In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women. This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating. That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be. That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all. That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all? The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors. In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy, believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}
In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father. Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall
Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}. Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place. In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers. In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy? Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture. What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view. What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text. The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women. God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote. It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal. Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when? Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself. Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead? Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more. If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value? On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender. We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other. These things are necessary. What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written. The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Does God even want state-mandated prayer?
Calls for a return of required prayer in the nation's public schools are common on social media and letters written to the editors of local newspapers. Some who I would count as valued colleagues and friends are echoing this call. As the theory goes, this is a key to turning around the American culture and bringing back a golden age of Christendom where America's status as a Christian Nation was unchallenged {A return to a supposed past Golden Age is a common trope in history, one rarely based in reality; a different topic for another time}. Setting aside the question of whether or not state-mandated prayer in schools would benefit the culture (An assumption made in the argument, but how would one know if it is true: crime rates? teen pregnancy? drug use? Would prayer be expected to lower such things by 10%? 50% With a complex system like a nation/culture, we cannot single out one factor for much of anything because of interconnected cause/effect.), or the Church itself (Was the Church healthier during periods when the population was required {on pain of various penalties} to pay nominal homage to God? When everyone living in the land was assumed to be a Christian by simple right of birth regardless of any evidence of the Holy Spirit? Was that marriage of Church/State a healthier Church?), even if we assume that both the nation and the Church would benefit, that there wouldn't be any unintended negative consequences to either, there still remains a fundamental question that is not being sufficiently considered: Does God want state-mandated prayer?
How can we know the mind of God? A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word. What then does the Word of God say on the subject? How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)? For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.} A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:
Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.
Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.
Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart. If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state? What about those prayers would be pleasing to God? Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him? Is false prayer better than no prayer at all? The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.
Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God. It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help. It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith. It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer. Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know? Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different). How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God? (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid. 'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')? What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in. If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc? Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in. As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school. As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology. The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government? Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy. If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.
From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best). Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society. They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right. The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them? If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely. Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.
How can we know the mind of God? A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word. What then does the Word of God say on the subject? How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)? For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.} A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:
Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.
Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.
Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart. If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state? What about those prayers would be pleasing to God? Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him? Is false prayer better than no prayer at all? The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.
Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God. It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help. It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith. It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer. Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know? Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different). How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God? (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid. 'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')? What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in. If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc? Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in. As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school. As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology. The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government? Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy. If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.
