Parkview EDGE

Concerning My Patriotism...

2011-10-05T09:28:00.000-04:00

Now that the dust has settled on September and we are through the busyness of hosting gospel-centered meetings with the Strength Team, I want to take a moment to reflect and proverbially “clear the air.” Evidently, there has been some backlash with regard to the message I preached on September 11, “The Cage of Fear.” http://www.pbclc.com/home.aspx?igid=30035

I am not exactly sure what parts of the message were offensive. I cannot find anything in the intent of the message that would be considered biblically or doctrinally unsound. But something was offensive nonetheless and since I made statements that contrasted our country to heaven and patriotism to the gospel, I at least want everyone to be clear as to where I stand with regard to the privilege of being able to live in the greatest country in this world.

I cannot state it more simply than to say, “I love this country.” I am as patriotic as any American. As often as we are able, our family participates in an annual Independence Day boat parade. Every Memorial Day I mourn the loss of life sacrificed for this nation. I have served this country in the US Army and would still to this day defend it and its ideal of freedom against all enemies, foreign and domestic. My heart was broken on September 11, when our nation came under attack by coward terrorists who possess no sense of honor or courage and settle instead for taking innocent, civilian human life rather than facing their enemies on the field of battle. They have created a new battlefield and I for one am grateful for a government that is willing to take the fight to their lands.

Many of you do not know that I had the privilege of serving at ground zero with SBC Disaster Relief efforts. I was involved in serving the first response teams that were required to sift through the rubble and debris looking for evidence that would help to bring justice to the terrorists and vindication to the victims. I counseled with them and wept with them as they worked to unravel the mystery of the event that changed our nation. I carry the same weight of emotion, concern, and memory that many of you do when it comes to commemorating the events of 9/11.

At no time did I ever intend to communicate the idea that justice should not be served and that the people that are responsible for terrorism around the world should not be held accountable for their acts. Evil exists and it exists in the form of people whose hearts are not inclined toward God and the truth of His Son, Jesus Christ. The church empowered by the cross, sits in opposition to this evil by demonstrating in words and actions, what it is like to live under the glorious lordship of Jesus. We have the privilege of experiencing in part, the kingdom that will come at the return of Jesus. We oppose evil by living out the principles of the kingdom. And given the tension between a citizenship in a perfect, heavenly place and a residence in an imperfect, unrighteous, sinful place, we may find some of the kingdom principles difficult to live out in our everyday experience, especially when we are forced to choose between these principles and our cultural/patriotic/political worldview. Dr. Russell Moore (Dean of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) was right when he said (via twitter), “Toby Keith and Jack Bauer don’t speak for us today [9/11/11]. Let our neighbors hear from us justice and mercy, with a Galilean accent.”

The point of that message, which for whatever reason was missed by some, was that fear paralyzes us and keeps us from standing opposed to evil in a godly way. We may oppose it but in our sinful nature, that opposition manifests itself in hatred, bitterness, and yes, even racism when we are trapped by fear. Parkview is a healthy church (regardless of the rumors that surfaced in Lake City the week after that message) because it is willing to be confronted by the message of Jesus and wrestle with statements such as, “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Mt 5:44).

I stand by my conviction that as great as our Declaration of Independence is, it does not come close to the freedom that is proclaimed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And as great as our Constitution is, it does not compare to the principles that govern the lives of citizens of the kingdom of God. May we “if it is possible, as much as depends on [us], live peaceably with all men” (Rom 12:18), especially others who claim the name of Jesus as Savior and Lord.

Quarterback Churches

2011-08-02T16:29:00.000-04:00

In an effort to promote increased giving to the Cooperative Program, the Florida Baptist Convention is kicking off a campaign to encourage churches to become Quarterback Churches. The idea is for churches to increase their CP gifts by .25% (1/4 of one percent) each year for the next four years, which when you do the math increases the church’s overall giving by 1% by the beginning of year four.

Increased CP giving is absolutely necessary if Florida Baptists are going to remain faithful to the mission to which we have been called. I hope that many of our churches will become Quarterback Churches and begin the process of increasing their CP gifts. Whether we like it or not, the Florida Baptist Convention must make changes in order to compete with other mission agencies for local church dollars. The more our churches invest in the CP, the easier it will be for these changes to occur. Quarterback Churches will be on the front line of helping our convention become a leader in mission and missionary efforts in our fields of receptivity.

