What’s More Important: Theology or Saving America?
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, News & Culture
In the midst of all the other news coming out of Liberty University recently, some of you may not have caught the following dialogue between Glenn Beck and Jerry Falwell, Jr., as aired on the Glenn Beck Program, June 25:
GLENN: Jerry, I have to speak about something we’ve spoken about privately and I hope you don’t mind, but when we first met and I went down, you asked me to give the commencement speech and I — when I first met you, I thanked you for that and I said I know you must be getting heat because you’re an evangelical in a Christian college and I am a Mormon, and those don’t seem to go hand in hand with a lot of people in their minds. And I know you took heat for that, and I thank you for that. And you told me if you don’t mind me sharing this, that you know what — you know what time of day it is, and that we all have to kind of stand together hare and put our differences aside. That doesn’t [mean] you endorse my faith or whatever, and that’s fine. But we have to unite on things that are big, because we are in trouble, here.
JERRY: If we don’t hang together we’ll hang separately, I mean, that’s what my father believed when he formed Moral Majority, was an organization of Mormon’s, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people of no faith. And there are bigger issues now, we can argue about theology later after we save the country. And I really think that we really do need to stand together, it’s a critical time in our nation’s history, and it’s — I met with a banker this morning, and he was telling me how all the new regulations, how much they’re going to cost his bank, and how he’s going to have to pass those costs onto the consumers, and he’s going to explain how the Congress is hiding how they’re paying for this new banking reform bill by taking money out of the federal reserve, and just some scary things that public doesn’t even know about. But it’s a frightening time in our history, and we appreciate greatly what you’re doing to bring all these different groups together…
As I see it, this dialogue gets at the root of a big division among American Christians today that appears to be getting even bigger regarding what the Christian faith is all about. As I understand it, the biblical gospel (i.e. theology) is at the core of everything we do. The biblical gospel is at the root of any true unity we may ever hope to have. And, whenever we seek to unite on moral, ethical, or political issues with those with whom we are not in essential agreement on the gospel, we have put the proverbial horse before the cart. Only the gospel can change hearts. And only changed hearts can change a country (that is, if our goal, as Christians, is even changing a country. Maybe God’s plan is to redeem a people and build a Kingdom for Himself from out of the different people groups of the world, not to “change the countries” in which they live. But that is a whole different discussion…).
In the meantime, lots of Christians seem to be enamored with the “save the country” approach. And, Glenn Beck seems to understand this well. For the most part, Evangelicals by themselves do not make up a large enough voting bloc to determine public policy. But the Republican Party (and many other political interest groups) would have a hard go at pushing their agenda forward without significant support from a sizeable percent of Evangelicals. And, the ratings of Glenn Beck’s massively popular TV and radio programs would probably dip quite a bit if it weren’t for his loyal following among many Evangelicals.
Now, any politician worth his/her salt knows that pure, hardcore politics—whether of the conservative brand or the liberal brand—doesn’t sell very well with most Evangelicals. Spiritual revival and moral reform seem to do quite well, though. Glenn Beck understands this.
Now, I will admit that at least a part of Beck’s motivation on this point may well be sincere. He claims his conversion to Mormonism has changed his personal and family life. And, who am I to say that, in several aspects, it hasn’t? You listen to Beck’s testimony, and, on the surface, it sounds a lot like a testimony of Christian conversion. You see him get emotional and cry, and talk about feeling warm inside, and you think, “This guy’s really sincere.” You hear him talk about the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, and his atonement for our personal salvation, and you think, “This guy is one of us.”
At this point, let me say, for those of you out there who may still have any doubts on whether Mormonism is compatible with biblical Christianity, or is preaching the biblical gospel: You really need to do your homework (check out, for example, here, here, here, here, or here).
No doubt, however, Beck truly believes that if others across America adopted a value system similar to the one he has appropriated along with his Mormon faith—and which is compatible with any good moral, conservative Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, etc. value system—this country would be a better place. But, in order to recruit allies to his cause, it is helpful to allay any misgivings they might have, especially when the particular religious views he adheres to have been widely classified as cultic. Accordingly, he has recently gone on the defensive. Take into consideration, for instance, this recent snippet from the Glenn Beck show:
GLENN: All right. So I always want to lay this case out for you. Now the so called religious are coming out and they are spending money on that ad campaign, running it around the country to smear me and to separate me from Christians. I can’t wait until they start taking me down for my religion, specific religion, because it’s coming. I want you to know why this is happening. I talked to, I talked to Richard Land a couple of days ago and he said — Richard Land said do you know, Glenn, who you are taking on now? I said, yes, I do. Richard, would it be Satan? I mean, it is a perversion of the gospel. It is a perversion of the gospel. And I understand that we are dealing with — we’re not dealing with — we’re not dealing with powers of the Earth. We’re just not. This is a perversion of the gospel. And it is such a clear perversion of the gospel, I want to show you the collective salvation remarks…
Okay, look who is talking about a “perversion of the gospel.” The “perversion” Beck (and Land?) is referring to is President Obama’s purported theological system of “collective salvation,” which, according to him, takes its cues from black liberation theology. Now, from my point of view, Beck may well have a legitimate point here regarding Obama’s religious/ethical/political vision. But, hello? A convinced Mormon calling advocates of liberation theology to task for preaching a false gospel? Sounds like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Now, in regard to Beck, none of this surprises me. Nor should it surprise any of the rest of us. He is just being consistent with his own belief system. What really concerns me is the number of Evangelicals who appear to be buying what he is selling.
On the same program (July 16), televangelist James Robison appeared as a guest. Here is the text of the dialogue between Beck and Robison (in the interest of fairness, I present the entire conversation, so you can read it in context):
GLENN: Let me go to Reverend James Robison who is one of the biggest evangelical preachers around and a guy that I have come to know here over the last really — James, when did we first talk? Was it about eight months ago or so? You called me up while I was on the road and we had an unbelievable chat.
ROBISON: Glenn, it was about the same time you referenced The Villages time when God told you that it, really the issue was not merely political but it was spiritual, we needed a spiritual awakening, we needed a revival, and you indicate — actually this very same day you and I talked, you heard from God very directly. And I want to say to you, thank you for really seeking to help wake up a sleeping church that has been manipulated and deceived by the principalities and powers and the realm of darkness that you reference in the Overton Window with Ephesians 6:12. You have been trying to get a church that is really stuck in the pew, hiding under a bush he will of conformity and compromise, and we need to stand up as believers and pierce the darkness. And you are in my opinion, I recommend that everyone listen to you, not listen to what people say about you. I wish every believer, every pastor, every church leader, every person who cares about this country could hear your 20 or 30 minutes of your personal testimony on your Tuesday program. I trust that’s posted online. Because my wife sat and wept for 20 minutes. She had to get up and go get a box of Kleenex. She said, I have never heard purer truth, a greater message on Jesus and on true salvation. And to think that it’s coming on secular television. And Glenn, Betty and I just want to thank you. You know, we host the Live Today television program. As a matter of fact, on JamesRobison.net, you’ve got to leave the middle N out of my name because I was too poor to have it. So it’s not Robinson but it’s Robison —
GLENN: I’m getting hammered by that all day. I think I’m saying Robison.
ROBISON: Yeah, now you said it right.
GLENN: All right.
ROBISON: It is Robison. But I shared that what we’re being told today as the right way, which is nothing but social justice, and the manipulators, including the media and many deceived church leaders are trying to tell people in the church if they don’t support this so called social justice that they don’t have compassion. And the fact is that when you take and distribute, you have separated people from a compassion connection. And without a compassion connection, which leads to true charity and to an involvement in the difficult circumstances of people who are in trouble, if you separate people from that connection, you are throwing money at an unhittable target, you might as well toss it in the wind and you are actually depleting the possibility of wealth and you don’t eliminate poverty by depleting wealth. What you’ve got to do is get people who have wealth prosperity to be somehow delivered from their own greed and self focused to begin to focus on how we can personally, through compassion, make a difference in other people’s lives. And this is what I hear you saying, and much of the church listening to the wrong voices, listening to these deceivers, and they are in the realm of darkness, they are powers and principalities, and they are effective. And right now the church too often is listening to these deceptive manipulative voices and we are missing the opportunity to restore, not transform America but restore America to sanity and restore the principles that our founders, with all their diversity, all their did I distinctive differences, they came together in harmony of heart and understood nature’s god and nature’s laws and gave us a foundation upon which to build in freedom and liberty, which also implies that we have to be responsible. If you’re free, the freedom our founders gave us demands personal accountability and responsibility. And if we don’t return to that — I mean, you can mark it down. You can date it. If the church doesn’t wake up, stand up, and pierce the darkness, you can literally color America and the freedom we’ve known and the opportunity we’ve known, you can color it done. It’s over. Now, that’s just simply the way it is.
GLENN: James —
ROBISON: And Glenn, you are one of the clearest voices on this planet for truth, and I want you to know as an evangelical Christian and church leader with one of the most watched television programs live today on the planet, you are a voice crying in the wilderness. I thank God for you. And by the way, the people in Australia, the people in the United Kingdom are supporting us and praying for us to see our nation restored because they know if we don’t come back to sanity, they are in trouble all around the world.
GLENN: The whole world is. James, I just want to make this conversation very clear. You and I, we don’t agree on theology per se, but when we talk about the church, we’re talking about the big principles of God and that God is a God of freedom and individual choice and a God that sent a savior down that says as an individual, accept my sacrifice and there’s salvation. Is — when we have someone — and I don’t — this is not about politics. This is so much bigger than politics. When we have people talking about collective salvation, where does that come from, is there any Christian theology here that is truly Christian, that says, you know, Jesus is the savior, Jesus Christ is the savior and this is what redemption and the atonement means, is there any way to interpret that as, if you all do it together or force people to do it?
ROBISON: Anytime you deplete the adequacy sufficiency of the grace of God in Christ and the forgiveness he offers through Christ, when you deplete that by adding to it, by saying we must do this in order to earn it, and you have desecrated the word of God, the death of Christ on the cross, that sacrificial gift of God and then you have placed on man his own responsibility, you really nullify the very act of love that God expressed in the gift of His son on the cross.
The relationship that we have in Christ transforms our lives personally. And by the way, it’s the transformation of the individual that leads to the restoration of this nation. We don’t need a transformed nation. Our founders understood what it meant, and they had differences theologically like you just pointed out.
GLENN: Big time.
ROBISON: One of the miracles of our founding, Glenn, is that they were in prayer seeking God, and the miracle of God’s grace and God’s wisdom enabled those men to come together in sound thought, in wisdom, and establish a rock solid, unshakeable foundation upon which we build. Now, when you move from that foundation and establish something else, you’ve moved away from the grace of God, you’ve moved away from the wisdom of God that our founders, even those who we hear this, they continually confirm that Jesus was Lord. Jefferson signed every one of his documents with “With Christ.” He put “Christ” in every place he signed. These men understood that they could differ and not divorce. We’ve got families tearing up all the time because they have a little difference, so they divorce. The family of faith, the family of God of which you are a part — and we may have differences, but we understand that the bottom line is the truth of God. We have a reliable source in His word —
GLENN: James.
ROBISON: And we have foundation with which to build and it is a personal relationship with Jesus. And by the way, when we have that relationship, Glenn, we’re going to love and appreciate people who disagree with us.
GLENN: I thank you so much. Reverend James Robison.
Now, I understand that Robison here is trying to be gracious, and is trying to present the Christian gospel to Beck in a loving, non-confrontational way. And, for that I commend him. I hope and pray that Beck, and millions more like him, who are deceived by Mormonism, and all the other false religions out there, come to believe the gospel, and really and truly trust in Christ, and Christ alone, for their salvation. And, when Robison says that what we really need is not a transformed nation, but rather a relationship with Jesus that transforms our lives personally, he is pretty much singing the same song as yours truly.
But, to those Evangelicals who are predisposed to Beck’s message because they identify with his political perspective, and find his broadcasts entertaining, when he talks about a personal relationship with Jesus by way of the atonement, it is easy to want to believe he is really talking about the same thing as we are.
At the SBC in Orlando, we specifically, as Southern Baptists, passed a resolution committing ourselves to maintain the centrality of the gospel. But make no mistake about it. Conservative politics is not the gospel. Moral therapeutic deism, couched in terms of revival, is not the gospel. And, as much as they talk about the atonement, and a burning in the bosom, and giving your heart to Jesus, the Mormon system of belief is not the gospel. And, the Word of God says that, as Christians, we should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14).
