The newly appointed pastor of First Baptist Church, West Palm Beach, Florida resigned in disgrace last week. He came to the church with a great deal of promise and high praise from key leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Only 40 years old, Steven Flockhart appeared to be riding the wave of popularity and status that comes with being pastor of a megachurch.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not happy about his demise or the pain that this church will be living through for some time. It's going to be a while before the church is able to get back on track with its mission and ministry. Plus, living through the embarrassment this incident has caused not only locally but nationally will be difficult. What's aggravating is how this situation chould have been avoided in the first place. A pastor search committee with the means of First Baptist Church should have been able to check the background of their prospective pastor. Even Kevin Mahoney, their Executive Pastor during the three year interim, showed dismay at the apparent lapse of the committee responsible for bringing Flockhart before the people.
Maybe the search committee got the "he sounds good so he must be good" syndrome. Flockhart had a good track record of increasing the membership rolls of churches. Folks liked his preaching. It wasn't until the Palm Beach Post did a story on a $162,799 debt he racked up at a church in Georgia that folks began to get suspicious. The church had to sue him to get their money back. This incident led to a deeper investigation into Flockhart's personal and professional background. Now it has been revealed that he fabricated his resume with misleading statements about his educational accomplishments.
The only problem is that he doesn't have any educational accomplishments, unless you count a correspondence degree from an unaccredited seminary in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. Apparently, some church folks don't have a problem with that. Walter Woitowicz, member of FBC West Palm Beach, said "Who cares if he graduated from college? He had presence. Show me a perfect church. You won't find one on this Earth."
No one would have cared if Flockhart had been honest from the beginning.
The reason I'm chapped about this is that here we have another example of a church not doing its homework and getting burned. Pastor search committees, now more than ever, need to be wary of hiring pastors (and other staff) based solely on the recommendation of a prominent pastor. The whole situation, shameful as it is, provides some painful lessons about life and ministry.
First, all degrees are not equal. In other words, there are times when a "doctor isn't a real doctor." Using the medical field as a comparison, I'd want to make sure my physicians had an earned degree diploma hanging on their walls. There's nothing wrong with honorary degrees, but ministers ought to be honest about their educational creditials. There are too many ministers with a "Dr." in front of their name. Too many haven't done the hard work necessary to earn the privilege. In many Baptist churches, ministers aren't even required to have a certain educational background in order to be on staff. So, how hard is it to write down where you went to school, when you went there, and when you graduated?
Second, pastor search committees need to do their work. Unfortunately, many churches select the more popular members rather than the more competent ones. Plus, one hopes that you won't have to activate a search committee that often. It's hard to imagine FBC West Palm Beach searching for a pastor for three years and finding one with no real credentials other than he was friends with prominent pastors in the SBC. Call the schools on the resume. Find out graduate dates. Do the background checks. Assume nothing. There is too much at stake.
Third, local church autonomy has its privileges and responsibilities. No one tells a Baptist church what to do, and if they do, the church still has the right to make its own decisions. So, each church can call and ordain its own staff and conduct its own business freely. On the other hand, this means there is no one to blame other than the church for bringing a pastor in who has serious baggage. Our church folks need to educated that some ministers aren't all they are hyped up to be.
Finally, integrity still counts. The FBC West Palm Beach scenario has been played out numerous times before. Still, this is a church with educated and professional people. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. Churches get caught up in the courtship of a new pastor and can overlook critical character flaws all because "he preaches good." There are many ministers who work hard to get an honest education and serve in remote places without the attention a megachurch offers. We ought to recognize these men and women for their honesty and work ethic. Numbers 32:23 reminds us that "you may be sure that your sin will find you out." Sounding good isn't the same as being good. May God help us to be both.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
When Billy Graham talks. . .
The most recent copy of Newsweek (8/14/06) features a photo of an aging Billy Graham and an article about the greatest evangelist of the 20th century, if not of all time. He has spoken to more people and been in more countries than any other preacher of the gospel. He has spoken and counseled presidents, heads of state, and brought together clergy of all stripes through the process of planning his crusades. He allowed ministers from all denominations to sit on the platform during his meetings. Graham also has been an example of racial reconciliation by refusing to segregate his crusades during the turbulent 1950s-60s. Now he spends most of his time with his wife Ruth in their Montreat, NC home, reflecting on a great life and looking forward to an even greater one.