In an effort to recognize increased giving among some churches, we forget that there are churches in our convention that have not wavered in their commitment to the Cooperative Program. They will never be Quarterback Churches because they have for the past ten to twenty years been Fullback Churches, churches that were willing to carry the ball into the trenches and stretch their ministry dollars in order to invest in a Cooperative Program that many had abandoned. The Quarterback Campaign is designed to move the average giving levels of churches from 6% to 7%, which will make an incredible difference. But Fullback Churches have consistently led this Convention with their gifts of 10-12% each year.

This year there will be churches recognized as Quarterback Churches because they increase their giving by 1% over the next four years, but their backstage, boardroom strategies that reduced their missions giving in the past will remain unnoticed. While I am grateful for the churches that will step up as Quarterback Churches, I want to make sure that the Fullback Churches know how much we appreciate them. I love the campaign idea and I hope the Florida Baptist Convention leverages these increases to maximize efficiency in its mission. Listing names on a website, and most likely in a newspaper article in the future, alienates those who have sacrificed for years in order to give to a cause that is bigger than any one particular church. In my estimation, these churches are already included in a list that will probably never be published, Fullback Churches. But then again, rarely does the fullback expect the attention.

What will save Anthony Weiner?

2011-06-22T11:11:00.003-04:00

With the news that Congressman Anthony Weiner was going to seek treatment for his sexual addiction, Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tweeted, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, founder of This World: The Values Network took exception to Mohler’s comments claiming that Mohler was trying to proselytize the congressman. Rabbi Shmuley responded to Mohler’s comments in an article in The Jewish Journal titled, “An Evangelical Attempts to Proselytize Anthony Weiner.”

In his response, Rabbi Shmuley made three statements that demonstrate just how different evangelical Christianity and Judaism really are. These statements are based on incorrect assumptions that Rabbi Shmuley makes about evangelical Christianity. He assumes that we believe that “salvation through Jesus Christ grants immunity to sexual sin” and that Christianity will prevent sin. No one with a correct understanding of evangelical Christianity would make these claims as they run contrary to Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Our faith does not prevent sin but it does provide a way out. “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor 10:13, ESV) Here, God supplies that which is necessary to overcome sin and temptation to those who have placed their faith in Him.

Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption comes about not through anything we believe but how we behave.” In this statement he makes redemption a matter of self-determination. We can will ourselves to be obedient enough to be redeemed. However, Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham, the father of Judaism, “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (NKJV, emphasis mine). To his credit, Rabbi Shmuley rightly says, “It is not faith that guarantees our morality but rather an ironclad commitment to righteous action, be we atheists or theist.” I believe this is true, but while faith does not guarantee our morality, neither does our morality guarantee the kingdom.

Secondly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption is never a function of belief and always a function of deed.” To support his view, he quotes Jesus in Matt 7:16, “You will know them by their fruits.” The Rabbi makes an excellent point and most evangelical Christians that I know will readily admit that there is a tension and a struggle between faith and obedience. The Rabbi in his statement though creates a rather extreme false choice that distinguishes between two biblically inseparable concepts, faith and works. In order for his statement to be aligned with Scripture (Old and New Testaments), it should read, “Redemption is always a function of belief that results in deeds.” James and the writer of Hebrews affirm the emphasis of obedience that comes from faith, but this obedience is empowered by God, not our will.

Thirdly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Atonement comes not from belief in Jesus Christ but from getting on your knees in front of the wife whose heart you broke, begging her forgiveness, and placing yourself in an environment of change that will help sustain your new moral commitment.” Anthony Weiner should absolutely do these things and in them he and his wife may experience reconciliation. But to ascribe atonement to this act of self-vindication is to limit the concept of atonement to earthly relationships. Rabbi Shmuley grossly misses the point of the atoning sacrifice when he says, “Judaism is emphatic that when it comes to sins that pertain to human relationships, not even G-d can forgive. The injured party must be approached directly.”

The statements made by Rabbi Shmuley stem from the same type of moralistic deism that trapped the Pharisees of Jesus’ day into thinking that self-determination, self-righteousness, and self-vindication was enough to gain entrance to the kingdom. Nicodemus even struggled with the spiritual side to Jesus’ teaching. Rabbi Shmuley makes a similar mistake in limiting concepts such as redemption and atonement to the physical realm and physical relationships. However, he goes one step further. While the Pharisees of Jesus’ day misunderstood faith, Rabbi Shmuley seems to completely dismiss faith as irrelevant. The Bible is very clear when through the writer of Hebrews the Holy Spirit reminds us that, “without faith it is impossible to please [God],” (Heb 11:6, NKJV).

