Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #30 - John 17:16 & 18:36

 

John 17:16  New International Version

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

John 18:36  New International Version

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Admittedly, it has been a while since I've posted something in my self-imposed series of 62 scripture passages that refute "Christian" Nationalism.  The last post prior to this one was in January, and those of you who read my blog will understand what I've been writing about since them: The First Fruits of Zion.  To compare the two issues (Nationalism vs. the Hebrew Roots Movement, i.e. FFOZ) is a study in contrasts.  "Christian" Nationalism is a big idea with a long history that poses an existential threat to not only America but Europe as well, whereas the HRM is a much more niche idea that most people are unaware of, and one that despite the grandiose vision of its leaders is very unlikely to affect world history.  On another level, "Christian" Nationalism is more nebulous, its influences and harms in the local church and in our denominations more difficult to pin down as it floats on the jetsam with a host of other dangerous political ideas and movements.  In contrast, the HRM {FFOZ being one example}, when one does encounter it as we have here in Venango County, barges into local congregations, pulls individuals out of fellowship, and causes acute local harm.  All that is a long-winded explanation why I needed to prioritize writing about the dangers of FFOZ (an ongoing process as I continue preparing my seminar for this Fall) when its dangerous activity is front-and-center in our Christian community.  So what brought the idea of "Christian" Nationalism back into focus, at least for now?  The urgency come from a new effort being put forth to legitimize and defend this ideology, primarily in Reformed Baptist circles (not my pond, but adjacent to the one I swim in, and I know it well enough).

The effort in question: The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel is a very populist/libertarian (they don't mesh well, I know) and isolationist political essay wrapped in the notion that this is the true vision of Jesus Christ for not only his Church, but every nation on the planet as well in this age.

The contradiction between Jesus' words in John's Gospel and the statement linked above could not be more stark.  The authors of the statement envision Jesus Christ reigning and ruling over this world, here and now, when he made no such claim.  In essence, they believe they can establish at least a version of the kingdom that Jesus promised that he would establish when he returns, but of course Jesus did not encourage, let alone command, his followers to be about this task.

If you take the time to read the statement, a number of eye-opening claims may stand out to you.  When I read it, two of the inherent problems of this philosophy, regarding which "Christian" Nationalism does NOT have any moral answers came to the forefront: (1) What about the non-Christians living in the nations that follow this vision?  They will either become second-class citizens who are forced to live against their beliefs, and/or be expelled from the land.  While the authors thankfully denounce ethnic homogeneity, they implicitly are endorsing national religious uniformity.  History has such an example in Spain after the Reconquista where both Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" between fleeing as refugees and converting.  Let me save you the suspense, it was a brutal process that gave the Inquisition a chance to shine.  You may be saying, "Where in the statement is this?"  It isn't, but that is the inevitable conclusion when you state that the civil government should enforce the Ten Commandments (the one on the Sabbath is awkward given that Christians worship on the Lord's Day, that is Sunday).  The key one here is the taking of the Lord's name in vain, i.e. blasphemy.

WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the second table of the Ten Commandments (laws 5-10) as the foundational law of the nation, with warnings informing citizens of the consequences of blaspheming the One, True, and Living God often resulting in second table violations, namely, the harming of our neighbors’ lives and property.

WE DENY that laws against public blasphemy coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.

Once non-Christians in America (or Europe, this movement is more advanced there in Russia and Hungary) are muzzled with blasphemy laws {i.e. the 1st Amendment is neutered}, the second moral quandary of "Christian" Nationalism will rear its ugly head: (2) The government will be in the business of defining orthodoxy within Christianity and punishing those who run afoul of that judgment.  Throughout the statement there are references to promoting and defending historic Christian orthodoxy, and while I have great confidence that we can come to a working definition of such for ecumenical purposes within the Church {that is freely chosen associations}, as a Baptist (in the historic sense) I have zero confidence in having that definition interpreted and enforced by a politician or judge.

So, first the blasphemy laws will silence or expel the non-Christians, then they will come for the not-sufficiently orthodox people who claim to be Christians {Again, the government would be making these judgment calls through arrests and trials of those who violate the law against blasphemy}.

Can this really be what Jesus wanted his Church to become?  Is this in any way a part of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed would be marked by love and self-sacrificial servanthood?  

Lastly, and this should not be missed when you read the statement: the authors admit they're not willing to prioritize democracy or the republic.  They think that "Christian" Nationalism will work just fine under dictators {See: Putin and the wanna-be dictator Viktor Orban}.