The choice is set before us. What is more important—theology (i.e. the core of the gospel) or “saving America”? It totally baffles me that some of those who are most vocal in their rejection of “evangelical ecumenism” (working together for the fulfillment of the Great Commission with those who share our beliefs on the essentials of the gospel) are the first ones to sign on to projects of political ecumenism (working together with those who don’t truly believe the same gospel as we do for the advance of a moral, ethical, and political platform).
Wake up, People of God!!!



Amen.
I think many evangelicals consider America to be modern Israel and therefore have difficulty is separating America from the church. To them, saving America is saving the church. I think they believe that unless America is “saved”, whatever that means, we will not be free to be the church.
I also think that the evangelical church is so deeply in bed with the Republican party, they often cannot distinguish between the two. All too often, where two or three evangelicals are gathered, the conversation is apt to be frustrated and angry and centered around whatever Fox News or Rush Limbaugh topics are hot at the moment. Glenn Beck’s name is on many lips in my own church. And as is common with Mormons, I think evangelicals are not even aware the Beck is a member of a dangerous cult.
David,
I’m not a culture warrior, but what’s wrong with joining with the Catholics, Mormons, etc for the purpose of getting rid of abortion? to resist the gay agenda that’s being rammed down our throats?
Also, we’ve already had this conversation many times about cooperation, and how much should we cooperate. I really dont know of anyone that would have a problem with joining with other denominations to fight liquor being served in their town, or county; to keep porno businesses out of their community; to end abortion; etc.
I dont know why it would be hard for you to understand that we could join with these other denominations over things like this, but could not join with them in things like starting churches; doing seminary; etc…things that would be very crucial in having correct theology.
Now, I agree that we should be more concerned with the Gospel and theology. We should be more concerned with winning souls. But, I see absolutely nothing wrong, or contradictory, about joining with other groups to do what’s best for our country.
David
Bill,
This whole phenomenon has some curious twists to it. Many of those who advocate this special-nation-status-in-the-eyes-of-God mentality for the U.S. are, at the same time, dispensationalists, who continue to maintain that the modern-day nation-state of Israel is also the apple of God’s eye. I have actually heard it stated that God has two special nations: Israel, and the second Israel–the USA. And, I say that as someone who personally leans toward a progressive dispensational approach to eschatology (with an open mind toward historical premillennialism).
And yes, it is true that many in our pews are naïve about a lot of this. That’s why, even though I run the risk of being controversial and stepping on some people’s toes, I decided to write about this topic, and publish this post here. I think more and more of us who see things the way I do will need to become more open and vocal about this in the coming days. The tide of deception is rising quickly.
Volfan007, your comment makes me wonder if you read David’s post.
Here’s what James Robison said:
I wish every believer, every pastor, every church leader, every person who cares about this country could hear your 20 or 30 minutes of your personal testimony on your Tuesday program. I trust that’s posted online. Because my wife sat and wept for 20 minutes. She had to get up and go get a box of Kleenex. She said, I have never heard purer truth, a greater message on Jesus and on true salvation.
Can you recognize that for the blasphemy that it is?
Furthermore, if Tom Cruise were conservative, would you support him being the next commencement speaker at Liberty University?
What is Liberty more about, Jesus or America?
David W.,
Your comment makes me think perhaps you have not read my post carefully. I recommend clicking on all the links, and checking them out as well.
If you have done this, and still feel the way you do, it’s hard for me to know what else to say. It seems to me quite obvious that Beck is couching his entire moral/ethical/political crusade in specifically spiritual terms, and is trying to create a spiritual unity around something that is not the true gospel. And, many who purport to be Evangelical leaders seem to be getting pulled into it.
As I say toward the beginning of the post, there appears to be a growing division over what the Christian faith is all about. Now, I know we have had our disagreements in the past over this or that. But, I have always considered we were united over the core of the gospel. And, I still do. But, frankly, your apparent inability to see this issue has me concerned.
Brother David,
I addressed this same issue in an early post…and you have put even more evidence to the fact that the gospel gets a back seat to current politics almost every time.
It is unfortunate that we have a culture of academic leadership in America void of the gospel or at least void of understanding first causes, with respect to second causes. If one truly believes the scriptures,…then the Spirit works as He sees fit,
John 3:7-8 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (8) “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man” (1 Corinthians_2:14-15).
The “moral majority” as it were,…. often confuses the work of the Spirit. Proponents of the moral majority philosophy seem to put works of morality as a first cause and Spiritual awareness as a secondary cause. Yet, it is easy to discern that with those void of the Spirit,..no moral compass exits.
Right preaching (theology) is vastly more important than the moralization of America. The Spirit makes that clear,.. and subsequently permanent.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Maybe the school claiming “Liberty” will return to first causes.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Yes, indeed, this is “verse 2″ of the song you started with your post a few weeks back. And, as you say, in the meantime, some more evidence has come to light.
Thanks for you discernment on this. And, I don’t see this as specifically a problem with Liberty. They seem to be a focal point and lightning rod of a lot lately. But this whole mindset seems to be a lot more widespread than Liberty. As Bill mentions above, there are, no doubt, many in just about every SB congregation out there (and in those of many other denominations, as well) who are die-hard supporters of Beck (and those like him), and receive with open hearts and minds many elements of the false gospel he (they) are preaching.
Good Point!… Liberty is just well know for this… many others, with greater variety seem to be enamored with this philosophy as well.
cj
To all:
Imagine this: What if tomorrow everyone in America were to adopt the overall belief system of Glenn Beck? Would that be a victory for the advance of the Kingdom of God? If you say yes, then you have a very different conception of the Kingdom of God than I do.
Another great post. I understand why Beck does what he does. I think he has found a way to be successful in this world because he so sincerely believes in his cause. And he combines personable and apocalyptic in a way few can. And I think I understand why this is appealing to Christians, primarily because I’m one who loves Glenn Beck’s shows. I think the root issue is idolatry, and specifically the kind that J. Gresham Machen warned about a long time ago – patriotism. I’ll try to be brief and clear.
I believe biblical faith produces a heavenly ethic – love. Conservatives and liberals often emphasize different aspects of the heavenly ethic and put them against one another when they really fit quite nicely together. For instance, conservatives are usually against certain taxes and social programs, not because they’re greedy, but because they believe it isn’t loving for a government to take what one has earned and give it to another who hasn’t. They see it as theft. On the other hand, liberals feel the burden of those around them, and though they know they don’t have enough to alleviate the suffering, they think it’s loving for the government to pool resources from everyone to provide a “better life” for those in need, regardless of how they got there. Both views have elements of the heavenly ethic involved, and those elements are faced off, rather than complementing each other.
Here’s where the patriotic idolatry comes into play. When Christians, both conservative and liberal, forget which kingdom they belong to, or which nation they’re truly citizens of (see Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Phil. 3:20), then they will reduce this heavenly ethic to an earthly attempt at Heaven on earth. I believe most Christians who get wrapped up in folks like Beck are more concerned with bringing Heaven down now through human effort than awaiting the coming of Christ to do it for them. They mistake their mission of rescue from the nations to earthly reformation of the nations.
Jerry Falwell Jr.’s statement is pure nonsense. The only country Falwell, as a Christian, should be concerned with is the heavenly one of which he is a citizen. I hear Christians all around speak of America, and defend America, and serve America with a vehemence they never give to speaking, defending and serving the gospel. And when called out on this idolatry, they claim we’re dual citizens and should care for both. They simply don’t believe the above texts I quoted. Paul says in Acts 22:28 that he was a Roman citizen by birth. However, he didn’t run around the Roman empire trying to strengthen it for the next generation, fixing its social ills, making earthly allegiances to make it a better place. He gave his life, literally, to helping people escape it. What’s our excuse?
David,
I have long been a supporter of Richard Land and of Jerry Falwell, but this approach frightens me. I agree with you, that we have moved from attempting to influence morality to trusting in our relationships with unbelievers to facilitate change.
I must confess that I’ve been wrong, and I’m coming to understand that. The last two years have awakened me from my slumber. Thanks for a cogent proclamation of the need to place one’s trust in Christ rather than our alliances.
One of God’s most serious rebukes to Jehoshaphat was over his alliance with pagan kings to accomplish his goals.
We must also guard against the tendency of many Believers to not speak out on moral issues because they don’t want to be aligned with pagans, but I can agree that someone is correct on a particular matter without appearing to support his lifestyle or his belief structure.
The problem with Land, Falwell, and Robison is their apparent willingness to appear to have no significant differences with Beck on this matter of theology.
Darby,
Can you share the Machen reference, please? I was not aware.
Two ironies here:
1. Machen would probably share Beck’s disdain (as I do, myself) for Woodrow Wilson and virtually all things Princetonian Progressive, and
2. Peter Lillback, present president of Westminster Seminary (which Machen founded) was one of the first evangelical leaders to appear on Beck’s show, promoting his book on George Washington.
So would Machen be spinning in his grave, or just perplexed?
Paul,
I would agree with you about the testimony thing. Beck is a lost Mormon, who I would never have to speak in my church. But, do I like listening to him on the radio and TV. Yea, every now and then. I appreciate his conservative stand on issues. The same with Rush.
Now then, DAvid and Paul, I was responding to this statement made by David Rogers…” It totally baffles me that some of those who are most vocal in their rejection of “evangelical ecumenism” (working together for the fulfillment of the Great Commission with those who share our beliefs on the essentials of the gospel) are the first ones to sign on to projects of political ecumenism (working together with those who don’t truly believe the same gospel as we do for the advance of a moral, ethical, and political platform).”
So, after you read that, would you still say that I didnt read what David Rogers wrote? Would you still say that I’m off base in my comment made above?
I still stand by my comment made in #3, and I would like an answer to that one.
David
Darby,
Excellent contribution to the discussion here. I agree with everything you say in your comment.
Mike,
Thanks for your honesty and transparency about this. It is comforting for me to see that at least some people are beginning to see through all this.
David W.,
Yes, you caught correctly the point in the last paragraph, which is a point I still maintain. However, many of those who are being swept up in the political ecumenism I refer to are not necessarily opposed to evangelical ecumenism. Robison, for example, last time I checked, is probably not in the BI camp. I still think you need to think a little harder about how Beck (and others like him) is using Evangelicals for his (and their) cause.
Also (though this is not the main point), the Mormon Church is getting quite a lot of mileage in proselytizing people for Mormonism out of Beck’s popularity as well. You need to go to http://www.glennbeckmormon.com and spend some time watching the video clips, and see what they are doing with this.
As an answer to your comment #3, I pose to you my comment #10.
Volfan,
I’m very encouraged that we can agree that what the Robisons said is blasphemy.
Also, I need to say that I agree with the vast majority of what Beck says. That’s why we need to be careful. If deception ain’t seductive, it ain’t deception, right?
Now, regarding what you said above, I have a lot of sympathy for what you say. Clearly we can work together with Mormons, Scientologists and Jehovah’s Witnesses to build good sewer systems and roads in our communities. So, starting from there, it is not that many steps that takes us into unity for moralism sake. But, since we are getting so close to our spiritual core, that’s when, it seems to me, we need to be most vigilant and discerning, something that it appears that some of our evangelical brethren are losing.
Yet, I totally agree with DR’s stated bafflement. 100%.
In my home town there is a congregation that prides themselves on being fundamentalist and separatist, but they are one of the biggest flag-waving churches in town.
As I drove by one day I thought, wow, they pride themselves that they won’t taint themselves by sitting next to me in church and singing “Amazing Grace” or hearing preaching about the Cross, but on the other hand, they will proudly unite with beer-guzzling, porn-pushing, foul-mouthed, womanizing atheists to sacrifice their children’s blood for the sake of the flag idol that they wave next to the pulpit. Is that salt and light, or is that becoming part of the dark world we are told not to befriend (James 4:4)
United as one? As David Rogers reminds us, what did Jesus say, or is that ever relevant?
David and Paul,
I have to go back again to not understanding your bafflement. I would absolutely, in no way, want to start churches with Presbyterians, nor Methodists…even though I consider them my Christian Brothers, if they’re saved.
But, I would have no problem whatsoever standing with a Catholic on trying to stop abortion in our country. I would have no problem whatsoever standing with a Mormon on keeping our country a free countrty to worship and speak out….free speech.