Contentment vs. Complacency

2011-06-21T12:51:00.003-04:00

In their newly published book, The Faith of Leap, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch present an awesome challenge to the church to step up and pursue the adventure to which we have been called. The premise of the book is that if we are going to take on the responsibility of being light in a dark world, we will be required to assume a certain level of risk--one that is not dissimilar to that of first century Christians who realized that claiming "Jesus is Lord" was countercultural and counter-political to the driving and safe worldview of the Roman Empire that readily declared "Caesar is lord."

Before I get to what I believe is right about the opening chapter, I want to to take issue with one paragraph. In order to validate their position, the authors believe that we must impose on God's character the same type of risk that we as humans experience. In doing so they present a theology that closely resembles the theology of "Open Theism." Open theists assume that since our risk stems from a lack of knowledge and control, then our God who takes risks must do so from the same perspective, a lack of knowledge and a lack of control. I agree that God seemingly took risks when he gave Adam a choice, and when He came in the flesh, and when He entrusted His mission to a church. But in God's economy, risk and knowledge and control do not stand in opposition. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. What is risky for us is not so for God. The authors admit that this particular theological debate is beyond the scope of the book, so they correctly keep the ideas of risk and courage centered on the church and it's mission today.

The real motivation for this article is to make sure that we as a church understand the difference between contentment (the topic for many of our Sunday School classes for June 19) and complacency. When we teach about contentment, we are speaking in terms of materialism, calling, and the circumstances of this world or our lot in life. Contentment in this sense battles our natural inclination towards covetousness, envy, and greed. Paul articulates the Christian perspective when he says, "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me," (Phil 4:1-13, ESV).

However, Paul never allowed his contentment to take on the characteristics of complacency. To do what he did in writing sometimes scathing letters to churches showed that he cared and was passionate about his calling. His unwillingness to allow John Mark on the second missionary journey showed that he was passionate about his convictions. He risked friendships at the expense of truth and conviction. He pursued the adventure of being a Christian in ways that many of us would never consider. Paul wrote, "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," (1 Cor 11:24-27, ESV).

Paul was content, but he was never complacent. As believers, contentment with regard to the things of this world should never be misconstrued as complacency with regard to the kingdom. Are we, individually and as a church, willing to let urgency and risk drive our mission and purpose? Here is a question to consider, how often do we operate in the realm of mediocrity (in our individual faith and in the corporate life of the church) because we have mistaken complacency for contentment?

Final Thoughts on May 21

2011-05-26T16:30:00.002-04:00

With the hoopla of Harold Camping's May 21 predictions now finally beginning to wane, I want to share some final thoughts--at least until October when Camping predicts the world will end. Just to be clear, according to his written tracts and information on his radio station websites, May 21 was supposed to be the date of the rapture and October 21, the day of destruction. October 21 is not a revised prophecy. It was part of the original all along.

I am not a prophet in the predictive sense, but I did predict what Camping would do on May 22 in light of a failed prophecy. He did what other false prophets have done in the past, spiritualized his vision. Camping, like Charles Russell (Jehovah's Witness) before him, believes now that the judgment has occurred but it did not play out in a physical rapture the way he thought it would.

While Camping continues to err in trying to calculate and set dates that are reserved for the wisdom and sovereignty of God, he does get one thing right. Jesus will return to establish His kingdom. In His first appearance on earth, Jesus came as the Suffering Servant to inaugurate a kingdom that would be offered to those who believe. When all who will believe have believed, Jesus will come again, this time, not as a Suffering Servant but a Conquering King. The Bible says that he will come in all His glory and that everything that is anti-Christ (captured in the term Babylon in Revelation) will be judged. His judgment will be final, physical, and quick.

What I noticed about my own attitude towards Camping is that while I (rather unfortunately) stated several opinions that were not constructive, I realized that I thought differently on May 21. Even in the midst of mocking his theology, he had me thinking about certain actions and attitudes that I would want to avoid should that day or any day for that matter be the last day. In hindsight, I think we too often feel that Christ's return could be immediate, but we file it away in the recesses of our minds so that we are not forced to consider our lives in light of His imminent return.

