With seemingly every true-blue male in the Baptist blogosphere donning a pink hat, I felt a severe need to re-inject some testosterone into the system. Even out in North Carolina, Tim Rogers has succumbed to the trend. Since he lives in the Carolinas, does that make him a Pink Panther?
Anyway, I have re-designed my blog template to provide a little balance.
[NOTE: Along with this post, I redesigned the blog in a desert camoflauge military theme with a picture of a tank in the header.]
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Thursday, December 7, 2006
The Roundtable Resolution Analyzed
I offer here an analysis of the "Resolution on Partnership and Free Religious Expression" (see text here) approved at the recent Skeleton Creek-Arlingtonian Roundtable at Cornerstone Baptist Church.
Is this really a question of religious liberty? No.
We've had a Memphis Declaration. We've had more blogs than I can count. We've had Tom Hatley called every name in the book. And that's not counting the things he's probably been called in tongues! ;-) We've had a Joshua Convergence. We've now had a Roundtable. There's a Conference on the Holy Spirit planned for the Spring. And boy howdy...have people smiled for the cameras and seen all of this in the press!
Yet somehow, in ways that defy imagination, a group of voting pastors in Arlington seems to think that freedom of religious expression is in danger in the SBC.
Let us reiterate what we ought already to have learned during the Conservative Resurgence. Freedom of Religious Conscience and Religious Expression is in no danger from SBC conservatives. Every human being has the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. Believe in the inerrancy of scripture or believe that the Bible is one step above Calvin & Hobbes. Believe that Jesus is "The Christ; the Son of the Living God" or believe that Jesus was just a good teacher. Believe that Allah is God, that Krishna is God, or that there is no God. If necessary, I personally will pick up a weapon and risk my life to defend your right to believe these things, to preach these things at the top of your lungs, and to worship accordingly in public or in private however you wish. That is what religious liberty means.
During the Conservative Resurgence, we learned that some people seem to think that religious liberty means that everyone has a God-given right to a denominational paycheck to subsidize their personal religious beliefs and expression, even when those beliefs and expressions are at odds with the beliefs and expressions of the people doing the paying. I thought that we had settled that question. I thought that we all now understood that religious liberty also means the freedom of religious assemblies to define themselves according to their collective conscience and following the structure of their polity. Their liberty includes the liberty to express themselves by saying, if they should choose to do so, "We don't believe in gibberish, and we choose not to pay to spread it." Of course, it also means the liberty to come to the opposite conclusion. Defense of religious liberty is not a valid argument for either side of this discussion.
Is religious liberty really liberty from the churches or from the SBC? Yes, and no.
Yes, because we believe in voluntarism and have enshrined it in the law of the land. People have the right to choose with which church to affiliate and worship. Churches and groups of churches have no "temporal sword" by which they may compel anyone in matters of conscience or religious expression.
No, because once someone has voluntarily entered a covenant relationship with a church, that person's private and public spiritual life is certainly the business of the church. The old standard church covenant that hung on the wall where I grew up did not only bind people regarding their public actions; it enjoined people to private and family devotion. Surely we all preach to address the private lives of our members, and I sense that I ought to be more involved in the private devotional lives of members as an episkopos than I am.
I trod again down the path of Roger Williams's "Two Tables of the Law." Matters of religious conscience are not the proper jurisdiction of the government, but they are indeed the proper jurisdiction of the church. Free religious expression as an historic Baptist distinctive means freedom from government regulation of my religious expression and thereby freedom for me to choose which, if any, religious tradition will have spiritual authority over my religious expression. Thus, religious liberty does not mean that my personal religious expression is outside the scope of my church's interest.
And certainly any individual church, when choosing whether to affiliate with another individual church, has the right to take into consideration toward that choice any information that it deems to be pertinent, including how the church in view and its individual members express themselves religiously. This is a central concept in each church's freedom of religious association. And the SBC is nothing more than a group of churches freely affiliated with one another. Thus, the SBC has the absolute right to determine the bounds of its own cooperation. In doing so, not only is it not actually infringing upon anyone else's religious liberty, but also it cannot possibly do so. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that the SBC needs to police itself in order to safeguard the free religious expression of anyone.
Can the historic Baptist distinctive of religious liberty be defined as "the protection of the freedom of individual conscience from doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to God’s Word or not contained therein, as well as the freedom to form and propagate beliefs within the sphere of religion"? No.