I cannot understand why yall cant see the difference in the statements and thoughts above.
Now, I do agree with yall that some, evangelical Christians go waaaay over the line…thinking that their main job is to change America, or to save the whales, or to protect the eagles and seals. I do agree that our main job is to preach the Gospel and worship Jesus. And, so, yes, some Christians go waaaaaaaay too far in their wanting to change America to be more moral, or whatever. But, I still love this country, and I do want it to remain a free country.
You dont?
David
David
Paul,
I would say “J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir” by Ned Stonehouse is a good place for his thoughts. Unfortunately, it’s out of print. Here are a couple quotes from Machen: “Princeton is a hot-bed of patriotic enthusiasm and military ardor, which makes me feel like a man without a country,” and “The gospel of Christ is a blessed relief from that sinful state of affairs commonly known as hundred per-cent Americanism. And fortunately some of us were able to learn of the gospel in a freer, more spiritual time, before the state had begun to lay its grip upon the education of the young.”
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that Machen was on a crusade against patriotism. He didn’t write a book about it or anything. I just think he saw it as one of many competitors of the gospel. There is a way to live in a country without idolizing it.
David,
As you well know, we have gone over the conversation about starting churches together with other Evangelicals a hundred times. I agree with you that there are some particular problems involved with Baptists trying to plant local congregations with Presbyterians and Methodists. Yet, as I point out on this post (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/04/01/planting-churches-together/), there are also some important nuances often overlooked whenever this topic is brought up.
Paul makes a good point, when he says, “…since we are getting so close to our spiritual core, that’s when, it seems to me, we need to be most vigilant and discerning…”
Back on a post a couple of months ago in which I voiced my misgivings about the Manhattan Declaration (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/11/27/radical-unity-radical-separation/), I wrote the following:
“I suppose that cobelligerency with non-believers for the advance of certain causes has its time and place. However, we must be extra careful to never confuse this type of cobelligerency with our essential unity in Christ.
If the Manhattan Declaration, for instance, had included Jews, Muslims, and even ‘moral’ atheists, among its signatories, I might be more inclined to jump on board; because, in such a case, it would be clear that this is not a document written and promoted from an implied common perspective on the essentials of the gospel. But, since it claims to be a specifically Christian document, it seems to me that adding my name to the list of signatories would imply my support of the claim of the sum total of the framers to be authentic, biblical Christians.”
As I see it, we’re basically talking about the same issue here.
In addition, I found Lillback’s time on Beck disturbing. I think there is tremendous pressure put on these guys when someone of Beck’s stature gets them on air. I’ve seen it over and over, guys who know better and are solid who just crumble under the camera. Beck said several disturbing things during his interview of Lillback and Lillback never refuted or corrected them. He just sort of sat there and went along. But when one mention from Glenn Beck sends your book from the nether-regions to number one on Amazon.com in a matter of hours, I suppose the pressure is great. I think the premise of this post is spot on – this blossoming alliance between evangelicals and those who want to improve America will lead to a distortion of the gospel. It is a gospel issue.
It’s like the generation of Israel who rose up not knowing the Lord in Judges 2:10. Jerry Falwell senior may have done what David (volfan) is arguing for, namely holding on tightly to the gospel while making worldly alliances through the Moral Majority. And maybe he never sacrificed the gospel in making that happen (or maybe he did). But Jerry Jr. comes along and says, “And there are bigger issues now, we can argue about theology later after we save the country.” That’s a father to son! What will Jerry III say? There is no bigger issue, now or ever, than spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thanks, Darby.
And I totally agree with Machen’s use of the term “Americanism.” As Jewish author David Gelernter has written, one can make a case that it is the “fourth great Western religion.”
I have said that the greatest competitor to the gospel in India is Hinduism, in Saudi Arabia is Islam, and in America is Americanism.
Americanism is syncretistic in nature, with a measure of unitarianism (we serve the same God as Beck?) and universalism (when was the last funeral you attended where most in attendance thought the person had missed heaven?) thrown in for good measure. The organization that most manifests that syncretism is Freemasonry, from which Mormonism got its ceremonies and markings on their holy underwear.
This is deception from Hell.
God help us. One more 9/11 and we evangelicals may be facing wholesale, massive, Nazi-like nationalistic apostasy. God knows we are right on the edge now. Remember, Bonhoeffer was not opposing a communist liberal, but a leader who was against abortion, didn’t drink or smoke, and wanted to rid the nation of pornography, open homosexuality and communist propaganda. So, why would we need discernment? What’s not to like there?
Darby,
Amen. Amen. And, triple Amen!!!
You have captured well the burden of my heart here:
“…this blossoming alliance between evangelicals and those who want to improve America will lead to a distortion of the gospel. It is a gospel issue … There is no bigger issue, now or ever, than spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Darby,
I had the same exact reaction to Lillback’s appearance as you had. It seems that John MacArthur is about the only one I’ve seen appear on national, secular television and not shrink from defending the gospel and also stay on message.
I have strong disagreements with MacArthur on other points, but he clearly does not compromise the gospel with nationalistic idolatry. So, at least I could have lunch with him.:) (1 Cor. 5:11)
David, I’m not sure why evangelicals continue down this path. I appreciate you raising the flag of protest.
It just seems to me that working yoked together in politics is no different than having some agreement with the world. Double-mindedness comes to mind, too. Compromise and jealousy are comparable to politics and envy, however, politics and envy are always worse. I think our freedom in America has allowed Christians to lock arms with everything out there for any cause that supports the appearance of Christianity. Those works that come from the believer are for the glory of God, not America. The works that God does through the believer are holy and are not close to comparison with the world. I think we simply need to dwell in the Holy of Holies since the curtain of the Temple has been torn open for our access to God. Nothing we do will have an effect on the world other than what God does through the vessel wholly and humbly submitted to Him. I vote that we Believer’s simply focus on the Kingdom that has been revealed to us and keep our eyes on the Author and Finisher of our faith. When it comes time to vote in November, vote for the lesser of the two evils. We should be able to detect that easily when we come out of the prayer closet and our life is being lived holy to the glory of God.
Good word, Bruce.
Here is my rendition of a classic saying…
First they came for the Orthodox Jews, but we did not care because the Jews reject Christ Jesus as their savior and are no longer apart of God’s plan.
Then they came for the Catholics, but we did not care because the catholics are heretics who believe in works-based-salvation.
Then they came for the Mormons, but we did not care because the Mormons are heretics who do not believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus.
Then they came for us Southern Baptists, and we looked out into the world for help, but at that point no one else was left to help us.
….
Now chances are that some here are going to ignore this and pass it off as nothing but hyperbole. And those people are ignoring the truth. Yes theology is important, very important. But God has given us the ability to live in a country were we can vote, elect our leaders, select our laws, where we can govern ourselves as we see fit. Sometimes that means we have to work with people whom we may not agree with 100% in theological terms. Or even 50%. But when things such as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, ect are being forced upon us by a growing sector of our country, we, who may disagree on major theological issues, HAVE to band together to stop such evil. We do not live in Rome, or somewhere where we would have no say in the government. We live in America where we ARE the government. And this growing sentement of non-interference and non-integration in many circles of christian evangelism is getting very frighting. I think Satan has found a way to win, and that is by making evangelicals hide in their little groups, unwilling to work with others.
svmuschany,
I believe Niemoller’s famous quote, which you paraphrase and adapt, refers to standing up for human rights, and solidarity with the persecuted, not to spiritual unity. I think it is very important to make that distinction.
I, for one, would fight for Beck’s right to say what he says on TV and radio. But that doesn’t mean I see him as a partner in advancing the Kingdom of God.
As we haven’t dialogued much in the past (I do remember a time or two), I am not quite sure where you are coming from theologically. How would you respond, for instance, to my comment #10? What do you understand “the advance of the Kingdom of God” to mean?
This just doesn’t add up… Makes me wonder if there is something to this story that we don’t know or if James Robison doesn’t know that Beck’s Jesus is not the Jesus of orthodox Christian faith.
David, I get where you are being gracious toward the Robisons, but that last sentence is just completely out of whack
And you are in my opinion, I recommend that everyone listen to you, not listen to what people say about you. I wish every believer, every pastor, every church leader, every person who cares about this country could hear your 20 or 30 minutes of your personal testimony on your Tuesday program. I trust that’s posted online. Because my wife sat and wept for 20 minutes. She had to get up and go get a box of Kleenex. She said, I have never heard purer truth, a greater message on Jesus and on true salvation.
SV, with all due respect, I don’t see what you shared as hyperbole, but since we measure everything by the Word, can you possibly imagine one of the apostles saying what you said, and they had Nero as their Caesar.
BTW, if you are seriously concerned about them “coming after” us evangelicals (who knows?), it might be good to start with the fact that the new secret police state (see today’s Washington Post) was built under Bush/Ashcroft. We cheered them on.
Sometimes it’s so hard to decide which party/crime family is my favorite, the Gambinos or the Corleones.
Wise as serpents; harmless as doves.
Darren,
Yes, I suppose I was giving Robison the benefit of the doubt on that one. But, indeed, that last sentence is “completely out of whack.”
What I am talking about is when the SBC, and Mormons, and Catholics, and JW’s, ect, cant work TOGETHER to stop social injustices such as abortion, homosexual unions, infringements on religious worship/practices, ect. Did you know there has already been cases in America where people have been SUED because they did not offer their services to homosexual couples. Doctors and nurses are being told that they have to choose to ether preform abortions or loose their jobs. In too many of our public schools, our children are being taught that being homosexual is ok, and it is alright to have sex as long as you use protection. Students in some schools are being denied the ability to bring their bibles in class during study time as it might “offend” someone else in the glass. The list can go on. The facts are that moral conservatism is under attack in this country. No, it is NOT the same as in Rome under Nero and Diocletian. But we are presented with an opportunity BY GOD, to be able to have a say in how our government, at the local, state, and federal levels are run. We have the God given ability to be active in this countries government. These social/moral problems do not have to do with theology. When Catholics, and Mormons, and Orthodox Jews, and Southern Baptists, and dozens of other “conservative” groups agree on these things, why are we not working together. When we do so we are NOT validating their theology. We are agreeing to work together because we all share a common goal. This amounts to several men stuck in a hole together refusing to work together to get out because they dont like what the other believes. Sometimes, for some things you have to recognize the differences between you and another group/person, and work together for the common good/goal in spite of those differences.
David,
I know I am late to the party, but I wanted to say, “Yes!” Here is a quote that I ran across in my Church History class:
5:4 But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvelous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.
5:5 They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign.
– Letter to Diognetus, describing Christians circa 200 A.D.
svmuschany,
Well, your point of view is indeed representative of the other side of the division within Christianity today I was talking about toward the beginning of my post. All I can say is I think you underestimate the dangers and problems with being unequally yoked with unbelievers in spiritual battles.
Have you, by any chance, ever read “Blinded by Might,” by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson? I think it is very revealing from two Moral Majority insiders who eventually saw the light on this.
SV,
No doubt it’s bad out there and getting worse.
But we’ve already tried the “HAVE to do something” strategy, and it’s over. We lost. Think Appomattox.
Reagan didn’t lift a finger to fight for Bork (Michael Deaver publicly said they never intended to pursue the social agenda), GHW Bush appointed Souter, GW Bush and the Republican Congress never cut Planned Parenthood funding by a penny, could have used the provision in the Constitution (Art. 3, Sect 2) to take abortion out of the federal court jurisdiction, etc., ad nauseum.
We’ve been had. Royally.
It’s just that some of us don’t know it and/or want to keep being had.
Last I checked nymphomania was not a gift of the Spirit.
Andrew,
Yes, I think we can learn some important lessons from church history, as your last post reminded us, as well.
Personally, I think the cause of Christ and the advance of the Kingdom of God suffered much more with the advent of Constantine and Theodosius than it gained. And, we do not need to forget that lesson, as we think of how to relate to the authorities and influential people in the world today.
svmuschany
When Daniel prayed, it was not to resist the government, it was his custom to do so even if the government said no. He was committed to God alone. Maybe it is time American Christians allow the world to go their way and we just keep doing what God would have us to do whatever the cost. Muslims are creating fear through terrorism and Christians should allow God to create the fear in people by Christians trusting in His ways and allowing Him to display His glory the way He wants to. The truth be known, I think today’s American Christian would be a little weak-kneed if they lived in the first century. There is more power in a life focused upon God than there is trying to change things through the political way. You just cannot compromise toward holiness as is required by politics.
