I have been a regular attender at a Southern Baptist church since nine months before I was born. I’ve been a member of 10 different Southern Baptist churches over the last nearly five decades – and what a turbulent 50 years they have been. I was saved and baptized in February of 1964 at Immanuel Baptist Church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It was a different denominational world that I was baptized into than the one I serve in today.
I heard the frustration in my dad’s voice a few years ago as he talked about his church search in the new community into which he and mom had moved. “I can’t find a church I understand. The music is strange. The preaching is strange. I’ve devoted my life to the church and it has abandoned me.” He has been an SBC pastor since the 50s and he feels like a stranger in a strange land in SBC churches today.
The last fifty years has been a time of radical change for the Southern Baptist Convention and its churches and it has left us with an identity crisis. Who are we? What defines a Southern Baptist? What is it that binds us together as a denomination?
We like to think that it was our theological commitment to God’s Word and the gospel it proclaims that brought us together, and there may have been a time when that was true. But it was not so in the SBC I grew up in. We were fraying at our theological edges in the 60s and 70s. Ralph Elliott’s 1961 commentary “The Message of Genesis” became exhibit A among SBC’s conservatives that there was a fracture in the theological makeup of the convention.
It was not theology that united the SBC of my youth.
Southern Baptists were united by something simpler – a common culture and practice. You could go from church to church and find a very similar form of worship and familiar programs. There would be Sunday School at 10, Worship at 11, Training Union at 6 and evening worship at 7. All the Sunday School classes used quarterlies from the Baptist Sunday School Board. You came to SS and filled out your envelope (were you a 100% Christian this week?). Wednesday night was for prayer meeting, with and RAs and GAs for the kids. The WMU was active and often powerful. You could count on the fact that somewhere around 10% of your offerings would go to the Cooperative Program. In December, we gave to Lottie and in the spring we gave to Annie. At the worship services we sang hymns with a piano and organ, led by a man in a suit who waved his right arm to the beat. When we sang the hymn, he did his duty and announced, “You cannot sing ‘Standing on the Promises’ while you are sitting on the premises.” There was a prayer at the offertory that blessed the gift and the giver. The preacher delivered a loud and forceful three-point gospel message that ended with a passionate invitation at the end, while “I Surrender All” or “Just As I Am” was sung. You could walk into any city in the South (the SBC had barely left the Deep South in those days, and many SBC churches in “pioneer” areas were designed mostly for displaced Southerners) and feel at home at the local SBC church.
That was the church I grew up in. It was the only way I knew and I assumed that it was spelled out somewhere in 2 Hezekiah. Oh, there were a few renegades around – a pastor wearing robes and doing liturgies or one flirting with the charismatic movement – but the SBC had a common culture that was comforting and stabilizing. If you were SBC in the 50s, 60s or early 70s, I’m guessing you can identify with the previous paragraph.
There were some key elements of the unity of the SBC at the time.
- We were united by our denominational identity and cooperation in missions through the CP.
- We were united by our isolation from the rest of the Christian world.
- We were united by our traditions, programs and denominational culture.
People who are more recent entrants into the SBC world might not understand the isolationism of the SBC in the days of my childhood. We were a world unto ourselves. I was a student at Dallas Seminary in the late 70s. At the time, if you did not get your degree from a Southern Baptist seminary, you were something of a leper. Because I sensed the call of God to stay within the SBC fold, I transferred to Southwestern for my final year and got the imprimatur of acceptability on my degree.
In 1979, two significant things happened. We elected Adrian Rogers as president of the SBC (I was there and cast my vote!), beginning the war we now know as the Conservative Resurgence. At that same time, leading evangelicals met in Chicago to develop the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, defining the doctrine that would become so controversial in our circle.
In a theology class, I asked Dr. Edwin Blum a question. Would the Chicago Statement have any impact on the battle that had started in the SBC? All these years later I can still remember Dr. Blum’s bemused answer. “Southern Baptists live in their own little world. Nothing that happens in the Christian world affects them.”
It is hard to argue that he was wrong.
Southern Baptists of the 60 and 70s were theologically divided, but united (even isolated from the rest of the Christian world) by a commitment to cooperative missions and a traditional Southern Baptist culture. Today, all of that has changed. We are engaged much more in the greater evangelical world, we are quickly moving away from cooperative to more independent missions and we have left many of our traditions behind.
Where Did My Father’s SBC Go?
I believe that there were several significant influences that have produced this radical change in the SBC over the last 50 years. This list is certainly not exhaustive.
1) The CR scrambled the SBC’s eggs.
The conservative resurgence, whether you loved it or hated it, hastened the end of the SBC of the 60s. During the 20 years or so before the CR began the SBC was maintaining programmatical unity while becoming increasingly theologically diverse. The CR reversed that. The proponents of the CR maintained that there is, in fact, a doctrinal basis for our unity. It’s not enough to just say “I love Jesus” and give to the CP. We need to have a theological core.
I agreed with that, but I think we need to recognize that it was a shock to the cultural and programmatical unity that had marked our recent existence.
There is something else that I think happened at the time. Conservative pastors and churches were growing increasingly frustrated with what we perceived as theological drift within the structures of the convention. So, we started going outside the convention for fellowship, for education for ministry, and for materials. When I was at Dallas, the largest denomination represented among students there was Southern Baptist. Mid-America flourished during this time. Southern Baptists began to turn to other publishers for SS literature and to parachurch ministries for discipleship materials. The hegemony of SBC culture over local churches began to unravel.
So, as conservative (and often large) churches grew increasingly frustrated with the entities of the SBC, they began to do more independent ministries and to give less to the Cooperative Program. It would be hard to argue that the CR was good for the CP. Those who did not want to contribute to the salaries of professors who they believed were undermining the faith began to look for alternate and independent missions options. The statesman of the CR, Adrian Rogers, warned that the Cooperative Program had become a sacred cow to many. It was a useful tool, he said, but not a sacred mandate.
Then, suddenly, these men who had been on the outside were in the positions of power. They had caught the virus of evangelical cooperation and brought it with them into the halls of power. The isolationist tendency of our convention received its first blow from the Conservative Resurgence.
2) The Promisekeepers movement broke down the walls.
I can still remember the chills that ran down my spine as Steve Green sang at the Pastor’s Promisekeeper’s meeting in Atlanta in 1996, “Break Down the Walls.” We were called to a greater unity and brotherhood to reach our cities for Christ.
Promisekeepers (for good or ill) was a grassroots movement that changed our churches from the bottom up. Men went to meetings and worshiped with a freedom and vigor they did not experience in their local churches. They came back to their staid, traditional and isolationist Baptist churches and demanded something more.
It was not just PK, but that organization was the tip of the spear of evangelical ecumenism (EE), a force that was both positive and negative. It brought Christians together, but also caused people to ignore doctrine and biblical truth. People felt an increasing loyalty to the Universal Body that had an impact on local bodies. But my point is not to analyse PK, but to simply observe that it, and the attendant evangelical ecumenism, forever changed SBC Culture.
The PK/EE movement had two notable impacts. First, it dealt another serious blow to SBC isolationism. It may have been the death blow. There are very few SBC churches today that give any indication on their websites of their involvement with the SBC. Denominational identity and loyalty have waned severely.
The other effect was on the traditional worship that marked SBC churches in my childhood. People went to PK and enjoyed a different (more charismatic) style of worship. They went back to their churches and asked why they couldn’t worship like that at their own churches? Contemporary worship services sprung up everywhere which eventually led to churches that abandoned SBC culture and tradition altogether. (As I edit this, I think that I must also credit Promisekeepers as one of the most significant forces in racial reconciliation in the church – it was a major theme. Some of the progress we have made in the SBC must surely be credited to the constant emphasis on it by McCartney and his compatriots.)
3) Megachurches turned everything upside down.
In the 50s and 60s it was almost unthinkable for an SBC church to fund missions independently. We did not do it. Missions was a percentage of undesignated offerings through the CP together with Lottie and Annie.
There were big churches back in those days, of course, but the phenomenon of megachurches had not really taken hold. The last 20 years or so has been described as the Walmartization of the church. Bigger churches grow by assimilating smaller churches. Again, it is not the point of this post to argue the value of megachurches. They are what they are.
But one thing is pretty clear about megachurches. They tend to be more independent and less cooperative than smaller churches. When you have budgets measured in the millions, you suddenly have the option to do certain missions activities on your own (and maintain control over them) that previously might have been done in cooperation with the denomination.
4) Moral and spiritual changes in the world around us.
Obviously, these had an effect. The culture we live in has changed dramatically. There has been a wholesale casting off of moral standards as people have embraced immorality as moral and perversion as normal. The church has had a lot of trouble adjusting to that. This has affected the church as a whole, but has also affected the SBC.
Where Are We Now?
Everything has changed since 1960. There are very few churches that still follow the old program. Even churches that consider themselves traditional today would be viewed as radicals by the churches of my childhood. The cultural and programmatical unity of those years is gone now – the ties that bound us have been broken!
The traditionalism of the SBC still exists, but it is slip-sliding away. We’ve been through the worship wars and the cultural relevance battles. They still rage. But the traditional SBC church I described above is now a rare bird.
SBC isolationism is largely gone as well.
But perhaps the most troubling reality for the SBC is that the cooperative spirit that bound the SBC together in the pre-CR days is now on the endangered species list. We said that it was not enough to just “do missions” together, if we did not share a certain theological core. I said amen to that. But once we un-tethered ourselves from the sacred cow of the CP, we tended to find more and more reasons to “do it our way.”
The theological component that we see as a blessing in the SBC has also become a bit of a problem. Just how far must our theological unity go before we can cooperate. Inerrancy? Yes. Salvation by grace through faith alone? No doubt. Baptism by Immersion? Affirmative. But other issues have come up as well that are not so easily answered.
- What about those with charismatic leanings or private prayer languages?
