Christian Integrity or Hypocrisy?

Truth be told, as I first began to read this blog post I thought that James White had written it.  Of course, it turns out that I was mistaken and that this was a re-posting of a piece that had more or less been Canerized at a different website.  I would like to comment--and hope to do so as a follow-up piece--but the article itself is enough to think about and chew on for a long time:

Mark Driscoll, Ergun Caner, and the Scandal of Evangelical Integrity | Alpha and Omega Ministries

By the way, if the careers of the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, or Charlton Pearson can survive or be revived after media scandals or dissolution of their ministry, why can’t Caner just fess up, lie low for a while, and wait for his public career to be brought back from the dead?  Oh, wait: somewhere along the line I think I answered my own question.

Another reason that we lose

Originally I was wanting to post something entirely different yet related to the Southern Baptist Convention just the same.  Chores and fatigue have prevented this for a long time now, but I will make an effort to say the following, however: Christians and social conservatives are not that bright.

We’re not that bright: first in terms of intellect, but now also in terms of positive cultural influence à la Matthew 5.13-16.  The Southern Baptist Convention in 1997 showed that it had heart when it began to fight the Disney empire and just as other Christians began to come up with every conceivable lame “excuse” for supporting the SBC’s boycott of things Disney.  This time around, on the other hand, the same organization which once was capable of noble action against social evils has shown that whatever wisdom it once had may have gone out the door in the natural flow of organizations’ shedding and gaining parts as members join, step down, die, become senile, etc.

From Southern Baptists condemn Boy Scouts over admission of gays | Fox News (06/12/2013):

HOUSTON –  The nation's largest Protestant denomination stopped short of calling for its member churches to boycott the Boy Scouts, but voiced strong opposition to acceptance of gay scouts - with a top church leader predicting at the annual gathering of Southern Baptists that a "mass exodus" of youths from the program that has been a rite of passage for more than a century.

The move by the Southern Baptist Convention came at its annual, four-day meeting in Houston, and three weeks after the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow gay youth to join.  With more than two-thirds of Boy Scout troops sponsored by religious organizations, and Baptists being the nation's largest protestant denomination, the resolution could have a crippling effect on the Boy Scouts.

"There will be a mass exodus over time," said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “Churches are finally going to have to come to realize – there is a point when you say, ‘sorry, no more.’"

Let us juxtapose this with the following snippet from Baptist Press - Page, Land send letters opposing Scout proposal - News with a Christian Perspective posted on 05/17/2013:

"For over a century," Page wrote, "Scouting has helped our youth develop character and leadership skills forever impacting their lives. I am distressed by the recent proposed resolution which would introduce the subject of sex and sexual orientation into the program of the Boy Scouts. For one hundred and three years Scouting has been a safe haven from such topics rightfully reserved for parents. Such an introduction is inconsistent with the principles found in Scouting's sacred Oath and Law."

For starters, if you decimate the Boy Scouts by keeping your children out of it, you have now taken away the said means of developing character and leadership skills in the youth.

Secondly, a person who is openly gay need only be someone who is being honest about what feelings or attractions he has; it is hardly as if everyone who is a homosexual is someone who wears his “identity” on his sleeve or goes about broadcasting his sexual orientation to everyone around him.  Someone who is merely being honest their particular mental disorder--and yes, I will call it that--is not someone who categorically should be denied the opportunity to have character and leadership skills instilled within him.

Thirdly, the “safe haven” objection seems perfectly naive in considering what amount of the U.S. population is homosexual, how many members of that subpopulation would be interested in joining the Boy Scouts, and how many youngers already know that homosexuality exists.  Homosexuality is mentioned time and again in your copy of the Bible, you know.

Fourthly, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Attempts at Christian isolation from the culture tend to create cultural ghettoes, something well-exemplified by CCM, where the only reason untalented people are getting record contracts is to fill a void in a niche market, or Christian cinema where half the movies of that genre would probably end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 if that show were still on the air.  Sorry, but Christians do not in every instance have all the talent, money and resources necessary to put together a grade A organization or product; attempt a Boy Scouts of America alternative if you must, but please do not bother if only a few people will invest in such a project.