Andrew,
Those silly Early Christians of the second century only had the nascent NT scriptures to guide them.
They apparently knew nothing of Christ’s first visit to America, the lost tribes coming here, the golden tablets here, the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and Christ’s return to Missouri.
We, on the other hand, know such things, don’t we?
To all, I would heartily recommend a little known Mormon textbook, called “Mormonism, Americanism and Politics.”
I hear a giant sucking sound, and it’s not coming from the Gulf of Mexico. It’s coming from a salt lake.
For all those who are advocating more political engagement, not less, I would ask, “How many Pickett’s Charges does one have to make before you are declared insane?” At least Lee only did one.
Crunch the numbers. We don’t have them. Besides, the strongholds of media, government, academia, finance and the arts are not based in Tupelo, Mississippi.
Without massive, unprecedented evangelism we will never have the numbers to win in a democratic society, and for right now, politics has proven to get in the way of evangelism. It not only saps our Kingdom of God energy, but it turns off/alienates the lost.
So, what do you want–more souls (and live to fight another day), or more blood?
Besides, are you postmil like the Puritans? That didn’t last, did it?
Let me jump in here with a theory. The problem is NOT with political conservatives who join together with people of other faiths or ideologies to accomplish social positions. The problem is twofold, as I see it.
1) It is a problem when we compromise fundamental doctrine in process – as Falwell seemed to do in this situation. “And there are bigger issues now, we can argue about theology later after we save the country.” ;
Is anyone here trying to defend that statement? I hope not. Save the country first, then worry about the purity of the gospel? Absurd.
Falwell should apologize for that and clarify what he is saying. It comes pretty close to heresy (and I am very careful about how I use that word).
2) It is a problem when we elevate “saving America” above advancing the kingdom, or when we we confuse the two. I will go to the polls and cast my vote in November hoping to save America from the horror or the Obama administration’s policies. But I will not bring politics into my pulpit or confuse the Republic and the Kingdom.
Are we tracking here, David?
Good stuff!
Yes, Dave, we are tracking.
The problem, as I see it, is not with people who are politically active, but with political idolatry.
But, sometimes, especially in the milieu in which we currently find ourselves, it takes a lot of discernment to differentiate between the two.
As I look through some of the comments here, and what I encounter every day, I see the truth in your last comment in #41. Differentiating between political activity and political idolatry is a tough thing.
We are told that we are to be both “salt and light” in our communities. The “light” part is easy to understand – the Apostle John said quite clearly that “God is Light” and that the world is in darkness – and that if we stand with Him who is light, then we are in the light, reflecting His light in the darkness of the world, drawing countless others into the light with us. Theology then is important in this mission. No problem with that.
But then there is the “salt” part of our mission. Salt serves as a fouler for spoilage – when the natural tendency of water and food is to spoil if left standing alone, the addition of salt “preserves” for a time the natural degradation toward spoilage (otherwise known as the “law of entropy”). The Christian mission then is to “preserve” society from the natural tendency of humanity towards corruption and depravity, since it that is the natural state of humanity.
I would argue that these two tasks are not mutually exclusive – being “salt and light” is not an “either/or” but a “both/and.” For example when the “salt” is emphasized over the “light” we see corruption from both ends of the Christological spectrum, from the heretical “social gospel” of our more progressive stalwarts to the outright hate filled so called Baptists from Westboro (with everything else in between – Glen Beck to Liberty being such an example – even though I would say “mild” example).
However the other side of the fence is just as egregious. When “light” is emphasized over “salt” what is the result? History is replete with examples of believers just “giving up” on cultural issues (as certain posts above both advocate and illustrate this point) to the detriment of both their witness, their lives, and their culture. The silence of the evangelical community in Germany to Hitler comes to mind as one such example (the quote of Bonheoffer here is quite appropriate – thank you Volvan). When Christians repudiate their salt function, then they are also placing the mission of “light” in great jeopardy. How many great victories of lives won from darkness can the evangelical German church claim during the days of the Third Reich? When Christians emphasize both the mission(s) of being both “salt” and “light” history has recorded victories often during great periods of persecution. The increase of the Russian church during the Soviet era is an example where the church, even though placed underground, stood high in both its moral character as well as its ability to evangelize the lost. The Roman church of the first and second century were pushed to the catacombs for the intrepid reason of their moral stands on a host of cultural issues (abortion being one of them) and of course the price was high for their willingness to stand on truth (death being one of those penalties for being both “salt” and “light”). But can anyone fault their willingness to pay the price, or their evangelical fervor in the face of such persecution? God forbid that we would stand upon such principles of truth that show the Way, The Truth, and The Life!
I understand in the age of refrigeration that the biblical example of “salt” is often lost on the younger set that have never had to preserve meat or vegetables for any length of time outside of a freezer, and have never heard of the “curing” process except perhaps in painting one’s nails. Perhaps this is why being “salt” is so anathema to so many posters these days – bearing example by their testimony of a wholesale unwillingness to take a cultural stand on truth for the Truth’s sake.
Appendum: Much of what I hear right now is “if Glen Beck believes it, then it must be false.” That is not even logical – and in fact that is called “The Genetic fallacy.” If I agree with Glen Beck, I agree with him only that abortion is wrong, Governmental spending is out of control, and socialism is the enemy of a free people (and Christians as well). I will not fail to sign a petition for redress of grievances because I find his name on it – the fact that I agree with him in this instance does not force me to agree with him in all things – shucks a broken clock is right two times a day. I will not allow his positions to stand in my way of fulfilling my two-fold mission of being “salt and light”. I disagree with him passionately on theology obviously, and would never invite him to go with me witnessing. I agree in that associating with him on the same stage would be counterproductive to my mission of being “light” (and as such question Liberty in their stand (I refuse to condemn or malign a dead man – some of us need a review on simple decorum and decency)). However the isolationist tendency of today’s Christian and Baptist scares the living h_ _ _ out of me. We are rapidly approaching Sodom and Gomorrah. Will the Lord find ten righteous men among us?
Rob
Rob,
I am not advocating political quietism. If you read carefully what I have said, for example, here and here, you will see that is not the case.
However, I am arguing that, as Christians, we must, at times take a position that is truly radical, and will not ingratiate ourselves with potential political allies on this or that issue. Yet, in the long run, it is more important to remain faithful than to win an election here or there.
Also, while I agree it is important to be salt and light, it seems to me there has perhaps been more ink spilled, and hermeneutical speculation exercised, on that one isolated verse than any other in the Bible. I, for one, am not totally convinced that, when Jesus used the metaphor of salt in the Sermon on the Mount, He was referring to political and cultural engagement.
And, I do not believe that “If Glenn Beck believes it, then it must be false.” Far from it. I am just saying he is not our brother in Christ. And, we must quit treating him as if he were.
One other thought….
Some would argue that the “salt” process I have described is “useless”. “The world is always filled with these issues of depravity and immorality in the culture – our focus should be first and foremost winning souls for Jesus.” I agree that the focus should be sharing Christ with a lost world – but see the “salt” process as being a part of that evangelical focus, not exclusive of it. You see the salt process “cures” the environment for a time to allow the message of the true “cure” to go forth.
In the Pixar movie “The Incredibles” there is an interview with “Mr. Incredible” which he discusses his frustration of “saving the world” and then another crisis arisis that makes it “unsaved.” “I feel like the maid,” he said, “Didn’t I just clean up this mess?” I think a lot of Christians feel that way about cultural issues – have we not been railing against abortion, slavery, pornography, drug addiction, and human freedom for centuries? Sometimes having a few victories, only to see it going off the skids again? Yes, we live in a depraved world. The superheroes of “The Incredibles” went into obscurity because the world no longer wanted to be “saved” only to have arise another issue which put the world in jeopardy. When Christians repudiate their “salt” function due to persecution or indifference then the world just became a more dangerous place.
Rob
Rob, I think we are dealing with that “fine line” thing again. I think we all agree that there is a legitimate role for the church in influencing society and holding back the spread of evil.
I think you might also agree that there are times when Christians have subverted their godly purpose to the political realm. I remember in the heady days of the Moral Majority and the success of the Reagan admin (my favorite president in my lifetime). We sometimes blurred the lines between being Republican and being Christian.
As you say, this is a both/and thing.
But, Rob, were you not offended by Jerry Falwell’s statement? I was. I’m passionate about political issues and I am not ashamed of my conservative views. But I would never say that we need to ignore theology while we save America.
I am quite concerned that he would make a statement like that! It borders on heresy.
Are you comfortable with that statement?
Honestly, I think that you and David and I are actually much closer on all these issues than our discussion might indicate. We all agree that our primary purpose is gospel-oriented. We all agree that Christians should confront evil. And I think we all agree that there is a real danger in confusing the Kingdom of God and political welfare of the USA.
Rob,
One more thing. I am trying to figure out what or who you are referring to, in this statement:
“I refuse to condemn or malign a dead man – some of us need a review on simple decorum and decency.”
The only thing I can think of is maybe you are referring to Jerry Falwell, Sr. But, how is calling to account Jerry Falwell, Jr. for something he said condemning or maligning Jerry Falwell, Sr.? The only one referencing Falwell, Sr. in this comment stream that I can see was Darby on comment #20, and that was giving him the benefit of the doubt, as to his possible agreement (or lack thereof) with his son on the issues addressed here. Or, is it out-of-bounds to critique or criticize the ideas of dead people (i.e. the Moral Majority)? I guess we had better forget about criticizing Calvin, or Arminius, or even Hitler, for that matter, then.
As politically oriented as Jerry Falwell, Sr was, I do not think he would have ever said to a Mormon that we needed to save America first, then we could deal with theology.
“I, for one, am not totally convinced that, when Jesus used the metaphor of salt in the Sermon on the Mount, He was referring to political and cultural engagement.”
Count me in on that one.
Rob, you said: “We are rapidly approaching Sodom and Gomorrah. Will the Lord find ten righteous men among us?” I am glad you did because it really sheds light on our discussion here. I don’t think “we” are approaching Sodom and Gomorrah. “We” the nation of God, otherwise known as the church, will never be Sodom and Gomorrah because our Savior, Jesus Christ, brought us out like the Lord brought Lot out. Sodom and Gomorrah was a type or shadow of the real Savior to come, bringing the righteous out of the darkness. The church is Lot, and America (or any other earthly nation) is Sodom and Gomorrah (or Babylon if you’d prefer Revelation language). Now, as far as America rapidly approaching Sodom and Gomorrah, I’d say they already are and have always been.
I see no exegetical reason from Genesis or any other reference to that event that tells us to reform Sodom and Gomorrah before it’s too late. The point of the gospel is that it’s already too late. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God” (John 3:18-21).
I fear many Christians refuse to operate under a new covenant understanding of redemptive history. I see this with pastors quoting 2 Chronicles 7:14 as though it refers to American revival as well. We are not running around like Elijah’s and Jeremiah’s trying to get God to withhold judgment. It’s too late for that. The cross was the judgment! Those who believe it will be spared. Those who don’t are judged already. I fear many Christians have their eyes too low. They are thinking they can hold onto the best, most prosperous nation in the history of the world, with all of its blessings, if they can just convince enough of the heathen to quit gambling, killing their children and using too much energy.
Wow, Darby. You nailed it.
Incidentally, those who preach 2 Chr. 7:14 do a hermeneutical switcheroo when they get to “turn from their wicked ways.” “Their” must refer to “my people, who are called by my name.” Better to go back to the days when John 3:16-17 were our most preached text than to pervert an OT text that can have valid NT application.
So, now that we all that straight, when do we turn from our blatant idolatry, clearly putting America above Jesus, or do none of us really care about the healing of the land?
What would Paul Washer do?
Oh, maybe that’s me.:) Not.
Darby & Paul,
Just in case you guys missed this when I posted it:
Praying for Revival & 2 Chronicles 7:14
Oh, and, by the way, Darby, I agree with Paul: You nailed it.
David and Andrew:
“I, for one, am not totally convinced that, when Jesus used the metaphor of salt in the Sermon on the Mount, He was referring to political and cultural engagement.”
I most strenuously disagree. If this was the case, then MLK was a fool, William Wilberforce was an idiot, Harriet Beacher Stowe was an ill advised no good so and so, and Mother Teresa should have kept her mouth shut. “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” This seems like pretty good evidence to me that to be culturally engaged is preferable than isolationism “…to be thrown out and be trampled under people’s feet.”