- Is complementarianism essential to our unity?
- What about election and predestination?
Once we opened the door to a theological bases or fellowship, figuring out where to stop has become an issue.
Where are we now?
Having seen our cultural and programmatical unity shattered in the last several decades, the SBC is facing an identity crisis that threatens our health and even, perhaps, our existence.
Where Do We Go from Here?
There are, of course, no easy answers. I would make several suggestions.
1) We must define the basis of our cooperation.
We have an identity crisis, so we have to define who we are. We no longer have a united culture, so we must define who we are without all those things that bound us together years ago.
Can people as disparate as Southern Baptists have become today find a theological and missional basis for cooperation? If we do not, we will splinter into many smaller and less effective pieces.
2) We must learn to be comfortable with with diversity.
I have chosen to leave the whole racial component out of this, for the sake of time. Southern Baptists are learning to be more racially diverse. But we are also going to have to learn to be culturally diverse as well. Can “coat and tie” Baptists coexist with the “sandals and jeans” set? Can we partner with those who share inerrancy and Baptist theology with us, but disagree on other key theological issues?
We are no longer unified by a monolithic SBC culture. We must learn to partner with those who are different or we will fracture until the SBC becomes insignificant.
3) We must embrace the future
The rear view mirror on my Durango fell off a while back. Its a pain in the neck not being able to look behind you. We always need to keep an eye to the past. But you cannot drive forward if you will only look in your rearview mirror. I think that is an apt description of too many Baptists – trying to drive to the future looking only in the rear view mirror. We have to move forward, bringing the best of our heritage forward but changing and growing to meet the future’s challenges.
Remember:
- Sunday School was once a new program.
- Someone thought up the Cooperative program as a new strategy.
- Every tradition was once an innovation.
We cannot assume that the old is better than the new, nor that the new is better than the old.
4) We must remember that Christ is the ground of our unity.
As the cultural and programmatic unity of Southern Baptists is stripped away, we need to remember the true ground of our unity – Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord. We have been bought by the blood, baptized in one Spirit into one Body and given the same Spirit to drink. We are one in him!
That is actually a greater unity than the cultural unity we once shared.
I guess its sad that stuff like this interests me. I’ve been reading “Southern Baptist Identity” by David Dockery (a must-read for anyone in the SBC) and ruminating on the changes going on in our fair convention.
I’ve spent way too much time on this, its too long and most of you probably aren’t interested.
But I do think there is some value in examining the forces that have changed our convention over the past 50 years.
Dave,
I think this article is tremendous and though I’m just a young whipper snapper I think it’s pretty dead on. Thanks for taking the time to “bore us” with it.
Excellent post here
Wish more on both sides would read
For us there is hope
sorry about the haiku, but I felt inspired to be minimal in my gushing praise!
Wow. Haiku? Really?
Great article – good insight. After almost 40 yrs of pastoral ministry, I sometimes wonder what has happened to the SBC I have known. I am change oriented, but still have a sense of estrangement. I remain a Southern Baptist nonetheless.
Dave,
I perceive that “thou art a prophet; for no man can speak or write like this except God be with him.” You are asking the critical questions. From whence cometh the answers? When the SBC definitively answer the questions you’ve raised, then many of our other issues will begin to subside and be resolved. Until a statesman/prophet or leader rises to the forefront that lead us to address and answer the questions you’ve raised, the SBC may have seen her best days. Could it be that God has “brought you into the Kingdom for such a time as this,” and given you visibility and influence as a part of the Luter Cabinet, so that you can contribute in a major way to this cabinet providing leadership to our convention to address the questions you’ve raised?
You have raised questions and issues more important than a name-change and the never ending Calvinist/Traditionalist War. An advisory committee commissioned to bring answers to your questions would do more to propel the SBC in the right direction than all the efforts and energy that has been and will be spent on the other two issues. Thanks for addressing the most critical issues the SBC face. The question now is will you and others step up to the plate and provide answers to these questions or will we continue to sail the seas of mediocrity and decline?
Dwight McKissic
I know Dwight may consider it an insult, but I agree with him (invisible smiley face).
Frank L.,
I perceive that thou art a prophet as well -:). Be blessed.
I can see in DAVID’s number 4, an acknowledgement of the great mystery of the union of Christian people ‘in Christ’ . . .
He is pointing to Christ as the Source of Christian unity:
a belief that is strengthened within us by the Presence of the Holy Spirit
I, too, see much in DAVID’s post that is evidence of blessing;
and it may truly be as you have said, Dr. McKissic,
‘for no man can speak or write like this except God be with him.”
The truth as I see it is that the closer Southern Baptist Christians encircle and draw near to Christ, the closer they will come to one another.
The one thing I have Dwight, is a big mouth and a willingness to state my views. If God can use that, that would be a great thing. Mostly, my big mouth has gotten me in trouble through the years.
Thank you for your kind words.
Dave,
I wonder if, with all of our unity, isolationism, and power in the 50’s-70’s, we had used that for good to uproot segregation and racism in our churches and society – where would we would be today?
Since we didn’t speak to it the way we should have because we were wed to the larger culture and we took its views as our own, I wonder if God has scattered us, and neither all the kings horses or men could put us back together again.
We were unified when white Southern culture was unified. When it fragmented, we did too – and we have never been the same. But, what if we had been unified AGAINST white Southern culture in the 1950’s instead of with it? We might have been smaller, but the purifying fire of fighting THAT battle might have kept us together.
I wonder if we have been fighting battles incessently since 1970 because we sat out the battle that really mattered from 1955-1970 – or, at least our involvement did not really change things because we didn’t pay a real price for our African American brothers and sisters in Christ.
Sometimes it is not the battles you fight that define you – but the ones you stay home for. “In the Spring, at the time when kings go off to war . . .”
I’m about as conservative as they come, Alan, and was a foot soldier in the CR. I regret some of the actions taken in that battle, but not the battle itself.
However, to our shame, the simple truth is that the moderates were more concerned with racial equality issues back then than conservatives were. Of course, there were conservatives who took up the battle. My dad used to take us to Mt. Zion Baptist in Cedar Rapids after our services were over, and even exchanged pulpits with the pastor of that church (this was in the 60s and not that common at the time).
I think that the SBC gained strength from its identification with the culture it prospered in, but became way too mixed up in that culture to be prophetic in it.
That is why I think we have to be a little radical (even the term gives me qualms) on racial reconciliation issues – because so many were so silent in so many churches.
Think about this concerning the Crystal Springs mess of a month ago. In 2012, members of that church still felt comfortable coming to the pastor and saying that blacks should not be wed in that church. Why? Because for much of their lives it was viewed as acceptable by many Christians to be a Christian racialist.
Dwight McKissic has opened my eyes to something. I don’t think I’ve ever be racist or oppressed someone because of their race or any of that. But I did not see racism through the eyes of those who had suffered from it.
For me, abortion is about as absolute an issue as there is. But for Dwight, and others who have been pulled over for DWB, or been eyed suspiciously, or insulted, or marginalized simply for their skin color, the issue of racism is at the same level as abortion.
I haven’t so much changed my view of racism in the last 5 or 10 years, as I have come to see how big an issue it really is and how poorly we have dealt with it.
“””However, to our shame, the simple truth is that the moderates were more concerned with racial equality issues back then than conservatives were”””
I don’t know if I agree with this or not. In one sense I do–they talked about it much more–but in another sense I disagree.
I see the moderate (liberal with training wheels) social agenda as different from seeking a biblically based equality. The moderate approach, to me, was to change the structure of society without addressing the heart.
This had not brought about any true racial equality–and could not.
The conservative approach is much slower and messier, but I think more genuine–focus on the heart and allow meaningful transformation that will be long-lasting.
In my opinion, had the moderates won, we would be further from racial harmony, rather than closer.
Alan,
“””We were unified when white Southern culture was unified”””
I think this hits on a key issue. Information in the 50-70’s doubled perhaps every 15 or 20 years. Now it doubles every 6-10 months. I’m only 56 and personal computers did not even exist until I was near college age.
We need a “new” SBC for a “new” day. If we have an SBC where my father’s generation feels perfectly comfortable, I’m thinking we are in an SBC that will not survive.
I am actually trying to build a church that I myself, as the pastor, am not completely comfortable with. I must tell you, I’m not sure I can do it. I really, really want to do it, but I’m afraid I’m stuck to deeply in my own skin.
This is why the priests in the O.T. had to retire at 50.
If we are not careful, the SBC will go the way of Kodak, Sears, and Radio Shack, not to mention Blockbuster Video.
“If we have an SBC where my father’s generation feels perfectly comfortable, I’m thinking we are in an SBC that will not survive.”
Scary but true.
Clark,
I agree wholeheartedly, this is a scary truth–and a slippery one.
I do not have the answer except to say that we must learn to communicate in a new way, to a new man, in a new time.
I just preached on Jesus healing the deaf/mute man (Mk. 7). The actions of Jesus seem odd, even repulsive at first blush. Then, it dawned on me that Jesus was speaking to the man in the only language he could “hear” — touch.
My kids still think I’m “cool.” They think I still relate well to kids their age (early 20’s). I feel they are too kind. I am out of touch for the most part with the present generation.
I am trying to “care for the elderly” at the same time I am passing the baton to the next generation. That sounds easier than it is turning out to be for me.
Our church in the last three years of my ministry has gone from an average age of mid-late 70’s to an average age of mid-late 50’s. That’s an incredible change.
And, we have done it without a mass exodus of the older crowd. We’ve done it by concentrating our major efforts on famililies raising young children.
We are still missing the target with 20 somethings. So, we have committed to starting another work in our area that targets 20 somethings.
Again, Clark, I agree these are “scary” times to be a pastor–especially an old goat of 56.
