I started blogging as a means of expressing some thoughts about denominational life and church related issues. It's like playing with a new toy. It never really occurred to me that others might take an interest in my comments. Blogging is quite a phenomenon, and has taken on a unique importance even in journalistic circles. I'm not sure if there is a code of ethics for this sort of thing, but there ought to be.
I first heard about the term "blog" (which is short for "web-long") when Wade Burleson was going through all that mess with the International Mission Board. News articles from Associated Baptist Press mentioned his blogging about meetings and this of course made some folks pretty irate. He and many others like him are blogging about the comings and goings of the SBC, and apparently are having a significant impact. Dr. Frank Page, current SBC President, has been touted as the first "blogger's president." I remain impressed at the influence of some bloggers. Folks who wouldn't ordinarily have a voice or seat at the denominational table are making their feelings known and developing a growing readership. The rise of bloggers, particularly among younger leaders, will lead to another denominational holy war with the older guard (you will be able to read about on the internet).
Not only is the SBC feeling the impact of bloggers, but local churches are being influenced as well. A large church in Germantown, TN went through a significant disagreement about the rise of elders in their church. Blogs were started to voice opposition, and eventually the pastor resigned in frustration. These folks were trying to "save the church." This situation is being played out again with Bellevue Baptist Church. I found two blogs about this church related to "saving Bellevue" and "the truth about Bellevue." An ABP article described blogging as another way of having church fights. Several members who are in obvious disagreement with the pastor are making their frustration known to anyone and everyone who wants to read their blogs.
I'm conflicted about this use of blogging, and wondering if airing the church's dirty laundry on the internet is the way to go. There are two sides to every story, and certainly individuals are entitled to express their opinions. Unfortunately, using the internet expands the audience of concern beyond what it should be. Folks love scandals, and church people are no exception. I'm not convinced that folks will be responsible for what they find out about other churches through bloggers. In other words, one might form an opinion about a church based solely on the opinion of one of its members. This is done on a personal basis, but having the internet handy has the potential to do more harm than good.
I don't have an answer for this situation. I enjoy reading blogs from time to time, and am sometimes startled at the information out there. There needs to be a free exchange of ideas, and people are talking more now than ever before. Conversations are a good thing. However, we should not confuse fact with fiction. There are some interesting opinions floating around out there, but the potential for harm is real. The Bible warns against idleness, and to stay away from people who are "not busy, but busybodies" (2 Thess 3:11-12). Let's make sure blogging doesn't turn out to be an excuse for spreading gossip.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Pope Benedict and a Baptist Preacher
Pope Benedict XIV made some remarks about Islam recently, apparently quoting an ancient text that depicts its founder as "evil and inhuman." This assessment stems from the founder's enthusiastic spread of their faith "by the sword." Benedict has been under fire from Muslims around the world, figuratively speaking. Others have been under fire literally. Two churches in the West Bank have been torched. A nun and her bodyguard were gunned down outside a hospital in Somalia where she has served faithfully for years. This occurred after a local cleric condemned the pope's comments.
Benedict has offered his most sincere apologies for any grief his address caused, and this in itself is quite remarkable. While occasionally apologizing for the church's misgivings in the past, the pope doesn't usually apologize for what he says personally. This is an interesting development, as the Catholic Church is concerned for the safety and well-being of nuns and priests around the world. Ironically, actions taken by extremist Muslims validate the point of Benedict's message. Violence is not an acceptable means of propogating a faith. Yet, there are some Muslims who think it's okay to do anything in the name of Allah.
I'm aware that the church hasn't had a perfect track record and is open to its own criticism regarding past failures. And that really is the point I am trying to make. Christians are expected to receive criticism and accept it without retaliating. Yet, Muslims are offended whenever their belief system is challenged and respond in violent and threatening ways. Islam appears to be immune to any sort of critique. It's okay to ridicule Christians in newspaper cartoons, TV, and other media. Just make sure you don't do that to Muslims.
Rosie O'Donnell drew some criticism when she said that extremist Christians were as dangerous as the terrorists who blow up buildings and people. This is going too far. No Christians are going around as suicide bombers "in the name of Jesus." A better way of dealing with this topic is to say that extremist behavior in the name of religion can have devastating consequences. I think that was what Benedict was trying to say, but the only part that was heard dealt with Islam's less than favorable review.