Let’s be clear David. Most folks (including some who have posted here) do not bring up Dr. Falwell’s name in the spirit of loving disagreement. I can disagree with the dead in Christ without being visceral (my disagreements with Hitler, Stalin and the like cannot be compared at all to the saints “dead in Christ”- the difference between imperfect Christians and mass murderers are legion). In saying that the reference was to Jr. and not Sr., so I draw back from my statement in that respect. I think that Sr. attempted to find that “both/and” of being salt and light. As to his level of perfection of finding that point each and every time I would have to say he strayed sometimes. But then again he was a human and a sinner (something he admitted to a lot). As do I.
Sorry Darby – I don’t hold to your view, as I neither hold to Paul’s (#51, not the apostle). I find I must agree with my good buddy Les as to the difference between “traditional SBC doctrine” vis a vis Covenant or New Covenant. Too antinomian for my taste, as well as full of “hermeneutical switcharoos” and postmodern inconsistencies as it deals with Israel. If you want to be Cambelites as far as the OT goes, why not just go all the way? Another discussion for another day perhaps eh?
Rob
Yes Dave, I am uncomfortable with what Jr. said – he should have his mouth washed out with soap and water, and a two by four waved in front of his eyes.
That statement is an example of saltiness gone wild. But the other is just as agregious – I imagine some of our stalwarts here would denigrate a believer getting into politics and running for office. As a Republican (gasp!). Or promote a protest against an abortion clinic or ponography peddler (gasp!) Or better yet support laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman (double gasp!) And then getting vilified for it (“they get what they deserve”). Or support vouchers or tax breaks for students and parents who want to place their children in Christian education (“Now your meddlin”). I imagine our stalwarts here would consider these gestures as irrelevant and unproductive. But they would be wrong, would they not be?
Rob
I do not think anyone that has been involved with this thread would bemoan a believer running for office or even being politically active. I think the concern is with the willingness of some to compromise theological, even gospel, truth to pursue political ends. There is a balance here that must be maintained.
As best I can tell, everyone involved in this discussion comes from a Republican perspective. But the caution is that we cannot confuse Republican victory with the advancement of the gospel or the kingdom. I’m not saying you are doing this, but I have seen people who seemed to confuse the two – some pastors and myriad laypeople.
Personally, I have my doubts about the efficacy of protests at abortion clinics or at establishments that purvey smut. My view is this – I do not have a problem with Christians being involved in these things, but I am nervous when something like that becomes a church function.
There is a crucial balance that must be held here. As is often true in blogs, we are in general agreement here, but are focusing on that part of the discussion over which we disagree and it sounds like we are all farther apart than we really are.
I think that our ultimate weapon to change society is the proclamation of the gospel. A church that aggressively proclaims the gospel will do far more to transform society than a church that gives itself over to political action. Whatever we do as Christians in the political realm should not interfere with or be confused with our true work of making disciples.
David Rogers:
You want buy the whole farm on this one but lot here for you to think about and work into further conversations on the matter.
Couple days ago I emailed you a link to Charles Marsh lecture in Berlin in March of this year on Bonhoeffer. Hope you will follow that evolving aspect as well.
In meantime for your further consideration on this matter:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2988/glenn_beck%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%98social_justice%E2%80%99_heresies/
Rick Lance SBOM head in Bama and former pastor of FBC Tuscaloosa should be subject of a sidebar piece up this morning at
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16391
Pretty interesting piece that meshes with DAvid Rogers concerns here.
Interestingly enough in the Musings from Maytown blog of my friend John Killian, former VP of Alabama Baptists and head of the Pastors Conference of the annual state meetings; there is a concerted effort by an active commenter at his blog to say Bentley is not conservative enough, that Christians ought to wright in for Paul Pressler’s favorite politician in the state, Judge Roy Moore.
Killian endorsed Bentley is his blog.
I do hope the audience here will give the ED.com piece a close reading this morning.
Wow, Rob, I wake up this morning and find all kinds of straw men knocked down and lying in disarray strewn throughout the landscape of this comment stream.
Let me see if I can dispose of them one by one:
1. So are you saying that MLK, Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Mother Teresa all based everything they did on a political-cultural interpretation of Matthew 5:13, and if you take away that from them, they had no basis to do what they did? I am not saying there is never any biblical justification for a Christian to be politically or culturally engaged. Neither am I saying Matthew 5:13 definitely has no political or cultural implications. I am just saying when you take the text itself, and objectively look at it in its context, there is a whole lot of eisegesis that goes on in a lot of places, taking activities and ministries such as those of MLK, Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Mother Teresa, and reading them back in to the mind and words of Jesus here. Personally, I find a lot to commend much of what each of these did (not everything) on the basis of the faithful, suffering servant approach to culture I proposed in this post.
2. What are the names and examples of people who have commented on this post who bring Dr. Falwell’s name up “not in a spirit of loving disagreement”? Though I am unable to trace down everything everyone may have written elsewhere, I don’t find this visceral approach you mention on this comment stream, nor, that I can remember, specifically directed toward Falwell on other posts here at SBC Impact. No doubt, there are those out there who treat Falwell in the manner in which you have described. But, I am having a hard time finding them here. Not to say we don’t have our occasional foray bomber. But I don’t perceive that to be the attitude of the commenters on this post. Can you point to a specific example to the contrary?
And, yes, I agree there is no comparison between Hitler and Falwell. I was just trying to think of examples of dead people we might find reason for criticizing from time to time.
3. Regarding Darby and New Covenant Theology, you had the perfect chance to address your misgivings on Benji Ramsaur’s post here a couple of days ago. As a matter of fact, I would say you still have that opportunity. But to do a drive-by with accusations of “antinomian,” “hermeneutical switcharoos,” “postmodern inconsistencies dealing with Israel,” and “Cambellism” all power-packed into a mere two sentences, without any evidence or substantive commentary to back it up, seems over the top to me.
4. As Dave Miller has already graciously pointed out, your “imaginations” on comment #55 regarding our supposed “stalwarts” are just that: imaginations. We’ll put Stephen Fox aside into a different category (he didn’t comment here until after your #55 anyway). But other than Stephen, I agree with Dave that it would likely be hard to find anyone commenting here who does not vote Republican more often than otherwise. Now, as to your other gasp-producing activities, I suppose we’d have to take them one by one with each commenter.
In any case, from what I can tell, when it comes down to it, yes, you and I have a bit of a different approach to and understanding of these issues. In many of my posts, I have attempted to present some thoughtful reflection and scriptural justification for my views. And, I am definitely open to thoughtful dialogue concerning them. But, while we are talking about visceral responses, I would recommend you take a closer look at what you are writing before you knock any more straw men down.
Oh for Heaven’s sake, Rob. While I appreciate your “drawing back” from your statement concerning the slander of dead saints, which was clearly not my intent, I must take issue with your argumentation in #54. Not only do I disagree with your point, but also with your method of making it. You didn’t actually interact with my remarks in #50, but instead attacked NCT. At the risk of running off topic for a moment, I’ll respond to your remarks.
If you’re going to disagree with NCT, then do it on exegetical grounds. However, I doubt you can because your statement that it is, “Too antinomian for my taste” shows you have never really honestly worked through the system. Instead it seems like you want to defend what you think you already know without being open to the possibility you’re wrong.
Then you try to attach NCT to postmodernism as though it’s some new fad. That’s like me saying the dispensationalist hermeneutic is full of racist inconsistencies. It’s a logical fallacy that once again proves you haven’t dealt fairly with the issues, but want to act as though you have.
And finally there’s the Cambelite statement that is on the same level as the postmodern one. I might as well say if dispensationalists want to be Jews regarding the NT, why not just go all the way? Once again, just the fact you compare Cambelite doctrine with NCT shows you have little understanding of NCT. I started my Christian walk as a dispensationalist by default being initially discipled in that environment. Then moved over to covenant theology as I began studying the issues and reading older authors. Then I settled into NCT on exegetical grounds after seeing the strong and weak points of both dispensationalism and covenant theology. So if you want me to argue for or against any of the three systems, I’m happy to do it because I’ve taken the time to understand all three.
Regarding #55, I’m not against any of the things you suggested. At all.
Rob, actually I have great sympathy for your position, since I used to hold it.
Sure, Christians should be a witness in every arena where their conscience/calling permits them to be, but I think much of our overoptimism of the fruits of “conservative social justice” is rooted in a terrible misunderstanding of America itself. Bad enough we worship it, but I’m not sure we understand it. Much of these is laid at the feet of David Barton, who is very good at articulating half of the story.
The spiritual ethos of America is historically more Masonic, unitarian, gnostic, Roman/Greek pagan, syncretistic, Mammon-centered, and universalist than any of us would like to admit. Hey, even Washington, who was relatively orthodox in his Christian faith, called Judaism a “denomination.” Those who understand Mormonism understand that they totally embrace all that stuff I just listed above.
We don’t, do we?
Though it has long tolerated us Jesus Freaks, America is becoming more and more openly opposed to simple, NT Christianity, and is in rebellion against God. I, too, grieve for that, but I’m done with Pickett’s Charges. I won’t sign yet another petition with the naivete that if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the 5 Catholics and 4 Jews will give my view a fair shake.
Our opponents mock us. I’d like to get back to the NT time when we Christians were a serious, spiritual threat.
Ned Stonehouse’s biography of J. Gresham Machen was republished by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church a few years ago and can be purchased here: http://opc.org/books/Machen_Stonehouse.html
David:
In re your response to Rob circa # 59 I offer the link to Charles Marsh lecture in Berlin March of this year 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/3xgcv7n
And I think Curtis Freeman’s rejoinder to SBTS Russ Moore’s position on Scripture and the Social Gospel as it inflected the ephemera of WA Criswell’s “Change” on Race in the easily googled The Fiery Sermon may be something Rob wants to consider in regard Wilberforce and MLKing, and Sojourner Truth (he did reference Sojo, didn’t he).
In any case, listen to the sublime lecture by Marsh.
Much of the weaving of the fabric intersected in this thread is up for refinement, even the Refiners fire, in all the discussions sure to come, some already appearing, with the publication of Marsh’s biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer next year.
It will weave through Barth,Niebuhr and the Barmen Declaration and the Valkyrie plot; will weave through them to World Magazine’s Embrace of the Eric Metaxas biography of DB at the expense of Harnack; to Timothy George’s use of Barmen in the 94 ERLC pamphlet on abortion castigating Paul Simmons; to the church state witness of SBC Peace Committee member Charles Pickering (43 Judicial nominee) who was member of Marsh’s Dad’s church in Laurel, Mississippi; as the Father Robert was your Dad’s classmate at NOBTS.
Last week Richard Land faced Maxine Waters of CA and Sheila Jackson of the Houston 18th US Congressional District on Immigration Reform.
I sent the Marsh lecture link to Congresswoman Waters office.
Marsh’s Uncle is Fisher Humphreys, who had a great interview with Judge Pressler early days of the CR.
I think I emailed you earlier about the link. Rob provided a great opportunity to go public with it here.
It will be torture for some of us to have to wait 16 months for the DB bio discussion to begin in earnest; but it should be intense.
Thanks
SFox
Talk about straw men.
I will refrain from posting en masse. With respect (and with my apologies), I don’t have time to go through the whole thing with any means of complete clarity. I will note that there is some extreme sensitivity akin to a Doctor taking a mallet expecting an mere involuntary reaction of a jerk, only to find the patients reaction puts his leg through the wall (your #59 and Darby’s #60). Perhaps I will post my knowledge (or lack thereof) on another post in the future.
David – I never said that I found your post chocked full of inconsistencies or full of the things I am reacting to. With the knowledge that I was unclear, I was reacting to some of the reaction to your article, not to the article itself. If I read things into some of the posts that was inaccurate or inappropriate, then forgive me. I see in a glass darkly…and since I can only go by the written word I do not see the emotion or the delivery that can be gained from being in personal presence. I do believe you will have to concede of the “cultural isolationism” as defined by Paul in #61 as an example of such things I am referring too. FYI I did read Benj’s post – I found the article itself fairly general (as can be expected) yet at the same time found it difficult to get on and off the site. Only in the last couple of days have I been able to post – on your post.
