I find it amazing the number of emotions one can experience in such a short period of time during a denominational convention. I have experienced the joy of worship, the anxiety of business, the disappointment of apathy, and the amazement at the number of opinions that are out there—one of which will expressed here.
We do not often think in terms of that which did not happen. Tropical Storm Ida changed the convention program for us. Ed Young, Jr. was scheduled to bring a message, but because of the weather, had to cancel. I was disappointed because I love the creativity that Ed Young brings to the pulpit. I subscribe to his newsletter. However, I was curious as to why he would have been invited to speak at our convention in the first place for two reasons.
First, I find it interesting that Ed Young would be scheduled in a time slot labeled “Biblical Message.” I tend to think of expository preaching when I hear these terms--not something Ed Young is known to practice on a regular basis.
Second, I think it is interesting that the Florida Baptist Convention would schedule a keynote speaker who does not believe in the concept of the cooperative program. Several years ago I heard Ed Young make a statement about not being willing to use his resources to cross oceans to share the gospel when people in his own backyard need the gospel. I understand his concern and agree that our churches need to be missional agencies in their cities. Not long after that statement, Fellowship Church crossed the gulf and established a pastor-by-DVD church when it took over the ailing First Baptist Church of South Miami.
I have appreciated the messages that we have heard thus far. The Pastor’s Conference speakers have been extremely encouraging and John Cross’s message left us with a challenge that we must all seriously consider and set up perfectly the ideas that will be considered today. This morning, I want to do the unusual and thank God for the message we didn’t hear.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
EDGE in the Beulah Baptist Association Newsletter
In August 2008, Parkview Baptist Church launched a worship service for college-age people called EDGE. The purpose of EDGE was to provide a bridge that would help young people transition from church involvement through a youth group to kingdom involvement through the church. Now in its second season, EDGE continues to help young people identify their role in the kingdom and pursue God’s plan and purpose for them.
The concept and inspiration for EDGE came primarily from a book written by Leonard Sweet called The Gospel according to Starbucks. Sweet uses the acronym EPIC to describe worship that is larger than life. EPIC continues to be the driving force behind EDGE worship—a worship that serves a purpose bigger than any of our own individual agendas. EPIC worship stands for experiential, participatory, image-rich, and community. None of these concepts are new to the established church. They simply manifest themselves in different ways according to the culture and personalities of each congregation. We happen to use various forms of multimedia, dialogue, and music to experience and proclaim the gospel. EDGE worshippers experience community while proclaiming the gospel through the observance of communion each week.
While EDGE takes on the characteristics of its own congregation, the purpose is not to be a stand alone church. Instead, EDGE worshippers are challenged to use the experience to make their Sunday worship more meaningful, regardless of the church in which it occurs. While research has shown that 18-25 year olds tend to drop out of church at a faster rate than most age groups, several young people from EDGE are plugged faithfully into Sunday morning worship experiences and engage in activities that many authors say are antiquated and no longer relevant to this generation such as a choir that still wears robes. For instance, six EDGE worshippers sing in the Parkview choir every Sunday.
EDGE meets in the basement of Parkview Baptist Church on Thursday nights. As we try to find ways of helping other people in this generation find their place in the kingdom, the time may change, but for now the doors open at 8:30 for cappuccino and worship begins at 9:00 pm. EDGE has taken on a coffee-house atmosphere. The great thing about working with young people is that if the Lord decides to morph EDGE into a high-energy concert atmosphere, then that will be fine. Parkview’s pastor, Mike Tatem, leads the preaching/teaching portion of EDGE. Josh Smith, Nikolai Lee, Cynthia Roman, and Travis Crosby (all LCCC students) make up the rest of the worship leadership team. You can find us on facebook under Parkview Edge or on google at parkviewedge.blogspot.com. We hope you will stop by on line or in person and join us as we pursue EPIC worship and a larger than life faith.
The concept and inspiration for EDGE came primarily from a book written by Leonard Sweet called The Gospel according to Starbucks. Sweet uses the acronym EPIC to describe worship that is larger than life. EPIC continues to be the driving force behind EDGE worship—a worship that serves a purpose bigger than any of our own individual agendas. EPIC worship stands for experiential, participatory, image-rich, and community. None of these concepts are new to the established church. They simply manifest themselves in different ways according to the culture and personalities of each congregation. We happen to use various forms of multimedia, dialogue, and music to experience and proclaim the gospel. EDGE worshippers experience community while proclaiming the gospel through the observance of communion each week.