Frank, I want to commend you for working diligently to reach out to younger people and trying to help your church to balance serving both generations. That is a hard tightrope to walk and the fact that you are seeing success speaks well of your genuineness. Young adults can see a phony coming a mile away. Keep at it. As you seek to start your new work, if you need someone to bounce things off of, feel free to email me. I can tell you lots of what not to do and pass on a few nuggets of knowledge that I have gleaned in the last eight years.
Godspeed…
WOW, good blog dude. And the summation point #1 is critical. There must be a basis for our unity. And yes, your last point that it is primarily Christ is vital, but we could find unity with Bible Churches, evangelical methodists and presbyterians if He is the only “point” of unity. But while Christ alone is the foundation and chief cornerstone, we need to find out how to define who we are or prepare to abandon ship.
Some would ask “is that so bad?” I would say “yes.” Not because Southern Baptists are the Best thing that ever happened to the Christian Church, but because we have been used of God in profound ways and we can still do missions, evangelism, theology, social servanthood, and discipleship in a way that yields to the preeminence of scripture and surrender to Christ.
Now we aren’t the only ones who can do that, but we are one of those groups who can.
But the definition has to be large enough to include, imho, Wesleyan influenced Baptists and Whitfield influenced Baptists (OK Charleston/Sandy Creek – whatev); society missions baptists and independent missions baptists; “Some Spiritual gifts are closed with the canon” Baptists and “Non-cessationists” Baptists. These are a few of the ways we must embrace diversity.
But we also need to define by who we are ‘specifically’ not just who we are in diversity. Perhaps a “Theological Triage” would be helpful here in defining the SBC of tomorrow. Perhaps, Salvation by Grace thru faith in Christ alone, believer’s baptism, Sola Scriptura as the “basis” of all our various beliefs and traditions, and the Commission to make disciples in all the world would be a few points to begin the list of what is Baptist.
Good word Dave. Good rundown of SBC history and how it fits in the history of evangelicalism. From my perspective you provide a good voice to step back and look at things objectively.
Blessings,
m.b.
Dave,
I echo the kudos on the insight you show on this post, echoing (as you recognize in comment #1) the thoughts of Dockery in his book “Southern Baptist Identity.” He also says many of the same things in the “Building Bridges” booklet he co-wrote with Timothy George in 2007.
Maybe, just maybe, we can re-channel the blog discussion in the SBC from a focus on Calvinism and its alternatives, back to the underlying discussion on Baptist Identity, cooperation, and Christian unity. I, for one, am glad we are now basing our cooperation more in accord with our views of biblical authority, and not so much on common programs. And, this indeed does force us to relate in a different way with those outside the SBC who share our core convictions regarding biblical authority.
That is my intent.
The bigger picture and longer term view of history is that the SBC with a strong identity rooted in the programs and agencies of the convention is of a relatively short term and cerainly in the history of the church of more than 2,000 years is short term. It began in 1925, with the creation of the Cooperative Program. Prior to the CP’s creation each seminary had to go hat in ahd to individual churches to garner support. The CP was quite radical in the history of the church and enabled stable fianancial footing for Foreign Missions (and to a lesser extent here in America), the seminaries and colleges and to the Baptist Sunday School Board and all of the employess of the various agencies which supported these endeavors. And of course the agencies of the State Conventions.
However, the individual churches willingeness to suppor the CP came into question form a variety of fronts and not just a disagreement on theology, althought that was a significant factor. As more of the members of SBC Churches were from non-Baptist background, they didn’t have the institutional loyalty to support what some may have perceived as a “bureaucracy”. Also, more of the church members desired more of a hands-on approach to missions and wanted to actually go into the mission field rather then just give money to the CP. This was the result of the huge transformation in transportation technology. In 1925, the average mmeber of a SB Church had rarely traveled outside of their own state. Now, one can easily fly nonstop from Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Charlotte to the far reaches of the world at a “reasonable cost” so the church members are more willing to support those mission efforts they have personally been hands on involved with rather than just an organization like the IMB.
Another significant factor has been the rise of parachurch organizations particularly at the college level like Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity where many folks who grew up in a SBC Church got involved with these groups in college and began a pattern of suppor to on CP ministries.
Dave, as far as your father’s frustration that he can’t find a SBC Church like he grew up with, he is opening the door on the larger picture on how the SBC has changed its emphases in some repsects as a reaction to the huge transformations our culture has gone through over the last 50+years. Back in the early part of the 20th Century, there were “Baptist Distinctives” which many today would call legalism, but were well known in the southern culture – namely no drinking, dancing or card playing, etc. It is a rare occasion to hear a sermon preached on drinkingin many SBC Churches today and you’d be hard pressed to hear dancing or card playing mentioned. However, a Baptist College my family has been connected with had rules prohibitng all three as well a rule requiring all lights to be out by 10 PM.
The SBC your father knew is not coming back and that’s no the question. Rater the questions should be how can each individual church most effectively minister to the community where they are planted and not worry so much about the larger denomination. For example the Baptist church in Henagar, AL (on Sand Mountain)and Journey Metro Church in NYC are going to have quite different approaches in ministry to reach their respective locations, but the same mission. As each individual congregation focuses more on the local and less on what everyone else is doing, the byproduct will be the Body as a whole will grow and those ministries which need supporting like Foreign Ministries will be supported.
You know where Henagar is???? How do you know where Henagar is?? 🙂
Yes, I know where Henagar is because I have driven through it. Sand Mountain is a very distinct culture which is too far from any metro area for folks to commute to work and can therefore maintain a distinctively “rural southern culture” That is the reason I mentioned it.
Do you know where Henagar is?
Yes. I worked for a lady in Henagar doing bookkeeping while studying accounting in college.
Dave,
You might consider adding to your three bullet point questions: What about those who believe that the gospel of the kingdom includes what might be called social and economic justice mission and ministry? (Matthew 4: 23; Mark 1:14; Luke 4: 18, 19) This may be the most critical question that we should ask and answer as it relates to racial diversity.
I also had to throw in this question to give Frank L. something to disagree with me on -:). How the majority of White Baptists and Black Baptists answer this question so differently, may actually be the major barrier to genuine and sustained reconciliation and unity.
Dwight
Dave,
BTW, this may be your best post ever.
As it relates to my comment(# 20), I find it interesting that there are those at The Gospel Coalition that want to tie complementarianisms(sp) to the gospel, but they will not tie social and economic justice to the gospel. I believe Denny Burk recently b reported on this.
Dwight
Dwight, I think that would make for a great discussion…in a post of its own. i.e. What does it mean to have any of those things you mentioned “tied to the gospel?” Maybe you could write about it and kick it off. It would be a useful discussion and a welcome break from the C and NC posts of late.
Les
Ephesians 2 is a great place to look for that. Eph. 2:1-10 shows how Jesus saves us and vs. 11-22 shows the relational implications of that salvation. The dividing walls come down in Christ. You cannot divorce the second part from the first. It all goes together. 1 John 4 says that If you don’t love your brother, then the love of God is no in you. Implications are really important – essential, even.
I think it may be helpful here to distinguish between the root and the fruit of the gospel. Both are essential. But the fruit is not the root.
Les,
I’ll start to work on that post. May take some time. Thanks for the suggestion.
David, that is why I specified “implications.” I agree. But, without the fruit, there is also no root. We have been appointed to bear fruit that will last. They are different, but inseperable. I am just clarifying my intent here.
Probably because the reason some people are poor (“some” being a polite euphemism for “lots of”) are because they are too lazy to do what they need to do to earn enough money to live on. There’s no gospel mandate to help lazy people. They can do what I did–take out student loans, work two, sometimes three, jobs while in school, and study something that will allow them to get ahead. Instead, they sit on their tails and expect the govenment to give them the same standard of living that a person who actually works and contributes in a productive way has.
Oh, I forgot….cue the cries of “You’re a racist” in 5, 4, 3…….
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Yeah, you know what Greg, I don’t see even one mention of the government taking money out of peoples pockets to give to other people. Perhaps you could point out how that is what that passage means, because I may have missed it.
Joe,
Gotta go with you on this one. I doubt you will get an answer to your question.
Oh, Joe, I agree. I won’t even make the claim from a NT perspective that the church ought to extend that Acts church experience past believers. But righteousness, justice, and mercy are prevalent themes in the prophets and we also now view the nation of Israel as having a Kingdom stance that was to be open to sojourners of other tribes/ethnos (with rather specific acculturation and faith practice requirements I should be careful to note.) The nation missed that nuance and became inward focused on being a chosen people and–this has always been something that struck me–often acted like God got quite a deal choosing them.
A general dismissal of helps, though, seems to me a dismissal of the Matthew 25 parable of the sheep and goats. I won’t make the tie between that passage and the OT prophetic call for “justice” just so you won’t have that point to argue. It’s actually a higher calling: love.
Greg
What in the world are you talking about? Who said we should dismiss “helps”???? What I’m saying, and have said, is that the gospel does not mean that government should be able to take money out of the pocket of someone who worked for it to give it to someone who is too lazy to work for it. That doesn’t mean that if the church sees a family that has needs for food, shelter, clothing, etc, that the church shouldn’t help them even if the dad doesn’t want to get out and work. If we know a family or someone has a need, as a church we should help them.
Or Joe,
They can serve four to six years in the military, learn how to work long hours and get along with a diverse group, save thousands for college and go to school to fulfill your dreams.
Which means that they can have a better than average chance of getting deployed and getting killed by the people we are trying to “help” in a war that knows no end. That’s not a very just option for the generational poor in America.
The biggest issue I have with Joe’s position is that assumes that a person who is not working is lazy. Maybe they can’t read or write or possibly they are caring for a relative or child and cannot afford care for that family member.
Further, are either of you aware of the massive amount of under-employment in our country? In many cases, it is literally work, lose your benefits, and starve because the job you have cuts off your benefits because you make too much money, just not enough to live on, or don’t work and be labeled lazy. It is a vicious cycle that keeps many families enslaved to the welfare system for generations.
