Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.
The public face of the SBC just changed in a significant way, in my opinion. Putting away the old “culture warrior” Religious Right views often articulated by Russell Moore’s predecessor at the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, the SBC has now chosen a head of its public policy entity who has the ability to mark out an ethic in the public square influenced more clearly by the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Moore, former Dean of Theology at Southern Baptist Seminary, in his book, The Kingdom of Christ (2004) says, “As with the fundamentalist isolationists before them, the failure of evangelical politics is often, at root, the failure of an evangelical theology of the Kingdom.” Moore goes on to say that our perspective on salvation is to be holistic in light of the reign and rule of God displayed in Christ. He also says that the local church is to be a herald of the in-breaking “now-but-not-yet” Kingdom of God. These positions are to affect our cultural and political engagements with the world.
For years, I have talked about our need to be prophetic instead of political. By this, I do not mean that we should not engage in the political process. I simply mean that political parties and the left/right continuum in American politics are not adequate to contain the Gospel of the Kingdom that we are called to proclaim. We should announce the Good News of Jesus and the coming reign and rule of God. We should also affirm the good and denounce the bad wherever we find it as we speak truth to power without concern over our “place at the table.” The only way forward for Southern Baptists and Evangelicals at this point is to hammer out what is true and right and Biblical in our current context. We should praise and affirm where we see this happening (despite what political party it comes from) and speak against injustice and unrighteousness.
Southern Baptists and Evangelicals lost the moral high ground in America when we were largely on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s as we tried to maintain an evil status quo and protect our own way of life. We can only reclaim our voice and integrity when we seek to serve God and others by laying down our own lives and by standing with those oppressed and in need according to the prescription of Isaiah 58. We are to represent the different way of living articulated and lived out by Jesus. From what I have read and what I know, I think that Russell Moore will move us closer in that direction.
I am encouraged by the work Moore is doing on the immigration issue right now. I am praying that he will be able to lead Southern Baptists to articulate a justice-oriented, compassionate response to this major issue of our day. I am encouraged that he is strongly pro-life and pro-Biblical marriage and that he operates publicly in what he calls “convictional kindness” as he discusses major cultural issues. I am glad that he seems to be politically independent, yet has conservative views. Hopefully he can speak for Southern Baptists to those in power instead of representing the goals of those in power to Southern Baptists. There is a difference there and I pray that he can strike it.
I look forward to hearing what Dr. Moore has to say about issues like the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit. Those in power should do all they can to protect those who have no power who claim abuse. They should also advocate for justice on their behalf as a witness to God’s heart and character. I look forward to see how he will help American Christians address globalization and its discontents and our responsibility as followers of Jesus in the wealthiest and most powerful nation that the world has ever known. While I do not expect him nor the ERLC to opine on every issue, I look forward to hearing his views on major ethical and public policy issues that touch upon our lives as Christians and our ecclesial lives together in a broken world.
All in all, I think that Russell Moore is well qualified and positioned for the job at the ERLC and I look forward to seeing how he will represent Christ and His Kingdom in the coming difficult days and exemplify for Southern Baptists how to do the same. I look forward to the day when Baptists will not wait for word from a center for ethics or a policy group to lay out our positions for us on difficult issues. Rather, I look forward to the day when the voice we have in Washington reflects the lived and applied ethics of Baptists living out the implications of the Kingdom both locally and globally. My prayer is that Russell Moore and his staff will simply be able to represent who we are Biblically, how we sacrifice our lives out of love for others, and how we live as children of God and ambassadors of Christ and aliens in a strange land before the powers and authorities in high places. The locus of Baptist life is always the local church and I pray that on the front of cultural and political engagement that the local church would be the one on the front lines and that Dr. Moore would help us in our mission. THAT is the revolution needed in the ERLC and I pray that we see it.
My prayers are with Russell Moore. I do not envy him nor will I be quick to criticize him. He is facing gargantuan challenges. But, we serve a God bigger than any challenge. God is faithful and able and may His Kingdom come and will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
My prayers are also with Russell Moore. I hope he will prove to be very much like Richard Land when it comes to confronting issues like abortion, the definition of marriage, Christian free speech in the public square, and so on. Issues like the environment and adoption are fine and all, but if we emphasize the latter to the neglect of the former, I will be disappointed.
Just like Richard Land, Russell Moore is a sharp and articulate spokesman. Again, he deserves our prayerful support.
I hope he does not fail to support the Second Amendment.
Amen, SEC CB.
If he does so, I hope that he does it from a Biblical perspective on the sanctity of human life and the right and duty of the strong to protect the weak and also to protect one’s self because we, too, are made in the image of God and are loved by God and should value our own lives. That rationale is there and it needs to be articulated. If I own a gun and know how to use it it should be because I am called to reflect the character of God in protecting my wife and children. Just affirming the Second Amendment does not take the Christian far enough, I think. Seeing things this way makes strict pacifism a non-starter for me when it comes to defense. Now, when it comes to selfish aggression or retribution, that is another topic, I think. I think that Moore will help make us stronger on these issues because he will take us beneath the surface and give us firm ground to stand on. That is what I have seen so far, at least.