There are several things I could say about Graham that we all know, but one quality about him that I particularly admire is his belief that Christians can have fellowship with each other without agreeing on everything. This isn't a revolutionary statement, but like the old E. F. Hutton commercial stated, "When EF Hutton talks, people listen." Even more so with Graham. He states, "There are many things I don't understand. Sincere Christians can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology--absolutely." He has remained focused on communicating the gospel while keeping relationships with folks of all theological backgrounds. "I spend more time on the love of God than I used to." Graham says. "But I have tried to maintain friendships with all of these people" (a reference to more politically active conservative ministers). Politics is secondary to the gospel.
It can be argued that as an evangelist, Graham hasn't had to deal with the inner workings of a local congregation and the varied opinions of individual members. It is also true that his primary purpose has been to present the gospel in simple and clear terms in order that people might come to faith in Jesus Christ (Who hasn't seen one of his invitations?). He could have gotten involved in the denominational malaise of the Southern Baptist Convention but instead kept his distance. There are times I wish he would have offered more guidance in this area, but perhaps he thought this was beneath his purpose. But, better late than never does Graham state that differences among believers ought not create division among us.
I appreciate theological views, and have spent a great deal of time formulating my own. It bothers me when Christian fellowship is compromised due to issues that should be open for interpretation. This is something I could write a great deal about, and a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum by many others. I still lament the loss of people in our pews who could be helping us build the Kingdom of God. However, we can't expect more from our people than their pastors, many of whom more readily label and libel those with whom they differ. Our differences have become divisions, and these in turn have become barriers. Good fences make good neighbors for the time being, I suppose. I admit I'd rather not waste time arguing with someone about an issue when I know it's not going to get me anything but a headache. It's best to move on.
Graham isn't questioning how to get to heaven, the Incarnation, or the Work of Christ. But, "he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points" (p41). This is all I've been trying to say. We're not going to get complete agreement on every issue, and we'll lose valuable people resources if we insist on it. The SBC's withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance poses a glaring example among folks of our ilk. Apparently, the theological tent was not big enough for the SBC and CBF to co-exist, so it was time for the SBC to part company. In contrast, former President Jimmy Carter held a ministers' conference and the result was a covenant agreement among Baptists from North America.
Even here in our small community, I feel a greater kinship and acceptance among the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians than with other Baptist churches. I'm grateful that our church is more ecumenical, and in turn, closer to Jesus' prayer that "all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (Jn 17:21). In this process of growing in the faith, I am becoming "more Christian than Baptist" in my theological perspective on some things. Graham's article helped confirm that. I'm glad I listened.
There are several things I could say about Graham that we all know, but one quality about him that I particularly admire is his belief that Christians can have fellowship with each other without agreeing on everything. This isn't a revolutionary statement, but like the old E. F. Hutton commercial stated, "When EF Hutton talks, people listen." Even more so with Graham. He states, "There are many things I don't understand. Sincere Christians can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology--absolutely." He has remained focused on communicating the gospel while keeping relationships with folks of all theological backgrounds. "I spend more time on the love of God than I used to." Graham says. "But I have tried to maintain friendships with all of these people" (a reference to more politically active conservative ministers). Politics is secondary to the gospel.
It can be argued that as an evangelist, Graham hasn't had to deal with the inner workings of a local congregation and the varied opinions of individual members. It is also true that his primary purpose has been to present the gospel in simple and clear terms in order that people might come to faith in Jesus Christ (Who hasn't seen one of his invitations?). He could have gotten involved in the denominational malaise of the Southern Baptist Convention but instead kept his distance. There are times I wish he would have offered more guidance in this area, but perhaps he thought this was beneath his purpose. But, better late than never does Graham state that differences among believers ought not create division among us.
I appreciate theological views, and have spent a great deal of time formulating my own. It bothers me when Christian fellowship is compromised due to issues that should be open for interpretation. This is something I could write a great deal about, and a topic that has already been discussed ad nauseum by many others. I still lament the loss of people in our pews who could be helping us build the Kingdom of God. However, we can't expect more from our people than their pastors, many of whom more readily label and libel those with whom they differ. Our differences have become divisions, and these in turn have become barriers. Good fences make good neighbors for the time being, I suppose. I admit I'd rather not waste time arguing with someone about an issue when I know it's not going to get me anything but a headache. It's best to move on.
