Quick thoughts and questions on Christian education in the church setting.

My credentials to addressing this topic are neither impressive nor overly deficient. I've been a youth pastor for the last 4 years at a relatively small (about 120) congregation, so I do have a good deal of first hand experience, but I've very little exposure to big churches or various denominations/traditions contexts. In other words, my resume is deep but not wide. I suspect that much of what I have to say will be relevant in a variety of settings, but some of it will be rather useless. Regardless I would very much like to hear your thoughts and feedback.

1) Is expository preaching really sufficient?

In the church contexts in which I grew up, asking this question amounts to heresy. I think I understand and can sympathize with the arguments for it. John MacArthur, one of it's most famous proponents, answers a question in regard to why he has has remained committed to expository preaching:

Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures.

Secondly, expository preaching familiarizes people with the Scripture itself instead of simply giving them a speech, as true and as reflective of biblical teaching as that speech may be. With expository preaching, people become familiar with the Scripture. They can go back to the passages that have been addressed, and they can be reminded by the text itself of what it means. So you give people the Word of God in a way that has long-term impact, because it makes them familiar with Scripture.

Thirdly, it makes the authority unequivocal, and that authority is the Scripture. That’s very clear no matter how powerful or gifted the preacher might be. In consistent, expository preaching, the people always know what the authority is. It’s not about homiletics. It’s not about personal viewpoints and insights. It’s about relentlessly affirming the true authority of Scripture, which is the most critical thing that anybody can ever learn. It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great sermon?” It isn’t about, “Wasn’t that a great outline? Wasn’t that clever?” It’s always about, “What did the Word of God say?” And that makes it truly authoritative, because the Word is from God. No other preaching paradigm does this.
Source

I respect John MacArthur, even though I may complain about him from time to time, because I think he really does try to be a faithful minister of the Word of God. I'm becoming more and more convinced, however, that expository preaching is not enough. I've been getting the distinct impression that people who sit exclusively under expository sermons have a very difficult time with synthesis and in understanding the meta-narrative of Scripture. This approach tends to chop the Bible up into pericopes, or in some cases smaller than that, which the preacher can preach as a unit. It fails, however to put it all together. Texts, even pericopes are meaningless outside of their context within the larger argument of the book at hand or even the whole of Scripture. I also think exclusive expository preaching tends to weaken people's ability to think theologically, but I won't go into that for now. I also feel as if the vast majority of Christians have no concept of our historical-theological context. Again, not now. I may post on this at some later time. I'm not sure I agree with any of Johnny Mac's above points, but I do, at least, respect them and I think I understand where he's coming from.

What do you think?

2) & 3) Do we tell people "what" too much? Do we tell them "how" enough?

We tell people to read their Bibles, but do people really know how? We tell people to share the gospel but are they really equipped to do so? We tell parents to raise their children for the Lord, but do they even have a clue what that means or how to go about it? We tell the laity that being a Christian on Sunday is not enough, but do we help them understand what it means to be a Christian in their workplace, in their home, in school?

4) We tell people that they need to use their spiritual gifts and/or contribute to the church's ministry, but how well do we facilitate this? I get the feeling that a lot of people would be willing to serve in some capacity but aren't sure how or feel like they aren't "good enough Christians." I've run into this attitude among mature Christians that certain people aren't really "qualified" to be involved in the church's ministry because they aren't mature enough spiritually. Although it is certainly true that some level of spiritual maturity is needed for certain roles, I have found that people often grow in spades when they become involved within their church's ministry. If they feel like they aren't good enough yet, they won't become involved, however.

5) Have we become too soft on our own sins and too hard on the sins of others? 99% of all church discipline that I've seen or heard of has been in regards to sexual sin. Is this appropriate? Is this the only sin Christians struggle with that can ever be confronted? What about greed? Or idolatry (depending upon how you define this)? How about not loving your wife? I'm not trying to be funny, it just seems as if we've singled out a certain sin area because it's easier to quantify, more "black and white" if you will. But if we single out this sin I'm afraid it's far too easy to become self-righteous if you've never committed adultery. I also feel like the way church discipline is applied is rather unfair to women, but I won't go into that right now.

5) How confidently should we preach difficult passages or theological concepts?

6) How guilty are we of syncretism? Is singing patriotic american songs idolatrous? I think so. Have we put our concept of "family" in too high a place (see Jesus' statements about the family...)? Have we become too republican? Have we idolized a culture in which we were comfortable instead of learning how to live in the culture in which we find ourselves?

7) Have we been tickling people's ears because we don't want to sound judgmental or legalistic?