While EDGE takes on the characteristics of its own congregation, the purpose is not to be a stand alone church. Instead, EDGE worshippers are challenged to use the experience to make their Sunday worship more meaningful, regardless of the church in which it occurs. While research has shown that 18-25 year olds tend to drop out of church at a faster rate than most age groups, several young people from EDGE are plugged faithfully into Sunday morning worship experiences and engage in activities that many authors say are antiquated and no longer relevant to this generation such as a choir that still wears robes. For instance, six EDGE worshippers sing in the Parkview choir every Sunday.
EDGE meets in the basement of Parkview Baptist Church on Thursday nights. As we try to find ways of helping other people in this generation find their place in the kingdom, the time may change, but for now the doors open at 8:30 for cappuccino and worship begins at 9:00 pm. EDGE has taken on a coffee-house atmosphere. The great thing about working with young people is that if the Lord decides to morph EDGE into a high-energy concert atmosphere, then that will be fine. Parkview’s pastor, Mike Tatem, leads the preaching/teaching portion of EDGE. Josh Smith, Nikolai Lee, Cynthia Roman, and Travis Crosby (all LCCC students) make up the rest of the worship leadership team. You can find us on facebook under Parkview Edge or on google at parkviewedge.blogspot.com. We hope you will stop by on line or in person and join us as we pursue EPIC worship and a larger than life faith.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Health Care Reform and the Public Option
On September 21 at the SBC Executive Committee, Guidestone Financial Resources president O. S. Hawkins announced that he and leaders from a coalition of 32 denomination-backed health insurance programs are concerned about the impact of President Obama’s proposals for health care reform (Baptist Press, http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31316). With all of the partisan political rhetoric, the President’s incessant public appearances, and lobbyist commercials about health care reform between the news stories about health care reform, how are we to process the abundance of information?
The controversy stems from the inclusion in the proposal of a public option health insurance. So far, many of the opinion articles that I have read that support the president’s proposal have argued that health care costs are out of control and something must be done. I think many if not most people would agree that this is true. The problem is that a public option does not address health care costs; it addresses health insurance costs.
A public option might provide insurance at a lower premium, but in reality, it will be subject to the same market pressures that private insurance companies face. A public option will charge a lower premium and pay the same high prices that other insurance companies have to pay for treatments and prescriptions. Hawkins rightly stated, “You can’t compete with somebody else who doesn’t have to not just make a profit, but doesn’t even have to break even [and] can print money and support it with your tax dollars.” As with any government interference in the free market, a public option has an unfair advantage and inevitably inflates costs as markets try to compensate for their disadvantage.
A public option will have to establish a structure similar to private companies in order to determine what will or will not be covered. Currently, doctors determine how many patients they will see and which insurance companies they will accept. The proposal has no authority to force doctors to see patients that carry public insurance. In other words, the public option offers no real change to the system and only superficial cost saving to people who will use it.
These factors fuel the scare about “socialized medicine.” Because of these competitive disadvantages, the public option could end up being the only option, as private insurance companies choose to move out of the health care industry and focus on more profitable and competitive markets such as life, home, and auto insurance.
The real solutions to health care reform will only be found when legislators begin to focus on the market forces that drive health care costs. Tort (law that defines what constitutes legal injury and establishes liability) reform directly addresses the cost of doing business for doctors—costs that are directly passed on to patients (and subsequently their insurance carriers.) Legislation that provides incentives to good doctors to accept more patients and more private insurances may possibly force bad doctors out of business. The assumption is that bad doctors stay in business out of the leftover patients and insurance coverage that good doctors refuse to accept.
I am not an expert in economics or the medical industry. I admit that my solutions may not be solutions at all. I do believe that if we are going to argue in support of an idea, our arguments should actually support the idea. If we are going to propose a solution to a problem, the solution should address the problem.
The controversy stems from the inclusion in the proposal of a public option health insurance. So far, many of the opinion articles that I have read that support the president’s proposal have argued that health care costs are out of control and something must be done. I think many if not most people would agree that this is true. The problem is that a public option does not address health care costs; it addresses health insurance costs.