“If he does so, I hope that he does it from a Biblical perspective on the sanctity of human life and the right and duty of the strong to protect the weak and also to protect one’s self because we, too, are made in the image of God and are loved by God and should value our own lives.”
Alan Cross,
In all seriousness, what other reason is there? And having known me for almost a decade now, do you have any faint or remote idea that I would have my position based on anything otherwise? And know this, my perspective on the issue of the strong protecting the weak was forged in fire, grit, and steel before either you or Russ were even glints in your fathers’ eyes.
No, CB. I know that we agree here. You helped shape my opinion – among many others as well. I was just going further. I fully assumed you would agree, and in reality, I was agreeing with you. Christians should support the 2nd Amendment. But, they should know WHY they support it. That’s all I’m saying.
Alan,
I also desire, as do you, Rick Patrick, and Dave Miller that Russ Moore does well in his new position. Let me add that in no way do I envy the guy in the particular position he has taken due to the weak-kneed state of affairs in which Southern Baptists find themselves these days. His will be a tough job everyday due to the greatly increased population of theo-dwarves among those calling themselves Southern Baptists of which he will represent in this perilous 2Timothy 3 time we now live.
I want him to be a stand-up guy in a time when there are so few. Southern Baptists need some stand-up guys to simply do that; Stand up!
Well said, sir.
You too, Dave Miller. Although, you were at least a toddler when my position was forged on the strong protecting the weak.
Way too much is being made over one sentence where I talked about a shift from the perspective that guided us in the past to a new perspective that I think will guide us better into the future. The fact that people here seem to think that the political machinations of the Religious Right was a good idea over the years does not change my opinion. I think that it is a mistake to be too closely aligned with one political party. On abortion, I am not saying that we should have supported a Democrat. Rather, we should have made the point that we would not be “go along to get along” Republicans when the issue came up. I think we got used and I do not think that the Republican establishment ever really cared about the issue.
My larger point is that I think there is a better way forward than the way we have gone in the past. That does not mean that we change our positions at all – it just means that we change our focus and approach.
“On abortion, I am not saying that we should have supported a Democrat. Rather, we should have made the point that we would not be “go along to get along” Republicans when the issue came up. I think we got used and I do not think that the Republican establishment ever really cared about the issue.”
I do agree. There does seem to have been a policy of giving lip-service to issues that Southern Christians hold dear without any real intention of solving those issues. If this is true, then it worked beautifully. We are a solid Republican “lock” no matter the results. We are assumed to be votes that no longer need serious courting. The GOP is now free to go away from even giving lip-service to these issues, in favor of courting other votes. If any of us dared voice opposition, we were accused by fellow believers of “wasting our votes” or “voting for the other side” unless we towed the GOP line.
Donald,
What’s the alternative? Vote for the Democrats, who are for abortion? for gun control? for gay agenda? anti God?
We are truly in a scenario of voting for the lesser of 2 evils in our country, right now; it seems to me.
David
The alternative is directing ALL votes to a viable 3rd party candidate until people in both parties realize we are NOT willing to be lied to and that our loyalty is truly based on Scripture not a party. But that won’t happen in large enough numbers because people like Dr. Land have convinced too many that that is a “wasted” vote- which is stupid. No vote is wasted if it means you can sleep at night and can look yourself in the mirror knowing that you cast a vote for a person of real conscience.
It would also help if we dialogued with politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for biblical justice rather than immediately condemning one party for being “anti-God, pro-gay, and pro gun control.” When we start looking at the content of a person’s character- all of it- rather than their political affiliation we might see a shift. Until then, we will be continually humiliated by supporting politicians who say they care about “family values, the unborn, and the welfare of people” while cheating on their spouses, denigrating the poor, and doing nothing tangible about the horror of abortion by refusing help to unwed pregnant women by denying them resources to keep themselves healthy while pregnant and after their child’s birth by advocating cuts to services that could help them to support themselves and their unaborted children.
Vol,
You could stand out in the street across from the voting station, holding up a sign that states: “I Will Not Vote For Any Of You. You Are All Evil. Turn Or Burn.”
Or you could come on a Baptist blog seeking to illustrate how politically correct you are and state: “Christians Are To Refrain From Politics. I Do Not Vote. I Despise America and Do Not Pray For Her To Repent As A Nation Because I Am Missionary.”
Ryan Abernathy,
A person who is “anti-God, pro-gay, and pro gun control” have already revealed their character.
In addition, in most all cases a person who is anti-God, pro-gay and pro gun control is also in favor of the murder of babies.
I’m with Ryan. Voting for viable 3rd party candidates. There are many opinions on this matter and I don’t expect to inherently agree with my reasoning.
Voting is a blessing from God. It also is a major source of sin for non-believers as they vote in their sin. But we as Christians needs to glorify God in it. And the only way I see us doing that is by voting candidates that aren’t feeding us lines. Let’s vote for the candidate that lives the platform they stand on.
