented in our own time, and his ecclesiological observations continue to define the Protestant understanding of church to this day. Furthermore, his emphasis on the sovereignty of God, while a bit heavy to some, underscores the strong belief that "salvation is of the Lord." Today, those who define their own theological understanding by claiming Calvin stress the depravity of man, God's eternal choice of His elect to salvation, and the perseverance of all true believers to the end. Others who are more closely alligned with Calvin's student Theodore Beza would also claim Christ's atonement as effectual only for those who believe (i.e. the elect), and the inability of the elect to resist the effectual call of the Holy Spirit.
Out of this theological camp have come "Calvinazis," (not a term original with me, but I'm not sure of the original source, so I dont' know who to credit. Whoever coined the term had a great sense of humor!) who make it their life's mission to transform any and every potential disciple into a TULIP-lover. Their legacy is seen in lethargic or non-existent evangelism, theological "hair-splitting," and churches torn asunder by needless doctrinal controversy.
And the problem is that when most people hear the term "Calvinism," they appeal to their own experiences, which are usually limited to people of the sort mentioned above. But Calvin left a much richer legacy than this. Whether or not one agrees with the system of soteriology that bears the frenchman's name, one could hardly discount the legacy of George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, William Carey, Adonirum Judson, James P. Boyce, or Lottie Moon, all of which would have identified to a great degree with this system of thought.
But what about Pentecostalism? This movement, which began in 1900 in Topeka Kansas and then continued to flourish with its western expansion which reached its zenith at Azuza Street in 1906, continues to impact North America and the world. In terms of the legacy it has left Christendom, those with a limited sense of history will only think of present-day heretical false prophets: Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch . . .you get the picture.
Those less-informed will neglect to recognize the great men of faith Pentecostalism has given the church. From sound Bible teachers such as Jack Hayford to the brilliant theological mind of Gordon Fee, the Pentecostal movement has left more than its share of wealth from which all followers of Jesus can benefit. In addition, any missiologist will tell you that Pentecostals have been key to throwing open the gates of evangelism in Latin America. Are there extreme forms of Pentecostalism? Only if the Pope is Catholic! But I have met many Pentecostal brothers and sisters whose testimony, character, and lifestyle put many Baptists to shame!
Similarly, there are many Baptists out there who, borrowing from the Pentecostal movement, are "Charismatic with a seat belt" (to borrow a phrase from Mark Driscoll). Theologian Wayne Grudem and Pastor John Piper do not share a pneumatology identical with classical Pentecostalism, but their openness to the gifts of the spirit and rejection of cessationism have done nothing to lessen their Gospel witness to the world, or damage their faithfulness to their calling. Speaking as one who is much more "cautious" regarding what is known as the "sign gifts," I understand the concern that Southern Baptist missionaries might abuse such gifts and subsequently take the focus from Christ to the Holy Spirit. Still, I know many godly believers who disagree with me on this issue, and for the life of me, I can't understand why their practice of a "prayer language" in their own prayer closet threatens our "Baptist identity," or harms the witness of the Gospel.
Other movements have taken a severe beating as well. For the past two decades, many well-known pastors have become voluntarily identified as opponents of the "church growth movement," decrying the excesses that were admittedly embarrassing to the body of Christ, but neglecting to recognize the heart of the movement, which called for the church to once again engage the lost in the most aggressive ways possible. And today, many evangelicals shudder when the phrase "emerging church" is used, thinking immediately of the "new Yale hermaneutic" of Leonard Sweet, or the syrupy, non-assertive, disturbingly unclear writings of Brian McLaren. To those skeptical of this movement, the prophetic voice of Mark Driscoll, and the sound artistic approach of Erwin McManus aren't even on the radar screen, nor is the contribution of the wider emerging church movement to a more missional ecclesiology.
All of this is to say that extremists are out there! But they aren't identified by the labels they wear.
So how does one identify an extremist? A look at how Paul does this in his epistles is most helpful here. Paul easily identifies the extremes of legalism (Galatians), Jewish mysticism and proto-gnosticism (Colossians) and relativism (Romans), and each of these is also an example of how pointing to Christ reveals all that is not associated with Christ. Extremists come draped in all sorts of robes, but the problem isn't the robe, but rather, how that robe is used to draw attention away from Christ to something else.
But how do we deal rightly with one who has fallen prey to an extreme? There are several approaches out there:
Legalism: This is the approach that says "We will not appoint/hire those who possess a prayer language. We will not appoint/hire Calvinists. We will not appoint/hire anyone in sympathy with the emerging church." Again, such an approach is the direct result of "guilt by association" thinking. And what is the result of such an approach? With regard to the prayer language issue at the International Mission Board, the result has been the theological equivalent to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces godly men and women "in the closet," and destroys trust between stateside and the field.
Scriptural Authority: Based on our common confession in The Baptist Faith and Message, we already have a tool for holding missionaries, seminary professors, and others accountable to our churches. Policies are good, but every policy should originate from our common understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Where there is room for disagreement, let us continue to disagree, and do so agreeably!