WE DENY that the separation of authority between the Church and the State means there must be a separation of God and the state. We further deny that there can ever be a separation between religion and state., as everyone possesses views about ultimate reality, purpose, and cause, which inform their morality and preferred policies. We deny the idea that a nation’s laws do not impose morality and religion.

Read the statement, and read John 17:16 and 18:36, the disconnect is powerful.

When our polity fails us: Baptists and immoral pastoral leaders, what Johnny Hunt's 'restoration' teaches us

 

On January 15th, 2023 disgraced former mega church pastor and former executive vice-president of the  Southern Baptist Convention, Johnny Hunt returned, triumphantly and defiantly, to the pulpit.  It wasn't at his former church, but one under the pastoral leadership of a friend.  During his sermon, Hunt utilized Psalm 119 to lash out at his critics {portraying himself, the sexual perpetrator, deftly as the victim}, and made a case for pastoral infallibility that would have blown away our Baptist ancestors in the faith. {For a solid article with the details on Hunt's preaching appearance: Johnny Hunt, Disgraced Former SBC Pastor, Makes Defiant Return to the Pulpit - by Bob Smietana of Ministry Watch or Here’s Johnny! Embattled SBC pastor back in the pulpit and will headline a men’s conference - by Mark Wingfield of Baptist News Global

Building upon the thesis that God would have already known that one day Johnny Hunt would attempt to have sex with another man's wife (she characterized the incident as assault, he called it consensual), something that would normally be disqualifying for pastoral leadership in any church that takes seriously the Apostle Paul's high-demands for moral excellence and character on the part of pastoral leadership in the church, Hunt declared, "When God calls you to do something, and you begin to think you’re no longer qualified to do it, hold on just a moment—you don’t think he knew your past, your present, and your future when he called you? He already knew that, and yet he still placed his hand and his calling on you.”  In other words, because God knew Hunt would one day commit this sin, and because Hunt is convinced that his life in ministry was based upon a call from God, that call CANNOT now be revoked no matter what.  The implications of this are staggering theologically for a Church that has had far too many abusers, rapists, and murderers, and the like in pastoral leadership: as long as that person was already "called by God", they can continue to preach the Word of God.  Perhaps Johnny Hunt would object, and draw the line somewhere (beyond his own conduct, to be sure) to say that some sin is disqualifying, but why?  God would have known about the most heinous of sins ahead of time (true enough), and that individual was working in ministry, and thus presumably "called by God", therefore beyond being disqualified.  We know that Johnny Hunt believes in this thesis, he famously led a "restoration" ministry that was once so lauded by the SBC that they helped his church expand it nationally, returning an unknown number of pastors suffering from "moral failure" to active pastoral leadership: Ministry to hurting pastors to expand nationally - By Tobin Perry, Baptist Press, 2013 

The pastor of the church that offered Hunt the pulpit, Jason Rogers, said this, "We are thrilled to host Pastor Johnny Hunt at HomE Church. No one has been more greatly used of God to influence my ministry or as a greater, God-honoring influence on my family. Like myself, everyone in our church family, and everyone in the world, Pastor Johnny has not lived in sinless perfection as a believer. However, contrary to the ‘woke’ ideology that has sadly consumed the SBC and many believers, the Bible is clear that all sin is alike before the holiness of God. Sexual sin is not a greater sin in the sight of God. This is why we all need grace, mercy, repentance, and forgiveness."  Aside from the stunning lack of insight into how this glee looks in the wake of the SBC clergy abuse scandal, Pastor Rogers also fails to come to grips with the fact that while the Apostle Paul didn't expect Christians to be perfect, himself included, but he did purposefully write that pastoral leaders must be "above reproach, faithful to his wife" (1 Timothy 3:2).  Forgiveness from God?  Absolutely, if the repentance is genuine.  Reconciliation with the people of God and renewed fellowship?  Absolutely, again if the repentance is genuine.  Jumping right back into the pulpit (and lucrative conference lecture circuit)?  No, no, no.  

I know that to write or say such things is to paint a huge bright target on my own back, and I'm ok with that.  I hold myself to this high standard that Paul requires as a pastor, and also as a husband and father.  I will never cheat on my wife, in deed or in spirit, as it would not be an "indiscretion" or "mistake", it would be a betrayal of everything I am and do, and just as importantly, guaranteed pain and trauma to the two people I love most in this world.  

So I say, can't we at least have this as a standard?  The ship may have sailed on having political leaders who are faithful to their spouses, but must the Church abandon this too?  Are we so hard up for pastoral leaders that we need to recycle those whose leadership included "moral failures"?  Do those cheering on Johnny Hunt not see the utter hypocrisy that the world sees when the champions of "family values" celebrate pastors who havw made a mockery of their marriage vows?