Joshua T, Ryan Abernathy, and all who think like you do,
I want to dedicate a song for you written by Steven Tyler as sung by Carole Bayer Sager and Aerosmith. Enjoy. The title is: DREAM ON
“Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
Sing with me, just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
Sing with me, just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away”
Sorry cb. I’m a PostMil. Sing this to someone who believes in the rapture! 😉
“Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away”
Joshua T,
I could not care less what “mil” to which you cater. Go with any “mil” you please. Who cares? Your problem is you have been taken to the “cleaners,” well soaked, cleaned, and hung out to dry by pie-in-the-sky spin masters.
CB-
I pray that God never let’s me descend to the level of cynicism that says that a person’s political affiliation defines their character. I also happen to know several people personally who are not believers, pro-gay, and pro-gun control who consider abortion to be murder and who are strongly pro-life. Maybe you need to get out more.
Also, if we are not willing to dialogue with people who disagree with us how do we expect to get anything done in the realm of politics? When we don’t talk to those we disagree with then we give them permission to define us, malign us, and reject our arguments as simply based on our religious convictions and not on any sense of logic or public benefit. Do you really want to end abortion in this country? I know that you do. The best way to accomplish that is to talk with and listen to those who support abortion on demand- especially those who do not understand the real horror of what occurs in an abortion clinic- and instead just see it as a rights issue. Real change happens slow and it is rarely legislated before it becomes a public passion. Think about the current cultural shift in gay marriage (not a good thing, but a reality) or the move in favor of civil rights (a very good thing but a slow process). Both those movements for social change were won through conversation and quiet, personal activism before they entered the national conscience. The same could be true for abortion if we removed it from the political realm and moved it into the personal realm. Consider the following organization as an example of doing just that: http://savethestorks.com/
Further, if we are going to advocate against abortion (and we should) then we have to just as strenuously advocate and provide for all of those kids who will be born as a result- which means both the social safety nets (not popular with Republicans or the Religious Right) and the adoption movement (a growing passion in many churches) need to become important points of emphasis for those who are pro-life. A child dying from neglect or abuse or other causes brought on by poverty or an unprepared mother is just as tragic as the death of a child in the womb. And I’m sure we agree on that.
Grace to you CB and thanks for always keeping me on my toes.
Ryan Abernathy,
May be you need “to get out” and get some training in reading comprehension. I did not state, . . . “that a person’s political affiliation defines their character.”
I stated, “A person who is “anti-God, pro-gay, and pro gun control” have already revealed their character.”
Your character, my character, anyone’s character is “defined” by their worldview. Any person who is “anti-God” or “pro-gay” does not live by nor is their character reflective of a biblical worldview. That would include you or any of your friends.
Ryan Abernathy, I constantly “dialogue with people who disagree with me.” . . . . almost on a continual and daily basis. I have been doing so for years (mostly the entirety of my life), possibly longer than you have been alive.
Also, you have not read a single word from me in support of Richard Land on this thread or any other. So that dog is not going to hunt either.
Lastly, Ryan Abernathy, for you to make the following statement to me, means you know absolutely nothing of me.
“Further, if we are going to advocate against abortion (and we should) then we have to just as strenuously advocate and provide for all of those kids who will be born as a result- which means both the social safety nets (not popular with Republicans or the Religious Right) and the adoption movement (a growing passion in many churches) need to become important points of emphasis for those who are pro-life. . . . ”
You are in left field completely on that one as far as cb is concerned . . . .way out in left field. . . and there are a lot of kids, grown men now, who would testify to how far out there you are.
CB-
For clarification sake, I DID NOT in any way mean to suggest with my final paragraph that you were opposed to either of those things. That was a collective “we” (as in conservatives) and not meant to include you and I apologize for the confusion. I know you are a great advocate for adoption and would never suggest otherwise. I apologize for even the suggestion that you would not be in favor of those things.
Ryan Abernathy,
Let me make myself clear without the usual cb banter.
The Republican Party is not going to make people better or make the world we live in a better place. Only individual and corporate repentance and faith in the biblical gospel bring true change in individuals, cultures, and social structures.
Now, with that being established as to my position on the GOP, let me quickly state that the Democratic platform (national) has been in diametric opposition to any concept of a biblical worldview for at least the last three decades. Their platform and their National Convention during this past election was a blasphemous, shame, and disgrace before a Holy God.
Are there godless hypocrites, whoremongers, and harlots in the GOP? Of course, and it is sickening. However, the platform of the GOP is closer to a biblical worldview than that of DNC and there is no way to refute that, Ryan Abernathy.
No. I could never vote for a Democrat at this point. What you do is you let Republicans know that we are not their lap dogs, that we will not support them if they are not serious about these issues, and that we will run candidates in the primaries against them. The fact that the Religious Right leadership refused to get behind Mike Huckabee in 2008 because they were playing politics – some of it old Baptist politics from the CR days – was the end of the movement. Some leaders supported McCain, Guiliani, and Romney over Huckabee. It was sad.
Stop playing politics and looking for a place and the table and support candidates that have some conviction and backbone and are not just trying to get along with the Republican establishment or the Neo-cons.
Even if we lose, we will have regained our voice and will have an influence. But, more important than politics (which I am very much interested in) is how we live and witness each day. I think that Dr. Moore will help us with that.