But again, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Do the Scriptures not have something to say about believers’ being “salt and light”?  And do the Scriptures not have something to say about winning people with actions as opposed to mere words?  If there are kids in the BSA who are believers and if there are kids there who are not, then by isolating the believers from the unbelievers an opportunity is missed to show unregenerate people exactly how gracious and selfless a person should be toward his fellow man and how this behavior is borne of an understanding of the teachings of Christ.

Finally, some problems will naturally blow over or fade away if no further fuel is added to the fire.  The sort of attention that some social conservatives don’t want homosexuality and homosexuals to receive is something what would not exist if people would not create news stories by doing exactly the sort of thing for which the Southern Baptist Convention is currently in the news.  In fact, any further legal gains that the Gay Lobby makes could conceivably, over the course of time, come to be as forgotten and ignored as laws of various states which in our own day still outlawed sodomy or adultery.  And despite how debased Western culture has become in its ethically minimalist attitude toward homosexuality, guess what: there are still hate crimes (which I do not condone in any way) being committed against homosexuals, including the recent Madison Square Garden attacks in liberal, home-of-the-Stonewall-Inn New York City.  The point is that people such as members of the SBC need to stop the knee-jerk reactions to cultural occurrences around them and instead calm their nerves so they can think clearly.

Then again, if the reader thinks it is I who am in error here, then my first point is still proven; the fact that people can be disagreeing over the issues means that something has gone wrong somewhere down the line.

**************

Addendum: It is amazing what a little bit of further reading and research can reveal; lo, there may still be hope for Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-boyscouts-baptists-idUSBRE95B0NO20130612.  The reaction of the Mormon hierarchy on this issue, meanwhile, is interesting.

Where is the Urgency? [Concerning Evangelism]

Here is the shorter version of the Wretched Urgency Redmond was speaking of a few days ago. Here is the longer, original post by Michael Spencer.

How about the epistles in the New Testament? In those places where Christians are addressed as Christians, where is the urgency about church growth or personal evangelism?

Yes, I know that Paul is urgent about his ministry, but I don’t find his instructions for other Christians to be entirely in the same vein. I hear Christians being told to live quiet, peaceful, honest, generous lives adorned with integrity and love. Christians are told to be devoted to their families, to love fellow believers, and to live in such a way that outsiders cannot accuse or criticize. If they suffer for being a Christian, it should not be because they provoked a response through simply living the life Jesus taught.

Again and again, I look in the epistles for the kind of Christian experience that I was taught was normal, and I do not find it. The statements of urgency are not statements telling me to turn my house and life upside down in frenetic efforts to persuade people to join my religion. The urgency in Paul comes from his personal mission and his own vocation as a church planter. I can’t automatically apply it all to everyone else.

Shouldn’t we all be like Paul? No. Not if we aren’t apostles and church planters. Paul ran all over the world telling people to believe the Gospel, love Christ and live like it. We are to go back to our homes, jobs and communities and do exactly that. Preachers and missionaries have the urgency appropriate to their calling, as anyone should have the urgency appropriate in theirs. A parent has some urgency in parenting, but it has to be measured. A businessman or a teacher has some urgency, but again, in an ordered way. Christians look at their callings, their lives, their faith and apply the appropriate amount of urgency. We are not all told to sell all we have, give it to the poor and hit the road. In fact, that could be nuts.

…Here. Quote me. There is no urgent concern for converting people in the New Testament. Did you get that down? There is also no urgent concern for the numerical growth of churches by the efforts of members to convert others. There are no burgeoning church programs. There are no plans to train everyone to door knock and sell Jesus. There is an urgent concern for doctrinal and personal Christ-likeness. There is a concern for leadership, integrity, honesty and obedience to Christ in our personal lives. The idea that we are here to “win souls” and not to know and show God is bogus.

The Silence of Paul on Evangelism

There are times where I post things that are meant to provoke a kind of response. there are times I post thing as response to something, or just because I find it humorous. This is a post where I share Matt Redmond's concern over how this will be taken, understood and responded to. This is not meant to provoke in the negative sense.