Where Baptist polity comes into the equation

In the end, Baptists of any denomination have little recourse in such matters, the SBC included.  When a self-appointed group of four pastoral friends of Johnny Hunt declared him ready to return to ministry, the current president of the SBC, Bart Barber wrote, "The idea that a council of pastors, assembled with the consent of the abusive pastor, possesses some authority to declare a pastor fit for resumed ministry is a conceit that is altogether absent from Baptist polity and from the witness of the New Testament. Indeed, it is repugnant to all that those sources extol and represent."  He went on to add that he would have "defrocked" Hunt if such power rested with the SBC president, but it doesn't.  Which is the whole point.  

Baptist pastors are appointed, and ordained, by local churches, as myself was by the First Baptist Church of Palo, MI.  The larger units: associations, regions, and denominations, have no power to do likewise, nor do they have the power to withdraw that local church approval because of immoral conduct or heretical teaching, only that local church retains the power {The local association can remove its recognition of what the local church has done in ordaining someone, or refuse to accept it in the first place, but that is all.}  Thus, unless the church that ordained Johnny Hunt were to act to revoke his ordination, it still stands in the eyes of Baptist polity.  Yet, even if they did, it would not prevent other Baptist churches from inviting Hunt to preach, a role that does not require ordination.  Long story short, there is nothing that any Baptist entity can do to stop Johnny Hunt from going on a victory tour and becoming a speaking celebrity once more.

We believe in local church autonomy for a number of reasons, having just finished teaching Baptist History and Polity, I could list them for you, perhaps another time.  Even so, we have to recognize the downside of that autonomy, such freedom isn't free, and in this case the cost to the Baptist reputation is high.

Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

Sermon Video: Tradition Needs Sincerity - Mark 7:1-8

 When asked why his disciples were not participating in an oral tradition of Judaism that had been passed down through the years by various rabbis, Jesus responds by addressing the real issue: sincerity. Whether or not a tradition has value and should be retained and supported, or is harmful and should be discontinued depends upon two questions: (1) Does it conform to the Word of God? {Or is scripture silent on the issue} (2) Is the tradition being adhered to with sincerity of heart? Traditions in alignment with scripture have value, how much depends on us.

To not "look Catholic" is a terrible rationale for a Baptist Church to base decisions upon.

The Red Bank Baptist Church of Lexington, South Carolina, recently voted (in Baptist Churches all members have a vote, and can vote at regular congregational business meetings regarding matters both great and small, i.e. the church budget, the calling/dismissing of a pastor, program and building issues, etc.) to remove a 7 ft. statue of Jesus which had been displayed outside the entrance to the church for the past decade.  According to Pastor Jeff Wright, "This is not a denomination issue, its a church decision.  We are removing it to end some confusion.  Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, 'Why is this on the front of a Baptist Church?"  In a letter the church sent to the artist, Delbert Baker Jr., Pastor Wright explained that the statue brings into question, "the theology and core values" of the church.

AP story: Baptist church's 'Catholic' Jesus statue to find new home

The Jesus statue at Red Bank Baptist Church that is being removed.

We live in interesting times.  On the one hand we have an ongoing debate that roils people's emotions and has led to protests and bloodshed concerning the removal of statues on public land which were erected to honor those who fought to retain slavery in America, and at the same time, we have a congregation choosing to remove a statue of Jesus from their property because it makes the building appear "too Catholic".

Whether or not a Baptist Church has a statue or painting of Jesus prominently displayed is not the most pressing theological question facing most churches, but the line of reasoning that led to the decision made by the people of Red Bank Baptist Church is of import to all churches, regardless of denomination.  We, as local churches and/or as part of a denomination, ought not to be deciding how we carry out our Biblical mandate to share the Gospel and make disciples on the basis of not doing so "like them".  The "them" in this case is the Catholic Church, but it could just have easily been the Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or a host of others.  Why we do what we do, and how we do it, are questions far too important to be decided based upon a desire to have a unique "brand" as a church.

