The most important thing to come out of the 2010 SBC which ended this past week in Orlando wasn’t the adoption of the GCR (which was good, as best I can tell); it was a resolution.
The convention overwhelmingly passed the following resolution on the centrality of the gospel, which is one of the the topics majored on in Sunday School class and church meetings. There are quite a few, ‘whereas’ clauses, but each one is worth reading carefully and looking at the given scripture reference.
It looks like this-
On The Centrality Of The Gospel
June 2010
WHEREAS, We are, every one of us, sinners against God and, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, deserving of only condemnation (Romans 3:23; 6:23); and
WHEREAS, The gospel is the good news of salvation that reveals who Jesus is, what He has done, and why it matters (Mark 16:15; Romans 1:16; 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4); and
WHEREAS, Repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ brings believers into right standing with God through the blood and righteousness of Jesus (Mark 1:15; Romans 4:5); and
WHEREAS, The power of the gospel transforms believers (Romans 1:16) so that we are able to put sin to death and to pursue holiness (Romans 6:8-22); and
WHEREAS, The hope of the gospel assures us of life beyond death through the promise of resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14); and
WHEREAS, The value of the gospel shows us the relative poverty of the love of money and the pursuit of worldly success (Acts 8:20-22); and
WHEREAS, The stewardship of the gospel has been entrusted to us by our Lord Jesus Christ in His Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:16-17); and
WHEREAS, The grace of God in the gospel grants salvation to anyone and everyone who believes, regardless of who the person is or what the person has done (Ephesians 2:8-9); and
WHEREAS, Apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation (Acts 4:12); and
WHEREAS, The Great Commission Resurgence conversation has prompted Southern Baptists to a heightened awareness of the vast scope of lostness in our communities, across our nation, and around the world; and
WHEREAS, Any claim to personal self-righteousness or racial supremacy stands in contradiction to the gospel of free grace in Christ alone (Galatians 2:21; 3:27-28); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, call on Southern Baptists to reaffirm our commitment to the supremacy and centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our churches; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to keep the gospel foremost in every sermon they preach, so that the whole of Scripture and every aspect of life can be seen in the context of how every promise of God finds its “Yes” (2 Corinthians 1:20) in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage churches in preaching, teaching, and discipleship to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers, showing them how to find peace with God, and to proclaim the gospel to believers, that through the renewing of our minds we might continually be transformed by the gospel; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge churches to display the gospel by transcending ethnic, racial, economic, and social barriers due to our unity in Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage our churches to celebrate the gospel through the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, teaching our congregations the joy of the gospel therein; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we recommit ourselves to the glory of the gospel by greater faithfulness to the Great Commission both in personal witness and in sending more gospel workers to the unreached peoples of the world; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge churches and individual believers to study, identify, and act upon the lostness of their communities, the nation, and the world; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage each church to support its pastor as he leads personally in ongoing Great Commission involvement, both locally and globally; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we commit to speak to the outside world as those who are forgiven sinners, who have received mercy as a free gift, and not as those who are morally or ethically superior to anyone (1 Corinthians 1:27-31; 4:2-7); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we seek to live as those who have been rescued by the gospel, evidenced by forgiving our enemies, setting aside personal offenses, crucifying selfish pride, breaking down carnal divisions, and loving one another joyously, counting others as more important than ourselves; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we pray that God would pour out His Spirit to make us truly gospel-centered, gospel-saturated people whose lives and words point the world to our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 June 2010
07 June 2010
The GCR and the McDonaldization of the SBC
There's a lot of talk in the blogosphere about the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention meetings in Orlando and the key piece of strategy called the Great Commission Resurgence. It is a plan to get the SBC back on track with sustained growth.
I found this blog entry at
http://baptistmessenger.com/editor%E2%80%99s-journal-against-the-mcdonaldization-of-the-sbc/
which is the news outlet for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. It is a very objective look at the issues with an eye toward the centrality of the gospel (or lack thereof) in the SBC. It is one of the best pieces on the issue I've seen to date.
He that delighteth not in holiness, hateth not iniquity, loveth not the unity and purity of the Church, and abhoreth not discord and divisions, and taketh no pleasure in the communion of saints and the public worship of God with his people, is not fit to be a pastor of a church.
—Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
Since the days of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), it has become acceptable (even appreciated) for modern men and women to become “Machiavellian” in their actions. Effective leadership is often described as saying one thing and doing another to the point that it has become the unspoken hallmark and goal of leaders to know and understand the art of clandestine warfare—even in the church.
Many pastors, like many politicians, now combine the proverbial wiles of the fox with the strength of the lion to produce an “if you don’t lose, you win” type of attitude. Modern ministry has become so very large and lucrative that para-church ministries have, at least in the recent past, overshadowed the struggling local church with all of its problems. Specific ministry expertise combined with an ever-growing technological capacity has produced an entrepreneurial cadre of ministry professionals to create, in the words of sociologist George Ritzer, the “McDonaldization” of the church.
The idea of “McDonaldization” is a somewhat new term based on the American food chain that remains the largest franchise in the world. Ritzer’s understanding of the phenomenon is “the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world.” To McDonaldize something is to put in place collections of rules, procedures and an established bureaucracy so that efficiency and effectiveness become the goal for all actions of the organization. Some aspects of this idea are extremely beneficial. They have been widely adopted across the world precisely because they are so very helpful in many ways.
It is not so much that well-run organizations fail in their mission. It is that the organization becomes the mission to the point that the original vision of its founder(s) can easily become a distant memory. Evidence that this is indeed the case in modern evangelicalism can easily be obtained by simply walking into most any Christian bookstore. The multitude of products and thousands of various books promising a fulfilled life simply by completing certain “steps” or achieving genuine spirituality through careful bite-size doses of successful Christian living in 60 minutes or less have made the “Christian” industry one of the largest in the American business market.