God's timing is interesting sometimes when we get a glimpse. I read different posts from different blogs. I print things out because (even though I have a blog) I prefer to read things on paper. So, I read different things from different years in strange orders. Anyway, I read this post days, maybe a week, after I read the post I will post tomorrow...Both are related. Redmond mentions the other post in his blog-and they deal with the same topic.

As Redmond suggests, I hope you read this for what it is--and read it (and the other post) completely before reacting. I am not sure what it all means-but it is an interesting observation on the lack of urgency or commands from Paul on the importance of evangelism. D.B.

Update on 4/8/11: This was actually written on another blog before this one was even a glimmer in my eye. The original post caused a good bit of hubbub. But it is also was helpful for a lot of people. So, 2 things before you read this post:

First, I thought about this for a long time before I wrote about it. And even now I still do not have a whole lot of answers on this. So I ask you to stop and think.

Second, If you do comment please make sure your comment reflects you have read what I have written.)

(Update on 08/29/2011. Follow-up post here.)

I’ve been mulling over this post for awhile. The consternation, confusion and conflagration of angry comments which might result have made me wonder at the wisdom of it. I decided to go ahead. The subject is too important. And I can only imagine that while it may anger some, there are plenty of people like myself who will find some freedom here.

Ok. Here it goes.

A few weeks ago I heard someone say something to the effect of, “You cannot/shouldn’t consider yourself a Christian if you are not sharing your faith/practicing evangelism.” And it really got me to thinking. Something felt wrong about it. But I couldn’t put my finger on it.

On one level this sounded right. It accorded with almost all I had ever heard growing up in the midst of evangelicalism. So it sounded right. Or at least familiar. But something about the statement just ‘felt’ really wrong. It felt wrong as a fact. (Like saying the capital of Alabama is Birmingham.) And it felt wrong morally. (You should look down on everyone who does not live in Birmingham.)

So I quickly went through Paul’s letters to the churches in my mind as much as I could. Could I think of a place where he commands the members of these churches to share the gospel – to tell unbelievers about the gospel? I was pretty shocked to not be able to think of any place where he does anything like this.

Nothing was said, of course. But I filed it away in the front of my mental filing cabinet. My mental filing cabinet is grey, if you must know. Nixon administration grey.

Over the next few days I looked into the Epistles. Really, I thought I would find something. I mean, all the importance we place on evangelism and the urgency we show in preaching and teaching and writing on it, should show up in Paul, right? RIGHT?

I found nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

Paul never commands the ordinary believers who belong to the churches to evangelize. There is no call for sharing your faith. There is no call for witnessing. He never even encourages it. And he never rebukes them for not doing it. He tells them to stay away from orgies and to practice kindness and to live quiet lives but there are no commands to evangelize. Implications? Maybe. But never outright commands.

Paul describes his own desire to do so and he defends his apostolic ministry of doing so and he commands Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. He also tells us there are such things as “evangelists” in Ephesians 4. But he never talks as if the carpenter, the shepherd, the soldier, the fisherman or the wife of any of these is called to evangelize.

I know, I know…there is the ‘great commission’ given by Jesus. In only 2 of the 4 Gospels. Never repeated again. By Paul. Or anyone else ever in the Scriptures. Why is it called ‘great’ again? I mean everything Jesus has said and commanded is technically speaking ‘great.’ But I mean, if it is so absolutely ‘great’, why is it never repeated by Paul or John or Peter or James or Jude. Before you get upset with me, the designation ‘great commission’ did not come from on high. Jesus did not call it ‘great’, someone else did.

Stop. Right now there are 2 kinds of people reading this? The freaked out and the ticked off.

Let me address the freaked out first…You doing OK? Stop. Take a breath. What? Of course you can quit EE. Hm? Yes, I was a little freaked out also. No, you do not have to tweet about this, you will lose a lot of followers.

OK, all who are angry…What have I said to make you angry? I have not said, “You should not tell other people about what Jesus has done for us.” Have I?At least not yet…just kidding. You really need to calm down. All I have done is point out an indisputable fact.