I hope that between now and October 21 and beyond, should the Lord grant us that much time, that I will learn to live each day thinking intentionally about my actions and attitudes, my pursuit of holiness, and my service to the kingdom through His church. Are there thoughts that I don't want to be thinking when Christ comes? Are there conversations that I don't want to be having when Christ comes? Are there places I don't want to be when Christ comes? The return of Christ should not paralyze us with fear, but should serve to motivate us with the urgency that gospel deserves. In embracing this gospel, we escape the judgment that awaits those who continue to reject the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This gospel is God's plan of salvation and deliverance to all who believe.

The Death of Bin Laden: A Victorious Battle in a Just War

2011-05-03T09:43:00.000-04:00

The news of the death of Usama bin Laden spread like a wildfire through news outlets, social media, baseball parks, and New York City streets. National pride gripped Americans’ hearts and souls and the nation seemed to shout a unified and harmonious, “Hallelujah,” reminiscent of the voices of the citizens of Oz upon hearing that the Wicked Witch was dead.

While we rightly consider that some amount of justice has been served, we should exercise caution in our celebration. The Bible says in Ezekiel 33:11, “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’” God’s desire for anyone, no matter how evil, is for faith and repentance to eventually grip their hearts and to turn towards Him for life. We must make sure that our motive or cause for celebration is not vindictiveness towards bin Laden, but gladness towards the families who have suffered because of his work. These families get to experience some semblance of justice and closure.

Before the din of American nationalism could subside, critics were already questioning the justification of such an act, questioning the right of the United States to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, much less the right to use such force in going after one man. The answer to such critics can be found in Scripture and in a theological/philosophical worldview of what has been labeled, “just war.” I know that for many people, there is no such thing as a just war, but the reality of the human condition and inclination towards war necessitates a mediating position between pacifism and imperialism.

The just war theory was formulated by Augustine in the midst of the Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Prior to Christianity becoming the dominant belief system, Christians were in such minority that they were able to ignore any imperial claims made upon them by the Empire. As Christianity spread, it became more difficult for Christians to maintain a pacifist position as increasing pressure was placed on them to serve in the armed forces. Augustine adapted the rules of warfare developed by classical thinkers like Plato and Cicero to Christian thought. He taught that war should be fought in order to secure justice and reestablish peace. He also taught that war must be conducted under the direction of proper ruling authorities and characterized by an attitude of love for the enemy (the opposing forces theoretically serving in the same frame of mind, in loyalty to their ruler.) Any promises made to the opposition should be honored such as a clearly defined mission and the parameters of the mission. (R.G. Clouse, “War,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed. Walter E. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001)

The Bible says in Romans 13:3-4, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will receive praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” The pursuit of Usama bin Laden was not the pursuit of a person who may have been guilty of crimes against humanity. Bin Laden was proud to acknowledge his role in the attacks that killed over three thousand civilians and led to a war that has killed thousands more, civilians and servicemen. As limited as human justice is, it was served in the death of Usama bin Laden.

As glad as I am to hear that there is one less terrorist in the world today, I am saddened by the fact that the news came too late for the American service men and women who have already given their lives for this cause, who were not able to celebrate with us the victory of this particular battle—a victory that comes in the context of the much larger war they have been fighting for a decade. Of course, they have already seen firsthand the true justice that comes to those who reject God and the gospel of His Son, Jesus.

A Sad Day for Freedom of Speech

2011-03-02T16:43:00.001-05:00

The headline in an article on USA Today online reads, “Supreme Court rules in favor of church that pickets funerals.” The story behind the headline is that of the activities of Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church led by “fundamentalist” pastor Fred Phelps. Phelps and his followers stage picket protests at the funerals of soldiers who have died in combat presumably to send a message of judgment on the United States for its acceptance of and policies toward homosexual behavior. This particular ruling came in the context of a lawsuit filed against Westboro by a family of a Marine whose funeral was the target of a protest. The reason I believe this is a sad day for freedom of speech is not because the Supreme Court’s decision to protect their speech wasn’t right, but because this kind of speech exists in the first place by a group that claims to be believers in Jesus Christ.

What does a Christian response to this story look like? How should we frame our opinion as to right and wrong in this case? First, we need to be careful in supporting any attempt to restrict Westboro’s right to voice an opinion. As disagreeable as their words might be and as dishonoring to God’s Word as their actions are, we must support their right to voice their views if we have any chance of continuing to voice our own. I hope that the actions of the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) are successful in diminishing the effect of the protests. The VFW has vowed to screen the funeral processions from the protesters using busses and other means so that the families can mourn their losses in private.