Yet, even as Americans continue to purchase more than 20 million new Bibles each year (which adds to the four which already sit in the average home in the United States), the state of general Bible knowledge is at an all-time low. One Gallup survey discovered that less than half of Americans could name the first book of the Bible, only a third know who actually preached the Sermon on the Mount (Billy Graham is one of the most popular answers), and only a quarter of the entire population know that the Christian church actually celebrates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead at Easter. Sixty percent cannot name half of the Ten Commandments leading George Gallup (an Evangelical himself) to describe the United States as “a nation of biblical illiterates.”
All this in light of the special interest groups that have arisen which permeate local church ministry to such a degree that a quick survey of a pastor’s daily mail reveals everything from Christian koozies to that latest denominational program guaranteed to boost baptisms. Pastoral ministry, therefore, has easily become in many congregations more the management of a religious franchise rather than personal ministry to people the Bible calls the bride of Jesus Christ. Doctrinal rediscovery (even though deepening among denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention) has not yet overcome decades of franchise-like programs which often produced “results” with little long-term roots for genuine spiritual growth and lasting effects on the culture of both the church and society.
Large numbers mask an unhealthy reality in many congregations. This is even true in the Southern Baptist Convention. How else can the vast membership of the Southern Baptist Convention (over 16 million) result in only six million in attendance on any given Sunday if not for the organizational aptitude of the denomination to produce numbers? How many of these numbers represent authentic disciples?
In response to this McDonalization of the church, a revolt of sorts has commenced among a growing number of pastors. It is not simply determined by age (admittedly, however, most are younger), but by a stubborn refusal to be cajoled into a corporate mindset of ministry where large programs and initiatives dwarf the community of a local congregation—no matter the size. Many large and small congregations are seeking a renewed emphasis on Bible teaching, community and a personal transparency that freely admits human struggle and pain through life’s journey. Churches that are denominationally linked are creating a certain thrashing about resulting in massive shifts of momentum for denominational identity. The Southern Baptist Convention is no exception.
What the Great Commission Resurgence has revealed about the inner workings of the Southern Baptist Convention is something far more than generational conflict and loyalty to the Cooperative Program (or the lack thereof). The question: can a denomination the size of the SBC overcome its programmatic tendency toward an “SBC” franchise complete with all of its institutions, boards and programs, and advance in its place a more church-centered, gospel-driven denomination? For all of the dichotomies of spiritual/structural, obedience/allocation and heart/wallet that have captured the recent attention of various media outlets and blogs, the reality is that without severe corrective measures, the SBC might be nearing the end of organizational efficiency. The next step the denomination takes will set its course for decades to come.
Whatever transpires when messengers gather in Orlando this week will leave the SBC forever changed. For many pastors, there is no turning back. The status quo is unacceptable and the denomination’s organizational identity must be re-framed and re-formed lest it continue its slide further into merely a political turf battle. The change which is needed is a radical shift away from the denomination itself to what Richard Baxter termed the “personal conference, examination and instruction” so desperately needed by members of Christ’s flock. Baxter saw his role as pastor in the local church as “the nurse of Christ’s little ones” and those for whom he was to personally involve himself as teacher, exhorter and shepherd.
Such images give rise to a new vision for the modern church (and the SBC as a whole) that remains as old as the Bible itself. God has always provided for His people men capable of caring for others through the careful preaching of His Word, the counsel of His church and the impact thoughtful organization can bring to the advance of His kingdom. The Gospel is the key. It is the declaration that God has accomplished something so spectacular in the person and work of Jesus that even denominations must bend to its strength.
What looms in Orlando is not simply a civil war of organizational priorities, but also an opportunity for a renewal of unity around the essentials of the Gospel for the strengthening of local SBC congregations. Viewed in this way, the surge the SBC so desperately needs might be found in the re-discovery of a gospel realignment that sets its course for the 21st Century. In the words of Baxter, “Our very business is to teach the great lesson of self-denial and humility to our people, and how unfit is it then that we should be proud ourselves!” Great humility is required for the 2010 annual meeting of the SBC. Time will tell if truly spiritual men can come together to agree on gospel priorities and cast aside any pride of ownership, prestige and position.
Douglas E. Baker is executive editor of the Baptist Messenger and Communications Team leader for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.
I found this blog entry at
http://baptistmessenger.com/editor%E2%80%99s-journal-against-the-mcdonaldization-of-the-sbc/
which is the news outlet for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. It is a very objective look at the issues with an eye toward the centrality of the gospel (or lack thereof) in the SBC. It is one of the best pieces on the issue I've seen to date.
Editor's Journal: Against the McDonaldization of the SBC
He that delighteth not in holiness, hateth not iniquity, loveth not the unity and purity of the Church, and abhoreth not discord and divisions, and taketh no pleasure in the communion of saints and the public worship of God with his people, is not fit to be a pastor of a church.
—Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
Since the days of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), it has become acceptable (even appreciated) for modern men and women to become “Machiavellian” in their actions. Effective leadership is often described as saying one thing and doing another to the point that it has become the unspoken hallmark and goal of leaders to know and understand the art of clandestine warfare—even in the church.
Many pastors, like many politicians, now combine the proverbial wiles of the fox with the strength of the lion to produce an “if you don’t lose, you win” type of attitude. Modern ministry has become so very large and lucrative that para-church ministries have, at least in the recent past, overshadowed the struggling local church with all of its problems. Specific ministry expertise combined with an ever-growing technological capacity has produced an entrepreneurial cadre of ministry professionals to create, in the words of sociologist George Ritzer, the “McDonaldization” of the church.
The idea of “McDonaldization” is a somewhat new term based on the American food chain that remains the largest franchise in the world. Ritzer’s understanding of the phenomenon is “the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world.” To McDonaldize something is to put in place collections of rules, procedures and an established bureaucracy so that efficiency and effectiveness become the goal for all actions of the organization. Some aspects of this idea are extremely beneficial. They have been widely adopted across the world precisely because they are so very helpful in many ways.