I am thankful that those elected to oversee our seminaries and mission boards are cautious when it comes to extremism in any form. But one is not a Charismatic extremist because he or she prays in another language. One is not anti-evangelism because he or she is a Calvinist. One is not doctrinally wishy-washy because he or she identifies to some degree with the "emerging church." In short, it isn't the label that makes a person an extremist. Rather, it is what one does to abuse a label and take attention away from things that matter that causes a move to the extreme.
And if we aren't careful, our efforts to weed out extremists will result in our becoming the very thing we hate. For example, though most supporters of the new Baptism policy would not call themselves "Landmarkists," the policy itself is rooted in just such a view. And Landmarkism, by its exclusive nature, is an extreme view of ecclesiology. In fact, Landmarkism is possibly the one exception to all that I have previously said because its essence is to deny the legitimacy of all things ecclesiological that are not Baptist. This form of exclusivism is an affront to the church, and its proponents ultimately seek to confer on others a title they themselves should be wearing: "extremist."
We can't go there.
Needless to say, we have laws . . . .and those who enforce those laws, to protect us from such forms of extremism. Yet there are many non-violent folks in our world who, while they would never murder anyone over their beliefs, carry such beliefs to what can rightly be called an "extreme." For two thousand years, the church has heard and answered such people via every means from confessions to anathematization, and the 21st century is no different. As long as depravity affects the mind there will be extremists. And the question that must be continually asked is this: How do we identify these peculiar people, and what do we do with them?
I ask that question primarily in light of all that is happening within the International Mission Board. Many supporters of recent policies that place much tighter restrictions on who can be appointed by Southern Baptists to carry the Gospel are grounding their support in a desire to keep out certain influences that they perceive to threaten the integrity of the Gospel and the credibility of our witness. Even in my casual conversations with some pastors, I get the occassional familiar remark:
"We are Baptists, and we want to be represented on the mission field by Baptists. We don't want any Pentecostal influence in our missionaries because that would damage the integrity of our identity."
The further conversations like this go, the more I realize that it isn't so much a difference of opinion on matters secondary to our faith that concerns those who support the new policies. Rather, it is a legitimate fear of an "extreme" form of Pentecostalism, or Calvinism, or some other "ism" that compels some to desire ever-more restrictive policies for our missions personnel.
But the question remains: Is this really the right way to "weed out" extremists? South Carolina trustee Alan McWhite, with whom I worked for four years at North Greenville University, assures me that there are already policies governing against extremes and abuses in the field regarding glossolalia, and that these policies are strictly enforced. So how would more restrictive policies help matters?
Widening the discussion a bit, how exactly do we define what is "extreme?" For some, it seems that a label in and of itself is extreme. A decade ago, the extremists were those who called themselves "Calvinists." Though that debate is still ongoing in some circles, it is a proverbial cakewalk compared to the latest back-and-forth over Baptist ecclesiology, or our understanding of the nature and purpose of the church. Those who became a part of the church growth movement were extremists who only cared about numbers. And presently, those who are learning from the emerging church movement are extremists who are nothing more than epistemological relativists disguised as evangelical preachers. As one surveys the past half-decade in evangelical and Southern Baptist life, it appears that "guilt by association" has been the rule of thumb when it comes to judging anothers belief and practice.
Basically, I want to ask two questions here: 1. How do we define "extreme?" 2. How should the church handle extremists?
How do we define "extreme?"
As I look back at the above paragraph, I realize that within each of the traditions I have mentioned there exist extremists. Nevertheless, we must be careful with our prejudice, lest we malign genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let's start with a hot one, shall we? How about Calvinism? John Calvin, the second-generation reformer of Geneva, was a masterful theologian and systemitician. His emphasis on a Creation-Fall-Redemption approach to redemptive history has defined how the Gospel message is succintly presented in our own time, and his ecclesiological observations continue to define the Protestant understanding of church to this day. Furthermore, his emphasis on the sovereignty of God, while a bit heavy to some, underscores the strong belief that "salvation is of the Lord." Today, those who define their own theological understanding by claiming Calvin stress the depravity of man, God's eternal choice of His elect to salvation, and the perseverance of all true believers to the end. Others who are more closely alligned with Calvin's student Theodore Beza would also claim Christ's atonement as effectual only for those who believe (i.e. the elect), and the inability of the elect to resist the effectual call of the Holy Spirit.
Out of this theological camp have come "Calvinazis," (not a term original with me, but I'm not sure of the original source, so I dont' know who to credit. Whoever coined the term had a great sense of humor!) who make it their life's mission to transform any and every potential disciple into a TULIP-lover. Their legacy is seen in lethargic or non-existent evangelism, theological "hair-splitting," and churches torn asunder by needless doctrinal controversy.