Tackle or respond to whichever ones you feel like.

I'll have a Baptist Distinctive post up soon.

Baptist Distinctive 2: Liberty of Conscience / Separation of Church and State part 2

I have a problem with going too long and so I separated this into two sections in an attempt to keep somebody reading at least. The first half of this post dealt with the explanation of the distinctive. This half will deal with how this distinctive works itself out and its strengths and weaknesses. I'm trying to be a bit shorter - no promises!


How this Distinctive works out practically

Historically, as I hope you saw in the last section, this distinctive has meant that Baptists have stood up not only for their own right to worship God as their conscience dictates, but also for the rights of others to practice their religion. This included not only other Christian denominations, but also, as we saw, Jews, Muslims, and American Indians. This does not mean that Baptists believe that these religions are equally valid or that they can lead to God. Any Baptist who held to the first distinctive (sole authority of Scripture) could hardly hold to that! What it does mean is that Baptists realize that one cannot be forced to become a Christian and that a forced conversion is a false one. The best way to evangelize others is to treat them as you would want to be treated and thus share the gospel with them verbally and nonverbally. It also recognizes the importance of genuine faith and the worthlessness of salvation by dead ritual, baptism, or by doing "Christian things". Salvation has to come by genuine faith, not coerced, not forced, not bribed.

Consistent Baptists should not only stand up for their own religious rights, but also for the religious rights of others. To be a consistent Baptist is to realize the reality of the fact that we live in a world of not only many religions but many different understandings of the Christian faith expressed in a multitude of denominations. Consistent Baptists should never try and force policies through that coerce others to worship God as they do. For me, for instance, I would not try and work towards any kind of official prayer time in public schools. Not only is this not an effective way of evangelizing, but it would result in blasphemous insincere prayer - worse than no prayer at all! We are not working towards a Christian State with any sort of special privileges for Christians or unfair treatment towards Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Methodists, or Mormons. We recognize that if people are to be converted, it will be by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in one's heart, not by the sword of man.

I want to quickly point out what this does not and never has meant. This distinctive has never meant that Christians cannot be involved in politics or run for office. Reread Thomas Helwys' quote if you need a refresher, but Baptists do not believe that we can do no good whatsoever in the political scene. We just recognize that one cannot use political coercion to spread the "gospel". It hasn't worked from the beginning of Christian political power in the 4th century. It won't work in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I think our overemphasis on politics often alienates people to the point that they will not listen to us. Remember, the problem isn't that people are proabortion, gay, or that they smoke marijuana. The problem is that they are lost and need the gospel. The gospel has a way of transforming people. Let's worry about their eternal destiny first not allow politics to destroy our chances to preach Christ. I see so often that the first barrier I have to cross with unsaved people is a political barrier. What's sadly ironic, is that it is too often built by those who call themselves Baptists.


Why this Distinctive is Good

1) This distinctive is pragmatic in a good way. It recognizes the boundaries of what one can do through government and that we will never all agree on the best way to worship God. Killing each other doesn't honor God and it only makes the problem worse, so freedom of religion is the best possible option in a pluralistic society. When Jesus comes back, he can outlaw all our bad theology!

2) This distinctive represents a good sort of Christian tolerance. Tolerance means something very different than it used to. Tolerance used to mean that you learned to live alongside those who disagreed with you. Tolerance could sit and listen to what another said without killing, torturing, or persecuting that person. Today tolerance means accepting that the beliefs of whoever you disagree with are equally valid. It means that you cannot tell someone that they are wrong. It means you cannot preach messages on right and wrong. It means you cannot say that someone's lifestyle is sinful. This distinctive represents the first kind of tolerance and I think this better represents the attitude of Jesus than the slaughter of Jews and Muslims during the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the religious wars following the Protestant Reformation.

3) This distinctive recognizes what has been proven throughout church history that when one mixes Christianity and Politics, Christianity becomes the whore. Over and over again, people have been manipulated through the use religion for political purposes. Power attracts some very shady characters. When we make it advantageous to be a Christian, we invite goats to infiltrate the church and contaminate her. If it is no better, politically and socially to be a Christian, you will have fewer fake believers.

4) This distinctive represents a practical outworking of the Golden Rule.

Challenges and Problems for those who hold to this Distinctive

1) The overemphasis on this distinctive could result in the attitude that politics doesn't matter and an apathy on the part of Christians towards our country. I think that this is part of what HAD been the case before the arrival of the Christian Right and the pendulum ended up swunging too far the other way. Christians must maintain a careful balance here. I do not think it is wrong for us to try and protect the rights of unborn babies. We shouldn't be trying to take away the rights of those we disagree with, but we can try and influence our world for good through politics. This is difficult and careful balance is essential.