With that said, we need to distance our belief system from that of Westboro Baptist Church. Ed Stetzer rightly said on a twitter post, “The only correct part in the name of “Westboro Baptist Church” is that it is in Westboro.” Its actions demonstrate that it is not Baptist and it is not a Church. I am saddened that the idea of fundamentalism is now vastly different from what the term meant in the early 1900s. In the midst of theological liberalism, fundamentalism embraced the inerrancy of God’s Word and the theology of orthodox Christianity. Now, the word is used to describe fringe, radicals in all kinds of religious systems. So we must distance ourselves from the labels that have changed meanings over the years.

We must also remain on mission, knowing the true church proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ, not Moral Deism (a belief that defines God according to a certain set of moral standards). It is obvious that Westboro has no regard for the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20). While God raised up prophets in the Old Testament to call His people back into obedient fellowship, Jesus has commissioned His church in the New Testament to “make disciples of all nations.” The centrality of our preaching is Christ crucified and risen, neither of which are present on the signs being held at these various protests. To substitute this message for the priority of any other message is to be disobedient to the commands of Christ at multiple levels. Westboro’s message truly is one of hate rather than love and they somehow think that unspiritual people can be manipulated and guilted into thinking spiritually without being born again (1 Cor. 2:14).

Personally, I hope this is the last story about Westboro Baptist Church to ever make the news. I hope that media outlets will not give them the attention they seek. In the meantime, we must love Lake City in such a way, that they will see the good in our name Parkview Baptist Church and understand truly that we are really both, “Baptist” and “Church.”

Is May 21 really the end?

2011-02-25T14:24:00.002-05:00

The pamphlets are being distributed and the busses are rolling through Lake City, FL. and many other cities around our nation announcing May 21, 2011 as the Judgment Day. Some receive the pamphlets out of curiosity. Some receive them out of politeness. My fear is that some will receive them looking for answers and in the end will be deceived and view all Christianity as just another religious scam. If anything good can come from the message of this group, it is that believers must be fully informed and passionate about pursuing the truth of God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The source of the pamphlets being distributed and the organizers of the various caravans that are moving from city to city is Family Radio. Family Radio was founded by Harold Camping in 1988 with the acquisition of a radio station in San Francisco. It began as an open-forum talk radio station that allowed callers to ask Camping questions about various verses in Scripture and he would in turn give an interpretation.

In 1988, Camping separated himself from any denominational affiliation claiming that the church age had ended. He began leading followers to leave their churches. He believes that churches do not employ the Bible as their sole means of authority and that church doctrine and hermeneutic dictate how the Bible is understood in the context of that church. Of course the assumption made by Camping in such a statement is that his doctrine and hermeneutic are correct. He ignores the fact that every interpretation of Scripture (including his) is driven by some methodology. The key to biblical interpretation is consistency. The hermeneutic that the Reformers employed (and that we employ) is based on the historical, theological, and grammatical context of each verse. Camping denies that this is the best way to understand Scripture opting instead to switch between literal and allegorical readings of Scripture. Again consistency is the key and a brief survey of his interpretations show that he is not consistent in his exegesis (technical understanding of a text) or his hermeneutic (interpretation of a text.)

In the pamphlet, The End of the World Is almost Here!, Camping attempts to prove biblically that the Rapture will take place on May 21, 2011. For Camping, the Rapture is the time when Jesus will save His followers from His wrath, a series of plagues that will bring about the ultimate destruction of the universe by October of 2011. He claims to be able to calculate the date based upon two verses in the Bible: 2 Peter 3:8 and Genesis 7:4. In Genesis 7:4 the Bible says:
For after seven more days, I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. (NKJV)
In 2 Peter 3:8 the Bible says: But beloved do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (NKJV)

Camping’s math tells him that May 21, 2011, is exactly seven thousand years from the date of the flood. Two assumptions based on biblical interpretation drive this calculation. One assumption is that 4990 B.C. is the exact year of the flood. The second assumption ignores the simile (a poetic device used for comparison) of 2 Pt. 3:8 and says that the day of Gen. 7:4 is a literal and an allegorical period of time. “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years to escape the wrath of God …” There is no possible reading, casual or technical that could possibly tie these two verses together this way. Furthermore, Camping misses the point of the 2 Pt. 3:8 passage.