Our doctrine of religious liberty can be defined as the protection of the freedom of the individual conscience in matters of religion. Period. Whether the "doctrines and commandments" be "of men" or of God. Whether they be "contrary to God's Word or not contained therein" or whether they be an explicit teaching of God's Word contained entirely throughout. I believe in religious liberty even for athiests and infidels. That is the historic Baptist distinctive.
The next two paragraphs of the resolution suggest that the heart of this Baptist distinctive is a generous spirit toward other Christian denominations regarding the doctrines that are distinctive to Baptists:
Religious liberty is not about respecting "the religious opinions and practices of non-Baptist churches." In fact, for a significant amount of Southern Baptist history, a pretty large contingent of Southern Baptist life would not have agreed that there was any such thing as "non-Baptist churches," much less have expressed respect for opinions and practices of such. Nevertheless, they and other Southern Baptists have respected the principle that non-Baptist churches and non-churches alike have liberty to believe and practice as they do.
And this distinction really strikes to the heart of the matter. When we realize that our distinctive belief about religious liberty extends not just to the guy who includes ecstatic utterances in his prayer life but also to the guy who prays to Satan, then we realize that religious liberty is not about whatever course we might choose to follow internally in the SBC. The guy who prays to Satan is not welcome in the SBC at all. Not welcome to lead. Not welcome to work for us. Not welcome to be a member. But that fact is not one iota in contradiction to our sincere and historic commitment to universal religious liberty.
Is the absence of a statement in the Baptist Faith & Message about the "hot topics" of our day the result of a preference "to recognize confessional and experiential latitude among member churches as an intentional effort to maintain a commitment to religious liberty and ensure peace and harmony among member churches"? No and maybe.
No, because, as demonstrated above, it is incorrect to state that the Baptist doctrine of religious liberty has to do with the internal relationship between churches in religious affiliations.
Maybe, because maintaining "peace and harmony among member churches" has been a difficult task since the get-go, and we have indeed seen a lot of compromises toward that goal in our past. The resolution seems to state this with a certainty, as though whoever authored it has a letter from someone saying, "We didn't put styles of worship or tongues in there because we're making an intentional effort to ensure peace and harmony among member churches." If they have such a document, I would love the chance to read it, just because...well...I love to read that kind of thing. Otherwise, we just have a case of people putting words into the mouths of dead people who aren't around to defend themselves. Don't they know that you have to have a History degree to earn the right to do that! ;-)
Now the last two "Whereas"es are really good.
With regard to music styles, I couldn't agree more. With regard to the whole field of "liturgical preference" I don't think that I could say so. What if we have a church that likes to burn incense to the "saints" and pray to Mary on occasion? What if a church in my association starts snake-handling? What if, as some early Baptists apparently did, a Southern Baptist church started baptizing people in the nude? I'm not sure that such diversity would make us any stronger at all. I'm not sure that those questions wouldn't rise to such a level that they needed to be addressed. So this segment could benefit from a little more specificity.
If it were more specific, I'm sure that the infamous "private prayer language" would make the list of specifics. Given the aggressive and divisive nature of charismatic practice over the past century, I think it is the right of the messengers to decide for themselves whether they think that paying for the promotion of charismatic practice is a kind of diversity that would strengthen the SBC. I would be voting no on that.
Regarding the "Resolved"s, I think I've said enough to give you a clue as to what I think about the first one. I won't beat that horse any more.
I agree completely with the second "Resolved" as worded.
Of course, the whole controversy right now is skirted over in the phrase "spiritual practices consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." If Southern Baptists really believe that what passes for "speaking in tongues" these days is "consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture" then there should be absolutely no restrictions upon the practice either in private prayer or in public proclamation. Indeed, not only should there be no restrictions upon it, but we should be actively promoting whatever is "consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." But that's the big question.
If the resolution were straightforward, it would just come out and say "private prayer language is consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." Or it could say, "if a denominational employee thinks that his or her practice is consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture, that's good enough for us." But instead it presents to the SBC the false dichotomy: Agree with us or disagree with the Bible, your choice.
With regard to the third "Resolved" I simply note that the individual conscience is free to believe and worship as it wishes with or without the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God, to worship or not, whomever, however (within a few extreme limits...no human sacrifice).
