One of my greatest responsibilities and frustrations is attempting to lead professing Christians to think biblically. I don't mean to just engage in a Bible study, or to read the Bible through in a year, or simply learn it's content. As a pastor I want to lead believers to think critically about their culture and choices while looking through the lens of Scripture. In other words, I'm talking about real life application in regards to correct belief (doctrine) and morality.
Our culture is increasingly chipping away at biblically guided principles for living. The inertia of secularism, skepticism and hedonism is consistently moving our culture in a more permissive direction, restricting more and more moral issues to the realm of private choice. Our younger generations are being conditioned to trade any authoritative source for truth and guidance for subjectivity and personal preference. The discussion tends to no longer be about what constitutes right or wrong on some issues, but what constitutes fairness, toleration, and open-mindedness.
I try to talk about current events with my high-school-aged son in a hope to help him think critically and biblically. The last couple of days we've discussed the social issue of gay marriage. Now, that our president has openly voiced that he supports the idea of recognizing gay marriage as legitimate marriage, the discussion on this topic will only intensify in this election year. Blogs will explode and activists will be invigorated on both sides. While all the heated debate goes on and the commentators express their views, I want to make sure that my son sizes up the issue as a believer should-with the Bible. This is my Christian parental duty under the Lordship of Christ and no less.
As a pastor I feel compelled to challenge my flock to think biblically about social issues as well. Every believer should be holding up the plumb line of God's Word to all issues - those that involve homosexuality, the sanctity of human life, the treatment of the poor, war, worldliness, idolatry, modesty, entertainment, and so forth. All of life, for a believer, should be brought under the authority of God's Word. We must cultivate an intellectual default setting in our minds and a chief desire in hearts to want to know what God says about any issue through His Word and allow that to inform our opinions.
Politicians pander to their constituents, both liberal and conservative. Few speak or act from genuine conviction. (obviously, I have a trust issue when it comes to politicians) The Bible doesn't pander; the Bible proclaims what is revealed by God to be true. God doesn't ask for my approval, only my obedient response to His loving call on my life. Church people need to learn that they honor God when they love Him and not this world. To love God, we must know what to think about these hot-button social issues. We love God with how we live our lives, not merely by how we feel.
Most importantly, we need to be able to defend biblically the position that God's Word constrains us to take. Too many Christians can't do this well. Furthermore, a defense of a biblical perspective on gay marriage or any other issue, must be done with compassion and humility of spirit. There should be a brokenness over sin, not a spirit of anger that reeks of hatred. Being bold with God's Word is desirable, being a jerk in the name of God is blasphemous. We need to teach our people the difference and model proper Christian boldness for them.
As America continues its slide into greater moral darkness, the church needs to shine even more brightly. If the church's biblical witness dims alongside the world, then moral confusion will reign as people stumble along in spiritual darkness. Additionally, the church will lose its power and credibility. The doctrinal and moral positions of the church can't be left to what I or any person thinks. They must be determined and guarded by a legitimate authority, who is only God Himself. God informs and leads His people by His Word; His people in turn are commissioned to be salt and light in the world as they proclaim and live out biblical principles and precepts.
Pastors, teach the Word faithfully and clearly to your people! Teach them to think and live with a biblical view on issues. Teach them to be bold and loving. Teach them to put God above all.
07 May 2012
The High Calling of Being a Pastor
Yesterday, a prominent Baptist church in the town in which I grew up, after nearly a two-year search for a new pastor, finally called a new one. This church has been historically a conservative Baptist church and one of the larger ones in the state of Kentucky. However, they made a historic turn by calling a divorced man as their pastor.
This action got me thinking about the high calling placed on a pastor. It got me thinking about how much has changed in my lifetime on the attitudes toward the issue of the credibility and suitability of a minister who experiences divorce. I remember when Dr. Charles Stanley, of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, GA became divorced from his wife in 2000. It did cause some discussion and controversy, but not as much as I would have thought. His church chose to retain him as pastor. Stanley was a leader among conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention and many felt badly for him and regretted that his marriage had ultimately failed. However, I and many others were shocked when he reasoned that as long as he did not remarry he was not in violation of any biblical teachings concerning his qualifications. I remember thinking this would be the beginning of a huge shift in our collective mindset about the issue of divorce and ministerial qualification among Southern Baptists.
The pastor that was recently elected to the church aforementioned is divorced and remarried. So, now we've pushed the needle a little further. I neither know him, nor know anything about the circumstances of his divorce and remarriage. I just know these are the facts. I pass no judgment on the man personally, but I am prompted to think about the matter in terms of the biblical issue of pastoral qualification.
Being a pastor is to walk in a different place from others within the church. It can prove difficult to just be a "normal" person. People tend to put you on a pedestal as an idealized spiritual role model or keep you at a comfortable arms-length distance because of their own uncomfortableness of just being around you. Some people treat you like a religious fetish, while others will avoid you like the plague. If you can find just a couple of people who will just treat you like a normal person, you feel fortunate. (This is also true for pastors' wives)
It's not healthy or helpful to place a pastor on a different spiritual plane from everyone else. I know, and my wife knows for sure, that I'm just like everyone else. On the one hand, I have a temper if pushed far enough; I can easily get grumpy when I'm over tired or stressed out. I can speak a mean-spirited word, and I can be insensitive. You can catch me in good moments and bad ones - just like anyone. On the other hand, God has called me to special position as a pastor and that makes me different - not in my human nature, but in my role. I have a calling which necessitates a higher standard of responsibility and living.
Pastors sometimes act like they are above it all. This is a mistake. In my humanness, I'm as frail, sinful, and weak as the next person. I have to remember this always. Just because I'm the pastor doesn't somehow make me automatically immune to temptations, bad judgment, and sin.
Sometimes pastors seem to feel like they must work really hard at trying to be "just one of the guys." They feel compelled to go out of their way to parade around as connected to those of their flock by accentuating their own short-comings and even behaving badly in an attempt to be "real," such as using expletives in preaching!
Both these extremes are misguided.
I believe there must be biblical and sensible ground on which to stand. A pastor is just a man who shares the same humanity with his parishioners, and he is also called to a role in the church that demands that he set the example for all. This I think leads a divorced man to be unqualified for service as a pastor of a church. Let me explain why I think this by reflecting a bit on 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
God's Word declares that if a man aspires to be a pastor (overseer), then he seeks a noble and good vocation. However, this desire alone (or calling) is not enough. There is more at play. The Apostle Paul went on to explain to Timothy that the man that the church would call, recognize, and give authority to as a pastor must be "above reproach." This is the big idea. The specific items that Paul lists are examples of what being above reproach looks like. He could have possibly added more if the Holy Spirit had prompted him to, but the list we have is sufficient to make the point.