From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best). Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society. They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right. The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them? If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely. Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Sermon Video: Real Love - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Christians are supposed to be known for their love, love for each other, and love for even their enemies. This, of itself, is beyond our capacity, but when viewed through the Apostle Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthians as to what constitutes real, genuine love, it would seem to make a difficult situation hopeless. Thankfully, God has given his Spirit to his people, has empowered them to live like Jesus here in this world, because he has called us to embrace all 14 of the aspects of love that Paul highlighted (and perhaps others as well, it is not an exhaustive list, although it certainly is comprehensive). What must our love be? Patient and kind. What must it be free of? Envy, boasting, pride, any willingness to dishonor others, selfishness, anger, and record keeping of the wrongs of others. Give up yet? In addition, love must rejoice in truth while rejecting the lure of utilizing evil (even thinking, 'that good may result', a false lie). Love must always protect, trust, hope, and persevere.
This is not a question of focus, willpower, or determination. We cannot accomplish this on our own, not even close. Once again, we must depend upon the transforming power of the Spirit of God, must embrace our role in the community of believers (for help, guidance, and support; mutually so), and must move forward, toward Christ-likeness, in faith because we all need real love.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
This is not a question of focus, willpower, or determination. We cannot accomplish this on our own, not even close. Once again, we must depend upon the transforming power of the Spirit of God, must embrace our role in the community of believers (for help, guidance, and support; mutually so), and must move forward, toward Christ-likeness, in faith because we all need real love.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Friday, September 6, 2019
A rejection of a One-Party Church, and pastors as political operatives
In a response to essays by Pastor Timothy Keller (How Do Christians Fit Into the Two Party System? They Don't), and Pastor Kevin DeYoung (The Church at Election Time) David Closson of the Family Research Council wrote his own opinion piece that disagreed with the warnings of Keller and DeYoung (and my own over the years to my much smaller audience, I concur with most of what both Keller and DeYoung wrote) of the Church becoming too closely connected to one political party. Instead, Closson advocates in his essay (How Shall We Engage Politically? A Response to Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung) that American Christians ought to do nearly the opposite, support wholeheartedly one party, and one party only. Please read the three essays above so as to understand the positions each one is taking, my response {in brackets} to Closson's advocacy is below:
while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power...Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions. - Pastor Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY
As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically...The point is to protect Christian freedom and preserve Christian unity, both of which are ultimately about maintaining a faithful gospel witness in our world...To be sure, Christians may seek to educate and mobilize their fellow American citizens. But the unique aim, purpose, and warrant of the church is to educate and mobilize our fellow citizens of heaven. We must not confuse one mission with the other. - Pastor Kevin DeYoung, Christ Covenant Church, NC
However, despite Keller and DeYoung’s contributions to the question of Christian civic responsibility, the utility and real-world application of their advice is limited due to an underlying political theology that hasn’t fully accounted for the realities of the political system within which we have to work. Although their warning to not equate the church’s mission with the platform of a political party represents faithful Christian convictions, they don’t follow through with a remedy for our current situation. Christians are left asking: Well, then, how should I engage politically? - David Closson
{Here's the thing, when you hear, "that biblical/ethical/moral position is fine in theory, but this is the real world and it won't work" it ought to be a red flag. (1) Why can't it work in the real world? Is the way things are now the way they have to be? (2) Is my primary allegiance to the real world, or to the God to whom I will one day account for my life? Closson rejects the advice of Keller and DeYoung, not because they are unbiblical, for he several times recognizes the validity of their ideas, but because in the current American political climate, they are impractical. To continue down this path is to walk out onto thin ice...Here is an uncomfortable truth: In the 'current situation' maybe there is no place for a consistent biblical worldview. Perhaps the Gospel is so counter-cultural that neither political party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians. This is not a conclusion, but it remains a possibility, one that Closson is not, at least in this essay, considering. Jesus did not work with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, neither did he participate in the political system of his day, eschewing both the collaboration of the Herodians and the militant nationalism of the Zealots. If Jesus was outside the box, must his followers always engage within it, playing by the rules set by others?}
it is simply not enough for pastors to hope their congregations are informed about candidates and issues. If the act of voting is the act of delegating the exercise of the sword, pastors should communicate to their members “This is what Christians should do.” Given the unavoidable role of politics and the real-world impact that the state’s decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the role of voting amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and a neglect to offer neighborly love. - David Closson
{This is in response to DeYoung's explanation as to why his church doesn't host voter registration drives or put out voter guides. This is a serious charge to level against every pastor who chooses to not use his/her pulpit, and/or the church's worship service, or the church building itself, to advocate participation in the political process. A failure of Christian discipleship? Neglecting love? Are the people in our congregations so inadequate that they must be told to vote, and for whom, by their pastor? Are pastors to make voting the right way a test of fellowship? (And how would we know, must we demand from our congregation proof of who they voted for, in contradiction to the Constitution?) Would failure to vote be a reason for discipline within the Church? If a pastor MUST advocate these positions as questions of black/white morality, it would only be logical for the next step to be treating failure to heed that teaching as rebellion/sin. I know that Closson is advocating none of these follow-up positions, but can we say, 'this is what Christians should do' and stop there? Is any of this responsibility within the scope of Paul's instructions to Timothy? If, however, I teach my congregation to be Christ-like, grounding them in biblical principles and a Christian worldview, are they not capable of evaluating the questions related to voting on their own? As a Baptist, I firmly believe in the Priesthood of All Believers (that the same Holy Spirit indwells us all, the laity no less than myself), yet this top-down viewpoint acts as if the laity are in some way inferior. While it is true that I am more educated (regarding theology, philosophy, religion) than my congregation, and most pastors will be, it does not follow that I am naturally wiser regarding the 'real world' of politics, nor necessarily any less susceptible to prejudices, corruption, greed, blind spots, and arrogance when pontificating about politics. I'm a Baptist, I trust the laity, they govern this church, I am only its steward. Increase the power and influence of pastors? No thank you I have enough responsibility already, I'll trust what Lord Byron had to say about the tendency of power to corrupt.}