With regard to the final "Resolved" I entirely agree. Of course, "full partnership" means that you get to send messengers to the meeting. There is no promise, explicit or implied, that anyone you suggest will be suitable for any position of denominational employment, nor that anyone from your church will ever hold any position of leadership in the convention. Indeed, a vast number of churches have never had anyone fit into either category, yet have been in "full partnership" all along.
In conclusion, allow me to say in all sincerity that someone will be able to tear apart anything that any individual writes. I do not doubt the sincerity or intelligence of whoever wrote this resolution. I do think that they need to think more carefully about what religious liberty means. I also think that they are wrong about some things. Necessarily, that implies that they think that I'm wrong about some things. So be it.
The reason that we have Resolutions Committees is to fix resolutions or do away with them if they are beyond fixing. I guess we'll all see soon enough what happens to this one.
By the way, the author (whoever it is) and the supporters of this resolution are free to comment here. Unlike some places that decry censorship while practicing it, I allow free discussion here at Praisegod Barebones.
Is this really a question of religious liberty? No.
We've had a Memphis Declaration. We've had more blogs than I can count. We've had Tom Hatley called every name in the book. And that's not counting the things he's probably been called in tongues! ;-) We've had a Joshua Convergence. We've now had a Roundtable. There's a Conference on the Holy Spirit planned for the Spring. And boy howdy...have people smiled for the cameras and seen all of this in the press!
Yet somehow, in ways that defy imagination, a group of voting pastors in Arlington seems to think that freedom of religious expression is in danger in the SBC.
Let us reiterate what we ought already to have learned during the Conservative Resurgence. Freedom of Religious Conscience and Religious Expression is in no danger from SBC conservatives. Every human being has the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. Believe in the inerrancy of scripture or believe that the Bible is one step above Calvin & Hobbes. Believe that Jesus is "The Christ; the Son of the Living God" or believe that Jesus was just a good teacher. Believe that Allah is God, that Krishna is God, or that there is no God. If necessary, I personally will pick up a weapon and risk my life to defend your right to believe these things, to preach these things at the top of your lungs, and to worship accordingly in public or in private however you wish. That is what religious liberty means.
During the Conservative Resurgence, we learned that some people seem to think that religious liberty means that everyone has a God-given right to a denominational paycheck to subsidize their personal religious beliefs and expression, even when those beliefs and expressions are at odds with the beliefs and expressions of the people doing the paying. I thought that we had settled that question. I thought that we all now understood that religious liberty also means the freedom of religious assemblies to define themselves according to their collective conscience and following the structure of their polity. Their liberty includes the liberty to express themselves by saying, if they should choose to do so, "We don't believe in gibberish, and we choose not to pay to spread it." Of course, it also means the liberty to come to the opposite conclusion. Defense of religious liberty is not a valid argument for either side of this discussion.
Is religious liberty really liberty from the churches or from the SBC? Yes, and no.
Yes, because we believe in voluntarism and have enshrined it in the law of the land. People have the right to choose with which church to affiliate and worship. Churches and groups of churches have no "temporal sword" by which they may compel anyone in matters of conscience or religious expression.
No, because once someone has voluntarily entered a covenant relationship with a church, that person's private and public spiritual life is certainly the business of the church. The old standard church covenant that hung on the wall where I grew up did not only bind people regarding their public actions; it enjoined people to private and family devotion. Surely we all preach to address the private lives of our members, and I sense that I ought to be more involved in the private devotional lives of members as an episkopos than I am.
I trod again down the path of Roger Williams's "Two Tables of the Law." Matters of religious conscience are not the proper jurisdiction of the government, but they are indeed the proper jurisdiction of the church. Free religious expression as an historic Baptist distinctive means freedom from government regulation of my religious expression and thereby freedom for me to choose which, if any, religious tradition will have spiritual authority over my religious expression. Thus, religious liberty does not mean that my personal religious expression is outside the scope of my church's interest.
And certainly any individual church, when choosing whether to affiliate with another individual church, has the right to take into consideration toward that choice any information that it deems to be pertinent, including how the church in view and its individual members express themselves religiously. This is a central concept in each church's freedom of religious association. And the SBC is nothing more than a group of churches freely affiliated with one another. Thus, the SBC has the absolute right to determine the bounds of its own cooperation. In doing so, not only is it not actually infringing upon anyone else's religious liberty, but also it cannot possibly do so. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that the SBC needs to police itself in order to safeguard the free religious expression of anyone.