“The fact that the Religious Right leadership refused to get behind Mike Huckabee in 2008 because they were playing politics – some of it old Baptist politics from the CR days – was the end of the movement. Some leaders supported McCain, Guiliani, and Romney over Huckabee. It was sad.”
Dead on at a thousand yards, Alan. Sad? Yes. Actually it was gut wrenching. And yes, it was stupid. Extremely stupid.
CB,
I agree with you on the Democratic Party platform and appreciate your differentiating the party from individuals who run as Dems for various reasons. That to me is a crucial difference and a welcome one.
I also strongly agree with you on Huckabee but I’m fuzzy on what some are mentioning as SBC politics coming to play in that decision. Could you enlighten me please? I honestly have no idea what you are referencing here.
Thanks. And I’m glad we could find some common ground. I don’t like being in your gunsights. 🙂
Richard Land did not support Huckabee. It seems that some of the guys of the CR thought Huckabee to be not conservative enough. Frankly, I believe it had to do with some things from early in the CR days, but some would argue with me on that. However, I think I know why some of our guys did not want to support Huckabee and it was for foolish reasons, mostly a burned ego or two in my opinion. Pride is an evil force among us sometimes.
I was for Huckabee, BTW. I also voted for Alan Keys back in the day, as well.
I agree that Dr. Land didnt do everything that I thought he should do. And, I agree that we shouldnt be sold out to any political party. But, overall, Dr. Land did a great job.
David
Also, I really hate to see people bash Dr. Richard Land, as some people have done in the past, and that Alan seems to be doing in his opening paragraph in this post….he did a great job, and we should honor the courageous stands he took.
Also, I believe Dr. Russell Moore will do a great job. He’s a smart man, who loves the Lord. I’m pulling for him.
It’s just sad that some people seem to have a need to run someone else down, in order to try to lift up their fella.
David
David, I think that Dr. Land’s marriage with the Republican Party was a tactical error that harmed our witness. I think that much of the strategy of the Religious Right was a mistake as well. The whole project failed, so I do not know what is controversial about that statement. I think that Dr. Moore understands that and will lead accordingly.
As for bashing Dr. Land, I don’t think that aligning him with the Religious Right is a bash. It is just descriptive. I have never met him personally, so I am not personally criticizing him. I simply disagree with his approach to addressing cultural issues. Not sure where disagreement equals bashing.
Well, let’s see…what things did you not like that he did, Alan? against abortion? against gay marriage? for free speech? I’m not sure what things he did, which were so bad…..
David
vol,
I think Alan’s article is about precedence. The Religious Right, of which Dr. Land’s ERLC was a part, was in many ways just a tool of the Republican Party. When important ethical and religious liberty issues get relegated to the machinations of a political party, you lose the ability to be a prophetic voice in the marketplace. Your arguments become political party arguments, not true ethical arguments. Who is the cart and who is the horse? It is no accident that Dr. Land was at his best when he went counter to prevailing Republican ideas on issues.
I think Alan is expressing hope that Dr. Moore will clearly distinguish the ERLC as not being simply a get out the vote machine for Republicans.
David, reread my original post. I stated my position on all of those issue as well as the Left/Right divide. I was pretty clear.
Whenever we argue that the Culture Wars were a mistake and that Southern Baptists should not have identified so strongly with the Republican Party, it makes me a little nauseous.
Remember, Reagan was pro-life, pro-family, pro-defense, pro-Israel, a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and had no problem mentioning Jesus in public prayers, quoting Scripture and hosting a Prayer Breakfast where Christian ministers were welcome to pray in the Name of Jesus.
Today, now that we are no longer so invested in the culture war, our current President embraces the exact opposite position in all those areas.
Please be careful declaring the Religious Right a mistake. Things were better when we were strongly advocating for those causes. Now that we have more or less stopped, things are worse, our witness is weaker and our culture is less godly.
Just maybe the Religious Right was not so bad after all.
The Religious Right was a mistake. It marginalized the gospel and our prophetic witness and we got used in the process.
This is from someone who used to send money to the Christian Coalition in my younger days. It failed.
What you see now is not because we stopped doing the right thing. What you see now is because we spent 30 years doing the wrong thing and it splintered us to pieces and devastated our witness.
And, I agreed with most of the issues of the Religious Right. But, we got used. We went about things the wrong way. My hope is that we will be a faithful witness and an alternative kingdom instead of trying to use the Republican Party to gain more power.
That’s a pretty broad brush: “a mistake, a failure.”
It is a statistical fact that abortions went down as a result of the work of the RR.
Tell those saved from slaughter it was mistake to fight for them. Plus I would be interested to know how you know how things would be now if the RR had never developed.
Was the movement perfect. Not by a mile. We’re those who fought the battle godly men and women with a mission? Almost to a one–yes.
I would hope that my record would be a tenth of that which is Falwell’s legacy.
Failure. Mistake. Pretty broad.
“””30 years doing the wrong thing and it splintered us to pieces and devastated our witness. “””
How can you “devastate our witness” when we aren’t telling the story in the first place.
The decline of baptisms in the SBC predates by a number of years the rise of the RR. There was no witness to devastate. What we may have devastated–and I agree with you to a large extent on this–is our “political power.”