pastors would do well to educate and equip their members to think biblically about political issues, candidates, and party platforms. It is not enough to espouse concern for human dignity but not support policies and candidates who will fight to overturn profound moral wrongs. In a Genesis 3 world plagued by sin, Christians are called to drive back the corroding effects of the fall wherever they exist. This must include the realms of law and politics. - David Closson
{There are two flaws in this line of thought: (1) That teaching Christians in our churches to think biblically has any limitations. In other words, when the text of Scripture declares God's holiness and righteousness by relating it to a moral issue (typically in the life of Israel or the Early Church), that teaching automatically applies to family life our friends and neighbors, our work and business relationships, and our role as citizens. To say that politics must be highlighted is to assume that politics is either somehow not automatically included, or somehow more important than the others. Would David Closson, and the many evangelicals (and liberals) who hold such views of the role of a pastor, really want me to apply God's teaching about marital fidelity and adultery to current American politicians? The Bible's teaching on the danger of wealth by examining from the pulpit the finances of various politicians? (2) The second flaw is that pastors ought to take it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which policies best fit biblical principles, and which politicians truly embody them. Is there only one economic system that is biblical? Only one theory of taxation? One monetary policy? Are there politicians in whom a pastor can place his trust who will not subsequently cause shame and guilt by association through future immoral behavior? Am I to yoke my reputation to that of a politician? Are we, as Christians, to seek to 'overturn profound moral wrongs'? Absolutely, it was Christians who spearheaded the abolition of slavery, both in England and America, and Christians who led the charge in the Civil Rights movement. It does not follow, however, that advocating for 'political issues, candidates, and party platforms' will achieve the desired end of Justice. What if the chosen position, candidates, and parties make things worse? What of the Law of Unintended Consequences? That Christians should be involved (politically or otherwise) in fighting against immorality is not the question at hand. The question is: should pastors (and thus the church, at least in public perception) be the ones leading the charge, and should these efforts be mixed with Christian discipleship, Gospel proclamation, and Worship? If this is something that Christians ought to do, it still remains an open question regarding whether or not this is the right way to do it, questions whose answers Closson are assuming to be affirmative.}
This idea that historic Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments grounds the outworking of Keller’s political theology. Although not explicitly stated, he suggests that while Republicans may hold a more biblical view on issues related to abortion and marriage, Democrats are more faithful in their approach to racial justice and the poor. Implied in this analysis is that these issues carry similar moral freight and that consequently Christians should be leery of adopting either party’s “whole package.” - David Closson
{This is a false dichotomy: In Closson's view there is not room for Christians to support a third party, because a third party does not currently have a chance of winning, only two choices may be considered. In addition, Closson is setting up himself, or individual pastors, to be the sole arbiters of which moral issues belong in the 'first tier' (where is this defined in the Bible? Where are abortion and marriage elevated above all other concerns?) and which can be secondary (and in practical political terms, mostly irrelevant). If Christians decides how to vote only on 'x' issue, they show the political parties to whom they are wed that they are willing to compromise morally on all other issues. For example: If abortion is the only issue that matters, Christians will still vote for us no matter what position we take on gambling, the treatment of immigrants, elective wars, and a host of other issues about which the Bible is also explicit. Do they not also matter? Do the lives of the unborn outweigh the lives of the living? Must Christians swallow immorality in order to win politically? While there will be defenders of the two major parties, insisting that everything they do is correct, can we really say that this is biblical? Must pastors lead the charge by becoming cheerleaders for a party's entire platform? If a party's platform is 51% consistent with Biblical principles, is that sufficient? Is 90% sufficient? What if the platform seems 35% biblical to me, but 65% biblical to you? These are profound questions about which we would expect God-honoring, Bible believing, Christians to disagree.}
Consequently, the Bible speaks to the issues identified by Keller; committed Christians, therefore, must care about all of them. Faithfulness to God’s Word requires nothing less. However, the tension arises when it comes to application—when biblical imperative intersects with the realities of today’s politics. - David Closson
{Closson acknowledges that the WHOLE council of God must be considered, that we cannot focus upon one or two moral issues to the exclusion of all others, but then immediately downplays this biblical truth by saying that the 'realities of today's politics', at least in part, negate that concern. Biblical imperative cannot be lightly set aside.}
However, it is also true in recent years the two major U.S. political parties have clearly adopted positions on first tier moral issues on which the Bible does speak. “First tier” moral issues include questions where the Bible’s teaching is clear and where specific, positive action is prescribed. - David Closson
{In the following paragraph Closson declares that the right to life and human sexuality are 'first tier' issues about which the Bible is clear. Are there not others? Are these the only two issues about which the Bible is sufficiently clear as to allow Christians to view them with certainty? The Bible spends more time speaking to wealth and the abuses of it than any other moral topic. Why are we creating 'tiers' of morality anyway? "Be holy because I am holy" has devolved into 'tiers' of morality? If 'life' is granted 1st 'tier' status, does it follow that the only issue related to 'life' is abortion? This is thus an artificial list of two, and only two, priorities that fit nicely with the current two party system, and contrast favorably with the party that Closson identifies with. Were there then no 'first tier' moral issues in America before Roe vs. Wade? From the abolition of slavery until Roe vs. Wade, were Christians free to support any political party, but now are constrained and must actively and publicly support a particular party?}
In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear aligned with the Republican Party, it is only because Democrats have forced them there by taking positions on moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching. Thus, while Keller is right that Christians should not feel perfectly at home in either political party, is it fair to suggest that they should feel equally comfortable in both?
In 2018 the answer would seem to be “no.”