Can the historic Baptist distinctive of religious liberty be defined as "the protection of the freedom of individual conscience from doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to God’s Word or not contained therein, as well as the freedom to form and propagate beliefs within the sphere of religion"? No.
Our doctrine of religious liberty can be defined as the protection of the freedom of the individual conscience in matters of religion. Period. Whether the "doctrines and commandments" be "of men" or of God. Whether they be "contrary to God's Word or not contained therein" or whether they be an explicit teaching of God's Word contained entirely throughout. I believe in religious liberty even for athiests and infidels. That is the historic Baptist distinctive.
The next two paragraphs of the resolution suggest that the heart of this Baptist distinctive is a generous spirit toward other Christian denominations regarding the doctrines that are distinctive to Baptists:
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have labored to protect the freedoms of religion in every context, both internationally and within the United States, even when those religious beliefs were contrary to the generally accepted confessions of faith adopted by Baptists;These two paragraphs are absolutely true, but the qualifiers and limitations are odd. In other words, it is interesting what they do not say. Southern Baptist vigilance over religious liberty has nothing to do with ecumenicity. It is not that we've just agreed to overlook the distinctives expressed in "the generally accepted confessions of faith adopted by Baptists." Rather, we respect the religious liberty of those religious beliefs that are contrary even to Christianity. We respect the religious liberty of Moslems and Buddhists.
WHEREAS, there has been a general willingness among Southern Baptist churches to respect the religious opinions and practices of non-Baptist churches, with the recognition that mutual respect and religious tolerance does not imply endorsement or affirmation of those religious opinions and practices; (emphasis mine)
Religious liberty is not about respecting "the religious opinions and practices of non-Baptist churches." In fact, for a significant amount of Southern Baptist history, a pretty large contingent of Southern Baptist life would not have agreed that there was any such thing as "non-Baptist churches," much less have expressed respect for opinions and practices of such. Nevertheless, they and other Southern Baptists have respected the principle that non-Baptist churches and non-churches alike have liberty to believe and practice as they do.
And this distinction really strikes to the heart of the matter. When we realize that our distinctive belief about religious liberty extends not just to the guy who includes ecstatic utterances in his prayer life but also to the guy who prays to Satan, then we realize that religious liberty is not about whatever course we might choose to follow internally in the SBC. The guy who prays to Satan is not welcome in the SBC at all. Not welcome to lead. Not welcome to work for us. Not welcome to be a member. But that fact is not one iota in contradiction to our sincere and historic commitment to universal religious liberty.
Is the absence of a statement in the Baptist Faith & Message about the "hot topics" of our day the result of a preference "to recognize confessional and experiential latitude among member churches as an intentional effort to maintain a commitment to religious liberty and ensure peace and harmony among member churches"? No and maybe.
No, because, as demonstrated above, it is incorrect to state that the Baptist doctrine of religious liberty has to do with the internal relationship between churches in religious affiliations.
Maybe, because maintaining "peace and harmony among member churches" has been a difficult task since the get-go, and we have indeed seen a lot of compromises toward that goal in our past. The resolution seems to state this with a certainty, as though whoever authored it has a letter from someone saying, "We didn't put styles of worship or tongues in there because we're making an intentional effort to ensure peace and harmony among member churches." If they have such a document, I would love the chance to read it, just because...well...I love to read that kind of thing. Otherwise, we just have a case of people putting words into the mouths of dead people who aren't around to defend themselves. Don't they know that you have to have a History degree to earn the right to do that! ;-)
Now the last two "Whereas"es are really good.
WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes a greater strength in cooperative missionary ventures by the participation of churches with every liturgical preference, whether contemporary, blended or traditional; andThere, folks. That is the heart of the discussion. These two paragraphs express it with concision and precision. Delete everything above this and you have a good resolution. I still don't agree with it entirely, but it makes a logical argument. They're saying that we're stronger with this kind of diversity in the SBC, and that these matters really aren't that important compared to what we're united to do.
WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes that the task of world evangelization and church planting is a much more important component of our obedience to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ than is a prolonged discussion among Baptists about acceptable and unacceptable worship practices, whether those practices take form in public or private expressions
With regard to music styles, I couldn't agree more. With regard to the whole field of "liturgical preference" I don't think that I could say so. What if we have a church that likes to burn incense to the "saints" and pray to Mary on occasion? What if a church in my association starts snake-handling? What if, as some early Baptists apparently did, a Southern Baptist church started baptizing people in the nude? I'm not sure that such diversity would make us any stronger at all. I'm not sure that those questions wouldn't rise to such a level that they needed to be addressed. So this segment could benefit from a little more specificity.
If it were more specific, I'm sure that the infamous "private prayer language" would make the list of specifics. Given the aggressive and divisive nature of charismatic practice over the past century, I think it is the right of the messengers to decide for themselves whether they think that paying for the promotion of charismatic practice is a kind of diversity that would strengthen the SBC. I would be voting no on that.
Regarding the "Resolved"s, I think I've said enough to give you a clue as to what I think about the first one. I won't beat that horse any more.
I agree completely with the second "Resolved" as worded.
Of course, the whole controversy right now is skirted over in the phrase "spiritual practices consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." If Southern Baptists really believe that what passes for "speaking in tongues" these days is "consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture" then there should be absolutely no restrictions upon the practice either in private prayer or in public proclamation. Indeed, not only should there be no restrictions upon it, but we should be actively promoting whatever is "consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." But that's the big question.
If the resolution were straightforward, it would just come out and say "private prayer language is consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture." Or it could say, "if a denominational employee thinks that his or her practice is consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture, that's good enough for us." But instead it presents to the SBC the false dichotomy: Agree with us or disagree with the Bible, your choice.
With regard to the third "Resolved" I simply note that the individual conscience is free to believe and worship as it wishes with or without the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the Word of God, to worship or not, whomever, however (within a few extreme limits...no human sacrifice).
With regard to the final "Resolved" I entirely agree. Of course, "full partnership" means that you get to send messengers to the meeting. There is no promise, explicit or implied, that anyone you suggest will be suitable for any position of denominational employment, nor that anyone from your church will ever hold any position of leadership in the convention. Indeed, a vast number of churches have never had anyone fit into either category, yet have been in "full partnership" all along.
In conclusion, allow me to say in all sincerity that someone will be able to tear apart anything that any individual writes. I do not doubt the sincerity or intelligence of whoever wrote this resolution. I do think that they need to think more carefully about what religious liberty means. I also think that they are wrong about some things. Necessarily, that implies that they think that I'm wrong about some things. So be it.
The reason that we have Resolutions Committees is to fix resolutions or do away with them if they are beyond fixing. I guess we'll all see soon enough what happens to this one.
By the way, the author (whoever it is) and the supporters of this resolution are free to comment here. Unlike some places that decry censorship while practicing it, I allow free discussion here at Praisegod Barebones.
Poster Boy for Church Discipline
I wonder: Is J. Davis Mallory still a member of a Marietta, GA area Southern Baptist church?
(HT: Big Daddy Weave)
By the way, Mallory is one of our recipients of that "Christian worldview" promulgated by a formerly-Baptist institution (Stetson University) that proclaims to exist "For God and Truth."
(HT: Big Daddy Weave)
By the way, Mallory is one of our recipients of that "Christian worldview" promulgated by a formerly-Baptist institution (Stetson University) that proclaims to exist "For God and Truth."
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
John Danforth's Silly Notion of Divisiveness
John Danforth's new book, Faith and Politics, is being championed as an "incredibly thoughtful book" in which Danforth "oozes sincerity and good sense as he excoriates 'Christian conservatives' (naming James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, among others) for corrupting religious doctrine on reproduction and marriage and inappropriately inserting it in government." In his appearance on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" Danforth made very clear the premise of his book: That the pro-life movement, the traditional marriage movement, and movements aligned with these in social conservatism, are uniquely responsible for dividing America.
Danforth's book will receive inordinate attention because of who he is. He is a Republican. He is an Episcopal priest (which puts him in the elite company of....let's see....John Shelby-Spong, Gene Robinson, and Catherine Jefferts-Schori. Yeah, I'd keep that prominently on my resume). And so, he represents the only solution for unity that so many can envision—for conservatives to sell out and for liberals to carry the day entirely.