I want people to work and not on welfare for years, but I do not think that the current system makes that possible. We have to fix the system before we can address the problems of generational welfare and Joe’s accusations of lazy people.
Dwight,
Interesting observation. I listened to the recent discussion posted on Burk’s blog with Carson, Piper, and Keller talking about complementarianism, the gospel, and The Gospel Coalition. They seem to admit that complementarianism in and of itself is not directly tied to the gospel (or at least, is not a gospel essential), but rather indirectly. I would be interested to see, however, exactly where, as you say, “they will not tie social and economic justice to the gospel.” I think they might say it is a necessary application of the gospel, but not in and of itself the core of the gospel. In any case, I think it would be a good discussion to see how they respond to your challenge here, comparing the level of gospel centrality of complementarianism to that of social and economic justice.
David Rogers,
I distinctly recall Al Mohler–who is a member of The Gospel Coalition I think–debating Jim Wallis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on this very subject. Mohler argued–if my memory serves me correctly– that social and economic justice is not a part of the gospel. Wallis argued to the contrary. I believe most Southern Baptists would take Mohler’s position. I believe most National Baptists, and most Black Southern Baptists would argue Waller’s position.
I will begin to work on a post addressing this matter. However, it will take me some time due to more pressing matters.
I will look forward to your post. I think you need to listen carefully to nuances that the GC folks have on this, though. I recommend looking, for example, at what Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung have to say in “What Is the Mission of the Church?” on the wide-angle lens view of the gospel, and the narrow-angle lens.
Also, I think Keller takes a bit of a different slant on this than some of the others, at least in the type of language he uses, and the emphasis he gives to social justice.
Dr. McKISSIC,
I would love to read your post on social and economic justice.
There are no problems in our world for which the Gospel of Our Lord is not a response.
I do not see how social or economic justice can be separated from the Gospel. The Gospel that Jesus preached – the ONLY Gospel He preached – was the Gospel of the Kingdom. This Gospel announces the reign and rule of God. The Plan of Salvation is not all that the Gospel is. The Gospel is the heralding of the inbreaking reign and rule of God through Jesus Christ over all things. Southern Baptists have often preached a truncated gospel and said that was all that there was to it – here is how you get forgiven of sin and get to heaven. But, the Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles preached was much more all-encompassing.
God is a God of justice and mercy. A cursory reading of the Pentateuch will show how God established justice, both economically and socially among His people. But, because of sin, they could not follow His way. When Messiah came, He set all things right. The character of God displayed in the Law of God is now written on our hearts. How can we be followers of Jesus and not take seriously the mandate of “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” Micah 6:8.
Truncating the gospel and leaving out justice as an implication of reconciliation to God through Jesus is a grave error, in my opinion. Doing justice does not a save a person. But, a saved person cannot ignore the cries of the oppressed or contribute to their oppression. Oppression comes in many different forms.
Now, the other side of things is that Joe is right as well. Doing justice does not mean that we give away money to the those who refuse to work or try and better their situation. It does mean that we lay our lives down to remove unjust barriers, but if a person is able bodied and refuses to work, he should not be able to eat until he begins to contribute through his own hard work and effort.
The Gospel of the Kingdom has both vertical and horizontal implications – it touches every aspect of life. How we are justified by faith in Christ is just one aspect – the central core of the Gospel. But, the Good News of Jesus Christ touches upon everything.
Dwight,
My son bought the book Generous Justice by Tim Keller today and has already read a good portion and read a number of key quotes and paragraphs to me. I definitely think you should check this source out as you are preparing your research on your upcoming post. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at what this key leader of the Gospel Coalition has to say with regard to the Bible and social justice.
I join others in looking forward to your post!
Dwight,
I found that odd as well. I really like a lot of what the GC has done but I am afraid if they press this one too far they risk jumping the shark as an organization- and I am a complimentarian.
Dwight, for the historical record, there was a significant emphasis on the Civil Rights Movement within the SBC back in the 1960’s most specifically amongst the “Moderates” at Southern Seminary and the churches most strongly connected to it and elsewhere. However, after the legislative vicotories occurred (like the Voting Rights Act of 1965) anf Fair Housing Laws were passed, there was a general feeling that since legal discrimination was outlawed, what more should be done?
Many of these Moderates who took on the Civil Rights causes continued on with other causes like opposition to the Viet Nam War, Women’s Rights (and abortion was to a certain extent a part of this as the Rowe vs. Wade decision was in 1973) and therefore were perceived as liberals and were part of the catalyst for the Conservative Resurgence. As a result, those who had previously been the activisits for Civil Rights ended up leaving the SBC in the 1980’s and there hasn’t been much discussion on the issues of race since then – except for the resolution in 1995 addressing the SBC’s past actions.
Dwight, it may amuse you to learn I tend to lean toward “social and economic justice” as being a significant part of the gospel.
Where we differ would be on the approach. Whereas moderate (liberals in knickers) miss the boat is in attempting to seek social and economic justice through socialistic legislation.
That has some immediate effect, as I think the Civil Rights movement proved for example, but it will always fall short of what a godly social and economic justice looks like.
I’m afraid I’d differ greatly from Wallis’ approach. I’m not sure I’d state it as strongly as you say Mohler stated it (I have not seen the debate).
As David said, the moderate (legislative) approach alone did little to change hearts, as it has been many decades since Martin Luther KIng and the election of FRed Luter.
I do believe however, that a legislative component is absolutely key to developing a socially and economically just society. It’s the details (Affirmative Action, Quotas, etc. that cause problems for me).
What I mean to say, Dwight, is that in regard to the racism issue I am your comrade, just not your clone.
Frank L.,
Wow!!!! I am flabergasted. I knew you would echo views like our friend Joe Blackmon in comment # 30. If you view social and economic justice as a significant part of the gospel, we certainly are comrades. Forgive me for misjudging you on this issue.
I’m sure though when I present my post, you’ll find room for disagreement. I’m always sharpened and strengthened by your disagreements until we start going around in circles.
Dwight,
I’m counting on your straight-forward, take-no-prisoners style to push my buttons. As a master of overstatement and hyperbole, those who use such things annoy me.
But, I’m going to do my best to present my perspective in a way that will help us come to a conclusion that will bring resolve, not just breed rhetoric.
By the way . . . . I’m going to read Joe’s comment up at 30. Generally, I greatly appreciate Joes subtlties in presenting his views.
Although some may feel he lacks passion and is not straightforward in his opinions . . . wait, we were talking about Joe, right?
I’m thinking you meant comment #31. That being the case, I stand in agreement with Joe that many who we call “poor,” would better be labeled, “lazy.”
Both need our help, but in very different ways.
For example: economic justice for a child of poverty may be to get the Baby Daddy off his butt and working. If the family receives economic support from the government, then Papa Bear should be looking for work and picking up trash on city streets.
Economic justice is a “hand up,” not a “hand out.”
I’m not sure that Joe was saying that there is not “social or economic” component to the gospel. I think he was addressing a moral issue the Bible refers to as “sloth.”
Joe, help me here.
Frank, what I guess I was saying is that the church having a mandate to help the poor DOES mean that the church should help poor folks meet their needs. For instance, a church I was a member of a few years ago had several doctors as members. Once a month we ran a free clinic. The church I’m currently a member of ministers to the poor in the community through a community garden, taking up benevolence offerings, clothing drives, etc.
What having a mandate to help the poor does NOT mean is that we should support socialized redistribution of income. it also doesn’t mean that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. There is nothing wrong with someone making more moeny than me, having a nicer car than me, and taking nicer vacations than I do. The idea that social justice means that we take from the rich to give to the poor is bunk, especially when there are poor people who are able bodied, able minded, but not willing to work hard enough to take care of themselves. As cheerleaders used to chant at football games “EL AY ZEE WHY, You ain’t got no alibi, you LAZY!!! You LAZY!!!!”.
Joe,
I thought that your answer would be as it was. I think you some up the distinctions nicely.
Now, here’s what I don’t understand . . . how did I end up agreeing with you and Dwight at the same time?
Tim Keller certainly believes that the Gospel and Justice are intimately related. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/december/10.69.html
Dave,
The Bible says to give double honor to those who serve well. I agree with Dwight that this is your best post. Please pay yourself twice what you paid yourself for your last post. And my Rangers will see your Yankees again soon.
May your Rangers (n)ever prevail.
It is that kind of editorial control that makes this site a prime example of what’s wrong with Baptist Sports Blogs!!!
I was just trying to help you out.
Vance Havner, Herschel Hobbs, George Truett, W A Crisewell, Adrian Rogers, Billy Graham, B H Carroll, Annie Armstrong, Dodd, Lakin, Ham and on and on. I am convinced we are not as unified today because while we have great people of God none seem to be able to provide direction the leaders of old could. Trads and Calvinist would follow Vance Havner and most would not dispute him even if they believed him to be wrong. We have a void where these people stood. Maybe soon God will give us a Bertha Smith.
I think Dean is right. We’ve lost our great leaders of the past. We just dont have that right now. Really, after Dr. Adrian Rogers died, the SBC has been fragmented.
David
I don’t think it really roots in an absence of leaders as much as it is in the absence of a unifying conflict. During the CR, we had a battle that we thought was bigger than our other differences. ONce that battle was gone, we began to look more at those things on which we differ than on what we agree on.
It’s human nature. Fleshly, perhaps, but natural.
I agree. We have a leadership crisis in the SBC right now. A lot of good folks, but no champions in the mix. I am praying that God will raise up someone for such a time as this.
While I am honored by the deep regard with which my father is often held and extremely grateful for the legacy of faithful leadership he left behind, I think he would be the first to say that a church or denomination that is built, or stays together, on the basis of a few charismatic or dynamic leaders is not following the model Christ intended.