We don’t have the clout we had when we were united around a few important principles–for example abortion. I see no real data that suggests the church is splintered in our witness because of the RR.
My personal experience is that the witness of my local church is as strong today as it has been for many years. I do not feel comfortable making the RR the boogey-man for all that ails the church.
I agree with you !!
My critique is that over time the precedence changed from “Religious Right” to “Right who happen to be Religious”, as in the culture at large identified the group more by their conservative principles than by their religious moniker.
I admit I find it a bit amusing that I have seen many readers here (rightfully) critique some of the terminology from New Calvinists about the importance of redeeming the culture, yet I hear the exact same thing from culture warriors of a different tribe.
The question to Dr. Moore will be (and should be) – Are you more known by your political machinations and lobbying political leaders or by your gospel witness and prophetic speaking into issues involving ethics and religious liberty?
Plus…I hope that you are not implying that the culture must be “godly” for the gospel to thrive.
Mike,
Of course, we’re not saying that the culture must be godly for the Gospel to thrive. The Lord has called us to fish, not clean up the lake. And, I agree with Dr. Adrian Rogers that “it’s beginning to get gloriously dark in our land;” because the darker it gets, the brighter the light of Jesus shines. And, I’m an Indepedent in the political realm….although I find myself voting Republican most of the time, due to the liberal, ungodly agenda of the Democrats.
So, I agree that we shouldnt be married to the Republican Party…. BUT, we most certainly should prophetically stand on what’s right and good and godly. Dr. Land did just that….
David
Alan,
You are prophetic and profound in your post here.
The reason that the SBC and the Republican Party are experiencing major decline is because both have advanced a conservative agenda more-so than a Kingdom Agenda. People intuitively sense that, even those who are not born again. I accept the fact Alan that you probably would not fully agree with the statement I just made, or the ones I’m about to make. To amplify and document my point, here are a few examples:
(1)The Republican and SBC position against the the Lily Ledbetter Case was more conservative politics driven than Kingdom driven.
(2)Richard Land’s endorsement of Mitt Romney–which by association was the SBC’s endorsement. Romney’s Mormonism, and his offensive, insensitive comments about the poor, and the 47%, were surely three good reasons not to endorse Romney.
(3)Land’s totally indefensible position on Trayvon Martin prior to his retraction and apology. What was left unaddressed, was the fact that Land said that the majority of the SBC agreed with his pre-apology position. Denying Todd Littleton’s resolution to be voted on addressing this matter again, was a conservative agenda taking priority over a Kingdom agenda. Had Todd’s resolution been voted on this matter would have been cleared up. Now we are left to believe Land’s words: “the majority of the SBC agreed with his now recanted retracted remarks.
(4)Allowing Republicans politicians to address the SBC in session, but not Democrats.
(5)Refusing to censor the Masons and documenting their unbiblical beliefs and practices, yet, censoring the private prayer lives of missionaries-and adopting policies in direct contradiction of Scriptures in this regard.
(6)Denying women an opportunity to serve as military, prison and other kinds of chaplains. who are well trained and qualified.
(7)Denying the musician from T. D. Jakes church to play at the SBC Pastors Conference–ironically, who was preparing to lead the conference in singing “Holy, Holy, Holy,”which includes the phrase-“God in three persons, blessed Trinity”–under the false notion that T. D. Jakes was a modalist.
I could list other examples. But suffice it to say that in all of the aforementioned matters, the SBC placed conservatism above the Kingdom of God. Conservatism has almost risen to the level of idolatry in SBC life. If ever we become more Kingdom conscious than we are conservative conscious, we will see the Kingdom of God among us in a powerful way.
Having read a portion of Dr. Moore’s book on the Kingdom, I’m convinced that he understands this and will represent the SBC with a Kingdom mindset, more-so than a conservative mindset; and no, the two are not synonymous. Therefore Alan, I give a hearty Amen to your post.
It still gives me pause though that seventeen years after the SBC apology for slavery, there has not been one Asian, Hispanic, or African American appointed to an entity head position. Until that happens, the apology still rings somewhat hollow to me. The Kingdom in heaven and the Kingdom on earth–as expressed in the church at Antioch–certainly was inclusive of a multi-racial expression(Revelation 5: 9; 7: 9, Acts 13: 1-3). This is another example of where conservatism trumped the Kingdom in the SBC.
I personally know of at least one Black who was denied an entity level executive position for superfluous reasons. But I am encouraged that things are improving with the election of Dr. Luter and the appointment of Ken Weathersby to a VP position at the EC. Maybe in my lifetime we will see a minority appointed to an entity head position. For some of us in the SBC that will represent true heart change and repentence and we will rejoice as most of America did with the election of President Obama. Truly his election represented a milestone in American history.
The Inaugural gathering of President Obama looked more like the Kingdom of God than the SBC Annual meetings. I too hope to see that change in my lifetime. But if that is to take place our focus must move from “conservatism”–which is very much an alienating word to a large segment of the American public– to the Kingdom of God.