It should also be noted that the challenges facing American Christians regarding politics is not unique; brothers and sisters in other nations face the same tensions. This is because there is no “Christian” political party; no party aligns perfectly with the Bible. This is true even in countries where dozens of political parties participate in any one election. This means that there is never a perfect choice when it comes to political engagement; on this side of the Parousia, faithful Christians will always be choosing from less than ideal options. This is why wisdom, prayer, and counsel are indispensable when it comes to Christian political engagement. - David Closson
{It is a long distance from 'equally comfortable' to 100% with one and 100% against the other. Closson accuses Keller of creating a false dichotomy by pointing out the faults in both parties (subsequently Closson highlights the faults Keller mentions for one party but defends/minimizes them for the other) and yet only two choices remain to his question, Red or Blue? Why are neither, some of both, or partial/conditional support of one of them not options? Why must we be 'all in', especially given that Closson is willing to recognize the truth that no political party (in any country) has ever been perfect? I am heartened that Closson is willing to acknowledge that there is not perfect answer, some pundits would never do that it speaks well of his integrity, but what if becoming a partisan is what perpetuates the status quo preventing the deep systematic change that our system needs, and what if not given a particular party the full allegiance of the American Church is what spurs that party on toward reforming itself? Is is still possible for Christians to believe in the separation of Church and State, as a Baptist that is the viewpoint of my ancestors in the faith. And it is also possible for a Christian to believe that the government is not the best enforcer of public morality (for example: the disaster of Prohibition), that today's Pro-Christian enforced morality could easily become tomorrow's Anti-Christian enforced morality, and thus Christians would be better off adopting a libertarian stance. Again, these are not my beliefs, I'm trying to keep my beliefs out of this, but serious questions that must be addressed when pastors/churches are being told they need to 'get on board' or be labeled as either insufficiently Christian or insufficiently American.}
For the sake of Christian faithfulness, we need an informed Christian citizenry. It is not enough for pastors to acknowledge that various policy positions are profoundly evil yet withhold the requisite tools that empower concrete action. It is not enough to pray for candidates and speak on a handful of issues without equipping believers with everything they need to honor God in the voting booth.
Over the last few years, many Christian leaders have lamented the current state of American politics. They have reiterated that Christians have no home in either major political party (a state of affairs to which we might ask whether Christian indifference and distaste for politics has contributed to in the first place) and that in secondary and tertiary issues Christian liberty should abound. While these calls are helpful, people in the pews are yearning for more direction. Of course, it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant. However, in areas where pastors and Christian leaders can say more, they should. These areas include grappling with the reality of our two-party system and following our political theology to its logical end by voting.
If political engagement is an aspect of Christian faithfulness, it is also a matter of discipleship. Thus, church members must be equipped to honor God in the political arena in a way that goes beyond merely describing current challenges. Applying a faithful political theology in our context requires a thorough understanding of biblical morality and an awareness of the positions of the political parties and candidates. As this dual knowledge is acquired, Christians will better understand the times and increasingly know what they ought to do in politics. - David Classon's conclusion in full
{'withhold the tools for concrete action'?? If a pastor doesn't preach/publicly endorse a party and its candidates, he/she is depriving Christians of the ability to take action?? When did pastors become the political gate-keepers? My ordination oaths (both stated in the ceremony and those I made directly to God) were to serve his Church, to shepherd his people, and to seek the Lost with the Gospel. I made no oath to defend, uphold, or advance the two-party political system of the United States (nor the United States itself, in America we don't take oaths of loyalty to the government; even those serving in the military swear to defend the Constitution, a key distinction). And for good reason, as both Keller and DeYoung pointed out, when pastors become political partisans half of those with whom we must contend for the sake of the Gospel are less likely to hear the words of Jesus Christ rather than the Democrat gospel or the Republican gospel. In addition, when pastors become political partisans, their congregations tend to follow suit, those who disagree (whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents) are more likely to leave, hopefully finding a new church (although not always), and typically landing where others agree with them. Thus the American Church continues to become polarized, where our congregation are not only racially segregated, but politically as well. They then become echo chambers where an us vs. them mentality is fostered and a 'no proper Christian could see this issue any other way' attitude grows. Classon wrote, 'it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant' Exactly! Where is the Biblical warrant that tells me to support a candidate or party? What text should I preach that under proper exegesis illuminates the 21st century American political landscape without doubt? Know this, and know it well. When a preacher preaches from the pulpit, calling upon the Word of God in support of the message, it is perceived by many to be a 'thus saith the Lord' pronouncement. It is given authority because of the office and the pulpit. If I can't say, 'thus saith the Lord' with conviction and based firmly upon God's Word, why am I preaching?
I have 25 hours in the pulpit each year (50 weeks times 30 minutes, I often go longer, but round numbers will suffice) during which I can expound upon the Word of God, a pittance and not nearly enough, but the only setting where the majority of the congregation (both members and non, regulars and irregulars) will be in attendance. Why would I devote even one of those sermons to praising or denouncing a politician or a party? The pulpit is a sacred trust, an awesome responsibility for which those of us ordained to lead the Church will one day answer. I know that this opinion is wildly unpopular with many on both the Left and the Right, but I will not risk profaning the name of God, the reputation of the Church, and the glory of the Gospel, by staining it with the mud of politics. John Calvin's Geneva merged Church and State, how well did that work out? Is this a model to aspire to, or a warning sign? Don't expect all Christians to agree on the answer. Paul warned Christians to not be 'unequally yoked with unbelivers', referring primarily to marriage, but is not the union of Church and State, or Church and Party an unequal marriage? Is not the Church the one being asked to compromise its beliefs, swallow the immorality of political leaders (in the church they ought to be removed, and persistent sin is absolutely disqualifying for a pastor to remain in the ministry, but in politics no such compunction applies; various politicians of both parties have been, and continue to be, immoral in their behavior, yet retain, or even advance, in leadership. Is this an example that reflects well upon the Gospel?).