A public option might provide insurance at a lower premium, but in reality, it will be subject to the same market pressures that private insurance companies face. A public option will charge a lower premium and pay the same high prices that other insurance companies have to pay for treatments and prescriptions. Hawkins rightly stated, “You can’t compete with somebody else who doesn’t have to not just make a profit, but doesn’t even have to break even [and] can print money and support it with your tax dollars.” As with any government interference in the free market, a public option has an unfair advantage and inevitably inflates costs as markets try to compensate for their disadvantage.
A public option will have to establish a structure similar to private companies in order to determine what will or will not be covered. Currently, doctors determine how many patients they will see and which insurance companies they will accept. The proposal has no authority to force doctors to see patients that carry public insurance. In other words, the public option offers no real change to the system and only superficial cost saving to people who will use it.
These factors fuel the scare about “socialized medicine.” Because of these competitive disadvantages, the public option could end up being the only option, as private insurance companies choose to move out of the health care industry and focus on more profitable and competitive markets such as life, home, and auto insurance.
The real solutions to health care reform will only be found when legislators begin to focus on the market forces that drive health care costs. Tort (law that defines what constitutes legal injury and establishes liability) reform directly addresses the cost of doing business for doctors—costs that are directly passed on to patients (and subsequently their insurance carriers.) Legislation that provides incentives to good doctors to accept more patients and more private insurances may possibly force bad doctors out of business. The assumption is that bad doctors stay in business out of the leftover patients and insurance coverage that good doctors refuse to accept.
I am not an expert in economics or the medical industry. I admit that my solutions may not be solutions at all. I do believe that if we are going to argue in support of an idea, our arguments should actually support the idea. If we are going to propose a solution to a problem, the solution should address the problem.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Psalm 119 and Synonyms for Scripture
I recently received an email that asked for some clarification of the different words that the Bible uses to describe Scripture, such as statutes and precepts. A casual reading of Psalm 119 reveals that there are certain words that dominate the theme of the Psalm and are used to describe the Law. We tend to think of the Law in terms of rules and regulations that must be followed. However, the law (and Christianity for that matter) is much more than that.
Because our language is finite and limited, we find it difficult to describe spiritual concepts that are infinite and beyond the limitations of our language. What we have in Scripture is a revelation of the nature and character of God himself, not lists of rules that restrict our freedom. God gave us His character in this way because it allows us to understand who He is in spite of the limitations of language. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the psalmists were able to declare the glory of God in creative ways that would actually mean something to us centuries later.
As I was preparing to respond to the email with a simplistic answer that focused on the idea that the words were used interchangeably to describe God's revelation through the Law, my morning devotional reading (Lifewalk, June 24, 2009) actually described a different aspect of the focus of each of the eight words used in Psalm 119. I have reproduced the distinctions below:
Because our language is finite and limited, we find it difficult to describe spiritual concepts that are infinite and beyond the limitations of our language. What we have in Scripture is a revelation of the nature and character of God himself, not lists of rules that restrict our freedom. God gave us His character in this way because it allows us to understand who He is in spite of the limitations of language. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the psalmists were able to declare the glory of God in creative ways that would actually mean something to us centuries later.
As I was preparing to respond to the email with a simplistic answer that focused on the idea that the words were used interchangeably to describe God's revelation through the Law, my morning devotional reading (Lifewalk, June 24, 2009) actually described a different aspect of the focus of each of the eight words used in Psalm 119. I have reproduced the distinctions below:
- Law (from the word teach) - God's word reveals His will.
- Testimonies or Decrees - God's word is faithful and true.
- Precept - God's word gives particular instructions.
- Statute - God's Word has binding force and permanence.
- Commands - God's word possesses authority.
- Ordinance - God's word gives discernment.
- Promise - God's word is reliable.
- Word - A term referring to God's truth in all its forms.
No other book exists that gives us this accurate representation of God and His constant willingness to interact with us in a way that brings us into relationship with Him. This list explains why every apsect of the teaching ministry at Parkview (puplit and classroom) must be centered on the Scriptures. This book and only this book has the power to transform lives. Psalm 119 might take a few extra minutes to read, but your time would be well-spent. If you only have a few minutes, Psalm 19 provides a Reader's Digest shortened version. Maybe you will agree with the Psalmist that Word of God is more valuable than the finest gold imaginable (Ps. 19:10).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tension between Protection and Leadership
In April 2009, Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary produced at the urging of SBC President, Johnny Hunt, a document calling for the SBC to adopt a vision for a Great Commission Resurgence. The title is an adaptation of an event that occurred from 1979 to about 1993 called the Conservative Resurgence.