A large segment of the population that we want to reach with the gospel of the Kingdom view “conservatism” synonymous with racism, sexism, and a brand of capitalism that favors management over labor, and corporations over consumers. Therefore when the SBC brands and markets herself as “conservative” she is not only using a term not in the Bible, but one that is also highly offensive to many. Without compromising our orthodox and biblio-centric belief system, the SBC needs to seriously consider shelving the word “conservative” if they are serious about the Great Commission and Kingdom building. Please understand: it is not conservative theology that many churches reject. It is the associations or attachments that many in the SBC identify and affiliate with that are not necessarily in any shape, form or fashion compatible to biblical orthodoxy or aligned with the Kingdom of God.
I have personally invited “orthodox” Black Baptist Churches who fully, or would fully embrace the BFM 2000 to join the SBC. Several have responded: Oh No! Never. When I questioned them as to, why not? Their response was: they are too conservative. When I further questioned them about; “what do you mean by “conservative”? They generally would reference the kinds of things mentioned in the 7-8 examples above; which as you know has absolutely nothing to do with the BFM 2000. Again, the SBC needs to seriousl rethink this emphasis on conservatism rather than the Kingdom of God.
Dave and Alan, please forgive the length of this post? I simply got carried away. I probably chased a rabbit, but Dr. Tom Urrey at SWBTS use to say, “it is alright to chase a rabbit as long as the rabbit got enough meat on it.” I trust that this rabbit that I chased–The Kingdom of God(biblical orthodoxy) versus Conservatism– at least had a little bit of meat on it.
Dwight,
Are you serious? Stop and think for a moment.
I can go with you on some things here, but for you to state as a man of God and a preacher of the gospel the following is beyond the boundaries of rational, biblical thought and is far from a biblical worldview perspective.
“The Inaugural gathering of President Obama looked more like the Kingdom of God than the SBC Annual meetings.”
That is just plain pathetic. You know better. Please explain why you would make such a statement.
In what “kingdom” do they kill babies after they are born as a matter of policy?
CB,
I love you and really have grown to love the fact that you are plain-spoken. You leave little room for miscommunication. Political speech has ruined this country. I kind of wish more in the SBC and certainly in DC would adopt your communication style.
I guess now I will contradict myself; I wish you would put gloves on when communicating with Debbie Kaufman and Christiane. I cringe at your communication with them. Not because they are ladies and can’t handle it, bit because at times with them unlike other persons, you cross the lines of civility and your conversation being seasoned with grace. You generally are speaking “truth,” but I don’t always hear speaking the “truth in love” when you are communicating with them. Just my two cents. Take it for what it’s worth. That was free too. But I am going to charge for the rest of what I got to say -:). Now to your question.
Lighten up CB. You are a very smart man and a Kingdom minded, even race conscious man. I love your comments on the thread of another post dealing with the Confederate Flag. Wow!!!! Great commentary. Much respect to you for your passion, conviction, courage and more importantly–the truth that you spoke.
What I meant by President Obama’s Inaugural looking more like the Kingdom of God than the SBC is this: The multi-racial makeup up the crowd looked like the ethnic description of heaven based on the texts that I cited. Acts 2: 5 makes it clear that every ethnic group or nation under the sun was represented at Pentecost.
I attended President Obama’s first inaugural. The most impressive aspect of it to me was the thoroughly interracial balance of the attendees. They were all cheerful, happy, and in a celebratory mood.
The spirit and atmosphere of the gathering was “heavenly.” The interracial mingling in the hotels, restauraunts(sp), etc. was quite unusual, and again, very impressive. My wife and I enjoyed the atmosphere immensley(sp). It was a “Kingdom” like atmosphere. You would have had to be there to fully appreciate what I’m saying.
My thought as I observed the “fellowship” and festivities at the inaugural was: I sure the SBC looked and felt like this. Because an interracial team planned and implemented the entire affair, the DNA of the event was interracial and you could feel that. Everyone was culturally included. You did not feel as if you were attending a White event-as the SBC annual session feels–or a Black event–as the NBC annual session feels–but rather a “Kingdom” event–where all of God’s children were present and equally valued and represented. I have visited Brooklyn Tabernacle Church on two occasions. That people and place is the only church-like setting where I have experienced that Kingdom like atmosphere, reminiscent of the inaugural.
Finally, my most precious memory from the inaugural, was the morning after. We were checking out of the hotel and a White lady who didn’t know Vera and I from Adam, offered us a ride in her chaffeur-driven stretch-limosine(sp). That was a precious memory. If she had known that neither Vera or I voted for President Obama, I wonder if she would have made the offer? Actually, that memory may be second in appreciation.
Walking the streets of DC after the inaugural, Vera and I saw Rick Warren. Rick and I had never met. I had no reason to assume that he knew who I was. But after waiting “til he finished conversing with a few others, I introduced my wife and myself to him. His immediate response was: “Dwight McKissic. I know who you are. Oh thou controversial one.” What a pleasant surprise!!! Rick Warren knew my name and much of my controversial history. We chatted briefly and I deeply enjoyed it.
So, I hope this answered your question. If it didn’t, I’ll try again. Let me know. I certainly did not mean that I supported or celebrated the agenda initiatives of the President that clearly are juxtaposed to the Kingdom of God. I love you,CB. Keep speaking the truth in love. But don’t forget to sometimes put your gloves on.