The first example of being above reproach is that a pastor should be "the husband of one wife." Through the years many have taken this to mean only one wife - period. The truth is this phrase doesn't really directly address divorce. Literally it means "a one-woman man" with the connotation that the man is a faithful husband to his wife. In other words, he's a good husband, who loves his wife, doesn't cheat on her and maintains a good relationship with her. Paul goes on to list other items of behavior as examples of being above reproach, including "managing his own household well."
The pastoral epistles clearly lay down a high calling for both pastors (and deacons). We should pay attention to all the description that we find there, because each one tell us something about the kind of men God's desires to have leading His congregations. When these descriptions are taken seriously it should cause a church to be prayerful, diligent, patient and discerning about who they invite to assume such roles.
God tells us that He hates divorce. Jesus strongly condemned divorce with a qualification concerning the offense of adultery. Paul did talk to believers about those who were abandoned by a spouse, but urged married couples to stay married. Divorce was a reality then, and even more so now. Divorce was neither an unpardonable sin then, and it's not now. There is always grace, and the church should always be a gracious people. Divorced people should not be beat up with the fact they have experience divorce. By God's grace people must move on to greater faithfulness to God from where they are and the church should always help them do this.
However, the role of pastor is a higher calling. A pastor will not be a perfect person - I hope no one suffers from such a delusion - but he is called to be THE example in his church. He is to say, like the Apostle Paul, with boldness, "follow me as I follow Christ." He can't be a stumbling block to others in his specific behavior, overall character or example.
I'm afraid the truth may be that our church culture is now wanting pastors in some ways to become more reflective of the culture. Marriage has become practically disposable in America. More and more marriages fail and more and more people are choosing not even to marry, but simply live together. Maybe our churches are beginning to think that a divorced pastor will be more compassionate and connect better with others who have gone through the same experience. I do wonder how many people on the committee that recommended this pastor are divorced. I think that would be interesting to know.
At a time in our culture when the bar most desperately needs to be raised, when we most urgently need to be reminded to be in the world but not of it, we seem to be consistently conforming more and more to the world's lowering standards. We seem now to be headed down a road that would make insisting on uncompromising standards for pastoral qualification as judgmental and mean spirited.
It seems to me that a pastor's role, with the Word of God as the guide, is to reach down and help people up to where God would call them to be. If he's going to do that, then he already needs to be where they need to go. Being a pastor is not an easy calling. The work is not easy and the biblical demands on who you need to be are high. Divorced Christians certainly have a place right beside those who have not been divorced in the Kingdom's work. However, the man who is going to be responsible for teaching and leading the flock must be above reproach - a divorced pastor immediately invites reproach no matter how nice, genuine or otherwise qualified he may be.
This action got me thinking about the high calling placed on a pastor. It got me thinking about how much has changed in my lifetime on the attitudes toward the issue of the credibility and suitability of a minister who experiences divorce. I remember when Dr. Charles Stanley, of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, GA became divorced from his wife in 2000. It did cause some discussion and controversy, but not as much as I would have thought. His church chose to retain him as pastor. Stanley was a leader among conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention and many felt badly for him and regretted that his marriage had ultimately failed. However, I and many others were shocked when he reasoned that as long as he did not remarry he was not in violation of any biblical teachings concerning his qualifications. I remember thinking this would be the beginning of a huge shift in our collective mindset about the issue of divorce and ministerial qualification among Southern Baptists.
The pastor that was recently elected to the church aforementioned is divorced and remarried. So, now we've pushed the needle a little further. I neither know him, nor know anything about the circumstances of his divorce and remarriage. I just know these are the facts. I pass no judgment on the man personally, but I am prompted to think about the matter in terms of the biblical issue of pastoral qualification.
Being a pastor is to walk in a different place from others within the church. It can prove difficult to just be a "normal" person. People tend to put you on a pedestal as an idealized spiritual role model or keep you at a comfortable arms-length distance because of their own uncomfortableness of just being around you. Some people treat you like a religious fetish, while others will avoid you like the plague. If you can find just a couple of people who will just treat you like a normal person, you feel fortunate. (This is also true for pastors' wives)
It's not healthy or helpful to place a pastor on a different spiritual plane from everyone else. I know, and my wife knows for sure, that I'm just like everyone else. On the one hand, I have a temper if pushed far enough; I can easily get grumpy when I'm over tired or stressed out. I can speak a mean-spirited word, and I can be insensitive. You can catch me in good moments and bad ones - just like anyone. On the other hand, God has called me to special position as a pastor and that makes me different - not in my human nature, but in my role. I have a calling which necessitates a higher standard of responsibility and living.
Pastors sometimes act like they are above it all. This is a mistake. In my humanness, I'm as frail, sinful, and weak as the next person. I have to remember this always. Just because I'm the pastor doesn't somehow make me automatically immune to temptations, bad judgment, and sin.
Sometimes pastors seem to feel like they must work really hard at trying to be "just one of the guys." They feel compelled to go out of their way to parade around as connected to those of their flock by accentuating their own short-comings and even behaving badly in an attempt to be "real," such as using expletives in preaching!
Both these extremes are misguided.
I believe there must be biblical and sensible ground on which to stand. A pastor is just a man who shares the same humanity with his parishioners, and he is also called to a role in the church that demands that he set the example for all. This I think leads a divorced man to be unqualified for service as a pastor of a church. Let me explain why I think this by reflecting a bit on 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
God's Word declares that if a man aspires to be a pastor (overseer), then he seeks a noble and good vocation. However, this desire alone (or calling) is not enough. There is more at play. The Apostle Paul went on to explain to Timothy that the man that the church would call, recognize, and give authority to as a pastor must be "above reproach." This is the big idea. The specific items that Paul lists are examples of what being above reproach looks like. He could have possibly added more if the Holy Spirit had prompted him to, but the list we have is sufficient to make the point.
The first example of being above reproach is that a pastor should be "the husband of one wife." Through the years many have taken this to mean only one wife - period. The truth is this phrase doesn't really directly address divorce. Literally it means "a one-woman man" with the connotation that the man is a faithful husband to his wife. In other words, he's a good husband, who loves his wife, doesn't cheat on her and maintains a good relationship with her. Paul goes on to list other items of behavior as examples of being above reproach, including "managing his own household well."