Graham isn't questioning how to get to heaven, the Incarnation, or the Work of Christ. But, "he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points" (p41). This is all I've been trying to say. We're not going to get complete agreement on every issue, and we'll lose valuable people resources if we insist on it. The SBC's withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance poses a glaring example among folks of our ilk. Apparently, the theological tent was not big enough for the SBC and CBF to co-exist, so it was time for the SBC to part company. In contrast, former President Jimmy Carter held a ministers' conference and the result was a covenant agreement among Baptists from North America.
Even here in our small community, I feel a greater kinship and acceptance among the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians than with other Baptist churches. I'm grateful that our church is more ecumenical, and in turn, closer to Jesus' prayer that "all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (Jn 17:21). In this process of growing in the faith, I am becoming "more Christian than Baptist" in my theological perspective on some things. Graham's article helped confirm that. I'm glad I listened.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The End as We Know It
There's nothing like a war to get folks stirred up about the second coming of Christ. This is especially true when things are getting heated up in the Middle East. It's hard to say how things are going to end up between Israel and Lebanon, but right now tensions are running pretty high. Once again the United States is getting pulled into the middle of the mess in the hopes of getting both sides to stop killing each other. Anytime Israel is involved in a conflict many Christians in America hold their breath and their Bibles.
A popular view regarding the end times relates to a Battle of Armageddon taking place in the region now in question. This isn't the first time serious fighting has broken out in this area of the world, as there was talk about the Persian Gulf War ushering end the new millennium. The book of Revelation refers to this battle and scholars have been trying to figure out what it means for a long time.
I've started a book entitled "Left Behind?" which is a response to the book series of the same title. The series is based upon a dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible and in particular the book of Revelation. It's an entertaining read, and there have been at least two movies made based on these works of fiction. The Scofield Reference Bible has played a key role in popularizing a brand of eschatology that calls for a rapture of the church, a 1000 year period of tribulation, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the rise of the Anti-Christ, and a great final battle in which the Devil is defeated. A key component of dispensational theology is that it is based on a "literal" rendering of Scripture. There's also no shortage of charts and diagrams that are on display by preachers who affirm this method of interpretation.
Predictions about the end of time have been going on for a long time. First century Christians were expecting Christ to return at any moment, and when he didn't they had to figure out what they were supposed to be doing. There's also William Miller of the 1840s who stirred up the people with his charts based on calculations from the book of Daniel. Miller even predicted a specific date, only to have the date pass by with no sign of Jesus' return. Confused, Miller recalulated his figures and determined he had been off by a year. So, he once again made a prediction and I'm quite sure he was wrong again. Another favorite relates to the book "88 reasons the rapture will occur in 1988." This too proved false, but on the plus side the book can be purchased at a minimal cost (I couldn't figure out why the authors were "selling" the book if they believed Christ was returning). Most recently, Y2k scared some folks into thinking about the end of time. Similar expectations surfaced at the end of the first millennium as well. Now, I can turn on the TV as see preachers doing hermeneutical gymnastics with the Bible in order to make events in 2006 tie directly to what was written thousands of years ago. I'm constantly amazed at how preachers revise their predictions of Scripture to fit the situation. It's even more baffling when the people in the pews buy into it. Jesus said there would be "wars and rumors of wars." This has been true for centuries.
As a theologian, I am definitely interested in what the Bible has to say about the end times. I know about the pre-, post-, and a-millennial views concerning what the 1000 years are supposed to mean. I've read about the pre-, mid-, post- tribulation return of Christ as it relates to dispensationalism. Folks are now asking me about a rapture of the Church and whether I think Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on the casino industry. They ask about this war and whether I think Christ's coming is near. These are interesting questions relating to God's sovereignty and unfolding of his divine purpose for humankind.