Christians have done terrible things in the name of religion. We have fought our own "holy wars" about what we believe about the Bible, what translation of the Bible is acceptable, who is qualified to serve as ministers, and we even have believers who want to impose Christianity (their brand) on the general public. For example, there was a judge in Alabama who ran for governor on the premise that God has been taken out of the courts. While chief justice of the state supreme court, he rolled in a two ton display of the ten commandments into the rotunda that became a tourist attraction. Folks rallied around that thing and made a tremendous fuss over it. I wonder how many of them actually knew the 10 commandments.
It can be difficult to keep "turning the other cheek" when it comes to criticism, especially when it concerns our faith. We should do all we can to debate, discuss, and persuade others but not attempt to get our way by bullying tactics. We are living in challenging times, and Muslims are making gains on Christians in the convert department. This could make us angry, or it could motivate us to live as authentic disciples of Jesus Christ. No, I'm not thrilled that Islam gets a free pass from the media. I get irked when Jesus is ridiculed. It also bothers me when the church's own behavior puts a stain on its witness. Remember, Jesus was more critical of the religious right than the "sinners" who were left to wrestle with their weaknesses and sins.
There needs to be honest dialogue about our differences without fear of reprisal. This is not reality, however. Sometimes "speaking the truth in love" carries risks. Let's just make sure we leave the "love" part in our speaking.
Benedict has offered his most sincere apologies for any grief his address caused, and this in itself is quite remarkable. While occasionally apologizing for the church's misgivings in the past, the pope doesn't usually apologize for what he says personally. This is an interesting development, as the Catholic Church is concerned for the safety and well-being of nuns and priests around the world. Ironically, actions taken by extremist Muslims validate the point of Benedict's message. Violence is not an acceptable means of propogating a faith. Yet, there are some Muslims who think it's okay to do anything in the name of Allah.
I'm aware that the church hasn't had a perfect track record and is open to its own criticism regarding past failures. And that really is the point I am trying to make. Christians are expected to receive criticism and accept it without retaliating. Yet, Muslims are offended whenever their belief system is challenged and respond in violent and threatening ways. Islam appears to be immune to any sort of critique. It's okay to ridicule Christians in newspaper cartoons, TV, and other media. Just make sure you don't do that to Muslims.
Rosie O'Donnell drew some criticism when she said that extremist Christians were as dangerous as the terrorists who blow up buildings and people. This is going too far. No Christians are going around as suicide bombers "in the name of Jesus." A better way of dealing with this topic is to say that extremist behavior in the name of religion can have devastating consequences. I think that was what Benedict was trying to say, but the only part that was heard dealt with Islam's less than favorable review.
Christians have done terrible things in the name of religion. We have fought our own "holy wars" about what we believe about the Bible, what translation of the Bible is acceptable, who is qualified to serve as ministers, and we even have believers who want to impose Christianity (their brand) on the general public. For example, there was a judge in Alabama who ran for governor on the premise that God has been taken out of the courts. While chief justice of the state supreme court, he rolled in a two ton display of the ten commandments into the rotunda that became a tourist attraction. Folks rallied around that thing and made a tremendous fuss over it. I wonder how many of them actually knew the 10 commandments.
It can be difficult to keep "turning the other cheek" when it comes to criticism, especially when it concerns our faith. We should do all we can to debate, discuss, and persuade others but not attempt to get our way by bullying tactics. We are living in challenging times, and Muslims are making gains on Christians in the convert department. This could make us angry, or it could motivate us to live as authentic disciples of Jesus Christ. No, I'm not thrilled that Islam gets a free pass from the media. I get irked when Jesus is ridiculed. It also bothers me when the church's own behavior puts a stain on its witness. Remember, Jesus was more critical of the religious right than the "sinners" who were left to wrestle with their weaknesses and sins.
There needs to be honest dialogue about our differences without fear of reprisal. This is not reality, however. Sometimes "speaking the truth in love" carries risks. Let's just make sure we leave the "love" part in our speaking.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Are We a "Bible" Church?