What is the proper standard for a church to base its decisions upon?  The bedrock standard is the Word of God itself.  Does the Bible encourage, prohibit, or is it silent on the issue at hand?  If the Bible encourages/commands the behavior/attitude in question, the discussion is over.  Our task is simply to obey.  If the Bible prohibits/condemns the behavior/attitude in question, again, the discussion is over, our task is to obey.  If the Bible is silent on the particular issue, we then look to see if principles contained in God's Word apply, we consider the wisdom of the collective Church's viewpoint on the issue over the ages, and we examine our own God-given reason and consciences as well.  These are the proper channels for discussion and debate among a local church or denomination regarding the choices we face and decisions we must make.  However, being "not Catholic", "not Pentecostal", or "not Presbyterian" is an invalid viewpoint, one that heightens divisions, encourages emotional instead of reasoned decisions, and in the end, leads to faulty theology.  In case you're wondering, making a decision based upon trying to mimic another church is an equally faulty methodology, albeit one that at least has a positive connotation.

Baptists are not alone in falling to this temptation.  Historically speaking many of the Counter-Reformation decisions of the Catholic Church were made on this same basis, to be "not Protestant", with less than helpful results.  Time and time again, churches have made decisions that were not based upon a careful and obedient understanding of God's Word, or upon wisdom received from our ancestors in the faith combined with our own reasons/consciences, but rather upon lesser criteria.  When we make decisions based upon reasoning and motivations that are less than ideal, or even downright foolish, how can we expect the decisions themselves to be God honoring and wise?

Not being privy to the internal discussions that took place at Red Bank Baptist prior to the decision, I don't know why they believe that the "theology and core values" of their church are threatened by an artist's depiction of Jesus, but if the answer contains any of this sentiment, "because it makes us look too Catholic", whether in the end they came to the right decision or not, the reasoning was dangerously faulty.




For some perspective, I write this as the pastor of an American Baptist Church with a rather unique architectural and artistic style among baptist churches that reflects the oil boom heritage of the Franklin area when the church sanctuary as it looks now was completed in 1904.  We have more art than most churches on the walls, including two giant murals of Jesus flanking the pulpit.  It would be a tragedy if a future generation decided to whitewash those murals to avoid looking like other Christians.

The sanctuary of First Baptist Church of Franklin

A review of: "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World by Dr. Richard Olson

On February 1st of this year, Judson Press published a book by Dr. Richard Olson, retired seminary professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas, entitled "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World.  The following is a review of that book that I'm writing as a Christian pastor who is intimately and regularly involved in the related, and often confused with inter-faith ecumenism, topic of intra-faith ecumenism.

My evaluation of Dr. Olson's book is of two kinds, while I find much to admire concerning inter-faith dialogue, peace, justice, and the plight of refugees, at the same time, the further step taken beyond these by Dr. Olson to embrace religious inclusivism is a bridge too far.  It is not an easy task to promote dialogue and peace between religions while at the same time holding firm to one's own belief that the Gospel is the Absolute Truth for all mankind.  It was just this sort of delicate balance that has sparked vicious unwarranted criticism by a few zealots of Christian apologist James White's willingness to debate Muslim apologists in a respectful way while both speakers maintained their claim to absolute truth.  It is an uncomfortable and difficult place to be, defending Truth while also promoting tolerance and peace, but it is the role given to us as disciples of Jesus Christ.  If we reject peace and embrace hate, we quench the fruit of the Spirit within us, if we reject Truth and embrace inclusivism, we set our understanding above that of Holy Scripture.  The goal of tolerance and peace is to be applauded and deserves our active participation, however the method to achieve it of saying, "We all worship the same God", must be rejected if the Gospel of the Apostles is to remain at all attached to its historical foundation.

Let me interact with quotations from Dr. Olson's book, highlighting both that which I agree with and those things regarding which I believe him to be in error.

In the introduction, Dr. Olson writes of an experience from his youth as the son of Baptist missionaries in South Dakota.  A friendship between his father and the local Roman Catholic priest, in a pre-Vatican II setting, and the improving relationships between Catholics and Protestants post-Vatican II, led to this conclusion, "If Catholics and Protestants can overcome ancient barriers, learning from one another and developing deeper bonds of fellowship, we may experience unimagined results in our interfaith relationships." (p. XIII)  The step being advocated by Dr. Olson, from intra-faith relationships/dialogues/worship to their inter-faith equivalent is in the end a comparison of apples to oranges.  Those who engage in intra-faith ecumenism, that is bridge building and cooperation including worship along fellow Christians be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, may also be willing to extend those same activities with non-Christians in inter-faith efforts or they may not, but the basis for that choice is not the same unless one is committed to the notion that all religions are participating in the same God and seeking the same Truth.  If religious exclusivism is maintained, there is indeed a basis for inter-faith dialogue, peace, and efforts concerning justice and poverty, but there is not a basis for inter-faith prayer or worship.  Confusion over what is being discussed, whether it be inter-faith or intra-faith, especially from critics not overly concerned with giving the benefit of the doubt, only makes it more difficult for sincere adherents of exclusive theology to reach out to those of other religions without being labeled an inclusivist/pluralist.  Dr. Olson also wrote, "The need for personal relationships with those of other faiths and a deeper understanding of one another's faith and heritage grows more urgent by the day." (p. XV)  In a world of rising violence and polarization, this is certainly true as hatred grows most readily in ignorance.