It is funny the way that people view division. A person or movement can unilaterally introduce incredibly controversial or even offensive ideas, roil the populace with them, and then fling accusations of divisiveness upon anyone who dares not to acquiese to the controversial crusade that they themselves introduced. Somehow, the public often seems to forget to ask who threw the first punch.
Danforth's book is also troubling for its suggestion that tepid religion is the best religion and is somehow better for the nation. The pro-life movement is not inherently a religious movement. Indeed, it is no more religious than the emancipation movement or the civil rights movement was, and these three have much in common. Very passionate religious fervor has produced some of the greatest things about this nation, and usually when it occupied one side of a divisive controversy. One problem with the whole analysis offered by Danforth and many others is the assumption that divisiveness is always wrong. The emancipation movement was divisive, and thank God for it. It seems to me that the charge of divisiveness is a convenient one to level when one would rather not discuss the merits of one's own position on the real, underlying issues.
But Danforth's book will nonetheless enjoy tremendous appeal, both among those who claim to be protecting politics from the evils of faith and probably among some of those who claim to be protecting faith from the evils of politics. If either claim were true, it might be worthy of investigation. Instead, they are merely working to give political power to a different faith and to substitute one set of politics for another into faith communities.
Danforth's book will receive inordinate attention because of who he is. He is a Republican. He is an Episcopal priest (which puts him in the elite company of....let's see....John Shelby-Spong, Gene Robinson, and Catherine Jefferts-Schori. Yeah, I'd keep that prominently on my resume). And so, he represents the only solution for unity that so many can envision—for conservatives to sell out and for liberals to carry the day entirely.
It is funny the way that people view division. A person or movement can unilaterally introduce incredibly controversial or even offensive ideas, roil the populace with them, and then fling accusations of divisiveness upon anyone who dares not to acquiese to the controversial crusade that they themselves introduced. Somehow, the public often seems to forget to ask who threw the first punch.
- Who unliaterally amended the Constitution by unconstitutional means by inventing a right to abortion in 1973? Why doesn't the path to unity include a call for those who started the fight to overturn this hateful act?
- Who has provoked the controversy over gay marriage? About gay anything? Can anyone say with a straight face that cultural conservatives are the ones who have advanced these divisive issues to the forefront of the public square? Why isn't a return to the concept of marriage and sexuality that has dominated the entire history of our nation (with very little controversy, by the way) a good way to find unity?
- Who has started chopping up some human beings in the search for cures for other human beings? It seems like a good way to end the division over this issue would be to end the practice that serves as the cause of the division.
- Who invented the modern-day idea of glossolalia around a century ago and launched crusades to spread the "full gospel" throughout existing churches and denominations? Why are not those who insist upon the promotion of such novel practices the ones who are guilty of division?
- Who started the talk of our conventions drafting official positions on doctrinal ideas like so-called "private prayer language"? If such resolutions are divisive, then why does the charge of divisiveness not fall upon those who instigated the idea?
- Many bemoan the tenor of blogging conversations, but who is the true genesis of the blogging battles? Why are the responders the ones charged with picking the fight?
- Why are the Episcopal dioceses that are seeking to remain Christian the ones who are charged with "schism"?
Danforth's book is also troubling for its suggestion that tepid religion is the best religion and is somehow better for the nation. The pro-life movement is not inherently a religious movement. Indeed, it is no more religious than the emancipation movement or the civil rights movement was, and these three have much in common. Very passionate religious fervor has produced some of the greatest things about this nation, and usually when it occupied one side of a divisive controversy. One problem with the whole analysis offered by Danforth and many others is the assumption that divisiveness is always wrong. The emancipation movement was divisive, and thank God for it. It seems to me that the charge of divisiveness is a convenient one to level when one would rather not discuss the merits of one's own position on the real, underlying issues.
But Danforth's book will nonetheless enjoy tremendous appeal, both among those who claim to be protecting politics from the evils of faith and probably among some of those who claim to be protecting faith from the evils of politics. If either claim were true, it might be worthy of investigation. Instead, they are merely working to give political power to a different faith and to substitute one set of politics for another into faith communities.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Absent from the Roundtable
I had planned to attend the Roundtable today as an observer. Unfortunately, I've got a serious cough and some laryngitis this morning. J. R. Graves would suggest that I wouldn't have these problems if I would grow a great big beard. Tough luck, J. R.: I'm staying clean-shaven.