The pastoral epistles clearly lay down a high calling for both pastors (and deacons). We should pay attention to all the description that we find there, because each one tell us something about the kind of men God's desires to have leading His congregations. When these descriptions are taken seriously it should cause a church to be prayerful, diligent, patient and discerning about who they invite to assume such roles.
God tells us that He hates divorce. Jesus strongly condemned divorce with a qualification concerning the offense of adultery. Paul did talk to believers about those who were abandoned by a spouse, but urged married couples to stay married. Divorce was a reality then, and even more so now. Divorce was neither an unpardonable sin then, and it's not now. There is always grace, and the church should always be a gracious people. Divorced people should not be beat up with the fact they have experience divorce. By God's grace people must move on to greater faithfulness to God from where they are and the church should always help them do this.
However, the role of pastor is a higher calling. A pastor will not be a perfect person - I hope no one suffers from such a delusion - but he is called to be THE example in his church. He is to say, like the Apostle Paul, with boldness, "follow me as I follow Christ." He can't be a stumbling block to others in his specific behavior, overall character or example.
I'm afraid the truth may be that our church culture is now wanting pastors in some ways to become more reflective of the culture. Marriage has become practically disposable in America. More and more marriages fail and more and more people are choosing not even to marry, but simply live together. Maybe our churches are beginning to think that a divorced pastor will be more compassionate and connect better with others who have gone through the same experience. I do wonder how many people on the committee that recommended this pastor are divorced. I think that would be interesting to know.
At a time in our culture when the bar most desperately needs to be raised, when we most urgently need to be reminded to be in the world but not of it, we seem to be consistently conforming more and more to the world's lowering standards. We seem now to be headed down a road that would make insisting on uncompromising standards for pastoral qualification as judgmental and mean spirited.
It seems to me that a pastor's role, with the Word of God as the guide, is to reach down and help people up to where God would call them to be. If he's going to do that, then he already needs to be where they need to go. Being a pastor is not an easy calling. The work is not easy and the biblical demands on who you need to be are high. Divorced Christians certainly have a place right beside those who have not been divorced in the Kingdom's work. However, the man who is going to be responsible for teaching and leading the flock must be above reproach - a divorced pastor immediately invites reproach no matter how nice, genuine or otherwise qualified he may be.
27 April 2012
Four Dimensions of the Call of the Gospel
I observe that many words become so familiar and so elastic that they begin to lose significance. For example, the word evangelical is popularly applied to any non-Catholic Christian group. I've even heard the practically contradictory term Evangelical Catholic - an oxymoron if there ever was one! This word has moved so far in application from its origin that it often isn't helpful because it lacks specificity. Other words become anachronistic. Take the word ring in relation to your phone. In the truest sense no one's phone rings anymore, just as nobody tapes the ball game on TV and most do not roll down the window in their car (I still do in my '98 Dakota). We all know what we mean when we use these words in these contexts, but there is now a certain inaccuracy in it. This is just what happens to language over time and I think it's interesting.
As a pastor there are two words that I want to make sure do not fall victim to the inertia of time. I want to make sure that the meanings stay forever tethered to the original intent. These words are call and Gospel.
The word call comes from the Greek verb, kaleo - "to call." The basic idea is simple. The word means to invite or summons; to call for a person or call a person to a task. The exact nuance depends on the context within its usage. However, when we run into the idea of call or calling in the New Testament, the emphasis is always on the one doing the calling, which is God. Whenever we see call in relationship to God or the things of God, it is rooted in the authority of God to give the call. Whether it is about the call to salvation, the call to specific ministry, or the call to holy living, the call itself is about God and not so much about us. When I call one of my kids, I do so with a God-given parental authority. I may call them out to correct behavior, I may call on them to perform a task, or I may call them for a conversation just to see how they're doing. The point is that whatever my call may be on them, they should respond because I have authority over them. Hopefully, they know as well through word and deed that I love them. When God calls, my responsibility is to listen, understand, and obey.
The word gospel comes from the Greek noun, euaggelion - "good news." Of course, this good news of the Bible is about Jesus, the Messiah - the fulfillment and revelation of the promise of God. Jesus came to both bring good news and be the Good News! He is both proclaimer of it and its content. Jesus came preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God. Those who became His disciples began to preach the good news of the Messiah (Christ), who was Jesus. His followers would suffer for the sake of this good news.
When I take these two words and put them together in the phrase the call of the Gospel, I want to know specifically what this means to me and to the church to which I tend as shepherd. The call of the Gospel, of course, begins with the individual call to salvation. This is the first dimension of the call of the Gospel. A person must be born again, spiritually regenerated, become new within, be freed from the chains of sin, be adopted, and cleansed and purified by the blood of Christ. In other words, a person must be saved. This most radical change comes through faith in Christ alone.
A second dimension, once we are children of God, is to listen and obey our Master, Jesus. He has clearly given His directions to His followers in Matt. 28:16-20. Once we have become a disciple, He tasks us with the job of making more disciples in Him. A disciple (Greek - mathetes) is a "trained one" or "one under instruction." As one learning about how to follow Christ, we are to be helping lead others to follow Him. Learning how to do this is actually part of growing as His disciple. The command to "Go and make disciples" necessitates evangelism for that is the first step of any person's discipleship. Beyond that we are to baptize and then teach. As believers are called to be on mission together in the church, we don't have to search for our purpose. It is simple and clear - make disciples.
A third dimension of the call of the Gospel relates to the cost of discipleship. Jesus made is clear that even before we make the choice to commit ourselves to following Him, we need to count the cost. He stressed that truly following Him meant obeying Him above all else. He told us that sometimes this would cause difficulty in family, sometimes this would mean sacrifice, sometimes this would mean persecution and difficulty. Jesus told us to lay our own lives down each day and follow Him. The image of carrying our own cross is to convey the thought that we must die to self and make Him life's priority. How is this kind of genuine self-sacrifice possible? It can only happen when it flows from a heart truly converted by grace that beholds the beauty of Christ and naturally seeks to honor and obey God.