The Conservative Resurgence was a movement to return to sound biblical doctrine beginning with an orthodox view of Scripture. The movement established (hopefully, once and for all) the SBC belief in the fact that the Bible is God's Word without any error or contradiction. The underlying belief among Southern Baptists at that time was that a return to conservative interpretations of Scripture and sound doctrine would solidify and protect our denomination and enable it to advance the kingdom in greater ways than ever before. Now, thirty years later, our denomination is in decline and we are reporting fewer baptisms than in previous years. Whether or not the picture is as bleak as the statistics indicate is, in my opinion, suspect, but I'll save that suspicion for a later article.
As Johnny Hunt calls SBC churches to the noble task of prioritizing the Great Commission, the call has been met with some resistance and criticism from some of the peeple in leadership positions in our convention. Morris Chapman, Executive Director of the SBC, has openly criticized Article 9 of the GCR because it calls for an evaluation of SBC structures to make sure we are as streamlined and steward-minded as possible. The Florida Baptist Witness reported Dr. Hunt's responses to his critics in their June 18, 2009, issue http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10370.article.
Now, to the point of this article. Johnny Hunt stated, "He (Morris Chapman) feels he's protecting the convention and I feel like I'm leading it to greater days." As I read this statement I realized that what we are seeing at the convention level is a reflection of what has occured in SBC churches for years--a tension between protecting the institution and leading the institution. Protectionism requires rearward thinking while leadership requires forward thinking. An imbalance in either direction is unhealthy, but too often for various reasons, these two requirements polarize churches. How often has a pastor been called to lead a church into the future only to be constantly reminded of the past? Interestingly, a protectionist attitude sometimes preserves "what used to be" better than what it actually was. Local churches have been notorious for creating documents and committees that protect the church from the pastor, after all, pastors come and go, but church members remain forever.
The SBC is no different. When Johnny Hunt, a pastor, tries to lead the convention to adapt to its current cultural context and possibly make structural changes that will enable this change, those involved in protecting the institution turn to bylaws and accusations. The Witness reported, "Chapman also raised the question of whether Hunt's approach violates SBC Bylaw 18." The convenient thing about bylaws is that a leader doesn't have to actually violate the bylaw in order to be accused of violating a bylaw--and usually the accusation alone is enough to create doubt and dissension among the less informed protectionists.
We all need to take time to recognize what Scripture teaches about the church, "And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church, who is in the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things, including the church, He may have the preminence" (Col 1:18, italics mine). Jesus Christ is to have preeminent control in our churches, not a pastor, a board, a committee, or a bylaw. If we continue to fight to control our churches or denominational institutions, then no document or declaration will be effective in bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence. A Great Commission Resurgence will take place only when we realize (and align our organizations to) the fact that our churches and denomination exist solely for the eternal hope of those who are not yet members.
The Conservative Resurgence was a movement to return to sound biblical doctrine beginning with an orthodox view of Scripture. The movement established (hopefully, once and for all) the SBC belief in the fact that the Bible is God's Word without any error or contradiction. The underlying belief among Southern Baptists at that time was that a return to conservative interpretations of Scripture and sound doctrine would solidify and protect our denomination and enable it to advance the kingdom in greater ways than ever before. Now, thirty years later, our denomination is in decline and we are reporting fewer baptisms than in previous years. Whether or not the picture is as bleak as the statistics indicate is, in my opinion, suspect, but I'll save that suspicion for a later article.
As Johnny Hunt calls SBC churches to the noble task of prioritizing the Great Commission, the call has been met with some resistance and criticism from some of the peeple in leadership positions in our convention. Morris Chapman, Executive Director of the SBC, has openly criticized Article 9 of the GCR because it calls for an evaluation of SBC structures to make sure we are as streamlined and steward-minded as possible. The Florida Baptist Witness reported Dr. Hunt's responses to his critics in their June 18, 2009, issue http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10370.article.
Now, to the point of this article. Johnny Hunt stated, "He (Morris Chapman) feels he's protecting the convention and I feel like I'm leading it to greater days." As I read this statement I realized that what we are seeing at the convention level is a reflection of what has occured in SBC churches for years--a tension between protecting the institution and leading the institution. Protectionism requires rearward thinking while leadership requires forward thinking. An imbalance in either direction is unhealthy, but too often for various reasons, these two requirements polarize churches. How often has a pastor been called to lead a church into the future only to be constantly reminded of the past? Interestingly, a protectionist attitude sometimes preserves "what used to be" better than what it actually was. Local churches have been notorious for creating documents and committees that protect the church from the pastor, after all, pastors come and go, but church members remain forever.