Anyway, I have consented to defend my views at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit in April. Today we'll find out who else will be on the panel with me. I'll be watching from home.
Also, I would encourage Wade Burleson (see here) to be careful in speculating as to the motives of attendees. Many of those attending are not seeking to model anything. Many probably would not have attended if they had suspected that they would be cited as a part of a number of people trying to model some new approach of theological leniency.
UPDATE: The live feed is not working at all for me. I guess I'll wait for second-hand reports of the meeting.
Anyway, I have consented to defend my views at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit in April. Today we'll find out who else will be on the panel with me. I'll be watching from home.
Also, I would encourage Wade Burleson (see here) to be careful in speculating as to the motives of attendees. Many of those attending are not seeking to model anything. Many probably would not have attended if they had suspected that they would be cited as a part of a number of people trying to model some new approach of theological leniency.
UPDATE: The live feed is not working at all for me. I guess I'll wait for second-hand reports of the meeting.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Appendix to the Lottie Moon Week of Prayer
I've decided as a part of the Week of Prayer for International Missions to add to my prayer guide the name of David Rogers. I'm praying especially for David this week for a number of reasons:
But I invite you to do at least this: Commit this week to praying for International Missions, and personalize your praying by letting God put on your heart the specific names of missionaries that you might either know or at least know about. Even those of you who are missionaries, pray for one another this week.
And finally, in your praying for missionaries, don't forget to pray for more missionaries—for the one's who aren't there yet—to the Lord of the harvest. Who knows? You just might wind up praying for yourself.
- Wierdo that I am, nothing endears someone to me like a good, old fashioned, good-natured, argumentative debate. This year I've had one or two of those with David, and I've enjoyed each one of them. He is articulate and gentlemanly, even if he is dead wrong at a point or two! :-) In a John Wayne, The Quiet Man, sort of way, I've developed a fondness for him. (If you don't know about John Wayne in The Quiet Man, then you have been shortchanged in your education)
- David has lost his father in the not-too-distant past. In some very poignant way, the death of Adrian Rogers was a loss for many of us. Nevertheless, my loss in no way compares to David's. It leaves a gaping hole in your life to send your father on to Heaven. This will be David's second Christmas without his father, and I will commit to praying for him and his family this season.
- David is serving in a difficult assignment for which few of us would volunteer. Spain is post-Christian. It is possible that the Spanish spiritual climate would have been more welcoming to Baptist missionaries and the true gospel in the days of Torquemada than it is today (only slight hyperbole indicated there). David's calling is a difficult one, and he deserves our prayers.
- Besides, I have to keep praying that David will kow-tow to my arguments in a few subjects. :-)
But I invite you to do at least this: Commit this week to praying for International Missions, and personalize your praying by letting God put on your heart the specific names of missionaries that you might either know or at least know about. Even those of you who are missionaries, pray for one another this week.
And finally, in your praying for missionaries, don't forget to pray for more missionaries—for the one's who aren't there yet—to the Lord of the harvest. Who knows? You just might wind up praying for yourself.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Preaching: Evaluating the Evaluations
Art Rogers is one of the few people who (like myself) somehow missed the memo that the entire Baptist blog world was shutting down at precisely the same time. Thanks, Art, for giving us something worthwhile to read! What started as a a conversation about SWBTS chapel services has opened a conversation (mostly one-sided) about the proper tone of Christian preaching.
I commented over there, but the whole conversation had me thinking about something else, so I thought I would attempt to launch another conversation over here.
What counts as evidence to sort out what kind of preaching works and what kind of preaching doesn't? Of course, the most accessible indicator is the response of the hearers. We all get a report card of sorts from our congregations right after the service, right? And then there is the response shown during the invitation. Sometimes we take the growth or lack thereof in a particular church to be an indirect reflection on what is happening in the pulpit. The response of other preachers is another indicator that is easy to prize.
On "NOW with Bill Moyers" (nothing else on right now, otherwise I would be watching something else), Norman Lear and a professor at the Lear Center are talking about how religion, like politics and all else, is basically show business—that we are all competing for an audience. How much ought the audience to influence the message? How much ought we to let the reaction of the audience influence our preaching?