Dwight,
L’s (Christiane) is lost and on her way to a devil’s hell. For years I have shared the gospel to her. However, people like Debbie, you and others have given her a false confidence in her position before a holy God. You are wrong to do so and should repent and publicly challenge her to repent and come to a biblical faith in the gospel and quit playing PC motivated games with her eternal soul.
As for Debbie? Maybe you should read her comments. I rarely interact with her. It is a lost cause. That being stated, I shall address your comments here.
As to your answer about your statement about the “Inaugural gathering of President Obama looked more like the Kingdom of God than the SBC Annual meetings.”
Just let me say then that the same statement in such a context could be made in relation to the church to which you serve as pastor.
The inaugural gathering of President Obama looked more like the Kingdom of God than any Sunday worship service in the church Dwight serves as pastor.
Dwight, you are using the word “conservative” in a secular context, superimposing it over its use in Baptist life. That is unfair and you know better than to do so.
Dwight, I do count you as a good friend and will stand with you when you are right and have done so. You are also right in seeing that racism does not stick to me very well. You know that I don’t care if a guy is black, white, yellow, red, or purple and from Mars, right is right and wrong is wrong. That stand has cost me much and you well know it.
I do love you, Dwight. However, you have been wrong about the POTUS from the beginning. His administration has been ungodly in nature from the beginning and it has nothing to do with his race, my race, or your race. Many of his positions are nothing more than barbarian in nature.
Biblical truth is biblical truth, Dwight. The politics of Political Correctness should not play into that arena. However, we both know they do and we both know that only evil comes from it. This is true among Republican politics and Democrat politics. Both sides have used the Bible and the Christian faith wrongly and abusively. Nonetheless, it is hard to find much alignment with Democratic politics and biblical faith in the last three decades.
Dwight, just as surely as I must stand against the evils of a politician like Eugene “Bull” Conners so must you stand against the evils of a politician like the POTUS.
Dwight, your comment missed the mark this time. And because I am your friend, I am calling your hand. You know full well that some who comment here will not do that because they pander in an effort to be politically correct, thinking that such actions make them appear wise or spiritual. I know that those kind of folks make you sick as they do me. Dwight, I am calling your hand on this because I love you and you are my brother. And you know it has nothing to do with racism or secular conservatism.
CB,
Thanks for your response. You are correct on this point: my congregation & most congregations don’t look like the Kingdom of God on Sunday Morning. I made that point in my post when I said that Brooklyn Tabernacle was the only church that I observed that looked like this. I simply expressed a wish that the SBC looked like this, as well as all the churches. Hats off to President Obama for being able to reflect this in my observation for the first time in American history on that grand of a scale.
You know & the one thousand plus people that I preach to on Sunday know that I oppose the President’s position on gay rights issues & abortion. These positions are incompatible with the Kingdom. But that does not keep me from appreciating & applauding him when he is right.
President Obama was right on removing Bin Kaden & Kadaffi from this world. He was right on the Boston police/Professor Gates controversy. He was right on the Lily Ledbetter & Trayvon Martin controversies. In general, I support his universal health care concept offering affordable health care to those who can least afford it. I’ve been in a position where my filt needed it, but didn’t have it. I do not support any type of abortion services being offered as a part of a health care plan. Newt Gingrich & the Republicans & the Heritage Foundation, & Mitt Romney supported an Obama like Health Care concept ’til the President championed this cause. I support his position on Immigration Reform.
The problem with the SBC is that the resentment & dislike for the President is so great, ’til they can’t support him even when he is right. People see this & that’s why I said that conservatism trumps the Kingdom in far to many instances in SBC life.
If you don’t see the link between the SBC & the Republican Party, you are in denial. Can’t remember the name of it or the author’s name, but a book has been written documenting this marriage between the SBC & the Republicans. As Alan said: this is a tactical error. It associates & identifies the SBC with conservatism more-so than the Kingdom.
Richard Land took a Kingdom View on the Immigration issue. I applaud him for that. He caught a lot of flack for doing so. But generally speaking Alan is right: he attended the Republican National Convention & in the public square–being our most visible & powerful voice, he identified the SBC with the RNC. I believe that this association is counter productive to our evangelistic & church growth/planting objectives. People identify me with the Republican Party. And my church has paid a price for that identification; so has the SBC.
thank you for writing this, Dr. McKISSIC
Christiane,
You are welcome. I appreciate your presence & perspectives in the Baptist blogosphere.
I’ll say it again: you & I are cut from a different cloth than most people who comment here. We both would love to see the SBC become more inclusive and affirming of all persons regardless of gender or color-to the extent that’s biblically permissible. Utmost grace & kindness should be extended to anyone who dares enters this “conservative Baptists territory” who is not of this fold. Thanks for your dialogue here. The SBC needs to hear from voices who are not of the SBC DNA & fold. You add much value to the discussions here. Again, thanks.
Dwight – You have a lot of good facts , but on #5 , you don’t have the understanding . First not all masons think alike across the USA as they reflect their area . I’m not proud of all , but , will not trash them all for the sake of the SBC who might not be able to join because they are not open to honest reasoning .