Our church went through an "intentional interim" period prior to my arrival. I heard about some of the steps they went through in understanding their identity, denominational relationships, the role of women in the church, and the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, among other things. I commend the church for doing this, as too many congregations opt for a preacher and/or someone to visit the hospitals and do funerals. While these are important matters, churches should also determine their personality so that the next pastor will know what to expect. I was fortunate in this regard.
One of the first things I dealt with related to folks who weren't quite satisfied with the church's view of the Bible. Apparently, this discontent surfaced in a letter circulated among the congregation a year or two before my arrival. A frustrated church member said that "there was a Bible church on the mountain, and a non-Bible church on the mountain." Evidently he thought his church was the latter. I was amazed that someone would speak so harshly about their congregation, but that's what some folks do when their viewpoints don't carry the day. Anyway, I found out that there was indeed a "Bible" church on the mountain and this was the point of comparison.
Usually, churches who have the word "Bible" in their title are non-denominational in nature. Ironically, one of our members who left us for this particular congregation is very supportive of the Southern Baptist Convention, yet the Bible church does not affiliate with the SBC. I found this decision very peculiar, in that he was very vocal in his support of the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and SBC missions. There are many good churches on the mountain that aren't Baptist, and I'm sure this is one of them, but it doesn't make sense to leave a church that would allow you to give to the SBC in favor of one that doesn't. But, I've learned that there are many things with church work that don't add up.
I get a little chapped when folks say we aren't a "Bible" church and fortunately that little rumor weed has been rooted out. Churches take their cue from their pastors, and the same seems to be true here. I have a very high view of Scripture, and spend more of my time preaching it and trying to live by it than defending it. The reason some folks may accuse a church like ours of not being a "Bible church" is that we have taken the job of biblical interpretation seriously rather than literally. We affirm and encourage our members to come to the Bible with an open mind and open heart under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We take into consideration the historical, cultural, political, and social conditions of the biblical text. For example, preachers who hammer down on women being subservient in the home and church don't say much about slaves being obedient to their masters, yet both notions are in the Bible. The problem is that there is too much inconsistency with regard to what is viewed as prescriptive and what is descriptive.
It's one thing to say we disagree on interpretation, it's another thing to say that because you don't agree with my position "you just don't believe the Bible." There are many church goers who simply want to be told what to believe rather than do the hard work of learning on their own. We have a variety of views represented in our congregation, and each of these positions comes from people who believe the Bible. To be honest, I'd rather spend my time living out what the Bible says than debating differences of opinion. The church has spent too much time majoring on minors rather than finding ways to cooperate with one another for the sake of the gospel. The most biblical thing you can do is live out your faith and share the love of Christ. Some of the most mean-spirited and judgmental folks I have known would claim to believe the Bible more than I do. These kinds of church-goers give Christianity a bad name and I really wouldn't want to be associated with them.
So, the answer is "YES!" We are a Bible church and part of that identity means being Baptist. Baptists are definitely Bible people. We read it, study it, and try to understand it. Oftentimes we've fought over it. The Pharisees did that sort of thing, and look at how Jesus rebuked them for their legalistic ways. I have found a good measuring rod in the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message under the Scripture section that says that Jesus Christ is the criterion for interpretation. That may not say everything about hermeneutics, but it does say enough. I would rather be known as a church that lifts up Jesus than a church that doesn't practice what it preaches.
One of the first things I dealt with related to folks who weren't quite satisfied with the church's view of the Bible. Apparently, this discontent surfaced in a letter circulated among the congregation a year or two before my arrival. A frustrated church member said that "there was a Bible church on the mountain, and a non-Bible church on the mountain." Evidently he thought his church was the latter. I was amazed that someone would speak so harshly about their congregation, but that's what some folks do when their viewpoints don't carry the day. Anyway, I found out that there was indeed a "Bible" church on the mountain and this was the point of comparison.
Usually, churches who have the word "Bible" in their title are non-denominational in nature. Ironically, one of our members who left us for this particular congregation is very supportive of the Southern Baptist Convention, yet the Bible church does not affiliate with the SBC. I found this decision very peculiar, in that he was very vocal in his support of the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and SBC missions. There are many good churches on the mountain that aren't Baptist, and I'm sure this is one of them, but it doesn't make sense to leave a church that would allow you to give to the SBC in favor of one that doesn't. But, I've learned that there are many things with church work that don't add up.