A fourth dimension of the call of the Gospel involves leadership. Jesus is Lord. He is the head of the church. We are disciples of Jesus. However, the Apostle Paul gave a most peculiar instruction to the Corinthian congregation. He told them to follow (or imitate) him as he followed Christ. We know that Paul never taught that he was sinless or even hinted at it. In fact, Paul admitted that he often struggled with sin and had to work at dying to sin and living for Christ. Nevertheless, he could boldly tell others to look at him and imitate his behavior because he was pursuing Christ. Paul was not saying that he was some kind of spiritual middle man. But he was writing to immature Christians who were still very confused about a great many things! If they were having difficulty getting their minds and hearts around some issues, they could at least look at Paul and listen to him and watch him. It's kind of a terrifying thought to tell a group of believers, "hey, follow me and do what I do and you'll honor God." However, it would seem that this is exactly where God would have us arrive. I don't think this was just a special role for Paul. As each one of us mature in Christ, we should reach a place of godly confidence and boldness (not self-righteousness and arrogance) in which we reach out to others and become spiritual mentors. A pastor should definitely be this for others, and he should be leading others to do this as well.
The call of the Gospel demands radical reconciliation with God that leads to a total paradigm shift of priorities that results in counter-cultural lifestyles that bring glory to God and to the Son, Jesus. The words, call and Gospel, cannot become confused with other words like heritage, tradition, or denomination. Even if we substitute the word religion, we are in trouble. The call of the Gospel is specific to one person - Jesus. The content of this good news is specific, the mission is clear, the costs are foretold, and the consequences are eternal. Let's make sure we get it right and keep it right!
As a pastor there are two words that I want to make sure do not fall victim to the inertia of time. I want to make sure that the meanings stay forever tethered to the original intent. These words are call and Gospel.
The word call comes from the Greek verb, kaleo - "to call." The basic idea is simple. The word means to invite or summons; to call for a person or call a person to a task. The exact nuance depends on the context within its usage. However, when we run into the idea of call or calling in the New Testament, the emphasis is always on the one doing the calling, which is God. Whenever we see call in relationship to God or the things of God, it is rooted in the authority of God to give the call. Whether it is about the call to salvation, the call to specific ministry, or the call to holy living, the call itself is about God and not so much about us. When I call one of my kids, I do so with a God-given parental authority. I may call them out to correct behavior, I may call on them to perform a task, or I may call them for a conversation just to see how they're doing. The point is that whatever my call may be on them, they should respond because I have authority over them. Hopefully, they know as well through word and deed that I love them. When God calls, my responsibility is to listen, understand, and obey.
The word gospel comes from the Greek noun, euaggelion - "good news." Of course, this good news of the Bible is about Jesus, the Messiah - the fulfillment and revelation of the promise of God. Jesus came to both bring good news and be the Good News! He is both proclaimer of it and its content. Jesus came preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God. Those who became His disciples began to preach the good news of the Messiah (Christ), who was Jesus. His followers would suffer for the sake of this good news.
When I take these two words and put them together in the phrase the call of the Gospel, I want to know specifically what this means to me and to the church to which I tend as shepherd. The call of the Gospel, of course, begins with the individual call to salvation. This is the first dimension of the call of the Gospel. A person must be born again, spiritually regenerated, become new within, be freed from the chains of sin, be adopted, and cleansed and purified by the blood of Christ. In other words, a person must be saved. This most radical change comes through faith in Christ alone.
A second dimension, once we are children of God, is to listen and obey our Master, Jesus. He has clearly given His directions to His followers in Matt. 28:16-20. Once we have become a disciple, He tasks us with the job of making more disciples in Him. A disciple (Greek - mathetes) is a "trained one" or "one under instruction." As one learning about how to follow Christ, we are to be helping lead others to follow Him. Learning how to do this is actually part of growing as His disciple. The command to "Go and make disciples" necessitates evangelism for that is the first step of any person's discipleship. Beyond that we are to baptize and then teach. As believers are called to be on mission together in the church, we don't have to search for our purpose. It is simple and clear - make disciples.
A third dimension of the call of the Gospel relates to the cost of discipleship. Jesus made is clear that even before we make the choice to commit ourselves to following Him, we need to count the cost. He stressed that truly following Him meant obeying Him above all else. He told us that sometimes this would cause difficulty in family, sometimes this would mean sacrifice, sometimes this would mean persecution and difficulty. Jesus told us to lay our own lives down each day and follow Him. The image of carrying our own cross is to convey the thought that we must die to self and make Him life's priority. How is this kind of genuine self-sacrifice possible? It can only happen when it flows from a heart truly converted by grace that beholds the beauty of Christ and naturally seeks to honor and obey God.
A fourth dimension of the call of the Gospel involves leadership. Jesus is Lord. He is the head of the church. We are disciples of Jesus. However, the Apostle Paul gave a most peculiar instruction to the Corinthian congregation. He told them to follow (or imitate) him as he followed Christ. We know that Paul never taught that he was sinless or even hinted at it. In fact, Paul admitted that he often struggled with sin and had to work at dying to sin and living for Christ. Nevertheless, he could boldly tell others to look at him and imitate his behavior because he was pursuing Christ. Paul was not saying that he was some kind of spiritual middle man. But he was writing to immature Christians who were still very confused about a great many things! If they were having difficulty getting their minds and hearts around some issues, they could at least look at Paul and listen to him and watch him. It's kind of a terrifying thought to tell a group of believers, "hey, follow me and do what I do and you'll honor God." However, it would seem that this is exactly where God would have us arrive. I don't think this was just a special role for Paul. As each one of us mature in Christ, we should reach a place of godly confidence and boldness (not self-righteousness and arrogance) in which we reach out to others and become spiritual mentors. A pastor should definitely be this for others, and he should be leading others to do this as well.
The call of the Gospel demands radical reconciliation with God that leads to a total paradigm shift of priorities that results in counter-cultural lifestyles that bring glory to God and to the Son, Jesus. The words, call and Gospel, cannot become confused with other words like heritage, tradition, or denomination. Even if we substitute the word religion, we are in trouble. The call of the Gospel is specific to one person - Jesus. The content of this good news is specific, the mission is clear, the costs are foretold, and the consequences are eternal. Let's make sure we get it right and keep it right!
28 March 2012
Give Me Resurrection Day, not Easter
What we commonly refer to as Easter is less than two weeks away. How do I know this? Because the pallets at Wal-Mart are loaded down with candy, plastic eggs and grass, and an assortment of stuffed bunnies. Moms are purchasing that new Easter outfit for their little girls and boys. And they will be adorable! I can hear church choirs polishing up every note on this years cantata. Our small town is planning our Holy Week luncheons. The red buds and the dogwoods are blooming, and I even saw some plastic eggs hanging from one. Everywhere I look I know that Easter is just around the corner.