In short, while David Classon is willing to admit that both Keller and DeYoung make several valid points, his conclusion overwhelms them, while caution and thoughtfulness are praised, in the end the conclusion is stark: There is only one party in America that any thoughtful Christian could think to support, that support must be public, and ought to be championed from the pulpit (if the conclusion is inescapable and undeniable, no lesser platform will do). This is a false choice, A or B, when in reality the 'real world' of politics also has a C, D, and E. (C:mostly A and a little B,D: mostly B and a little A,E: none of the above). I will continue to teach my congregation the Word of God, continue to help them to see how that timeless world can fit into the 21st century, but I will choose to let them use their own God-given, and Spirit sanctified, minds to enter the political realm as their conscience dictates, not only because they are capable of choosing with integrity and wisdom, but because attempting to make those decisions for them is a path filled with danger, a temptation to replace spiritual transformation with earthly power, and a corrupting influence that will inevitably cause me to sacrifice my integrity for political expediency. No thank you.
while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power...Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions. - Pastor Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY
As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically...The point is to protect Christian freedom and preserve Christian unity, both of which are ultimately about maintaining a faithful gospel witness in our world...To be sure, Christians may seek to educate and mobilize their fellow American citizens. But the unique aim, purpose, and warrant of the church is to educate and mobilize our fellow citizens of heaven. We must not confuse one mission with the other. - Pastor Kevin DeYoung, Christ Covenant Church, NC
However, despite Keller and DeYoung’s contributions to the question of Christian civic responsibility, the utility and real-world application of their advice is limited due to an underlying political theology that hasn’t fully accounted for the realities of the political system within which we have to work. Although their warning to not equate the church’s mission with the platform of a political party represents faithful Christian convictions, they don’t follow through with a remedy for our current situation. Christians are left asking: Well, then, how should I engage politically? - David Closson
{Here's the thing, when you hear, "that biblical/ethical/moral position is fine in theory, but this is the real world and it won't work" it ought to be a red flag. (1) Why can't it work in the real world? Is the way things are now the way they have to be? (2) Is my primary allegiance to the real world, or to the God to whom I will one day account for my life? Closson rejects the advice of Keller and DeYoung, not because they are unbiblical, for he several times recognizes the validity of their ideas, but because in the current American political climate, they are impractical. To continue down this path is to walk out onto thin ice...Here is an uncomfortable truth: In the 'current situation' maybe there is no place for a consistent biblical worldview. Perhaps the Gospel is so counter-cultural that neither political party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians. This is not a conclusion, but it remains a possibility, one that Closson is not, at least in this essay, considering. Jesus did not work with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, neither did he participate in the political system of his day, eschewing both the collaboration of the Herodians and the militant nationalism of the Zealots. If Jesus was outside the box, must his followers always engage within it, playing by the rules set by others?}
it is simply not enough for pastors to hope their congregations are informed about candidates and issues. If the act of voting is the act of delegating the exercise of the sword, pastors should communicate to their members “This is what Christians should do.” Given the unavoidable role of politics and the real-world impact that the state’s decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the role of voting amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and a neglect to offer neighborly love. - David Closson
{This is in response to DeYoung's explanation as to why his church doesn't host voter registration drives or put out voter guides. This is a serious charge to level against every pastor who chooses to not use his/her pulpit, and/or the church's worship service, or the church building itself, to advocate participation in the political process. A failure of Christian discipleship? Neglecting love? Are the people in our congregations so inadequate that they must be told to vote, and for whom, by their pastor? Are pastors to make voting the right way a test of fellowship? (And how would we know, must we demand from our congregation proof of who they voted for, in contradiction to the Constitution?) Would failure to vote be a reason for discipline within the Church? If a pastor MUST advocate these positions as questions of black/white morality, it would only be logical for the next step to be treating failure to heed that teaching as rebellion/sin. I know that Closson is advocating none of these follow-up positions, but can we say, 'this is what Christians should do' and stop there? Is any of this responsibility within the scope of Paul's instructions to Timothy? If, however, I teach my congregation to be Christ-like, grounding them in biblical principles and a Christian worldview, are they not capable of evaluating the questions related to voting on their own? As a Baptist, I firmly believe in the Priesthood of All Believers (that the same Holy Spirit indwells us all, the laity no less than myself), yet this top-down viewpoint acts as if the laity are in some way inferior. While it is true that I am more educated (regarding theology, philosophy, religion) than my congregation, and most pastors will be, it does not follow that I am naturally wiser regarding the 'real world' of politics, nor necessarily any less susceptible to prejudices, corruption, greed, blind spots, and arrogance when pontificating about politics. I'm a Baptist, I trust the laity, they govern this church, I am only its steward. Increase the power and influence of pastors? No thank you I have enough responsibility already, I'll trust what Lord Byron had to say about the tendency of power to corrupt.}
pastors would do well to educate and equip their members to think biblically about political issues, candidates, and party platforms. It is not enough to espouse concern for human dignity but not support policies and candidates who will fight to overturn profound moral wrongs. In a Genesis 3 world plagued by sin, Christians are called to drive back the corroding effects of the fall wherever they exist. This must include the realms of law and politics. - David Closson