It is not so much that well-run organizations fail in their mission. It is that the organization becomes the mission to the point that the original vision of its founder(s) can easily become a distant memory. Evidence that this is indeed the case in modern evangelicalism can easily be obtained by simply walking into most any Christian bookstore. The multitude of products and thousands of various books promising a fulfilled life simply by completing certain “steps” or achieving genuine spirituality through careful bite-size doses of successful Christian living in 60 minutes or less have made the “Christian” industry one of the largest in the American business market.
Yet, even as Americans continue to purchase more than 20 million new Bibles each year (which adds to the four which already sit in the average home in the United States), the state of general Bible knowledge is at an all-time low. One Gallup survey discovered that less than half of Americans could name the first book of the Bible, only a third know who actually preached the Sermon on the Mount (Billy Graham is one of the most popular answers), and only a quarter of the entire population know that the Christian church actually celebrates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead at Easter. Sixty percent cannot name half of the Ten Commandments leading George Gallup (an Evangelical himself) to describe the United States as “a nation of biblical illiterates.”
All this in light of the special interest groups that have arisen which permeate local church ministry to such a degree that a quick survey of a pastor’s daily mail reveals everything from Christian koozies to that latest denominational program guaranteed to boost baptisms. Pastoral ministry, therefore, has easily become in many congregations more the management of a religious franchise rather than personal ministry to people the Bible calls the bride of Jesus Christ. Doctrinal rediscovery (even though deepening among denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention) has not yet overcome decades of franchise-like programs which often produced “results” with little long-term roots for genuine spiritual growth and lasting effects on the culture of both the church and society.Large numbers mask an unhealthy reality in many congregations. This is even true in the Southern Baptist Convention. How else can the vast membership of the Southern Baptist Convention (over 16 million) result in only six million in attendance on any given Sunday if not for the organizational aptitude of the denomination to produce numbers? How many of these numbers represent authentic disciples?
In response to this McDonalization of the church, a revolt of sorts has commenced among a growing number of pastors. It is not simply determined by age (admittedly, however, most are younger), but by a stubborn refusal to be cajoled into a corporate mindset of ministry where large programs and initiatives dwarf the community of a local congregation—no matter the size. Many large and small congregations are seeking a renewed emphasis on Bible teaching, community and a personal transparency that freely admits human struggle and pain through life’s journey. Churches that are denominationally linked are creating a certain thrashing about resulting in massive shifts of momentum for denominational identity. The Southern Baptist Convention is no exception.
What the Great Commission Resurgence has revealed about the inner workings of the Southern Baptist Convention is something far more than generational conflict and loyalty to the Cooperative Program (or the lack thereof). The question: can a denomination the size of the SBC overcome its programmatic tendency toward an “SBC” franchise complete with all of its institutions, boards and programs, and advance in its place a more church-centered, gospel-driven denomination? For all of the dichotomies of spiritual/structural, obedience/allocation and heart/wallet that have captured the recent attention of various media outlets and blogs, the reality is that without severe corrective measures, the SBC might be nearing the end of organizational efficiency. The next step the denomination takes will set its course for decades to come.
Whatever transpires when messengers gather in Orlando this week will leave the SBC forever changed. For many pastors, there is no turning back. The status quo is unacceptable and the denomination’s organizational identity must be re-framed and re-formed lest it continue its slide further into merely a political turf battle. The change which is needed is a radical shift away from the denomination itself to what Richard Baxter termed the “personal conference, examination and instruction” so desperately needed by members of Christ’s flock. Baxter saw his role as pastor in the local church as “the nurse of Christ’s little ones” and those for whom he was to personally involve himself as teacher, exhorter and shepherd.
Such images give rise to a new vision for the modern church (and the SBC as a whole) that remains as old as the Bible itself. God has always provided for His people men capable of caring for others through the careful preaching of His Word, the counsel of His church and the impact thoughtful organization can bring to the advance of His kingdom. The Gospel is the key. It is the declaration that God has accomplished something so spectacular in the person and work of Jesus that even denominations must bend to its strength.
What looms in Orlando is not simply a civil war of organizational priorities, but also an opportunity for a renewal of unity around the essentials of the Gospel for the strengthening of local SBC congregations. Viewed in this way, the surge the SBC so desperately needs might be found in the re-discovery of a gospel realignment that sets its course for the 21st Century. In the words of Baxter, “Our very business is to teach the great lesson of self-denial and humility to our people, and how unfit is it then that we should be proud ourselves!” Great humility is required for the 2010 annual meeting of the SBC. Time will tell if truly spiritual men can come together to agree on gospel priorities and cast aside any pride of ownership, prestige and position.
Douglas E. Baker is executive editor of the Baptist Messenger and Communications Team leader for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.
27 May 2010
Vietnamese-American Congressman Answers Hanoi
Representative Joseph Cao was approached by the embassy from Hanoi to
help fix up things between the VN-American community and Viet Nam. Here
is his reply to them.
Here is more info on Congressman Cao- http://josephcao.house.gov/Biography/
help fix up things between the VN-American community and Viet Nam. Here
is his reply to them.
Here is more info on Congressman Cao- http://josephcao.house.gov/Biography/
26 May 2010
Too Much Information
How in the world does one keep up with all the (good) information being posted on all those blogs? It's not like most of it is a waste of time. Now, if you look at the entire spectrum of blogs, yes, most of it IS a waste of time. But I'm talking about the dozen or so blogs that I follow, because almost everything that appears there is useful, good information and opinion.
I guess one can't keep up with it all. Even all the really good stuff. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and walk away. I suppose the best choice right now is to pick the five to ten very best, follow them, keep the ears and eyes open for new stuff that is gold, and follow these.
This is nuts, sometimes.
I guess one can't keep up with it all. Even all the really good stuff. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and walk away. I suppose the best choice right now is to pick the five to ten very best, follow them, keep the ears and eyes open for new stuff that is gold, and follow these.
This is nuts, sometimes.