I get a little chapped when folks say we aren't a "Bible" church and fortunately that little rumor weed has been rooted out. Churches take their cue from their pastors, and the same seems to be true here. I have a very high view of Scripture, and spend more of my time preaching it and trying to live by it than defending it. The reason some folks may accuse a church like ours of not being a "Bible church" is that we have taken the job of biblical interpretation seriously rather than literally. We affirm and encourage our members to come to the Bible with an open mind and open heart under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We take into consideration the historical, cultural, political, and social conditions of the biblical text. For example, preachers who hammer down on women being subservient in the home and church don't say much about slaves being obedient to their masters, yet both notions are in the Bible. The problem is that there is too much inconsistency with regard to what is viewed as prescriptive and what is descriptive.
It's one thing to say we disagree on interpretation, it's another thing to say that because you don't agree with my position "you just don't believe the Bible." There are many church goers who simply want to be told what to believe rather than do the hard work of learning on their own. We have a variety of views represented in our congregation, and each of these positions comes from people who believe the Bible. To be honest, I'd rather spend my time living out what the Bible says than debating differences of opinion. The church has spent too much time majoring on minors rather than finding ways to cooperate with one another for the sake of the gospel. The most biblical thing you can do is live out your faith and share the love of Christ. Some of the most mean-spirited and judgmental folks I have known would claim to believe the Bible more than I do. These kinds of church-goers give Christianity a bad name and I really wouldn't want to be associated with them.
So, the answer is "YES!" We are a Bible church and part of that identity means being Baptist. Baptists are definitely Bible people. We read it, study it, and try to understand it. Oftentimes we've fought over it. The Pharisees did that sort of thing, and look at how Jesus rebuked them for their legalistic ways. I have found a good measuring rod in the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message under the Scripture section that says that Jesus Christ is the criterion for interpretation. That may not say everything about hermeneutics, but it does say enough. I would rather be known as a church that lifts up Jesus than a church that doesn't practice what it preaches.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Censorship in the SBC?
It's been amusing to read about events in the Southern Baptist Convention here lately. Amusing since I don't have to be involved personally, politically, and more importantly, monetarily. This week, censorship is the issue (Well, I admit to censoring the SBC myself for several years). When Fundamentalists "won" the SBC in 1991, they became accountable for fixing everything they thought was wrong. Now that all the moderates have been exiled, there's no one left to fight with but themselves. This is the nature of fundamentalism--A narrow, militant, angry spirit that naturally leads to divisions among the people. Now there's talk of censorship of a sermon given at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) because the speaker challenged the International Mission Board's policy on "private prayer language."
Dwight McKissic, a graduate and newly appointed trustee of SWBTS, delivered a chapel message on August 29. McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church near Arlington, criticized a policy guideline that prevents missionaries who practice a "private prayer language" from being appointed. He himself admitted to having such a prayer practice and recalled several passages from the Bible that referred to speaking in tongues. In an unusual move, SWBTS President Dr. Paige Patterson ordered that McKissic's sermon not be placed on their website after the chapel service. The seminary defended its position, saying seminary leaders "reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches."
When Dr. Patterson was president at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, he had no trouble endorsing a paper written by professor Keith Eitel that was critical of IMB President Jerry Rankin's leadership. The paper, written on seminary letterhead with a cover letter by Dr. Patterson, was circulated to all IMB trustees.
The new guard of SBC bloggers are having a field day, calling the action hypocritical." It's really amazing to me that there is anyone left who would challenge the leadership of the SBC on its behavior. But, there are those younger ministers who "knew not Joseph" (Pressler/Patterson) who feel free to voice their dissent on the blogs. Every now and then I'll check one of those out to see what if anything new is going on. While not much has changed (or will) in the doctrinal climate, the SBC appears to have those emerging from the ranks who aren't going to take this criticisms outside the scope of the 2000 BFM lying down. McKissic's remarks do not go outside the boundaries of the 2000 BFM yet touch a nerve among many believers in the denomination. At least among those in authority at SWBTS.