{There are two flaws in this line of thought: (1) That teaching Christians in our churches to think biblically has any limitations. In other words, when the text of Scripture declares God's holiness and righteousness by relating it to a moral issue (typically in the life of Israel or the Early Church), that teaching automatically applies to family life our friends and neighbors, our work and business relationships, and our role as citizens. To say that politics must be highlighted is to assume that politics is either somehow not automatically included, or somehow more important than the others. Would David Closson, and the many evangelicals (and liberals) who hold such views of the role of a pastor, really want me to apply God's teaching about marital fidelity and adultery to current American politicians? The Bible's teaching on the danger of wealth by examining from the pulpit the finances of various politicians? (2) The second flaw is that pastors ought to take it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which policies best fit biblical principles, and which politicians truly embody them. Is there only one economic system that is biblical? Only one theory of taxation? One monetary policy? Are there politicians in whom a pastor can place his trust who will not subsequently cause shame and guilt by association through future immoral behavior? Am I to yoke my reputation to that of a politician? Are we, as Christians, to seek to 'overturn profound moral wrongs'? Absolutely, it was Christians who spearheaded the abolition of slavery, both in England and America, and Christians who led the charge in the Civil Rights movement. It does not follow, however, that advocating for 'political issues, candidates, and party platforms' will achieve the desired end of Justice. What if the chosen position, candidates, and parties make things worse? What of the Law of Unintended Consequences? That Christians should be involved (politically or otherwise) in fighting against immorality is not the question at hand. The question is: should pastors (and thus the church, at least in public perception) be the ones leading the charge, and should these efforts be mixed with Christian discipleship, Gospel proclamation, and Worship? If this is something that Christians ought to do, it still remains an open question regarding whether or not this is the right way to do it, questions whose answers Closson are assuming to be affirmative.}
This idea that historic Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments grounds the outworking of Keller’s political theology. Although not explicitly stated, he suggests that while Republicans may hold a more biblical view on issues related to abortion and marriage, Democrats are more faithful in their approach to racial justice and the poor. Implied in this analysis is that these issues carry similar moral freight and that consequently Christians should be leery of adopting either party’s “whole package.” - David Closson
{This is a false dichotomy: In Closson's view there is not room for Christians to support a third party, because a third party does not currently have a chance of winning, only two choices may be considered. In addition, Closson is setting up himself, or individual pastors, to be the sole arbiters of which moral issues belong in the 'first tier' (where is this defined in the Bible? Where are abortion and marriage elevated above all other concerns?) and which can be secondary (and in practical political terms, mostly irrelevant). If Christians decides how to vote only on 'x' issue, they show the political parties to whom they are wed that they are willing to compromise morally on all other issues. For example: If abortion is the only issue that matters, Christians will still vote for us no matter what position we take on gambling, the treatment of immigrants, elective wars, and a host of other issues about which the Bible is also explicit. Do they not also matter? Do the lives of the unborn outweigh the lives of the living? Must Christians swallow immorality in order to win politically? While there will be defenders of the two major parties, insisting that everything they do is correct, can we really say that this is biblical? Must pastors lead the charge by becoming cheerleaders for a party's entire platform? If a party's platform is 51% consistent with Biblical principles, is that sufficient? Is 90% sufficient? What if the platform seems 35% biblical to me, but 65% biblical to you? These are profound questions about which we would expect God-honoring, Bible believing, Christians to disagree.}
Consequently, the Bible speaks to the issues identified by Keller; committed Christians, therefore, must care about all of them. Faithfulness to God’s Word requires nothing less. However, the tension arises when it comes to application—when biblical imperative intersects with the realities of today’s politics. - David Closson
{Closson acknowledges that the WHOLE council of God must be considered, that we cannot focus upon one or two moral issues to the exclusion of all others, but then immediately downplays this biblical truth by saying that the 'realities of today's politics', at least in part, negate that concern. Biblical imperative cannot be lightly set aside.}
However, it is also true in recent years the two major U.S. political parties have clearly adopted positions on first tier moral issues on which the Bible does speak. “First tier” moral issues include questions where the Bible’s teaching is clear and where specific, positive action is prescribed. - David Closson
{In the following paragraph Closson declares that the right to life and human sexuality are 'first tier' issues about which the Bible is clear. Are there not others? Are these the only two issues about which the Bible is sufficiently clear as to allow Christians to view them with certainty? The Bible spends more time speaking to wealth and the abuses of it than any other moral topic. Why are we creating 'tiers' of morality anyway? "Be holy because I am holy" has devolved into 'tiers' of morality? If 'life' is granted 1st 'tier' status, does it follow that the only issue related to 'life' is abortion? This is thus an artificial list of two, and only two, priorities that fit nicely with the current two party system, and contrast favorably with the party that Closson identifies with. Were there then no 'first tier' moral issues in America before Roe vs. Wade? From the abolition of slavery until Roe vs. Wade, were Christians free to support any political party, but now are constrained and must actively and publicly support a particular party?}
In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear aligned with the Republican Party, it is only because Democrats have forced them there by taking positions on moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching. Thus, while Keller is right that Christians should not feel perfectly at home in either political party, is it fair to suggest that they should feel equally comfortable in both?