A lot of people have made a hero of Bonhoeffer – but tend to forget what got him in trouble and ultimately hanged. He remained an isolationist until he saw that the Nazis were “coming for him.” He was part of the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, and ultimately paid the price. We can argue if it was proper for a Christ follower to be a part of a seditious movement to remove a government from power. I don’t think any of us have ever been placed in the position that Bonhoeffer was. What I do fear is that the cultural isolationist among us will greet with open arms (or tend to ignore) the coming of the Anti-Christ.
Darby -
Sorry I did not go into a full throttled approach. I was perhaps a little contrarian in my approach. Forgive me. I don’t intend at this time to go into a full “defend” mode vis – a – vis NCT. I do believe the approach (and I have read a bit about the system) does have some of the elements that I mentioned in my opinion. And I do believe that I am not alone in some of my criticisms of the system in using such language in describing it – so you see I have read a little about it. As all theological systems devised by man are subject to critical evaluation and skepticism, I hope you will allow me the same as you have done in the same vein with those you disagree – and I acknowledge that you have been more congenial than I have been – just the mean streak in me I guess
.
Rob
Rob,
I wonder if you might be conflating Bonhoeffer and Niemoller. Bonhoeffer was always engaged; his culturally-elite family was near the center of the ongoing conspiracy.
Bonhoeffer is in many ways a heroic figure, to be sure, but we must remember that he (and others) failed. Hitler said that Providence had saved him, proving he was on a mission from God. Hitler never knew about the bottle bomb that mysteriously never went off.
This we know, (1) Bonhoeffer loved Germany, and (2) he stayed orthodox in his faith in a sea of apostasy. However, Alex Metaxas’ new excellent biography doesn’t give a single example of Bonhoeffer ever leading someone to Jesus. On the other hand, Bonhoeffer certainly worked with whomever (regardless of their faith) would work with him to bring Hitler down. I think we all can relate to that.
But, again, he failed. What, if anything, can we learn from that, assuming we believe in the sovereignty of God?
Here’s my takeaway: We get the leaders we deserve. Democracy won’t work in hell. Do we want better leaders? Sure! So we need a better “we.”
So, then, why not get back to work on the Great Commission, the task we made secondary over the past 30 years? Why do we have to persist on a course that clearly isn’t working?
Paul,
Who says I and others are not working on the “Great Commission?” I am a Pastor. I have shared in countless places including every Sunday service about the “Greatest Story ever told!” I dare say (I am not boasting save in Christ) I have done more so in 35 years than you in sharing the Gospel – knocking on doors, sharing on sidewalks, walking around malls, debating, sharing, crying, praying in prayer closets and prayer walks (this past year I have walked about 200 miles doing prayer walks). So yes, I have done my part in making a better “we.” I have also voted, supported candidates, supported moral positions, taught classes, and have done my part to be “in the world but not of it.”
Do I stop being “light” because not everyone receivers the message and receivers Christ. Absolutely not! Do I stop being “salt” because my “side” is not being successful? ABSOLUTELY NOT! To do so is to abandon my mission in both sharing the good news and being salt in a depraved world. It is not my responsibility to change hearts or change policy. God is Sovereign! I am merely a “watchman on the wall”. It is my responsibility to be FAITHFUL to the message and purpose I have been given. If I measured success by pragmatic results then I would have given up years ago. How is it that you measure results in the “salt” arena, but do not do so in the “light” arena?
Rob
Rob, I’m sorry if it seemed that I was personalizing my general observations of the American evangelical world. For instance, wouldn’t you agree that we have largely moved from listening to radio preachers 30-40 years ago to conservative talk radio today…mostly listening to Mormons, Catholics, Jews and big-time backsliders?
Please forgive me if I implied in any way that you were personally being negligent regarding the Great Commission. I salute you, brother!! And yes, I will be willing to concede that you may have done more than I in that regard in the past 35 years. I also concede that the mixture of the gospel and nationalism tends to work in the Biblebelt. But it doesn’t elsewhere, and that’s a real problem for evangelical denominations whose powerbase is in the Biblebelt.
So, as you can see, I am very pointedly addressing the nationalism side of things. I, too, am a “watchman on the wall,” but I don’t want to have to answer to God for not identifying wolves leading His precious sheep to the slaughter, or from warning other watchmen to be equally vigilant.
Great question regarding salt. I think salt is best when disbursed. I actually think evangelicals did a better job preserving society when we didn’t coagulate into massive, organized efforts. Who wants a 10 pound lump of salt on their meat?
Same with light. Best when disbursed. Lasers and spotlights don’t generally evoke welcome responses from those whose eyes have become the target.
So, yes, we need to be salt! But what about the possibility that we might lose our savor/saltiness? Then, what good are we?
It seems to me that following Beck is, by definition, a loss of saltiness, regardless of the irony of the Great Salt Lake.
Regarding: Matt 5:13
I am not very sophisticated in my reading of the Bible.
1. To me the the “salt” and “light” are parallel metaphors regarding the “power of the Gospel”
Light — The aspect of the Good News that leads TO truth and life.
Salt — The aspect of the Good News that leads AWAY from decay and death
2. Another understanding of “salt” could be that “helping those in need is” is in view.
—
I guess that 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Roger
FWIW, I was just now editing a sermon manuscript of my father (Adrian Rogers), from Feb. 14, 1999, and found this quote that seems to me to be apropos to our present discussion:
“Now, I have to be careful, and you have to be careful, that we don’t fail to understand—we don’t fail to remember—that our mandate is the gospel. It is primarily doctrinal, primarily spiritual—not political. The mandate of this church is still the Great Commission, preaching the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And, to do anything else that runs around the gospel would be like trying to mop up a floor with water on it while the faucet is still running and the sink is still overflowing. We have to preach the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And, we have to begin with the house of God and the people of God. We’re concerned about putting prayer back in the schools. I think we need to get a little more concerned about putting prayer back in the church and back in our homes. Our mandate is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I am convinced that the Gospel and not politics is the solution to the moral issues we have in the world. Christ himself did not come to change politics although the Jews were looking for such a person. In the doing of this they missed Christ. I think that is exactly what is happening now in our churches.
A couple more good quotes from the same sermon:
“When I came to this church, I told the deacons, some 25 years ago plus, now, I said, ‘My ministry will be a gospel ministry. I will pay my respects to communism. I’m opposed to communism. I will preach against racism. I’m opposed to racism. I will preach against alcohol, liquor, pornography, and all of those things. But, I refuse to be moved away from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, I want to be thought of as a gospel preacher.’”
“Now, I read something that bothered me a little bit. There was a woman who was a news reporter, and she had found 40 preachers—40 ministers—who were active in the political arena. And so, she interviewed them for a story that she was doing. At the close of that interview, she spoke with one man, and he asked her, ‘Did any of the 40 that you interviewed share the gospel with you?’ You know what she said? ‘What is the gospel?’ She had no idea what the gospel was, and she had been interviewed by 40 ministers—preachers—who failed to understand what Paul knew—that our ministry is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, may this church never forget it!”
David,
February 14, 1999 was two days after the Senate acquitted President Clinton of his impeachment charges with the strange reasonings of Senator Specter.
What a great man your father was, David. He kept his eye on the prize.
I trust we can as well.
Paul,
Precisely. That was indeed the context of the sermon. It is entitled “The Politics of Pilgrims.”
One more quote from the same sermon, while we’re at it:
You read the New Testament, and you will find out there is not a negative note—not one negative note in the New Testament—after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, you think about it: Why should you be negative? You say, ‘Well, look at all the problems America has.’ Friend, the one who wrote this book of Philippians had a political situation that was ten times ten worse than our political situation. Homosexuality was rampant in the Roman Empire. There was human sacrifice, gladiators dying. The gospel of Jesus Christ was despised. Christians were on the lowest rung of the ladder. Here’s what we need to understand: It may be possible for some earthly kingdom, like Rome or the good ole’ U.S. of A. that we love so much, to be in decline, and God’s Kingdom will be doing quite well. I want to give you an example of that.
In China, in Red China, for the past 30 years in Red China, there has been vicious, vicious repression and persecution; and yet, the Church in China has grown exponentially. Millions and millions have come to Christ in a bad political situation. Now, I’d rather have the good politics than the bad politics—I’ll be honest with you—but that does not mean there are enough demons in Hell or out of Hell to stop a Spirit-filled church of God from spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope you believe that. And, friend, you’re looking at a man—I said I’m relieved. I’ve just refocused. I’m not going to go around with my head between my knees. I’m not going to go around in despair.”
David,
You’re obviously leaving out the part where your father expressed hope that a Mormon would someday fulfill Joseph Smith’s prophecy and rescue America when the Constitution was hanging by a thread.
Please don’t just give us selective quotes.:)
Paul,
Yes, you called my bluff. I was holding back the following quote. But, now that you insist, I will produce it, as well:
“Back in 1979, when I was first elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jerry Falwell got something started called The Moral Majority. Well, friend, no, it’s not the Moral Majority; it’s the Master’s Minority. We’re called the little flock. There is a broad way. There’s the narrow way. There are the many. There are the few. We are not of the many. We are of the few. Don’t get discouraged that we’re not a part of the many. If we were part of the many, there’d be something wrong with us. It’s kind of weird, isn’t it? But folks, we need to understand where we are, who we are. We are not the great majority. We are those who belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. We’re what they call the little flock. And so, I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m going to stop trying to be popular (never have been, really, among some people). John 15, verse 18—Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you’ll know that it first hated Me before it hated you” (John 15:18). Jesus said, “The servant is not better than his master” (Matthew 10:24).”
Seriously? Wowser! How could we have not listened to his counsel?
On the other hand, it’s waaaaaaay too biblical.
So, who is going to lead us to corporately fall on our knees and repent?
Paul,
In the words of another Paul (Simon, in this case):
“Still, a man, he hears what he wants to hear, and he disregards the rest.”
At the risk of getting sappy, what the SBC needs more than anything else is an Adrian Rogers to rise up in our midst – someone who can lower the boom and walk the high road at the same time.
Great quotes, David. Keep ‘em coming.
“At the risk of getting sappy, what the SBC needs more than anything else is an Adrian Rogers to rise up in our midst – someone who can lower the boom and walk the high road at the same time.”
Amen.
Rob
Actually I think Dr. Rogers would take us to Paul’s exhortation….
1 Timothy 2:5-8 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. (7) For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (8) Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.”
One guy won’t get the job done….it will take “men in every place”….
Blessings,
Chris
Rob,
Blogs are horrible for registering emotion or lack thereof. That’s probably their greatest strength and weakness at the same time. Validity of argument and precision are key to conversing through this method. Of course I expect you to study and come down wherever your conscience lands you within the parameters set by the gospel. And there is plenty of latitude there, so I won’t hold it against you if you land somewhere other than me. I just read your short paragraph to me and discovered that I was a liberal postmodern antinomian Cambelite.
I deeply appreciate your humility and look forward to further conversations with you. God bless.
Here is a friendly challenge to David Rogers.
To make your explorations timely and of substance I wish you would engage Allie Bullard’s concerns here:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5356/9/
David Rogers:
As you know Richard Land was on House Panel last week on Immigration reform. How does your Christian witness compel you to address this issue.
How do you navigate the exchanges between Land and Maxine Waters and Waters reference to Wilberforce.
On Immigration reform we are in a moment MLKingcalled the urgency of Now.
I hope you will navigate and inform your response with a careful hearing of the Charles Marsh lecture on Dietrich Bonhoeffer Ilinked above from March of this year in Berlin.
Thanks
sfox
Here is a sample of a conversation going on right now on Facebook between some Evangelical Christians I know regarding Glenn Beck’s possible prognosis of blindness:
“Oh that’s terrible! I’m going to go on the website & catch up on a few shows. Someone said he made a profession of faith & gave the gospel last week on the show.”
“who is Glen beck? isn’t he that Mormon politician?”
“Yes, but he is starting to preach Christ.”
If you’re more bothered that someone didn’t know who Glenn Beck was than by the other comments, there’s a problem.
From comment #82. It would be good if sbcIMPACT would expand this blog to have religious emotion icons so they could be inserted appropriately. I need one for humility right now. Also, speelcheck.
David,
I agree with your sentiment. Below is similar to a comment I left at SBCVoices. Also, note that I actually came out of a sect of Mormonism.