I think there are still many godly and gifted leaders within the SBC today. It is God who sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts, and places each gift and gifted member in the Body in the way He sees fit. In other words, we have the gifts and the gifted men (and women) in the SBC today that God sees fit for us to have. Though we may have fond memories of the past, and the victories God led us to achieve in the past, we must together seek God’s wisdom today, with the resources He gives us today, to face the challenges we face today.
“”””In other words, we have the gifts and the gifted men (and women) in the SBC today that God sees fit for us to have. Though we may have fond memories of the past, and the victories God led us to achieve in the past, we must together seek God’s wisdom today, with the resources He gives us today, to face the challenges we face today.””””
Amen, and amen!
What Josh said.
David it is with the greatest respect for your family as I say this. There is no question that God has provided all His church needs to be successful. What I think I was trying to say is we have always had leaders in the past that could focus us whenever an issue came up. I remember when we were debating the 2000 b f and m. Debate was back and forth on wives submitting to husbands. It went on for a while. A group was pushing that Christians are to submit one to another not merely wives to husbands. Dr Rogers rose to a mic out of the way, introduced himsel like it was necessary and said in Eph 5 the wife is to submit to husband as Christ to the church. Under your rational the Lord would have to submit to the church. That must never be. Not another word was said. Maybe we fail at following today but no one today could offer a short reply and all debate be over.
Brother Rogers – Your father was my mother’s pastor. She moved to Bellevue Woods to retire after my father passed away and joined Bellevue Baptist Church. Even though challenged with leadership of that mega church and drawn in various directions, Dr. Rogers still found time for hospital visitation. He prayed with my mother during one of her hospital stays. Our family is thankful for Dr. Rogers’ love – he knew a love worth finding. The SBC was honored to have him as a leader, but your father would indeed point to Christ and give Him the glory.
God looks for a man among them.
I meant to also say great job Dave and I agree with your assessment as well.
It is so true that many have been underprivileged due to racial bias both in the past and yet today. And the SBC was a sinful contributor as well.
And certainly we as citizens of the USA should seek legislative means to help alleviate where possible.
But the goal of the church is to point men away from the world and its chains of the flesh, and point them to Christ, and the eternal salvation of their souls. So as we do what we can to help those in need of food and shelter, we should never confuse that with their greater need of hearing of their sin and condemnation and the only hope which is in Jesus.
There is coming a day when those that reject sin and stand against it and for Jesus may have trouble feeding their families. Thus we should not neglect the poor but rather focus on them and their needs, both eternal and of the flesh.
These are excellent questions and reflection. I grew up in the same SBC that you describe, in a small church of 60 to 70 people in Arizona, well outside the Southern Culture on which most of the denomination developed and thrived in the 50’s and 60’s. The church was isolated, distinguished from all other Christian churches in the community, including the other Baptists, but tied to the SBC and its sister Southern Baptist churches. But during those years, like most SBC churches in the state, it grew by “chasing down cars with Texas, Mississippi and Alabama license plates.” Reaching local people, in a diverse culture like Arizona, where people from all over the country were moving, was beyond the ability of most of the churches.
I have to wonder if the changes that have come about, which I believe are the result of the movement of the Holy Spirit, are a deliberate plan of God to break down denominational walls in his church and bring his people together. Denominations aren’t Biblical, and many of the things that separate us as Christians are petty and insignificant. I was taught, from the cradle roll and beginner’s Sunday School class right up through the Baptist college and seminary (Southwestern) I attended about “Baptist distinctives.” My wife and I have been a member of a church of a different denomination for two years now and have discovered that the Christians in the new church we attend hold to the same things we always thought were exclusively Baptist. In fact, aside from some differences in church governance, I have noticed little, if any, theological differences.
This is post-denominationalism. I think it is the future of the American church.
Two hypotheical women: Woman A made some poor choices early in life (drugs, sex, didn’t take school seriously). She works as a cashier at McDonald’s for about 30=38 hours a week (no overtime). This does not pay enough to take care of her and her three baby by four different daddy (she’s not sure who the last one’s father is–could be one of two guys). She doesn’t have health insurance so for medical care she relys on the county health department. She shops at Goodwill cause that’s all she can afford so her kids don’t have the best clothes. She drives a beat up old car. Sometimes she needs help getting groceries at the end of a paycheck.
Woman B has a degree in accounting. She’s married to the CFO of some company and is now a stay at home mom. They have 3 kids and her husband brings home about $250,000 a year. She drives a fancy minivan and shops at expensive stores for her and her kids clothes. They have excellent health insurance so when they go to the doctor it’s at Vanderbilt. They never worry about food, clothes, or money.
Now, is there inequality in the above scenario? Yes. Is it unfair and unjust? If you ask Dwight McKissic or Alan Cross, they would answer “Yes, of course it is. The gospel says it’s wrong for Woman B to have so much while Woman A barely gets by.” Of course, the fact is it is NOT unfair NOR is it unjust. The gospel does NOT mean that we have to lower B’s standard of living to raise A’s standard of living. It is perfectly fair for B to have more and be more comfortable than A.
What the gospel DOES say is that the church, not the beloved President Barak Obama and his toadies on captial hill, should help A. And it’s not enough for the church to say “We didn’t know A needed help”. If we don’t know our community well enough to know they need help, I think that’s a sin. If someone is worried about having food for their kids and the church doesn’t help, I believe the church will answer to God for that. That doesn’t mean that the church is going to be able to give A the kind of life B has. It means when the church sees A in need, the church helps A.
I think the world is ending because I am going to agree with Joe to an extent. I do not think that it is unjust that A makes less than B and I do not think that B needs to be brought down so that A can be brought up. I also agree That it is the church and not the government that is responsible to care for A and her needs.
Where we will diverge I am sure is what has to happen when the church fails to care for A and her needs. Then the responsibility has to fall to the government because the church failed to do what it should do.
That’s the situation we live in today. A lot of that reality is because the church does a poor job of articulating what Joe said in his comment.
Joe I also think some of the issue the church has with serving those who need help is wrapped up in your laziness rhetoric that you have used in other posts. Instead of castigating those who have been brough up in generational poverty, why not instead turn your criticisms to the churh for failing to serve, help, educate, and break this cycle of poverty. That’s the real issue and that is the economic justice component of the gospel. I do not think that Dwight and Alan would put the onus of serving those who are downtrodden on the government if the church was doing its job. However, until the church leaves its position that the poor are lazy and begins to serve them, I do not think you will see the end of the cycle of the welfare state.
Just my 2 cents, but I am glad to hear some measure of compassion from you for Woman A. It’s good to see a dialogue like this on Voices where we are actually getting somewhere.
I 100% agree that the church has not done enough. I am ashamed to say I haven’t done enough and have made some bonehead decisions that have severly hamstrung my ability to help people. I’m going to have to answer for that. We’re trying to dig out of debt right now for just that reason.
Ryan you mention more than once the churches failure to serve. You do not mention that as with time, money can be spent anyway we want, but it can only be spent once.
When the government takes 40 percent or more of one’s income, there is less to give to the church.
You and I differ greatly on what we feel the government’s role is. I see government as the problem. You see it as part of the solution. When government is seen as part of the solution to generational poverty, this creates a vicious cycle.
Of course, the church could always do better–this argument comes up frequently. However, consider that Obama, a rich man professing to be a Christian gives 1% as a government official; and Romney, a thorough going churchman gives 15% to charity. He also recently gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
My point is: government vs. church–church wins hands down in the fight against poverty. The government helps create it. The church helps ameliorate it.
I believe I said that government is part of the solution WHEN the church fails to do her job. I’m pretty sure I was clear on that since Joe was agreeing with me- which has happened exactly twice before. 🙂
I’m very interested in your description of Romney as a “thorough going churchman.” Mitt Romney is a Mormon- a cult- not a Christian. I don’t care how much money he or Obama gives to charity. I care about Christians- as individuals and as churches- taking care of the poor so that the government does not have to.
What would you prefer Frank? Do you want the government to stand by and let people- children, the elderly, the infirm- starve to death while the church sits by and does nothing? With all the Christian churches in the United States working on the issue of poverty- we could turn around the mess we have created in a generation. I want the church to get off its holy backside and DO something about poverty instead of griping about the fact that the government is taxing people to do the Church’s job.
When we realize the mandate the comes with the Gospel to care for the poor, the government’s role will begin to shrink and the glory of Christ will be made known.
Ryan,
First of all I would like to say it’s been my experience that conservative churches and Christians are far and away the biggest givers to the poor in America. But and at what point are we to stop subsidizing people’s bad choices? This is something I’ve struggled with as a pastor for a long time. We have a lady here in town who has several children out of wedlock and we’ve helped her several times, but I don’t think she realizes that her poverty is caused by giving her boyfriends what they want without committment. I truly feel sorry for her children but is the church supposed to subsidize this woman indefinitely? I feel terrible because I must admit at times I’ve been a bit callous with her at times because I know that I’m just enabling her.
John,
To speak to your example, what kind of helpmhave you given her? Have you simply given her money to help with bills? A woman in that situation needs more than money. She needs education. She needs a mentor and a friend who can help to guide her away from poor choices and sinful living. That’s part of the problem with government programs- they just give money with very little education attached. The church can do more, but when we help it often resembles what the government does- we write a check.
Helping the poor is messy. We have to get into their world and get involved. I see lots of conservative Christians who will write checks as well, but far fewer who will invest their time and energy helping a poor person to become educated or employed. Even fewer who will employ someone with a record to give them a second chance or who will put their reputation on e line to help a poor person get a job by being a reference and advocating for them with a potential employer.
The issues are greater than money. I agree with you that we do not want to enable, but the key to not enabling is not to just stop giving money. It is to begin to educate and help the person to break the cycle of poverty. That’s much harder to do and it’s where we fail the most.
Ryan,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I know I need to improve in this area.