The SBC is no different. When Johnny Hunt, a pastor, tries to lead the convention to adapt to its current cultural context and possibly make structural changes that will enable this change, those involved in protecting the institution turn to bylaws and accusations. The Witness reported, "Chapman also raised the question of whether Hunt's approach violates SBC Bylaw 18." The convenient thing about bylaws is that a leader doesn't have to actually violate the bylaw in order to be accused of violating a bylaw--and usually the accusation alone is enough to create doubt and dissension among the less informed protectionists.
We all need to take time to recognize what Scripture teaches about the church, "And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church, who is in the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things, including the church, He may have the preminence" (Col 1:18, italics mine). Jesus Christ is to have preeminent control in our churches, not a pastor, a board, a committee, or a bylaw. If we continue to fight to control our churches or denominational institutions, then no document or declaration will be effective in bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence. A Great Commission Resurgence will take place only when we realize (and align our organizations to) the fact that our churches and denomination exist solely for the eternal hope of those who are not yet members.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Differing Perspectives in the Church Growth Movement
In an article in The Chronicle Review, a "Magazine of Ideas" within The Chronicle of Higher Education, Johanna Drucker discusses the dilemma faced by Stanford University regarding the future of its library, and in essence the future of all libraries (see note). Our age of information has lessened the need for trips to an actual library, so financial and space constraints are forcing libraries to reconsider not only their function (what they do), but also their form (what they look like).
Concerning libraries, Drucker makes the statement, "Rather than envision a 'library of the future', it [the faculty plan at Stanford University] discusses the 'future of the library,' stressing continuity with an old entity rather than the creation of something brand-new. The distinction exposes what is at stake." While hardly a statement of worldview, Drucker does make a statement that dichotomizes two perspectives. This statement, applied to the church, may accurately describe the tension in church growth writing over the past 30 years. At the heart of the dilemma is whether or not believers envision a church of the future or worry about the future of the church. The latter naturally clings to contextualizing the traditions of the old while the former emphasizes the need for something completely new. As church leaders, I believe we must find ways to keep these perspectives from being on opposite ends of the church growth spectrum.
The function of the church must continue to be defined by Scripture, that of advancing the kingdom (I have intentionally left considerable denominational leeway in that statement). However, the form of the church, throughout history as always been culturally contextualized. These differences in perspective are not always generational, but I am reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond, in seeking to gain his father's forgiveness for accidentally destroying jazz records thirty years ago, replaces the lost music with digitized cd versions. Raymond even bought a cd player so that his father could enjoy the clarity of the music he loved. The problem was that Frank (Raymond's father) wanted nothing to do with anything new. He simply wanted the old records back. He never gave the new medium a chance to prove itself, and opted instead, to continue to berate Raymond for destroying the albums in the first place.
Are we going to continue to complain about the lost mediums of ministry, or will we be willing to live out our faith in the newness of the changes in our culture? The Bible teaches us that even the gates of hell will not withstand the advances of the church (Matt 16:18). So I think I will not worry so much about the future of the church. Instead, I will try to think in terms of the church of the future.
Drucker, Johanna. "Blind Spots: Humanists must plan their digital future." The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 3 April 2009, sec. B, pp. 6-8.
Concerning libraries, Drucker makes the statement, "Rather than envision a 'library of the future', it [the faculty plan at Stanford University] discusses the 'future of the library,' stressing continuity with an old entity rather than the creation of something brand-new. The distinction exposes what is at stake." While hardly a statement of worldview, Drucker does make a statement that dichotomizes two perspectives. This statement, applied to the church, may accurately describe the tension in church growth writing over the past 30 years. At the heart of the dilemma is whether or not believers envision a church of the future or worry about the future of the church. The latter naturally clings to contextualizing the traditions of the old while the former emphasizes the need for something completely new. As church leaders, I believe we must find ways to keep these perspectives from being on opposite ends of the church growth spectrum.