Let me say it again. It is an indisputable fact that there is no command by any of the Apostles in their letters to the churches to evangelize. You may not like this fact. You might assume nefarious reasons behind my pointing this fact out. But you cannot deny the fact while there are many varied commands in the NT for the ordinary believer, there is no command to evangelize outside of “the great commission.”

“So what?” you might ask? Here are my initial thoughts:

1) The way we talk about evangelism is certainly out of proportion to the way Paul or anyone else in the NT talked about it. We act as if it is the litmus test of being a Christian. If it was – if personal evangelism as we know it – was a litmus test for being a believer in the gospel, ummm, wouldn’t Paul have admonished his people to do it? We talk about it as if it is the THE THING for Christians to do while on earth. “Sure, we are to glorify God and all that but the best way to do it is to tell every living breathing soul who just wants a quiet flight to the ATL.” Maybe it is not.

2) We have got to quit guilting and bullying people into doing cold evangelism. It feels weird and wrong and inconsiderate to almost everyone. There are a few who feel comfortable walking up to strangers and talking to them about Jesus but they are the exception. They are not more spiritual, they are just the exception. Maybe the reason why they are the exception and the reason why so many do not like walking up to strangers simply to talk to them about their sinfulness and need for salvation is because – wait for it – we have not been asked to do such a thing. Perhaps it is not part of the Spirit-led DNA. Regardless, beating up on people for their not evangelizing enough is totally out of sync with the NT.

3) It may be that our present philosophy of evangelism stands in direct opposition to the explicit, repeated and unwavering command to love people. In other words we are terrible at loving one another, our enemies and even our own family members. I know it. You know it. And God knows it. If we actually loved people -wives, husbands, children, minorities, democrats, republicans, lefties, ugly people, the obese and the socially awkward – perhaps, just perhaps you would never have to walk up to someone and tell them about Jesus. They would walk up to you. And then you could simply explain why you want to be a loving person. “Hey man, you asked!”

4) We tend to think the greatest thing we can do with the gospel of grace we have in Jesus is tell people about it. Why is that? Paul seems to think the greatest thing we can do with the gospel is believe it. Believe it in the midst of tragedy. Believe in the midst of beautiful Spring days when all is right with the world. Believe it on your death bed. Believe it when your sin is huge. Believe it when your heart is hurting. Believe it. Hang onto it. Never let go of it. Believe no matter what, if you are in Christ, you are loved beyond all comprehension. You cannot sin yourself out of his love and grace and mercy. You are loved, you who believe the gospel. Persevere in your belief. You are saved unto life everlasting because of what Christ has done. This cannot be undone. Believe the gospel. Believe.

5) There is no folly in assuming the NT writers and those whose records are recorded there really wanted people to hear the gospel and believe it. This is a safe assumption. However, we need to think deeply on why they do not talk about evangelism the way we typically do in Western Christianity. Do we assume we care more than Paul about evangelism? Peter? John? We should probably think long and hard about all of this. I know I need to. Our being so out of step with the tone and content of the Scriptures might actually be to the detriment of others believing the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ.

All of these are thoughts which have been around for some time in at least seed form. The study I have been doing over the past few weeks however has emboldened me to at least talk about my doubts. To say I am sure of myself here would be untrue. I am not thinking and writing entirely in confidence. The one thing I am sure of is the need to think deep and hard about all that is inand not in the Scriptures. And I am pretty sure there is the need for freedom to ask hard questions and be taken seriously in asking them.

One last thing. I was not enjoying thinking about this by myself. So I sent a note to some pastor friends and asked what they thought. One friend (who will remain nameless) told me about an article called Wretched Urgency by Michael Spencer. It was the first thing I had ever read of the sort. And it was the first thing confirming I was decidedly not crazy…or if I was, I was crazy along with Spencer. And I’m fine with that.

Letters to a Mormon Elder- James White

I just finished the book, Letters to a Mormon Elder. In it James White has a conversation (I believe the names have been changes and is a compilation of different Mormon elders he has communicated with) an elder. It is available on aomin.org completely free.