Our culture's preoccupation once a year with Easter is a paradox for me. On the one hand it's nauseating. Easter is too often a shell of a Christian holy day prettied up with pastel-colored, pagan wrapping. It often has about as much substance as that chocolate bunny you bit into when you were a kid and discovered to great consternation it was hollow (not to mention is was pretty nasty, cheap chocolate anyway). Easter is a bizarre part Christian, part pagan, and part commercialized day. Easter makes me sick.
Resurrection Day, on the other hand, is a wonderful opportunity. Resurrection Day is about an event that changed everything. Many people will choose, for reasons they find hard to explain, to go to a worship service on Resurrection Sunday. Many are not coming truly to worship. Many are not coming because they are genuinely seeking God. But the fact is, they are coming. As a pastor I have a splendid opportunity to boldly proclaim the mystery of the Gospel to those who need to respond to it. I suspect most of them won't have ears to hear, but a few may. Right now, I know is a wonderful time to invite people to worship on this day. I will have the privilege to present the significance of the resurrection from God's revealed Word. I will be tempted to scold many present for their incredible hypocrisy evidenced by their attendance on the special day, but I must resist this temptation. (by the way, I have done that before and it is a mistake). My job is to draw them to the empty tomb, put it in context, and apply it to their lives as clearly and forcefully as I can as God gives me strength. Resurrection Day is a great opportunity for the church (and not for having an easter egg hunt for the kids).
So, over the next few days I will be inviting people to worship on Resurrection Day while trying not to lose my lunch every time I encounter Easter. Then, on Resurrection Sunday I'll do my best to communicate that every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday and the Gospel is for all year long.
Our culture's preoccupation once a year with Easter is a paradox for me. On the one hand it's nauseating. Easter is too often a shell of a Christian holy day prettied up with pastel-colored, pagan wrapping. It often has about as much substance as that chocolate bunny you bit into when you were a kid and discovered to great consternation it was hollow (not to mention is was pretty nasty, cheap chocolate anyway). Easter is a bizarre part Christian, part pagan, and part commercialized day. Easter makes me sick.
Resurrection Day, on the other hand, is a wonderful opportunity. Resurrection Day is about an event that changed everything. Many people will choose, for reasons they find hard to explain, to go to a worship service on Resurrection Sunday. Many are not coming truly to worship. Many are not coming because they are genuinely seeking God. But the fact is, they are coming. As a pastor I have a splendid opportunity to boldly proclaim the mystery of the Gospel to those who need to respond to it. I suspect most of them won't have ears to hear, but a few may. Right now, I know is a wonderful time to invite people to worship on this day. I will have the privilege to present the significance of the resurrection from God's revealed Word. I will be tempted to scold many present for their incredible hypocrisy evidenced by their attendance on the special day, but I must resist this temptation. (by the way, I have done that before and it is a mistake). My job is to draw them to the empty tomb, put it in context, and apply it to their lives as clearly and forcefully as I can as God gives me strength. Resurrection Day is a great opportunity for the church (and not for having an easter egg hunt for the kids).
So, over the next few days I will be inviting people to worship on Resurrection Day while trying not to lose my lunch every time I encounter Easter. Then, on Resurrection Sunday I'll do my best to communicate that every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday and the Gospel is for all year long.
24 February 2012
Name Change for Southern Baptists?
Here we go again. Leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention are once again batting around ideas related to concerns that the denomination's name is antiquated and no longer adequately descriptive of the denomination as a whole. Now we have learned that the task force that has been studying this issue will bring a recommendation to the annual meeting in New Orleans in June to allow congregations to adopt the informal moniker of Great Commission Baptists, while maintaining the formal and legal status of Southern Baptist. If I understand this correctly, this means that congregations that find themselves within a context in which they believe it would be advantageous not to advertise themselves as Southern Baptists could opt for this new label - Great Commission Baptists.
As a Southern Baptist pastor I do have a few thoughts on the issue.
First, at forty-five years of age I find myself in the middle of this debate. I have and continue to rub shoulders with both the Millennial generation behind me and the Boomers and GI generations ahead of me. I'm an older Gen-Xer, so by definition I'm a little lost, confused and angry (so I'm told!). However, I think because of where I am generationally or just by my nature, I see the merit of both sides of the argument.
On the one hand, among the older generations within the Southern Baptist Convention there is great attachment to the label and to the denomination itself. These folks can remember a greater time of cooperation and strong Baptist identity. They tend to care deeply about Baptist distinctiveness and Baptist accomplishments. Among them runs a strong us versus them mentality. They have increasingly watched the Baptist label fade in significance in their children and grandchildren. This isn't easy. They have watched the Baptist Book Store, The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Broandman Press become respectively LifeWay Christian Bookstore, LifeWay Christian Resources, Guidestone Financial Resources, and B&H Publishing Group. They can remember when Convention Press, which no longer exists, turned out works for discipleship training that gave great attention to Baptist distinctiveness and doctrine. The Baptist world they once knew is just a memory, replaced by clandestine Baptist organizations.
On the other hand, among the younger twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings there is a conspicuous disregard for the label of Baptist. I don't mean that this is hostile in most cases. There remains, for the large part, a commitment to baptistic doctrine and practice. The only exception I observe here is in the area of church organization and governance. There continues to be a growing trend toward the incorporation of Presbyterian style organization with the introduction of elders as an official office along side deacons. I believe this has been one of the unintended consequences of the resurgence in Reformed theology in the SBC. Otherwise, these younger guys preach and teach the Gospel, including adherence to believer's baptism by immersion.
However, there is a huge difference with many of the younger pastors and church planters out there in SBC life today. It seems they have observed a preoccupation with Baptist identity that has been detrimental to reaching their generations. It's not that they don't agree with historic Baptist doctrine and practice, they just don't think that's the point. Furthermore, they appear to think that the label comes with significant negative baggage to a lot of people they want to reach. Therefore, many of them bury the SBC affiliation deep in their websites. It's there, but you often have to work hard to find it! For many of these younger fellows this is a calculated choice. They don't really want to look or sound like the stereotype of Southern Baptist that many have in their minds. Furthermore, they are more apt to forge non-baptist partnerships and be more ecumenical. They are not liberal in their theology or lifestyles, they just don't want to make a big deal out of being Baptist. If they perceive that the label Baptist gets in the way of forging relationships with people whom they want to share the Gospel, then they have no difficultly playing down their Baptist heritage and connections.