What's disturbing is not so much the policy of the IMB regarding private prayer language, even though one wonders how the Convention could monitor what is done in "private." The noteworthy part is the actual censoring of a sermon by a SWBTS trustee who didn't agree with IMB policy. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that younger Southern Baptists don't realize that this sort of thing has been going on for decades. Now, they are finding out about it and speaking up. Censorship hasn't worked, but only heightened the importance of the sermon.
It's really fun to watch. Like a player who once played on a team but was traded, I still have a sentimental interest in the SBC. They didn't want my skills, but I like to see how the team is doing. It doesn't consume my time, fortunately, and I'm able to utilize my gifts through my new team. From the outside looking in, I can see how fundamentalism is continuing to eat away at what remains of the SBC. There has to be an enemy, and now the enemy appears to be those who are open to "speaking in tongues." You can't throw out the old inerrancy of the Bible argument, because many who hold this viewpoint are sympathetic to McKissic's approach. The 2000 BFM doesn't deal with the issue (yet). Trying to amend the BFM is this way might be the next showdown.
So, the enduring lesson from this ongoing comedy known as the SBC can be summarized by one phrase: it's good to be free. Free as Christians. Free as Baptists. Open debate and disagreement of the issues should be a hallmark among Baptists rather than hindered. Censorship doesn't help anything. Years ago, one of my dear Missions Professors offered his philosophy on church matters. He said, "Trust the Lord and tell the people." I've always remembered that, and tried to live by it.
ABP 9/1/06 source
Dwight McKissic, a graduate and newly appointed trustee of SWBTS, delivered a chapel message on August 29. McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church near Arlington, criticized a policy guideline that prevents missionaries who practice a "private prayer language" from being appointed. He himself admitted to having such a prayer practice and recalled several passages from the Bible that referred to speaking in tongues. In an unusual move, SWBTS President Dr. Paige Patterson ordered that McKissic's sermon not be placed on their website after the chapel service. The seminary defended its position, saying seminary leaders "reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches."
When Dr. Patterson was president at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, he had no trouble endorsing a paper written by professor Keith Eitel that was critical of IMB President Jerry Rankin's leadership. The paper, written on seminary letterhead with a cover letter by Dr. Patterson, was circulated to all IMB trustees.
The new guard of SBC bloggers are having a field day, calling the action hypocritical." It's really amazing to me that there is anyone left who would challenge the leadership of the SBC on its behavior. But, there are those younger ministers who "knew not Joseph" (Pressler/Patterson) who feel free to voice their dissent on the blogs. Every now and then I'll check one of those out to see what if anything new is going on. While not much has changed (or will) in the doctrinal climate, the SBC appears to have those emerging from the ranks who aren't going to take this criticisms outside the scope of the 2000 BFM lying down. McKissic's remarks do not go outside the boundaries of the 2000 BFM yet touch a nerve among many believers in the denomination. At least among those in authority at SWBTS.
What's disturbing is not so much the policy of the IMB regarding private prayer language, even though one wonders how the Convention could monitor what is done in "private." The noteworthy part is the actual censoring of a sermon by a SWBTS trustee who didn't agree with IMB policy. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that younger Southern Baptists don't realize that this sort of thing has been going on for decades. Now, they are finding out about it and speaking up. Censorship hasn't worked, but only heightened the importance of the sermon.
It's really fun to watch. Like a player who once played on a team but was traded, I still have a sentimental interest in the SBC. They didn't want my skills, but I like to see how the team is doing. It doesn't consume my time, fortunately, and I'm able to utilize my gifts through my new team. From the outside looking in, I can see how fundamentalism is continuing to eat away at what remains of the SBC. There has to be an enemy, and now the enemy appears to be those who are open to "speaking in tongues." You can't throw out the old inerrancy of the Bible argument, because many who hold this viewpoint are sympathetic to McKissic's approach. The 2000 BFM doesn't deal with the issue (yet). Trying to amend the BFM is this way might be the next showdown.
So, the enduring lesson from this ongoing comedy known as the SBC can be summarized by one phrase: it's good to be free. Free as Christians. Free as Baptists. Open debate and disagreement of the issues should be a hallmark among Baptists rather than hindered. Censorship doesn't help anything. Years ago, one of my dear Missions Professors offered his philosophy on church matters. He said, "Trust the Lord and tell the people." I've always remembered that, and tried to live by it.
ABP 9/1/06 source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