The point of 2 Pt. 3:8 is to disclose the patience of an infinitely merciful God even when His people are being persecuted. In other words, God is patiently waiting for all who will be saved to be saved even though His people must suffer in the meantime. I do not believe that God contradicts himself. When Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only,” he would not later in the power of the Holy Spirit reveal this information to Peter in some code that only a few would be able to understand. The Bible was not written in order to hide the mysteries of God but to reveal them and to do so plainly.

Camping’s call for repentance and reliance on the mercy of God is admirable. He is accurate when he says that only the Bible should be considered the Word of God. He says to, “Turn away from your sins and humbly beg, beseech, and implore God for forgiveness.” Unfortunately, his presentation is void of any true gospel presentation. Instead, he implies that the mercy of God is not bestowed based on faith in Jesus Christ but on the fact that one has embraced the warning of May 21, 2011 as the Day of Judgment. He says, “And thank God that in His great mercy He has given you this warning of destruction that is almost here, and the great hope that you, too, might be one whom God will bring to heaven to be with God…” It is the great mercy of God displayed in the gospel of Jesus that we must embrace. A proper understanding of the gospel is what saves us, not an accurate prediction of the end of the world. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in that belief we have life in His name (John 20:31).

Camping’s message in his book 1994 was that the end of the world would come in 1994. This 2011 message by Camping and his followers is equally wrong and deceitful. Any attempt to set a date for the return of Christ is futile and only compounds and empowers the fulfillment of 2 Pt. 3:3, “That scoffers will come in the last days…saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” In other words, Camping promotes a “Christianity” that will be subject to scrutiny on May 22, 2011, and those of us who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and are called to proclaim it until he returns will simply continue to proclaim that gospel in light of heretics such Harold Camping.

Thanks Ida--for the message we didn't hear

2009-11-10T08:41:00.002-05:00

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.

EDGE in the Beulah Baptist Association Newsletter

2009-10-28T14:57:00.002-04:00

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.

Health Care Reform and the Public Option

2009-09-25T09:22:00.001-04:00

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.

Psalm 119 and Synonyms for Scripture

2009-06-30T12:33:00.003-04:00

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:

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).

Tension between Protection and Leadership

2009-06-24T09:44:00.003-04:00

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.

Differing Perspectives in the Church Growth Movement

2009-05-20T07:17:00.004-04:00

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.

Forgiveness That Makes a Difference

2009-05-19T09:50:00.003-04:00

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.

Respect, Tolerate, or Equal Value

2009-05-14T15:00:00.005-04:00

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.

Miss California and Cultural Intolerance

2009-05-06T08:23:00.004-04:00

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.

Cooperative Program

2009-05-02T23:38:00.003-04:00

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.

Great Commission Resurgence

2009-04-27T09:46:00.002-04:00

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 Significance of Community

2008-09-04T18:14:00.002-04:00

At Parkview Edge, we observe Communion every time we meet. We believe that the early church experienced a sense of community as it broke bread together. So far we have stressed the servent aspects of community and the worship offering of communion. Do you think communion is a fair representation of the concept of belonging together? If communion is a snapshot of the community experience, what are some ways that we can extend the concept of community outside of the Edge experience? Are there dangers in the weekly frequency of observing the ritual on a regular basis? If so, what precautions can we take?

What is EPIC worship?

2008-07-17T12:30:00.004-04:00

Len Sweet has written a book called The Gospel According to Starbucks. In it he describes the essence of what keeps people coming back for a $4.00 cup of coffee. Basically, Starbucks does not just sell coffee, they create an environment or an atmosphere that Sweet describes as EPIC. During the first few weeks of ParkviewEDGE we will be discussing the nature of Christianity and specifically the church going experience as it relates to the concepts of EPIC. We will discuss in detail, Experiential, Participatory, Image-rich, and Connective. So here's the question: Should worship be EPIC? If so, how? What do you see EPIC worship looking like?

Parkview EDGE Launch

2008-07-15T21:45:00.004-04:00

Parkview EDGE, a Christian worship service for young adults 18 and over, will debut Thursday, August 21, 2008. Doors will open at 8:30pm. Worship will begin at 9:00pm.

What to expect:
Casual environment
Free cappucino, wi-fi
Conversation
Worship that engages the senses as well as the mind

Meeting place:
Parkview Baptist Church
268 NW Lake Jeffery Rd

Contact Information:
www.pbclc.com
(383) 752-0681