Currently, in my small town of Hazard we have a case study going on in this debate. The fastest growing, largest in attendance church in town is a new church plant that launched last fall. The pastor is young, conservative, Baptist in upbringing and education, and a delightful guy. His church is a "community" church, not Baptist in name. Yet, it is Baptist when you look at the fine print, and as a church planter this pastor is a recipient of CP money. Here is the truth. He has been able to reach people in this community that would never give First Baptist the first look. Why? Top among the reasons I believe is the negative reputation many perceive of the 114 year-old church. Would they hear the same Gospel at First Baptist? Yes. Do First Baptist people treat visitors with hospitality? Yes. Could guests truly worship at First Baptist? Yes. So what's the difference? Well, there are differences in our styles. So, style may be a factor, but I'm not convinced that's the bottom line. Certainly a new work has a lot of energy and excitement that just comes with the newness factor. But I'm beginning to be convinced that the significant factor is that many in our community have a bad impression of First Baptist specifically and probably Baptists in general.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm getting more sympathetic with those who downplay the Baptist label, even though I still don't like it. It's regrettable that First Baptist has not secured a better reputation over our long history. I think we have to own that. However, I don't know that ditching the label is the answer. In my context, my choice is to change the reputation, even though I know that change will come slowly. This has to happen at First Baptist Hazard, and I think it has to happen church by church all across our convention.
I've observed at convention meetings that it seems that at least 75% of new church plants go by names that leave out the Baptist label. (I'm guessing at that number). Part of me bristles every time I hear "community" or "fellowship" replacing "Baptist." I admit I have an emotional reaction. But that's when I have to get a grip and ask myself why. After I think it through, I begin to see the other side and I begin to get it, even though I still don't like it.
But here is the point. I believe our task force has missed the mark. I realize that their job was to come up with an alternative label that didn't use the word Southern. But for those who have a desire to change the name it's just as much or more an issue with the word Baptist. I'm afraid that "Great Commission Baptist" will scantly be applied because of that reason. Young church planters are not going to use it because it still contains Baptist. (not to mention it's just a little cheesy).
The hard work Southern Baptists need to do is that of mending fences, loving their neighbors and improving their reputations. Middle-aged guys like myself need to be honest about this and get to work. As much as I cherish my Baptist heritage, I know that God's Kingdom is not a "Baptist" kingdom. It's much bigger than that. However, I have no shame in being Baptist because I believe that label stands for many important things in doctrine and practice. I will not run away from the label. I want to communicate why the label is historically significant and what it stands for. And I want to work to improve its reputation in my community. As for all the young church planters who choose to hide the Baptist name even though that's what they are-that's their business and it's not a hill for me to die on. However, I probably won't be able to help myself from still giving them a hard time.
As a Southern Baptist pastor I do have a few thoughts on the issue.
First, at forty-five years of age I find myself in the middle of this debate. I have and continue to rub shoulders with both the Millennial generation behind me and the Boomers and GI generations ahead of me. I'm an older Gen-Xer, so by definition I'm a little lost, confused and angry (so I'm told!). However, I think because of where I am generationally or just by my nature, I see the merit of both sides of the argument.
On the one hand, among the older generations within the Southern Baptist Convention there is great attachment to the label and to the denomination itself. These folks can remember a greater time of cooperation and strong Baptist identity. They tend to care deeply about Baptist distinctiveness and Baptist accomplishments. Among them runs a strong us versus them mentality. They have increasingly watched the Baptist label fade in significance in their children and grandchildren. This isn't easy. They have watched the Baptist Book Store, The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Broandman Press become respectively LifeWay Christian Bookstore, LifeWay Christian Resources, Guidestone Financial Resources, and B&H Publishing Group. They can remember when Convention Press, which no longer exists, turned out works for discipleship training that gave great attention to Baptist distinctiveness and doctrine. The Baptist world they once knew is just a memory, replaced by clandestine Baptist organizations.
On the other hand, among the younger twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings there is a conspicuous disregard for the label of Baptist. I don't mean that this is hostile in most cases. There remains, for the large part, a commitment to baptistic doctrine and practice. The only exception I observe here is in the area of church organization and governance. There continues to be a growing trend toward the incorporation of Presbyterian style organization with the introduction of elders as an official office along side deacons. I believe this has been one of the unintended consequences of the resurgence in Reformed theology in the SBC. Otherwise, these younger guys preach and teach the Gospel, including adherence to believer's baptism by immersion.
However, there is a huge difference with many of the younger pastors and church planters out there in SBC life today. It seems they have observed a preoccupation with Baptist identity that has been detrimental to reaching their generations. It's not that they don't agree with historic Baptist doctrine and practice, they just don't think that's the point. Furthermore, they appear to think that the label comes with significant negative baggage to a lot of people they want to reach. Therefore, many of them bury the SBC affiliation deep in their websites. It's there, but you often have to work hard to find it! For many of these younger fellows this is a calculated choice. They don't really want to look or sound like the stereotype of Southern Baptist that many have in their minds. Furthermore, they are more apt to forge non-baptist partnerships and be more ecumenical. They are not liberal in their theology or lifestyles, they just don't want to make a big deal out of being Baptist. If they perceive that the label Baptist gets in the way of forging relationships with people whom they want to share the Gospel, then they have no difficultly playing down their Baptist heritage and connections.
Currently, in my small town of Hazard we have a case study going on in this debate. The fastest growing, largest in attendance church in town is a new church plant that launched last fall. The pastor is young, conservative, Baptist in upbringing and education, and a delightful guy. His church is a "community" church, not Baptist in name. Yet, it is Baptist when you look at the fine print, and as a church planter this pastor is a recipient of CP money. Here is the truth. He has been able to reach people in this community that would never give First Baptist the first look. Why? Top among the reasons I believe is the negative reputation many perceive of the 114 year-old church. Would they hear the same Gospel at First Baptist? Yes. Do First Baptist people treat visitors with hospitality? Yes. Could guests truly worship at First Baptist? Yes. So what's the difference? Well, there are differences in our styles. So, style may be a factor, but I'm not convinced that's the bottom line. Certainly a new work has a lot of energy and excitement that just comes with the newness factor. But I'm beginning to be convinced that the significant factor is that many in our community have a bad impression of First Baptist specifically and probably Baptists in general.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm getting more sympathetic with those who downplay the Baptist label, even though I still don't like it. It's regrettable that First Baptist has not secured a better reputation over our long history. I think we have to own that. However, I don't know that ditching the label is the answer. In my context, my choice is to change the reputation, even though I know that change will come slowly. This has to happen at First Baptist Hazard, and I think it has to happen church by church all across our convention.