The function of the church must continue to be defined by Scripture, that of advancing the kingdom (I have intentionally left considerable denominational leeway in that statement). However, the form of the church, throughout history as always been culturally contextualized. These differences in perspective are not always generational, but I am reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond, in seeking to gain his father's forgiveness for accidentally destroying jazz records thirty years ago, replaces the lost music with digitized cd versions. Raymond even bought a cd player so that his father could enjoy the clarity of the music he loved. The problem was that Frank (Raymond's father) wanted nothing to do with anything new. He simply wanted the old records back. He never gave the new medium a chance to prove itself, and opted instead, to continue to berate Raymond for destroying the albums in the first place.
Are we going to continue to complain about the lost mediums of ministry, or will we be willing to live out our faith in the newness of the changes in our culture? The Bible teaches us that even the gates of hell will not withstand the advances of the church (Matt 16:18). So I think I will not worry so much about the future of the church. Instead, I will try to think in terms of the church of the future.
Drucker, Johanna. "Blind Spots: Humanists must plan their digital future." The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 3 April 2009, sec. B, pp. 6-8.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Forgiveness That Makes a Difference
About halfway through the TV season, I got involved in watching 24. I'll let you judge my spirituality in your comments, but the action, storyline, and cultural relevance really drew me in. We can gain much perspective on our culture's worldview by watching shows like 24. We must always do so with caution, because if we are not careful, cultural worldview will (if it hasn't already) affect our biblical worldview. I do not let Hollywood define my theology, so this commentary is not meant to be critical of the writers of 24--I expect nothing from them in the way of correct understanding of spirituality. With all of the ethical dilemmas facing the individual characters, there was one scene that immediately hit me as bloggable, the scene near the end when Jack, faced with inevitable death, turns to a Muslim cleric in search for peace.
Jack's despair is vocalized with phrases such as "you don't know the things I've done," and "it's too late for me." The cleric actually speaks the truth when he says, "It's never too late." Sound familiar? How many of us keep ourselves from knowing God because we believe we are unforgivable and it is too late for us? The cleric offers encouragement but then does what would be expected from Hollywood writers writing from a secular humanistic worldview--closes his eyes as if to offer a prayer and then speaks to their souls to find the "forgiveness within themselves." Their goal was for Jack to be reconciled to his enemies by seeking and extending forgiveness, as if this reconciliation is what matters the most. In Hollywood, it is apparently not politically correct for even a Muslim cleric to share the love and mercy of his god.
To people who are facing an impending death (all of us at some point in our lives), the Bible does not ask you to search inside yourself. To do so would only create disappointment and frustration. After all, we have made a mess of ourselves. Are we really going to find the source of peace from within a being whose essence is chaos? Instead, we are told from Scripture that God loves us and extends to us the opportunity to be forgiven. His love and forgiveness is not subject to the limitations we place on ourselves. Romans 5 tells us that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (v. 8), and that "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (v. 10). We may through our own human effort find peace for a short period of time. But if we want a peace that lasts into eternity, we need to look beyond our own temporal existence, and be reconciled to God, the One who owns eternity. Seek His forgiveness, then the forgiveness of others will make a difference.
Jack's despair is vocalized with phrases such as "you don't know the things I've done," and "it's too late for me." The cleric actually speaks the truth when he says, "It's never too late." Sound familiar? How many of us keep ourselves from knowing God because we believe we are unforgivable and it is too late for us? The cleric offers encouragement but then does what would be expected from Hollywood writers writing from a secular humanistic worldview--closes his eyes as if to offer a prayer and then speaks to their souls to find the "forgiveness within themselves." Their goal was for Jack to be reconciled to his enemies by seeking and extending forgiveness, as if this reconciliation is what matters the most. In Hollywood, it is apparently not politically correct for even a Muslim cleric to share the love and mercy of his god.
To people who are facing an impending death (all of us at some point in our lives), the Bible does not ask you to search inside yourself. To do so would only create disappointment and frustration. After all, we have made a mess of ourselves. Are we really going to find the source of peace from within a being whose essence is chaos? Instead, we are told from Scripture that God loves us and extends to us the opportunity to be forgiven. His love and forgiveness is not subject to the limitations we place on ourselves. Romans 5 tells us that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (v. 8), and that "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (v. 10). We may through our own human effort find peace for a short period of time. But if we want a peace that lasts into eternity, we need to look beyond our own temporal existence, and be reconciled to God, the One who owns eternity. Seek His forgiveness, then the forgiveness of others will make a difference.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Respect, Tolerate, or Equal Value
Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, has recently posted a blog about respecting other religions. You can read the full article at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3799.