James White Goes through many, if not most of the essential doctrines of the Orthodox Christian faith. He contrasts them with direct quotes from Mormon leaders that show how they differ. It is an interesting set up. Not just a list of doctrines, but it has a more relaxed conversational style. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learned many thing along the way. One quote that James White had at the very end I thought bore repeating. (I would also add that, even if we live the best life and love perfectly and we never see anyone come to Christ it doesn't mean we are not being faithful and glorifying God.- Reread this after you have read the quote below. :-)

Many continually ask me, "So, how many Mormons have come to the Lord in your ministry this month?" The "numbers mentality" is rampant in our country. If someone doesn't hit their knees and "pray the sinner's prayer,' then somehow you have failed. The idea that we share the gospel solely to glorify God, and that it is God who brings the harvest in His own time, seems to he an old-fashioned concept. It would not have been realistic to finish the story in any other way. You have no guarantee that if you say "all the right things," and present "all the right information," that the person with whom you are speaking is going to respond positively. But even if Elder Hahn never came to Christ, would I be right to say that I wasted my time? Most certainly not. Whether our fictional Elder Hahn is ever saved is God's business, not mine. I pray, I care, I hope. God does the saving.

On American Gnosticism (in Evangelicalism)- iMonk

Here's another quote from this article from Michael Spencer AKA Internet Monk from a few years back.

…what is called American Christianity is actually some sort of American Gnosticism, a religion of direct human experience with God that has no need of the Bible, the Gospel or Christ and the Cross in the classically Christian sense. We are apparently such basically cool people, that we can get in touch with God our little ol’ selves if we just tune in the right way. Today, we have a Bible that is described as a “love letter,” a Gospel of manipulated and self-generated feelings and experiences (complete with band), and a Christ who is a whispy, feminized, dispenser of hugs and life management principles and no-cost/no discipleship salvation. Of course, this is the appropriate religion for people whose only actual concerns are feeling good about themselves and having it all without feeling guilty. Sinners seeking a remedy for the righteous wrath of God need not look into modern Christianity for any help.

Yikes!!

I think his points would be better suited if he were to expand on them and I leave it to you to read the full article, but this quote, sadly, does seem to outline some of the problems I have observed and read about...The God of the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible is so much bigger than what we see in evangelicalism these days. What do you think?

DB

iMonk on Evangelical Media

As it is with many things, I do not always agree with some of the conclusions of or the spiciness the Internet Monk has stated, I can sympathize with his observations on Evangelicalism and its propensity for Jesus junk. It is worth just the first few paragraphs.

I think Jan Crouch's hair is the darnest thing since the Tower of Babel. I think Benny Hinn is sincere, but probably unstable. I think T.D. Jakes is preaching gnosticism. TBN in general convinces me television is utterly incompatible with Christianity. Most Contemporary Christian music makes me wish I was wandering in the Antarctic wastes. A tour through the Christian fiction section of my local Christian bookseller reveals enough mediocrity to fill a small country. Christian radio, for the most part, makes NPR look downright intelligent. Evangelical cinema is bad- just plain bad. The best Christian movie ever made- Chariots of Fire- was produced by a Muslim.

Yep, those are my opinions, and as my dad used to say, all of them and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. These are my evangelical brethren, and in general, I think their product stinks. I know billions of evangelicals love this stuff, and always will. Evangelicals will soon be building amusement parks, world-wide satellite systems, movie studios and publishing conglomerates. But if the past is a predictor of the future, we'll just be swimming in an ocean of tacky.

...I think Christians should freely express their criticisms of the mediocrity and distortion that emerges from the evangelical ghetto, and not be the least ashamed to do so. If we critique ourselves, that only speaks more to our confidence in the truth. It also shows (surprise) humility to acknowledge none of us are beyond criticism. It is a general observation of mine that Christians are woefully afraid of engaging in criticism of their own sub-culture as if that meant they were criticizing Jesus. Believe me, Jesus did not come up with all that Y2K nonsense. Or the script for the Omega Code.