I've observed at convention meetings that it seems that at least 75% of new church plants go by names that leave out the Baptist label. (I'm guessing at that number). Part of me bristles every time I hear "community" or "fellowship" replacing "Baptist." I admit I have an emotional reaction. But that's when I have to get a grip and ask myself why. After I think it through, I begin to see the other side and I begin to get it, even though I still don't like it.
But here is the point. I believe our task force has missed the mark. I realize that their job was to come up with an alternative label that didn't use the word Southern. But for those who have a desire to change the name it's just as much or more an issue with the word Baptist. I'm afraid that "Great Commission Baptist" will scantly be applied because of that reason. Young church planters are not going to use it because it still contains Baptist. (not to mention it's just a little cheesy).
The hard work Southern Baptists need to do is that of mending fences, loving their neighbors and improving their reputations. Middle-aged guys like myself need to be honest about this and get to work. As much as I cherish my Baptist heritage, I know that God's Kingdom is not a "Baptist" kingdom. It's much bigger than that. However, I have no shame in being Baptist because I believe that label stands for many important things in doctrine and practice. I will not run away from the label. I want to communicate why the label is historically significant and what it stands for. And I want to work to improve its reputation in my community. As for all the young church planters who choose to hide the Baptist name even though that's what they are-that's their business and it's not a hill for me to die on. However, I probably won't be able to help myself from still giving them a hard time.
23 January 2012
Making the Supper Significant
I grew up Baptist. When I was a child my mother took my sister and I to a little independent Baptist church not even a mile from our home. It was there that I was first introduced to the Lord's Supper. I observed it for sometime before I could actually participate in it myself. But after my conversion and subsequent baptism as a believer I found myself participating.
At my little childhood church the Lord's Supper was observed the first Sunday of each month (if my memory serves me well at this moment). We did the supper at the end of a typical service. Men would pass out the bread (a little stale cracker) first and we would eat it together. Then they would pass out the wine in little cups. Now, I don't mean wine in the symbolic sense. We used the real thing! That's right. The first time alcohol passed over my lips was as a minor in church. It was a strange juxtaposition of biblical literalness and fundamentalist Christianity. The church used real wine because that's what Jesus used. However, as conservative Baptists and heirs of the temperance movement we promoted teetotalism as the proper Christian lifestyle. I can still remember a friend who got into trouble for finishing off the leftovers after a service down in the basement kitchen like he was throwing back shots at a bar. I digress. After we had finished receiving the elements, then we would sing a hymn. I remember while we sang the pastor would walk to the back. When we finished the last note he would say, "and after they had sung a hymn, they went out." Then we would leave.
I believe that I had a decent understanding of what we were doing in the Lord's Supper even as a child. However, I'm not sure that I was ever led to have a significant appreciation for it. It always felt like an add on, an afterthought. It never felt like it was the point of a service.
I came to realize over time through experience and some education that the de-emphais on the Lord's Supper in some Protestant traditions (including mine) is largely due to the anti-Catholic sentiment that has pervaded them. I can vividly recall having the impression as a youngster within my Baptist circle that being Roman Catholic was much worse than being an outright heathen. This is understandable for two reasons. First, Protestants and Catholics fought like cats and dogs for centuries creating generations of animosity and suspicion. Secondly, the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church constitute a different gospel that is false. Their errors include a message of salvation that is based on the performance of sacramental works. Although there are seven sacraments for the faithful, the Lord's Supper (called the Eucharist among Catholics) is the most important. It is observed every week and by some every day. It is the means by which Christ gives His grace to sinners. It is also considered to be literal. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are literally transformed in their substance into the body and blood of Christ once it has been consecrated by the priest. It's easy to understand why my tradition would go out of its way to avoid looking, feeling, or acting in any way Catholic.
Although, I do reject Roman Catholic teaching about the Lord's Supper, I do not want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. In classic historical overreaction, I think we Baptists have diminished the significance of the Lord's Table. Jesus clearly told his disciples to repeat the memorial he created together regularly until He returned. He wanted them to remember together.
I've had to work as a pastor to make the Lord's Supper more significant in my own life. I've had to personally strive to connect with Jesus' intent in instituting it for His church and to discern what spiritual benefit God intends for His people through it. Sadly, I've had to prod myself to care more about the Lord's Supper as a leader in the church.
At FBC Hazard we observe the Lord's Supper once each quarter. We may observe it a couple more times on special occasions - in all, around 5-6 times each year. That's not very often. I remember being told that the reason we Baptists didn't observe the supper each Sunday is because we didn't want to lose its special quality with too much familiarity (like those Catholics!). By, the way I live next door to a Catholic church and the priest and I are friends...just in case you were wondering. No hating here. I digress again. However, I couldn't discern much special about the supper even in our less frequent observances.
As a pastor I'm trying to put more emphasis on the supper on the Sunday's that we do observe it. I'm committed now to make sure we always do it in prime time on Sunday morning. I'm also committed to making everything about the service move toward the climax of observing the supper and partaking of the elements. I will still give a message, but that message will connect to the significance of the Lord's Supper for the corporate life of the church. It's one of the few times I depart from my expository march through the book I'm preaching through. My hope is that by the time the elements are in the hands of believer's that their hearts and minds are saturated with an awareness of what they are doing and why. In the end, I want all of our affections to be warmed again for Christ. I believe when I do the best I can to help believer's truly pause and remember, the result is that they filled even more deeply with love and gratitude for the One who gave Himself for them.
I hope that you will join me as a Protestant who cherishes the Lord's Supper. There is nothing magical or even supernatural in the memorial, but it is spiritually significant when we approach it as such.
At my little childhood church the Lord's Supper was observed the first Sunday of each month (if my memory serves me well at this moment). We did the supper at the end of a typical service. Men would pass out the bread (a little stale cracker) first and we would eat it together. Then they would pass out the wine in little cups. Now, I don't mean wine in the symbolic sense. We used the real thing! That's right. The first time alcohol passed over my lips was as a minor in church. It was a strange juxtaposition of biblical literalness and fundamentalist Christianity. The church used real wine because that's what Jesus used. However, as conservative Baptists and heirs of the temperance movement we promoted teetotalism as the proper Christian lifestyle. I can still remember a friend who got into trouble for finishing off the leftovers after a service down in the basement kitchen like he was throwing back shots at a bar. I digress. After we had finished receiving the elements, then we would sing a hymn. I remember while we sang the pastor would walk to the back. When we finished the last note he would say, "and after they had sung a hymn, they went out." Then we would leave.