Jack,
Would you please elaborate or amplify what you meant by my not understanding the SBC Masonic issue? I’m sure my understanding is somewhat lacking, but I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the SBC’s unwillingness to go on record documenting the various pledges, oaths, and practices of Masons that directly contradict the clear teaching of the Bible, yet they were bold & audacious in restricting the missionaries from praying in tongues in private as was practiced by Paul(1 Corinthians 14: 2), affirmed as a spiritual gift(1 Corinthians 12: 10, 28), and was to not be forbidden in the church(1 Corinthians 14: 39).
It was not my intention to speak disparingly toward the Masons as much as it was to show the double standard exhibited by the SBC with regard to how these two groups were treated. One censored; the other uncensored. One in line with the Bible. The other have many beliefs & practices that don’t align with Scripture. How can the SBC justify this? That was my only point with regard to # 5. Again, what did I misunderstand concerning this issue?
(1) Coorelation does not equal causation. Just because there are women who make less than men does not mean they make less than men due to their lack of a Y chromosome. People would do well to take a college statictics class.
(2)Richard Land’s endorsement of Mitt Romney was most certainly not an endorsement of his theology. Christians should have voted for Romney because he was the only candidate who had the opportunity to beat your beloved president. Luckily, many scandals are now causing havoc for the Obama administration.
(3) I find it rather amusing how people take such umbridge to what Land said about Martin but have no problem with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton using race baiting to create a media circus. They obviously were not there to simply provide comfort. They were there to try to make that a racial issue. If they were there to simply provide comfort to a family who had lost a child they would be on planes coast to coast 52 weeks a year doing the same thing. The fact that they chose that venue speaks clearly as to what their motives truly were.
(4) Please, name an anti-abortion, anti gay rights polititon they could have invited. I’m not aware of any.
(5) “…in direct contradiction of scripture…” Shouldn’t that say “In your opinion”. There are numerous Baptists, friends of yours, who would say that scripture teaches the opposite. I doubt Bart Barber feels his position is in direct contradiction of scrpiture.
(6)This is the only one I don’t know anything about and therefore can’t offer a comment on.
(7) Yes, yes. We know Jakes was able to hit wiffle ball theological questions softly lobbed at him by Driscoll and McDonald. According to those questions, I have to admit Jakes is not a modalist. Of course, the questions he was asked?? A mormon or a JW could have affirmed his answers so–he didn’t really prove anything. Two points to remember however (a) He could have come out years ago and said he wasn’t a modalist. He chose to be ambiguous. (b) You know what he didn’t, hasn’t and won’t say? He won’t say that modalism is heresy and that modalists are are heretics and therefore not Christians. I have no doubt that he would worship with a modalist and cooperate with them in gospel endevors. That says WAY more about what he believes than those softball questions he bunted in the Elephant room.
The matter of Richard Land endorsing Mitt Romney is not a new topic on Voices. Caricaturing it as “conservative (ei. political)” instead of “moral” seems to be a decidedly biased opinion.
I endorsed Romney and it had nothing at all to do with “conservativism, politics, Mormonism, or anything else.” It was a “Kingdom” decision. The Kingdom of God is decidedly on the side of the weak–and there are none more weak than a pre-born child.
Democrats, including Obama, believed it was acceptable to kill a child that was born–as long as at least a foot was in the birth canal. To me, that is not a “conservative versus a progressive” political view, but a moral view.
There will always be–as on this blog–those Baptists that wear a thin veneer of conservatism, but in fact are more to the left in their politics. This is reflected in posts on this thread. The fact of the matter is: neither political party has clean hands in regard to racism, helping the poor, or fair labor practices, among other issues.
If a large segment of the population has a poor view of conservatism, then they probably have a skewed view of conservatism they have received largely from the liberal media.
I think it is simply wrong and dangerous to assert that one political persuasion is somehow more “kingdom-minded than the other.” It is clear that certain bloggers have an ax to grind with the former leadership–and at least some of the present leadership of the SBC.
Whether Moore will do a “better” job than Land is yet to be seen. My prayers are that he will be “kingdom-minded,” but I’m not willing to assert that his predecessor was not.
Frank, your reasoning stinks.
Jess, coming from you, I’ll consider that a compliment.
LOL
Frank, I’m not very good on a computer, I keep forgetting how to make a smily face to let you know when I’m kidding. lol
Since I don’t want anyone to be inadequate in torturing Dave Miller:
colon : (non-winking) or semicolon (winking) followed by right parenthesis )
Place them next to each other and VOILA: Dave dies a little inside.
colon :
semicolon ;
right parenthesis )
the left paren can be used for frowning. I hereby end my exposition on emoticons. There are many, many others
😛
If this is true…and I said “if”….and, I’m hearing about it from more than just this source…then, I hope Dr. Moore will stand up for our freedom of speech….
http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/doj-official-vows-to-use-his-office-to-uphold-muslim-sharia-anti-blasphemy-laws-in-tn/
David
Is anyone going to do the same for “anti-blasphemy” toward Christians? Double standard.
I think Dr. Moore is better suited for this than academia. I pray that he will lead well and am confident that he will.