Mohler, as usual, articulates an evangelical position very well. There are many things that we can respect with regard to the people who adhere to other religions, but any belief system that moves poeple in the opposite direction of the God of the Bible and His terms of salvation through Jesus Christ must be rejected.
In addition to what Mohler writes, I would add that the term respect has been misappropriated by a pluralistic, politically correct world that insists that all views are equally true, even the ones that are diametrically opposed. Respecting people as human beings in our conversations and acts of good will is not enough for our relativistic society.
Equally valuing differing worldviews as true is illogical. Tolerance has been over played and proven inconsistent in its use. Maybe the word respect as applied to differing faiths is just the next step in the evolution of a culture that may one day not be able to defend or recognize truth because to do so would "disrespectful." And nobody wants to be disrespectful.
Mohler, as usual, articulates an evangelical position very well. There are many things that we can respect with regard to the people who adhere to other religions, but any belief system that moves poeple in the opposite direction of the God of the Bible and His terms of salvation through Jesus Christ must be rejected.
In addition to what Mohler writes, I would add that the term respect has been misappropriated by a pluralistic, politically correct world that insists that all views are equally true, even the ones that are diametrically opposed. Respecting people as human beings in our conversations and acts of good will is not enough for our relativistic society.
Equally valuing differing worldviews as true is illogical. Tolerance has been over played and proven inconsistent in its use. Maybe the word respect as applied to differing faiths is just the next step in the evolution of a culture that may one day not be able to defend or recognize truth because to do so would "disrespectful." And nobody wants to be disrespectful.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Miss California and Cultural Intolerance
Just when I think it is time to move on to something more recent, I see another story related to the controversy surrounding Miss California and the Miss USA Pageant. In case you are not familiar with the controversy, during the Miss USA Pageant, Miss California was asked a question concerning same-sex marriages. Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger, gay activist, and judge #8 asked, "Recently Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" Miss California expressed her belief that marriage was between a man and a woman--not a politically correct response.
The Today Show with Matt Lauer ran the story with the usual media bias. He recently interviewed Perez Hilton and during the conversation Perez Hilton made the comment that he was "floored by the response." Then he said, "I personally would have appreciated it if she left her politics and her religion out." While others are commenting on the legitimacy and political correctness of Miss California's response, I want to to comment on this statement by Perez Hilton because it demonstrates another form of the double standards of the cultural definition of tolerance--questions that express political and moral views are acceptable and answers that express these views are not.
Hilton suggested that Miss California could have said that each state should decide. He claims to believe that he had given her a very easy and politically safe question. However, there are two problems with his logic. First of all, if she would have responded with Hilton's suggested answer, she would have been sharing a political view--that states should exercise their rights without federal interference--which according to his statement to Matt Lauer would have been inappropriate as well. Second, she would not have answered the question. He clearly asked, "Should every state follow suit?" His answer would have been a non-answer and I am fairly certain that she would have been penalized for a non-response as well. In other words, he wanted her opinion on same-sex marriage and when it did not agree with his opinion, he became intolerant of her intolerance. The only safe answer for Miss California would have been one that went against her convictions.
Just in case we think we are immune to cultural pressure and media bias, I realized as I wrote this article thatI knew the name of Perez Hilton. Miss California remained anonymous. That is the influence of media. By the way, her name is Carrie Prejean. I had to look it up because Matt Lauer never mentioned it.
The Today Show with Matt Lauer ran the story with the usual media bias. He recently interviewed Perez Hilton and during the conversation Perez Hilton made the comment that he was "floored by the response." Then he said, "I personally would have appreciated it if she left her politics and her religion out." While others are commenting on the legitimacy and political correctness of Miss California's response, I want to to comment on this statement by Perez Hilton because it demonstrates another form of the double standards of the cultural definition of tolerance--questions that express political and moral views are acceptable and answers that express these views are not.
Hilton suggested that Miss California could have said that each state should decide. He claims to believe that he had given her a very easy and politically safe question. However, there are two problems with his logic. First of all, if she would have responded with Hilton's suggested answer, she would have been sharing a political view--that states should exercise their rights without federal interference--which according to his statement to Matt Lauer would have been inappropriate as well. Second, she would not have answered the question. He clearly asked, "Should every state follow suit?" His answer would have been a non-answer and I am fairly certain that she would have been penalized for a non-response as well. In other words, he wanted her opinion on same-sex marriage and when it did not agree with his opinion, he became intolerant of her intolerance. The only safe answer for Miss California would have been one that went against her convictions.