Well, Ryan. I suppose that perhaps you start with “you.” When you have given all your money to the poor, then you can demand by example that everyone else give all their money to the poor.
I guess I could ask: do you support the government using force to take from those who have to give to those who do not have?
Also, you say you “don’t care” (representing a government official, and Romney representing a church-going devotee to Christ as he defines it), I’m wondering why you then would paint the church with such a broad brush.
You ignore the facts that do not fit your proposition. While that is convenient, it is not persuasive.
Here I’ll tackle it another way: the main reason anybody is hungry in America today is because of the government, not the church. When the government took over benevolence and charity, more people entered the hunger rolls. That’s a fact.
When the church people were keeping their money and giving it freely, there were less on the hunger rolls.
You speak very strongly about how “bad the church is doing” (mentioning something about the backside), but you don’t say what “you” and your church is doing.
You only give me two choices: surrender to the government or let “children, elderly, the infirm” starve to death. That is not a forced option that is very appealing to me.
I do doubt very seriously that your railing “against the church” is going to do much to motivate anyone to get out and actually care for the “children, elderly, and affirm.” I don’t rail on my church even though they could do much better. I do try to lead by example and provides clear pathways for them to enter the battle against poverty, homelessness, and such.
I’ve already agreed that you and I do not approach this problem the same way. I am very open to hearing how you are actually addressing the problem.
Whereas you resent me “griping about the government taking my money excessively,” I probably resent you “griping about the church doing nothing.”
Frank,
You have accused me on a couple of occasions of dealing very uncharitably with you. I am trying to take that to heart in how I respond to you, but you are making that very difficult because I truly do not feel like you are reading what I am writing, and are instead seizing on certain words in my responses and leveraging them against me.
I did not say that the only choice was the government taking care of people or people starving. I said that the government had to step in to keep people from starving as the church left behind its mission to the poor in the 1920’s and 30’s.
Further, I am not sure what you are referring to about the government taking money from people by force. Are you referring to taxes? Jesus told us we were to pay our taxes. He never used the onerous tax system of the Roman government as an excuse to not take care of the poor. Neither did the first century church. I promise, if you will study the taxation process that the early church lived under you will never complain about the IRS again. 🙂
Finally, you want to hear about what my church does to take care of the poor in our area? I would love to tell you. First, we have MissionOK which works in low income apartments in West OKC. We provide everything from financial planning, to parenting classes, Bible studies for single moms and children, and a clothes/furniture closet. We have provided financial assistance for families for rent, car payments, bills, etc. We provide references for people seeking work and try to help place people in jobs- although that is not yet an official part of the ministry. We also have a ministry called Jacob’s Cupboard which is a food pantry to delivers food to the needy with no strings- no ID, no proof of income, and no limit on access. It is the only one of its kind in Canadian County. We do all of these things in addition to having a fully functioning church- that has Saturday and Sunday services, small groups, and youth and kids ministry. My church runs right at 100 between 2 services. Most of our people are young and lower middle class to true middle class. Not a millionaire in the bunch. We do it by giving sacrificially and trusting God with our finances.
Finally, I am still very disturbed by your references to Mitt Romney. Frank, he is not a Christian. He does not “follow Christ as he defines it.” He follows a false Christ- a demon or anti-Christ- not King Jesus. So I don’t care how much he or President Obama give to charities. I care about what the Church should be doing to help the poor.
I really hope that clears up some of your misunderstandings of what I have tried to kindly and gently write to you today. I am assuming that the first sentence of your response was tongue in cheek. I have never advocated giving away all of your money and becoming poor. If that’s the example you are looking for, I would refer you to Mother Teresa, Shane Caliborne, Rich Mullins- modern examples of this type of asceticism. However, I would also refer you to Rick Warren who has been living the reverse tithe for the last few years- living on 10% of his income and giving away 90%. Quite a challenge isn’t it. 🙂
Have an enjoyable rest of the day Frank and please try not to just seize on one or two things in this response. Read the whole thing. 🙂
“””So I don’t care how much he or President Obama give to charities”””
I know, you’ve said this a number of times.
You’ve also chastised me several times for saying Romney was a Christian. I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I plainly stated the opposite.
I’m not asking you to “complain about increasing taxes.” Vote for Obama and you will eventually be giving more of your money away–money you could give to the poor.
Jesus never encouraged us to seek out persecution, as in, blindly giving allegience to any tax program any government chooses to put in place. I don’t count that as piety, but as foolishness.
And, please keep in mind, I was only answering your question about “letting children, et. al. starve.” You “gently” implied that was what I propose. I simply rejected that appeal.
Also, just for the record, reverse tithing is great but it must be kept into perspective. Jesus does not count what we give–as I understand the widow’s mite–but what we have left. I pointed that out in my question to you which you answered, though not directly. So, while I acknowledge reverse tithing in principle as a wonderful testimony, in practice is is less so.
You continue to misunderstand and misapply my comparison of Obama and Romney’s giving as indicative of why your ranting against the church falls on deaf ears with me. But, I’ll leave that as it is.
I’m so pleased to see you are actually putting your wallet where your ministry is. So, at least there are two churches–yours and mine (and I know of many more)–who actually do care about the poor. So, we have some agreement on this matter.
We have a different approach on the place of government in regard to poverty. I suspect that will not be a place to build a bridge.
Another point of agreement I think we have is: the church can and should do more (where you seem to imply it is doing nothing, though I think you may be speaking hyperbolically).
So, here’s how I’d attack the problem: less to the government, less from the government; more to the people, more from the people. People in this instance meaning Christians.
Again, Mitt Romney’s model seems superior to that of Obama’s. Romney believes, pay as little to the government as possible and give as much as possible to charity. Obama believes, take as much for government, waste the majority of it, and complain that the church should do more.
Perhaps I overstate the differences a bit, but I think you can see my point–though you may not agree with it.
What the scriptures say, with regard to the church, is that an identifying mark of true Christian identity is having everything in common. You’ll find that in Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-37 and 5:1-11. Where you find the believers having everything, including their wealth and property, in common, you find spiritual power that is rarely seen in the church today, especially in prosperous America. What the church was actually practicing in Acts was based on the Old Testament model of Israel, where the “government” equalized the distribution of wealth for the purpose of keeping people from taking advantage of others, accumulating too much wealth, and made sure there was provision for the poor out of the nation’s abundance. The year of Jubilee was a great equalizer.
Of course, that only works when God is in charge, and either enforces the law through a prophetic voice, as in the Old Testament, or when people are completely submitted to his Holy Spirit, as in the Acts example.
I have always said that the key to revival in America’s churches is to pay attention to the principles in Acts that led to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. But those passages are probably the only part of the Bible that most conservative Christians either avoid preaching from altogether, or interpret differently from the literal, historical method they use for the rest of the Bible.
Denominations are useful in the fact that they allow Christians to remain separate from social clubs that call themselves a church but are not because they reject the gospel. For example, some denominations:
1) believe the Bible “contains” the word of God rather than it IS the word of God.
2) teach that the miracles of scripture never happened and that the virgin birth of Christ and His resurrection is nothing more than myth.
3) believe and teach that Bible isn’t literally true and that it’s truthfulness extends only to matters of faith and practice (they reject inerrancy).
4) believe that people from other faiths will be saved without ever personally, consciously trusting Christ in this life time.
However, Christians reject these and no Christian church should fellowship or cooperate with any social club pretending to be a church tha believes these.
Lee,
Of course you miss stating that the church shared everything willingly, and without compulsion. It was not a church fiat, and certainly not a government mandate, that brought about the “common sharing,” but gracious and willing hearts.
It is also important to point out that the Bible also says, “If a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat.” And, of course, the Bible distinguishes those who are “true” widows, from those who have family which bears the primary burden for care.
To suggest that: (1) the idea of jubilee has any modern application in America; (2) or that the N.T. teaches any form of “communism,” would be two misapplications of the Bible’s teaching in my view.
What I said was “that only happens when God is in charge, or when people are completely submitted to the Holy Spirit.” When that happens, it is not hard for them to have willing, gracious hearts. What would we see, in this country, if we had a Christian church that was completely submitted to the Holy Spirit? Poverty, as we know it, would not exist.
Lee,
I don’t see a problem with what you are saying as long as we agree it has to be “willing” and without any coercion from outside.
Poverty, though, as we know it will always exist. The Lord said so Himself. All we can do is try to alleviate the suffering one soul at a time.
I don’t subscribe to any fantasy that suggests some day (this side of heaven) poverty and suffering will not exist. Of course, if the condition as you state it above (or below) ever existed, or could exist, this world would see a drastic reduction of suffering.
I’m with you on that, for sure.
Poverty, as we know it, would not exist.
John 12:8 (ESV) For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”
But don’t tell me, let me guess–that’s part of the Bible that isn’t scripture because the Bible “contains” the word of God, right Lee?
There are some biblical guidelines for RESPONDING to the poor among us:
Deut. 15:7 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Deut. 26:12 When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.
Lev. 19:19 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.
Prov. 31:8 [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.
Is. 58:66 Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Jer. 22:3 Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Luke 12:33 “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.”
Luke 3:11 And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, “Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise.”
Mt. 5:42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
If we had a “Christian Church” that was completely submitted to the Holy Spirit, “poverty as we know it” would not exist.
That is true, but not fore the reasons you seem to suggest, Lee. For if we had a “Christian Church” that was completely submitted to the Holy Spirit, poverty among Christians, persecution toward Christians, and various other hardships upon Christians would be far worse.
Yet, there would be one great advantage and blessing for the Christian Church if all the Christ followers were completely submitted to the Holy Spirit. The number of apostates among us would be far less than it is in the present.
Frank: Lee said nothing about coercion or government mandate, but being Holy Spirit led. I agree with him.
Joe: The Bible also says that if you do for the least of these you are doing it to Christ. So Christ advocated the very thing Lee, Alan Cross and others are advocating. Scripture interprets scripture. You can’t just pull one verse out of a hat and call it Biblical. That is pre-text not context.