I believe that I had a decent understanding of what we were doing in the Lord's Supper even as a child. However, I'm not sure that I was ever led to have a significant appreciation for it. It always felt like an add on, an afterthought. It never felt like it was the point of a service.
I came to realize over time through experience and some education that the de-emphais on the Lord's Supper in some Protestant traditions (including mine) is largely due to the anti-Catholic sentiment that has pervaded them. I can vividly recall having the impression as a youngster within my Baptist circle that being Roman Catholic was much worse than being an outright heathen. This is understandable for two reasons. First, Protestants and Catholics fought like cats and dogs for centuries creating generations of animosity and suspicion. Secondly, the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church constitute a different gospel that is false. Their errors include a message of salvation that is based on the performance of sacramental works. Although there are seven sacraments for the faithful, the Lord's Supper (called the Eucharist among Catholics) is the most important. It is observed every week and by some every day. It is the means by which Christ gives His grace to sinners. It is also considered to be literal. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are literally transformed in their substance into the body and blood of Christ once it has been consecrated by the priest. It's easy to understand why my tradition would go out of its way to avoid looking, feeling, or acting in any way Catholic.
Although, I do reject Roman Catholic teaching about the Lord's Supper, I do not want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. In classic historical overreaction, I think we Baptists have diminished the significance of the Lord's Table. Jesus clearly told his disciples to repeat the memorial he created together regularly until He returned. He wanted them to remember together.
I've had to work as a pastor to make the Lord's Supper more significant in my own life. I've had to personally strive to connect with Jesus' intent in instituting it for His church and to discern what spiritual benefit God intends for His people through it. Sadly, I've had to prod myself to care more about the Lord's Supper as a leader in the church.
At FBC Hazard we observe the Lord's Supper once each quarter. We may observe it a couple more times on special occasions - in all, around 5-6 times each year. That's not very often. I remember being told that the reason we Baptists didn't observe the supper each Sunday is because we didn't want to lose its special quality with too much familiarity (like those Catholics!). By, the way I live next door to a Catholic church and the priest and I are friends...just in case you were wondering. No hating here. I digress again. However, I couldn't discern much special about the supper even in our less frequent observances.
As a pastor I'm trying to put more emphasis on the supper on the Sunday's that we do observe it. I'm committed now to make sure we always do it in prime time on Sunday morning. I'm also committed to making everything about the service move toward the climax of observing the supper and partaking of the elements. I will still give a message, but that message will connect to the significance of the Lord's Supper for the corporate life of the church. It's one of the few times I depart from my expository march through the book I'm preaching through. My hope is that by the time the elements are in the hands of believer's that their hearts and minds are saturated with an awareness of what they are doing and why. In the end, I want all of our affections to be warmed again for Christ. I believe when I do the best I can to help believer's truly pause and remember, the result is that they filled even more deeply with love and gratitude for the One who gave Himself for them.
I hope that you will join me as a Protestant who cherishes the Lord's Supper. There is nothing magical or even supernatural in the memorial, but it is spiritually significant when we approach it as such.
18 January 2012
The Question of Christian Influence at America's Beginning
I just completed reading Jerome Dean Mahaffey's The Accidental Revolutionary: George Whitefield and the Creation of America (Baylor Press, 2011). First I want to say it was a good read. Mahaffey has a pleasing style and keeps the book moving at a nice pace. It's a quick read (192 pages), but long enough to get you well acquainted with Whitefield.
Whitefield is one of my favorite characters from colonial American history. He was the first American celebrity, known throughout the colonies via his preaching and newspapers. He attracted massive crowds, introduced innovations in preaching that we take for granted today, was controversial, interdenominational before there was such a thing, and has to be the most odd Anglican preacher in history. He is truly a fascinating character. If you know little of Whitefield, you need to read this book.
What most interests me about this book is the thesis that Mahaffey picks up. His argument is not a new one. Alan Heimert first argued for a causative relationship between the Great Awakening (in which Whitefield was a primary leader) and the American Revolution in his 1966 book Religion and the American Mind, from the Great Awakening to the Revolution. Mahaffey essentially repackages this idea in his treatment of Whitefield and I think he makes some points worth consideration.
An interesting yet elusive question for historians is this: How much did religious ideas inform and shape the dissent among American colonists from 1760-1776 and the eventual push for separation from England? Mahaffey wants to ascribe considerable influence to revivalistic evangelical Christianity in general, and to George Whitefield in particular. It's an intriguing connection, but is this the historical reality?
If you read Mahaffey you may be convinced that he and Heimert are on to something. With the evidence he gives from Whitefield's preaching, you may easily draw the conclusion that religious ideas in his preaching ultimately translated into political ideas that motivated the colonists to revolution. However, I think this may be just an appearance and not a cause. Another possibility is that philosophical and political ideas were invading and shaping Christianity in subtle and progressive ways. So, that by the time we arrive at the Revolution many religious figures and political figures have a great deal of vocabulary and ideas in common. One influence that Mahaffey does not, in my opinion, give sufficient credit to is the influence of Enlightenment thinkers of the post-Reformation period. Protestant Christianity still dominated the English-speaking world, but it was a Christianity under the influence of the Enlightenment or at least in engagement with it. Some Christians rejected many aspects of the Enlightenment and some allowed its ideas to transform traditional views into new categories (e.g. Deism and Unitarianism). Many more I believe found something new in a kind of fusion of Enlightenment and Christian ideas that seemed compatible.
I believe that there can be no doubt about the presence and influence of Protestant Christianity during the founding period of the United States. However, the question I continue to wrestle with is to what degree that influence may have been. The more I look into it, the more I see Enlightenment influence as well, especially on many of those who were primary political shapers. I certainly don't think it is an either/or choice. It's a matter of figuring out which influence was primary and which one was secondary. It's a matter of discerning which had a greater shaping influence on the other.
Let me also invite you to read Christian America? Perspectives on Our Religious Heritage. I had the privilege to conceive, edit and contribute to this work. The contributors offer different interpretations about the influence of Christianity during America's founding. I think its an important and interesting discussion. Seeing our past more clearly, helps us understand why things are the way they are now. And, I believe helps us chart a more intelligent and faithful approach to impacting our culture now. I hope you'll give it a read. You won't agree with much of it guaranteed, but that is sort of the point. It's a conversation of different voices on the subject interacting with one another. I invite you to make your own evaluation and join the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)