2) Holding this distinctive makes it much more difficult to think through the issues as a Christian in political office. A Christian who is attempting to institute a theocracy has a clear and obvious goal. A Baptist in politics will have a lot more difficulty thinking through and implementing a philosophy of politics.

A Conclusion and a Question

Someone reading this has probably already figured out that I think many Baptists have become too political. Its not that I think we have become too involved as that I think we have become too much associated with the Republican party (or the Democratic party if you are a member of an African American Baptist church). It's not that I think you can't be a good Christian or a good Baptist and vote Republican. I voted for Republicans in the last election and probably will again in 2012 (although I really hope that certain unnamed candidates are not nominated...). Its that I think that Evangelical Christians are thought of more as a special interest wing of the Republican Party than they are seen as those who stand up for righteousness, justice, and peace. I think I see more republican influence in the church than I see Christian influence in the party. We need to remember that we are not a political entity, that lasting change will only be a result of the change brought on by the transformation of the gospel, and that (as I kept repeating to myself whenever I was getting upset during the last presidential election) "our salvation is not in politics".

I won't push my political beliefs on you. I'm more of a libertarian (though even probably doesn't quite represent my political beliefs accurately) than a Republican or Democrat, but that's not the point. The point is that we need to remember our priorities and our mission. The great commission says nothing about creating a Christian nation. I'm sick of Evangelical Christendom being seen as a political machine. Quit trying to create a Christian state. You'll never succeed and I'm scared of the results if you were somehow able to do it. Politics has a place, but its a bit lower on the totem pole than we've tended to put it.

Question: Are most baptists still baptists?

I know this is a controversial and very difficult topic. I would like to hear your feedback, just so long as you aren't trying to lop off my head....

Baptist Distinctive 2: Liberty of Conscience & Separation of Church and State (part 1/2)

In my last post I dealt with the Baptist distinctive having to do with Scripture, this post will deal with what was most commonly called the "Liberty of the Conscience" or "Individual Soul Liberty" and is more often today thought of as the "Separation of Church and State." I hope I don't say this before every distinctive, but this is one of the most important differences between Baptists and other denominations, especially when Baptists were first conceived.

Oddly, I think that this distinctive could be one of the most persuasive as to why one should be a Baptist or at least appreciate them historically, but it is also the distinctive from which those who call themselves Baptists (at least in the States) have departed the most. As probably most of you know by now, I graduated from Liberty University, the HQ of the Religious Right. The Religious Right and Liberty University make claim to be both Christian and political institutions and apparently see these ends as consistent and congruous. Oddly, many of the leaders were Baptists. I remember hearing Jerry Falwell talk about "taking back America" and the "Baptist" school he founded was to be his primary avenue towards that end. Roger Williams, one of the first Baptists in America, would have rolled over in his grave!

I will approach this distinctive in much the same way as the last one. I will explain the distinctive and its historical development, develop how this distinctive works out (or ought to work out) practically, and then put forth some positives and some challenges that are tied with this distinctive.

Explanation of the Distinctive
In my last post I commented how Baptists' comments in the early stages of the movement were very harsh towards those of other viewpoints, particularly those of Catholic and Anglican persuasions. One can hardly blame them! They were quite severely persecuted from the beginning for their differences. Obadiah Holmes was whipped for preaching, baptizing and administering communion outside the Church of England, John Bunyan was thrown in jail for preaching without a license, and John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were forced to flee to Holland because of their dissenting viewpoints. In the U.S., Roger Williams, a Baptist for a time, was forced out of Massachusetts and into Rhode Island largely because he protested against the mistreatment of the Native American people by the Puritans. When one is under threat of physical harm, imprisonment and being forced from your home, one tends to be rather unreceptive to the idea that those doing it are part of any "true church"! That they are portrayed as "antichrists" should hardly be surprising.

Baptists saw the wars over religion and the harsh persecution of Christians by other "Christians" and wondered, understandably, how this could be consistent with the message of the Bible and the model of the early New Testament church. Following are some early Baptists on the matter of religious freedom.

Thomas Helwys:

...none should be punished with either death or bonds for transgressing against the spiritual ordinances of the New Testament and that such offenses should only be punished with the spiritual sword and with censures.

and later

If the kings people are obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king. our lord the king can require none more. For men's religion is between God and themselves. The King will not answer for it. Neither may the king judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least manner.