On the one hand, the Bible does speak of tremendous responses to, for example, Peter's message in Jerusalem, seemingly indicating that the massive response of the audience was evidence of a superlative work of God.
On the other hand, the Bible speaks of "itching ears" and gives us the example of Jeremiah. Jesus apparently preached Himself right out of several audiences. In much of Paul's writings, the idea of "pleasing men" is, remember, considered a bad thing.
Yet we all, from every corner of Christianity that I know, regularly use the response of the audience as one of the primary indicators of what constitutes good preaching. And I don't know that we can easily rid ourselves of it. I know that I've heard preaching that was exegetically sound, theologically orthodox, and technically correct, but homiletically poor. How else can we distinguish between preaching that is engaging and preaching that is boring without appealing to the response of the listener?
Also, doesn't missionary zeal usually effect some concern over how the listeners respond to the message? Is it possible to have a hot heart for world evangelization and simultaneously to take seriously the clear biblical teaching that few find the narrow way?
It seems to me that doctrinal standards ought to come first. I try to evaluate my preaching not only by trying to keep it exegetically sound, but also by looking at whether I'm preaching the whole Bible: both testaments, various books, different kinds of passages and genres. In the first seven years at FBC Farmersville, I've preached from every book of the Bible. That kind of thing is important to me.
But, the exact same sermon on the exact same topic embodying the exact same theology can be either engaging or dry (OK...so some topics are indeed inclined toward either "engaging" or "dry", making it a little harder to push them into the opposite category). And I don't know any way to evaluate such a thing other than by evaluating how the listeners evaluate the sermon.
So, the way people evaluate a sermon is a worthwhile indicator, but I think it ought to matter not at all in the topics we choose or the theology embodied in our preaching. Instead, it ought only to influence the format in which we present those topics and that theology.
I commented over there, but the whole conversation had me thinking about something else, so I thought I would attempt to launch another conversation over here.
What counts as evidence to sort out what kind of preaching works and what kind of preaching doesn't? Of course, the most accessible indicator is the response of the hearers. We all get a report card of sorts from our congregations right after the service, right? And then there is the response shown during the invitation. Sometimes we take the growth or lack thereof in a particular church to be an indirect reflection on what is happening in the pulpit. The response of other preachers is another indicator that is easy to prize.
On "NOW with Bill Moyers" (nothing else on right now, otherwise I would be watching something else), Norman Lear and a professor at the Lear Center are talking about how religion, like politics and all else, is basically show business—that we are all competing for an audience. How much ought the audience to influence the message? How much ought we to let the reaction of the audience influence our preaching?
On the one hand, the Bible does speak of tremendous responses to, for example, Peter's message in Jerusalem, seemingly indicating that the massive response of the audience was evidence of a superlative work of God.
On the other hand, the Bible speaks of "itching ears" and gives us the example of Jeremiah. Jesus apparently preached Himself right out of several audiences. In much of Paul's writings, the idea of "pleasing men" is, remember, considered a bad thing.
Yet we all, from every corner of Christianity that I know, regularly use the response of the audience as one of the primary indicators of what constitutes good preaching. And I don't know that we can easily rid ourselves of it. I know that I've heard preaching that was exegetically sound, theologically orthodox, and technically correct, but homiletically poor. How else can we distinguish between preaching that is engaging and preaching that is boring without appealing to the response of the listener?
Also, doesn't missionary zeal usually effect some concern over how the listeners respond to the message? Is it possible to have a hot heart for world evangelization and simultaneously to take seriously the clear biblical teaching that few find the narrow way?
It seems to me that doctrinal standards ought to come first. I try to evaluate my preaching not only by trying to keep it exegetically sound, but also by looking at whether I'm preaching the whole Bible: both testaments, various books, different kinds of passages and genres. In the first seven years at FBC Farmersville, I've preached from every book of the Bible. That kind of thing is important to me.
But, the exact same sermon on the exact same topic embodying the exact same theology can be either engaging or dry (OK...so some topics are indeed inclined toward either "engaging" or "dry", making it a little harder to push them into the opposite category). And I don't know any way to evaluate such a thing other than by evaluating how the listeners evaluate the sermon.
So, the way people evaluate a sermon is a worthwhile indicator, but I think it ought to matter not at all in the topics we choose or the theology embodied in our preaching. Instead, it ought only to influence the format in which we present those topics and that theology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)