And the problem is that when most people hear the term "Calvinism," they appeal to their own experiences, which are usually limited to people of the sort mentioned above. But Calvin left a much richer legacy than this. Whether or not one agrees with the system of soteriology that bears the frenchman's name, one could hardly discount the legacy of George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, William Carey, Adonirum Judson, James P. Boyce, or Lottie Moon, all of which would have identified to a great degree with this system of thought.
But what about Pentecostalism? This movement, which began in 1900 in Topeka Kansas and then continued to flourish with its western expansion which reached its zenith at Azuza Street in 1906, continues to impact North America and the world. In terms of the legacy it has left Christendom, those with a limited sense of history will only think of present-day heretical false prophets: Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch . . .you get the picture.
Those less-informed will neglect to recognize the great men of faith Pentecostalism has given the church. From sound Bible teachers such as Jack Hayford to the brilliant theological mind of Gordon Fee, the Pentecostal movement has left more than its share of wealth from which all followers of Jesus can benefit. In addition, any missiologist will tell you that Pentecostals have been key to throwing open the gates of evangelism in Latin America. Are there extreme forms of Pentecostalism? Only if the Pope is Catholic! But I have met many Pentecostal brothers and sisters whose testimony, character, and lifestyle put many Baptists to shame!
Similarly, there are many Baptists out there who, borrowing from the Pentecostal movement, are "Charismatic with a seat belt" (to borrow a phrase from Mark Driscoll). Theologian Wayne Grudem and Pastor John Piper do not share a pneumatology identical with classical Pentecostalism, but their openness to the gifts of the spirit and rejection of cessationism have done nothing to lessen their Gospel witness to the world, or damage their faithfulness to their calling. Speaking as one who is much more "cautious" regarding what is known as the "sign gifts," I understand the concern that Southern Baptist missionaries might abuse such gifts and subsequently take the focus from Christ to the Holy Spirit. Still, I know many godly believers who disagree with me on this issue, and for the life of me, I can't understand why their practice of a "prayer language" in their own prayer closet threatens our "Baptist identity," or harms the witness of the Gospel.
Other movements have taken a severe beating as well. For the past two decades, many well-known pastors have become voluntarily identified as opponents of the "church growth movement," decrying the excesses that were admittedly embarrassing to the body of Christ, but neglecting to recognize the heart of the movement, which called for the church to once again engage the lost in the most aggressive ways possible. And today, many evangelicals shudder when the phrase "emerging church" is used, thinking immediately of the "new Yale hermaneutic" of Leonard Sweet, or the syrupy, non-assertive, disturbingly unclear writings of Brian McLaren. To those skeptical of this movement, the prophetic voice of Mark Driscoll, and the sound artistic approach of Erwin McManus aren't even on the radar screen, nor is the contribution of the wider emerging church movement to a more missional ecclesiology.
All of this is to say that extremists are out there! But they aren't identified by the labels they wear.
So how does one identify an extremist? A look at how Paul does this in his epistles is most helpful here. Paul easily identifies the extremes of legalism (Galatians), Jewish mysticism and proto-gnosticism (Colossians) and relativism (Romans), and each of these is also an example of how pointing to Christ reveals all that is not associated with Christ. Extremists come draped in all sorts of robes, but the problem isn't the robe, but rather, how that robe is used to draw attention away from Christ to something else.
But how do we deal rightly with one who has fallen prey to an extreme? There are several approaches out there:
Legalism: This is the approach that says "We will not appoint/hire those who possess a prayer language. We will not appoint/hire Calvinists. We will not appoint/hire anyone in sympathy with the emerging church." Again, such an approach is the direct result of "guilt by association" thinking. And what is the result of such an approach? With regard to the prayer language issue at the International Mission Board, the result has been the theological equivalent to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces godly men and women "in the closet," and destroys trust between stateside and the field.
Scriptural Authority: Based on our common confession in The Baptist Faith and Message, we already have a tool for holding missionaries, seminary professors, and others accountable to our churches. Policies are good, but every policy should originate from our common understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Where there is room for disagreement, let us continue to disagree, and do so agreeably!
I am thankful that those elected to oversee our seminaries and mission boards are cautious when it comes to extremism in any form. But one is not a Charismatic extremist because he or she prays in another language. One is not anti-evangelism because he or she is a Calvinist. One is not doctrinally wishy-washy because he or she identifies to some degree with the "emerging church." In short, it isn't the label that makes a person an extremist. Rather, it is what one does to abuse a label and take attention away from things that matter that causes a move to the extreme.
And if we aren't careful, our efforts to weed out extremists will result in our becoming the very thing we hate. For example, though most supporters of the new Baptism policy would not call themselves "Landmarkists," the policy itself is rooted in just such a view. And Landmarkism, by its exclusive nature, is an extreme view of ecclesiology. In fact, Landmarkism is possibly the one exception to all that I have previously said because its essence is to deny the legitimacy of all things ecclesiological that are not Baptist. This form of exclusivism is an affront to the church, and its proponents ultimately seek to confer on others a title they themselves should be wearing: "extremist."
We can't go there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)