Roger Williams states, rather sarcastically one imagines:

...the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of protestants and papists (Catholics), spilled in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required not accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace (emphasis mine).

and later

I conclude ... that the Christian church does not persecute; no more than a lily scratches the thorns, or a lamb pursues and tears the wolves, or a turtle-dove hunts the hawks and eagles, or a chasts and a modest virgin fights and scratches like whores and harlots.

A bit later historically (1791), John Leland:

Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment,, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free....
...religion is a matter between God and individuals: the religious opinions of men are not the objects of civil government, or in any way under its control.

Finally, in a very important document from an American history standpoint, here is an excerpt from a letter written by the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801 to the recently elected Thomas Jefferson:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty - that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals - that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions....

From Jefferson's reply:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between a Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State....

Baptists believe that one cannot force someone to believe. Baptists argued that not only should differing varieties of Christians be free to practice their faith in the way dictated by their conscience, but also "Jews and Turks (meaning Muslims)". Roger Williams argued that the Native Americans too should have religious liberty. Although this may seem like a given for most Christians today, historically it was not so. The idea of separation of Church and State, now taken for granted in the U.S., is a Baptist idea. It is God's job, not the job of the government, to judge a man's soul.

Before I move on, I feel I must point out that this does not mean that one could not be an elected official and a Christian or a Baptist. Early Anglican opponents often accused Baptists of this but it was a false accusation. Nor did Baptists teach that one should not submit oneself to the secular authorities, quite the opposite, in fact. Thomas Helwys emphasizes both of these points in his "declaration of faith":

The Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul should be subject to it not for fear only, but for conscience sake... They are ministers of God to take vengeance on those who do evil, Romans 13. It is a fearful evil to speak evil of them.... We should pay tribute, custom and all other duties. We are to pray for them, for GOD would have them saved and come to a knowledge of his truth.

And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars them from being a member of CHRIST'S Church....

Yeah...
This is getting too long for one post. I am aware that I am far too longwinded. I will save the rest of this for another day. I have most of it written already, but will give you all a chance to read part 1 first. In the meantime, I would welcome your comments and your thoughts on the following.

-Before I give you my positives and negatives, I would love to hear yours. Is this a good distinctive? Why/Why not? What are some potential difficulties?

-How true do you think today's "Baptists" are to this historical distinctive?

Quotations taken from: Readings in Baptist History Joseph Early Jr (editor) Nashville, TN: B&H Press, 2008.

Towards a more complete pro-life position

Something of a disclaimer...
This is not going to be a political blog. I think I spend too much time thinking and talking about politics already. Politics are important but as I have to continually remind myself (especially as the candidates I voted for are all about to lose): my faith is not in politics.
But our faith should effect our politics and, unfortunately, our political positions often effect our religious views. The dominant evangelical political issue has been, for as long as I can remember, the abortion issue. Many Christians have been accused, probably fairly, of being 'one issue' voters. Because we are prolife we are automatic republican voters, or so it seems. For better and for worse those of my generation are bucking these stereotypes and are becoming concerned with a much larger breadth of issues. We aren't forsaking our pro-life stance but are bucking principles for pragmatics as we realize the long term futility of this battle.
I'm not going to talk about the candidates. I'm not going to talk about the election. I'm not even going to talk about all of these issues that younger evangelicals care about. I'm only going to talk about the prolife position. Should we continue to be prolife? What does it mean to be prolife? How should our faith affect our politics in this area?

Ok another disclaimer and then to talk about what I am here to talk about...
I just have to say I really really hate the fact that evangelicalism and republicanism have become so closely identified. I do not see the two parties as being in a titanic struggle between good and evil (as my parents do). They are two worldly unchristian organizations who have different opinions and philosophies about running the country. Neither has a Christian worldview (hereafter: CWV), they both are worldly and, in some sense evil.

That being said, just because neither party espouses or follows a CWV, does not mean that there is really no difference between the two, that we should just stay home, or that neither is more conducive to a CWV. I voted already and the candidates I voted for were overwhelmingly from the same party. But I will not identify myself with a political party I see as an unchristian organization pursuing a worldly agenda.

Okay, hopefully that will be the most I ever have to say about politics on this blog ever!

Finally the point...

The abortion issue

Being prolife, of course includes the abortion issue. How could it not? When our country kills millions of defenseless children, we, as Christians, should be ashamed of ourselves if we do and say nothing. I am afraid that younger evangelicals may be becoming numb and apathetic to this issue. I can understand why. This has been legal in the U.S. for over thirty years, I am twenty-four. It's normal. We don't have the shock of realizing that babies are legally murdered in this country everyday. It's just something that happens. Every day. All the time. There has also been increased sympathy for the women who seek abortions. Most of them are poor and without a man to help care for and raise the child. Many of them are teens. A few of them are victims of rape or incest. To tell these women they must go through with their pregnancy seems cruel, especially when abortion is so readily available and normal.