Regarding effective dialogue, Dr. Olson quoted the guidelines of the World Council of Churches, "Partners in dialogue should be free to 'define themselves'" and added to it, self-serving descriptions of other people's faith are one of the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, and condescension." (p. 7)  This is certainly true, not only is the cause of peace hampered when adherents of a religion are not allowed to define themselves (often instead being defined by their enemies) but so too is the cause of evangelism.  If a Christian believes a false stereotype of a Muslim to be true, and then actually meets a Muslim, how effective will the witness of that Christian be if he/she is acting upon false and likely derogatory impressions?  As Christians, we ought not be afraid of reality, facts, history, and truth.  We must interact with the world as it is, for that is the world we have been called to be salt and light to, not the world as we wish it to be.

In regards to the three faiths who claim Abraham as a forefather, it would be foolish of us to ignore or downplay what we have in common, and at the same time foolish of us to pretend we do not have fundamentally relevant differences.  Dr. Olson acknowledges both aspects of the issue saying, "We have a similar starting place, but we need to be sensitive about presumptions of sameness and instead ask many questions related to beliefs about God's nature and what we mean when we affirm God as one." (p. 32)  Indeed, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief that God is one, i.e monotheism, is a common bond, but what we mean by declaring that God is one is surprisingly different, perhaps a startling revelation those who simply assume that all three are worshiping the same God.  Dr. Olson quotes Stephen Prothero who, "contends that those who write about the oneness of all religions 'are not describing the world, but reimagining it.  They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood." (p. 32)  Our world could use an increase in brotherhood and sisterhood, assuming that leads to more peace and less violence, but not at the expense of lying to ourselves about reality.  Dr. Olson goes on to summarize Prothero's words in God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World - and Why Their Differences Matter by saying, "what we share most fundamentally is the conviction that something is wrong with the world.  Life is out of balance; something has gone awry.  Religions differ, however, in diagnosing what has gone wrong, and, therefore, what the prescribed solution is." (p. 33)  Including Prothero's viewpoint acknowledges how this issue undermines the notion that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could be worshiping the same God and yet understand both humanity's problem and the necessary solution so differntely, nevertheless, Dr. Olson will later attempt to bridge that gap while leaving Prothero's objection unrefuted.

There isn't much in "Side by Side" regarding intra-Christian ecumenism, but one comment is worth noting, "We Christians are a varied lot today.  Within Christianity we find those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox...and a wide variety of Protestants...as well as less orthodox traditions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 42)  White there are some within the Church who struggle to see Orthdoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism as all being "within" Christianity, wrongly in my understanding but I understand the objections, it is a whole different set of issues to assert that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are "within" Christianity and simply "less orthodox".  Less orthodox?  Both are non-trinitarian, both have an extra-biblical authority, both see themselves as the only true remnant of the Church.  Less orthodox is far too generous a term, non-orthodox would have been more accurate, for how can something which defies the Nicene Creed be "within" the Church?

One observation from Dr. Olson should hit many Christians squarely and accurately with an uncomfortable truth, "It is easy to see (or imagine) what's wrong with another's religion...And it is even easier to take the inherent goodness of one's own religion for granted...this practice of religious self-justification and criticizing the other is resurfacing with urgency in our interreligious world." (p. 59)  We ought not be shocked to learn that this is true, after all Jesus spoke about planks in our own eyes and specks in the eyes of our brother, how much easier to ignore our own faults and focus upon those of people we consider strange, different, even a threat.  Once again, Christians must be grounded in truth and reality, for example: Are there aspects of Islam today that are steeped in violence?  Absolutely, are there aspects of Islam today that have rejected violence in favor of tolerance?  Yes.  Those unwilling to acknowledge that not all Muslims are cheering on the Jihad against the West, are also likely to ignore or gloss over the horrendous history that Christianity has not too recently emerged from of violence, persecution, slavery, and antisemitism.   We cannot have a productive discussion about Islam and terrorism if we fail to disavow the stereotype that all Muslims think alike and refuse to acknowledge that our own family tree has some real ugliness, some of it not that far from where we sit, just visit a Holocaust museum if you need a reminder.