Just in case we think we are immune to cultural pressure and media bias, I realized as I wrote this article thatI knew the name of Perez Hilton. Miss California remained anonymous. That is the influence of media. By the way, her name is Carrie Prejean. I had to look it up because Matt Lauer never mentioned it.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Cooperative Program
I love being a Southern Baptist. The Cooperative Program has proven to be one of the most effective methods of making a difference in the kingdom worldwide. We can do more together than we can by ourselves. I have not always agreed with the policies or structures of the SBC, but rather than complain and threaten to withdraw funds, I took a different approach--involvement. I became moderator of our Association because I believe that if change is going to come to the SBC, I want to be involved in the front lines of that change.
Too often, the question is asked, "Why give to the CP? We don't get anything out of it." I cringe when I hear pastors say that. As pastors, we ask our people to invest in something bigger than themselves, the work of the kingdom through the local church. We expect our people to give regardless of their feelings about "how the money is managed," or "whether or not they are getting anything out of it." We even go so far to say that it is their attitude if they are not getting anything out of being involved in the church.
The same should be true in our churches' commitments to the Cooperative Program. Our churches should be setting the example for our people. We should be giving at the Associational and State levels because it demonstrates our commitment to kingdom work that is bigger than us and it models the type of giving that we ask of our people. If we expect our people to live on 90% of their income, then we should demonstrate that same level of faith in our own investments to the CP.
Too often, the question is asked, "Why give to the CP? We don't get anything out of it." I cringe when I hear pastors say that. As pastors, we ask our people to invest in something bigger than themselves, the work of the kingdom through the local church. We expect our people to give regardless of their feelings about "how the money is managed," or "whether or not they are getting anything out of it." We even go so far to say that it is their attitude if they are not getting anything out of being involved in the church.
The same should be true in our churches' commitments to the Cooperative Program. Our churches should be setting the example for our people. We should be giving at the Associational and State levels because it demonstrates our commitment to kingdom work that is bigger than us and it models the type of giving that we ask of our people. If we expect our people to live on 90% of their income, then we should demonstrate that same level of faith in our own investments to the CP.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Great Commission Resurgence
In the late 1970s and through the 1980s, the Southern Baptist Convention experienced what has been labeled "The Conservative Resurgence." This resurgence was a call to all Southern Baptists to return to a high view of Scripture and conservative Christian principles. Southern Baptists had drifted into a liberal theology that refused to hold to orthodox beliefs about God, Jesus, Scripture, and the role of the church. The "Battle for the Bible" has been won within our convention. We have overwhelmingly approved a confession of faith called the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 that outlines a biblically conservative belief system that understands Scripture as the Word of God--infallible, inerrant, and inspired.
The next step, one that I believe is long overdue, seeks to answer the question, "What do you do with orthodoxy?" What good is doctrinal integrity in a belief system if it doesn't translate into the world around us? In Revelation, Jesus commended the church at Ephesus for its sound doctrine, but then He reprimanded them because they had abandoned their first love. How we define this "first love" might be debatable, but the message is clear--sound doctrine must have some sort of relevance in the world.
It is time for a new resurgence. As Southern Baptists, we must return to the priority of the Great Commission that has defined us for most of our heritage. I invite you to visit the Great Commission Resurgence website, www.greatcommissionresurgence.com, read the statements that have been developed and signed by several of our convention leaders and post your thoughts and comments here. Are there areas where you disagree or are skeptical? Do you have ideas as to how this resurgence can take shape here in Lake City? Please feel free to post questions as well.
The next step, one that I believe is long overdue, seeks to answer the question, "What do you do with orthodoxy?" What good is doctrinal integrity in a belief system if it doesn't translate into the world around us? In Revelation, Jesus commended the church at Ephesus for its sound doctrine, but then He reprimanded them because they had abandoned their first love. How we define this "first love" might be debatable, but the message is clear--sound doctrine must have some sort of relevance in the world.
It is time for a new resurgence. As Southern Baptists, we must return to the priority of the Great Commission that has defined us for most of our heritage. I invite you to visit the Great Commission Resurgence website, www.greatcommissionresurgence.com, read the statements that have been developed and signed by several of our convention leaders and post your thoughts and comments here. Are there areas where you disagree or are skeptical? Do you have ideas as to how this resurgence can take shape here in Lake City? Please feel free to post questions as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