CB: I am always amazed at those who think persecution is the answer, like a badge of honor. Instead of enjoying the blessings God gives, avocation of persecution is the answer. Yet those who are pulling for persecution and most times doing so by fighting culture instead of giving comfort and aid are the ones who if persecuted can’t handle it. I think a lesson in compassion is needed to some in the church.
L’s
Not one of those verses mandates government redistribution of income to lazy people who are able bodied, abile minded, but don’t want to work for what they have.
The Bible also says that if you do for the least of these you are doing it to Christ.
Who yanked your chain? The Bible does say we should take care of the poor. The Bible DOESN’T say the government can or should come take money out of MY POCKET that I EARNED and give it to other people who are able bodied, able minded but too lazy to lift a spoon of food to their mouth which is EXACTLY what Lee and Alan are advocating.
Good people who need some help to get on their feet don’t feel entitled to government handouts and work to get themselves off of them. The able bodied, able minded LEECHES who believe the govenment not only owes them food, clothes, shelter, and health care also believe the government owes them the same food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare that someone who is upper middle income gets. Sorry, if people on foodstamps and Medicaid don’t have the same quality of life as someone who works somewhere making $50,000=$75,000ish (or even $200,000) per year, that is unequal but it is NOT unjust–unless you’re a political liberal, right Debbie? Because, after all, they “didn’t build that” did they?
Also, Debs, if Jesus said you will always have the poor with you, what that means is there is no way to eliminate poverty in this lifetime so Lee’s statement is stupid and contridicts my Lord and Savior.
Just because there are poor people doesn’t mean their poverty is unjust–except to political liberals.
Joe,
I love this point of view: “””that is unequal but it is NOT unjust.”””
What some seem to advocate as “social justice” is social equality, which is socialism.
You will never convince those who lean to the left that the Bible recognizes and accepts this as the common experience of man. The interesting thing about it, for me is, even in heaven with God in full reign, there will be justice without equality.
That’s an interesting concept that many sermons on heaven seem to miss completely.
God bless you, Joe. Have a great week.
Frank,
Thank you. What you’ll never convince the left wingers here about is the REASON it’s not unjust. Somebody who whines about “I can’t support my baby on my full time minimum wage job” needs someone to tell them “Well, DUH, you’re not not SUPPOSED to be able to”.
Now, for some people, a full time minimum wage job may be all they’re capable of and they need help. I’m fine with helping them and if it has to be through food stamps and medicaid, I am not opposed to maintaining the programs we’ve got now. But those people on those programs have no right to expect anything beyond the bare bones basics where they have just enough to get by. They’re never going to have a nice house, nice clothes, nice car, or whatever, but while that is unequal it is perfectly fair.
The mentality of those folks and those like Debbie that support them can be summed up in this anecdote: I was the manager of a pizza place. This elderly woman was sitting in the lobby to get in out of the heat. She had a trache and in a raspy voice said “I’m hungry. I’d sure like a pizza”. Now, I could have given her a free pizza, but I wasn’t about to do that. I did offer, however, to send one of my drivers over with money out of my pocket and buy her a loaf of bread and some penut butter and jelly. She snorted agnrily “No thanks”. If you’re begging you don’t deserve the best, most expensive food. Someone who is begging but has character and has been raised correctly would be thankful for anything they got. Someone who is begging and hasn’t been raised right and feels entitled is indignant when they’re given a bologna sandwich when they see someone eating steak. Their reaction speaks volumes about their character.
Debbie, Matthew 25 is the judgment of the nations and the Lord is judging the nations bases on their treatment of the Hebrews during the tribulation. He did say these the least of these my brothers or sisters you did it for me. The separation of goats and sheep is based on treatment of Jews. Many verses can be used to help others but this one does not apply to this discussion.
Joe: The Bible also says “Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right Spirit in me.” These lead to love for our Lord which also leads to love for people. Compassion. I have no problem with money coming out of my pocket, hard earned money to go for these types of programs. You need to live in reality. These people are not all lazy. Yes, some are alcoholics, some have a drug problem, but that is not the fault of the children. And it’s the children who suffer most with your kind of mindset. I see it as a lack of compassion and an unChristian, selfish attitude. The flesh talking Joe.
Joe, for such a young man, your wisdom sometimes astounds me about as much as your straight-forwardness sometimes scares me.
And that yanks my chain every single time.
Dean: You may very well be right, or it could be judgment on the church for not doing it’s part and having attitudes as some here. Or it could be none of the above. It could be life. Either way we are called to feed and clothe those who don’t have. I have been doing that for many years as have others. The government stepping in does not bother me at all and I am a tax payer and US citizen.
To call people lazy and other names that some have here may have it too cushy, which I also do not think is a problem. They earned it, but some of the most generous Christians I have known were those who understood Grace as the Bible teaches it. They are both rich and poor, yet they give without thinking, all one has to do is present the need. That is a working Christianity that the world sees. That is giving Christ in a practical way that they can grasp.
“To whom much is given, of him much is required.” Luke 12:48
And Dean, read Matthew 25 again. I would disagree with your interpretation. It is speaking of individuals who claim to be Christians.
Debbie
Give me a break. Compassion does not mean that the government has the right to take money out of my wallet and give it to lazy people. And yes, a good number of them are lazy because they believe that if someone is eating shrimp at Red Lobster while they’re eating Chunky Soup that they are being treated unfairly and unjustly, which you would agree with. In contrast, intelligent people with sense recognize that while it is unequal, it is most certainly NOT unjust. Want a better life? Earn it!!
Oh, and I guess you missed the part when I said I offered to buy the woman a loaf of bread and pbj. Of course, when you’re sitting at you fire snorting and huffing so bad you can’t even finish a though without pressing “Submit” so you have to put up three comments in a row cause you worked up into such a lather, I bet it’s hard for you to read, huh?
Frank
It’s a blessing, and a curse. 🙂
Shoot me an email sometime, dude.
joe(dot)blackmon72(at)yahoo(dot)com
Wow Debbie salvation through philanthropy. What a keen interpretation.
Dean
Yeah, they don’t do that whole “sound interpretation” thing up in Enid. 🙂
Listen: You guys are full of hate and venom and that is a Christian attitude? No. All I can tell you is what the passage says. It is not speaking of nations, although that would take the heat off of a lot of people. And for the sake of argument, since Fundamentalists usually relate passages to whole nations(which sometimes it is, but not in this or a whole lot of other cases, it is individuals in scripture), it seems to take the heat off of them as individuals, because they can always shuffle the blame to a nation instead of themselves. But nations are made up of people. Individual people. Us. So it still applies.
Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)
Page Options
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email
Add parallel
<<
>>
Show resources
Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”
Now you can demonize me and vilify me all you want. In fact when you do this, the more I believe what I am saying is right. But the passage among others is clear. Now if you can live with that, so be it. But don’t put God’s name, Christ’s name or even Christianity in it, because that is not only wrong, but it is none of the above. It is being selfish. That is is. But I am not the Holy Spirit nor will I try to do His job.
And this is the result of salvation, the result of the Holy Spirit doing a work in our hearts. The result of sanctification, not the way to salvation, that too results in a one way ticket to hell. Christ is the only way and faith in Christ.
The rewards is based entirely on works. Righteousness and eternal life given to an individual based on works. It is a concept that is foreign. No books are found. No Lambs book of life is mentioned. If I feed the hungry I’m saved. If I don’t them I am condemned. I’m sorry. My heart is not full of hate I just reject salvation through philanthropy.
Debbe I have not commented on this line at all. I am not interested in discussing the subject. I said to you there are plenty of verses to use for feeding the poor. I actually agreed w you. However Matt 25 is the judgment of the nations and that is not such a verse. You then instructed me to read the chapter again. I don’t need to I have taught it many times. I have not demonized you though you told me not to use the name Jesus or Christian in your last comment. With that I bow out of a discussion I am not interested in.
Debbie,
I think that once again, you have missed my point. But hey, who’s counting?
“”””You need to live in reality. These people are not all lazy. Yes, some are alcoholics, some have a drug problem, but that is not the fault of the children.”””
I read statements like this after reading the posts to which it refers and just shake my head. I see anyone who disagrees with a liberal, left-wing agenda–which is part of the problem–being accused of “hate.”
This particular person I try to avoid because accusations such as “hate” come up often.
The other issue that comes to mind when people demand that others give their money away to the poor (sort of the Judas Program), is that these people often do not actually have to deal with the very people they want me to give my money to.
Almost everyday for the last nearly four decades, I’ve had to deal with poverty and people in need. It is soul-crushing as a pastor of a small church to hear all the stories of need and know that you cannot help everyone.
I once did a one-year survey of people that our church, and myself personally helped with food, clothing, and shelter. Out of about 50 people in the short period (6 months to a year, but I forget exactly) that received help (totalling thousands of dollars), I later found out that 49 lied to me about their situation, one was truthful, and one I could not verify.
I don’t know which broke my heart more–not having as much money to help them as I would have liked, or finding out later I was scammed.
I think Joe, and perhaps others, are simply pointing out: “All poverty is not created equal and does not require an equal response according to the Scriptures.” To refer to this perspective of hate seems blasphemous to me in light of what God clearly states in His Word.
But, beyond that, it seems naive.
“All poverty is not created equal and does not require an equal response according to the Scriptures.”
Not only that, but no one is going to tell me that I am hateful and have no compassion because I vote against politicians that want to expand entitlement programs nor will they use that politicians support of those programs as a justification to vote for them.
I deal with these people every day Frank. Some I work with. I was one at one time. I have taken many a meal, I have given money, time, and whatever I could give. I want to deal with these people Frank. It’s how we reach the world with Christ.