24 May 2010
Community in the Church
- I ran across this quote in Mark Driscoll’s blog today-
“If you’re cause-oriented, you get affinity. All the people who agree with you come together. If you’re Christ-oriented, people who disagree on a whole lot of things, they come together. That’s actual community. What passes for community in our day is pretty much affinity. Everybody like me hangs out and does what I like. Community is people totally unlike me, who don’t have much in common with me, come together with me, because we’re Christ-centered.” (M Driscoll, http://theresurgence.com/weird_teams_are_the_best_teams )
I’ve noted that oftentimes, people who go to church together don’t really like each other, at least socially, if not literally. They don’t hang out together, don’t run in the same social circles, and generally have very little in common. Not being ‘like’ other church members is to be expected in a biblical church…after all, we don’t get to choose our fellow believers in the body of Christ (Acts 2:42; 13:48). God appoints the members of the body, and funny thing, he doesn’t always choose the way we would!
Now, I understand completely how a church of hundreds or thousands of members cannot all do the same stuff together very often. Even Sunday School classes are sometimes too big to be socially active on a regular basis. But does anyone besides me see a problem with ‘never’? In other words, shouldn’t members of the body of Christ do some social things together on occasion? (I’m not talking about church functions, or even socials put together around a SS class or group…these things are good, and we should do them…but I’m talking about strictly personal, social functions.) If we don’t, how are we ever going to get involved in each others’ lives?
That's one of the problems with Arminian theology...we tend to convince those who are like us (look like us, act like us, hang out with us, etc.). We don't seem to be very convincing to those who don't look like us or think like us. That's one reason why the evangelical church in America is so demographically homogeneous. If we approached evangelism in a scriptural way, knowing that God was going to do all the 'convincing' (that is, regeneration and saving faith), I think the church would look more like the culture in terms of ethnicity. I know I'm imposing a bit of statistical constraint on God's work, and I don't mean to do that...what I'm trying to get at is the fact that scripture talks about people of every tongue and every nation being part of the elect, and most every tongue and every nation is represented right here in the good ole USA.
This brings me back again to a fellow churchmember's comment a few weeks ago about us as individuals and families living out our Christian calling…in my mind, we should live it out together, in community. In the 8th grade bible study group that my wife and I host at our house on Sunday nights, we’ve leaned heavily on the kids to meld together as a peer group to support each other when temptation comes during their upcoming high school years. I strongly believe in positive peer pressure (because I’ve seen it work so positively in my life). It is interesting that we tell this to our youth, but don’t seem to model it for them as well as we could.
This isn’t meant as a criticism…I know some folks run the race well, with fellow believers around them at critical times. Women seem better at this than men. Men have a hard time making the kind of friendships that women make (who knows?). Throw in the apparent tension of the call to live outside our church network (get into the lost community, right?), and the balance is difficult to strike. But it needs to be struck.
19 May 2010
Trivialization of Sin
One of the biggest problems of moralistic, therapeutic deism (or MTD, on which I've written in the past) is its engulfing power to trivialize our sin. One of the key findings, if you read the book of Hebrews, is the danger of trivializing sin. Sin was a big deal in the garden, it was a big deal in the Old Testament, it was a big deal at the time of Christ, but in recent days it has been turned into anything other than a big deal. It has been called quite a few things less than it is, including a bad habit, an addiction, and even 'the way God made me'. I can't think of a more egregious bit of blasphemy, but it is a common bit these days.
The answer isn't necessarily found in the fundamentalist/liberal dichotomy (as if that were an accurate description in the first place). Fundamentalism reduces sin to certain behaviors. Sin is what those other people do. Liberalism reduces sin to social structures (what others aren't doing). Spiritualism reduces God to something inside us that simply needs enlightened, so that there is no such thing as sin, only 'inner darkness'.
Christian Smith (UNC, now at Notre Dame), came up with the term, MTD. He has now published a follow-up to his 2005 book, called 'Souls in Transition'. (Buy it here- http://fwd4.me/P0t ). It looks at where they (the subjects of the 2001-2005 study) are now. The statistics are fascinating, though too numerous to list here. For a good overview, watch/listen to Michael Horton's speech at this years Christless Christianity: 2010 West Coast Conference, called Moralistic & Therapeutic Deism. It can be found here-
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/christless-christianity-2010-west-coast/moralistic-therapeutic-deism/
This doctrine is the natural fallout of the idea that people are inherently good and the American corollary, "God helps those who help themselves." (A majority of evangelicals thought that was a verse from the bible in a recent Barna survey.) The problem is, it trivializes sin to the utmost. Failure to preach about sin is pastoral cruelty (C Fitzsimmons Allison). Eliminating sin by eliminating a holy God (which is what MTD does) is more than that, it is spiritual malpractice. One of Smith's findings was, the more a person attended an evangelical church or youth group, the more likely they were to embrace MTD. That's an ugly picture of what is happening in many of our churches and youth groups today.
When you hear sin depersonalized (it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's just a problem to your self-esteem), generalized (not a specific act, just a set of feelings or depression, etc.), and deflected to outsiders (those other people 'out there'), you know you are hearing MTD. 2 Tim. 3:2-5 is the biblical response to this kind of thinking. Flee.
[Note: I have not received any compensation for mentioning the book or the video above.]
The answer isn't necessarily found in the fundamentalist/liberal dichotomy (as if that were an accurate description in the first place). Fundamentalism reduces sin to certain behaviors. Sin is what those other people do. Liberalism reduces sin to social structures (what others aren't doing). Spiritualism reduces God to something inside us that simply needs enlightened, so that there is no such thing as sin, only 'inner darkness'.
Christian Smith (UNC, now at Notre Dame), came up with the term, MTD. He has now published a follow-up to his 2005 book, called 'Souls in Transition'. (Buy it here- http://fwd4.me/P0t ). It looks at where they (the subjects of the 2001-2005 study) are now. The statistics are fascinating, though too numerous to list here. For a good overview, watch/listen to Michael Horton's speech at this years Christless Christianity: 2010 West Coast Conference, called Moralistic & Therapeutic Deism. It can be found here-
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/christless-christianity-2010-west-coast/moralistic-therapeutic-deism/
This doctrine is the natural fallout of the idea that people are inherently good and the American corollary, "God helps those who help themselves." (A majority of evangelicals thought that was a verse from the bible in a recent Barna survey.) The problem is, it trivializes sin to the utmost. Failure to preach about sin is pastoral cruelty (C Fitzsimmons Allison). Eliminating sin by eliminating a holy God (which is what MTD does) is more than that, it is spiritual malpractice. One of Smith's findings was, the more a person attended an evangelical church or youth group, the more likely they were to embrace MTD. That's an ugly picture of what is happening in many of our churches and youth groups today.