Although aware of passages cited about the End, I always refer to Jesus' words when he said "no one knows the day or the hour" that things come to an end. Jesus didn't know when that would be, only "the Father who is in heaven." Maybe this makes me less interested than folks want me to be about doing biblical arithmetic. My view of Revelation isn't as sensational as others, because I figure those words from John needed to make sense to a persecuted church in the 90s first and foremost. You can't divorce a biblical book from its context. Yes, I definitely believe Christ's second coming is near, but in reality we've been in "the last days" since the birth of Christ. That's been over 2000 years, but to God time takes on a different importance.
There's always a crowd waiting to hear a sensational message. For me, though, I've adopted a "pan-millennial" mindset in that I can't explain all the details of the End but believe that everything will "pan out" in the final analysis. The most important thing is to be ready for the Lord's return rather than try to figure out when things will occur. So far, these predictions have been way off. In the meantime, there's still work for the church to do. Trusting God with the details seems to be best way to go.
A popular view regarding the end times relates to a Battle of Armageddon taking place in the region now in question. This isn't the first time serious fighting has broken out in this area of the world, as there was talk about the Persian Gulf War ushering end the new millennium. The book of Revelation refers to this battle and scholars have been trying to figure out what it means for a long time.
I've started a book entitled "Left Behind?" which is a response to the book series of the same title. The series is based upon a dispensational approach to interpreting the Bible and in particular the book of Revelation. It's an entertaining read, and there have been at least two movies made based on these works of fiction. The Scofield Reference Bible has played a key role in popularizing a brand of eschatology that calls for a rapture of the church, a 1000 year period of tribulation, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the rise of the Anti-Christ, and a great final battle in which the Devil is defeated. A key component of dispensational theology is that it is based on a "literal" rendering of Scripture. There's also no shortage of charts and diagrams that are on display by preachers who affirm this method of interpretation.
Predictions about the end of time have been going on for a long time. First century Christians were expecting Christ to return at any moment, and when he didn't they had to figure out what they were supposed to be doing. There's also William Miller of the 1840s who stirred up the people with his charts based on calculations from the book of Daniel. Miller even predicted a specific date, only to have the date pass by with no sign of Jesus' return. Confused, Miller recalulated his figures and determined he had been off by a year. So, he once again made a prediction and I'm quite sure he was wrong again. Another favorite relates to the book "88 reasons the rapture will occur in 1988." This too proved false, but on the plus side the book can be purchased at a minimal cost (I couldn't figure out why the authors were "selling" the book if they believed Christ was returning). Most recently, Y2k scared some folks into thinking about the end of time. Similar expectations surfaced at the end of the first millennium as well. Now, I can turn on the TV as see preachers doing hermeneutical gymnastics with the Bible in order to make events in 2006 tie directly to what was written thousands of years ago. I'm constantly amazed at how preachers revise their predictions of Scripture to fit the situation. It's even more baffling when the people in the pews buy into it. Jesus said there would be "wars and rumors of wars." This has been true for centuries.
As a theologian, I am definitely interested in what the Bible has to say about the end times. I know about the pre-, post-, and a-millennial views concerning what the 1000 years are supposed to mean. I've read about the pre-, mid-, post- tribulation return of Christ as it relates to dispensationalism. Folks are now asking me about a rapture of the Church and whether I think Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on the casino industry. They ask about this war and whether I think Christ's coming is near. These are interesting questions relating to God's sovereignty and unfolding of his divine purpose for humankind.
Although aware of passages cited about the End, I always refer to Jesus' words when he said "no one knows the day or the hour" that things come to an end. Jesus didn't know when that would be, only "the Father who is in heaven." Maybe this makes me less interested than folks want me to be about doing biblical arithmetic. My view of Revelation isn't as sensational as others, because I figure those words from John needed to make sense to a persecuted church in the 90s first and foremost. You can't divorce a biblical book from its context. Yes, I definitely believe Christ's second coming is near, but in reality we've been in "the last days" since the birth of Christ. That's been over 2000 years, but to God time takes on a different importance.
There's always a crowd waiting to hear a sensational message. For me, though, I've adopted a "pan-millennial" mindset in that I can't explain all the details of the End but believe that everything will "pan out" in the final analysis. The most important thing is to be ready for the Lord's return rather than try to figure out when things will occur. So far, these predictions have been way off. In the meantime, there's still work for the church to do. Trusting God with the details seems to be best way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