I wrote Liberty University, Glenn Beck and the Gospel analyzing Beck’s commencement speech in light of Liberty’s own mission/vision statements concerning the gospel. In the comments you will find emails from Elmer Towns who didn’t really answer the concerns.
My post is not one that aims to bash Liberty. It is to point out that some of the loudest most visible voices associated with the name of Christ have put Him to the back of the line. Beck’s speech contained a lot of theological suppositions. Fallwell, Jr. responded that it was the best commencement they’ve ever had.
My follow-up post The Political Gospel of Glenn Beck and Liberty University? addresses the very show that you’ve mentioned here. I also address the objection that Liberty is a school not a church. If one is willing to give Liberty a pass because they are not a church, then the Moral Majority should also be given a pass for whatever stance they take to promote their agenda because they are not a church either.
Both of these instances I’ve addressed are right in line with each other. That is, the gospel is secondary in both circumstances.
Appreciate this post.
David,
I agree with your sentiment. Below is similar to a comment I left at SBCVoices. Also, note that I actually came out of a sect of Mormonism.
I wrote Liberty University, Glenn Beck and the Gospel analyzing Beck’s commencement speech in light of Liberty’s own mission/vision statements concerning the gospel. In the comments you will find emails from Elmer Towns who didn’t really answer the concerns.
My post is not one that aims to bash Liberty. It is to point out that some of the loudest most visible voices associated with the name of Christ have put Him to the back of the line. Beck’s speech contained a lot of theological suppositions. Falwell, Jr. responded that it was the best commencement they’ve ever had.
My follow-up post The Political Gospel of Glenn Beck and Liberty University? addresses the very show that you’ve mentioned here. I also address the objection that Liberty is a school not a church. If one is willing to give Liberty a pass because they are not a church, then the Moral Majority should also be given a pass for whatever stance they take to promote their agenda because they are not a church either.
Both of these instances I’ve addressed are right in line with each other. That is, the gospel is secondary in both circumstances.
Appreciate this post.
Paul,
A short response to #67.
Salt seasons, salt cures, salt disinfects. It is good disbursed, or in clumps, depending on the use of the moment. As Christians we are disbursed throughout the world, and then we come together for praise and worship, to witness and testify, to share the good news with strangers, or to pray. Seems like a “clump” at that time to me.
Light is a healer, disinfectant, and makes things transparent. You want a little when your sleeping and a lot in a television studio. Again depends upon the use of the moment. The apostles on the mount received a whole bunch of light at once when God spoke “…this is my beloved Son – HEAR HIM.” The Light shown in the eyes and heart of the unrepentant sinner condemns him, and either leads him to repentance or revulsion against Christ – it reveals the true nature of the heart in any case. Again, a little flashlight or or a large spotlight, or a bunch of bright light – depends on the use of the moment.
Is it your contention that we only have the use of a salt shaker and a mini-mag lite?
Rob
Bruce, that was funny! Religious emoticons.
That way we could say anything we want, attach a religious emoticon and walk away spiritual.
Brilliant
Bruce Harp for president (unless he’s a democrat).
David Rogers,
I know this is rather late to the conversation, but a few weeks ago I was preparing a Bible study on Mark 12:13-17, Jesus’ “render unto Caesar . . . and unto God” passage. David Garland in his NIV Application Commentary on Mark (an excellent commentary) makes some cogent insights that I believe pertain to this discussion.
“Jesus does not divide life into two realms, the sacred and the secular. ‘The things that are Caesar’s’ should not be interpreted to mean that Caesar has control of the political sphere while God keeps control only of the religious sphere. Obviously, Jesus would not regard Caesar and God to be counterparts. There is only one Lord of the world, not two (12:29). . . . In the past, however, the church has wanted to exercise sovereign control over Caesar (the state) in the name of God. When the papacy reached the apex of its power, for example, the emperor was considered to be no more than the pope’s arm, who enforced the church’s will in the secular sphere. . . . Jesus does not envision that his followers will become the church militant and all powerful. The church of glory and power always loses both its moral compass and spiritual vigor. It has also done as much harm to God’s purposes and God’s servants as the satanic state. We cannot imbue the world with Christ’s spirit by exercising political force. The view that might makes right is pagan.”
“Another false alternative wants to place the church under the authority of the state, so that the church becomes the court chaplain. Nazi Germany provided an extreme example of this when its totalitarian rulers attempted to establish a national religion, ‘the German Christians,’ under the authority of the Reichsbishop with leaders pledged to Nazi Party ideals. The church was expected to obey the dictates of state officials regarding creed, ritual, and discipline.”
“Jesus’ statement limits what one owes to the government. His answer subverts the pretensions of pagan rulers. There is another Lord over them, and their idolatrous coins are worthless in God’s realm. Jesus outwits his opponents and exposes to all that they already acknowledge Caesar’s authority by having in their possession a coin bearing his image. If they do business with Caesar, they must play by Caesar’s rules. His statement does not grant power to Caesar. One only owes Caesar those things from which one gains benefits. The early Christians took advantage of the Roman road system and the relative peace and order that Roman power imposed on the world to spread the gospel. If we make use to the state’s money and benefit from its highways and sewers, we are bound to pay its taxes. Taxes are a trivial matter compared to what we owe God. The ‘things’ of God are not limited to coins; they are defined in 12:29-31. We owe God all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and we also owe God a loving concern for our fellow human beings. We may owe Caesar money, but we do not owe Caesar the love that is to be directed only to God. . . . The Christian owes Caesar something but not everything. Obedience must be vigilant and discerning because the state is also answerable to God. The demands of God are infinitely greater. We who bear God’s image and are inscribed with Jesus’ name owe God everything. . . . When one pays taxes to Caesar, one does so out of obedience to Jesus’ command, not out of reverence for any ruler. The New Testament proclaims that Jesus is king, which means that Caesar is not (see 1 Tim 6:14-16). Peter applies Jesus’ words in Acts 5:29 when he says, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’ (cf. 4:19-20).” (pp. 463-66)
[This is me] As David Miller mentioned over at SBC Voices, many of our brethren around the world are fascinated how much American Christians “love” their country — a concept quite foreign to them. We don’t find this as a command from Jesus, and the danger is that if we don’t watch out, our affections and loyalties may easily become misplaced. We “love” our God with all that we have and are, and we “love” those that He loves. We render to our country the service and loyalty that God asks of us — but maybe not as much as our country may seek.
For what it’s worth,
Kevin
Was my comment lost?
Kevin,
I’d be interested to hear about your thoughts on Christians participating in political engagement in Canada. How are Christians attempting to impact the nation and national politics? How aren’t Christians getting involved? What are the positives and negatives of this.
I think before this discussion continues regarding the right amount of “light” and “salt” there needs to be a common definition as to what the metaphors of “light” and “salt” represent in the context of Matt 5:13.
An unstated assumption by some seems to be that “salt” represents “social action” or “political engagement”. To others “salt” may have to do with “cleaning people up”, “purifying them” or “preserving them”.
Whatever “light” and “salt” metaphorically represent they are attrbutes of Jesus’ listeners: “You are the light / You are the salt of the earth ”
I retract my previous comment in which I stated that the metaphors represent some aspect of the “Gospel”. From the context it is clear that the metaphors apply to people — namely those who were listening to Jesus’ sermon on the mount. If the referrent to “salt” and “light” is a message or concept it must be a message that is promulgated via people.
Mark,
I just rescued your comment out of comment moderation. I think the way it is set up it doesn’t allow more than one link (with the exception of regular SBC Impact contributors
).
In any case, to anyone who is following this comment stream, Mark’s (rescued) comment is #86. I recommend you backtrack and read it. He has some relevant information to further the discussion.
Kevin,
Thanks for checking in. Garland’s comment seems balanced and insightful to me. I think a lot of our difficulty today in modern democratic societies, such as the U.S., is figuring out how does all this apply, when, to a certain degree, we ourselves are Caesar, inasmuch as our vote and political activity contribute to the ultimate rule of law.
David,
Thanks for rescuing my comment and for the recommendation. I figured that’s what happened. I really made follow-up comment because SBCImpact was very slow and I wasn’t sure if another comment would post for me.
David,
“We ourselves are Caesar, inasmuch as our vote and political activity contribute to the ultimate rule of law.” Well said and not a little bit frightening! What I hear you saying. . . I think. . . is that we must recognize that Paul’s presuppositions and ours are different, and we must take that into account in attempting to exegete what the Bile says. To fail in that results in eisegesis.
John
John,
Yes, I think that is right. But, that doesn’t give us the prerogative to just throw out, or ignore what Paul had to say. It does present us with the difficult task, however, of contextual hermeneutics: We have to, first of all, understood what it meant to the original readers in their context. Next, we have to extract the eternal principles from that. And then, we have to take those principles and apply them to our particular contexts today.
In this case, since the immediate contexts are so different, this task is particularly difficult. But, we must still do our best to carry it out, and to do it as well as we can.
Agreed, 100%
John
So what would be the Christian witness in the latest affair of Glen Beck in regard Shirley Sherrod and Mr. Breitbart?
Is it your contention that we only have the use of a salt shaker and a mini-mag lite?
Rob,
I debated on whether to respond to your last question of me in #87. A big part of me thought that maybe your one word response in #80 in regard for the need of an Adrian Rogers-like person to step forward might have been a fitting last word for us all. I can’t imagine a single person who knows anything about his ministry that would think he would countenance for a moment an alliegance with Glenn Beck as JF2 has done.
I don’t think (and you may not as well) that our overall stance in regards to the world about us hinges on us all have a precise/metaphorically-perfect exegesis of Matt. 5:13, since there an abundance of NT texts that deal with our attitude toward the world, but, nevertheless, you asked an honest question…
I would say that the salt shaker metaphor is probably our normative mode with God being the shaker/sender. God has always been shaking things, including the Church.
In regards to the mini-mag, I don’t think that is the opposite of a laser/spotlight. I think the opposite is ambient light (ample and spread everywhere). Who would want all of the sun’s rays focused on a single point? Again, God is the light source/sender.
Some would say, of course, that we are more like the moon, reflecting God’s light in a dark world, and providing proof that God’s (in this analogy, the sun’s) existence.
So, there you have it. Again, we may not totally agree on an exegesis of Matt. 5:13, but, Rob, I cannot begin to tell you how encouraged my heart is by your simple “Amen” in #80. There is yet hope for the American evangelical Church!
Blessings on you, my brother!
David Rogers, Think I got a jewel a gem for you here where we may have some common ground.
Just happens it comes from Baylor Div School, their periodical Christian Reflection; current print issue Monasticism Old and New.
Hoping you canread the whole article soon online but it is not up yet:
From William Samson of Georgetown Ky; on the Monastic Tradition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Finkendwalde. Quoting:
Young contemporary Christians of Monastic traditions like the seminarians of DB’s Finkenwalde, have grown weary of the false dichotomy between orthodoxy and orthopraxy; they seek the wholehearted integrity of Christian Faith and practice in a kind of new monasticism.
They resist their Christian friends today–on the right of the current theopolitical spectrums who would have them cleave to orthodoxy with little regard for the orthopraxy of the Church. For without that deep longing of the Church to “hunger and thirst for righteousness” or justice, how will congregations serve as the “hermeneutic of the gospel” in our culture? How will they interpret for our day the story of the Christ who calls us to transcend categories of race, ethnicity and gender?
The also resist Christian friends on the political and theological left who embrace a social gospel that has, over time, lost touch with the rich theological heart of the Christian message. Certainly, whensocial action is understood through and motivated by the orthodox witness of the Church, congregations can engage the culture in response to Christ’s call to lay down our lives. But when they lose the theological foundation, how will they maintain their commitment to live in radical service to others?
This is where the work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is so helpful in the contemporary conversation….
David: I think you will find this link where President Carter attributed the strategic help of Jimmy Allen in the 76 Texas Prmiary a fascinating piece of Baptist history.
The comments on this story and pretty straightforward.
I weighed in there
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5369/53/
I have a question: What purpose does it serve to have the American flag and state or “Christian” flag in the front of our churches? What worship function does that fulfill? What NT or OT precident is that based on?
The only one I can find is the rampant synchretism of the divided kingdom era that lead to the destruction of Israel and the exile of Judah. I don’t see any good that comes from the American flag being in a place of worship: what salvation is worked by it or the constitution that it represents? How has the “republic for which it stands” blessed the Church? (dont’ comment about freedom to worship: everyone is free to worship, some just pay a higher price)
I served in the military and would do so again (I need drill seargent motivation to get back into fighting shape) if called upon. But defending the country or honoring the country into which I was born has nothing to do with the Kingdom into which I was born again; my True Country.