When you hear sin depersonalized (it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's just a problem to your self-esteem), generalized (not a specific act, just a set of feelings or depression, etc.), and deflected to outsiders (those other people 'out there'), you know you are hearing MTD. 2 Tim. 3:2-5 is the biblical response to this kind of thinking. Flee.
[Note: I have not received any compensation for mentioning the book or the video above.]
15 May 2010
Creeds, Creedalism, and the Church in the 21st Century
I strongly believe that the Bible is our primary and authoritative source for theological information. I also strongly believe that statements of faith (creeds, but that’s a bad word in Baptist circles, unfortunately) are important tools in studying the bible, sharing the gospel, and making disciples.
A creed is simply a concise statement of what one (or one’s group) believes. It is a miniature systematic theology. The church found creeds to be essential by the 4th century AD, and has used them effectively for the past 1600 years. The only time things go wrong is when the creeds become the foundation rather than a reflection of scripture. I don’t think that will be a problem in a 21st-century Baptist church. In fact, even mentioning them to a few particular folks can get one run out of town on a rail.
Without creeds, things go awry in a hurry. Just look at the drift of the SBC in the first half of the 20th century when ‘creedalism’ was a bad word through the convention. In fact, the reformation doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” was corrupted into what you now hear from many Baptists as, “the priesthood of the believer”, wherein they think any individual believer has the right and ability to interpret scripture apart from apostolic teaching, church history, or elder guidance. I’ve had it thrown in my face in my own church. Here's what Timothy George had to say about it-
"The priesthood of all believers was a cardinal principle of the Reformation of the 16th century. It was used by the reformers to buttress an evangelical understanding of the church over against the clericalism and sacerdotalism of medieval Catholicism. In modern theology, however, the ecclesial context of this Reformation principle has been almost totally eclipsed. For example, in the current SBC debate on the issue, both sides have referred (uncritically) to the "priesthood of the believer." The reformers talked instead of the "priesthood of all believers" (plural). For them it was never a question of a lonely, isolated seeker of truth, but rather of a band of faithful believers united in a common confession as a local, visible congregatio sanctorum."
"The priesthood of all believers was a cardinal principle of the Reformation of the 16th century. It was used by the reformers to buttress an evangelical understanding of the church over against the clericalism and sacerdotalism of medieval Catholicism. In modern theology, however, the ecclesial context of this Reformation principle has been almost totally eclipsed. For example, in the current SBC debate on the issue, both sides have referred (uncritically) to the "priesthood of the believer." The reformers talked instead of the "priesthood of all believers" (plural). For them it was never a question of a lonely, isolated seeker of truth, but rather of a band of faithful believers united in a common confession as a local, visible congregatio sanctorum."
When I talk about church history and elder guidance, I'm not envisioning a teaching magisterium or even an inerrant body of teaching from the mother church. I'm envisioning the spirit-led and God-gifted men (and women) throughout the history of the church who have kept the church on the straight and narrow in the midst of heresies and movements that tried to drag her away. Whether that be Aurelius Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, or Spurgeon, these men have been mightily used of God in keeping secularism, Pelagianism, and other falsehoods from dragging the church off-course. While scripture is authoritative, the writings of these men are valuable resources in how the scriptures are interpreted and applied in an orthodox manner.
So a systematic approach to bible study is warranted in the culture of the SBC, I think. J. I. Packer, in a recent Modern Reformation article, says it thusly- “It has often been said that Christianity in North America is 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep. Something similar is true, by all accounts, in Africa and Asia, and (I can testify to this) in Britain also. Worshipers in evangelical churches, from the very young to the very old, and particularly the youth and the twenty- and thirty-somethings, know far less about the Bible and the faith than one would hope and than they themselves need to know for holy living. This is because the teaching mode of Christian communication is out of fashion, and all the emphasis in sermons and small groups is laid on experience in its various aspects. The result is a pietist form of piety, ardent and emotional, in which realizing the reality of fellowship with the Father and the Son is central while living one’s life with Spirit-given wisdom and discernment is neglected both as a topic and as a task. In the Western world in particular, where Christianity is marginalized and secular culture dismisses it as an ideological has-been, where daily we rub shoulders with persons of other faiths and of no faith, and where within the older Protestant churches tolerating the intolerable is advocated as a requirement of justice, versions of Christianity that care more for experiences of life than for principles of truth will neither strengthen churches nor glorify God.”
What is Packer’s answer to this? Teaching of the truth of the gospel, of course! He says, “The well-being of Christianity worldwide for this twenty-first century directly depends, I am convinced, on the recovery of what has historically been called catechesis—that is, the ministry of systematically teaching people in and coming into our churches the sinew-truths that Christians live by, and the faithful, practical, consistent way for Christians to live by them. During the past three centuries, catechesis as defined has shrunk, even in evangelical churches, from an all-age project to instruction for children and in some cases has vanished altogether. As one who for half a century has been attempting an essentially catechetical ministry by voice and pen, I long for the day when in all our churches systematic catechesis will come back into its own.”
I agree.
What is Packer’s answer to this? Teaching of the truth of the gospel, of course! He says, “The well-being of Christianity worldwide for this twenty-first century directly depends, I am convinced, on the recovery of what has historically been called catechesis—that is, the ministry of systematically teaching people in and coming into our churches the sinew-truths that Christians live by, and the faithful, practical, consistent way for Christians to live by them. During the past three centuries, catechesis as defined has shrunk, even in evangelical churches, from an all-age project to instruction for children and in some cases has vanished altogether. As one who for half a century has been attempting an essentially catechetical ministry by voice and pen, I long for the day when in all our churches systematic catechesis will come back into its own.”