In a precursor to the eventual rejection of the New Testament passages expressing the exclusive claims of Jesus, Dr. Olson correctly writes that, "Those using absolute truth claims may choose particular texts from their Scriptures, read them selectively (and probably out of context), and them apply them absolutely." (p. 64)  While agreeing that such things happen, far too often and with often disastrous results by all manner of people, not just those seeking absolute truth claims, it is not apparent, nor does Dr. Olson make a concerted effort to demonstrate, that such out-of-context interpretation has been done by the majority of the Church historically which has understood the New Testament to proclaim Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.  In that same section where Dr. Olson is explaining how a religion can have evil followers, he also rightly points out the dangers of blind obedience, focusing upon a soon to come utopia, believing that the ends justify the means, and ultimately choosing to engage in a holy war.  Extremism that embraces such practices is a threat to any religion.

Dr. Olson attempts to paint a positive view of Jesus in the Qur'an, and while it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Qur'an portrays Jesus as an important figure and a prophet, even as "Messiah", the Jesus of the Qur'an is not in any real way the same as that of the New Testament.  The Qur'an specifically denies the Incarnation (Surah 112), the Trinity (Surah 5:116) and the Crucifixion (Surah 4:157)  Dr. Olson concludes with a quote from Tarif Khalidi (from The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature) that Jesus, "ceases to be an argument and becomes a living and vital moral voice, demanding to be heard by all who seek a unity of profession and witness." (p. 99)  Yet as C.S. Lewis famously pointed out, Jesus must be either God, a fraud, or a madman, for he is clearly portrayed as divine in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament (Muslims claim these are all corruptions of the original Biblical text).  How is it that Jesus can be a "moral figure" to unite Christians and Muslims when such a role would have been antithetical to everything we know about Jesus from the Scriptures?  The only way for such a middle-ground with Muslims concerning Jesus would be to concede that critics like Bart Ehrman are right and everything about Jesus' divinity was added later by a corrupt Church intent upon securing its own power over the people.  Unfortunately for Ehrman, and Muslim apologists who have latched onto his arguments, the crushing weight of historical evidence regarding N.T manuscript production and distribution, prior to the Council of Nicea, denies such a conspiracy theory.

The ultimate question from Dr. Olson, beyond less controversial matters of inter-faith dialogue and efforts at peace and justice is simple, "Do I believe that persons devoted to these religions can be in a right relationship with God, both here on earth and hereafter in eternity?  In other words, is salvation possible within these three religions?  These aren't simple yes-or-no questions." (p. 113)  Before answering the question, Dr. Olson briefly interacts with the N.T's many exclusive claims as typified by John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12 where he says regarding John 14:6, "I do not believe that Jesus intended the rest of the verse ('no one comes to the Father but by me') to be an absolute statement of exclusion for all people for all time...I also believe that the unconditional love of God, mediated by Jesus to us, has led some closer to God, even though they may not name Jesus as their Savior." (p. 119)  The basis for saying, "Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant", {I can almost hear Vizzini from The Princess Bride saying "inconceivable" and Fezzik replying, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."} is to say that John's Gospel "offers a mystical reflection on the meaning of Jesus for the world." (p. 119)  In other words, John's words don't really mean what those words normally mean.  Also, how does the notion of "the unconditional love of God" fit with Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world?  How can God's love be so unconditional if he cares about sin and holiness, and why would Jesus die for anything less than absolute necessity?  If salvation is to be found elsewhere, through other means, why would Jesus die?  Lastly, what does "led some closer to God" mean?  Is closer to God enough?  How is God's love through Jesus leading people closer to God who have no idea who Jesus is or who reject Jesus explicitly?  In relation to Acts 4:12, Dr. Olson rejects the universality of Peter's words as hyperbole intended to sway his Jewish audience, nothing more, "Is it intended as an  inclusion-exclusion statement for all believers of the various religions for all time?  Each reader will have to decide.  In light of the context of this statement, I personally don't think so." (p. 119)  Thus the nature of John's Gospel and the audience for Peter's words negate the plain meaning of the text within their own given context in both instances.  While I recognize that this is necessary to move to an inclusivist viewpoint without claiming that the Scriptures are tainted, it is an example of eisegesis not exegesis, putting into the text a meaning one hopes to derive from it rather than letting the Word of God speak for itself.  The rest of the N.T.'s exclusive texts are mentioned later (on p. 146) but no effort is made to interact with any of them (1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 5:12, Romans 1:21, 3:9, and John 3:36 just to list the ones Dr. Olson acknowledges).