In 2018 the answer would seem to be “no.”
It should also be noted that the challenges facing American Christians regarding politics is not unique; brothers and sisters in other nations face the same tensions. This is because there is no “Christian” political party; no party aligns perfectly with the Bible. This is true even in countries where dozens of political parties participate in any one election. This means that there is never a perfect choice when it comes to political engagement; on this side of the Parousia, faithful Christians will always be choosing from less than ideal options. This is why wisdom, prayer, and counsel are indispensable when it comes to Christian political engagement. - David Closson
{It is a long distance from 'equally comfortable' to 100% with one and 100% against the other. Closson accuses Keller of creating a false dichotomy by pointing out the faults in both parties (subsequently Closson highlights the faults Keller mentions for one party but defends/minimizes them for the other) and yet only two choices remain to his question, Red or Blue? Why are neither, some of both, or partial/conditional support of one of them not options? Why must we be 'all in', especially given that Closson is willing to recognize the truth that no political party (in any country) has ever been perfect? I am heartened that Closson is willing to acknowledge that there is not perfect answer, some pundits would never do that it speaks well of his integrity, but what if becoming a partisan is what perpetuates the status quo preventing the deep systematic change that our system needs, and what if not given a particular party the full allegiance of the American Church is what spurs that party on toward reforming itself? Is is still possible for Christians to believe in the separation of Church and State, as a Baptist that is the viewpoint of my ancestors in the faith. And it is also possible for a Christian to believe that the government is not the best enforcer of public morality (for example: the disaster of Prohibition), that today's Pro-Christian enforced morality could easily become tomorrow's Anti-Christian enforced morality, and thus Christians would be better off adopting a libertarian stance. Again, these are not my beliefs, I'm trying to keep my beliefs out of this, but serious questions that must be addressed when pastors/churches are being told they need to 'get on board' or be labeled as either insufficiently Christian or insufficiently American.}
For the sake of Christian faithfulness, we need an informed Christian citizenry. It is not enough for pastors to acknowledge that various policy positions are profoundly evil yet withhold the requisite tools that empower concrete action. It is not enough to pray for candidates and speak on a handful of issues without equipping believers with everything they need to honor God in the voting booth.
Over the last few years, many Christian leaders have lamented the current state of American politics. They have reiterated that Christians have no home in either major political party (a state of affairs to which we might ask whether Christian indifference and distaste for politics has contributed to in the first place) and that in secondary and tertiary issues Christian liberty should abound. While these calls are helpful, people in the pews are yearning for more direction. Of course, it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant. However, in areas where pastors and Christian leaders can say more, they should. These areas include grappling with the reality of our two-party system and following our political theology to its logical end by voting.
If political engagement is an aspect of Christian faithfulness, it is also a matter of discipleship. Thus, church members must be equipped to honor God in the political arena in a way that goes beyond merely describing current challenges. Applying a faithful political theology in our context requires a thorough understanding of biblical morality and an awareness of the positions of the political parties and candidates. As this dual knowledge is acquired, Christians will better understand the times and increasingly know what they ought to do in politics. - David Classon's conclusion in full
{'withhold the tools for concrete action'?? If a pastor doesn't preach/publicly endorse a party and its candidates, he/she is depriving Christians of the ability to take action?? When did pastors become the political gate-keepers? My ordination oaths (both stated in the ceremony and those I made directly to God) were to serve his Church, to shepherd his people, and to seek the Lost with the Gospel. I made no oath to defend, uphold, or advance the two-party political system of the United States (nor the United States itself, in America we don't take oaths of loyalty to the government; even those serving in the military swear to defend the Constitution, a key distinction). And for good reason, as both Keller and DeYoung pointed out, when pastors become political partisans half of those with whom we must contend for the sake of the Gospel are less likely to hear the words of Jesus Christ rather than the Democrat gospel or the Republican gospel. In addition, when pastors become political partisans, their congregations tend to follow suit, those who disagree (whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents) are more likely to leave, hopefully finding a new church (although not always), and typically landing where others agree with them. Thus the American Church continues to become polarized, where our congregation are not only racially segregated, but politically as well. They then become echo chambers where an us vs. them mentality is fostered and a 'no proper Christian could see this issue any other way' attitude grows. Classon wrote, 'it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant' Exactly! Where is the Biblical warrant that tells me to support a candidate or party? What text should I preach that under proper exegesis illuminates the 21st century American political landscape without doubt? Know this, and know it well. When a preacher preaches from the pulpit, calling upon the Word of God in support of the message, it is perceived by many to be a 'thus saith the Lord' pronouncement. It is given authority because of the office and the pulpit. If I can't say, 'thus saith the Lord' with conviction and based firmly upon God's Word, why am I preaching?