I agree.
I think this is one of the more important answers to why we lose so much of our youth (I’m speaking of the church at large) when they leave for college. Those statistics are appalling. I also know that catechesis done in a dry and non-community environment will lead nowhere for most people. It is essential it is done in a faith-community environment where people have each other’s ‘six’ and are willing to live out the truths they learn by giving of themselves and by service to both their brothers and the lost.
This all comes back to basic Christian living…we as individuals and families need to live out the Christian life apart from church programming as well as within it, and we’ll find an amazing connection to our culture suddenly appear that we didn’t know was there. The bible study, catechism, systematic theology, or whatever you call it (centered on the gospel, of course) is the foundation for living that life, and the actions and service, primarily the preaching and teaching of the word, will be the means that God uses to bring the elect into His presence.
I’m looking forward to re-reading the book of Acts with an eye toward how the early church engaged their culture. If I recall from the last time I read it, there’s a whole bunch of individuals sharing the gospel with other individuals, and not a lot of church-organized events and formal programs which lean on a professional pastorate to do the evangelization for the church. And primarily, there was a tremendous dependence of all Christians to rely on the holy spirit to turn the hearts of the converts, rather than convincing them with methods and amusements, and this dependence was most faithfully demonstrated by an active and fervent prayer life among the believers. And it was effected by sharing the gospel, which consisted of God’s judgment on sin, our hopelessness in sin, and God’s provision in Christ (all shared using the Old Testament, of course).
14 May 2010
Contextualizing Randall County- What is Our Culture?
Because of the discussions recently with a group meeting at my church (Once-a-month-Lunch Group), I’ve been doing some thinking about how we can contextualize where FBC is in relation to our culture, which is Randall County and more specifically, the city of Canyon and surrounding subdivisions.
It hasn’t been easy, and in doing research, there’s a lot more out there about cultures like Mark Driscoll’s (Seattle, one of the most secular cultures in the world) than cultures like this county and city. I did manage to find one, a short video on YouTube by Matt Chandler, about the context he works in in the Fort Worth area, which church-wise, is similar to our own, even though economically and demographically, it is much different. Take a look at the video and notice the parallels, and how we address them as a church and as individuals sharing the gospel.
I’ve heard about all the unchurched people in Randall County, but I’ve disagreed, both semantically and practically, with the way the term is used and the numbers are reported. The terms I’ve used (and prefer) instead of ‘unchurched’ are de-churched and dys-churched. By de-churched, I mean folks who at one time went to church, were possibly church members, but for whatever reasons, left the church and don’t attend or participate anymore. By dys-churched, I mean folks who left church under bad circumstances, such as felt lik they were no longer believers, had a bad life experience and blamed God, bought into agnosticism or athiesm, or even were run out of church (rightly or wrongly) by other church members.
12 May 2010
With the Old Breed
The recent series on HBO called, The Pacific has generated new (and deserved) interest in the war in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. While I've heard of a few complaints from former marines over the poetic license taken during production of The Pacific, I've never heard anyone say the books on which the series is based have any problems with the way it was.
The series is based mainly on two books: Helmet For My Pillow by Robert Leckie, and With the Old Breed by E. B. Sledge. I read Helmet back in high school, and it was a good book. I didn't get around to Old Breed until just this year. If you haven't read it, it is a must-read. It is no-holds-barred in the way it tells of the life of a US Marine during the battles of Pelileu and Okinawa. Sledge wrote a sequel, China Marine, a few years after the war detailing the rest of his time in the Corps. Pick it up as well.
The Pacific won't ever be as good as Band of Brothers for various reasons, but the books on which it is based are...read them.
The series is based mainly on two books: Helmet For My Pillow by Robert Leckie, and With the Old Breed by E. B. Sledge. I read Helmet back in high school, and it was a good book. I didn't get around to Old Breed until just this year. If you haven't read it, it is a must-read. It is no-holds-barred in the way it tells of the life of a US Marine during the battles of Pelileu and Okinawa. Sledge wrote a sequel, China Marine, a few years after the war detailing the rest of his time in the Corps. Pick it up as well.
The Pacific won't ever be as good as Band of Brothers for various reasons, but the books on which it is based are...read them.
11 May 2010
Tullian's Blog
As I explore various blogs on the internet, I find most of them to be of little interest, but occasionally run across one that seems to be seeking me out. You'll find links to the blogs I love in the sidebar of this page.
One of the more recent blogs I've found is the one written by Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. (By the way, I admire him for the simple reason it took him a lot more effort to learn to spell his name in kindergarten that it took me.)
Recently, he's been talking about who we are in Christ, and more specifically, what we have as opposed to what we have to seek out and find. Here's what he said a few days ago-
"I used to think Christian growth happened as we go out and get what we don’t have–if we’re going to grow we have to go out and get more patience, get more strength, get more joy, etc. But after reading the Bible more carefully I’ve learned that Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have; Christian growth happens by working hard to live in the reality of what you do have.
You could say that Christian growth does not happen first by behaving better, but believing better–believing in bigger, deeper, brighter ways what Christ has already secured for sinners. In other words, the hard work of sanctification that Paul talks about in Philippians 2:12 is a continuous, daily going back to the reality of your justification."
That's a great look at what the Christian life is, and how we often fail to understand it, working hard to get what we don't have instead of working hard to live in what we do. Then, just today, he posted this tidbit about the gospel-
"The gospel isn’t simply a set of truths that non-Christians must believe in order to become saved. It’s a reality that Christians must daily embrace in order to experience being saved. The gospel not only saves us from the penalty of sin (justification), but it also saves us from the power of sin (sanctification) day after day. Or, as John Piper has said, “The cross is not only a past place of objective substitution; it is a present place of subjective execution.” Our daily sin requires God’s daily grace—the grace that comes to us through the finished work of Jesus Christ."