In the end, Dr. Olson openly and honestly admits, "I am an inclusivist...I also believe that the prophets of these other religions received authentic revelation from God and that persons can be in a right relationship with God within those religions." (p. 122)  Leaving out the more complicated questions of "authentic revelation" between Judaism and Christianity {For example: Yes, Isaiah's revelation was certainly authentic, but we differ greatly on what it means}, how is that possible with Islam?  The diagnosed problem with humanity and mandated solution in Islam is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.  Islam offers a list of things to do, Christianity requires a cessation of self-righteous effort in order to accept by faith what has already been done on our behalf.  If God spoke to both Jesus and Muhammad, how did the message become so garbled?  Either humanity is fallen or it is not, either works are the answer or faith is, this is a fence that cannot be straddled unless we jettison any effort at logic and consistency.  Dr. Olson goes on to say, "One other factor contributes to my conclusion - probably the most powerful and important one: my experience with persons of these other religions...As I sense the goodness of these persons...and as I worship as a guest in their places of worship, I have a clear sense that I am in the presence of God and of God's saints, whatever their religion."  (p. 122)  In the end, this is a choice to embrace experience over revealed truth, a feeling of having found "good people" over the Church's two thousand years of preaching the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  And while I don't doubt that Dr. Olson knows "good people who follow other religions, it is odd to hear a Baptist say that the most important factor in making a monumental theological change is belief that he experienced the presence of God in a mosque and a synagogue, there is no sense here of an allegiance to Sola Scriptura, let alone Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, or Solus Christus, which leaves one to wonder, how can this then be Soli Deo Gloria?  Inclusivism is by necessity a clean-break from the Reformation along with an abandonment of the Early Church as typified in the ecumenical creeds.

The section relating to the Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR's) as well as the "nones" does not offer anything beyond what is already known, that the Church is struggling to connect with Millennials, but it does offer a sense that those who like Dr. Olson have drifted toward or to inclusivism, if not outright pluralism, are doing so in part because they feel it is a necessary tactic for the Church to woo back this "lost" generation.  If that is the case, Churches which abandon their Gospel heritage to embrace the minority within a generation who seem content to leave "organized religion" behind will likely only succeed in driving away the roughly 2/3 of Millennials who remain committed to their faith.

"Side by Side" ends with a story of a pastor whose church went where most will be unwilling to go: they allowed neighboring Muslims who were building a mosque to use their church for prayer during Ramadan.   (p. 151-52) This episode is presented as an example of "love they neighbor" but one does not need to reject the sacred nature of our places of worship in order to love our neighbors.  On the other hand, Dr. Olson offers four challenges for followers of Jesus Christ that we should all be able to embrace, "- To become more deeply involved in friendship, conversation, and dialogue with persons of other faiths where we live and work. - To be aware, supportive, and proactive when negativity, threats and attacks happen to persons and places of worship of other faiths. - To be compassionate and active in responding to the worldwide refugee crisis, including at the local level. - To offer understanding, care, and support to the vastly growing number of interfaith marriages and families."  (p. 153)  These four goals are noble and worthy of followers of Jesus (with only one caveat, that the Church should not encourage new interfaith marriages {which are not the same as intra-faith marriages like my own where we share a devotion to Christ} while it supports those who already are a part of an inter-faith marriage in accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 712-16).

There is much to appreciate in Dr. Olson's personal experience with, and sharing of, other examples of inter-faith dialogue, friendships, and cooperation regarding peace and justice.  We certainly need more of this attitude in the Church today and less confrontation and hatred.  This goal can, and should, be accomplished, however, without abandoning the exclusive claims of the Gospel. I as a Christian ought to be fully capable of calling a Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist my neighbor, and yes friend, without at the same time letting go of my concern for the salvation of his/her soul.  The focus of Dr. Olson's book was primarily the Abrahamic faiths, but inclusivism within them naturally leads to pluralism as well.  If there is no Truth, then there isn't any truth either.  Mankind is lost, fallen and depraved, with this diagnosis only a fool or one ignorant of the world today and man's history would disagree.  The most important question for humanity thus remains: how can what is wrong with us be fixed?  Only Jesus offers a solution that is within our power: salvation by grace through faith in him.  Thus while I appreciate the openness with which Dr. Olson address the topic of inter-faith relations, and laud his goals of peaceful coexistence, I cannot cross the bridge that he would construct to inclusivism, for the Church and the Gospel are on this side of the river.