I think speaking on the issues of the day is not only acceptable, but is demanded by God. We are to be as prophets decrying the evil of our land. But should we (believers) get involved in marches and organizations, that I think is up to the individual. Should we orgainize boycotts, protests, or petitions within the local churches or the associations or the convention, no. We are so organized for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, not for the purpose of perfecting the nation. The salvation of the country and the culture is God’s purview if he so chooses.
Our place is the preaching of the Gospel to individuals, making disciples, and baptising them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is not to the transformation of existing countries or cultures, it is the divine manifestation or the “incarnation” of the kingdom (becoming present in the flesh) in the lives of those called to salvation.
American, Japan, France, Russia, Zimbabwe… they cannot be saved; they are not persons with souls. However, they are all filled with people who do have souls who need to hear the Gospel that they might be saved. The constitution and the flag cannot help them.
QUOTE The constitution and the flag cannot help them END QUOTE
I don’t think this is a well-thought-out statement. This statement seems to imply the corollary opposite: tyranny and oppression with a minimum of freedom helps more souls come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
America has been blessed like no other nation in the world with religious and political freedom. It seems odd that a person would complain about the opportunity (not obligation) to display the Christian and American flag together.
What worship purpose does it serve? How about the reminder that our nation was founded upon Christian principles with a manifest destiny to carry the light of the gospel to the heathen?
It baffles me how many “Christians” just don’t get it.
It does not imply that unless the premise of your understanding of church and worship requires a certain political environment. My implication is that only the Gospel of Jesus will save souls. Nothing of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (who is God in the flesh, the image of the invisible God) for the attonement of my sins has anything to do with the United States of America, its history, its founding documents, or its freedom. Korean Christian missionaries to Vietnam or Nigerian Christian missionaries to the Ivory Coast can spread the Gospel and see lost people saved and they do it without any connection to America.
I agree: America has been blessed like no other nation with our freedoms. The same ones I volunteered to defend in the Army. However, this still does not adress the need, purpose, function, or “opportunity” to display the US flag in a worship service that is dedicated to God Almighty. Nor do these freedoms help anyone attain salvation. “For you are saved by grace through faith” or “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raisede Him from the dead, then you will be saved;” nothing in those verses require freedom through the Constitution of the United States.
The US is not part of the Godhead and the flag does not honor Him nor point to Him and it is not present to worship Him (it is not alive not is it saved). It represents the idea and the ideals of the USA; it represents a power and government other than that of the kingdom and therefore has no place in worship. Therefore, since it does not represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it stands opposed to Him when it is in a worship service, IMHO.
What is not to get? Manifest destiny has no place in the Christian life, it was an excuse to take from others. We did NOT convert the “heathen savages” of the plains, the south, the mountains, the southwest, or the pacific. We conqured them with guns, not with the Gospel. It is no wonder that Native American ministry is one of the toughest nuts to crack today. They have a cultural history of what good Christian folk did the day they told them to move to the reservations. The only “light” we carried was the muzzle flash of hundres of muskets and Winchester repeaters. Not much Gospel there.
As for the “Christian” flag, it reminds me of a certain tribe of Hebrews clamoring to Samuel that “we want a king (flag) just like all the other nations around us.” In other words, we need a standard to represent us as equals among others.
The shame of this is that we are not equals among others for we stand apart, we are strangers and sojourners when we become believers. Our true country is the Kingdom of God that is and that is to come. We should be voices crying out against the evil of this land, country, and planet. However, we should not hold onto the things of this life too tightly or we might misplace our loyalty to Christ.
Greg,
I didn’t think anything I would say would get you to believe that the US of America is perhaps the greatest tool God has provided in the last 500 years to spread his Word. You certainly are welcomed to your opinion, which sounds like really good theology since you only use verses that prove your point. For example, Acts 17 seems to teach exactly the opposite of what you believe.
And yes, manifest destiny was abused. Of course, you don’t mention David Brainerd in regard to the Native Americans. Again, that would not fit your presupposition that patriotism is inherently evil.
And, when you shout so pridefully that the flag does not honor Him (that is God), you might want to investigate the history of the development and deployment of the flag. It is further you compare the flag with “wanting a king.” It seems history records the American flag represents exactly the opposite sentiment.
Again, I expect all this to fall on deaf ears. After all, you were in the Army. You mention that several times in your posts. Just for the record, I was serving my country while you were probably just l learning to walk, not that that makes my argument any more valid.
By the way, you mentioned Korean and Nigerian missionaries leaving their countries to go share the gospel. I just want to point out: you are free to leave America if it is as bad as you point out in your illustration of the mistreatment of Native Americans (which I ministered to for about 8 years by the way).
Oh, and one final point. It is interesting how you tied my argument into the doctrine of atonement when I did not even indicate I felt that patriotism had anything to do with atonement. You sure did set up and knock down that straw man! A great illustration of “how to completely miss the point.”
I had mostly forgotten, but became reacquainted last night with Garry Wills great work American Christianities. It puts lot of this conversation into better perspective and framework and shares much needed light on our recent shared History as a denominational, politically; and our national character.
Great news is hard copy is available at Barnes and Noble for 6 bucks.
DAvid Rogers, get a copy for ongoing reference. As a bonus some great Billy Sunday stories in there, I would guess many of them even new to you.
Good book, hope you take advantage of this good advice.
SSBN: what was your rating and what boat were you on?
I have a few things to say and then I’d like to reboot this…
1)I don’t appreciate your snide remarks: “since you only use verses that prove your point”; “presupposition that patriotism is inherently evil”; “shout so pridefully “; “fall on deaf ears”; “are free to leave America if it is as bad as you point out”. These are out of place. I have not made such remarks to you.
2)Your knee-jerk reaction in your first post (#104) is my exact point: that Christians (especially those of us from or in the South) are very patriotic and expect to see the Flag in the front of the Church (mostly by habit, not by some biblical requirement). Because it has no biblical function, I think it should probably not be there; it should be outside (at least 15×25 if not 21×35) on a flag pole that is lit at night (as is proper flag etiquite).
Here is the reboot:
I think that as American Christians our patriotism to country is a fine thing and that it can bring God glory so long as we don’t hold up our flag or out country as bing more than scripture would make them. I alos believe that as Churches, by flying a flag oustide, we declare our loyalty to the country and specifically our desire for freedom of religion as stated in the 1st Amendment ot the Constitution.
However, I think that we should not have the flag inside the church worship service as those of who stand or sit in there will be prone to feeling pride and loyalty in our country (patriotism) mixed with our loyalty and love of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. I don’t think that something like that should get in the way of making the weekly gathering of the Saints wholey and completely about God with NO mix of loyalty to anything or anyone else.
In line with this post, I think we do mix our allegience to God and to country too much. I know becasue I used to do it. I sang with conviction “There She Stands” by Michael W. Smith after 9/11; as I said (to prove my patriotism) I joined the Army as an E-4 after graduating from college becasue I wanted to serve my country, NOT as I told one smart-alleck drill seargent, for college money; I remember standing for Reveille and then “God Bless the USA” while in Bosnia (becasue the commanding General of 2nd Armord DIV wanted it to be so) and feeling a great sense of pride, welling up in tears, in my country and in the uniform.
It dawned on me one day that I didn’t often feel the same sense of pride or glory or duty in my relationship to God in church. And I realized most people I’d known in church could get riled up about something to do with politics or war but sit in church more stoiclly when hearing about the greatness of salvation in “Amazing Grace.”
How can we listen to the Gospel story again and again and sing fo the greatness of God’s grace and mercy and feel nothing, but be energized when we sing the national anthem and cheer at the top of our lungs when the Thunderbirds do a fly-by over the Superbowl?
I really am offended that you have taken liberty with no proof to state that I believe patriotism is evil; I believe no such thing.
Thank you for your work in the Native American community; it is really a tough nut to crack as experienced by my friend who was there for only 8mths and was fired by the DOEM for making no progress.
Finally: Who is David Brainerd… never heard of him.
SSBN,
I am only aware of two nations in the last 100 years where Christian churches considered it legally or socially obligatory to fly their national flags within their worship spaces. If there are more, I hope someone here corrects me.
Now, to my knowledge, there’s only one. The other one stopped doing that national pride thing at the end of WW2 when they and their national pride were utterly destroyed.
SSBN, assuming you believe in the Bible (including Prov. 16:18), you may want to consider that you are literally loving America to death (and no, I don’t mean “’til death”).
This, it seems to me, is the essence of this incredible post by David Rogers. Jesus wept over a Jerusalem that put national salvation ahead of Him. I believe he wept of Liberty University this year as well.
So, should we repent, or just hunker down for the coming destruction?
I am not totally sure about every country in the world. But I would be surprised to find out that what Paul says above is not the case. I can confirm that, in Spain, the country my family and I served in for 18 years, it would be considered a strange and idolatrous mixture of national patriotism with worship of God to display a national flag within an Evangelical place of worship.
I am not familiar with the use of the “Christian flag” in other countries either, though, after looking up the Wikipedia article, I discovered there are some churches in Africa and Latin America that use it. It is interesting to me, though, that it was first conceived of in the USA, is used primarily in the USA, and contains the same colors as the US flag. While I am more or less ambivalent about the use of the “Christian flag” in general, what is particularly disconcerting to me is the symbolism portrayed by displaying the American flag and the Christian flag, side by side, at the same height. I have even seen places where they are displayed side by side, with the American flag higher.
Greg,
By the way, I appreciate and affirm what you have said in the last few comments, as well.
I have never seen a national flag in any of the Asian churches I have attended.
Greg,
David Brainerd was a missionary to Native Americans before there were actually Americans, when there were just a bunch of British colonists on this continent. He started off seeking to be in ministry among churches in Connecticut, but was tossed from Yale during the controversy between New Light and Old Light folks, apparently he was too “enthusiastic,” as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield were considered as well.
Since he was unable to graduate, he was not allowed to be licensed to preach in Connecticut, and then was advised to consider missionary work among the Natives. Meanwhile, he already likely had tuberculosis, and died young from it. The disease had forced him from the mission field in 1746, and he died in 1747. He spent most of his last year with Jonathan Edwards, whose teenage daughter cared for him in his illness and then died from TB as well, likely contracted from him.
Brainerd’s life is an interesting one, because Jonathan Edwards thought it so crucial to publish a biography of Brainerd that he set aside finishing an anti-Arminian work he was writing to edit Brainerd’s journals into a biography. When the biography of Brainerd, The Life of David Brainerd, was published, John Wesley thought that all Christian ministers should have to read it. So, his was a life of service to God and to evangelism that both sides of that debate could recognize it.
It’s been a few years since I read any bio on him, but it’s worth reading.
Doug
Doug-
Thanks for the reply about Brainerd. I’ve since found a bio/sermon on him by Piper and will look for the bio by Edwards.
Banned Mormon Cartoon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE
David: I trust you have seen the PBS Magisterial Documentary God In America. You can watch it online if it isn’t repeating in TN like it is in other parts of the country.
I think the last 20 minutes of the 6th chapter of the 6 hour series on Caesar is sublime.
Would love for you to give it careful consideration and comment here or consider a Review Blog to focus updated attention on it.
As I said in Strider’s recent STream, I got in couple questions to the Producer Thursday noon, Live Online Chat.
Jerry Vines and the Tea Party Movement scored big in NE Alabama yesterday. Maybe Rather the legacy of Vines as I called early this morning one of his former devoted parishioners at West Rome (Ga) Baptist; now a leader of the Tea Parties in NE Alabama.
Glenn Beck rallies scored traction in these parts as among others a 20 year plus incumbent of the Alabama State Senate lost; once the 2nd most powerful man in the state and an Auburn Trustee.
I plan to blog later this afternoon if anybody wants to click over to see how the land is laying in the wake of yesterday’s midterm.
I do hope some of you will be watching ethicsdaily.com and religion dispatches the next few days to see how this plays out beyond the confines of Southern Baptist fundamentalism.
I have noticed where one prominent SBC blogger is calling for the defunding of Richard Land’s ERLC to use that money for the IMB.
SBC has bigger problems than that.
Among others some leadership or leadership wannabees haven’t navigated Karen Gormley on the wedge issues they hold so dear.