I've been saying that the gospel is for the church, not just the lost. Pastor Tullian says it a lot better than I have been (with a little help from John Piper, who's blog you'll also find listed in the sidebar). This quote will certainly turn up in my SS lesson in the next couple weeks.
One of the more recent blogs I've found is the one written by Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. (By the way, I admire him for the simple reason it took him a lot more effort to learn to spell his name in kindergarten that it took me.)
Recently, he's been talking about who we are in Christ, and more specifically, what we have as opposed to what we have to seek out and find. Here's what he said a few days ago-
"I used to think Christian growth happened as we go out and get what we don’t have–if we’re going to grow we have to go out and get more patience, get more strength, get more joy, etc. But after reading the Bible more carefully I’ve learned that Christian growth does not happen by working hard to get something you don’t have; Christian growth happens by working hard to live in the reality of what you do have.
You could say that Christian growth does not happen first by behaving better, but believing better–believing in bigger, deeper, brighter ways what Christ has already secured for sinners. In other words, the hard work of sanctification that Paul talks about in Philippians 2:12 is a continuous, daily going back to the reality of your justification."
That's a great look at what the Christian life is, and how we often fail to understand it, working hard to get what we don't have instead of working hard to live in what we do. Then, just today, he posted this tidbit about the gospel-
"The gospel isn’t simply a set of truths that non-Christians must believe in order to become saved. It’s a reality that Christians must daily embrace in order to experience being saved. The gospel not only saves us from the penalty of sin (justification), but it also saves us from the power of sin (sanctification) day after day. Or, as John Piper has said, “The cross is not only a past place of objective substitution; it is a present place of subjective execution.” Our daily sin requires God’s daily grace—the grace that comes to us through the finished work of Jesus Christ."
I've been saying that the gospel is for the church, not just the lost. Pastor Tullian says it a lot better than I have been (with a little help from John Piper, who's blog you'll also find listed in the sidebar). This quote will certainly turn up in my SS lesson in the next couple weeks.
10 May 2010
Sundays Coming- the Movie Trailer
OK, this one is too funny to miss...a vimeo satire of the extreme relevance movement that is a riot-
http://vimeo.com/11501569
Make sure you read the 'awards' on the closing title page.
http://vimeo.com/11501569
Make sure you read the 'awards' on the closing title page.
30 April 2010
Thirty-Five Years...What Have We Learned?
Thirty-five years ago today, Saigon fell to the communists.
I just finished reading Goodnight, Saigon, by Charles Henderson. It is the story of the last months of the Republic of South Vietnam, and specifically of the last American troops there, including the last 11 Marines who were flown out under fire as the NVA and VC swarmed the city. While the book tended to wander at times, it managed to convey the sense of betrayal that all Americans should feel at our abandoning our loyal supporters to the hands of the communists. Many died; others spent years in 're-education' camps; families were separated, women and children were abused and tortured, and most had to fend for themselves as homeless on the streets of the newly-named Ho Chi Mihn City.
What have we learned from this? Will it speak to our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will we again call the blood of (then 58,000, now close to 4,000) American troops wasted by walking away when we can't have what we want right now?
I pray we learn from our history rather than choose to repeat it, and may God bless those men and women who were left to fend for themselves when we lost our moral resolve to stay the course. And thank God for the Marines who didn't lose their moral resolve to fight the fight!
I just finished reading Goodnight, Saigon, by Charles Henderson. It is the story of the last months of the Republic of South Vietnam, and specifically of the last American troops there, including the last 11 Marines who were flown out under fire as the NVA and VC swarmed the city. While the book tended to wander at times, it managed to convey the sense of betrayal that all Americans should feel at our abandoning our loyal supporters to the hands of the communists. Many died; others spent years in 're-education' camps; families were separated, women and children were abused and tortured, and most had to fend for themselves as homeless on the streets of the newly-named Ho Chi Mihn City.
What have we learned from this? Will it speak to our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will we again call the blood of (then 58,000, now close to 4,000) American troops wasted by walking away when we can't have what we want right now?
I pray we learn from our history rather than choose to repeat it, and may God bless those men and women who were left to fend for themselves when we lost our moral resolve to stay the course. And thank God for the Marines who didn't lose their moral resolve to fight the fight!
28 April 2010
Saving the Local Church
My local church leadership is in a bit of a quandry right now- they are aware of the changes in demographics in the community and aware of the drop in numbers over the last few years at the church. The question then is, "What do we do about it?"
Even asking the question is full of pitfalls. When we talk about the culture and the church, and how they do/should intermingle, we bring multiple perspectives into play, and many time folks end up arguing points without having any agreement on what terms mean or where the focus should be in making changes.
Our church does not seem to have any agreement on some basic building blocks from which to create a plan for dealing with the negative changes. For example, do we believe in a regenerate worship, or an evangelical worship? It seems that we need to establish that fact before we start talking about how to engage our local community. And, where do we believe the emphasis comes from in moving the lost toward the cross...is it from common grace that God gives all to be able to come to Christ, or is it from saving grace God gives to the elect that brings them to Christ? I don't see how we can come up with a plan to evangelize our city until we agree (at least in principle) on that belief.
These are hard questions. There are sincere believers on both sides of the above arguments, and getting all these to an accord on these important questions is daunting. I was speaking to the pastor this past Sunday about one parallel issue, age-segregation. It seems, based on comments in the meetings we've had, that one of the few things almost everybody agrees on is that we want age-segregation to stop in our church. Yet, the solution to that is seemingly unobtainable. We have two vastly different worship styles in our two main services (contemporary and traditional), and the median ages in the two services are probably close to 40 years (an entire generation) apart. We have age-graded Sunday School, separate worship services for our children and college students, separate ministers dedicated to age-delimited groups (youth, college, senior adults), and so on. In other words, the entire church is built around age-segregation. It would appear we need to dismantle most of the church's structure to get away from age-segregation. That's not an easy task.