We also have a wonderful ministry that our church supports entitled “Forgotten Ministries” here in Enid. It helps and ministers to these very people. Anyone can donate to them and it would be greatly appreciated.
http://youtu.be/bgs2qCw0c4Y
you can buy good things at thrift shops and consignment stores and garage sales for children . . .
reason: kids outgrow their clothes quickly and the clothes are passed on
before they are worn out (especially the ‘Sunday’ ones)
kids need good shoes (the best, like Stride-Rites) for their growing feet, they need good food (the best, no ‘fast-food’ junk),
they need good doctors and dentists,
and good schools (yes, sometimes private or religious school is best depending on the local public schools),
everything else, you can get at the Salvation Army or the Public Library.
Walmart? fogetaboutit . . . go thrifting, folks
Dave,
I resonate with your article and remember the time well, as I grew up in a SBC church in Missouri. The only thing I would add is that everyone read from the same bible, which allowed for congregational readings, bible drills, and memorization, where everyone was in tune with each other.
I’m not sure whether we can or should try and go back to something similar, but David French’s article on the Gospel Coalition shows that the things that tied the SBC together back in those days is still tying denominations together today (albeit, another faith’s denomination).
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/16/6-reasons-why-mormons-are-beating-evangelicals-in-church-growth/
What we are facing is the return of a theology which created the greatest nation on earth, the one with the utmost freedoms, a calvinistic republic which achieved such liberties by the use of paradoxical interventions, checks and balances, the uniting of the disparate, the producing of creative tensions which far outweight the dumbdog dialectic of the Marxists and Hegelians, the biblical perspective for transformation of society, being sidetracked for a hundred and fifty years by the illumnati Malthusian economics, this last being veritable exercises in futility for the future well being of even the conspirators. However, with the coming of the Third Great Awakening and the theology which sparks it, the depth that people begin to discern in its truths, the response of the masses to the awesomeness of God as He begins to display His nature, of a far greater order than the oohs and aahs of females in admiration of the diamonds of engagement rings or the beauty of stones, even more than the virtual adoration called forth by man made objects of art; it is the excruciating agonizing joy and worship evoked by the utterly fascinating beauty of God in all of His holiness, in all the glory of His attributes beginning to revealed in Gospel works among the children of men. The prayers of centuries for the conversion of the whole earth and every soul on it for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and that for a thousand generations are beginning to be answered. One question by the wisest man I ever met altered my eschatology and theology about seven years after he asked it: “Have you ever thought about the fact that at any one time every last soul on earth could be the elect of God?” I answered, “No, I never thought about it.” How could I with my eschatology which did not permit me to even think of the possibility of a Great Awakening, but years of research and pastoring in one of the Associations birthed in the First Great Awakening and immersed in the Second Great Awakening and launched in the Great Century of Missions, yes, that made a difference, altering forever my perceptions of the word of God written. We have the truths, two-sided, apparently contradictory, designed the produce a tension in the mind and thinking of believers, the tension that enables them to be balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant and thus able to cope with any contemporary situation, including modernism, post-modernism, and the awful financial storm coming on the land. Just think: an Awakening taking the whole of society and every soul on earth and that for a thousand generations and reaching unto the stars and every planet settled by mankind or yet to be settled by mankind.
In this discussion of “social justice” it seems to me that seeking to remedy the situation through government programs is like giving a man in a hole a shovel.
Is there any way we could return to the discussion of the post?
Back to the topic at hand . . .
I had an experience this past Sunday that I think illustrates that “age does make a difference” in regard to the way the SBC is perceived.
I preached a message in which I illustrated the uselessness and foolishness of “traditionalism” (emphasis on the -ism). I used a business meeting spat in regard to what color a wall in church could (or could not be painted). It was a foolish argument that made some otherwise sophisticated men look like childish jerks.
Before the food was cold on our after-church meal, and older staff member had a “run-in” with a newer (and older) staff member. Topic: the new staff member wanted to change the paint color in her office. The discussion actually got a bit heated and the offending staff member carried the discussion well beyond this one person.
My point: the older staff member just cannot perceive an SBC church in which all the walls are not painted the same “off-white” color. Yes, this would be silly . . . if it were not so common.
I’m not an anarchist in regard to building and grounds. I know if I just let everyone do what they want, the Youth Room would be . . . well, I don’t want to think about it.
I clearly showed how the Pharisees would care more about “paint” on the walls than sin on the souls. They hated change. I don’t know how the SBC is going to traverse this changing terrain.
This is an excellent post.
I have great hopes for the future of the SBC. It will not be what it once was. The U.S. is not the same place it was in 1845, 1925 or 1963.
The SBC can be BETTER than it ever has been.
We are more ethnically and racially diverse than ever before, and that should increase. It should be our strength.
We are more unified around our doctrinal confession than ever before, despite the Calvinist debate.
We don’t have the drag on progress and ministry that is caused by having theological institutions and colleges that really don’t share the beliefs of our confessional document.
I am not concerned about size. Who cares if we get smaller? I would rather have true influence.
The things that concern me are the temptation to focus on narrow concerns, cultural backwardness, and obsession with fighting.
Great post.
Louis,
Though I’m a bit anxious about the future of the SBC I can give you an “Amen” on this post.
I also must say that I am very concerned about the Church’s uncritical use of the term “social justice.”
The origin of this term is not Christian at all.
It is from another place and another time.
Inasmuch as it refers to race, I am all in, but I strongly prefer biblical language rather than language birthed somewhere else.
As to economics, the issue is very precarious.
I believe in a social safety net of some type. The exact contours of the ultimate are not fixed in my thinking.
But I believe that time has shown that those societies most committed to “social justice” which included economic equality and the expressed altruism of the state, the Communists and the Nazis, produced anything but social justice.
In most of the world from the beginning of recorded time the masses of people have lived in grinding poverty. The societies that produced the most prosperity and the most freedom for the most people were not those societies where a large percentage of the wealth was held or redistributed by the state. Again, the societies that did those things produced more, not less, poverty.
An earlier generation of biblically faithful Christians in this country understood that.
It takes great restraint on the part of a democratic people to avoid the temptation of restricting human freedom to provide economic equality.
What our society will do with respect to these questions remains to be seen.
But one thing we should be very careful about it being to quick to adopt language and concepts that are not only NOT part of the Gospel, but which history has shows leads to more harm to people than good.
I would much rather see Christians advance the cause of freedom of people to choose their pursuits and to keep as much of their income as possible to do that as that is not only good for freedom, but it also, as history teaches, is the best way to advance the economic well being of the greatest percentage of people.
Also, a small government can never be large enough to be despotic or to try and control the church or other groups.
Again, I propose this agenda, not because I claim it is part of the Gospel, or even the necessary implication of the Gospel, but because history, common sense and the more developed economic sciences show it is a good way to go.
I am not ready to claim Jesus’ stamp of approval on my economics, and I don’t think that any Christian should do that or try to put words in Jesus’ mouth.
The color of the walls or, in the case I know about, the color of the carpet on the floor, or, in the case of Dr. Criswell, the side of the church on which the piano is located, has always been with us. It is the theology that can distract from petty things, focusing interest on how God views such follies (and what else could one call them). Our problem is we do not know our theology or how it works. We bring to the biblical truth source a lot of filters that hinder us from grasping the truth as God would have us see it.
One of the things I found by research is that the doctrines can make a person and a group of people balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant, giving the individual or the group a winsomeness that is utterly overwhelming.
Dr. J,
I think you are on the mark in regard to ignorance of doctrine. I believe the reason that people, as Dave identified with his father, is that we expect “church” to look a certain way. When it starts looking different, if one is not fully rooted in Biblical truth, the human filters kick in.
Now, I’m sure someone with the maturity of Dave’s father, for instance, will deal with his sense of discomfort and remain focus on the Biblical mandate of reaching others.
We can be effective, even though we may not be comfortable. I have many seniors in my church for which this is their experience. I am very sensitive to their discomfort–probably because I will soon join their number.
Human filters are indeed a big problem. Like the “green visors” for cars that filtered out the sun, but also filtered out a red light. It made the red light look like a green light unless you were paying careful attention to which light (the bottom) it was.
Human filters are dangerous.
Missions is what should unite us. Please give generously to the IMB and NAMB.
I will tell you what I think is a frightening sea change that appears to be coming upon us and that is the lack of jobs for our members, our children, our grandchildren, great grands, etc. About Jan. of ’91, I think it was, I wrote an evaluation of some materials on jobs in the future at the request of the Vocational Director of the county school system in which I was working as a counselor, materials she had gotten at a conference on the matter. Basically, what the materials showed was “No Jobs for the future.” Why? Automation, computerization, and robotics. Workers are no longer needed. Now we see ads of machines repairing machines, so not even the technicians are needed much any more. Look at the stores that are closing. I was in two shopping centers in the last 5-10 jobs, and it struck me rather ominously that in each center there were stores that had closed, some very recently. That meant the folks who worked there no longer had jobs, and where would they find new jobs? And then there was the play written back in 1906 about jobs being moved over seas in the 1990s!!! We need a prayer meeting to end all prayer meetings for God to have mercy upon us.
Since you went to DTS, I assume you had S.Lewis Johnson, Jr. for something. What did you think of him? He was one of my favorites. I’ve talked to several men who had him and all of them really liked him – several said he was the best. I didn’t attend. I just heard him by tape and a couple of times in person. I think he was still there when you were there, maybe not. He was a real Southern gentleman with one the most beautiful Southern South Carolinian accent I’ve ever heard. A great teacher. I just wondered if you had him.
Bro. Brumbelow has identified the factors that could cause the SBC to fly apart, factors that were put in place by forces outside the SBC. I remember telling one fellow who had been in the in-group years ago that it was outside forces that ran the show, and he agreed. Those outside folks hated the original theology upon which the SBC was founded, and some of the adherents of that theology today have another agenda than what the originals advocated.
Am I missing something? I do not see where David Brumbelow commented on this stream.