Judson Press link to "Side by Side"

Commercialism and Politics interrupt worship at a Baptist Church

It saddens me that some of the most head-shaking things that happen within the "church" in America today happen at Baptist Churches.  On one hand you have the screeching hate/conspiracy theories coming out of Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kansas whose website is primarily dedicated to the things they're currently yelling about, and with them you can place Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, who at least puts forth a normal website, but a quick Youtube search will find plenty of videos of his favorite targets for yelling.  Contrasting those in the us vs. the world camp, are those who have embraced the power that this world offers, going so far as to carve out time during Sunday's worship service to bring in a TV political celebrity to advocate for a new movie and of course promote the latest book from the famous pastor who himself regularly goes on the TV show of the famous guest.  Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Pastor Jeffress interviews Sean Hannity during the worship service

First Baptist Church of Dallas, with Dr. Robert Jeffress as pastor of the mega-church, interviewed Fox News host Sean Hannity this past Sunday for fourteen minutes, at the end of which pastor Jeffress encouraged his audience to go see the movie that Hannity was there to promote.  Hannity received a standing ovation from the congregation (or is audience the right word here?).  This wouldn't be the first time that I've warned about the danger of how readily Pastor Jeffress is mixing politics with the Church, (blog post: Assassination, Pastor Jeffress, and Romans 13) as he has made quite a name for himself since the start of the 2016 election cycle, appearing on TV thousands of times and becoming a regular contributor to Fox News. 

At one point Hannity said, "I don't like liberals", which earned laughter and applause from the audience, then said, "I'm in the right church" as Jeffress laughingly said, "Hannity country right here".

At the end, as Jeffress indicated that his producers were telling him to wrap it up, Hannity joked, "We haven't even talked about Trump yet", leading Pastor Jeffress to chuckle and respond, "That's another sermon".

Perhaps this doesn't seem wrong to you, maybe you applaud the melding together of Fox News and First Baptist Church of Dallas, if so you probably won't be swayed by the mountain of historical evidence that shows the danger to the Church of getting in bed with political power, money, and fame.

At what point is the attention turned from the worship of God and the edification of his people onto the things of man, the pursuit of wealth and power?  If this isn't too far, how far can it possibly go, during a worship service, before you think it is a problem?  Will it be too far when they have commercial breaks during the service??

At what point does a pastor stop being a shepherd and start becoming a celebrity?  Is it not a problem when a pastor hocks products and helps people make money instead of leading people in worship of Jesus?  Whatever came before or after this point in the service, these 15 minutes were not in service to the Gospel.


If only Jesus had a book to sell, or was running for office...



 

Sermon Video: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you" - Acts 2:38-39

To commemorate the baptism of seven new members of First Baptist Church, the text for this week's message was Peter's instructions to those who responded to his message at Pentecost.  Peter told the crowd that had been "cut to the heart" by hearing about the death and resurrection of Jesus, that there first response should be to, "repent and be baptized".  Peter links the inward act of repentance with the outward and public act of declaring that repentance through baptism.  In addition, Peter then says that this need is for, "every one of you", and that both the repentance and the baptism are to be done, "in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins".  Jesus is rightly the focus of our repentance for it is his sacrifice that made our repentance acceptable to God by paining the penalty on our behalf which our sin of rebellion against God had justly earned.  When we accept that act of grace on our behalf, by faith, we the process of transformation that God intends for all his people to cleans them and make them useful, a process made practical when we "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" to act as our guide, strengthener, and comforter.  In the end, the offer of repentance from God, to man, stands as a lasting offer of hope, hope that those who this day entered the waters of baptism had already committed themselves to, by faith, in Jesus.

To watch the sermon video, click on the link below:

To watch the baptism video, click on the link below:

Being a "good" Baptist

What does it mean to be a Baptist? That’s the name on the sign, but what does it really mean? The most obvious of the Baptist distinctives is that we believe in adult baptism for believers who have made a public profession of their faith. In the Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches (among others), baptism is performed for infants as a sign that the parents and the local church intend to raise the child in the faith. As Baptists, we don’t believe that this is the best practice according to our understanding of the Scriptures, but it is the practice just the same, for the majority of the world’s Christians. What is our response? In the relatively recent past, being a “good” Baptist also meant feeling the need to condemn those who don’t practice adult baptism and even to question the validity of the salvation of those who attend such churches. That was the old definition of being a good Baptist; evidently, the church isn’t what it used to be, and that’s a good thing. Go ahead and be proud of being a Baptist, but keep in mind that it’s no longer an us vs. them Church; we’re in this together because the word Church on the sign if far more important than the word Baptist which precedes it.