Evil should never become normal to us. God did not create the world to be this way. Sin, death, and the curse were not a part of God's original creation. They are foreigners and alien invaders who will someday be vanquished and gone forever. The world as it is now is messed up. We look to the day when normality will be restored with a new earth. We have no concept of what normal is. The new earth will never fade away. Some day in eternity future, our time on this earth will be nothing more than a blip on a screen. We live in the abnormal phase. Let's never accept evil, which will hold influence for only a very short time, as normal or acceptable. Let us never become callused, used to it or lose our horror of it.

But there are other prolife issues...

War

War is sometimes a necessary evil. But if there is one thing wrong with American evangelical politics, I think it is our quick acceptance of war as an acceptable way of dealing with our enemies. I was shocked at how strong and enthusiastic Christian support for the Iraq war was in 2003. I don't want to argue about the WMDs, Saddam Hussein, or terrorist connections (though I imagine some of you will want to argue with me). We went to war without any real provocation, without any real proof of threat, and without thoroughly pursuing other options first. The results? About twice as many Americans have died as died in 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. I can't imagine any plausible scenario in which this turns out to save human lives. Whether we are directly responsible for their deaths or not, our decision to go to war had a horrific human toll.
*** btw... I feel I just have to make clear my own position here. I was against the Iraq war in 2003 and still think it was a mistake. But once we took away the country's structural support, the nation was flooded with terrorists, and was left without a functioning government, I felt we were obligated to stay and clean it up. Pulling out of a mess we created doesn't seem right to me.***

If we truly value life, war should not be something we are quick to support as a solution. In a fallen world, war is often a necessary evil. But let us not forget that war is evil and that we should support peace whenever and however we can. Human life is precious. Let's be slow to shed it. As Christians, we should be vocal in our opposition to unnecessary, unjust and hasty wars.

A very difficult and complicated aspect to war is so called 'nation building'. The specter of Mogadishu Somalia looms large. Even though I was little when it happened, I still remember the images of dead U.S. soldiers being dragged through the streets. But even more sickening to me is the time we did absolutely nothing in Rwanda and 1,000,000 people died (one million for those who have difficulty with numbers). We should stop the slaughter of millions of civilians whenever possible. American lives are not more important or more precious than African lives. I'm afraid too many American Christians think that they are, although they would never say so in so many words. There is nothing Christian about being American. America is a wicked secular nation (and always has been- we have never been a Christian nation, study your history). We have more in common with our Christian brothers and sisters in Africa than we do have in common as fellow Americans. You being my fellow American means nothing to me. You being my brother or sister in Christ means everything, no matter where you are from.

Movies and Entertainment

Here is something that I have not applied perfectly in my life. I am afraid that we, as American Christians, too easily accept violence as entertainment. A kid in my youth group once protested when we were talking about evaluating movies we watch, "there's nothing wrong with violence." OH YES THERE IS! Violence is evil. Violence is part of a sinful world, but should not be a characteristic of a Christian. We should never 'enjoy' violence. When we watch a movie and get joy out of watching violence and bloodshed, when we play computer games and enjoy killing digital representations of human beings we are taking pleasure in evil. Just like pornography when we are not actually committing adultery physically, we are doing so with our mind.

This is not to say that watching violent movies is always wrong. In fact some movies which increase our horror of violence are probably good for us to watch (Hotel Rwanda for example). But we ought to evaluate ourselves as we watch them. Are we deriving pleasure out of evil. Do we love it when the protagonist takes out revenge on his enemies? Do we become giddy as we get a 'triple kill' when we play Halo? Just asking questions....

Towards something of a conclusion...


Hopefully I still have some friends. Not everything I said is politically correct in American evangelical circles. I want to admit straight up that I am still something of a hypocrite on the last point. But if we are going to emphasize life's preciousness and sanctity, as we should, and claim the prolife label, let's be wholly prolife. Let's defend the defenseless, oppose war except as a last resort, and live lives that reflect the belief that life is sacred. Being anti abortion is important because abortion is evil and destructive of human life. But let's strive for consistency regardless of what the positions are of worldly unchristian organizations; regardless of what they believe or tell us to believe. Do not let your faith become the republican or democratic party's whore. Think 'Christianly' not politically.

Peace out ;-)