I have 25 hours in the pulpit each year (50 weeks times 30 minutes, I often go longer, but round numbers will suffice) during which I can expound upon the Word of God, a pittance and not nearly enough, but the only setting where the majority of the congregation (both members and non, regulars and irregulars) will be in attendance. Why would I devote even one of those sermons to praising or denouncing a politician or a party? The pulpit is a sacred trust, an awesome responsibility for which those of us ordained to lead the Church will one day answer. I know that this opinion is wildly unpopular with many on both the Left and the Right, but I will not risk profaning the name of God, the reputation of the Church, and the glory of the Gospel, by staining it with the mud of politics. John Calvin's Geneva merged Church and State, how well did that work out? Is this a model to aspire to, or a warning sign? Don't expect all Christians to agree on the answer. Paul warned Christians to not be 'unequally yoked with unbelivers', referring primarily to marriage, but is not the union of Church and State, or Church and Party an unequal marriage? Is not the Church the one being asked to compromise its beliefs, swallow the immorality of political leaders (in the church they ought to be removed, and persistent sin is absolutely disqualifying for a pastor to remain in the ministry, but in politics no such compunction applies; various politicians of both parties have been, and continue to be, immoral in their behavior, yet retain, or even advance, in leadership. Is this an example that reflects well upon the Gospel?).
In short, while David Classon is willing to admit that both Keller and DeYoung make several valid points, his conclusion overwhelms them, while caution and thoughtfulness are praised, in the end the conclusion is stark: There is only one party in America that any thoughtful Christian could think to support, that support must be public, and ought to be championed from the pulpit (if the conclusion is inescapable and undeniable, no lesser platform will do). This is a false choice, A or B, when in reality the 'real world' of politics also has a C, D, and E. (C:mostly A and a little B,D: mostly B and a little A,E: none of the above). I will continue to teach my congregation the Word of God, continue to help them to see how that timeless world can fit into the 21st century, but I will choose to let them use their own God-given, and Spirit sanctified, minds to enter the political realm as their conscience dictates, not only because they are capable of choosing with integrity and wisdom, but because attempting to make those decisions for them is a path filled with danger, a temptation to replace spiritual transformation with earthly power, and a corrupting influence that will inevitably cause me to sacrifice my integrity for political expediency. No thank you.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics
In the original version of the "By What Standard?" documentary trailer released by Florida based Founders Ministries , among other highly objectionable tactics (which I will get to in a minute), the trailer chose to portray Rachael Denhollander as a wolf in sheep's clothing, an enemy of the Church using the sexual abuse of women and children as a Trojan horse for "godless ideologies". If you don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, and why it is despicable to choose to highlight her involvement in helping the Southern Baptist Convention comes to grip with the widespread sexual abuse in its midst, read this amazing article about Rachael that highlights her faith (paying particular attention to the role she played at the last SBC gathering, making her a target of Founders Ministries):
She surrendered her secrets to put away a sexual predator. But her sacrifice isn't over - by Matt Mencarini, Louisville Courier Journal
Did you read the whole article? If not, go back and read it, otherwise you might not understand why I'm upset, actually really upset, when a self-proclaimed defender of evangelical Christianity behaves in this way. Following the release of the trailer for "By What Standard?" (watch it here, I have been unable to find the previous version containing Rachael online) uproar ensued on behalf of those targeted in the trailer and from those who had been interviewed for the documentary who strenuously objected to being a part of this finished product. In the end, three of the board members of Founders Ministries resigned when the board as a whole refused to admit that it had erred and needed to repent publicly. And while the portion of the trailer containing Rachael Denhollander has been edited out, the trailer was then re-released after Founders Ministries president, SBC pastor Tom Ascol, defended the original trailer and rejected the stand taken by the three board members who resigned in a letter about their departure: Resignation Letter
"Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached." - Pastor Tom Ascol
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church? Why include her at all? This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best. The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really? That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough. But there is more. The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white. In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}. Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization? Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one? If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted. No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!" We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire". We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other". I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality. Watch the trailer. Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing? Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement. Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that." Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional. The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol. When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35). I cannot see how it could be.
For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.
For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church? Why include her at all? This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best. The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really? That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough. But there is more. The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white. In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}. Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization? Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one? If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted. No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!" We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire". We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other". I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality. Watch the trailer. Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing? Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement. Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that." Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional. The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol. When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35). I cannot see how it could be.
For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.
For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)