My point of emphasis that I've tried to say in multiple ways through this process is, we need to change the methods to reach our culture, but we cannot change the message of the gospel. The gospel itself is our true relevance to the culture around us, not our ability to look like the culture around us, or relate to its participants. This is one facet that I hope we have enough wisdom to cement into place as we look for ways to reach our culture for Christ.
Even asking the question is full of pitfalls. When we talk about the culture and the church, and how they do/should intermingle, we bring multiple perspectives into play, and many time folks end up arguing points without having any agreement on what terms mean or where the focus should be in making changes.
Our church does not seem to have any agreement on some basic building blocks from which to create a plan for dealing with the negative changes. For example, do we believe in a regenerate worship, or an evangelical worship? It seems that we need to establish that fact before we start talking about how to engage our local community. And, where do we believe the emphasis comes from in moving the lost toward the cross...is it from common grace that God gives all to be able to come to Christ, or is it from saving grace God gives to the elect that brings them to Christ? I don't see how we can come up with a plan to evangelize our city until we agree (at least in principle) on that belief.
These are hard questions. There are sincere believers on both sides of the above arguments, and getting all these to an accord on these important questions is daunting. I was speaking to the pastor this past Sunday about one parallel issue, age-segregation. It seems, based on comments in the meetings we've had, that one of the few things almost everybody agrees on is that we want age-segregation to stop in our church. Yet, the solution to that is seemingly unobtainable. We have two vastly different worship styles in our two main services (contemporary and traditional), and the median ages in the two services are probably close to 40 years (an entire generation) apart. We have age-graded Sunday School, separate worship services for our children and college students, separate ministers dedicated to age-delimited groups (youth, college, senior adults), and so on. In other words, the entire church is built around age-segregation. It would appear we need to dismantle most of the church's structure to get away from age-segregation. That's not an easy task.
My point of emphasis that I've tried to say in multiple ways through this process is, we need to change the methods to reach our culture, but we cannot change the message of the gospel. The gospel itself is our true relevance to the culture around us, not our ability to look like the culture around us, or relate to its participants. This is one facet that I hope we have enough wisdom to cement into place as we look for ways to reach our culture for Christ.
22 April 2010
Splintering in Neo-Calvinism
I've been taken aback recently by several comments I've read on blogs, and maybe more so by a particular blog and the direction it has taken. The comments that have bothered me have had to do with those in reformed churches calling many folks in the, "young, restless, and reformed" (YRR) movement illegitimate with respect to being reformed. There are two important considerations that are not being taken into account by these people- (1) their definition of 'reformed' isn't shared or known by those new to the doctrines of grace, and (2) they don't understand how much damage their attitudes can do in those who are new to the doctrines of grace.
First, look at the flap over John Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at Bethlehem's national conference. No, Rick Warren isn't reformed, nor even a proponent of the doctrines of grace, but the way Piper has been treated by some in the blog world has been truly mind-boggling. They are attacking him as if he'd denied the faith itself.
Second, look at the popular Internet Monk blog. The founder of the blog, Michael Spencer, recently died of cancer. The person (or people) who took over the blog have turned it into a cheerleading platform for evolution. It is supposed to be a reformed blog, but it is rivaled only by Hitchens and Dawkins in its fervor for evolutionary origins of humanity.
Michael Horton posted on the White Horse Inn page, just today, a blog which helps to clear up some of this confusion. At least, it will if enough people read it. Now, Horton has made some comments in the past that (in my mind) put him in the group calling YRR folks illegitimate. His work, particularly Christless Christianity and Gospel-Driven Life have been very influential on me, so I was certainly bothered by his apparent attitude. The new blog today has cleared up some of my concerns by clarifying some of what he has said. Getting the 'big picture' is always a good idea, and Horton has helped with that by his latest post.
I hope the YRR movement can come together better on some of these issues before too many 'seekers' of the doctrines of grace are driven away by the in-fighting. There are huge differences between reformed ecclesiology and Calvinistic soteriology/christology. Some in the reformed churches seem ready to cast out all those who believe in the doctrines of grace and support the solas of the reformation unless they also adopt covenant theology in its entirety. I don't think that's a wise choice. Horton has advocated calling the movement of non-reformed adherents to the doctrines of grace, "Calvinistic evangelicalism". I don't know if that's the best choice, since 'Calvinism' has been given an unfortunate baggage of derision by the Arminian movement, but if it keeps the splintering to a minimum, I'll take it.
First, look at the flap over John Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at Bethlehem's national conference. No, Rick Warren isn't reformed, nor even a proponent of the doctrines of grace, but the way Piper has been treated by some in the blog world has been truly mind-boggling. They are attacking him as if he'd denied the faith itself.
Second, look at the popular Internet Monk blog. The founder of the blog, Michael Spencer, recently died of cancer. The person (or people) who took over the blog have turned it into a cheerleading platform for evolution. It is supposed to be a reformed blog, but it is rivaled only by Hitchens and Dawkins in its fervor for evolutionary origins of humanity.
Michael Horton posted on the White Horse Inn page, just today, a blog which helps to clear up some of this confusion. At least, it will if enough people read it. Now, Horton has made some comments in the past that (in my mind) put him in the group calling YRR folks illegitimate. His work, particularly Christless Christianity and Gospel-Driven Life have been very influential on me, so I was certainly bothered by his apparent attitude. The new blog today has cleared up some of my concerns by clarifying some of what he has said. Getting the 'big picture' is always a good idea, and Horton has helped with that by his latest post.
I hope the YRR movement can come together better on some of these issues before too many 'seekers' of the doctrines of grace are driven away by the in-fighting. There are huge differences between reformed ecclesiology and Calvinistic soteriology/christology. Some in the reformed churches seem ready to cast out all those who believe in the doctrines of grace and support the solas of the reformation unless they also adopt covenant theology in its entirety. I don't think that's a wise choice. Horton has advocated calling the movement of non-reformed adherents to the doctrines of grace, "Calvinistic evangelicalism". I don't know if that's the best choice, since 'Calvinism' has been given an unfortunate baggage of derision by the Arminian movement, but if it keeps the splintering to a minimum, I'll take it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)